Dan S. Shipley wrote this. It appeared in the April 1973 edition of Plain Talk, a monthly publication of the Oaks-West Church of Christ in Burnet, Texas.
The omnipotence that belongs to God is difficult for the finite mind to grasp. It is unlike any power of mortals. Whatever man wills is not realized except by means. With God, means are unnecessary. He wills it and it is done. He says, "Let there be light" and there is light. Such is the incredible power that makes time stand still; that calms the stormy wind and waves with but a word and that causes even the dead to render ready response to its command. Truly, "great things doeth He, which we cannot comprehend." (Job 37:5) No wonder then the reference to Himself as "the Almighty god" (Genesis 17:1); the One with whom, "all things are possible" as Jesus puts it. (Matthew 19:26)
Infinite power is complimented and directed by infinite wisdom, love and righteousness. Accordingly, such power is never used recklessly or wrongfully. Every manifestation of Divine power is exactly as purposed by Divine wisdom; nothing is incidental or accidental. What God produced with His creative power was precisely what He willed ("And God saw everything that He made, and behold, it was very good." Genesis 1:31). Spiritually, man was made in a pure and perfect state. Physically, "God set the members each one of them in the body, even as it pleased Him." (I Corinthians 12:18) Note: By Divine creative power, God "set" (from Greek tithemi, "to put, to place) the various members in the human body. They didn't get there by a process of evolution! God is the first and efficient cause. Creation demands a creator, life a life-giver, law a law giver and design a designer. Almighty God is all of these and more.
Not only does God have the power to know all things at all times and the power to make something from nothing, He also has the unique power of presence; the ability to be in all places at once. As Paul says, "He is not far from each one of us (Acts 17:27). His abiding presence is pictured by the Psalmist (139:3-12) and is implied by the writer of Hebrews in recalling His promise. "I will in wise fail thee, neither will I in any wise forsake thee." (13:5) Remembering that He is a witness to every thought, word and deed of every man ought to encourage a better conduct. In prayer we sometimes speak of "coming into His presence" but really, we never leave it. (Do we fear or appreciate His presence; or both?)
Since God's power is immutable (unchanging, "eternal", Romans 1:20) it is never diminished nor abated in any way when when exercised through men. The power employed by the apostles was from "on high", which they readily acknowledged (Acts 3:12; 15:12). How unusual then, that modern day "faith healers" who claim the same power from the same source should have different results! Divine power never fails. It is instantaneous and complete, independent of the subject's faith. Many still err, "not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God" (Matthew 22:29).
To believe in God is to believe in His great power, in His authority and sovereignty. He alone has the power to save and destroy (James 1:12; Matthew 10:28) and to provide all things that pertain to life and godliness (II Peter 1:3). He IS almighty!
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Saul's Weakness
This is reprinted from the April 1973 edition of Plain Talk, a paper published by the Oaks-West Church of Christ in Burnet, Texas. There is no author credited.
When God made Saul, son of Kish to be king over His people, "there was not among the children of Israel a goodlier person than he." (I Samuel 9:2) He was concerned for his father (v. 5), wanted to pay the preacher (v. 7), was an humble man (v. 21), shy (10:22) and God had given him another heart (vv. 6,9). He was not a vindictive man (11:12-13) and he gave God the glory for victory.
But Saul had a weakness. He seemed to covet a priestly status and pursued this goal in high handed defiance of God's will. Both of the errors associated with his rejection as king have to do with unlawful "offerings." (I Samuel 13:8-14; 15:1-23) Put another way, Saul was willing to worship God provided he could be "top banana" and do it the way he wished. Of course genuine worship is impossible when such an attitude prevails.
And Saul had another weakness of character, perhaps more destructive in the final analysis than his yen to play priest. Unlike David, who would acknowledge his sins and ask forgiveness, Saul made excuses and blamed others for his failings. He assigned himself noble reasons for doing that which was contrary to God's will; the people were scattered, Samuel was late; the enemy was upon us; it was needful that we pray to God, so, "I forced myself and offered the burnt offering." All so reasonable, right seeming...and wrong. Samuel said, "Thou hast done foolishly; thou hast not kept the commandment of Jehovah thy God." (I Samuel 13:11-13)
When Saul was sent to destroy the Amalekites he saved King Agag and the best of the stock. He claimed, "I have performed the commandment of Jehovah." A noble motive and the blame is put on that indefinite "mass" that is supposed to relieve the individual of the need for conviction and action. (15:13-f) To obey is better than sacrifice.
Saul's weakness cost him a kingdom. How many of us will miss Heaven because we seek to do God's work in our way and blame others for our sin?
When God made Saul, son of Kish to be king over His people, "there was not among the children of Israel a goodlier person than he." (I Samuel 9:2) He was concerned for his father (v. 5), wanted to pay the preacher (v. 7), was an humble man (v. 21), shy (10:22) and God had given him another heart (vv. 6,9). He was not a vindictive man (11:12-13) and he gave God the glory for victory.
But Saul had a weakness. He seemed to covet a priestly status and pursued this goal in high handed defiance of God's will. Both of the errors associated with his rejection as king have to do with unlawful "offerings." (I Samuel 13:8-14; 15:1-23) Put another way, Saul was willing to worship God provided he could be "top banana" and do it the way he wished. Of course genuine worship is impossible when such an attitude prevails.
And Saul had another weakness of character, perhaps more destructive in the final analysis than his yen to play priest. Unlike David, who would acknowledge his sins and ask forgiveness, Saul made excuses and blamed others for his failings. He assigned himself noble reasons for doing that which was contrary to God's will; the people were scattered, Samuel was late; the enemy was upon us; it was needful that we pray to God, so, "I forced myself and offered the burnt offering." All so reasonable, right seeming...and wrong. Samuel said, "Thou hast done foolishly; thou hast not kept the commandment of Jehovah thy God." (I Samuel 13:11-13)
When Saul was sent to destroy the Amalekites he saved King Agag and the best of the stock. He claimed, "I have performed the commandment of Jehovah." A noble motive and the blame is put on that indefinite "mass" that is supposed to relieve the individual of the need for conviction and action. (15:13-f) To obey is better than sacrifice.
Saul's weakness cost him a kingdom. How many of us will miss Heaven because we seek to do God's work in our way and blame others for our sin?
What About Women Preachers?
From the November 1975 edition of The Christian Courier, we take this fine article concerning an important topic. When reading it, I was reminded of how some problems never seem to go away. Certain issues are as relevant today as when they were discussed decades ago. This was written by Wayne Jackson. The paper was published by the East Main Street Church of Christ in Stockton, California and was edited by Jackson.
Every significant movement within society will eventually to some degree, make itself felt in the church. The phenomenon of "women's liberation" is no exception. There are those within the church who are clamoring that women must throw off the yoke of male domination and claim their rightful place in the body of Christ. The approach to this issue has been two-fold. Some have adopted a completely infidelic attitude by suggesting that certain "troubling passages" in the New Testament are merely the result of Pharisaic and rabbinic prejudices reflecting the backward ignorance of the first century. It is thus claimed that such are not authoritative for today's church. Others, desiring to assume a more conservative stance, assert there is Biblical support for women preachers, leaders, etc. The following is a brief review of some of the popular arguments being currently advanced as alleged proof of this position.
WOMEN PROPHESY - The New Testament mentions women prophesying (Acts 2:18; 21:9; I Corinthians 11:5). It is asserted that prophesying was preaching, hence women of the first century preached. The word "prophesy" derives from two Greek roots, pro (forth) and phemi (to speak). It is a very general term and may mean, "to teach, refute, reprove, admonish, comfort." (Cf. I Corinthians 14:3) It can simply suggest the idea of "giving thanks and praising God" (I Chronicles 25:3). The meaning of the word in a given situation must be determined by the context, as well as additional information in the scriptures. Paul limits the extent of a woman's forth-speaking (teaching, etc.) when he writes: "I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness." (I Timothy 2:12) The negative conjunction oude (nor) is explanatory in force, suggesting that the kind of teaching here prohibited is that which assumes dominion over the man. And so, while it is clear that women of the early church did prophesy, it is equally certain that they did not subordinate men to the role of students. It should be noted that Priscilla's involvement in teaching Apollos was privately done in conjunction with her husband Aquila (Acts 18:26).
PHOEBE - on the basis of Romans 16:1-2, some have contended that: (a) Phoebe was a church "official" (deacon); (b) the church was to "assist her" implying her authority over the church and (c) she had been a "helper" (prostatis) of many, suggesting "authority, discipline, over-seeing." All of this supposedly proves that Phoebe was a preacher-leader in the early church. In reply it may be pointed out: (a) The word diakonos simply means a "servant" (Cf. Matthew 23:11; John 2:5) and any "official" attachment to the term must be demanded by the context, as in Philippians 1:1 and I Timothy 3:8, 12. (b) The fact that the saints were encouraged to "assist" Phoebe did not imply her authority over them. The Greek word paristemi meant to "come to the aid of, help, stand by." When Paul said, "the Lord stood by (pareste) me" (II Timothy 4:17) he certainly was not asserting that he exercised authority over the Lord! (c) The word prostatis (helper) does not necessitate oversight or a position of authority. If it did, then Phoebe had exercised authority over Paul for he said she had been his helper as well as others! the term could simply denote the idea of rendering assistance. Though it is found only here in the New Testament, a 3rd century B.C. letter from a son to his father uses the verb form: "there will be nothing of more importance for me than to look after you for the remainder of life, in a manner worthy of you, and worthy of me." Phoebe had simply been a helper of Paul and others; there is not the slightest evidence that she was a church leader or pulpiteer.
EUODIA AND SYNTYCHE - In Philippians 4:2-3, Paul comments that these two women "labored" with him in the gospel; he calls them along with others, his "fellow workers." Again, the assumption is made that "fellow workers" necessitates an authoritarian position comparable to the apostle's. However, Christians are said to be "God's fellow workers" (I Corinthians 3:9). Obviously this does not suggest that we are authorized to act as deity! Countless godly ladies have assisted, labored with and been fellow workers with gospel ministers without ever having become public preachers themselves.
JUNIA - It is said that Junia (KJV), a woman was an apostle and thus certainly occupied a place of authority in the early church (Romans 16:7). This is a truly desperate argument. In the first place, in the Greek text the name is Junian; in the accusative case. The gender of the name is not evident. It could either be Junia (feminine) or more likely, Junias (masculine). Origin, a scholar of the 3rd century considered it a reference to a man. In the second place, it is not even certain that Junias is here identified as an "apostle." The phrase translated "of note among the apostles" (ASV) is rendered by Zahn as, "famed, mentioned with honor in the circle of the apostles" giving the sense of being well known by the apostles, rather than actually being an apostle. But in the third place, the word "apostle" is used occasionally in the Scriptures in a non-technical sense to denote a messenger. Jesus says that "one sent" (apostolos) is not greater than the sender (John 13:16). See also II Corinthians 8:23. The word need not imply one who has dominion over another, nor even a "preacher." No case can be built on Romans 6:17.
AS ALSO SAITH THE LAW - Some argue that Paul's admonition that women be in subjection is limited by the expression, "as also saith the law" (I Corinthians 14:34) and since the law allowed women prophets (as in the case of Miriam, Huldah and Anna) and even a prophetess judge (Deborah), so preaching executives are permissible in the church today. A careful study of the foregoing cases will reveal the following facts.
(1) When Miriam prophesied it was "all the women" that went out after her (Exodus 15:20) and there is no evidence that she publicly preached to men.
(2) Though Huldah was a prophetess, the solitary record of her prophesying involved some men going to her where they communed privately (II Kings 22:14f; II Chronicles 34:22f). It is impossible to find public preaching here.
(3) Anna was a prophetess "who departed not from the temple" (Luke 2:36-38). In describing the temple, Josephus says, "there was a partition built for the women" that separated them from the men; this was "the proper place wherein they were to worship." (Wars, 5:5:2.) If Anna instructed men, it was doubtless in private situations. There is no proof that she publicly prophesied to mixed audiences.
(4) Deborah was a prophetess of the hill country of Ephraim, but there is no indication that she publicly proclaimed God's message to the multitudes. Rather, "the children of Israel came unto her for judgment" (Judges 4:5). She gave prophetic judgment as a "mother in Israel" (Judges 5:7). The fact that she judged at all is a dramatic commentary on sickening weakness of the Israelites during this period, and Deborah's song (Judges 5) laments this woeful condition. This was but one of those occasions where Jehovah accommodated His working to Israel's weaknesses. (Cf. I Samuel 8:9; Matthew 19:8)
CULTURE - Some are asserting that Paul's limitations upon women were given in view of the Graeco-Judaistic culture of his day but are not binding in our time where such cultural elements are lacking. There are three New Testament contexts where the apostle discusses the distinctive roles of men and women in the church. They are I Corinthians 11:2-16; I Corinthians 14:33-38 and I Timothy 2:11-15. A summary of these passages reveals that Paul's inspired reasons for feminine subjection were based upon: (a) the creation (I Corinthians 11:7-9; 14:34b; I Timothy 2:13) and (b) woman's deception by Satan (I Timothy 2:14). "Culture" is just not involved here. In Ephesians 5:22-33, where he discusses the levels of authority within the home, Paul appeals to Jehovah's constitution of Adam and Eve (Genesis 2:24) as the basis of his instruction. In fact, it is clearly evident that the graduation of authority within the home and within the church are grounded upon the same facts of sacred history. Accordingly, if women can demand a place of equal leadership with men in the church, by the same reasoning no wife today is bound to be in subjection to her husband. Though some women would delight in this conclusion, those who fear God (and they are many) will continue to serve the Creator with honor and dignity according to their assigned roles.
Every significant movement within society will eventually to some degree, make itself felt in the church. The phenomenon of "women's liberation" is no exception. There are those within the church who are clamoring that women must throw off the yoke of male domination and claim their rightful place in the body of Christ. The approach to this issue has been two-fold. Some have adopted a completely infidelic attitude by suggesting that certain "troubling passages" in the New Testament are merely the result of Pharisaic and rabbinic prejudices reflecting the backward ignorance of the first century. It is thus claimed that such are not authoritative for today's church. Others, desiring to assume a more conservative stance, assert there is Biblical support for women preachers, leaders, etc. The following is a brief review of some of the popular arguments being currently advanced as alleged proof of this position.
WOMEN PROPHESY - The New Testament mentions women prophesying (Acts 2:18; 21:9; I Corinthians 11:5). It is asserted that prophesying was preaching, hence women of the first century preached. The word "prophesy" derives from two Greek roots, pro (forth) and phemi (to speak). It is a very general term and may mean, "to teach, refute, reprove, admonish, comfort." (Cf. I Corinthians 14:3) It can simply suggest the idea of "giving thanks and praising God" (I Chronicles 25:3). The meaning of the word in a given situation must be determined by the context, as well as additional information in the scriptures. Paul limits the extent of a woman's forth-speaking (teaching, etc.) when he writes: "I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness." (I Timothy 2:12) The negative conjunction oude (nor) is explanatory in force, suggesting that the kind of teaching here prohibited is that which assumes dominion over the man. And so, while it is clear that women of the early church did prophesy, it is equally certain that they did not subordinate men to the role of students. It should be noted that Priscilla's involvement in teaching Apollos was privately done in conjunction with her husband Aquila (Acts 18:26).
PHOEBE - on the basis of Romans 16:1-2, some have contended that: (a) Phoebe was a church "official" (deacon); (b) the church was to "assist her" implying her authority over the church and (c) she had been a "helper" (prostatis) of many, suggesting "authority, discipline, over-seeing." All of this supposedly proves that Phoebe was a preacher-leader in the early church. In reply it may be pointed out: (a) The word diakonos simply means a "servant" (Cf. Matthew 23:11; John 2:5) and any "official" attachment to the term must be demanded by the context, as in Philippians 1:1 and I Timothy 3:8, 12. (b) The fact that the saints were encouraged to "assist" Phoebe did not imply her authority over them. The Greek word paristemi meant to "come to the aid of, help, stand by." When Paul said, "the Lord stood by (pareste) me" (II Timothy 4:17) he certainly was not asserting that he exercised authority over the Lord! (c) The word prostatis (helper) does not necessitate oversight or a position of authority. If it did, then Phoebe had exercised authority over Paul for he said she had been his helper as well as others! the term could simply denote the idea of rendering assistance. Though it is found only here in the New Testament, a 3rd century B.C. letter from a son to his father uses the verb form: "there will be nothing of more importance for me than to look after you for the remainder of life, in a manner worthy of you, and worthy of me." Phoebe had simply been a helper of Paul and others; there is not the slightest evidence that she was a church leader or pulpiteer.
EUODIA AND SYNTYCHE - In Philippians 4:2-3, Paul comments that these two women "labored" with him in the gospel; he calls them along with others, his "fellow workers." Again, the assumption is made that "fellow workers" necessitates an authoritarian position comparable to the apostle's. However, Christians are said to be "God's fellow workers" (I Corinthians 3:9). Obviously this does not suggest that we are authorized to act as deity! Countless godly ladies have assisted, labored with and been fellow workers with gospel ministers without ever having become public preachers themselves.
JUNIA - It is said that Junia (KJV), a woman was an apostle and thus certainly occupied a place of authority in the early church (Romans 16:7). This is a truly desperate argument. In the first place, in the Greek text the name is Junian; in the accusative case. The gender of the name is not evident. It could either be Junia (feminine) or more likely, Junias (masculine). Origin, a scholar of the 3rd century considered it a reference to a man. In the second place, it is not even certain that Junias is here identified as an "apostle." The phrase translated "of note among the apostles" (ASV) is rendered by Zahn as, "famed, mentioned with honor in the circle of the apostles" giving the sense of being well known by the apostles, rather than actually being an apostle. But in the third place, the word "apostle" is used occasionally in the Scriptures in a non-technical sense to denote a messenger. Jesus says that "one sent" (apostolos) is not greater than the sender (John 13:16). See also II Corinthians 8:23. The word need not imply one who has dominion over another, nor even a "preacher." No case can be built on Romans 6:17.
AS ALSO SAITH THE LAW - Some argue that Paul's admonition that women be in subjection is limited by the expression, "as also saith the law" (I Corinthians 14:34) and since the law allowed women prophets (as in the case of Miriam, Huldah and Anna) and even a prophetess judge (Deborah), so preaching executives are permissible in the church today. A careful study of the foregoing cases will reveal the following facts.
(1) When Miriam prophesied it was "all the women" that went out after her (Exodus 15:20) and there is no evidence that she publicly preached to men.
(2) Though Huldah was a prophetess, the solitary record of her prophesying involved some men going to her where they communed privately (II Kings 22:14f; II Chronicles 34:22f). It is impossible to find public preaching here.
(3) Anna was a prophetess "who departed not from the temple" (Luke 2:36-38). In describing the temple, Josephus says, "there was a partition built for the women" that separated them from the men; this was "the proper place wherein they were to worship." (Wars, 5:5:2.) If Anna instructed men, it was doubtless in private situations. There is no proof that she publicly prophesied to mixed audiences.
(4) Deborah was a prophetess of the hill country of Ephraim, but there is no indication that she publicly proclaimed God's message to the multitudes. Rather, "the children of Israel came unto her for judgment" (Judges 4:5). She gave prophetic judgment as a "mother in Israel" (Judges 5:7). The fact that she judged at all is a dramatic commentary on sickening weakness of the Israelites during this period, and Deborah's song (Judges 5) laments this woeful condition. This was but one of those occasions where Jehovah accommodated His working to Israel's weaknesses. (Cf. I Samuel 8:9; Matthew 19:8)
CULTURE - Some are asserting that Paul's limitations upon women were given in view of the Graeco-Judaistic culture of his day but are not binding in our time where such cultural elements are lacking. There are three New Testament contexts where the apostle discusses the distinctive roles of men and women in the church. They are I Corinthians 11:2-16; I Corinthians 14:33-38 and I Timothy 2:11-15. A summary of these passages reveals that Paul's inspired reasons for feminine subjection were based upon: (a) the creation (I Corinthians 11:7-9; 14:34b; I Timothy 2:13) and (b) woman's deception by Satan (I Timothy 2:14). "Culture" is just not involved here. In Ephesians 5:22-33, where he discusses the levels of authority within the home, Paul appeals to Jehovah's constitution of Adam and Eve (Genesis 2:24) as the basis of his instruction. In fact, it is clearly evident that the graduation of authority within the home and within the church are grounded upon the same facts of sacred history. Accordingly, if women can demand a place of equal leadership with men in the church, by the same reasoning no wife today is bound to be in subjection to her husband. Though some women would delight in this conclusion, those who fear God (and they are many) will continue to serve the Creator with honor and dignity according to their assigned roles.
Monday, January 28, 2013
The Four Silent Centuries (Part 4)
This is the final installment of Wayne Jackson's series concerning the time between the Testaments. This was published in the November 1975 edition of The Christian Courier which was published by the East Main Street Church of Christ and edited by Jackson.
As mentioned in a previous article, several Jewish sects arose from the conflicts of the Inter-Testamental period. Some of these play a major role in New Testament history.
(1) The Pharisees (separated ones) grew out of a reaction against Hebrew acceptance of Greek culture. Numbering about 6,000 at the time of Christ's birth, they were the "strictest sect" among the Jews (Acts 26:5). The Pharisees were known for several things: (a) They were ultra-legalists. In addition to the Mosaic law, they bound rabbinic traditions so that Jesus charged them with making void the word of God (Matthew 15:1-9). (b) They were notoriously inconsistent (gnat straining camel swallowers, Matthew 23:24); for instance, though they scrupulously tithed their smallest garden produce (Matthew 23:23), they perverted the law to avoid parental obligations (Mark 7:11). (c) They were religious show offs (Matthew 6:1-17). (d) The Pharisees were extremely self righteous (Luke 18:9-14). (e) They were the chief opponents of Christ, attacking Him for allegedly breaking the Sabbath, associating with sinners, etc. and were active in plotting His death, as well as subsequently persecuting Christians.
(2) Though not named in the New Testament, the Essenes, about 4,000 strong were similar to the Pharisees though more extreme. They remained aloof from the temple and were ascetically communistic. It is fairly certain that the Qumran community (southeast Palestine), where the famous Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in 1947, was an Essene site.
(3) The Sadducees were an outgrowth of the Hellenistic-Maccabean amalgamation of the Inter-Biblical era. The name may be a corruption of "Zadok" (an Old Testament priest from whom they claimed to descend), or possibly from "zaddikim" meaning the righteous, asserting a boasted faithfulness to the law in contrast to Pharisaic traditionalism. Their traits were: (a) they were rich, aristocratic and politically powerful; the party of the high priesthood (Acts 4:1). (b) They accepted only the Pentateuch as authoritative. (c) They were materialists, rejecting belief in angels and spirits (Acts 23:8) and denying the resurrection of the body and future punishment (Matthew 22:23; Josephus, Antiquities, 18:1:4). (d) The Sadducees were very instrumental in putting Jesus to death (Matthew 27:1).
(4) The Herodians were political partisans and followers of the Herod family. (Compare the suffix "ian" as used with the name Christ in Acts 11:26.) These people collaborated with the Pharisees to crucify Christ (Matthew 22:16; Mark 3:6).
(5) The Zealots were a nationalistic group bent on reviving Maccabean patriotism and throwing off the yoke of Roman oppression. They are sometimes identified with the Assassins, (Acts 21:38) a fanatical group that carried concealed daggers to murder their enemies. Jesus may have been alluding to the Zealots when He spoke of those who sought to take the kingdom "by force" (Matthew 11:12; Cf. John 6:15). Interestingly, one of the apostles, Simon Zealotes may have come from this band (Luke 6:15). If so, think what a marvel Christ wrought by bringing together Simon, the Zealot and Matthew the publican in the common endeavor of preaching the gospel. The former hated Roman sympathizers and refused to pay taxes. The latter was a Jew employed by the Romans to collect taxes!
This study would certainly be incomplete without some consideration of those infamous Herods. This bloody family cast an ominous shadow on the pages of the New Testament.
(1) Herod the Great (of Edomite ancestry) ruled by Roman appointment as King of the Jews from 37-4 B.C. In an attempt to pacify the Jews who hated him, Herod initiated a temple beautification program lasting forty six years (John 2:20). But he was a vicious monarch. It was he who massacred the infants in the attempt to eliminate the Messiah (Matthew 2:16). When he died, his kingdom was divided among his sons: Archelaus (Matthew 2:22) reigned over Judea, Samaria and Idumaea; Antipas was assigned Galilee and Philip (Luke 3:1) was given territory in northeast Palestine. Archelaus, a failure was deposed in 6 A.D. and Judea was henceforth ruled by Roman appointed procurators, the 5th or 6th of which was Pilate. The "scepter" had departed from Judah. Shiloh had come (Genesis 49:10)!
(2) The fox-like Antipas (Luke 13:32) reigned as tetrarch of Galilee from 4 B.C. to 39 A.D. John the Baptist courageously denounced his sinful marriage to Herodias (his brother Philip's wife) and was beheaded for his efforts (Matthew 14:1-12). During His trial, Jesus was sent to Antipas who interrogated Him in vain (Luke 23:8-12).
(3) Agrippa I a grandson of Herod the Great, through a series of appointments (37-44 A.D.) ultimately became King over Palestine. He martyred the first apostle, and smitten of God died a horrible death (Acts 12).
(4) Agrippa II, son of the former, became ruler of various territories in northern Palestine in 50 A.D. It was before this monarch and his sister Bernice (their scandalous incestuous conduct was widely rumored) that Paul made his great defense in Acts 26. The apostle also preached before Drusilla, another of Agrippa's sisters and her adulterous husband Felix (Acts 23:24). With this brief sketch of the Jewish sects and some of the significant political figures, we conclude this series on the four silent centuries.
As mentioned in a previous article, several Jewish sects arose from the conflicts of the Inter-Testamental period. Some of these play a major role in New Testament history.
(1) The Pharisees (separated ones) grew out of a reaction against Hebrew acceptance of Greek culture. Numbering about 6,000 at the time of Christ's birth, they were the "strictest sect" among the Jews (Acts 26:5). The Pharisees were known for several things: (a) They were ultra-legalists. In addition to the Mosaic law, they bound rabbinic traditions so that Jesus charged them with making void the word of God (Matthew 15:1-9). (b) They were notoriously inconsistent (gnat straining camel swallowers, Matthew 23:24); for instance, though they scrupulously tithed their smallest garden produce (Matthew 23:23), they perverted the law to avoid parental obligations (Mark 7:11). (c) They were religious show offs (Matthew 6:1-17). (d) The Pharisees were extremely self righteous (Luke 18:9-14). (e) They were the chief opponents of Christ, attacking Him for allegedly breaking the Sabbath, associating with sinners, etc. and were active in plotting His death, as well as subsequently persecuting Christians.
(2) Though not named in the New Testament, the Essenes, about 4,000 strong were similar to the Pharisees though more extreme. They remained aloof from the temple and were ascetically communistic. It is fairly certain that the Qumran community (southeast Palestine), where the famous Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in 1947, was an Essene site.
(3) The Sadducees were an outgrowth of the Hellenistic-Maccabean amalgamation of the Inter-Biblical era. The name may be a corruption of "Zadok" (an Old Testament priest from whom they claimed to descend), or possibly from "zaddikim" meaning the righteous, asserting a boasted faithfulness to the law in contrast to Pharisaic traditionalism. Their traits were: (a) they were rich, aristocratic and politically powerful; the party of the high priesthood (Acts 4:1). (b) They accepted only the Pentateuch as authoritative. (c) They were materialists, rejecting belief in angels and spirits (Acts 23:8) and denying the resurrection of the body and future punishment (Matthew 22:23; Josephus, Antiquities, 18:1:4). (d) The Sadducees were very instrumental in putting Jesus to death (Matthew 27:1).
(4) The Herodians were political partisans and followers of the Herod family. (Compare the suffix "ian" as used with the name Christ in Acts 11:26.) These people collaborated with the Pharisees to crucify Christ (Matthew 22:16; Mark 3:6).
(5) The Zealots were a nationalistic group bent on reviving Maccabean patriotism and throwing off the yoke of Roman oppression. They are sometimes identified with the Assassins, (Acts 21:38) a fanatical group that carried concealed daggers to murder their enemies. Jesus may have been alluding to the Zealots when He spoke of those who sought to take the kingdom "by force" (Matthew 11:12; Cf. John 6:15). Interestingly, one of the apostles, Simon Zealotes may have come from this band (Luke 6:15). If so, think what a marvel Christ wrought by bringing together Simon, the Zealot and Matthew the publican in the common endeavor of preaching the gospel. The former hated Roman sympathizers and refused to pay taxes. The latter was a Jew employed by the Romans to collect taxes!
This study would certainly be incomplete without some consideration of those infamous Herods. This bloody family cast an ominous shadow on the pages of the New Testament.
(1) Herod the Great (of Edomite ancestry) ruled by Roman appointment as King of the Jews from 37-4 B.C. In an attempt to pacify the Jews who hated him, Herod initiated a temple beautification program lasting forty six years (John 2:20). But he was a vicious monarch. It was he who massacred the infants in the attempt to eliminate the Messiah (Matthew 2:16). When he died, his kingdom was divided among his sons: Archelaus (Matthew 2:22) reigned over Judea, Samaria and Idumaea; Antipas was assigned Galilee and Philip (Luke 3:1) was given territory in northeast Palestine. Archelaus, a failure was deposed in 6 A.D. and Judea was henceforth ruled by Roman appointed procurators, the 5th or 6th of which was Pilate. The "scepter" had departed from Judah. Shiloh had come (Genesis 49:10)!
(2) The fox-like Antipas (Luke 13:32) reigned as tetrarch of Galilee from 4 B.C. to 39 A.D. John the Baptist courageously denounced his sinful marriage to Herodias (his brother Philip's wife) and was beheaded for his efforts (Matthew 14:1-12). During His trial, Jesus was sent to Antipas who interrogated Him in vain (Luke 23:8-12).
(3) Agrippa I a grandson of Herod the Great, through a series of appointments (37-44 A.D.) ultimately became King over Palestine. He martyred the first apostle, and smitten of God died a horrible death (Acts 12).
(4) Agrippa II, son of the former, became ruler of various territories in northern Palestine in 50 A.D. It was before this monarch and his sister Bernice (their scandalous incestuous conduct was widely rumored) that Paul made his great defense in Acts 26. The apostle also preached before Drusilla, another of Agrippa's sisters and her adulterous husband Felix (Acts 23:24). With this brief sketch of the Jewish sects and some of the significant political figures, we conclude this series on the four silent centuries.
Sunday, January 27, 2013
The Four Silent Centuries (Part 3)
Continuing the series on the time between the Testaments, this article, written by Wayne Jackson comes from the October 1975 edition of The Christian Courier. It was published by the East Main Street Church of Christ in Stockton, California and was edited by Jackson.
After the era of Greek dominance, the Jewish people enjoyed independence for the following century (167-63 B.C.), though it was not a time altogether free of strife. In addition to military skirmishes, there was also a spirit of smoldering rivalry between the Hellenists (those sympathetic to Greek ways), the Hasidim (the conservatives for the law) and the Maccabeans (leaders of the Jewish rebellion). While attempting to enlarge his territory, Judas Maccabeas, the valiant Hebrew leader was killed. He was succeeded by his brother Jonathan who ultimately permitted himself to be appointed high priest. This was a most significant event. Now, for the first time in more than thirteen centuries, the high priesthood passed from the family of Aaron! That such a transition did not provoke the Jews 9apparently a majority approved) is a heart breaking commentary on the spiritual anemia of the day.
In 135 B.C., John Hyracanus I, nephew of Judas Maccabeas assumed the politico-religious leadership of Israel. It was within his administration of some thirty years that the lines between the Jewish sects became glaringly distinct. Hyracanus had serious conflicts with the Hasidim and hence, cast his lot with the Hellenists. It is at this time that these two elements are first formally identified by the historian Josephus as Pharisees and Sadducees. (Antiquities 13:10:5-6) And significantly from this point onward, with but minor exception, there is that close alliance between the high priesthood and the Sadducees which is so apparent in the New Testament. (Cf. Acts 5:17) More will be said later of the Hebrew sects. It is sufficient to presently observe that this is a dark period in Israel's rapidly declining history.
THE ROMAN PERIOD - In 63 B.C. Pompey, one of Rome's greatest generals, invaded Palestine and took Jerusalem. Thus did the Jews come under the control of the Romans (though granted some self-government) where they were to remain until crushed by that regal force in 70 A.D. The ascendancy of Roman power had been foretold by Daniel (2:40ff; 7:7, 23) and such was a vital component in the incomparable plan of Jehovah for the accomplishment of that "fullness of time" (Galatians 4:4), which would herald the arrival of Christ. Rome's providential contributions toward the advancement of Christianity are worthy of notice.
(a) The doors of the Temple of Janus (Roman "guard" god) were closed in 29 B.C. (a rare occurrence) and the ancient world was at peace. This famous Pax Romana (the peace of Rome) erased the barriers between the East and the West and blended the Civilized world into an organic whole. Law and order prevailed. Jews were free to travel to remote parts of the empire and there to establish synagogues, which would later be used as media for teaching the gospel. It my be confidently said that there never was a time in the history of the world when circumstances were so favorable for the establishment and growth of the religion of Jesus Christ.
(b) Roman engineering provided a magnificent series of highways interlacing the empire, which were built so well, that a number of them exist yet today. The saying "All roads lead to Rome" was more than a mere figure of speech. The great Mediterranean Sea (which had been cleared of pirates by Pompey) also became for the empire an important medium of inter-communication. How wonderfully the Lord was preparing the way for that noble commission, "Go ye into all the world..."
(c) One of Rome's greatest gifts to ancient society indeed, to the whole world, was a uniform system of laws. It is said that the Romans were, "masters of jurisprudence in the antique world." Men were taught respect for universal law and thereby conditioned for the approaching universal law of the gospel. Equally important was the fact that by this great legal system, the Son of God was legally proclaimed to be innocent of any wrongdoing. After repeated interrogations, Pilate the Roman procurator of Judea, was forced to thrice concede the faultlessness of Christ. (Luke 23:4, 14, 22; John 18:38; 19:4-6) This was of tremendous importance, as it was imperative that apostolic preachers be able to proclaim with great force that Jesus Christ had died at the hands of "lawless" men (Acts 2:23) and thus was His "judgement [of innocence] taken away." (Acts 8:33) This relates to the atonement involved in the Lord's death; the innocent died for the guilty!
(d) It is also remarkable in a rather negative way, how the Roman empire paved the way for the accomplishment of the divine purpose through Christ. The pagan world was morally bankrupt. Read Paul's description of it in Romans 1. The stale and cold national religion was totally impotent to relieve the people's parched thirst for genuine communion with God and righteous living. Men were experimenting with philosophy, astrology, occultism, oriental mysticism and the like. (Sounds rather current doesn't it?) Yet all of these were hopelessly futile. The pens of the Roman writers dripped with despair; suicide was commended. The Roman world was ripe for Christianity and into this fertile field it was sown and did abound.
Such were, briefly considered, some of the significant developments of the "Four Silent Centuries." In a final article some of the specific features of New Testament history, which grew out of the inter-Biblical period will be discussed. It is prayerfully hoped that these articles have stimulated some genuine interest for further study in this much neglected area.
After the era of Greek dominance, the Jewish people enjoyed independence for the following century (167-63 B.C.), though it was not a time altogether free of strife. In addition to military skirmishes, there was also a spirit of smoldering rivalry between the Hellenists (those sympathetic to Greek ways), the Hasidim (the conservatives for the law) and the Maccabeans (leaders of the Jewish rebellion). While attempting to enlarge his territory, Judas Maccabeas, the valiant Hebrew leader was killed. He was succeeded by his brother Jonathan who ultimately permitted himself to be appointed high priest. This was a most significant event. Now, for the first time in more than thirteen centuries, the high priesthood passed from the family of Aaron! That such a transition did not provoke the Jews 9apparently a majority approved) is a heart breaking commentary on the spiritual anemia of the day.
In 135 B.C., John Hyracanus I, nephew of Judas Maccabeas assumed the politico-religious leadership of Israel. It was within his administration of some thirty years that the lines between the Jewish sects became glaringly distinct. Hyracanus had serious conflicts with the Hasidim and hence, cast his lot with the Hellenists. It is at this time that these two elements are first formally identified by the historian Josephus as Pharisees and Sadducees. (Antiquities 13:10:5-6) And significantly from this point onward, with but minor exception, there is that close alliance between the high priesthood and the Sadducees which is so apparent in the New Testament. (Cf. Acts 5:17) More will be said later of the Hebrew sects. It is sufficient to presently observe that this is a dark period in Israel's rapidly declining history.
THE ROMAN PERIOD - In 63 B.C. Pompey, one of Rome's greatest generals, invaded Palestine and took Jerusalem. Thus did the Jews come under the control of the Romans (though granted some self-government) where they were to remain until crushed by that regal force in 70 A.D. The ascendancy of Roman power had been foretold by Daniel (2:40ff; 7:7, 23) and such was a vital component in the incomparable plan of Jehovah for the accomplishment of that "fullness of time" (Galatians 4:4), which would herald the arrival of Christ. Rome's providential contributions toward the advancement of Christianity are worthy of notice.
(a) The doors of the Temple of Janus (Roman "guard" god) were closed in 29 B.C. (a rare occurrence) and the ancient world was at peace. This famous Pax Romana (the peace of Rome) erased the barriers between the East and the West and blended the Civilized world into an organic whole. Law and order prevailed. Jews were free to travel to remote parts of the empire and there to establish synagogues, which would later be used as media for teaching the gospel. It my be confidently said that there never was a time in the history of the world when circumstances were so favorable for the establishment and growth of the religion of Jesus Christ.
(b) Roman engineering provided a magnificent series of highways interlacing the empire, which were built so well, that a number of them exist yet today. The saying "All roads lead to Rome" was more than a mere figure of speech. The great Mediterranean Sea (which had been cleared of pirates by Pompey) also became for the empire an important medium of inter-communication. How wonderfully the Lord was preparing the way for that noble commission, "Go ye into all the world..."
(c) One of Rome's greatest gifts to ancient society indeed, to the whole world, was a uniform system of laws. It is said that the Romans were, "masters of jurisprudence in the antique world." Men were taught respect for universal law and thereby conditioned for the approaching universal law of the gospel. Equally important was the fact that by this great legal system, the Son of God was legally proclaimed to be innocent of any wrongdoing. After repeated interrogations, Pilate the Roman procurator of Judea, was forced to thrice concede the faultlessness of Christ. (Luke 23:4, 14, 22; John 18:38; 19:4-6) This was of tremendous importance, as it was imperative that apostolic preachers be able to proclaim with great force that Jesus Christ had died at the hands of "lawless" men (Acts 2:23) and thus was His "judgement [of innocence] taken away." (Acts 8:33) This relates to the atonement involved in the Lord's death; the innocent died for the guilty!
(d) It is also remarkable in a rather negative way, how the Roman empire paved the way for the accomplishment of the divine purpose through Christ. The pagan world was morally bankrupt. Read Paul's description of it in Romans 1. The stale and cold national religion was totally impotent to relieve the people's parched thirst for genuine communion with God and righteous living. Men were experimenting with philosophy, astrology, occultism, oriental mysticism and the like. (Sounds rather current doesn't it?) Yet all of these were hopelessly futile. The pens of the Roman writers dripped with despair; suicide was commended. The Roman world was ripe for Christianity and into this fertile field it was sown and did abound.
Such were, briefly considered, some of the significant developments of the "Four Silent Centuries." In a final article some of the specific features of New Testament history, which grew out of the inter-Biblical period will be discussed. It is prayerfully hoped that these articles have stimulated some genuine interest for further study in this much neglected area.
Saturday, January 26, 2013
Scripture and the Spade
This outstanding article concerning Biblical archaeology was written by Wayne Jackson. It appeared in the September 1975 edition of The Christian Courier; published by the East Main Street Church of Christ in Stockton, California and edited by Jackson.
The science of archaeology has been a multiple benefactor to the Bible student. First, it has enhanced our abiding conviction that the Bible, being a revelation of God, is accurate in its historical emphasis. Second, it has given us a better understanding of certain passages. This is not to say of course, that the Biblical way of salvation has not been sufficiently plain; however, some historical references have taken on a richer meaning in light of archaeological discoveries. The following examples will illustrate the benefits of archaeological investigations.
Identification of Biblical Places
Since Edward Robinson's initial exploration of certain Bible lands in 1838, thousands of Biblical sites have been identified through patient searches. Some of these have great significance. For instance, in I Kings 10 the divine writer recorded the visit of the Queen of Sheba to King Solomon. Unbelievers had scoffed at such claiming that there was no country known as Sheba. About a century ago however, Marib, the ancient capital of Sheba was discovered in southern Arabia.
Establishment of Biblical Dates
The chronology of the Old Testament indicates that the Israelites' exodus from Egypt occurred in the 15th century B.C. In recent years some scholars asserted that the exodus did not take place until the 13th century B.C. Excavations at Hazor in Galilee (between 1955 and 1958) have shown that this ancient city was twice destroyed in Old Testament times; once in the 13th century B.C. (corresponding to the period of the judges, Judges 4 and 5) and earlier in the 15th century (corresponding to Joshua's conquests). An inscription discovered at Delphi some seventy five years ago mentions the date that Gallio served as proconsul of Achaia (see Acts 18:12) and thus dates Paul's visit to Corinth.
Biblical Customs Explained
Some Biblical customs which have been obscured by antiquity are illuminated by archaeological finds. From the Nuzi tablets for example, it is revealed that the giving of one's sandal was a customary toke indicating that certain legal rights had been relinquished. This was precisely the significance of Boaz's reception of the "shoe" in Ruth 4:7-9; he was assuming legal responsibility for Ruth. If one wonders why Laban was so anxious to recover the "teraphim" which Rachel took when she hurriedly left home (Genesis 31:19) the answer lies, as indicated in the Nuzi tablets, in the fact that the possession of the family gods was legal proof of the right of property inheritance. Rachel ran off with the title-deed to her father's property!
Obscure Language Clarified
Archaeology has given new understanding or fuller meaning of numerous passages. For years scholars were perplexed on the meaning of Mosos' prohibition against boiling a kid in its mother's milk. (Exodus 23:19) Some thought its design was simply against unusual cruelty, but the Ras Shamra tablets tell of how a certain pagan deity could be appeased by boiling a kid in its mother's milk. Thus, the Mosaic command forbids this mimicry of heathenism. some have been puzzled by the inspired statement of
Hebrews 7:3 that Melchizedek was "without father, without mother, without genealogy..." Several of the Tel el Armana tablets are letters from an ancient king of Uru-Salim (Salem, Hebrews 7:1, later known as Jerusalem) whose name was Ebed-tob. He contends that he is unlike numerous other rulers of his day in that he did not receive his crown by inheritance from his father and mother; rather, it was granted directly by the "Mighty King." This illustrates that the kingship-priesthood of Melchizedek was not genealogically inherited but conferred directly by Jehovah; and in this regard he was typical of Christ. Numerous inscriptions from the Greek papyri have shown that the expression eis to onama "into the name" (cf. Matthew 28:19) carries the idea of coming into the possession of another. Hence, at the point of baptism, one becomes the spiritual possession of the divine Godhead.
New Light on Biblical Words
The discovery of ancient documents has frequently contributed to an understanding of Biblical vocabulary. For years the meaning of the Hebrew word almah (Isaiah 7:14) has been a point of controversy among scholars. did the passage point to the virgin birth of Christ as the apostle Matthew (following the Septuagint Version which had allegedly been tampered with by certain persons disposed toward Christianity) simply make it apply to the virgin birth when in reality it only had reference to a "young woman" of Isaiah's own day? Christians have defended the former position while modernists have sought to establish the later. In recent times, tablets from Ras Shamra have corroborated the Christians' already strong case that almah did in fact mean "virgin." Dr. Cyrus H. Gordon, a prominent Jewish scholar who made some of the discoveries at Ras Shamra concedes that "the New Testament rendering of 'almah' as 'virgin' of Isaiah 7:14 rests on the older Jewish interpretation, i.e., the LXX, which in turn is now borne out, for precisely this annunciation formula by a text that is not only pre-Isaianic, but is pre-Mosaic in the form we now have it on a clay tablet." (The Journal of the Bible and Religion, XXI, April, 1953, p. 106.)
Archaeology and Bible Doctrine
As suggested earlier, it is hardly questionable that the doctrine of the Bible has always been sufficiently clear for one to know what his obligation to God is. However, in a few cases certain false arguments in support of sectarian doctrines have been demolished by archaeological investigations.
When the noted Presbyterian scholar J.A. Alexander wrote his Commentary on the Act of the Apostles (1857), he contended that it was probable that the 3,000 converts of the day of Pentecost were administered sprinkling or pouring (as a substitute for immersion in water) because, "Jerusalem has always been remarkably destitute of water, the fountain of Siloam being its only constant source." In 1879 J.W. McGarvey visited Palestine (also Egypt, Syria, Asia Minor and Greece). His book Lands of the Bible, which resulted from his explorations and included more than six hundred pages of factual descriptions of Biblical places, was praised by competent judges as the most valuable book yet produced on Palestine, surpassing even the works of Edward Robinson and William Thomson. McGarvey made an extensive study of the pools of Jerusalem and his research completely destroys the assertion that Jerusalem lacked sufficient water for immersing 3,000 in one day. One pool for example, called Lower Gihon had an average length of five hundred and ninety two feet and a width of two hundred and sixty feet. the entire area of the pool was about three and one half acres!
Archaeology and Critics of the Bible - The bible has been the favorite target of those inclined toward infidelity. Time and again Biblical "blunders" have been pointed out by these pseudo-scholars. And time and again such critics have been given a resounding slap in the face with the archaeologist's spade. The following examples are but a few of the many which illustrate this point.
(1) Prior to 1843, it was assumed by modernists that Isaiah erred in mentioning the name of "Sargon." (Isaiah 20:1) The prophet recorded that this Assyrian king sent his commander against Ashdod and took the city. since Sargon's name was unmentioned elsewhere, surely Isaiah was mistaken! In 1843 however, Sargon's palace was excavated several miles north of ancient Nineveh. Not only was Isaiah vindicated, but he even used the exact word found in the Assyrian texts for Sargon's "commander in chief" (Tartan).
(2) The so-called "Higher Critics" of the bible contended that the Pentateuch was not Mosaic since background material within these books evidenced a later origin (9th to 5th centuries B.C.). the Nuzi tablets though, revealed that the Pentateuch was thoroughly patriarchal in content. And when infidels suggested that the book of Leviticus was obviously of late date because of the elaborate ceremonial system therein, the Ras Shamra tablets demonstrated that elaborate systems (the Canaanite rituals) were not foreign to that early period.
(3) When modernists allude to the Book of Isaiah, they glibly speak of a "First" Isaiah, "Second" Isaiah, or even a "Third" Isaiah, the design of which is to assert a multiple authorship for that Old Testament narrative. "First" Isaiah is alleged to involve chapters 1-29, "Second" Isaiah chapters 40-54 and "Third" Isiah chapters 55-60. The fact that the Lord Jesus Christ and His inspired New Testament pens men did not endorse such a division (see Matthew 13:14; Mark 1:2 and Luke 4:17) matters precious little to the critics. But the discovery of the "Isaiah Scroll" in 1947 (a part of the Dead Sea Scrolls) was a bombshell on the Deutero-Isaiah theories. For chapter 40 (allegedly the commencement of "Second" Isaiah) begins on the very last line of a column which contains chapter 38 verse 9 through chapter 39 verse 8. Noted scholar Oswald T. Allis has observed, "Obviously the scribe was not conscious of the alleged fact that an important change of situation, involving an entire change of authorship begins with chapter 40." (The Unity of Isaiah, p. 40.)
(4) Archaeology has generously contributed to our confidence in the integrity of the text of the Bible. Do we really know for instance, that the text of our English bible is essentially that of the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts? Indeed we do! Consider the labors of the illustrious Robert Dick Wilson. Dr. Wilson spent many years learning various Semitic languages in preparation for a thorough study of the text of the Old Testament. he mastered some forty five languages and dialects! By a comparison of the Old Testament text with ancient documents, manuscripts and monument inscriptions, he, after years of laborious research was able to declare that, "we are scientifically certain that we have substantially the same text that was in the possession of Christ and the apostles and, so far as anybody knows, the same as that written by the original composers of the Old Testament documents." (A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament, p. 8.) And when Professor S.R. Driver of Oxford, who had been influenced by radical German critics asserted that the Book of Daniel was untrustworthy, Wilson spent years pouring over 10,000 documents in numerous languages to demonstrate that it was Driver who was untrustworthy!
When the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, though it pushed our possession of the Hebrew text of the Old Testament back a thousand years earlier than anything previously known, it corresponded almost perfectly to the contents of our present Bibles, both Hebrew and English and that "without either additions, omissions or alterations of any major importance." How remarkably accurate the Sacred Word has been preserved!
Those of us who love and believe the Bible are greatly indebted to the many scholars who have tirelessly sifted through acres of dirt in probing for information from the silent centuries past. How thrilled we are of the multiplied discoveries that have deepened our understanding of and appreciation for the abiding Word of God. And what courageous confidence we can take in the fact, as observed by the famous archaeologist Nelson Glueck, that, "no archaeological discovery has ever been made that contradicts or controverts historical statements in Scripture."
The science of archaeology has been a multiple benefactor to the Bible student. First, it has enhanced our abiding conviction that the Bible, being a revelation of God, is accurate in its historical emphasis. Second, it has given us a better understanding of certain passages. This is not to say of course, that the Biblical way of salvation has not been sufficiently plain; however, some historical references have taken on a richer meaning in light of archaeological discoveries. The following examples will illustrate the benefits of archaeological investigations.
Identification of Biblical Places
Since Edward Robinson's initial exploration of certain Bible lands in 1838, thousands of Biblical sites have been identified through patient searches. Some of these have great significance. For instance, in I Kings 10 the divine writer recorded the visit of the Queen of Sheba to King Solomon. Unbelievers had scoffed at such claiming that there was no country known as Sheba. About a century ago however, Marib, the ancient capital of Sheba was discovered in southern Arabia.
Establishment of Biblical Dates
The chronology of the Old Testament indicates that the Israelites' exodus from Egypt occurred in the 15th century B.C. In recent years some scholars asserted that the exodus did not take place until the 13th century B.C. Excavations at Hazor in Galilee (between 1955 and 1958) have shown that this ancient city was twice destroyed in Old Testament times; once in the 13th century B.C. (corresponding to the period of the judges, Judges 4 and 5) and earlier in the 15th century (corresponding to Joshua's conquests). An inscription discovered at Delphi some seventy five years ago mentions the date that Gallio served as proconsul of Achaia (see Acts 18:12) and thus dates Paul's visit to Corinth.
Biblical Customs Explained
Some Biblical customs which have been obscured by antiquity are illuminated by archaeological finds. From the Nuzi tablets for example, it is revealed that the giving of one's sandal was a customary toke indicating that certain legal rights had been relinquished. This was precisely the significance of Boaz's reception of the "shoe" in Ruth 4:7-9; he was assuming legal responsibility for Ruth. If one wonders why Laban was so anxious to recover the "teraphim" which Rachel took when she hurriedly left home (Genesis 31:19) the answer lies, as indicated in the Nuzi tablets, in the fact that the possession of the family gods was legal proof of the right of property inheritance. Rachel ran off with the title-deed to her father's property!
Obscure Language Clarified
Archaeology has given new understanding or fuller meaning of numerous passages. For years scholars were perplexed on the meaning of Mosos' prohibition against boiling a kid in its mother's milk. (Exodus 23:19) Some thought its design was simply against unusual cruelty, but the Ras Shamra tablets tell of how a certain pagan deity could be appeased by boiling a kid in its mother's milk. Thus, the Mosaic command forbids this mimicry of heathenism. some have been puzzled by the inspired statement of
Hebrews 7:3 that Melchizedek was "without father, without mother, without genealogy..." Several of the Tel el Armana tablets are letters from an ancient king of Uru-Salim (Salem, Hebrews 7:1, later known as Jerusalem) whose name was Ebed-tob. He contends that he is unlike numerous other rulers of his day in that he did not receive his crown by inheritance from his father and mother; rather, it was granted directly by the "Mighty King." This illustrates that the kingship-priesthood of Melchizedek was not genealogically inherited but conferred directly by Jehovah; and in this regard he was typical of Christ. Numerous inscriptions from the Greek papyri have shown that the expression eis to onama "into the name" (cf. Matthew 28:19) carries the idea of coming into the possession of another. Hence, at the point of baptism, one becomes the spiritual possession of the divine Godhead.
New Light on Biblical Words
The discovery of ancient documents has frequently contributed to an understanding of Biblical vocabulary. For years the meaning of the Hebrew word almah (Isaiah 7:14) has been a point of controversy among scholars. did the passage point to the virgin birth of Christ as the apostle Matthew (following the Septuagint Version which had allegedly been tampered with by certain persons disposed toward Christianity) simply make it apply to the virgin birth when in reality it only had reference to a "young woman" of Isaiah's own day? Christians have defended the former position while modernists have sought to establish the later. In recent times, tablets from Ras Shamra have corroborated the Christians' already strong case that almah did in fact mean "virgin." Dr. Cyrus H. Gordon, a prominent Jewish scholar who made some of the discoveries at Ras Shamra concedes that "the New Testament rendering of 'almah' as 'virgin' of Isaiah 7:14 rests on the older Jewish interpretation, i.e., the LXX, which in turn is now borne out, for precisely this annunciation formula by a text that is not only pre-Isaianic, but is pre-Mosaic in the form we now have it on a clay tablet." (The Journal of the Bible and Religion, XXI, April, 1953, p. 106.)
Archaeology and Bible Doctrine
As suggested earlier, it is hardly questionable that the doctrine of the Bible has always been sufficiently clear for one to know what his obligation to God is. However, in a few cases certain false arguments in support of sectarian doctrines have been demolished by archaeological investigations.
When the noted Presbyterian scholar J.A. Alexander wrote his Commentary on the Act of the Apostles (1857), he contended that it was probable that the 3,000 converts of the day of Pentecost were administered sprinkling or pouring (as a substitute for immersion in water) because, "Jerusalem has always been remarkably destitute of water, the fountain of Siloam being its only constant source." In 1879 J.W. McGarvey visited Palestine (also Egypt, Syria, Asia Minor and Greece). His book Lands of the Bible, which resulted from his explorations and included more than six hundred pages of factual descriptions of Biblical places, was praised by competent judges as the most valuable book yet produced on Palestine, surpassing even the works of Edward Robinson and William Thomson. McGarvey made an extensive study of the pools of Jerusalem and his research completely destroys the assertion that Jerusalem lacked sufficient water for immersing 3,000 in one day. One pool for example, called Lower Gihon had an average length of five hundred and ninety two feet and a width of two hundred and sixty feet. the entire area of the pool was about three and one half acres!
Archaeology and Critics of the Bible - The bible has been the favorite target of those inclined toward infidelity. Time and again Biblical "blunders" have been pointed out by these pseudo-scholars. And time and again such critics have been given a resounding slap in the face with the archaeologist's spade. The following examples are but a few of the many which illustrate this point.
(1) Prior to 1843, it was assumed by modernists that Isaiah erred in mentioning the name of "Sargon." (Isaiah 20:1) The prophet recorded that this Assyrian king sent his commander against Ashdod and took the city. since Sargon's name was unmentioned elsewhere, surely Isaiah was mistaken! In 1843 however, Sargon's palace was excavated several miles north of ancient Nineveh. Not only was Isaiah vindicated, but he even used the exact word found in the Assyrian texts for Sargon's "commander in chief" (Tartan).
(2) The so-called "Higher Critics" of the bible contended that the Pentateuch was not Mosaic since background material within these books evidenced a later origin (9th to 5th centuries B.C.). the Nuzi tablets though, revealed that the Pentateuch was thoroughly patriarchal in content. And when infidels suggested that the book of Leviticus was obviously of late date because of the elaborate ceremonial system therein, the Ras Shamra tablets demonstrated that elaborate systems (the Canaanite rituals) were not foreign to that early period.
(3) When modernists allude to the Book of Isaiah, they glibly speak of a "First" Isaiah, "Second" Isaiah, or even a "Third" Isaiah, the design of which is to assert a multiple authorship for that Old Testament narrative. "First" Isaiah is alleged to involve chapters 1-29, "Second" Isaiah chapters 40-54 and "Third" Isiah chapters 55-60. The fact that the Lord Jesus Christ and His inspired New Testament pens men did not endorse such a division (see Matthew 13:14; Mark 1:2 and Luke 4:17) matters precious little to the critics. But the discovery of the "Isaiah Scroll" in 1947 (a part of the Dead Sea Scrolls) was a bombshell on the Deutero-Isaiah theories. For chapter 40 (allegedly the commencement of "Second" Isaiah) begins on the very last line of a column which contains chapter 38 verse 9 through chapter 39 verse 8. Noted scholar Oswald T. Allis has observed, "Obviously the scribe was not conscious of the alleged fact that an important change of situation, involving an entire change of authorship begins with chapter 40." (The Unity of Isaiah, p. 40.)
(4) Archaeology has generously contributed to our confidence in the integrity of the text of the Bible. Do we really know for instance, that the text of our English bible is essentially that of the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts? Indeed we do! Consider the labors of the illustrious Robert Dick Wilson. Dr. Wilson spent many years learning various Semitic languages in preparation for a thorough study of the text of the Old Testament. he mastered some forty five languages and dialects! By a comparison of the Old Testament text with ancient documents, manuscripts and monument inscriptions, he, after years of laborious research was able to declare that, "we are scientifically certain that we have substantially the same text that was in the possession of Christ and the apostles and, so far as anybody knows, the same as that written by the original composers of the Old Testament documents." (A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament, p. 8.) And when Professor S.R. Driver of Oxford, who had been influenced by radical German critics asserted that the Book of Daniel was untrustworthy, Wilson spent years pouring over 10,000 documents in numerous languages to demonstrate that it was Driver who was untrustworthy!
When the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, though it pushed our possession of the Hebrew text of the Old Testament back a thousand years earlier than anything previously known, it corresponded almost perfectly to the contents of our present Bibles, both Hebrew and English and that "without either additions, omissions or alterations of any major importance." How remarkably accurate the Sacred Word has been preserved!
Those of us who love and believe the Bible are greatly indebted to the many scholars who have tirelessly sifted through acres of dirt in probing for information from the silent centuries past. How thrilled we are of the multiplied discoveries that have deepened our understanding of and appreciation for the abiding Word of God. And what courageous confidence we can take in the fact, as observed by the famous archaeologist Nelson Glueck, that, "no archaeological discovery has ever been made that contradicts or controverts historical statements in Scripture."
Friday, January 25, 2013
The Four Silent Centuries (Part 2)
This is the second installment of a series written by Wayne Jackson. This first appeared in the September 1975 edition of The Christian Courier. It was published by the East Main Street Church of Christ in Stockton, California and edited by Jackson. This series examines the time between the Testaments.
THE GREEK AGE - So far as Jewish history is concerned, the Greek Period of Inter-Biblical history was from 332-167 B.C. The ancient world was brought under Greek control by the efforts of Alexander the Great. Alexander was obviously a precocious youth. Educated under the renowned Aristotle, he was leading military expeditions at the age of sixteen. By the year 331 B.C. he had overthrown the Persian Empire, becoming master of the Middle East. With a force of only 30,000 soldiers, he conquered the army of Darius, 500,000 strong, thus fulfilling Daniel's prophecy of three centuries earlier. (Daniel 8:5-8, 20-21) God rules in the kingdoms of men! Incidentally, Daniel had symbolically depicted Alexander as the horn of a rough he-goat (8:21) and oddly, a Thracian coin of the 3rd century B.C. shows an inscription of Alexander's head with a horn. (National Geographic Magazine, Jan. 1968, p. 28.)
In 332 B.C. Alexander invaded Palestine. After a siege of seven months, the city of Tyre was taken. The Greeks massacred 8,000 citizens of Tyre and sold 30,000 into slavery. In route to Egypt, the young Greek went to Jerusalem where, strangely, he apparently took it without a struggle. Josephus says that as Alexander neared Jerusalem a group of priests met him and showed him the prophecies of the Book of Daniel and allegedly the illustrious Greek, "supposed that himself was the person intended" (i.e., the conqueror of Persia) and accordingly he treated the Jews favorably. When Alexander died in 323 B.C. his kingdom was divided into four sections (see Daniel 7:6; 8:8, 22). Two of these kingdoms, the Ptolemies and the Seleucids are of great concern to us.
The Ptolemies, with power focus in Egypt, dominated the Jews for the next one hundred and twenty two years (320-198 B.C.). With but few exceptions the Hebrews were treated well during this period. The kindly treatment of the Jews by the Greeks made the former receptive to Greek culture (known as Hellenization). It was but natural that a reactionary movement against Hellenization should develop. Jews who opposed the corruption of their ancient culture were known as Hasidim, "pious people" and this was in germ form, the beginning of that sect of Jesus' day called Pharisees. Several other important developments also transpired.
(a) From the time of Alexander, there was a great dispersion of the Hebrews. Throughout Egypt, Asia Minor, Syria, etc., they scattered (Cf. Acts 2:5; I Peter 1:1) and everywhere they went they took their Scriptures, preaching the concept of the one true God and the coming Deliverer. The world was being conditioned for the advent of the Messiah!
(b) Commencing about 330 B.C., the Koine Greek language was spoken throughout the civilized world. It was the common street language of Rome, Alexandria and Jerusalem, as well as in Athens. Now, "Koine Greek is without doubt the most richly and accurately expressive language which human history has known." (H. E. Dana) So influential was this beautiful language that when Rome conquered the Greeks, rather than imposing Latin upon the vanquished, she adopted the Greek language. Of course all of this was but a providential preparation for the coming of the New Testament Scriptures.
(c) Another significant development of this time was the production of the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. It was most likely begun under Ptolemy Philadelphus (285-246 B.C.) and traditionally, was the work of seventy two Jewish scholars. It is abbreviated LXX, seventy two being rounded to seventy in Roman numerals. This made the Old Testament, with its precious prophecies and promises available to the entire Greek speaking world.
In 198 B.C. the Ptolemies were defeated and for the next thirty one years the Jews were under the crushing pressure of the Seleucids of Syria. When Antiochus IV came to power, terrors unspeakable engulfed them. Antiochus Epiphanes mercilessly sought to paganize the Hebrew people and for this they hated him with unequaled rage. For example, when an erroneous report of Antiochus' death reached Jerusalem, a celebration was proclaimed. Upon learning of the event, the ruler launched a campaign of horror during which thousands of Jews were slain or sold into slavery. Judaism was outlawed. It was a crime to read the Scriptures, observe the Sabbath or practice circumcision. To add insult to injury, Antiochus sacrificed a hog upon the Jewish alter and erected an idol to the Greek god Zeus in the temple area. Daniel prophesied the death of this tyrant. (Daniel 8:25) Such indignities could finally be tolerated no longer. In 167 B.C., a revolt was initiated by an aged Jew named Mattathias who, with his five sons, declared open war upon Antiochus. this Maccabean Rebellion continued vigorously until Jerusalem was purged of paganism and the temple was repaired. On December 25, 165 B.C. the temple was formally rededicated and thereafter an annual eight day celebration known as the Feast of Dedication was observed by the Jews. It was during the time of this winter feast that Jesus, walking in the temple, taught concerning His divine relationship with God. (John 10:22f) In our next article, the Roman period if the Inter-Biblical age will be discussed.
THE GREEK AGE - So far as Jewish history is concerned, the Greek Period of Inter-Biblical history was from 332-167 B.C. The ancient world was brought under Greek control by the efforts of Alexander the Great. Alexander was obviously a precocious youth. Educated under the renowned Aristotle, he was leading military expeditions at the age of sixteen. By the year 331 B.C. he had overthrown the Persian Empire, becoming master of the Middle East. With a force of only 30,000 soldiers, he conquered the army of Darius, 500,000 strong, thus fulfilling Daniel's prophecy of three centuries earlier. (Daniel 8:5-8, 20-21) God rules in the kingdoms of men! Incidentally, Daniel had symbolically depicted Alexander as the horn of a rough he-goat (8:21) and oddly, a Thracian coin of the 3rd century B.C. shows an inscription of Alexander's head with a horn. (National Geographic Magazine, Jan. 1968, p. 28.)
In 332 B.C. Alexander invaded Palestine. After a siege of seven months, the city of Tyre was taken. The Greeks massacred 8,000 citizens of Tyre and sold 30,000 into slavery. In route to Egypt, the young Greek went to Jerusalem where, strangely, he apparently took it without a struggle. Josephus says that as Alexander neared Jerusalem a group of priests met him and showed him the prophecies of the Book of Daniel and allegedly the illustrious Greek, "supposed that himself was the person intended" (i.e., the conqueror of Persia) and accordingly he treated the Jews favorably. When Alexander died in 323 B.C. his kingdom was divided into four sections (see Daniel 7:6; 8:8, 22). Two of these kingdoms, the Ptolemies and the Seleucids are of great concern to us.
The Ptolemies, with power focus in Egypt, dominated the Jews for the next one hundred and twenty two years (320-198 B.C.). With but few exceptions the Hebrews were treated well during this period. The kindly treatment of the Jews by the Greeks made the former receptive to Greek culture (known as Hellenization). It was but natural that a reactionary movement against Hellenization should develop. Jews who opposed the corruption of their ancient culture were known as Hasidim, "pious people" and this was in germ form, the beginning of that sect of Jesus' day called Pharisees. Several other important developments also transpired.
(a) From the time of Alexander, there was a great dispersion of the Hebrews. Throughout Egypt, Asia Minor, Syria, etc., they scattered (Cf. Acts 2:5; I Peter 1:1) and everywhere they went they took their Scriptures, preaching the concept of the one true God and the coming Deliverer. The world was being conditioned for the advent of the Messiah!
(b) Commencing about 330 B.C., the Koine Greek language was spoken throughout the civilized world. It was the common street language of Rome, Alexandria and Jerusalem, as well as in Athens. Now, "Koine Greek is without doubt the most richly and accurately expressive language which human history has known." (H. E. Dana) So influential was this beautiful language that when Rome conquered the Greeks, rather than imposing Latin upon the vanquished, she adopted the Greek language. Of course all of this was but a providential preparation for the coming of the New Testament Scriptures.
(c) Another significant development of this time was the production of the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. It was most likely begun under Ptolemy Philadelphus (285-246 B.C.) and traditionally, was the work of seventy two Jewish scholars. It is abbreviated LXX, seventy two being rounded to seventy in Roman numerals. This made the Old Testament, with its precious prophecies and promises available to the entire Greek speaking world.
In 198 B.C. the Ptolemies were defeated and for the next thirty one years the Jews were under the crushing pressure of the Seleucids of Syria. When Antiochus IV came to power, terrors unspeakable engulfed them. Antiochus Epiphanes mercilessly sought to paganize the Hebrew people and for this they hated him with unequaled rage. For example, when an erroneous report of Antiochus' death reached Jerusalem, a celebration was proclaimed. Upon learning of the event, the ruler launched a campaign of horror during which thousands of Jews were slain or sold into slavery. Judaism was outlawed. It was a crime to read the Scriptures, observe the Sabbath or practice circumcision. To add insult to injury, Antiochus sacrificed a hog upon the Jewish alter and erected an idol to the Greek god Zeus in the temple area. Daniel prophesied the death of this tyrant. (Daniel 8:25) Such indignities could finally be tolerated no longer. In 167 B.C., a revolt was initiated by an aged Jew named Mattathias who, with his five sons, declared open war upon Antiochus. this Maccabean Rebellion continued vigorously until Jerusalem was purged of paganism and the temple was repaired. On December 25, 165 B.C. the temple was formally rededicated and thereafter an annual eight day celebration known as the Feast of Dedication was observed by the Jews. It was during the time of this winter feast that Jesus, walking in the temple, taught concerning His divine relationship with God. (John 10:22f) In our next article, the Roman period if the Inter-Biblical age will be discussed.
Thursday, January 24, 2013
The Four Silent Centuries (Part 1)
This is the first in a series about the time between the Testaments written by Wayne Jackson. This one first appeared in the August 1975 edition of The Christian Courier, was published by the East Main Street Church of Christ in Stockton, California and edited by Jackson.
Shortly before the beginning of the 5th century B.C., Malachi the prophet laid aside his inspired pen and divinely written Old Testament history was concluded. For the following 400 years, until the dawning of the gospel era, there existed a period known to Bible students as the "Inter-Biblical Period," sometimes called the "Four Silent Centuries." Church members generally know little about this era though an acquaintance with such is extremely vital for understanding some aspects of the New Testament.
The situations of first century Palestine are drastically varied from the time of Malachi. When the curtain falls on Old Testament history, the Hebrews are under Persian control; yet when one enters the New Testament they are subject to the Romans. Again, when the Old Testament closes, the Jewish population in Palestine is scant; Palestinian towns are heaps of rubbish and the land is furrowed deep with scars of desolation. But four centuries later, "Palestine is one of the most densely populated parts of the Empire; its cities are crowded, its terraced hills are cultivated to the last inch; its merchants share in and largely control the trade of the Mediterranean world; and general prosperity marks the time." (Grant) When one confronts the Gospel accounts, a religious scene curiously different from Old Testament times meets him. For instance, in those former days neither synagogues, Pharisees, Sadducees, nor Herods were known; but when Jesus was born synagogues adorned virtually every hamlet in Palestine, the bloody Herods made their dreaded presence widely felt and daily life literally rang with the clashes of the Jewish sects. The question naturally arises therefore, how came the development of these things? Inter-Biblical history must answer this query. H. I. Hester has observed that, "It is impossible for the student to understand the life of Jesus and other New Testament events without some acquaintance with the happenings during these four hundred years." (Heart of the Hebrew History, p. 311.)
Since this is the "between the Testaments" period, we are obviously dependent upon uninspired sources for a knowledge of the events therein. The historical documents of this are are: (a) Secular Greek and Roman writers (e.g., Xenophon, Herodotus, Livy, etc.) (b) The writings of Josephus (c) The Jewish Apocrypha; 14 books which, though not inspired (as the Catholic Church claims for most of them) do contain valuable material of this era. For convenience sake the history of the Inter-Biblical age may be politically classified thusly: (1) The Persian period (2) The Greek period and (3) The Roman period.
THE PERSIAN PERIOD - The Persian age (of the Inter-Biblical era) spanned some 70 years; from 400 B.C. (the end of the Old Testament) to 332 B.C. For the Jews, this was mostly a time of peace and prosperity. But as the case frequently is, when prosperity abounds, fidelity to Jehovah plummets. A commentary on the low spiritual tide of the time is recorded by Josephus. He tells of one John, the Jewish High Priest, who in a fit of anger murdered his own brother right in the temple. Josephus says that, "there never was so cruel and impious a thing done, neither by Greeks nor Barbarians." (Antiquities 11-7-1.) Apparently however, the disgraceful deed caused scarcely a ripple among the Jews!
Significant in this period was the gradually increasing political power of the High Priesthood. Persian rulers were very tolerant and thus did the High Priest gather governmental control more and more into his own hands. This of course, prepares the way for understanding the authority of the High Priest in connection with the death of Christ.
It is likely that the synagogue was evolving in this era. The word "synagogue" is of Greek derivation and suggested a "gathering together" for the purpose of worship and religious instruction. Though its origin has been obscured by antiquity, it was viewed in the 1st century as being "from generations of old." (Acts 15:21) It possibly had its beginnings in the days of the Babylonian captivity (606-536 B.C.) and in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah thereafter. Probably though, during the Persian period the synagogues were being more formally organized and used as schools of religious instruction. At the time of Jerusalem's destruction (70 A.D.) it is estimated that some 460 synagogues may have existed in Jerusalem alone, though this may be an exaggeration. (Edersheim, Jewish Social Life, p. 254) It was probably during this time also that there arose that class of professional scholars known as "scribes" who were to be so influential in Jesus' day.
It is also important to note that during this general period the Aramaic language gradually superseded Hebrew as the spoken language of the Jewish people. Though Hebrew was retained for purposes of worship and scripture, Aramaic became the living tongue of the Hebrews. This is illustrated by the fact that Jesus spoke Aramaic on several occasions (Mark 5:41; 7:34; 15:35) though it is certain that the Jews of the 1st century knew and spoke Greek as well. This is evidenced by the fact that the books of the New Testament were written in Greek (even when primarily directed to Jews; e.g. Matthew and Hebrews). Thus was the Persian era of the Inter-Biblical age an influential time. In the next article, the Greek age of the four silent centuries will be discussed.
Shortly before the beginning of the 5th century B.C., Malachi the prophet laid aside his inspired pen and divinely written Old Testament history was concluded. For the following 400 years, until the dawning of the gospel era, there existed a period known to Bible students as the "Inter-Biblical Period," sometimes called the "Four Silent Centuries." Church members generally know little about this era though an acquaintance with such is extremely vital for understanding some aspects of the New Testament.
The situations of first century Palestine are drastically varied from the time of Malachi. When the curtain falls on Old Testament history, the Hebrews are under Persian control; yet when one enters the New Testament they are subject to the Romans. Again, when the Old Testament closes, the Jewish population in Palestine is scant; Palestinian towns are heaps of rubbish and the land is furrowed deep with scars of desolation. But four centuries later, "Palestine is one of the most densely populated parts of the Empire; its cities are crowded, its terraced hills are cultivated to the last inch; its merchants share in and largely control the trade of the Mediterranean world; and general prosperity marks the time." (Grant) When one confronts the Gospel accounts, a religious scene curiously different from Old Testament times meets him. For instance, in those former days neither synagogues, Pharisees, Sadducees, nor Herods were known; but when Jesus was born synagogues adorned virtually every hamlet in Palestine, the bloody Herods made their dreaded presence widely felt and daily life literally rang with the clashes of the Jewish sects. The question naturally arises therefore, how came the development of these things? Inter-Biblical history must answer this query. H. I. Hester has observed that, "It is impossible for the student to understand the life of Jesus and other New Testament events without some acquaintance with the happenings during these four hundred years." (Heart of the Hebrew History, p. 311.)
Since this is the "between the Testaments" period, we are obviously dependent upon uninspired sources for a knowledge of the events therein. The historical documents of this are are: (a) Secular Greek and Roman writers (e.g., Xenophon, Herodotus, Livy, etc.) (b) The writings of Josephus (c) The Jewish Apocrypha; 14 books which, though not inspired (as the Catholic Church claims for most of them) do contain valuable material of this era. For convenience sake the history of the Inter-Biblical age may be politically classified thusly: (1) The Persian period (2) The Greek period and (3) The Roman period.
THE PERSIAN PERIOD - The Persian age (of the Inter-Biblical era) spanned some 70 years; from 400 B.C. (the end of the Old Testament) to 332 B.C. For the Jews, this was mostly a time of peace and prosperity. But as the case frequently is, when prosperity abounds, fidelity to Jehovah plummets. A commentary on the low spiritual tide of the time is recorded by Josephus. He tells of one John, the Jewish High Priest, who in a fit of anger murdered his own brother right in the temple. Josephus says that, "there never was so cruel and impious a thing done, neither by Greeks nor Barbarians." (Antiquities 11-7-1.) Apparently however, the disgraceful deed caused scarcely a ripple among the Jews!
Significant in this period was the gradually increasing political power of the High Priesthood. Persian rulers were very tolerant and thus did the High Priest gather governmental control more and more into his own hands. This of course, prepares the way for understanding the authority of the High Priest in connection with the death of Christ.
It is likely that the synagogue was evolving in this era. The word "synagogue" is of Greek derivation and suggested a "gathering together" for the purpose of worship and religious instruction. Though its origin has been obscured by antiquity, it was viewed in the 1st century as being "from generations of old." (Acts 15:21) It possibly had its beginnings in the days of the Babylonian captivity (606-536 B.C.) and in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah thereafter. Probably though, during the Persian period the synagogues were being more formally organized and used as schools of religious instruction. At the time of Jerusalem's destruction (70 A.D.) it is estimated that some 460 synagogues may have existed in Jerusalem alone, though this may be an exaggeration. (Edersheim, Jewish Social Life, p. 254) It was probably during this time also that there arose that class of professional scholars known as "scribes" who were to be so influential in Jesus' day.
It is also important to note that during this general period the Aramaic language gradually superseded Hebrew as the spoken language of the Jewish people. Though Hebrew was retained for purposes of worship and scripture, Aramaic became the living tongue of the Hebrews. This is illustrated by the fact that Jesus spoke Aramaic on several occasions (Mark 5:41; 7:34; 15:35) though it is certain that the Jews of the 1st century knew and spoke Greek as well. This is evidenced by the fact that the books of the New Testament were written in Greek (even when primarily directed to Jews; e.g. Matthew and Hebrews). Thus was the Persian era of the Inter-Biblical age an influential time. In the next article, the Greek age of the four silent centuries will be discussed.
Persecution
This is another of Wayne Jackson's articles. It appeared in the June 1975 edition of The Christian Courier. It was published by the East Main Street Church of Christ in Stockton, California and edited by Jackson.
In His illustrious Sermon on the Mount the beloved Christ proclaimed: "Blessed are they that have been persecuted for righteousness' sake; for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven. Blessed are ye when men shall reproach you, and persecute you, and say all manner of evil against you falsely, for My sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad; for great is your reward in Heaven; for so persecuted they the prophets that were before you." (Matthew 5:10-12) At least four prominent truths are here set forth: (a) Persecution has been the historical lot of those who served Jehovah; (b) Similarly, followers of Christ definitely will be persecuted; (c) Persecution for the right cause can be a source of contentment; and (d) Those who endure under persecution will have great reward in Heaven.
(A) HISTORICAL PERSECUTION - The Lord encourages His people to rejoice when they are wrongly persecuted for they are, so to speak, in good company; the prophets were likewise abused. The Old Testament is stained from cover to cover with the blood of the faithful. This very point is made in Matthew 23:35 when Christ informed the Jewish leaders that they were heirs of those who shed the righteous blood of all those Old Testament worthies from Abel to Zachariah. According to the arrangement of the books of the Hebrew Bible, the accounts of Abel and Zachariah's murders occur in the first (Genesis 4:8ff) and the last (II Chronicles 24:20-21) sections. Cain slew Abel, Ishmael persecuted Isaac, Joseph was sold into slavery, Daniel was cast into the lions' den and the three Hebrews lads into the furnace of fire, Jeremiah was abused, etc. The writer of Hebrews well sums it up when he says they, "had trial of mockings and scourgings, yea moreover of bonds and imprisonment; they were stoned, they were sawn asunder, they were tempted, they were slain with the sword; they went about in sheepskins, in goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, ill treated (of whom the world was not worthy) wandering in deserts and mountains and caves, and in the holes of the earth." (Hebrews 11:36-38) Truly, persecution has been the common lot of those who stood with God.
(B) THE PROMISE OF PERSECUTION - The Lord did not say, "Blessed are ye IF men shall reproach you..." rather, "...WHEN men shall reproach you..." Ill treatment is the inevitable result of discipleship. Though there are innumerable blessings connected with the Christian life, they have persecutions as a companion. (Mark 10:30) Jesus sought to inoculate against a slavish dread of persecution when He said, "And are not afraid of them that kill the body..." (Matthew 10:28) Moreover, Paul was crystal clear about the fact that "all that would live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution." (II Timothy 3:12)
Persecution is manifested in a variety of ugly ways. Sometimes it is merely verbal. For example, God haters may "say all manner of evil against you falsely" simply because your life is different. Or one may be subjected to crude slurs, as when the Jews said of Christ, "Thou art a Samaritan (a racial dig) and hast a demon (in league with Satan)." (John 8:48) In countries that have not been leavened with the influence of Christianity, persecution may take the form of imprisonment (Cf. Acts 5:18), beatings (Acts 16:23), or even death (Acts 12:1). There is therefore, good reason for the abundance of New Testament material encouraging us to patiently endure under trials and tribulations. (Cf. James, II Peter)
(C) VALID PERSECUTION - There is no virtue in persecution per se. There is genuine blessedness only when affliction is for "righteousness' sake." Peter admonished: "Let none of you suffer as a murderer, or a thief, or an evil doer, or as a meddler in other men's matters; but if a man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God in this name." (I Peter 4:15-16) Frequently such religionists as the Watch Tower Witnesses find themselves being treated harshly due to their own bungling approaches, and when such occurs, how they love to testify of their "persecution" at Kingdom Hall assemblies! When one sows in stupidity, he may reap in severity! But why were those early disciples so maligned? The following reasons are suggested for consideration.
1. The exclusive nature of Christianity brought upon those early saints the wrath of their contemporaries. It was not that ancient society was opposed to another religion; far from it. The Romans even erected temples for foreign gods to encourage trade from afar, and their own deities numbered in the hundreds. The one thing they would not tolerate was a religion that demanded ONE WAY. As Lewis observes, "It was an act of disloyalty for a citizen of the Empire to embrace a religion that ran counter to every other religion." (Hastings' Dictionary of the Apostolic Church, II, p.179.) Early Christians simply would not have "the faith" counted as one among others of equal worth. And when loyal disciples of today dare to suggest that Buddhism, Judaism, Catholicism, Protestantism, etc., are not components of the "one faith" (Ephesians 4:5) they are likewise abused.
2. When the early church repudiated the notion of many gods they were dubbed "atheists" and were thus blamed for every misfortune that descended upon the Empire. Tertullian wrote: "They think the Christians to blame for every public calamity, for every loss that afflicts the people. If the Tiber rises to the walls, if the Nile does not rise over the fields, if the sky gives no rain, if the earth quakes, if there is famine or plague, immediately the shout is raised, 'To the lions with the Christians!'" (Apology, p. 40)
3. First century Christians were considered anti-social. One must understand that both idolatry and immorality were virtually interwoven into the fabric of ancient culture. Pagan rites, fornication, drunkenness, etc., were part and parcel of everyday life. Those who obeyed the gospel would of course, have to abandon such a wanton way of living. Naturally, this might lead to the severing of some relationships, for children of God were to have no participation in such things, but rather they were to reprove them. (Ephesians 5:11) Such deportment was bound to raise the ire of their neighbors. Hence, Peter said that those who live in "lasciviousness, lusts, winebibbings, revellings, carousings, and abominable idolatries" will "think it strange that ye run not with them into the same excess of riot, speaking evil of you." (I Peter 4:3-4) And how often today it is practically the same. The man who will not have "a little drink with the boys" is some sort of "religious do-gooder" and the Christian who will not listen to a vulgar joke is a "church nut."
4. Christians were thought to be disloyal to the government. Though the followers of Christ acknowledged that they were in subjection to governmental authorities and thus, rendered both respect and tribute to them, they nevertheless refrained from active involvement in government. The historian Gibbon declares: "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." (Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, I, p. 416.) Undoubtedly this was partially because of Rome's deep involvement in idolatry, but it is equally certain that the disciples of the Prince of Peace recognized that they had a higher calling than the mundane affairs of human politics. (II Corinthians 10:3-6)
(D) THE VALUE OF PERSECUTION - There are genuine blessings to be derived from the blood stained way. Though we naturally recoil when thinking of persecution, realistically we must acknowledge its spiritual worth. First, persecution of the saints has frequently resulted in an explosive growth of the church. When that "great persecution" arose against the Jerusalem brethren, Christians were scattered abroad and went forth proclaiming the word. (Acts 8:1-4) Second, tribulation has a purifying effect upon the church. Jesus foretold that shallow disciples would be separated by persecution. (Matthew 13:6, 21) The fire of affliction refines the pure ore from the dross. (Job 23:10; I Peter 1:6-7) Third, as the flame of the forge tempers metal, so adversity strengthens the soul. An index to the remarkable character of Paul is revealed when he says: "Wherefore I take pleasure in weaknesses, in injuries, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses, for Christ's sake; for when I am weak, then am I strong." (II Corinthians 12:10) Fourth, as touched upon earlier, persecution gives us a sense of history; the prophets, apostles, etc., were abused. Shall we, in the words of an old hymn be carried to the skies on beds of flowery ease when others fought to win the prize and sailed through bloody seas? Finally, our blessed Lord clearly promised that those who endure such calamities as result from discipleship will have great reward in Heaven. When we are persecuted, let us rejoice and take comfort in the words of Paul who confidently declared that "the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed to us." (Romans 8:18)
In His illustrious Sermon on the Mount the beloved Christ proclaimed: "Blessed are they that have been persecuted for righteousness' sake; for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven. Blessed are ye when men shall reproach you, and persecute you, and say all manner of evil against you falsely, for My sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad; for great is your reward in Heaven; for so persecuted they the prophets that were before you." (Matthew 5:10-12) At least four prominent truths are here set forth: (a) Persecution has been the historical lot of those who served Jehovah; (b) Similarly, followers of Christ definitely will be persecuted; (c) Persecution for the right cause can be a source of contentment; and (d) Those who endure under persecution will have great reward in Heaven.
(A) HISTORICAL PERSECUTION - The Lord encourages His people to rejoice when they are wrongly persecuted for they are, so to speak, in good company; the prophets were likewise abused. The Old Testament is stained from cover to cover with the blood of the faithful. This very point is made in Matthew 23:35 when Christ informed the Jewish leaders that they were heirs of those who shed the righteous blood of all those Old Testament worthies from Abel to Zachariah. According to the arrangement of the books of the Hebrew Bible, the accounts of Abel and Zachariah's murders occur in the first (Genesis 4:8ff) and the last (II Chronicles 24:20-21) sections. Cain slew Abel, Ishmael persecuted Isaac, Joseph was sold into slavery, Daniel was cast into the lions' den and the three Hebrews lads into the furnace of fire, Jeremiah was abused, etc. The writer of Hebrews well sums it up when he says they, "had trial of mockings and scourgings, yea moreover of bonds and imprisonment; they were stoned, they were sawn asunder, they were tempted, they were slain with the sword; they went about in sheepskins, in goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, ill treated (of whom the world was not worthy) wandering in deserts and mountains and caves, and in the holes of the earth." (Hebrews 11:36-38) Truly, persecution has been the common lot of those who stood with God.
(B) THE PROMISE OF PERSECUTION - The Lord did not say, "Blessed are ye IF men shall reproach you..." rather, "...WHEN men shall reproach you..." Ill treatment is the inevitable result of discipleship. Though there are innumerable blessings connected with the Christian life, they have persecutions as a companion. (Mark 10:30) Jesus sought to inoculate against a slavish dread of persecution when He said, "And are not afraid of them that kill the body..." (Matthew 10:28) Moreover, Paul was crystal clear about the fact that "all that would live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution." (II Timothy 3:12)
Persecution is manifested in a variety of ugly ways. Sometimes it is merely verbal. For example, God haters may "say all manner of evil against you falsely" simply because your life is different. Or one may be subjected to crude slurs, as when the Jews said of Christ, "Thou art a Samaritan (a racial dig) and hast a demon (in league with Satan)." (John 8:48) In countries that have not been leavened with the influence of Christianity, persecution may take the form of imprisonment (Cf. Acts 5:18), beatings (Acts 16:23), or even death (Acts 12:1). There is therefore, good reason for the abundance of New Testament material encouraging us to patiently endure under trials and tribulations. (Cf. James, II Peter)
(C) VALID PERSECUTION - There is no virtue in persecution per se. There is genuine blessedness only when affliction is for "righteousness' sake." Peter admonished: "Let none of you suffer as a murderer, or a thief, or an evil doer, or as a meddler in other men's matters; but if a man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God in this name." (I Peter 4:15-16) Frequently such religionists as the Watch Tower Witnesses find themselves being treated harshly due to their own bungling approaches, and when such occurs, how they love to testify of their "persecution" at Kingdom Hall assemblies! When one sows in stupidity, he may reap in severity! But why were those early disciples so maligned? The following reasons are suggested for consideration.
1. The exclusive nature of Christianity brought upon those early saints the wrath of their contemporaries. It was not that ancient society was opposed to another religion; far from it. The Romans even erected temples for foreign gods to encourage trade from afar, and their own deities numbered in the hundreds. The one thing they would not tolerate was a religion that demanded ONE WAY. As Lewis observes, "It was an act of disloyalty for a citizen of the Empire to embrace a religion that ran counter to every other religion." (Hastings' Dictionary of the Apostolic Church, II, p.179.) Early Christians simply would not have "the faith" counted as one among others of equal worth. And when loyal disciples of today dare to suggest that Buddhism, Judaism, Catholicism, Protestantism, etc., are not components of the "one faith" (Ephesians 4:5) they are likewise abused.
2. When the early church repudiated the notion of many gods they were dubbed "atheists" and were thus blamed for every misfortune that descended upon the Empire. Tertullian wrote: "They think the Christians to blame for every public calamity, for every loss that afflicts the people. If the Tiber rises to the walls, if the Nile does not rise over the fields, if the sky gives no rain, if the earth quakes, if there is famine or plague, immediately the shout is raised, 'To the lions with the Christians!'" (Apology, p. 40)
3. First century Christians were considered anti-social. One must understand that both idolatry and immorality were virtually interwoven into the fabric of ancient culture. Pagan rites, fornication, drunkenness, etc., were part and parcel of everyday life. Those who obeyed the gospel would of course, have to abandon such a wanton way of living. Naturally, this might lead to the severing of some relationships, for children of God were to have no participation in such things, but rather they were to reprove them. (Ephesians 5:11) Such deportment was bound to raise the ire of their neighbors. Hence, Peter said that those who live in "lasciviousness, lusts, winebibbings, revellings, carousings, and abominable idolatries" will "think it strange that ye run not with them into the same excess of riot, speaking evil of you." (I Peter 4:3-4) And how often today it is practically the same. The man who will not have "a little drink with the boys" is some sort of "religious do-gooder" and the Christian who will not listen to a vulgar joke is a "church nut."
4. Christians were thought to be disloyal to the government. Though the followers of Christ acknowledged that they were in subjection to governmental authorities and thus, rendered both respect and tribute to them, they nevertheless refrained from active involvement in government. The historian Gibbon declares: "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." (Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, I, p. 416.) Undoubtedly this was partially because of Rome's deep involvement in idolatry, but it is equally certain that the disciples of the Prince of Peace recognized that they had a higher calling than the mundane affairs of human politics. (II Corinthians 10:3-6)
(D) THE VALUE OF PERSECUTION - There are genuine blessings to be derived from the blood stained way. Though we naturally recoil when thinking of persecution, realistically we must acknowledge its spiritual worth. First, persecution of the saints has frequently resulted in an explosive growth of the church. When that "great persecution" arose against the Jerusalem brethren, Christians were scattered abroad and went forth proclaiming the word. (Acts 8:1-4) Second, tribulation has a purifying effect upon the church. Jesus foretold that shallow disciples would be separated by persecution. (Matthew 13:6, 21) The fire of affliction refines the pure ore from the dross. (Job 23:10; I Peter 1:6-7) Third, as the flame of the forge tempers metal, so adversity strengthens the soul. An index to the remarkable character of Paul is revealed when he says: "Wherefore I take pleasure in weaknesses, in injuries, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses, for Christ's sake; for when I am weak, then am I strong." (II Corinthians 12:10) Fourth, as touched upon earlier, persecution gives us a sense of history; the prophets, apostles, etc., were abused. Shall we, in the words of an old hymn be carried to the skies on beds of flowery ease when others fought to win the prize and sailed through bloody seas? Finally, our blessed Lord clearly promised that those who endure such calamities as result from discipleship will have great reward in Heaven. When we are persecuted, let us rejoice and take comfort in the words of Paul who confidently declared that "the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed to us." (Romans 8:18)
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Fasting
I believe fasting is a subject that's not discussed often. Wayne Jackson wrote this article concerning the topic. It appeared in the June 1975 edition of the Christian Courier which was published by the East Main Street Church of Christ in Stockton, California and edited by Jackson.
Fasting in the Biblical sense, is the abstaining from food and drink for a spiritual reason. In the Old Testament era the Jews fasted frequently though there was only one fast demanded by the Law. Once each year on the Day of Atonement, the Hebrews were to "afflict" their souls (Leviticus 16:31), which meant fasting. (Isaiah 58:3) There are no compulsory fasts required of Christians today, yet the New Testament seems to take for granted the fact that children of God would occasionally see the need to fast.
When the Lord's disciples were criticized for not fasting, Jesus responded by suggesting that it was hardly appropriate for them to fast while He was yet with them. The time would come however, when He would be taken away and then they would fast. (Luke 5:35) In cautioning against improper motivation in worship, Christ warned: "Moreover when ye fast, be not as the hypocrites..." It is significant that He did not say "IF" but rather, "WHEN ye fast," reflecting the expectation that they would fast. Fasting for the Christian is strictly a voluntary matter. It should, as R. C. Foster observes, "rise out of the heart and should not be imposed on the body by mere external custom." A careful study of the Biblical data concerning this practice can be of considerable profit.
Occasions For Fasting - (a) Fasting may be of value in times of personal sorrow. David and his men mourned and fasted upon hearing of the death of Saul (II Samuel 1:12) and Nehemiah did similarly when he was informed of Jerusalem's condition. (Nehemiah 1:4) Fasting and prayer would certainly seem to be fitting when a loved one is sorely ill. (II Samuel 12:16) (b) Fasting frequently accompanied repentance as an outward and genuine indication of sorrow for apostasy. (I Samuel 7:6) the people of Nineveh proclaimed a fast when brought to a recognition of their sins. (Jonah 3:5) (c) Fasting was practiced in connection with great and important spiritual events. Moses fasted during the period he was receiving the Law. (Exodus 34:28) Our Savior felt the need to fast prior to His great encounter with Satan in the wilderness. (Matthew 4:2) The primitive church fasted just before they sent forth Barnabas and Saul on that perilous first missionary journey. (Acts 13:2-3) Fasting was observed in connection with the solemn task of appointing elders to oversee the flock of God. (Acts 14:23) And obviously fasting was a vital ingredient in the dynamic ministry of the tireless Paul. (II Corinthians 6:5; 11:27)
Abuses of Fasting - The practice of fasting could certainly be abused and the Bible warns against such. First, fasting can never serve as a substitute for personal godliness. Isaiah delivers a blistering rebuke to those who would fast and then go about their own pleasure. Read Isaiah 58. Second, fasting must not be used as an occasion for putting on religious airs. Christ prohibits such on the part of His followers. (Matthew 6:16-18) Third, one must guard lest his fasting cause him to develop a sense of smugness and self-righteousness. (Luke 18:9-14)
Benefits of Fasting - There seem to be several benefits derived from proper fasting. (1) General indications in Scripture suggest that God recognizes fasting as a token of deep sincerity and thus honors such. (2) Physicians contend that moderate fasting is a boon to the health, having the effect of allowing our systems to occasionally cleanse themselves. (3) The mind is able to plumb greater depths of concentration during fasting. (4) Fasting helps us hone a keener edge on the self-discipline we all so desperately need. (5) Finally, by way of the contrast it imposes, fasting reinforces our appreciation for the abundance of good things with which we have been so graciously blessed.
Most members of the body of Christ have doubtless deprived themselves of a storehouse of strength by neglecting to fast.
Fasting in the Biblical sense, is the abstaining from food and drink for a spiritual reason. In the Old Testament era the Jews fasted frequently though there was only one fast demanded by the Law. Once each year on the Day of Atonement, the Hebrews were to "afflict" their souls (Leviticus 16:31), which meant fasting. (Isaiah 58:3) There are no compulsory fasts required of Christians today, yet the New Testament seems to take for granted the fact that children of God would occasionally see the need to fast.
When the Lord's disciples were criticized for not fasting, Jesus responded by suggesting that it was hardly appropriate for them to fast while He was yet with them. The time would come however, when He would be taken away and then they would fast. (Luke 5:35) In cautioning against improper motivation in worship, Christ warned: "Moreover when ye fast, be not as the hypocrites..." It is significant that He did not say "IF" but rather, "WHEN ye fast," reflecting the expectation that they would fast. Fasting for the Christian is strictly a voluntary matter. It should, as R. C. Foster observes, "rise out of the heart and should not be imposed on the body by mere external custom." A careful study of the Biblical data concerning this practice can be of considerable profit.
Occasions For Fasting - (a) Fasting may be of value in times of personal sorrow. David and his men mourned and fasted upon hearing of the death of Saul (II Samuel 1:12) and Nehemiah did similarly when he was informed of Jerusalem's condition. (Nehemiah 1:4) Fasting and prayer would certainly seem to be fitting when a loved one is sorely ill. (II Samuel 12:16) (b) Fasting frequently accompanied repentance as an outward and genuine indication of sorrow for apostasy. (I Samuel 7:6) the people of Nineveh proclaimed a fast when brought to a recognition of their sins. (Jonah 3:5) (c) Fasting was practiced in connection with great and important spiritual events. Moses fasted during the period he was receiving the Law. (Exodus 34:28) Our Savior felt the need to fast prior to His great encounter with Satan in the wilderness. (Matthew 4:2) The primitive church fasted just before they sent forth Barnabas and Saul on that perilous first missionary journey. (Acts 13:2-3) Fasting was observed in connection with the solemn task of appointing elders to oversee the flock of God. (Acts 14:23) And obviously fasting was a vital ingredient in the dynamic ministry of the tireless Paul. (II Corinthians 6:5; 11:27)
Abuses of Fasting - The practice of fasting could certainly be abused and the Bible warns against such. First, fasting can never serve as a substitute for personal godliness. Isaiah delivers a blistering rebuke to those who would fast and then go about their own pleasure. Read Isaiah 58. Second, fasting must not be used as an occasion for putting on religious airs. Christ prohibits such on the part of His followers. (Matthew 6:16-18) Third, one must guard lest his fasting cause him to develop a sense of smugness and self-righteousness. (Luke 18:9-14)
Benefits of Fasting - There seem to be several benefits derived from proper fasting. (1) General indications in Scripture suggest that God recognizes fasting as a token of deep sincerity and thus honors such. (2) Physicians contend that moderate fasting is a boon to the health, having the effect of allowing our systems to occasionally cleanse themselves. (3) The mind is able to plumb greater depths of concentration during fasting. (4) Fasting helps us hone a keener edge on the self-discipline we all so desperately need. (5) Finally, by way of the contrast it imposes, fasting reinforces our appreciation for the abundance of good things with which we have been so graciously blessed.
Most members of the body of Christ have doubtless deprived themselves of a storehouse of strength by neglecting to fast.
Monday, January 14, 2013
Are You Anti-Abortion or Pro-Life?
This article is reprinted from the June 9, 1986 edition of A Christian Review, published by the Mentor Church of Christ in Mentor, Ohio. The piece was written by Paul Jarrett. I believe it's as timely today as when it was first written; very thought provoking.
When you read the title for this article did you think to yourself, "that must be a misprint"? Did you think, "he must have meant 'pro-abortion or pro-life' because being anti-abortion is the same as being pro-life"? If those thoughts or something similar, crossed your mind, you were wrong on both counts. The title is right AND being anti-abortion and being pro-life are NOT the same thing, at least not in my book.
The truth of the matter is I've met a lot of anti-abortionists, but I've only met very few people that I would classify as being pro-life. You can fill the streets with anti-abortionists. You can get a host of anti-abortionists to sign petitions opposing abortion. You can find anti-abortionists to picket abortion centers, prepare literature and films depicting the cruelty of abortion, give speeches (and write articles) and (unfortunately) in some misguided instances, engage in violent acts in their opposition to abortion. However, it is difficult to find a handful of people who are really pro-life.
When I speak of people who are pro-life, I'm talking about people like the two I had had breakfast with recently. People like those involved with "Continue Life." People giving of themselves and their time in a ministry founded by Joe and Dianne Amon, "to saving the lives of unborn babies and helping young women cope with life changing decisions in the midst of crisis." I commend those who staff these clinics in Euclid and Madison (and soon in Chardon) for being truly pro-life, as witnessed by their involvement in people's lives.
Friends and brethren, it is so very easy to write out a creed in which we denote the things we are for and against (especially against!). It is easy to promote the creed and seek to bind it on others. However, the challenge is when we determine to live that creed and get involved in ministering to people. Until we do that we are no better than the Pharisees of Jesus' day of whom He said: "The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them. And they tie up heavy loads, and lay them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger." (Matthew 23:3-5)
I'm in favor of opposing abortion by every lawful means from legitimate protest, to petitioning the legislatures and courts; to stuffing ballot boxes. However, if we do all of these things and never lift a finger to minister to unwed mothers and their offspring we are merely anti-abortion, not pro-lifers.
If the evil of abortion is ever going to cease in our land, Christians must become pro-life. We must get involved with the aching hearts and broken lives of those shattered by the consequences of sin. We cannot stem the tide of disobedience and wickedness by legislation alone. While legislation has its place in defining the values of a nation, those values must find expression in the lives of committed disciples of Christ who are dedicated to serving as Christ served.
When someone asks me if I'm anti-abortion, I can point to what I write, what I preach and how I vote. However, when asked if I'm pro-life, I cannot point to words alone. In such instances I can only point (with a humility at the limited nature of my own fruits) to my adopted son, the unwed mothers whom I've counseled and aided in small ways and those whom I have in some small way influenced to engage in similar works.
I know I need to do more if I'm going to advertise myself as being pro-life and not merely anti-abortion. It is too, too easy to say to the unwed mother "don't get an abortion" and turn our backs on her as she struggles to raise a child alone and under adverse circumstances. Such sounds way too much like the speech of those whose faith James described as dead. Those who say to the naked and hungry, "'Go in peach, be warmed and filled' and yet do not give them what is necessary for their body." (James 2:15-17)
While it is true that abortion is a national disgrace, it is not true that the guilt and shame should be felt only by those who are pro-abortion. The anti-abortionists who say to unwed mothers "have your babies" (cf.: 'be warmed and filled'.) yet do not give them what is necessary to bear and care for that child also must share a measure of guilt and shame.
When you read the title for this article did you think to yourself, "that must be a misprint"? Did you think, "he must have meant 'pro-abortion or pro-life' because being anti-abortion is the same as being pro-life"? If those thoughts or something similar, crossed your mind, you were wrong on both counts. The title is right AND being anti-abortion and being pro-life are NOT the same thing, at least not in my book.
The truth of the matter is I've met a lot of anti-abortionists, but I've only met very few people that I would classify as being pro-life. You can fill the streets with anti-abortionists. You can get a host of anti-abortionists to sign petitions opposing abortion. You can find anti-abortionists to picket abortion centers, prepare literature and films depicting the cruelty of abortion, give speeches (and write articles) and (unfortunately) in some misguided instances, engage in violent acts in their opposition to abortion. However, it is difficult to find a handful of people who are really pro-life.
When I speak of people who are pro-life, I'm talking about people like the two I had had breakfast with recently. People like those involved with "Continue Life." People giving of themselves and their time in a ministry founded by Joe and Dianne Amon, "to saving the lives of unborn babies and helping young women cope with life changing decisions in the midst of crisis." I commend those who staff these clinics in Euclid and Madison (and soon in Chardon) for being truly pro-life, as witnessed by their involvement in people's lives.
Friends and brethren, it is so very easy to write out a creed in which we denote the things we are for and against (especially against!). It is easy to promote the creed and seek to bind it on others. However, the challenge is when we determine to live that creed and get involved in ministering to people. Until we do that we are no better than the Pharisees of Jesus' day of whom He said: "The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them. And they tie up heavy loads, and lay them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger." (Matthew 23:3-5)
I'm in favor of opposing abortion by every lawful means from legitimate protest, to petitioning the legislatures and courts; to stuffing ballot boxes. However, if we do all of these things and never lift a finger to minister to unwed mothers and their offspring we are merely anti-abortion, not pro-lifers.
If the evil of abortion is ever going to cease in our land, Christians must become pro-life. We must get involved with the aching hearts and broken lives of those shattered by the consequences of sin. We cannot stem the tide of disobedience and wickedness by legislation alone. While legislation has its place in defining the values of a nation, those values must find expression in the lives of committed disciples of Christ who are dedicated to serving as Christ served.
When someone asks me if I'm anti-abortion, I can point to what I write, what I preach and how I vote. However, when asked if I'm pro-life, I cannot point to words alone. In such instances I can only point (with a humility at the limited nature of my own fruits) to my adopted son, the unwed mothers whom I've counseled and aided in small ways and those whom I have in some small way influenced to engage in similar works.
I know I need to do more if I'm going to advertise myself as being pro-life and not merely anti-abortion. It is too, too easy to say to the unwed mother "don't get an abortion" and turn our backs on her as she struggles to raise a child alone and under adverse circumstances. Such sounds way too much like the speech of those whose faith James described as dead. Those who say to the naked and hungry, "'Go in peach, be warmed and filled' and yet do not give them what is necessary for their body." (James 2:15-17)
While it is true that abortion is a national disgrace, it is not true that the guilt and shame should be felt only by those who are pro-abortion. The anti-abortionists who say to unwed mothers "have your babies" (cf.: 'be warmed and filled'.) yet do not give them what is necessary to bear and care for that child also must share a measure of guilt and shame.
Sunday, January 13, 2013
Mark 9:38-40 Explained
Wayne Jackson authored this piece which appeared in the May, 1975 edition of The Christian Courier which was published by the East Main Street Church of Christ in Stockton, California and edited by Jackson.
Q. Please explain Mark 9:38-40. Could this teach in principle that there are Christians outside of the body of Christ?
A. Certainly not. Salvation is found only in Christ. (II Timothy 2:10) And those who are "in Christ" are in His spiritual body, the church. (Colossians 1:18) Jesus has promised to save no except those who are in His body (Ephesians 5:23) and this should settle the matter for all who respect the authority of the Bible. It is true however, that some are frequently appealing to the passage cited above in an attempt to justify sincere denominationalists. Let us therefore, carefully examine these verses.
"Now John answered Him, saying, 'Teacher, we saw someone who does not follow us casting out demons in Your name, and we forbade him because he does not follow us.' But Jesus said, 'Do not forbid him, for no one who works a miracle in My name can soon afterward speak evil of Me. For he who is not against us in on our side.'" (Cf. Luke 9:49-50)
Now from this incident the following case is built. Here was a man not with Jesus and the disciples, but he was doing good; hence, the disciples were not to oppose him. Similarly, there are many good people today who are not with us (i.e., not members of the Church of Christ but are within other religious groups). We must therefore, not oppose them for even thought they are not "with us" they are nevertheless serving the Lord in their own way. This is a gross perversion of the truth! It not only ignores the very language of this specific context, it also disregards the general teaching of the Bible on the necessity of dealing with error. The facts are as follows.
JOHN'S TESTIMONY - Since John was an eye witness to this situation, his testimony is critical in determining the facts of the case. The apostle affirms concerning this unknown exorcist: (a) he was casting out demons; (b) he was doing such in Christ's name. We have no reason to doubt John's statement. In fact, since he was complaining about the man, his testimony to the genuineness of the miracles becomes all the more valuable. Viewing the matter from another angle, it is important to note: (a) John does not charge the man with teaching error; (b) he does not contend that the man falsely claimed the ability to expel demons (as in the case mentioned by the Lord in Matthew 7:22-23); (c) nor does the apostle suggest that the exorcism was a mere pretense. Demons were perfectly capable of discerning the difference between those who were true exorcists and those who merely feigned such; see Acts 19:13-16. Finally, John does not accuse the man of misappropriating Christ's name. His sole charge is, "he does not follow us."
THE LORD'S REPLY - Jesus declared, "Do not forbid him." The force of the Greek text is literally, "stop hindering him." The Savior then revealed exactly why the man was not to be hindered. "For no one who works a miracle in My name can soon afterward speak evil of Me." An analysis of this statement reveals the following details: (a) Christ acknowledges that the man is performing mighty works, i.e., genuine miracles; (b) these miracles were being done "in" (Greek: epi) the Lord's name, meaning "on the ground of My authority," (Vine, Expository Dictionary, III, p. 100.) and (c) the man was obviously teaching the truth since his message was supported by a spiritual gift.
SOME CONCLUSIONS: In view of the foregoing facts, certain conclusions are clear. This exorcist had been commissioned by Jesus to both teach and cast out demons. This is evident from the fact that supernatural signs were always connected with teaching. They were never simply works of compassion per se. Since the performance of miracles (including demon expulsion) was to CONFIRM the message being proclaimed (Mark 16:17-20; Hebrews 2:3-4) this man was most certainly not teaching error. Rather, he was accurately instructing his contemporaries regarding Jesus Christ.
Moreover, Jesus plainly indicated that though this man was not "with" them (in their immediate company) he was nevertheless "for" them as far as unity of labor was concerned. The Master's argument, logically arranged, would be as follows. (a) No man, performing genuine miracles, is able to quickly speak evil of Christ. (b) But this man was performing genuine miracles. (c) He thus was not speaking evil against the Lord. Furthermore, (a) Those not against the Lord were obviously for Him. (b) But this man was not against Him. (c) He was therefore, FOR Christ and this is precisely why the disciples were not to hinder his work.
These facts being clearly seen, it is evident that there is absolutely no parallel between this Biblical incident and modern day attempts to countenance error in sectarian bodies. This is true first of all, because denominational groups are not now nor have they ever been FOR CHRIST. They had their origin without His authority and have been perpetuated in rebellion to Him. Secondly, they do not teach uncorrupted truth, but defile His gospel with human dogma. The Savior would never have condoned that exorcist's activity had he been preaching unsound words. And we cannot uphold those who peddle Satan's doctrine today. Rather, we must oppose such teaching and in kindness attempt to lead its exponents into a knowledge of God's truth.
Q. Please explain Mark 9:38-40. Could this teach in principle that there are Christians outside of the body of Christ?
A. Certainly not. Salvation is found only in Christ. (II Timothy 2:10) And those who are "in Christ" are in His spiritual body, the church. (Colossians 1:18) Jesus has promised to save no except those who are in His body (Ephesians 5:23) and this should settle the matter for all who respect the authority of the Bible. It is true however, that some are frequently appealing to the passage cited above in an attempt to justify sincere denominationalists. Let us therefore, carefully examine these verses.
"Now John answered Him, saying, 'Teacher, we saw someone who does not follow us casting out demons in Your name, and we forbade him because he does not follow us.' But Jesus said, 'Do not forbid him, for no one who works a miracle in My name can soon afterward speak evil of Me. For he who is not against us in on our side.'" (Cf. Luke 9:49-50)
Now from this incident the following case is built. Here was a man not with Jesus and the disciples, but he was doing good; hence, the disciples were not to oppose him. Similarly, there are many good people today who are not with us (i.e., not members of the Church of Christ but are within other religious groups). We must therefore, not oppose them for even thought they are not "with us" they are nevertheless serving the Lord in their own way. This is a gross perversion of the truth! It not only ignores the very language of this specific context, it also disregards the general teaching of the Bible on the necessity of dealing with error. The facts are as follows.
JOHN'S TESTIMONY - Since John was an eye witness to this situation, his testimony is critical in determining the facts of the case. The apostle affirms concerning this unknown exorcist: (a) he was casting out demons; (b) he was doing such in Christ's name. We have no reason to doubt John's statement. In fact, since he was complaining about the man, his testimony to the genuineness of the miracles becomes all the more valuable. Viewing the matter from another angle, it is important to note: (a) John does not charge the man with teaching error; (b) he does not contend that the man falsely claimed the ability to expel demons (as in the case mentioned by the Lord in Matthew 7:22-23); (c) nor does the apostle suggest that the exorcism was a mere pretense. Demons were perfectly capable of discerning the difference between those who were true exorcists and those who merely feigned such; see Acts 19:13-16. Finally, John does not accuse the man of misappropriating Christ's name. His sole charge is, "he does not follow us."
THE LORD'S REPLY - Jesus declared, "Do not forbid him." The force of the Greek text is literally, "stop hindering him." The Savior then revealed exactly why the man was not to be hindered. "For no one who works a miracle in My name can soon afterward speak evil of Me." An analysis of this statement reveals the following details: (a) Christ acknowledges that the man is performing mighty works, i.e., genuine miracles; (b) these miracles were being done "in" (Greek: epi) the Lord's name, meaning "on the ground of My authority," (Vine, Expository Dictionary, III, p. 100.) and (c) the man was obviously teaching the truth since his message was supported by a spiritual gift.
SOME CONCLUSIONS: In view of the foregoing facts, certain conclusions are clear. This exorcist had been commissioned by Jesus to both teach and cast out demons. This is evident from the fact that supernatural signs were always connected with teaching. They were never simply works of compassion per se. Since the performance of miracles (including demon expulsion) was to CONFIRM the message being proclaimed (Mark 16:17-20; Hebrews 2:3-4) this man was most certainly not teaching error. Rather, he was accurately instructing his contemporaries regarding Jesus Christ.
Moreover, Jesus plainly indicated that though this man was not "with" them (in their immediate company) he was nevertheless "for" them as far as unity of labor was concerned. The Master's argument, logically arranged, would be as follows. (a) No man, performing genuine miracles, is able to quickly speak evil of Christ. (b) But this man was performing genuine miracles. (c) He thus was not speaking evil against the Lord. Furthermore, (a) Those not against the Lord were obviously for Him. (b) But this man was not against Him. (c) He was therefore, FOR Christ and this is precisely why the disciples were not to hinder his work.
These facts being clearly seen, it is evident that there is absolutely no parallel between this Biblical incident and modern day attempts to countenance error in sectarian bodies. This is true first of all, because denominational groups are not now nor have they ever been FOR CHRIST. They had their origin without His authority and have been perpetuated in rebellion to Him. Secondly, they do not teach uncorrupted truth, but defile His gospel with human dogma. The Savior would never have condoned that exorcist's activity had he been preaching unsound words. And we cannot uphold those who peddle Satan's doctrine today. Rather, we must oppose such teaching and in kindness attempt to lead its exponents into a knowledge of God's truth.
Saturday, January 12, 2013
Think On These Things
This is taken from the June 9, 1986 edition of A Christian Review, published by the Mentor Church of Christ in Mentor, Ohio.
If one can be saved without faith, why did Paul say it was impossible to please God without it? (Hebrews 11:6)
If faith comes in answer to prayer, why are we told that faith comes by hearing the word of God? (Romans 10:17)
If "faith only" is a most wholesome doctrine and very full of comfort, why did James say we are not justified by faith only? (James 2:24)
If God has promised to save man regardless of the kind of faith he has, why did Paul make it so plain that there is only ONE faith? (Ephesians 4:5)
If one becomes a Christian they very moment he believes, why was not King Agrippa a Christian? (Acts 26:27)
If one can be saved without obedience, why did Paul say that Christ is to take vengeance on them that obey not the gospel? (II Thessalonians 1:8)
If the Lord has promised salvation without baptism, why did Peter say, "Baptism doth also NOW SAVE US...? (I Peter 3:20-21)
If sprinkling and pouring are scriptural modes of baptism, why did Paul say that baptism is a burial? (Romans 6:3-4; Colossians 2:12; Acts 8:38)
If God has promised salvation out of the church, why did Christ die for it? (Acts 20:28; Ephesians 5:25-27)
If one can be saved without faith, why did Paul say it was impossible to please God without it? (Hebrews 11:6)
If faith comes in answer to prayer, why are we told that faith comes by hearing the word of God? (Romans 10:17)
If "faith only" is a most wholesome doctrine and very full of comfort, why did James say we are not justified by faith only? (James 2:24)
If God has promised to save man regardless of the kind of faith he has, why did Paul make it so plain that there is only ONE faith? (Ephesians 4:5)
If one becomes a Christian they very moment he believes, why was not King Agrippa a Christian? (Acts 26:27)
If one can be saved without obedience, why did Paul say that Christ is to take vengeance on them that obey not the gospel? (II Thessalonians 1:8)
If the Lord has promised salvation without baptism, why did Peter say, "Baptism doth also NOW SAVE US...? (I Peter 3:20-21)
If sprinkling and pouring are scriptural modes of baptism, why did Paul say that baptism is a burial? (Romans 6:3-4; Colossians 2:12; Acts 8:38)
If God has promised salvation out of the church, why did Christ die for it? (Acts 20:28; Ephesians 5:25-27)
Thursday, January 3, 2013
Abortion
Robert c. Redden wrote this article which appeared in the March 1975 edition of The Christian Courier which was published by the East Main Street Church of Christ in Stockton, California and edited by Wayne Jackson. Unfortunately, the information presented in this piece is just as important today as when it was first penned.
Abortion is a very sensitive and vital topic. It has been studied from every point of view imaginable. But for the Christian it can never be less than a moral issue. Since abortion is a moral issue, the Bible must be heard. After all, God has given us "all things that pertain unto life and godliness." (II Peter 1:3) No apology is made for the position here maintained. It is the position of this writer that abortion should never be considered as an option for the Christian unless the mother's life is in jeopardy. Biblical evidence suggests that a more liberal view would be very dangerous.
What is the Biblical evidence which makes abortion a "miscarriage of justice?" Though the Bible does not contain a specific statement about abortion, only the poorly read in God's word would conclude that such is concession to do as one pleases. With regard to the silence of the Old Testament, A.E. Crawley says: "The omission is one indication, among many, of the intense regard felt by the Jewish people for parenthood and the future of their race." (Hastings' Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, Vol. VI, p.55.) The Psalmist wrote: "Lo, children are a heritage of the Lord, and the fruit of the womb is His reward." (Ps. 127:3) It would have been unthinkable for Israel to allow abortion. The Old Testament mentions that a person responsible for an accidental miscarriage would not go unpunished: "And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot." (Exodus 21:22-24) Since even accidental abortion received a retribution, it stands to reason that the silence of the Old Testament is not a concession to abort. Deliberate abortions would certainly carry greater responsibility than an accidental miscarriage.
Some scholars however, think the foregoing passage should be rendered thusly; "When men struggle together and one of them pushes a pregnant woman and her children come out but no harm happens, he shall be fined according as the woman's husband may extract from him...But if harm does ensue, then you shall impose soul for soul." ("Is Abortion Biblical?" H.W. Robinson, Christianity Applied, Vol. 1, No. 1.) In this rendering both phrases, "if no harm happens" and "if harm does ensue" apply either to mother or child and would teach that fetal life is as much human life as the mother. The strength or weakness of this translation depends on the phrase, "and her children come out." Does it refer to a live or dead infant? The verse does not say. The passage, thus understood, would make an accidental abortion induced by another a capital offense, whereas the simplest view, presented in the former version (A.S.V.) certainly shows that Hebrew law gives legal rights to the unborn child.
One of the profoundest statements of the Bible about the prenatal state is in Psalm 139:13-15. "For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; marvelous are Your works, and that my soul knows very well. My frame was not hidden from You, when I was made in secret, and skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth." The Psalmist here refers to his prenatal state in terms of humanity. And "while this gives no precise information about the relation of the soul to the fetus, it seems that the Psalmist did not think of his humanity as uniquely tied to the moment of his birth. The events leading up to birth are a kind of primal history of the self." (Paul Jewett, Christianity Today, Nov. 8, 1968, p. 8.) The passage certainly shows God's involvement in forming an infant from conception to birth. In this sense, abortion would be tampering with God's work.
The Bible also associates life with blood. "The blood is the life." (Deuteronomy 12:23) The circulatory system of the embryo is complete four weeks after conception. Dr. William Archer says: "Though it is less than an inch long, the embryo has a head with eyes, ears, and the beginning of a brain; it has a simple digestive system, kidneys, and liver; a heart that beats and a bloodstream of its own." (David Mace, Abortion, The Agonizing Decision, p. 40.) Some, citing Genesis 2:7 concerning Adam, contend that the body has no soul until after its first breath. To this we reply: first, God created Adam full grown and there was no life before he began to breathe. But life does exist for the infant before it takes its first breath. Second, the infant is supplied with oxygen from the mother through the umbilical cord. This brings us right back to life being in the blood and thus, whoever sheds human blood has taken a human life; has committed murder. (Genesis 9:6) Note the reasoning: abortion sheds human blood but the shedding of human blood is murder, hence abortion is murder. If this sounds harsh, think about this. If a woman were taken by force and an abortion performed on her, would the crime be murder? If she consents, does that make it less of a crime? Is an unwanted baby less than human because it's not wanted? Remember this also, "Jehovah hates...hands that shed innocent blood." (Proverbs 6:16-17)
According to the New Testament, John, six months in his mother's womb, leaped for joy when Mary greeted Elizabeth, his mother. (Luke 1:44) To suggest that an unborn child responded in an emotional way is at least to declare his humanity. It should be noted also that Elizabeth was inspired by the Spirit to interpret this fetal movement. (Plummer, ICC on Luke, p. 28) To suggest that the passage should be dismissed because of its uniqueness shows a lack of spiritual insight on the theme being discussed. This verse gives some scriptural insight into the prenatal state. It suggest the humanity of the unborn infant. The incarnation of Jesus suggests the same thing. When Mary visited Elizabeth, she was several weeks pregnant herself and she was greeted by the latter as "the mother of my Lord." (Luke 1:43) Elizabeth viewed Mary as actually carrying within her the humanity and deity of Jesus, the Son of God! And John's prenatal movement "for joy" was a sign of the presence of the Lord.
Lastly, James states that "the body apart from the spirit is dead." (James 2:26) Since death is an evidence of the spirit's departure (Ecclesiastes 12:7), life is doubtless an indication of the presence of the human spirit. The spirit has been present from the moment life began, i.e., since conception. When this verse is given due consideration, abortion will not be considered as an option for the Christian. Robinson says, "Certainly it cannot be stated categorically that the fetus is not a human being, and it could be argued that since doubt exists it would be wise to consider each case in favor of life rather than of abortion. The Scriptures teach the sanctity of human life and abortion for convenience would be repugnant to anyone who takes the Bible seriously." (Op. Cit.)
The Christian who examines the evidence for the humanity of the unborn realizes the cumulative strength of the case. There is too much evidence to trust any other conclusion. To contend that human life does not exist for the prenatal infant is to advocate that which may have tragic and eternal consequences. Those who are concerned about the control of human reproduction must, as Jewett says, find the answer in prevention of conception rather than in prevention of birth. (Op. Cit.)
Abortion is a very sensitive and vital topic. It has been studied from every point of view imaginable. But for the Christian it can never be less than a moral issue. Since abortion is a moral issue, the Bible must be heard. After all, God has given us "all things that pertain unto life and godliness." (II Peter 1:3) No apology is made for the position here maintained. It is the position of this writer that abortion should never be considered as an option for the Christian unless the mother's life is in jeopardy. Biblical evidence suggests that a more liberal view would be very dangerous.
What is the Biblical evidence which makes abortion a "miscarriage of justice?" Though the Bible does not contain a specific statement about abortion, only the poorly read in God's word would conclude that such is concession to do as one pleases. With regard to the silence of the Old Testament, A.E. Crawley says: "The omission is one indication, among many, of the intense regard felt by the Jewish people for parenthood and the future of their race." (Hastings' Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, Vol. VI, p.55.) The Psalmist wrote: "Lo, children are a heritage of the Lord, and the fruit of the womb is His reward." (Ps. 127:3) It would have been unthinkable for Israel to allow abortion. The Old Testament mentions that a person responsible for an accidental miscarriage would not go unpunished: "And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot." (Exodus 21:22-24) Since even accidental abortion received a retribution, it stands to reason that the silence of the Old Testament is not a concession to abort. Deliberate abortions would certainly carry greater responsibility than an accidental miscarriage.
Some scholars however, think the foregoing passage should be rendered thusly; "When men struggle together and one of them pushes a pregnant woman and her children come out but no harm happens, he shall be fined according as the woman's husband may extract from him...But if harm does ensue, then you shall impose soul for soul." ("Is Abortion Biblical?" H.W. Robinson, Christianity Applied, Vol. 1, No. 1.) In this rendering both phrases, "if no harm happens" and "if harm does ensue" apply either to mother or child and would teach that fetal life is as much human life as the mother. The strength or weakness of this translation depends on the phrase, "and her children come out." Does it refer to a live or dead infant? The verse does not say. The passage, thus understood, would make an accidental abortion induced by another a capital offense, whereas the simplest view, presented in the former version (A.S.V.) certainly shows that Hebrew law gives legal rights to the unborn child.
One of the profoundest statements of the Bible about the prenatal state is in Psalm 139:13-15. "For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; marvelous are Your works, and that my soul knows very well. My frame was not hidden from You, when I was made in secret, and skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth." The Psalmist here refers to his prenatal state in terms of humanity. And "while this gives no precise information about the relation of the soul to the fetus, it seems that the Psalmist did not think of his humanity as uniquely tied to the moment of his birth. The events leading up to birth are a kind of primal history of the self." (Paul Jewett, Christianity Today, Nov. 8, 1968, p. 8.) The passage certainly shows God's involvement in forming an infant from conception to birth. In this sense, abortion would be tampering with God's work.
The Bible also associates life with blood. "The blood is the life." (Deuteronomy 12:23) The circulatory system of the embryo is complete four weeks after conception. Dr. William Archer says: "Though it is less than an inch long, the embryo has a head with eyes, ears, and the beginning of a brain; it has a simple digestive system, kidneys, and liver; a heart that beats and a bloodstream of its own." (David Mace, Abortion, The Agonizing Decision, p. 40.) Some, citing Genesis 2:7 concerning Adam, contend that the body has no soul until after its first breath. To this we reply: first, God created Adam full grown and there was no life before he began to breathe. But life does exist for the infant before it takes its first breath. Second, the infant is supplied with oxygen from the mother through the umbilical cord. This brings us right back to life being in the blood and thus, whoever sheds human blood has taken a human life; has committed murder. (Genesis 9:6) Note the reasoning: abortion sheds human blood but the shedding of human blood is murder, hence abortion is murder. If this sounds harsh, think about this. If a woman were taken by force and an abortion performed on her, would the crime be murder? If she consents, does that make it less of a crime? Is an unwanted baby less than human because it's not wanted? Remember this also, "Jehovah hates...hands that shed innocent blood." (Proverbs 6:16-17)
According to the New Testament, John, six months in his mother's womb, leaped for joy when Mary greeted Elizabeth, his mother. (Luke 1:44) To suggest that an unborn child responded in an emotional way is at least to declare his humanity. It should be noted also that Elizabeth was inspired by the Spirit to interpret this fetal movement. (Plummer, ICC on Luke, p. 28) To suggest that the passage should be dismissed because of its uniqueness shows a lack of spiritual insight on the theme being discussed. This verse gives some scriptural insight into the prenatal state. It suggest the humanity of the unborn infant. The incarnation of Jesus suggests the same thing. When Mary visited Elizabeth, she was several weeks pregnant herself and she was greeted by the latter as "the mother of my Lord." (Luke 1:43) Elizabeth viewed Mary as actually carrying within her the humanity and deity of Jesus, the Son of God! And John's prenatal movement "for joy" was a sign of the presence of the Lord.
Lastly, James states that "the body apart from the spirit is dead." (James 2:26) Since death is an evidence of the spirit's departure (Ecclesiastes 12:7), life is doubtless an indication of the presence of the human spirit. The spirit has been present from the moment life began, i.e., since conception. When this verse is given due consideration, abortion will not be considered as an option for the Christian. Robinson says, "Certainly it cannot be stated categorically that the fetus is not a human being, and it could be argued that since doubt exists it would be wise to consider each case in favor of life rather than of abortion. The Scriptures teach the sanctity of human life and abortion for convenience would be repugnant to anyone who takes the Bible seriously." (Op. Cit.)
The Christian who examines the evidence for the humanity of the unborn realizes the cumulative strength of the case. There is too much evidence to trust any other conclusion. To contend that human life does not exist for the prenatal infant is to advocate that which may have tragic and eternal consequences. Those who are concerned about the control of human reproduction must, as Jewett says, find the answer in prevention of conception rather than in prevention of birth. (Op. Cit.)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)