Marry A Strong Christian

Posted on May 29, 2014 by Bryan Hodge

I firmly believe that who one marries is one of the most important decisions one will ever spiritually make, it may determine where you spend eternity.  Marry someone who will help you to heaven.  Do not marry anyone who would hinder you from making it to heaven.  It may determine where your children, and even grandchildren will spend eternity. Marry someone who will help them to heaven.  Do not marry anyone who would hinder them from making it to heaven.

1.  Old Testament

Israel was warned against entering into religiously mixed – marriages (Exodus 34:11-16; Dueteronomy 7:1-4).  They were told – “You shall not give your daughter to their son, nor make their daughter for your son.  For they will turn your sons away from following me, to serve other gods” (Deuteronomy 7:4).  They did not listen (cf. Judge 3:5-6).  “King Solomon loved many foreign women. . .  his wives turned his heart after other gods and his heart was not loyal to the Lord his God, as was the heart of his father David” (1 Kings 11:1-4).  “Ahab . . . sold himself to do wickedness in the sight of the Lord, because Jezebel his wife stirred him up“ (1 Kings 21:25).  “Ahab . . . took as wife Jezebel the daughter of Ethbaal, king of the Sidonians; and he went and served Baal and worshipped him” (1 Kings 16:29-31).

God-fearing parents of old were greatly concerned over whom their children married. Abraham was (Genesis 24:1-4).  Rebekah and Isaac were (Genesis 27:46-28:2; 26:34-35 cf 28:8-9).  Manoah and his wife were (Judges 14:2-3).

2. New Testament

Paul, if he married, would select a Christian for a wife.  He wrote, “Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?” (1 Corinthians 9:5).

It is true that one reads about Christians who were married to non-Christians (1 Corinthians 7:12-16; 1 Peter 3:1-6).  However, this does not mean that such was being encouraged. Johnny Ramsey commented on 1 Corinthians 7:12-16 “Marriages between Christians and unbelievers, a situation which arose, not from Christians marrying unbelievers, but from conversion of one out of an unbelieving (or pagan) couple” (Bruce Curd, Marry Only In The Lord, p.125).  This may be correct, never does one read about a Christian marrying or contemplating marrying and unbeliever.

3. Statistics

(a) “Divorce occurs three times as often in mixed marriages as in marriages between members of the same religious convictions” (Curd, p. 1).

(b)“Of every 100 Christians marrying, out of the church, it is estimated that 20 convert their companions, 24 live a divided life, and 56 quit the church” (ibid, p.103).

(c) A congregation in Oklahoma studied the lives of 143 of their young people.  79 of them married outside the church, of this number 57 left the church, only 22 were still faithful, just 14 had converted their mates (ibid, p.214).

4. Danger to Self

“Olivia Langdon was a believer who married Mark Twain, an unbeliever. She thought that her sweet spirit and devout faith would soon win her husband. During the first few months of their marriage they had thanks before each meal and read a chapter in the Bible every day. Such was soon stopped as Twain complained about the formality of it. They ceased going to worship . . .  Olivia gave up some of her religious conviction, having her faith in the providence and promises of God shaken through her husband’s philosophy. When she came to face the dark valley of the shadow of death, and knowing that her life was short Twain said to her ‘Livey, if it comforts you to lean on the Christian faith do so.’ She answered, ‘I can’t . . . I haven’t any’” (Warren, Your Marriage Can Be Great, p. 268).

Hugo McCord remarked “A wise Christian will offer a ring to no unconverted girl no matter how promising the union appears and an informed Christian girl will resolve to accept the ring of no unconverted man regardless of what he promises. If one cannot convert a person in the days of courtship, he deludes himself that it will be possible later.  If reforming of any kind is needed, religious or otherwise, experience has shown it had better be done before marriage” (Curd, p.105).

5. Danger to Children

Likely, children will come. Do you want a non-Christian teaching them and influencing them? What if you died young? Would you be comfortable with the non-Christian providing their religious training?

6. Illustration

“Imagine that a young man living in Atlanta is going to fly to Los Angeles. At the airport he meets an attractive young lady, and he gets into a conversation with her. He asks her where she going and she replies ‘to Chicago.’ ‘Well,’ he says, ‘that’s marvelous, I’m going to Los Angeles – let’s travel together so we can enjoy each other’s company!’ . . . They cannot travel together in opposite directions. What no intelligent man or woman would do in travel, many attempt to do in marriage.” (Curd, p. 28).

7. What if I am married to a non-Christian?

Do not compromise. Be faithful in attendance and in principles. Make it your practice to regularly read the Bible and pray. Never forsake the assembling of the saints to attend a denomination. If you are not serious about things, why should your spouse ever be? Live the Christian life and try to win them over by your conduct (1 Peter 3:1-6). It is important that you do not provide a reason for your spouse not to respect and take seriously Christianity.

Posted in Dating, Marriage, Stats | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Spontaneous Generation

Posted on May 27, 2014 by Bryan Hodge

At one point in the not too distant past, many intellectuals believed in a doctrine called “spontaneous generation” or “A-biogenesis.” That is, it was thought that life could spontaneously arise from non-living or inanimate matter. Prominent men believed this: Men such as William Harvey (English Physician), Francis Bacon (English Philosopher), Rene Descartes (French Mathematician/Philosopher), and Aristotle (Greek Philosopher/Educator/Scientist).

In the book, The History of Evolutionary Thought by Bert Thompson, this is told, “Jon Baptista van Helmont (1577-1644 A.D.) an outstanding Belgium scientist, physician and chemist brought forth experimental evidence to support his view that mice could develop from wheat kernels. He performed an experiment in which he wrapped some wheat kernels and cheese tidbits in a sweat-soaked shirt and stuffed the whole mass into an open container. He left the container, and when he examined it some 20 days later, he noted that due to some mysterious influence of human sweat, the kernels had ‘spontaneously generated’ into baby mice!” (Bert Thompson, The History of Evolutionary Thought, p. 95)

Let’s move now to some efforts against this ignorance. Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) was born in Dole, Jura, France on December 27, 1822. In 1854, Pasteur was appointed professor and Dean of Science at the University of Lille. He is sometimes called the “Father of bacteriology.” The word “pasteurize” comes down to us from his name and refers to the process of heating milk to kill off harmful microorganisms. But, let us begin in the 1850’s. The wine industry in France was troubled financially due to souring wine.  They thought “spontaneous generation” was to blame. Pasteur determined that these organisms had not “spontaneously generated” but were present in the air, and that as these organisms come in contact with the wine, souring occurred … He then showed how by heating the wine the organisms could be killed. Bert Thompson records Pasteur’s words, “Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment … can matter organize itself? In other words, are there beings that can come into the world without parents, without ancestors? … No, today there is no circumstance known under which one could affirm that microscopial beings have come into the world without germs, without parents resembling them.” (ibid, p. 98)

Another, an Italian physician by the name of Francesco Redi also did experimentation in this area in the year 1668. He took three jars and placed in them meat and fish. One jar he left open. One jar he covered with a mesh net. The third jar he sealed airtight. Only in the open jar (where female flies could land to deposit her eggs on the meat and fish did maggot develop. Maggots did not “spontaneously generate.” In the book, A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, Andrew White wrote, “by researches which could not be gainsaid, he showed that every one of these animals come from an egg …” (Andrew D. White,  A History Of The Warfare Of Science With Theology In Christendom, p. 42)

Two other men also contributed in understanding. John Needham (1713-1781) put some gravy in a corked sealed vessel. He left it for a period of time and returned, finding microorganisms. He concluded “spontaneous generation.” An Italian, Lazzaro Spallanzani (1729-1799) did the same experiment. He, however, boiled the contents for a long period, and sealed the vessel airtight. The results: no microorganism contamination.

Yes, people really did believe in such, and some do today. No one has ever demonstrated “spontaneous generation.” But, you see if one does not want to believe in God, one needs explain life in some way.

Conclusion

Folks, something does not come from nothing. Life does not come from non-life. Never is such seen today. “Spontaneous generation” has never been demonstrated, in fact the evidence speaks powerfully against it. Those who claim that life naturally can so arise from non-living matter should be put to the test, and pressed to prove it (1 Thessalonians. 5:21), or at least made to acknowledge that such a theory is beyond science. Dr. Paul Weisz, in his book, Elements of Biology, has well said, “All science begins with observation … something that cannot be observed cannot be investigated by science.”(Wayne Jackson and Bert Thompson, A Study Course In Christian Evidence, p. 50). Dr. F. J. Ayala said, “A hypothesis is … scientific only if it can be tested by experience … a hypothesis or theory which cannot be … does not belong to the realm of science” (ibid).

God says that things reproduce after their kind (Genesis 1). We know that this occurs.

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

“When… Without Strength”

Posted on May 22, 2014 by Bryan Hodge

In Romans 4:12, 16-17a, we are told that we need to have the faith of Abraham.  Without such faith is impossible to please Him (Hebrews 11:6).

Paul, then provides an illustration of Abraham’s faith (Romans 4:17-22).  When Abraham’s having a child through Sarah, by strictly natural means was impossible (Genesis 17:17; 18:11) – when Sarah was barren, dead in the womb (Romans 4:19), ceased after the manner of women (Genesis 18:11) – he (after the initial shock) trusted God in this matter.  Moreover, ultimately he gave God the glory (For he knew that such was not possible without God).  M.C. Moser  remarked, “It is easy to miss the chief points in Abraham’s faith. His faith was the result of two factors, namely Abraham`s deep awareness of his and Sarah`s physical impotence, and the power of God to fulfill His promise to give them a son… If they had been blessed with normal bodies, having a son would have required neither divine intervention, nor such faith as Abraham had” ( The Gist Of Romans, p. 36).

Question: Since this child (Isaac) came miraculously as a gift, by the grace of God, does this mean that there was no human activity necessary to secure this promise?  No, it does not.  There is no evidence that Isaac was conceived without Abraham’s “knowing” his wife.  To the contrary, this child was of Abraham (Genesis 12:7; 15:3-4; 26:1-4; Romans 4:18; cf. Hebrews 11:12).  This was not a “virgin birth.”

What’s the point?  I believe that Paul wanted them (the saints to whom he wrote), and us to appreciate the fact that, though there may be human conditions to be met, the basis of salvation  – is like that of Abraham and Sarah’s having a child in old age – both rest as a possibility in God, not man.  Man is as much without strength to save himself without God’s help, as Abraham and Sarah were to bring forth a child!  K.C. Moser has written, “Now, note the sinner.  He too is ‘dead.’ But in sin.  He is as helpless and hopeless as Abraham was…This both happened and was written ‘for our sake'” ( The Gist Of Romans, pp.38-39).

Now turn to Romans 5:6.  We were without strength (helpless – NASB).  I believe this connects back with Romans 4:18-20.  but in due time (Galatians 4:4; Ephesians 1:10; cf. Romans 5:6) – Christ died for us!

Human conditions?  Certainly, there are human conditions for salvation.  However, such is not even under consideration here.  Instead, the point is to show us that without God’s intervention, our salvation would have been just as impossible as Abraham and Sarah having a child in the state in which they are described.

Posted in God's Providence, Plan of salvation, Textual study, Type/Antitype | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Questions About The Flood

Posted on May 20, 2014 by Bryan Hodge

“But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriages, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. Then two men will be in the field: one will be taken and the other will be left. Two women will be grinding at the mill: one will be taken and the other left.” (Matthew 24:37-41)

“A few, that is, eight souls were saved through water” (1 Peter 3:20).

“God . . . .   did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly (2 Peter 2:4-5).

“The world that then exist perished, being flooded with water” (2 Peter 3:6).

The flood fascinates Bible students. It serves as a type of end of the world and judgment to come. It has been the topic of multitude of books, including: The Genesis Flood by John Whitcomb, Jr and Henry Morris; Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study by John Woodmorappe; The World That Perished by John Whitcomb. The Noahic Flood by Curtis Cates; A Study of The Biblical Flood by Marion Fox. The Global Flood of Noah by Bert Thompson.

There are common questions which are asked about the flood. These questions are sometimes asked by skeptics, but many times by sincere Bible students. The writing will provide concise answers to some of these common questions.

1.  Was the flood a global or local flood?

(a) It must be admitted that the language sounds like a global flood. (Genesis 6:13; 7:4; 7:19; 7:21-23; 8:9. 2 Peter 2:5; 3:3-7). If one wanted to describe a global flood, this is the language one would use.

(b) If the flood was not global, why was an ark needed? Noah and his family could have migrated to another place. God could have directed the animals to higher ground.

(c) What flood ever lasted one year and ten days (Genesis 7:7-11 cf 8:13-19)?

(d) If the flood was not global, then what meaning would the rainbow promise have (Genesis 9:8-17)?

Great local floods still occur: (1) In 1931, the Yellow River of China flooded killing an estimated one million.  (2) In 1887, the Yellow River flooded an area larger than Great Britain killing 900,000. (3) In 1938, the Yellow River flooded killing 500,000. (4) In 1642, the Yellow River flooded killing 300,000. (5) In 2004 a tsunami in the India Ocean killed at least 230,000 in fourteen countries. (6) In 2011, a tsunami: killed 15,884 in Japan. (7) In 1900 a storm-surge swept Galveston Island, TX. killing perhaps as many as 8,000. (8) In 1889, the Johnstown, PA. flood killed 2,209. (9) In 2005, hurricane Katrina killed 1,836 in New Orleans, LA.

2. Could the Ark really hold all those animals?

(a) Not all of the animals had to be on the Ark. The animals brought on board included those “in whose nostrils was the breath of life” (Genesis 6:17; 7:22).  Fish would not need to be on the Ark. Aquatic mammals would not need to be on the ark. Insects would not need to be on the ark. They do not breathe through the nostrils but by diffusion and some could survive upon debris. Some reptiles and amphibians may not have been on board the ark. Worms would not have needed to be no board the ark. It is possible that some seabirds were not boarded on the ark.

(b) Not every “species” of animal was boarded but every “kind” (Genesis 6:19-10; 7:14). “kind” refers to animals that can reproduce, or are the results of normal reproduction, syngameons (cf Genesis 1). For example: Dog is a kind (not every variety a different find). The genetic potential for future variety of species is within the kind.

(c) Nothing requires that the animals had to be adults. For example: A 4 or 5 pound Komodo dragon could have been aboard instead of a 200-300 pound adult.

(d) The ark was large, John Whitcomb has written “Its capacity was equivalent to 520 modern railroad stock cars” (The World That Perished, p. 231). Brad Harrub has written “in 1980, Ernst Mayr, a very famous evolutionary taxonomist, published a book titled Principles of Systematic Zoology. In his book he outlined every creature we knew of that was alive on the earth. According to Mayr’s own numbers, Noah would have provided protection for: 3,700 Mammals, 8,600 Birds; 6,300 Reptiles, 2,500 Amphibians . . . Thus 21,000 different species. . . If we use the ‘species’ definition, the total number of individual animals that would need protection on the ark would be approximately 50,000. If we average these 50,000 to the size of a sheep . . . then we can ask the question: Can we get 50,000 sheep-size animals on thee ark? Well consider that one boxcar is capable of holding 240 ‘sheep-sized’ animals. Thus, we could place 125,000 sheep-sized animals into 520 boxcars – and yet we only had to get 50,000! That would have left plenty of room for Noah, his family, and all of the food necessary” (Convicted, p 262). Remember that not every “species” but every “kind” was on board. John Woodmorappe’s book claims,  “If …the created kind was the equivalent to the family (at least in the case of mammals and birds), then there were only about 2,000 animals on the Ark” (Noah`s Ark: A Feasibility Study, p. 7).

3. How did Noah gather all the animals?

He did not have to gather them. They came to him (Genesis 6:20; 7:9 cf 2:19).

4. How could all the various animals journey from the various continents? And what about the climatic differences.

The world then was radically different. The continents may have been joined (Pangaea). The species may not have been as isolated and thus so genetically diverse. The climate would not have been so extreme across the earth. Professor Alfred Wallace said, “There is but one climate known to the ancient fossil world as revealed by the plants and animals entombed in the rocks, and the climate was a mantle of spring – like loveliness which seemed to have prevailed continuously over the whole globe” (Wayne Jackson, The Book of Job, p. 118).

5. How could the animals enter in one day (Genesis 7:13-15)?

“Keil Delitzson State: Verse 13 . . . pluperfect ‘had come’ . . . The idea is not that Noah, with his family and all the animals, entered the ark on the very day on which the rain began, but that on that day he had entered, had completed the entering, which occupied the seven days between the giving of the command (v. 4) and the commencement of the flood (v. 10.) (p. 145)” (Marion Fox, pp 267-268). John Woodmorappe’s book reasons, “Let us assume that the larger animals entered the Ark no faster than do animals of comparable size when killed in and processed in slaughterhouses (i.e., 1000 hogs per hour…) smaller animals, of course, must have boarded the Ark at a rate of several times that of larger ones. It is easy to see that 16,000 animals could have boarded the Ark in, at most, five hours. Of course this assumes single-file entry, but there is no why several lines of animals could not have entered simultaneously, especially the many small to medium animals. Scripture, of corse does not inform us about the width of the Ark door” (Noah`s Ark: A Feasibility Study, p. 63).

6. How did Noah and his family care for so many animals.

(a) The short answer is not that we do not know the Bible does not tell us.

(b) John Woodmorappe goes into great detail about how the feeding, watering and waste management could have been accomplished without supernatural intervention. His book Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study is reasonably thought out.

(c) We are told that God “remembered” Noah and his family (Genesis 8:1). The Hebrew word zakar, translated “remember,” suggests God’s continued watchful care over all the occupants of the ark” (Bert Thompson and Brad Harrub, An Examination of Noah’s Ark and the Global Flood).

Some theorize that God could have put the animals into hibernation, and slowed their metabolism and stopped their reproductive abilities. This is possible. However, the Bible is silent on this subject.

(d) We know that there were “rooms” on the ark (Genesis 6:14). Marion Fox writes “The Hebrew word translated “rooms” (Genesis 6:14) is found 13 times in the Bible and is translated ‘nest(s)’ in the other 12 times it is found. It seems evident that this refers to cages into which the animals entered and stayed during the flood” (A Study of The Biblical Flood, p. 260).

7. Where did the water go?

Psalm 104:6-9: “Thou didst cover it with deep as a garment; the waters were standing above the mountains. At Thy rebuke, they fled; at the sound of Thy thunder they hurried away. The mountains rose; the valleys sank down to the place which thou didst established for them. Thou didst set boundary that they may not pass over that they may not return to cover the earth” (NASB). I believe that the earth was shaped differently. The oceans were not so deep and the mountains were not so high.

8. Why were the unclean animals saved in pairs, but the clean animals saved in sevens (Gen 7:2-3, 8-9)?

The Bible does not tell us some have suggested that it was for ecological balance. Animals to be eaten by man (cf Genesis 9:3), used in sacrifice by man (cf Genesis 8:20), and common prey for other animals would be in large measure clean animals. Keep in mind that the unclean animals would also have carrion (dead carcasses) for feed. We do know that Noah sacrificed one of each kind of clean animal to the Lord  (Genesis 8:20).

Posted in Apologetics, Evidence, Judgment, Stats | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

The Assembling and Evangelism

Posted on May 18, 2014 by Bryan Hodge

A common but faulty view exists concerning the purpose of the worship assembly.  Some have thought that the church’s worship assemblies should primarily be geared toward the non-Christian.  Some have thought that the best place for evangelism is the worship assembly.

There are two primary functions of the worship assembly.  The worship assembly is first and foremost about worshipping God (Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 11:26-29).  The worship assembly also serves the function of encouraging and edifying and comforting the saints (Hebrews 10:24-25; Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16; 1 Corinthians 14:19, 26b, 31).

Evidently, the early church did have non-members visit the assembly (1 Corinthians 14:20-23).  Our worship assemblies should be considerate of non-members (1 Corinthians 14:20-23).  However, brother Dan Owen has remarked, “While 1 Corinthians 14:20-23 certainly indicates that what is done in our worship services should be plain and understandable to those who are visiting, it is not a fair reading of the text to say that the main goal of New Testament worship was the winning of outsiders…”

As one reads the book of Acts, one finds evangelism occurring outside of the worship assemblies.  Evangelism was done in homes and private settings (e.g., Saul, Cornelius, Philippian jailer), public places of various kinds [(e.g. in synagogues, on public roads (e.g. the Ethiopian), by a river side (e.g. Lydia) in market places, on Mars’ Hill] and even in meetings  with rulers (e.g, Felix, Festus, Agrippa).  But how many do you recall being converted, in the book of Acts, from attending a church’s worship assembly?  I can’t think of one.

Brethren, if the church is going to grow we must not limit evangelism to the worship assembly.  Those that attend are good prospects. However, evangelism must occur outside the church assembly if we are going to grow.  Furthermore, it is essential if we are going to follow the New Testament pattern.

  “Lift up your eyes, and look on the fields, for they are white already to harvest!” (John 4:35).

Posted in Christian Influence, Chruch, Meaning and Purpose, Soul Winning, worship | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Is God Egotistical?

Posted on May 16, 2014 by Bryan Hodge

BACK GROUND: The following is a letter that I wrote some years ago to a man who called in on a talk radio program which I hosted. He was related to one of the local church members who attended with me. He wanted to know if it was egotistical of God to want us to worship Him. I briefly answered his question on air. I also followed up with a letter. Here is a summary of the letter.

Dear John (not real name),

I am excited about your inquiry.  It demonstrates a desire on your part to know and understand God better.

You ask why God would demand worship from humanity.  Is He an egotist?  Is He vain?  Is He self-absorbed?

Nothing could be farther from the truth!  Acts 17:24-25 says, “God who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. Nor is He worshipped with men’s hands, as though He needed anything (Emphasis mine), since He gives to all life, breath, and all things.”  None of us really add glory (beauty) or honor (weight) to His essence.  He does not depend on man. He needs nothing from man (read 2 Samuel 7; 1 Chronicles 17; Acts 7:47-50; and Acts 17:22-28).

Yes, He does receive joy and pleasure from man’s doing what is right (read Psalm 149:4; Luke 15:7, 10,32; 2 Corinthians 2:15; Philippians 4:18).  Yes, He wants to spend eternity with us (see Matthew 25:34; John 17:24).  But, God needs nothing from man.  It is man who needs God.

It is not that He needs our praise.  It is we who need to praise Him.  One man, Leroy Brownlow, observed, “No man can be truly happy who regards himself alone.  The unhappiest person and the most self-centered person I know are one in the same person.”  Again, he wrote, “As the little flower seed never becomes beautiful and fragrant until it breaks out of itself, and grows up and blossoms, so it is with man.”

Now God is certainly worthy of praise and honor for all that He’s done; But it is really we who need to give praise.  It gives man something bigger than self to live for each day.  Consider Romans 15:5-7.  God brought Jew and Gentile together.  He brought men of different backgrounds and nationalities together.  How did He do this?  He got man to look to Him and focus upon Him instead of self and local pride.

Read also 1 Corinthians 1.  Division and strife were a great problem at Corinth.  If my count is right, Jesus is mentioned by name (Jesus), title (Christ, Lord), and personal pronoun (Him, His) 13 times in the first 13 verses.  It is as if Paul is telling them that if they take their eyes off of Him, and place them on man, that division will be the result.  He said, “Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no division among you, but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment… Is Christ divided?  Was Paul crucified for you?  Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?” (1 Corinthians 1:10, 13).  Man needs something to focus on larger than himself.  In 1 Corinthians 10:17 Paul writes, “For we, though many, are one bread, and one body; for we are all partake of that one bread.”

I hope this brief letter helps.  I am available for anything I can help you with in understanding His will.

May God bless you.

[signed]

Bryan Hodge

Posted in God, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

We Have An Advocate

Posted on May 14, 2014 by Bryan Hodge

1 John 2:1, “My little children, these things write I unto you, so that you may not sin.  And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.”

John refers to them as “little children” (1 John 2:1,12,13,18,28; 3:7,18; 4:4; 5:21), John is an aged man at this point (2 John 1; 3 John 1) and he cares for them the way a father would his children (cf. 1 Thessalonians 2:11; 2 Corinthians 12:14).

He wrote unto them that they “may not sin.”  The word is aorist tense; That is, John did not want them to sin at all.  He wanted to help them keep clear of sin.  Inspired instruction certainly helps in keeping men from sin (Psalm 119:11). A christian should strive to live a holy life, free from sin.

However, we do sin. What happens when we do sin?  Are we without hope?  John says, “And (Kai – the word may be rendered ‘but’ depending upon the context and most likely should be in this context, see ESV) if (at times this word approaches the meaning of whenever, or when cf. 1 John 2:28) anyone sins (aorist tense, denoting an instance of sin, it is in the singular in the KJV) we have (present tense; the force of which is ‘we keep on having’ even after baptism!) an Advocate (a defense attorney) with (pros – the word lit. means before or facing) the Father…”  This Advocate is said to be Jesus Christ.

How does this advocate defend us?  By arguing that the law is unjust and thus should not be enforced? No! With some fancy legal maneuvers?  No!  By looking for loopholes in the law?  No!  By appealing to the emotions of the Judge and jury?  Certainly not!

How then?  1 John 2:2 reads, “And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins.”  I have heard it expressed this way: This lawyer’s methods are highly unusual – (1) He admits his client’s guilt; (2) He pays the price with his own blood (1 John 2:2).

Does this deny human conditions for the Christian’s forgiveness?  No, no more than it does for the alien sinner.  Watch the words, “and not for ours only but also for the whole world” (1 John 2:2b).  Certainly, there are conditions to be met for the child of God to be forgiven ( see 1 John 1:9; also Acts 8:22). However, these conditions are not being emphasized at this point. What is being emphasized is that we have an Advocate. We are not without hope.

Wayne Jackson wisely observed, “While many Bible students are aware of the fact that the blood of Jesus is applied to their souls in their initial obedience to the gospel … some do not realize that the Lord’s cleansing blood continues to function on their behalf as they struggle with sin in their christian lives” (Notes From the Margin of My Bible, vol. 2, pp. 163-164).  Yes, even after baptism one could not be forgiven without the great propitiation  of Christ; without the blood of Christ all the repentance and confession in the world would not avail.

Posted in Jesus, Plan of salvation, Sin, Textual study, Word Study | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

In The News: Auctioning Virginity

Posted on May 10, 2014 by Bryan Hodge

CBS reported on April 30, 2014 – “An American medical student is auctioning off her virginity to the highest bidder… the top offer currently stands at $550,000… using the alias ‘Elizabeth Raine’… the 28-year-old self-proclaimed virgin said she is willing to submit to a medical examination or polygraph as proof to the winning bidder, which will be determined when the bidding concludes on May 7… Nevada is the only state in the United States where prostitution is legal.  She will reportedly engage in the sexual intercourse in Australia as a way of circumventing American prostitution laws… Bidders from Serbia, Japan, Australia, the U.K. and the U.S. have already placed successive bids of more than $100,000 since April 1” (CBS Las Vegas).

Update: New York Daily News reported on May 9, that Elizabeth Raine had cancelled the offer.  She said she that would focus on her studies. The highest bid had reached $801,000.  Since the bidding began on April Fool’s Day, one wonders if it was but a joke.

However, let’s ask – For what would you sell your soul?  “What will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses his own soul?  Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?” (Mark 8:36-37).

George Bernard Shaw told the story of asking a woman “Would you sleep with me for 1,000,000 pounds?”  Her answer was “yes”.  He then asked, “How about 5 pounds?”.  Her reply was, “What kind of woman do you think I am?”  His response, “We’ve already established that.  Now we’re just haggling over the price.”  What kind of person are you?

Posted in Ethics, Money, Sex | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Apple of the Eye

Posted on May 8, 2014 by Bryan Hodge

The human eye is quite amazing. In his book, The Origin of the Species, Charles Darwin wrote, “To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree” (page 227). “It is scarcely possible to avoid comparing the eye with a telescope. We know that this instrument has been perfected by long-continued efforts of the highest human intellects.” (page 231). “The belief that an organ so perfect as the eye could have formed by natural selection, is enough to stagger anyone…” (page 259 – All quotes from the 1998 edition of the Modern Library Paperback edition). Dr. Robert Jastrow remarked, “The eye is a marvelous instrument, resembling a telescope of the highest quality, with a lens, an adjustable focus, a variable diaphragm for controlling the amount of light, and optical corrections for spherical and chromatic aberration. They eye appears to have been designed; no designer of telescopes could have done better. How could this marvelous instrument have evolved by chance?” (The Enchanted Loom: Mind and Universe, 1981, page 96-97 – quoted on page 56 of Wayne Jackson’s book, “The Human Body: Accident or Design?, 1993). Wayne Jackson has written, “The mechanism of the eye is extremely complex. Light images from the environment enter the eye (at 186,000 miles per second) through the Iris, which opens and shuts like the diaphragm of a camera, to let in just the right amount of light. The images move through a lens, which focuses the ‘picture’ (in an inverted form) on the retina at the rear of the eyeball. The image is then picked up by some 137 million nerve endings that convey the message (at 300 miles per hour) to the brain for processing.   No wonder even secular writers are prone to speak of ‘the miraculous team work of your eye and brain’” (ibid). Dr. Bert Thompson has written, “…the eye is infinitely more complex than any man-made camera. It can handle 1.5 million simultaneous messages, and gathers 80% of all the knowledge absorbed by the brain. The retina covers less than a square inch, and contains 137 million light-sensitive receptor cells, 130 million rods (allowing the eye to see in black and white), and 7 million cones (allowing the eye to see in full color). In the average day, the eye moves about 100,000 times, using muscles that, milligram for milligram, are among the body’s strongest. The body would have to walk 50 miles to exercise the leg muscles an equal amount” (Essays in Apologetics IV, page 189-190, 1990).

The wording of our title, The Apple of the Eye, appears in the Bible 5 times in some form(No, Stevie Wonder did not coin this phrase in his song You Are The Sunshine Of My Life). Let us look and learn what is meant.

First passage: Deuteronomy 32:10. These are among the final words which the great man, Moses, uttered before his death. The context actually begins back in verse 7. Moses says basically, “Many of you are too young to know some of these things first hand. But some of this history generations past could testify. Moreover , some of these things are recent enough that, even your own fathers and the elder generation among you could tell you.”

God, in the wilderness, “encircled” (NKJV) or “led” (KJV) them (v. 10). The original word can be used of making a circuit or walking around. Note: it is not the term for what God did with cloud and fire. The word means to encircle, to surround, to encompass, or to turn around something. God placed His protective care around this people.

He also “instructed” (NKJV) or “cared for” (NASB) them (v.10). The original word carries the idea of both giving understanding to and caring for another.

He cared for them [him (v. 10)=Jacob (v. 9) put for Jacob’s children (v. 8)] as an eagle does its young (v. 11-12 cf. Ex. 19:4). Matthew Henry, “The eagle is observed to have a strong affection for her young, and to show it, not only as other creatures by protecting and making provisions, but by educating and teaching them to fly. For this purpose she stirs  them out of the nest” (Comments on this verse Volume I, page 674). Jamison-Fausset – Brown commented “This beautiful and expressive metaphor is founded on the extraordinary care and attachment which the female eagle cherishes for her young… she in their attempts at flying supports them on the tips of her wings, encouraging, directing and aiding their feeble efforts. So did God take the most tender, and powerful care of His chosen people” (page 164). A. Clark speaks of the fact that some birds actually bear their young on their backs when the grow weary (volume I, page 827). The New Bible Commentary says, “The parent eagle in teaching her young to fly spreads her wings to prevent them from falling” (page 220).

He also is said to have kept them as “the apple of his eye” (v.10). On the surface one might think this means Israel was a beautiful thing before God’s eye, as an apple is to the human eye. But let’s look closer. The original word means, “the little man of the eye.” The reference is to the reflection seen when one looks closely into another’s eye. The I.S.B.E. says, “The eyeball, or globe of the eye with the pupil in the center, called ‘apple’ from its round shape … the Hebrew … little man referring perhaps specially to the pupil, probably from the little image one sees of himself when looking into another’s pupil” (Volume I, page 209).

Many take this to be a Hebrewism for protection/preciousness (see NASB).   Zondervan’s Pictorial Dictionary, “The eyeball, or the pupil in its center protected by the eyelids automatically closing when anything approaches too near. A symbol of that which is precious and protected” (page 53). Remember as a kid other kids saying, “Made you blink!”? They said this as if not blinking was manliness. Not blinking is actually stupidity. God made the body to so react. They eye is delicate and fragile. The I.S.B.E., “It’s great value and careful protection by the eyelids automatically closing when there is the least possibility of danger made it the emblem of that which is most precious, and jealously protected” (ibid). The NIV Study Bible footnotes read, “Lit. Little man of the eye referring to the pupil a delicate part of the eye that is essential for vision and that therefore must be protected at all cost.”

Others take this to mean that God’s eye was watchful over them. Have you ever notices the reflection of self in another`s eyes? Thus, God was so fixed His attention upon them, that it was as if one could see their reflection in His eye.

Even so today, our God cares for us very much. We are precious to Him (Psalm 116:15; Revelation 14:13; Acts 7:54-56). He knows our tears (Psalm 56:8). One day our tears will be wiped away (Revelation 21:4; Revelation 7:17; 1 Corinthians 15:51-55; 2 Thessalonians 1:6-7).

 Second passage: Proverbs 7:2. The original wording here is the same.

If this is language of protection – then, think of how dearly we that are wise regard our eyesight. We understand how terrible it must be to be blind. We put on goggles, safety glasses, sunglasses, whatever is necessary in protection of our eyes. Even so, should we treasure the word of God, as that which is essential to spiritual sight.

If the language is of having one’s eye upon something – then we’re being told that we should live our lives with our eyes fixed on His law. We should spend a great amount of effort looking upon the word of God. We should seek to direct our lives according to His word.

 Third passage: Psalm 17:8-9. It is thought that David wrote these words as a prayer to God during the time that Saul’s army was chasing after him.

In verse 8, we have the picture of a hen taking care of her chicks. It is similar to Matthew 23:37 (shade, protect from heat, elements).

In verse 8a, the original wording is different, than found in the earlier two passages. The word which appears here means literally, “The daughter of your eye.” But, I do not believe that the meaning has changed at all. This is either a plea for protection (much like verse 8b), or it is saying “let me be precious to you as a daughter is in the eyes of a parent.”

 Fourth passage: Lamentations 2:18-19 (KJV). The original wording is the same as before – daughter of your eye.

It is being used here as simply another term for the eye itself. It is paired with tears. Robert Taylor Jr. writes, “The apple of the eye is to continue its profuse production of tears” (Studies in Jeremiah and Lamentations, Volume II, page 486-487).   Jerusalem had fallen and it was due to their own sins. They brought this suffering upon themselves.

Brethren, we too, need to learn to weep at the miserable mess sin makes of our lives. But, we should not just weep for our sorrow of calamity but we should weep also out of genuine Godly sorrow (2 Corinthians 7:9-10; Matthew 5:4; James 4:8-10). We should weep with regrets of sin and we should amend our ways (Proverbs 28:13; Acts 2:37-38; Acts 8:22; 1 John 1:8-10).

 Fifth passage: Zechariah 2:8b. The actual term here is “gate of the eye.” This is the term for the pupil of the eye for them.

The context concerns the returning remnant from captivity. The message is this – “When you were hurt in going forth into captivity, it was as if someone poked me in the eye” (something painful! It’ll make a grown man cry!). The message is He felt their pain. Note – He is aware of ours as well!

This word picture, “the apple of the eye,” is rich and beneficial in our understanding God’s word. It tells of His treasuring us. It tells also of how we ought to treasure Him and His word. Moreover, it tells how we should be pained over sin. It how He is pained over our sorrows and pains.

Posted in Apologetics, Evidence, Phrase Study, Textual study | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

In The News: Is Divorce Contagious?

Posted on May 5, 2014 by Bryan Hodge

CBS reported recently: “Forget about the flu that has been going around – there is something else that is contagious and could put your marriage in jeopardy…  A study from Brown University suggests that divorce is contagious, and the divorce of a friend or loved-one increases your chances of getting divorced, too.  The study conducted in Framingham, Mass., found that 75% of participants were more likely to get divorced if a friend was divorced, and 33% were more likely to end their marriage even if a friend of a friend got divorced.  Researchers called the phenomenon a ‘social contagion’ – the spread of information, attitudes, and behaviors through friends, family and social networks. While psychotherapist Talia Filippelli  does not necessarily agree that divorce itself is contagious, but she said that emotions can be. ‘Emotions are contagious, and if you have somebody really unhappy in their relationship around you all the time, you may start to be critical of your own relationship,’ Filippelli said ” (CBS New York, April 30, 2014).

Who are your friends?   How do they influence you?

1.  Proverbs 13:20 – “He who walks with wise men will be wise. But the companion of fools will be destroyed.”

2.  Proverbs 22:24-25 – “Make no friendship with an angry man, and with a furious man do not go, lest you learn his ways and set a snare for your soul.”

3.  Proverbs 27:17 – “As iron sharpens iron, so a man sharpens the countenance of his friends.”

4.  1 Corinthians 15:33 – “Do not be deceived: evil company corrupts good habits.”

 

Posted in Christian Influence, Marriage | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment