Abortion and Evolution by Wayne Jackson, M.A.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=352

Abortion and Evolution

by	Wayne Jackson, M.A.

A common argument popularly employed in defense of the theory of evolution—especially in years past—is the “recapitulation” principle. Technically known as “ontogeny [individual development] recapitulates [repeats] phylogeny [evolution of the species],” it suggests that in the growth of the human fetus during the nine-month gestation period, the major stages of evolutionary history are repeated in a miniature fashion.

The argument is quite obsolete, and thus many evolutionists decline to employ it in today’s world of biotechnical sophistication. More than a third of a century ago, George Simpson of Harvard, in concert with his colleagues, conceded that: “It is now firmly established that ontogeny does notrepeat phylogeny...” (Simpson, et al., 1957, p. 352, emp. in orig.).

Be that as it may, evolutionists are not above resurrecting this defunct argument whenever they feel it suits their purpose. A case in point is that of the prominent astronomer Carl Sagan, widely known for his PBS television series Cosmos. In April 1990, Dr. Sagan and his wife, Ann Druyan, produced a piece for the weekly Parade magazine. Therein the authors contended for the ethical permissibility of human abortion on the ground that the fetus, growing within a woman’s body for several months following conception, is not a human being. The conclusion drawn, therefore, was this: The killing of this tiny creature is not murder.

What was the basis of this assertion? Without overtly saying so, Sagan and Druyan argued their case by subtly suggesting the concept of embryonic recapitulation. Progressively, they described the development of the fertilized human egg in terms of “a kind of parasite” that eventually begins to look like a “segmented worm.” Further alteration reveals “gill arches” like that of a “fish or amphibian.” Supposedly “reptilian” features become apparent subsequently, which later give way to “mammalian...pig-like” traits. By the end of two months, the creature resembles a “primate but is still not quite human” (1990, p. 6).

The argument thus employed is wholly specious, has long been discredited, and graphically reveals the current desperation of those humanists who disregard the sanctity of human life.

REFERENCES

Sagan, Carl and Ann Druyan (1990), “The Question of Abortion,” Parade Magazine, April 22.

Simpson, G.G., C.S. Pittendrigh and L.H. Tiffany (1957), Life: An Introduction to Biology (New York: Harcourt, Brace & Company).

[EDITOR’S NOTE: For more on embryonic recapitulation, see Reason & Revelation, September 1994.]

Baby Dolls, Beauty Pageants, and the Sexualization of Children by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=1610

Baby Dolls, Beauty Pageants, and the Sexualization of Children

by	Eric Lyons, M.Min.

There is a right way to rear children, and there is a wrong way. Abraham chose the right way. He commanded his children to “keep the way of the Lord, to do righteousness and justice” (Genesis 18:19, emp. added). Some 2,000 years later, the inspired apostle Paul made sure to tell the Ephesians to bring their children up “in the training and admonition of the Lord” (Ephesians 6:4, emp. added). The Lord’s way is the right way (Psalm 119:75). The right way includes diligently teaching young people to be (among other things) sensible, modest, discreet, and chaste (Titus 2:4-8; 1 Peter 3:1-5). It also includes warning today’s youth of the dangerous works of the flesh, including the impure, lewd, sensual things that tend to stir up ungodly passions (Galatians 5:19-21; Romans 13:13).

Sadly, the instruction of children in the ways “of the Lord” has diminished significantly in America, and yes, even in the Lord’s Church. Consequently, as the ways of the Lord are forgotten, many are promoting and partaking in the heartbreaking sexualization of children. Though many adults in this country will condemn (and rightly so) pedophilia, child pornography, etc., many of these same individuals have contributed to the sexualizing of children. It may start very young when parents purchase their four-year-old daughters baby dolls that look more like the seductress harlot described in Proverbs 7 than an innocent little bundle of joy. Some of the Bratz Babyz manufactured by MGA Entertainment, for example, sell dolls wearing midriff tops, mini skirts, tiny bikinis, and sparkly panties. The dolls are painted to look more like a seductive, grown woman—with large, glossy lips, and long, painted eyelashes. One manufacturing company a few years ago went so far as to make a “Pole Dance” doll. So outrageous was this product that even The Huffington Post ran a story titled “The 7 Most Inappropriate Products for Children” (2010). Number one on the list was the “Pole Dance” doll, which had on it’s box keywords such as “Flash,” and “Up and Down”—words that The Huffington Post said “sound like they were written by the happiest pedophile in playland.”

What seems to be contributing even more to the sexualization of children in America are the clothes that retail stores are selling—that parents are purchasing. Livescience.com published a story in 2011 about a study regarding children’s clothing (toddlers to pre-teen children) from 15 national retail stores. The researchers found that of the 5,666 items of clothing that were reviewed, “31 percent had sexualizing features” (i.e., “they revealed or emphasized a sexualized body part such as the chest or buttocks and…had sexy characteristics such as slinky material;” Pappas, 2011, emp. added). Add to this the skin-tight, short shorts that retailers sell and that parents buy, and the problem is compounded. Parents, you might be contributing to the sexualizing of your own children (1) if your daughter’s shirts are longer than her shorts, (2) if your daughter’s shorts are tighter and shorter than a pair of boxer briefs, or (3) if the pockets of your daughter’s shorts hang lower than the shorts themselves.

Some parents have even taken this a step further, by entering their young, innocent daughters (some as young as three years old) into beauty pageants that reward young girls for dressing and acting like anything but the modest and discreet girls the Lord desires parents to rear (Titus 2:4-8; 1 Peter 3:1-5). Some mothers and fathers accessorize their five- and six-year-old daughters with spray tans, hair extensions, and fake eyelashes and fingernails. Some even remove the hair from their prepubescent bodies, followed by a layer of make-up that might give Dolly Parton a run for her money. It is as if the parents are trying to turn their daughters into the previously mentioned, sexualized Bratz Babyz dolls. Promoting this behavior is the exact opposite of teaching the important value to young ladies that “charm is deceitful and beauty is passing, but a woman who fears the Lord, she shall be praised” (Proverbs 31:30).

These little girls, who in many ways are made to look more like grown women, are then paraded in front of an audience like eye candy. They are asked to sing and dance and take people’s breath away. I recently saw a clip of a talk show where one woman was critical of the pageants, saying, “You said it’s not sexualizing the kids…and there is nothing mature about the performance. Yet one of the little ones is shaking her backside, shaking her booty, and she said so.” One mother’s sad defense: “What does that have to do [with anything]? That’s having fun” (emp. added). Another defensive mother added: “If people are looking at a child in a sexy way, then there’s something wrong with them” (“Toddlers…,” 2011). Perhaps, but when a mother intentionally makes her five-year-old look, act, talk, flirt, and dance like a harlot, we should not be surprised that some men will find this satisfying to their sexual senses. In fact, one woman responded to the show on-line, saying, “When you dress a child up like a [prostitute], have her act like one, shaking her [bottom], etc., you are just asking for trouble. Every pedophile out there is watching getting their [thrills] at your child’s expense” (“Toddlers…,” 2011).

Only the naïve or the immoral will not admit to the obvious sexualization of children in America. It is so obvious that even liberal organizations such as The Huffington Post and Livescience.com recognize it. Question: Are you submitting to the Lord’s will to rear sensible, humble, modest, and discreet children who are letting their “Christian lights” shine? Are you teaching about the sinfulness and danger of impure, lewd, sensual things that tend to stir up ungodly passions? Or, are you working hand in hand with Satan in the sexualizing of children by what you purchase and allow your own kids to wear?

REFERENCES

Pappas, Stephanie (2011), “30% of Girls Clothing is Sexualized in Major Sales Trent,” Livescience.com, May 20, http://www.livescience.com/14249-girls-clothing-sexualized.html.

“The 7 Most Inappropriate Products for Children” (2010), March 12, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/14/the-7-most-inappropriate_n_286223.html.

“Toddlers & Tiaras’ Moms Defend Child Beauty Pageants” (2011), Anderson Live, October 19, http://www.andersoncooper.com/2011/10/18/toddlers-and-tiaras-tlc-moms-defend-child-beauty-pageants/.

The Temple’s Pillar and Capital Heights by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=714&b=Jeremiah

The Temple’s Pillar and Capital Heights

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

When King Solomon built his magnificent temple, he constructed two 18-cubit-high bronze pillars and set them by the vestibule in the front of the temple (2 Chronicles 3:15; NOTE: A cubit is approximately 18 inches). He even gave them names: Jachin on the right, and Boaz on the left (1 Kings 7:21). On the top of each hollow pillar was a five-cubit-high capital (called chapiter in the KJV), covered with “nets of network,” “twisted threads of chainwork,” and rows of pomegranates (1 Kings 7:17-18,20, NASB).

When one compares the various biblical accounts that address the temple pillars and capitals (1 Kings 7; 2 Kings 25; 2 Chronicles 3; Jeremiah 52), two questions immediately come to mind. First, why does 2 Chronicles 3:15 indicate that the two 18-cubit-high pillars (1 Kings 7:15; 2 Kings 25:17; Jeremiah 52:21) were “thirty-five cubits” high? Second, were the pillar capitals “five cubits” high, as mentioned in 1 Kings 7:16 and Jeremiah 52:22, or “three cubits,” as recorded in 2 Kings 25:17?

First, one must keep in mind that the biblical apologist does not have to pin down the exact solution to a particular question in order to exonerate a Bible writer of an alleged mistake. Just as Christians do not have to know every detail about Jesus obtaining a donkey (Matthew 21:1-7) in order to acquit Him of an alleged theft charge, Bible believers can reasonably defend the Bible’s integrity without pinning down the exact solution to a problem. Over a century ago, J.W. McGarvey commented on this point as follows:

We are not bound to show the truth of the given hypothesis; but only that it may be true. If it is at all possible, then it is possible that no contradiction exists; if it is probable, then it is probable that no contradiction exists.... It follows, also, that when there is an appearance of contradiction between two writers, common justice requires that before we pronounce one or both of them false we should exhaust our ingenuity in searching for some probable supposition on the ground of which they may both be true. The better the general reputation of the writers, the more imperative is this obligation, lest we condemn as false those who are entitled to respectful consideration (1886, 2:32).

Truly, the apologist need show only one or more plausible possibilities of harmonization in order to negate the force of the charge that an inspired penman erred. We abide 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, to show the Bible the same courtesy by exhausting the search for possible harmony between passages before pronouncing one or both accounts false. Although it may be that no one knows for sure why differences exist for the pillar and capital heights, we can offer more than one logical possibility.

At least three feasible explanations exist for the variation in the heights of the temple pillars. First, it is possible that one or more ancient scribes confused the Hebrew numeral letters גה (35) for יח (18). Similar to how printing companies today can make slight errors when printing copies of the Bible, and just as copyists’ errors can be found in various historical works (e.g., Tacitus, Josephus, etc.) without corrupting the overall integrity of the text, occasionally Bible readers will come across numbers, names, etc. that are the result of a copyists’ errors—not mistakes by the original inspired writers. (To read our foundational essay on this subject, see Lyons, 2007).

Second, it may be that whereas 1 Kings 7:15, 2 Kings 25:17, and Jeremiah 52:21 give only the height of the pillars, the chronicler also included the heights of the base, the capitals, and all other decorations on the pillars. Consider a somewhat parallel illustration of two people measuring the height of a modern church building. One person climbs the steps and measures from the floor of the porch to the underside of the roof, and obtains a measure of 25 feet. Another person, however, measures from the base of the building, up the seven steps, over the roof, to the top of the steeple. He calculates the height at 55 feet. Is it possible for both calculations to be accurate? Indeed. They are accurate measurements of what the inspectors chose to include in the “height of the church building.” Regarding the temple pillars, it may be that the figure in 2 Chronicles simply includes more materials than the number recorded in 1 and 2 Kings and Jeremiah.

Third, it is also possible that the height of each pillar was more specifically 17½ cubits, or that a half of a cubit of each pillar was hidden in the roundness of the capitals, and that the number 35 represents the length of both pillars added together. Interestingly, 2 Chronicles 3:15 does not indicate that “each” pillar was 35 cubits high, but simply that the “two pillars” were “thirty-five cubits high.” Translators of the New International Version believed this explanation was probable, and actually inserted “together” (in brackets) into their translation of 2 Chronicles 3:15. Thus, “in the front of the temple he made two pillars, which [together] were thirty-five cubits long.”

So what about the capital heights? Why does 2 Kings 25:17 refer to them as being three cubits high, rather than five? As with the pillar heights, it is possible that the numeral “three” represents a copyist’s error. The Hebrew numeral letter ג (3) in 2 Kings 25:17 may have been mistakenly put for ה (5), as is found in 1 Kings 7:16 and Jeremiah 52:22. However, another explanation, which John Wesley postulated in the 18th century, also exists. In his commentary on 1 Kings, he suggested “the word chapiter is taken either more largely for the whole, so it is five cubits; or, more strictly, either for the pommels..., 2 Chronicles 4:12, or for the cornice or crown, and so it was but three cubits, to which the pomegranates being added make it four cubits..., and the other work upon it took up one cubit more, which in all made five cubits” (n.d.). Thus, both “three” and “five” could be correct, depending on exactly what the writers were including in the measurement of the capitals.

What are the correct answers to the questions at hand? Why exactly do differences exist in the numbers given for the pillar and capital heights? No one can be certain. But reasonable answers can be offered without assuming the original penmen erred.

REFERENCES

Lyons, Eric (2007), “Inspired Writers and Competent Copyists,” [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3268.

McGarvey, J.W. (1886), Evidences of Christianity (Cincinnati, OH: Standard).

Wesley, John (n.d.), Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible, [On-line], URL:http://bible.crosswalk.com/commentaries/WesleysExplanatory Notes/wes.cgi?book=1ki&chapter=007.

The Christian and Civil Government by Wayne Jackson

http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Jackson/Boyd/Wayne/1937/civilgovernment.html

Cover of the printed booklet

The Christian and Civil Government

In order to properly understand the relationship of the Christian to the civil government, it is necessary to briefly consider the function of governments in the overall scheme of divine redemption, as viewed in the context of the Bible as a whole. There are great principles which must be carefully considered by way of introduction to this important theme. It is commonly believed that there are three institutions of divine origin: the home, civil government, and the church. I do not believe that is an accurate concept. Certainly both the home and the church are of divine origin, but did civil government actually commence with divine approval?

The Origin of Civil Government

The first civil government of which one reads in the Bible was founded by Nimrod: “the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar” (Gen. 10:10). Nimrod, whose name according to some signifies, “Let us rebel” (Jacobus, 204), was a mighty hunter before Jehovah (10:9). Of this passage Clarke notes: “The word tsayid, which we render hunter, signifies prey; and is applied in the Scriptures to the hunting of men by persecution, oppression, and tyranny. Hence, it is likely that Nimrod, having acquired power, used it in tyranny and oppression; and by rapine and violence founded that domain which was the first distinguished by the name of a kingdom on the face of the earth” (Clarke, 36). Leupold commented that "the gross violation of men's rights, that this mighty hunter became guilty of, did not elude the watchful eye" of Jehovah (1.367). 

Human civil government was thus founded in rebellion to God. Centuries later, when the Israelites requested a monarch that they might “be like all the nations” (1 Sam. 8:5, 20), though Jehovah gave them a king in his anger (Hos. 13:11), their desire for such a ruler clearly reflected a rejection of the Lord's arrangement for them (1 Sam. 8:7). 

If civil government was originally initiated in rebellion to God, then it is not of divine origin. In starting human governments, men surrendered the control of their affairs to Satan, hence, the devil is said to be the prince of this world (Jn. 12:31; 14:30; 16:11). In fact, Christ clearly referred to his impending arrest by the civil authorities when he said: “...the prince of the world cometh: and he hath nothing in me” (Jn. 14:30). Moreover, in the wilderness temptation, Satan showed Christ “all the kingdoms of the world” and promised, upon the condition that the Lord would worship him, “To thee will I give all this authority, and the glory of them: for it hath been delivered (Greek paradedotai, perfect tense - past action with abiding results) unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it” (Lk. 4:6). It need hardly be pointed out that if Jesus had known that Satan merely was lying, there would have been no temptation in the diabolic suggestion! I am fully aware that elsewhere the Bible says that “the higher powers are ordained of God,” and that will be considered presently.

God's Sovereignty in the World

“The term 'sovereignty' connotes a situation in which a person, from his innate dignity, exercises supreme power, with no areas of his province outside his jurisdiction” (Zondervan, 498). God is the sovereign of the universe. He is in control of all things ultimately! Now it is a fact that Jehovah desires that all men serve him by voluntary submission, but when they do not, he can, and does, take charge of earthly affairs to bring about his own redemptive purpose. The Bible is literally filled with examples of this truth. Observe the following. 

God exercises providential control over the nations of the world. Daniel informs us that ultimately it is “the Most High” that “ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the lowest of men” (Dan. 4:17). The Almighty removes kings and sets up kings (Dan. 2:21). Indeed, “he is ruler over the nations” (Psa. 22:28). Of world powers Paul says that God determines their appointed seasons (i.e., the duration of their administrations) and the bounds of their habitations (the extent of their conquests) (Acts 17:26). Christ plainly said that Pilate could have exercised no authority against him except by divine permission (Jn. 19:11). 

God can, consistent with his own holiness, use evil men to providentially bring about ultimate good in his world. Here is a tremendous Bible principle that needs to be recognized: the Lord can take wicked men, who are in absolute rebellion to him, and use them as instruments of vengeance to punish other evil people, or to maintain order in society.

Note:
(a) When Israel became deeply involved in idolatry, Jehovah raised up the Assyrians to be “the rod of mine anger” (Isa. 10:5). He sent the haughty Assyrians against profane Israel, and yet, amazingly, the Assyrians had no idea that they were accomplishing Heaven's will [“Howbeit he meaneth not so.” 10:7].
(b) When Assyria needed to be punished (Isa. 10:12, 24-25), God exalted the Chaldeans [Babylonians] to overthrow them, and to subdue the kingdom of Judah (Hab. 1:5ff). The evil Nebuchadnezzar, whom the Lord called “my servant” (Jer. 25:9), was employed as an instrument to this end.
(c) Then, the Babylonians, by the decree of God, were conquered by the Medes and Persians, whom the Lord denominated his “consecrated ones” (Isa. 13:3). In that endeavor God used a pagan king, Cyrus, as his “shepherd,” his “anointed” (Isa. 44:28; 45:1).
(d) Under Jehovah's direction, the Medes and Persians were subdued by the Greeks, led by the “rough he-goat,” Alexander the Great (Dan. 8:5, 21; cf. 2:39). (e) The Greeks were eventually destroyed by the Roman armies [God's armies (Mt. 22:7)] to punish Jerusalem and the Jews.

The Functions of Civil Government

Romans 13:1-7 sets forth the function of civil government. Let us studiously consider this context.

First, the “higher powers” are identified as the “rulers” of civil government (1, 3). 

Second, they are said to be “ordained of God” (1). Exactly what does that expression mean? The word “ordained” translates the Greek term tetagmenai [a perfect, passive participle form of tasso]. The word simply means, as Arndt & Gingrich observe: to “appoint to or establish in an office.(the authorities) who are now in power are instituted by God - Rom. 13:1” (813). The word itself says nothing whatever about the character or the spiritual nature of the subject involved. The word is not some sort of “sanctified” term which would necessarily suggest that a child of God could function, with the Lord's approval, in that capacity. A form of the word, for instance, is used in Acts 18:2 of Claudius' edict (diatasso) which banished all Jews from Rome. 

Third, those who resist the rulers withstand the ordinance (i.e., that which has been appointed) of God and shall thus receive judgment. 

Fourth, rulers are appointed to be a terror (i.e., to produce fear) to those who would do evil in society. 

Fifth, the civil authority serves as a “minister of God” for good on behalf of the Christian. “Minister” translates the Greek diakonos, meaning “servant;” but, again, with no necessary indication of character suggested. Remember, the evil Nebuchadnezzar was God's “servant” (Jer. 25:9) to chastise Judah; then the Lord punished the king! Moreover, at the time this Roman epistle was penned, Caesar Nero, that wicked, homosexual tyrant, was one of those rulers who is here called a “minister of God.” The point is this: just because a function is in some sense a ministry or service to God, does not necessarily mean that a Christian may serve in that capacity with divine approval! Also, observe that in Romans 13:4 the roles of the ruler and the Christian are clearly distinguished by the use of the third person and second person pronouns. “...he is a minister of God to you.” Nowhere in this context is the Christian commissioned to function in the role of an instrument of God's wrath. 

Sixth, the ruler is said to “bear the sword” as a temporal “avenger of wrath” upon evildoers. Christians are clearly instructed not to avenge themselves (Rom. 12:19); God will render vengeance for them; ultimately - in the judgment (Lk. 18:8).

The use of force is necessary to maintain order in this sinful world. Let the civil agents function as ministers of wrath in society; let Christians use themselves as ministers of reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:17-21), employing the “sword of the Spirit” (Eph. 6:17). 

The Christian's Duty to Government

The Christian's duty to civil government may be set forth under a threefold heading: pray, pay, and obey.

Pray - Scripture exhorts us to pray “for kings and all that are in high place; that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and gravity” (1 Tim. 2:1-2). Note, though, that the real purpose of the prayer is for the Christians' benefit. 

Pay - Because we do derive benefits from the government for services rendered, it is only right that we: “Render to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor” (Rom. 13:7). Some have suggested that a Christian may withhold his tax money if the government is involved in immoral enterprises. No, that is not the case. Governments have always promoted wickedness to some extent. The Roman government subsidized idolatry from public funds, yet Paul urged these brethren to pay taxes into that system. Thus, though governments may promote wars, finance abortions, etc., the child of God is not implicated in such evils simply because he pays taxes. 

Obey - Finally, the Lord's people have the obligation to “be in subjection to the higher powers” (Rom. 13:1,5; 1 Pet. 2:13-14). We must be respectful and obedient to the rulers under which we live. The Christian should be the best possible citizen. However, our obligations to the government are not without limitations; governmental powers are not unrestricted. 

The Limitations of Government

In these times in which we live, it is very probable that there will be increasing conflict between the church of the Lord and human government. We must consider, therefore, how far we may, or may not, go in yielding to the pressures of government. Let us reflect upon the following principles. 

No government has the right to prohibit that which is right. When the apostles were charged to refrain from speaking and teaching in the name of Jesus, they informed the authorities that they had a greater obligation to a higher power (Acts 4:19-20; 5:29). Some countries do not allow the importation of Bibles, but a Christian could take God's word to the lost anyhow! In some places it is against the law for a parent to spank his child; could not the child of God, however, lovingly administer discipline according to the principles of the Bible (Prov. 22:15; 23:13-14)? In California one cannot legally obtain a divorce specifically on the ground of fornication, yet the Lord certainly allowed this for the innocent part in an adulterated marriage (Mr. 5:32; 19:9).

No government has the right to authorize what is wrong. A nation may legalize an act, thus making it optional; yet, that act may be immoral and so not permissible. In 1973 the U.S. Supreme Court legalized abortion on demand, but that does not make the bloody act moral. Drunkenness is legal, but not right. The law of the land allows divorce for every cause imaginable, but God still permits it only on the basis of fornication (Mt. 19:9).

No government has the right to force the Christian to violate a divine command or a biblical principle. Suppose that a civil power, upon the basis of a law that forbids sexual discrimination in employment, issues an edict requiring the Lord's church to employ women preachers? What shall we do? We will, of course, obey God, not man. Or suppose you are a Christian employer in Berkeley, California, and you have a position open in your business establishment. Two people apply for the job. One is a Christian who is reasonably qualified for the work, but the other is a homosexual who happens to be better qualified. The law says you must hire the homosexual, but what would you do? I would not hesitate to violate such a law. 

Recently I read an interesting article concerning how the Communists of Russia are training young men to infiltrate Western Europe for the purpose of subversively obtaining information that would be valuable in defense of that nation. The plan is for these men to form illicit sexual relationships with lonely secretaries and other female government workers and thereby to extract from them classified information.

Could a Christian, in the “line of duty,” in the interest of national defense, commit fornication with divine approval? The concept is simply unthinkable. While we doubtless have little difficulty with the foregoing examples, for many years there has been considerable controversy in the brotherhood of Christ over whether or not the Christian may, with impunity, deliberately take the life of another human being in interest of society - either national or local. And so, we must briefly address this matter.

The Christian and Carnal Warfare

May a Christian, with God's blessing, take human life in defense of his nation? The great restoration preacher, Moses E. Lard, has expressed my viewpoint exactly: 

“...where a State is engaged in war, and commands a Christian subject to bear arms and fight, what is his duty? My opinion is that he must refuse obedience to the command of the State, even at the expense of his life. For no Christian man can, according to the New Testament, bear arms and take human life” (Lard, 399-400). 

My reasons for this conviction are: 

The Christian is never authorized to function as a punitive agent for the civil powers. While it is true, as we have observed already, that God does providentially use the powers that be to administer the sword of justice in a lawless world, he, nevertheless, has not commissioned his children to bear that sword of wrath. When Peter sought to correct the injustice of Christ's arrest by the use of the sword, Jesus told him to put it away for “all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword” (Mt. 26:52). Guy N. Woods has well commented: “When Peter sought to defend the Lord with a sword he was rebuked for his pains; and in bidding him sheathe it, he forevermore made it clear that his followers are not to fight with carnal weapons in his behalf. But if men are forbidden to fight in his defense, in whose defense may they properly fight?” (385).

Carnal warfare is contrary to the New Testament principles of love and peace. Any view of Romans 13:1-7 which contradicts, or negates the force of, dozens of New Testament passages obligating Christians to love and to be at peace with all men, is obviously incorrect [cf. Mt. 5:21-22; 38-47; 26:52; Jn. 13:35; 18:36; Rom. 12:19-21; 14:17, 19; 1 Cor. 7:15; 2 Cor. 13:11; Gal. 5:14; Eph. 4:2-3; 31-32; Col. 3:8; 1 Thes. 5:13, 15; 4:9; 1 Tim. 6:11; 2 Tim. 2:24; Tit. 3:2; Heb. 12:14; 13:1; 1 Pet. 1:22; 2:17; 3:8-9; 1 Jn. 3:16,18]. Followers of the “Prince of Peace” are to love their brothers (1 Pet. 1:22); their neighbors (Mt. 22:39), and their enemies (Mt. 5:44; Rom. 12:20). Love (i.e., the Greek agape) always seeks nothing but the highest good of others (cf. Barclay, 174ff). 

If it is argued that God loves, yet he will destroy his enemies, it may be replied: God's destruction of his enemies will be a matter of his judgmental justice upon those who have rejected his love! He has not, however, assigned that role to us (cf. Mt. 13:28- 30). If the Christian thus loves his brethren, neighbors, and enemies -  with whom else shall he war? 

If a Christian can engage in carnal warfare, the kingdom of God is subordinate to human governments. Before Pilate, Jesus laid down this logical argument concerning the nature of his kingdom. (a) If my kingdom were of this world, my servants could fight in its defense (cf. Jn. 18:36). (b) But my kingdom is not of this world. (c) Therefore, [implied conclusion] my servants cannot fight in defense of my kingdom.

In connection with this point, we may note the following. There is a type of argument frequently employed in the New Testament known as the a fortiori principle. When there are two similar propositions to be proved, if one establishes the more difficult first, the other automatically stands proved (cf. Broadus, 184). Now this: if a Christian cannot fight for the Lord's kingdom (the greater), how in the name of reason could he war for the kingdoms of men (the lesser), which are coming to naught anyway (cf. 1 Cor. 2:6)?! 

Carnal warfare is specifically forbidden the Christian. Paul writes: “Though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh (for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but mighty before God to the casting down of strongholds).” (2 Cor. 10:4). Our battle is “not against flesh and blood” (Eph. 6:12); rather, it is spiritual. And in it, we employ the sword of the Spirit (Eph. 6:17), not an instrument of blood. 

Opposing Viewpoints Considered

Several arguments are advanced by sincere advocates of the carnal war position. We will consider the most prominent of these.

The centurion (Mt. 8), Cornelius (Acts 10), the jailor (Acts 16), etc., were not told to abandon their military professions; such, thus, must be acceptable to God. This argument is based solely upon silence and those who advance it will not stand with their own logic. The centurion was not instructed to free his slaves (Mt. 8:8-9). Are we to assume that the Lord approves of one human being owning another? Where is it specifically recorded that Rahab was commanded to forsake her harlotry (Josh. 2), or Simon his sorcery (Acts 8)? 

The truth is, the Old Testament prophesied that those who entered the kingdom of Christ would become peacemakers (Isa. 2:4; 11:6-9; 60:18; Hos. 2:8; Zech. 9:10), not war-makers. We must assume, therefore, that sincere converts to the Savior, as they learned the principles of the gospel, forsook all occupations inconsistent with discipleship of Jesus Christ. And, as we shall subsequently point out, history bears this out.

God's children fought wars in the Old Testament era with his approval; thus, it could not be morally wrong today. The nation of Israel was a theocracy (a religious political system), and so the Lord used his people as instruments of wrath upon alien nations, and upon offenders within their own ranks as well [who will argue for the church using the death penalty for wayward members today?!]. The New Testament church is not a theocracy. God's people are not vessels of wrath today.

Besides, many of the wars of the Old Testament period were strictly offensive, not defensive. Yet, most today would allow the Christian to fight only in a defensive encounter. No serious student of church history should fail to read J.W. McGarvey's essay “Jewish Wars As Precedents for Modern Wars,” which appeared in Lard's Quarterly, Vol. 5, April, 1868, pp. 113-126. 

The government is authorized to bear the sword; it cannot be right for the government and yet wrong for the Christian. While it is true that Jehovah does use human rulers to keep order in his world, this does not mean that these individuals are blameless. If those who serve as "instruments of divine wrath" in civil situations are blessed for functioning in that capacity, what is their reward? It is heaven?

Observe this point, please. Christ was delivered up according to the divine plan (Acts 2:23). But, Judas was the instrument of that deliverance(cf. Mt. 10:4, ASVfn). Hence, he was a necessary component in Jehovah's divine program. Yet, though he was used by God in this role(because of his character), his involvement was sinful (Mt. 27:4), and he was held accountable for it (cf. Jn. 17:12).

Look at another matter. The destruction of Jerusalem [A.D. 70] by the Romans was clearly the work of God. In one of his parables, Christ said that the king [God] would send his armies [the Romans] to destroy the Jews and burn their city (Mt. 22:7).

Was it right that God do this? Certainly. One might assume, therefore, on the basis of the argument stated above, that the early Christians could, and should, have joined with the Romans in Jerusalem's slaughter. After all, how could it be “right” for God to do it, and, at the same time, “wrong” for the Christian to participate? But such a conclusion is clearly erroneous, for the disciples of the Lord were specifically warned to avoid that conflict; indeed, they were to flee to the mountains (Mt. 25:15ff). 

Those who advocate the Christian's participation in an armed defense of the nation simply cannot reconcile this New Testament example with their viewpoint.

The Testimony of History - Historically, most Christian leaders have opposed participation in carnal warfare. The non-Christian historian, Edward Gibbon, wrote the following. 

“...nor could their [the Christians'] humane ignorance be convinced that it was lawful on any occasion to shed the blood of our fellow-creatures, either by the sword of justice or by that of war, even though their criminal or hostile attempts should threaten the peace and safety of the whole community. It was acknowledged that, under a less perfect law, the powers of the Jewish constitution had been exercised, with the approbation of Heaven, by inspired prophets and by anointed kings. The Christians felt and confessed that such institutions might be necessary for the present system of the world, and they cheerfully submitted to the authority of their Pagan governors. But while they inculcated the maxims of passive obedience, they refused to take any active part in the civil administration or the military defense of the empire” (416). 

Noted historian Philip Schaff wrote:  

“Then, too, the conscientious refusal of the Christians to pay divine honors to the emperor and his statue, and to take part in any idolatrous ceremonies at public festivities, their aversion to the imperial military services, their disregard for politics and depreciation of all civil and temporal affairs as compared with the spiritual and eternal interests of men, their close brotherly union and frequent meetings, drew upon them the suspicion of hostility to the Caesars and the Roman people, and the unpardonable crime of conspiracy against the state” (430). 

Another careful writer has observed: “Early second-century literature gives no direct evidence in regard to Christian participation in military service. The general statements which do occur imply a negative attitude. They reflect the Christian abhorrence of bloodshed and a general Christian affirmation about peace. Only in the early 170's do we find the first explicit evidence since apostolic times to the presence of Christians in the military service” (Ferguson, 221-222). 

It is sometimes argued that the reason the early saints declined military service was mainly because of the government's involvement with idolatry. That is not the reason given by the ancient opponents of Christian military service. They contended that God's people ought not to be involved in military activity because it is wrong for a Christian to kill (Ferguson, 226-227). 

Later, within our own American restoration movement, the list of names of those who opposed the Christian's participation in carnal warfare reads like a Who's Who of the brotherhood. Men like Alexander Campbell, Tolbert Fanning, P.S. Fall, B.U. Watkins, Moses Lard, J.W. McGarvey, Benjamin Franklin, Robert Milligan, W.K. Pendleton, T.M. Allen, David Lipscomb, Jacob Creath, Jr., and H. Leo Boles spoke out strongly for pacifism. Bill Humble states: “Except for Walter Scott, all the early restoration leaders had been pacifists” (44). A little later, Earl West comments, “On the side of those who felt Christian participation permissible, there were a few leading brethren” (338).

Conclusion

Christians are engaged in the greatest possible conflict - a war against Satan for the souls of men. Let us not, therefore, degrade ourselves by becoming entangled in the carnal conflicts of this world (cf. 2 Tim. 2:4) - which frequently result, in fact, in the wholesale destruction of souls.

Wayne Jackson

Sources

Barclay, William. 1974. New Testament Words. Philadelphia. Westminster.
Broadus, John. 1944. On the Preparation And Delivery of Sermons. New York. Harper Bros.
Clarke, Adam. Commentary on the Bible, Nashville, TN: Abingdon. Vol. I.
Ferguson, Everett. 1971. Early Christians Speak. Austin, TX: Sweet Pub. Co.
Gibbon, Edward. n.d. Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, New York. Modern Library. Vol. I.
Arndt, W. & Gingrich, F.W. 1967. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Humble, Bill J. 1969. The Story of the Restoration. Austin, TX: Firm Foundation.
Jacobus, Melancthon, 1864. Notes on the Book of Genesis. Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board. Vol. I.
Lard, Moses. n.d. Commentary on Romans. Cincinnati. Standard.
Leupuold, H. C. 1942. Exposition of Genesis. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker. Vol. 1.
Schaff, Philip. 1980. History of the Christian Church, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Vol. II.
West, Earl I. 1953. The Search for the Ancient Order. Nashville, TN. Vol. I.
Woods, Guy N. 1959. Commentary on Peter, John, and Jude. Nashville, TN. Gospel Advocate.
Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Vol. 5. PAGE 7

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

Persecution by Gary Rose

Today, there a an untold number of "causes" out there. You name it, someone is advocating it. Some make sense, some do not, but there is one very good cause that very few are even discussing.

Christians are being exterminated in the middle east. Thousands upon thousands are being killed, and some of those murders are the most gruesome you can imagine.

My question is: why are there not massive protests?  The obvious answer is that the world doesn't care one way or another.

Consider that...

Jesus spoke of persecution

Matthew, Chapter 5 (WEB)

¹¹  “Blessed are you when people reproach you, persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

Matthew, Chapter 5 (WEB)

⁴³  “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor  and hate your enemy.’   ⁴⁴  But I tell you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who mistreat you and persecute you,   ⁴⁵  that you may be children of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust.   ⁴⁶  For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Don’t even the tax collectors do the same?   ⁴⁷  If you only greet your friends, what more do you do than others? Don’t even the tax collectors  do the same?   ⁴⁸  Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect. 

John, Chapter 15 (WEB)

 ¹⁷  “I command these things to you, that you may love one another.   ¹⁸  If the world hates you, you know that it has hated me before it hated you.   ¹⁹  If you were of the world, the world would love its own. But because you are not of the world, since I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.   ²⁰  Remember the word that I said to you: ‘A servant is not greater than his lord.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours.   ²¹  But they will do all these things to you for my name’s sake, because they don’t know him who sent me.   ²²  If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have had sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin.   ²³  He who hates me, hates my Father also.   ²⁴  If I hadn’t done among them the works which no one else did, they wouldn’t have had sin. But now they have seen and also hated both me and my Father.   ²⁵  But this happened so that the word may be fulfilled which was written in their law, ‘They hated me without a cause.’ 

The world hates Christians because it does not know the one they follow, God. However, we are not to hate them in return, for we are to be perfect as our heavenly father is perfect. And the most perfect Christian I can think of is the Apostle Paul. But, he didn't start out that way. In fact, he was a violent aggressor of all of Jesus' followers.

Saul of Tarsus (Paul) Persecuted The Church

Acts, Chapter 8 (WEB)

 ¹ Saul was consenting to his death. A great persecution arose against the assembly which was in Jerusalem in that day. They were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except for the apostles. 

Acts, Chapter 9 (WEB)

 ¹ But Saul, still breathing threats and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest  ² and asked for letters from him to the synagogues of Damascus, that if he found any who were of the Way, whether men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.  ³ As he traveled, he got close to Damascus, and suddenly a light from the sky shone around him.  ⁴ He fell on the earth, and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” 
  ⁵ He said, “Who are you, Lord?” 

The Lord said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.   ⁶  But  rise up and enter into the city, then you will be told what you must do.” 

But, in spite of his actions, God chose him to incorporate the gentiles into the church. And what a job he did!!  Just read the New Testament, and you will see. But, there was a price...

Paul, persecution and us

Romans, Chapter 8 (WEB)

³¹ What then shall we say about these things? If God is for us, who can be against us?  ³² He who didn’t spare his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how would he not also with him freely give us all things?  ³³ Who could bring a charge against God’s chosen ones? It is God who justifies.  ³⁴ Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, yes rather, who was raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us. 

  ³⁵ Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Could oppression, or anguish, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?  ³⁶ Even as it is written, 

“For your sake we are killed all day long. We were accounted as sheep for the slaughter.”

  ³⁷ No, in all these things, we are more than conquerors through him who loved us.  ³⁸ For I am persuaded that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers,  ³⁹ nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing will be able to separate us from God’s love which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. 

2 Timothy, Chapter 2 (WEB)

¹⁰ But you followed my teaching, conduct, purpose, faith, patience, love, steadfastness, ¹¹ persecutions, and sufferings: those things that happened to me at Antioch, Iconium, and Lystra. I endured those persecutions. The Lord delivered me out of them all.  ¹² Yes, and all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution.

Persecution can bring out the best in us. It can make us more committed to God's work and motivate us to love. This was certainly true in Paul's case and those who were associated with him.

I guess there will always be persecution of Christians, but those of us who suffer for the cause of Christ will be better for it. Frankly, this is a little hard for me to understand, but I know it is true. Perhaps someday I will know all about it, but that will probably be in heaven. 

"THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS" Weapons Mighty In God (10:3-5) by Mark Copeland

                "THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS"

                     Weapons Mighty In God (10:3-5)

INTRODUCTION

1. In our text, Paul writes of a "war" in which Christians are 
   engaged...
   a. A war where weapons are used that are "mighty in God"
   b. A war that has as its objective to:
      1) "pull down"
      2) "cast down"
      3) "bring into captivity"

2. Exactly what is this "war"?  What "weapons" do we use?

3. Understanding the answers to these questions can help us be more 
   useful and productive "soldiers" in the "army" of God

[Let's begin our study by first identifying...]

I. THE SPIRITUAL WARFARE IN THIS TEXT

   A. NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH THAT FOUND ELSEWHERE...
      1. It is not quite the same war described in Ro 7:23 or 1Pe 2:11
      2. In those passages, a different war is being discussed
         a. One in which there is a battle raging inside each one of us
         b. In those passages, the warfare is one that is INTERNAL

   B. THE WARFARE IN OUR TEXT IS EXTERNAL...
      1. In which we are engaged in battle with OTHERS
         a. The context of 2 Corinthians should make this clear
         b. For Paul is defending his apostleship and ministry against
            false teachers
      2. This "war" is one which involves:
         a. "arguments"
         b. "knowledge"
         c. "thoughts"
         -- Such is the "field of battle" in this war
      3. This is a war that is fought whenever we try to...
         a. Lead a brother out of error
         b. Convert someone to Christ
      4. The "objective" in this war as described by Paul:
         a. To defeat any argument or position which is "against the
            knowledge of God" (what He has revealed) - 2Co 10:5a
         b. To bring a person who has held such thoughts...
            1) "into the captivity to the obedience of Christ" 

                - 2 Co 10:5b
            2) I.e., to become a "servant of Christ"

[Such is the "warfare" of this passage.  You might not have thought of
it in this way, but every time we are trying to teach someone we are
engaged in a "battle" for Christ!  How are we to "fight" this war?]

II. THE "WEAPONS" OF THIS WARFARE

   A. WHAT THEY ARE NOT: "CARNAL" OR "FLESHLY" (4)
      1. E.g., weapons that may be used "AGAINST" the flesh...
         a. Such as the sword, gun, bomb, etc.
         b. These weapons may take "people" captive, but not 
            necessarily their "thoughts"!
         c. Their "bodies" may be enslaved, but not their "minds"
         -- This was the flaw inherent in the Crusades
      2. E.g., weapons that are "OF" the flesh...
         a. E.g., hatred, contentions, outbursts of wrath, selfish 
            ambitions
         b. Such emotions are "works of the flesh" and are referred to
            in Ga 5:19-21
         c. Unfortunately, these "works of the flesh" are often used as
            "weapons" to win arguments
            1) At best all they can do is silence the opposition 
               (through intimidation)
            2) But at what cost?
               a) The opposition is not saved (which should be our 
                  goal)
               b) And the Christian who uses such "weapons" falls under
                  the condemnation of Ga 5:21
      -- So our weapons are not to be "carnal", either against the 
         flesh or of the flesh

   B. BUT WE DO HAVE WEAPONS, AND THEY ARE "MIGHTY IN GOD"!
      1. First and foremost, we have "the sword of the Spirit" - Ep 6:
         17
         a. Which is the Word of God
         b. Unless we use this Word, all our efforts will be in vain
         c. For it is the Word of God that is...
            1) Living and powerful - He 4:12
            2) Able to produce faith - Ro 10:17; Jn 20:30-31
            3) Able to save our souls - Jm 1:21
            4) Able to cause one to be born again - 1Pe 1:23
      2. We must also "speak the truth in love" - cf. Ep 4:15
         a. I.e., presenting the Word with a Christ-like attitude
         b. This involves such qualities as:
            1) The "meekness and gentleness of Christ" (as used by Paul
               himself, 2Co 10:1)
            2) Also "patience" and "humility" 

               (as Paul taught in 2Ti 2:24-26)
         c. These "qualities of character" are indeed powerful 
            "weapons"
            1) They can do wonders to diffuse volatile situations
               a) Notice Pr 15:1
               b) In contrast, consider Pr 26:21
            2) They can make it possible for people to:
               a) Discuss controversial issues without controversial
                  behavior
               b) Disagree without being disagreeable
               c) Argue without being argumentative
               d) Contend without being contentious

   C. TO BE EFFECTIVE, WE NEED THE "WHOLE" ARMOR OF GOD
      1. As soldiers of Christ, we need...
         a. Not just the "sword" of the Spirit
         b. But also the "fruit" of the Spirit - cf. Ga 5:22-23
         -- Otherwise, we might do ourselves harm in mishandling the 
            Word of God!
      2. We need to "adorn" the truth of God with meekness, gentleness,
         patience and humility
         a. Do not think that we are going to persuade people by the
            "force" of our actions
            1) Such is likely only to intimidate them into silence or
               reluctant acquiescence
            2) Unless they come to "believe with all their heart", any
               obedience is futile - cf. Ac 8:36-37
         b. If they are teachable, they must be won over by the "truth"
            of our arguments, assisted by the "application" of that 
            truth in our own conduct

CONCLUSION

1. So the weapons that we have which are "mighty in God" include such
   graces as "meekness," "gentleness," "patience," and "humility"

2. Such "weapons" greatly enhance the opportunities for our greatest
   weapon (TRUTH) to do its job; and should be utilized whether it be 
   in:
   a. Our evangelistic efforts
   b. Our Bible classes
   c. Our church business meetings
   d. Our personal discussions
   e. Public debates in defense of the truth

3. This is not to suggest there is never a time for "righteous 
   indignation"; but I fear that what is often excused as righteous 
   indignation may really be:
   a. SELF-righteous indignation
   b. Our CARNAL nature
   ...getting in the way of the progress of truth!

May we be quick to use the "meekness and gentleness of Christ" in all
our efforts to win others to the truth, for they are truly "Weapons 
Mighty In God"!

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2016