WHAT IS REAL BIBLE STUDY

THE STUDY OF THE BIBLE

2 Timothy 1:3-5; 2 Tim. 2:15; 2 Tim. 3:14-17

            Having considered the Romance of the Bible, and seen the false and true methods of approach, we now come to the subject of the Study of the Bible. In spite of all the widespread interest in the Bible which is being evidenced today both negative and positive, the vast rank and file of the members of the churches are not studying the Bible.

            Observe carefully that our article subject is the study of the Bible. There are a great many methods of deal­ing with the Bible, some very pernicious, some very helpful, which yet fall short of study. Some people juggle with the Bible. Having a Bible, and holding that it has mystic qualities, they, when they are in difficulty, open it, and put their finger down, saying, "What does it say to me?" That is juggling with the Bible. I tried it once. In some hour of difficulty I opened it, and I found I had my finger on the story of Balaam and his ass! It may have been appropriate, but it cured me; at any rate, that is not Bible-study.

            Then there is the excellent method of taking daily devotional readings, portions chosen by a committee, or that one chooses for oneself, and reading every morning early. Excellent and valu­able, but that is not studying the Bible.

            There are people who mark their Bibles as they listen to the preaching and teaching on Sunday morning and take notes over a vast period of time. That is not Bible-study.

            There are people who study their Bible from a reference Bible. They trace references, and they go to two passages, and from those two they go to four more, and think they are studying. There is no reference Bible published that is worth any extra cost. They have their place, but that is not Bible-study. And there are the Thompson, Ryrie, Scofield and other study Bibles but that is not Bible study.

            Again, there are people who come to the Bible having made their mind up as to their theology, and they go through the Bible looking for proof texts to square with their own theology. That is not Bible-study. I will undertake to prove anything from the Bible, choosing my texts I can prove by taking isolated texts that my audience has no business to be sitting here, but should go out and hang themselves. "Judas went and hanged him­self." "Go thou and do likewise." "What thou doest, do quickly!"

            There is another method for which I have great respect, which is not Bible-study. It is the method of higher criticism. Higher criticism is not an evil thing in itself. It is the discussion of dates and authorship. Of course, when the method adopted is that of rationalism and naturalism, it becomes destructive and pernicious. When Jesus attributed the 110th Psalm to David, He was involved in the realm of higher criticism. It is perfectly proper to discuss dates and authors, but one may spend one's whole life trying to find out how many men wrote Isaiah, who was the author of the Pentateuch, or who wrote the letter to the Hebrews, without ever really studying the Bible.

            What is study? The application of the mind to any subject, for acquiring knowledge of that sub­ject. Or to put the same thing in another way, study is the act or process of acquiring knowledge of a particular subject by one's own effort. Not the notes of Scofield, Ryrie, or Thompson. No one can study by proxy, either medicine or music, or any other subject. It must be personal work, and it is this personal, first-hand work with which I am dealing. Teachers and text-books are valuable, but quite secondary. The real work of a teacher in any subject is that of imparting information, so as to enable students to obtain the information for them­selves. That is equally true of the Bible. No teacher ought to count himself a success unless he is able to do that, with those who are following him as their teacher. It needs to be a personal conversation with the Holy Spirit and Christ.

            This article then deals with preliminary matters as to the student, as to the subject, and as to the work of study itself.

            If we are going to be students of Scripture, I repeat now the statement with which I closed the previous article concerning true approach. The two things which are necessary are, first, an open mind, and, secondly, a devoted will. I may be running counter to some people. They sometimes tell young people that they cannot study the Bible unless they accept it as the Word of God. That is a mistaken idea, and it is a wrong method. Many young people cannot honestly say that. All I ask is that they should come to it with an open mind. It is said that our Lord, after His resurrection, with His disciples round Him, "opened their mind, that they might understand the Scriptures." (Luke 24:45) The word "opened" is a very striking and arresting word. He disentangled their mind, so that it was thoroughly and completely open. In other words, the open mind is one free from prejudice, pride, and from the mastery of tradition; it is receptive. And after 12 years in the public school system this takes participation from the Holy Spirit that the mind can be opened after being closed by what has passed their ears.

            Here I should like to give a brief page out of my own experience. I was brought up in a home that can only be described as Presbyterian. What Paul wrote to Timothy could have been written to me that "from a babe" I knew the Holy Writings, and until I was full sixteen years of age I myself did not think the Bible was the Word of God.

            As I went into the public school system, and found myself plunged into an intel­lectual world of which I had no knowledge, up to that time. People say that today is a time of intellectual difficulty. But it is no more difficult than it was then, fifty years ago and more. The whole intellectual world was under the mastery of the physical scientists, and of a materialistic and rationalistic philosophy and still resides there more so today. To name names is enough here—Darwin, Huxley, Tyndall, Spencer, Bain, and the rest. I was as honest then as I am now, and gradually faith, while not undermined, was eclipsed. When the sun is eclipsed the light is not killed, it is hidden. There came a moment when I was sure of nothing. After a period of thirty years of reckless behavior based on no leadership from God or His words I was led to a man who read from God’s book passages that brought life and meaning.

            That was about forty years ago. I started studying, and have been doing it ever since. Any assurance I have is the result of coming to it with an open mind. I came asking. What is this Book about? What does it really say? Concerning those words within brought life to a soul in deep need.

            I soon entered intensive study from men with doctorates that had studied God’s word in a manner I had never been privileged. They placed tools before me to use to “search the scriptures” for myself.

            When that boy or girl of yours comes home from school or college and says to you, "We do not know, we are not sure"; don't you dare tell them they are going to be damned. Say rather, "All right, but what do you know about the Bible?" These teachers who have been teaching you untruth about this Book do not know the Bible. Ask them to study for themselves. After more than half a century's experience I am prepared to abide by the result, if any boy or girl will honestly study the Bible themselves, uninfluenced by the chatter of men around it, or the scribble of pens concerning it. I plead for the open mind. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing the Word of God. (Rom. 10:17)

            Then briefly, the devoted will, and that means there must be determination to work. The Bible should be treated with the same respect as is paid to other branches of learning—art, music, literature. In Acts we are told that the Bereans were nobler than those in Thessalonica, because they searched the Scriptures to see if certain things were so. (Acts 17:11) They were the critics of their day. In Thessa­lonica they accepted all that was said to them by the apostle. The Bereans challenged him, and searched for themselves. That was work, and there must be work.

            Second, with regard to the subject itself. It is important to remember two things. The Bible student must recognize that the Bible is religious literature. In a library we do not go for a scientific book to the section devoted to biography, or for a book on art to the section for scientific works. Coming to the Bible, we must realize that it is religious. The Bible is not a scientific text-book although it has science statements contained within spoken on your level. That does not mean it is unscientific. (See article Koine Greek and the Scientist) There is no discrepancy whatever between the ascertained facts of science and what the Bible teaches. There may be and there is discrepancy between the hypotheses of science and what the Bible teaches; and there may equally be discrepancies between what the Bible teaches, and what many people say the Bible teaches. That is quite another matter. The Bible is not a book of systematized philosophy. It is rooted in philosophy, but it is not a philosophic treatise. It is not a systematized theology. Every systematic theology worthwhile derives its authority from it. It has to do with God and man, and the inter­relationships between them.

            The Bible is a library, with sixty-six Books, written by between thirty and forty authors, over a period of 1,500 years. It is a compilation of writings over that time. In our study we must remember where the book is placed, and get the setting and background.

            We now turn to some very elementary words concerning study itself. I am not referring to the study of the Hebrew Bible, or the Greek New Testament, but to the ordinary English translation. The question first arises. What translation shall we use? We have the King James Version, dating back to 1611. That was not the version chained in the churches 400 years ago. The King James Version was not published until seventy years later. I grant at once that the definition of it with which we are familiar is true, that it is "a well of English un­defiled." But the question does arise, Do we know that English? Are we speaking that English now? The English language has undergone various and remarkable changes since the King James transla­tors did their work. To take one instance. We all remember that great collect of the Anglican Church, beginning, "Prevent us, O Lord, in all our doings." What does that first word "prevent" mean? It is a Bible word. If I should go down from the pulpit and start down the aisle, and say, "Will someone prevent me?" someone would put out his hand to stop me. The word did not mean that at all in 1600. That is the prostitution of language, of which we are guilty. "Prevent" means "Go before." "Go before us, O Lord." Are we there­fore talking that English today? NO, therefore I use the New American Standard version for I am an American that speaks this language, not the English or the supposed New International language.

            So, while the Authorized Version is indeed a well of English undefiled, and remains so in many ways, the language has changed. Moreover, since those translators did that work, literally hundreds of manuscripts have been discovered which have been valuable to translators. While we are not in posses­sion of original manuscripts, hundreds of copies of the originals have been brought to light since the work was done in 1611 which have been of enor­mous value in the difficult and sacred work of translation.

            I should raise no objection to the use of the King James Version if, by the side, is kept a good diction­ary and a lexicon. For purpose of study, however, the Revised Version as well as the New American Standard is infinitely preferable. I know there are statements that lack the majestic rhythm and movement of that wonderful 1611 translation; but when we get down to study, it is better. And far better than the English Revision is the American, for they went a little further in their translation.

            The question is sometimes asked, What about in­dividual translations—Moffatt, and Weymouth, and Young, and others? Buy them all, and keep them by you, and watch them, and do not depend on them. If the work of translation is done by a committee, devout, saintly, and scholarly, they check each other, and the result is more likely to be a cor­rect translation than the Work of any one man, however great, saintly, and scholarly he may be. Illustrations might be given to show how the bias of a translator has affected his work, innocently and honestly, it may be, but quite definitely.

            In studying, the first thing to do is to forget chapters. Chapter summary may have its value, but in studying, chapter division must be ignored. Over and over again the chapters, as they are arranged for us, begin at the wrong place. I would remind you that chapter divisions are a comparatively modern innovation. To give two illustrations only. Isaiah 53 does not begin there at the first verse, "Who hath believed our report?" We must go back to the 13th verse of the previous chapter, "Behold, My Servant shall deal wisely." Or take John 14. We have no right to begin, "Let not your heart be troubled." That breaks in on a statement of Jesus, in answer to Peter, when he said, "Lord, whither goest Thou?" We must have chapters and verses for reference, but not for study.

            There are two methods of Bible-study, the tele­scopic and the microscopic. By telescopic I mean that method that takes in whole outlooks at a glance, as we may turn a telescope to the heavens. The microscopic is that of pondering and investigation, line upon line, verse by verse, no, word by word.

            We should begin with the telescopic. Take up a book and find out generally what it is about. Read right through, and, if you do not understand, go on, and shortly there will come a glimmering of the general value of the book, so that you can go back to the difficult part, and in all probability understand it. When I turned to the Bible, I continued to read for seven years. I began, I confess, with the New Testament. Then I applied the same principle to the Old. I read a book through. There was a good deal I could not understand, but I determined to get the sweep of it, and see what the writer was doing. That is the first business. Shortly I would see the writer had a purpose, a meaning, a goal.

            Someone says, we haven’t the time to do this. I am a little tired of hearing that. There is time for so many things, and not time for this Book! The Bible can be read through at the ordinary pulpit rate in sixty hours! Do you doubt it? Try it and find out. During that seven years I went through every book, and, on an average—sometimes more, some­times less—I read each book through fifty times before I took the pencil in hand, to try and put down its general movement. That is the first method of Bible-study, and I have personally never got much beyond that myself. It is such a wonderful Book. But when that has been done, and one is a preacher, the appalling mistake will never be made of treating any text in independence of its context.

            The second method of study, the microscopic, means that attention has to be given to grammar, and to the philological aspects, while time is taken to ponder and think of the real meaning of each statement.

            Someone may say, that is rather discouraging; we shall never finish. You will not. The trouble is, some of you have never begun! It is now forty years and more since I really began to study the Bible. There is much I want to do, but shall never have time to do, for I shall be gone before I can accomplish it. There it is, a well of truth unlimited, but capable of being plumbed by human effort. It is worth studying. And if, as the result of our article, I can start some on the business, taking the Bible free from all pride, prejudice, and foregone conclusion, giving themselves to it, really to study it, I shall thank God for the opportunity He has thus given me.

TWO APPROACHES TO THE BIBLE

APPROACH TO THE BIBLE: FALSE OR TRUE?

 

            Our method in this article will be that of the exposition of words that fell from the lips of our Lord, recorded in John 5:39. At this time Jesus was nearing the end of the first year of His public ministry. He had come up to Jerusalem to a feast, the feast of Passover in all probability. Passing through Bethesda's porches, He had seen a man who had lain for thirty-eight years in his infirmity, and He healed him both of his moral and physical malady. Because the action took place on a Sabbath day, our Lord was criticized and even persecuted. When giving His reason for what He had done, He claimed that He was acting in fellowship with God. The rulers understood Him that He claimed equality with God, and there­fore they determined to persecute Him even unto death; they "sought the more to kill Him."

            “Jesus therefore answered and said unto them" (verse 19). There follows His full answer to the criticism directed against Him, and to the persecu­tion in which His enemies were indulging. His words were directed principally to the rulers, those responsible teachers of the people, who sat in Moses' seat, occupying the place of authority on all matters, religious, social, and moral. In these words He was referring to that very fact and to their relation to those sacred writings of which they were students, and supposed to be teachers, the writings they were called upon to interpret and apply. In what He said He revealed the false and true method of approach to the Scriptures. We shall then first examine the passage carefully, and then consider its teaching.

            The words are familiar: "Ye search the Scrip­tures." We must first notice a difference between the Authorized, or King James' Version, and the Revised. The difference is one of moods—the imperative, and the indicative. The Old Version renders it in the imperative mood, "Search the Scriptures"; the Revised in the indicative, "Ye search the Scriptures." We ask, which is correct? No one can be dogmatic on the basis of the words themselves, because in the Greek the words are identical in form. Therefore in such cases, context must decide which is correct. This leaves no room for doubt. The Revised rendering is right.

            Jesus was recognizing that these men were searching their Scriptures, "Ye search the Scriptures." In the immediate context He had told them they had neither heard the voice of the Father at any time, nor seen His form, that they had not the Word of the Father abiding in them. "for whom He sent, Him ye believe not. Ye search the Scriptures." He granted that they did so.

            These people were students of the Scriptures in a most remarkable way at that time. The word translated "search" is a strong one, and recognizes an intensity and carefulness of the most pronounced type. All rabbinical lore shows it; all the traditions reveal it. They were comparing words with words. They were building very fanciful theories upon the comparison of words. They knew in their Hebrew Scriptures exactly how many words there were, and where the middle word was. They knew the whole content of the Torah, the Law, the Neblim, the Prophets, and the Kethubim, the Writings. Their knowledge was technical, and by letter, and remark­ably so. To quote from Edersheim, "Their elabo­rate searching, sifting of the Law in hope that, by a subtle analysis of its every particle and letter, by inferences from, and a careful drawing of a prohibitive hedge around its letter, they would possess themselves of eternal life."

            We start, then, by recognizing that our Lord was not speaking to men who were neglecting the Scriptures, but to those who were searching, and doing so in that particular way, "Ye search the Scriptures." The word "search" is a strong one, as we have said, and is used in the New Testament in remarkable ways. Paul speaks of God, and says, "He that searcheth the heart knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit." He also uses it of the Spirit, "The Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God." (1 Cor. 2:10) And Peter, in his first letter, used it of the ancient prophets when he said, "Concerning which salvation the prophets sought and searched diligently . . . searching what time or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ . . . did point unto." (1 Pet. 1:10-11) The word shows that these men were devoting energy and time to the mastery of the Scriptures.

            Notice, in the next place, that they were seeking the true end of all scriptural knowledge—eternal life: "Ye search the Scriptures, because ye think that in them ye have eternal life," or, to adopt Rotherham's rendering, "age-abiding life," or Weymouth's "life of the ages." Eternal life does not mean life that never ends only. Eternal life is as broad and deep as it is long. It is the life of the ages, that which proceeds through all the ages. These searchers were seeking the right end.

            But, mark carefully, that they failed in their work. Why did they fail? "Ye search the Scrip­tures, because ye think that in them ye have eternal life: and these are they which bear witness of Me; and ye will not come to Me that ye may have life." How are we to account for this? Why would they not come to Him? Of their Scriptures Christ was the Ultimate, the Fulfillment of all their foretelling’s, the Incarnation of all their principles, the Answer to all their hopes. They were seeking life through the very writing which led to the fountain head of life. Yet they failed to find Him, and so they failed to find life.

            Many may say, surely they were right in their search for eternal life, to seek it in their Scriptures? No, that is exactly where they were wrong. At that time these rabbis had actually come to believe that in the very words there existed some mystical quality of life, and that acquaintance with them ensured eternal life. Westcott has told us that Hillel said, "More Torah, more life." Torah was the most sacred portion to them, the Pentateuch. Hillel also said, “He who has gotten to himself words of Torah has gotten to himself the life of the world to come." It was the popular view. The rabbis were holding and teaching that in order to secure this life, all that was necessary was a tech­nical and literal acquaintance with the Writings.

            Our Lord was referring, of course, to the Old Testament when He said, “These are they which bear witness of Me." He had come in fulfillment of all these Writings had revealed and declared; but they would not come to Him that they might have life. Life they were seeking, life was their goal, towards which all the Holy Writings led, and He was the Goal. They all testified of Him, but they rejected Him and refused His teaching.

            We stop there and ask another question. Why did they fail? Hebrew Christians today, those who have come into the light, and confessed Jesus as infinitely more than a great Prophet—which all Jews will admit even today—and see Him as ful­filling all prophecy, after studying the 53rd chapter of Isaiah, have said they could not understand themselves how it was they had never seen before how that chapter found its ultimate fulfillment in Christ. Go behind that, and see what it means.

            The people of His day did not come to Him, because the claims of Jesus did not square with the facts which they thought were true concerning their Messiah. To put that in another way: they rejected the claims of Jesus because the facts con­cerning Him did not square with their interpretation of their own Scriptures. The Messianic writings of the Old Testament foretold His meekness and His might, foretold His glory, but also His suffering. We call to mind that glorious description of Him in the earlier chapter, "Unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government shall be upon His shoulder; and His name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." (Isa. 9:6-7) All these teachers knew that passage, and loved it. That was their view of Messiah. But when they went on and read the 53rd chapter, "He was despised and rejected of men; a Man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief," that did not square with their view of Messiah.

            Consequently, these men rejected Him because they did not see the signs they expected, and that was because they were dealing unfairly with their own Scriptures. They accepted only those things which appealed to their prejudices and desires, and they denied or neglected all the rest. Jesus told them the Scriptures that they searched because they thought they had eternal life in them—and there was this element of truth in the idea—"These are they that testify of Me." But when He stood before them, fulfilling all the Scriptures they were searching, they would not come to Him that they might have life.

            It is a well-known fact, that in Jewish theology at that time there were rabbis trying to square the views concerning the coming One, who declared that there would be two Messiahs, one a glorious One, and the other a suffering One; but the merg­ing into One was not seen. He was there in all lowliness, garbed in homespun, in weariness, and poverty. Their Scriptures had exactly foretold all this, but they did not so interpret them, and so they did not come to Him. That was the false method of studying the Scriptures.

            There are two false methods of approach to the Bible. One is bibliolatry, and the other is dishonesty.

            What do we mean by bibliolatry? A worship of the Book in itself, a sacramentary view of the Bible, which is false and pernicious. We may be particular about the letter, even when the spirit is dead. It is possible to have a remarkable and technical knowledge of this Literature, and yet never reach life, never reach the One whom it represents. We may know all about Jesus as revealed here, and yet never find Him. Many excellent people in many ways are in terrible danger of treating the Bible as a sort of book of magic, as most Americans and others as well; which, if it is known, they are safe, and have life. By no means. If we think that in the Scriptures there is life, we are wrong. They lead to the One who is the Life-giver, but they may be dealt with technically, and yet He never be reached. That is a false method of approach. If anyone thinks that because he or she has read a little paragraph of Scripture in the early hours of the morning, they are safe, they are making a great mistake. If we are trusting to the fact that we read so much, or have committed to memory certain parts, or if we have gone through the whole course of the Bible School, until certain analyses of the books are known, and marked out in the Bible, and we are trusting to that, we are as far from light as the pagan outside the Christian fact. That is bibliolatry, that is worship of the Book, that is idolatry.

            The second false method of approach is dis­honesty. That is an ugly word. But the Bible is treated with dishonesty when we come to it with preconceived notions, and then attempt to make it square with our ideas. Two of the worst enemies of Bible study are philosophy and theology. A man has a philosophy—any philosophy, I care not whose it is. He can accept the philosophy of Anaxagoras, or the modern science philosophy, and then come to the Bible. Of course, he will have to reject large portions of it. Or another may come with some systematized theology, received from father or mother, possibly or teachers. He may have names for it. I will not mention one. Such come to the Bible to find proofs of their theology, and they will find them, because there is no heresy under heaven or a recklessness that cannot be proved to be accurate by selected texts from the Bible. We shall have more to say about that later in the articles.

            There is the dishonesty of coming to the Bible with preconceived notions concerning Jesus that He could only be the highest and best type of human being the world has ever seen. If the Bible is approached in that way, we shall have to play tricks with it. That is not the Jesus of the Bible. Of course, whole parts of the Bible are not accepted by such because they do not square with their ideas or science of what Jesus could have done, or might have done.

            Then there are the dishonest methods of the abandonment of what does not square with our views; or neglect of whole sections. There are so many sections of the Bible people do not seem to know anything about at all. When we get a book, well bound and printed, which is the Bible up to date, with the genealogies left out, and Ephesians deleted, and other portions also, we have the work of men who are dishonest with the Bible, and are leading others to be dishonest also. Every genea­logy of the Old Testament has its bearing on the great movements of revelation, and gives the reason for them. On the one hand, we have today the tyranny and arrogance of scholars and scientists; and on the other the arrogance of some men for their view of what the Bible teaches. We must guard against these two false methods of approach.

            We ask, then, what is the true method? Search­ing of the Scriptures is not wrong. I am willing to treat the verse as an imperative, and say, "Search the Scriptures," though I have claimed His word was indicative. Searching there must be, but we have, as a basis, the key in those words of Christ. He declares Himself to be the Ultimate. He says that these Scriptures lead to Him, that they testify of Him. He is the Goal of all Bible study, and so we have the key that will unlock the doors. He does not lie and He is the eternal present of all activity that has ever occurred on this earth. He is the “I am.”

            But the intensity of the word must be observed. There can be no intellectual laziness in approach to the Bible. "Search," but search through. Never confuse the road with the destination. Never con­fuse the process with the issue, the means with the end. Such searching is possible to us, having the New Testament, far more than it was to those men in His day, even though their own Scriptures ought to have been clear enough. Their sin points to the sin of trained men today in various fields of expertise. We must search through, and search to. Let nothing arrest our progress. Let us follow the gleam as it shines before us, and never at some point refuse a conclusion because it conflicts with a prejudice, or demands repentance. Unfortunately, that so often happens.

            To dismiss in phrases what we shall deal with more fully in our next article, the two necessities for approach to the Bible are first, the open mind; and secondly, the obedient will.

THE BIBLE IS A BOOK OF ROMANCE

THE ROMANCE OF THE BIBLE

 

            In this year of 2013 we celebrate the four-hundred and seventy-fifth anniversary of the day when the Bible was bound in the churches that the people might read it. This fact gives the reason for this present series of articles.

            When considering this subject, I found myself challenged by a word in the subject as it had been announced. It was the word "romance." I found that the definition of this word was, "A work of fiction, or adventure. To invent and tell fictitious stories; exaggerate, lie." Some consider this Book to be almost as a collection of fairy tales. But I felt there were other uses of the word "romance"; and I found this also: "A blending of the heroic, the marvelous, the mysterious, and the imaginative, in actions, manners, ideas, language, or literature." I decided I would retain the word "romance," because that second definition exactly marks what I want to say of this Book that lies on my desk in front of me. I speak of the Book which I hope you have in your homes, that is in the churches everywhere, the Book that is being read so marvelously by some.

            This second definition permits my use of the word, for the history of the Bible is a romance. It is a blending of the heroic, the marvelous, the mysterious, the full significance of which only the imagination can grasp. It is wonderful in its history. It transcends the ordinary. So it is a romance.

            There are four things I want to consider. First, the romance of the Bible as a book; second, the romance of the Bible as to its nature; third, the romance of the Bible as to its thought or its contri­bution to human thought; and last, the romance of the Bible in its influence.

            First, then, the romance of the Bible as a book among other books. I go into a bookseller's shop, and pick up a book here and there, and if the shop is worth keeping open, I can pick up a Bible among the other books.

            From that standpoint, thinking of it as a book among books, there are three tests of value. Taking them in an ascending scale, first, how does it sell? The second test is a severer one. How long will it live? The third test outdistances the first two. How far is the book of sufficient elemental human value to demand translation into other languages than the one in which it is written?

            By these tests the Bible is far and away in advance of any book. It is the best seller. There is no book sells like the Bible sells. It is a very remarkable thing that during the War the sales of the Bible never went down. They increased. How long has it lived? In its present form it has lived for at least eighteen centuries. Here it is still, in spite of determined efforts to destroy it completely. But how about the severest test of all, translation? I may illustrate by comparison. Homer has been translated into about twenty different languages. Shakespeare has been translated into about forty different languages. Leaving out all others, there are two books, so far as I know, that have gone out into over one hundred translations. Those are John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress, and The Imitation of Christ, by Thomas a Kempis. The only two which have reached the three figures are those dependent upon the Bible. They are the offspring of the Bible. While we are gathered here, the Bible in its entirety, or parts of it, has been partially translated into well over two thousand five hundred languages of human speech.

            But there is a more wonderful thing than that. Of those languages, over three hundred of them did not exist, but were created to receive the Bible. This has been the heroic and marvelous work of missionaries who have gone out to a people with no written language, who have caught the significance of words, and have created words, and an alphabet, and a grammar, until they have put the Bible into that language. That has been done over three hundred times.

            I remember a translator once telling me he had to do his work among people who in their spoken language had only three prepositions. Take Paul's letters, and his many prepositions, and see how they can be crowded into three! Another had to trans­late the Bible into the language of a people in whose mentality there was no conception of relation between cause and effect. Very difficult to translate for those people Paul's "therefores." Yet it has been done three hundred times. There are three hundred languages written in the world today that did not exist, and which came into being in order to give the people this Book.

            Turn to the romance of the Bible as to its nature. We call it a Book, and it is a great name for it, but it is not a book to begin with; it is a Library. Take this Book, and divide it into its component parts. We find it is a Library, having sixty-six books, in our present English edition, stitched together. These books were written by between thirty and forty authors, and were written over a period of fifteen hundred years. They were written in three lan­guages, one classical, the Hebrew; two colloquial, the Aramaic, of which some may be found in the Old Testament, and the other the Greek of our New Testament.

            Once again, can we use our imagination? In the history of our own land, where were we seventeen hundred years ago? With that stretch of time, take up sixty-six books, very small, mere pamphlets, and stitch them together and make a book! That is what has been done in the case of the Bible.

            In this Book there are two departments—the sacred writings of the Hebrew people, and the sacred writings of the Christian faith. Yet, when these books are brought together, they are cor­related, Hebrew and Christian, so clearly, that we cannot do without any part of the one section, and successfully understand any part of the other section. We are told today we want the New Testament, and the Old does not matter. That is the language of ignorance. Pick up the New Testament and read, "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the Son of David." David? Who is he? "The Son of Abraham." Who is he? We have to go back and see who David and Abraham were. All the New Testament depends upon the Old and it will be seen later on in our articles how the Old is incom­plete until the New is reached; and the Old has no final interpretation apart from the New.

            In the third place, the romance of the Bible as to its contribution to human thought. First of all, the assumptions of the Biblical philosophy suggest the ultimate secret of all philosophic interpretation. I use the word "assumptions" here carefully. The Bible is not a philosophic textbook, but it has a very clear philosophy. It is found in the books we call Wisdom—Job, Ecclesiastes, and Proverbs—and I should be inclined to add one from the New Testa­ment, James. Let no one speak disrespectfully of philosophy. I am no expert, but I have browsed in its fields for fifty years; and every student of the subject will agree with me that every system of philosophy, of which we know anything, begins with a question. We go back to Anaxagoras, and the first two living centuries when philosophy was a vital, palpitating thing; then across the next two millenniums, when there was no new voice, no living thought; but philosophy pursued its way by repetition; until we come to the age of Bacon and Descartes, when it once more flamed into life, and so on down to James and Dewey. But every system of philosophy has begun with a question, and heroically sought the answer to that question, which is always the same. It is the question Pilate asked Jesus, "What is truth?" (Truth is a Person, and His name is Jesus Christ) Human philosophy starts with a question, but the Bible differs. The Bible starts with an assumption, from which assumption it makes a deduction. Having made the deduction, it then proceeds to the asking of questions and investigation.

            What is the assumption? God is. The Bible does not argue, does not ask if there be a God. It is never recorded that Jesus argued for the Divine existence. Everything assumes the fact, "In the beginning God created," but "In the beginning, God." That is the assumption.

            The deduction from that assumption is that all wisdom is in God; that in the last analysis, there is no such thing as a riddle of the universe. Riddle to man verily but not to God. That which is dark­ness to man is light to Him. There is no secret, unexplained mystery, because it is held in solution in God. Therefore the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom for man, and when man starts his investigation upon the basis of that belief and certainty, then he can ask his questions, then he can make his investigations. When philosophy has wrought its way round the circle, it will arrive where these men start—God; in Him all wisdom; and our wisdom to fear Him.

            Second, the Bible in its revelation of a Person, yields the only key to theological statement. The Bible has presented to us a Person, and in Him there is found the interpretation of God. We remember that remarkable statement at the begin­ning of John's Gospel, "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him." (And that because He has seen Him) I like to take that word declared, and translate the Greek word, giving an interpretation of the meaning. "The only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father. He has exegeted Him." Exegesis is exposition, but it is more. All theology centers in Him. All systems of religion have been anthropo­morphic. All the false gods have been magnified men—Jupiter, Zeus, Moloch, Baal. Men cannot conceive of God except upon that basis. There is the wonder and the mystery of the Incarnation; God gave Him, His Man. Take any of the false gods, and magnify them, the results are monstrosities and brutes. Take this Man, God's Man, and project the lines from His human Personality into infinitude, and we have encompassed all truth about God. That is the romance of the Bible in its contribution to theology.

            Again, the conception of its ethic provides the final ideal and lonely sanction of conduct. What is the Biblical conception of morality? What is the Biblical conception of ethics? A lawyer once said to Jesus. "Which is the great commandment in the law?" He replied, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second like unto it is this; Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." To summarize the teaching the Bible shows that all righteousness is rooted in religion. If we destroy man's relationship to God, and his consciousness of Him we destroy the possibility of man's right relationship with his fellow-man. That is what the world has lost sight of so largely. Perhaps it may come back through blood and misery and tears in these appalling days.

            The last thing to say under this heading is that the Bible's passion for truth has created the oppor­tunity for science, and guards it from falseness, when it is obeyed. Modern science has disregarded the Bible and the truths about origins with which modern science only guesses but teaches as final truth. I go back once more to words of Jesus, familiar, which are rightly used in application to that which is personal, but they have also a wider application. "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you." Research is the great word of science, and it has been knocking at barred doors for years. It is marvelous how the doors have opened; but men would have found nothing if they had not sought. It is this passion for truth and investigation, for which the Bible stands from beginning to end, and it has created the opportunity of science but science today is still in need of truth.

            Finally, the romance of the Bible in its influence. First of all, its influence on life, individual, and social. In thousands of  languages it produces, wher­ever it goes, exactly the same results, lifting, ennobling. I know it was the fashion some years ago, and we hear it sometimes still, that the Bible is immoral. I would say to any who so says, my friend, if you get to heaven, you would find a cess­pool there, because you took it with you; but you’ll never get there with those thoughts! I challenge you to find anywhere one boy or girl, who has been demoralized as the result of the study of this Book. It always ennobles. It always elevates.

            Its influence on social life? Its influence on art, whether literature, music, painting, or architecture. A few years ago a writer in one of our American magazines said, Jesus never wrote a book, never composed a symphony, never painted a picture, never put up a building. To what stupidities supposedly clever people are reduced sometimes. Granted for the sake of argument that He never did write a book, but think of the literature He has inspired, outside the Bible. Granted that He never wrote a sym­phony; but when music marches to its greatest measure, it celebrates the Messiah. Granted He never painted a picture, but look at the art of nineteen hundred years that has gathered around His crib and Cross. Granted that He never erected a building, but there are no buildings, not even the most modern ones, that compare with the true Church of Jesus Christ.

            Last, the influence of the Bible on the outlook of mind to that which lies beyond this life. It gives the reason for faith in the reality of the unseen. It gives to man the ground, and interprets the nature of his hope for the life that lies beyond. It reveals to man the vastness and the glory of the love which wraps around the whole universe; the love of God.

            If a person does not know this Literature, let such a one not call himself or herself educated. From the standpoint of a book, a Book as to its peculiar nature, as to its influence, or suggestiveness in human thought, as to its influence on life, nothing compares with it. The whole story is a romance between God and those He loves.

SNAKES DON'T TALK 2

Snakes Don't Talk

1 Tim. 2:9 

          Paul writing to Timothy about fighting for the faith in the first letter and he comes to possible disruptions within the body in our second chapter. Two disruptions surface from the women in the body. A women needs to understand that her attire can emphasize wrong meaning for her standing in the body. “Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness.”   
          Secondary to her attire is her positional state as far as the authority and teaching of the body of Christ. “A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.” 
          The reasoning for Paul's doctrine goes clear back to creation and considers God's design of the woman and the man and states that Adam was created first. After listening to God, Adam willfully uses all Christ had shared with him in co-operation with God's will to place meaningful names to all the cattle, fowl of the air and every beast of the field. Having an unfallen brain using 100% of its capabilities made this a simple task for Adam. The mind capabilities of Adam were unbelievable to accomplish this task. He had a memory which was photographic for he passed on all this information down the line until Moses (26 generations) put it in writing 3000 years later. There is abundant biblical and extra-biblical evidence that Moses wrote the Pentateuch during the wilderness wanderings after the Jews left their slavery in Egypt and before they entered the Promised Land (about 1445–1405 BC). Even the most insignificant detail of the Torah shines with the magnificence and depth of the brightest star.
At the end of this work assignment he noticed that the animals had companionship but he didn't and God saw his heart. Adam did notice that animals don't talk for none stopped and asked how he was doing. 
This was a stupendous intellectual achievement, and reveals to us something of the capacity of man's mind before the Fall. While it is true that many of the 17,000 air-breathing species of modern taxonomy are probably only varieties of the originally created kinds. lt must also be remembered that Adam was confronted with many kinds of air-breathing animals that have since become extinct.
"But for man there was found no helpmeet for him"
        One purpose of this intensive study of zoology was to bring upon Adam a sense of utter loneliness, in order that he might be psychologically prepared for the creation of Eve. Perhaps God even brought the animals before him in pairs in order to impress upon him the fact that he alone of all living creatures had no appropriate companion.
        Animals in some respects, let's admit it, are sufficiently similiar to man that God has to teach us through experience and His word that they are not the same as we are spiritually, morally, ascetically, intellectually. It took Adam a whole day to learn that there was no fellowship possible with animals. There was probably no problem for him to understand there was no difference between himself and microbes, hence, bugs of various sorts and types, but when he saw a dog, a cat, a gorilla, a horse, he may have had some thoughts as to the possibility of communication with these animals that in some respects were structured physically like he was.
        But the blasphemy of evolution is that neither we allow God to speak to us through His word on the subject of their unique characteristics and distinctions from man, nor even from common sense observational experience. You have to have special help in terms of indoctrination, brainwashing with an ultimate satanic source to believe evolutionism, namely that man and animal are the same ultimately in kind, related on the family tree of evolutionary development.
        But when God told Adam through his animal naming, taxonomic analysis experience on day one of his conscious existence that there is no helper there for you, there is none answerable to you, then he discovered that even though they were structured in many respects like himself physically, they were in a totally different realm of existence with only one thing in common, namely the same God Who had designed and created them all. Thus the animal kingdom was not in possession of the image of God. 
        So God then took one of Adam's rib and made him a helpmeet (pairs issue), suitable to him. Adam was created first, then Eve. Eve having not gone through the job of naming the animals did not understand that snakes don't talk. Adam did know this and knowingly voluntarily followed his helpmeet into the death experience.
          We think that Adam should have known God would have replaced Eve after her death but we willingly approve his sin by duplicating both his and her sin in our own walk.

Woman's Position-Headship

[1 Cor. 11:3; Eph. 1:22]

          Paul proceeds first to declare that woman's true position is that of being a helper to man. The nature of that subservient position he is careful to indicate. Here, as was his constant habit, the apostle corrected these small matters by setting them in their true relation to the greater ones, defining the true meaning of temporary things by setting them in relation to the eternal things.
          Woman bears the relation to man that man bears to Christ. The relation man bears to Christ is the relation Christ bears to God. If we commence the argument from the highest fact, the relation of Christ to God, we have at once three great facts to keep in mind.
1. God is equal with Christ,
2. God co-operated with Christ;
3. God is the Head of Christ.
          Carrying this out, we see that Christ made Himself equal with man for co-operation with man, while yet He is the Head of man.
          Again following that argument, the man is equal with the woman in Christ for co-operation with her in Christ, while he is yet the head of the woman in Christ.
          In Gal.3:28 there are those which attempt to take a verse in the context of privilege and attempt to transpose it to the context of position. Poor theological work. Paul speaks on her positional status in 1 Cor. 11:3; 1 Tim. 2:12. Though equal in privilege not positionally. By creation, woman is one stage further from God and Eve was seduced by Satan [cf. Article above Snakes don't talk].

WAS ADAM A FAIRY TALE? JESUS DIDN'T THINK SO

Adam in the City

“But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.” (Mark 10:6)

Our Lord Jesus made this statement to the religious leaders of His day when they attempted to trip Him up with a trick question. Who were the “them” to whom He was referring? They could only be human beings (not animals), since the question from the Pharisees that prompted the response was about the permission to divorce. It also appears that Jesus was referencing the Genesis account, since He spoke of the “beginning of the creation.” One could therefore conclude that Jesus was speaking about a “historical” Adam and Eve.

Historical—that is the important point. God made a special garden for Adam and Eve to start their lives in. Somehow, in the minds of some, that seems to relegate Adam and Eve (and their real lives) to a rural, even fairytale, existence. But that’s not the case.

The real Adam is vitally important to those who live in the hectic, high-pressured, and intense cities of our world today. The whole of Scripture makes no sense if Adam is not a flesh and blood human being in real history. The “man” in the garden is the “Adam” in the city.

Some, however, would disagree.

Their objections constitute the latest tactic in the ongoing onslaught against a recent creation. At first, opposition was only levied against the science involved (specifically, the aspects of the creation account that contradict evolution). Then, various groups began proposing compromises to try to “harmonize” the creation account with evolutionary science—theistic evolution, progressive creation, day-age theory, gap theory, etc. More recently, attacks have focused on the “literalist” view, with varying levels of pity and/or scorn expressed about those “naïve” enough to believe that the history recorded in Genesis should be taken literally.

And now, critics malign specific details of the creation week, with the issue of a “real” Adam receiving the most hostility. It seems that the more “urbane” the opposition becomes, the more the commentaries diverge from what is actually presented in the biblical text.

“This is a fact: the idea of a historical Adam and Eve is not true.” So insists Fred Clark in a recent Patheos blog.1 Bold denials of our Lord’s teaching have become more and more strident over the past few years. The common argument of such denials suggests that although the biblical text might present a particular event as though it actually occurred in the past, scientific evidence has clearly demonstrated that such a singular event did not occur.

Francis Collins (former leader of the Human Genome Project) and Karl Giberson dealt with this question more subtly in their bestselling book, The Language of Science and Faith: Straight Answers to Genuine Questions.

So how does this story fit into an evolutionary history where earth is billions of years old and humans originated hundreds of thousands of years ago in Africa? Is the story of Adam and Eve actual history or is something else going on here?...Literalist readings of Genesis imply that God specially created Adam and Eve, and that all humans are descended from these original parents. Such readings, unfortunately, do not fit the evidence, for several reasons.2

There is even a Historical Adam Society, an Internet blog and membership society founded “to advance the understanding of the relationships between science, history, and Christianity.”

“Historical Adam” is a Christian apologetic that embraces the Genesis narrative concerning Adam and his descendants, and operates completely within the bounds of scientific discovery and historical evidence. This position considers Adam to have been a real historical person.3

Sounds great, until one reads further into their position on when Adam came on the scene. “This position considers Adam…not to have been the biological progenitor of the entire human race since our species, Homo sapiens, is known from the fossil record to have been living 200,000 years ago.”4

This is very similar to Hugh Ross’ stated position on the Reasons to Believe website. Although they insist that they agree with historical Christianity’s position that “Adam and Eve were the first two humans,” their web page on this question goes on to cite the following:

Genetic, linguistic and pathogen studies support a historical Adam and Eve. This research indicates that humanity arose 1) recently (within the last hundred thousand years or so), 2) at a single location (close to where Bible scholars place the Garden of Eden), and 3) from a small population, arguably as small as a single pair.5

These and many other articles, books, and blogs attempt in various ways to either add credibility to the biblical account by citing scientific information that seems to support a “reasonable” interpretation (in their view) of the Genesis record; or, more often, they take away from the Bible’s credibility by insisting that science has proven the Bible to be incorrect.

At the heart of all of these efforts is the assumption that the biblical story is not in sync with the scientific, historical, and archaeological evidence cited by the majority of scholars today. In all cases, that assumption marginalizes or disputes the biblical text, thereby undermining the basic premise that God is truthful, accurate, and clear in His revelation to us. Among all those who question the historicity of Adam and Eve, there is an overt denial of the possibility of a recent creation and of the planet-covering cataclysm of the Flood of Noah’s day.

How, then, are we to react to these attempts to explain away the text? Are there criteria by which we may evaluate these issues? What biblical information is available to us that will help us weigh the arguments?

Jesus Is the Creator

This foundational truth may seem ancillary to the question, but the Bible is very clear. The same One who substituted Himself for our sin-debt on the cross and took His own life back from the grave is the One who spoke the worlds into existence (John 1:1-3, Colossians 1:16-17, Hebrews 1:2). Surely He would speak accurately about the events of creation.

As noted earlier, Jesus declared that He made Adam and Eve at “the beginning” (Matthew 19:4, Mark 10:6). Jesus also spoke of Noah in the same manner—as a genuine historical character (Matthew 24:37-38). If neither of these things were true—if these biblical characters were just myth or some kind of representation of “spiritual truth”—either Jesus was mistaken or was “accommodating” Himself to the deficient scientific literacy of those pitifully ignorant disciples. Either way, the words of the Lord Jesus must be dealt with. He was the Creator (and thus the omnipotent, omniscient God of transcendent eternity), and therefore His understanding of events should take precedence over that of mere mortals.

Scripture Should Not Be Altered

This is another fundamental teaching of the Bible. Jesus Himself said, “The scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35). The book of Proverbs tells us “every word of God is pure….Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar” (Proverbs 30:5-6). “All scripture is given by inspiration of God,” Paul insists (2 Timothy 3:16). Surely we are all familiar with these instructions.

Jesus used a play on words from the Psalms to “prove” His deity (Matthew 22:42-46, citing Psalm 110:1), and the tense of the simple Hebrew verb “to be” to prove the resurrection (Matthew 22:29-32, quoting from Exodus 3:6). Earlier, in the famous Sermon on the Mount, Jesus insisted that the very letters of the text themselves were not to be tampered with because they were eternally correct (Matthew 5:18).

Please remember that this is the Lord of heaven and earth who is “interpreting” the Scripture. If He is that precise, what authority do sinful humans have to twist and deny that same Word?

The Gospel Message Is Built on a Historical Adam

Nothing is more basic. The genealogy of Jesus Christ is traced from Adam (Luke 3:38), and the necessity of a sinless human substitute is prophesied and declared throughout Scripture (e.g., Isaiah 53; John 1; Hebrews 1, 9–10; etc.). The entirety of the need for the reconciliation of sin and death is tied to Adam’s rebellion and Christ’s death and resurrection (Romans 5:12-19).

No doctrine of Scripture is clearer and more replete throughout the Bible. Everything about our salvation hinges on the actual, historical event that is recorded in Genesis 3 and the required substitutionary atonement of our “brother” and “High Priest” (Hebrews 2:17). If Adam is not real, then Christ’s death on the cross was merely martyrdom by a well-meaning but totally confused messianic zealot.

Such a heresy should not be embraced by those who name the “name which is above every name” (Philippians 2:9). That’s why the apostle Paul used such strong language to the Galatians when he warned them about a different gospel: “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:8). Let him go to a cross and see if God the Father raises him from death as Jesus proving His claim.

May our Lord’s mercy be granted to those who presume to place the word of secular scientists above that of His “only begotten Son.”

What Should We Do?

Those who genuinely struggle with the conflict between what they read and hear from others and what the Bible says need to be treated with gentleness, “speaking the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15). While we may feel strongly about the damage being done, the power of change lies with the Holy Spirit using the words of Scripture, not the debating skills of the human agent. Our job is to “sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear” (1 Peter 3:15).

There are many who are in churches or institutions that either do not teach these foundational issues or that are consciously being led astray by blatantly secular teachers who are hostile to the biblical message. For those in such straits, the instructions from Jude are applicable: “And of some have compassion, making a difference: And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh” (Jude 1:22-23). This role is one of rescue rather than one of patient discipleship.

But there are others who understand the words of Scripture, and yet have chosen to embrace some form of compromise in an attempt to be accepted by those who have “changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator” (Romans 1:25). In such cases, the Bible’s instructions are more stern. We are told, “Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such do not serve our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple” (Romans 16:17-18).

Some we are to patiently disciple. Some we are to urgently rescue. Some we are to actively avoid. In every case, however, our efforts must be guided by God’s Word as we “praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name” (Psalm 138:2).

The genes of the historical Adam are embedded in the “Adams and Eves” of today’s cities. More importantly, the sin of and judgment on the earthly Adam have been atoned for by the second Adam, the Lord Jesus Christ. Just as the historical Adam was “made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit” (1 Corinthians 15:45).

References

1.Clark, F. Geocentrism and a historical Adam. Posted on patheos.com February 13, 2013.

2.Collins, F. S. and K. W. Giberson. 2011. The Language of Science and Faith: Straight Answers to Genuine Questions. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 208.

3.Historical Adam Society. Posted on historicaladam.org.

4.Ibid.

5.Historical Adam. Reasons to Believe, RTB 101. Posted on reasons.org.

DESPOT

Been away for a week to California and the Blog will continue.

DESPOT

DESPOT  Grk. despotes, des-pot'-ace; from G1210 and  posis (a husband); an absolute ruler ("despot"):--Lord, master.

Although used in America in a negative sense, the Bible uses this term to describe Jesus Christ by His own half-brother Jude in vs. 4 as well as the apostle Peter in his second letter in vs. 1.
Jude 4; 2 Peter 2:1.

He is the only One Who deserves and has earned the right to lead people in Bible Truth for He is that Truth in Person. He is the only One Who has the right to show men what He meant when He gave His words to all those who wrote His instructions from the Father down in the various books of the Bible. These two men knew Him well especially after the resurrection as the Holy Spirit finished the internal work they needed to comprehend His words as those words returned to their minds in flaming truth.

But look at what Peter noticed in his words of warning to all of us: "But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction." And today that warning has been almost entirely disregarded as a fairy tale. We have multiple generations of people who after 12 years of public and private education believe we have evolved from a state of slime to an educated species that determine our own set of morals. A person who believes that God alone has that right and trusts His leadership is lucky that they don't put people on crosses anymore although some countries put these people to death as they did the Despot. And isn't it funny that it was the Gentiles who were handed the task from the men in the fancy religious robes who didn't want the Despot telling them how to interpret scripture. The whole crowd took part.
I was in California this last week in a church that had a "single" lady as their pastor. The society there has determined several things as allowable that God judged whole cities for and destroyed them to ashes. But they have been raised in churches where those were stories instead of accounts and after 12 or more years in the educational system they are treated as fairy tales.

Here is what the Despot has to say to this society.
"If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work." 1 Tim. 3:1
"A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;" 1 Tim 3:2
"One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;" 1 Tim. 3:4
"For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?" 1 Tim. 3:5
"Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil." 1 Tim. 3:6
"Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil." 1 Tim. 3:7

Paul informed Timothy that the Despot reasonings go clear back to creation, not a generational or society change, when Adam found out that animals don't talk after naming them, therefore he wasn't deceived from snake talk but Eve was "utterly decieved" from snake talk.
"But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." 1 Tim. 2:12-14
It was not until after Adam had been taught a language by God, and then told in that language to put meaningful names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field that God gave Eve to him. This naming job was a stupendous intellectual achievement, and reveals to us something of the capacity of man's mind before the Fall. While it is true that many of the 17,000 air-breathing species of modern taxonomy are probably only varieties of the originally created kinds, it must also be remembered that Adam was confronted with many kinds of air-breathing animals that have since become extinct. Having an unfallen brain using 100% of its capabilities made this a simple task for Adam. The mind capabilities of Adam were unbelievable to accomplish this task. He had a memory which was photographic for he passed on all this information down the line until Moses (26 generations) put it in writing 3000 years later. There is abundant biblical and extra-biblical evidence that Moses wrote the Pentateuch during the wilderness wanderings after the Jews left their slavery in Egypt and before they entered the Promised Land (about 1445–1405 BC). Even the most insignificant detail of the Torah shines with the magnificence and depth of the brightest star.
At the end of this work assignment he noticed that the animals had companionship but he didn't and God saw his heart. One purpose of this intensive study of zoology was to bring upon Adam a sense of utter loneliness, in order that he might be psychologically prepared for the creation of Eve. Perhaps God even brought the animals before him in pairs in order to impress upon him the fact that he alone of all living creatures had no appropriate companion. Adam did notice that animals don't talk for none stopped and asked how he was doing. Eve did not have that knowledge for she came after Adam. God knew he was not complete without her and that God's image needed her for that proper representation. The two needed to become one. Adam needed to share with her and she with him. There is order to all of God creation. Adam was obviously not a monkey that finally stood upright while continuing to evolve. Adam was a creation of God, only days old at this point and displaying the wonder of the creative skills of God.

For those who want women to take the eldership, the qualifications are laid down. The Despot, Who knows His creatures blocks false shepherding by saying He wants only those who are the husband of one wife. As in 1 Tim. 5:9, "wife of one man," implies a woman married but once; so "husband of one wife" here must mean the same. A woman cannot meet this requirement, neither a divorced man.

But when people treat His words as fairy tales they wrangle these words to give creedance to the fact that they do not want this Man ruling over them as the society they live in has taught them to think, they are prey to all sorts of false teachings that sound really credible and flowery. Chrsit has not yet returned until people finally decide Who will lead them through this life.
Christ is interested in results on people following His words of truth: "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." Matt. 5:48; Jude 24; Phil. 3:12; Eph. 4:13; 1 John 3:2; Rom. 8:29. An impossible task if there is no Despot for leadership towards that end. I was informed by an Ohio man that I was too strict in my beliefs and needed to cut some slack. What a sad state of affairs. We have reproduced in the church the rebellion of Israel. See article Bye, Bye, God. But the Despot still has a remnant who follow His words of truth and let them mean what He intended.