3/18/20

"STUDIES IN THE MINOR PROPHETS" Haggai - Build The Temple! (1:1-2:23) by Mark Copeland




                    "STUDIES IN THE MINOR PROPHETS"

                 Haggai - Build The Temple! (1:1-2:23)

INTRODUCTION

1. In our survey of "The Minor Prophets", we now jump ahead about 100 years...
   a. Prophets like Zephaniah, Nahum, and Habakkuk prophesied shortly
      before the seventy years of Babylonian captivity (i.e. before 606-536 B.C.)
   b. Following the return under the leadership of Zerubbabel (536 
      B.C.), it was not long before two more prophets were sent to the people of Israel

2. These prophets were Haggai and Zechariah, the first of which we shall consider in this lesson...
   a. Concerning the MAN
      1) His name means "Festival" or "Festive"
      2) What we know of Haggai is limited to his book and references in Ezra (see below)
      3) Together with Zechariah he motivated the Jews in rebuilding the temple
   b. Concerning the MESSAGE
      1) It is commonly dated around 520 B.C. (the second year of King Darius - Hag 1:1)
         a) For the foundation of the temple had been laid shortly 
            after the arrival under the leadership of Zerubbabel (i.e.,536 B.C.) - cf. Ezra 3:8-13
         b) Yet opposition to rebuilding the temple stopped it for 16 years - Ezra 4:1-24
         c) God then raised up Haggai and Zechariah - Ezra 5:1-2; 6:14
      2) The theme of Haggai's preaching:  Build The Temple!
         a) His message contains four separate proclamations
         b) All within four months - cf. Hag 1:1; 2:1,10,20

[As we outline and briefly consider the message of Haggai, we begin by noticing...]

I. A WORD OF REPROOF

   A. BUILDING THE TEMPLE IS LONG OVERDUE...
      1. Haggai takes the Lord's message to Israel's leaders - Hag 1:1
         a. Zerubbabel the governor (who lead the first group of exiles back home)
         b. Joshua the high priest (also known as Jeshua, Ezra 2:1-2, 36,40; 3:2-8)
      2. The Lord takes issue with what the people have been saying - Hag 1:2-4
         a. They have been saying the time is not right to build the temple
         b. The Lord challenged them as to whether they should live in
            paneled houses while the temple lies in ruins
   
   B. THE PEOPLE SHOULD CONSIDER THEIR WAYS...
      1. The Lord challenged them to consider what was happening - Hag 1:5-6
         a. Their efforts were much
         b. But they received little in return
      2. To motivate them in building the temple, their trouble is explained - Hag 1:7-11
         a. They needed to build the temple and thereby glorify God
         b. For their efforts to obtain much for themselves was frustrated by God
            1) They looked for much, but God blew it away
            2) While His house lay in ruins, they were busy building their own
            3) Therefore God had called for a drought on the land and its fruit

   C. THE TESTIMONY OF THE PROPHET IS HEEDED...
      1. With the leadership of Zerubbabel and Joshua the people obeyed - Hag 1:12
      2. The Lord promises to be with them - Hag 1:13
      3. Stirred up by the Lord, Zerubbabel and Joshua lead the remnant
         to resume work on the temple - Hag 1:14-15

[From Hag 1:1,15, we can determine that it took 24 days for the people
to begin rebuilding the temple.  About a month later (cf. Hag 2:1),
another message from the Lord comes by way of Haggai.  This message is...]

II. A WORD OF SUPPORT

   A. ARE THE PEOPLE DISCOURAGED?
      1. Haggai is sent again to Zerubbabel, Joshua, and the faithful remnant - Hag 2:1-2
      2. Those who had seen the former temple in its glory are asked if
         the present temple appears as nothing in comparison - Hag 2:3
      -- The new temple evidently did not compare with the temple built by Solomon

   B. THE LORD PROVIDES A WORD OF ENCOURAGEMENT...
      1. The Lord encourages them to be strong, for He is with them - Hag 2:4-5
      2. The Lord promises to make the glory of this temple greater - Hag 2:6-9
         a. By shaking the nations and having them come to "the Desire of All Nations"
            1) This can be translated "the desired of all nations will
               come", perhaps speaking of the nations bringing their wealth to the temple - cf. Hag 2:8; Isa 60:5
            2) Many see a Messianic reference in this phrase, though no
               reference is so made in the New Testament (He 12:26-27  does make an allusion to verse 6)
         b. By giving peace "in this place"
            1) Some see another Messianic reference in this phrase
            2) Certainly Jesus as the Prince of Peace, came to the temple

[With such a word of encouragement, the people would continue with 
their task of rebuilding the temple.  But all was not well in the eyes
of the Lord; He needed Haggai once again to prophesy to the people, so
two months later (cf. 2:1,10) comes...]

III. A WORD OF EXPLANATION

   A. THE PEOPLE ARE OFFERING A WORK THAT IS UNCLEAN...
      1. Through two questions, the Lord challenges the priests to think - Hag 2:10-13
         a. Can holiness be transferred through casual contact? - No
         b. Can defilement be transferred through casual contact? - Yes
      2. Well, the people are unclean, and what they therefore offer is unclean! - Hag 2:14
         a. Unclean people can't build a holy temple
         b. Therefore, their offering is unclean!

   B. ONCE AGAIN THE PEOPLE ARE ASKED TO CONSIDER...
      1. First, begin considering what God has done in the past - Hag  2:15-17
         a. Before the stone was laid in the temple, things were scarce
         b. The Lord even brought blight, mildew and hail to frustrate their labors, but they did not heed Him
      2. Now, begin considering what God is promising to do - Hag 2:18-19
         a. Begin considering that very day (24th day of the ninth month)
            1) Consider what has occurred from the day the temple's foundation was laid
            2) Is there seed in the barn? (no)  Nor has the produce yielded its fruit
         d. But beginning that very day (24th day of the ninth month), God was going to bless them!

[With such a promise, they would likely repent and build the temple as
they should. To encourage them further, Haggai has one last message...]

IV. A WORD OF PROMISE

   A. GOD WILL OVERTHROW THE KINGDOMS OF THE NATIONS...
      1. This message came at the same time as the third message - Hag 2:20
         a. On the 24th day of the ninth month, of the second year of Darius
         b. Nearly four months after the first message - cf. Hag 1:1
      2. Directed to Zerubbabel, governor of Judah - Hag 2:21-22
         a. God proclaims He will shake heaven and earth
         b. He will overthrow the kingdoms of the Gentiles
         c. This He will do, "everyone by the sword of his brother"
         -- Note:  Just as He did before, using Assyria to punish 
            Israel, Babylon to punish Assyria, Medo-Persia to punish Babylon, etc.

   B. GOD'S SPECIAL PROMISE TO ZERUBBABEL...
      1. In the same day that God will overthrow the nations - Hag 2:23a
      2. God will make Zerubbabel as a signet ring, for God has chosen him - Hag 2:23b
         a. Many see a Messianic reference in this promise
            1) For God calls Zerubbabel "My servant", an expression 
               often used in Isaiah in reference to the Messiah - cf.  Isa 52:13; 53:11
            2) And God says "for I have chosen you" (Messiah means  anointed, chosen)
         b. That as governor of Judah and descendant of David, 
            Zerubbabel represents the Messianic hope that has been 
            renewed and would be ultimately fulfilled with the coming of Jesus!
         -- Note:  With His exaltation to the right hand of God, Jesus
            began to rule the nations "with a rod of iron", as Revelation vividly depicts - Re 1:5; 2:26-27; 3:21; 17:14

CONCLUSION

1. Haggai's message was primarily designed to encourage Zerubbabel and
   the faithful remnant of Israel who had returned from Babylonian captivity...
   a. To finish rebuilding the temple
   b. To do so in a manner that would honor and glorify God
   c. To look to the future with hope and promise

2. Like other books of the Old Testament...
   a. Haggai was "written for our learning" - Ro 15:4
   b. There are lessons that can easily be gleaned from this book, such as:
      1) The importance of putting God first - Hag 1:2-4
      2) The need for every one to work, not just the leaders - Hag 1:12-15
      3) The danger of letting evil contaminate our efforts to serve God - Hag 2:11-14

3. As Christians, we are blessed to be "a holy temple in the Lord" - Ep2:19-22; cf. 1Pe 2:5
   a. The foundation of this temple has been laid
   b. But the need for building upon the foundation continues! 

Living in a highly materialistic society, it may easy for us to neglect
the ongoing construction of the Lord's house.  Perhaps we need to 
remember the words of the Lord through Haggai:

   "Is it time for you yourselves to dwell in your paneled houses, 
   and this temple to lie in ruins?" (Hag 1:4)

If we are indeed guilty of neglecting the Lord's house, then heed also
these words of Haggai:

                           "Consider your ways!"

Did Jesus Break the Sabbath? by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=5155

Did Jesus Break the Sabbath?

by  Dave Miller, Ph.D.

One common misconception regarding the behavior of Jesus is that, on occasion, in healing the sick and performing other benevolent actions, He broke the Sabbath in order to accommodate the higher law of love. This viewpoint leaves the impression that law is sometimes, if not frequently, antithetical to being loving. It implies that sometimes breaking God’s laws is necessary in order to be loving. This notion, of course, is flawed and contrary to Bible teaching. As Paul explained to the Romans: “he who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments…are all summed up in this saying, namely, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law” (Romans 13:8-10). Paul meant that when you obey the law’s directives concerning how to conduct yourself toward your neighbor, you will be engaging in loving behavior. To love, one must enact God’s laws.
The fact is the perfect Son of God obeyed all of God’s laws, never violating even one Divine precept (Hebrews 4:15). Sin is defined as violation of God’s law (1 John 3:4). Since Jesus was sinless, He never broke God’s laws. Hence, He could not have broken the Sabbath. Those who leveled such an accusation against Him were, in fact, mistaken.

the pool

Take, for example, the incident in John 5, when Jesus caused a man, who suffered from a 38-year-old ailment, to rise from his bed of confinement and walk. The fact that Jesus’ action took place on the Sabbath drew the criticism of the Jews who promptly informed the man, “It is the Sabbath; it is not lawful for you to carry your bed” (vs. 10). Many would suppose that Jesus would not be concerned with careful conformity to the Law. They would assume that He would chide the Jews for their “nit-picky, legalistic” approach to religion, and that He would be quite willing to dismiss the requirements of the Law in order to give priority to human need in the name of compassion. But this viewpoint is fraught with error, not the least of which is its demeaning assessment of law—law which God, Himself, authored. Law, according to God, is given for human well-being (Deuteronomy 6:24; 10:13; Proverbs 29:18). God’s law is “holy and just and good” (Romans 7:12), and serves divinely intended, positive purposes (e.g., Romans 3:20). Indeed, Jesus’ handling of His critics illustrates the high regard He had for law, the necessity of carefully conforming to that law, and the critical importance of applying it accurately.
In John 7, calling attention to the miracle He performed in chapter 5, Jesus offered a logical rebuttal to the allegation that He violated the Sabbath. Here is that argument placed in syllogistic form:
Premise 1: If the Law of Moses requires the circumcision of a male infant on the 8th day after birth—even when the 8th day falls on the Sabbath—then healing a man on the Sabbath is equally legal.
Premise 2: The Law of Moses requires the circumcision of a male infant on the 8th day after birth—even when the 8th day fell on the Sabbath.
Conclusion: Therefore, healing a man on the Sabbath is equally legal.
Jesus then offered a concluding admonition that cinched the validity of His argument: “Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment” (vs. 24). Making application of God’s laws based on “appearance” refers to doing so based on how things seem or look to the person making the judgment, i.e., forming an opinion based on inadequate evidence. To the contrary, to “judge with righteous judgment” means to make accurate assessments by drawing only warranted conclusions from the evidence, i.e., thinking and acting rationally. One must be very careful that he is “accurately handling the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15, NASB) and not “handling the word of God deceitfully” (2 Corinthians 4:2).

The Synagogue

Another instance in which Jesus was falsely accused of breaking the Sabbath is seen on the occasion when Jesus entered the synagogue and encountered a man who had a deformed hand (Matthew 12:9-13). This circumstance prompted His enemies to ask Him a question in hopes of being able to accuse Him of breaking the Law. They asked: “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?” Of course, they had pre-decided that the answer to the question was “no,” and that, in fact, the Law would naturally forbid such an action.
Unfortunately, the prevailing interpretation of the Law of Moses at the time, at least among the Jewish leaders, was that the Sabbath law enjoined total inactivity—as if everyone was to sit down for 24 hours and do absolutely nothing. This view was a distortion of God’s Law on the matter. The Law gave the right, even the obligation, to engage in several activities (that could rightly be designated “work”) that did not constitute violation of the Sabbath regulation. On this occasion, Jesus pinpointed one such instance: “What man is there among you who has one sheep, and if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not lay hold of it and lift it out?” (vs. 11). Jesus was recalling a directive from the Law of Moses:
You shall not see your brother’s ox or his sheep going astray, and hide yourself from them; you shall certainly bring them back to your brother. And if your brother is not near you, or if you do not know him, then you shall bring it to your own house, and it shall remain with you until your brother seeks it; then you shall restore it to him. You shall do the same with his donkey, and so shall you do with his garment; with any lost thing of your brother’s, which he has lost and you have found, you shall do likewise; you must not hide yourself. You shall not see your brother’s donkey or his ox fall down along the road, and hide yourself from them; you shall surely help him lift them up again (Deuteronomy 22:1-4; cf. Exodus 23:4-5).
Such passages give insight into the nature of God and provide tremendous assistance in making proper application of God’s laws to everyday circumstances.
Observe that God’s laws never contradict or countermand each other. Unlike manmade laws which often manifest inconsistency and contradiction, God’s laws function in perfect harmony with each other. The Mosaic passage to which Jesus alluded demonstrates that the general principle of the cessation of usual work on the Sabbath did not conflict with any number of specific circumstances in which benevolence and compassion were to be expressed. In an agriculturally based society, a family’s survival depends on its farm animals. If a sheep, ox, or donkey were to break out of its stall, flee the premises, and then fall into a pit from which it would be unable to extricate itself, the animal would most likely die or become seriously ill if left in its predicament for 24 hours. To expend the necessary effort (i.e., “work”) to retrieve the animal from danger was not considered by God to be included in the Sabbath prohibition. Hence, Jesus stated the logical conclusion: “Of how much more value then is a man than a sheep?” (vs. 12). If action could be exerted to see to the well-being of a dumb animal, then obviously, God would approve of action taken to see to the physical care of a human being! Here, once again, is Jesus’ argument placed in syllogistic form:
Premise 1: If the Law of Moses requires a person to manifest care, concern, and physical effort to recover a neighbor’s escaped, endangered farm animal—even when the incident occurs on the Sabbath—then healing a man on the Sabbath is equally legal.
Premise 2: The Law of Moses requires a person to manifest care, concern, and physical effort to recover a neighbor’s escaped, endangered farm animal—even when the incident occurs on the Sabbath.
Conclusion: Therefore, healing a man on the Sabbath is equally legal.
The logic is penetrating and decisive. Indeed, “they could not answer Him regarding these things” (Luke 14:6; see also Luke 6:6-11). Far from suggesting that law is unimportant and may be ignored under the guise of “human need,” or implying that humans can break the “letter of the law” in order to keep the “spirit of the law” (see Miller, 2003), Jesus demonstrated that inherently built into God’s laws are all concerns deemed by Deity to be necessary. The benevolent, loving thing to do will always harmonize with God’s laws, since “love is the fulfillment of the law” (Romans 13:10), i.e., every truly loving action has already been defined by God in His legal admonitions.

The Grain Field

A final instance in which Jesus was accused of breaking the Sabbath is seen in the grain field incident (Matthew 12:1-8). Many commentators automatically assume that the charge leveled against Jesus’ disciples by the Pharisees was a scripturally valid charge. However, when the disciples picked and consumed a few heads of grain from a neighbor’s field, they were doing that which was perfectly lawful (Deuteronomy 23:25). Working would have been a violation of the Sabbath law. If they had pulled out a sickle and begun harvesting the grain, they would have been violating the Sabbath law. However, they were picking strictly for the purpose of eating immediately—an action that was in complete harmony with Mosaic legislation (“but that which everyone must eat”—Exodus 12:16). A modern equivalent might be reaching for a box of cereal on the pantry shelf, pouring it in a bowl, retrieving the milk from the refrigerator, pouring it on the cereal, and eating it. The Pharisees’ charge that the disciples were doing something “not lawful” on the Sabbath was simply an erroneous charge (cf. Matthew 15:2).
Jesus commenced to counter their accusation with masterful, penetrating logic, advancing successive rebuttals. Before He presented specific scriptural refutation of their charge, He first employed a rational device designated by logicians as argumentum ad hominem (literally “argument to the man”). He used the “circumstantial” form of this argument, which enabled Him to “point out a contrast between the opponent’s lifestyle and his expressed opinions, thereby suggesting that the opponent and his statements can be dismissed as hypocritical” (Baum, 1975, p. 470, emp. added). This variety of argumentation spotlights the opponent’s inconsistency, and “charges the adversary with being so prejudiced that his alleged reasons are mere rationalizations of conclusions dictated by self-interest” (Copi, 1972, p. 76).
Observe carefully the technical sophistication inherent in Jesus’ strategy. He called attention to the case of David (vss. 3-4). When David was in exile, literally running for his life to escape the jealous, irrational rage of Saul, he and his companions arrived in Nob, tired and hungry (1 Samuel 21). He lied to the priest and conned him into giving to his traveling companions the showbread, or “bread of the Presence” (12 flat cakes arranged in two rows on the table within the Tabernacle [Exodus 25:23-30; Leviticus 24:5-6])—bread that legally was reserved only for the priests (Leviticus 24:8-9; cf. Exodus 29:31-34; Leviticus 8:31; 22:10ff.). David clearly violated the law. Did the Pharisees condemn him? Absolutely not! They revered David. They held him in high regard. In fact, nearly a thousand years after his passing, his tomb was still being tended (Acts 2:29; cf. 1 Kings 2:10; Nehemiah 3:16; Josephus, 1974a, 13.8.4; 16.7.1; Josephus, 1974b, 1.2.5). On the one hand, they condemned the disciples of Jesus, who were innocent, but on the other hand, they upheld and revered David, who was guilty. Their inconsistency betrayed both their insincerity as well as their ineligibility to bring a charge against the disciples.
After exposing their hypocrisy and inconsistency, Jesus next turned to answer the charge pertaining to violating the Sabbath. He called their attention to the priests who worked in the Temple on the Sabbath (12:5; e.g., Numbers 28:9-10). The priests were “blameless”—not guilty—of violating the Sabbath law because their work was authorized to be performed on that day. As previously noted, the Sabbath law did not imply that everyone was to sit down and do nothing. The Law gave the right, even the obligation, to engage in several activities that did not constitute violation of the Sabbath regulation. Again, examples of such authorization included eating, Temple service, circumcision (John 7:22), tending to the basic care of animals (Exodus 23:4-5; Deuteronomy 22:1-4; Matthew 12:11; Luke 13:15), and extending kindness or assistance to the needy (Matthew 12:12; Luke 13:16; 14:1-6; John 5:5-9; 7:23). The divinely authorized Sabbath activity of the priests proved that the accusation of the Pharisees brought against Jesus’ disciples was false. [The term “profane” (vs. 5) is an example of the figure of speech known as metonymy of the adjunct in which “things are spoken of according to appearance, opinions formed respecting them, or the claims made for them” (Dungan, 1888, p. 295, emp. added). By this figure, Leah was said to be the “mother” of Joseph (Genesis 37:10), Joseph was said to be the “father” of Jesus (Luke 2:48; John 6:42), God’s preached message was said to be “foolishness” (1 Corinthians 1:21), and angels were said to be “men” (e.g., Genesis 18:16; 19:10). Priestly activity on the Sabbath gave the appearance of violation when, in fact, it was not. Coincidentally, Bullinger classified the allusion to “profane” in this verse as an instance of catachresis, or incongruity, stating that “it expresses what was true according to the mistaken notion of the Pharisees as to manual works performed on the Sabbath” (1898, p. 676, emp. added).]
After pointing out the obvious legality of priestly effort expended on the Sabbath, Jesus stated: “But I say to you that in this place there is One greater than the temple” (12:6). The underlying Greek text actually has “something” instead of “One.” If priests could carry on Tabernacle/Temple service on the Sabbath, surely Jesus’ own disciples were authorized to engage in service in the presence of the Son of God! After all, service directed to the person of Jesus certainly is greater than the pre-Christianity Temple service conducted by Old Testament priests.
For all practical purposes, the discussion was over. Jesus had disproved the claim of the Pharisees. But He did not stop there. He took His methodical confrontation to yet another level. He penetrated beneath the surface argument that the Pharisees had posited and focused on their hearts: “But if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless” (12:7). In this verse, Jesus quoted from an Old Testament context (Hosea 6:6) in which the prophet of old struck a blow against the mere external, superficial, ritualistic observance of some laws, to the neglect of heartfelt, sincere, humble attention to other laws while treating people properly. The comparison is evident. The Pharisees who confronted Jesus’ disciples were not truly interested in obeying God’s law. They were masquerading under that pretense (cf. Matthew 15:1-9; 23:3). But their problem did not lie in an attitude of desiring careful compliance with God’s law. Rather, their zest for law keeping was hypocritical and unaccompanied by their own obedience and concern for others. They possessed critical hearts and were more concerned with scrutinizing and blasting people than with honest, genuine applications of God’s directives for the good of mankind.
They had neutralized the true intent of divine regulations, making void the Word of God (Matthew 15:6). They had ignored and skipped over the significant laws that enjoined justice, mercy, and faith (Matthew 23:23). Consequently, though their attention to legal detail was laudable, their misapplication of it, as well as their own neglect and rejection of some aspects of it, made them inappropriate and unqualified promulgators of God’s laws. Indeed, they simply did not fathom the teaching of Hosea 6:6 (cf. Micah 6:6-8). “I will have mercy, and not sacrifice” is a Hebraism (cf. Matthew 9:13) [McGarvey, 1875, pp. 82-83]. God was not saying that He did not want sacrifices offered under the Old Testament economy (notice the use of “more” in Hosea 6:6). Rather, He was saying that He did not want sacrifice alone. He wanted mercy with sacrifice. Internal motive and attitude are just as important to God as the external compliance with specifics.
Samuel addressed this same attitude shown by Saul: “Has the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed than the fat of rams” (1 Samuel 15:22). Samuel was not minimizing the essentiality of sacrifice as required by God. Rather, he was convicting Saul of the pretense of using one aspect of God’s requirements, i.e., alleged “sacrifice” of the best animals (1 Samuel 15:15), as a smoke screen for violating God’s instructions, i.e., failing to destroy all the animals (1 Samuel 15:3). If the Pharisees had understood these things, they would not have accused the disciples of breaking the law when the disciples, in fact, had not done so. They “would not have condemned the guiltless” (Matthew 12:7, emp. added).
While the disciples were guilty of violating an injunction that the Pharisees had concocted (supposing the injunction to be a genuine implication of the Sabbath regulation), the disciples were not guilty of a violation of Sabbath law. The Pharisees’ propensity for enjoining their uninspired and erroneous interpretations of Sabbath law upon others was the direct result of cold, unmerciful hearts that found a kind of sadistic glee in binding burdens upon people for burdens’ sake rather than in encouraging people to obey God genuinely.
Jesus placed closure on His exchange with the Pharisees on this occasion by asserting the accuracy of His handling of this entire affair: “For the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath” (vs. 8). In other words, Jesus affirmed His deity and, therefore, His credentials and authoritative credibility for making accurate application of the Law of Moses to the issue at hand. One can trust Jesus’ exegesis and application of Sabbath law; after all, He wrote it!
Matthew 12 does not teach that Jesus broke the Sabbath or sanctions occasional violation of His laws under extenuating circumstances. His laws are never optional, relative, or situational—even though people often find God’s will inconvenient and difficult (e.g., John 6:60; Matthew 11:6; 15:12; 19:22; Mark 6:3; 1 Corinthians 1:23). The truth of the matter is that if the heart is receptive to God’s will, His will is “easy” (Matthew 11:30), “not too hard” (Deuteronomy 30:11), nor “burdensome” (1 John 5:3). If, on the other hand, the heart resists His will and does not desire to conform to it, then God’s words are “offensive” (Matthew 15:12), “hard,” (John 6:60), “narrow” (Matthew 7:14), and like a hammer that breaks in pieces and grinds the resister into powder (Jeremiah 23:29; Matthew 21:44).

Conclusion

The religion of Christ surpasses all human religion. It is rooted in the very essence of Deity. When Jesus took on human form on Earth, He showed Himself to be the Master logician and exegete Who always conducted Himself in a rational manner and conformed His actions to divine law. May we do likewise.
[NOTE: For more on Jesus’ handling of the Sabbath, see Miller, 2004.]

REFERENCES

Baum, Robert (1975), Logic (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston).
Bullinger, E.W. (1898), Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1968 reprint).
Copi, Irving (1972), Introduction To Logic (New York: Macmillan).
Dungan, D.R. (1888), Hermeneutics (Delight, AR: Gospel Light).
Josephus, Flavius (1974a reprint), Antiquities of the Jews (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Josephus, Flavius (1974b reprint), Wars of the Jews (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
McGarvey, J.W. (1875), Commentary on Matthew and Mark (Delight, AR: Gospel Light).
Miller, Dave (2003), “The Spirit and Letter of the Law,” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1225.
Miller, Dave (2004), “Situation Ethics—Extended Version,” Apologetics Press, https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=645&topic=38.

Did God Approve of the Extermination of Humans? by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=946

Did God Approve of the Extermination of Humans?

by  Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Skeptics have been especially critical of the Bible’s portrayal of God ordering the execution of entire populations—including women and children—during the Israelite conquest of Canaan. The Hebrew term herem found, for instance, in Joshua 5:7, refers to the total dedication or giving over of the enemy to God as a sacrifice, involving the extermination of the populace. It is alleged that the God of the Bible is as barbaric and cruel as any of the pagan gods. But this assessment simply is not true. Please consider the following observations.
In the first place, in the Decalogue that was given to the Israelites, the command, “Thou shalt not kill” (Exodus 20:13) undoubtedly referred to murder. It is so translated in most English versions (e.g., NKJV, NIV, NASB, etc.). In other words, the Old Covenant given to the Jews forbade taking the law into one’s own hands and murdering one’s fellow man. The Law of Moses certainly never intended for this commandment to be understood that the taking of human life always is wrong, regardless of the circumstance. In fact, the law itself made provision for implementing the death penalty in at least sixteen cases (see Miller, 2002). But these provisions entailed judicial execution based upon due process—not murder (even as it exists in our own society). The wording of Leviticus 24:17 (“Whoever kills any man shall surely be put to death”) clarifies this point. The passage forbids taking life by individuals who are acting without legal authority—which, itself, brought the death penalty. Both murder and the death penalty are in the same verse, verifying the necessity of making a distinction between the two. God, Himself, implemented the death penalty directly on various people throughout human history (as evinced in the 1 Samuel 6:19 list), and required others to do it (as in 1 Samuel 15).
In the second place, if the critic would take the time to study the Bible and make an honest evaluation of the principles of God’s justice, wrath, and love, he or she would see the perfect and harmonious relationship between them. God’s vengeance is not like the impulsive, irrational, emotional outbursts of pagan deities or human beings. He is perfect in all His attributes. He possesses His attributes to a perfect degree, and each attribute exists in perfect balance and synchronization with every other attribute—a perfect blending. He therefore is perfect in justice, love, and anger. Just as God’s ultimate and final condemnation of sinners to eternal punishment will be just and appropriate (Matthew 13:41-42; 25:41), so this temporal judgment of wicked people in the Old Testament is ethical and fair. Human beings do not have an accurate grasp on the gravity of sin and the deplorable nature of evil and wickedness. Human sentimentality is hardly a qualified measuring stick for divine truth and spiritual reality.
Ironically, the atheist, the agnostic, the skeptic, and the liberal attempt to stand in judgment on the ethical behavior of God when, if their position is correct, there is no such thing as an absolute, objective, authoritative standard by which to pronounce anything right or wrong! As the French existentialist philosopher, Jean Paul Sartre, admitted: if there is no God, everything is permitted. The atheist and agnostic have absolutely no platform on which to stand from which to make moral or ethical distinctions—except as the result of subjective, purely personal preference. The very fact that they concede the existence of objective evil is an unwitting concession that there is a God Who has established an absolute framework of moral certainty.
The facts of the matter are that the Canaanites, whom God’s people were commanded to destroy, were destroyed for their own wickedness (Deuteronomy 9:4; 18:9-12; Leviticus 18:24-25,27-28). Canaanite culture and religion in the second millennium B.C. were polluted, corrupt, and unbelievably perverted. No doubt the people were physically diseased from their illicit behavior. There simply was no viable solution to their condition except destruction. Their moral depravity was “full” (Genesis 15:16). They had slumped to such an immoral, depraved state, with no hope of recovery, that their existence on this Earth had to be ended. A similar predicament existed in Noah’s day when God waited while Noah preached for years but was unable to divert the world’s population from its wickedness (Genesis 6:3,5-7; 1 Peter 3:20; 2 Peter 3:5-9). Including the children in the destruction of such populations actually spared them from a worse condition—that of being reared to be as wicked as their parents, thereby facing eternal punishment. All persons who die in childhood, according to the Bible, are ushered to Paradise and, ultimately will reside in heaven. Children with evil parents must naturally suffer innocently while on Earth (e.g., Exodus 20:5; Numbers 14:33).
Those who disagree with God’s annihilation of the wicked in the Old Testament have the same liberal attitude that has prevailed in society for the last forty years. That attitude typically has opposed capital punishment as well as the corporal punishment of children. Such a person simply cannot see the rightness of evildoers being punished by execution or physical pain. This aberrant view has resulted in the rest of society being forced to live with the outcome of such skewed thinking, i.e., undisciplined, out-of-control children who grow to adulthood and wreak havoc on society by perpetrating crime—crime that has risen to historically all-time high levels.

REFERENCES

Miller, Dave (2002), “Capital Punishment and the Bible,” http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1974.

REVEREND AND HOLY IS HIS NAME by steve finnell

http://steve-finnell.blogspot.com/2017/04/reverend-and-holy-is-his-name-by-steve.html

REVEREND AND HOLY IS HIS NAME by steve finnell

Worship Defined: reverent honor and homage paid to God or sacred personage...
Psalm 111:9 He sent redemption unto his people: he hath commanded his covenant for ever: holy and reverend is his name. (KJV)

God's name is holy and reverend. The question, are the names of preachers, priests, popes, elders, bishops, deacons, and pastors, reverend and holy. Do they deserved to be worshiped? Do they deserve the title of Reverend or Holy Father?

John 17:11 I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father.....(NIV)

Jesus refers to God as Holy Father. Nowhere in Scripture is any person mention as Holy Father.

Acts 10:25,26 As Peter entered the house, Cornelius met him and fell at his feet in reverence. 26 But Peter made him get up. "Stand up," he said, "I am only a man myself." (NIV)

Peter did not accept worship from Cornelius. Peter was not a Reverend nor was he a Holy Father.

Those who like to be called Reverend or Holy Father would say, well that is just a term of respect. No, calling someone sir, is a term of respect.

Reverend and Holy Father are terms of worship. They are reserved for God alone.

There is no Scripture in the Bible that refers to any apostle, pastor, bishop, elder, nor the Virgin Mary as being worthy of worship. Only God should be revered.

What are Spiritual Disciplines? by Roy Davison





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


What are Spiritual Disciplines?

The Scriptures do not mention ‘spiritual disciplines’. The word ‘discipline’ does occur in the Bible, but with a different meaning.

Biblical discipline

Discipline is chastisement to discourage improper behavior. Parents discipline their children and God disciplines His children: “He who spares his rod hates his son, but he who loves him disciplines him promptly” (Proverbs 13:24); “You should know in your heart that as a man chastens his son, so the LORD your God chastens you” (Deuteronomy 8:5); “For whom the LORD loves He chastens, and scourges every son whom He receives” (Hebrews 12:6; see verses 5-11); “As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten. Therefore be zealous and repent” (Revelation 3:19).

One can discipline himself: “When I wept and chastened my soul with fasting, that became my reproach” (Psalm 69:10); “But I discipline my body and bring it into subjection, lest, when I have preached to others, I myself should become disqualified” (1 Corinthians 9:27).

A religious standard of conduct

The word ‘discipline’ in the expression ‘spiritual disciplines’ refers to a religious standard of conduct. This usage originates, not from the Bible, but from eastern religions and Roman Catholic mysticism.

The Buddhist ‘Vinaya’ can be translated as the Buddhist ‘Discipline’. A Buddhist monk must observe 227 training rules. A regular Buddhist has five rules.

Hindu and Catholic monasteries also have their ‘disciplines’ consisting of training rules, prohibitions, allowances and regulations that govern daily conduct.

In this sense, a discipline is a regimentation involving a technique or methodology intended to accomplish greater spirituality and closeness to God.

Mysticism involves spiritual ‘exercises’ that supposedly bring one closer to God in a direct personal ‘better felt than told’ way.

Disciplines almost always involve an hierarchy. One has a ‘spiritual director’ or ‘spiritual mentor’ who is supposedly more advanced and closer to God who helps one with his ‘spiritual formation’. This violates the command of Christ: “But you, do not be called ‘Rabbi’; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ” (Matthew 23:8-10). No one but Jesus is qualified to be our spiritual director or spiritual mentor. Anyone who sets himself up as such is a usurper.

Disciplines are usually elitist. Those who practice the disciplines consider themselves ‘more spiritual’ and ‘closer to God’ than others who do not practice them.

Disciplines are attractive to many people because they promise increased spirituality and communion with God.
By studying and applying the Scriptures we can accomplish these worthy goals. We can exercise ourselves toward godliness (1 Timothy 4:7). We can “grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 3:18).
Disciplines, however, promise increased spirituality by means of humanly devised practices. Disciplines usually make reference to certain portions of Scripture, sometimes validly but often accompanied by misinterpretation. In substance, however, they are human formulations.
What did Jesus say about this approach to religion? “Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying: ‘These people draw near to Me with their mouth, and honor Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men’” (Matthew 15:7-9).

Disciplines have an appearance of wisdom but are worthless

In the first century some who were “vainly puffed up by their fleshly mind” (Colossians 2:18) were trying to impose their rules and regulations on Christians. Paul responded: “Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations -- ‘Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,’ which all concern things which perish with the using -- according to the commandments and doctrines of men? These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh” (Colossians 2:20-23).

What is the source of these ideas?

In the Catholic church, each order has its own discipline. You can take your pick: Augustinians (several different kinds), Carmelites (two kinds: with bare feet in sandals or with shoes and socks), Franciscans (several different kinds), Dominicans, Carthusians, Hieronymites, Cistercians, Trappists (the strictest branch of the Cistercians), Baladites, Benedictines, Basilians.
Non-Catholics in general have claimed that the whole Bible is their ‘rule of conduct’ not a set of man-made rules of devotion.

Certain groups, however, such as the Quakers are mystic religions with man-made rules and regulations (‘The Discipline of the Society of Friends’) intended to increase morality and communion with God. Quakers have periods of silence in their assemblies when they ‘wait for The Inward Teacher to speak to them’. They call this ‘expectant waiting’. When someone ‘gets a message’ they (men or women) stand up and pass the message on to the others. This message is viewed as coming from God.

The concept of ‘the Spiritual Disciplines’ was promoted by the Quaker, Richard J. Foster in his 1978 book, ‘Celebration of Discipline, the Path to Spiritual Growth’. He praised Medieval Catholic mystics who, according to him, had a closeness to God that we cannot attain unless we use similar techniques. Since ‘the Spiritual Disciplines’ do not come from the Bible, each proponent has his own list. Foster sub-divided them into ‘inward, outward and corporate’. Dallas Willard sub-divides his list into ‘Disciplines of Abstinence’ and ‘Disciplines of Engagement’. Another influential writer is Donald Whitney with his book ‘Disciplines for the Christian Life’ (Colorado Springs: Navpress, 1991). Existential mysticism is advocated by some: develop your own set of practices that work for you.

Each writer has his own list of ‘the spiritual disciplines’. Prayer is included but mystic ‘prayer’ is different from Biblical prayer. A mystic thinks God speaks directly to him when he prays. Other ‘disciplines’ such as simplicity, solitude and silence are borrowed from Catholic mystics such as the Trappist Cistercians. Each of these items is mentioned in Scripture in distinctive contexts, but they are never presented as ‘spiritual disciplines’.

For the mystic, silence is not just silence. Tilden Edwards, founder of the ‘Shalem Institute for Spiritual Formation’ writes: “In its fullness silence itself is participation in God’s being, which is the depth of our own being.” He quotes John of the Cross that ‘silence is God’s first language’, and Mother Teresa that ‘silence is God speaking to us’, and Meister Eckhart that ‘there is nothing so like God as silence’. He concludes: “Silence thus is living, pregnant, sacred space.” Contemplative Possibilities in Corporate Worship/Liturgy by Tilden Edwards.

‘Contemplative Spirituality’ has been promoted in various forms among churches of Christ. Lipscomb University has an ‘Institute for Christian Spirituality’ with a ‘Spiritual Direction’ program led by Associate Director Jackie L. Halstead. Their brochure states: “She holds certificates from two programs with the Shalem Institute -- ‘Spiritual Guidance’ and ‘Leading Contemplative Prayer Groups and Retreats’, and is a member of the Lay Cistercians of Gethsemani Abbey.”

The web site of the latter states: “The Abbey of Gethsemani” follows “Christ under a rule and an abbot. We Trappist monks lead lives of prayer, work, and sacred reading, steeped in the heart and mystery of the Church. The Abbey is a monastery in the Order of the Cistercians of the Strict Observance (OCSO), part of the body of the Roman Catholic Church.” Notice that they follow Christ “under a rule and an abbot”. Their rule is the ‘Rule of Benedict’ which consists of 73 chapters.

Jackie “is a member of the Lay Cistercians of Gethsemani Abbey.” This is what their web site says about membership: “We welcome any Christian adult who feels called to live a lay contemplative lifestyle in the spirit of the Rule of St. Benedict and the Cistercian tradition.”

The Shalem Institute for Spiritual Formation states the following about their mission: “We trust that God is immediately present, and lovingly, liberatingly active and responsive in our lives. This Presence is always available to guide us toward being our deepest, truest selves in God.”

Mr. William C. Dietrich, who was Executive Director and Senior Faculty Member of the ‘Shalem Institute for Spiritual Formation’ for many years, is a Quaker who is also a council officer (the treasurer) of the ‘Silver Spring Zendo One Heart Sangha’, a Buddhist congregation.

The difference between mystic prayer and Biblical prayer

Not only is the whole idea of having humanly devised rules and practices condemned by the Bible, but mystic prayer expects direct guidance from God at the time of prayer. Did you notice this in the quotation from the Shalem Institute? “God is immediately present ... This Presence is always available to guide us toward being our deepest, truest selves in God.”

Jesus taught His followers how to pray (Luke 11:1-4). Paul wrote: “Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication, with thanksgiving, let your requests be made known to God” (Philippians 4:6).

Mystic prayer includes being silent and listening for what God wants to whisper to you. Another designation for ‘listening prayer’ is ‘contemplative prayer’. Often, people are encouraged to have a notepad with them when they pray to write down anything God might tell them. This is called ‘journaling’.

Stacey S. Padrick in ‘The Listening Side of Prayer’ says there are two techniques for listening to God. One is through His word. The other is by ‘journaling’. He suggests that we write out questions for God, meditate in silence, and then write down the responses that come in answer to the questions. He suggests that we should then discuss these replies with other believers to discern whether they are really from God!

Such a ridiculous idea is not found in the Scriptures. We make our requests known to God in prayer. He speaks to us through the holy Scriptures which equip the man of God for every good work. We do read about people who walk “according to the dictates of their own hearts” (Jeremiah 9:14) and prophets who “speak a vision of their own hearts” (Jeremiah 23:16, 26; Ezekiel 13:2, 17).

We must observe the warning and statement of Paul: “But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 2:13-17).

Beware of mystic Bible study

In connection with ‘Contemplative Spirituality’ a subjective approach to Bible study is often advocated. After reading a passage, the mystic waits and ‘opens his heart' to hear what God wants to tell him about that passage. This is promoted as being ‘God-centered Bible study’ but it is actually ‘man centered’. Certainly it is good to consider what a passage means and how it ought to be applied in one’s life. But God speaks in and through the Scriptures, not separately afterwards! If it is not in the Scriptures, it is not from God. If you long for something more than the Scriptures, you are opening up your heart, not to God, but to your own imaginations and even to satanic influences.
This approach is called ‘Transformative Bible Study’. This is how Rhonda Lowry (wife of the president of Lipscomb University) says she prepares for such study, as reported by John Mark Hicks in his blog of July 8, 2008:
“Before we can read Scripture transformatively, we must settle ourselves. We must rid ourselves of the busy-ness of life, focus on the task at hand, and seek God.
“I seek this with some meditative breathing exercises and prayer. To encounter God in the present, we need to be ‘in’ the present (rather than letting our mind wander back to the past or planning the future). I find the easiest way to do this for me is to pray the ‘Jesus prayer’ with rhythmic breathing. As I inhale I address Jesus with these words ‘Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God,’ and as I exhale I pray ‘have mercy on me, a sinner.’ I do this repeatedly until calm enters my soul, everything else is excluded from my consciousness, and I sense some focus on God’s comforting presence. It is an experience of calm. This prepares me to hear the text.”

Where in the holy Scriptures, which equip the man of God completely for every good work (2 Timothy 3:17), are we instructed to prepare for prayer or Bible study by means of breathing exercises?

Mysticism downplays doctrine
Jesus said: “If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 3:31, 32). John warned: “Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son” (2 John 9).
A mystic tends to consider doctrinal soundness unimportant because he thinks he can commune directly with God in silence without words.
Mystics of widely differing doctrinal backgrounds (even including heathen mystics) often feel a closer bond with one another than they feel with non-mystics in their own fellowship.
Referring to the ‘Shalem Institute for Spiritual Formation’, which is composed of mystics from many different religious denominations, Jackie Halstead wrote in her blog on October 16, 2010: “Next leg was five days at the Shalem gathering in Maryland. How do I describe this community of believers? My faith community, soul friends, people of my heart.”
Mysticism gives false hope. Many of the people at Shalem have never been born again according to the teaching of Christ. Yet, they all think they have close communion with God! They also think they are more spiritual than others who have been “born again of water and the Spirit” (John 3:5) but who do not espouse ‘contemplative spirituality’.
The Mystic Theologian Adolphe Tanquerey writes that mental prayer “is the most effective means of assuring one's salvation” (The Spiritual Life, A Treatise on Ascetical and Mystical Theology, #673).
Ritualism and mysticism enable people to feel close to God when their hearts are far from Him: “These people draw near to me with their mouths and honor Me with their lips, but have removed their hearts far from Me, and their fear toward Me is taught by the commandment of men” (Isaiah 29:13).
‘Spiritual disciplines’ are unspiritual
The Holy Spirit commands us through Peter: “If anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God” (1 Peter 4:11). Since ‘Spiritual Disciplines’ are not in the Scriptures, they are not beneficial for spiritual growth. God condemns subjection to human disciplines and designates them as unspiritual, ‘basic principles of the world’ (Colossians 2:20-23).

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)

kindness by Gary Rose



I really like this picture because it is a very thoughtful gift (except the cruise brochure). This Corona virus business is so bad that nobody would want to take a cruise now. Recently, I have been hearing about people panicking in stores over supplies that are in short supply, like disinfectant or toilet paper. Because of this I thought I would show someone doing something nice for others, a serendipity if you will.

Jesus said:
Matthew 10:42 ( World English Bible )
...Whoever gives one of these little ones just a cup of cold water to drink in the name of a disciple, most certainly I tell you he will in no way lose his reward.” 

Paul said:
Galatians 6 ( WEB )
[10] So then, as we have opportunity, let’s do what is good toward all men, and especially toward those who are of the household of the faith.

One last passage from the Gospel of Luke, chapter 10 ( WEB ):
 [29]  But he, desiring to justify himself, asked Jesus, “Who is my neighbor?” 
  [30]  Jesus answered, A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who both stripped him and beat him, and departed, leaving him half dead.   [31]  By chance a certain priest was going down that way. When he saw him, he passed by on the other side.   [32]  In the same way a Levite also, when he came to the place, and saw him, passed by on the other side.   [33]  But a certain Samaritan, as he traveled, came where he was. When he saw him, he was moved with compassion,   [34]  came to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. He set him on his own animal, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.   [35]  On the next day, when he departed, he took out two denarii, and gave them to the host, and said to him, ‘Take care of him. Whatever you spend beyond that, I will repay you when I return.’   [36]  Now which of these three do you think seemed to be a neighbor to him who fell among the robbers?” 

  [37]He said, “He who showed mercy on him.” 

Then Jesus said to him, Go and do likewise.” 

Even if everyone around you panics, do good to others. Show yourself to be a true follower of Jesus and do the right thing towards others. Your kindness will speak well of your commitment to Jesus! Just do it!