A Look at Mark 16:16

Posted on July 1, 2014 by Bryan Hodge

“He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned” (Mark 16:16). “

It behooves us to consider the word order in Mark 16:16.  (1) Some insist by their doctrine that faith comes first, then salvation, followed by baptism.  (2) Other claim that baptism (of infants) comes first, then salvation (from original sins), followed by faith eventually.  (3) Still others claim that salvation comes first (by an arbitrary predetermination of God for each individual), then baptism and faith come along later in one order or another.  (4) But none of this is said by Jesus in Mark 16:16.  He put it in this order – belief, baptism, salvation.

The terms – “believes” and “is baptized” – are both participles.  A participle is an adjective or noun formed from a verb.  Both words modify the term “He.”  Moreover, the words “believes” and “is baptized” are not just participles, but aorist participles.  Ray Summers, in his “Essentials of New Testament Greek” said, “The kind of action in the aorist participle is punctiliar, i.e., finished action.  The time of the action is antecedent to the action of the main verb…” (page 94).   The main verb is “will be saved.” Thus,  both acts grammatically come before the words “will be saved.”  In a public debate, Garland Elkins correctly said, “Since the aorist participle never indicates action which is subsequent to the main verb, neither believing nor being baptized occur after one is saved.  But, both occur before one is saved” (Elkins – Ross Debate On Baptism and Faith Alone, pp. 7-8)

A common objection to baptism is “But, look at the final part (Mark 16:16b).  He didn’t say, ‘he who believes not and is baptized not will be condemned.’  He simply said, ‘he who believes not will be condemned.’ Therefore, baptism cannot be essential”

I have two responses.  First, He didn’t need to include baptism in the second clause.  Let me illustrate.  If I said, “He who eats and digests will live; but he that eats not shall die,”  would any object that I did not say in the second part “digests not?”  Of course not.  To negate the first is to negate the second.  Another illustration, If I said “He who takes and passes to bar examine may practice law; he who does not take the bar examine may not practice law,” would any object? Certainly not. Negating the first negates the second. Biblical baptism follows belief.  Thus, to negate the first is to negate the second. Belief is a necessary condition for Bible baptism (cf. Acts 8:12; 8:36-37; 16:30-34).

Second,  if Jesus had said – “he who does not believe and is not baptized  will be condemned,” there would be a problem.  If it was written this way, then those lost would be those who both do not believe and are not baptized. Furthermore (based on the first clause), those saved would be those who both believe and are baptized. This wording would create a difficulty. (1) What  about those who believe but are never baptized? There would be some who are neither saved, nor lost.  (2) What about those who are baptized ( perhaps as small children) but never believe?  There would be some neither saved, nor lost. Writing it as some folks would have it, creates a group of people who are neither saved or lost!  Such complicates things instead of simplifying.

Jesus said what He meant and meant what He said. Let us accept His words, and do what He said is necessary for salvation (cf. John 12:48).

Posted in baptism, Plan of salvation, Textual study | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

God’s Safety Net

Posted on June 29, 2014 by Bryan Hodge

Some think that it is primarily the government’s or the church’s responsibility to care for those in need.  I have seen church members, who were able to relieve a family member in need, refuse to do so themselves, but instead turn to the church.

However, consider the responsibility that God has placed on the family.  Proverbs 17:17b reads, “A brother is born for adversity.” Think of Joseph.  He told his brothers, “I will provide for you and your little ones” (Genesis 50:21).  Children are a defense for aging parents.  “Like arrows in the hand of a warrior, so are the children of one’s youth… They shall not be ashamed, but shall speak with their enemies in the gate” (Psalm 127:4-5).  The gate was the place of legal transactions (Deuteronomy 16:18; 21:18-20; Joshua 20:4; Ruth 4:1-2, 11; Proverbs 22:22).  Children are to protect their parents from being wronged or taken advantage of in their old age.  Matthew Henry commented, “The family that has a large stock of children is like a quiver full of arrows, of different sizes we may suppose, but all of use one time or other; children of different capacities and inclinations may be several ways serviceable to the family.”  Paul instructed, “If any widow has children or grandchildren let them first show piety at home and repay their parents… if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.. if any believing man or woman has widows, let them relieve them, and do not let the church be burdened, that it may relieve those who are really widows” (1 Timothy 5:4, 8, 16).

Posted in Family, Money, psalms, Textual study | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Our Mighty God – Behemoth and Leviathan

Posted on June 27, 2014 by Bryan Hodge

 God rapidly fire a series of questions Job, beginning in the 38th chapter of Job.  These questions demand a negative response, and are posed to demonstrate to Job that God is the mighty,and  wise  controller of the universe; and that God is sovereign.

In the 38th chapter, verse 39 and following, God illustrates from the animal kingdom His control, provision, and sovereignty He has over life.  Twelve animals are used in this illustration. The first ten animals are fairly easy for us to identify (though some of these are perhaps extinct).  These first ten include: the lion, raven, mountain goat, deer, wild donkey, wild ox, ostrich, horse,  hawk and the eagle.

The final two, however, are not so easy for us to identify, and their identity has troubled many a Bible student. They are Behemoth and Leviathan.

Some dismiss these as fictional, mythological creatures.  Thomas Nelson’s New Open Bible (NKJV) rightly says on page 618, “Those who believe that the Bible contains mythology have no problem with these creatures; to them, they simply never existed.” However, explaining these creatures as fictional, mythology destroys the whole argument of this passage.  God is reasoning with Job by appealing to these creatures.  How can Job consider a nonexistent animals to be proof of His majestic sovereign rule?

If not myth, what then are the identities of these creatures?

BEHEMOTH

Behemoth is the plural form of the hebrew word for “beast” (Behema), but in the book of Job this word is joined syntactically with singular verb forms, and singular pronouns.  Therefore, it is clear that the plural, “Behemoth,” is majestic plural. The plural is used for intensification and is referring to a “great beast,” a “beast of beasts.”

Some have contended that this animal is the hippopotamus.  In fact, the American Standard Version 1901, has so translated this word. However, this is not plausible for several reasons.  First, this creature has a tail like a cedar (40:17). This does not describe the hippo.  Second, this creature is “chief of the ways of God” (40:19), obviously a reference to size and might. The hippo is large:  5  feet tall, 13 feet long, and  3 1/2 tons. But other animals are larger. The elephant is larger: 13 feet high at the shoulders, 24 feet long, and 13,000 in weight.  The wooly mammoth was about the size of an African elephant. Dinosaurs were much larger. Argentinosaurus is thought to have been 120 feet long and to have weighted nearly 100 tons.  Brachiosaurus is thought to have stood 50 feet in height. Sauroposeidon was perhaps 70 feet tall.  Third, this creature feeds on mountains (40:20), while the hippo remains near the water.

LEVIATHAN

Evidently this creature, whatever it is, dwells primarily in the sea (Psalm 104:26).  What was it?

Some have suggested this creature to be the crocodile, but there are some difficulties in accepting such. First, this creature is described as raising itself up  high and in a frightening manner (41:21,34).  This does not sound like a crocodile. Second, this creature’s belly is evidently tough (41:30). While it is true that this may describe the crocodile’s backside, it certainly doesn’t fit the description of its underside.  Third, this creature churns the water as it swims (41:31-32). The crocodile moves stealthily in the water.  Fourth, this creature breaths fire (41:19-21). This can’t be a description of the crocodile.  Fifth, this creature appears to be untamable (41:1-8).  Herodotus (2:39) says that the Egyptians tamed the crocodile.

These creature were alive after the flood. This is evident because the book of Job was written after the flood (cf Job 22:16).

What are these creatures?  I don’t know, but likely they are both some type of extinct dinosaur.  Yes, God made the dinosaurs (Exodus 20:11)!

Whatever the case, God’s argument still stands.  “No one is so fierce that he would dare stir him (Leviathan B.H.) up. Who then is able to stand before Me?  Who has preceded Me, that I should pay him? Everything under heaven is mine” (Job 41:10-11).

May we try to grasp how wise and mighty our God is. No, in our limited understanding,  we will not fully understand. But let us try to grasp it even in an imperfect way. He is truly awesome. He should be respected. He should be trusted. He knows what He is doing with His creation. Moreover, He is sovereign.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in animals, Apologetics, God's Sovereignty, Textual study | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Lasting Value

Posted on June 23, 2014 by Bryan Hodge

Aluminum in the mid-1800’s was an extreme expensive metal.  Aluminum was plentiful (in fact, the most plentiful metallic element in the earth’s crust).  That was not the problem with this element.  The problem was that the refinement process at the time was very expensive.

The Emperor of France, Napoleon III, it is said, let his most honored guests eat with aluminum flatware. His less distinguished guests ate with gold and silver flatware.

The Washington Monument was built to  honor George Washington.  Work began in 1848.  The work was interrupted from 1855 until 1878 due to finances and the Civil War.  Finally in 1885 the work was finished and an expensive aluminum cap of six pounds was placed atop the monument.

Charles Martin Hall, an American, and Paul Heroult, a Frenchman, both about the same time (1886) found a way to refine the metal inexpensively.  The result – within two years of the Washington Monument being capped the value of the cap decreased to 1/1000 of its original price! (John Hudson Tiner, The World of Chemistry, p. 122). Today, every day pots and pans, foil, and even pop cans are made out of aluminum.

The point?  The point I am making is that what we treasure today may not be so valuable tomorrow.  Remember that true lasting, eternal riches are found in heaven. Matthew 6:19-20 reads, “Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through nor steal.”

Posted in History, Money, science, Wealth | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Questions About The Exodus

Posted on June 20, 2014 by Bryan Hodge

“He sent Moses His servant and Aaron whom he had chosen. They performed His signs among them, and wonders in the land of Ham . . . He also brought them out with silver and gold . . . Egypt was glad they departed, for fear of them had fallen upon them” (Psalm 105:26-28).

“He rebuked the Red Sea also and it dried up; so He led them through the depths, as through the wilderness. He saved them from the hand of him who hated them, and redeemed them out of the hand of the enemy. The waters covered their enemies; there was not one of them left” (Psalm 106:9-11).

“He divided the sea, and caused them to pass through; and he made the waters to stand like a heap. In the daytime also he led them with a cloud, and all the night with a light of fire.” (Psalms 78:13-14)

“By faith they passed through the Red sea as by dry land, whereas the Egyptians, attempting to do so, were drowned” (Hebrews 11:29).

“Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea . . . But with most of them God was not well pleased, for their bodies were scattered in the wilderness . . . Therefore let him who think he stands take heed lest he falls” (1 Corinthians 10:1-12).

The Exodus fascinates Bible Students. Charlton Heston’s 1956 movie, – The Ten Commandments; was a big hit. Wikipedia says “it is . . . one of the most financially successful films ever made, grossing $122.7 Million at the box office during its initial release; it was the most successful film in 1956, and the second highest grossing film of the decade . . . it is the seventh most successful film of all time when the box office gross is adjusted for inflation.”

There are common questions asked about the Exodus. This writing will provide concise answers to some of these common questions.

1.  Do the ten plagues have special significance?

Many believe that the ten plagues were attacks on the various gods of Egypt. Consider:

(1) Waters to blood (Exodus 7:14-25). Rex Turner, Sr., “This plague was a wonderful stroke at the idolatry of the Egyptians for both the Pharaoh and the people worshipped the river Nile” (The Book of Exodus, 1987 Memphis School of Preaching Lectureship, p.94). Hapi was the god of the Nile. Jehovah was showing His power over their “god.” (2) Frogs (Exodus 8:1-5). Rex Turner Sr., “This was also a wonderful stroke at the idolatry of the Egyptians. These people worshipped the amphibian animals, and they displayed Heka, a frog headed goddess . . .” (ibid, p.96) This goddess was considered the goddess of birth. Jehovah was showing His power over this “goddess.” (3) Lice (Exodus 8:16-19). The term is uncertain. Some think it refers not to “lice” but “gnats,” or “ticks.” Rex Turner Sr., suggest that this was an attack on the Egyptian priesthood. They were obsessed with cleanliness and would not carry out their duties if such pests were upon them (ibid, p.97).(4) Flies (Exodus 8:20-31). One writer said, “Judgment was upon either Re or Uatchit who were both depicted as flies” (gotquestion.org). Rex Turner Sr., “This plague was another wonderful stroke at the idolatry of Egyptians, for those Egyptians feared and worshiped those flies” (ibid, p 98). (5) Disease on the livestock (Exodus 9:1-7). Rex Turners Sr., “This plague was another wonderful stroke at the idolatry of Egyptians, for they worshipped domesticated animals” (ibid, p 100). James Coffman commented, ‘Like all the plaques, this one also struck at the pagan deities of Egypt. This one was Ptah (Apis) the god of Memphis, represented as a bull, as well as other gods represented by goat, the ram, the cow and other animals” (commentary on Exodus). (6) Boils (Exodus 9:8-11). Rex Turner Sr., “This plague was another wonderful stroke at the idolatry of Egyptians. The Egyptians worshipped the idol Typhon, This idol consisted of a grate wherein the Egyptians burned (Sacrifices) . . . then Egyptians were under the wild conception that if a particle of their ashes fell upon a person, that person would be safe from body defilement” (ibid, p. 101). There were several gods of health including Sekhmet, Sunu, and Isis. This could also be an attack upon them. (7) Hail (Exodus 9:13-35) Rex Turner Sr., ‘The Egyptians worshipped the fig tree, the peach tree, the pomegranate tree, wheat, barely sorghum and the vine” (ibid, p.102). (8) Locust (Exodus 10:1-20). Rex Turner Sr., “These Egyptians worshipped the verdue of the land; that is, they worshipped all nature’s beautiful growth which came in addition to the food growth of the several food-producing vegetables” (ibid, p. 103). (9) Darkness (Exodus 10:21-29). Rex Turner Sr., This period of thick darkness was another wonderful stroke at the idolatries worship of the Egyptians, for they regularly worshipped the sun, the moon, and the stars.” (ibid, p. 104-105). “Darkness was aimed at the god, Re, who was symbolized by Pharaoh himself” (gotquestions.org) (10) Death of first-born (Exodus 11:1-12; 30). This was “judgment on Isis, the protector of children” (gotquestions.org).

Another theory is that this ties to creation. Ten times in Genesis 1, it says, “God said” (Genesis 1:3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20, 24, 26, 28, 29). There are ten plagues. The plagues affected all of creation: water (Genesis 1:9); water animals (Genesis 1:20); land animals (Genesis 1:24); man (Genesis 1:26); plants (Genesis 1:11; 29) and the firmament (Genesis 1:11, 29); visible light (Genesis 1:3; 14); man’s offspring (Genesis 1:28). Thus, God is over all. This is an interesting theory, but Exodus does not follow the creation order which would make such easier to see if this is the point.

2.  Could the waters have been parted by natural means alone?

Many, who have difficulty with believing in the super-natural, sometimes look for natural explanations for biblical events. This is an attempt to remove God from the true history of these events. This is the common approach by A & E, Discovery and The History Channel. Be careful when listening to such television programming about Biblical events.

Some have postulated that the dry land appearing and the water returning upon the Egyptians can be explained by a tsunami. However, this does not seem to fit the Biblical record. The sea was “a wall to them on their right side and on their left” (Exodus 14:22). “He divided the sea . . . He made the water stand up like a heap” (Psalm 78:13). This is not water ebbing and flowing in one direction. This I the parting of waters, and waters standing like walls on each side of them.

Some have postulated that the answer is in “wind setdown” wind setdown is the opposite effect as storm surge. The wind blows the water back. Trevor Major explains, “Doran Nof and Nathan Paldor suggests that the wind in Exodus 14:21 pushed the waters in the Gulf of Suez toward the main body of the Red Sea, thus exposing the sea bed . . . . The authors calculate that a northwesterly wind blowing at around 45 miles per hour for 10 hours could lower the sea level 8 feet, and cause the shore to receded ¾ of a mile. Recognizing that the Bible specifies water on both sides of the fleeing Israelites (Exodus 14:22; 29), Nof and Paldor further purpose that a ridge existed across the gulf in biblical times” (AP Article: Parting The Red Sea: Scripture Or Speculation, Nov 1992).

Trevor Major points out several problems with this theory:

(a) the wind in Exodus 14:21 was from the east and not the northwest, as this model would seem to require. (b) There is no evidence of an east-west ridge beneath the Gulf of Suez, either now or then. (c) The Bible does not just refer to water on both sides, but to a “wall of water on the left and right” (Exodus 14:22; 29).   Wind setdown moves water in one direction. (d) However this was accomplished, the text credits the LORD and not nature randomly acting. Though, it does seem that God used wind in some way in this crossing of the sea. He may have used wind to part the sea, or He may have used wind to dry the ground.

3. Did they cross the Red Sea or the reed sea?

Some have suggested that they did not cross the Red Sea, but the reed sea, a shallow marsh farther north. Why the suggestion? The Hebrew term is yam-sup. The first word, yam, means “sea.” However, the second word, sup, is not the Hebrew word for “red.” Some suggest that sup may be a corruption of an Egyptian word. Trevor Major says, “The favorite candidate . . . is the Egyptian phase Pa-tjuf, meaning “papyrus marshes.” The idea is that the Hebrews borrowed sup from the Egyptian to speak about papyrus reeds” (ibid).

There are several difficulties with this view: (a) the location of the yam-sup does not fit a papyrus marsh near or on the Nile Delta (Numbers 33:10-11). The location spoken of is thought to be on the Sinai Peninsula. (b) Solomon located his fleet of ships on the yum sup (1 Kings 9:26). “This ancient port was at the northern end of the Gulf of Aquba” (ibid). (c) The New Testament writers used the Greek words meaning “Red Sea” (Acts 7:36; Hebrews 11:29). (d) The water is refered to as “the great deep” (Isaiah 51:6).  Keep in mind that the water they crossed was deep enough to destroy the Egyptians. “The sea returned to its full depth . . . so the Lord overthrew the Egyptians in the midst of the sea . . . the waters returned, and covered the chariots, and the horsemen, and the all the army of Pharaoh that came into the sea after them. Not so much as one of them remained . . . Israel saw the Egyptians dead on the seashore” (Exodus 14:27-31).

So how should sup be translated? It may be related to the Hebrew sop meaning “end” (ibid). The Red Sea connects to the Indian Ocean and things south. It was the end waters to the south for these people.

Admittedly the exact location of the crossing is not certain. Some dispute even which arm of the Red Sea was crossed. However, it appears to this writer that it was the Red Sea which was crossed.

4.   Did the Israelites steal from the Egyptians?

This question is asked due to the reading found in the King James Version.  It says that the Israelites “borrowed” of the Egyptians jewels of silvers, and jewels of gold, and raiment (Exodus 12:35; 3:22; 11:2).  Moreover, it says that the Egyptians “lent” such to them (Exodus 12:36).  Furthermore, they left Egypt with silver and gold (Psalm 105:37).  Yet, the Bible says “The wicked borrows and does not repay” (Psalm 37:21).

The New King James used the words “asked” and “granted.”  The original word means “ask” (Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Lexicon).  It can mean “ask… for temporary use i.e. borrow…  it is however, not clear that there is any pretext of mere temporary use” (ibid).  The term can also mean “let one ask [successfully], give or lend on request” (ibid).  Adam Clark, “The original word shaal signifies simply to ask, request, demand, require, inquire, etc., but it does not signify to borrow in the proper sense of that word, though in a very few places of scripture it is thus used” (Commenting on Exodus 3:22).

This was slavery reparations.  God had promised such (Genesis 15:14).  The asking was instructed by God (Exodus 3:21-22; 11:1-2; 12:35-36).

5.  How did God harden Pharaoh’s heart?

While the Bible says that God, in some way, hardened Pharaoh’s heart (Exodus 4:21; 9:12; 10:1; 10:20; 10:27; 11:10; 14:8), it also says that Pharaoh hardened his own heart (Exodus 8:15; 8:32; 9:34; 9:35).  Therefore, it must be that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart indirectly and not directly, mediately and not immediately.

Consider: (1) Pharaoh’s heart was hardened after his magicians were able to simulate the signs done through Moses and Aaron (Exodus 7:10-13; 7:19-23).  (2) Pharaoh’s heart was hardened after God gave him “relief” from plagues (Exodus 8:12-15; 8:29-32; 9:34-35).  While the plagues were in progress, Pharaoh’s heart was softened (Exodus 8:8; 8:24-25; 9:27-28; 10:4-8).  He even acknowledged personal sin (Exodus 9:27; 10:16-17).  However, when relief was granted, he hardened his heart.  (3) Pharaoh’s heart was hardened when learning of Israelite exemption (Exodus 9:6-7).  Guy Woods said, “The first three plagues… appear to have fallen upon all the territory of Egypt, and thus to have included the enslaved Israelites.  From the fourth… to the tenth… the land of Goshen where the Israelites had their houses were granted immunity (or at least provision for immunity cf. Exodus 12:21-23, B.H.) from the affliction which fell upon the people of Egypt (Questions and Answers, Vol. 2, p. 162).  Israelites were exempted from at least  some of the plagues (Exodus 8:21-23; 9:3-6; 9:25-26, 29; 10:21-23; 11:5-7).  Some non-Israelites may have been wise enough and God-fearing enough to prepare for some of the plagues (Exodus 9:18-20; 12:38).

Man today can be hardened the same ways.  (1) Some allow false teachers to deceive them into rejecting God’s words (2 Thessalonians 2:9-12; 1 Kings 22:5-25, 28).  God will let man hear and see things to justify in his mind his actions, if he does not really want to follow God’s word.  (2) Some turn to God when times are bad, but forget Him when things get better.  (3) Some allow envy to lead to bitterness and hardness of heart.

6.  Did Pharaoh’s magicians work real miracles?

Consider the following: (1) The used “enchantments” (NKJV) or “secret arts” (ESV) according to Exodus 7:11.  Rex Turner Sr. remarked, “Magicians had some knowledge of the laws of nature which were not accessible to people in general” (Daniel, p. 32).  Perhaps, this is so.  (2) Magicians and wisemen could not do everything.  They did not possess all knowledge  (Genesis 41:8; Daniel 2:1-3, 17).  They did not possess all power (Exodus 8:16-19). (3) When the magicians of Egypt had prior knowledge of what they were to duplicate, they were able to do so (Exodus 7:17-18; 8:1-7).  Even in the case of the rod becoming a serpent Pharaoh’s magicians had same advanced warning.  Darrell Conley has written, “Pharaoh sent for his magicians… you can be sure they knew what was required of them before they got there” (The Gospel Versus Occultism, p. 19).  (4) When they had no advanced warning, things were different (Exodus 8:16-19).  Darrell Conley has written, “It is both interesting and significant to note that Moses and Aaron announced beforehand that God would turn water to blood, and bring a plague of frogs upon Egypt.  Being forewarned, the magicians of Egypt were able to counterfeit these miracles.  But when, without prior announcement, Aaron smote the dust of the ground and produced lice, the magicians, caught off-guard were unable to imitate it.  It is also interesting to notice that in explaining and excusing their failure they told Pharaoh, regarding this production of lice by Aaron, ‘this is the finger of God'” (ibid).  (5) Pharaoh called for Moses and Aaron to entreat the LORD to take away the frogs (Exodus 8:8-15).  Why did he not call for his magicians to do so?  Moreover, Have you noticed that they simulated water to blood, but they did not remove the blood and purify the water?  Have you noticed that they added frogs, instead of removing them?  Did they not have this power?  Wouldn’t it be more useful to undo a plague, than to reproduce it?  (6) There are fake miracles.  (a) Simon evidently performed such (Acts 8:9-13).  (b) Elymas did so (Acts 13:8-12).  (c) Consider the words of 2 Thessalonians 2:8-10.  Leon Crouch commented, “the word ‘lying’ evidently describes all three nouns: powers, signs, wonders” (1 & 2 Thessalonians, p. 126).  (7) Clever magicians can do amazing things.  Such does not mean that supernatural power is involved.  I see no reason to conclude that supernatural power was involved in what the Egyptian magicians did.

Adam Clark  commented “If it be asked why God did suffer the Egyptian magicians… it was necessary that these magicians should be suffered to exert the utmost of their power against Moses, in order to clear him from the imputation of magic or sorcery; for as the nation of such an extraordinary art was very rife not only among the Egyptians, but all other nations, if they had not entered into this strenuous competition with him, and had been at length overcome by him, both the Hebrews and the Egyptians would have been apter to have attributed all his miracles to his skill in magic, than to the Divine power” (Commenting on Exodus 7:22).

7.  How long were the children of Israel in Egypt?

Many people believe that they were in Egypt 430 years (Genesis 15:13; Exodus 12:40-41; Acts 7:6).  However, it seems to me that the 430 years refers to the entire sojourn in Canaan and Egypt (Galatians 3:16-17).

Josephus indicates that they were in Egypt 215 years (Ant. 2:318).  It was 215 years from Haran to Egypt (Genesis 12:4 cf. 21:5 cf. 25:26 cf. 47:8-9).  If 430 years included the entire sojourn, then they would be in Egypt 215 years.  It is much easier to make 215 years fit with the genealogical record.  Kohath was the grandfather of Moses (1 Chronicles 6:1-3; 23:12-13).  He seems to have been born before the Israelites went into Egypt (Genesis 46:11).  He lived 133 years (Exodus 6:18).  Moses father Amram lived 137 years (Exodus 6:20).  Moses was 80 years old at the time of the Exodus (Exodus 7:7).  How can one get to 430 years?

Some might wonder if they could get to an estimated population of 2 million people at the time of the Exodus, if they had only 215 years in Egypt [Remember that we know that there were 603,550 males numbered at Sinai (Numbers 1:45-46)].  Henry Morris suggested that such was indeed possible.  He wrote, “with an initial number of five people (Jacob and his four wives), they had already became a clan of, say one hundred people (that is, the seventy mentioned in Genesis 46:27 plus the wives of the sons and grandsons who accompanied them into Egypt).  This growth had taken place in approximately fifty years, representing on average increase of over 6 percent each year.  With a population of one hundred when they entered Egypt and over two million when they left… this large growth rate of 5 percent annually, for example, would increase the population from one hundred to two million in only 215 years” (The Genesis Record, p. 642).

 

Posted in Apologetics, Evidence, exodus, Stats, Textual study | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

The Gulf of Tonkin Incident

Posted on June 18, 2014 by Bryan Hodge

On August 2, 1964 the American destroyer Maddox was engaged by North Vietnamese torpedo boats in the Gulf of Tonkin.  President Lyndon Johnson warned Hanoi of “the grave consequences which would inevitably result from any further unprovoked offensive military action against U.S. forces” [U.S. Senate, ‘The Gulf of Tonkin, the 1964 incidents,” hearing before the Committee on Foreign Relations, 90th Congress, 2nd session, February 20, 1968, page 10 (as recorded in “Inner Circles” by Alexander Haig, p. 117)].  The events of August 2, 1964 are facts beyond question.

On August 4, 1964 the U.S.S. Maddox and the U.S.S. Turner Joy were on duty in the Gulf of Tonkin.  On that day the Maddox’s sonar picked up what appeared to be enemy torpedoes.  The Turner Joy’s sonar registered no such torpedo contact.

This incident sparked a reaction. Later in that same day, an air response occurred, ordered by Johnson.  Later in the same month, both the House and the Senate voted to pass the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, giving the President greater authority to use military power to defend South Vietnam against Communist aggression.

But was the Maddox really fired upon on August 4, 1964?  A Captain Herrick reported hours before the response that there was a reason to doubt he initial report.  He said, “Review of action makes many recorded contacts and torpedoes fired appear doubtful.  Freak weather effects an overeager sonar-man may have accounted for many reports.  No actual visual sightings by Maddox suggest complete evaluation before any further action.” [Senate, page 57 (as recorded in “Inner Circle,” p.123)].  This message wasn’t passed on from the Pacific fleet headquarters to the Pentagon in time to halt the response.

Alexander Haig, Jr. (who would later be White House Chief of Staff under Nixon, and later Supreme Commander in Europe, and still later Secretary of State under Reagan) at this time was a deputy Special Assistant under the Secretary of Defense McNamara, and his deputy Cyrus Vance.  He wrote of the Gulf of Tonkin incident, “…the North Vietnamese almost certainly did not attach the Maddox and the Turner Joy, or any other United States naval vessel, on the day in question.  This fact was known without reasonable doubt to the Johnson administration within weeks after the incident…An internal investigation of the incident by the Pentagon… established that the noises identified by the Maddox’s sonar-man as enemy torpedoes were, in fact, the sounds of the Destroyer’s own wake…” (Inner Circles by Alexander M. Haig, Jr., p. 122). He also writes, ” The impulse to fight the war with American troops had been present…the Gulf of Tonkin incident merely provided the pretext…” (ibid)

My aim is not to argue whether or not the U.S. should have fought the war in Vietnam. This is an entirely different issue. Such has been debated for decades.

My aim is to use these details to make a spiritual application. Some times we rush to judgment believing the worst. We should not rashly to rush to judgment. Consider the following passages – 1 Timothy 5:22, “do not lay hands on anyone hastily” ; 1 Thessalonians 5:21, “Test all things”;  Proverbs 18:13, “He who answers a matter before he hears it, it is folly and shame to him.”  Do not believe an evil report before carefully considering the evidence. Make sure that you have the true facts.  Doesn’t the golden rule demand such (Matthew 7:12)? Far too many brethren accept unsubstantiated rumors, gossip, and hearsay.

Posted in Ethics, Judgment, Tongue | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Words Mean Something

Posted on June 16, 2014 by Bryan Hodge

In Lexington, Kentucky, in the year 1843, Alexander Campbell debated Nathan L. Rice, a Presbyterian.  The debate occurred between the dates of November 15th and December 2.  The daily sessions, on most days, was from 10 a.m. until 2 p.m.  Six issues were debated: (1) The action or “mode” required in baptism – dipping, sprinkling, or pouring?; (2) The proper subject for baptism – can infants be properly baptized?; (3) The purpose of baptism – necessary for salvation?; (4) The administrator of baptism – must one be a licensed and ordained clergy to baptize?; (5) What influence did the Holy Ghost have in conversion – a direct or indirect influence?; (6) Human creeds – should we follow man-made creed books?

It’s the first issue (“mode” of baptism) that we turn our attention.  Campbell pressed the point: “baptize… it is incontrovertibly derived from bapto, and therefore inherits the proper meaning of the bap, which is ‘dip’; then it is not irresistibly evident that baptizo can never authorize or sanction any other action than dipping, or immersing, as found in Christ’s commission?” (page 57). Again he said, “Ancient Greek grammarians sometimes arranged their verbs in the form of trees, making the origin of the family the root… a great majority of our citizens are better reads in forests, fields, and gardens, than in the schools of philology or ancient languages.  Agriculturalists, horticulturists, botanists, will fully comprehend me when I say, in all the dominions of vegetable nature, untouched by human art, as the root, so is the stem, and so are the branches.  If the root be oak, the stem cannot be ash, nor the branches cedar… my first argument, then is found on the root bapto whose proper signification, all learned men say is dip, and whose main derivative is baptizo – which, by all the laws of philology, and all the laws of nature, never can, never did, and never will signify ‘to pour’ or ‘to sprinkle’.” (page 57-58).  So, Campbell’s first argument, on the first issue, was that words have meanings, and that this word transliterated “baptize” does not mean “to pour” or “to sprinkle.”

N.L. Rice was not without an argument.  He went to Revelation 19:13.  The Peshitta Syriac and Jerome’s Latin Vulgate (two old translations) have the word meaning “sprinkled” in their tongue, instead of “dipped” as in the King James Version (argument found on page 115).  Again, he pronounced his rebuttal saying: “I have already turned your attention to Revelation 19:13 where bapto has been translated by the word ‘sprinkle’.  But I omitted to state one important fact, viz; that not only the Syriac and Latin Vulgate, but the Ethiopic, one of the most ancient and valuable versions… translates bapto, in this passage, ‘to sprinkle’ (page 116).

Alexander Campbell’s response is recorded on page 119.  He pointed out that Origen, a writer of the second century, quoted from Revelation 19:13, the verse in question, but when he did, he did not use the derivative of bapto but of rantizo (meaning ‘sprinkle’).  He then said, “Now the probability is, that Origen quoted from another reading, or a more ancient copy; and if the Syriac copy alluded to was before Origen’s time, it would corroborate that conclusion.  The fact, also, that Jerome, the real author of the vulgate, has it he having been the translator of Origen’s Greek works into Latin, still more confirms a different reading.  Unless, then, it can be proved that they had the present reading before them, it is wholly idle to urge this solitary verse as an exception…” (page 119).

Let’s summarize: A. Campbell knew words meant something.  No, he knew of no manuscript that had in the Greek the word normally meaning ‘sprinkled’, within the questioned verse.  But he knew that bap referred to a dipping process and not sprinkling.

Nearly sixteen years later, on February 4, 1859, in a convent on Mt. Sinai, Codex Sinaiticus was found by a German – Tischendorf.  In that ancient manuscript Alexander Campbell’s theory of a different rendering was discovered to be true.  Revelation 19:13 had the word in question derived from raino (to sprinkle) and not bapto (to immerse, or dip).

Now the point is simply this: words have meaning.  When in a Bible study do not let people change the meaning of words on you.  Have courage in this area.

Posted in baptism, Plan of salvation, Textual varients, Word Study | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Poverty and Immoral Behavior: Are They Necessarily Linked?

Posted on June 13, 2014 by Bryan Hodge

It is true that poverty, like wealth, provides an avenue for certain temptations to come our way (Proverbs 30:8-9).  We are all tempted in various ways.  Poverty comes with its own circumstances which Satan uses in his desire to lead us away from God and righteousness.

But is there a necessary link between poverty and theft and other immoral behavior?  Some social scientists and liberal politicians proclaim in essence that such is the case (often in order to get more funding for some inner-city program or project).  But are the two, poverty and criminal or immoral behavior necessarily linked?

A professor of economics at George Mason University, Walter Williams, has written: “The fact that Washington and Harlem have 80% illegitimacy has nothing to do with racism in America.  It has to do with 13, 14, and 15-year-old girls having sexual intercourse without the benefit of marriage.  In 1925, blacks were far poorer and there was more discrimination” (William J. Bennett, The Devaluing of America: The Fight for Our Culture and Our Children, page 190).

Two other professors, James Q. Wilson and Richard Hernstein of the University of California, Los Angeles and Harvard University, have written in their book, Crime and Human Nature: “During the 1960’s, one neighborhood in San Francisco had the lowest income, the highest unemployment rate, the highest proportion of families with incomes under $4,000 a year, the least educational attainment, the highest tuberculosis rate, and the highest proportion of substandard housing.. that neighborhood was called Chinatown.  Yet, in 1965, there were only five persons of Chinese ancestry committed to prison in the entire state of California” (William J. Bennett, The Index of Leading Cultural indicators: Facts and Figures on the State of American Society, page 21).

Another has written, “The Great Depression caused a level of poverty unknown to exist in America today, and yet, I have been unable to find any accounts of crime waves sweeping our large cities.  In fact, I can’t find reliable information that even documents a noticeable increase in crime, period, during the Great Depression.”  (Rush Limbaugh, See, I Told You So, page 83).  Again, he said, “Let me posit two facts that prove conclusively that there is no direct causal connection between poverty and crime: (1) Most poor people never resort to crime; and (2) even some wealthy people commit evil acts to enrich themselves further… Let’s probe even more deeply into this poverty-equals-crime myth.  Where, do you suppose, is the poorest community in the United States?  Harlem?  East Los Angeles?  The South side of Chicago?  Surprise, Surprise.  None of these famous ‘bad neighborhoods’ is even on the top ten list.  In fact, the most financially strapped areas in the United States are not even urban areas.  According to the latest U.S. Census report, the poorest communities in the United States is Shannon County, South Dakota, followed by Starr, Texas and Tunica, Mississippi.  When was the last time you heard that the residents of one of these communities rioted to protest their living conditions?” (page 282, note this was written in 1993).

Folks, here are the facts: (1) Not all poor folks live a life of crime and immorality.  This is true in the inner-city as well.  (2) Poverty is an external circumstance which brings certain temptations.  But, one need not give in to temptation (1 Corinthians 10:13).  Paul wrote, “I have learned in whatever I am, to be content:  I know both how to be abased, and I know how to abound. Everywhere and in all things I have learned both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need.  I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me” (Philippians 4:11-13).  (3) Even though men might have pity, emotionally speaking, upon the one who would steal food due to hunger, the old law did not exempt such a one (Proverbs 6:30-31).

Posted in Money, Proverbs, Sin, Stats, Temptation, Wealth | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Feud Over Credit

Posted on June 12, 2014 by Bryan Hodge

Morton/Jackson(1)

William Morton (1819-1868), was a dentist.  He was obsessed with one thing.  He said, “If only I could pull teeth painlessly, I would become the richest dentist in Boston, perhaps the entire world.”

Later, Morton studied medicine and chemistry under Dr. Charles Jackson (1805-1880).  Jackson was a brilliant man who seemed to know more than anyone about so many subjects. Morton learned a lot from Jackson.

Jackson also had a huge ego.  Jackson boasted many things.  He told folks that it was he was and not Samuel Morse that really deserved credit for inventing the telegraph.  He said he had shared such ideas with Morse years before and that Morse had gone on to get credit (of course there is some difference between having an idea, and developing the idea). Wikipedia lists five disputes he had with others over discoveries and inventions.

Morton began to tell Jackson of his dream to relieve pain.  Morton had already tried ether but was disappointed in the results.  Dr. Jackson said, “You must use the pure diethyl ether.  Buy it from Joseph Burnet.  His apothecary is the one that sells the pure grade.”  Morton experimented with diethyl either for many months.  He began to use the gas in removing teeth. Joseph Warren M.D. allowed Morton to demonstrate the gas in a full-blown surgery in 1846.  It worked well.  Morton was famous.  Morton patented his discovery.

Jackson then began to argue that he deserved the credit and not Morton.  England offered a generous prize to Morton for his work, but withdrew the offer when Jackson protested.  France offered a similar prize provided that both men would share it.  Morton refused  and neither received any money.  The Massachusetts General Hospital investigated and said that credit belonged to Morton, not Jackson.  But, the controversy didn’t go away.  In 1868, Morton read a newspaper article which gave credit to Jackson.  He got so angry  he immediately suffered a stroke and died a few days later.  Elizabeth, his wife, said, “The greatest personal tragedy in my husband’s life was his discovery of ether.”  Jackson also was so filled with hatred that when he saw Morton’s tombstone read, “William C. G. Morton – Inventor of anesthetic inhalation” he went totally and completely insane for the rest of his life.  He lived until 1880 in the McLean (insane) asylum.

Actually, it is now known that neither man was the true inventor.  That honor goes to Crawford W. Long, a Georgia doctor who used ether as early as 1842 in surgery.

Hall/Heroult(2)

In total contrast with the aforementioned story, consider these two men.

Charles Martin Hall of America (1863-1914), and Paul Heroult of France (1863-1914) both separately, and independently, discovered how to separate and refine aluminum inexpensively.  Their discoveries came close to the same time.  Hall was the first to patent the discovery, but Heroult actually was the first to discover the process about two months prior to Hall.  Hall had the American rights.  Heroult had the European rights.

Things could have gotten bogged down in arguing over credit.  International lawsuits could have followed.  But such did not happen.

The two became close friends.  They worked together and pooled their knowledge to improve the process even more.

Application

In the church, let us not fret about who gets credit.  What great things could be accomplished if we stopped worrying about such!  God knows what we do for Him (Proverbs 15:3; 1 Timothy 5:25; Hebrews 6:10;).   It is He that we ought to want to please( 2 Corinthians 5:9; Galatians 1:10; 1 Thessalonians 2:4; 2 Timothy 2:15).

The apostle Paul was not concerned about who did the preaching (Philippians 1:15-18).  He simply rejoiced in the fact Christ was preached.  He did not want to make disciples of self but of Christ (1 Corinthians 1:11-13; 2 Corinthians 3:3-7).

Brethren, it does not matter who is called on to lead singing, lead prayers, preach from the pulpit, or teach class, or serve at the table.  Let us not be envious over such.  Let us rejoice that songs of praise are sang, and prayers are addressed unto God, Christ is preached, the word of God is proclaimed, and the Lord’s Supper is observed.

 Notes:                                                                                                                                                      1. Exploring the History of Medicine, by John Hudson Tiner, p. 62-66.                                  2.  Exploring the History of Chemistry, by John Hudson Tiner, p. 120-123

 

 

Posted in Fellowship, science | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Deadly Ignorance

Posted on June 9, 2014 by Bryan Hodge

Tin is a very commonly used metal.  Tin is used to form many alloys.  Bronze is an alloy of copper and tin.  Pewter is an alloy of lead and tin.  Tin is used to make many different products from paper clips, staples, and safety pins to pistons in airplane engines.  Tin is used in solders, due to its low melting point.  It is used to make collapsible tubes, such as those used for toothpaste.  Tin plated steel cans, which we normally call “tin cans” are commonly used due to the fact that tin protects the steel from rusting, and is non-toxic, and does not discolor food.  (Peter Durand, an Englishman, patented the tin can in 1810).  Tin is used in wrapping candy.  Tin foil was once common but aluminum has now replaced tin in the making of foil because aluminum is far cheaper than tin, economically speaking.

Tin, however, has one great weakness.  Extreme cold weather turns tin gray and brittle.  John Hudson Tiner has written “one of the great tragedies of Antarctic exploration came about because of tin used to solder the seams of kerosene cans.  Captain Robert Scott, a British explorer, organized an expedition to try to be the first to reach the South Pole.  He led his party across 1,800 miles of ice and snow.  At regular intervals they stored fuel and food for their return.  They reached the South Pole on January 18, 1912.  Standing on the spot was a marker left there one month earlier by Roald Amundsen, a Norwegian explorer. Disheartened, the men began their return journey into the face of a blizzard.  When the weary men arrived at food and fuel, the tin had turned to powder.  The Kerosene leaked through the seams.  The desperate men raced to the next cache.  The cans there were empty too.  The entire Scott party perished in the frozen wilderness, partly because of the little-known fact that tin becomes brittle at cold temperatures.” (Exploring the World of Chemistry, p.9).

Here’s the point.  God created physical laws that we live under and ignorance is no excuse.  Why should we think things will be different when it comes to God’s spiritual laws?  They won’t.  2 Thessalonians 1:8 tells us that Jesus will return “taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel..” Matthew 15:14 warns, “if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a ditch.” 2 Timothy 2 :15 admonishes, “Be diligent to present yourselves approved to God…rightly dividing the word of truth.”  1 Thessalonians 5:21 instructs, “test all things …” Hear this: to be ignorant of God’s spiritual laws is of far greater consequence, than to be ignorant of physical laws.

Posted in Bible Study, Doctrine, Plan of salvation, science | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment