“Breaking Bread” on the “First Day” of the Week by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1548

“Breaking Bread” on the “First Day” of the Week

by	Eric Lyons, M.Min.

As the apostle Paul was making his way toward Jerusalem near the end of his third missionary journey, he met with several disciples in the coastal city of Troas. Although he was “hurrying to be at Jerusalem, if possible, on the Day of Pentecost” (Acts 20:16), he tarried in Troas for seven days with several other disciples (20:4-6). According to Acts 20:7, “[O]n the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight.” Since Luke indicates that Paul did not break bread until after his lengthy lesson and the resurrection of Eutychus (20:11), many have questioned whether Paul and the disciples ate of the Lord’s Supper on Saturday, Sunday, or Monday? Others have wondered whether “to break bread” in Acts 20 even has anything to do with the Lord’s Supper. What can be said about such matters?

Admittedly, to “break bread” in Bible times often referred to the eating of common meals. God once warned His prophet Jeremiah not to “break bread for the mourner” (Jeremiah 16:7, RSV). Jesus “tookbread...and broke it” with the disciples to whom He appeared on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:30,35). The early Christians are said to have continued daily “breaking bread from house to house” eating “food with gladness and simplicity of heart” (Acts 2:46). Paul once “took breadand...broke it” and instructed his 275 companions on board a ship to Italy to eat it for their “preservation” (Acts 27:34-35, NASB). In ancient times, to “break bread” was a figure of speech known as synecdoche where a part (to break bread) was put for the whole (to eat a common meal, regardless of the kind of food and drink consumed).

In New Testament times, however, the phrase “to break bread” was also used to describe the partaking of the Lord’s Supper. Jesus instituted this special supper while celebrating the Feast of Unleavened Bread with His disciples shortly before His death.

And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.” Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom” (Matthew 26:26-29, emp. added).

In 1 Corinthians 10:16-17, Paul addressed the subject of the Lord’s Supper with these words: “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread” (emp. added). Paul later reminded the Corinthians of the night in which Jesus first instituted this memorial feast, saying, “For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed tookbread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, ‘Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me’” (1 Corinthians 11:23-24, emp. added). Because part of this memorial supper that Christians are commanded to keep involves the actual breaking of bread, the expression “to break bread” was used in reference to the Lord’s Supper in the early church (cf. Behm, 1965, 3:730). Similar to how this phrase was used as a synecdoche in regard to common meals, it was also used to represent the Lord’s Supper (where consumption of both the bread and the fruit of the vine is referred to as simply “the breaking of bread”).

Because the phrase “to break bread” refers both to common meals and the Lord’s Supper, one must examine the context of passages in order to understand which one is being discussed. For example, since in Acts 2:42 “breaking bread” is listed with other religious activities carried out by the church such as teaching, praying, and fellowshipping (from the Greek koinonia, which may include several aspects of “joint participation,” including free-will offerings on the first day of the week—cf. Romans 15:26; 2 Corinthians 9:13; 1 Corinthians 16:1-2; see Jackson, 2005, p. 31), one may logically conclude that “the breaking of bread” is a reference to the early Christians partaking of the Lord’s Supper. [The use of the article in this verse also leaves the impression that a particular event is under consideration, rather than a common meal where “food” (Greek trophe, a word never used of the Lord’s Supper—Barnes, 1956, p. 59) is served for the purpose of gaining nourishment (e.g., Acts 2:46; cf. 1 Corinthians 11:33-34).]

But what about the use of the phrase “to break bread” in Acts 20:7? What textual indicators are present that warrant the phrase in this passage to be understood as the Lord’s Supper? First, the term “to break bread” is a first aorist active infinitive (Robertson, 1997). Since infinitives in Greek and English denote the objective or purpose of action for the principal verb (cf. Mounce, 1993, p. 298), one can know that Paul, Luke, and the disciples at Troas “gathered together” for the primary purpose of “breaking bread.” When this information is processed in light of the fact that Paul earlier had written to the church at Corinth and implied that the purpose for them coming together was to partake of the Lord’s Supper (in an orderly manner—1 Corinthians 11:20,33), then the passage in Acts 20 makes much better sense: “to break bread” was (or at least included) the eating of the Lord’s Supper. What’s more, Paul remained in Troas for seven days despite being in a hurry to get to Jerusalem before Pentecost (which was about 31 days, 10 stops, and 1,000 miles away—cf. Acts 20:6,13-16; 21:1,3,7,8,15). Why tarry in Troas for seven days? It was not simply to eat a common meal with the saints. Rather, Paul desired to worship with the church in Troas “on the first day of the week,” which included observing “communion” with them (1 Corinthians 10:16).

But did Paul and the church at Troas really observe the Lord’s Supper on Sunday? First, it is possible that the bread Paul broke after spending all night preaching and talking was part of a common meal that he would have gladly received before beginning his extended journey to Jerusalem. Nevertheless, when Luke’s terminology in Acts 20:11 is carefully examined, it appears that Paul ate two separate meals with the disciples: the Lord’s Supper first (“had broken bread”), followed by a common meal (“and eaten”). This latter expression (“and eaten,” Greek geusamenos) “is nowhere used of the celebration of the Supper, whereas in Acts 10:10 it is applied to taking a common meal” (Jamieson, 1997). The former expression (“had broken bread”) has the Greek article before “bread” (lit., “had broken the bread,” ASV, emp. added) and “seems plainly to denote the celebration of the Lord’s Supper; their intention to do so being expressed in Acts 20:7, but their actually doing it nowhere if not here” (Jamieson, 1997; cf. Robertson, 1997; Woods, 1976, pp. 67-70; Wycliffe, 1985).

If Paul, then, waited to “break bread” until after midnight (20:7,11), would this not have been a Monday-morning observance of the Lord’s Supper? Regardless of whether the memorial feast was observed before or after midnight, one can be assured that it took place on Sunday, because it was “on the first day of the week” that the disciples met “to break bread.” The reason that eating the Lord’s Supper after midnight would have been acceptable conduct for many Christians is because the Jewish method of counting time was still widely acknowledged. The Jews and the Romans used different standards for calculating the hours of the day, and although both systems split the day into two periods of twelve hours, a new day for the Romans began at midnight (cf. Pliny, n.d., 2:79), whereas a new day for the Jews began in the evening at sundown and lasted until sundown the following day. Luke, like Matthew and Mark, used the Jewish method of reckoning time in both his gospel account and in the book of Acts (cf. Luke 23:44; Acts 2:15; 23:23; cf. also John 19:14; 20:1,19). Thus, Paul’s pre-midnight preaching corresponded to our Saturday evening, but was the beginning of their “first day.” Regardless of whether they observed the Lord’s Supper on the evening of the first day or the morning of the first day, it was observed on the proper day, the day on which Jesus rose from the grave (Luke 24:1)—the first day of the week.

Christians should count it a privilege and honor to observe the Lord’s Supper (1 Corinthians 11:22), and commune with the Lord and His people (1 Corinthians 10:16-17). Sadly, some in the twenty-first century may attempt to justify observing this sacred supper on some occasion other than the first day by alleging that the early Christians observed it on Saturday night or Monday morning. The important thing to remember in this discussion, however, is that the early disciples came together on the first day of the week to observe this memorial feast. In the first century, when the Jewish method of reckoning time was still widely accepted, the first day began on what we call Saturday evening and ended Sunday evening. In the twenty-first century, most (if not all) people count time from midnight to midnight. Since God did not specify which method of time to use, but did specify the numerical day of the week in which the supper of the Lord is to be kept, Christians should abide by the standards of time wherever they reside.

[For discussion on whether or not Christians should partake of the Lord’s Supper every first day of the week, see Miller, 2003]

REFERENCES

Barnes, Albert (1956), Notes on the Old and New Testaments: Acts (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

Behm, Johannes (1965), “klao, klasis, klasma,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Jackson, Wayne (2005), The Acts of the Apostles: From Jerusalem to Rome (Stockton, CA: Christian Courier Publications).

Jamieson, Robert, et al. (1997), Jamieson, Fausset, Brown Bible Commentary (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).

Miller, Dave (2003), “Sunday and the Lord’s Supper,” [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2304.

Mounce, William D. (1993), Basics of Biblical Greek (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).

Pliny the Elder, The Natural History, trans. Bostock and H.T. Riley, [On-line], URL: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Plin.+Nat.+2.79.

Robertson, A.T. (1997), Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).

Woods, Guy N. (1976 reprint), Questions and Answers (Henderson, TN: Freed-Hardeman College).

Wycliffe Bible Commentary (1985), Electronic Database: Biblesoft.

A Donkey and Her Colt by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=773

A Donkey and Her Colt

by	Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Although most Christians would rather not concern themselves with some of the more minute details of Jesus’ life reported in the New Testament, when challenged to defend the inerrancy of The Book that reports the beautiful story of Jesus, there are times when such details require our attention. Such is the case with Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem during the final week of His life. People who wear the name of Christ enjoy reading of the crowd’s cries of “Hosanna!,” and meditating upon the fact that Jesus went to Jerusalem to bring salvation to the world. Skeptics, on the other hand, read of this event and cry, “Contradiction!” Allegedly, Matthew misunderstood Zechariah’s prophecy, and thus contradicted what Mark, Luke, and John wrote regarding Jesus’ final entry into Jerusalem (see van den Heuvel, 2003). Matthew recorded the following:

Now when they drew near Jerusalem, and came to Bethphage, at the Mount of Olives, then Jesus sent two disciples, saying to them, “Go into the village opposite you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, and a colt with her. Loose them and bring them to Me. And if anyone says anything to you, you shall say, ‘The Lord has need of them,’ and immediately he will send them.” All this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying: “Tell the daughter of Zion, ‘Behold, your King is coming to you, lowly, and sitting on a donkey, a colt, the foal of a donkey.’ ” So the disciples went and did as Jesus commanded them. They brought the donkey and the colt, laid their clothes on them, and set Him on them. And a very great multitude spread their clothes on the road; others cut down branches from the trees and spread them on the road. Then the multitudes who went before and those who followed cried out, saying: “Hosanna to the Son of David! ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!’ Hosanna in the highest!” (Matthew 21:1-9, emp. added).

Skeptics are quick to point out that the other gospel writers mention only “one colt,” which the disciples acquired, and upon which Jesus rode. Mark recorded that Jesus told the two disciples that they would find “a colt tied, on which no one has sat” (11:2). The disciples then “went their way, and found the colt tied by the door outside on the street, and they loosed it…. Then they brought the coltto Jesus and threw their clothes on it, and He sat on it” (Mark 11:4,7, emp. added; cf. Luke 19:29-38; John 12:12-16). Purportedly, “[t]he author of Matthew contradicts the author of Mark on the number of animals Jesus is riding into Jerusalem” (“Bible Contradictions,” 2003). Can these accounts be reconciled, or is this a legitimate contradiction?

First, notice that Mark, Luke, and John did not say that only one donkey was obtained for Jesus, or that only one donkey traveled up to Jerusalem with Jesus. The writers simply mentioned one donkey (the colt). They never denied that another donkey (the mother of the colt) was present. The fact that Mark, Luke, and John mention one young donkey does not mean there were not two. If you had two friends named Joe and Bob who came to your house on Thursday night, but the next day while at work you mention to a fellow employee that Joe was at your house Thursday night (and you excluded Bob from the conversation for whatever reason), would you be lying? Of course not. You simply stated the fact that Joe was at your house. Similarly, when Mark, Luke, and John stated that a donkey was present, Matthew merely supplemented what the other writers recorded.

Consider the other parts of the story that have been supplemented by one or more of the synoptic writers.

• Whereas Matthew mentioned how Jesus and His disciples went to Bethphage, Mark and Luke mentioned both Bethphage and Bethany.
• Mark and Luke indicated that the colt they acquired for Christ never had been ridden. Matthew omitted this piece of information.
• Matthew was the only gospel writer to include Zechariah’s prophecy.
• Mark and Luke included the question that the owners of the colt asked the disciples when they went to get the donkey for Jesus. Matthew excluded this information in his account.

As one can see, throughout this story (and the rest of the gospel accounts for that matter), the writers consistently supplemented each other’s accounts. Such supplementation should be expected only from independent sources—some of whom were eyewitnesses. It is very possible that Matthew was specific in his numbering of the donkeys, due to the likelihood that he was an eyewitness of Jesus’ final entrance into Jerusalem. (Bear in mind, Matthew was one of the twelve apostles; Mark and Luke were not.)

Second, regarding the accusation that Matthew wrote of two donkeys, instead of just one, because he allegedly misunderstood Zechariah’s prophecy, it first must be noted that Zechariah’s prophecy actually mentions two donkeys (even though only one is stated as transporting the King to Jerusalem). The prophet wrote: “Behold, your King is coming to you…lowly and riding on a donkey [male], a colt, the foal of a donkey [female]” (Zechariah 9:9). In this verse, Zechariah used Hebrew poetic parallelism (the balancing of thought in successive lines of poetry). The terms male donkey, colt, and foal all designate the same animal—the young donkey upon which the King (Jesus) would ride into Jerusalem (Mark 11:7). Interestingly, even though the colt was the animal of primary importance, Zechariah also mentioned that this donkey was the foal of a female donkey. One might assume that Zechariah merely was stating the obvious when mentioning the mother’s existence. However, when Matthew’s gospel is taken into account, the elusive female donkey of Zechariah 9:9 is brought to light. Both the foal and the female donkey were brought to Christ at Mount Olivet, and both made the trip to Jerusalem. Since the colt never had been ridden, or even sat upon (as stated by Mark and Luke), its dependence upon its mother is very understandable (as implied by Matthew). The journey to Jerusalem, with multitudes of people in front of and behind Jesus and the donkeys (Matthew 21:8-9), obviously would have been much easier for the colt if the mother donkey were led nearby down the same road.

The focal point of the skeptic’s proposed problem to Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem is how He could have ridden on two donkeys at once. Since Matthew 21:7 states, “They brought the donkey and the colt, laid their clothes on them, and set Him on them” (NKJV), some have concluded that Matthew intended for his reader to understand Jesus as being some kind of stunt rider—proceeding to Jerusalem as more of a clown than a king. Such reasoning is preposterous. Matthew could have meant that Jesus rode the colt while the other donkey walked along with them. Instead of saying, “He rode one donkey and brought the other with Him,” the writer simply wrote that He rode “them” into Jerusalem. If a horse-owner came home to his wife and informed her that he had just ridden the horses home a few minutes ago from a nearby town, no one would accuse him of literally riding both horses at once. He merely was indicating to his wife that he literally rode one horse home, while the other one trotted alongside or behind him.

A second possible solution to this “problem” is that Jesus did ride both donkeys, but He did so atdifferent times. However unlikely this possibility might seem to some, nothing in Zechariah’s prophecy or the gospel accounts forbids such. Perhaps the colt found the triumphant procession that began on the southeastern slope of the Mount of Olives near the towns of Bethphage and Bethany (about 1¾ miles from Jerusalem—Pfeiffer, 1979, p. 197) too strenuous. Zechariah prophesied that Jesus would ride upon a colt (9:9), which Jesus did. He also easily could have ridden on the colt’s mother part of the way.

Perhaps a more likely answer to the question, “How could Jesus sit ‘on them’ (donkeys) during His march to Jerusalem?,” is that the second “them” of Matthew 21:7 may not be referring to the donkeys at all. Greek scholar A.T. Robertson believed that the second “them” (Greek αυτων) refers to thegarments that the disciples laid on the donkeys, and not to the donkeys themselves. In commenting on Matthew 21:7 he stated: “The garments thrown on the animals were the outer garments (himatia), Jesus ‘took his seat’ (epekathisen) upon the garments” (1930, 1:167). Skeptics do not want to allow for such an interpretation. When they read of “them” at the end of Matthew 21:7 (in the New King James Version), skeptics feel that the antecedent of this “them” must be the previous “them” (the donkeys). Critics like John Kesler (2003) also appeal to the other synoptic accounts (where Jesus is said to have sat upon “it”—the colt), and conclude that Matthew, like Mark and Luke, surely meant that Jesus sat upon the donkeys, and not just the disciples’ clothes (which were on the donkeys). What critics like Kesler fail to acknowledge, however, is that in the Greek, Matthew’s word order is different than that of Mark and Luke. Whereas Mark and Luke indicated that the disciples put their clothes on the donkey, Matthew’s word order reads: “they put on the donkeys clothes.” The American Standard Version, among others (KJV, RSV, and NASB) is more literal in its translation of this verse than is the NKJV. It indicates that the disciples “brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their garments; and he sat thereon” (Matthew 21:7, ASV; cf. RSV, KJV, NASB). When Matthew wrote that Jesus sat “on them,” he easily could have intended for his readers to understand this “them” to refer to the clothes, and not to the donkeys. If the disciples’ clothes were placed on both donkeys (as Matthew indicated), and then Jesus mounted the colt, one logically could conclude that Jesus sat on the clothes (which were placed upon the colt).

One of the fundamental principles of nearly any study or investigation is that of being “innocent until proven guilty.” Any person or historical document is to be presumed internally consistent until it can be shown conclusively that it is contradictory. This approach has been accepted throughout literary history, and still is accepted today in most venues. The accepted way to critique any ancient writing is to assume innocence, not guilt. If we believe the Bible is innocent until proven guilty, then anypossible answer should be good enough to nullify the charge of error. (This principle does not allow for just any answer, but any possible answer.) When a person studies the Bible and comes across passages that may seem contradictory at first glance (like the verses explained in this article—Matthew 21:1-9, Mark 11:1-11, Luke 19:29-38), he does not necessarily have to pin down the exact solution in order to show their truthfulness. The Bible student need only show the possibility of a harmonization among passages that appear to conflict, in order to negate the force of the charge that a Bible contradiction really exists. We act by this principle in the courtroom, in our treatment of various historical books, as well as in everyday-life situations. It is only fair, then, that we show the Bible the same courtesy by exhausting the search for possible harmony among passages before pronouncing one or more accounts false.

Finally, in an attempt to leave no allegation unanswered regarding the passages discussed in this article, one more point must be made. Although Jesus and His disciples have been accused of stealing the donkeys used in the procession to Jerusalem (see Barker, 1992, pp. 165-166), the text never indicates such thievery. Jesus may well have prearranged for the use of the animals. However, since the donkeys’ owners did not know who the disciples were, there was a need to tell the owners what Jesus said to them. It was after the disciples stated, “The Lord has need of them,” that the owners let the disciples take the donkeys (Luke 19:32-35). It was voluntary. Jesus certainly did not advocate stealing on this occasion, or any other (Matthew 19:18; 1 Peter 2:22; cf. Exodus 20:15). Remember, we are not told all of the facts in the story—the Bible is not obligated to fill in every detail of every event. If it did, “I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written” (John 21:25).

REFERENCES

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

“Bible Contradictions,” Capella’s Guide to Atheism, [On-line], URL: http://web2.iadfw.net/capella/aguide/contrad.htm#num%20animals%20Jesus%20rode.

Kesler, John (2003), “Jesus Had Two Asses,” [On-line], URL: http://exposed.faithweb.com/kesler2.html.

Pfeiffer, Charles (1979), Baker’s Bible Atlas (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House), revised edition.

Robertson, A.T. (1930), Word Pictures in the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

van den Heuvel, Curt (2003), “Matthew Misunderstood an Old Testament Prophecy,” New Testament Problems, [On-line], URL: http://www.2think.org/hundredsheep/bible/ntprob.shtml.

"Evolution is the Scientific Consensus—So You Should Believe It!” by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=4518

"Evolution is the Scientific Consensus—So You Should Believe It!”

by	Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

“Everybody’s doin’ it. So, you should, too,” the little boy’s classmate says. After giving in and engaging in the inappropriate behavior and getting caught, what does the little boy’s mother say? “If everybody jumps off a cliff, are you going to jump with them?” We’ve all likely heard sound reasoning like that from an authority, and yet the truth of such logic must not have “sunk in” with many in the evolutionary community.

Recently, we received an e-mail at Apologetics Press responding to an article we posted a few weeks back titled, “Bill Nye: The (Pseudo-)Science Guy” (Miller, 2012a). The gentleman’s comments were not atypical of many of the comments we receive from the evolutionary community, but one line of reasoning, in particular, is representative of the mindset of many. Thus, we felt it was worth a formal, public response. The argument this individual based his contention on was that the scientific consensus on a subject—whatever it may be—should be ultimately accepted (i.e., considered as “gospel”), and any further scientific investigation and/or discovery should be viewed in light of the veracity of the scientific consensus on that subject. Specifically, he applied the concept to the idea that belief in Darwinian evolution is the scientific consensus today and therefore, should be accepted—not resisted, as we do at Apologetics Press. This gentleman is hardly the only one who espouses such a view. So, it is worthy of consideration to see if it holds up under scrutiny.

Perhaps the first objection one should have to such a mindset is that it falls into the category of logical fallacies known as Argumentum ad Populum—appeal to the majority (Archie, 2012). The variation of this fallacy known as “Bandwagon,” is the idea in which someone attempts to “prove a conclusion on the grounds that all or most people think or believe it is true” (Archie). In other words, just because a lot of people believe in something (like macroevolution), that does not make it true—and the number of people who believe in it should not be cited as evidence in support of the proposition. Just because bloodletting was “the most common procedure performed by surgeons for almost two thousand years,” that should not have made it an acceptable idea, though it carried the weight of consensus behind it (“Bloodletting,” 2012). Just because the consensus in medicine in the recent past, before the discovery of germs, was not to worry about cleanliness in operating rooms, that does not mean that such entrenched practices should not be questioned. Just because the consensus over millennia was that life could arise spontaneously from non-life (Balme, 1962)—a belief held even as late as 300 years ago when Francesco Redi conducted his experiments that began casting doubt on that idea—that does not mean that such a preposterous idea should have continued to exist. Just because the “consensus” in certain evolutionary circles only 100 years ago was that certain races should be considered inferior in the evolutionary chain (cf. Darwin, 1859; Stein and Miller, 2008), did that mean that everyone should have accepted the “consensus” and taken part in eliminating those deemed “weaker” or “less fit” by evolutionists?

“Majority rule” is hardly a suitable mindset for scientific investigation. Scientific breakthroughs are not made by the majority—but rather, by innovative individuals thinking outside the box, not thinking in the same way the majority thinks. In fact, the “consensus” view is often times the very viewpoint that is wrong because of the “herd mentality” humanity tends to have—the same mentality that Moses warned against in Exodus 23:2. Just because there is a consensus in this country among the rank and file Americans that evolution is false (cf. Miller, 2012b), that should not be taken as evidence for or against evolution—whether or not the population is deemed “scientific” enough in the minds of the science community’s self-promoting “credentials police.” There exists an overwhelming consensus (84%) in the world that some kind of god(s) exists (cf. “Major Religions of the World…,” 2007), and yet one can be assured that the atheistic evolutionary community would not want to appeal to the “consensus” argument in that case. Consider further: even if it is now the scientific consensus among the biology community that Darwinian evolution is true, what about before evolution had become consensus in that field? Should the “consensus rule” have been applied then, disallowing the spread of evolutionary theory? If so, then the biology community is in error for breaking their own rules and needs to go back to the old viewpoint in order to be consistent.

In truth, accepting the consensus view on a theory is a dangerous practice. Scientific theories are not “bad guys.” Theories are important in order to make scientific progress. However, a theory (like the Theory of Evolution or the Big Bang Theory), by its very definition, is not known as absolute, but rather, as a possible explanation of something. A theory tacitly acknowledges the potential that it may be incorrect and that there may be other theories that fit the facts better, that will one day be proven as legitimate. This makes accepting the consensus view on a scientific theory a dangerous practice, since the theory may be wrong. A scientific law, however, is not based on “consensus” or speculation, but on the evidence—the facts. Therefore, there should be “consensus” about the laws of nature, even if there isn’t. However, what makes them valid should not be, and is not, based on “consensus.” The goal of science should be the pursuit of truth—not consensus; truth—not what’s popular. That is what has and will lead to further scientific progress in this country and in the world.

The consensus in this country that has existed since its inception—that Creation is true and Darwinian evolution is false—has no doubt played a role in the scientific breakthroughs that individual scientists have made that have led to our nation’s success. Such breakthroughs are to be expected according to the biblical model. In this area, it is clear that following the “consensus” has been a good thing. It seems evident, based on God’s dealings with nations in the Bible, that He views the spiritual state of a nation by its consensus views on various matters, and He responds accordingly with blessings or punishments. In the past, God has showered this nation with blessings—scientifically, economically, militarily, and in many other ways—in large part due to the “consensus” of Americans that the God of the Bible is the one true God (cf. Miller, 2008). Sadly, the consensus is changing, and we should expect God’s blessings to diminish accordingly. May we encourage you always in your pursuit to boldly speak “the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15), doing your part to make the American consensus one that believes in and seeks to obey the one true God of the Universe.

REFERENCES

Archie, John (2012), “Philosophy 103: Introduction to Logic Argumentum Ad Populum,” Introduction to Logic, Lander University, http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/popular.html.

Balme, D.M. (1962), “Development of Biology in Aristotle and Theophrastus: Theory of Spontaneous Generation,” Phronesis: A Journal for Ancient Philosophy, 7[1-2]:91-104.

“Bloodletting” (2012), Science Museum Brought to Life: Exploring the History of Medicine,http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/broughttolife/techniques/bloodletting.aspx.

Darwin, Charles (1859), On the Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (London: John Murray).

“Major Religions of the World Ranked by Number of Adherents” (2007),http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html.

Miller, Dave (2008), The Silencing of God (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Miller, Jeff (2012a), “Bill Nye: The (Pseudo-)Science Guy,” Apologetics Press,http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=2842.

Miller, Jeff (2012b), “Literal Creationists Holding Their Ground in the Polls,” Reason & Revelation, 32[9]:94-95, September (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press),http://www.apologeticspress.org /APPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1093&article=2040#.

Stein, Ben and Kevin Miller (2008), Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (Premise Media).

"Train Up a Child"--What Does It Mean? by Garry K. Brantley, M.A., M.Div.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=348

"Train Up a Child"--What Does It Mean?

by	Garry K. Brantley, M.A., M.Div.

Proverbs 22:6 is a pithy statement, but packs a powerful punch. “Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it.” This proverb solidly affirms that parental guidance plays an essential role in the spiritual maturation of children. And a probe into its meaning uncovers parenting gems whose practicality enhances their worth. Consider these:

• First, this is a proverbial statement, and must be interpreted in light of its literary characteristics. Frequently, Bible students approach the proverbs as direct commands that carry secure promises. Such a strict reading of this proverb has haunted parents whose children have abandoned the Christian values that they so prayerfully attempted to instill in them. Yet, biblical proverbs are neither commands nor promises. They are brief, particular expressions of general truth with the inherent possibility of exceptions. To use Proverbs 22:6, therefore, as a litmus test for one’s parental success abuses its nature, and frequently causes unwarranted guilt.
• Second, the proverb does offer some divine insight into the art of rearing children. This inspired saying says more than for parents to apply rules inflexibly in identical fashion to each child. Children, even in the same family unit, have differing personalities and abilities, and do not respond uniformly to instruction. The phrase “in the way he should go,” actually verifies this fact. Literally, the phrase in Hebrew is: “according to the mouth of his way.” This enigmatic expression has been the subject of much scholarly discussion. Apparently, however, the phrase is an idiomatic way of referring to a child’s specific personality and peculiar traits. The “way,” therefore, does not refer to the “strait and narrow path” mapped out by God’s Word, but to the singular characteristics of each child. Parents are to inaugurate (from hanak, usually translated “train”) their children in the way paved by their unique dispositions. This is the behavioral and attitudinal course from which a child, as a general rule, will not deviate as indicated in the following phrase: “When he is old, he will not turn from it.”

This does not, however, endorse a humanistic approach to child rearing in which parents simply assist each child to clarify his or her own values. Since this proverb appears in the divine volume, it assumes a theistic perspective on life—a life lived in recognition of God’s sovereignty. Hence, this proverb counsels parents to apply judiciously God’s principles to each child, with due consideration to his or her individual traits. In addition, parents are challenged to help each child recognize and sharpen his or her particular abilities, and use them to God’s glory. This proverb, therefore, cautions parents that the rearing of their children often must be as unique and diverse as the number of children God has given them.

Inconsistent Allegations by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=1606&b=Numbers

Inconsistent Allegations

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Several years ago, the Kerrville, Texas Daily Times on-line newspaper published two stories on their front page about the same basic event—the Texas Associated Press Managing Editors’ meeting in Galveston, Texas. The headline for the first story was “Times Wins 17 Awards in Statewide Contest” (emp. added). The second story was titled, “Times Gets 16 Awards in First Day” (emp. added). One story clearly indicated that the newspaper had won 16 awards, while the other used the number 17. Apparently, however, none of the KerrvilleDaily Times staff believed that their stories were contradictory. (The stories remained on theDaily Times homepage for a few days.) What’s more, there was no indication that others were accusing the newspaper of being inconsistent or dishonest in their reporting. Why? Because most anyone who read the two titles quickly understood that the newspaper won 17 awards in all—16 of which they collected on the meeting’s “first day.”

If most anyone can easily understand and accept such differences as were found on the Kerrville Daily Times Web site, one wonders why similar logical differences cannot easily be acknowledged in Scripture. For example, when Moses wrote about the sexual immorality and idolatry that the Israelites committed in Moab, he noted that “those who died in the plague were twenty-four thousand” (Numbers 25:9, emp., added). When the apostle Paul alluded to the number of Israelites who committed sexual immorality (apparently referring to the events in Numbers 25:1-9), he wrote: “in one day twenty-three thousand fell” (1 Corinthians 10:8, emp. added). Skeptics and certain others (e.g., Davids, et al, 1996, pp. 598-599) would have us believe that Paul erred in writing 23,000, rather than 24,000. But notice that Paul included the phrase “in one day twenty-three thousand fell” (emp. added). Though Moses would later write about what happened “in the day of the plague” (Numbers 25:18; cf. Genesis 2:17; 1 Kings 2:37,42; Lyons, 2002), he did not use a numerical adjective to delineate clearly a set period of one day as Paul did. Thus, the difference in the two numbers can easily (and logically) be resolved by taking into account that Paul’s number included what happened within a literal 24-hour period, while Moses’ number included everyone who died “when the plague came” (Numbers 25:18, NIV), however long it lasted.

Of course, as with many alleged Bible discrepancies, oftentimes more than one possible explanation exists for differences between two or more Bible passages. Regarding 1 Corinthians 10:8, some believe that Paul was referring to a different time in Israelite history (cf. Archer, 1982, p. 401; Geisler and Howe, 1992, pp. 458-459). Others believe that Numbers 25:9 is, indeed, the actual “sister” passage to 1 Corinthians 10:8, but that the additional 1,000 in the book of Numbers also included those whom the judges executed (Numbers 25:4-5; see Jamieson, et al., 1997). Still, it may be that Paul’s number only included the portion of those who were actually guilty of “sexual immorality,” while Moses included both harlots and idolaters (Numbers 25:1-3).

The fact is, several plausible explanations exist for the differences between Numbers 25:9 and 1 Corinthians 10:8. Exactly what the explanation for the difference is, we may never know. But, we can know that the skeptic has not proven these passages to be discrepant. Furthermore, it is the skeptic who should be questioned as to why he readily accepts the understandable, non-discrepant differences in many modern-day writings (e.g., the Kerrville Daily Times), yet loudly protests against similar logical, explainable differences in Scripture. Undoubtedly, this kind of “inconsistent” allegation should be under scrutiny.

REFERENCES

Archer, Gleason L. (1982), An Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids: Zondervan).

Davids, Peter H., Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., F.F. Bruce, and Manfred T. Brauch (1996), Hard Sayings of the Bible (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press).

Geisler, Norman L. and Thomas A. Howe (1992), When Critics Ask (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books).

Jamieson, Robert, et al. (1997), Jamieson, Fausset, Brown Bible Commentary (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).

Lyons, Eric (2002), “Why Didn’t Adam Die Immediately?” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=797.

From Roy Davison... The outpouring of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost fulfilled an age-old promise of God

http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Davison/Roy/Allen/1940/036-outpouring.html

The outpouring of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost
fulfilled an age-old promise of God

Before His ascension, Jesus told His apostles: “Behold, I send the promise of My Father upon you; but tarry in the city of Jerusalem until you are endued with power from on high” (Luke 24:49). “And being assembled together with them, He commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, 'which,' He said, 'you have heard from Me; for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now'” (Acts 1:4, 5).
Within a few days the apostles would receive special power when they were baptized with the Holy Spirit.
The approaching fulfillment of this promise was announced by John the Baptist.
“I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and He remained upon Him. I did not know Him, but He who sent me to baptize with water said to me, 'Upon whom you see the Spirit descending, and remaining on Him, this is He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit'” (John 1:32, 33).
“I indeed baptize you with water; but One mightier than I is coming, whose sandal strap I am not worthy to loose. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. His winnowing fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly purge His threshing floor, and gather the wheat into His barn; but the chaff He will burn with unquenchable fire” (Luke 3:16, 17). [See also Matthew 3:11 and Mark 1:7, 8.]

The outpouring of the Holy Spirit was promised in the Old Testament.
In about 750 BC God revealed through Isaiah: “'The Redeemer will come to Zion, and to those who turn from transgression in Jacob,' says the LORD. 'As for Me,' says the LORD, 'this is My covenant with them: My Spirit who is upon you, and My words which I have put in your mouth, shall not depart from your mouth, nor from the mouth of your descendants, nor from the mouth of your descendant's descendants,' says the LORD, 'from this time and forevermore'” (Isaiah 59:20, 21). God's Spirit would be upon the people of the New Covenant forever.
Isaiah said desolation would continue “until the Spirit is poured upon us from on high” (Isaiah 32:15). God told His righteous one (Jeshurun) not to fear: “For I will pour water on him who is thirsty, and floods on the dry ground; I will pour My Spirit on your descendants, and My blessing on your offspring” (Isaiah 44:3).
Also through Ezekiel, God said He would pour out His Spirit.
“Then I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within them, and take the stony heart out of their flesh, and give them a heart of flesh, that they may walk in My statutes and keep My judgments and do them; and they shall be My people, and I will be their God” (Ezekiel 11:19, 20). [See also Ezekiel 36:26, 27.]
“'And I will not hide My face from them anymore; for I shall have poured out My Spirit on the house of Israel,' says the Lord GOD” (Ezekiel 39:29).
This promise was for all mankind: “And it shall come to pass afterward that I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh; your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions; and also on My menservants and on My maidservants I will pour out My Spirit in those days” (Joel 2:28, 29).

On Pentecost this promise was fulfilled. 
Two things happened that day that are often confused: (1) the apostles received power, (2) the Spirit was poured out on all flesh.

The apostles were baptized with the Holy Spirit. 
“Now when the Day of Pentecost had fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. Then there appeared to them divided tongues, as of fire, and one sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance” (Acts 2:1- 4). 
This passage describes the outpouring of the Spirit on the apostles. 'They' refers to the apostles, mentioned in the last verse of chapter one. The apostles were Galileans, and according to verse seven all those who spoke in languages were Galileans. Verse fourteen states that Peter stood up with the eleven.
The baptism with the Spirit gave the apostles the divine guidance and power needed to establish the church of Christ. The mighty signs and the ability to be understood in many languages proved that they brought a message from God. 

Later, the first Gentile converts were also baptized with the Holy Spirit.
Peter gave this report of the conversion of Cornelius and his household: “And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, as upon us at the beginning. Then I remembered the word of the Lord, how He said, 'John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' If therefore God gave them the same gift as He gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God” (Acts 11:15- 17). 
Peter's statement “as upon us at the beginning” indicates that this was not an ordinary conversion.
'Them' refers to the Gentiles and 'us' refers to the Jews.
The purpose of this outpouring of the Holy Spirit was to prove to the Jews that Gentiles could become Christians. This is evident from the response of the Jewish Christians: “When they heard these things they became silent; and they glorified God, saying, 'Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life'” (Acts 11:18). They understood that this outpouring was for all Gentiles and not only for the household of Cornelius. Like Pentecost, this was a one-time occurrence with eternal consequences.
Later, Peter refers back to this occasion as the time when God gave the Holy Spirit to the Gentiles: “And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them: 'Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. So, God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as He did to us, and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith” (Acts 15:7-9). 
No other instances of baptism with the Holy Spirit are found in the New Testament. 
The baptism with the Holy Spirit served to usher in the kingdom of God, first for the Jews and then for the Gentiles. In the first case, the apostles were empowered. In the second case, God confirmed that the Gentiles could enter the kingdom with 'no distinction'. 

On Pentecost the Spirit was poured out on all flesh.
Under the old covenant certain people were filled with the Holy Spirit but the Spirit was not available to every believer. Even during the ministry of Jesus, the Spirit had not yet come: “'He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.' But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified” (John 7:38, 39). 
The Spirit could not come until Jesus was glorified. That is why Peter said on Pentecost: “Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear” (Acts 2:33). 
The apostles were baptized with the Holy Spirit on Pentecost. But something else happened as well. The Holy Spirit was poured out on all flesh: “And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God, that I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh” (Acts 2:17). 
What does this mean? Did all people on earth receive the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost? Assuredly not. But because the Spirit came on Pentecost, the gift of the Holy Spirit became available to all. Since that day, the water of life can be obtained by anyone who comes to Christ: “And the Spirit and the bride say, 'Come!' And let him who hears say, 'Come!' And let him who thirsts come. And whoever desires, let him take the water of life freely” (Revelation 22:17).
Although he did not fully understand it himself, Peter proclaimed on Pentecost that the promise was also for the Gentiles: “For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call” (Acts 2:39). From a comparison of Isaiah 57:19 with Ephesians 2:11, 17 we know that those “who are afar off” are the Gentiles.
But this was difficult for Jews to accept, even for Peter. Thus God confirmed it by pouring out the Holy Spirit on the first Gentile converts (Acts 11:15-17; 15:7-9). 
Since the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost, the gift of the Holy Spirit is available to all who repent and are baptized in the name of Jesus for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38, 39). The outpouring on the household of Cornelius verified that the gift of the Holy Spirit is also available to Gentiles (Acts 11:18). 
Since Pentecost, the Holy Spirit continues to be with us, as Jesus promised: “And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you” (John 14:16, 17). 
This is why, after the conversion of Cornelius, the Holy Spirit was never poured out again as on Pentecost. The Spirit has come and is with us forever (John 14:16)! 
When some people now ask God to pour out the Holy Spirit as on the Day of Pentecost, that is something like asking God to raise Jesus from the dead! He is already risen, He has already ascended to the Father, and He has already poured out the Holy Spirit on all flesh!

What is the gift of the Holy Spirit?
The Holy Spirit is given to each Christian: “And by this we know that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us” (1 John 3:24). “By this we know that we abide in Him, and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit” (1 John 4:13).
“For God did not call us to uncleanness, but in holiness. Therefore he who rejects this does not reject man, but God, who has also given us His Holy Spirit” (1 Thessalonians 4:7, 8).
God “has sealed us and given us the Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee” (2 Corinthians 1:22). “Now He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who also has given us the Spirit as a guarantee” (2 Corinthians 5:5). This is the basis of our hope: “Now hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who was given to us” (Romans 5:5).
The gift of the Holy Spirit received by all Christians may not be confused with the 'gifts' (plural) of the Holy Spirit received by certain Christians in the first century through the laying on of the apostles' hands (Acts 5:12; 8:18; 2 Timothy 1:6).
Receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit does not enable us to perform signs such as speaking in a language we have not learned or raising the dead.
It does mean that we have 'living water' within us (John 7:37-39). We have 'the comfort of the Holy Spirit' (Acts 9:31). We are 'strengthened with might through His Spirit in the inner man' (Ephesians 3:16).

How do we receive this promise? 
Since Pentecost the Spirit is available to all. But how do I receive the Spirit? 
When the hearers on Pentecost asked Peter what they should do, he did not say that they should ask God to pour out the Spirit on them as he poured it out on the apostles! 
“Then Peter said to them, 'Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call” (Acts 2:38, 39). At baptism we receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Nor do we read that the 3000 baptized on the Day of Pentecost spoke in tongues or did signs and wonders.
After Pentecost the signs and wonders were done through the hands of the apostles. “Then fear came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles” (Acts 2:43). “And through the hands of the apostles many signs and wonders were done among the people” (Acts 5:12). 
Others, who performed signs later, received that ability “through the hands of the apostles” by the laying on of their hands: “Simon saw that through the laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Spirit was given” (Acts 8:18). [See also Acts 6:6; 19:6; 2 Timothy 1:6.] 
The 3000 did receive the gift of the Holy Spirit when they repented and were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of their sins! [See also Acts 5:32; Romans 5:5; 1 Corinthians 2:12; 2 Corinthians 1:22; 5:5; 1 Thessalonians 4:8; 1 John 3:24; 4:13.]
Paul explains how we receive the Spirit: “But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior” (Titus 3:4-6). The Spirit is poured out on us at baptism, 'the washing of regeneration'.
“For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body - whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free - and have all been made to drink of one Spirit” (1 Corinthians 12:13). 
When we hear the good news of salvation through Christ, when we believe in Him as the risen Son of God, when we repent of our sins, and when we are baptized into the body of Christ, we receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 
“Thanks be to God for His indescribable gift!” (2 Corinthians 9:15). Since the outpouring on Pentecost, the gift of the Holy Spirit is available to all through Christ. “For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call” (Acts 2:39). Amen.
Roy Davison

The Scripture quotations in this article are from
The New King James Version. ©1979,1980,1982, Thomas Nelson Inc., Publishers.
Permission for reference use has been granted.

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

From Gary... Monkey Business???

Hear, speak and see no evil; I have heard these things since my earliest days upon this Earth. That was then, but NOW? Evil has changed- Cell phones, the web, cable TV and the like have pervaded our lives. In themselves, these things are not evil, but evil people can use good things to promote their evil lifestyle. The following small selection of Bible passages provide insight into EVIL.

Romans, Chapter 1 (WEB)

 26  For this reason, God gave them up to vile passions. For their women changed the natural function into that which is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural function of the woman, burned in their lust toward one another, men doing what is inappropriate with men, and receiving in themselves the due penalty of their error.  28 Even as they refused to have God in their knowledge, God gave them up to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not fitting;  29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, malice; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil habits, secret slanderers,  30 backbiters, hateful to God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,  31 without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, unforgiving, unmerciful;  32 who, knowing the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but also approve of those who practice them. 

Romans, Chapter 16 (WEB)

19 ....But I desire to have you wise in that which is good, but innocent in that which is evil.

1 Thessalonians, Chapter 5 (WEB)

 22 Abstain from every form of evil.

Romans, Chapter 12 (WEB)

 9  ..... Abhor that which is evil. Cling to that which is good.

Evil people invent more evil and good people combat them. Christians are told to be innocent about evil, abstain from it, and abhor it.  People who follow God are to be wise about the good and cling to it. Technology may change, but God does not; follow HIM regardless of what the world tells you is good for you.

And remember- this is NOT monkey business, it is a matter of your eternal destiny!!!