6/2/16

When was “The Faith” Delivered? by Kyle Butt, M.Div.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=703

When was “The Faith” Delivered?

by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

Recently we received a very interesting question from one of our readers. It is noteworthy for two reasons. First, many of us have probably never heard the question. (I have been working for more than 20 years in Bible study and teaching of various types and had never heard it.) Second, the answer is extremely simple, but might not appear that obvious at the outset.
The question is, how could the book of Jude be a part of “the faith” (meaning the body of New Testament teaching recognized as “the faith”) if the book of Jude states that the faith “was once and for all delivered to the saints” (vs. 3)? If Jude says “the faith” was “delivered” once and for all in the past, then how could his writing, being written after the fact, be part of “the faith”? Along those same lines, how could Peter state that God “has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness” (2 Peter 1:3), if Peter was writing material after that statement was made that pertained to “life and godliness”?
The simple answer lies in the fact that when something is recorded is not necessarily when it is “delivered.” Throughout the first century, God inspired the apostles and various first century prophets to deliver “the faith” to the early church. Much of that material, however, was preached long before it was written down. For instance, God inspired Peter and the apostles to preach the Gospel on the day of Pentecost after Jesus’ resurrection and ascension into heaven. That sermon was not recorded, however, until about 30 years later by the inspired writer Luke. Since that is the case, we understand that the material had been delivered to the church long before it was preserved in written form by the Holy Spirit in the book of Acts.
This fact is evident in the books of 2 Peter and Jude, the two books under discussion. Both authors made a special point to insist that they were reminding their audiences of material that was already out there and available. For instance, Peter stated, “I will not be negligent to remind you always of these things, though you know them, and are established in the present truth” (2 Peter 1:12). Later in the book he stated, “Beloved, I now write to you this second epistle (in both of which I stir up your pure minds by way of reminder)” (2 Peter 3:1). Jude made similar statements when he wrote, “But I want to remind you, though you once knew this” (vs. 5). And when he stated, “remember the words which were spoken before by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ.” These authors insist that they are reminding their readers of material that the readers had access to before they read these letters.
When we stop to consider the situation, this would have to be the case. Jesus explained that the Holy Spirit would help the apostles know what to say when they stood before rulers (Matthew 10:19). Yet we read of only a very few instances of such messages in Acts. Certainly it was the case that Matthew, Andrew, Thomas, and the other apostles preached inspired messages that we have no record of. In 1 Corinthians 14:31, we learn that certain people in the Corinthian church were prophets, but we do not have a record of their messages. The point is this: throughout the first century, the Holy Spirit was delivering “all things” (John 14:26), guiding the inspired writers into “all truth” (John 16:13), and making known “the faith” to the church in a number of ways. When we see it preserved by an inspired writer, that does not mean it had not been previously delivered in one form or another to the church prior to that.

Woe to You When All Men Speak Well of You by Kyle Butt, M.Div.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=2815

Woe to You When All Men Speak Well of You

by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

It is true that you can tell a great deal about people or groups by who their friends are, but it is also the case that you can sometimes tell just as much by who their enemies are. In fact, Jesus warned that if His disciples were living such unaffecting lives that all men, regardless of their relationship to God, were speaking well of them, then His disciples would not be faithfully carrying out His mission (Luke 6:26).
We at Apologetics Press can safely say that we do not have the problem of “all men speaking well of us.” In fact, with the advent of new mass media outlets for our materials, we have been faced with several vitriolic rebukes.
For instance, when we posted the video of the complete debate between Dan Barker and myself on YouTube.com, we left the comment section open for viewers to express their opinions about the debate. Here are a few that have come from those in the atheistic community and other detractors from our work:
“Kyle Butt is an ­­­---, no pun intended....”
“I can forgive the name Kyle but his parents should have given him some brains or honesty....”
“What a ­­­­­­­---- preacher....”
“Unbelievable...Kyle Butt is clearly insane.”
“Kyle Butts is an absolute moron.”
In an e-mail regarding an article on our Web site titled, “Does Picking Up Sticks on the Sabbath Deserve the Death Penalty?” Danny wrote:
Thanks Kyle!
I’ve never been more proud and confident in being an Ex-Christian than after reading your warped little justification for outright murder. Also, congratulations for providing me with a wealth of information when I need to counter the notion that your particular social culture tribe is morally superior to other social culture tribes. I’ve saved your post as a pdf for future usage. I expect that it will see a lot of mileage.
Respectfully,
Former Bible Believing Conservative Evangelical Pre-Millennial KJV-Only Used To Pass Out Tracts and go to Wednesday services
Danny.
Regarding our Web site in general, Jack e-mailed us and said:
While your website has been around for ten years, you are thousands of years behind on many of your answers. It’s not so much that you haven’t caught up to modern science, but in many instances you are dead wrong on your answers. Your website is absolutely horrible.
It would be lovely if you could catch up to the 21st century.
One writer posted this statement on his site: “Apologetics Press is so intellectually anorexic, it’s frightening to imagine the base level of research involved in its preparation of creationist material.”
Of course, these are just a few of the many insulting barbs hurled at our work on a regular basis. We could continue with numerous pages of similar quotes and comments. Needless to say, not everyone likes our work. When we see the sources of these comments, however, we are encouraged by the teachings of Christ who stated: “If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you” (John 15:18-19). Because of the world’s sinful mentality, we should expect just such attacks against the truth. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said: “Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake” (Matthew 5:11). Needless to say, in many, many ways, we at Apologetics Press are blessed.

Will There be a Millennium? by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1253

Will There be a Millennium?

by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Many within Christendom are preoccupied with dispensational theology, having embraced the premillennial framework that teaches a coming “rapture,” “tribulation,” “antichrist,” “Armageddon,” and “millennium.” The millennium refers to an alleged thousand-year reign of Christ on Earth in which He will establish a literal, physical kingdom, and rule from Jerusalem. Is a thousand-year reign of Christ on Earth taught in the Word of God? The reader is urged to consider the following observations.
In the first place, several contextual indicators within the book of Revelation militate against the application of the book’s contents to a yet-future time. For example, the events of the book of Revelation were to “shortly take place”—an expression that occurs near the beginning as well as near the end of the book (1:1; 22:6). “Shortly” (en tachei) meant quickly, at once, without delay, soon, in a short time (Arndt and Gingrich, 1957, p. 814). Moffatt gave the meaning as “soon” and noted: “The keynote of the Apocalypse is the cheering assurance that upon God’s part there is no reluctance or delay; His people have not long to wait now” (n.d., 5:335).
Other passages where the term is used, confirm that a brief length of time is intended—not merely the rapidity with which the designated events occur. Regarding those disciples who cry out to God night and day for His intervention, Jesus assured: “He will avenge them speedily (en tachei)” (Luke 18:8). What comfort would be afforded if Jesus intended to convey the idea that relief may be long delayed, but when it finally did come, it would come in a quick fashion? When Peter was asleep in prison, bound with two chains between two soldiers, and an angel awoke him by striking him on the side and instructed him to “arise quickly (en tachei)!” (Acts 12:7), would Peter have understood the angel to mean that he could continue resting or sleeping for as long as he chose, just as long as when he did get ready to get up, he came up off the prison floor with a rapid motion? When Festus insisted that Paul be detained in Caesarea rather than transferred to Jerusalem, since “he himself was going there shortly (en tachei)” (Acts 25:4), would anyone have understood him to mean that he may delay his visit to Caesarea by years? Paul even used the term in contradistinction with being “delayed” (1 Timothy 3:14-15; cf. White, n.d., 4:117). Additional occurrences of the expression further underscore the meaning of “soon” (Acts 10:33; 17:15; 22:18; Romans 16:20).
Another contextual indicator within Revelation itself is the occurrence of the phrase: “for the time is near” (1:3; 22:10). Thayer said “near” (eggus) refers to “things imminent and soon to come to pass” (1901, p. 164; cf. Arndt and Gingrich, p. 213). Such a reference would necessarily pertain to the first century—not the twenty-first. Two or three thousand years would be too late for the desperate Christians of Asia Minor (see Summers, 1951, p. 99). Those who get caught up in “millennium mania” seem oblivious to the fact that the book was written to an original, immediate audience. Revelation was, in fact, written to the seven churches of Christ situated in Asia Minor (1:4). All seven are even named (1:11)! If the book was written to them, and if it wastheir spiritual condition that was the concern of the book, millenarians are incorrect in their contention that the book is devoted primarily, if not exclusively, to predictions of the end times. Though the Old Testament prophets predicted future events on occasion, their primary message was relevant to their immediate audience. Dispensationalists have trouble finding in Revelation a relevant message for a first-century audience. The apostle John recognized their need, and identified himself as their “companion” in the terrible tribulation they were then enduring (1:9). Not only was this tribulation going on at that time, but John further referred to himself and his readers as being in the kingdom at that time (1:9). Thus, Christ’s kingdom was already set up, in existence on Earth, and in full operating mode.
In addition to these contextual indicators, there is the statement of the angel to John: “Do not seal the words of the prophecy of this book” (Revelation 22:10). What did the angel mean? What he meant becomes apparent when one reflects upon the fact that Daniel was told to do the exact opposite of what John was told to do. After receiving a remarkable series of detailed prophecies, Daniel was told to “shut up the words, and seal the book until the time of the end” (Daniel 12:4, emp. added). Furthermore, he was instructed: “Go your way, Daniel, for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end” (vs. 9, emp. added). The reason Daniel was told to seal the book was because the fulfillment of the prophecies that had been revealed to him were hundreds of years off in the future—far from his own day. The predictions, therefore, would be of no immediate value to the initial recipients of the book. The book could be closed and placed on the shelf until those who would be living at the time of their fulfillment could appreciate the relevance of its predictions. In stark contrast, John was ordered: “Do not seal the words of the prophecy of this book” (22:10, emp. added). Why? The text answers—“for the time is at hand”! These words can hold no other meaning than that the bulk of Revelation was fulfilled in close proximity to the time they were written.
Still another significant contextual detail pertains to the use of the impersonal verb “must”: “things which must shortly take place” (1:1). Greek grammarian Ray Summers explained:
The verb translated “it is necessary’ or “must”…indicates that a moral necessity is involved; the nature of the case is such that the things revealed here must come to pass shortly…. The things revealed here must happen shortly, or the cause will be lost…. They were in need of assurance of help in the immediate present—not in some millennium of the distant and uncertain future (p. 99, emp. in orig.).
Indeed, the downtrodden, persecuted Christians of Asia Minor needed assistance right away. The dispensational framework would rob those first-century saints of the very comfort and reassurance they so desperately needed, deserved—and received!
One additional contextual feature is the use of the term “signified”: “And He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John” (1:1). This term, as is evident from the English translation, means “to show by signs” (Vincent, 1890, 2:564; Summers, p. 99). The term, along with the Greek word translated “revelation” (apocalupsis), introduces the nature of this book. The book of Revelation reveals or unveils God’s message through signs or symbols. Placing a literalinterpretation on the numbers, animals, objects, colors, and locations of Revelation—as dispensationalists routinely try to do—does violence to the true intent of the book. John’s Revelation declares itself to be a book of symbols, filled with figurative language, and not intended to be taken literally. In fact, as Swete observed, “much of the imagery of the Apocalypse is doubtless not symbolism, but merely designed to heighten the colouring of the great picture, and to add vividness and movement to its scenes” (1911, p. cxxxiii). A genuine recognition of this realization of this self-declared feature of the book excludes a literal interpretation of the number one thousand.
In addition to these preliminary contextual details (which are sufficient of themselves to dismiss the dispensationalism scheme from the book), chapter twenty contains specific features that assist the interpreter in pinpointing the meaning of the symbol of a “thousand-year reign.” It is surely noteworthy that in the entire Bible, the only allusion to a so-called thousand-year reign is Revelation 20:4,6—a fact that is conceded even by dispensationalists (e.g., Ladd, 1972, p. 267; Mounce, 1977, pp. 356-357). Yet an entire belief system has been built upon such scanty evidence. An examination of the setting and context yields surprising results. For example, a simple reading of the immediate context reveals that the theme of Revelation 20 is not “the thousand-year reign of Christ.” Rather, it is “victory over Satan.” Each of the symbols presents concepts that, when put together, relieve the fears of oppressed first-century Christians regarding their outcome. The key, abyss, and chain (vs. 1) are apocalyptic symbols for the effective limitation or containment of Satan in his ability to deceive the nations in the specific matter of emperor worship enforced by the government (see Swete, 1911, pp. xxxi, civ-cv). The symbol of one thousand years (vss. 2-7) is a high multiple of ten, representing ultimatecompleteness (see Summers, p. 23). John’s readers thus could know that the devil was to becompletely restrained from deceiving the nations into worshipping the emperor. The thousand years symbolized the extended triumph of God’s kingdom on Earth over the devil, who was then operating through the persecuting powers of Rome. A thousand symbolic years of victory would lesson suffering in the minds of persecuted Christians.
“Loosing for a little season” (vs. 3) would have represented the revival of persecution under later emperors. “Thrones” (vs. 4) represented the victorious power of the oppressed. The persecuted saints were pictured on thrones, judging because of the victory of their cause. “Souls” (vs. 4)—not resurrected bodies, but disembodied spirits—represent those who were martyrs of the persecution. Their refusal to “receive the mark” meant they refused to worship Caesar, or to manifest those marks that would identify them as adherents of the false state religion of emperor worship. The “first resurrection” (vs. 5) referred to the triumphant resurrection of the cause for which the Christians of Revelation 20:4 had lived and died. Gog and Magog were symbolic of the enemies of God and Christ, the imagery drawn from Ezekiel 38 and 39. The “beloved city” (vs. 9) is an unmistakable reference to spiritual Israel, the church (John 4:20-21; Galatians 6:16).
Some allowance may be granted in the interpretation of these highly figurative symbols, without doing damage to other Bible doctrines, or reflecting adversely upon the Gospel system and the broader will of Deity. However, the thousand years must not be perceived as a yet-future period. There is simply no biblical support for doing so. The figure represents an important concept for those to whom it was first directed. It has meaning for people living today only in that context. There will be no one thousand-year reign of Jesus Christ on Earth.

REFERENCES

Arndt, William and F.W. Gingrich (1957), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press).
Ladd, George E. (1972), A Commentary on the Revelation of John (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Moffatt, James (no date), “The Revelation of St. John the Divine,” ed. Nicoll, W. Robertson, The Expositor’s Greek Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Mounce, Robert (1977), The Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Summers, Ray (1951), Worthy is the Lamb (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press).
Swete, Henry B. (1911), Commentary on Revelation (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1977 reprint).
Thayer, Joseph H. (1901), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1977 reprint).
Vincent, M.R. (1890), Word Studies in the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1946 reprint).
White, Newport (no date), “The First and Second Epistles to Timothy,” The Expositor’s Greek Testament, ed. W. Robertson Nicoll, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

What Does it Mean to Say Jesus is the "Son of God"? by Brad Bromling, D.Min.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=272

What Does it Mean to Say Jesus is the "Son of God"?

by Brad Bromling, D.Min.

Q.
What does it mean to say that Jesus is the “Son of God”?

A.

The New Testament employs a variety of terms in its effort to define the personal identity of Jesus. Strictly speaking, His name simply is Jesus (meaning “Yahweh is salvation”). Recognition of His messiahship quickly led His followers to call Him Christ (christos is the Greek equivalent to the Hebrew word Messiah), Christ Jesus, and the more common Jesus Christ. In addition, He also is called:
  • Lord—an Old Testament designation for God, as well as a term of respect like “Sir”;
  • Son of Man—the designation Jesus most often applied to Himself that can indicate “a human,” or point to a mysterious heavenly figure (Daniel 7:13);
  • Son of David—an indicator of messianic lineage; and
  • I AM”—an apparent echo of the unutterable divine name (Exodus 3:14).
All of these titles make exalted claims for the Man from Galilee. For many Christians, though, Son of God is the most familiar term used to identify Jesus. This is understandable in light of passages like 1 John 4:15: “Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God,” and John 20:30-31: “And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.” There is power in the confession that Jesus is the “Son of God,” but what does it mean?
The earliest Christians were Jews who were familiar with at least two distinct applications of the term “son of God.” In the first place, the term had a general application to all Israelites. When their ancestors were held in Egyptian bondage, Moses was sent to Pharaoh with these words: “Thus says the Lord: Israel is My son, My firstborn. So I say to you, let My son go that he may serve Me” (Exodus 4:22-23; see also Hosea 11:1). Through the years, Yahweh loved, protected, comforted, and chastened Israel, just as a loving parent would nurture and discipline children (Malachi 2:10; Isaiah 66:13; et al.).
The second usage was more specific. Historically, the term had a royal connotation for many nations of the Ancient Near East. It was commonplace for Egyptian, Babylonian, Canaanite, and Roman rulers to be called “son of God” (Fossum, 1992, pp. 128-137). These kings even were deified and surrounded by legends about their miraculous births—often including stories of gods copulating with humans (Sanders, 1993, pp. 243-245). This royal connotation also was known in Israel, although they did not deify their kings (O’Collins, 1995, p. 117).
When the New Testament writers referred to Jesus as “Son of God,” they sometimes employed the term in ways that echoed these two common uses. After those who threatened the life of the child Jesus died, Joseph was given instructions in a dream to return from Egypt to his homeland. When Matthew reported this event, he said it fulfilled Hosea 11:1: “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son” (see Matthew 2:15). In other words, Jesus was God’s Son as an Israelite, and in a real sense, the True Israelite.
In the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus’ ministry began with a pronouncement from heaven: “This is my beloved Son...” (Matthew 3:17; Mark 1:11). The same is heard at the transfiguration (Matthew 17:5). In the Gospel of John, the baptizer testified that Jesus “ranks ahead of ” him, and by virtue of the Spirit’s descending upon Jesus, he testified that Jesus is the “Son of God” (John 1:30,NRSV). These references are reminiscent of the decree of royal sonship (Psalm 2:6-7; see also Luke 1:32-33). When the Jewish leaders put Jesus on trial, they asked: “Are you the Son of God, then?” Satisfied with His answer, they told Pilate Jesus was claiming to be “a king” (Luke 22:70; 23:2). As Jesus died on the cross, the only accusation assigned to Him was, “This is the king of the Jews” (Luke 23:38). According to Paul and the writer of Hebrews, this regal distinction was especially manifest after Jesus was raised from the dead (Acts 13:33; Romans 1:4; Hebrews 1:5).
While Jesus’ identity certainly included these then-prevailing ideas of sonship, it is obvious they do not exhaust the significance of the term for Him. Over and again, Jesus referred to God as His Father (Matthew 7:21; 10:32; 11:27, et al.). Since the Jews also saw themselves as sons and daughters of God, this should not have bothered them. But it did bother them, precisely because they perceived Jesus to be making a unique—and seemingly blasphemous—claim of sonship.
This uniqueness reached its zenith when Jesus addressed God as “Abba, Father” in prayer (Mark 14:36). “Abba” was the word a Jewish child used to refer to his or her “original person of reference” (i.e., mother or father). This bespoke an “unheard-of closeness” between Jesus and God (Moltmann, 1993, p. 142). Jesus demonstrated this closeness throughout His life. And it was in this intimacy that Jesus’ sonship is best defined. Gerald O’Collins has observed:
[Jesus] not only spoke like “the Son” but he also acted like “the Son” in knowing and revealing truth about God, in changing the divine law, in forgiving sins, in being the one through whom others could become children of God, and in acting with total obedience as the agent of God’s final kingdom (1995, p. 126).
To see through the eyes of faith that Jesus is the Son of God is to see that “God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself ” (2 Corinthians 5:19).
Finally, in the Gospel of John, Jesus referred to Himself as the “Son” Who was “sent” from the Father (John 3:16-17; 5:23; 6:40; 10:36). Clearly, this is a special claim. On one of those occasions, Jesus based His authority to heal on the Sabbath on the fact that His Father was working. This infuriated some of the Jews. John explained: “Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God” (John 5:18).
In summary, to identify Jesus as the Son of God is to acknowledge His genealogical connection to Israel, His right to the throne of David, and His unparalleled nearness to God. To confess that Jesus is the Son of God is to declare as true Jesus’ claim: “He who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9).

REFERENCES

Fossum, Jarl (1992), “Son of God,” The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday).
Moltmann, Jürgen (1993), The Way of Jesus Christ (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress).
O’Collins, Gerald (1995), Christology (New York: Oxford University Press).
Sanders, E.P. (1993), The Historical Figure of Jesus (New York: Penguin).

Wrong Must Be Explained by Brad Bromling, D.Min.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=387

Wrong Must Be Explained

by Brad Bromling, D.Min.

Lyle and Erik Menendez brutally killed their mother and father. The evidence is plain; no one denies it. So, why is it so hard to find them guilty? Their defense attorneys argued persuasively that the brothers endured a nightmarish childhood of sexual and physical abuse, and that they were thus acting out of a kind of insanity that excuses them from first-degree murder charges. The arguments on both sides reduce to the same basic premise: wrong was committed.
The prosecution accused the brothers of murder and appealed to the public’s sense that murder is evil. Likewise the brothers, in claiming they had been mistreated, appealed to a society that abhors child abuse. This was not a matter of arbitrary human laws being violated, it went much deeper. It was a matter of “right and wrong”—a concept that is universal and unique to humanity.
No matter where people are found, they recognize that some things are wrong. Although human groups differ on what they prohibit, they all censor something. C.S. Lewis articulated this point well:
Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might just as well try to imagine a country where two and two made five. Men have differed as regards what people you ought to be unselfish to—whether it was only your own family, or your fellow countrymen, or everyone. But they have always agreed that you ought not to put yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired. Men have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they have always agreed that you must not simply have any woman you liked (1952, p. 5).
This also is personal. When I look inside myself, I find this moral sense that I did not invent. I can find no explanation for it in the world—it must derive from beyond that realm. If there is nothing but matter in the Universe, and matter is the only eternal reality—then how do you explain this moral sense in humanity? Did it arise from rocks, trees, or animals? No, this moral sense is one of the clearest and most personal reminders that there is a God.

REFERENCE

Lewis, C.S. (1952), Mere Christianity (New York: Macmillan).

Why America Must be Punished by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=4361


Why America Must be Punished

by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

As Moses’ life drew to a close, God issued to the nation of Israel the keys to national health, i.e., the specific principles necessary to sustaining national existence. The book of Deuteronomy records these great admonitions that serve as extremely relevant advice for America. One insight pertains to the level of wealth and prosperity that characterizes the lifestyle of the average American. Indeed, this country has achieved a greater level of prosperity for a greater number of its citizens than any nation in human history. America’s standard of living is the envy of the civilized world. Even the poorest American lives far better than much of the world’s population.
This circumstance was anticipated by the Founders who insisted that freedom coupled with Christian principles will enable a country to achieve unprecedented prosperity, progress, and happiness. For example, on October 11, 1782, the Continental Congress issued a proclamation to the nation that articulates this foundational principle, recommending to citizens of
all ranks, to testify their gratitude to God for his goodness, by a cheerful obedience to his laws, and by promoting, each in his station, and by his influence, the practice of true and undefiled religion,which is the great foundation of public prosperity and national happiness (Journals of..., 23:647, emp. added).
America has graced the world with unparalleled technological progress, shared prosperity, and benevolent assistance. We literally wallow in abundance.
But this paradisaical status cannot last. America must suffer punishment for turning her back on the Source of her greatness, and for spurning the moral and spiritual principles that propelled her to the premiere position among the nations of the Earth. The reason for national punishment is the same reason given for Israel’s expulsion from Canaan. Their punishment? “[T]herefore you shall serve your enemies, whom the Lord will send against you, in hunger, in thirst, in nakedness, and in need of everything; and He will put a yoke of iron on your neck until He has destroyed you” (Deuteronomy 28:48). But why? Why did Israel merit such punishment? Moses articulated the reason in his farewell address to the nation—words that are eerily apropos to Americans: “Because you did not serve the Lord your God with joy and gladness of heart, for the abundance of everything” (Deuteronomy 28:47, emp. added). If only Americans en masse would awaken to reverence and serve the Master of the Universe.

REFERENCE

Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 (1904-1937), ed. Worthington C. Ford, et al. (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office), Library of Congress, http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwjc.html.

Did Jesus Go to Gerasa or Gadara? by Caleb Colley, Ph.D.


http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=1434&b=Matthew


Did Jesus Go to Gerasa or Gadara?

by Caleb Colley, Ph.D.

Matthew recorded that Jesus commanded demons to come out of two men (8:29). This account is recorded in all three of the synoptic gospel accounts, but with two different renderings of the name of the place where the miracles occurred. The Greek word commonly accepted in Mark 5:1 and Luke 8:26 as the basis for the name of the people who inhabited the place where Jesus and the disciples went is rendered Gerasenes in English (Metzger, 1975, pp. 84,145). The Greek word in Matthew 8:28, however, reveals that Jesus went to the country of the Gadarenes (p. 23). Were the writers of the synoptic gospel accounts confused about where Jesus was when He healed the men? Albert Barnes explained the difference between Gadara and Gerasa:
Gadara was a city not far from the Lake Gennesareth, one of the ten cities that were called Decapolis. Gergesa [probably a variation of “Gerasa”—CC] was a city about 12 miles to the south-east of Gadara, and about 20 miles to the east of the Jordan. There is no contradiction, therefore, in the evangelists. He came into the region in which the two cities were situated, and one evangelist mentioned one, and the other another. It shows that the writers had not agreed to impose on the world; for if they had, they would have mentioned the same city; and it shows, also, they were familiar with the country. No men would have written in this manner but those who were acquainted with the facts (1949, p. 91).
Matthew, Mark, and Luke were writing of the same general area. The Roman city Gerasa was a famous city that would have been familiar to a Gentile audience, but Gadara, as the capital city of the Roman province of Perea, was the chief of the ten cities in Decapolis (Lenski, 1946, p. 205; Coffman, 1975, p. 85; Youngblood, 1995, p. 468), so even those who lived in Gerasa could have been called Gadarenes. The stamp of a ship on Gadarene coins suggests that the region called Gadara probably extended to Galilee (McGarvey, n.d., p. 344; McClintock and Strong, 1969, 3: 706). The New Testament writers chose to refer to the area in different ways.
It is also a possibility that in the handing down of New Testament manuscripts over many years, slightly different readings of the same word have developed. Some have suggested that the words “Gergesenes” and “Gerasenes” are not words referring to people from a city other than Gadara, but merely different variations of the word “Gadarenes” (Youngblood, p. 468; McGarvey, p. 344).
It is clear that Matthew, Mark, and Luke did not contradict each other—in fact, they complemented each other. The writers were not confused about Palestinian geography. In this instance, each writer intended to draw attention to an area close to the Sea of Galilee. The precise place where the miracle occurred is not as essential to our understanding of the narrative as is the realization that Christ has control over the spiritual realm (Lenski, 1946, p. 205).
REFERENCES
Barnes, Albert (1949), Notes on the New Testament: Matthew and Mark (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Coffman, James Burton (1975), Commentary on Mark (Abilene, TX: ACU Press).
Lenski, Robert C.H. (1946), The Interpretation of St. Mark’s Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg).
Metzger, Bruce M. (1975 corrected edition), A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (New York, NY: United Bible Societies).
McClintock, John and James Strong (1969 reprint), Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
McGarvey, J.W. (no date), The Fourfold Gospel (Cincinnati, OH: Standard).
Youngblood, Ronald F., ed. (1995), New Illustrated Bible Dictionary (Nashville, TN: Nelson).