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

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=4184

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

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Jesus’ views of divorce and remarriage are really quite concise and comprehensible. Putting a mate away and marrying another can be undertaken honorably in God’s sight only on the grounds that that mate has been sexually unfaithful (Matthew 19:9). Despite the simplicity of such statements from God, there have always been individuals who would rather try to justify themselves or others instead of humbly submitting to divine standards (cf. Luke 10:29; 16:15). In the case of the Pharisees, they stubbornly threw up to Jesus their Old Testament justification for refusing to accept the stringency of God’s law of marriage, divorce, and remarriage: “Why then did Moses...?”(Matthew 19:7). In like manner, in an effort to side step the clear thrust of New Testament teaching regarding the sinfulness of adulterous marriages and the need for the parties involved to sever the sinful relationship, some today stubbornly appeal to the Old Testament case of David and Bathsheba: “If God requires marriages to be severed today, why was David permitted to keep Bathsheba?”

The following observations merit consideration:

First, there is no parallel between the adulterous marriages being defended today and the relationship sustained by David and Bathsheba. It is true that David’s affair with Bathsheba while her husband was at the battle front constituted adultery. However, he did not further complicate or solidify his adultery by marrying her. She returned to her own home (2 Samuel 11:4). The two apparently had no intentions of further complicating their sin by forming an adulterous marital union. Instead, when Bathsheba notified David that she was pregnant, David made every effort to hide the sin by making it appear as if Uriah was the father of the child (2 Samuel 11:6-13). Repentance at this stage of the situation would entail David’s confession of his sin and his determination to never repeat such illicit behavior. David could have devised some other plan, say, the banishment of Uriah for some breach of military regulations. With Uriah expelled from the land, he could have then taken Bathsheba as his own wife. In such a case, David would have been living in adultery, and the only divinely-approved course of action would have been to sever the marriage relationship. But David did not do this. When his efforts failed, he decided the way he could “cover his tracks” was to bring about Uriah’s death (2 Samuel 11:14-15). To the sin of adultery, he added murder.

Notice that David was not going through all this rigmarole in order to free Bathsheba to be married to himself, but to keep Uriah from finding out that his wife was pregnant by another man. Thus the argument that states, “You’re saying a person ought to murder the mate of the individual that they wish to be married to,” holds no validity in this discussion. By definition, adultery entails sexual relations with a person whose scriptural mate is still living. Notice God’s own words on this matter:

For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man (Romans 7:2-3, NKJV).

However inappropriate David’s action after the death of Uriah may have been, his marriage to Bathsheba was not adultery and is therefore not parallel to the illicit marriages contracted by so many today whose former mates are still living.

Second, why would we wish to go to David and Bathsheba for insight into acceptable divorce and remarriage practices, anyway? Even when Scripture does not specifically condemn a certain action, we should not necessarily assume that God condones or approves it. There are numerous instances of improper behavior in the Old Testament that are in no way intended to be used today as justification for similar behavior today. Abraham (Genesis 12:13), Isaac (Genesis 26:7), and Jacob (Genesis 27:19) all behaved deceptively. Judah committed fornication (Genesis 38:18). Moses failed to trust in God as he should have (Numbers 20:12). Are these instances appropriate examples to emulate? David, himself, was guilty of additional violations of God’s law. He desecrated the tabernacle by entering and unlawfully consuming consecrated bread (1 Samuel 21:1-6; Matthew 12:3-4). He neglected Mosaic regulations concerning proper transport and treatment of the ark (2 Samuel 6; 1 Chronicles 15:13). His reliance upon troop strength (as evidenced in his military census) cost 70,000 people their lives (2 Samuel 24:15). Such instances as these are intended to remind us of the necessity to adhere strictly to God’s instructions (Romans 15:4). They are certainly not designed to encourage us to relax our own ethical behavior on the grounds that others did so in the Old Testament! Though at one time David was truly “a man after God's own heart” (1 Samuel 13:14; Acts 13:22), his behavior later in life demonstrates that he drifted from this ideal.

Third, by employing the same logic as those who fumble for the case of David and Bathsheba to justify the continuance of adulterous unions today, one could just as easily make a case for the permissibility of polygamy today. Bathsheba was only one of several wives (cf. 1 Samuel 18:27; 25:42-­43; 1 Chronicles 3:2-5). Maybe Joseph Smith, with his 28+ wives, was nearer to the truth than we have previously supposed?

Fourth, David and Bathsheba are not intended as models for ascertaining God’s requirements concerning divorce and remarriage today in any sense. For the Scriptures are exceedingly explicit concerning God’s feelings about the whole sordid affair: “But the thing that David had done displeased the Lord” (2 Samuel 11:27). He did not have to sever the marital relationship with Bathsheba since her husband was dead and she was released from that law (Romans 7:2). However, God brought down upon David untold misery and unpleasant consequences to punish David, as well as instruct us concerning His true view of such iniquity. Three direct consequences were inflicted upon David: (1) Nathan said the sword would never depart from David’s house (2 Samuel 12:10), fulfilled in the successive violent deaths of at least three sons—Amnon (2 Samuel 13:29), Absalom (2 Samuel 18:14), and Adonijah (1 Kings 2:25); (2) Nathan also declared to David that his own wives would be shamefully misused in broad daylight before all Israel by someone close to him (2 Samuel 12:11), distastefully fulfilled when Absalom “lay with his father's concubines in the sight of all Israel” (2 Samuel 16:22); (3) Further, Nathan pronounced the fatal fate of the son conceived by David’s sin with Bathsheba (2 Samuel 12:14), fulfilled seven days after Nathan’s judgment sentence (2 Samuel 12:18). All of this detailed narration suggests that we have missed a major point if we seek to justify illicit behavior today on the grounds that “David did it.”

Friends, let us not scrape the bottom of the proverbial barrel in a desperate attempt to come up with just any argument to defend our position. Let us weigh biblical data fairly, rightly handling the Word of truth, and drawing only those conclusions that are warranted by the evidence (1 Thessalonians 5:21). Only then can we be approved in God’s sight (2 Timothy 2:15).

"Jesus Was a Vegetarian" by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=5095

"Jesus Was a Vegetarian"

by	Kyle Butt, M.Div.

Recently I read the statement, “Jesus was a vegetarian.” Supposedly, since Jesus did not eat meat, neither should we. There are several problems with this line of reasoning.

First, people often use the “Jesus did x, y, or z” to demand that we should do the same things. But the truth is, just because Jesus did or did not do something does not necessarily have any bearing on what we should or should not do. Jesus did many things that we are under no moral obligation to imitate. For instance, could we say, “Jesus rode a donkey into Jerusalem and so should you?” Or what about, “Jesus never rode in a car, and neither should we?” Would we be correct to demand, “Jesus never had electric lights, so cut off your power?” Or “Jesus never sent a text message, so stop texting?” You can quickly see the problem here. While it is the case that Jesus is the perfect example of how all humans should live, it is not the case that every aspect of His life is something that we should copy. Paul explained it well in Philippians 2:5 when he said, “Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus.” Notice it is the “mind” of Christ, or His attitude, that we are to imitate. That means that while Jesus was seeking the lost He may have gone up on a mountain to preach, but we may need to use a microphone or a YouTube video. Or whereas Jesus walked from village to village, we may need to drive, fly, or ride a bus. Just because Jesus wore sandals that does not mean hiking boots are off limits for His followers.

The second reason the “Jesus was a vegetarian” statement was so strange to me is because it is patently false. He certainly was not a vegetarian. He often ate meat. In Luke 24:42-43 the text says: “So they gave Him [Jesus] a piece of broiled fish and some honeycomb. And He took it and ate in their presence.” The passage could not be more straightforward about Jesus consuming fish. In addition, since Jesus was  a Jew who faithfully followed the Old Law, He was commanded to eat the Passover Lamb every year. In Exodus 12:5-8, we read that all the Jews were to take a Passover lamb, kill it on the  14^th day of the first month and “eat the flesh on that night; roasted in fire, with unleavened bread and with bitter herbs.” In the New Testament, we see Jesus arranging this very procedure with His apostles. Luke 22:7-8 states, “Then came the Day of Unleavened Bread, when the Passover must be killed. And He [Jesus] sent Peter and John, saying, ‘Go and prepare the Passover for us, that we may eat.’” This was just one of the many animal sacrifices that Jewish people ate on a regular basis.

Third, the New Testament makes it clear that killing and eating animals is perfectly acceptable to God. In 1 Timothy 4:1-4 the Holy Spirit foretold that some were going to depart from teaching the truth and were going to command people to “abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving; for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.” Notice that in this passage, the sense in which God calls animals “good” is the fact that they are good for food. The idea that God, Jesus, or the Bible somehow morally obligate people to be vegetarians simply is incorrect.

God and the Laws of Science: The Law of Causality by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=3716

God and the Laws of Science: The Law of Causality

by	Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

INTRODUCTION

The Law of Cause and Effect states that every material effect must have an adequate antecedent or simultaneous cause. The mass of a paper clip is not going to provide sufficient gravitational pull to cause a tidal wave. There must be an adequate cause for the tidal wave, like a massive, offshore, underwater earthquake (“Tsunamis,” 2000, p. 1064). Leaning against a mountain will certainly not cause it to topple over. Jumping up and down on the ground will not cause an earthquake. If a chair is not placed in an empty room, the room will remain chairless. If matter was not made and placed in the Universe, we would not exist. There must be an adequate antecedent or simultaneous cause for every material effect. Perhaps the Law of Cause and Effect seems intuitive to most, but common sense is foreign to many when God is brought into the discussion.

CAUSALITY AND HISTORY

The Law of Cause and Effect, or Law/Principle of Causality, has been investigated and recognized for millennia. In Phaedo, written by Plato in 360 B.C., an “investigation of nature” is spoken of concerning causality, wherein “the causes of everything, why each thing comes into being and why it perishes and why it exists” are discussed (Plato, 1966, 1:96a-b, emp. added). In 350 B.C., Aristotle contributed more to the causality discussion by stipulating that causes can be “spoken of in four senses”: material, formal, efficient, and final (Aristotle, 2009, 1[3]). Moving forward two millennia in no way changed the established fact pressed by the Law of Cause and Effect. In 1781, the renowned philosopher Immanuel Kant wrote concerning the Principle of Causality in his Critique of Pure Reason that “everything that happens presupposes a previous condition, which it follows with absolute certainty, in conformity with a rule.... All changes take place according to the law of the connection of Cause and Effect” (Kant, 1781). Fast forwarding another 350 years, our understanding of the world still did not cause the law to be discredited. In 1934, W.T. Stace, professor of philosophy at Princeton University, in A Critical History of Greek Philosophy, wrote:

Every student of logic knows that this is the ultimate canon of the sciences, the foundation of them all. If we did not believe the truth of causation, namely, everything which has a beginning has a cause, and that in the same circumstances the same things invariably happen, all the sciences would at once crumble to dust. In every scientific investigation this truth is assumed (1934, p. 6, emp. added).

The truth of causality is so substantiated that it is taken for granted in scientific investigation.

A few decades later, the Law of Cause and Effect still had not been repealed. In The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Richard Taylor wrote, “Nevertheless, it is hardly disputable that the idea of causation is not only indispensable in the common affairs of life but in all applied sciences as well” (1967, p. 57, emp. added). Even today, when scientific exploration has brought us to unprecedented heights of knowledge, the age old Law of Causality cannot be denied. Today’s dictionaries define “causality” as:

• “the principle that nothing can happen without being caused” (“Causality,” 2009).
• “the principle that everything has a cause” (“Causality,” 2008).

Indeed, the Law of Cause and Effect is not, and cannot rationally be, denied—except when necessary in order to prop up a deficient worldview. Its ramifications have been argued for years, but after the dust settles, the Law of Cause and Effect still stands unscathed, having weathered the trials thrust upon it for thousands of years.

THE LAW OF CAUSALITY—A PROBLEM FOR ATHEISTS

Creationists have absolutely no problem with the truth articulated by this God-ordained law from antiquity. The Bible, in essence, articulated the principle millennia ago when in Hebrews 3:4 it says that “every house is built by someone, but He who built all things is God.” A house must have a cause—namely, a builder. It will not build itself. However, evolutionists are left in a quandary when trying to explain how the effect of the infinitely complex Universe could have come about without a cause. Three decades ago, Robert Jastrow, founder and former director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at NASA, wrote:

The Universe, and everything that has happened in it since the beginning of time, are a grand effect without a known cause. An effect without a known cause? That is not the world of science; it is a world of witchcraft, of wild events and the whims of demons, a medieval world that science has tried to banish. As scientists, what are we to make of this picture? I do not know. I would only like to present the evidence for the statement that the Universe, and man himself, originated in a moment when time began (1977, p. 21).

When Jastrow says that there is no “known cause” for everything in the Universe, he is referring to the fact that there is no known natural cause. If atheism were true, there must be a natural explanation of what caused the Universe. Scientists and philosophers recognize that there must be a cause that would be sufficient to bring about matter and the Universe—and yet no natural cause is known. TheMcGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms says that “causality,” in physics, is “the principle that an event cannot precede its cause” (2003, p. 346). However, the atheist must concede that in order for his/her claim to be valid, the effect of the Universe not only preceded its cause, but actually came about without it! Such a viewpoint is hardly in keeping with science. Scientifically speaking, according to the Law of Cause and Effect, there had to be a Cause for the Universe. The only book on the planet which contains characteristics that prove its production to be above human capability is the Bible (see Butt, 2007). The God of the Bible is its author (2 Timothy 3:16-17), and in the very first verse of the inspired material He gave to humans, He articulated with authority and clarity that He is the Cause Who brought about the Universe and all that is in it.

UNCAUSED CAUSE?

Often the atheist or skeptic, attempting to distract and side-step the truth of this law without responding to it, retorts, “But if everything had to have a beginning, why does the same concept not apply to God?” Notice that this statement is based on a misunderstanding of what the Law of Cause and Effect claims concerning the Universe. The law states that every material effect must have an adequate antecedent or simultaneous cause. The God of the Bible is a spiritual Being (John 4:24) and therefore is not governed by physical law.

Recall also what Professor W.T. Stace wrote in A Critical History of Greek Philosophy concerning causality. “[E]verything which has a beginning has a cause” (1934, p. 6, emp. added). As mentioned above, scientists and philosophers recognize that, logically, there must be an initial cause of the Universe. [Those who attempt to argue the eternality of the Universe are in direct contradiction with the Second Law of Thermodynamics (see Miller, 2007).] However, God, not being a physical, finite being, but an eternal, spiritual being (by definition), would not be subject to the condition of requiring a beginning. Therefore, the law does not apply to Him. Psalm 90:2 says concerning God, “Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever You had formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God” (emp. added). The Bible describes God as a Being who has always been and always will be—“from everlasting to everlasting.” He, therefore, had no beginning. Hebrews 3:4 again states, “every house is built by someone, but He who built all things is God,” indicating that God is not constrained by the Law of Cause and Effect as are houses, but rather, is the Chief Builder—the Uncaused Causer—the Being who initially set all effects into motion. The point stands. The Law of Cause and Effect supports the creation model, not the atheistic evolutionary model.

REFERENCES

Aristotle (2009), Metaphysics, trans. W.D. Ross, http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/metaphysics.1.i.html.

Butt, Kyle (2007), Behold! The Word of God (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press),http://www.apologeticspress.org/pdfs/e-books_pdf/Behold%20the%20Word%20of%20God.pdf.

“Causality” (2009), Collins English Dictionary—Complete & Unabridged, 10th ed. (New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers), http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Causality?x=35&y=25.

“Causality” (2008), Concise Oxford English Dictionary, (Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press), http://www.wordreference.com/definition/causality.

Jastrow, Robert (1977), Until the Sun Dies (New York: W.W. Norton).

Kant, Immanuel (1781), The Critique of Pure Reason, trans. J.M.D. Meiklejohn (London: Henry G. Bohn), 1878 edition, http://philosophy.eserver.org/kant/critique-of-pure-reason.txt.

McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms (2003), pub. M.D. Licker (New York: McGraw-Hill), sixth edition.

Miller, Jeff (2007), “God and the Laws of Thermodynamics: A Mechanical Engineer’s Perspective,”Reason & Revelation, 27[4]:25-31, April, http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3293.

Plato (1966), Plato in Twelve Volumes, trans. Harold North Fowler (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press), http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0170%3Atext%3DPhaedo%3Asection%3D96a.

Stace, W.T. (1934), A Critical History of Greek Philosophy (London: Macmillan and Co.).

Taylor, Richard (1967), “Causation,” in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Paul Edwards (New York: Philosophical Library).

“Tsunamis” (2000), The Oxford Companion to the Earth, ed. Paul L. Hancock & Brian J. Skinner (Oxford University Press).

Religion in Politics? by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=1964

Religion in Politics?

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Q.

Should Christians let their religious convictions affect their political convictions?

A.

Many Americans will go to the polls this week to indicate their choice of political leaders. It has long been a common sentiment that “religion and politics don’t mix”—meaning that one should keep these two spheres separate and distinct, and that political preference be exercised without the interference of religious opinion. But the Bible contradicts this notion. For the faithful Christian, God’s will naturally permeates every aspect of life and takes precedence over everything and everyone (Matthew 6:33). Every thought and every action is subjected to the scrutiny of Scripture (2 Corinthians 10:5). While many decisions in life are left by God to individual taste and personal preference, nevertheless, every area of life must be approached with a proper understanding of moral and spiritual principles that may impinge on one’s decision-making. The Christian is free to form a personal opinion on many political questions—from whether the government should fund healthcare, social security, and public education, to how foreign policy should be conducted. No one’s soul is necessarily jeopardized by the stance taken on these matters. Nor has God ever destroyed cities or nations on account of these political concerns.

But we must face the fact that religious and moral issues are being politicized. Just because politicians seize upon these issues, dragging them into the political arena, does not mean that they are exempt from religious scrutiny. The two premiere moral issues confronting the nation are same-sex marriage and the butchery of unborn babies (from abortion to embryonic stem cell research). Like the great prophets of old (e.g., Amos 7:10ff.; Mark 6:17-18), Christians have the divine obligation to stand firm against all politicians who support such evil behaviors. Indeed, our voting should be guided by the same principle articulated by Jehu when he challenged Jehoshaphat’s political affiliation with King Ahab: “Should you help the wicked and love those who hate the Lord?” (2 Chronicles 19:2).

Was Moses Ineloquent or "Mighty in Words"? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=4640&b=Exodus

Was Moses Ineloquent or "Mighty in Words"?

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

In one of the more well-known scenes of Scripture, the Lord, in the midst of an unconsumed burning bush, appeared to Moses on Mount Horeb. He revealed to Moses that it was time to deliver the Israelites out of Egyptian bondage. It was time to give the descendants of Abraham the land of Canaan, which He had promised to his descendants more than 400 years earlier (cf. Genesis 12:1,7; 13:15; 15:13). It was time for Moses to lead God’s people out of Egypt (Exodus 3:10).

Moses, however, was not convinced that he was the one to go to Pharaoh and make such demands. “Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh…?” Moses asked the Lord (Exodus 3:11). “O my Lord, I am not eloquent, neither before nor since You have spoken to Your servant; but I am slow of speech and slow of tongue” (4:10). “Behold, I am of uncircumcised lips, and how shall Pharaoh heed me?” (6:30).

Some wonder how Moses could be ineloquent, if Stephen, in his speech to an angry mob prior to his death, described Moses as one “mighty in words and deeds” (Acts 7:22, emp. added). According to Bible critic Steve Wells, author of the The Skeptic’s Annotated Bible, Acts 7:22 contradicts Exodus 4:10-16 and 6:12-30 (2013). R. Paul Buchman likewise lists these verses on his Web site “1001 Contradictions and Discrepancies in the Christian Bibles” (2011). Allegedly, Acts 7:22 is incompatible with what we learn about Moses in Exodus 3-6. How could Moses be “mighty in words,” yet also be ineloquent?

First, it is possible that Moses was not as ineloquent and “slow of speech” as one might initially think. The Bible student must keep in mind who made the statements about Moses’ speech in the book of Exodus. God did not say that Moses was incapable of speaking effectively—Moses did. Moses made these statements about himself. What’s more, Moses made the statements about himself after God had instructed him (1) to go back to the land where he had fled 40 years earlier for fear of his life (Exodus 2:15), (2) to present himself before the most powerful king on Earth (3:10), and (3) to tell the king of Egypt to let hundreds of thousands of Israelite slaves go free (Exodus 3:10; cf. Numbers 1:46). Moses was obviously afraid and doubted if he could do what God commanded. “Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh…?” Moses asked (Exodus 3:11). He said: “Suppose they will not believe me or listen to my voice; suppose they say, ‘The Lord has not appeared to you’” (4:1). Even after seeing two amazing miracles (4:3-8), Moses still offered excuses (4:10). Moses was so troubled over the entire matter that he finally pleaded with God saying, “O my Lord, please send someone else” (4:13, ESV, emp. added).

What was God’s response to Moses? According to Exodus 4:14, “[T]he anger of the Lord was kindled against Moses.” In addition to Moses being “very humble, more than all men who were on the face of the earth” (Numbers 12:3), Moses appears to have been so alarmed by the thought of going back to Egypt and making demands of Pharaoh that he highly exaggerated his ineloquence. Could it not be said that Moses stated fairly eloquently his case for being “ineloquent”? What’s more, when he wrote all of these events (and others) down by inspiration years later (in the Pentateuch—Joshua 8:32; John 5:46), he was equally as “eloquent.” [NOTE: Simply because God spoke of Aaron as one who “can speak well” (Exodus 4:14), does not necessarily mean that Moses was not an eloquent speaker, or that God thought that Moses was not up for the task at hand. Obviously, God had more confidence in Moses’ abilities than Moses did. It was Moses’ fear and hesitancy, not his alleged ineloquence, that led our longsuffering God to elevate Aaron as His spokesman.]

If the skeptic refuses to accept that Moses was much more eloquent than the prophet claimed in his meeting with God on Mount Horeb, the Bible student might also point out that Stephen’s reference to Moses being “mighty in words and deeds” was (in context) in reference to Moses during the first 40 years of his life in Egypt (Acts 7:22). In Stephen’s speech in Acts 7, he reminded his Jewish audience that Pharaoh’s daughter brought Moses up “as her own son. And Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was mighty in words and deeds” (Acts 7:21-22). Stephen then stated: “Now when he [Moses] was forty years old, it came into his heart to visit his brethren, the children of Israel…” (7:23). It was after another “forty years had passed” (7:30)—after Moses had become a shepherd and had dwelt in the land of Midian for 40 years—that, at the age of 80, Moses made excuses before God of being ineloquent. Thus, in context, these statements were made about a man at two very different periods of time in his life. And, as everyone should know, two different statements cannot rationally be said to contradict each other if they are referring to two different time periods. How many of us were better at something in our younger years? Could Moses have not been a more eloquent speaker at 40 than at 80 (after spending four decades as a shepherd in a foreign land)?

[NOTE: Some might argue that since Moses said to God, “I am not eloquent, neither before nor since You have spoken to Your servant” (Exodus 4:10, emp. added), this means that Moses was never “mighty in words,” neither at 40 nor 80. Keep in mind, however, (1) it was Moses making this assertion, not God, and (2) we cannot be certain how far back in the past Moses meant for this statement to apply. He just as easily could have been referring to a time just before God appeared to him from the burning bush. What’s more, the events recorded in Exodus 3-4 could very easily have lasted days or weeks (cf. 4:14,27-28). Commentator Albert Barnes believes that this statement in Exodus 4:10 “seems to imply that some short time had intervened between this address and the first communication of the divine purpose to Moses” (1997).]

Sadly, skeptics not only ignore who made these statements, as well as the different time periods under discussion in the related passages, they also ignore the fact that different words are used, which do not necessarily mean the same thing. Even if Moses was not exaggerating about his ineloquence, and even if the statements in Exodus 3-6 and Acts 7:22 were referring to the same period of time in Moses’ life, being “slow of speech and slow of tongue” is not necessarily incompatible with being “mighty in words” (Acts 7:22). In fact, the phrase “mighty in words” (dunatos en logois) immediately follows Stephen describing Moses as “learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians.” How could Moses, an (alleged) ineloquent speaker, be “mighty in words”? Asking this question a little differently could help us answer it much easier. Could a man (1) of royalty, (2) who was very well educated, and (3) whose actions were described as “mighty,” ever be considered “mighty in words,” even though he may not be the greatest of orators? Most certainly. How many first-class athletes and coaches have given extremely motivating speeches to their teams and fans (e.g., Tim Tebow), and yet they may not be viewed as “eloquent” speakers? How many statesmen have risen to the occasion and delivered stirring addresses at crucial times in history (e.g., President George W. Bush’s speech at Ground Zero three days after the 9/11 attacks), though the statesmen generally were not viewed as great orators? How many people throughout history have been “mighty in words” as a writer, but not as a speaker? How many gospel preachers have I heard in my lifetime, who (1) knew the Scriptures extremely well, and (2) had done amazing things in their lifetime, and yet although they may not have been considered “great orators,” could truly be said to be “mighty in words”? Considering that “the gospel of Christ…is the power of God to salvation” (Romans 1:16), many stirring sermons have been preached the past 2,000 years by rather weak men. Even one of the greatest gospel preachers this world has ever known (the apostle Paul), stated to the Corinthians: “And I, brethren, when I came to you, did not come with excellence of speech or of wisdom” (1 Corinthians 2:1).

Skeptics’ criticisms of Exodus 3-6 and Acts 7:22 should only further confirm how superficial and manipulative their accusations against the Bible writers really are. The fact is, Bible critics have no proof that these passages contradict each other; yet, as with so many alleged discrepancies they champion, skeptics seem to care little about making false, unprovable allegations. In other arenas, such individuals would be ostracized for such blatant carelessness and dishonesty.

REFERENCES

Barnes, Albert (1997), Barnes’ Notes (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).

Buchman, R. Paul (2001), “1001 Contradictions and Discrepancies in the Christian Bibles,”http://www.1001biblecontradictions.com/I2a%20-%20HOJ%20%5B76-103%5D.html.

Wells, Steve (2013), The Skeptic’s Annotated Bible, http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/moses_speaker.html.

From Sandi Rog.... Can't Live Without Them

http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Rog/Sandi/Gwen/1971/men.html

Can't Live Without Them

We have all heard those little jokes at the expense of men:

Why do men like smart women?
Because opposites attract.
Why are all dumb blonde jokes one-liners?
So men can understand them. 
Why did God create man before woman?
Because you're always supposed to have a rough draft before creating your masterpiece. 
Television, talk shows, sitcoms, radio, songs, Internet, and other media are riddled with the above types of conversations. These days, men are fair game for put-downs. And it's not just found in media. I hear it often in conversations among women, even women proclaiming to be God-loving Christians. If any of the above were said about women in a public forum, the fires of every feminist organization would engulf these people and fry them until they were burnt to a crisp. And perhaps even that wouldn't be enough.

We as mothers should ask ourselves how this is affecting our sons. What kind of men are they going to grow up to be when they're bombarded by this kind of negative media? How are we counteracting this “teaching?”

Have you ever heard the saying: the hand that rocks the cradle, rules the world? Well, after reading 1 & 2 Kings, I discovered just how true that statement is.

Normally in scripture, the mother's name isn't mentioned in the generation line. But it's mentioned in the line of David. Most of those mothers were women who did not honor and serve God. Many of them worshipped idols, and when their sons became king, their sons turned the entire nation against God! Can you believe the kind of power those women had? It was subtle, it was behind the scenes, and their beliefs were exposed when their sons became rulers.

It is quite a blow to read each woman's name every time a new king was put in place. It is especially sad that so few sons are listed as having loved God. Hezekiah and Josiah are two that come to mind.

Here's what 2 Kings 18:2b-3 says about Hezekiah when he became king: he reigned twenty-nine years in Jerusalem; and his mother's name was Abi the daughter of Zechariah. He did right in the sight of the LORD, according to all that his father David had done.

2 Kings 22:1-2 says: Josiah was eight years old when he became king, and he reigned thirty-one years in Jerusalem; and his mother's name was Jedidah the daughter of Adaiah of Bozkath. He did right in the sight of the LORD and walked in all the ways of his father David, nor did he turn aside to the right or to the left.

What an honor for those mothers whose names are mentioned next to their sons who loved God. But what a shame and disgrace for those whose names are mentioned next to sons who worshipped idols and hated God.

It's vital that we understand the importance of our role as women and mothers.

I'm not saying the father's have no responsibility in how their sons turn out (after all, the kings married these unbelieving women), but we mothers are given our own unique role when it comes to teaching our sons how to become men of God. Just like today, a mother back then managed the household, and if she allowed foreign gods to be worshipped, the children would have been exposed to this lifestyle. However, if she loved God, her children were exposed to that lifestyle.

What kind of lifestyle are we exposing our sons to today? Are we taking part in the abuse the media is meting out on men? Let's take an honest look at ourselves and what we're teaching our sons.

One of the things my son looks forward to most is growing up to be stronger than his sisters. He can't wait! So, I tell him, “Do you know why God made you stronger?” He shakes his head, eager for the answer. “He made you stronger so you can help those who are weaker than you.” He seemed to like that idea. I also told him when the bullies confront him, to keep his chin up and look them in the eye. If he looks down or gives any indication that he's afraid, they'll go after him. (I learned this from a TV talk show. Guess they're good for something.)

My son has already put some of these lessons to use at school. He's defended the weak by protecting a younger girl who was being picked on by a couple of bullies. I was kind of scared for him at one point. He took my advice to extremes and threatened to tell on the local bullies for using foul language. Surprisingly, the boys stopped. My prayer is he'll grow up to be the kind of man his father is and even better.

Speaking of those all important fathers. How do we treat them in front of our sons? Do we treat their fathers with respect? Or do we correct our husband in front of our children, especially when he's disciplining them? Our son's self-image will mirror how we treat his father.

1 Peter 3:1-2 says: In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, as they observe your chaste and respectful behavior.

I don't know about you, but I can get pretty vocal when I disagree with something. Have you ever thought about how “admonishing” our husbands in public or before the children affects our sons? I believe we can win over, not just our husbands, but also our sons, by our behavior based on the above verse.

What about our behavior in the church? Do we complain about the leaders in front of our boys or do we show the leaders honor and respect? I've seen situations where women were disrespectful to the teacher in class for all to see.

1 Timothy 2:11-12 - A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.Some feel Paul was a male chauvinist because of the above verse, and they feel it no longer applies today. But these assumptions can't be true because just a few verses down Paul,who was inspired by God, says in 1 Timothy 3:15b .I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.
We are as much the “household of God” today as they were back then. So ... how are we “conducting ourselves?” What are our sons witnessing? Do they see us getting riled up and butting against God's word? Do we lift our noses with distain because of what we read? If so, remember, we're lifting our noses to the Most High God, not Paul, and our sons are witnessing that. Do you think that's going to encourage them to want to lead? Who would want to step in front of a shrew and teach her the truth, especially when she despises what she hears? Honestly, it's this behavior that keeps many of our men today from speaking the full truth. Instead, they tiptoe around these subjects for fear of getting burned. In light of this, we need to teach our sons not to “fear the bullies.”

Matthew 10:28 - Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
Men are called upon to be leaders. What women should feel is relief, not put down. God is not telling us we're incapable or unworthy. We have plenty of opportunities to lead women. He has simply given us separate roles, just as he's given the legs their job to stand and the nose it's job to smell. One is not “better” or more important than the other. We need to be relieved that we don't have such a huge responsibility on our shoulders. Our men, whether they want to or not, carry the responsibility of taking care of not just those within the family unit, but also those in the church, teaching them, leading them on the right path. They will have to answer to God for what they did or did not do.

What are we teaching our sons in light of this? Are we teaching them to be leaders or to be followers? Are we telling them that they'll one day have to answer to God for their behavior? Or do we cater to their every need and not teach them responsibility? Remember, they'll expect that same treatment from their wives. Do we want our sons to turn out to be lazy, good-for-nothing slobs in their own home and in the church? Now is the time to teach these boys. They're not going to “suddenly-learn-everything-they-need-to-know” when they become adults.

Here's another valuable passage from Ephesians 5:25: Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her.
This is talking about Jesus dying for the church, and our men are to do the same for us! (This should make us feel better about those “submissive” verses. God never commanded us to die for anyone.) Does that mean a man has to wait for a life and death situation to “die” for his loved one? Of course not! Teach your sons this! Teach them how to die daily for those weaker than them. To hold doors open, to defend others who are being abused, to stand up so someone else can sit down. Just as Timothy's mother and grandmother did for him, we should do the same for our sons. They'll be excited to know there is something they can do worthy of praise.

Let's train our sons to be leaders, protectors, and lovers of our Lord. Boys want to feel empowered. When you give them that power, they run with it. We mustn't allow our sons to be diminished and put down, whether through the media or through our own behavior. Instead, let's raise our sons to become the kind of men we would want to marry.

Sandi RogPreviously published in the Rocky Mountain Christian.

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

From Gary... On the way to silence

I remember our 8th grade class waiting to enter the gym while a group of 3rd graders were finishing up their exercise and one of our group said to another: "why don't we ask 'chuck' about this, he's a real smart cookie"? In reply, another said- "Are you stupid? He's just in 3rd- He doesn't know anything"!  

Decades later, the arrogance of that 8th grader is so obvious as to be proverbial. But, then again- read the comments on the picture of Gene Wilder and remember that it was taken from the movie "Willy Wonka and the chocolate factory" in 1971.  Does anyone besides myself see the humor in all this? Nobody knows everything, even a 3rd grader or a fantasy character can teach you SOMETHING. For Christians, the following verse from the book of Romans puts us in our place when we think too much of ourselves... 

Romans, Chapter 12 (WEB)

 16 Be of the same mind one toward another. Don’t set your mind on high things, but associate with the humble. Don’t be wise in your own conceits. 

Even a ridiculous character like a "Candy Man" can teach us something... 

Remember these words?

Candy Man

Who can take a sunrise, sprinkle it with dew

Cover it in chocolate and a miracle or two

The candy man, the candy man can

The candy man can 'cause he mixes it with love

And makes the world taste good

Who can take a rainbow, wrap it in a sigh

Soak it in the sun and make a strawberry–lemon pie

The candy man?

The candy man, the candy man can

The candy man can 'cause he mixes it with love

And makes the world taste good

Willy Wonka makes everything he bakes

Satisfying and delicious

Talk about your childhood wishes

You can even eat the dishes

Who can take tomorrow, dip it in a dream

Separate the sorrow and collect up all the cream

The candy man, Willy Wonka can, the candy man can

The candy man can 'cause he mixes it with love

And makes the world taste good

And the world tastes good'

Cause the candy man thinks it should

And with this I remember Sammy Davis Jr., who taught me the meaning of this song, just by the wonderful way he sang it - I miss him!!!

It is truly wonderful the things you can learn from others, if you will only listen. So, listen more and learn. Gary... are you listening?