|
Add to the Bottom last modified 01/03/2012 |
In The Beginning – Was There?
In the beginning God created the heaven and the
earth. Genesis 1:1
There is probably no one sentence in the entire Bible that has generated
more conversation or been the subject of more controversy than this, the
very first line. It’s somewhat understandable for secular scientists (as if
there were any other type) to attempt to come up with some non-religious
paradigm for the origin of the universe. What is not in the least bit
understandable is for Christian’s to buy into or kowtow to secularist’s
theories. It doesn’t matter whether Christians view ourselves as a "creation
scientist" or "intelligent designers," they stand in error. As one
There is only one interpretation of the "story of creation" found in Genesis and that is it is the Truth, not a "story" at all. To be perfectly clear, what this means is that God created the universe and He did it in seven (7) 24 hour calendar days. As with the rest of what is spoken of in the Bibles we have in our hands; if it is not the Truth, God has or will take the appropriate steps to correct any error therein. Call this position "fundamentalist," "literalism" or by any other label, it is the only one acceptable in Christianity. If we balk at the idea of an all knowing, all seeing, all powerful God creating the universe in seven literal days, what do we do with the "story" of the great flood, Jonah being swallowed by a whale, the Virgin Mary or Christ rising from the dead? Is any one of these Biblical accounts any more "scientifically" demonstrable than that of Creation? If not, and assuredly they are not, why just pick on one with which to champion "mind over God?" The account of Jesus’ Immaculate Conception is every bit as scientifically ludicrous as the Creation "story." Ask any "natural scientist" if parthenogenesis occurs in other than plants, some insects and anthropods and he’ll say no. Well, that is the "scientific" term for "virgin birth. So, what do we do? Throw it out of our liturgy (a customary repertoire of ideas, phrases, or observances ) as well – something like throwing the baby out with creation? Keep going in this exclusionary direction and we might qualify as an "emerging church" where anything goes. Where in the Bible are we exhorted to or extolled for proving its precept? Where are we challenged to prove or justify His Word? The answer is nowhere. Not one of the 25 times in which "prove" appears in the KJV does it have the slightest to do with humanity "proving" (that is to test the truth, validity, or genuineness of the worth or quality of) anything at all about God, His Son or the Gospel. It stands above and beyond human capacity to understand. In contrast to the dearth of Scriptures telling us to "prove" them, there are plenty telling us that human intelligence is inadequate to understand the God and His Gospel. Paul, quoting Isaiah 29:14 writes, the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid. Jesus said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight. Again Paul writes, But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty. Speaking of the doctrines of the Gospel, Jesus said I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Now who do we wish to emulate the sanguine intellectual or the babes unto whom the Gospel has been revealed? After all, what really matters in all of this is our "God-view." Do we have to "check our brains at the door" as some claim, in order to believe that God is powerful enough to create the world in six nanoseconds (a nanosecond is 1 billionth of a second – 1/1,000,000,000 of a second) and make it seem to our feeble minds as if it took ten billion years? If that should be the case, with which are we better off, our brains and the theories of blind "wise men" or faith in an inexorable, all powerful, all knowing and loving God? Maybe, rather than sleeplessly giving obeisance to worldly "scholars," we should retain a "world-view" consistent with a God worthy of the name. How much of a God would it take to outsmart the smartest human who ever lived? While we look not at the things which are seen,
but at the things which are not seen:
|
First question: What more can be done to entice nonbelievers into church other than what seeker churches have already attempted? Second question: What more can be done to market the church than what the church-marketing gurus have previously attempted? We are probably at the end of the "supermarket-seeker church" dispensation that has all but completely perverted Christianity in order to accomplish its ends. These dual demons of pseudo-evangelism and church growth have so diluted Christianity in order to make it palatable to unbelievers that even describing what is being espoused from the pulpit Sunday after Sunday even fails to meet the description of the "milk of the gospel." The "success" of these "supermarket-seeker churches" is obvious by a simple nose count (average attendance ranges from as few as 1,500 to as many as 47,000) or, as one pastor is inclined to brag upon, the number of "baptisms" performed in any given period of time. Less obvious, perhaps, but most important to the respective institutions, is their financial success. Unfortunately, the size of the church is as deceptive as using the number of graduates receiving diplomas in measuring the success of an academic institution. Before long, in both instances, the end (salvation or an education) is swallowed up by the means. When means become ends in themselves, size, growth and finances become imperatives seen as necessary and essential aspects of the "church" overshadowing all else. Third question: In light of Scripture, when we hear of such numbers, shouldn’t we ask what these 1,000’s, 10’s of thousands have been drawn into – what type of "church" it is? When a "pastor" tells us that he baptized 2,400 in one week, shouldn’t we ask "baptized into what?" But, more basically, more fundamentally, shouldn’t we question whether the goal of a church should be growth and financial success? Even more fundamentally, shouldn’t we be asking if churches are to be evangelical/missional? One source describes "evangelical churches" as "Harvest-focused, Holiness-fueled churches committed to establishing healthy multiplying churches that proclaim the Gospel of free and full salvation from all sin for all people." In like respect, the two models of what is termed a "missional church" that have been described as the "come to us" and "go to them" are equally incorrect. Scripture depicts "church" as a gathering of believers intent upon, focused upon, and growing in their ability to worship and praise God and His Son Jesus the Christ. Yes, there is growth. It used to be called, "sanctification." That concept was thrown out with the rest of Christianity in the head-long rush to be the biggest, most "missional," richest church in the country if not the world. Witness The Yoido Full Gospel Church, led by David Yonggi Cho that has over 800,000 members and "growing," any resemblance between it and Christianity is purely coincidental – yet it is wealthy and monstrous. It is this model that mega-church pastors admire and aspire to whatever the price or sacrifice of Gospel Truth. By some accounts, "traditional churches" are doomed to extinction and, right along with them, Christianity. How untimely since the Second Coming has yet to arrive. Fourth question: What could possibly fill in the gap between now and the End of Time (e.g. last time)? Just in time emerges the Emerging Church to the rescue. Much more than stage seven of Brian McLaren’s paradigm with "seeker churches" realizing that: Maybe the mission of the church isn’t simply to become a bigger church? Maybe, like Jesus, the church is to engage the larger world to reveal that the kingdom of God has drawn near? To their amazement, Seeker Community Church discovers significant swaths of the Bible (such as the Pentateuch, prophets, gospels, and epistles) talk about justice, poverty, and compassion. The church begins to speak about social issues and participates in efforts to combat poverty, AIDS, and global injustice. How Emergent Are You?This "mournful savior" will go to any extreme to meet its passionate and consuming desire to "save the world" by any means possible, and we mean by any means. Instead of doctrine which, to them, smacks of bigotry, they have "conversations" to determine situational moral and ethical truth. To Duane Cottrell, the Emerging Church will be ecumenical (all religions have the same spiritual roots), contemplative and missional along with several other traits that only spell unrecognizable. In particular, "spiritual formation," and "contemplative spirituality" seem designed to entice what we once would have called "hippies." One thing is certain, all will shy away from asserting that Christianity is true and authoritative out of concern such allegations would be certain to alienate some. The overall answer to these four questions is, as Fred Hutchison puts it, a "Seduction of Christianity." Or to paraphrase him it’s heresy with a Christian wrapper.And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter,
and upon this rock I will build my church;
|
It’s
Logical There are logical explanations for much of what is regarded in the Bible as miracles. Creation Scientists, for example, have made compellingly reasonable argument for their position that scientific evidence generally supports the story of creation found in the Book of Genesis – with the possible exception of the time frame. Other scholars have taken a less ambitious tack suggesting that although there are miracles, we needn’t resort to such explanations to events that have "natural" or logical explanations. For example, the word "day" (yowm) found in the story of creation (as in And the evening and the morning were the first day) may correctly be translated variously as: day, time, year, day (as opposed to night), day (24 hour period), a division of time, a working day, a day's journey, days, lifetime time period in general, a year, temporal references, today, yesterday or tomorrow. Take your pick. From this prospective creation could have just as well taken seven 24 hour days, seven lifetimes or seven unspecified temporal periods that could add up to seven million, billion or quad-trillion years. Furthermore, since "seven" signifies completeness, it could simply be poetic license rather than being a numerical seven number of time periods of whatever length. That’s only logical. In a recent book, The Miracles of Exodus, Dr. Colin Humphreys of Cambridge University believes the parting of the Red Sea was the result of a strong wind blowing water away from the coast. That, he contends is exactly what the Bible says in Exodus 14:21, a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea dry land. The burning bush could have been no more of a miracle than a volcanic vent. He, and others, also believe that, "at least some of the plagues inflicted on Egypt fit into a coherent natural sequence" making them all quite logical. Parthenogenesis ("virgin birth") is found in some plants and insects, but not in any of the higher forms of life, and certainly not in human beings. That’s no reason to challenge the Biblical account of Jesus miraculous conception because of the various meanings of Greek word for "virgin" (parthenos). It has a range of meanings including: a virgin, a marriageable maiden, one's marriageable daughter or even a man who has abstained from all uncleanness and idolatry, and so has kept his chastity. The word "virgin" in the passage from Isaiah in which he prophesies that a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel is the Hebrew almah. Although some would vociferously disagree, "almah" can mean "any young woman, not necessarily a virgin" (Revell Bible Dictionary, p. 1006). Logically, then, Mary did not necessarily have to be a virgin. Even more logically, Joseph and Mary could have secretly "slept together" and, as a consequence, she could have gotten pregnant. It happens all the time. Guilt could have persuaded Joseph to step up and marry her to keep her from being stoned to death once their indiscretion became apparent. Well, what do you know, logic has disposed of another "miracle." My how the "reasonable mind flourishes. Actually, some translations of James 3:17 cited above state that the wisdom from above is reasonable – the second cousin to "logical." Isn’t that license enough not only to examine miracles but the Bible cover to cover from a reasonable and logical point of view – according to our human understanding? That’s exactly what Brian McLaren states in A New Kind of Christian. "The Bible" he writes, "should be one of many authorities, such as tradition, reason, exemplary people and institutions one has come to trust, and spiritual experience" (pp. 54, 55). Other reasonable men and women, in and out of the Emerging Church Movement have similar ideas. One scholar suggests, "Don’t look for miracles in the Bible where they don’t exist" and cites the crumbling of the walls of Jericho as an example. Even the most died-in-the-wool "Christian logician" (if there can be such) would not dismiss all the 120 or so miracles recorded in Scripture. For to do so would leave precious little left including the resurrection of Jesus the Christ – the cornerstone of the Gospel. But, the real question is how far removed is all this "logical analysis" from those who openly reject and scorn the Bible? That it sounds reasonable doesn’t make it so any more than those who treat Scriptures as menu items in a cafeteria to be selected or rejected according to time, place, convenience, circumstance or taste. Once we cross that line, once we open the door of questioning the veracity of Scripture , when do we stop? First its reasonable and sensible, then its convenient, then conciliatory. In the end what have we lost and what have we gained in the name of human wisdom? Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ. 1 Peter 1:13
|
But their minds were made dull, for to
this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. There is always the temptation on the part of intellectuals to read and interpret the Bible in some way that suits their particular expertise. "Natural" scientists (and "scientific theology") will twist and turn Biblical events to fit into their mechanistic view of the universe through the lens of naturalism. Mathematicians want to dissect Scripture into mathematical formulas designed to find flaws and reveal hidden messages of one sort or another. Psychology, the social and political "sciences" have all taken their turns at such analyses from their specific points of view. One of the more prolific areas of interest in interpreting Scripture is the field of literary theory and criticism. With all its Allegories, fables, metaphors, parables and anecdotes, the Bible is a field ripe for the harvest by such linguistic scholars as witnessed by the plethora of books on the subject. If we start treating Scripture in such objective, analytical ways, at what point do we stop? More importantly is the question of, what have we gained with such scrutiny? An example of the brutality such an analysis can render a piece of literature is the psychoanalytic analysis of Herman Melville’s Moby Dick with the "great white whale" made out to be an "allegorical representation of God." However, such atrocious treatment of a literary work of art is dissipated by recalling that there is only one letter difference between Freud and fraud. Its informative to note that Northrop Frye, author of the influential Anatomy of Criticism, observed that literary critics tend to embrace an ideology, and then determine the worth of a piece of work by how closely it conforms to their preconceptions. Unfortunately, in a later book, he seems to have forgotten his own criticism writing in The New Code, "Does God create humanity or does humanity create God?: His answer is "Yes" implying both statements are true. Whether or not Frye’s assertions about literary criticism are generally the case, it appears to be the case when the piece of work being "reviewed" is the Bible. Then, we may conclude with great certainty that the analysis will debunk Scripture as certainly as a Freudian will find that all males are jealous of their fathers. What is it about the human brain that refuses to accept the obvious? Why aren’t we able to take the author’s intent for a great work for what it is without delving into mechanistic and pseudo-psychodynamic analysis which, more often than not, turns out to reveal more of the analyst than the work? There is one more area left for consideration. We are frequently told that the two major languages of the Bible are Hebrew in which the Old Testament is written and Greek, the language of the New Testament. So, to thoroughly study the Bible, we should know both these languages. Unhappily, things are not quite that simple. Linguists will tell us that the Hebrew and Greek we know today is not the same as found 1,000 or 10,000 years ago. Furthermore there were, and are, many nuances in both languages just as there are in the English, Spanish, German and other world languages spoken today. Actually, the plethora of languages and dialects spoken then as today are reminiscent of the aftermath of the Tower of Babel. In addition, it is seldom mentioned that the predominant language of the region and time in which Jesus lived was Aramaic. And, like other languages, it was not the same from culture to culture and over time, there were significant differences. Jesus spoke Middle Aramaic prevalent in the region of "Israel from 200 B.C. - 200 A.D. Coupled with translation errors and misrepresentations over the centuries, the statistical probability of knowing anything that Jesus actually said and the Apostles wrote is zero to say nothing about earlier events such as those chronicled in the Old Testament. But, in all of this, there is
one ingredient rarely mentioned or taken into consideration by all the
pseudo-scientific, literary analyses – GOD. If we factor Him into our
analytical schemes; if our starting point was to attempt to determine GOD’S
INTENT in having the Bible written and making it available for us to read
study and learn from wouldn’t that nullify all this critical investigation?
What if we tried to determine what He have us learn from it? Of course, that
would require recognizing that there is an omnipotent, omnipresent,
omniscient God, He whom their dissections and discourses are designed to
disparage and deny. With Him as our starting point, miracles would abound
everywhere from the seven days of creation, Jochebed setting Moses adrift on
the river to the walls of Jericho tumbling down, the birth and resurrection
of Jesus; His ascension and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. But the
greatest miracle we would discover in our careful study of His Word would be
the Truth of His unstinting love for each one of us. With our minds freed of
our natural human arrogance, we would discover the Truth of the Gospel – if
we only believed. How much different would the world be if this were true?
And Jesus answered and said unto them, for the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. Mark 10:5
|
And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he
said, Return to the page directory Rob Bell, "founding pastor" at Mars Hill mega-Church is at the forefront of the X-generation’s infatuation with electronic gadgetry and guru of the Emerging Church movement. Under the auspices of Flannel (formerly NOOMA) Bell now publishes DVD’s to stay in stride with this electronic infatuation. Increasingly, he and others are preaching half truths as exemplified by his "The Gods Aren’t Angry" in which he modestly professes to explain the origins of religion and makes the declaration that "God is not angry with the human race, that He loves them pretty much as they are, and that there is no need to repent." Which is at least one small step in the right direction away from suggesting a plurality of deities as the title of his DVD does. Rather than digress into the absurdity of the rest of his assertions about liking us the way we are and that there is no need for repentance, this article will focus on Bell’s idea that God is not angry with us. When we get into "conversations" (as the Emerging Church crowd is so fond of doing) about whether or not God is an Angry God, we automatically enter into the rarified arena regarding the very nature of God which is about as complex and unfathomable as one can imagine. All we really have available to discover His infinite nature is what we can glean from Scripture, the life and teachings of Jesus, through His creation, traditional Christian teachings, and the Holy Spirit. Through our limited capabilities, over the centuries we have come to understand that God is infinite, that He is free and distinct from the universe He created (Aseity) – transcendent, His moral perfection, that He has neither beginning nor end; He has no past or future, only an eternal present that transcends time. He is immutable. He possesses perfect knowledge of all things. He is love. He is holy – pure and undefiled. He is just (righteous). He is merciful. Others speak of His imassability (as an absolutely perfect Being, lacks nothing); His noncontingency (He cannot not exist). He is the great I AM.There is more. The list God’s characteristics is endlessly incomplete, but what we want to focus on is His righteousness; that which is found in Matthew 6:33 from the Greek word "Dikaiosune" which is used 85 times in the New Testament. It means "integrity, virtue, purity of life, rightness, correctness of thinking feeling, and acting." In Malachi 4:2, Jesus is described as the "Sun of righteousness" referring to God. Likewise, in Romans 14:17, Paul describes the kingdom of God as righteousness. And, Hebrews 1:8 states, But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. All of this is tinged with a warning to those who teach to the contrary, Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven:His fairness toward as well as His love for all people is witnessed by Scripture. When we look at His treatment of non-Jewish populations as found in the Book of Joshua, for example, we must remember that the Bible’s primary focus is on the Jewish people. We do not know about His works among non-Jewish cultures; yet the history of His struggles with the nation of Israel adequately demonstrates both His love and His fairness. After countless rebukes by them, their stubborn resistance to His ways He finally permitted their deaths, scattering and the total destruction of the nation of Israel. Whether or not the future will show the Ammonites, Canaanites, Jebusites and other peoples resistance of His Word also led to their destruction at the hands of Israel remains to be seen. We do know that He is not a respecter of persons. What is manifestly clear, about which we do not need to speculate because it is clearly stated in the Bible must be regarded as both a promise and a warning: He loves, but He is also just – that’s the other shoe we frequently choose to forget.To believe otherwise, that He is only a God of love and ignore the fact that he is also a just God, is nothing short of sacrilege to the Cross of Jesus. Through our sinful omissions and commissions (things we don’t do as well as those we do against His will) we, all people, stand condemned to eternal death in that final judgment. It is plainly stated that ALL have sinned and just as plainly it is stated If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. To deny that our sinful nature is repulsive to God is to say that Jesus, His Son, was humiliated by assuming human sinful weakness, ignored, cursed, spat upon and crucified unto death for no reason at all. God may not be angry with the human race, but, as with Israel’s intransigence, He has every right to be infuriated with us. Only Jesus’ intercession shields those who publically accept Him from that justifiable wrath. His full and just fury still rests upon those who obstinately reject HimFor I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven . Matthew 5:20
|
|
TEN PLUS TWO All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. 2 Timothy 3:16 Return to the page directory Most Bible scholars agree that Paul was referring not only to the Old Testament in this second letter to Timothy but to those manuscripts, which would become the New Testament that had already been written. According to the dates used by the NKJV, Second Timothy was written in the Fall of 67AD, only the Books of John, John 1, 2 and 3 and Revelation had yet to be written. With the only reservation about this suggestion being a question of how widely disseminated these writings would have been and their availability to Paul. We must remember that their reproduction and distribution would have been laborious and costly making them rather scarce. We tend to forget there were not duplicating machines then; all copies had to be done by hand. Furthermore, as much as we may get frustrated with the U.S. Postal Service, it certainly is more efficient than distributing letters and documents then, which would have been by hand also. Then, too, we don’t want to ignore that travel itself was slow, hazardous and laborious. A final caution is that we don’t know what other writings he might have also been referring to that didn’t make it into the Canon of Scripture.What if Paul had yet to receive copies of the 18 "New Testament" documents that had been composed by the time he wrote his second letter to Timothy in the Fall of AD 67? What if he were, in fact, referring to the Old Testament? How much would that change the meaning of 2 Timothy 3:16? Before we jump to any conclusions, we need to examine what Paul was actually telling Timothy. First, he is referring to "Scripture" about which one commentator tells us, "The Greek is never used of writings in general, but only of the sacred Scriptures." Gill states, "That is, all holy Scripture; for of that only the apostle is speaking; and he means the whole of it; not only the books of the Old Testament, but of the New." The PNT points out that the "Jewish Scriptures are primarily meant, but a part of the New Testament was already written." Secondly he, Paul, does state "All Scripture" which would seem to reinforce the position that he was referring to the Old Testament that he and Timothy were most familiar with and, perhaps, those writings which were available that became our New Testament.But, what begs to be answered is whether or not the Old Testament is (1) given by inspiration of God, (2) profitable for doctrine, (3) beneficial for reproof, (4) useful for correction and, finally, (5) valuable for instruction in righteousness. If it is, (and it is) then why assume Paul had to be referring to documents other than those of the OT he might have had available, some of which, became in our New Testament? If we take the position that Paul could only have intended the 21 manuscripts written before his second letter to Timothy, we are actually selling the OT short; in effect saying that it is not profitable and beneficial at all. After all Jesus, said, Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. ( Matt. 5:17)At another time, He gave us these two commands, And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these. ( Matt. 12:30-31) Surely, these are profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness. Are we to believe for one minute that these two commandments are anything other than a summary of the Ten Commandments? The first four Commandments given by God to Moses speak about our relationship with God; the remaining six tell us how to treat others. Are not the Ten Commandments and the two from the Christ quite compatible; spoken by God for doctrine, reproof and instruction? Psalm 118:22 talks of the stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner. In Matthew 21:42, we read nearly the same verse again, Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected , the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing , and it is marvellous in our eyes? Notice the clear implication of what Jesus says, Did ye never read in the scriptures, clearly a reference to the Old Testament. The story of the Passover found in Exodus 12:1-13, is a herald to the sacrifice of Jesus for our slavery to sin right down to the blood of a lamb. Matthew 1:3 is a carbon copy of Isaiah 40:3. Even the most superficial reading of Isaiah 40-41 clearly shows the value of the OT for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction. Throughout, there is clear evidence of His power, His righteousness, grace, mercy and justice; and how our worship should glorify Him. Because of these things, it is entirely possible that Paul was telling Timothy that the Old Testament was beneficial for the things he detailed; not that it was sufficient for salvation or that it is all God wants us to know about Him. It is in Romans 1:16 where Paul makes clear the role of the Gospel in our salvation; For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. But neither this, nor other similar statements (e.g. 1 Cor. 15:1-2, Heb. 4:12) disqualifies the OT as "profitable."He delighteth not in the strength of the horse: he taketh not pleasure in the legs of a man. The LORD taketh pleasure in them that fear him, in those that hope in his mercy. Psalm 147:10-11
THE CANON
OF SCRIPTURE
|
|
The meaning of Radah, ( Strong # 07287) the Greek word for "dominion" used in Genesis 1:26 and in 24 other passages of the O.T. is to rule, have dominion, dominate, tread down, subjugate. In the N.T., James appears to reinforce the ideal that humanity is to dominate, subjugate, even "tread down every living thing. (James 3:7) But, was/is that "power" without limitations; without accountability? There is a word, just two verses away that may give us some pause in concluding that our power over the earth was totally absolute. That word, replenish, is found in Genesis 1:28, and 9:1. It means, among other things, to fill, consecrate, complete, abundance and even furnish. (Strong’s #4390) When used in other passages, more often than not, it is translated as "fill." The TANAKH substitutes "fill" for "replenish" which seems to pretty well end the discussion.Or does it? Granted, all that God created, and over which He Gave Adam and his wife dominion, was absolutely perfect. It was a veritable paradise, a land of enchantment (see Gen.2:8-9) where, wanting for nothing, mankind could have dwelt forever. Without a doubt, man was given dominion over this paradise. However, the story does not end there. Something happened on our way to eternity. Something that renders a half-truth made by those who want to say our trashing of this world is our God given right to do anything with it we please. Those who scoff at those feeble human efforts to clean up our world are only half-right. Such efforts will fail. That is not saying, in any way, that He approves of, endorses or condones what we have done with our "dominion" over His creation. Why? Because the couple to whom God gave that dominion faltered. They who took possession, were not the same couple to whom He gave dominion. They ate of the forbidden fruit (Gen. 3:6-7) and ceased to be in His grace as is their progeny. (Gen.3:16-24) Then, our dominion turned from ruling and subjugating the earth to trampling, crushing squashing it down.As a consequence, someday, as in the parable of the talents, ( Matthew 25: 26-30) the land LORD will call His stewards into account to see how well they have taken care of these most precious gifts – their lives, their talents; the earth and all that was in it. When the Lord comes (Matt. 25:19) to "settle accounts" with us, what will we report we have done with these precious possessions? What will His response be when we present Him with the endless list of animals made extinct by our way of living? How will He respond when we show Him the results of dumping human sewage into His lakes, rivers and oceans: when He sees the mountains of non-biodegradable waste from our town and cities we’ve dumped on His land? Will He be pleased with the destruction we’ve cause by the mining of minerals; the denuding of the forests? What will He think of the clouds of chocking smog bellowing forth from the chimneys of our homes, buildings and factories? Will He say, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things as He did to the servant of the five talents? Is it even remotely possible He’ll tell us, "Well, you have made a mess of things; that’s for sure. But compared to those dirty animals that don’t clean up their own mess, you’ve done a good job. Or is it more likely that His response will be more likely be in tune with His chastisement of the steward who received just the one talent. (Matt. 25:21-30) We have met those servants, and they are us. Doesn’t a biblical world view of stewardship entail "Utilizing and managing all resources God provides for the glory of God and the betterment of His creation? Was "dominion" intended to be exploitation, or God's call for human beings to be good and gracious managers of God's creation?" Holman Bible DictionaryWe are told in 1 Cor. 2:14 that the unsaved cannot discern the things of God. To him, such things are foolishness. Verse 16 says Christians have the mind of Christ with which v. 12 says we can know the things of God. Therefore, when we read Scripture, it should not be with the mind of the unregenerate but through the lens of the Spirit. Furthermore, there is a dire warning in Eccl. 12:14 telling us that God will bring every work into judgment. This is a warning repeated in many other passages as in Luke 16:2 and 1 Chron. 4:2. Surely, reading the Bible will persuade us of one basic, fundamental lesson, God is the source of all we have and all we are. We are debtors; owning nothing; in the red everything, everything to Him. We are trustees, for a short time, of all that we possess – including the earth. Jesus tells the story of a wealthy man who gave various things of His to his servants much like newly formed man was loaned the earth for a short time.And he called him, and said unto him, How is it that I hear this of thee? Give an account of thy stewardship; for thou mayest be no longer steward. Then the steward said within himself, What shall I do? For my lord taketh away from me the stewardship: I cannot dig; to beg I am ashamed . Luke 16:2-3
|
|
Why in the world did the Lord God Almighty create human beings? Knowing how disobedient we would be and are; knowing how much trouble, grief, and anger we would create; knowing that about the entire race and each of us individually long before even Adam took his first breath, why would He even bother? There, in four words found Rev. 15:4, lies the answer: fear, glorify, holy and worship.In the KJVNT, the Greek for fear ( Phobeo) can mean several things including to venerate; to treat with deference or reverence. Most frequently, it is translated as to be afraid or just plain old fear. Of the 90 times Phobeo is found in the NT, it is "fear" 62 times and "be afraid" 23 times. Four times, we are specifically told to "Fear God." (Luke 23:40, Acts 13:16, 1 Pet. 2:17, Rev. 14:7) Now in the kind and gentle, the positively possible "church" in the "post-Christian," "Emerging Church" era with its eye on marketing itself as "seeker friendly," we don’t hear a thing about the fear of God. That just might put a crimp in our ambition of becoming a mega-church by scaring the seekers away, as well as the rest of so-called "Christian" audiences. To cater to our grandiose ambitions, a kind, loving, nebbish (timid, meek, ineffectual) sort of God is endlessly preached, who has no other desire than to make us happy, healthy and satisfied with our worldly lives. But, there it is; right there in the NT. Best we wake up and take notice. He is telling us something. After all He is the God of all things. Let us just say that we were created for Him, not He for us; and that we should venerate, idolize, honor Him.Why were we created? Part of the answer is that we will fear Him. Yes, downright, gut-wrenching fear. And anyone who does not f-e-a-r Him is an idiot! The same who do not, will run from a mouse, faint at the thought of a snake and yet, have no terror, trepidation, foreboding, no hesitation whatsoever about God, Lord of all. That’s imprudent to say the least.Another reason why we were created is to glorify His name. In Isaiah 24:15, we are told, Wherefore glorify ye the LORD in the fires, even the name of the LORD God of Israel in the isles of the sea (see also, Lev. 10:3, Is 49:3), Is. 60:21) In Matthew 5:16 in which Jesus tells us, Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven. In John 15:8, He says, Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples. Even when we pray in Jesus’ holy name, God is glorified, And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. (Jn 14:3) Even in sickness and, death, if God is glorified we have met our purpose in life as seen in John 11:4 where Jesus says, This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God might be glorified thereby, in this case by Jesus resurrecting him from death. And, again, what does this passage mean other than one of the major reasons for our existence is to glorify Him? And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them. (John. 17:10) Speaking on Isaiah 6:3, (cited below) the Geneva Study Bible points out, that if angels can’t satisfy themselves in praising God, all creatures should praise him. Most of all shouldn’t we, who are created in His own image do so? Should we, not, with all our very beings glorify and honor Him, our Creator, Father, Saviour and Comforter? Jesus the Christ was not, most horrifically humiliated and sacrificed for the tulips, the turtles or the trees, but for us. Is it not possible that we were created to venerate Him? Should our days be filled any less with worshipping Him than the heavenly hosts who sing endless praises to His name?Is it too menial a task for us to use all our time and energy in worshipping Him? Should we not like Miriam, Sings to the LORD for he is highly exalted? (Ex. 15:20) There are those who envision a heaven filled with the same sort of relationships and activities as here on earth; with lots of time to meet and talk with Biblical figures and to get some answers to questions we have been unable to find. If the heavens are now and have been declaring the glory of God, isn’t it possible we will be too? (Ps. 19:1-3) If the four beasts mentioned in the Book of Revelation did not rest from their singing holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, (Rev. 4:8) Isn’t it about time we do the same? There is a strong indication this is exactly what will fill our days and consume our energies. It is written, And I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire: and them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark, and over the number of his name, stand on the sea of glass, having the harps of God. And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous are thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints. ( Rev. 15:2-3) Prayerfully, those of us who proclaim the name of Jesus are those who have gotten that victory over the beast; that it is we who will pick up our harps and sing an everlasting song of thanksgiving and praise to the LORD GOD ALMIGHTY. But, that would mean subjugating our self-centeredness to Him. Is that too much to ask; too much to expect; too little to occupy ourselves with?And one cried unto another, and said, Holy,
holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts:
|
|
Why in the world did He do that? Just look at all the trouble we have been to Him and all the damage we have done to His earth in the short period of time we have been around. There is only one commandment of His that we have obeyed; be fruitful and multiply. ( Gen. 1:28) Boy have we ever been obedient to that! In that very same verse, He tells, and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. We sure have done that too! However, the next thing you know we, well Adam and Eve, were being booted out of the Garden of Eden for being disobedient to His order not to eat of the tree in the center of the Garden. (Gen.3:17-22) Look what happens in the very next chapter. One of their sons, Cain, murders their other son Abel. (Gen. 4:8) Wow, and that’s just four chapters, twelve pages, into the Book. Could things get any worse? Yup, for the rest of our short history, it is as if we were born into trouble and had a relapse. It is incomprehensible why God, seeing the trouble we got ourselves into in such short order, didn’t just pull the plug on us. Then, remember, He not only knows all the major catastrophic blunders the human race has made, but He knows every little misstep and ever single mess each and every human being ever has or ever will get into, regardless of how large or small it is. It is never-ending.Let’s back up a bit; to the incident with the forbidden fruit. Something else overwhelmingly significant happened to the naughty couple. Think back, they’ve already eaten; discovered they were naked and fashioned some clothing for themselves from some sort of vegetation. Then what happened? None other than the Lord God Almighty came looking for them. Just imagine that. It wasn’t the first time either. Here is the account, And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden. And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? Isn’t that just simply heart wrenching? Of course, it was a rhetorical question. He knew what they had done and where they were hiding – even before they knew what they were going to do. It is the last recorded time the three of them got together. How very, sad; they lost so very much more than their cozy little spot in the Garden. They lost the best possible friend anyone could ever possibly have. That is so terribly tragic, beyond words. One can only speculate if Adam and his wife ever realized the full extent of what their transgressing cost them. We know, or should know, what transpired after their expulsion. The time, the place, the participants change, but sad to say, one thing remained unchanged – human disobedience. How often do we scream out in our frustration as the Psalmist did, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring. ( Psalm 22:1) without realizing how perfectly absurd such babbling must sound to Him. How perfectly human is this of David/ourselves, to cry for deliverance from what we have brought upon ourselves. Just like the lyrics of a song say, "the beat goes on." Skipping a few chapters filled with more of the same, we come to the flight of Israel from their exile in Egypt; courtesy of God. Here they are, on the road again; having witnessed His deliverance from the power of the Egyptian army in hot pursuit being drowned in the trail across the Red Sea, they had just crossed over in complete safety. Not long after this miraculous intervention, the people are, as usual, once again complaining that they had no water to drink. (Ex. 15:24) Then they had nothing to eat. Here’s what they said on this occasion, Would to God we had died by the hand of the LORD in the land of Egypt, when we sat by the flesh pots, and when we did eat bread to the full; for ye have brought us forth into this wilderness, to kill this whole assembly with hunger. (Ex. 16:3) Now that’s showing gratitude.Skipping ahead, we are given a second chance. The Israelites are given a "promised land" filled with milk and honey. Not just for them, but through them, the seed of Jacob, all peoples would be blessed. ( Gen. 28:12-14) According to Matthew Henry’s Commentary, Jesus is this ladder in Jacobs dream; the foot on earth in his human nature, the top in heaven in his Divine nature." (John 1:51) It would be nice to say His giving us His very Son turned us around, thus ending this story by saying that we, the descendants of that first disobedient couple, have learned something over the centuries; that we no longer crave the forbidden fruit. That would be nice, but it wouldn’t be the truth. For all the world we, the descendants of that first disobedient couple are recalcitrant, incorrigible sinners. His people, those that carry the label "Christian," and the "church (His bride) has turned away from Him. We, individually and collectively are so very much like those in the time of Jeremiah; (Jer. 2:4-8) we have our hands out for blessings and draw near to Him in our rituals, but our lives are still far from His ways. Oh Lord, we do not deserve such, but we beg your forgiveness. We are as sorely vexed lunatics.Lord, have mercy on my son: for he is
lunatick , and sore vexed:
|
