Is the Kingdom Yet to be Established? by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1088

Is the Kingdom Yet to be Established?

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

The average American is aware of the periodic claim that “the end is near.” When Y2K was approaching, outcries of doom, global disruption, and Armageddon were widespread. Hal Lindsey achieved nationwide attention over thirty years ago with his national bestseller, The Late Great Planet Earth (1970). A more recent repackaging of the dispensational brand of premillennialism is the popular Left Behind book series (see “The Official…,” 2003). Every so often, a religious figure captures national attention by announcing the impending return of Jesus—even to the point of setting a date—only to fade into the anonymity and obscurity from which he arose when his claim falls flat, but having achieved his “fifteen minutes of fame” (see Whisenant and Brewer, 1989). The sensationalism sells well, and tweaks the curiosity of large numbers of people. Incredibly, this pattern has been repeating itself—literally for centuries!
One feature of the premillennial dispensationalist’s claim is that the kingdom is yet future, and that Jesus is not reigning now, but will commence His reign in His kingdom when He returns in the future to establish it in Jerusalem. However, several passages cannot be harmonized with such a view. First, the Bible teaches that the kingdom exists now, and has existed since A.D. 30. While Jesus was on Earth, He went to Galilee, “preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, and saying, ‘The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent, and believe in the gospel” (Mark 1:14-15, emp. added). He also stated: “Assuredly, I say to you that there are some standing here who will not taste death till they see the kingdom of God present with power” (Mark 9:1). In fact, Jesus “has delivered us from the power of darkness, and translated us into the kingdom of the Son of His love” (Colossians 1:13). To insist that the kingdom is yet to be established is to fail to recognize that the Bible plainly declares that the kingdom already exists on Earth.
Second, the words “kingdom,” “Israel,” and “church” all refer to the same group of people—i.e., the saved, Christians, the church of Christ, or spiritual Israel. Jesus predicted that He would build His “church” and give to Peter the keys of the “kingdom” (Matthew 16:18-19). Jesus did not build one institution and then give Peter the keys to a different institution. Paul told the Galatian Christians: “Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham. …and if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” (Galatians 3:7,29; cf. 6:16). He told Christians in Rome: “For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart” (Romans 2:28-29). Spiritual Israel is the church of Christ—that is, the kingdom.
Third, Jesus is reigning now in heaven, and has been since His ascension around A.D. 30. Peter explained that Jesus “has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers having been made subject to Him” (1 Peter 3:22). Daniel predicted over four centuries prior to its fulfillment: “One like the Son of Man coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, and they brought Him near before Him. Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and His kingdom the one which shall not be destroyed” (Daniel 7:13-14). This prophecy was fulfilled at the ascension of Christ: “while they watched, He was taken up; and a cloud received Him out of their sight” (Acts 1:9). Jesus returned to heaven where He was given rule over His kingdom (Hebrews 10:12). When He returns a second time, it will not be to reign on Earth. Rather, “[t]hen comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet” (1 Corinthians 15:24-25).
On the Day of Pentecost, Peter announced to the gathered crowd that Jesus was reigning at that moment over His kingdom: “God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne, he, foreseeing this, spoke of the resurrection of the Christ.… This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses. Therefore, being exalted to the right hand of God...” (Acts 2:30-33). Paul made the same point in his letter to the church of Christ in Ephesus: “He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality and power and might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come. And He put all things under His feet” (Ephesians 1:20-22). I repeat: the Bible repeatedly affirms that Jesus is reigning and ruling now over His kingdom.
Fourth, Jesus completed His work on Earth and, consequently, has no reason to return to the Earth to do any additional work. He explained to the disciples: “My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me, and to finish His work” (John 4:34, emp. added). Shortly before His departure from the Earth, He prayed to the Father: “I have glorified You on the earth. I have finished the work which You gave Me to do” (John 17:4).
Dispensationalists say that Jesus came with the intention to be King, and to set up an earthly kingdom, but that the Jews unexpectedly rejected Him. However, this claim is in direct conflict with the facts. On one occasion, after Jesus fed thousands of people with five loaves of bread and two fish—a feat that would constitute a tremendous advantage should war with Rome be forthcoming—John noted that “when Jesus perceived that they were about to come and take Him by force to make Him king, He departed again to a mountain by Himself alone” (6:15). Here was the perfect opportunity for Jesus to become the physical king that the dispensationalists insist He intended to become. But He refused! Why? He gave the reason to Pilate: “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here” (John 18:36). The dispensational claim that Jesus is coming back to be a king on Earth on a physical throne is the very thing first-century Jews tried to get Him to do—but which He refused to do.
Premillennialists also maintain that the modern nation of Israel is the recipient of various promises made in Scripture, and that it plays a prominent and continuing role in God’s scheme of things. This contention has had a profound impact upon U.S. foreign policy, and in the way people around the world—especially in the Middle East—perceive America. It must surely be a shock for many people to learn that the Bible depicts no such favored status. All people stand on level ground at the foot of the cross of Christ. God is no respecter of persons, and makes no distinctions between people on the basis of ethnicity (Acts 10:34-35; Romans 2:11,28-29; Galatians 3:28). The promises that were made to physical Israel in the Old Testament were fulfilled long ago.
For example, God announced to Abraham that He would give to his descendents (the Israelites) the land of Canaan (Genesis 12:1; 15:7). This promise was fulfilled when Israel took possession of Palestine in the fifteenth century B.C. (Joshua 21:43-45; 2 Chronicles 9:26). What so many people today fail to recognize is that Israelites’ retaining the land was contingent upon their continued obedience (Leviticus 18:24-28; Joshua 23:14-16; 1 Kings 9:3-7). The complete and final forfeiture of physical Israel took place in A.D. 70. The reestablishment of national Israel, and the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the Temple (i.e., the national promises of Deuteronomy 30 and Zechariah 12-14) were literally fulfilled in the returning remnant after the Babylonian captivity (Nehemiah 1:8-10; Isaiah 10:22; Jeremiah 23:3; Ezra 3:1-11).
Many of the Old Testament prophecies that predicted the return of the Jews after captivity were laced with predictions of the coming of Christ to the Earth to bring ultimate redemption. Hence, the national promises were spiritually fulfilled in the church of Christ, wherein both Jews and Gentiles are one in Christ. For example, premillennialists are fond of calling attention to the concluding prophetic remarks of Amos: “ ‘On that day I will raise up the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down, and repair its damages; I will raise up its ruins, and rebuild it as in the days of old; that they may possess the remnant of Edom, and all the Gentiles who are called by My name,’ says the Lord who does this thing” (Amos 9:11-12). They insist that the fulfillment of this prophecy is yet future. They say the Temple, which was destroyed in A.D. 70 by the Romans (Matthew 23:37-24:35), will be rebuilt on the Temple platform in Jerusalem (a site currently occupied by the third most holy shrine of Islam—the Dome of the Rock). They say that Jesus will return, set up His millennial kingdom, and reign on a literal throne for a thousand years, incorporating the Gentiles, in addition to the nation of Israel, into His kingdom. On the face of it, this prophecy certainly possesses terminology that fits the millennial interpretation placed upon it.
However, two Bible passages correct this interpretation, and settle the question as to the proper application of Amos’ prophecy. The first is the great messianic prophecy uttered by the prophet Nathan to King David regarding David’s future lineage and royal dynasty (2 Samuel 7:12-16). Nathan declared that God would establish and sustain the Davidic dynasty. Even though he also noted that a permanent form of the Tabernacle (that God refused to allow David to build—2 Samuel 7:1-7) would be built by David’s son (i.e., Solomon), God, Himself, would build David a house (i.e., a dynasty, a kingly lineage). It is this lineage to which Amos referred—not a physical temple building.
The second passage that clarifies Amos’ prophecy is the account of the Jerusalem “conference” (Acts 15). Following Peter’s report regarding Gentile inclusion in the kingdom, James offered the following confirmatory comment: “Men and brethren, listen to me: Simon has declared how God at the first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name. And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written” (Acts 15:13-15). James then quoted Amos 9:11-12. In other words, on that most auspicious occasion, James noted two significant facts that had come to pass precisely as predicted by Amos: (1) after the downfall of the Jewish kingdom, the Davidic dynasty had been reinstated in the person of Christ—the “Son of David” (Matthew 22:42)—Who, at His ascension, had been enthroned in heaven, thereby “rebuilding the tabernacle of David that had fallen down”; and (2) with the conversion of the first Gentiles in Acts 10, as reported on this occasion by Peter, the “residue of men,” or the non-Jewish segment of humanity, was now “seeking the Lord.”
In light of James’ inspired application of it to the integrated church of the first century, the Amos prophecy, like all others in the Old Testament that premillennialists wish to apply to the future, finds ultimate and final climax in the momentous advent of the Christian religion on the planet. The premillennial treatment of prophecy is, in the final analysis, a demeaning and trivializing of the significance of the Gospel, the church of Christ, and the Christian religion as the final revelation from God to mankind. The kingdom is not future; it is here now. All accountable persons would do well to conform themselves to the preconditions that enable Jesus to add them to His kingdom (Acts 2:38,47; 8:12-13,36-38; 9:18; 10:47-48; 16:30-34; 18:8; 19:5: 22:16).

REFERENCES

Lindsey, Hal (1970), The Late Great Planet Earth (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
“The Official Left Behind Series Site,” (2003), [On-line], URL: http://www.leftbehind.com.
Whisenant, Edgar and Greg Brewer (1989), The Final Shout Rapture 1989 Report (Nashville, TN: World Bible Society).

Did Jesus Dodge His Enemies' Challenge Regarding His Deity? by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=838

Did Jesus Dodge His Enemies' Challenge Regarding His Deity?

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

During the Feast of Dedication in Jerusalem, the Jews surrounded Jesus and challenged Him to come right out and state whether He is the Messiah/Christ (John 10). Of course, both His previous verbal affirmations as well as His demonstrations of miraculous power had already established the factuality of the point. “The works that I do in My Father’s name, they bear witness of Me” (John 10:25; cf. 5:36; “work” is a synonym for the key word of the book, “sign”). Jesus insisted that His miraculous acts verified and authenticated His messianic identity. Their failure to accept the solid evidence of that fact was due to their deliberate unbelief—their unmitigated refusal to accept the truth due to ulterior motives and alternate interests.
So Jesus pressed the point again very forthrightly by stating emphatically, “I and My Father are one.” Observe that Jesus was never evasive. He never showed fear or hesitation in the face of threats or danger. Instead, He gave them yet another explicit declaration of His divine identity, thereby rekindling their desire to execute Him for blasphemy (as per Leviticus 24:14-16; cf. 1 Kings 21:10). But Jesus short-circuited their intention to stone Him by posing a penetrating question: “Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?” Since the Son and the Father are one, and the miraculous actions that Jesus performed were every bit as much from the Father as the Son who performed them, which sign evoked this violent intention to execute Him? Of course, Jesus knew that they did not desire to execute Him for His miraculous signs. But by calling attention to His ability to perform miracles, He was again “gigging” them with their failure to accept the evidence of His divine identity. Dismissing the obvious conclusion that would be drawn by any unbiased, honest person, they insisted that He was deserving of execution for the very fact that He claimed to be God: “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God” (John 10:33, emp. added).
Such occasions illustrate vividly that Jesus unhesitatingly claimed to be God in the flesh. If not, here was the perfect time for Him to correct the Jews’ misconception by declaring to them that they had misunderstood Him. He could have explained that He was not, in any way, claiming to be God. On the contrary, consistent with His entire time on Earth, He proceeded to prove the point to them.
As was so often the case with His handling of His contemporaries, He drew their attention back to the Bible, back to the Word of God (which He, Himself, authored, cf. John 12:48; Miller, 2007; Miller, 2009). The Word of God is the only authority for deciding what to believe and how to act (Colossians 3:17). Jesus reminded them of Psalm 82:6—

Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods”’? If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?” (John 10:34-37).

Why did Jesus allude to Psalm 82? Some suggest that His point was that since God could refer to mere humans as “gods,” Jesus’ accusers had no grounds to condemn Him for applying such language to Himself. But this line of reasoning would make it appear as if Jesus was being evasive to avoid being stoned, and that He likened His claim to godhood with other mere humans. A more convincing, alternative interpretation is apparent.
The context of Psalm 82 is a scathing indictment of the unjust judges who had been assigned the responsibility of executing God’s justice among the people (cf. Deuteronomy 1:16; 19:17-18; 2 Chronicles 19:6). Such a magistrate was “God’s minister” (diakonos—Romans 13:4) who acted in the place of God, wielding His authority, and who was responsible for mediating God’s help and justice (cf. Exodus 7:1). God had “given them a position that was analogous to His in that He had made them administrators of justice, His justice” (Leupold, 1969, p. 595). In this sense, they were “gods” (elohim)—acting as God to men (Barclay, 1956, 2:89). Hebrew parallelism clarifies this sense: “I said, ‘You are gods, and all of you are children of the Most High’” (Psalm 82:6, emp. added). They did not share divinity with God—but merely delegated jurisdiction. They still were mere humans—although invested with divine authority, and permitted to act in God’s behalf.
This point is apparent throughout the Pentateuch, where the term translated “judges” or “ruler” is sometimes elohim (e.g., Exodus 21:6; 22:9,28). Moses is one example. Moses was not a “god.” Yet God told Moses that when he went to Egypt to orchestrate the release of the Israelites, he would be “God” to his brother Aaron and to Pharaoh (Exodus 4:16; 7:1). He meant that Moses would supply both his brother and Pharaoh with the words that came from God. Though admittedly a rather rare use of elohim, nevertheless “it shows that the word translated ‘god’ in that place might be applied to man” (Barnes, 1949, p. 294, italics in orig.). Clarke summarized this point: “Ye are my representatives, and are clothed with my power and authority to dispense judgment and justice, therefore all of them are said to be children of the Most High” (n.d., 3:479, italics in orig.). But because they had shirked their awesome responsibility to represent God’s will fairly and accurately, and because they had betrayed the sacred trust bestowed upon them by God Himself, He decreed that they would die (vs. 7). Obviously, they were not “gods,” since God could and would execute them!
A somewhat analogous mode of expression is seen in Nathan’s denunciation of David: “You have killed Uriah the Hittite” (2 Samuel 12:9)—though it was an enemy archer who had done so (2 Samuel 11:24; 12:9). No one would accuse the archer of being David, or David of being the archer. Paul said Jesus preached to the Gentiles (Ephesians 2:17)—though Jesus did so through human agency (Acts 10). Peter said Jesus preached to spirits in prison (1 Peter 3:19), when, in fact, He did so through Noah (Genesis 6; 2 Peter 2:5). Noah was not Jesus and Jesus was not Noah. If Paul and Noah could be described as functioning in the capacity of Jesus, judges in Israel could be described as functioning as God.

JESUS’ POINT

Jesus marshaled this Old Testament psalm (referring to it as “law” to accentuate its legal authority) to thwart His opponents’ attack, while simultaneously reaffirming His deity (which is the central feature of the book of John—20:30-31). He made shrewd use of syllogistic argumentation by reasoning a minori ad majus (see Lenski, 1943, pp. 765-770; cf. Fishbane, 1985, p. 420). “Jesus is here arguing like a rabbi from a lesser position to a greater position, a ‘how much more’ argument very popular among the rabbis” (Pack, 1975, 1:178). In fact, “it is an argument which to a Jewish Rabbi would have been entirely convincing. It was just the kind of argument, an argument founded on a word of scripture, which the Rabbis loved to use and found most unanswerable” (Barclay, 1956, 2:90).
Using argumentum ad hominem (Robertson, 1916, p. 89), Jesus identified the unjust judges of Israel as persons “to whom the word of God came” (John 10:35). That is, they had been “appointed judges by Divine commission” (Butler, 1961, p. 127)—by “the command of God; his commission to them to do justice” (Barnes, 1949, p. 294, italics in orig.; cf. Jeremiah 1:2; Ezekiel 1:3; Luke 3:2). McGarvey summarized the ensuing argument of Jesus: “If it was not blasphemy to call those gods who so remotely represented the Deity, how much less did Christ blaspheme in taking unto himself a title to which he had a better right than they, even in the subordinate sense of being a mere messenger” (n.d., p. 487). Charles Erdman observed:

By his defense Jesus does not renounce his claim to deity; but he argues that if the judges, who represented Jehovah in their appointed office, could be called “gods,” in the Hebrew scriptures, it could not be blasphemy for him, who was the final and complete revelation of God, to call himself “the Son of God” (1922, pp. 95-96, emp. added).

Morris agrees: “If in any sense the Psalm may apply this term to men, then much more may it be applied to Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world” (1971, pp. 527-528, emp. added). Indeed, “if the divine name had been applied by God to mere men, there could be neither blasphemy nor folly in its application to the incarnate Son of God himself” (Alexander, 1873, p. 351, emp. added).
This verse brings into stark contrast the deity—the Godhood—of Christ (and His Father Who “sanctified and sent” Him—vs. 36) with the absence of deity for all others. Jesus verified this very conclusion by directing the attention of His accusers to the “works” that He performed (vss. 37-38). These “works” (i.e., miraculous signs) proved the divine identity of Jesus to the exclusion of all other alleged deities. Archer concluded: “By no means, then, does our Lord imply here that we are sons of God just as He is—except for a lower level of holiness and virtue. No misunderstanding could be more wrongheaded than that” (1982, p. 374).
So Jesus was not attempting to dodge His critics or deny their charge. The entire context has Jesus asserting His deity, and He immediately reaffirms it by referring to Himself as the One “whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world” (vs. 36). Jesus spotlighted yet another manifestation of the Jews’ hypocrisy, bias, and ulterior agenda—their failure to recognize and accept the Messiah. Even if they were sincere, they were wrong in their thinking; but in truth they were doubly wrong in that they were not even sincere—a fact that Jesus repeatedly spotlighted (cf. Matthew 12:7; 15:3-6).

CONCLUSION

The central doctrine of the New Testament is the deity of Christ. Indeed, with very little exaggeration, one could say that the doctrine appears on nearly every page. This foundational, life-saving doctrine is denied by the majority of the world’s population (e.g., one billion Hindus, one billion skeptics, one billion Muslims, etc.). Since sufficient evidence exists to know that the Bible is of divine origin (e.g., Butt, 2007; “The Inspiration…,” 2001; et al.), one can also know with certainty that Jesus Christ

being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father (Philippians 2:6-11, emp. added).

 Having completed His task to atone for humanity, He has returned to heaven and is seated at the Father’s “right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality and power and might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come” (Ephesians 1:20-21; cf. Hebrews 8:1). No other avenue exists by which human beings can be acceptable to deity (Acts 4:12). Indeed, Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life, and no one comes to the Father except through Him (John 14:6). May all people humbly bow before Him.

REFERENCES

Alexander, Joseph A. (1873), The Psalms Translated and Explained (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1975 reprint).
Archer, Gleason L. (1982), An Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids: Zondervan).
Barclay, William (1956), The Gospel of John (Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press), second edition.
Barnes, Albert (1949), Notes on the New Testament: Luke and John (Grand Rapids: Baker).
Butler, Paul (1961), The Gospel of John (Joplin, MO: College Press).
Butt, Kyle (2007), Behold! The Word of God (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Clarke, Adam (no date), Clarke’s Commentary: Genesis-Deuteronomy (New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury).
Erdman, Charles (1922), The Gospel of John (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster).
Fishbane, Michael (1985), Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
“The Inspiration of the Bible” (2001), Apologetics Press Introductory Christian Evidences Correspondence Course Lesson 8, http://www.apologeticspress.org/pdfs/courses_pdf/hsc0108.pdf.
Lenski, R.C.H. (1943), The Interpretation of St. John’s Gospel (Minneapolis: Augsburg).
Leupold, H.C. (1969), Exposition of the Psalms (Grand Rapids: Baker).
McGarvey, J.W. (no date), The Fourfold Gospel (Cincinnati, OH: Standard).
Miller, Dave (2007), “Jesus’ Hermeneutical Principles,” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=2307&topic=75.
Miller, Dave (2009), “Christianity is Rational,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=684.
Morris, Leon (1971), The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).
Pack, Frank (1975), The Gospel According to John (Austin, TX: Sweet).
Robertson, A.T. (1916), The Divinity of Christ (New York: Fleming H. Revell).

Fool Me Twice, Shame on Me by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=2242

Fool Me Twice, Shame on Me

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Evolutionists are notorious for speaking authoritatively, decisively, and vehemently on the alleged “proof” of evolution. Yet, time and time again, through the years, evidence has forced evolutionists to recant their assertions, correct their premature conclusions, and alter the very claims that they formerly insisted proved their case and disproved God and the Bible account of creation. The arguments for evolution advanced during the infamous Scopes trial have been repudiated by evolutionists themselves. Indeed, from Darwin forward, evolutionary theory has manifested a precarious, century-plus-long history of modification, alteration, abandonment, correction, and endless speculation. From so-called “vestigial organs,” peppered moths, and Haeckel’s alleged embryonic recapitulation to Neanderthal, Java, Nebraska, and Piltdown man—all debunked decades ago. About the time their half-baked conjuring filters down to the school textbooks where their ideas are implanted into young minds as fact, the evolutionists already have changed their minds and are advocating alternate conclusions with the same certainty and fervor with which they advanced their now discredited views. And this process has been repeating itself for over a century!
There’s an old saying: “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.” An honest person with reasonable intelligence cannot be fooled forever. Sooner or later he will shake his head and conclude that what is touted as “science” is, in fact, superstition. What is asserted as “certain” is, in reality, merely speculation. And what is promoted as “fact” is actually simple bias and personal opinion. If, after 150 years of ongoing efforts by the scientific intelligentsia to validate the theory of evolution, the proof continues to go wanting, hasn’t the time come to abandon the notion as hopelessly, inherently, and irrevocably flawed? Hasn’t the time come to return to the only sane, plausible, scientifically harmonious explanation for the existence of the Universe and everything within it? “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God’” (Psalm 53:1). The fact remains that “[t]he heavens are telling of the glory of God; and their expanse is declaring the work of His hands” (Psalm 19:1, NASB). “For He commanded and they were created” (Psalm 148:5). “Know that the Lord, He is God; It is He who has made us, and not we ourselves” (Psalm 100:3). “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse” (Romans 1:20).

Questions and Answers: Leviticus 18:22 and Homosexuality by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=1419

Questions and Answers: Leviticus 18:22 and Homosexuality

by	Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Q.

Does Leviticus 18:22 condemn all homosexual activity, or certain acts?

A.

It has been argued by certain homosexuals, and those sympathetic to their cause, that Leviticus 18:22 does not teach that all homosexual acts are wrong. Supposedly, this verse (“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.”) “refers to the male’s assuming the passive role in anal intercourse, which was held as an abomination because of taking on the inferior status of women. Apparently it does not view the ‘active’ role in anal intercourse as an abomination, nor other homosexual acts” (as stated on one particular pro-homosexual web site). As sickening as it is to respond to such a grotesque interpretation of Scripture, we are compelled to answer the homosexuals’ ever-growing perversions of God’s Word, including this one.
First, nowhere in Scripture is a particular posture commanded or forbidden for a husband and wife while they are engaged in sexual intercourse. The Bible’s only emphasis on legitimate sexual relations is that it always take place between a scripturally married husband and wife (1 Corinthians 7:2; cf. Matthew 19:1-9). God never stipulated specific postures in order for sexual relations between a husband and wife to be appropriate. For the homosexually tolerant interpretation of Leviticus 18:22 to begin to have any validity whatsoever, it must be proved that God placed emphasis on postures during intercourse. Such cannot be done.
Second, the homosexual’s explanation of this verse also is flawed in that it suggests that while the “active” person involved in anal intercourse is not sinning, the one “assuming the passive role” is doing something detestable. Thus, allegedly while two men are engaged in sexual intercourse, one may be doing something perfectly honorable, while the other is doing something despicable. What kind of nonsense is this? According to God, intercourse is either legitimate for both people (1 Corinthians 7:2; Hebrews 13:4), or illegitimate for both people (Matthew 19:9). Scripture never indicates that sexual relations between two men might be moral for one of the participants, but immoral for the other one.
Those who interpret the Bible in such a way are doing just the opposite of what Paul stated that he did (and that God wants from us all): They have not “renounced the hidden things of shame,” but are “walking in craftiness” and are “handling the word of God deceitfully” (2 Corinthians 4:2). They are unstable people who twist the Scriptures “to their own destruction” (2 Peter 3:16)

The “Window” of the Ark by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=1466&b=Genesis

The “Window” of the Ark

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

After informing Noah about an upcoming worldwide flood, and commanding him to build a massive boat of gopher wood (approximately 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high), God instructed His faithful servant, saying, “You shall make a window for the ark, and you shall finish it to a cubit from above” (Genesis 6:16, emp. added; NOTE: A cubit is roughly 18 inches). Upon reading about this window in the ark, many people have contemplated its usefulness (or lack thereof). Since, historically, windows have served two basic purposes (that of lighting and ventilation), inquiring minds want to know what good one window 18 inches square would be on an ark with a capacity of about 1,400,000 cubic feet full of animals. Dennis McKinsey, the one-time editor of the journal Biblical Errancy (touted as “the only national periodical focusing on biblical errors”), once asked: “How could so many creatures breathe with only one small opening which was closed for at least 190 days? [sic]” (1983, p. 1). Other skeptics also have ridiculed the idea that sufficient ventilation for the whole ark could have come through this one window (see Wells, 2001). In fact, anyone even slightly familiar with animal-house ventilation needs would be somewhat taken back by the apparent lack of airflow allowed by the ark’s design. Unless God miraculously ventilated the ark, one little window on a three-story-tall boat (which was a football-field-and-a-half long) simply would not do.
Questions regarding the “window” on Noah’s ark and the problem of ventilation have persisted largely because the Hebrew word translated window (tsohar) in Genesis 6:16 appears only here in the Old Testament, and linguistic scholars are unsure as to its exact meaning (see Hamilton, 1990, p. 282). Translators of the KJV and NKJV employ the word “window” to translate tsohar; however, according to Old Testament commentator Victor Hamilton, they “do so on the basis of the word’s possible connection with sahorayim, ‘noon, midday,’ thus an opening to let in the light of day” (p. 282). Hebrew scholar William Gesenius defined tsohar in his Hebrew lexicon as simply “light,” and translated Genesis 6:16 as “thou shalt make light for the ark” (1847, p. 704). He then surmised that this “light” represented, not a window, but windows (plural). The ASV translators also preferred “light” as the best translation for tsohar. Still more recent translations, including the RSV, NIV, and ESV, have translated Genesis 6:16 as “make a roof” for the ark, instead of make a “window” or “light.”

Such disagreement among translations is, admittedly, somewhat discouraging to the person who wants a definite answer as to how tsohar should be translated. What is clear, however, is that the word translated “window” two chapters later, which Noah is said to have “opened” (8:6), is translated from a different Hebrew word (challôwn) than what is used in Genesis 6:16. The word challôwn (8:6) is the standard Hebrew word for “window” (cf. Genesis 26:8; Joshua 2:18). Yet, interestingly, this is not the word used in 6:16. One wonders if these were two different entities, or if in 8:6, Noah opened one of a plurality of aligned windows that God instructed him to make in 6:16?
Another assumption often brought into a discussion regarding the “window” (tsohar) of 6:16 is that it was one square cubit. Although many people have imagined Noah’s ark as having one small window 18 inches high by 18 inches wide, the phrase “you shall finish it to a cubit from above” (6:16, NKJV; cf. RSV) does not give the Bible reader any clear dimensions of the opening. The text just says that Noah was to “finish it to a cubit from the top” (NASB; “upward,” ASV). The truth is, the size of the lighting apparatus mentioned in this verse is unspecified. The text seems to indicate only the distance the opening was from the top of the ark, rather than the actual size of the window. Thus we cannot form a definitive picture of it. But we do know that nothing in the text warrants an interpretation that the “window” was just a “small opening” (as skeptic Dennis McKinsey alleged). A more probable theory, which aligns itself appropriately with the text, is that the opening described in Genesis 6:16 extended around the ark’s circumference 18 inches from the top of the ark with an undeterminable height. According to John Woodmorappe, such an opening would have provided sufficient light and ventilation for the ark (1996, pp. 37-44).
When reading the Bible, it always is important to remember that many details about the events it records often are not revealed to the reader. So it is with the plans recorded in the Bible regarding Noah’s ark. As Henry Morris commented, “It was obviously not the intention of the writer to record the complete specifications for the ark’s construction, but only enough to assure later readers that it was quite adequate for its intended purpose...‘to preserve life on the earth’ ” (1976, p. 182). Truly, absolute certainty regarding the openings on the ark cannot be determined. We know of an opening mentioned in Genesis 6:16 (tsohar), as well as one (challôwn) mentioned in 8:6. And, since Noah, his family, as well as the animals on the ark, survived the Flood, it is only logical to conclude that God made proper ways to ventilate the ark in which they lived during the Flood. Although nothing in Scripture demands that those of us living millennia after the Flood need to know how it was ventilated, lighted, etc., it is very likely that God used the opening mentioned in Genesis 6:16.

REFERENCES

Gesenius, William (1847), Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1979 reprint).
Hamilton, Victor P. (1990), The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1-17 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
McKinsey, Dennis (1983), “Commentary,” Biblical Errancy, pp. 1-2, November.
Morris, Henry M. (1976), The Genesis Record (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Wells, Steve (2001), Skeptic’s Annotated Bible, [On-line], URL: http://www.Skepticsannotatedbible.com.
Woodmorappe, John (1996), Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study (Santee, CA: Institute for Creation Research).

The Importance of the Written Word by J.C. Bailey

http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Bailey/John/Carlos/1903/Articles/written.html

The Importance of the Written Word

The written word is a very important part of God's plan. When God gave the ten commandments to Israel He wrote them on stones. The ministry of Christ was based on the written word: "And he said unto them. These are my words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled which are written in the law of Moses, and the prophets, and the Psalms concerning me" (Luke 24:44). To this we add: "And he said unto them, Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer, and rise again from the dead, the third day; and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name unto all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem" (Luke 24:46,47).

Again, we appeal to scripture for the place of the written word in the plan of God. We are believers because of the written word. "Many other signs therefore did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: but these are written, that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God; and believing ye may have life in his name" (John 20:30,31). So we have the message of Jesus and we are to teach it to every creature (Matthew 28:18-20; Mark 16:15,16). God taught by oral teaching and by writing. If we follow the divine example we shall do likewise.

Paul wrote to Timothy, and hence to us: "Till I come give heed to reading, to exhortation, to teaching" (I Timothy 4:16). Then Paul advises: "Take heed to thyself, and to thy teaching, continue in these things; for in doing this thou shalt save both thyself and them that hear thee" (I Timothy 4:16).

In connection with our printed teaching program we could well heed the admonition: "And the things which thou hast heard from me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men who shall be able to teach others also" (I Timothy 2:2). Let me give you an example of what we do in India with the printed word. I have recently written two tracts, one is written on the Holy Spirit and one is called The Kingdom That Cannot Be Shaken. These will go out to thousands of people in four languages. They are in exact conformity with the reading and hearing of God's word that I have done for more than 70 years. I am doing by means of the printed page what I was told to do in II Timothy 2:2.

How true it is, what Jesus says in Luke 16:8: "...for the sons of this world are wiser in their own generation than the sons of light." Look at what the Jehovah Witnesses have done, to say nothing of the Communists, the Adventists, the Liberals, etc. We cannot name a sect or a political philosophy that has not thrived on the printed page. I know the devil is happy when we do not read good literature. When we do not put out millions of tracts and Bible Correspondence courses. When we do not print good books to answer the errors of this world. Truth is stronger than error, but if we do not use it, it is not strong.

The greatest preacher of all time, except the divine Son of God, was a great reader. Paul was awaiting death. He was in a cold dark cell, but listen to his instructions to Timothy: "...bring when thou comest the books, especially the parchments" (II Timothy 4:13). Did not Paul say that we were to be imitators of him?

J.C. Bailey, 1985, Bengough, Saskatchewan


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

Appreciation by Gary Rose

OH, PLEASE- bathroom humor??? Well, it got my attention, how about you? The thing is, we are all different. Many of us may have had many different jobs over the decades. Today, you may even find yourself doing a variety of tasks, some of which may be very unpleasant!  Remember changing diapers, taking out the trash or that business end of a dog walk?

In light of these things, perhaps gaining an understanding of ourselves in a changing world is a priority- and understanding others is its equal...

1 Corinthians, Chapter 12 (World English Bible)

 ⁴ Now there are various kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit.  ⁵ There are various kinds of service, and the same Lord. ⁶ There are various kinds of workings, but the same God, who works all things in all.  ⁷ But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the profit of all.  ⁸ For to one is given through the Spirit the word of wisdom, and to another the word of knowledge, according to the same Spirit;  ⁹ to another faith, by the same Spirit; and to another gifts of healings, by the same Spirit;  ¹⁰ and to another workings of miracles; and to another prophecy; and to another discerning of spirits; to another different kinds of languages; and to another the interpretation of languages.  ¹¹ But the one and the same Spirit produces all of these, distributing to each one separately as he desires. 

  ¹² For as the body is one, and has many members, and all the members of the body, being many, are one body; so also is Christ.  ¹³ For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether bond or free; and were all given to drink into one Spirit.  ¹⁴ For the body is not one member, but many.  ¹⁵ If the foot would say, “Because I’m not the hand, I’m not part of the body,” it is not therefore not part of the body.  ¹⁶ If the ear would say, “Because I’m not the eye, I’m not part of the body,” it’s not therefore not part of the body.  ¹⁷ If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole were hearing, where would the smelling be?  ¹⁸ But now God has set the members, each one of them, in the body, just as he desired.  ¹⁹ If they were all one member, where would the body be?  ²⁰ But now they are many members, but one body. (Emp. added vss. 15-20, GDR) ²¹ The eye can’t tell the hand, “I have no need for you,” or again the head to the feet, “I have no need for you.”  ²² No, much rather, those members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary.  ²³ Those parts of the body which we think to be less honorable, on those we bestow more abundant honor; and our unpresentable parts have more abundant propriety;  ²⁴ whereas our presentable parts have no such need. But God composed the body together, giving more abundant honor to the inferior part,  ²⁵ that there should be no division in the body, but that the members should have the same care for one another.  ²⁶ When one member suffers, all the members suffer with it. When one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it.

We each have our function in life and that task may change over time, so learn to appreciate the value of others (and your own as well). God will use us as he sees fit, so rejoice in whatever you are doing. Things could always be worse- remember the picture!!!