I would like to thank Sidharth, of Imrah Ministries, who is also a contributor for Understand Cancer, for this nifty Perseverance Award.
The description is as follows:
To acknowledge those bloggers who have invested their very life in their blogs so as to encourage, build and warn others.
I've never seen this one before, it's cute.
Like I said previously (somewhere), if I am able to do any of those things, then may God be glorified, not me and I mean that. I know there is nothing I can do apart from Him.
I am supposed to pass this on to 7 people but I don't have the list yet, but I will soon.
God bless. And again....
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Perseverance Award
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Signs and Wonders - Snakes and Fakes!
The topic of whether signs and wonders ceased has reared it's ugly head again and after much avoidance, I decided to do my own study. I stated publicly before that I never studied this, and that I was leaning towards 'no' they are not for today but I wanted to be sure. My reason was largely due to the countless false TV evangelists with their false miracles, manifestations, and scandals. Another reason is that I have never witnessed any miracles, not in the way some TV evangelists claim.
So, being aware of my bias against signs and wonders, I knew I had to pray that the Lord would remove that bias, forget everything I've been taught or read, to not read into the text, and give me fresh eyes in which to read.
Just so I'm clear, I do not claim to have a lock on the truth. I'm simply stating my findings and in the end, what I believe. I encourage you all to do your own study, ask that the Holy Spirit to teach you, and not to listen to me or anyone else.
Who are the gifts for?
An objection was raised that the gifts were only for the 11 (Apostles) because Jesus is speaking to them only in Mark 16:15-18.
15He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. 16Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."
Of course He was speaking to the Apostles because the world had not yet learned of the Gospel. They were the agents in which Jesus appointed to do this task of spreading the Gospel. He can't very well tell the world to spread the Gospel to the world. That defies logic. So He had to start with a small group that He appointed to spread the Gospel unto the world.
Were these gifts for the 11 in the verses above?
vs 17 “And these signs will accompany those who believe.”...
This means the people that hear the Gospel and believe will have these gifts. While the 11 have these gifts already, these verses are not speaking of them but of the potential believers.
The word “they”
It was said that the word “they” denotes the 11:
vs 17 “In my name they will drive out demons, they will speak in new tongues, they will pick up snakes with their hands, and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people....”
So if Jesus was addressing the 11 about themselves, then why did He refer to them as “they?”
Yes He was speaking to them directly but He was talking about the people who would believe once they left. If He was speaking to them about themselves, then He would have said:
'In my name YOU will drive out demons.'
or
'YOU will speak in new tongues.'
or
'YOU will pick up snakes with YOUR hands.'
It is plain to see that Jesus was referring to other people regarding the gifts above, not the 11. He was just speaking to the 11. The signs and wonders of the potential believers would be the result of the apostle's spreading the Gospel.
The word “them”
Mark 16:20 was raised to further prove that the gifts were only for the disciples because of the word “them.”
Mark 16:20 20 Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed his word by the signs that accompanied it.”
This does not present a problem at all. It is simply an affirmation that the Lord did as He has promised in giving the disciples those gifts. The subject is the disciples, not the people who will believe. So naturally the gifts are described of the disciples because they are the subject!
Touching briefly on two of those gifts of Mark 16:15-18:
- Drive out demons.
- Speak in new tongues
- Pick up snakes with their hands
- When they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them.
- Place their hands on sick people and they will get well
No occurrence of drinking deadly poison is found in the NT so this prompted me to dig a little. I think that #3 & #4 go together and I'll explain...
vs 18 '...they shall take up serpents'... Ophis (Strong's 3789) (KJV)
- snake, serpent
- with the ancients, the serpent was an emblem of cunning and wisdom. The serpent who deceived Eve was regarded by the Jews as the devil.
Greek Lexicon says about “serpent”
a snake, figuratively (as a type of sly cunning)
an artful malicious person, especially Satan – serpent.
So is this a real snake or is it figurative?
The NIV says: “they will pick up snakes with their hands.”
“with their hands” indicates that this is a real snake in the NIV.
The KJV says: “take up serpents” - no mention of hands so this could be figurative.
Now let's continue with Mark 16: 18 -”... and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them;..”
“Drink” (4095) Pino
- To drink
- figuratively, to receive into the soul what serves to refresh strengthen, nourish unto life eternal.
It's not very clear as to whether this is a real serpent or a figurative one so far.
Luke 10:18,19 I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. 19 I have given you authority to trample on snakes and scorpions and to overcome all the power of the enemy; nothing will harm you. 20 However, do not rejoice that the spirits submit to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven.”
Does it make sense that he will trample on a literal snake and then change His thought mid-sentence to overcoming the power of the enemy? They are disjointed. Also, does it makes sense that drinking a poison is literal when it never happened in the NT? So what if we took the figurative meaning for both...
Rather than picking up serpents with your hands, I think Luke 10:19 expresses the true meaning in that he will overcome all the power of the enemy (trample on snakes & scorpions). He will be able to withstand his cunning, his wisdom, and his maliciousness. And while these things are deadly to the soul, even if he 'drinks' of these cunning, malicious things, he will not be harmed. I think vs 19 ties these two things together perfectly.
Having said all of that, there is a literal occurrence regarding the snake:
Acts 28:3-5 KJV
“And when Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks, and laid them on the fire, there came a viper out of the heat, and fastened on his hand. 4And when the barbarians saw the venomous beast hang on his hand, they said among themselves, No doubt this man is a murderer, whom, though he has escaped the sea, yet vengeance suffers not to live. 5And he shook off the beast into the fire, and felt no harm.
So the same elements of #3 and #4 (snake and poison) are found here but in it's literal sense. But I don't think that Jesus meant the literal interpretation of handling snakes to be a gift or a sign or wonder. For one thing it doesn't point to Christ. In fact it did the opposite because in Acts 28:6, the barbarians thought that because Paul didn't die that “he was a god.” So, I believe the meanings of the verses in Mark 16:15-18 – specifically the taking up of snakes and drinking of poison are both figurative. And those snake-handler enthusiasts at some churches take the literal meaning and support it with the verse from Acts event though that account denies God.
Did only the Apostles perform miracles?
Luke 10:1 After this the Lord appointed seventy-two others and sent them two by two ahead of him to every town and place where he was about to go.
Jesus says in verse 9 'heal the sick' who are there and tell them, 'the kingdom of God is near you.' (so they have the power to heal)
Luke 10:17 The seventy-two returned with joy and said, “Lord, even the demons submit to us in your name.”
Mark 9:38 “Teacher', said John, “we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.” 39”Do not stop him...”
Exodus 11:10 Moses and Aaron performed all these wonders before Pharaoh, but the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart...
Acts 6:8 Now Stephen, a man full of God's grace and power, did great wonders and miraculous signs among the people.
Prior to this, in verse 1, it says “the number of disciples was increasing.” This tells me that these powers go beyond the 11 and that anyone who is filled with the Spirit is a disciple, and we are increasing in number even today. The Bible is clear, there were others who performed signs and wonders.
The reason why I think people believe the miracles stopped and were limited to the Apostles is because they believe these gifts are only for them and since the Apostles are now physically dead, so are the gifts. But as you can see from reading the above verses, that this is not so.
Another objection:
Some say gifts ceased after the “apostolic age”, or just because we don't need them now and they cite 1 Corin. 13:8-11 as proof.
1 Corin 13:8-11 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9For we know in part and we prophecy in part 10 but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears.
The above doesn't state or even imply that they will end during or after the apostle's ministry. However, it does imply when these things will end and that is after Jesus comes and we are made perfect in glorified bodies. (vs. 10 but when perfection comes)
Speaking in tongues is for God, not man. (1 Corin 14:2) So when Jesus comes and rules the earth and we have direct access to God, then tongues will not be necessary.
Prophecying is for men (1 Corin 14:3) but again, this won't be necessary in God's kingdom.
And another reason why I think the time is at the end is...
1 Corin 15:52-54 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.
So if perfection comes and Jesus is perfection, and we are made perfect at His coming, and gifts cease along with imperfection, then it's pretty clear that the gifts will cease when Christ comes
Do all believers have all of these gifts?
A certain person challenged another to provide proof of these gifts in himself. (casting out demons, healing, tongues etc.) Just because a person does not possess the exact gifts in question does not nullify the gifts all together. In fact I think this is blasphemy to scoff at the gifts the Holy Spirit chose to distribute according to His will.
Heb 2:4 God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to His will.
1 Corin 12:4 There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. 6There are different kinds of working, but the same God works all of them in all men.
Romans 12:6-8 6We have different gifts, according to the grace given us. If a man's gift is prophesying, let him use it in proportion to his faith. 7If it is serving, let him serve; if it is teaching, let him teach; 8if it is encouraging, let him encourage; if it is contributing to the needs of others, let him give generously; if it is leadership, let him govern diligently; if it is showing mercy, let him do it cheerfully.
1 Corin 12:4-30 (paraphrased) Wisdom, knowledge, faith, gifts of healing, miraculous powers, prophecy, distinguishing between spirits, tongues, interpretation of tongues.
Speaking of the verses in Mark 16:15-18 and the gifts mentioned above – we should not draw a separation between the Apostles and everyone else. But rather between 'believer' and 'non believer.' (by their fruits)
Examples of false signs:
Deut 13:1-3 If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder, and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, “Let us follow other gods” (gods you have not known) “and let us worship them,” you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer.
The Egyptian magicians in Exodus 7:11-22
Matt 7:21-23 Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles? 23Then I will tell them plainly, “I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!”
So they can even proclaim Christ and not lead you to other gods yet still be false by not doing His will and practicing lawlessness. So we must look at their fruits (Matt 7:20) and go beyond the words in their mouths. Think of all the many TV evangelists who proclaim Jesus, maybe even help the poor, perhaps even perform a miracle or two (whether they're genuine or not has no bearing on this point) then look at the scandal in their lives – their fruit. Are they making false promises to you in the name of God? Do they promise you a hefty return for your “love gift?” These are those who practice lawlessness. These are those who Jesus “never” knew.
Why does God allow for these false signs?
Deut 13:3 The Lord your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul.
There are those who have listed every verse where Jesus rebukes a false prophet and they use this as evidence that these gifts has ceased. But Jesus doesn't condemn ALL prophets, signs & wonders - just the false ones. The fact that He warns against false signs and wonders implies that there are true signs and wonders.
In closing:
I started this study with a bias towards not believing in signs & wonders based on TV evangelists but I learned differently today. I learned that the gifts were not just for the Apostles, I can now refute snake-handler enthusiasts, I learned that the gifts have not ceased after the “apostolic age”, I now know when the gifts will cease, and I know there's no biblical support for drinking deadly poison if understood correctly. Just because I believe in true signs and wonders does not mean I've let my guard down for TV evangelists - in fact my study confirmed even more that I am right in being watchful of them. I am grateful that the Lord gave me this desire, and the energy to do this study, and for the help of the Holy Spirit. And if I am wrong on anything, then may I be [gently] corrected. I hope this wasn't too hard to follow – I tend to write like I think which can be choppy.
God bless you all and again, I'd like to encourage you all to do your own study and not just take my word for it. I'm prone to err just like any other person. :)
The End
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Who Hardened Pharaoh's Heart? God or Pharaoh?
We all know the story of Moses freeing the Israelites from Pharaoh in Egypt after the many plagues. But there seems to be a contradiction over who hardened Pharaoh's heart and for good reason. Some verses say it's God, other's Pharaoh. Let's look...
God hardens Pharaoh's heart:
Ex 4:21 21 The LORD said to Moses, "When you return to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders I have given you the power to do. But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go.
Ex 7:3 . 3 But I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and though I multiply my miraculous signs and wonders in Egypt, 4 he will not listen to you.
Ex 9:12 12 But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart and he would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the LORD had said to Moses.
Pharaoh hardens his heart:
Ex 8:15 15 But when Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart and would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the LORD had said.
Ex 8:32 32 But this time also Pharaoh hardened his heart and would not let the people go.
1 Sam 6:6 Why do you harden your hearts as the Egyptians and Pharaoh did?
There are more verses but you get the gist.
So who hardened Pharaoh's heart? We have to remember that Pharaoh witnessed a first-hand account of the Holy Spirit's work because Egypt was the recipient of God's plagues. He tried to attribute these plagues to evil spirits instead of God (thus being guilty of blasphemy by denying the power of the Holy Spirit) and so his heart became hardened after each plague. But God did not harden his heart directly. It was because of God that Pharaoh hardened his own heart because God is the Author of those plagues. So it is correct to say that God hardened his heart, because He is the cause, even though Pharaoh hardened his own heart due to His plagues.
So simple yet it is a stumbling block for the casual reader or for those looking to invalidate the Bible.
There are no contradictions in God's perfect Word!
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Laughing with the Lord
I bought new pillows and cases the other day and yesterday I put everything together. Looking at my pillow and my husband's I noticed that mine had a little lump in it which was a little leftover poofy-stuff, so I switched pillows. I didn't realize this at the time but later, the Lord brought this to mind and I realized that I had been selfish. That I had in fact sinned because I thought myself higher than another person. Sin is sin no matter how large or small.
So during my devotional time with Him I confessed this, but here's the funny part...I actually tried to justify my actions by stating that 'he's only home two days a week anyway' and 'I always give him the bigger piece of meat', and "I always give him the last bite of something' etc but while I was saying these things, I was laughing out loud!!! I was laughing at how ridiculous I sounded and that I was trying to justify my actions and I KNEW I couldn't put one over on the Lord! I knew I was wrong all along but I said these things to sort of make fun of how I would have responded before I was saved. Make sense?
To try to put anything over the Lord is truly, laughable! :)
Monday, March 17, 2008
Praise Jesus for His Correction!!!! A Personal Testimony
I am so happy right now I could burst!!! I just had to blog about this because I cannot keep this to myself. I don't mind telling of my faults because in the end, the Lord is glorified and so I'm going to type away..
First some background....
I have this friend in California named John. He is Christian brother and we've been friends for at least 5 years over the internet. We're very close; we've talked on the phone countless times and he even talks to my parents, my brother, and friends. Even though we are close, we have this love/hate relationship. We argue over doctrine constantly, we fight, stop speaking, then we make up. We also fight because he says something, I read into it and take it apart with surgical precision, and get mad at him. We eventually make up and all is well and back on the roller coaster we go.
Well yesterday was one of those days. While I didn't fly off the handle, I held ill feelings in my heart (which is still sinful). He was more verbal than I was which fueled me even more. I was struggling with my emotions...I was furious, then I'd pray and calm down, then I'd think again and get mad all over again, pray again, get mad again etc. - it was a vicious cycle! But I didn't think it necessary to apologize or even speak to him again because after all, I wasn't as mean as I COULD have been and I did exercise some restraint. So fine, I wrote him off again.
So today while perusing Christian sites, I started thinking about loving our enemies and I thought to myself that I wasn't even able to do this with my brother in Christ! I thought to myself that it didn't matter what John said to me, that my reaction was not dependent upon what he or anyone else says. I am to be Christ-like in ALL situations and grow in the knowledge of Him, especially if someone has wronged me. So even though I didn't go hog wild on him, I was still guilty because of the ill feelings I harbored in my heart. I thought how disappointing we must be to the Lord when two of His children sin. We should be edifying and building each other up, not sinning. We can disagree but not let it get to the point of sinning.
After this realization, and the Lord opening my eyes and softening my heart, the anger was completely gone. Not only that, but I just had to confess these things to John and apologize to him. Here's an excerpt of what I said at the end rather than trying to recall everything...
If you, (not you in particular but Christians in general) harbor ill feelings towards someone, even if you do not say them, then pray immediately and confess. Nothing in our hearts are hidden from Him and it is still a blemish that needs cleansing. We may not be able to rid ourselves of those ill feelings in our hearts by ourselves and so that's when we should call upon the Lord. Just because sin hasn't manifested itself outwardly does not mean we have not sinned internally. And isn't it wonderful that we have an awesome God who is able to shine the light on the depths of our hearts and cleanse and heal them? :)
So the next time we get on each other's nerves for whatever reason, let us both recognize this for what it is...a spiritual battle. Let us not sink to the depths of sin again. Let us not hold any ill feelings towards each other or anyone else. If one of us slips up and says something bad, then let the other one NOT follow in kind. Let's BOTH try to rise above our flesh and be like Christ in any and all situations. This is something I'm going to diligently strive for.
So I say before God (and before Satan because he looming about) that I'm sorry that my flesh won out yesterday. I'm sorry that I didn't think with this kind of clarity yesterday and did not diffuse the situation but added to it. I'm sorry that my heart held ill feelings towards you. I'm sorry for sinning against my Lord. I'm sorry for not loving my brother, you. I'm sorry for not having self control over my tongue and heart. I'm sorry at the disgust God must feel towards two of His children sinning against Him. Let's pray for keener eyes in which to see Satan's schemes ok? If we get mad at each other, let's talk about it and pray immediately. The only thing that should be between you and I is Jesus, not Satan and not our flesh.
So I sent that email and checked my other account. It ain't over yet.....
I was notified of a reply to my blog and so I checked it and it was from Sidharth.
(Anyone who travels in mine and Sidharth's circles knows that our exchanges have been less-than-friendly.) Sidharth fought his pride (his words) and apologized to me about the exchange we had yesterday - one that I had FORGOTTEN about!! And BAM, I was convicted again! Back to back! I was reminded that there was another person out there whom I've hurt and that I had to apologize to. What's amazing about this is that I didn't give Sidharth a second thought after I replied with my snarky and mean remarks so if he hadn't sent me something, I would not have confessed this to him, confessed to Jesus or apologized! I had completely forgotten about him but the Lord reminded me and convicted me again. I'm convinced that the Lord used Sidharth in taking that first step so I would be convicted, so we would confess, and reconcile. And the timing....If there's one thing I've learned about the Lord, it is that His timing is perfect which in itself is miraculous!
So right now I'm so happy because of what the Lord has shown me, because He softened my heart, and humbled me. I'm in awe at His gentleness because He could have blasted me if He wanted to but He didn't. I truly do rejoice in His correction!!!!
Friday, March 14, 2008
United Methodist Church Groups Targeting Israel
(Note: Yet another step to fulfilling prophecy. We are her only ally but we are slowly turning our backs)
"Widespread parts of the
Contact: Loralei Coyle, 202-682-4131, 202-905-6852 cell, lcoyle@TheIRD.org; Radio Interviews: Jeff Walton, jwalton@TheIRD.org; both with The Institute on Religion and Democracy
WASHINGTON, March 5 /Christian Newswire/ -- Several groups within the 7.9 million member
- The United Methodist Board of Church and Society (GBCS), the church's official Washington-based lobbying office, is urging church members and church agencies to divest from Caterpillar, Inc. Their resolution, which will go before the United Methodist General Conference in April 2008, accuses Peoria-based Caterpillar of facilitating
- The New York-based United Methodist Women's Division has published a children's book containing anti-Israel themes, "From Palestine to Seattle; Becoming Neighbors and Friends." The booklet portrays
- The Washington-based Methodist Federation for Social Action (MFSA), a liberal caucus group within United Methodism, has outdone the church's official lobby office by calling for divestment against ALL "companies supporting the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories and other violations of human rights in Israel/Palestine."
- The United Methodist Women's Division also has released a mission study for 2007-2008 that portrays
IRD Director of UMAction Mark Tooley commented:
"
"Widespread parts of the
"Church agencies should strive towards fairness and factuality. Targeting
http://christiannewswire.com/news/860755882.html
Real-Life Case of Demon Possession Documented
GIVING THE DEVIL HIS DUE
Real-life case of demon possession documented
Woman levitated, spoke other languages, showed paranormal powers
Posted: March 13, 2008
11:29 pm Eastern
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
An American woman who levitated, demonstrated paranormal psychic powers and spoke foreign languages unknown to her was clearly demon possessed, according to a board-certified psychiatrist and associate professor of clinical psychiatry at New York Medical College.
The unnamed woman, with a long history of involvement with Satanic groups, was observed by a team of priests, deacons, several lay assistants, psychiatrists, nuns, some of whom also had medical and psychiatric training, levitating six inches off the ground while objects flew off shelves in the same room, according to Dr. Richard E. Gallagher, who documented the case in the February issue of the New Oxford Review.
"Periodically, in our presence, Julia would go into a trance state of a recurring nature," writes Gallagher. "Mentally troubled individuals often 'dissociate,' but Julia's trances were accompanied by an unusual phenomenon: Out of her mouth would come various threats, taunts and scatological language, phrases like 'Leave her alone, you idiot,' 'She's ours,' 'Leave, you imbecile priest,' or just 'Leave.' The tone of this voice differed markedly from Julia's own, and it varied, sometimes sounding guttural and vaguely masculine, at other points high pitched. Most of her comments during these 'trances,' or at the subsequent exorcisms, displayed a marked contempt for anything religious or sacred."
The subject would have no recollection of speaking these phrases upon recovering from the trance-like state, according to Gallagher."Sometimes objects around her would fly off the shelves, the rare phenomenon of psychokinesis known to parapsychologists," reports Gallagher. "Julia was also in possession of knowledge of facts and occurrences beyond any possibility of their natural acquisition.
"She commonly reported information about the relatives, household composition, family deaths and illnesses, etc., of members of our team, without ever having observed or been informed about them," he said. "As an example, she knew the personality and precise manner of death (i.e., the exact type of cancer) of a relative of a team member that no one could conceivably have guessed. She once spoke about the strange behavior of some inexplicably frenzied animals beyond her direct observation: Though residing in another city, she commented, 'So those cats really went berserk last night, didn't they?' the morning after two cats in a team member's house uncharacteristically had violently attacked each other at about 2 a.m."
Julia requested a Roman Catholic exorcism ritual, convinced from the beginning of her consultations that she was under demonic attack.
"The exorcism began on a warm day in June," Gallagher recollects. "Despite the weather, the room where the rite was being conducted grew distinctly cold. Later, however, as the entity in Julia began to spout vitriol and make strange noises, members of the team felt themselves profusely sweating due to a stifling emanation of heat. The participants all said they found the heat unbearable.
"Julia at first had gone into a quiet trance-like state. After the prayers and invocations of the Roman Ritual had been going on for a while, however, multiple voices and sounds came out of her. One set consisted of loud growls and animal-like noises, which seemed to the group impossible for any human to mimic. At one point, the voices spoke in foreign languages, including recognizable Latin and Spanish. (Julia herself only speaks English, as she later verified to us.)
"The voices were noticeably attacking in nature, and often insolent, blasphemous and highly scatological. They cursed and insulted the participants in the crudest way. They were frequently threatening – trying, it appeared, to fight back – 'Leave her alone,' 'Stop, you whores' (to the nuns), 'You'll be sorry,' and the like.
"Julia also exhibited enormous strength. Despite the religious sisters and three others holding her down with all their might, they struggled to restrain her. Remarkably, for about 30 minutes, she actually levitated about half a foot in the air."
The purpose of Gallagher's paper, he says, is to "document a contemporary and clear-cut case of demonic possession." He explains that even those who doubt such a phenomenon exists may find this case "rather persuasive."
"Possession is only one and not the most common type of demonic attack. Possession is very rare, though not as exceedingly so as many imagine," he concludes. "So-called 'oppression,' or 'infestation,' is less rare, though hardly frequent either, and sometimes more difficult to discern accurately."
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=58835
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Homeschooling Under Attack! and DOS
Note: This is copied from Shalene's site as this is a very important issue. Please pass this on and/or put on your blog. Thank you.
Whether you are a proponent of homeschooling or not, you should be aware of something that has happened here in California recently, related to homeschooling. The reason you should be aware of it, and be worried about it, is that it's a fact that California sets the precedent for many other states with regard to laws and such. If a law is passed here, it is often copied in other states. The thing that is most disturbing to me, is not so much the homeschooling issue, as the fact that our rights as parents are being stripped! Here's the breakdown:
Recently, a homeschooling family went to court, and was told that they could not homeschool their child, because it was harmful to the child's welfare for them to do so. That saddens me, for that family, but it gets worse. The three judges who heard this case then decided to apply their decision to all families that homeschool! The decision requires that all families that homeschool must have a parent that is credentialed to do so! That means that at least 90% of homeschooling parents will not be allowed to continue, if this decision stands! Not only does this decision effect traditional homeschoolers, but independent study and charter schoolers as well. What makes this even more disturbing, is that in the late 80s/ early 90s a judge passed a decision that stated that a parent's rights to the instruction of their children was null, as soon as a child passed through the gates of the school. That basically the parent no longer had any say in what their children were taught! And that decision stood! I am more than a little bit concerned by this. Does this bother you at all? California is becoming much like Germany in the way that they view homeschooling, and it is disturbing, to say the least. Dr. James Dobson calls the ruling an “all-out assault on the family.” Also, this ruling is dangerously close to the same treaty titled the UN Convention on The Rights of A Child, that Clinton signed while he was in office, but thankfully never did ratify. Some are saying that although it was not ratified, that it still holds precedence. Very scary indeed.
With this new decision (which is under appeal) parents can be incarcerated and/ or have their children taken away, if they homeschool their children, here in California! There is something you can do though! Whether you are a proponent of homeschooling or not, I'm sure that you are a proponent of parents' rights with regard to their own children, so I urge you to take a moment and go to the Home School Legal Defense Association webpage, and sign the petition. You can also visit ParentalRights.org for more information. I thank you, in advance for your support, as I'm sure other homeschooling families will do the same. Though I don't homeschool in the traditional sense, I support families that do. Won't you take the time to do so as well? The very backbone of parental rights is being broken by this one decision, and it will effect many more, if we don't do something about it! You can also read Chuch Norris' thoughts on this subject. It would be amusing (in a good way) if it weren't such a serious issue.
Another disturbing bit of information I received this past week, was about an organized "get together" called DOS. This stands for "Day of Silence". It is a day designed to promote the homosexual agenda in our schools! The national date given for this is April 25th. DOS is sponsored by an activist homosexual group, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN). DOS leads the students to believe that every person who identifies as a homosexual, bisexual or cross-dresser is a victim of ongoing, unrelenting harassment and hate. Students are taught that homosexuality is a worthy lifestyle, homosexuality has few or no risks, and individuals are born homosexual and cannot change. Those who oppose such teaching are characterized as ignorant and hateful bigots. Please go to this site, and see if any schools in your area are supporting it. If so, I urge you to not only contact the school to see if they are indeed supporting it, and if so, to keep your kids home that day! It is my opinion, that the homosexual agenda is pushed onto our kids enough, without it being supported by those that are supposed to protect our kids while they are in attendance. Already, here in California, they have outrageous laws that do not allow a teacher to speak out against homosexuality, and they are even trying to make us accept only textbooks that condone such behavior! Outrageous! It just makes my blood boil!
Please, please take the time to go to these sites, and lend your support. Also, don't forget to pray for our lawmakers, this is important! DOS is a national day, so it may very well be in your kids' schools. Please do check it out! Blessings to all of you!
Monday, March 10, 2008
Five Crosses or Three?
There is a post on The Warfare Journal's site that lists “contradictions” in the Gospels, then he goes on to rectify these differences by explaining that there were five crosses instead of three. He lists the reasons that lead him to this conclusion and I will examine these in detail.
Note: I don't claim to know everything, I certainly have NO credentials whatsoever and frankly, I've got a lot to learn. So the following is what I believe based on my study all morning. (and boy do I need a break!) I am in no way attacking The Warfare Journal – in fact I really enjoy his blog. I think he speaks a lot of truths and has good insight into things and it's just a joy to be there. So even though I disagree with him in this one post, it in no way changes my view of him or his blog. In fact I recommend his blog!
Ok, here we go...
First, he compares Matthew and Luke's account of the other crucified criminals and because different words were used, “robber”, “thieves” in Matthew, and “criminal” in Luke, he surmises that there are two different groups represented. (making the total number 4 excluding Jesus)
He first points out that Matt 27:38 used the word “robbers” (Young's Literal Translation) but says later on that “thieves” were used (and Luke 23:32 uses the word “criminal” but I'll get to that later)
Matt 27:38
Then crucified with him are two robbers, one on the right hand, and one on the left, (Young's Literal Translation)
Before I get into the definitions of these words, please note that 'robbers' is not the only word used in Matthew but “criminal” and “thieves” are also used depending upon the translation.
“robbers” - NASB
“robbers” - ASV
“robbers” - Darby Bible Translation
“robbers” - English Revised Version
“thieves” - KJV
“thieves” - (American King James Version)
“thieves” - (Bible in Basic English)
“thieves” - (Douay-Rheims Bible)
“criminals” - (God's Word Translation 1995)
“thieves” - Tyndale New Testament
“thieves” - Webster's Bible Translation
Now let's read Luke...
Luke 23:32 (see also vs. 33, 39, 40)
Two others also, who were criminals, were being led away to be put to death with Him. (NASB)
Yes it says “criminals”, but so does Matthew. Furthermore, the following words are used in Luke in addition to “criminals”:
“Malefactors” - KJV
“Malefactors” - American King James Version
“Malefactors” - ASV
“evil-doers” - Bible in Basic English
“malefactors” - Darby Bible Translation
“malefactors” - Webster's Bible Translation
“evil-doers” - Young's Literal Translation
and the list goes on.
As you can see (and see for yourself, don't take my word for it), “robbers” & “thieves” are not the only words used in Matthew but “criminals” is also used. And “criminals” is not the only word used in Luke like he claims but also “malefactors” & “evil-doers”. It seems that he has focused on one or two differing words from each book to change a detail of an event. But as you can see this is not so. These words are interchangeable. Which brings us to the next subject...
Definition:
He states that there are different words used which is supposed to solidify his claims that there are two different groups of criminals, making it four. Just because different words were used does not change the meaning or event. Pick a word and use your thesaurus and see how many choices you have. Also, it is to be expected that differing words were used because there are two different authors.
So let's make sure these words are interchangeable and that these differing words are not speaking of two different groups of criminals...
From Matthew - “Thieves” - Lestes (3027) robber, one who plunders openly and by violence
From Luke - “Criminal” - Kakourgos (2557) evil-doer, criminal, malefactor
Is not a robber and a thief also a criminal and an evil-doer? Of course they are. There is no reason to conclude that 'robbers' and 'thieves' and different from 'criminals.' And the fact that different words were used does not change the event – the two authors simply chose to use different words to describe the same people. And if that doesn't convince you, just read all the other translations and you will see that they all agree that there were two others criminals crucified with Jesus in the middle. There is no contradiction in this anywhere.
Another point brought up, and it was a very good one.....
Did the Both Thieves Revile Christ or Just One?
Luke 23:39,40 39One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: "Aren't you the Christ? Save yourself and us!"
40But the other criminal rebuked him. "Don't you fear God," he said, "since you are under the same sentence? 41We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong."
Matt 27:44 44In the same way the robbers who were crucified with him also heaped insults on him.
Mark 15:31 32Let this Christ, this King of Israel, come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe." Those crucified with him also heaped insults on him.
John doesn't mention the thieves.
Both Matthew and Mark says that the criminals insulted Jesus while Luke says one criminal rebuked the other one. This is a valid objection. I'm glad he brought this up because I didn't notice this before so I had to search this out for myself today. So I thank you for bringing this up.
So why did Matthew and Mark indicate the thieves insult Jesus while Luke said only one insulted Him?
It's quite possible that initially, both thieves reviled Jesus, but then one of them repented. Perhaps after hearing Jesus' words on the cross and seeing His forgiving attitude, the one thief may have been driven to acknowledge that Jesus was indeed the Messiah. How many times have we said something bad and then retracted it after new information?
Or.....
It could be as simple as a figure of speech called synecdoche. (pronounced si-nek'-duh-kee)
Definition: Rhetoric - a figure of speech in which a part is used for the whole or the whole for a part, the special for the general or the general for the special, as in ten sail for ten ships or a Croesus for a rich man. (from dictionary.com)
In other words...
A whole can be put for the part.
A part may be put for the whole.
Time might be put for part of a time.
The singular can be put for the plural.
And the plural can be put for the singular.
It's possible that Matthew and Mark were using the plural in place of the singular when speaking of the thieves (plural) reviling Christ. Other examples where this is used is...
Genesis 8:4 indicates that Noah’s ark rested “on the mountains of Ararat.” Question: Did the ark rest on one of the mountains of Ararat, or did it rest on all of them at the same time? Although the ark was a huge vessel, it obviously did not rest on the many mountains of Ararat; rather, it rested on one.
In Genesis 21:7 Sarah asked, “Who would have said to Abraham that Sarah would nurse children? For I have borne him a son in his old age.” Anyone who remembers the story remembers that Sarah had but one child. In certain contexts, however, one might use a synecdoche and speak of one child (as did Sarah) by using the word children.
Everything that I've said above are just my attempts to harmonize the Gospels without changing it or the surrounding events. I am not claiming that I have all the answers either. This is just the best way I know how to interpret Scriptures without leaving any opposing verses so that everything harmonizes beautifully and without changing the crucifixion account.
The Soldiers Skipping Jesus
First I have to say that I believe in the archeological findings of Ron Wyatt and Jonathan Gray. I was a huge skeptic at first but I've been reading about their findings for years and comparing it with the Bible and not only do they match up perfectly, but it has given me a greater understanding of those Biblical events. So my reason for the soldiers skipping Jesus is based on the crucifixion site itself. When the crucifixion site was excavated, they uncovered a center hole which was raised above the other holes. The reason is believed to be because whoever was crucified there was the “star attraction”, a person to be made an example of and we know that passersby were able to walk past Jesus and shake their heads and mock Him. So if you have one guy on the left in easy reach, Jesus up higher and harder to reach (which in itself says something about His position being 'higher') and another guy on the right who is also in easy reach, then it makes perfect sense to skip the person in the middle. For more info on this click here.
Avoiding the "Why" Question
I was reading from Isaiah the other day:
Isaiah 40:11 He tends his flock like a shepherd: He gathers the lambs in his arms and carries them close to his heart; he gently leads those that have young.
The little lamb cannot understand the power, or the language, or even the world of the shepherd but he/she could sense the warmth of his heart and voice, the security of his embrace and the goodness of his soul.
Then I thought of all the animals I have seen on airplanes being carried along on the trip by their masters. I remember scenes of the owners putting their dear pets into the little box-kennels, with the fearful nervous eyes of the pet, and the anxious movements - and all the while, the owner is speaking softly and reassuring the pet in such a way that the pet lies quietly in trust and loyalty in such a strange situation.
I thought of how, without an understanding or even a hope of understanding, of the 'why' those animals would quietly trust and wait...still a little nervous, with the sad eyes of questioning, but with the calmness that only comes from a significant and active relationship with their owner.
And then I thought of all the times I didn't get an explanation from MY Master as to a 'why' and probably for the same reason - no way I could understand. Did I respond like that? I certainly am the beneficiary of a great, warm, active relationship with the living God.
I need to remember the following:
Psalm 23 "The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not be in want. He makes me lie down in green pastures, he leads me beside quiet waters, he restores my soul. He guides me in paths of righteousness for his name's sake. Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for you are with me; your rod and your staff, they comfort me."
Friday, March 7, 2008
Affliction: Punishment from God or Blessing?
No one wants to be afflicted with anything or go through any type of hardship. That's human nature. But does the affliction ONLY involve and affect us or do our afflictions have a greater purpose? Is there any correlation between our afflictions and our relationship with Jesus? Do we see affliction as a punishment or judgment from God? Let's see what the Bible says about this....
Affliction:
Promotes the glory of God:
John 9:1-3 And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth. And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.
John 11:3 Therefore his sisters sent unto him, saying, Lord, behold, he whom thou lovest is sick.
John 21:18-19 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not. This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me.
Exhibits the power and faithfulness of God:
Psalms 34:19-20 Many are the afflictions of the righteous: but the LORD delivereth him out of them all. He keepeth all his bones: not one of them is broken.
2 Corinthians 4:8-11 We are troubled on every side, yet not distressed; we are perplexed, but not in despair; Persecuted, but not forsaken; cast down, but not destroyed; Always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body. For we which live are alway delivered unto death for Jesus' sake, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal flesh.
Teaches us the will of God:Psalms 119:71 It is good for me that I have been afflicted; that I might learn thy statutes.
Isaiah 26:9 With my soul have I desired thee in the night; yea, with my spirit within me will I seek thee early: for when thy judgments are in the earth, the inhabitants of the world will learn righteousness.
Micah 6:9 The LORD'S voice crieth unto the city, and the man of wisdom shall see thy name: hear ye the rod, and who hath appointed it.
Turns us towards God:
Deuteronomy 4:30-31 When thou art in tribulation, and all these things are come upon thee, even in the latter days, if thou turn to the LORD thy God, and shalt be obedient unto his voice; (For the LORD thy God is a merciful God;) he will not forsake thee, neither destroy thee, nor forget the covenant of thy fathers which he sware unto them.Keeps us from departing from God:
Job 34:31-32 Surely it is meet to be said unto God, I have borne chastisement, I will not offend any more: That which I see not teach thou me: if I have done iniquity, I will do no more.Leads us to seek God in prayer:
Judges 4:3 And the children of Israel cried unto the LORD: for he had nine hundred chariots of iron; and twenty years he mightily oppressed the children of Israel.
Jeremiah 31:18 I have surely heard Ephraim bemoaning himself thus; Thou hast chastised me, and I was chastised, as a bullock unaccustomed to the yoke: turn thou me, and I shall be turned; for thou art the LORD my God.
Lamentations 2:17-19 The LORD hath done that which he had devised; he hath fulfilled his word that he had commanded in the days of old: he hath thrown down, and hath not pitied: and he hath caused thine enemy to rejoice over thee, he hath set up the horn of thine adversaries. Their heart cried unto the Lord, O wall of the daughter of Zion, let tears run down like a river day and night: give thyself no rest; let not the apple of thine eye cease. Arise, cry out in the night: in the beginning of the watches pour out thine heart like water before the face of the Lord: lift up thy hands toward him for the life of thy young children, that faint for hunger in the top of every street.
Hosea 5:14-15 For I will be unto Ephraim as a lion, and as a young lion to the house of Judah: I, even I, will tear and go away; I will take away, and none shall rescue him. I will go and return to my place, till they acknowledge their offence, and seek my face: in their affliction they will seek me early.
Convinces us of sin:
Job 36:8-9 And if they be bound in fetters, and be holden in cords of affliction; Then he sheweth them their work, and their transgressions that they have exceeded.Leads us to confess our sins:
Numbers 21:7 Therefore the people came to Moses, and said, We have sinned, for we have spoken against the LORD, and against thee; pray unto the LORD, that he take away the serpents from us. And Moses prayed for the people.Psalms 32:5 I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the LORD; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah.
Psalms 51:3 For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me.
Psalms 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
Tests our sincerity:
Job 23:10 But he knoweth the way that I take: when he hath tried me, I shall come forth as gold.
Psalms 66:10 For thou, O God, hast proved us: thou hast tried us, as silver is tried.
Proverbs 17:3 The fining pot is for silver, and the furnace for gold: but the LORD trieth the hearts.
It humbles us:
Deuteronomy 8:3 And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.
Deuteronomy 8:16 Who fed thee in the wilderness with manna, which thy fathers knew not, that he might humble thee, and that he might prove thee, to do thee good at thy latter end;
2 Chronicles 7:13-14 If I shut up heaven that there be no rain, or if I command the locusts to devour the land, or if I send pestilence among my people; If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.
It purifies us:
Ecclesiastes 7:2-3 It is better to go to the house of mourning, than to go to the house of feasting: for that is the end of all men; and the living will lay it to his heart. Sorrow is better than laughter: for by the sadness of the countenance the heart is made better.
Exercises our patience:
Psalms 40:1 I waited patiently for the LORD; and he inclined unto me, and heard my cry.
Romans 5:3 And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience;
James 1:3 Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience.
1 Peter 2:20 For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God.
Renders fruit:
Hebrews 12:10-11 For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness. Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby.
Furthers the Gospel:
2 Timothy 2:9 Wherein I suffer trouble, as an evil doer, even unto bonds; but the word of God is not bound.
2 Timothy 4:16-17 At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men forsook me: I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge. Notwithstanding the Lord stood with me, and strengthened me; that by me the preaching might be fully known, and that all the Gentiles might hear: and I was delivered out of the mouth of the lion.
Philippians 1:12 But I would ye should understand, brethren, that the things which happened unto me have fallen out rather unto the furtherance of the gospel;
There are many spiritual benefits from affliction and even though we may not like them, we should rejoice when we have them.
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Did God Callously Give David's Wives to Absalom to Rape?
Note: I did not write this. I found this article and thought I'd put it up because I never could offer an explanation for this. Source here.
This was part of a stream of questions from a dear, but agonized, soul who was/is convinced that God hates women...
What about when God gives 10 women to be raped to punish David for sleeping with Bathsheba? I understand about the culture but for God to treat an individual womans' body as a man's possession speaks volumes, about how he hates/devalues women?
I think I have some good news for you about this passage, friend--it has nothing at all to do with "rape"...nor does it remotely teach that a woman's body is a man's possession...and, although there are some cultural issues associated with this passage, even when those are taken into account we still won't be able to conclude fairly that God committed some atrocity here...
Let's look at the passage and the dynamics in it, and hopefully you will agree...
After David committed the treachery with Uriah and Bathsheba, God spoke to David through Nathan thus:
Then Nathan said to David, "You are the man! This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. 8 I gave your master's house to you, and your master's wives into your arms. I gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more. 9 Why did you despise the word of the LORD by doing what is evil in his eyes? You struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and took his wife to be your own. You killed him with the sword of the Ammonites. 10 Now, therefore, the sword will never depart from your house, because you despised me and took the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your own.'...11 "This is what the LORD says: 'Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity upon you. Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight. 12 You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.'" (2 Sam 12.7ff)The FIRST thing to notice in this text is that David had been given Saul's wives (verse 8)--but what does THAT mean?
Here we have to go into the ANE cultural and historical background some, to see the significance of this statement.
a. Most royal marriages and concubinage (for both princes and princesses) were national affairs, not personal affairs of the king:"Marriage was a tool of diplomacy throughout the ancient Near East. Towns, city-states, tribes or nations who wished to ally themselves with a rule or come under his protection sealed the treaty with a marriage of a daughter of their chief family to the suzerain or his son. This was an act of loyalty on the part of the vassal, who would then have a personal stake in preserving the dynasty. For instance, Zimri-Lim, the kind of Mari during the eighteenth century B.C., successfully placed his daughters in the harems of nearby kingdoms and married several foreign wives himself to increase his power and the stability of his realm Similarly Pharaoh Thutmose IV (1425-1412 B.C.) arranged a marriage with a daughter of the Mitannian king to demonstrate good relations and end a series of wars with that middle Euphrates kingdom." [BBCOT: at 2 Sam 5.13]
b. Royal succession was normally occasioned by a king's death (making his family widows and orphans), and care and protection of the royal 'harem' would be a responsibly of the new ruler."Since royal marriages were a reflection of the power of a monarch and represented political and economic alliances made in the name of the state, it would have been necessary, at the succession, for the harem of the former king to become the responsibility of the new monarch. In this way there was continuity of treaty obligations." [BBCOT:in loc.]
c. For example, in this case--in which David 'inherited' Saul's wives--it was an act of kindness toward the family of the deceased king:"After the death of Ishbosheth (2 Sam 4:5-7) and David's rise to kingship, it would have been expected that he would extend his protection Saul's family, including his harem. Thus it is possible that the brief reference to David's marriage to Ahinoam in 1 Samuel 25:43 is a reference to his taking Saul's wife Ahinoam (1 Sam 14:50)" [BBCOT: in loc.]
So, upon the death (or abdication or overthrow) of a king, the successor bore responsibility for continuing the all-important political marriages and care of the royal harem.
Now, the fulfillment of this judgment on David is in chapter 16:
"Then Absalom said to Ahithophel, "Give us your counsel; what shall we do?" 21 Ahithophel said to Absalom, "Go in to your father's concubines, the ones he has left to look after the house; and all Israel will hear that you have made yourself odious to your father, and the hands of all who are with you will be strengthened." 22 So they pitched a tent for Absalom upon the roof; and Absalom went in to his father's concubines in the sight of all Israel.' [NRSV]
Let's look at various aspects of the text/context:
a. The concubines left behind by David might have been from leading Jerusalemite families (likely volunteers), and therefore 'safe' with Absalom (who was in league with those families):What this nets out to is this:"It is possible that the concubines left behind were those that David had taken into his harem from the leading Jebusite families of Jerusalem (see 5.13) or from some of the families that were supporting Absalom in Hebron." [BBCOT: at 2 Sam 15.16]b. The actual event itself was equivalent to a royal wedding, and not a 'rape' by any means:"The tent was, most likely, the bridal tent (cf. Ps 19:5[4]; Joel 2:16), and the whole proceedings were, more or less, equivalent to a royal wedding (so Stolz, 262) but with wider implications." [WBC, in.loc...note also that David wed Saul's widow Ahinoam]c. Since marrying a father's wife was forbidden in Israelite law, the whole incident may well have been staged as a 'statement' that David was dead (instead of some outrageously offensive crime in front of his new citizenry!):"Gunn (King David, 116) has pointed out that Absalom's take-over of David's concubines may have been a formal act, while von Rad (The Problem of the Hexateuch, 184) calls it "a symbolic action intended to gain the confidence of the people for Absalom." [WBC, in. loc.]
"This cohabitation in our context may have served as an indication that as far as Absalom was concerned--David was dead. Was it a deliberate deception to give the impression to the people in general that David was actually dead (cf. Budde, 278)? According to Lev 18:8; 20:11; Deut 22:30 [MT 23:1]; 27:20 it was forbidden for a son to take his father's wife, at least while the father was alive (cf. also Gen 35:22; 49:3-4). If so, the deception (?) may have strengthened the resolve of Absalom's supporters since this final humiliation of David was a deliberately public act, at least according to the narrator."d. Members of the royal harem were all upper-class figures, representing important political alliances, both foreign and domestic. These women often had important duties in the administration, in most of the surrounding cultures of the ANE. For example, in Ebla a couple of millennia earlier:"The royal harem was structured like its equivalents in Old Babylonian Mari. It included DAM EN, "women of the king', who lived in their own building and who were assisted by a group of officials...These women were sometimes placed in charge of important sectors of palace work, especially the manufacture of textiles.' [OT:CANE:1224, note that the ten concubines were left "in charge of the palace", an administrative task--not "just" housekeeping!]
For a new ruler, BEFORE Israel actually 'came to power', to publicly and violently rape "high-brow" daughters of leading families of his constituency and of his international allies would be unthinkable and diplomatic suicide! Absalom was not 'politically naïve'-his rise to power as described in chapter 15 shows an exceptionally crafty and smooth individual.e. The whole point of the action was to 'enter the harem' (hence the tent) in front of the citizenry. The harem (in all the ANE) was off-limits to anyone except the king (and pre-pubescent princes). By visually entering the tent (in which the mini-harem was), the damage was done: the throne usurped, the predecessor declared 'dead and gone', claims to any of the posterity that might have resulted from any sexual activity (assuming there was any-there need not have been any for this event to be totally effective in the historical situation and context) with the new wives/concubines clearly established, and the responsibilities of care for the national alliances (represented by the newly assumed royal marriages) undertaken.
f. That this event was understood as a marriage--instead of a rape--is also supported by David's actions upon his return and after the death of Absalom: the women were placed in a separate harem-house, provided for, and treated as royal widows:
"David went to his palace in Jerusalem, and the king took the ten concubines he had left to mind the palace and put them in a guarded place; he provided for them, but he did not cohabit with them. They remained in seclusion until the day they died, in living widowhood. (2 Sam 20.3, JPS)This does NOT mean they were placed or confined in a prison of sorts. Rather, the 'seclusion' was from the "active/living harem" and the 'confinement' was into "living widowhood". Keil & Delitzsch comment on this verse:"As soon as David returned to his palace at Jerusalem, he brought the ten concubines whom he had left behind, and with whom Absalom had lain, into a place of safety, and took care of them, without going in unto them anymore...Thus they were shut up into living widowhood" (in loc.)
1. the event being described looks like a royal wedding (and not like a rape)2. the marriages involved are ones that are important to the nation to preserve
3. the undertaking of the rights and responsibilities of the ruler was a clear message to the citizenry that David was "dead" or "out of the picture altogether"
4. there is no hint of rape, and the entire context of who these women were argues against there being ANY brutality, ANY violation, and ANY disgrace
5. These marriages (and wives) were not David's "possession" in any sense of the word-they were more like 'national assets' (like a king would be). Their status was high, their importance was significant, and the king had to treat them with diplomacy and care.
In other words, the historical data would argue that this incident was not, in fact, a case of public rape of ten women.
Saturday, March 1, 2008
Does God Tempt? (Resolving a Supposed Bible Contradiction)
Genesis 22:1 (Genesis 22:1-18)
KJV: And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am.
NIV: Some time later God tested Abraham. He said to him, "Abraham!" "Here I am," he replied.
James 1:13 (James 1:13-14)
When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone.
The apparent contradiction here stems from the KJV's use of the word "tempt." The definition of "tempt" (from the Merriam-Webster dictionary) is:
1 : to entice to do wrong by promise of pleasure or gain"Tempt" in Genesis 22:1 refers to definition 2a, as shown by the NIV translation. The verse comes from the account of God's testing of Abraham by telling him to sacrifice his son Isaac. God was testing Abraham to see if he would do the right thing (trust God's instructions and be obedient to him), not enticing him to do wrong. In contrast, James 1:13 refers to the temptations of evil, which of course falls under definition 1.
2 a obsolete : to make trial of : TEST b : to try presumptuously : PROVOKE c : to risk the dangers of
3 a : to induce to do something b : to cause to be strongly inclined
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)