"THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS" Freedom From Sin (8:1-25) by Mark Copeland

                      "THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS"

                       Freedom From Sin (8:1-25)


1. How seriously do we take the problem of sin...?
   a. The guilt of sin?
   b. The power of sin?
   c. The corruption of sin?

2. Do we really appreciate the freedom from sin...?
   a. That we can experience now in our lives?
   b. That we can look forward to in the future?

[In Ro 8:1-25, Paul writes about the freedom from sin that one finds in
Christ.  To appreciate more fully the blessings we have in Christ,
consider that there is first...]


      1. Everyone is guilty of sin - Ro 3:23; 1Jn 1:8
      2. Even if one committed just one sin (if such were possible!)
         - Jm 2:10-11
      3. Unforgiven sin separates us from God - Isa 59:1-2
      4. The ultimate condemnation is death (esp. the 'second' death)
         - Ro 6:23; cf. Re 21:8
      -- That all are guilty of sin is the main point of Romans 1-3

      1. From condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus - Ro 8:1;cf. Ga 3:27
         a. For in Christ there is propitiation, redemption,
            justification - Ro 3:24-26
         b. For in baptism there is death to sin, newness of life - Ro 6:3-8
      2. Who walk not according to the flesh, but according to the
         Spirit - Ro 8:1,4
         a. Explained more fully later in the chapter (and in this lesson)
         b. Also in Paul's epistle to the Galatians - cf. Ga 5:16-26
      3. Made possible by:
         a. The law (principle) of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus - Ro 8:2
            1) Which sets one free from the law of sin and death - cf. Tit 3:4-7
            2) The law of sin and death which enslaves, mentioned in Ro 7:21-25
         b. The death of Christ - Ro 8:3-4
            1) Doing what the Law of Moses could not do
            2) Condemning sin in the flesh
            3) Fulfilling the righteous requirement of the Law for us
      -- That justification (no condemnation) is found in Christ is the
         theme of Romans 4-7

[Thus the freedom from sin that we enjoy in Christ involves freedom from
the condemnation of sin.  But there is more!  There is also...]


      1. The problem of sin is not limited to guilt
         a. As if the guilt of sin weren't bad enough!
         b. Sin also has power to enslave a person so they can't do what
            they want to do!
      2. Jesus described the power of sin - Jn 8:31-34
         a. The freedom under consideration is freedom from the slavery of sin!
         b. When one commits sin, they become a slave of sin!
      3. Paul vividly depicted his life under the bondage of sin - Ro 7:14-24
         a. He was "sold under sin"
         b. He could not do what he wanted, and what he did not wish to do, he did
         c. He found that "sin dwells in me"
         d. Though he desired to do good, "how to perform what is good I do not find"
         e. He was brought "into captivity to the law of sin which is in
            my members"
         f. It made him "wretched", crying out for deliverance from
            "this body of death"
      -- Sin has the power to enslave, and mankind needs deliverance!

      1. For those who live according to the Spirit, not the flesh - Ro 8:5-8
         a. By setting their minds on the things of the Spirit, not the
            things of the flesh
         b. Whereby they can enjoy life and peace, not death
         c. Whereby they can submit to God and please Him, while those
            in the flesh cannot
      2. For those who have the indwelling Holy Spirit - Ro 8:9-11
         a. A blessing for those who belong to Christ 
             - cf. Jn 7:37-39; Ac 2:38; Tit 3:4-7
         b. Providing life to our mortal bodies that were dead because
            of sin - cf. Ro 6:12-14
      3. For those who by the Spirit put to death the deeds of the body
         - Ro 8:12-13
         a. Who are no longer indebted to live according to the flesh
            - cf. Ro 6:16-19
         b. But can now live according to the Spirit - cf. Ga 5:25; Ep 3:16
      4. For those who are children of God, joint-heirs with Christ - Ro 8:14-17
         a. Led by the Spirit of God, by Whom they cry, "Abba, Father"
            - cf. Ga 4:6
         b. Heirs of glory with Christ, if willing to suffer with Him
      -- With help from the Holy Spirit, we can break free from the
         bondage of sin!

[Freedom from the condemnation of sin and the power of sin!  What more
could we ask for?  How about...]


      1. Because of sin, mankind experiences physical death 
           - cf. 1Co 15:22a; Gen 3:22-24
         a. Adam and Eve were cast from the Garden of Eden
         b. Access to the tree of life was lost, thus physical death ensued
      2. Because of sin, even the creation was placed under a curse
         - cf. Gen 3:17
         a. Subjected to futility - Ro 8:20
         b. In bondage to corruption - Ro 8:21
         c. Groaning and laboring with birth pangs - Ro 8:22; cf. Isa 24:4-6
      -- The effects of sin has permeated all of creation!

      1. The glorious liberty of the children of God! - Ro 8:18-22
         a. To be revealed one day - cf. Col 3:4; 2Th 2:10; 2Pe 1:13
         b. Making any present suffering unworthy to be compared
         c. Even the creation will be delivered from the bondage of corruption
            1) Note that Paul does not say that the creation will be
               delivered into its own liberty
            2) But into the glorious liberty of the children of God
            3) The present heavens and earth will "pass away", and there
               will be new heavens and a new earth - cf. 2Pe 3:10-14; Re 21:1-7
      2. Involving our own resurrection, for which we hope - Ro 8:23-25
         a. The redemption of our body, which we eagerly await - cf. Ac 23:6
         b. Saved for this very hope, for which we wait with perseverance 
             - cf. Ac 24:15-16
      -- With the resurrection of the dead, the creation of a new heaven
         and new earth, the corruption of sin will be no more!


1. The freedom from sin that is available in Christ involves...
   a. Freedom from the condemnation of sin
   b. Freedom from the power of sin
   c. Freedom from the corruption of sin

2. Unless we receive the freedom from sin found only in Christ...
   a. We remain guilty of sin
   b. We remain enslaved to sin
   c. We remain under the corruptive influences of sin

But by responding to the gospel of Christ with an obedient faith,
freedom from the devastating effects of sin can be ours, with a hope of
glorious liberty when Christ returns...!
Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2016

Contents of the Ark of the Covenant by Eric Lyons, M.Min.


Contents of the Ark of the Covenant

by  Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Following Israel’s exodus from Egypt, God instructed them to make a small wooden ark (box) overlaid with gold. The ark was 2.5 cubits long, 1.5 cubits wide, and 1.5 cubits high (or about 3.75 x 2.25 x 2.25 feet) and was called the “Ark of the Testimony” or the “Ark of the Covenant” because it contained the tablets of stone whereon the Ten Commandments were written (Exodus 25:16). According to 1 Kings 8:9, “Nothing was in the ark except the two tablets of stone” (emp. added; cf. 2 Chronicles 5:10). The writer of Hebrews, however, indicated that the ark contained “the golden pot that had the manna, Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tablets of the covenant” (9:4). How can both of these passages be correct?
First, it may be that the Hebrews writer was indicating that the pot of manna, Aaron’s rod, and the tablets were in close proximity to the ark, but not necessarily that all three were “in” the ark. Although most English translations refer to what was “in” (NKJV; Greek en) the ark or what the ark “contained” (NIV, RSV), the uses of the Greek preposition en “are so many and various, and oft. so easily confused, that a strictly systematic treatment is impossible” (Danker, 2000, p. 326). Greek lexicographers give numerous definitions for this word, including: among, within the range of, near, before, in the presence of, etc. (Danker, pp. 326-330). Perhaps the writer of Hebrews only intended to communicate that Aaron’s rod, the container of manna, and the tablets of stone were all in close proximity to the ark in the Most Holy Place (the tablets being in the ark, while the manna and rod were “before” the ark; cf. Exodus 16:33-34; Numbers 17:10).
Second, it is also very possible that all three items were literally inside of the ark at one time, but not all of the time. Whenever comparing two or more Bible passages that might initially appear contradictory, one must be sure that the same time frame is under discussion. Such is not the case with Hebrews 9:4 and 1 Kings 8:9. In Hebrews 9, the inspired writer refers to the time of Moses, when “a tabernacle was prepared” (vs. 2; cf. Exodus 25-40). The statement in 1 Kings 8:9 (as well as 2 Chronicles 5:10) is from the time of Solomon, when he built the Temple, approximately 500 years after the tabernacle was constructed. Is it possible that the Ark of the Covenant once contained the tablets of stone, the pot of manna, and Aaron’s rod, while at another time (i.e., five centuries later) the ark contained only the tablets of stone? Most certainly (cf. 1 Samuel 4-5).
What about the allegation that “Aaron’s staff could hardly have fit anyway, since the ark was a box only 2.5 x 1.5 x 1.5 cubits” (Wells, 2009)? The fact is, no one knows the length of Aaron’s rod. Rods served many purposes (e.g., for support, for administering punishment, as a symbol of authority, etc.; see Allen, 1996, p. 1022) and came in various sizes. In Aaron’s case, it appears that his rod was more of a symbol of his God-given authority than just a mere walking stick. What’s more, even if Aaron had used his rod for support, he may have only been five feet tall and needed a walking stick that was just 3½ feet long. Considering that an average walking cane today is only about three feet long, it should not be surprising that Aaron’s rod could have fit into a box that was nearly four feet long.
Indeed, the wording of 1 Kings 8:9 and Hebrews 9:4 are different. But reasonable explanations exist for the variation. There is no doubt that two different time periods are under discussion. Furthermore, as with many Hebrew and Greek words, it may be that the Greek en (in Hebrews 9:4) should be understood in a broader sense. Whatever the precise contents of the Ark of the Covenant at any given time in history, rest assured, 1 Kings 8:9 and Hebrews 9:4 are not contradictory.


Allen, L.C. (1996), “Rod,” New Bible Dictionary, ed. J.D. Douglas (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press), third edition.
Danker, Fredrick William (2000), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago), third edition.
Wells, Steve (2009), Skeptic’s Annotated Bible, [On-line], URL: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/.

Why Be An Atheist? by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


Why Be An Atheist?

by  Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Why do we believe what we believe? Answers to this question are legion. However, the most basic human motivations that lie behind belief and practice may be identified in light of Bible teaching. Here are a few:
Greed/Materialism—“I can make money by believing this viewpoint.”
Jealousy—“If I hold this viewpoint I will be held in higher esteem than others.”
Loyalty—“I believe this viewpoint because my parents did.”
Ambition—“I will advance in my career if I believe this viewpoint.”
Selfishness—“I want to believe this viewpoint because it makes me feel better.”
Sensualism—“I believe this viewpoint because I can indulge myself sexually.”
Ignorance—“I’m not sure why I believe this viewpoint, but I do.”
Bias/Prejudice—“I don’t believe that viewpoint because of who else believes it.”
Indifference—“I hold this viewpoint, but it really doesn’t matter much to me.”
Foolish Pride—“The smart people don’t believe that viewpoint.”
If God exists and the Bible is His Word, then what we believe and why we believe it are crucial and eternally significant.
Intellectuals throughout history have considered themselves superior to others based on their alleged intellectual prowess. The atheistic elite of our day ooze arrogance in their condescending dismissal of those who believe in God. They seek to give the impression that they believe what they believe due solely to a rational, unbiased, sensible analysis of facts that have, in turn, led them to the beliefs that they hold. On the other hand, those who do not consent to their infidelity are depicted as ignorant, biased, and stupid. Consider the frantic judgment leveled by prominent evolutionist Richard Dawkins of Oxford University: “It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).”1
Despite such high and holy self-righteous declarations, the fact is that the very nature of error is such that a person can continue to embrace it only by means of impure motives. If an honest atheist is willing to examine the facts, he will either cease being an atheist or he will cease being honest. Hence, those who have distinguished themselves for their ongoing vociferous defense of their infidelity most assuredly possess one or more motives deep down in their hearts that enable them to dismiss the actual evidence that disproves their viewpoint.
Interestingly, atheists occasionally divulge their inner motives without particularly intending to do so. For example, in a makeshift “debate” conducted in 2010 on the campus of Caltech between atheists Sam Harris and Michael Shermer on the one hand, and Deepak Chopra and Jean Houston on the other, Sam Harris made the following observations:
Most of our neighbors believe in…a personal God who hears our prayers and occasionally answers them…. The God that our neighbors believe in is essentially an invisible person. It’s a Creator deity who created the universe to have a relationship with one species of primates. Lucky us. And He’s got galaxy upon galaxy to attend to, but he’s especially concerned with what we do, and he’s especially concerned with what we do while naked. He almost certainly disapproves of homosexuality.2
While we humans often constitute a hodge-podge of conflicting motives and inclinations, nevertheless, in our conversations we often unwittingly expose one or more of our hidden motives for believing what we believe. To ridicule Christians for holding to an ethical framework that was authored by the Creator of the Universe (Who created human sexuality) implies that the accuser disagrees with those restrictions on sexual behavior. But notice further that Harris implied something else: his belief in atheism enables him to not be concerned about his sexual behavior. The same motives that infected pagans throughout history in which their heathenism enabled them to be released from sexual inhibitions—from the Moabites3 in 1500 B.C. to the Ephesians4 in A.D. 60—are the same for atheists. Unbelief allows a person to be free to engage in whatever sexual activity he desires, whenever and with whomever. The intellectual sophistication and academic elitism that accompanies modern atheism is nothing more than a smokescreen to indulge the flesh. The reason Hollywood hates Christianity is because they want to be able to give full vent to their illicit fleshly appetites without feeling the guilt that comes from flaunting the moral restraints given by the Creator. Christians in Ephesus in the first century fully understood these ulterior motives that underlie one’s belief system. They lived in a city that hosted one of the seven wonders of the ancient world—the Temple of Artemis—dedicated to the goddess with her vulgar adornments.5 Paul spoke right to the soul of the population when he penned the following inspired words to the church—an apt evaluation of the unbelief that grips both atheism and much of the religious error of the world:
Now this I say and testify in the Lord, that you must no longer walk as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds. They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart. They have become callous and have given themselves up to sensuality, greedy to practice every kind of impurity. But that is not the way you learned Christ! (Ephesians 4:17-20, ESV, emp. added).


1 Richard Dawkins (1989), “Book Review” (of Donald Johanson and Maitland Edey’s Blueprint), The New York Times, section 7, April 9, p. 3, emp. added.
2 Sam Harris (2010), “The Future of God Debate: Sam Harris and Michael Shermer vs. Deepak Chopra and Jean Houston,” Nightline Faceoff, ABC News, March 14, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0E99BdOfxAE; See also Dan Harris and Ely Brown (2010), “‘Nightline’ ‘Face-Off’: Does God Have a Future?” March 23, http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/FaceOff/nightline-face-off-god-future/story?id=10170505.
3 Numbers 25:1-2.
4 Acts 19.
5 James Edwards (2016), “Archaeology Gives New Reality to Paul’s Ephesus Riot,” Biblical Archaeology Review, 42[4]:28-30, July/August.

Rob Bell and Eternal Hell by Kyle Butt, M.Div.


Rob Bell and Eternal Hell

by  Kyle Butt, M.Div.

For several years, Rob Bell, the minister of the Mars Hill Bible Church has been mulling over the idea of hell. In his latest book, Love Wins: A Book about Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived, Bell contends that the “traditional” view of hell, in which those who do not believe in Christ are lost, is ill-conceived and needs re-working. Jon Meacham, column writer for TIME magazine, noted that Rob Bell “suggests that the redemptive work of Jesus may be universal—meaning that, as his book’s subtitle puts it, ‘every person who ever lived’ could have a place in heaven, whatever that turns out to be” (2011). In essence, Rob Bell is little more than a recent advocate of a modified version of universalism.
The trend to minimize hell in our emotionally-driven, sentimental society is nothing new. Behind this teaching is the idea that love and eternal punishment are incompatible and mutually exclusive. The atheistic community has repeatedly challenged belief in the God of the Bible, due to the alleged moral dilemma presented by a God of love and eternal punishment (Butt, 2010, pp. 217-227).
A critical analysis of the situation brings to light a number of truths. First, it is clear that the Bible teaches that hell is a reality and will be eternal (Matthew 25:46, see Lyons and Butt, 2005a). Second, the concept of hell has been shown to be in perfect harmony with the concepts of morality and justice (Lyons and Butt, 2005b). Third, the erroneous teachings of universalism and the limited duration of hell are nothing new, and advocates of these beliefs will most likely continue to present themselves (see Colley, 2007; Butt, 2004; Miller, 2003).
The apostle Peter explained that one responsibility given to Christians is that they ought always to be ready to give a defense of their beliefs (1 Peter 3:15). One of those beliefs that is continually challenged is the idea of an eternal hell to which those who have not obeyed God will be consigned forever. Let us all be aware of these challenges to the Bible’s teachings and prepare ourselves to respond to them, holding fast to the faithful Word of God.


Butt, Kyle (2004), “The Reality of Eternal Hell,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&art2004icle=819.
Butt, Kyle (2010), A Christians Guide to Refuting Modern Atheism (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Colley, Caleb (2007), “Controversy About Hell Continues,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=2262.
Lyons, Eric and Kyle Butt (2005a), “The Eternality of Hell, Part 1,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=1474.
Lyons, Eric and Kyle Butt (2005b), “The Eternality of Hell, Part 2,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=1475.
Meacham, Jon (2011), “Is Hell Dead?” TIME, April 14, http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2065080,00.html?xid=feed-yahoo-full-mostpopular.
Miller, Dave (2003), “Who Believes in Hell Anymore?” Apologetics Press, https://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=1204.

Sam Harris, Christ’s Resurrection, and the Nature of Belief by Kyle Butt, M.Div.


Sam Harris, Christ’s Resurrection, and the Nature of Belief

by  Kyle Butt, M.Div.

Sam Harris has helped lead the new brigade of militant atheists in their charge against God. His bestseller, The End of Faith, attempts to persuade the reader that all religions, including Christianity, are not only useless, but often quite harmful. In truth, he does an outstanding job showing some of the problems with false religions like Islam, and he also effectively repudiates perversions of Christian doctrine that attempt to pass themselves off as authentic. What he fails to do, however, is accurately assess true, New Testament Christianity, a fault that lies at the heart of much modern, atheistic writing.
As a case in point, Harris asked the question: “What should we believe?” He answered:
We believe most of what we believe about the world because others have told us to.... In fact, the more educated we become, the more our beliefs come to us second hand. A person who believes only those propositions for which he can provide full sensory or theoretical justification will know almost nothing about the world (2004).
Harris then proceeded to discuss how to assess the validity of what we should or should not believe that other people tell us. He gave three sources of information and analyzed the validity of each. First, he proposed the scenario of an anchorman on the evening news claiming that a fire in Colorado had burned 100,000 acres. Second, he listed as a source of information numerous biologists who claim that DNA is the “molecular basis for sexual reproduction.” And the third source of information he listed was the Pope, who claims that Jesus is the Son of God, was born of a virgin, and was resurrected bodily after death.
After some discussion, Harris concluded that the first and second sources of information are reliable and should be trusted, but the third, the Pope, is not. What is interesting about Harris’ discussion is why he concluded that the story about the fire on the evening news is trustworthy. He elaborated:
Given our beliefs about the human mind, the success of our widespread collaboration with other human beings, and the degree to which we all rely on the news, it is scarcely conceivable that a respected television network and a highly paid anchorman are perpetrating a hoax, or that thousands of firefighters, newsmen, and terrified homeowners have mistaken Texas for Colorado. Implicit in such commonsense judgments lurks an understanding of the causal connections between various processes in the world, the likelihood of different outcomes, and the vested interests or lack thereof, of those whose testimony we are considering. What would a professional news anchor stand to gain from lying about a fire in Colorado? We need not go into the details here, if the anchor on the evening news says that there is a fire in Colorado and then shows us images of burning trees, we can be reasonably sure that there really is a fire in Colorado (2004).
It is not surprising that Harris follows this explanation with his statement about mistrusting the words of the Pope pertaining to the resurrection of Christ. In this regard, he is right: the Pope’s “word” on the resurrection is no more authoritative than the word of Sam Harris. But notice the straw man Harris has built. He rightly attacks the false belief of the Pope’s infallibility, but he does not address the real evidence that validates Jesus’ resurrection. Were we to put the evidence for the resurrection beside that of the news story, the resurrection would have unquestionably more “commonsense judgments” to commend it, making it much more “reasonably sure” than a modern news story.
Analyzing the resurrection of Christ in light of Harris’ filter of evidence, it is “scarcely conceivable” that several hundred eyewitnesses (1 Corinthians 15:6) of the resurrected Christ simply concocted the story to further their agenda. What would ordinary fishermen, farmers, or businessmen and women stand to gain from perpetuating such a hoax? The reward for their testimony was that many of them were stoned, killed with the sword, tortured, or imprisoned for nothing more than saying that they knew Jesus came back to life. Thousands of their peers listened with interest to their evidence, assessed the value of the witnesses and other information, such as the empty tomb of Christ, and were forced to conclude that the resurrection had, indeed, occurred (Acts 2:41). Many among the most educated classes, including the priests, who would have had numerous reasons to deny the validity of the evidence, were convinced of the truth of Christ’s resurrection (Acts 6:7). The many “infallible proofs” (Acts 1:3) offered for the resurrection are recorded in the most reliable documents ever to come down to modern man from any historical repository (see Butt, 2004). In fact, so powerful are the various evidences for the resurrection (see Butt, 2002), that, knowing what we know “about the casual connections between various processes” and humanity’s “success of our widespread collaboration with other human beings,” it is inconceivable that the resurrection of Christ is a hoax. The Pope is an easy target. The real evidence for the resurrection is not.


Butt, Kyle (2002), “Jesus Christ—Dead or Alive?” Reason & Revelation, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/121.
Butt, Kyle (2004), “Archaeology and the New Testament,” Reason & Revelation, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2591.
Harris, Sam (2004), The End of Faith (New York: W.W. Norton).

Not Making Progress by Kyle Butt, M.Div.


Not Making Progress

by  Kyle Butt, M.Div.

One sure way to let something ruin is simply to do nothing to take care of it. Everyone knows that a brand new car left untouched in a driveway for twenty years will not look better at the end of that period of time. No one would claim that a toy truck left in the sand box by a three-year-old is going to look newer after six months of weathering. If your room is dirty, do you think that it will clean itself if you leave it alone for three months? Of course you don’t! Neglecting your room will only give it more time to collect dust.
Every time we see things wearing down over time, we are witnessing a scientific law. What is a scientific law? A scientific law is a principle in nature that is true in every observable case. Whether the measurements come from the sunny islands of Hawaii or the ice-covered tundra of the Arctic, a scientific law is the same for all places. But one thing we must remember about scientific laws is that scientists do not make the laws, they only observe them and label them.
Also, we need to understand the difference between a scientific law and a theory. While a law is something that is observable in every known case, a theory is something that someone thinks might be true and that is supported by at least some scientific evidence. Over the years, many false theories have had to be thrown out because they did not agree with the scientific laws of nature. If a theory goes against a scientific law, then the theory is not correct and must be discarded.
So, what scientific law do we observe when we see things wearing out over time? We are seeing the Second Law of Thermodynamics in action. Even though this law may sound complicated, it really is not difficult to understand. Thermodynamics is just a long word used to discuss the way that matter and energy behave in nature. Stated simply, the Second Law of Thermodynamics says that matter and energy are moving toward a less usable, more disorderly state called “entropy.” The late Isaac Asimov, a famous evolutionist, wrote about the Second Law: “Another way of stating the Second Law, then, is: ‘The universe is constantly getting more disorderly.’ ” For instance, when a person puts gasoline into a vehicle, the energy in that gasoline is usable, but after the gasoline burns, much of the energy escapes into the atmosphere and cannot be used again.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics presents a serious problem for the theory of evolution, because the theory of evolution cannot be true if the Second Law of Thermodynamics is true. George Gaylord Simpson was one of the most famous evolutionists of his day. Listen to him describe the theory of evolution: “Evolution is a fully natural process…by which all living things, past or present, have since developed, divergently and progressively.” He explained that the theory of evolution is supposed to be a process by which things develop progressively. According to the theory, things started out very simple and, over a very long period of time, became increasingly more complex. For instance, a single-celled amoeba supposedly developed into a 100-trillion-celled human over billions of years.
But when the theory of evolution is placed beside the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the two do not agree. Things in this Universe do not get progressively better over time; they get progressively worse (entropy). Every year, we humans burn resources that can never be replaced. Cars wear out, bodies get old and wrinkly, and buildings deteriorate. If a huge pile of old scrap wood lays in a grassy yard, will it be turned into a nice house if left alone for hundreds of years? Of course not! In fact, anyone who has done his or her homework on the Second Law knows that if things continue as they are, at some point in the future (although it may be many millions of years away) there will be no more usable energy.
This Universe is digressive, not progressive, and that goes directly against the theory of evolution. Creation, on the other hand, falls in line perfectly with the Second Law. In the beginning, God created everything to be very good, but since that time things have deteriorated.

"But What About David and Bathsheba's Marriage?" by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


"But What About David and Bathsheba's Marriage?"

by  Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Jesus’ views of divorce and remarriage are really quite concise and comprehensible. Putting a mate away and marrying another can be undertaken honorably in God’s sight only on the grounds that that mate has been sexually unfaithful (Matthew 19:9). Despite the simplicity of such statements from God, there have always been individuals who would rather try to justify themselves or others instead of humbly submitting to divine standards (cf. Luke 10:29; 16:15). In the case of the Pharisees, they stubbornly threw up to Jesus their Old Testament justification for refusing to accept the stringency of God’s law of marriage, divorce, and remarriage: “Why then did Moses...?”(Matthew 19:7). In like manner, in an effort to side step the clear thrust of New Testament teaching regarding the sinfulness of adulterous marriages and the need for the parties involved to sever the sinful relationship, some today stubbornly appeal to the Old Testament case of David and Bathsheba: “If God requires marriages to be severed today, why was David permitted to keep Bathsheba?”
The following observations merit consideration:
First, there is no parallel between the adulterous marriages being defended today and the relationship sustained by David and Bathsheba. It is true that David’s affair with Bathsheba while her husband was at the battle front constituted adultery. However, he did not further complicate or solidify his adultery by marrying her. She returned to her own home (2 Samuel 11:4). The two apparently had no intentions of further complicating their sin by forming an adulterous marital union. Instead, when Bathsheba notified David that she was pregnant, David made every effort to hide the sin by making it appear as if Uriah was the father of the child (2 Samuel 11:6-13). Repentance at this stage of the situation would entail David’s confession of his sin and his determination to never repeat such illicit behavior. David could have devised some other plan, say, the banishment of Uriah for some breach of military regulations. With Uriah expelled from the land, he could have then taken Bathsheba as his own wife. In such a case, David would have been living in adultery, and the only divinely-approved course of action would have been to sever the marriage relationship. But David did not do this. When his efforts failed, he decided the way he could “cover his tracks” was to bring about Uriah’s death (2 Samuel 11:14-15). To the sin of adultery, he added murder.
Notice that David was not going through all this rigmarole in order to free Bathsheba to be married to himself, but to keep Uriah from finding out that his wife was pregnant by another man. Thus the argument that states, “You’re saying a person ought to murder the mate of the individual that they wish to be married to,” holds no validity in this discussion. By definition, adultery entails sexual relations with a person whose scriptural mate is still living. Notice God’s own words on this matter:
For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man (Romans 7:2-3, NKJV).
However inappropriate David’s action after the death of Uriah may have been, his marriage to Bathsheba was not adultery and is therefore not parallel to the illicit marriages contracted by so many today whose former mates are still living.
Second, why would we wish to go to David and Bathsheba for insight into acceptable divorce and remarriage practices, anyway? Even when Scripture does not specifically condemn a certain action, we should not necessarily assume that God condones or approves it. There are numerous instances of improper behavior in the Old Testament that are in no way intended to be used today as justification for similar behavior today. Abraham (Genesis 12:13), Isaac (Genesis 26:7), and Jacob (Genesis 27:19) all behaved deceptively. Judah committed fornication (Genesis 38:18). Moses failed to trust in God as he should have (Numbers 20:12). Are these instances appropriate examples to emulate? David, himself, was guilty of additional violations of God’s law. He desecrated the tabernacle by entering and unlawfully consuming consecrated bread (1 Samuel 21:1-6; Matthew 12:3-4). He neglected Mosaic regulations concerning proper transport and treatment of the ark (2 Samuel 6; 1 Chronicles 15:13). His reliance upon troop strength (as evidenced in his military census) cost 70,000 people their lives (2 Samuel 24:15). Such instances as these are intended to remind us of the necessity to adhere strictly to God’s instructions (Romans 15:4). They are certainly not designed to encourage us to relax our own ethical behavior on the grounds that others did so in the Old Testament! Though at one time David was truly “a man after God's own heart” (1 Samuel 13:14; Acts 13:22), his behavior later in life demonstrates that he drifted from this ideal.
Third, by employing the same logic as those who fumble for the case of David and Bathsheba to justify the continuance of adulterous unions today, one could just as easily make a case for the permissibility of polygamy today. Bathsheba was only one of several wives (cf. 1 Samuel 18:27; 25:42-­43; 1 Chronicles 3:2-5). Maybe Joseph Smith, with his 28+ wives, was nearer to the truth than we have previously supposed?
Fourth, David and Bathsheba are not intended as models for ascertaining God’s requirements concerning divorce and remarriage today in any sense. For the Scriptures are exceedingly explicit concerning God’s feelings about the whole sordid affair: “But the thing that David had done displeased the Lord” (2 Samuel 11:27). He did not have to sever the marital relationship with Bathsheba since her husband was dead and she was released from that law (Romans 7:2). However, God brought down upon David untold misery and unpleasant consequences to punish David, as well as instruct us concerning His true view of such iniquity. Three direct consequences were inflicted upon David: (1) Nathan said the sword would never depart from David’s house (2 Samuel 12:10), fulfilled in the successive violent deaths of at least three sons—Amnon (2 Samuel 13:29), Absalom (2 Samuel 18:14), and Adonijah (1 Kings 2:25); (2) Nathan also declared to David that his own wives would be shamefully misused in broad daylight before all Israel by someone close to him (2 Samuel 12:11), distastefully fulfilled when Absalom “lay with his father's concubines in the sight of all Israel” (2 Samuel 16:22); (3) Further, Nathan pronounced the fatal fate of the son conceived by David’s sin with Bathsheba (2 Samuel 12:14), fulfilled seven days after Nathan’s judgment sentence (2 Samuel 12:18). All of this detailed narration suggests that we have missed a major point if we seek to justify illicit behavior today on the grounds that “David did it.”
Friends, let us not scrape the bottom of the proverbial barrel in a desperate attempt to come up with just any argument to defend our position. Let us weigh biblical data fairly, rightly handling the Word of truth, and drawing only those conclusions that are warranted by the evidence (1 Thessalonians 5:21). Only then can we be approved in God’s sight (2 Timothy 2:15).

The Temple’s Pillar and Capital Heights by Eric Lyons, M.Min.


The Temple’s Pillar and Capital Heights

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

When King Solomon built his magnificent temple, he constructed two 18-cubit-high bronze pillars and set them by the vestibule in the front of the temple (2 Chronicles 3:15; NOTE: A cubit is approximately 18 inches). He even gave them names: Jachin on the right, and Boaz on the left (1 Kings 7:21). On the top of each hollow pillar was a five-cubit-high capital (called chapiter in the KJV), covered with “nets of network,” “twisted threads of chainwork,” and rows of pomegranates (1 Kings 7:17-18,20, NASB).
When one compares the various biblical accounts that address the temple pillars and capitals (1 Kings 7; 2 Kings 25; 2 Chronicles 3; Jeremiah 52), two questions immediately come to mind. First, why does 2 Chronicles 3:15 indicate that the two 18-cubit-high pillars (1 Kings 7:15; 2 Kings 25:17; Jeremiah 52:21) were “thirty-five cubits” high? Second, were the pillar capitals “five cubits” high, as mentioned in 1 Kings 7:16 and Jeremiah 52:22, or “three cubits,” as recorded in 2 Kings 25:17?
First, one must keep in mind that the biblical apologist does not have to pin down the exact solution to a particular question in order to exonerate a Bible writer of an alleged mistake. Just as Christians do not have to know every detail about Jesus obtaining a donkey (Matthew 21:1-7) in order to acquit Him of an alleged theft charge, Bible believers can reasonably defend the Bible’s integrity without pinning down the exact solution to a problem. Over a century ago, J.W. McGarvey commented on this point as follows:
We are not bound to show the truth of the given hypothesis; but only that it may be true. If it is at all possible, then it is possible that no contradiction exists; if it is probable, then it is probable that no contradiction exists.... It follows, also, that when there is an appearance of contradiction between two writers, common justice requires that before we pronounce one or both of them false we should exhaust our ingenuity in searching for some probable supposition on the ground of which they may both be true. The better the general reputation of the writers, the more imperative is this obligation, lest we condemn as false those who are entitled to respectful consideration (1886, 2:32).
Truly, the apologist need show only one or more plausible possibilities of harmonization in order to negate the force of the charge that an inspired penman erred. We abide by this principle in the courtroom, in our treatment of various historical books, as well as in everyday-life situations. It is only fair, then, to show the Bible the same courtesy by exhausting the search for possible harmony between passages before pronouncing one or both accounts false. Although it may be that no one knows for sure why differences exist for the pillar and capital heights, we can offer more than one logical possibility.
At least three feasible explanations exist for the variation in the heights of the temple pillars. First, it is possible that one or more ancient scribes confused the Hebrew numeral letters גה (35) for יח (18). Similar to how printing companies today can make slight errors when printing copies of the Bible, and just as copyists’ errors can be found in various historical works (e.g., Tacitus, Josephus, etc.) without corrupting the overall integrity of the text, occasionally Bible readers will come across numbers, names, etc. that are the result of a copyists’ errors—not mistakes by the original inspired writers. (To read our foundational essay on this subject, see Lyons, 2007).
Second, it may be that whereas 1 Kings 7:15, 2 Kings 25:17, and Jeremiah 52:21 give only the height of the pillars, the chronicler also included the heights of the base, the capitals, and all other decorations on the pillars. Consider a somewhat parallel illustration of two people measuring the height of a modern church building. One person climbs the steps and measures from the floor of the porch to the underside of the roof, and obtains a measure of 25 feet. Another person, however, measures from the base of the building, up the seven steps, over the roof, to the top of the steeple. He calculates the height at 55 feet. Is it possible for both calculations to be accurate? Indeed. They are accurate measurements of what the inspectors chose to include in the “height of the church building.” Regarding the temple pillars, it may be that the figure in 2 Chronicles simply includes more materials than the number recorded in 1 and 2 Kings and Jeremiah.
Third, it is also possible that the height of each pillar was more specifically 17½ cubits, or that a half of a cubit of each pillar was hidden in the roundness of the capitals, and that the number 35 represents the length of both pillars added together. Interestingly, 2 Chronicles 3:15 does not indicate that “each” pillar was 35 cubits high, but simply that the “two pillars” were “thirty-five cubits high.” Translators of the New International Version believed this explanation was probable, and actually inserted “together” (in brackets) into their translation of 2 Chronicles 3:15. Thus, “in the front of the temple he made two pillars, which [together] were thirty-five cubits long.”
So what about the capital heights? Why does 2 Kings 25:17 refer to them as being three cubits high, rather than five? As with the pillar heights, it is possible that the numeral “three” represents a copyist’s error. The Hebrew numeral letter ג (3) in 2 Kings 25:17 may have been mistakenly put for ה (5), as is found in 1 Kings 7:16 and Jeremiah 52:22. However, another explanation, which John Wesley postulated in the 18th century, also exists. In his commentary on 1 Kings, he suggested “the word chapiter is taken either more largely for the whole, so it is five cubits; or, more strictly, either for the pommels..., 2 Chronicles 4:12, or for the cornice or crown, and so it was but three cubits, to which the pomegranates being added make it four cubits..., and the other work upon it took up one cubit more, which in all made five cubits” (n.d.). Thus, both “three” and “five” could be correct, depending on exactly what the writers were including in the measurement of the capitals.
What are the correct answers to the questions at hand? Why exactly do differences exist in the numbers given for the pillar and capital heights? No one can be certain. But reasonable answers can be offered without assuming the original penmen erred.


Lyons, Eric (2007), “Inspired Writers and Competent Copyists,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3268.
McGarvey, J.W. (1886), Evidences of Christianity (Cincinnati, OH: Standard).
Wesley, John (n.d.), Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible, [On-line], URL: http://bible.crosswalk.com/commentaries/WesleysExplanatory Notes/wes.cgi?book=1ki&chapter=007.

The Same God by T. Pierce Brown


The Same God

In recent years we have heard and read an increasing number of statements to the effect that almost everyone is worshipping the same God, although some may call Him Allah, others Jehovah and others by some other name. That is supposed to prove, it seems, that how we worship does not matter, and perhaps all of us have an equal chance of being saved.

The theory is wrong from start to finish, but even if it were right in its basic assumption, the conclusion does not follow. Let us try to clarify.

We wonder if those who make those statements would also continue with that idea that we all worship the same God if we added Baal, Zeus, Pluto, Jupiter and/or Beelzebub. If not, why not? The truth is that even those who claim to worship Jehovah do not really worship the same God, for a great majority of people with whom I talk do not have the God in their mind that I have, revealed in the Bible. The average person has a god that is a sort of grandfather type -- a giant of a man with white hair and benevolent eyes who loves his little children and grandchildren so much that he could not think of punishing them for anything, but is willing to spoil them and grant their every wish. The God I worship is a God that is both loving and just. He has goodness and severity (Rom. 11:22). The real God that is revealed in the Bible is an unknown God to the majority of people.

The Calvinist has a god that created men all of whom are now hereditarily and totally depraved, and arbitrarily determined that some of them are going to heaven and some are going to hell, and the number is so fixed that it cannot be changed by any choice or will or act of man.

The God that I serve made man upright and he sought out many inventions (Eccl. 7:29). He made man with freedom of choice and allows him to make the choice to serve God or Satan (Josh.24:15). It has been said that "God created man in his own image; philosophers have reversed the process; they create god in theirs." It is true, not only of philosophers, but of mankind in general.

It is important to know that the kind of god you believe in will determine, to a large degree, the kind of person you are. It is philosophically, theologically and pragmatically true that one becomes more like that which he adores and worships. Be careful that Jehovah God is your God.
T. Pierce Brown

Published in The Old Paths Archive

Bible Reading June 12 by Gary Rose

Bible Reading  June 12 (World English Bible)

June 12
1 Samuel 17, 18

1Sa 17:1 Now the Philistines gathered together their armies to battle; and they were gathered together at Socoh, which belongs to Judah, and encamped between Socoh and Azekah, in Ephesdammim.
1Sa 17:2 Saul and the men of Israel were gathered together, and encamped in the valley of Elah, and set the battle in array against the Philistines.
1Sa 17:3 The Philistines stood on the mountain on the one side, and Israel stood on the mountain on the other side: and there was a valley between them.
1Sa 17:4 There went out a champion out of the camp of the Philistines, named Goliath, of Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span.
1Sa 17:5 He had a helmet of brass on his head, and he was clad with a coat of mail; and the weight of the coat was five thousand shekels of brass.
1Sa 17:6 He had brass shin armor on his legs, and a javelin of brass between his shoulders.
1Sa 17:7 The staff of his spear was like a weaver's beam; and his spear's head weighed six hundred shekels of iron: and his shield bearer went before him.
1Sa 17:8 He stood and cried to the armies of Israel, and said to them, Why have you come out to set your battle in array? am I not a Philistine, and you servants to Saul? choose a man for you, and let him come down to me.
1Sa 17:9 If he be able to fight with me, and kill me, then will we be your servants; but if I prevail against him, and kill him, then you will be our servants, and serve us.
1Sa 17:10 The Philistine said, I defy the armies of Israel this day; give me a man, that we may fight together.
1Sa 17:11 When Saul and all Israel heard those words of the Philistine, they were dismayed, and greatly afraid.
1Sa 17:12 Now David was the son of that Ephrathite of Bethlehem Judah, whose name was Jesse; and he had eight sons: and the man was an old man in the days of Saul, stricken in years among men.
1Sa 17:13 The three eldest sons of Jesse had gone after Saul to the battle: and the names of his three sons who went to the battle were Eliab the firstborn, and next to him Abinadab, and the third Shammah.
1Sa 17:14 David was the youngest; and the three eldest followed Saul.
1Sa 17:15 Now David went back and forth from Saul to feed his father's sheep at Bethlehem.
1Sa 17:16 The Philistine drew near morning and evening, and presented himself forty days.
1Sa 17:17 Jesse said to David his son, Take now for your brothers an ephah of this parched grain, and these ten loaves, and carry them quickly to the camp to your brothers;
1Sa 17:18 and bring these ten cheeses to the captain of their thousand, and look how your brothers fare, and take their pledge.
1Sa 17:19 Now Saul, and they, and all the men of Israel, were in the valley of Elah, fighting with the Philistines.
1Sa 17:20 David rose up early in the morning, and left the sheep with a keeper, and took, and went, as Jesse had commanded him; and he came to the place of the wagons, as the army which was going forth to the fight shouted for the battle.
1Sa 17:21 Israel and the Philistines put the battle in array, army against army.
1Sa 17:22 David left his baggage in the hand of the keeper of the baggage, and ran to the army, and came and greeted his brothers.
1Sa 17:23 As he talked with them, behold, there came up the champion, the Philistine of Gath, Goliath by name, out of the ranks of the Philistines, and spoke according to the same words: and David heard them.
1Sa 17:24 All the men of Israel, when they saw the man, fled from him, and were sore afraid.
1Sa 17:25 The men of Israel said, Have you seen this man who is come up? surely to defy Israel is he come up: and it shall be, that the man who kills him, the king will enrich him with great riches, and will give him his daughter, and make his father's house free in Israel.
1Sa 17:26 David spoke to the men who stood by him, saying, What shall be done to the man who kills this Philistine, and takes away the reproach from Israel? for who is this uncircumcised Philistine, that he should defy the armies of the living God?
1Sa 17:27 The people answered him after this manner, saying, So shall it be done to the man who kills him.
1Sa 17:28 Eliab his eldest brother heard when he spoke to the men; and Eliab's anger was kindled against David, and he said, Why have you come down? and with whom have you left those few sheep in the wilderness? I know your pride, and the naughtiness of your heart; for you have come down that you might see the battle.
1Sa 17:29 David said, What have I now done? Is there not a cause?
1Sa 17:30 He turned away from him toward another, and spoke after the same manner: and the people answered him again after the former manner.
1Sa 17:31 When the words were heard which David spoke, they rehearsed them before Saul; and he sent for him.
1Sa 17:32 David said to Saul, Let no man's heart fail because of him; your servant will go and fight with this Philistine.
1Sa 17:33 Saul said to David, You are not able to go against this Philistine to fight with him; for you are but a youth, and he a man of war from his youth.
1Sa 17:34 David said to Saul, Your servant was keeping his father's sheep; and when there came a lion, or a bear, and took a lamb out of the flock,
1Sa 17:35 I went out after him, and struck him, and delivered it out of his mouth; and when he arose against me, I caught him by his beard, and struck him, and killed him.
1Sa 17:36 Your servant struck both the lion and the bear: and this uncircumcised Philistine shall be as one of them, seeing he has defied the armies of the living God.
1Sa 17:37 David said, Yahweh who delivered me out of the paw of the lion, and out of the paw of the bear, he will deliver me out of the hand of this Philistine. Saul said to David, Go, and Yahweh shall be with you.
1Sa 17:38 Saul clad David with his clothing, and he put a helmet of brass on his head, and he clad him with a coat of mail.
1Sa 17:39 David girded his sword on his clothing, and he tried to go; for he had not proved it. David said to Saul, I can't go with these; for I have not proved them. David put them off him.
1Sa 17:40 He took his staff in his hand, and chose him five smooth stones out of the brook, and put them in the shepherd's bag which he had, even in his wallet; and his sling was in his hand: and he drew near to the Philistine.
1Sa 17:41 The Philistine came on and drew near to David; and the man who bore the shield went before him.
1Sa 17:42 When the Philistine looked about, and saw David, he disdained him; for he was but a youth, and ruddy, and withal of a fair face.
1Sa 17:43 The Philistine said to David, Am I a dog, that you come to me with sticks? The Philistine cursed David by his gods.
1Sa 17:44 The Philistine said to David, Come to me, and I will give your flesh to the birds of the sky, and to the animals of the field.
1Sa 17:45 Then said David to the Philistine, You come to me with a sword, and with a spear, and with a javelin: but I come to you in the name of Yahweh of Armies, the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have defied.
1Sa 17:46 This day Yahweh will deliver you into my hand; and I will strike you, and take your head from off you; and I will give the dead bodies of the army of the Philistines this day to the birds of the sky, and to the wild animals of the earth; that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel,
1Sa 17:47 and that all this assembly may know that Yahweh doesn't save with sword and spear: for the battle is Yahweh's, and he will give you into our hand.
1Sa 17:48 It happened, when the Philistine arose, and came and drew near to meet David, that David hurried, and ran toward the army to meet the Philistine.
1Sa 17:49 David put his hand in his bag, and took there a stone, and slang it, and struck the Philistine in his forehead; and the stone sank into his forehead, and he fell on his face to the earth.
1Sa 17:50 So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and with a stone, and struck the Philistine, and killed him; but there was no sword in the hand of David.
1Sa 17:51 Then David ran, and stood over the Philistine, and took his sword, and drew it out of its sheath, and killed him, and cut off his head therewith. When the Philistines saw that their champion was dead, they fled.
1Sa 17:52 The men of Israel and of Judah arose, and shouted, and pursued the Philistines, until you come to Gai, and to the gates of Ekron. The wounded of the Philistines fell down by the way to Shaaraim, even to Gath, and to Ekron.
1Sa 17:53 The children of Israel returned from chasing after the Philistines, and they plundered their camp.
1Sa 17:54 David took the head of the Philistine, and brought it to Jerusalem; but he put his armor in his tent.
1Sa 17:55 When Saul saw David go forth against the Philistine, he said to Abner, the captain of the army, Abner, whose son is this youth? Abner said, As your soul lives, O king, I can't tell.
1Sa 17:56 The king said, "Inquire whose son the young man is!"
1Sa 17:57 As David returned from the slaughter of the Philistine, Abner took him, and brought him before Saul with the head of the Philistine in his hand.
1Sa 17:58 Saul said to him, Whose son are you, you young man? David answered, I am the son of your servant Jesse the Bethlehemite.

1Sa 18:1 It happened, when he had made an end of speaking to Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.
1Sa 18:2 Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house.
1Sa 18:3 Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.
1Sa 18:4 Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was on him, and gave it to David, and his clothing, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his sash.
1Sa 18:5 David went out wherever Saul sent him, and behaved himself wisely: and Saul set him over the men of war, and it was good in the sight of all the people, and also in the sight of Saul's servants.
1Sa 18:6 It happened as they came, when David returned from the slaughter of the Philistine, that the women came out of all the cities of Israel, singing and dancing, to meet king Saul, with tambourines, with joy, and with instruments of music.
1Sa 18:7 The women sang one to another as they played, and said, Saul has slain his thousands, David his ten thousands.
1Sa 18:8 Saul was very angry, and this saying displeased him; and he said, They have ascribed to David ten thousands, and to me they have ascribed but thousands: and what can he have more but the kingdom?
1Sa 18:9 Saul eyed David from that day and forward.
1Sa 18:10 It happened on the next day, that an evil spirit from God came mightily on Saul, and he prophesied in the midst of the house: and David played with his hand, as he did day by day. Saul had his spear in his hand;
1Sa 18:11 and Saul cast the spear; for he said, I will strike David even to the wall. David avoided out of his presence twice.
1Sa 18:12 Saul was afraid of David, because Yahweh was with him, and was departed from Saul.
1Sa 18:13 Therefore Saul removed him from him, and made him his captain over a thousand; and he went out and came in before the people.
1Sa 18:14 David behaved himself wisely in all his ways; and Yahweh was with him.
1Sa 18:15 When Saul saw that he behaved himself very wisely, he stood in awe of him.
1Sa 18:16 But all Israel and Judah loved David; for he went out and came in before them.
1Sa 18:17 Saul said to David, Behold, my elder daughter Merab, her will I give you as wife: only be valiant for me, and fight Yahweh's battles. For Saul said, Don't let my hand be on him, but let the hand of the Philistines be on him.
1Sa 18:18 David said to Saul, Who am I, and what is my life, or my father's family in Israel, that I should be son-in-law to the king?
1Sa 18:19 But it happened at the time when Merab, Saul's daughter, should have been given to David, that she was given to Adriel the Meholathite as wife.
1Sa 18:20 Michal, Saul's daughter, loved David: and they told Saul, and the thing pleased him.
1Sa 18:21 Saul said, I will give her to him, that she may be a snare to him, and that the hand of the Philistines may be against him. Therefore Saul said to David, You shall this day be my son-in-law a second time.
1Sa 18:22 Saul commanded his servants, saying, Commune with David secretly, and say, Behold, the king has delight in you, and all his servants love you: now therefore be the king's son-in-law.
1Sa 18:23 Saul's servants spoke those words in the ears of David. David said, Seems it to you a light thing to be the king's son-in-law, seeing that I am a poor man, and lightly esteemed?
1Sa 18:24 The servants of Saul told him, saying, On this manner spoke David.
1Sa 18:25 Saul said, Thus you shall tell David, The king desires no dowry except one hundred foreskins of the Philistines, to be avenged of the king's enemies. Now Saul thought to make David fall by the hand of the Philistines.
1Sa 18:26 When his servants told David these words, it pleased David well to be the king's son-in-law. The days were not expired;
1Sa 18:27 and David arose and went, he and his men, and killed of the Philistines two hundred men; and David brought their foreskins, and they gave them in full number to the king, that he might be the king's son-in-law. Saul gave him Michal his daughter as wife.
1Sa 18:28 Saul saw and knew that Yahweh was with David; and Michal, Saul's daughter, loved him.
1Sa 18:29 Saul was yet the more afraid of David; and Saul was David's enemy continually.
1Sa 18:30 Then the princes of the Philistines went forth: and it happened, as often as they went forth, that David behaved himself more wisely than all the servants of Saul; so that his name was much set by.

Jun. 11, 12
John 14

Joh 14:1 "Don't let your heart be troubled. Believe in God. Believe also in me.
Joh 14:2 In my Father's house are many homes. If it weren't so, I would have told you. I am going to prepare a place for you.
Joh 14:3 If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and will receive you to myself; that where I am, you may be there also.
Joh 14:4 Where I go, you know, and you know the way."
Joh 14:5 Thomas said to him, "Lord, we don't know where you are going. How can we know the way?"
Joh 14:6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father, except through me.
Joh 14:7 If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on, you know him, and have seen him."
Joh 14:8 Philip said to him, "Lord, show us the Father, and that will be enough for us."
Joh 14:9 Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you such a long time, and do you not know me, Philip? He who has seen me has seen the Father. How do you say, 'Show us the Father?'
Joh 14:10 Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I tell you, I speak not from myself; but the Father who lives in me does his works.
Joh 14:11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me; or else believe me for the very works' sake.
Joh 14:12 Most certainly I tell you, he who believes in me, the works that I do, he will do also; and he will do greater works than these, because I am going to my Father.
Joh 14:13 Whatever you will ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
Joh 14:14 If you will ask anything in my name, I will do it.
Joh 14:15 If you love me, keep my commandments.
Joh 14:16 I will pray to the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, that he may be with you forever,-
Joh 14:17 the Spirit of truth, whom the world can't receive; for it doesn't see him, neither knows him. You know him, for he lives with you, and will be in you.
Joh 14:18 I will not leave you orphans. I will come to you.
Joh 14:19 Yet a little while, and the world will see me no more; but you will see me. Because I live, you will live also.
Joh 14:20 In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you.
Joh 14:21 One who has my commandments, and keeps them, that person is one who loves me. One who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him, and will reveal myself to him."
Joh 14:22 Judas (not Iscariot) said to him, "Lord, what has happened that you are about to reveal yourself to us, and not to the world?"
Joh 14:23 Jesus answered him, "If a man loves me, he will keep my word. My Father will love him, and we will come to him, and make our home with him.
Joh 14:24 He who doesn't love me doesn't keep my words. The word which you hear isn't mine, but the Father's who sent me.
Joh 14:25 I have said these things to you, while still living with you.
Joh 14:26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and will remind you of all that I said to you.
Joh 14:27 Peace I leave with you. My peace I give to you; not as the world gives, give I to you. Don't let your heart be troubled, neither let it be fearful.
Joh 14:28 You heard how I told you, 'I go away, and I come to you.' If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I said 'I am going to my Father;' for the Father is greater than I.
Joh 14:29 Now I have told you before it happens so that, when it happens, you may believe.
Joh 14:30 I will no more speak much with you, for the prince of the world comes, and he has nothing in me.
Joh 14:31 But that the world may know that I love the Father, and as the Father commanded me, even so I do. Arise, let us go from here.