Noseblind

Posted on May 4, 2017 by Bryan Hodge

“Anosmia is the inability to perceive odor or a lack of functioning olfactory – the loss of the sense of smell” (Wikipedia).  Most people are not totally without the ability to smell.

A much more common issue is a lack of ability to smell certain smells, smells to which one has become desensitized.  Febreze used the term “noseblind” in a 2014 ad campaign.  However, the term was used by some before this.  One website gave the following definition: “The gradual acclimation to the smells of one’s home, care or belongings, in which the affected does not notice them (even though their guests do)” (preshume.com).

A congregation, with which I once worked, met in a building with a basement.  The auditorium and offices were located above.  The class rooms, and fellowship hall was located in the basement.  The basement had flooded several times through the years.  Each time the water had been removed; clean up had been done.  However, an odor persisted.  Most members did not smell it.  They had grown accustom to the odor over the years.  Visitors did smell it, even from the auditorium above.  It was repulsive to them.  Some decided to attend elsewhere, explaining that the smell was too strong for them; or that they thought the mold would negatively affect their respiratory system.  How embarrassing!  Yet, many members could not smell it.  Some of those who could, did not think it was a big deal – the visitors were just being too picky, or making an excuse.

I think that it is possible for individual Christians, and entire churches to become spiritually noseblind.  (1) One may think that he is a faithful member, because he is faithful compared to other Christians he knows.  Paul wrote, “For we dare not class ourselves or compare ourselves with those who commend themselves.  But they, measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise” (2 Corinthians 10:12).  Again, “For not he who commends himself is approved, but whom the Lord commends” (2 Corinthians 10:18).  “All the ways of man are pure in his own eyes, But the LORD weighs the spirits” (Proverbs 16:2).  (2) A preacher may think that his sermons are clear and balanced.  A mature member in the pew may have another impression.  Is the whole counsel of God being proclaimed? (Acts 20:27).  Do the sermons convince, rebuke, and exhort? (2 Timothy 4:2).  It is easy to be self-deceived.  This is why I have each year made available evaluation sheets and have solicited input from mature Christians.  (3) A congregation may think that it is a friendly congregation(I’ve never met one that didn’t).  A visitor may have another impression.  I have seen congregations that are very friendly member to member, but were not welcoming to visitors.  Melinda and I visited a large church in Oklahoma one Wednesday night (there a famous preacher preached whom I wanted to hear).  Members were talking one to another before Bible class.  No one introduced themselves to us.  No one helped us navigate our children to the right class rooms.  After class was no better.  I took the incentive to introduce myself to a man near me.  He too was a visitor!  No one had greeted either one of us.  I have also witnessed buildings and parking lots clear with in 5 minutes. This sends a message and leaves an impression. I have been a guest speaker in a place where no one invited me to lunch or to their house after preaching. I had nowhere to go for several hours till they met again. Such behavior  sends a message and leaves an impression. We should be a welcoming, hospitable people to all. (4) A congregation may think it is sound (Unsoundness always seems to be somewhere else).  A visitor may see poor attendance, a major swing in numbers between Bible class, Sunday morning worship assembly, Sunday night worship assembly, and Wednesday night Bible class (“Doesn’t every place have such drastic swings?” No. And even if such were the case, it wouldn’t make it right) .  This sends a message and leaves an impression.  He may notice members do not bring their Bibles, or do not open their Bibles.  This sends a message and leaves an impression.  He may notice many do not sing.  This sends a message and leaves an impression.  He may notice that they fight a lot in Bible class (and usually over non-essential matters).  This sends a message and leaves an impression.  They may see arrogance and self-righteousness, instead of humility and compassion. This sends a message and leaves an impression. He may see a lack of interest in the sermon, people talking, passing notes, texting, surfing the internet, or looking at their watches.  This sends a message and an impression.   He may see immodest dress and worldly talk.  This sends a message and leaves an impression.  He may know that the many of the members live in grand houses, drive expensive cars and trucks, wear nice clothes, shoes and boots – and then he looks at the total amount given each week. It does not add up to him. Do they value the church and its work so little? This sends a message and leaves an impression.  He may hear gossip and negative talk, instead of encouraging and edifying words.  This sends a message and leaves an impression.  He may hear someone in the pulpit refer to the preacher as “pastor,” giving as “tithing,” evangelizing as “recruiting for our church,” a member of the church as “he is Church of Christ,” and members of the church of Christ as “Church of Christers,” and a construction project on the building as “work on the church.” This sends a message and leaves an impression.  He may see the young man, who is waiting on the Lord’s table, wearing a t-shirt with a beer ad on it, or slovenly dressed.  This sends a message and leaves an impression.  If a visitor or new member hears the business of the church discussed, he may hear a lot of personal opinions and “I think”s but little or no reference to the Bible. This sends a message and leaves an impression. Moreover, if the visitor or new member dares voice his concerns, he is dismissed as the one with the problem (“After all, this is the way that we have always done things”).  What message do we send? What impression do we leave?

How can spiritual noseblindness be removed?  (1) We must spend time looking at the true standard.  “Examine yourself as to whether you are in the faith.  Test yourselves” (2 Corinthians 13:5).  We need to observe our face in the mirror of God’s word (James 1:22-25).  (2) We must determine that it is God whom we wish to please.  “How can you believe, who receive honor from one another, and do not seek the honor that comes from the only God?” (John 5:44).

Posted in Chruch, Fellowship, Judgment, worship | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Is Man Born In Sin? (Part 2)

Posted on April 17, 2017 by Bryan Hodge

Many teach that man is born in sin.  Consider: (1) Catechism of the Catholic Church Second Edition – “(Adam) has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the ‘death of the soul.’  Because of this certainty of faith, the church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal.  How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants?  The whole human race is in Adam ‘as one body of one man'” (403, 404).  (2) The Westminster Confession of Faith – “They (Adam and Eve – B.H.) being the root of all mankind, the guilt of sin was imputed… conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation” (6.3).

Let us continue considering some passages which some say teach this doctrine.

4.  1 Corinthians 15

“For since by man came death, by man also came the resurrection of the dead.  For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive” (1 Corinthians 15:21-22).

“Death” in context refers to physical death (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:20).  Adam’s sin resulted in not only his, but all of humanity, being cut off from The Tree of Life (Genesis 3).  The consequences , not the guilt, of Adam’s sin is still with us.  “The last enemy that will be destroyed is death” (1 Corinthians 15:26).

“Alive” in context means more than just a return to life.  Both the righteous and the unrighteous will be raised (John 5:28-29).  The resurrection in view is for those who are in Christ (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:23).  It is a resurrection to glory that is in view.

There is a comparison being made.  Just as all who physically die can credit such to Adam; even so, all who are raised to glory can credit such to Christ.

“It is sown a natural body.  It is raised a spiritual body.  There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.  And so it is written, ‘The first man Adam became a living being.’  The last Adam became a life-giving spirit… The first man was of the earth, made of dust; the second Man is the Lord from heaven.  As was the man of dust, so also are those who are made of dust; and as is the heavenly Man, so also are those who are heavenly.  And as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly Man” (1 Corinthians 15:44-49).

The comparison continues.  Man, through Adam, receives a body suitable for this earthly existence.  This body is similar to that of Adam’s.  The saved, through Christ, will receive a body suitable for a heavenly existence.  This body will be similar to Him (Philippians 3:20-21; 1 John 3:2).

This chapter is similar to a more controversial chapter.  Let’s next look at –

5.  Romans 5

“Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death spread to all men, because all sinned – ” (Romans 5:12).

The one man is Adam (Romans 5:12 cf. 5:14).  Sin entered the world through Adam.  True, Eve was the first to eat of the forbidden fruit (Genesis 3:6).  However, Adam was with her (Genesis 3:6b), and he was not deceived by Satan’s words (1 Timothy 2:14).  He could have, and should have, tried to prevent sin.  Instead, he followed his wife into sin.

Death came into the world because of sin.  Does this refer to physical death or spiritual death?  (a) Physical death certainly came to man, as he was cut off from the Tree of Life.   (b) Some believe that spiritual death is in view (cf. Romans 5:19).

Death spread to all men.  Why?  Because all sinned.  (a) Those who believe that physical death is in view, suggest that “all sinned in Adam being in him” (Lard, Commentary on Romans, p. 167).  It is much like Levi paying tithes to Melchizedek, being in the loins of Abraham (Hebrews 7:9-10).  It is possible to hold this view and believe that we inherit the consequences of physical death, and other earthly matters, without inheriting the personal guilt.  (b) Those who believe that spiritual death is in view, suggest that the reason that death spread to all men is because all have sinned, and the wages of sin is death (Romans 3:23; 6:23).

This is a difficult section of Scripture.  I believe that this probably refers to spiritual death (I will treat the rest of the article according to this view).

This does not teach that man inherits the guilt of Adam’s sin.  The Bible teaches against such (Ezekiel 18:20).  It is personal sin which separates a man from God (e.g. Isaiah 59:2; Colossians 2:13; etc.).

(For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed where there is no law…) (Romans 5:13).

“For” (gar) connects this with the previous verse.  Roy Deaver explains, “What follows is intended to prove that spiritual death passed to all men” (Deaver, Romans: God’s Plan for Man’s Righteousness, p. 176).

Sin is a violation of God’s law (Romans 4:15; 5:13; 1 John 3:4).  It did not start with the law of Moses.  Sin has existed since Adam.

(…Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come…) (Romans 5:14).

Death’s reign began with Adam and passed to all men, even to those who did not sin according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam.  Roy Deaver comments, “But if all men sinned in Adam, then their sin would be after the likeness of Adam’s transgression – in fact, it would be the same sin!  The sins of these people were not like the transgression of Adam.  Remember that if we had sinned in Adam our sins would be after the likeness of Adam’s transgression… Adam’s transgression was of a specific positive divine law relating to the fruit of the tree in the midst of the garden of Eden.  Only to Adam and Eve was this law ever given” (Deaver, Romans, p. 178).

“(…But the free gift is not like the offense.  For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ abounded to many.  And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned.  For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free  gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification.  For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through one, much more those who received abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)” (Romans 5:15-17).

This contrasts the action of Adam and the action of Jesus.  Adam allowed sin to enter the world (the offense).  He did nothing to try to stop it.  Jesus did something to justify men from many offenses (the gift of God cf. Romans 6:23).

Moreover, the gift is greater than the offense.  (1) It is greater in scope.  Roy Deaver comments, “Christ died because of ‘many trespasses’ – not because of Adam’s ‘one’ trespass” (Deaver, Romans, p. 180).  Robert Taylor Jr. comments, “The free gift of Calvary… was not designed just to cover the destructive damage of Adam’s transgression. Christ at Calvary made provisions for the possible pardon for all sins of humanity” (Taylor, Studies in Romans, pp. 102 – 103).  (2) It is greater in effect.  Robert Taylor Jr. comments, “It is true that what man lost in Adam is gained back through Christ but those who view Calvary’s gift as JUST co-extensive in Adam, have not begun, even in surface fashion to understand what Paul is describing here” (Taylor, Studies in Romans, p. 102).  God wants to make known to us “the exceeding riches of His grace” (Ephesians 2:7).

“Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgement came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men resulting in justification of life.  For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous” (Romans 5:18-19).

This returns to the thought which was being introduced in Romans 5:12.  This provides the “even so” to the “just as.”  Verses 13 – 17 were parenthetical.

Adam’s sin had consequences.  The Tree of Life and The Garden of Eden were lost (Genesis 3:23-24).  A state of enmity would exist between Satan and man (Genesis 3:15).  Innocence was lost (Genesis 3:7-11).  Life would become much more difficult (Genesis 3:16-19).  Physical death would come (Genesis 3:19).  In this environment, temptation and sin abounded.

Jesus, unlike Adam, was obedient to God.  His obedience has positive consequences.  Man can be counted righteous.

This does not teach that man directly inherits Adam’s sin (cf. Ezekiel 18:20); nor does it teach that man directly inherits Jesus’ righteousness (cf. Hebrews 5:8-9).  Robert Taylor Jr. remarks, “Adam’s disobedience did not make any of his descendants sinners without their choices to sin and participate therein.  Christ’s obedience does not make any righteous without their choice to obey” (Taylor, Studies in Romans, p. 105).

Does this teach that all will be saved?  Guy N. Woods comments, “He does not argue that as many will be saved, as were involved in the effects of Adam’s sin, all that is intended is that the provision which he makes is as widespread in its application and in its effects as the sin of Adam.  Men must embrace God’s  plan to be saved; some will not thus do, and hence, remain lost.  But, the plan is here, and is available to all men; if all men are not saved, it will be because they do not accept and follow the plan” (Taylor, Studies in Romans, pp. 104-105, quoting Woods, G.A. Adult Quarterly, Winter, 1968).

Moreover, the law entered that the offense abound.  But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more, so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Romans 5:20-21).

God gave Israel the law of Moses.  It “entered” (pareiselthen, came in besides – Vine’s).  It came in besides the rest of the world (non-Israelites).  The law did not change man’s spiritual condition.  Sin reigned from Adam to Moses (Romans 5:14), and it continued to reign under the law of Moses.  In fact, it entered that sin might abound (Romans 5:20).  (a) Some take this to mean that one of the reasons God gave the law of Moses was to make obvious man’s condition (cf. Romans 7:7, 13).  (b) Others believe that “that” denotes effect and not purpose (cf. Matthew 23:34-35; John 9:39; 12:40, etc.).  More legislation means more opportunities to sin, and more transgressions.

However, God’s grace is more than capable of covering all of man’s sins through Jesus Christ.  “Amazing grace! how sweet the sound, That saved a wretch like me!  I once was lost, but now am found, was blind but now I see” (Song: Amazing Grace by John Newton).

Posted in calvinism, Catholic, Doctrine, Man, Nature, Sin | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

A Sense of Urgency

Posted on March 30, 2017 by Bryan Hodge

I recently finished watching Ken Burns’ series, The Roosevelts: An Intimate History.  The 14 hour series weaves the lives of Theodore, Franklin, and Eleanor Roosevelt into a single narrative.  He suggests that both Theodore and Franklin were driven by a sense of urgency.  They wanted to get as much done as quickly as they could.

Robert Caro has written four volumes (and he is not done), nearly 3,300 pages (so far) of biography on Lyndon B. Johnson.  Repeatedly, he emphasizes L.B.J.’s sense of urgency.  The clock was ticking, and he knew it.  Caro writes, “According to family lore, Johnson men had weak hearts and died young.  All during his youth, Lyndon had heard relatives say that.  Then, while he was still in college, and his father was only in his early fifties, his father’s heart began to fail, and Sam Ealy Johnson had died in 1937, twelve days after his sixtieth birthday.  Sam Ealy had two brothers, George and Tom Johnson.  George, the youngest of the three brothers, suffered a massive heart attack in 1939 and died a few months later, at the age of fifty-seven.  In 1946, at the age of sixty-five, Tom suffered a heart attack, and in 1947 he had a second.  Lyndon Johnson, who had been deeply aware of his remarkable physical similarity to his tall, gawky, big-eared, big-nosed father, was convinced – convinced to what one of his secretaries calls “the point of obsession” – that he had inherited the family legacy.  ‘I am going to live to be but sixty,’ he would say… whenever it was suggested that he might make his career in the House of Representatives, he would reply, in a low voice: ‘Too slow, too slow.’  Rayburn had begun trudging along that path early – he had been only thirty years old when first elected to Congress in 1912 – and it had taken him twenty-five years, until 1937, to become Majority Leader; he had not become Speaker until 1940, at the age of fifty-eight.  But Sam Johnson had died at the age of sixty… he might not break the seniority system before he died… he would make a run for the Senate in 1948″ (Caro, The Years of Lyndon Johnson: Means of Ascent, pp. 136-139).  If he was to achieve the kind of power that he wanted, he felt that he must get out of the House; he had to win a Senate seat.  His life was relatively short.  He would die at the age of 64.

Do we, as Christians, have a sense of urgency?  I am nearly 52 years of age.  If I die at an average age, I have 20 or 25 years to accomplish something for my God and Savior.  Time is ticking.  I am afraid that many Christians are lacking a sense of urgency.  They will talk to their friend about Christ some day, not today.  They will reconcile with their brother some day, not today.  They will truly be totally committed to Christ and involved in the work of the church some day, not today.  “You do not know what will happen tomorrow.  For what is your life?  It is even a vapor that appears for a little time and then vanishes away” (James 4:14).

Do we, as a church, have a sense of urgency?  A work is proposed.  The proposal is tabled to be discussed next year.  There is a lost and dying world who needs to hear the true gospel.  Are we fulfilling our mission?  We are taught, “Walk in wisdom toward those who are outside, redeeming the time” (Colossians 4:5).  “Swiftly we’re turning life’s daily pages, Swiftly the hours are changing to years; How are we using God’s golden moments, Shall we reap glory, Shall we reap tears? \ Millions are groping without the gospel, Quickly they’ll reach eternity’s night; Shall we sit idly as they rush onward?  Haste let us hold up Christ the true light \ Souls that are precious, souls that are dying, While we rejoice our sins are forgiven; Did he not also die for these lost ones?  Then let us point the way unto heav’n \ Into our hands the gospel is given, Into our hands is given the light, Haste, let us carry God’s precious message, Guiding the erring; back to the right. (Song: Swiftly We’re Turning by Mrs. Roy Carruth and Tillit S. Teddlie).

Posted in be ready, Christian Influence, evangelism, Forgiveness, Preachers, Preaching, Soul Winning, stewardship, Time | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Is Man Born In Sin? (Part 1)

Posted on March 20, 2017 by Bryan Hodge

Calvinism is a doctrine which has influenced many denominations.  It is summed up in five points, known as the TULIP.  T = Total Hereditary Depravity.  U = Unconditional Election.  L = Limited Atonement.  I = Irresistible Grace.  P = Perseverance of the Saints.

In this writing, we will address the first point.  Is man born inheriting the guilt of Adam’s sin?  Is man born totally depraved?

Here are some passages which some say teaches that man is born in sin –

1.  Psalm 51:5, “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.”

The NIV reads, “Surely, I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.”  This is a poor rendering of the text.

What does this verse teach?  (1) Some believe that this teaches inherited guilt of sin.  However, this view seems to contradict other Bible passages (e.g. Ezekiel 18:21).  (2) Some believe that David’s mother conceived him in sin.  I do not believe that this is the context.  David is confessing his personal sin with Bathsheba.  He repetitively speaks of “my transgressions,”  “My iniquity,” and “My sin” (Psalm 51:2-3, 9).  He says, “I sinned” (Psalm 51:4).  He is not, in context, focused on any one’s sin, but his own.  N.B. Hardeman once said to a man who thought that David had inherited sin, “If from the father, then the 51st Psalm has nothing to say about the matter of hereditary total depravity since it makes no mention of the father.  But if the sin is inherited from the mother, then this would make a sinner out of the infant Jesus, since He was born of a human mother” (Roy Deaver, Psalms Vol. 1, p. 171).  Mary needed a Savior (Luke 1:47 cf. 2:11).  (3) Some believe that this refers to the sin of Judah and Tamar (Genesis 38:13-20). The descendants of such union were to be excluded from entering the congregation for ten generations (Deuteronomy 23:2). David is the tenth generation (Ruth 4). The difficulty again, with this view is that David does not appear to be discussing such in this context. He is confessing his personal sins. Moreover, the tenth generation may be a way of saying forever, ten may refer to completeness. This is to say that the individual is excluded forever (Deuteronomy 23:2 cf. 23:3) (4) Some believe that David is saying that he was born into a sinful world.  Again, I fail to see how this is the point in context.  This is about David having done evil (Psalm 51:3), and being guilty of “bloodshed” (Psalm 51:14).  Gus Nichols pointed out, “If I were to say, ‘Behold I was brought forth in a cucumber patch, and in a field did my mother conceive me,’ it does not mean that he was, therefore, a cucumber” (Tom Wacaster, The Songs and Devotions of David, Vol. 3, pp. 39-40).  The environment into which David was born is not the issue.  His own sin is.  (5) I believe that this is a hyperbole.  David is saying that as far back as he could remember he had engaged in sin.  It was as if he had been born that way (cf. Job 31:16-18; Psalm 58:3).  It is not literal language (cf. Ecclesiastes 7:29; Ezekiel 28:11-12, 15).  John Haley suggests, “The text is simply an oriental hyperbolic way of saying that he had begun to sin at the earliest of periods” (Haley, Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible, p. 161).  The NIV, while not accurately rendering the words of this verse, may have expressed the hyperbolic sentiment of David (though, such is the function of a commentator and not a translator).

2.  Psalm 58:3, “The wicked are estranged from the womb; They go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies.”

This is another case of hyperbole.  Infants do not lie.  The word “infant” is from the Latin: In = not, Fant = speaking.  Tom Wacaster comments, “The fact that they ‘go astray’ suggests free moral agency, not total hereditary depravity.  Their departure begins, ‘as soon as they are born,’ when they reach the capability of ‘speaking lies.’  The language here is exaggerated, a form of poetic style.  We learn from this verse the tremendous importance of providing training in righteousness at an early age.  A young impressionable mind left to itself will go astray.  If unchecked, the end result is wickedness” (Tom Wacaster,  The Songs and Devotions of David, Vol. 3, p. 119).  Wayne Jackson writes, “Psalm 58:3 is merely acknowledging that human beings commence sinful activities in the early stages of life relatively speaking, cf. Genesis 8:21” (Jackson, Notes from the Margin of My Bible, Vol. 1, p. 88).

This is much like Job 31:16-18, in which Job says – “If I have kept the poor from their desire, or caused the eyes of the widow to fail, or eaten my morsel by myself, so that the fatherless could not eat of it (But from my youth I reared him as a father, and from my mother’s womb I guided the widow)…”  Job is saying that he would deserve the wrath of God, if he had done such things.  However, such is not how he has lived, or lives.  He had cared for the fatherless from his youth.  He had cared for the widow from his mother’s womb.  This is not literal language.  This is a hyperbole.  He was brought up doing this.  The womb is in juxtaposition with youth.  He simply means, “As far back as I can remember, this is how I have conducted myself in regards to orphans and widows.”

3.  Exodus 20:5, “I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate me.”

There is a distinction which should be made between inheriting consequences to previous generations sins, and inheriting guilt.  (1) Children may inherit the consequences of their ancestors sins (cf. Numbers 14:32-33; Deuteronomy 28:15, 32; 1 Samuel 8:10-18; 2 Kings 20:14-18).  (2) However, the Bible does not teach that children inherit guilt (Deuteronomy 24:16; Ezekiel 18, esp. v. 4 and v. 20).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in calvinism, Doctrine, Man, Nature, Sin, Textual study | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Paying Taxes

Posted on March 10, 2017 by Bryan Hodge

This time of the year can be frustrating.  Documents are gathered.  Receipts are gathered and reviewed.  It is tax season.

It is a complicated system.  The government favors or incentivizes certain behavior and business.  Can’t we just go to a flat tax or a consumption tax system?

Donald Rumsfeld (twice former Secretary of Defense, he held high government offices from  1963 till 2006) sends a version of the following letter to the IRS each year: “I have sent in our federal tax and our gift tax returns for 2013.  As in prior years, it is important for you to know that I have absolutely no idea whether our tax returns and tax payments are accurate.  I say this despite the fact that I am a college graduate and I try hard to make sure our tax returns are accurate.  The tax code is so complex and the forms are so complicated, that I know that I cannot have any confidence that I know what is being requested, and therefore I cannot and do not know, and I suspect a great many Americans cannot know, whether or not their tax returns are accurate.  As in past years, I have spent more money than I wanted to spend to hire an accounting firm to prepare our tax returns and I believe that they are well qualified.  If you have questions, let me know and I will ask our accountants to be in touch with you and try to provide any additional information you may think you need.  I do hope that at some point in my lifetime, and I am now in my 80’s, so there are not many years left, the U.S. government will simplify the U.S. tax code so that those citizens who sincerely want to pay what they should, are able to do it right, and they know that they have done it right.  I should add that my wife of 59 years, also a college graduate, has signed our joint return, but she also knows that she does not have any idea whether or not our tax payments are accurate” (economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2014/04/donald-rumsfeld-s-taxes).  I include this mainly for humor.

We should honestly do our duty.  (1) We are not to be dishonest (Ephesians 4:25; Colossians 3:9-10; Revelation 21:8).  (2) We are to be subject to governing authorities (Romans 13:1-2; Titus 3:1-2; 1 Peter 2:13-17).  (3) We are to render “taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs” (Romans 13:7).

Not everyone is honest.  There were 7 million fewer dependents for the tax year 1986 than for 1985.  What happened?  It was for the year 1986 that a social security number was first required to claim a child as a dependent.  No longer could two or more taxpayers claim the same dependent for the year.  No longer could one fraudulently claim a pet as a dependent (story told in Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner’s Freakonomics, pp. 22, 254-255).

If you do not like the tax code, do not blame the IRS.  Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner writes, “The first thing to remember is that the IRS doesn’t write the tax code.  The agency is quick to point its finder at the true villain: ‘In the United States, the Congress passes tax laws, and requires taxpayers to comply,’ its mission statement says” (Freakonomics, p. 251).

Posted in Ethics, Government, Honesty, Money | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Adversary (Part 3)

Posted on March 6, 2017 by Bryan Hodge

A 2016 Gallup poll found: (1) 11% said that they did not believe in God; (2) 27% said that they did not believe in the devil; (3) 15% did not believe in heaven; (4) 22% did not believe in hell (gallup.com/poll/193271/americans-believe-god.aspx).  Every poll that I have ever seen indicate a similar pattern: More people believe in God and heaven, than believe in the devil and hell.

However, the Bible teaches the reality of both God and the devil, and both heaven and hell. We have an adversary, and he “walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour” (1 Peter 5:8).

His Power

Does Satan have power?  He certainly does.  Consider the book of Job: (1) He influenced evil men (Sabeans, Chaldeans) to  attack Job’s house (Job 1:12 cf. 1:13-15, 17).  How did he do this?  We are not told.   When Satan affected the heart of Ananias (Acts 5:3), Ananias was complicit in the matter and responsible (Acts 5:4).  (2) He caused violent weather (a. the fire of God = lightning?, b. wind) to come on Job’s house  (Job 1:12 cf. 1:16, 18-19).  How did he do this?  We are not told.  However, he was only able to do this because God permitted it (Job 1:12).  (3) He caused disease to come to Job (Job 2:6-7).   How did he do this?  We are not told.  However, he was only able to do this because God permitted it (Job 2:6).  Satan did not force Job to turn from God.  He used indirect means (men and nature) to attempt to get Job to turn from God.  Kerry Duke well states, “Apparently, the devil was allowed to utilize the physical environment to afflict Job – a sort of ‘Satanic providence’… The devil appears to exert an influence on the world which is roughly parallel to God’s providence.  As with God’s providence, this activity is hidden from our view.  Perhaps it is through this means that the devil tempts us… God allows Satan to have enough power to test severely our will, but He does not permit him to coerce us to sin.  We have the ability to resist the devil (James 4:7)” (Duke, God at a Distance, p. 170).

Miraculous Power

Has Satan been allowed to use miraculous power?  It is not clear to me that he ever has.  Darrell Conley has written, “If the devil also possesses supernatural power and is able to perform miracles, then we would have no way of confirming God’s word.  We would not know whether God was doing it, or the devil” (Conley, The Gospel Versus Occultism, p. 18).

What about: (1) Pharaoh’s magicians (Exodus 7-8)?  I believe that it was trickery.  (a) It is interesting that when they had prior knowledge of what was to be done, they were able to duplicate it (Exodus 7:14-22; 8:1-7).  However, when they had no advanced warning, they were unable to duplicate it (Exodus 8:16-18).  (b) It is interesting that it was through Moses and Aaron plagues were removed (Exodus 8:8-14; 8:29-31; 9:28-34; 10:16-19).  The magicians were unable to remove such (Exodus 9:10-11).  [Note: For more information see article Questions About The Exodus by B.H.].

(2) The witch at En Dor (1 Samuel 28)?  I believe that it was God, and not this witch, who brought up Samuel.  (a) The woman cried out with a loud voice, when she saw Samuel.  She seems to have been greatly surprised.  (b) The LORD said through Jeremiah, “Do not listen to your prophets, your diviners, your dreamers, your soothsayers… for they prophesy a lie to you” (Jeremiah 27:9-10).  Where is the clear passage which indicates that anyone other than God can foretell the future?  The Bible indicates that God alone knows the future (Isaiah 44:6-8; 46:9-10).  [Note: For more information see article Demons (Part Two) by B.H.].

(3) Slave girl at Philippi (Acts 16:16-24)?  She was demon possessed.  She is said to have had a spirit of divination.  Could she foretell the future?  I am not convinced that she could.  Darrell Conley has written, “The (original B.H.) word ‘divination’ is a word which also means ‘ventriloquism,’ which in turn is a word that does not carry with it the idea of ‘throwing one’s voice,’ but of ‘speaking from the belly,’ which is how the illusion of distance is achieved.   That the girl was actually possessed by a demon is clear.  That the demon caused her to claim the power to divine is also clear.  That the demon itself may have spoken these things from within her (‘speaking from the belly’) is likely.  That the demon was able to actually divine the future is not substantiated by the text” (Conley, pp. 20-21).  [Note: For more information see article Demons (Part Two) by B.H.].

If Satan has been allowed to use miraculous power, then in those Biblical instances, God’s power has also been present and superior.  Aaron’s rod swallowed the rods of the magicians (Exodus 7:8-13).  Jesus and His disciples cast out demons (e.g. Acts 16:16-18).

If I Were Satan

It does not take Satanic miracles to mislead people.  It can be done in much more subtle ways.

(1) I would try to convince people that they can start obeying God tomorrow.  There is always tomorrow.  There is plenty of time.  But, I would know that this is a lie.  Time will eventually run out.

(2) I would try to get them to believe in salvation by mental faith alone, or by water baptism alone.  They can debate which is correct.  However, both will be wrong.

(3)  I would try to convince Christians that lukewarm, half-hearted devotion pleases God.  But, I would know that such would not be acceptable (Revelation 3:16; Luke 14:26, 27, 33).

(4) I would try to get members to hear, but not do.  They would think that they are pleasing to God by attending alone.  I would know that God expects more (James 1:22).

(5) I would try to convince them that worship is all that matters.  They can live like the world, and so long as they worship – God will be pleased.  It would be a lie (1 Timothy 2:8; James 4:8).

(6) I would try to get them to believe that it does not matter which church they attend.  One church is as good as another.  But, I would know that these various churches do not even teach the same plan of salvation.

(7) I would try to get them to believe that God does not care how they worship.  He only cares that they worship.  This would be very deceptive (Matthew 15:8-9; John 4: 24).

(8) I would try to get the church to forget its true mission as the pillar and ground of truth (2 Timothy 3:15).  I would turn it into little more than a social club.

(9) I would instigate fusses and fights among brethren over the smallest of matters, Biblically insignificant matters.  This would greatly hinder the work of the church (John 17:20-21; 1 Corinthians 1:10; Philippians 2:1-2; 3:16; 4:2).

I think that he is doing an outstanding job.  What do you think?

His Destiny

“Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels'” (Matthew 25:41).  Hell was a placed prepared for the devil and his angels.  The unrighteous who follow him will also be there.

We are in a fight for our eternal souls.  We have an adversary.  He is seeking to devour us (1 Peter 5:8).  Do not be deceived.

Posted in Angels, Apologetics, Demons, satan, Stats | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Adversary (Part 2)

Posted on February 27, 2017 by Bryan Hodge

The Bible teaches that we have an adversary.  Peter warned, “Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil walks about like a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour” (1 Peter 5:8).  He is presented as real and dangerous.

His Names

The Bible refers to our adversary by the following names:

1.  Satan

The Hebrew term (Satan) appears 24 times in the Old Testament.  It is rendered in English: “adversary,” and “Satan.”  It is sometimes used of an adversary, in general (e.g. 1 Samuel 29:4; 1 Kings 11:14, 23, 25).  It is sometimes used of the adversary (e.g. Job 1:6, 7, 8, 9, 12; 2:1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7; Zechariah 3:1-2).  The word means “adversary.”

The Greek word (Satanas, Satan) appears 35 times in the New Testament.  It is consistently rendered “Satan.”  It is sometimes used as an adversary, in general (e.g. Matthew 16:22-23).  It is most often used of the adversary (e.g. Revelation 12:9).  The word means “adversary.”

2.  Devil

The Greek word (diabolos) appears 36 times in the New Testament.  It is consistently rendered “devil.”  It is consistently used of the adversary.  The word is used of Satan (Revelation 12:9; 20:2).  The word means “an accuser, a slanderer” (Vine’s).  He slandered God to man, accusing Him of lying, and withholding something good from man (Genesis 3:4-5).  He is a liar (John 8:44).  He accused Job of only serving God because of physical benefits (Job 1:6-12; 2:1-7).  He misjudged Job.

The word diabolos should not be confused with daimon.  The King James Version frequently renders daimon as devil.  However, the word refers to a demon.

The word diabolos does appear in the plural twice (1 Timothy 3:11; 2 Timothy 3:3).  It is rendered by most translations as “slanderers” or “false accusers.”  In the plural, it does not refer to the devil, but wicked men and women.

3.  Adversary

This word (antidikos) appears in 1 Peter 5:8.  The word means “firstly, an opponent in a lawsuit… is also used to denote an adversary or an enemy without reference to legal affairs” (Vine’s).

4.  Abaddon/Apollyon

Abaddon is the Hebrew; Apollyon is the Greek equivalent.  The word is translated “destruction” in the Old Testament (Job 26:6; 28:22; 31:12; Psalm 88:11; Proverbs 15:11; 27:20).  It is used just once of the adversary (Revelation 9:11).

5.  Beelzebub (Baal-Zebub)

This word appears 11 times in the Bible.  It appears in the Old Testament 4 times (2 Kings 1:2, 3, 6, 16).  It is used of the god of Ekron, a Philistine city.  It appears 7 times in the New Testament (Matthew 10:25; 12:24-27; Mark 3:22-23; Luke 11:15-18).  It is equated with Satan (Matthew 12:26-27; Mark 3:22-23; Luke 11:15-18).  He is the ruler or prince of demons (Mark 3:22; Luke 11:15).

Why is Satan called Beelzebub?  (1) “It is a well-known phenomenon in the history of religions that the gods of one nation become the devils of its neighbors and enemies” (I.S.B.E. Vol. 1, p. 423).  It is possible that Israelites began to use the name of the Philistine god as a name for the devil.  (2) Beelzebub literally means “Lord of the dwelling.”  It is used in the New Testament in connection with demon possession (cf. Matthew 12:29; Mark 3:27; Luke 11:20-22).

6.  Belial

The word is a Hebrew word which was translated into Greek.  It is most frequently used in the Bible of evil men (e.g. Deuteronomy 13:13; “corrupt men”; 1 Samuel 25:17, “scoundrel”).  However, it may be used of the adversary twice (Nahum 1:15, “the wicked one”; 2 Corinthians 6:15, “Belial”).  The word means “either ‘worthless’ or ‘hopeless ruin’… ‘extreme wickedness and destruction,’ the later indicating the destiny of the former” (Vine’s).  “The term implies ‘reckless,’ ‘lawless.’  The word also came to be used as a synonym for ‘vain fellow’ or ‘fool,’ a ‘good for nothing'” (The Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary, p. 104).

7.  Serpent/Dragon (Leviathan)

This terminology is found together 3 times in scripture (Isaiah 27:1; Revelation 12:9; 20:2). The term dragon is used of the adversary and wickedness 12 times in Revelation (Revelation 12:3,4,7,9,13,16,17; 13:2,4,11; 16:13; 20:2). The term serpent is used of the adversary 5 times in the New Testament (2 Corinthians 11:3; Revelation 12:9,14,15; 20:2). Satan is called the serpent because he appeared as a serpent to Adam and Eve (Genesis 3:1-6).  He is called the dragon due to his might (cf. description of Leviathan Job 41).

8.  The prince of demons/The ruler of demons

He is so-called 3 times (Matthew 9:33-34; 12:22-24; Mark 3:22).  He evidently had rule over the demons which were afflicting humanity.

9.  The prince of power of the air

This name is used only once (Ephesians 2:2).  Paul is appealing to a contemporary belief.  Adam Clarke comments, “Satan is termed prince of the power of the air, because the air is supposed to be the region in which malicious spirits dwell, all of whom are under the direction and influence of Satan, their chief” (Clarke’s Commentary, Vol. 6, p. 437).

10.  The god of this world/The ruler of this world

This language is used twice (John 12:31; 2 Corinthians 4:14).  His influence is greater than many realize.  John said “the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one” (1 John 5:19).

11.  The wicked one

He is so-called at least 11 times (Matthew 5:37; 6:13; 13:19; 13:38; Luke 11:4; Ephesians 6:16; 1 John 2:13, 14; 3:12; 5:18, 19).  The word “wicked” (poneros) “expresses especially the active form of evil” (Vine’s).  He is active.

12.  The Tempter

He is twice so-called (Matthew 4:3; 1 Thessalonians 3:5).  The Greek word (peirazon) means “the (one) tempting” (Vine’s), or “the always tempting one” (Wayne Jackson, The Book of Job, p. 105).

Why Does Satan Seek to Destroy Us?

We are not told.  Some believe that it is because he is jealous of man’s relationship with God.  Others have suggested that it is because he wishes to deprive God a relationship with man.

The reason really does not matter.  The righteous will never have peace with him.  Whatever his motives, it is more important to know how to resist this adversary.  He can be resisted (James 4:7).  God has provided the necessary armor for us to stand against the wiles of the devil (Ephesians 6:11-ff).

How Does He Seek to Destroy Us?

Flip Wilson used to say, “The devil made me do it.”  However, the truth is, the devil does not force you to sin.  He is the tempter (Matthew 4:3; 1 Thessalonians 3:5).  He tempts.  However, if one is drawn away, it is by his own lust (James 1:14-15).  Bert Thompson has written, “It is important to recognize that while Satan is the originator of sin, he is not the immediate cause of sin… Satan’s constant coercion and tantalizing temptation do not, and cannot override man’s free will” (Thompson, Satan – His Origin and Mission, pp. 20-21).

Satan is not allowed to be an irresistible force.  God limits what he can do (Job 1:12; 2:16).  We are promised: “God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make a way of escape, that you may be able to bear it” (1 Corinthians 10:13).  We can resist him (James 4:7).  God has provided the proper armor against him (Ephesians 6:11).

He is the tempter (Matthew 4:3; 1 Thessalonians 3:5).  I do not claim to fully understand how he is able to bring about temptation.  However, I do know that there are three basic areas in which man is tempted (1 John 2:15-17).  He tempts through the lust of the flesh (fleshly appetites), the lust of the eyes (sensual desires), and the pride of life (glory, honor).

This is how he tempted Eve (Genesis 3).  The fruit was good for food (lust of the flesh).  The fruit was pleasant to the eyes (the lust of the eyes).  The fruit was desirable to make one wise (pride of life).

This is how he tempted Jesus (Matthew 4).  He tempted Jesus to turn the stones into bread (lust of the flesh).  He showed Him the kingdoms of the worlds and their glory (lust of the eyes).  He tempted Him to prove that He was under God’s protective care (pride of life).

He still uses these three methods.  Beware.

Posted in Angels, Apologetics, Demons, satan, Word Study | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Adversary (Part 1)

Posted on February 14, 2017 by Bryan Hodge

The more one understands about an opponent, the better prepared one is to deal with an opponent.  Consider: (1) This is true in sports.  Teams spend a great deal of time studying video of opponents.  They want to understand strengths and weaknesses, tendencies and tactics.  They want to minimize surprises.  (2) This is true in debate.  One is greatly helped, if one knows the arguments, answers, words, and tactics used in the past by an opponent.  This minimizes surprises.  (3) This is true in military.  It is said that during a battle in North Africa, General George Patton shouted, “I read your book, Rommel!  I read your book!”  Field Marshal Erwin Rommel had written a book, Infantry Attacks, which was published in 1937.  This book revealed much about Rommel’s thinking and tactics.  Patton knew the enemy, and this led to success in battle.  (4) This is also true spiritually.  the more we understand about the Adversary, the better prepared we can be.

His Origin

Some believe that Ezekiel 28:1-19 speaks of his origin.  He was created (Ezekiel 28:13, 15).  He was created perfect (Ezekiel 28:15).  He was the anointed Cherub (Ezekiel 28:14).  He was in the garden of Eden (Ezekiel 28:13).  He sinned (Ezekiel 28:15-19).

However, the context concerns the prince or King of Tyre (Ezekiel 28:1-2, 11-12).  The terms “prince” and “king” are sometimes used as synonyms (cf. Psalm 76: 12).  This is about man (Ezekiel 28:2, 7-10).

Highly figurative language is used in Ezekiel 28.  The King of Tyre is compared to: (a) Adam living in Eden (Ezekiel 28:13).  He was surrounded by beauty.  (b) The anointed Cherub (Ezekiel 28:14a).  He was the protector, the guardian of the paradise in which he lived.  (c) One on the holy mountain of God (Ezekiel 28:14b).  He was in fellowship with God.  However, due to pride and sin he was cast out of the holy mountain (Ezekiel 28:2, 5, 16-17).  The sword would kill him (Ezekiel 28:7-10).  Babylon is in view, coming against him (Ezekiel 26:7; 29:18).

Some believe that while this is primarily about the King of Tyre, the King’s downfall is being compared to the downfall of Satan.  I suppose that it is possible.  However, I see nothing which demands this view. Some may infer it, but the text does not imply it.

The Bible does not clearly address the origin of Satan.  However, Satan does not seem to possess the characteristics of deity.  Wayne Jackson writes, “The devil is clearly not omnipotent as is evident by the following: (a) His power to afflict was limited (Job 1:12; 2:6); (b) When rebuked by the messenger of Jehovah, he had to remain silent (Zechariah 3:2); …  (d) He had to ‘ask’ for the apostles (Luke 22:31); (e) He can ‘snatch’ no one from the Lord’s hand (John 10:28)…  (g) When cast into hell he will be powerless to resist (Revelation 20:10).  Moreover, scripture affirms that He is in us (i.e., God) is greater than he (i.e. the devil) that is in the world (1 John 4:4) to sum it up: (1) Deity is all-powerful.  (2) But Satan is not all-powerful.  (3) Thus, Satan is not deity” (Jackson, The Book of Job, p. 107).  Bert Thompson writes, “The only possible conclusion one can reach regarding Satan is that he is not deity.  But such a conclusion has serious implications.  If Satan does not partake of the nature of deity, then he cannot be eternal.  Then, he must be a created being” (Thompson, Satan – His Origin and Mission, p. 9).

All things created were created by God through His Word (Jesus).  Consider: “For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers.  All things were created through Him and for Him” (Colossians 1:16); “All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made” (John 1:3).

His Fall

1. Some believe that Isaiah 14:12-15 speaks of Satan’s fall.  He’s referred to as “Lucifer” (from the Hebrew root halal meaning “to shine,” the Latin term “Lucifer” adopted from Jerome’s Latin Vulgate means “light-bearing”).  He wanted to ascend above all.  He wanted to be like the Most High (Isaiah 14:13-15).  He would be brought down (Isaiah 14:12, 15).

However, the context concerns the King of Babylon (Isaiah 14:3-4).  It is about a man (Isaiah 14:16).

Some believe that while this is primarily about the King of Babylon, the King’s downfall is being compared to the downfall of Satan.  I suppose that it is possible.  However, nothing in context demands this view.  Some may infer this, but it is not implied.

2. Some believe that Luke 10:17-18 speaks of Satan’s fall.  Jesus says, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven” (Luke 10:18).

However, the context does not refer to Satan’s original fall.  The context concerns the mission of the seventy (Luke 10:1, 17).  H. Leo Boles comments, “With a prophetic eye Jesus saw the downfall of Satan.  The demons being subject to the seventy gave the occasion for Jesus to utter this prophecy” (Boles, A Commentary on The Gospel According to Luke, pp. 219-220).  This foresees Satan’s defeat. Jesus saw him falling quickly from power, as lightning falls from the sky.

3. It seems likely that Revelation 12:7-9 is a flashback to Satan’s fall.  Though, we must be careful.  The book of Revelation is a book of symbols (Revelation 1:1). Some well-respected Bible students are not so sure that Satan’s original fall is in view.

Consider these facts: (1) The Bible speaks of the devil and his angels (Matthew 25:41).  (2) Some angels did sin (Job 4:18; 2 Peter 2:4; Jude 6).  (3) The devil has sinned from the beginning (1 John 3:8).  Guy Woods and Roy Lanier Jr. suggests this most likely means that he was the first to sin (Woods, A Commentary on Peter, John and Jude, p.267; Lanier, Epistles of John, p. 91).  (4) Pride seems to have led to his fall (1 Timothy 3:6).  It seems reasonable to conclude that the devil was a heavenly being (perhaps an angel) who rebelled against God.  Bert Thompson writes, “Since the scripture speaks of ‘the devil and his angels,’ it becomes reasonable to suggest that Satan was either the instigator, or leader (or both) of this heavenly revolt” (Thompson, Satan – His Origin and Mission, pp. 12-13).

Did God Create Evil?

If, by “evil,” one means sinful behavior, the answer is “no” (cf. James 1:13-14, 17).  Rex Turner Sr. writes, “God did not create evil, nor did he make or cause Satan to be evil” (Turner, Systematic Theology, p. 78).  Bert Thompson writes, “God did not create Satan as an evil adversary; rather, Satan became evil” (Thompson, Satan – His Origin and Mission, p. 9).

What about Isaiah 45:7?  “Evil” (KJV) refers to “calamity” (NKJV).  It refers to punishment to come upon Babylon (Isaiah 47:10-11).

Why Allow Satan’s Continued Influence?

We are not told why God allows Satan’s continued influence.  I am sure that He has His reasons.  “T. Pierce Brown has proposed, God may have ‘allowed Satan to retain his power, temporarily, until he is through using him to test and purify a people for his ultimate glory and purpose'” (Thompson, Satan – His Origin and Mission, p. 19).

Posted in Angels, Apologetics, God's Providence, History, satan | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

“Conspicuous Conservation”

Posted on February 10, 2017 by Bryan Hodge

Two young economists, Steve and Allison Sexton (twins), argue that the popularity of the Toyota Prius is found in “conspicuous conservation.”  Steve Sexton explains, “The Honda Civic hybrid looks like a regular Honda Civic.  The Ford Escape hybrid looks like a Ford Escape.  And so, our hypothesis is that if the Prius looked like a Toyota Camry or Toyota Corolla, it wouldn’t be as popular as it is.  And so what we set out to do in this paper is to test that empirically” (Levitt and Dubner, When to Rob a Bank, p. 185).  What did they conclude?  Stephen Dubner writes, “The question they really wanted to answer was this: How much value do people who lean green place on being seen leaning green?  The Sextons found that the Prius’s ‘green halo’ was quite valuable to its owners – and, the greener the neighborhood, the more valuable the Prius is” (ibid).  Collin Campbell writes, “When you drive a Prius, the Sextons argue, there’s a ‘green halo’ around you.  You make new friends, you get new business opportunities.  In an especially ‘green’ place like Boulder, Colorado, the effect could be worth as much as $7,000” (freakonomics.com/2011/04/21/conspicuous-conservation-and-the-prius-effect/).

Do not misunderstand me.  I am not defending their theory.  I have not seen the data. It is interesting an interesting theory. My aim in mentioning the theory is to get us to consider motives, why we do what we do. I am using it as a lead into a Biblical point.

Let us ask: Why we do what we do as Christians?  Would we do the same things if no one saw what we did?  Jesus said, “Take heed that you do not do your charitable deeds before men, to be seen by them.  Otherwise you have no reward from your Father in heaven. Therefore, when you do a charitable deed, do not sound a trumpet before you as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory from men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward” (Matthew 6:1-2); “And when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites.  For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men.  Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward” (Matthew 6:5); “Moreover, when you fast, do not be like the hypocrites, with a sad countenance.  For they disfigure their faces that they may appear to men to be fasting.  Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward” (Matthew 6:16).

God wants genuine devotion. He does not want devotion which is motivated by receiving glory from men. He certainly, does not want pretended devotion, to be seen by men as devoted to God.

I am afraid that many are pretending to be Christians.  Let us truly be Christians.  Let us live the Christian life whether anyone is watching or not.  It should not be about getting credit from men, but serving God. “Your Father who sees in secret will Himself reward you openly” (Matthew 6:4, 6, 18).

Posted in culture, Dedication, pride | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Why Was God Displeased at Babel?

Posted on January 31, 2017 by Bryan Hodge

The events at Babel (Genesis 11:1-9) occurred not long after the Flood.  If the division of the earth in the days of Peleg (Genesis 10:25) refers to the events at Babel (and I think that it does), then the events at Babel occurred about a century after the Flood [Peleg was born 101 years after the Flood (Genesis 11:10 + 11:12 + 11:14 + 11:16)].  If this is not correct, then it must have occurred between  the Flood and the call of Abram, a period of about four centuries {Abram’s call came 395 years after the Flood [Genesis 11:10 + 11:12 + 11:14 + 11:16 + 11:18 + 11:20 + 11:22 + 11:24 + (12:4 – 11:32)].  Note: Genesis 11:26 seems to mean that this is when Terah began to have sons, not that they were triplets (e.g. Noah’s sons Genesis 5:32 cf. 7:6; 11:10).  Abram did not leave Haran until Terah died (Acts 7:4)}.

The events at Babel changed the world.  Man was of one language and one speech (Genesis 11:1).  Due to the events at Babel, the LORD made it where man was (and is) no longer was united in language.

Obviously the LORD was displeased with something at Babel.  But what?  Let’s explore this…

Theories

1.   Theory One: They did not want to comply with God’s command.

“They said, ‘Come, let us build ourselves a city… lest we be scattered abroad over the face of the earth'” (Genesis 11:4).

Josephus wrote, “They settled on the Plain of Shinar, and grew so numerous that God counseled them to send out colonies.  In their disobedience, they imagined that God was trying to divide them and make them vulnerable to attack.  So they followed Nimrod, the grandson of Ham, who set up a tyranny” (Antiquities 1).

2.  Theory Two: They were prideful.

“They said, ‘Come let us build a city, and a tower… let us make a name for ourselves…'” (Genesis 11:4).

The river plains of Shinar seems to have lacked stones and lime-stone (mortar) for building (Clark, Genesis, p. 89).  This did not stop them. They were making bricks for stones. They used asphalt (bitumen) for mortar. They were building a city.  They were building a high tower.  Was there nothing that they could not do?  James Burton Coffman commented, “The children of men… were clearly infected with the ‘us’ virus, the pride arrogance, and conceit of the people standing starkly obvious in this cryptic account (Coffman, Genesis, p. 159).  It is said that Nimrod taught the people that happiness came not from serving God, “but to believe that it was their own courage which procured happiness” (Josephus, Antiquities 1).

What about the tower? Some have suggested that the tower was to be a fortified watch tower to protect against attacks from other people.

3.  Theory Three: They were trying to escape another flood.

“They said, ‘Come let us build… a tower whose top is in the heavens…'” (Genesis 11:4).

Josephus wrote, “So they followed Nimrod, the grandson of Ham, who sat up a tyranny and began building a tower higher than any water could reach in case God wanted to flood the earth again” (Antiquities 1).

4.  Theory Four: They were idolatrous.

“They said, ‘Come, let us build… a tower whose top is in the heavens” (Genesis 11:4).

The King James Version reads, “a tower whose top may reach unto heaven.”  Adam Clark commented, “there is nothing for ‘may reach’ in the Hebrew, but its head or summit to the heavens, i.e. to the heavenly bodies… The Targums both of Jonathan ben Uzziel and of Jerusalem, assert the tower was for idolatrous worship” (Clark, Vol. 1, p. 89).

Mesopotamian towers, known as Ziggurats or Zikkurate, are thought to have been part of ancient temple structures.  Some believe that the tower was such a structure.

Assessment of Theories

The reason that there are various theories is because the Bible provides limited information.  Therefore, men theorize.  Let’s assess these theories.

1.  Theory One seems possible.  Certainly, their motive was to prevent being scattered.  This is stated.

Let us remember: “Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness as iniquity and idolatry” (1 Samuel 15:23).

2.  Theory Two is more than a theory.  They wanted to make a name for themselves.  Keith Mosher Sr. has written, “The people were building a memorial to themselves…  Their real motive was a desire for renown and for unity of self-purpose rather than God-purpose” (Ed. Curtis Cates, The Book of Genesis, p. 184). They seem to have had the same attitude that Nebuchadnezzar later had when he said, “Is not this great Babylon, that I have built for a royal dwelling by my power and for the honor of my majesty?” (Daniel 4:30).

Let us remember: “Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall” (Proverbs 16:18); and “Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and He will lift you up” (James 4:10).

What about the theory the tower was a fortified watch tower to protect against attacks from others? I ask: attacks from whom? It appears that at least most, if not all of humanity were at Babel. I have seen no evidence to the contrary. Moreover, if it was a fortified tower, still pride or something else had to be involved for God to so react. God is not against nations protecting their citizens.

3.  Theory Three is not hinted at in the Bible.  Moreover, there seems to be obvious problems with this view.  Consider: (1) Who could make a tower so high, and strong enough to withstand the forces of water found in a global flood?  (2) If they were making the tower for this purpose, wouldn’t it make much more sense to build the tower on a high mountain top, instead of in the Mesopotamian valley area?  The elevation of that land is not high.  (3) If such a tower could be built, certainly it could not hold the entire population at the top, could it? This theory makes little sense to me.

Let us remember that no one can escape God’s wrath by such a strategy.  Remember the words of Amos, “It will be as though a man fled from a lion, and a bear met him!  Or as though he went into the house, leaned his hand on the wall, and a serpent bit him!  (Amos 5:19).

4.  Theory Four is not clearly taught in the Bible.  It is possible that they were worshipping objects in the sky; but this theory seems to lack sufficient evidence.

Let us remember: “You shall worship the LORD your God, and Him only you shall serve” (Matthew 4:10).

Lessons to Remember

1.  Not all unity is pleasing to God.  They were united at Babel in sin.

The kind of unity needed is found in these words: “only let your conduct be worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear of your affairs, that you stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel” (Philippians 1:27).

2.  Sin may have long-lasting consequences.  Men still have difficulty communicating because of differences in language.

However, the gospel is designed to unite man.  The Holy Spirit provided inspired men the gift of tongues to proclaim the gospel in the first century (cf. Acts 2:5-11).  The message of the gospel is for all of mankind (cf. Matthew 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-16; Luke 24:46-47; Romans 1:16).  The gospel is the great unifier (cf. Galatians 3:26-28; Colossians 3:10-11).

3.  While we may not have all the details, the events at Babel seem to be about an old issue: Who do we ultimately serve?  God or self?  God or society (and national pride)?  God or some other?  Who will be God?

 

 

Posted in josephus, pride, Textual study, Tongue | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment