As the Israelites made their way up the Transjordan region en route to their entrance into Canaan, they defeated the Amorite kings, Sihon and Og (Num. 21:21-35). The Hebrews moved farther north and camped in the plains of Moab on the eastern side of Jordan across from Jericho.
Balak, a Moabite king, was exceedingly fearful of this great body of people. Accordingly, the pagan ruler sent for a prophet at Pethor by the Euphrates river, some 400 miles away. His name was Balaam, a man who would live for millennia in prophetic infamy (2 Pet. 2:15; Jude 11; Rev. 2:14).
It was Balak’s intention that the covetous Balaam could be bribed to “curse” (i.e., pronounce a devastating curse upon) the Israelite people, thus thwarting further conquests. But the Lord nullified that plan and instead, Balaam was forced to bless the Hebrews (Num. 22-23).
Come now, you who say, “Today or tomorrow we will go into this city, and spend a year there, and trade, and get gain”: whereas you know not what shall be tomorrow. What is your life? For you are a vapor, that appears for a little time, and then vanishes away. Instead, you ought to say, “If the Lord wills, we shall both live, and do this or that” (James 4:13-15).
James’ epistle has been called the “gospel of practicality.” It is so down-to-earth in relating the teaching of Jesus Christ to the affairs of daily life.
In the fourth chapter of his letter, James (almost certainly the half-brother of Christ) addresses overconfidence in those who are spiritually short-sighted and so this-world oriented.
Robert Ingersoll (1833-99) was a mediocre Illinois lawyer whose flair for oratory thrust him into fame in the latter portion of the nineteenth century. He crisscrossed the nation lecturing to large crowds with vitriolic tirades against the Bible. He charged that the Scriptures contain “a great deal of error, considerable barbarism and a most plentiful lack of good sense” (Ferrell 1900, 8:1). When Ingersoll turned against the Bible (he had been raised in a religious home), he abandoned any hope of eternal bliss. Strangely, though, the “hope” jargon occasionally wormed its way into his vocabulary.
Once when asked to deliver an address at a little boy’s grave, the infidel said: “We, too, have our religion, and it is this: Help for the living, hope for the dead.” What was the basis for such hope? In a eulogy delivered at the funeral of his beloved brother, Ingersoll poured out his soul in anguish.
Life is a narrow vale between the cold and barren peaks of two eternities. We strive in vain to look beyond the heights. We cry aloud—and the only murmur is the echo of our wailing cry. From the voiceless lips of the unreplying dead there comes no word. But in the night of Death, Hope sees a star, and listening Love can hear the rustle of a wing (Farrell, 12:391).
The sectarian notion that it is impossible for a child of God to so sin as to be lost eternally is widely believed by a host of sincere people. But the idea is fallacious. It was first vocalized in the Garden of Eden by Satan, who lied to Eve by telling her that disobedience to God would not result in death (Genesis 3:4; cf. John 8:44). Human history has demonstrated the devastating consequences of believing that error. In later ages, the dogma of the impossibility of apostasy was popularized by John Calvin (1509-64). It is, however, without biblical support.
That apostasy from the true faith is possible may be demonstrated in several ways.
“Did I not tell you, ‘Do not sin against the child’; and you would not listen?” The foregoing question of accusation was framed by Reuben, the oldest of Jacob’s sons, when the disguised Joseph, then a ruler in Pharaoh’s court, demanded that their younger brother, Benjamin, be brought into the land of Egypt (Genesis 42:22). The question reflected the fear that perhaps the hand of Providence finally had caught up with those Israelite men on account of their harsh treatment of Joseph in his tender years.
Sin always is wrong—at any time, at any place, and when perpetrated upon anyone. Somehow, though, we are especially incensed when innocent children are assaulted. There is a great cry these days against child abuse. And yet society sins against youngsters in so many ways in today’s cruel world, and much of it is calculated and headstrong.
More than a million babies are slaughtered each year in America before they ever see the light of day. Since Roe vs. Wade (1973), nearly fifty million children have been murdered in the womb. That is more loss of life than combined U.S. deaths in all of the wars in the previous two centuries of our country’s existence. Adolf Hitler’s death camps were tame compared to our abortion chambers.
In his informative book, Understanding the New Age, Russell Chandler notes that nearly half (42%) of America’s adult population believe they have been in contact with someone who has died (1988). This was up 15% from a survey conducted in 1977. Of course there is nothing new about necromancy (attempting to communicate with the dead); it is almost as old as death itself. It has, however, received a resurgence of interest lately with the advent of “New Age” philosophy under the influence of such notables as Shirley MacLaine (1983).
Necromancy was practiced in ancient Babylon and also in Egypt (which was known as the “mother of the occult”). There is considerable evidence in the Old Testament that even the Hebrews became involved in the practice. During the time of the wicked Manasseh’s reign over Judah, it is said that the king “practiced augury, and used enchantments, and dealt with them that had familiar spirits, and with wizards” (2 Kings 21:6).
Acts chapter ten is a very unique portion of the New Testament. It commences by introducing the reader to a splendid citizen of Caesarea, a Roman centurion whose name was Cornelius. Though a Gentile, Cornelius had been attracted to the concept of Israel’s one God. Hence, he was devoutly religious and a splendid example of high moral ideals. He was, in fact, held in high regard by the Jews, a rather unusual circumstance in that era of religious bigotry.
One day, as this Roman military man was observing one of his regular hours of prayer, an angel appeared to him, instructing the centurion to send for Peter, the apostle of Christ, who was at Joppa some thirty miles to the south. No Gentile, of course, had entered the Christian system at this point, insofar as the record is explicit. It was thus necessary for God to prepare his Jewish apostle for this experience. Accordingly, as the messengers dispatched by Cornelius made their way toward Joppa, Peter experienced a vision. It involved a sheet let down from heaven containing various creatures, classified by Old Testament law as “unclean,” which the apostle was commanded to eat. Peter initially resisted, but finally, as the messengers arrived at the residence he was visiting, the apostle was persuaded by the Lord that this supernatural scene represented the “cleansing” of the Gentiles, i.e., their right to share in the blessings of the gospel.
Peter invited the Gentile servants to lodge with him overnight (a remarkable example of insight and courage), and the next day, accompanied by six Jewish companions, the obedient apostle made his way to Caesarea. There he found a willing company waiting—Cornelius and his family and near friends. The facts of the gospel were proclaimed to these eager Gentiles. They believed the message and Peter commanded them to be immersed (10:48).
Significantly, in conjunction with this momentous event, there was an outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon that Gentile company; as evidence of it, they were empowered to speak in foreign languages and they magnified God. Actually, the Lord was providing divine documentation that this acceptation of the Gentiles had the validation of Heaven. This proof would surely be needed in the face of Jewish prejudice.
The conversion of a Roman military officer, Cornelius by name, as recorded in the tenth chapter of the book of Acts, represents one of the key events in Christian history. The gates of the kingdom of Christ were flung wide open and for the first time in many centuries all non-Hebrew people were welcomed into a religious fellowship with the offspring of Abraham.
The prophets had spoken of the day when the “nations” would flow into the house of God and “all flesh” would be able to access the blessings of divine salvation (Isaiah 2:2-4; Joel 2:28-32; cf. Acts 2:17-21). With the inclusion of the Gentiles into the family of God on this occasion, the Old Testament prophecies pertaining to such began their fulfillment.
As wonderful and clear as this marvelous chapter of the Bible is, it is a tragedy that it has been so seriously misunderstood by multitudes of sincere people. The reason for this misapprehension is due to the fact that the entire chapter is viewed as a model for every subsequent century—and it is not. There are abiding principles, but the student must explore the narrative with considerable discrimination.
When Jesus met with his disciples near Caesarea-Philippi, he inquired concerning how others were identifying him. Several opinions were proffered. He then pressed for their view. Peter responded, confessing Jesus as “the Christ, the Son of God.” The Lord pronounced a blessing upon his apostle and declared that upon this “rock” (the truth of that declaration) he would build his church.
The Greek term for “church” is ekklesia (found 114 times in the New Testament). In a Christian context, the word is employed in four senses: (1) It represents the body of Christ worldwide, over which the Lord functions as head (Matthew 16:18; Ephesians 1:22; 1 Timothy 3:15). (2) The expression can refer to God’s people in a given region (Acts 9:31, ASV, ESV). (3) Frequently, it depicted a local congregation of Christians (1 Corinthians 1:2; Revelation 1:11). (4) “Church” could also signify a group of the Lord’s people assembled for worship (1 Corinthians 14:34-35).
For years gospel preachers have called attention to the etymology of ekklesia. The word is a compound of two segments: ek, a preposition meaning “out of,” and a verb, kaleo, signifying “to call”—hence, “to call out.”
Those conversant with the Scriptures are surely aware of the fact that God expects individuals to strive for personal righteousness. What is not so
well-known, however, is the fact that Jehovah demands a certain level of
righteousness for nations as well. "Righteousness exalts a nation; but sin is a reproach to any people" (Proverbs 14:34). David exclaimed: “The wicked shall be turned back into Sheol. Even all the nations that forget God” (Psalms 9:17). In view of this, it is apparent that each citizen should endeavor to contribute to the righteous climate of his nation.
The following truths are taught in the Bible: (1) The destiny of Earth’s nations is ultimately in the hands of the Lord. (2) He expects nations to conform to certain moral criteria. (3) When the moral fabric of a people deteriorates to a certain point, God can and will bring that power to its knees.
One of the great biblical truths regarding the Creator is that of his omnipotence. Job declared (concerning the Lord): “I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be restrained” (Job 42:2). This includes, of course, the control of national powers. A fundamental truth set forth in the book of Daniel is that of Jehovah’s international sovereignty. The prophet affirmed that “the Most High rules in the kingdom of men, and gives it to whomsoever he will, and sets up over it the lowest of men” (Daniel 4:17). Again, the Lord “removes kings, and sets up kings” (2:21). God is said to be “ruler over the nations” (Psalms 22:28).
It is a tragedy of heart-breaking proportion that some otherwise credible scholars will go to such outlandish lengths to defend cherished theological theories. They hurl exegetical caution to the wind and adopt absurd views that are wholly without substance. No better example can be mentioned than the desperate attempts that some make in attempting to avoid the connection between the commanded rite of water immersion and the forgiveness of sins. No responsible Bible student believes there is some magical power in water to wash away sins. The blood of Jesus Christ is the agent of cleansing power resident in God’s plan of redemption (Hebrews 9:14a).
It is undeniable, however, that the saving efficacy of that blood is accessed by faith when one submits to the command to be immersed “for the forgiveness of sins” (Acts 2:38; cf. 22:16). This is not salvation by meritorious works; it is salvation by obedience (Hebrews 5:9). One novel approach of fairly recent vintage is the idea that the baptism of certain texts involves no water at all; rather, it is a “Spirit” baptism.
For example, a few sectarian scholars contend that the baptism of Romans 6:3-4 and Galatians 3:26-27 is not water baptism, but Spirit baptism. One writer says, of Paul’s statement in Romans, that some:
Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews, conceded that Jesus of Nazareth was “a teacher” from God, as documented by the “signs” which he did (John 3:2). A wealthy young ruler approached the Lord asking, “Teacher, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?” (Matthew 19:16). Even Jesus’ enemies addressed him as “Teacher” (Matthew 22:16, 24), though their use of the expression was not always genuine. The Lord is addressed as “Teacher” twenty-nine times in the Gospels. The noun (teacher) and verb (teach) combined are used of Jesus some ninety times.
Christ’s teaching was informative, logical, buttressed by Old Testament evidence, well-illustrated, documented by divine power, original, and uniquely authoritative (Matthew 7:28). When officers once were sent to arrest him, they returned to their superiors empty-handed, exclaiming: “Never man so spoke” (John 7:46). The Lord’s various methods of teaching beg for careful study.
Formal sermons were rare in the Savior’s repertoire of teaching tools. There is, of course, the renowned Sermon on the Mount, in which Christ set forth principles for discipleship, dealing with such issues as:
Andy was homeless, flopping under a pier or in someone else’s garage. Had he been dealt a bad hand—an unlucky life? Could he shuffle the deck and stack the future in his favor by personal, conscious decisions? He wanted to know.
Andy didn’t plan on living on the street. At nineteen, his parents were dead; his mother was taken by cancer, his father by an automobile accident. In his own words, Andy acknowledged, “I took a bad situation and made it much worse.” Only after a process of discovery and introspection was Andy willing to affirm with conviction that a life is made up of a series of personal decisions that have necessary consequences—even predictable ones.
When did Andy’s realization take hold? Actually, this discovery process began in the library where Andy read biographies—more than two hundred stories of real people—and the Bible. Andy’s mind detected a pattern: successful people’s lives exhibit common traits, regardless of their backgrounds, circumstances, and problems. Andy moved to introspection. What if a person copied these traits? Could he adopt the secrets and determine his future? Andy’s conclusion was, “Yes.” He believed his future could be different. Because he believed, he started making different decisions, and his decisions brought him out from under the pier, and he was on his way to a more desirable and productive life.
Richard Dawkins is a British atheist who has attempted to find some degree of fame in recent years by defaming the existence of God with the use of some of the most virulent language of which the depraved human tongue or pen is capable. To those who know no better, he seems credible. To those to whom logic is a total stranger, bluff and bluster pass for argument.
In November of 2006, we published an article under the title, Richard Dawkins – God Hater. It was a response to a laudatory article that appeared in a national magazine regarding Dawkins’s book, The God Delusion.
Dawkins is the most arrogant atheist to which this writer has ever had the misfortune to be exposed, and I have in my library some of the most celebrated works of that misguided persuasion. In his Delusion tirade the author is ambitious enough to boast: “If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down.” As Shakespeare has Cassuis say to Julius Caesar: “Upon what meat doth this our Caesar feed that he hath grown so great?”
For more than two centuries the despicable “N-word” has been hatefully hurled at “people of color.” Now its use virtually is the equivalent of profanity and borders on being verbal hate speech, worthy of criminal prosecution. Another term rapidly finding a new and intensified niche is “racist.” If one wishes to defame another with whom he has a grievance, label him a racist. No one wants to be thought of as a racist. The epithet received a celebrity boost recently when former president Jimmy Carter charged that a significant portion of those who oppose the current president’s policies are motivated by racism.
Racism is a reality that is gray-headed with history. It probably began to foment after the dispersing of the human family in the days of the post-Flood era. Early humanity largely neglected the Creator’s charge to “fill the earth” (Genesis 1:28). A significant portion absolutely refused to do so (cf. 11:4). Accordingly, God “confounded” their speech and “scattered them abroad” (vv. 6ff). The subsequent separations created the circumstances that accommodated the physical variations of the human family. An incredibly rich genetic pool, together with a population dispersal, created just the right diversity of environments for the development of multiple physical features.
Yet in his book, Human Heredity, noted anthropologist, Dr. Ashley Montagu, a militant evolutionist, conceded that “all the ethnic groups of man must have originated from a single ancestral stock. . . . [T]he more we study the different ethnic groups of man the more alike they turn out to be” (1960, 184).
© 1997-2010 by Christian Courier Publications. All rights reserved. ISSN: 1559-2235. Website version: 3.0a
The Christian Courier is a journal dedicated to the study of religious doctrine, Christian evidences, and biblical ethics. It is associated with the churches of Christ.