11/1/17

"THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS" The Allegory Of Hagar And Sarah (4:21-31) by Mark Copeland

                     "THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS"

               The Allegory Of Hagar And Sarah (4:21-31)

INTRODUCTION

1. In the first four chapters of Galatians, Paul defends...
   a. His apostleship as being from God, not man - Ga 1-2
   b. His gospel of justification by faith in Christ, not by the Law of
      Moses - Ga 3-4

2. In defending the gospel of justification by faith in Christ, Paul
   makes five arguments...
   a. Personal argument - the Galatians' own experience - Ga 3:1-5
   b. Scriptural argument - the testimony of the Old Testament - Ga 3:
      6-25
   c. Practical argument - how one becomes a son and heir of God - Ga 3:
      26-4:7
   d. Sentimental argument - appealing to their relationship with Paul
      - Ga 4:8-20
   e. Allegorical argument - using Hagar and Sarah as an illustration
      - Ga 4:21-31

3. In this study, we will consider Paul's allegorical argument...
   a. "Allegory" comes from Greek allos (other) and agoreuein (to speak
      in public)
   b. An allegory is "a figurative representation conveying a meaning
      other than and in addition to the literal" - Wikipedia

4. It is important to note...
   a. "Paul does not deny the actual historical narrative, but he simply
      uses it in an allegorical sense to illustrate his point for the
      benefit of his readers who are tempted to go under the burden of
      the law" - Robertson's Word Pictures
   b. "the apostle gives an allegorical interpretation to the historical
      narrative of Hagar and Sarah, not treating that narrative as an
      allegory in itself" - Smith's Bible Dictionary

[To better understand Paul's allegorical argument, perhaps it is best to
first review...]

I. THE HISTORICAL ACCOUNT

   A. SARAH AND HAGAR...
      1. Sarah, who is barren, has a handmaiden named Hagar - Gen 16:1
      2. Sarah gives Hagar to Abraham to bear a child in her place 
         - Gen 16:2-3
      3. Hagar conceives and despises her mistress Sarah - Gen 16:4
      4. Sarah deals harshly with Hagar - Gen 16:5-6
      5. Hagar returns to Sarah, and bears Ishmael - Gen 16:7-16

   B. ISHMAEL AND ISAAC...
      1. God promises that Sarah will have a son - Gen 17:15-17
      2. God confirms the covenant will be through Isaac, not Ishmael
         - Gen 17:18-21
      3. Sarah bears Isaac as God promised - Gen 21:1-8
      4. Sarah has Abraham send Hagar away - Gen 21:9-14

[With the historical account of Hagar and Sarah fresh on our minds, we
now turn to...]

II. THE APOSTOLIC APPLICATION

   A. PAUL REVIEWS THE HISTORICAL ACCOUNT...
      1. Abraham had two sons - Ga 4:21-22a
      2. One (Ishmael) by a slave woman (Hagar) - Ga 4:22b
      3. One (Isaac) by a free woman (Sarah) - Ga 4:22b
      4. The son of the slave was born of the flesh - Ga 4:23a
         a. Ishmael's conception was natural
         b. When Abraham went into Hagar
      5. The son of the free woman was born through promise - Ga 4:23b
         a. Isaac's conception was by God's power - cf. He 11:11-12
         b. As promised by God - cf. Gen 21:1-2

   A. PAUL APPLIES THE ALLEGORICAL ELEMENTS...
      1. The two women are two covenants - Ga 4:24-27
         a. Hagar represents Mount Sinai in Arabia, bearing children for
            slavery
            1) She corresponds to present Jerusalem
            2) She is in slavery with her children
         b. Sarah represents Jerusalem above, those who are free
            1) She corresponds to heaven (the New Jerusalem)
            2) She is 'our mother' (those in Christ)
            3) She who was barren is no longer desolate
      2. Those in Christ are like Isaac - Ga 4:28-31
         a. They too are children of promise
         b. They too have been persecuted
            1) Ishmael (born of the flesh) persecuted Isaac (born
               according to promise)
            2) Judaizing teachers (born of the flesh) persecuted
               Christians (born according to the Spirit)
         c. The Scriptures portend what will be the end
            1) The son of the slave woman (i.e., Judaizing teachers)
            2) Will not inherit with the son of the free woman (i.e.,
               those in Christ)
         d. Those in Christ...
            1) Are children of the free woman (heaven above)
            2) Are not of the slave (present Jerusalem, with the Law of
               Moses)

CONCLUSION

1. Thus Paul illustrates why the Galatians should not heed the Judaizing
   teachers...
   a. It would be a return to slavery (to the Law of Moses)
   b. It would be turning their back on the Spirit who conceived them
      - cf. Tit 3:5-7
   c. It would be turning away from the promises of heaven 
      - cf. He 12:22-25

2. Our threat today might not be from Judaizing teachers...
   a. But there are those who would have us turn away from Christ
      1) Voices in the world
      2) False religions
   b. The end result would be the same
      1) A return to slavery - cf. Jn 8:31-34
      2) Falling short of receiving the promises - cf. He 4:1-2,11

Only by remaining in Christ can we be the free children of promise, with
Jerusalem above as our true mother...! - cf. Re 2:10c; 3:12


Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2016

eXTReMe Tracker 

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

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=2851


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.

REFERENCES

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/.

Freethought: Not So Free After All by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=926

Freethought: Not So Free After All

by Kyle Butt, M.Div.


One of the most popular terms used by atheists and agnostics to describe themselves is the term “freethinker.” Accordingly, their self-styled brand of reasoning, known as “freethought,” is hitting the upper echelons of academia as the in vogue way to think. From the ideas contained in this compound word, its advocates are attempting to lead people to believe that freethinkers are free to think as they like. Supposedly, freethinkers can go where the evidence leads them, since they are not bound by traditional ideas on morality, deity, the inspiration of the Bible, and other “wayward” notions that have “hindered” freedom in the past.
One of the most outspoken defenders of freethought is a man named Dan Barker. Prior to his “deconversion” into freethought, he was a zealous denominational preacher and missionary. In his most famous written work describing his new-found atheism, Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist, he includes an entire chapter titled, What is a Freethinker? At the end of this chapter, Barker says, “Freethought allows you to do your own thinking…. Freethought is truly free” (1992, p. 136). Obviously, Mr. Barker wants everyone who comes in contact with freethought to believe that it is an avenue of thinking that allows each individual to go where his or her thoughts lead.
Upon further investigation, however, freethought is not so free after all. On the very first page of his chapter on freethought, he contends, “No one can be a freethinker who demands conformity to a bible, creed, or messiah.” So, according to Mr. Barker, since he and his group of freethinkers do not think they see enough evidence for the Bible’s inspiration, then all “freethinkers” must reject conformity to the Bible. What happened to the idea that freethought allows “you to do your own thinking.” Again, on the same page he wrote, “Freethinkers are naturalistic” (p. 133), meaning that freethinkers cannot believe in anything outside the realm of what can be measured scientifically using the senses. What if certain evidences compel a person to believe in a supernatural deity? According to freethought, a person is not free to follow that type of evidence. Once again, freethought proves to be much less “free” than we have been told.
Another telling statement from Barker’s pen comes on page 134, where he says, “Individuals are free to choose, within the limits of humanistic morality.” Freethought, then, allows a person to choose freely any set of ethical and moral standards, as long as those standards conform to the “humanistic morality” adopted by Barker and his fellow “freethinkers.” But what if those moral standards fall outside the realm of “humanistic morality?” Then a freethinker must choose some other standard—or cease to be a freethinker.
In one of his concluding paragraphs, Barker states: “A multiplicity of individuals thinking, free from the restraints of orthodoxy, allows ideas to be tested, discarded or adopted” (p. 135). Barker subtly omits the other restraints such as naturalism and humanism, from which freethinkers are not free. In essence, freethinkers, according to Dan Barker, are those people who think like him and his fellow freethinkers. If a person does not think like the humanistic, naturalistic Dan Barker, then that person must be an enslaved thinker, not a freethinker. In reality, “freethought” is a misnomer and is not free after all. In fact, it is one of the “least free” ways to think that is available in the marketplace of ideas. In actuality, the only thing that can ever make a person free is the truth (John 8:32). From the statements quoted above, it is evident that Dan Barker and his fellow freethinkers are not really interested in freedom but, rather, are interested in forming a group of “freethinkers” that toes the party line on such false concepts as naturalism and humanism.

REFERENCE

Barker, Dan (1992), Losing Faith In Faith—From Preacher to Atheist (Madison, WI: Freedom from Religion Foundation).

Was Jonah Swallowed by a Fish or a Whale? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=2830


Was Jonah Swallowed by a Fish or a Whale?

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.


The book of Jonah reveals that “[t]he Lord had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights” (1:17, emp. added). About 800 years later, Jesus alluded to this amazing event (Matthew 12:39-41). According to the King James translation of Matthew 12:40, Jesus referred to Jonah being “three days and three nights in the whale’s belly” (emp. added). Since fish and whales are different creatures, skeptics accuse Jesus and the Bible writers of making a mistake (cf. Wells, 2012). Longtime Bible critic Dennis McKinsey alleged that Matthew 12:40 is “[p]robably the most famous scientific error by Jesus” (1995, p. 142). “Apparently Jesus hadn’t read the Old Testament very closely… Anyone with even a minimum of biological knowledge knows that a whale is not a fish and a fish is not a whale” (pp. 142-143).
Such a criticism of Jesus and the Bible writers epitomizes the impotence of skeptics’ attacks on God and His Word. McKinsey bases his criticism solely on an English translation made nearly 1,600 years after Jesus spoke these words. The skeptic never bothered to compare translations. He never asked about the word that Jesus originally spoke or that Matthew recorded. He did nothing but make a cursory criticism that might sound sensible on the surface, yet with only a little investigation, is easily and rationally explained.
What was the underlying Greek word that is translated “whale” in the KJV (as well as a few other versions)? A brief look in various respected Greek dictionaries quickly reveals that the word is ketos and is defined broadly as a “large sea creature” (Newman, 1971, p. 100), “sea monster” (Danker, et al., 2000, p. 544), or “huge fish” (Vine, 1952, p. 209). Jesus indicated that Jonah was swallowed by a “large sea creature,” which was not necessarily a whale, but may have been.
Nearly 300 years before Jesus spoke of Jonah being swallowed by a ketos (Matthew 12:40), translators of the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) used this same Greek word (ketos) to translate the Hebrew word (dahg, fish) found in Jonah 1:17, 2:1, and 2:10. The fact is, as Hebrew and Greek scholar Jack Lewis concluded, both dahg and ketos “designate sea creatures of undefined species” (1976, 2:178). In no way did Jesus, the Creator of all things (John 1:3), make a mistake about what kind of animal God “had prepared” to swallow Jonah. The animal was a great sea creature, and not necessarily a great “fish” according to our modern, more limited, definition of the word. It may very well have been a type of fish (e.g., shark), water-living mammal (e.g., whale), or extinct, dinosaur-like, water-living reptile. We simply cannot be sure. As Dave Miller concluded: “Both the Hebrew and Greek languages lacked the precision to identify with specificity the identity of the creature that swallowed Jonah” (2003).
Finally, one crucial truth that many (especially the Bible critics) miss in a discussion about God and the Bible writers’ naming and classifying of animals is that God did not classify animals thousands of years ago according to our modern classification system. As far back as Creation, God divided animals into very basic, natural groups. He made aquatic and aerial creatures on day five and terrestrial animals on day six (Genesis 1:20-23,24-25). Just as God sensibly classified bats with “birds,” since they both fly (Leviticus 11:13-19; see Lyons, 2009), He could classify whales as “fish,” since they both maneuver by swimming. To accuse Jesus or the Bible writers of incorrectly categorizing an animal based upon Carolus Linnaeus’ 18th-century classification of animals, or any other modern method of classifying animals, is both illogical and unjust.
[NOTE: For more information on the Hebrew and Greek words dahg and ketos, see Miller, 2003.]

REFERENCES

Danker, Frederick William, William Arndt, and F.W. Gingrich, (2000), Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press).
Lewis, Jack P. (1976), The Gospel According to Matthew (Austin, TX: Sweet).
Lyons, Eric (2009), “Did the Bible Writers Commit Biological Blunders?” Reason & Revelation, 29[7]:49-55, July.
McKinsey, Dennis (1995), The Encylopedia of Biblical Errancy (Amherst, NY: Prometheus).
Miller, Dave (2003), “Jonah and the ‘Whale’?” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=69.
Newman, Barclay M., Jr. (1971), A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament(London: United Bible Societies).
Vine, W.E. (1952), An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (Old Tappan, NJ: Revell).
Wells, Steve (2012), Skeptic’s Annotated Bible, http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/whale.html.

The Resurrection of Christ as a Fact of Science by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=4708


The Resurrection of Christ as a Fact of Science

by Kyle Butt, M.Div.


Famed atheist and New York Times bestselling author Sam Harris published a book in 2010 titled The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values. In the book he attempted to show that atheistic materialism can provide a standard by which to judge moral behavior. He failed to prove his point, as we have shown in other places (Butt, 2008), but he did make some telling admissions.
In the introduction, Harris provided an endnote that described his view of the concept of a “fact.” He stated:
For the purposes of this discussion, I do not intend to make a hard distinction between “science” and other intellectual contexts in which we discuss “facts”—e.g., history. For instance, it is a fact that John F. Kennedy was assassinated. Facts of this kind fall within the context of “science,” broadly construed as our best effort to form a rational account of empirical reality. Granted, one doesn’t generally think of events like assassinations as “scientific” facts, but the murder of President Kennedy is as fully corroborated a fact as can be found anywhere, and it would betray a profoundly unscientific frame of mind to deny that it occurred (2010, p. 195).
Harris is exactly right. Events that happened in the past such as assassinations can be every bit as scientific and factual as other types of experiential knowledge. In fact, those of us who believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ have contended for years that direct observation is not necessarily needed to establish it as factual. If the assassination of J.F.K. can be nailed down scientifically and established as a fact, is it not also true that the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus Christ can be equally validated as a scientific fact in the way Harris describes? Certainly it is. (We have established the case for the fact of the resurrection elsewhere, see Butt, 2002.)
“In our best effort to form a rational account of empirical reality” we are forced to conclude that no other series of events offers the explanatory power of the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. The event is recorded in detail in the only book in the world that is proven to be inspired by God. Hundreds of people in the first century saw the resurrected Lord, and testified of such. And the fact is that Jesus’ tomb was empty.These facts and others combine to provide a cumulative scientific case to establish the fact of Jesus’ resurrection.
Of course, Sam Harris would disagree about the resurrection of Christ being a fact. But his insightful discussion of what actually constitutes a scientific fact opens the door for the resurrected Lord to walk through. “And it would betray a profoundly unscientific frame of mind to deny that it occurred.”

REFERENCES

Butt, Kyle (2002), “Jesus Christ—Dead or Alive?” Reason and Revelationhttps://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=10&article=147.
Butt, Kyle (2008), “The Bitter Fruits of Atheism,” Reason and Revelationhttp://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=12&article=2515.
Harris, Sam (2010), The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Value (New York: Free Press).

Assumption-Based Rejection of Design by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=2522

Assumption-Based Rejection of Design

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.


In a recent New Scientist article titled “Evolution: A Guide for the Not-Yet Perplexed,” Michael Le Page expressed great confidence in The General Theory of Evolution, even going so far as to declare, “Evolution is as firmly established a scientific fact as the roundness of the Earth” (2008, 198[2652]:25). Le Page then proceeded to suggest various reasons why evolutionists reject Intelligent Design. After alleging the Earth is 4.5 billion years old (see DeYoung, 2005 and Thompson, 2001 for refutations of this idea), Le Page wrote:
Suppose for a moment that life was designed rather than having evolved. In that case organisms that appear similar might have very different internal workings, just as an LCD screen has a quite different mechanism to a plasma screen. The explosion of genomic research, however, has revealed that all living creatures work in essentially the same way: they store and translate information using the same genetic code, with only a few minor variations in the most primitive organisms (p. 26, emp. added).
Le Page continued: “[I]f organisms had been designed for particular roles, they might be unable to adapt to changing conditions. Instead, countless experiments...show that organisms of all kinds evolve when their environment is altered, provided the changes are not too abrupt” (p. 26, emp. added).
Notice Le Page’s reasons for rejecting Intelligent Design: (1) if life was designed, “organisms...might have very different internal workings,” and (2) designed organisms “might be unable to adapt” to changing environments (p. 26, emp. added). As should be obvious to anyone reading this recent issue of New Scientist, Le Page’s arguments are pure speculation. Neither the similarities in the genetic make-up of living organisms nor the ability of living things to adapt to their environments are reasons to reject design and accept evolution.
Creationists have long recognized similarities among animals and humans. In fact, such similarities (even on a cellular level) should be expected among creatures that drink the same water, eat the same food, breathe the same air, live on the same terrain, etc. But, similarities are just that—similarities. Evolutionists interpret these similarities to mean we all share common ancestors, but they cannot prove it. Likewise, the ability of animals to adapt to their surroundings could just as easily be explained as the product of an omniscient Designer programming life long ago with the ability to adapt to its environment.
New Scientist’s assumption-based rejection of design is completely unsubstantiated. Neither homology nor organisms’ adaptation abilities are proof of The General Theory of Evolution.

REFERENCES

DeYoung, Don (2005), Thousands...Not Billions (Green Forest, AR: Master Books).
Le Page, Michael (2008), “Evolution: A Guide for the Not-Yet Perplexed,” New Scientist, 198[2652]:24-33, April 19.
Thompson, Bert (2001), “The Young Earth,” [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1991.

Christophobia by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=5361


Christophobia

by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


Q:

Are Christians "homophobic"?

A:

The PC crowd regularly and incessantly levels charges of “phobia” against all those who disagree with them on any number of moral issues.1 If you believe the Bible teaches that homosexuality is sinful, you are declared “homophobic” or “lesbophobic”; if you believe Islam is a false religion that endangers the American way of life, you are deemed “Islamophobic”; if you are concerned about the moral and spiritual impact on the nation of those who enter America illegally, you are labeled “xenophobic”; if you believe in the God of the Bible and consider atheism to be false, you are “atheophobic”; if you believe transgenderism is a mental illness, you are demeaned as “transphobic”; and the list goes on.
These charges are unfounded, inaccurate, and untrue. True Christians are not irrationally afraid of such things. Rather, they have given considered analysis to each issue, including a careful assessment of what the Bible teaches (and, generally, what once characterized American civilization), and concluded that these behaviors are immoral and harmful to society. Neither do they fear murderers, thieves, or fornicators. Rather they recognize such behaviors as sinful in God’s sight, unhealthy and detrimental to civil society, and actions that will ultimately cost the practitioner his soul for all eternity (Galatians 5:19-21; Revelation 21:8). True Christians love such people and experience genuine sorrow over their self-destructive condition (Matthew 5:44; 23:37; Ezekiel 18:32).
Yet, error is always inconsistent, hypocritical, and actually guilty of the malady it decries. The same people who fill the airways with their cries of “intolerance!” and “judgmental!” are the very ones who are extremely intolerant, judgmental, and fearful (phobic) of anything or anyone who believes in the Bible and Christianity. Indeed, they are Christophobic—irrationally afraid of and bitterly opposed to the precepts of Christ and the biblical principles on which America was founded.
Satan has always been “slick” in his ability to divert attention away from spiritual reality and generate opposition against the truth—like the Wizard of Oz who said, “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.”2 Sinful, wicked behaviors as defined by Deity are damaging to people physically and spiritually. They cannot be justified or dismissed as trivial simply because those who champion them mischaracterize the righteous as “phobic” or “hateful.” Those who speak against moral, godly principles—and those who defend them—are truly guilty of “hate speech.”
“Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who put darkness for light, and light for darkness” (Isaiah 5:20). “But these, like natural brute beasts made to be caught and destroyed, speak evil of the things they do not understand, and will utterly perish in their own corruption, and will receive the wages of unrighteousness” (2 Peter 2:12-13).
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness…, evil-mindedness; they are…haters of God…, inventors of evil things…, who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them (Romans 1:28-32).

ENDNOTES

1 Tommy Christopher (2016), “Here’s the Full Context of Hillary Clinton’s ‘Basket of Deplorables’ Remark About Trump Supporters,” Mediaite, September 10, https://goo.gl/KivljF.
2 The Wizard of Oz (1939), “Quotes,” http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0032138/quotes.
Suggested Resource

Jesus’ Birth in Bethlehem: Fact or Fiction? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=1101&b=Matthew

Jesus’ Birth in Bethlehem: Fact or Fiction?

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

According to the world’s most celebrated atheist, Richard Dawkins, “the gospels are ancient fiction” (2006, p. 97). They “[a]ll have the status of legends, as factually dubious as the stories of King Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table”—full of “invented, made-up fiction” (pp. 96-97). Dawkins wonders why the “many unsophisticated Christians...who take the Bible very seriously indeed as a literal and accurate record of history and hence as evidence supporting their religious beliefs,” do not “notice those glaring contradictions” in the gospel accounts? (p. 94). What kind of “contradictions,” exactly? Consider the very first one that he mentions, regarding Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem.
Supposedly, Matthew, Luke, and John give conflicting information about where Jesus was born. Dawkins wrote:
A good example of the colouring by religious agendas is the whole heart-warming legend of Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem.... John’s gospel specifically remarks that his followers were surprised that he was not born in Bethlehem.... Matthew and Luke handle the problem differently, by deciding that Jesus must have been born in Bethlehem after all (p. 93, emp. in orig.).
Exactly where did the apostle John indicate that Jesus was “not born in Bethlehem?” Dawkins quoted from John 7:41-42, wherein the apostle recounts how, “Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee? Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?” (KJV, emp. added). Does this passage teach that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem? Not at all. John merely pointed out that some in the crowd who were listening to Jesus asked if the Messiah would come from Galilee or Bethlehem? These individuals knew that Jesus had grown up in Galilee (just as all of the gospel accounts teach: Matthew 2:22-23; Mark 1:24; 10:47; Luke 2:39-40; 4:16; John 1:45-46; 7:27). This group simply made the assumption that, because Jesus had grown up in Galilee, he was born in Galilee. But, that simply was not true (Matthew 2:1; Luke 2:4). These individuals were ignorant of the place of Jesus’ birth.
Similarly, Richard Dawkins is ignorant of what constitutes a genuine contradiction, if he actually believes that this statement in John’s gospel account really contradicts what Matthew and Luke wrote. Were John to write that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem, or that Jesus was born in Galilee, only then would there be a contradiction. But John never wrote that he believed that Jesus was born in Galilee rather than Bethlehem. The apostle merely reported how some of those who listened to Jesus imagined that He was born in Galilee.

REFERENCES

Dawkins, Richard (2006), The God Delusion (New York: Houghton Mifflin).

“They did not receive the love of the truth” by Roy Davison

http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Davison/Roy/Allen/1940/051-LoveTheTruth.html

“They did not receive the love of the truth”
This is said of those who perish: “They did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved” (2 Thessalonians 2:10). How sad! They could have been saved if they had chosen to love the truth!
Someone who does not like the truth, cannot love the Source of truth.
God is the God of truth.
“The truth of the LORD endures for ever!” (Psalm 117:2). “Into Your hand I commit my spirit; You have redeemed me, O LORD God of truth” (Psalm 31:5). How can someone who does not like the truth, love the God of truth?
Jesus is the truth.
“I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me” (John 14:6). How can someone who does not like the truth, love the Son of God? “If anyone does not love the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be accursed” (1 Corinthians 16:22).
When Pilate stood before Christ and asked about His kingdom, Jesus explained: “You say rightly that I am a king. For this cause I was born, and for this cause I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.” Pilate responded, “What is truth?” (John 18:37, 38).
They who are “of the truth” listen to the truth because they love the truth.
God’s word is the truth.
“The entirety of Your word is truth” (Psalm 119:160).
“Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth” (John 17:17).
“The word of truth” is the gospel of our salvation (Ephesians 1:13). “Of His own will He brought us forth by the word of truth” (James 1:18). How can someone who does not like the truth, value the word of God?
Someone who does not like the truth, prefers something false.
The unrighteous suppress the truth.
“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness” (Romans 1:18). “Men of corrupt minds” “resist the truth” (2 Timothy 3:8).
Some pretend that truth does not exist.
In our schizophrenic ‘post-modern’ age, many deny that truth can be known or even that truth exists. (Schizophrenic, because they are absolutely sure that they cannot be sure about anything!)
Jesus said something different: “You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32).
People deny the truth because they want to escape from the truth. They will be lost unless they repent. Paul tells us to correct “those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth” (2 Timothy 2:25). God wants everyone “to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:4).
Some want to “adapt” the gospel to the “post-modern age.” The gospel does not need to be adapted, it just needs to be preached. Post-modernists are dead wrong. They need to repent and accept the truth.
All who do not love the truth will be lost.
Paul, in his second letter to the Thessalonians, explains that people perish when they do not love the truth.
At Thessalonica Christians were being persecuted. Paul assures them that it is “a righteous thing with God to repay with tribulation those who trouble you, and to give you who are troubled rest with us when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, when He comes, in that Day, to be glorified in His saints and to be admired among all those who believe, because our testimony among you was believed” (2 Thessalonians 1:6-10).
Paul affirms that God’s eternal punishment of “those who do not know God” and of “those who do not obey the gospel” “is a righteous thing.”
Paul then discusses “the mystery of lawlessness” and why many are deceived by “the man of sin,” “the son of perdition,” “the lawless one” (2 Thessalonians 2:3-8).
“The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved” (2 Thessalonians 2:9, 10).

“Love of the truth” is essential. All who reject the truth will be lost.
Truth is exclusive. The sum of two plus two is four. No other answer is correct. The number of incorrect answers is unlimited. When someone rejects the truth, the only alternative is to accept something false.
Because they do not love the truth, “God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness” (2 Thessalonians 2:11, 12 ESV). Love “does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth” (1 Corinthians 13:6).
People refuse to believe the truth because they enjoy unrighteousness. They reject the truth because they prefer falsehood. “A strong delusion” sent by God enables them to believe a lie that leads to condemnation.
Sometimes people who do not love God like to listen to God’s word with no intention of obeying it. God told Ezekiel: “So they come to you as people do, they sit before you as My people, and they hear your words, but they do not do them; for with their mouth they show much love, but their hearts pursue their own gain. Indeed you are to them as a very lovely song of one who has a pleasant voice and can play well on an instrument; for they hear your words, but they do not do them” (Ezekiel 33:31, 32).
They listened to Ezekiel for entertainment. It helped them pretend that they loved God.
False teaching tests our love for the truth.
Satan empowers the lawless one to work “signs, and lying wonders” to deceive those who do not love the truth (2 Thessalonians 2:9, 10).
God allows this as a test to reveal who really loves Him. "If there arises among you a prophet or a dreamer of dreams, and he gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder comes to pass, of which he spoke to you, saying, ‘Let us go after other gods’ - which you have not known - ‘and let us serve them,’ you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams, for the LORD your God is testing you to know whether you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. You shall walk after the LORD your God and fear Him, and keep His commandments and obey His voice; you shall serve Him and hold fast to Him” (Deuteronomy 13:1-4).
Someone who loves the truth, relies on God’s word for instruction: “And when they say to you, ‘Seek those who are mediums and wizards, who whisper and mutter,’ should not a people seek their God? Should they seek the dead on behalf of the living? To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them” (Isaiah 8:19, 20). Peter gives the same charge: “If anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God” (1 Peter 4:11).
Someone who loves God does not listen to false teachers. He knows they are false, he knows “there is no light in them” because their words contradict the word of God: they do not “speak according to this word,” they do not “speak as the oracles of God.”
Jesus, comparing Himself to a shepherd, explains: “the sheep follow him, for they know his voice. Yet they will by no means follow a stranger, but will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers” (John 10:4, 5).
Paul warns: “Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them” (Romans 16:17).
Love for the truth leads to salvation.
The saved believe and obey the truth.
We are chosen for salvation “through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth” (2 Thessalonians 2:13). “In obeying the truth” our souls are purified (1 Peter 1:22).
The church of Christ is the pillar of the truth.
I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15).
They who love the truth, proclaim the truth.
Some religious leaders try to please men rather than God. They are entertainers rather than sound preachers of the truth.
Paul warned: “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables” (2 Timothy 4:3, 4).
Timothy was given a solemn charge: “Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching” (2 Timothy 4:2).
I once heard Marshall Keeble explain: “‘In season and out of season’ means you preach it if they like it, and you preach it if they don’t!”
A preacher’s job is to tell people what God says, to “preach the word.” God told Ezekiel: “I am sending you to them, and you shall say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD’” (Ezekiel 3:4); “You shall speak My words to them, whether they hear or whether they refuse” (Ezekiel 2:7).
The truth is powerful!
“The word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart” (Hebrews 4:12).
The power is in the word, not in the eloquence of man. God’s word convicts men of sin, and changes lives when heard by people who love God and the truth.
Many years ago I reprimanded a former classmate because in a recorded sermon he had not quoted or alluded to a single scripture! He explained that he was speaking to unbelievers so did not think they would be interested in what the Bible said!
Paul said something different: “Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Romans 10:17).
Once when visiting relatives in Abilene, Texas, they invited us to a special service on the ACU campus. Many congregations had dismissed Sunday-evening service so members could attend. Some 10,000 were assembled to hear a popular speaker.
He confided that on a Dallas golf course the day before, when a friend asked what he was going to speak about in Abilene, he told him that he did not know yet.
During his 45-minute discourse, he quoted a total of eight words of Scripture, which he misapplied. What was his theme? He told us how great the congregation was for which he preached.
What a wasted opportunity! If someone like Marshall Keeble had spoken, someone who preached the gospel powerfully and without compromise, “if they like it or if they don’t.” No doubt among 10,000, some would not have liked it. But lovers of truth would have been moved by the power of the gospel to give or rededicate their lives to God.
Do we love the truth?
Much depends upon it: our eternal destiny in heaven or hell. Let us love the truth, learn the truth, believe the truth and obey the truth so we can be saved by the God of truth through His Son who is the way, the truth and the life. 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)

All grown up!!! by Gary Rose

Now, there is something you don't see every day- a dog leading himself (herself?) through an intersection!!! What a dog!!!! 

I would like to say that all PEOPLE are capable of directing their lives, but I can't. Our nation has become a nanny-state; a place where the government takes care of you from cradle to grave. The good news is- under president Donald Trump this is slowly changing.

Reflecting upon this picture, I thought of the spiritual application of direction and immediately thought of a passage from the book of Galatians. But, I had to choose the right translation to convey the message...

Galatians, Chapter 3 (Young's Literal Translation)
  19 Why, then, the law? on account of the transgressions it was added, till the seed might come to which the promise hath been made, having been set in order through messengers in the hand of a mediator--  20 and the mediator is not of one, and God is one--  21 the law, then, is against the promises of God? --let it not be! for if a law was given that was able to make alive, truly by law there would have been the righteousness,  22 but the Writing did shut up the whole under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ may be given to those believing.  23 And before the coming of the faith, under law we were being kept, shut up to the faith about to be revealed,  24 so that the law became our child-conductor--to Christ, that by faith we may be declared righteous, 25 and the faith having come, no more under a child-conductor are we, (Emphasis added, vss. 25f.) 26 for ye are all sons of God through the faith in Christ Jesus,  27 for as many as to Christ were baptized did put on Christ;  28 there is not here Jew or Greek, there is not here servant nor freeman, there is not here male and female, for all ye are one in Christ Jesus;  29 and if ye are of Christ then of Abraham ye are seed, and according to promise--heirs.


So, I chose Young's Literal Translation. Where most translations use the english word Tutor, Young uses child-conductor. This most accurately reflects the original language, as the greek word (παιδαγωγον) referred to the slave that had the task of leading a young child around by the hand to provide guidance.

Christians are not under law, but grace. We are not as the immature which need to be hand-led about to do the right thing. We are to be grown up, mature- led by reason and discipline in the knowledge of Christ.

Now, for the hard part! We actually have to grow up!!! So, just do it, Gary!!!!