by Logan Ames
At the end of the movie The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, which is an allegorical depiction of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ for our sins, the little girl, Lucy, and her friend, Mr. Tumnus, are standing and watching as the lion, Aslan, walks off into the distance. Lucy is upset and wants to know when they’ll see Aslan again. Tumnus says that Aslan will be back in time, but that we cannot press him because, “After all, he’s not a tame lion." Those who are familiar with the book from which the movie was created know that this statement refers back to an earlier conversation that Lucy had with Mr. and Mrs. Beaver. They were shocked that Lucy and her siblings hadn’t heard of Aslan the lion. They understood that they needed to go and meet him and Lucy was scared about meeting a lion. So, she asks if the lion is “safe." Mr. Beaver is flabbergasted since they are talking about a lion and responds, “Who said anything about safe? ‘Course he isn’t safe. But he is good. He’s the king, I tell you."
Aslan represents Jesus Christ, who stepped out of heaven, willingly gave up his life, and became obedient to death on a cross (Philippians 2:8) as an atonement for OUR sins. Jesus came the first time as a suffering lamb (Isaiah 53:7), but when he returns he is coming back as the conquering Lion of Judah (Revelation 5:5). The unsafe, untamed Jesus isn’t the one we typically like. There is in fact only ONE Jesus, but many Christians treat him like they can pick a version of him that suits their feelings and needs best. They can reject the things about Jesus and his teachings which bother them and accept those which make them feel comfortable. This would be the “Burger King Jesus” where you can have him your way.
C.S. Lewis, who wrote The Chronicles of Narnia, also wrote Mere Christianity, in which he describes who Jesus is. He says, “A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic - on the level with a man who says he is a poached egg - or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon, or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to." This means that we can’t just accept Jesus as we want him. He’s a great teacher and also our Savior, but we must accept him as Lord as well. And that changes everything. If Jesus is my Lord, that means I CANNOT reject his attributes that I don’t like. I’m not allowed to sin just because it’s how I “feel” and I can’t say, “I was born this way” as an excuse or reason for sinful activity. I also can’t use my past or “the way I was raised” to justify disobedience.
Since Jesus is Lord, that means he has some authority, as we learned last week from 1 Peter 3:22. The Apostle Paul mentions one of Jesus’ authoritative roles as he gets ready to pass the torch of ministry onto Timothy. In 2 Timothy 4:1, Paul announces, “In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge." This verse is where this week’s core root of the faith in the Apostles’ Creed comes from. Jesus ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father, and he’ll come from there to judge the living and the dead. We don’t like the word “judge” and we definitely don’t want to think of Jesus as someone who is “judgmental," at least not according to the context with which we generally understand that word. But a closer look reveals that Jesus is completely unbiased and fair and that he’s already told us what we need to know in order to pass this test.
Jesus as every right and authority to judge you and me RIGHT NOW. Yet, both the Apostles’ Creed and Paul describe a FUTURE judgment. When will it happen? Well, if he’s going to come “from” the right hand of the Father, then it’s safe to say that’s going to happen when he returns to the earth. We don’t know when that will be, but it’s interesting that Paul told Timothy, “In view of his appearing." That means that some 1,950 years ago when Paul wrote those words, he considered the return of Jesus to be imminent. Of course, no one knows the day or the hour (Matthew 24:36), but we should all live like Paul, expecting the return of Jesus and his judgment to come at any moment.
This should make us want to do whatever Jesus says all the more. The great thing about Jesus is that he didn’t choose to leave us on our own to try to figure out what he wants and how he will judge us. He tells us in Matthew 25:31-46 exactly what the criteria will be. He will come in his glory and separate the people as a shepherd separates the sheep and goats. He goes on to explain that this separation will be between those who are willing to serve and love “the least of these brothers and sisters” of his, and those who are not willing. The specific areas of ministry that Jesus requires of those who truly follow him are listed as feeding the hungry, giving the thirsty something to drink, welcoming strangers, giving clothes to those who need them, caring for the sick, and visiting those in prison. Jesus is strikingly clear about his judgment plan: If you do these things for the least of his brothers and sisters, you’ll be welcomed into his kingdom; if you don’t, you’ll be sent away.
Martin Luther once said, “Faith alone saves, but the faith that saves is never alone." Too often, Christians live and act as if those commands from Jesus to love and serve others are optional. The sooner we come to grips with the criteria for Jesus’ righteous judgment, the sooner we can get on with doing what he commanded us to do. Jesus told his disciples and the teachers of the law that the two greatest commandments, in short, are to “love God” and “love others” (Matthew 22:37-40). How many Christians out there say they love God but have absolutely no evidence to back it up? We can SAY we love God all we want, but the best indicator of whether we really do is looking at how we treat those that God has placed in our lives all around us. The one literally can’t happen without the other. It is impossible to love God and not love those who have been created in his image. I pray that, as you consider that the Jesus you say you love will come back to judge you someday soon, you will follow his commands and experience the joy of serving “the least of these." May God bless you as you get to work!
This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration. All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved. Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.
I frequently watch Evolutionists froth at the mouth at the notion of Information and DNA being used in the same sentence. Many of them I have dealt with despise the analogy to computer code, and to that I simply laugh. It only shows how little they know of both. I mentioned several times last week that a written language is a code which transmits information from one location to another, however someone who is not privy to that language will not understand it. They can, however, perceive intelligence behind it and then seek to crack the code.
This is precisely what is happening with DNA. We learned about 100 years ago what DNA is, and little by little we have been learning that is the “master computer program” for each living organism. Back in the 1970s, we only knew about the protein making segments as having function, and the rest was deemed “Junk DNA.” We have since learned that the segments never were junk but actually worked as the “operating system” for the genome. The ENCODE Project did much to reveal this, though Creationists like John Sanford knew and predicted this long before the secular community caught up.
Regarding DNA and information, one thing I have yet to see Evolutionists grasp is the distinction between DNA and information. DNA is NOT information. Just like every single pixel on the computer screen you are using to read this post is not information itself. They are just pixels. Likewise, DNA is just four letters of base-pairs twisted into a double-helix. However, both are capable of containing or storing information. You can read this post with ease because you understand how a particular organization of pixels conveys a message from my brain to yours. Interpretation is certainly a factor in this, but outside the scope of this post. But with DNA, it is like a Chinese person who has never seen English letters before. It makes no sense to him, but he can see that it is a language and a code. That may inspire him to go seek out what that code is. Little by little he can eventually break that code and thus translation of written languages becomes possible. Of course it would greatly help if he had an English speaking person work with him, but even without one it could be done.
This is what is happening with DNA. It contains a code and language that we have just started learning to understand. But here is a very neat difference between DNA and any written language we have. The written languages can only be read in one direction. Sometimes a writer will instill a hidden message within the text by having the code breaker read every 7th letter or something like that, but most languages only read in one direction. DNA, however, is able to be read forwards, backwards, skipping certain letters, and more. It folds into 3D shapes and then that is read, but then there is a 4th dimension with time. It can change shape for a given situation to produce a protein to specifically deal with that situation. How could anything do that without intelligent input?
In computer programs, programmers have “try-throw” blocks of code where they check out a given input situation, and if it is not desired the computer will throw out some kind of error message. DNA is capable of doing the same thing. It can read the situations, go through the library of possible answers it has to those situations, and then address them. DNA is able to repair itself. How could it even detect if an error is in place? It would have to know at least enough context to make a correction or compare to a master strand to know what was wrong. How would it know what to do about it? It would have to replace the errors with a correction based on a given standard. Evolutionists have yet to provide an answer to this standard, and the best they have offered in trying is giving what it does. But they never have addressed how that ability got there.
In most biology classes when teaching about how DNA works, mutations are addressed. Mutations are a very real reality regarding DNA. Sometimes a letter gets switched, sometimes a segment is duplicated, sometimes there are insertion or deletion mutations. A typical example would be in English saying “The student read the book,” and a deletion mutation would be “The student red the book.” Obviously, this could create havoc down the road, but here is a detail often missed. In reading the sentence, the reader sees ‘student’ and will anticipate a verb (‘read’) because that is how the language structure works. Instead he gets an adjective (‘red’) and that throws him off. The reader is able to get around this. How? He understands language and typos and his brain will auto-correct the error. DNA can do a similar thing. If it gets an adjective when it expects a verb, it can make corrections.
Now, many mutations are beyond correction and they have been stockpiling. Some of the mutations are neutral with no current effect but can have effect as more add on. See this post from Steve Risner for more on mutations. As the mutations compile, the original information gets lost. Textbooks accurately describe this process, however for some reason, they get the idea that these mutations can lead to brand new functions and abilities that never were present in the original code, such as getting lungs and an air-breathing circulatory system from a gill-breathing system for example. We are not talking about changes of hair color or size of beaks here. Those options are already inherent within the genetic code. The information needed for completely changing systems is not there and mutations never get us there. Mutations can only corrupt and make worse.
If Evolutionists want to “follow the evidence” and maintain their theory, they need to completely overhaul their theory. Instead of arguing that life evolved gradually from simple life-forms to more complex life-forms, they need to suggest that the earliest life-forms were birthed with the all the genetic capabilities of all living creatures. Their arguments for the phylogenetic trees demand this approach, and yet it is completely contradictory to the history they teach.
Evolution has long been worthy of being discarded because of a consistent level of failing to produce what it needs to be true. Darwin said from the get go that his theory hinged upon finding the fossils that would show the clear progression of common ancestry, and yet there is not a single proposed such fossil without controversy or question. And even if one were to give them all the benefit of the doubt, it is still extremely small in number compared what would be needed if the theory was true. See posts from Steve Risner and myself about that in more detail. DNA has taken the little scientific standing it had left and by the time we are done studying it, there should be no traces of Evolution left in anyone’s mind who follows the evidence. But Evolution will not go away, in part because it is so ingrained into society’s minds, not because of any scientific evidence. It is not defended scientifically because its defenders will never let it even be put up for scientific scrutiny. It is defended as one defends a religion. DNA and Information is the enemy of Evolution and it is my prayer you have an open mind to see that the evidence never was, nor is, nor ever will be in favor of Darwin’s false religion.
This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration. All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved. Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.
The word “shrewd” is kind of a weird word, don’t you think? It’s not one I use often in my daily speech. But it is a concept taught in the Bible, so today we’re going to take a look at what it is.
Google’s definition of shrewd is, “having or showing sharp powers of judgment; astute.” Some synonyms for shrewd are “astute, sharp-witted, sharp, smart, acute, intelligent, clever, canny, perceptive, perspicacious, sagacious, wise.” The idea of being shrewd can be either a positive or a negative thing, depending on the circumstances. You can be shrewd in a crafty way to steal from others, or you can be shrewd in a positive way by making wise choices that help others.
The first Bible passage that comes to my mind when I think of the word shrewd is what’s known as the Parable of the Shrewd Manager (sometimes also called the Parable of the Unjust Steward) in Luke 16:1-13. In this parable, a wealthy man has a manager or steward to take care of his finances. The manager had been accused of wasting his master’s money, so when he’s faced with losing his job, the manager calls in each person who owes a debt to his master and decreases those debts, thus making friends with the debtors so they would return the favor to him once he lost his job. The manager then gets commended by his wealthy master for being shrewd since the master sees how the manager used his position to help himself. This is a negative example of being shrewd.
With this parable, Jesus is showing the difference between those who are of the world and those who are believers in Him. We as followers of Jesus should use the worldly wealth that we have to build relationships with others and to help them (shrewd in a positive way), not for our own selfish gain like the shrewd manager did (shrewd in a negative way). We should use what we have been given by the master (in our case, God, who has given us all that we have) for the master’s purposes, not our own.
Another example of shrewdness is the Parable of the Wise and Foolish Builders found in Matthew 7:24-27. The foolish man built his house on sand so it couldn’t stand up to the wind and rain, while the wise man built his house on a solid rock foundation and it could withstand whatever came. The wise man was shrewd in a positive way, making intelligent choices that took care of his possessions.
Jesus explains shrewdness also in Luke 12:42-46, with a similar account recorded in Matthew 24:45-51. Luke 12:42-46 says, “The Lord answered, ‘Who then is the faithful and wise manager, whom the master puts in charge of his servants to give them their food allowance at the proper time? It will be good for that servant whom the master finds doing so when he returns. Truly I tell you, he will put him in charge of all his possessions. But suppose the servant says to himself, ‘My master is taking a long time in coming,’ and he then begins to beat the other servants, both men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk. The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the unbelievers.’” Jesus shows the benefits of being shrewd in a positive way, by taking care of what God has entrusted to us, and the negative consequences of not doing so.
The book of Proverbs also has a number of verses about being shrewd or prudent. Proverbs 12:23 says, “The prudent keep their knowledge to themselves, but a fool’s heart blurts out folly.” Proverbs 13:16 says, “All who are prudent act with knowledge, but fools expose their folly.” Proverbs 18:15 says, “The heart of the discerning acquires knowledge, for the ears of the wise seek it out.”
How are you being shrewd in your own life? Are you being positively shrewd, or negatively shrewd? Ponder these parables and the shrewdness in your life as you go about your week.
This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration. All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved. Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.
by Logan Ames
During Holy Week this past spring, my wife and I joined about 125 other believers from our community and packed a local movie theater to see the latest God’s Not Dead movie. The movie was fantastic, but I want to tell you how I, the pastor of one of the churches involved, represented myself in front of so many others that night. Clara and I got a big bag of popcorn to share and when we got to our seats, she put it on the armrest between our two seats and then went to the restroom. Before she walked away, she looked at me and said, “Be careful and don’t knock it over." I sort of half-listened because I was confident in my ability to not spill the popcorn. But as Proverbs 16:18 tells us, pride goes before the fall, so you can pretty much assume what happened next. A minute or so later, I turned to my left away from the popcorn to speak to the person sitting beside me. As I turned, the outer edge of the sleeve of my shirt on my right arm barely bumped into the bag of popcorn and it was instantly all over the floor in front of our seats. As my wife returned, she just looked at me, shook her head, and said, “Seriously?” How could I have possibly managed to do the one thing she told me not to do?
I’m thinking that Jesus probably felt similarly before he left his disciples and ascended back into heaven. As we learned in last week’s post, one of the last things Jesus told his disciples was to “stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high” (Luke 24:49). He had told them that the Holy Spirit would be given to them as promised, but they had to actually wait for it. This is not what we’re used to. Jesus normally wanted his followers to GO, not STAY. They were to go and share the good news with the lost sheep of Israel (Matthew 10:6), and were later told to “go and make disciples of all nations” (Matthew 28:19). But here, Jesus is very clear that they are not to “go” anywhere without him or the Holy Spirit because they would have no power and would be in danger of “spilling the popcorn." Trying to operate in their own power with no help from the Spirit would be disastrous, so he commands them to stay and wait.
Jesus ascended into heaven when his mission on earth was complete, and it was time for his true followers to put their complete confidence in the power of the Holy Spirit rather than continuing to depend on his physical presence. This was the closing of one chapter and the beginning of another one. So, with Jesus returning to the Father, he was about to give them the promised Spirit to guide them and remind them of everything he had taught them. It is recorded in Acts 1:8-9 that right after Jesus told the disciples that they would receive the power of the Holy Spirit to help them live as witnesses wherever they would go, he was “taken up” right in front of them and was hidden from their sight. While this tells us that he “ascended," it does not tells us about where he went and what he is doing there.
For that information, we have to read a little bit further in the New Testament. Jesus told his followers right before he left that they would be “baptized by the Holy Spirit” (Acts 1:5). The Apostle Peter then was able to understand the craziness that was happening on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2) as the power of the Holy Spirit resting on them. However, seeing the power of the Spirit in physical form was just the beginning. As Peter and the rest of the apostles grew in their faith and practice of the Christian life, they began to learn what it was like to have the Spirit work in them and also through them. Sometimes, the power of the Holy Spirit allowed them to do supernatural things that others could see; sometimes it did the supernatural work of change within them. Peter describes this power in 1 Peter 3:21-22. He says the baptism of the Spirit, which is only symbolized by water baptism, gives us a “clear conscience toward God." Then, he says that this baptism “saves us by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." In other words, unless there has been a change in our hearts that comes as a result of the Holy Spirit’s work in us, how can we be sure we’re truly saved?
In the midst of talking about salvation through Christ, Peter says in verse 22 that Jesus “has gone into heaven and is at God’s right hand - with angels, authorities, and powers in submission to him." So, now we know that Jesus didn’t just ascend into air and evaporate; he went straight to heaven and is now seated at God’s right hand, which is why the Apostles’ Creed says as much. This is a big deal! If someone were at my “right hand," that wouldn’t mean a thing. But describing Jesus as being “at God’s right hand” meant that he is in a position of great power, lordship, and authority.
As we dig further into the core roots of our Christian faith, this is the first time that we are talking about Jesus in this light. We are used to Jesus being loving, humble, and even meek. When we think of Jesus, we see the suffering servant who was willing to endure the pain of the cross in our place. Yet, we must never forget that his suffering was only part of his story. When he was seated at God’s right hand, he became the judge over all. This means we should not take him lightly. We should not live as though he doesn’t care about our sins. We ought not mistake his kindness and love for weakness. He sees everything we do, hears everything we say, and knows everything we think. If he is truly our Lord, that means that we seek to do what he desires for us and what would please him. One day, regardless of whether you believe in him or not, you are going to stand before him as the Righteous Judge and Ruler of all. Will you be ready? Will you stand there assuming that he’s okay with your choices? Have you been living under the assumption that you’ve been “good enough” to get to heaven? I encourage you to take some time to get to know Jesus through his Spirit. Ask him to reveal the areas of your life where things need to change. Then, understanding his authority, make a choice to surrender anything that doesn’t belong in your life to Jesus. In doing this, you truly show Jesus and those around you that he is your Lord.
This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration. All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved. Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.
One of the critical details about the monkey-typewriter argument that by chance it is possible to reproduce any work of man is the nature of information. This is another detail that it appears Evolutionists still have yet to grasp. It is also one so obvious that a child can understand it, and yet so complex even the most learned men have a difficult time explaining it. I want to address the nature of written language in this post. A few years ago, I addressed the topic of “Telenomy” which I wrote on the heels of reading A.E. Wilder-Smith’s The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution (a book which has been argued against but still has no refutation, despite being written in 1975). I want to take another look at this issue.
Perhaps the simplest language out there is binary code, also known as computer language. How is that simple? There are only two letters: 0 and 1. In an actual computer it is 5 volts or 0 volts passing through a reader. This physical detail makes it impossible to introduce a more complicated language for computers. All computer scientists have been able to do to create a more complex language for computers is group the binary code into certain length segments. We can represent any letter of the English Alphabet, with CAPS, numbers, and symbols with a set of 8 0s or 1s. If you have heard of ASCII Code, this is what that is.
One of the major computer architecture languages is called MIPS, and it puts the entire programming language into sets of 32 ‘bits’ (or 0s and 1s). Every letter, number, symbol, memory location, mathematical operation, logical operation, color, or anything a computer does is defined and set by groups of 32 bits. Now, this is critical. It is absolutely impossible for any computer programmer to take a plain set of binary code and tell you what it does UNLESS they know what context it is being used for.
Now there is absolutely nothing inherent about 5V and 0V which indicates anything resembling a code or language. It is something installed by programmers onto the voltage; we give these voltages meaning. The same concept is true for many different things. Wilder-Smith gives a very simple example of code being installed onto an object. He took a rope and he tied three knots into the rope. Each knot in its location was to mean something. So someone who understood the intention of the code could feel the knots on the rope, access the spacing, and get the message.
We do the same concept with flashes of light. Two kids will use a mirror to reflect light in a particular pattern that only they can understand. To anyone else, the pattern has no meaning, though someone outside the “circle” can judge that a pattern is there, therefore someone is behind the pattern. Any government spy agency understands this. During WWII the Germans had a special code system called Enigma that was virtually unbreakable, until the British code breaking agency Ultra found out the secret. Prior to that, the British knew and understood that information was being passed on between the Germans, however it was gibberish to them and did not make sense until with the help of Alan Turing, the Ultra Program broke through to decipher the code.
Letters in a written language convey information. We are taught these letters from infancy but we really do not grasp what a “letter” is unless we study information theory (even if indirectly through other language studies). An “A” in this blog post is not a ‘letter.’ It is a collection of pixels on a computer screen organized in a particular way that any person who can read the English language can understand to be the letter “A.” A letter in written language is just a symbol which represents a given sound in spoken language. Just like a written “number” like a “9” or a “4” is not a number; it is a symbol which represents how many objects are being discussed. Because you are able to read, you can take the vast arrangement of pixels, organized in patterns and structures, and you are able to understand what I am thinking. Language is what gives us the ability to pass on and understand each other’s thoughts. But that language must be understood by both parties or the information contained in those letters does not come through.
One of the great flaws of the Monkey-Typewriter Theory is that the typewriter already has information packed into the device itself. It is already designed and programmed to be able to read and deliver combinations of the 26 letters and ten numerals along with symbols. So when the ape (or computer) randomly puts out letters, yes eventually something will come resembling the 23rd Psalm or the works of Shakespeare. However, this is actually cheating, because in order for this set up to even be possible, you need an intelligent mind designing the typewriter to produce a text AND you need an intelligent mind able to READ the text and get something out of it.
If Thomas Henry Huxley’s argument were to be more accurate to the position he held, he would have to argue that you take infinite amount of ink and infinite amount of paper and throw the ink on the paper randomly so that when it dries it will be organized to land precisely in a such a way that a letter will be recognizable, let alone an entire passage. Any thinking person would know that such a notion is utterly ridiculous. And even if one were to argue that the ink could land in such a way to produce a readable text, the problem is that the text itself has to have information instilled onto it for anyone to make sense of it being text. If ink were to fall in such a way to produce “BOOK,” how would anyone have a concept that this collection of ink had any relation to a written collection of words UNLESS they already knew and understood what each symbol of “B” “O” “O” and “K” meant? To someone who has never seen English and only seen Chinese, there would not be any “information” received because they do not have the software to understand it. Any person is able to recognize that ink splashed on paper will NEVER produce organized “letters” by itself. He will know that someone intelligently put it there and may seek to find out what it is and what it means. This applies to an English-speaking person looking at Chinese or any person looking at a foreign language.
Now, Huxley made his argument well before the discovery of DNA. Each point I made here has a relation to DNA and such notions are completely destroying any hint of salvageability of Darwin’s model of Evolution. Next week, I’ll dig deeper into how Information and DNA work together.
This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration. All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved. Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.
by Steve Risner
Last week, we began talking about the descendants of Shem, Noah's oldest son. This was the sixth blog post in a series on the Table of Nations found in Genesis 10, which describes where all the people groups of the world came from. We're tracing those lineages to the modern people groups we see today. I've found it fascinating and hope you have as well. Aside from a few, “No, sir! That's not true!” comments, I've not found anything that can explain how these things can be and the Bible not be true. In other words, there is no refutation I am aware of that is greater than, “I don't want this to be true, so I'll call you names and make fun of the information.”
Let's move on to the beginning of the Hebrew people—where did the Jews come from and why were they called Hebrews originally? Last week, we discussed a battle that took place and was written about in Genesis. This was a battle where Abraham went to war against several kings of Elamites to get back his nephew, Lot. That's where I'll pick up for just a moment as we look at a topic that is not only interesting but may be controversial. I hope not, but we'll see.
After this battle mentioned above, Abram (later Abraham) was met by a king and priest from Salem, which was a small town that eventually became Jerusalem. I think that's awesome! This king and priest (a priest BEFORE the Levitical priesthood and before the Law was given at all) was called Melchizedek. This name has been translated “King of Righteousness” but I've found that it is also accurately translated “My King is Righteous.” That's a very different rendering. What's right? I don't know. This was not likely the man's name but was a title given to him. However, it doesn't answer the question: who was this guy? Some say it may have been Jesus (a theophany). Maybe. The neat thing about this is we can speculate all we want and no one can tell us anything beyond what is written in Genesis, Psalms, and Hebrews (the three books of the Bible that mention him), as long as we don't get hung up on it and act like our belief has to be right since there is just not enough information to go from Scripture. Some say he was an angel that was sent to protect Salem and bless Abraham. Maybe, but I tend to think probably not. Jewish tradition holds this was Shem! That's right—the oldest son of Noah who lived 600 years (pretty impressive to most of those living at that time since he outlived most of his great grandchildren). He certainly did live during Abraham's life and, depending on the texts we view, possibly beyond Abraham's life. This is wild! I'm not saying Shem was Melchizedek. I am saying it could be and no one knows, but it would be pretty cool if he was. I don't think that diminishes the priesthood spoken of in Hebrews.
Traditionally according to the Jews, Shem created an academy in Salem (later Jerusalem) where people could acquire knowledge about the Most High. This is another reason it could be possible Shem and Melchizedek are one in the same—they lived in the same place. Yes, Hebrews says the man didn't have a genealogy or a funeral, but I don't necessarily think that needs to be taken 100% literally. He was simply saying this king and priest was exceptional and was making a big deal out of him since he was clearly greater than Abraham, the great patriarch. The writer was also indicating that his priesthood was greater than that of any descendant of Abraham since this priest preceded Abraham and his priesthood came before the priesthood of Levi's tribe. And perhaps, like many other things in Scripture, it may have a double meaning/attribute. There are several things from Scripture that are considered a “type” of Christ—Melchizedek being one of them. The Ark is another, Abraham nearly sacrificing Isaac is another, and so on.
What is crazy is that from Adam to Abraham we have need for only 2 intermediaries—probably Methuselah and Shem. That's because Methuselah probably knew Adam (which, again, blows my mind) so he likely received information and history from him. Methuselah knew Noah and Shem. Shem would have had the history passed on to him from Methuselah, who knew Adam. He then could pass it on to Abraham. Crazy! The book of Genesis covers almost 1/3 of the world's history. Christians would do well to respect that and take the history as it was clearly intended by how it's written—as history. So, again, I'm not saying I know who Melchizedek was. I'm simply saying that, in my studies, I've found there is a case to be made for him being Shem. Why not? He was the oldest son of Noah. He is the great great grandfather of the Heber, who the Hebrews were named after. He was alive at the time and possibly the place. But who can say? There are other cases to be made for him being someone else. I don't know. It is true either way that the history of the creation through the Flood could easily have passed from Adam to Methuselah to Shem and then to Abraham who is considered the father of our faith. I find that very cool.
According to Josephus, Shem's son Arphaxad was the father of the Arphaxadites, also known as Chaldeans. Arphaxad had a son named Sala. His son was Eber. Eber, or Heber, is where the term Hebrew comes from. Eber was the great great great grandfather of Terah, who was Abraham's father. From Abraham come the Jewish people (so named after Abraham's great grandson, Judah).
Abraham's sons have been at war ever since this time. Abraham had a son named Ishmael. This son was from an unlawful union between Abraham and his servant, Hagar—an Egyptian or Hamite. So Ishmael is half Semitic and half Hamitic. The son of promise was Abraham's second son, Isaac. Arabian Muslims claim Ishmael as their father. The Israelites claim Isaac. These two family lines have been at war over land and spiritual authority for quite some time.
Again, as I stated in the previous posts, the evidence for this Table of Nations being accurate and true is found all over the world, especially in the Middle East and surrounding areas. Names of places, rivers, cities, peoples, languages, gods, and the like are found all over the place that confirm this list of families that descend from Noah were real people. Trust in the Bible. It's always found to be true. We'll look at this topic some more in the near future. Thanks for reading.
This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration. All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved. Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.
“Anyone who has been stealing must steal no longer, but must work, doing something useful with their own hands, that they may have something to share with those in need.” -Ephesians 4:28
I have written extensively concerning care for the poor (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and of course, here). The reason that care for the poor must follow after a robust theology of work is that it is from private earnings that voluntary donations are made to care for the poor. To put it another way, one must work and then have something to share. Relief for the poor must be voluntary, not coerced, or it is not truly generosity. Capitalism has improved the lives of almost everyone on the planet.
In the early church, Christians were selling their lands and goods in order to share with other Christians in need (see Acts 2:45). All of this was voluntary, motivated by love and compassion. The early church continued in this way, holding their own possessions loosely and with an eye on the needs of the Christian community as a whole. Christians would “from time to time” sell a piece of land and give the proceeds to the church to distribute unto the needs of the church at large (see Acts 4:32-37).
Nothing in the text suggests that anyone was forced to do this, but that it was the overflow of generous hearts grateful to be saved by Christ. Then we read of Ananias and Sapphira who also sold a piece of land and brought some of the money to the Apostles. They lied about how much the sale was because they wanted to appear to be generous while still retaining some of the money. No problem would have arisen from this situation if they had not lied. Peter said to them, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal?” (Acts 5:3-4).
I write all this to illustrate the point that care for the poor arises out of the fruits of productive labor; furthermore, it must remain voluntary for it to be an act of charity. If I threaten to clobber you over the head with a caveman’s club if you do not give me your money, it makes little difference what I do with the money afterward even if I give it to my poor friend so he can buy noodles. One can never call coerced transactions charitable. They are extractions or extortions, but never an act of generosity.
That being said, Christ has saved my life and therefore, I owe Him my life as a debt. He has become my Lord and Master because I have submitted to His lordship over me. He is my king. Jesus is an absolute monarch, but He is so very benevolent that His “yoke is light,” especially in comparison to the slavery to sin from which He set me free. Therefore, whatever demands Jesus might make on me, I am honor-bound to comply.
Jesus once told a rich young man to sell everything and follow Him (see Mark 10:17-31). This young man was too possessed of his possessions; they held mastery over him. “No one can serve two masters,” Jesus said (Luke 16:13, Matthew 6:24). For this young man to follow Jesus and thereby receive eternal life, he had to lose a master to gain a master. He chose to serve the master of money and damned his eternal soul. Jesus can make any demand on me that He chooses, and I must comply. But only Jesus has this power over me. I have other obligations, to love my wife, to obey civil authority, to worship with the church every Sunday and more, to tithe, to read my Bible, etc., but all of these duties and obligations arise from my acceptance of the Lordship of Christ.
It is from the Lordship of Christ that I take seriously the command to care for the poor. Unless I become convinced that some specific action is required of me, I am able to decide how best to go about making provision for the poor. To put it another way, I might feel in my heart certain compassion for someone and take that as communication from the Holy Spirit to do something specific. I am then responsible to do so.
I recall on one occasion, I felt that God wanted me to give a missionary $50, but I only had $30 at the time (I was still a broke teenager). I shrugged off the suggestion since I obviously didn’t have the money, I plucked a book from my shelf and a $20 dollar bill fell to the floor. I do not believe it was supernaturally minted, but rather that I had long forgotten that it was there. The timing of the circumstances made a lasting impression on me to always respond to the promptings of the Holy Spirit.
Even if I do not sense supernatural guidance, however, I still have an obligation to care for the needs of the poor—especially those who are in the household of believers (see Galatians 6:10). I am able to use my reason to make solid lasting plans to not only meet the short-term needs of the poor, but also their long-term needs. We must teach the poor how to care for themselves. In so doing, we transform a negative situation into a positive one. I have always found joy from seeing someone on welfare subsidies come to Christ and be discipled in the proper use of money. To watch them no longer need welfare and to become a productive person who is then a giver to others and a supporter of the church is a tremendous blessing.
In our care for the poor, we must constantly guard ourselves from two conditions: apathy and creating dependency. Apathy is not caring enough about the condition of the poor to make a difference in their lives. Creating a condition of dependency is scandalous. Giving someone cash is almost always a way to create a dependent. Meeting a specific need is better: paying their heating bill, buying a bag of groceries, etc. The potential to misuse cash is too high. I am not talking only about someone using it for booze, gambling, or drugs, although that is a possibility, and in our society these are the main causes of poverty.
Sometimes poverty comes from just not knowing how to manage money or the proper value of things. Once, I helped a man get out of jail on the condition that he would get a job and remain in a counseling relationship with me. He did get a job, and the first paycheck he ever had was entirely blown on the stupidest things. I recall that he bought three ball point writing pens for $45. I explained that he had higher needs than expensive writing pens and that he should return them to the store. “I need some good pens,” was his stubborn reply. Of course, it was his money. But giving him more of it was not his greatest need, obviously.
Constant reader, avoid apathy and create no conditions for scandal. Be smart in your giving and always give as unto the Lord. Tithe, support the mission of the church, and get advice. And, if you see that your helping is actually hurting, please change your strategy.
This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration. All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved. Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.
