Why Did God Allow…

Posted on December 22, 2014 by Bryan Hodge

There are things in the Bible that cause people to wonder, “Why did God allow this?” Let’s notice two such things.

1.  Polygamy?

God created only one man and one woman in the first home (Genesis 2:21-25; 3:21). Polygamy or polyandry was not there.

Polygamy is first mentioned in Genesis 4:19. It is stated as fact. No expressed approval or disapproval is set forth. Keep in mind, this is Patriarchal times. We do not have a written record of all that God taught during this time. However, we do know that as time went on such became more common. Some of the Bible’s great characters were polygamous, men such as—Abraham, Jacob, Esau, Gideon, David, Solomon and others.

This practice of polygamy often brought unrest into the family. It did so in Abraham’s house: Sarah and Isaac v. Hagar and Ishmael (Genesis 16; 21; Galatians 4). It did so in Jacob’s house: Rachel and Joseph v. Leah and her offspring (Genesis 29; 30; 37). It did so in Gideon’s house: Abimelech v. Gideon’s other sons (Judges 8-9). It may have been a factor in the house of David: Absalom and Tamar v. Amnon (2 Samuel 13 cf. 3:2-5; 13:4). There was also difficulty between Adonijah and Solomon (1 Kings 1-2).

How should we view this? Here are a few views: (1) It was sinful. The difficulty with this view is that Abraham “died in faith” (Hebrews 11:13). Never are Abraham, Jacob, or David rebuked for taking more than one wife. The Old Testament law regulated the practice of polygamy (Exodus 21:10; Deuteronomy 21:15-17). (2) It was tolerated by God, though it was a violation of His will. That is, it was sinful, but God overlooked such. The difficulty with this view is that our God does not simply overlook sin (Nahum 1:3; Habakkuk 1:13). What about Acts 17:30? J.W. McGarvey commented — “Paul does not mean that He excused it … he means that God had not hither-to attempted to break it up, as He does now by sending forth preachers of the truth” (New Commentary on Acts). I believe this to be correct. Moreover, God at times seems to sanction polygamy (Genesis 30:1, 22; Judges 19:2-3; 2 Samuel 12:1-3, 7-8). (3) It, though not the ideal, was not sinful. Kerry Duke “Polygamy and divorce are merely aspects of an unchanging moral principle the sanctity of marriage. This union is the only divinely authorized realm in which the sexual relationship can occur; sexual union outside this realm is sinful. This principle is permanent. But what constitutes a legitimate marriage has undergone some variation in divine teaching since Eden. Though some Old Testament marriages were composed of one man and several wives, they were marriages nonetheless. Concubines were not adulteresses … they were actually married … Judges 19:2-3 … Whether a man can have more than one wife at a time is a matter of divine positive law … Murder and adultery are wrong; no qualifying circumstances or principles justify these acts. But it is critical that these acts be precisely defined by biblical teaching” (Ox in the Ditch, pp. 74-75). This seems to me to be the best explanation.

What about under the New Testament? Polygamy is never authorized under the New Testament (Matthew 19:5; 1 Corinthians 7:2; 9:5; Ephesians 5:23 cf. 4:4).

2.  Slavery?

Today, when we think of slavery, our minds naturally think of the enslavement of Africans by Europeans and Americans. We think of racism. We think of inhumane treatment.

In truth, slavery existed throughout the world, and for thousands of years before the New-world enslavement of blacks started. “Before the modern era, by and large Europeans enslaved other Europeans, Asians enslaved other Asians, Africans enslaved other Africans, and the indigenous peoples of the Western Hemisphere enslaved other indigenous peoples of the Western Hemisphere. Slavery was not based on race, much less on theories about race. Only relatively late in history did enslavement crossing racial lines occur on such a scale as to promote an ideology of racism that outlasted the institution of slavery itself … To make racism the driving force behind slavery is to make a historically recent factor the cause of an institution which originated thousands of years earlier … Africa was resorted to as a source of large supplies of slaves only after centuries of Europeans enslaving other Europeans had been brought to an end by the consolidation of nations and empires on the European continent, by internal shifts from slavery to serfdom in much of Europe, and by the Catholic church’s pressure against enslaving fellow Christians … It was Africans who enslaved their fellow Africans, selling some of these slaves to Europeans or Arabs and keeping others for themselves. Even at the peak of the Atlantic slave trade, Africans retained more slaves for themselves than they sent to the Western Hemisphere … An estimated one-third of ‘free persons of color’ in New Orleans were slave owners … Black slave owners were even more common in the Caribbean” (Thomas Sowell, Black Rednecks and White Liberals, pp. 113, 115, 120, 127). Where did the racism connect with slavery? “If all men were created equal … then the only way to justify slavery was by depicting those enslaved as not fully men. A particularly virulent form of racism thus arose from a particularly desperate need to defend slavery … In short; racism was neither necessary nor sufficient for slavery, whose origins antedated racism by centuries. Racism was the result, not the cause of slavery” (ibid., p. 128).

Here are some things to keep in mind: (1) Slavery is not always tied to racism. (2) It is not always inhumane in its treatment. “The treatment of slaves has varied enormously” (ibid., p. 135).

Slavery was allowed under the Old Testament. Kidnapping was forbidden (Exodus 21:16; Deuteronomy 24:7). However, one could become a slave due to: (1) War (Numbers 31:7-35); (2) Criminal punishment/retribution (Exodus 22:2-3); (3) Debt (Leviticus 25:39-40; 2 Kings 4:1). God was concerned about their treatment (Leviticus 25:43).

God also recognizes this economic relationship under the New Testament. However, He instructs masters—“Masters, do the same things to them (treat them as God would have you to treat them, as a servant of God B.H.) giving up threatening, knowing that your own Master also is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him” (Ephesians 6:9). “Masters, give your bondservants what is fair, knowing that you also have a master in heaven” (Colossians 4:1).

Posted in Apologetics, Ethics, Marriage, Race, Stats, Work | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Bearing Burdens

Posted on December 19, 2014 by Bryan Hodge

“Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.”  ~ Galatians 6:2

“For each one shall bear his own load (burden – KJV).”  ~ Galatians 6:5

Galatians 6:2 – Paul is simply saying that as we go through life we should be concerned for each other.  We should use every opportunity to do good (Galatians 6:10; Romans 12:13).  Specifically, contextually he is saying that we should help those around us with their spiritual difficulties (Galatians 6:1-2; James 5:19-20).  Additionally, the Bible teaches that we as Christians have an obligation to aid in other areas of life as well (Matthew 25:31-46; Luke 10:29-37; 1 John 3:17).

Galatians 6:5 – Paul reminds us that regardless of whether or not others helped us as they should, we each ultimately are responsible for ourselves. What others did or did not do will not excuse in the end.  Each of us personally must appear before the judgment seat of Christ and give account of himself (2 Corinthians 5:10).

Note – The original word is different in the two verses. The word in Galatians 6:2 is “baros.” This word refers to a weight. Wayne Jackson indicates that this word is used of “any type of hardship which is capable of being shared by brethren” (Notes From The Margin Of My Bible Volume 2). The word in Galatians 6:5 is “phortion.” This word is used of  cargo which a ship was designed to carry (Acts 27:10) and of obligations (Matthew 11:30). Wayne Jackson comments, “One must bear his own responsibilities before God. Such cannot be regulated to another” (ibid).

Posted in Fellowship, Judgment, Soul Winning, stewardship, Textual study | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

A Few Great Lessons from Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy

Posted on December 17, 2014 by Bryan Hodge

The purpose of this article is to stimulate the interest in Bible students to study these often overlooked books. To many, these books are dry, uninteresting, and contain little application to life today, after all it was written to be the legal standard of a people who lived long, long ago. But, my friends, there is a wealth of information, and powerful lessons to be learned from these books. Let us look at just a few of these powerful lessons. Perhaps such a look will cause us to go back and study these books with greater detail.

Lesson #1

If we compare Luke 2:22-24 with Leviticus 12:8, it becomes apparent that Joseph and Mary were not wealthy people – In fact, they were poor (cf. Leviticus 12:1-8 cf. 14:21; 27:1-8). Now here’s the point: They were poor; Mary was pregnant before she had married Joseph (Matthew 1:18-20). It would have been easy, if Mary and Joseph were like so many today, to get an abortion (and yes, there was abortion, and abortion-inducing drugs then). But, they didn’t. Brethren, where would we be today if they had done this?

Each child aborted is a great tragedy! Among the aborted could be a Nobel Prize winner, a future President, a great musical talent, a faithful preacher of the Gospel, or worker in the Kingdom.

Let us remember that God called the unborn “life” (Exodus 21:22-25). The unborn, Biblically, is considered superior to sub-human animal life (Exodus 21:22-25; cf. 21:28-32; cf. 21:33-36). God used the same term “babe” (brephos) to describe the child in the womb, and the child out of the womb (Luke 2:21, 16; cf. Luke 1:39-44). He did not refer to the unborn as a blob, nor did He call it non-living matter (cf. Jeremiah 1:5). Then, let us remind ourselves that children are to be valued, “children are a heritage from the LORD” (Psalm 127:3). Our children belong to God (Ezekiel 18:4); they have been just been entrusted to our care for a short while.

 Lesson #2

Everyone is to give. No one is exempt. In Numbers 18:25-ff, we are informed that God expected even the Levites, who were supported by offerings, to make offerings themselves.  

Now, why is this important? I have met preachers who have wondered if they really ought to give or not, after all they are supported out of the contribution. But, notice that God expected the Levites of old to give.

There is no exception found in the New Testament. 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 instructs every one of us to give. Every preacher today should be an example of how to give (Acts 20:33-35). Giving is necessary for spiritual maturation. It teaches us to deny self. It teaches us to remember worthy causes and help in those areas of need. It reflects our spiritual faith in God. Yes, every preacher should be a giver! By the way, if the Jews were expected to give 10% (and maybe upward of 30% when all was calculated) how can we think of pulling out of our wallets or purses the smallest percentages, and think that God will be well pleased?

Lesson #3

Murmuring is not pleasing to God. At least 22 times does some form of this word appear in the books of Exodus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. Twenty-five times is the word used in connection with the Exodus journey, when the whole of the Bible is considered. God did not tolerate such. God struck people dead for this. It kept many from the promised land (1 Corinthians 10).

Some people, it seems, can complain about anything. If the preacher preaches his heart out hoping someone will respond and someone does, I guarantee that someone, somewhere, will complain over that few minutes it took for the preaching and response (cf. Luke 15:7, 10, 32). In one assembly I heard someone complain that the temperature was too hot, while another at that same place complained that the thermostat was set too cold! The Bible says that we are to “Do all things without murmurings and disputing” (Philippians 2:14). Let us not use our tongues to whine and complain. Let us use our tongues to edify one another (Ephesians 4:29).

Lessons #4

In Matthew 12:1-8, Jesus’ disciples are accused by the Pharisees without having violated the Old Testament law. If we read Exodus 12:16, it becomes apparent that they did not do any such thing. They had not violated the Sabbath laws (Exodus 12:16), and they certainly did not commit theft as some today charge. This likewise is apparent by simply reviewing the Old Testament law  (Deuteronomy 23:24-25; Leviticus 19:9-10, etc.). Jesus disciple were falsely accused. They had violated the Pharisees traditions. They had violated the Pharisees misunderstandings of the Old Testament; but, neither He nor His disciples had violated God’s standard on this occasion (And Jesus never did!).

Now, what I am saying is this: (1) From these Old Testament legal requirements we can find great treasures that help us to understand later accounts much clearer; (2) From these neglected books we learn just how God views certain things such as sin and especially misuse of the tongue. No, He may not presently deal with us the same way, but there is a judgment coming; (3) We learn timeless truths concerning when life actually begins, and how God views mankind in comparison with animal life.

I urge you not to neglect to study these books. It will be to your profit.

 

 

Posted in Abortion, Bible Study, Family, Giving, life, Mercy, Tongue | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

A Living Sacrifice

Posted on December 15, 2014 by Bryan Hodge

Some view life as a meaningless existence. Steven Lloyd paraphrased Ecclesiastes 1:4-7 with these words, “We go to bed late, we get up early, we go to work, we drive home, eat and go to bed, to get up early, to go to work, to come home, ad nausea. And, as if that were not enough, we are plagued with making ends meet financially, fighting off the latest virus, hoping to avoid some dreaded disease, mistreated at work and abused at home, and then we die. Every aspect of life seems vain and like striving after the wind” (Coping: A Biblical Approach, p. 8). Thirty times in Ecclesiastes the term “vanity” appears in some form.

Some view life entirely selfishly. They say, “It’s my life. I will live it my way. It’s my body. I will do with it as I please.”

The Christian should approach life differently. Life has purpose (Acts 17:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:20; 10:31; Philippians 1:20-21). Paul reasoned that we should live differently because of “the mercies of God” (Romans 12:1). God has been so merciful to us. When one considers what He has done for us, it should motivate one to live differently. Let’s notice…

1.  Relationship with God

“I beseech you, therefore by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service” (Romans 12:1).

Unlike animals that were killed in devotion to God, God wants us to live in devotion to Him. Who is to do the presenting? You are. What is to be presented? Your body (cf. 1 Corinthians 6:20). The idea takes on back to earlier words in this same book: “Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one’s slave whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness?” (Romans 6:16). Our lives are to be dedicated to God. “All to Jesus I surrender, all to Him I freely give; I will ever love and trust Him, in His presence daily live / All to Jesus I surrender, humbly at His feet I bow; worldly pleasures all forsaken, take me, Jesus, take me now / All to Jesus I surrender, Lord, I give myself to Thee; fill me with Thy love and power, let Thy blessings fall on me” (Song: All to Jesus I Surrender by J.W. DeVenter).

2.  Relationship with Sinful World

“And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God” (Romans 12:2).

We are to be radically different from the sinful world. The word “transformed” is metamorpheo. It is from this word that we get our word “metamorphosis,” which is used to refer to the transformation a caterpillar goes through becoming a butterfly.

This change does not start externally. It starts internally, in the mind. We must develop a will to do His will (John 7:17; 2 Thessalonians 2:10b). We must learn God’s will, and discern between right and wrong (Hebrews 5:13-14; 1 Thessalonians 5:21-22). A change of mind will produce a change of action (Proverbs 4:23; Mark 7:20-23). God’s word “effectively works” in believers (1 Thessalonians 2:13).

3.  Relationship with self

“For I say, through the grace given to me (miraculous grace, inspiration, apostolic authority (cf. Galatians 2:9; Romans 1:5; 15:15-16 – B.H.), to everyone who is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think…” (Romans 12:3).

When one understands that it is only by the grace of God that one is saved, such ought to have a humbling effect. Paul remarked, “But by the grace of God I am what I am” (1 Corinthians 15:10). Again, he said, “But God forbid that I should boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world has been crucified to me, and I unto the world” (Galatians 6:14). We are to gird ourselves with humility (1 Peter 5:5b).

4.  Relationship with brethren

“Let love be without hypocrisy” (Romans 12:9).

Brotherly love is taught repetitively in the scriptures (e.g. Romans 12;9; 12:10; 13:8-10; Galatians 5:13; 1 Thessalonians 4:9-10; Hebrews 13:1; 1 Peter 1:22; 2:17; 3:8; 1 John 2:10-11; 3:10-18; 4:7-11; 4:19-21; 5:1-3; 2 John 5-6). Our love is not to be faked but genuine (Romans 12:9; 1 Peter 1:22). Our love is to be demonstrated in action (Galatians 5:13; 1 John 3:16-18).

“Be kindly affectionate to one another with brotherly love, in honor giving preference to one another” (Romans 12:10).

 Roy Deaver commented, “’Preferring’ is the Greek ‘proegomai,’ and means to take the lead, to go before and show the way. The point is, in having an attitude of love and respect and high esteem for others, Christians ought to be examples to each other” (Romans: God’s Plan for Man’s Righteousness, p. 476). Foy Wallace Jr. commented, “Here it means leading one another on in honorable things. Inducing – promoting – exemplifying honor” (Commentary on Romans, Galatians and Ephesians, p. 58).

“Distributing to the needs of the saints” (Romans 12:13).

Christians are to be charitable people. We are to be “ready to give, willing to share” with those in need (1 Timothy 6:17-19). We are told, “As we have opportunity, let us do good to all, especially to those who are the household of faith” (Galatians 6:10). “Whoever has this world’s goods, and sees his brother in need, and shuts up his heart from him, how does God’s love abide in him?” (1 John 3:17).

“Be of the same mind toward one another. Do not set your mind on high things, but associate with the humble” (Romans 12:16).

Some people think themselves too important to associate with the lowly, or even the common man. Robert Taylor Jr. commented, “Too many members are FAR more comfortable in the company of the elite… than they are with down-to-earth Christians” (Studies in Romans, p. 222). This should not be. Christians are to be people persons. Christians are to love their brethren, even those of humble means and humble intelligence.

“Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep” (Romans 12:15).

We are to be part of one another’s lives. “We, being many, are one body in Christ, and individually members of one another” (Romans 12:5). “If one member suffers, all members suffer with it; or if one member is honored, all members rejoice with it” (1 Corinthians 12:26). “’When a thorn,’ says Chrysostom, ‘enters the heel, the whole body feels it, and is concerned: the back bends, the fore part of the body contracts itself, the hands come forward and draw out the thorn, the head stoops, the eyes regard the affected member with intense gaze. When the head is crowned, the whole man feels honored, the mouth expresses and the eyes look gladness” (McGarvey, Commentary on Thessalonians, Corinthians, Galatians, and Romans, p. 126).

5.  Relationship with others.

“If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men” (Romans 12:18).

Christians are to be a peace-loving people. We are taught, “Pursue peace with all people, and holiness, without which no one will see the Lord” (Hebrews 12:14). Robert Taylor Jr. commented, “Attitudes of antagonism may make it virtually impossible to be at peace with them. This is why Paul injected a qualifier here. But the lack of peace should be their fault – not due to cantankerous dispositions and sour-on-the-world attitudes and actions” (Studies in Romans, p 223).

“Do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath” (Romans 12:19).

We must not take the matter into our own hands. God has authorized governments to execute wrath (Romans 13:1-7). Moreover, we should remember that if the government does not repay, God will one day (2 Thessalonians 1:6-10).

“Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good” (Romans 12:21).

We are not to let another’s evil to cause us to do evil. “Do not say, ‘I will do to him just as he has done to me. I will render to the man according to his work” (Proverbs 24:29). Instead, we are to seek to win the evil-doer over with kindness. We are to use kind words instead of cursing (Romans 12:14). If our enemy is hungry or thirsty, we are to use this as an opportunity to show kindness. Good deeds may soften hard heads, as coals of fire do metal. Whether our good deeds change the person or not we are having “regard for good things in the sight of all men” (Romans 12:17).

Conclusion: When one truly gets the mercies of God it will change how he relates to: God, the sinful world, self, brethren, and others. It will change one’s entire life.

Posted in christian growth, Christian Influence, Chruch, Fellowship, Humility, Meaning and Purpose, Peace, Repentance, Textual study | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Saints Only Benevolence

Posted on December 12, 2014 by Bryan Hodge

“Some brethren have argued that the church is authorized to help church members and their dependents out of the church treasury, but no others. They reason that many times do we read of the church aiding and assisting “saints,” “disciples,” “brethren” (see Acts 6:1-3; Acts 11:27-29; Romans 15:25; 1 Corinthians 16:1-2; 2 Corinthians 8:1-4; 2 Corinthians 9:1; 1 Timothy 5:3-16; James 2:15-16); however, it is claimed that never do we see an example of the church relieving the non-Christian.

First order of business, where is the consistency? G. K. Wallace remarked, “If it is true that no contribution was made out of the treasury in the New Testament times except to poor saints, it is also true that no contribution was made into the treasury except for poor saints (article – The Church Budget, Gospel Advocate, Jan. 11, 1962). Isn’t it strange that some have no difficulty using money for so many other things out of the treasury? Again, Wallace remarks, “So, if money was put in for the poor saints, certainly, it was taken out for the poor saints. If you want some money in the treasury for the janitor, put some in for the janitor. If you want some money in the treasury to buy fertilizer to put on the lawn, put it in the treasury for that purpose. It always seemed strange to me that brethren could put money into the treasury and take it out to buy a load of fertilizer to put on the lawn, but could not take it out to buy a loaf of bread for a starving baby” (ibid). Some seem to have no difficulty at all using money out of the church treasury for all kinds of things for which there is no Biblical example.

Let us remind ourselves just here that there is a great difference between saying no example and saying no authority. Roy Cogdill recognized this, writing, “Sometimes it is argued that this is the plan (1 Corinthians 16:1-2, B.H.) for raising money only for benevolence in the church. It remains, however, that divine wisdom led Paul to give this plan to Corinth for raising money, and good reasoning will convince one that if it will work in raising money for one righteous cause, it will work for another and for all” (The New Testament church page 105 -106).

Next, is it true that there is no example of the church aiding non-Christians? Read 2 Corinthians 9:13. It speaks of liberal distribution made unto “them” and unto “all.” The “them” clearly refers to the poor saints in Jerusalem. But, to whom does the “all” refer?

Those who hold to the “saints only” position believe that the “all” refers to all other saints in contrast with the saints in need in Jerusalem. Just as the Calvinist limits pantos (translated “every man”) in Hebrews 2:9, even so those who hold to the “saints only” position limit the pantas (translated “all men”) in 2 Corinthians 9:13.

I see no good reason to so limit the wording. (1) Watch the fact that the term “all” is not qualified in any way.  (2) Watch the fact that nothing in the immediate context so limit’s the word. (3) Consider how the unqualified “all” is commonly used elsewhere in scripture: (a) 1 Thessalonians 3:12, “And may the Lord make you increase and abound in love one toward another, and toward all, even as we do toward you.” Does “all” mean just other Christians elsewhere? Or, does it mean just what it says – “all”? (b) 1 Thessalonians 5:15, “See that no one renders evil for evil to anyone, but always pursue what is good both among yourselves, and for all.” Does “all” include the non-Christian here? (c) Galatians 6:10, “As we have opportunity, let us do good to all, especially to those who are of the household of faith.” Clearly, the “all” here is placed in contrast and distinction with “the household of faith.” The reference is to non-Christians. (d) 1 Timothy 4:10, “…we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe. ” Notice that “all” is contrasted with those who believe. It seems to me for anyone to limit the “all” of 2 Corinthians 9:13 there better be a reason which demands such. I see no such demanding reason.

I do believe that our first responsibility is toward the household of faith. However, I see no good reason to deny that the “all” includes the non-Christian.

A parting shot – Matthew 5:46-48 reads, “For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet your brethren only, what do you more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so? Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.” Yes, I know that this is written concerning the individual. I understand the point is that we should be kind and loving toward all. However, if the church only shows benevolence towards her own, does such not put her in the same category as the tax collectors? Many denominations do more than this.

Posted in Bible authority, Giving | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Who’s Your Grandfather?

Posted on December 10, 2014 by Bryan Hodge

The genealogies of Jesus have perplexed some. Was Jesus’ grandfather Jacob (Matthew 1:16) or, Heli (Luke 3:23)? Furthermore, such is not the only difference between Matthew’s record and that of Luke’s.

A careful study of the opening chapters of Matthew and Luke seem to reveal a different focus. Matthew’s focus is on Joseph [1. The angel explains the pregnancy to him (Matthew 1:18-25). 2. He is warned to flee to Egypt (Matthew 2:13-15). 3. He is informed of Herod’s death (Matthew 2: 19-21). 4. He is instructed to go to Nazareth (Matthew 2:22)]. Luke’s focus is on Mary. [1. Gabriel announces the pregnancy to her (Luke 1:26-38). 2. She went to the house of Elizabeth (Luke 1:39-45). 3. She uttered there great words (Luke 1:46-55). 4. She delivered the child (Luke 2:1-7). 5. She ponders the words of the shepherd (Luke 2:8-20). 6. Simeon addressed her (Luke 2:34-35). 7. She spoke with twelve-year-old Jesus (Luke 2:48)]. It seems likely, to me, that the two records show that Jesus was legally (Matthew 1) and biologically (Luke 3) of the seed-line of David.

Another consideration is how repunctuating Luke 3 might resolve the situation. Matthew reads, “Jacob begot Joseph” (Matthew 1:16). Luke reads, “being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, the son of Heli” (Luke 3:23). Robert Gromacki has written—“No parenthesis mark occurred in the original Greek text. Therefore, their placement of the parenthesis marks was arbitrary. Because of the words ‘as was supposed,’ no linguist doubts that a parenthesis was intended. But, what words should be incorporated within the parenthesis? Since the article ‘tou’ does not appear before Joseph (it occurs before every other proper name in the list B.H.), it should read: “being the son (as was supposed of Joseph) of Heli (The Virgin Birth: A Biblical Study of the Deity or Jesus Christ, p. 183).

Jesus was of the correct lineage. “In order for Jesus Christ to be the rightful king of the Jews, He had to be both the physical and the legal son of Abraham and of David, thus making Him the heir to all of the Abrahamic and Davidic covenant promises” (ibid).

It is noteworthy that both records suggest that Joseph was not biologically the father of Jesus. Luke reads, “as was supposed the son of Joseph” (Luke 3:23). Matthew reads, “Jacob begot Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus” (Matthew 1:16). The words “of whom” is feminine gender.

Posted in Apologetics, Jesus | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Paradoxical Words

Posted on December 8, 2014 by Bryan Hodge

Webster defines the word “paradox” to mean “something that is made up of two opposite things that seems impossible but is actually true or possible… a statement that seems to say two opposite things but that may be true” (www.merriam-webster.com). Clinton Lockhart explains that it is “a statement apparently absurd for emphasis” (Principles of Interpretation, p. 179). Terry Hightower explains that a contradiction would be: P is true and P is false in the same respects; while a paradox would be: P is true and P is false in different respects (Shenandoah Lectures, Rightly Dividing The Word, Vol. II, p. 300). Johnny Ramsey used to say that a paradox was “truth standing on its head to gain attention.” The word is from Greek origin: “para” meaning “beyond” and “doxa” meaning “thought.”

Let us consider a few Biblical paradoxes which cry out: “look at me!” “Pause and ponder this!” “Consider closely these words!”

  1. Proverbs 26:4-5, “Do not answer a fool according to his folly, lest you also be like him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.”

Verse four, let me suggest, is a caution about method and tone. We might put it this way, “Do not act like a fool just because another does. Do not lower yourself to his level.” When one becomes loud and angry, we should be very careful that we do not respond in like manner. Consider these passages: Romans 12:21, “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” Ephesians 4:29, “Let no corrupt word proceed out of your mouth, but what is good for necessary edification, that it may impart grace to the hearers.” Colossians 4:6, Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer each one.” Proverbs 15:1, “A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.” When answering a fool we should be very careful that we do not conduct ourselves in such a way that onlookers cannot distinguish which is the fool.

Another possibility is that verse four is setting forth a general principle. Ordinarily, it is best to avoid the questions of fools. Consider the following passages: Proverbs 23:9, “Do not speak in the hearing of a fool, for he will despise the wisdom of your words.” Matthew 7:6, “Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces.” 2 Timothy 2:23, “But avoid foolish and ignorant disputes…” (cf. Titus 3:9).

Verse five has to do with the answer itself. Sometimes even the fool needs to be answered, “because he or others may think to their own harm that he cannot be answered” (ESV Study Bible). While foolish speech is not to be imitates, the fools own speech should frame the answer. This is what Paul did in showing the implications of what some taught (1 Corinthians 15:12-20). Any doctrine which implies a false doctrine is itself a false doctrine. A wise debater said, “If your opponent is practicing some things that in principle are exactly like the things he opposes, you may charge the inconsistency upon him with the hope of getting him to see the point and abandon his position.”

  1. Mark 8:35, “For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel’s will save it” (cf. Matthew 10:39; John 12:25).

The point is: we must be willing to give up (if necessary) our physical lives in service to Christ, if we desire eternal life in heaven. Thomas Warren has written, “What is the point to this paradox? Many people seem to be convinced that preserving their own lives is the greatest privilege – even the greatest responsibility. They hold that while, as the general rule, they may act in an unselfish way, they also hold that ‘when the chips are down’ one will – even must – do anything to save his own life. This view amounts to saying, ‘Everyone should look out for ‘number one’.’ But Jesus taught that pleasing one’s self is not the first obligation of any person. He taught that men must love God (and obey Him) above all else (Matthew 22:37 cf. Deuteronomy 6:5). The second commandment is to love one’s neighbor as himself… one must – in a profound sense – lose sight of himself (as being his only concern) in order to find himself (as being his only concern) in order to find himself (in the eternal purpose of God…) In effect Christ says to each person, ‘Lose your life in Me – become a Christian… and be faithful to Me, even at the cost of your life, and I will give you eternal life’” (Jesus – the Lamb Who is a Lion, pp. 7-9).

  1. Mark 9:35, “If anyone desires to be first, he shall be last of all and servant of all” (cf. Mark 10:42-44; Matthew 20:25-27; 23:11-12; Luke 22:25-26).

Greatness in Jesus’ plan is very different from how the world generally views greatness. Three illustrations are given. (a) It is not uncommon for government leaders to think that true greatness is found in authority. They reason that greatness is found in how many people serve them, and in how many they can order (Matthew 20:25; Mark 10:42; Luke 22:25). (b) It is not uncommon for religious leaders to think that true greatness is found in their positions, titles, and dress (Matthew 23:1-7). (c) It is nearly universally thought that the one who is served food is greater than the one who serves (Luke 22:27). However, in the kingdom of Christ true greatness is found in service. Jesus Himself is our great example. He reminds, “the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many” (Matthew 20:28).

  1. Luke 18:14, “I tell you that this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

These words close out a parable about self-righteousness (Luke 18:9-14). He who would receive God’s mercy be humble enough to recognize and acknowledge his own short-comings. Someone has said, “The only ones going to heaven will be those who realize that they do not deserve it.” I think this is accurate. We must admit our faults and humbly approach Him for forgiveness. Consider the words of the song Rock of Ages: Nothing in my hand I bring; simply to the cross I cling / naked come to Thee for dress; helpless look to Thee for grace / vile, I to the fountain fly; wash me, Savior, or I die (Song Rock of Ages by A.M. Toplady).

  1. Mark 10:31, “But many who are first will be last, and the last first” (cf. Matthew 19:30).

This seems to be a warning against the pride Peter appears to have possessed (cf. Mark 10:28). The words tie in nicely with the parable which follows in Matthew’s account (cf. Matthew 20:1-16). Coffman’s Commentary quotes Barker who says, “How often do we think that because we are ‘old timers’ in a congregation we have proprietary rights over the program and the property! Everyone has met the superchurchman who lets it be known that ‘I have been coming to this church for years,’ meaning that he has been promoted to Senior Vice President to God, Inc.” (Commenting on Matthew 19:30).

  1. 1 Timothy 5:6, “But she who lives in pleasure is dead while she lives.”

The word translated “pleasure” refers to “riotous living” (cf. Luke 15:13, 30). The one who lives this way is alive physically, but dead spiritually (cf. Ephesians 2:1; 2:5). This one may not realize that she is dead. But, she is and without repentance will remain so through eternity. She is of the walking dead.

  1. John 11:25-26, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die.”

Verse 25: Though, one may physically die before Jesus returns (belief will not prevent such); yet, he shall live in glory. Note: This is speaking of obedient belief (cf. John 5:28-29; 8:51).

Verse 26: If one is physically alive and believing when Jesus returns (some will be, cf. 1 Corinthians 15:51-52; 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17), then he shall never see physical death.

Moreover, the faithful will never see death (John 8:51). That is they will never be a part of the second death (Revelation 2:11; 20:1-15).

  1. Revelation 2:9, “I know your… poverty (but you are rich)…” Revelation 3:17, “You say ‘I am rich, have become wealthy, and have need of nothing’ – and do not know that you are wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked –”

What a contrast! The church in Smyrna was materially poor, but spiritually rich. The church in Laodicea was materially wealthy, but poor spiritually, poor in what counts. Spiritual success cannot be assessed by material success. They are two different things. Material wealth is not inherently good or bad. But it does not last. Let us seek to be rich in what does last. Jim Palmer has written, “How much did Andrew Carnegie, Howard Hughes and William Randolph Hearst leave? How much will Donald Trump, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and you leave? All of it” (Faith and Finance, p. 64).

Posted in Bible Study, Death, Dedication, Hospitality, Humility, Tongue | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Only Begotten

Posted on December 5, 2014 by Bryan Hodge

“And the word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth” (John 1:14).

“No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him” (John 1:18).

“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son” (John 3:16).

“… he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God” (John 3:18).

“God has sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him” (1 John 4:9).

The wording is familiar. Five times, in the King James Version, Jesus is referred to as the “only begotten” Son of God. What do these words mean?There is much controversy over the original word “monogeneses.” The first part of the word is without controversy. “Mono” meaning “one” or “only” or “alone”. The second part of the word is the controversial part. Some think that the word is derived from “gennaoo,” meaning “to beget”. Others think that the word is derived from “genos,” meaning “stock” or “kind”.

Those who object to the translation “only begotten,” some times argue: (1) All Christians are begotten of God (1 John 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1, 4, 18). Therefore, Jesus could not be the “only begotten”. Answer—It is the true that all Christians have been “begotten” of God. However, such is a figurative usage of the term. We were not begotten as Jesus was begotten. (2) Isaac is referred to as Abraham’s “only begotten” (Hebrews 11:17). Yet, Isaac was not literally Abraham’s “only begotten,” remember Ishmael? Answer—Isaac was Abraham’s only begotten according to the promise. (3) It is pointed out that while John speaks of Jesus as “only begotten,” Matthew-Mark-Luke speaks of Jesus as the “beloved” son (agapetos) (Matthew 3:17; 17:5; Mark 1:11; 9:7; Luke 3:22; 9:35; 20:13). Thus, the term has nothing to do with His birth. Answer—I do not see these terms as necessarily parallel. Moreover, I do not see how this helps matters, for we too are “beloved of God” (Romans 1:7).

Some suggest that what is actually being taught is that Jesus was a unique, one of a kind son. Hugo McCord’s New Testament renders this “unique son”.

Those who support the rendering “only begotten” point out: (1) The original term is used of those who had only one child (Luke 7:12; 8:41-42; 9:38). Thus, “only begotten” seems the most natural rendering. (2) The original term occurs nine times in the New Testament (Luke 7:12;8:41-42; 9:38; John 1:14; 1:18; 3:16; 3:18; Hebrews 11:17; 1 John 4:9). Three of these times refer to an only begotten child (Luke 7:12; 8:41-42; 9:38). Only one passage on the surface seems a difficulty in so rendering (Hebrews 11:17), and it can be explained. (3) The most reliable translations have rendered it “only begotten” — KJV, NKJV, ASV, NASB. (4) Ancient translations—Robert Taylor, Jr., writes, “In 1879 Murdock gave the English-speaking world what he called ‘a literal translation from the Syriac-Peshito version.’ Only begotten, occurred in John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; and 1 John 4:9. Murdock did not vary as much as a particle in dealing with this treasured term” (Studies in John, The 18th Annual Denton Lectures, edited by Dub McClish, p. 616).

It is evident that some translations have missed the mark on the original term. Some have rendered it “only” (RSV, NRSV, ESV), or “one and only” (NIV). These are half translations. They are translating “mono” but leaving “genes” untranslated. It must mean something.

The more I study this, the more I am convinced that the KJV got it correct. However, the Bible, clearly teaches—(1) Jesus was one of a kind. (2) He was (is) the God-Man (John 1:1 cf. 1:14; 17:5; 1 Timothy 3:16). (3) He was supernaturally begotten of God (Matthew 1:20; 1:23).

“Without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:

God was manifested in the flesh,

Justified in the spirit,

Seen by angels,

Preached among the Gentiles,

Believed on in the world,

Received up in glory” (1 Timothy 3:16).

Posted in Jesus, Phrase Study, Word Study | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Two Pentecostal Excuses

Posted on December 3, 2014 by Bryan Hodge

Pentecostal preachers claim to be able to work miracles.  However, when one asks to see such, it is not uncommon for excuses to be offered.  Here are two common ones:

1.  It is wrong to seek a sign.

“’Teacher we want to see a sign from You.’  But he answered and said to them, ‘An evil and adulterous generation seek after a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.  For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.’” (Matthew 12:38-40).   Some have used this passage to teach that it is always wrong to ask for a sign and Pentecostal preachers have used this verse to avoid ever giving a sign to anyone who asks.

But, understand that the cases are not congruent. Here’s why: First, Jesus had already worked a sign in their presence (Matthew 12:22-24 cf. Matthew 12:38-40). The same point could be made in other context as well (Matthew 16:1-4 cf. Matthew 15:33-38; John 6:30 cf. John 6:9-13, 24-26).   Second, watch the fact that Jesus did not say, “there will be no sign given” and leave it at that. He said, “no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” Jesus, upon that occasion was not going to give them another sign. But, He said in effect, “here is the evidence that I’ll give you – the sign of Jonah.” His resurrection would declare Him to be the Son of God (Romans 1:4).

This passage does not teach that it is wrong to ask for evidence. In truth, the Bible demands that we examine things based upon adequate evidence (1 Thessalonians 5:21; 1 John 4:1; Acts 17:11).

2.  I can’t because of your unbelief.

“Now He did not do many mighty works there because of their unbelief” (Matthew 13:58). Notice that it does not say that, “He did no mighty works there,” but, “He did not many…” Mark’s record supplies us with even more insight saying, “Now he could do no mighty works there, except that He laid His hands on a few sick people and healed them. And He marveled because of their unbelief…” (Mark 6:5-6).

J.W. McGarvey commented on this situation saying, “The statement that ‘he could do there no mighty works’ etc., does not mean that it was physically impossible; for the same power which healed a few could have healed more; but he could not do more because it was improper. When he had wrought a number of miracles without shaking the unbelief of the people, others… would have been worse than useless; to work them therefore, would have been an improper expenditure of time and power.” (Commentary on Matthew and Mark, pages 299-300).

Yes, unbelief may be an excuse for some so-called “miracle healers” today not being able to give any signs. But such is not a Biblical excuse. Jesus did some miracles there. Moreover, on other occasions He likewise did His miracles in the presence of unbelievers (Matthew 9:1-8; Luke 22:50-51; cf. also Acts 2, Acts 13:7-12, etc.).

Matthew 13:58 is used by some today to say, “I can’t do it in your presence because you don’t believe.” Don’t let people use this passage on you this way!

Posted in Miracles, Pentecostalism, Signs | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Truth Will Come Out!

Posted on December 2, 2014 by Bryan Hodge

I have read Ann Coulter’s book, “Treason.”  The book is controversial but interesting and thought-provoking.

She revisits the facts concerning Senator Joseph McCarthy.  Most history books for the last 50 years have portrayed the Senator from Wisconsin as a raving lunatic.  But she paints a very different picture.  She indicates that he has been misrepresented for years.  She also defends him.  She writes, “June 11, 1995.  On that day the U.S. government released a cache of Soviet cables that had been decoded during the cold war in a top-secret undertaking known as the Venona Project.  The cable proved the overwhelming truth of McCarthy’s charges Soviet spies in the government were not a figment of right-wing imagination.”

She likewise revisits the Alger Hiss case.  Many have maintained over the years that Richard Nixon was wrong about Alger Hiss.  The high-ranking man in both F.D.R.’s and Truman’s administrations could not be a Soviet spy, could he?  The man who helped create the United Nations, a spy?  Coulter writes, “In 1995, it was no longer uncertain.  That was the year the Venona Project was unveiled, revealing Soviet cables that established that Hiss was a Soviet agent.”

What about Julius and Ethel Rosenberg?  Some have defended them over the years.  Were they really spies?  She refers to Nikita Khrushchev’s memoirs which were published in 1990.  Khrushchev said of the Rosenbergs that they provided “very significant help in accelerating the production of our atomic bomb.”  Moreover, referring to the Venona Project she writes, “The Soviet cables indisputably proved the guilt of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg.”  She indicates that J. Edgar Hoover risked acquittal rather than reveal that the U.S. had cracked the Soviet code.”

The Point

Brethren, my point is not to argue history.  However, as I read the book a couple of thoughts went through my mind that I want you to consider.

First, regardless of the truth about Senator Joseph McCarthy, people are misunderstood, and misrepresented, and even lied about in this life.  Sometimes the truth comes out in the life.  Sometimes it does not.  Sometimes it comes out immediately, sometimes 50 years later, sometimes in eternity.  But, the truth will eventually come out (1 Timothy 5:24-25).  We have a redeemer (vindicator) that lives (Job 19:25).

If you try to live for God and proclaim the truth to others, some might write you off as a nut, a radical, a fanatic, an extremist, and the such like.  Take comfort in the fact that one day such mockers will know the truth (Ezekiel 2:5; 33:33).

Second, as to the guilt or innocence of some, things are not always clear in this life.  Sometimes, the evidence is clear.  Sometimes the evidence only becomes known years later.  But, know this, the facts will come out (if one does not meet God’s conditions for pardon) in eternity.  Even secret things cannot be hid (Ecclesiastes 12:14; Romans 2:16; 1 Timothy 5:24-25).  Man may hide things from man, but man  cannot hide things from the all-seeing eyes of God (Proverbs 15:3).

Posted in History, Judgment, Sin | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment