The Testing of Israel

Posted on July 22, 2014 by Bryan Hodge

Some have wondered – why God did not better supply the children of Israel as they journeyed towards the promised land.  At times, they went without adequate water (Exodus 17:3; Numbers 20:2).  At times, they hungered (Exodus 16:3; Deuteronomy 8:3).  Now, it is true that God miraculously was with them (Deuteronomy 8:4; 29:5; Nehemiah 9:21).  But, why would God put them through such hardship?  Didn’t He know what they needed?

The “why” of God’s allowance of this is found in Deuteronomy 8:2-3, 16.  God was testing them.  He wanted them to humbly submit unto Him.  Some did.   Many others grumbled, murmured, and disrespectfully and rebelliously complained every step of the way.  Others even sought to return unto Egypt (Numbers 14:4; Nehemiah 9:17; Acts 7:39).   They should have humbly and respectfully prayed to Him when in need. God was testing and proving the character and faith of each man and woman.  He was revealing what was in the heart.  Understand, if these tests were properly received they matured and perfected those tested (Deuteronomy 8:3, 16).

Application

When we experience hardships in life remember that such may well be a test.  God is separating the wheat from the chaff.  He is revealing the heart.  Don’t let the testing of life derail you and keep you out of the promised land.  Trust in Him.  Don’t give up.  “In due season we shall reap, if we faint not” (Galatians 6:9).

Posted in Endurance, life, Suffering, Textual study | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Galen’s Influence

Posted on July 21, 2014 by Bryan Hodge

Imhotep (Egypt c. 3500 B.C.), Hippocrates (KOS, Greece 460-377 B.C.), Galen (Pergamum, Asia Minor 130-201? A.D.): Those are the celebrated physicians of ancient times.

It is Galen that is the subject of this article.  Galen learned much by dissecting animals – pigs, goats, and even apes.  He worked as a physician for a gladiator school.  His repair of injured fighters also helped him to learn about the human body.  Roman law, however, prevented him from doing any dissection of human bodies, even of dead gladiators.  Hence, his understanding of the human body was limited.

He once treated a man, Eudemus, a well-known physician.  Through his effort, the man recovered.  Galen figured out that injuries in one part of the body, such as the head and neck, could affect other areas of the body such as the limbs, hands, or feet.  Galen treated the nerve in Eudemus’ neck and not his fingers that had mild paralysis.

Galen’s fame grew.  Marcus Aurelius, the emperor, hired Galen as his personal physician.  He even said, “Rome has but one physician – Galen.”

Galen’s writings and opinions became the final authority in medicine for some.  “Galen’s authority remained supreme until about the time when the colonies began to occupy the Atlantic coast of North America.  As late as the middle of the sixteenth century a London physician, who had assailed the teachings of Galen, was obliged to take back what he has said, and to hand in a written apology on penalty of expulsion from the college of physicians” (New Standard Encyclopedia).  “Medical schools used Galen’s books as textbooks for more than a thousand years.  He became the undisputed authority.  No one dared to ever differ with him” (John Hudson Tiner, Exploring the History of Medicine from the Ancient Physicians of Pharaoh to Genetic Engineering, p.14).  The Middle Ages were not good times for studying medicine, or studying anything.  The economy suffered to the point that few could afford to devote much time to medical research. Many libraries were burned when Rome fell. Writings from Hippocrates and Galen survived.  Thus, they became ” the last word in medicine” (ibid, p.13). In the 1500’s, some medical schools did little more than study Galen’s writings.

However, Galen did not have accurate knowledge of everything.  Example: Galen taught that the human breastbone had seven segments (based upon his dissection of an ape).  Andreas Vesalius ( 1514 -1564, Belgian) studied the human skeleton and found that the human skeleton has three segments. Example: He assumed that the rete mirabile, a plexus of blood vessels at the base of some animal brains was also present in humans. Example: He assumed that the lower jaw in humans was made up of two bones, as it is in dogs. Eventually Vesalius would find over 200 mistakes in Galen’s books (ibid, p.20).

William Harvey (1578-1657, English) also found that Galen’s understanding of the circulatory system incorrect.  Galen did not consider the heart a pump.He thought that the blood surging through the heart caused the beating.  Galen taught that veins carried blood away from the heart.  Galen taught that blood was constantly being manufactured by the liver and burned my the muscles. He had no concept of blood circulating.  It was in 1616 that William Harvey (an English Physician) announced before the College of Physicians lectureship, “Thus is proved a perpetual motion of the blood in a circle caused by the beating of the heart.”  Doctors who rejected his findings just quoted Galen instead of repeating his experiments (ibid, p.35).

Galen’s influence persisted. In 1796, Edward Jenner (1749-1823, English) came up with a vaccine for Small Pox.  The British Royal family, Napoleon, and Thomas Jefferson were all soon vaccinated thereafter.  He was nominated to the College of Physicians.  The doctors agreed to admit him only after he first passed a test over the teachings of Hippocrates and Galen.  He refused.

 Joseph Lister (1827-1912; an English surgeon who worked in Scotland) found Galen to be wrong on infections.  Galen taught “infections is useful. The pus cleanses wounds and helps healing” (ibid, p.87). Lister was troubled that more than half of those with compound fractures died.  He began to test antiseptics in treating such wounds.  It worked.  The death rate dropped [Note: Listerine mouthwash is named in honor of him].

Galen’s terminology is still used today.  We say that one is in “good-humor” if he feels well, and is in “ill-humor” if he feels poorly.  The term “humor” refers to fluids.  Galen theorized that there were four fluids that must be in balance to feel good.  Blood letting was based in part on this theory.

APPLICATION

1.  “(Galen’s) books contained a curious mixture of fact, opinion and outright errors.  With his usual cheerful self-confidence, Galen stated it all as fact.  He did not keep apart what he knew as fact from what he merely believed to be true” (ibid, p.10).

We who teach should make a distinction.  When we state an opinion, we should let folks know it is such  (cf. Philemon 15).

2.  We should never place too much confidence in men.  We must do our own research (1 Thessalonians 5:21; Acts 17:11).  God and His Word is our final authority, not man.  Let us use commentaries for the evidence which they can provide, but not as popes with final authority.

3.  Many in the Middle Ages spent too much time studying Galen and not enough studying the human body.  We today can spend too much time studying what someone says about the Bible, and not enough studying the Bible itself.  Read Acts 20:32; 1 Peter 2:2.

Posted in Bible Study, science | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Debate

Posted on July 18, 2014 by Bryan Hodge

All around the world preachers preach to people who generally agree with them. If they did not generally agree, they would not keep on attending and supporting such preaching.

It is my contention that if we are truly interested in truth, and the souls of men, we should be willing to come together and discuss our differences. We are to be “prepared to make a defense” for what we believe (1 Peter 3:15 ESV). Truth has nothing to fear by being examined. It has been said that the more truth is rubbed, the brighter it shines.

Logic accepts there to be certain laws of thought. (1) The Law of Excluded Middle States – “every precisely stated proposition is either true or false. There is no middle-ground between a proposition being true and being false.” (2) The Law of Contradiction States – “no proposition can be both true and false, in the same respect.” (3) The Law of Identity States – “if a proposition is true, then it is true.” It is not true for me and false for him.

Application: If “Man A” argues that we are bound to keep the Sabbath today, and “Man B” argue that we are not so bound – both cannot be correct. If “Man A” argues that the use of mechanical instruments of music is acceptable for worship today, and “Man B” deny such – both cannot be correct. If “Man A” argues baptism is not essential to man’s salvation today, and “Man B” affirm that it is essential – both cannot be correct. If “Man A” argues that there is but one permitted reason for divorce and remarriage, and “Man B” argues that there other permitted reasons – both cannot be correct.

Early Christians` Example/Word Study

The early Christians did not proclaim their beliefs just before the church. They preached in such public places as: (1) The temple – (Acts 3:11-ff; 14:1; 17:1-ff; 17:10-ff; 17:16-ff; 18:4; 18:19); (2) synagogues (Acts 9:20; 13:5; 13:14; 14:117:1-3; 17:10-12; 17:1718:4; 18:19; 19:8); (3) Marketplace (Acts 17:17); and (4) The Areopagus of Mar’s Hill (Acts 17:22-ff). They taught both publicly and from house to house (Acts 5:42; 20:20).

A study of the words used to describe what Paul did is helpful.

1.  He reasoned or disputed (Acts 17:2; 17:17; 18:4; 18:19; 19:9; 24:25).

The word is dialegomai, from dia (through) and lego (to speak). This word is defined to mean – (a) Vine’s: “‘to think different things with oneself, to ponder,’ then ‘to dispute with others.’” (b) B-A-G: “discuss, conduct a discussion.” (c) Thayer: “to think different things with oneself, mingle thought with thought . . . to converse, discourse with one, argue, discuss.” (d) Thomas Warren said – “Basic Meaning: to argue, discourse, debate, discuss, contend” (The Work of The Gospel Preacher, p. 3).

2.  He explained or opened (Acts 17:3).

The word is dianoigo, from dia (through) and oigo (to open). This word is defined to mean – (a) Vine’s: “to open up completely . . . metaphorically . . . of the mind.” (b) Thayer: “to open the sense of the scriptures, explain them . . . to open the mind of one, i.e. cause him to understand a thing.”

3.  He demonstrated or alleged (Acts 17:3).

The word is paratithemi, from para (beside) and tithemi (to put or place). The context refers to the placing of the life of Christ next to the message of the prophets (Acts 17:3 cf. Lk 24:25-27).

4.  He explained or expounded (Acts 28:23).

The word is ektithemi, from ek (out) and tithemi (to put or place). The context refers to bring out the meaning from “both the law of Moses and the prophets” (Acts 28:23).

5.  He persuaded (Acts 13:43; 18:4; 19:8; 28:23).

The word is peitho. This word is defined by Thayer to mean “(a.) to persuade, i.e. to induce one by words to believe . . . (b.) to make friends of, win one’s favor, gain one’s goodwill . . . (c.) to persuade unto i.e. move or induce one by persuasion to do something.”

6.  He disputed (Acts 9:29).

The word is suzeteo, from sun (with) and zeeleo (seek). This word means – (a) Vine’s: “lit. to seek or examine together.” (b) Thayer: “to seek or examine together.” (c) B-A-G: “discuss, debate, argue.” (d) Thomas Warren said – “to discuss, dispute, question, debate.”

Listening

Debating is not a game. It is not about personalities, or should not be. It is about examining the truth. Every precisely state proposition is either true or false. The hearer should operate under the Law of Rationality which says that man should weigh the evidence and draw only such conclusions as are warranted by the evidence (cf. 1 Thessalonians 5:21).

Shun Debates?

Debating is nowhere near as common as it once was. Joe Warlick (1866-1941) had 399 debates, 23 with the same man – Ben Bogard. Joe Blue (1875-1954) had at least 107 debates. Debating has become less common in our days for several reasons.

1.  Denominations do not like to be exposed. Brother Carl Heckel has written, “Many people are afraid of the truth. Debates tend to force confrontation with the word of God. Such confrontation demands change in conviction and/or behavior. To avoid this unpleasant encounter some have been prone to advance unwarranted criticism of debating itself” (Jerry Moffitt, Do Debates Do Any Good? Seventh Annual Shenandoah Lectures – Denominationalism versus the Bible, p. 564). Some religious groups, such as the Jehovah Witnesses, will no longer debate.

2.  Some brethren have become uncertain, and unconvinced about what they believe. One is not likely to be willing to defend a position publicly, if one is unsure about that position. Some have become out-right agnostics in regards to truth. They like Pilate say, “What is truth?”

3.  Some are confused over Romans 1:29 (KJV). “Debate” in this verse is negatively used.

Many words have more than one usage. The term “desire” or “lust” (epithumia) can be used of evil desires (Colossians 3:5) or of good desires (Philippians 1:23; 1 Thessalonians 2:17). It all depends on what is desired. The term “jealous” or “zealous” (zelos) can be used of evil jealousy (Galatians 5:20), or of good zeal (1 Corinthians 14:12; Titus 2:14). It all depends on for what one is burning. Even so, the term “debate” can be good (Proverbs 25:9a), or bad (Romans 1:29). If one is speaking of needless controversy, needless fussing, and fighting, then such is wrong. However, if one is speaking of reasoning together concerning the truth, such can be good.

“Argue” is another such word which has two meanings. The term “argue” can refer to “needless fussing and fighting”. However, in logic the term “argument” refers to “a number of propositions, some of which function as premises (that is they serve as evidence) and one (or more) function as the conclusion”. In other words, an argument is “a group of statements which are used to prove or support a conclusion”.

4.  Some are confused over what Paul was forbidding in 1 + 2 Timothy and Titus (1 Timothy 1:4; 4:7; 6:4; 2 Timothy 2:14; 2:23; 4:4; Titus 1:14; 3:9). Didn’t Paul say that foolish disputes were to be avoided?

Look closely at these passages. These passages involve the following words – (1) Fables or myths (1 Timothy 1:4; 4:7; 2 Timothy 4:4; Titus 1:14). (2) Genealogies (1 Timothy 1:4; Tit. 3:9). (3) Questions (1 Timothy 1:4; 6:4; 2 Timothy 2:23; Titus 3:9), and (4) Unprofitable words (1 Timothy 6:4; 2 Timothy 2:14; Titus 3:9). Bill Lockwood comments “The questions and ‘dispute of words’ of which the apostle speaks refers to Jewish efforts to press traditions surrounding the Law of Moses upon Christians. They were referred to as ‘myths’ because of the lack of historical character . . . the ‘striving’ which Paul forbade included the entanglement in untaught questions upon which the Bible was silent. They were ‘myths,’ ‘fables,’ ‘genealogies,’ traditions about people’s origins and were ‘quarrels’ specifically related to the law of Moses. . . . H. Wace, in Cook’s Commentary offers this notion. Philo, the Jew, who was teaching at Alexandria during the time of our Lord’s ministry, dividing the writings of Moses into historical and genealogical . . . found in the genealogies a whole system of psychology. The names with him represented the various conditions of the soul . . . something of this kind were probably the ‘endless genealogies’” (Hammer & Tongs, May-June 95, p. 6). Forbidden is striving over words of no profit (2 Timothy 2:14). However, let us remember that when it comes to God’s word “All scripture is given by the inspiration of God, and is profitable. . .” (2 Timothy 3:16).

5.  Some debaters have admittedly not always behaved in a christian manner. Alexander Campbell warned “the man that cannot govern his own spirit in the midst of opposition and contradiction is a poor christian indeed” (Jerry Moffitt, p. 565). I agree. Although, I would point out that things like – pressing a point, holding a debater to the proposition which he signed, showing inconsistencies in one’s position, etc. – are not mean-spirited, but necessary to make any progress in a discussion. Attacking the person is off-limits. Exposing a doctrine is not.

Posted in Apologetics, Preachers, Preaching, Textual study, Word Study | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Church Growth

Posted on July 15, 2014 by Bryan Hodge

Problem Stated

Christians today have become discouraged.  In our classes, we read the book of Acts.  We see how rapidly the church expanded during this period of time.  Then we turn, examine ourselves, and want to know why similar results do not occur in this present age.  Certainly, our labors are not without efforts.  Certainly, we desire the church to grow.  Yet, the dynamic and exciting growth of the first century never seems to occur.  Why, we ask, why?

False solutions

As a result of this troubling question, church growth seminars tend to emphasize method rather than message.  Symbolism is placed over substance.  Many of these seminars have changed Gospel preachers into warmed over motivational speakers (Dale Carnegie, Zig Ziglar, Tony Robbins) cheerleaders and clowns.

Many members have misplaced emphasis.  This shift in value has caused some to make statements such as follows: “If only  we could procure on to lead us in song that has a voice like Elvis Presley – then we would grow”…  “If only  we hired a preacher that was a great orator like Jimmy Swaggart, Oral Roberts, Billy Graham, or Martin Luther King Jr. – then we would really see growth”… “If only we could find a preacher with a voice like Orson Welles, James Earl Jones, or Morgan Freeman”…”If only the preacher looked like Burt Lancaster, or Brad Pitt”…”If only  we had a nicer auditorium then people would come.”

This writer understands the importance of presenting ourselves in an attractive way. However, this mentality has gone to an extreme that is leading us down a very dangerous path.

Several false assumptions have developed as a result of this current thinking.  Today, members honestly believe that if the preacher presented himself in proper fashion and worked hard, the church would grow.  They also assume that if the church does not grow the preacher must not be doing something right, and therefore, must be relieved of duty.  Though most would never explicitly state it, they believe it is no longer the Gospel that saves (Romans 1:16) but growth is the result of having proper programs and pleasing personalities in place.

How does this reasoning fit with Bible teaching?  First, it would imply that Jesus needed to attend a church growth seminar (John 6:53-6:66).  Many rejected Jesus (John 1:10, 11).  It would imply Noah did something wrong (2 Peter 2:5).  It implies the same of Abraham (Genesis 18:24-32), Jeremiah or Ezekiel would also be guilty of being poor preachers by implication (Jeremiah 5:1-ff;Ezekiel 23:30).

How should we view the situation Biblically?

First, the Bible clearly affirms that few will make it (Luke 13:23, 24; 1 Corinthians 1:26).  In Mark 4 only one of the four soil types received the seed the way  it should be received.  We must not set our expectation level too high or we will become discouraged and give up.

Second, we must never put method and style ahead of message and substance.  Paul was not the best pulpit preacher (2 Corinthians 10:10; 1 Corinthians 2:3-5).  Nevertheless, He is our proper model (1 Corinthians 4:16; Philippians 3:17; 1 Thessalonians 1:6; 2 Thessalonians 3:9).  Members and elders should demand that the preacher preach the truth, and the whole truth (2 Timothy 4:1-2; Acts 20:20,27).

Third, we must remember God gives the increase (1 Corinthians 3:6).  If the seed is being sown both publicly and house to house by the preacher and members and numbers are not being converted, then, it is not the fault of the local church or the preacher. The fault is in the hearers. {Note: This assumes that the work is actually being done. This also assumes that the truth is being preached in love (Ephesian 4:15). In many cases the work is not being done, and it is not being done with love.}

Fourth, we must realize evangelism is only part of our purpose as a church.  We are first and foremost here to bring glory to God (1 Corinthians 6:20; 1 Peter 4:11).

Fifth, let us realistically look at reasons accelerated, rapid growth occurs.  Sometimes growth occurs simply because the area is growing in population.  We have little control of this.  Rapid growth also occurs because of a watered-down message (2 Timothy 4:3).  This is not the kind of growth for which we should strive. Growth sometimes comes from sister churches having problems. This is not really growth, but a shifting of numbers. The last reason growth occurs is because of fertile soil (Acts 2; Matthew 13).  This is the kind of growth we desire, but we must realize we can’t control this either.  Some parts of the world are ready and hungry for the Gospel. Other parts are not. These things sometimes change over time. {Note: I have preached in places where dozens of baptism per year occurred. I have preached in places where few baptism a year occurred. I have held meetings which resulted in many baptism. I have held meetings in which no one was baptized. I have done mission trips which have resulted in hundreds of baptisms. I have done mission trips with hardly any responses. Yet, the same message was preached. The message did not change. Further, I have seen different responses, and different levels of interest even in the same place at different times}

Let us simple continue to sow the seed where ever we are, and whenever we have opportunity. This pleases God.  Let us seek to magnify Him in this life. Don’t get discouraged. Preach the word! Live for Him! Do so whether others choose to follow Him or not.

Posted in Meaning and Purpose, Preachers, Preaching, Soul Winning | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Anti-Semitism

Posted on July 13, 2014 by Bryan Hodge

Many Jews were offended over the movie, “The Passion of the Christ.”.  They did not want it to appear as if they were the ones who caused Jesus to be crucified; but of course, their ancestors were responsible (John 19:11; Matthew 27:24-25; 1 Thessalonians 2:14-15).

Having said this, should we be anti-semitic?  Absolutely not!  Jesus Himself was a Jew.  Moreover, let us remind ourselves that Jesus really did for us all (Hebrews 2:9).  Further,  the fact that just because someone`s ancestors might have done this or that in the past does not mean that one should be held as guilty of such (Ezekiel 18:20).

Anti-Semitism is nothing new. This is why the Apostle Paul argues that God had not rejected all Israelites. First, he points out that he too was an Israelite (Romans 11:1).  Paul’s salvation demonstrated that God had not arbitrarily rejected Israelites.  Robert Taylor Jr. has written, “Salvation is available for both Jew and Gentile but only if welcomed and obeyed by individuals of each race.  Redemption is individually centered – not nationally accepted” (Studies in Romans, p. 190). Let us consider Romans 1:14-16.  Again, brother Taylor has written, “God had rejected them as a nation for a surety and for good reason… But national rejection had not as much as a particle to do with whether they, as individuals, could be saved” (ibid, 191).

Second, Paul affirms that just as God had a faithful remnant in Elijah’s day, even so He had such in Paul’s day (Romans 11:4-5).  Not all of Israel had rejected the Gospel.

Third, though Paul was primarily working with the Gentiles, he still cared very deeply about the Jewish people (cf. Romans 9:1-3; 10:1; 11:13-14).  Paul’s hope was that the Gentiles might be able to provoke (in a good sense) some of the Jews to obedience to the Gospel (Romans 11:11,13-14).

Fourth, he reminds the Gentiles of “the firstfruit” (Romans 11:16a).  The wording is often used of the first converts in time or area (eg. Romans 16:5; 1 Corinthians 16:15; James 1:18).  Let us remember the first of all converts were Israelites (Acts 2).  Bobby Liddell has written, “The believing Jews on Pentecost were the first fruits… As such, they were the pledge of a fuller harvest.  All who will follow their good examples and do as they did will be as they were – saved in Christ” (Annual Denton Lectureship Book, Studies in Romans, p. 215).

Fifth, “the root” is mentioned (Romans 11:16b).  The root, many think, refers to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  The promise was made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  All things grew from there.  The Gentiles were beneficiaries of that root.  The root bears or supports the Gentiles, not the other way around (Romans 11:18).  It was Israelites who carried the Gospel into all the world (cf. Romans 15:26-27 with Galatians 6:6).  Salvation was of the Jews (John 4:22; cf. Isaiah 2; Micah 4; Acts 8:4; Acts 10-11; Acts 9:15).

Sixth, they should not boast against the Jews (Romans 11:18).  Why not?  Namely, he mentions that the root bears or supports them (Romans 11:18).  Also, God had not arbitrarily rejected all of Israel (Romans 11:1, 20, 23); nor, had He arbitrarily accepted all of the Gentiles (Romans 11:20-22).

Seventh, Paul compares the Jew and Gentile (Romans 11:19-22).  Some might have thought Israel was broken off due to their own unworthiness and the Gentiles grafted in due to their own worthiness. Some might have concluded –  “Aren’t we special!”  Paul says, you should consider this: Those who know olive trees (or any fruit trees) know that pruning does takes place from time to time.  The fact is – the Jews had no monopoly on unbelief.  If a Gentile did not continue in His goodness, pruning time would come.

Eighth, Paul makes the point that it was indeed possible for an unbeliever to become a believer (Romans 11:23-24).  In grafting an orchard or vineyard one usually chooses the most cultivated branches, branches of similar quality as the stock.  In Paul’s illustration the inferior branch is the Gentiles.  The point is this –  if God is able to graft in an uncultivated branch, then He certainly is able to graft in a branch that had been cultivated (the Jews – Romans 3:1-2; 9:4-5; 10:4).

Ninth, the great point which they weren’t to forget is that Israel could be saved (Romans 11:26-27).  The word ‘so’ (houtos) means ‘in this way’ or ‘by this manner.’  McCord’s New Testament translates the “In this way, all Israel will be saved.”   The context is clear, Israel’s hope is in Christ (Romans 11:26-27).  They must turn from their unbelief  (Romans 11:23).  They must believe the Gospel of Christ (Romans 1:16).  They must obey (Romans 6:16-18; 1:5; 16:26; cf. Hebrews 5:9).

Tenth, Paul again hoped that through the Gentiles living the Gospel, more and more Jews might likewise become obedient (Romans 11:31, 11, 14-15 cf. 2 Corinthians 9:13; 1 Thessalonians 1:8-9).

Eleventh, though Israel had turned out to be (in general) enemies of the Gospel, the Gentiles should not forget that God chose to work His plan through those people due to His love of the fathers (Romans 11:28). The fathers are Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (cf. Deuteronomy 4:37; 7:7-8; 10:15 cf. Romans 11:28).

Twelfth, God’s mercy was what permitted justification (Romans 11:30-31).  This was true of both Jew and Gentile.  So where is the place of boasting? (Romans 11:18, 25a).

Christ is to be Lord of all. The gospel of Christ is God`s power to save both the Jews and the Gentiles (Romans 1:16).  “For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him” (Romans 10:12). “For to this end Christ died and rose and lived again, that He might be Lord of both the dead and the living” (Romans 14:9).

Posted in Faith, Old Testament/New Testament, Plan of salvation, Premillennialism, Race, Textual study | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

A Monument to the Boll Weevil?

Posted on July 10, 2014 by Bryan Hodge

Located in the small town of Enterprise, Alabama, a town about 30 miles north of the Florida state line, stands the world’s only monument in honor of an insect – the Boll Weevil.

The Boll Weevil is a small beetle, thought to be native to Central America. It entered the United States  in 1892 from Mexico. It first appeared in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas, but by 1909 it had spread across the South (note: it also spread in the 1940s into South America). Its average length is just 6 millimeters. However, it is a big problem for cotton farmers. It feeds upon the cotton plant. It is estimated that this insect has cost U.S. farmers $13 billion, since its appearance. The boll weevil eradication program which began in 1978 has been a great success. Moreover, the appearance of the Fire Ant has also contributed to the Boll Weevil’s decline.

Why would any southern town erect such a monument?  This town in the early 1900’s was a cotton town.  But then in 1915 came those dreaded boll weevils.  Two-thirds of the country’s crop that year was destroyed.  The devastation led to agricultural diversification.  Many of the farmers turned to the growing of peanuts for income.  The result was the local economy was healthier and more vibrant than ever, and the local farmers likewise were more prosperous than ever before.  And so, in 1919 the monument was erected to give thanks for the boll weevil.

We too can learn, grow, and mature through diversity.  When life is difficult, don’t give up, but adapt. May we use all of life as an opportunity to do good, spiritually grow and draw closer to God (Genesis 50:20-21; Psalm 119:67, 71).

Posted in Endurance, History, Suffering | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Serotinous Cones

Posted on July 8, 2014 by Bryan Hodge

A forest fire rages. Thousands of acres burn.  How is the forest to survive?

The Bible proclaims, “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead (divine nature B.H.)…” (Romans 1:20).  Evidence of Intelligent Design is seen in the created order.  Let’s examine His planning for forest fires.

Many conifer trees (such as pine, spruce, cypress and Sequoia) are designed for regrowth after a fire.  Seeds of these plants are protected in the cones. These trees produce a certain portion of their cones serotinous, or sealed with resin.   The cones open, releasing the seeds, after being exposed to high temperatures (the kind of heat produced by fire).  Note: some angiosperms (such as the eucalyptus) also have similar designed in their pods.

A man, I know, visited Yellowstone National Park after a great fire, several years ago.  He was amazed to see the abundant growth in areas that had been scorched.  He was told of serotinous cones. What a design!  God provided a way for reforestation to occur.  While other plants regrow in a burned area slowly though wind and animals transporting the seeds, God has provided a means to expedite regrowth –  thus,  speeding the return of animals to the area.

Did this just happen?  Did it happen by chance or random mutation?  Did it not take a mind for such design?  But, trees have no mind.  There must have been a mind, an intellect for such a design to be in place, for if there is design there must be a designer.  The Bible says, “every house is built by someone, but He who built all things is God” (Hebrews 3:4).

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

Lester Tipton

Posted on July 6, 2014 by Bryan Hodge

 You might sometimes wonder if your good deeds of kindness are really making positively difference in the lives of others. You might wonder if  you are leaving a lasting positive influence on others. I’m here to tell you that you may well be, far more than you ever know.

When I was in  preacher training school, struggling as most students to make ends meet, a deed of kindness was done unto me which I will never forget.  I was driving the nearly 45 miles between my home and the school on four bald tires.  Suddenly, one of my rear tires blew.  I managed to get the car to the side of the road and off the freeway.  I walked from there to the home of a church member.  His name was Lester Tipton.  All I wanted to do was use his phone to call someone to pick me up.  He, seeing the predicament I was in, took me to a tire store and bought me a new set of tires.

Lester is now dead, but his kindness still encourages me.  I often think about his act of kindness.  When the world is unkind, and when even some brethren behave like the devil, I think upon Lester Tipton. His kindness reminds me that are  good, kind souls out there. Moreover, his act of kindness reminds me how encouraging deeds of kindness can be to others. This motivates me to show kindness.

Brethren, as we go throughout our lives, let us show kindness.  Let us remember the words of Jesus, “Inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me… Inasmuch as you did  not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to  Me” (Matthew 25:40, 45).  Jesus after setting forth the parable of The Good Samaritan said  “go and do likewise” (Luke 10:37).  Let us remember (1 John 3:17), “Whoever has this world’s good, and sees his brother in need, and shuts up his heart from him, how does the love of God abide in him?”  How you treat another may help to edify another years later.

Furthermore, remember  God appreciates these acts of kindness – “For God is not unjust to forget your work and labor of love which you have shown toward His name, in that you have ministered to the saints, and do minister” (Hebrews 6:10); “For whoever gives you a cup of water to drink in My name, because you belong to Christ, assuredly, I say to you, he will by no means lose his reward” (Mark 9:41).

Posted in Fellowship, Giving, Hospitality, Mercy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Man, The Boy, The Donkey

Posted on July 4, 2014 by Bryan Hodge

Once upon a time there was a man, a boy (the man’s son), and a donkey.  The three were headed to the market.  They had not gone far before they met a farmer.  He said, “You are very foolish to walk to town and lead the donkey behind you.  What is a donkey good for, if not to ride upon?”  The man, wanting to please the farmer, put his son upon the donkey and away they went.

Soon, they met another who said, “See the lazy boy.  He rides on the donkey while his poor father walks.”  The father, not wanting to displease, exchanged places with the boy.

Next, they met two women who criticized saying, “Did you ever see so lazy a man?  He rides and takes his ease, while his son walks.”  The man, wanting to please everyone, pulled his son up on the donkey with him.

Finally, They passed some men who, seeing them both ride, said, “You ought to be ashamed of yourself for being so cruel to that donkey.  It is too much for so small an animal to carry so heavy a load.”  Wanting to please everyone the father had a plan. He took a long pole and tied the donkey’s feet to it, and father and son began to carry the donkey.  The father thought, “I think we’re pleasing everyone now.”  But, as they crossed the bridge they stumbled; the donkey rolled into the river below, and drowned.

This is an ancient moral story.  The point of which is that it is not always possible to please everyone.

We, as God’s people, need to get clear in our minds, who it is that we wish to please.  Paul wrote, “Therefore, we make it our aim, whether present or absent, to be well pleasing to Him” (2 Corinthians 5:9). He instructed, “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God..” ( 2 Timothy 2:15).

Posted in animals, Dedication, Priorities | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

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