Is There a God? Video 3 1/2 min

https://apologeticspress.org/video/is-there-a-god-video-4772

Please click on the link above and follow the path provided

When Does Human Life Begin? Video 8min

https://apologeticspress.org/video/when-does-human-life-begin/ 

Please click on the link above and follow the path provided.

 

Are Biblical Giants Mythical?

JEFF MILLER, Ph.D.

ALLEGED DISCREPANCIESCREATION VS. EVOLUTIONINSPIRATION OF THE BIBLEFACTUAL ACCURACYFACTUAL ACCURACYFOSSIL RECORD

In several places in Scripture, men of giant stature are mentioned1—men like Goliath, who was “six cubits and a span,” or about nine feet, nine inches tall (1 Samuel 17:4). Are such accounts mere tales worth scoffing at, or is there evidence that humans can grow, and have grown, to enormous heights?

According to evolutionists, giants are not a mythical idea. In a science podcast broadcasted by Cambridge University, well-known paleoanthropologist of the University of Witwatersrand, Lee Berger, was interviewed. Berger discovered the australopithecus sediba2 and homo naledi3 fossils. The podcast group had an opportunity to visit the fossil collection at the University where Berger is a professor for a podcast. While there, they discussed the fossils of the museum. 

In the article following the interview, editor Chris Smith said, “One of the most interesting things that the fossil record reveals is that we went through a period of extreme giantism. These were people routinely over 7ft tall, they were huge.”4 Berger said, “You’ve probably heard the myth that ancient humans were tiny and some of them were tiny. But, as we moved through the period of 0.5 million to 300,000 years ago in Africa…, [t]hey go through a period of giantism.”5 Berger then proceeded to show the group an example of one of the giant femurs from a species dubbed homo heidelbergensis.6 Berger said, “They are huge. That’s so big we can’t even calculate how big this individual was.”7 Berger admitted that he cannot even gage the actual size of the individual and so surmises him to be over seven feet tall. Smith responded to Berger, asking him if the extreme size could just be an abnormality—an exception to the rule. Berger responded, saying, “No, because we found a lot of them. Everywhere we find them we find them enormous. These are what we call archaic homo sapiens. Some people refer to them as homo heidelbergensis. These individuals are extraordinary. They are giants.”8 Notice first that Berger acknowledges that homo heidelbergensis is definitely human (i.e., homo sapiens), just ancient and enormous. Second, notice that, according to Berger, the fossils are not abnormalities. There was a group of these large humans.

In case homo heidelbergensis is not sufficient evidence, Ralph von Koenigswald of the Netherlands Indies Geological Survey discovered enormous jawbones in 1944. Announcing the discovery, Time magazine ran an article titled “Giants in Those Days,” quoting from Genesis 6:4. According to the article,

Koenigswald first found a big jawbone which looked [human]…but was so massive that he thought it could not possibly be a man’s. Then he found a still larger jaw, the biggest ever discovered, which was unmistakably human…. Koenigswald named it Meganthropus paleojavanicus…. Koenigswald’s crowning find dwarfed even Meganthropus…. [H]e found three astounding teeth. They were six times as big as a modern man’s molars…. Weidenreich [of the American Museum of Natural History] is sure, from the pattern of their “biting surfaces, that they are definitely human.” He has named this man monster…Gigantanthropus. The…giants, Weidenreich thinks, were not freaks. Taking a fresh look at the thick-boned fossils of such other primitive human beings as Heidelberg Man, Weidenreich now believes that “gigantism and massiveness may have been a general or at least widespread character of early mankind.”9

So once again, we have evidence of enormous humans, and not merely “freaks,” but potentially a widespread characteristic of humanity. Humans are definitely capable of enormous size.10

Even today, thousands of years beyond the optimal period of human health and life longevity that characterized the pre-Flood world, humans are capable of immense size. According to Guinness World Records, the tallest man alive today is Sultan Kosen who is eight feet three inches tall.11 His immense height seems to have been caused by a pituitary condition which resulted in an over-production of growth hormone, providing scientific evidence of those genetic characteristics that can contribute to great size. Kosen, however, was short compared to the tallest man from the past who was officially measured: Robert Wadlow—eight feet eleven inches tall, just one inch shy of nine feet tall!12 He weighed in at 491 pounds at one point in his life.

Even evolutionists concede that humans are capable of, and have grown to, immense heights. The giants of the Bible were not mythical beings, but real humans—albeit, big ones.

Endnotes

1 E.g., 1 Samuel 17:4-7; 21:19-22; Nephilim: Genesis 6:4; Numbers 13:32-33; Rephaim: Deuteronomy 2:10-11,20; Deuteronomy 3:11,13; Joshua 12:4; 13:12; 17:15; 2 Samuel 21:16,18,20,22.

2 Jeff Miller (2015), “In the News: Sediba: Yet Another Paleo-Blunder,” Reason & Revelation, 35[6]:66.

3 Jeff Miller (2015), “Homo Naledi—Kind of Shady?” Reason & Revelation, 35[11]:129-131.

4 Chris Smith (2007), “Our Story: Human Ancestor Fossils,” The Naked Scientists, University of Cambridge, November 25.

5 Ibid.

6 Jeff Miller (2011), “Heidelberg Man: The Evolutionist’s Jawbone of Life,” Apologetics Press, https://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?article=305.

7 Smith.

8 Ibid.

9 “Giants in Those Days” (1944), Time, Science, July 3.

10 It is possible (even likely) that humans, like plants, reptiles, and insects, were, in fact, larger in the pre-Flood era and for some time afterwards due to the optimized nature of the pre-Flood world. Homo heidelbergensis may be representative of many humans post-Flood. However, when the geologic column and fossil record are telescoped to the biblical timeframe, we realize that most homo species are actually just variety within the human kind, living at roughly the same time with each other. Many of the fossils of larger humans that are being discovered, therefore, are possibly representative of a “race” within the human kind, rather than a species representative of all humans over a long period of time.

11 “Tallest Man Ever” (2018), Guinness World Records On-line, http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/tallest-man-ever.

12 Ibid.

Suggested Resources

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.

SIN Video 18 min

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Su7vaDumBQ 

Click on the line above and follow the path provided.

 

Question and Answer: Should Jesus Be Called "Yeshua"?

DAVE MILLER, Ph.D.

DOCTRINAL MATTERSJESUSTRANSMISSION/TEXTUAL CRITICISMTRANSMISSION/TEXTUAL CRITICISM

From Issue: R&R – August 2018

Q:

“Do you know if there’s any truth to the claim that Jesus should only be called ‘Yeshua’ or that the name ‘Jesus’ is a corruption done by pagans or occultists (it’s been claimed that KJV was influenced by freemasonry, or that it was supposed to sound like Zeus)? Additionally, what evidence is there that the NT was originally written in Greek (vs. Hebrew vs. Aramaic)?”

A:

The Hebrew word transliterated “Joshua” in our English versions of the Old Testament  (pronounced yeah-HO-shoo-ah) is equivalent to the Greek term “Jesus” (pronounced ee-ay-SOOS). Though God Himself miraculously instigated several new languages at Babel (Genesis 11), we do not know what those languages were nor do we know what single language was spoken prior to that event. God has given no indication whatsoever that Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek are “sacred” languages that must be emulated. Instead, what we learn from the Bible is that God fully expected His Word to be translated into the multitude of languages that He knew would come about gradually as societies, ethnic groups, and nations developed. There is no evidence in Scripture that God assigns special reverence to, or expects verbal exclusivity for, the names “God” or “Jesus” in a particular language. The Jews refused to pronounce the divine name (approximated by English words like “Jehovah” and “Yahweh”) and so historically did not know how to pronounce it. The claims of pagans and occultists are irrelevant. One must produce the evidence from Scripture that God commands a specific spelling or pronunciation. Hispanics have the same word, “Jesus,” which they name their children, pronounced “hay-SOOS.” It has the same spelling in both English and Spanish. By the reasoning of those cited, differing pronunciations of the same word are unacceptable. Their theory shows a woeful lack of understanding regarding the functioning of human language.

Regarding the second question, there are well over 5,000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, some dating back close to the first century. There is a mountain of evidence from historical and religious writers in the early centuries of Christianity that record the linguistic state of affairs at the time. Once again, where is the evidence that the New Testament was originally written in a language other than Koine Greek? The evidence does not exist. It is true that Jesus probably spoke Aramaic while He was on Earth. But God the Holy Spirit chose to communicate the divine will via the most common, prominent language of the day: Koine Greek. A host of Hellenistic Jews at the time spoke Greek and relied on the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint; cf. Acts 6). In fact, most of the quotes of the Old Testament found in the New Testament are from that version. When people postulate an imaginary Aramaic New Testament that lies behind the Greek New Testament that we have, they are merely speculating without solid, sufficient evidence—which they are under obligation to produce.

However, let’s suppose that those who make such claims are right, that the New Testament was originally written in Aramaic. Why did God not see to it that it was preserved and passed down to us? Answer: we must not need it! We can confidently say that we have God’s Word intact in our 21st century based on the variety of proofs that exist by which the New Testament text has been recovered/ascertained (see the DVD Has the Bible Been Corrupted? available through AP).

---

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.

 

Don’t Judge Me!

BY WAYNE JACKSON

One of the most frequent rebukes that we receive from irate readers is this: “Oh, you are judging!” If there is one passage in the Bible with which the critics are familiar, surely it is this one: “Judge not, that you be not judged” (Mt. 7:1). They have no clue as to what the text means, but they know that it is there!

It is an unfortunate thing that those who so flaunt this passage, in such a careless fashion, have not studied the broader biblical theme diligently. The truth is, this quibble, more often than not, is a mere defense mechanism that “judges” the alleged “judge”!

The most common word for “judge” in the Greek Testament is the verb krino, found 114 times. It is rendered into English by a variety of terms, e.g., “judge,” “determine,” “condemn,” “call in question,” etc. The word means to “select”; then to “come to a conclusion, make a determination” — sometimes with the added idea of relating that conclusion to a specific act or a certain person. The basic term is neutral in its character; only the context can suggest either a positive or negative connotation.

That “judging” is not intrinsically evil is demonstrated by the fact that God judges (Heb. 12:23), and so does Christ (Acts 10:42; 2 Tim. 4:8). The common retort to this observation, though, is this: “Yes, God and Christ have the right to judge; but we, who are but mere mortals, do not.” While that may sound noble, it is not under-girded with scriptural evidence.

The truth of the matter is, “judging” is both condemned and commended in the Bible. It is prohibited and commanded. But how can this be, if, as Christians commonly claim, the Scriptures are inspired of God, and thus do not contradict one another? The answer is a very simple one. The concept of “judging” is employed in different senses in sacred literature.

Judging Condemned

There are several New Testament passages in which “judging” is cast into a sinister light. Let us consider but three of these for illustrative purposes. In the Sermon on the Mount Christ spoke thusly:

“Judge not, that you be not judged. For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you use, it shall be measured unto you. And why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, Let me take the speck from your eye; when there is a log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye; and then you will see clearly how to take the speck from your brother’s eye” (Mt. 7:1-5).

Appropriate judging must be done sincerely, and for the welfare of the individual. Obviously the individual who pronounces judgment upon another, when he is personally guilty of equal (or even greater) transgressions, is not genuine in his censures. Many of the Jews were of this hypocritical nature. While they condemned the gross wickedness of the pagans, they practiced identical breaches of fidelity (see Rom. 2:1-3).

Does this imply that one must be “sinless” before he can declare a “judgment” concerning another’s conduct? It does not. Paul was not sinless (Rom. 7:14ff; 1 Cor. 9:27; Phil. 3:12ff), yet he did not hesitate to “judge” the flagrant fornicator who was disgracing the Corinthian church (1 Cor. 5:3). The person who presumes to judge, however, must be a truly spiritual person (cf. 1 Jn. 1:7), with the good of others genuinely in view (cf. Gal. 6:1).

On another occasion, the Lord warned the Jews: “Judge not according to appearance?” (Jn. 7:24). [Note: For the fuller context of this admonition, see below.] Superficial judging is condemned. To judge someone, strictly on the basis of race, cultural background, unsubstantiated rumor, appearance, financial standing, etc., is wrong (cf. Lk. 10:25ff; 15:1ff; Gal. 2:11ff; Jas. 2:1ff). In his sermon at Caesarea, Peter declared that God is no “respecter of persons.” The Greek term denotes an opinion formed on the basis of the “face,” i.e., appearance. The Lord does not do that (cf. 1 Sam. 16:7), and neither should we.

Finally, James cautions:

“Speak not one against another, brethren. He who speaks against a brother, or judges his brother, speaks against the law, and judges the law: but if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law, but a judge. One only is the lawgiver and judge, even he who is able to save and to destroy: but who are you to judge your neighbor?” (Jas. 4:11-12).

Here the inspired writer places “judging” within the framework of harsh, wounding language. The expression “speak against” renders the Greek katalaleo, which means to slander, degrade, or insult. Some scholars suggest that it hints of being critical of the person in his absence (cf. William Barclay, The Letter of James, p. 13). Certainly there are back-stabbers who do not have the courage to confront an adversary face-to-face (unlike Paul — Gal. 2:11). The malady rebuked in this context reflects an attempt to tear down, rather than to help.

Let it be made clear. The type of judging that is condemned in the New Testament is not the righteous exposure of error or wickedness, or even the rebuke of a particular false teacher (see 1 Tim. 1:20; 2 Tim. 2:17-18). Rather, it consists of that which is done hypocritically, superficially, and in hostility.

Judging Commanded

Earlier we cited John 7:24, where Christ cautioned: “Judge not according to appearance....” The balance of the verse (on the opposite side of an adversative particle) is seen in this command: “...but judge righteous judgment.”

The context has to do with an earlier miracle wherein Jesus had healed a lame man on the sabbath day, and subsequently commissioned him to take up his bed and walk (Jn. 5:8). On account of this alleged violation of the sabbath, and because the Lord claimed divine authority in the miraculous healing, the Jews sought to kill him (v. 18). While it might have “appeared” that Christ initiated a violation of the sabbath on that occasion, actually he did not. Jesus was “lord of the sabbath” (Mt. 12:8), and he had the perfect right to heal this man on that occasion. And a higher goal was to be achieved by his command to the healed man. The Jews, however, saw only the superficial (the man carrying his pallet), and thus did not make a correct “judgment” regarding the significance of the event.

And so Christ admonished, “...but judge the righteous judgment.” The verb, krinete, is present tense (sustained activity), imperative mood (command), thus, the sense is: “practice judging, of the righteous sort.”

There is a principle here set forth. Judging (drawing correct conclusions) is not merely an option; it is an obligation. “Righteous” depicts both the character, and the manner, of the one who does the judging. All of us make judgments regarding others; indeed, we are forced to every day. But those judgments should be rendered compassionately and in conformity with the facts.

Here is another example. With reference to church disciplinary matters, Christians are to “judge” erring members. In a case relating to a brother who needed to be disfellowshipped, Paul asked: “Don’t you practice judging those who are within [the church]?” (1 Cor. 5:12). The question is rhetorical, demanding a positive answer. The church is under obligation to “judge” its wayward members (1 Cor. 5:13b; Rom. 16:17; 2 Thes. 3:6ff). Elsewhere see our article on (“Church Discipline – A Tragic Neglect”,“Church Discipline”).

Judging by Example

Everyone “judges” — if he lives noble standards — regardless of how conscientiously he may claim otherwise. When one holds his conduct to a certain, divinely-prescribed standard, by his example, he judges those who refuse to yield to that standard. Note these points.

A strengthened form of the verb krino is katakrino, which signifies “to pronounce a sentence after a determination of guilt.” In Matthew 12:41-42, the term is used twice.

First, it is applied to the people of Nineveh; then it is used of the Queen of the South. In both instances, the example of these people “condemned” the Jews of Jesus’ day, i.e., cast them in a unfavorable light. In a sense, these ancient citizens stood as “judges,” of the rebellious Hebrews who crucified their own Messiah (see Danker, et al., Greek-English Lexicon, 2000, p. 519).

When Noah obeyed God by preparing the ark as he was commanded (cf. Gen. 6:22), he “condemned” (katakrino) the generation with whom he was contemporary (Heb. 11:7). He judged them by standing in vivid contrast to their disobedience!

Judging Self

There is a sense in which we even “judge” ourselves. In a letter to the Corinthian saints, Paul addressed some of the disorders associated with their observance of the Lord’s supper. For one thing, some were not focusing upon the meaning of this sacred event; they were not “discerning” (diakrino), i.e., making proper judgments about the significance of the elements (bread and fruit of the vine), thus, they were partaking in an “unworthy” fashion. Those who acted in this irresponsible way brought divine “judgment” (krima) upon themselves (see:1 Cor. 11:27-29).

It is out of this background that the apostle exhorts: “But if we judged ourselves, we would not be judged” (v. 31). The meaning is this. If the Christian would “judge” his own conduct, i.e., evaluate it in the light of Scripture, draw proper conclusions relative to any misdeeds, and thus alter his actions, he would not be subject to the disciplinary judgment that could issue from Christ.

Conclusion

An evaluation of the collected biblical evidence clearly demonstrates that the knowledgeable student of the Scriptures will not make such foolish statements such as: “It is wrong to judge.” There is a wrong way to judge (and surely the best of people err in this manner on occasion), but there also are right ways to judge, and these must not be neglected due to a misconception of what judging actually is.

SCRIPTURE REFERENCES

Matthew 7:1; Hebrews 12:23; Acts 10:42; 2 Timothy 4:8; Matthew 7:1-5; Romans 2:1-3; Romans 7:14; 1 Corinthians 9:27; Philippians 3:12; 1 Corinthians 5:3; John 1:7; Galatians 6:1; John 7:24; Luke 10:25; Galatians 2:11; James 2:1; James 4:11-12; 2 Timothy 2:17-18; John 5:8; Matthew 12:8; 1 Corinthians 5:12; 1 Corinthians 5:13; Romans 16:17; 2 Thessalonians 3:6; Matthew 12:41-42; Genesis 6:22; Hebrews 11:7; 1 Corinthians 11:27-29

CITE THIS ARTICLE

Jackson, Wayne. "Don't Judge Me!" ChristianCourier.com. Access date: August 20, 2017. https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/637-dont-judge-me

 

Where Did the Different “Races” Come From?

BY WAYNE JACKSON

“Where did the different ‘races’ of men upon the earth come from?”

The Evolutionary View

At the commencement of this discussion, we must insist that the so-called “racial” developments did not result from an evolutionary ascendancy, with certain “races” being lower than others on the animal-to-human scale.

For many years this was the evolutionary propaganda line, though most modern disciples of Darwin shrink back from it because of changing social values. But the sub-title of Charles Darwin’s book, The Origin of Species (1859) was: By Means Of Natural Selection: Or, The Preservation Of Favored Races In The Struggle For Life.

One writer has observed:

“After 1859, the evolutionary schema raised additional questions, particularly whether or not Afro-Americans could survive competition with their white near-relations. The momentous answer [in the evolutionary community] was a resounding no . . .The African was inferior — he represented the missing link between the ape and the Teuton” (John C. Burnham, Science, Vol. 175, February 4, 1972, p. 506).

Henry Fairfield Osborn was a professor of biology and zoology at Columbia University. For a quarter of a century (1908-33), he also served as the President of the American Museum of Natural History’s Board of Trustees. Osborn once wrote:

“The Negroid stock is even more ancient than the Caucasian and Mongolians, as may be proved by an examination not only of the brain, of the hair, of the bodily characteristics . . .but of the instinct, the intelligence. The standard of intelligence of the average adult Negro is similar to that of the eleven-year old youth of the species Homo sapiens” (“The Evolution of Human Races,” Natural History, January/February, 1926; reprinted in the April, 1980 edition, p. 129).

Those who view “race” development through evolutionary “colored lenses” do not compliment themselves.

The Biblical View

The Bible does not classify human beings along the “racial” lines that are common to modern thought. The Greek term that is rendered “race” — several times in the American Standard Version of the Bible (cf. Mk. 7:26; Acts 4:36; 18:2,24) — finds a variety of translation expressions in the old King James Version.

The word genos occurs 21 times in the Greek New Testament. In the KJV, it is rendered by such terms as “kind” (Mt. 13:47; 17:21; 1 Cor. 12:10; 14:10), “kindred” (Acts 4:6; 7:13,19), “country” (Acts 4:36), “offspring” (Acts 17:28-29; Rev. 22:16), “nation” (Mk. 7:26; Gal. 1:14), “stock” (Acts 13:26; Phil. 3:5), “born” (Acts 18:2,24), “countryman” (2 Cor. 11:26), “generation” (1 Pet. 2:9), “diversity” (1 Cor. 12:28).

As the careful student can see, in not a single passage is the term used of a pigmentation distinction, e.g., white race, black race, yellow race, etc. The Scriptures speak of nations, tribes, tongues [languages], and peoples, but they do not focus upon color shades. Geographical regions or close cultural associations are the usual applications of the word.

The following facts are most relevant to this issue.

All human beings are from a solitary human couple, Adam and Eve, who were fashioned by the hand of God himself (Gen. 1:26-27; 2:7,21-23). In his discourse to the Athenians, Paul declared that God “made of one every nation [ethnos] of men to dwell on all the face of the earth” (Acts 17:26 – ASV).

The expression “of one,” as it appears in the Greek Testament, is ex henos, literally “out of one male.” The allusion clearly is to Adam, out of whose side came Eve (Gen. 2:21-23), and ultimately all humanity (Gen. 3:20). From the divine vantage point, there is no diversity of ethnicity.

In Acts chapter 10 there is the record of the first instance of Gentiles being admitted into the kingdom of Christ. The case involved Cornelius, a Roman centurion who worshipped the true God (v. 2), but who had not been proselytized to the Jewish system (cf. Acts 2:11). By a vision, the Lord instructed the Roman officer to send for Peter, who would provide the necessary information for conversion (vv. 3ff; cf. 11:14).

Similarly, Peter was supplied with a supernatural “nudge,” motivating him to go to this Gentile dignitary with the gospel (vv. 9ff). When all the respective parties made their connection, the apostle explained why this unusual event was transpiring. It was because “God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation he who fears [reverences] him, and works righteousness, is acceptable to him” (vv. 34-35).

The phrase “respecter of persons” is quite interesting. In the Greek text it constitutes a single word, prosopolemptes, literally to “lay hold on a face” (see W.E. Vine, Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words under “Persons (respect of)).”The Lord does not look at the color of a person’s face; he looks at the quality of his soul (cf. 1 Sam. 16:7; Gal. 2:6).

From a biological standpoint, it is obvious that from the commencement of the human family, mankind was designed with the potential for ethnic expansion. The mechanism for variation was packaged within the human genetic reservoir.

Each human cell contains that marvelous chemical substance known as DNA (short for deoxyribonucleic acid). DNA is the code that has been programmed by the Creator for the productions of different “kinds” of biological organisms, which includes the potential for variability within those kinds. It has been estimated that the DNA in a single human cell, if decoded and translated into English, would fill a 1,000 volume set of encyclopedias of some 600 pages each (Rick Gore, National Geographic, September, 1976, p. 357).

Another element that must be factored into this scenario is the historical circumstance of the dispersing of the human family in the days of the post-Flood era. Early humanity largely had neglected the Creator’s charge to “fill the earth” (Gen. 1:28). In fact, a significant portion absolutely refused to do so (see Gen. 11:4).

Accordingly, God “confounded” their speech and “scattered them abroad” (Gen. 11:6ff). The subsequent separations created the circumstances that accommodated the physical variations of the human family. It is a well-known fact that in tight-knit societies, “dominant” genes tend to produce a more static set of traits, whereas in smaller populated groups “recessive” genes are allowed greater freedom to flourish, hence, more variable physical characteristics flourish.

The combined factors, therefore, of an incredibly rich genetic pool, together with an eventual dispersal of the human family, found just the right set of environments for the development of varying physical features.

Conclusion

In spite of the many minute differences between certain groups of humankind, overall, each of the culturally segmented groups of the family of man is remarkably similar. In fact, note the following concession from a prominent evolutionist. Dr. Ashley Montagu has written:

“The members of all ethnic groups are far too much alike in their structural and functional characteristics for them to have originated from different apelike forms. And that is precisely the point, the more we study the different ethnic groups of man the more alike they turn out to be. The likenesses by far outnumber the differences” (Human Heredity, New York: The New American Library, 1960, p. 184).

Those “likenessness” separate human beings from the animal “kinds,” and yet the “differences” reveal God’s infinite wisdom in creative design! We should give thanks unto him, for we have been “fearfully and wonderfully made” (Psa. 139:14).

SCRIPTURE REFERENCES

Mark 7:26; Acts 4:36, 18:2, 24; Matthew 13:47, 17:21; 1 Corinthians 12:10, 14:10; Acts 4:6, 7:13, 19; Acts 4:36; Acts 17:28-29; Revelation 22:16; Galatians 1:14; Acts 13:26; Philippians 3:5; Acts 18:2, 24; 2 Corinthians 11:26; 1 Peter 2:9; 1 Corinthians 12:28; Genesis 1:26-27, 2:7, 21-23; Acts 17:26; Genesis 2:21-23; Genesis 3:20; Acts 2:11; Galatians 2:6; Genesis 1:28; Genesis 11:4; Genesis 11:6; Psalm 139:14

CITE THIS ARTICLE

Jackson, Wayne. "Where Did the Different "Races" Come From?" ChristianCourier.com. Access date: August 28, 2017. https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/679-where-did-the-different-races-come-from

 

God and Capital Punishment

by	Frank Chesser, M.S.

[NOTE: The author of the following articles is an A.P. board member.]

In 1984 leaders of 13 major denominational churches in Florida signed a joint document condemning capital punishment. They described the death penalty as being extremely harmful, immoral, an action that encourages violence and demonstrates disrespect for human life and is inconsistent with the love of God.¹ The conduct of these religious leaders is a classic example of refusing to think right about God. Capital punishment is a principle that is divine in origin and permanent in nature. It embraces all of time. God intends for the death penalty to be employed as an act of justice by duly authorized authorities for as long as man should inhabit the earth.

GOD AS EXECUTIONER

It is incomprehensible that anyone with even a superficial knowledge of the Bible would object to the death penalty. The Bible is replete with examples of capital punishment with God as the executioner. Was God acting immorally, exhibiting disrespect for human life, and in defiance of His own nature when he destroyed the world of Noah’s day with a global flood? 

Can a man descend to a depth of sin and evil that he no longer deserves to live? The mind is the axis of life. The minds of the objects of God’s wrath were incessantly evil. They were barren of a single good thought (Genesis 6:5). They feasted on vileness like vultures on the rot of dead flesh and filled the earth “with violence” (Genesis 6:11). Had they forfeited the right to life? 

Is not God sovereign over all that is? Is He not the source of life? Does He not retain the right to decide when life should end? Is it possible for God to act in a manner inconsistent with His own nature? Is a man thinking right about God when, by implication, he accuses God of acting immorally? “But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God?” (Romans 9:20). The flood alone is proof of the moral justice of capital punishment and of its complete compatibility with the whole of God’s nature.

God executed capital punishment against Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboim (Genesis 19). The inhabitants of these wicked cities had perverted the very core of man’s sexual being as designed by God. They were sick with sin. They coveted the unnatural and abnormal. They heaped dishonor upon “their own bodies” (Romans 1:24). They yearned after “strange flesh” (Jude 7). Their sexual passions were “vile” (Romans 1:26). They could not “cease from sin” (2 Peter 2:14). They had reached the point of no return. Did they deserve to live? God utterly destroyed these cities with burning sulphur and emblazoned the memory of them before the minds of men “for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire” (Jude 7).

Was God acting improperly when He slew Er, Judah’s firstborn, because he was wicked (Genesis 38:7), killed his brother Onan, because he refused to submit to the Levirate marriage law and perpetuate his brother’s name in Israel (Genesis 38:8-10), or when “it came to pass at midnight that the Lord struck all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh who sat on his throne to the firstborn of the captive who was in the dungeon, and all the firstborn of livestock?” (Exodus 12:29). 

Does man have the right to call God into account for His actions? “Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, ‘why have you made me like this?’” (Romans 9:20). Who is weak, frail, puny, sinful man to question the conduct of God? God destroyed the army of Egypt in the Red Sea (Exodus 14:26-28). He killed Nadab and Abihu because they “offered profane fire before the Lord, which He had not commanded them” (Leviticus 10:1). He slew some in Israel who loathed the gift of manna, looked backward with longing eyes to the food provisions in Egypt, and demanded a change in diet (Numbers 11:4–34), and killed the ten spies who returned from Canaan with an evil report (Numbers 14:37). Is a man spiritually rational when he depicts such actions of God as immoral and dishonoring to human life?

God destroyed the families of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram in the heart of the earth and 250 princes with fire because they rebelled against the authority of Moses and demanded access to the priesthood (Numbers 16:1-33). He then slew 14,700 in Israel who accused Moses and Aaron of killing “the people of the Lord” (Numbers 16:41). He executed capital punishment upon a large number of Israelites who expressed contempt for the leadership of Moses and God’s provisions of grace in the wilderness (Numbers 21:5-6). He slew 23,000 in Israel for fornication and idolatry (1 Corinthians 10:8), commanded an additional thousand to be executed by the hands of judges (Numbers 25:1-9), and granted Joshua a victory over a coalition of five armies by killing more soldiers with hailstones than the army of Israel had slain in battle (Joshua 10:11).

God executed a host of men in Bethshemesh because of their lack of reverence for the Ark of the Covenant (1 Samuel 6:19), killed Nabal for his wickedness (1 Samuel 25:38), and slew Uzzah for touching the ark (2 Samuel 6:7). He killed 70,000 men of Israel as an act of judgment upon David and Israel because of sin (2 Samuel 24:15), used a lion to slay a disobedient prophet from Judah (1 Kings 13:24), and slew Jeroboam, the first king of the northern kingdom (2 Chronicles 13:20). He executed 102 soldiers in Israel who refused to honor His authority through Elijah (2 Kings 1:1-12), used an angel to kill 185,000 Assyrian soldiers in one night (2 Kings 19:35), and slew Jehoram, the fifth king of Judah, with a bodily disease (2 Chronicles 21:18-19). God killed Ananias and Sapphira for lying to the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:1-10) and slew Herod for refusing to glorify God (Acts 12:23). Is a man thinking right about God when he arrays God’s love against God’s holiness, justice, and wrath and depicts capital punishment as harmful, immoral, and lacking in respect for human life?

MAN AS GOD’S EXECUTIONER

God often used man to administer judgment upon men and nations whose sin and rebellion called for the cessation of life. He used the sons of Levi to slay some three thousand men who had sinned in worshiping the golden calf (Exodus 32:27-28). He used Israel to stone a man who blasphemed the name of God (Leviticus. 24:10-14) and a man who violated the Sabbath (Numbers 15:32-36) and to bring judgment on His enemies (Numbers 21), and He praised and blessed Phinehas for appeasing His wrath in slaying two adulterers (Numbers 25:6-14). 

God’s statement to Abraham, “for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete” (Genesis 15:16), points to the inevitable judgment that would befall the inhabitants of Canaan when their sin reached the full mark. At the close of his life, Moses reminded Israel of the end of God’s grace, mercy, and forbearance with the seven nations in Canaan, and said, “And when the Lord your God delivers them over to you, you shall conquer them and utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them nor show mercy to them.” (Deuteronomy 7:2). God used the nation of Israel to execute judgment upon the people of Canaan for their longstanding idolatry and sin (Joshua 1-12).

God used Israel to administer capital punishment upon Achan and his family (Joshua 7). The period of the judges was a spiritually tumultuous period in Israel’s history as the people “did not cease from their own doings nor from their stubborn way” (Judges 2:19). They adopted the idolatry and wicked ways of the pagan nations. God utilized the king of Mesopotamia; Eglon, king of Moab; Jabin, king of Canaan; the Midianites, Ammonites, and Philistines to bring judgment upon them. As they manifested repentance, God would raise up judges to lead Israel in freeing the nation from the oppression of these heathen rulers and punishing them for their own idolatry and sin. Rivers of blood flowed across the land during this chaotic period as God used men to inflict capital punishment upon other men because of their impenitent sin and rebellion.

The Ammonites were descendants of Lot. They were pagan, idolatrous, cruel, and exceedingly corrupt. They refused to aid Israel in a time of great need and joined Moab in hiring Balaam to curse them (Deuteronomy 23:4). In the early days of Saul’s reign, they threatened to gouge out the right eyes of all the men in the city of Jabesh (1 Samuel 11:2). And the “spirit of God came upon Saul” (1 Samuel 11:6), and God employed Saul and Israel to kill the Ammonites until “it happened that those who survived were scattered, so that no two of them were left together” (1 Samuel 11:11). 

The Amalekites shared kinship with the Ammonites in idolatry, cruelty, and wickedness. When Israel ascended out of Egypt, the Amalekites attacked them from behind, killing the most vulnerable: the elderly, weak, and feeble (Deuteronomy 25:17-18). God reminded Saul of this act of inhumanness and said, “Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them.” (1 Samuel 15:3).

David was a “man of war” (1 Chronicles 28:3). He was a sword of judgment in the hand of God to execute the penalty of death upon the enemies of God, whose corruptness of life called for their destruction. He often inquired of the Lord, seeking His will concerning battle engagements. He said of God, “He teaches my hands to make war, so that my arms can bend a bow of bronze.” (2 Samuel 22:35). 

In a summary of some of his military victories, inspiration asserts, “And the Lord preserved David wherever he went.” (2 Samuel 8:14). God’s role for David’s life was for him to function as a hammer of God’s judgment upon heathen nations steeped in idolatry and iniquity and to secure and bring peace to Israel, thus creating a tranquil environment for Solomon to construct the Temple. It was this very point that David pressed upon the mind of Solomon in the closing days of his life (1 Chronicles 22:6-19).

God used Abijah, the second king of Judah, to render judgment upon Jeroboam and Israel because of their apostasy and idolatry. Five hundred thousand men of Israel perished in this conflict. Judah was victorious because “they relied upon the Lord God of their fathers” (2 Chronicles 13:18). 

Asa, the third king of Judah, faced an Ethiopian army of a million soldiers, the largest army mentioned in the Old Testament. He implored God for divine aid. “So the Lord struck the Ethiopians before Asa, and before Judah” (2 Chronicles 14:12). During the reign of Jehoshaphat, the armies of Ammon, Moab, and Edom descended upon Judah. In Jehoshaphat’s prayer before the congregation of Judah in Jerusalem, he expressed the nation’s helpless state and their total dependence upon God. God executed judgment upon the wicked nations by turning their swords against one another until “and there were their dead bodies, fallen on the earth. No one had escaped.” (2 Chronicles 20:24).

Idolaters and enemies of God, the Syrians affirmed that God was only a local Deity with limited power (1 Kings 20:28). God employed Israel to punish Syria and they “killed one hundred thousand foot soldiers of the Syrians in one day.” (1 Kings 20:29). An additional 27 thousand were killed by the weight of a wall that fell upon them in the city of Aphek (1 Kings 20:30). God utilized Jehu to judge the wicked house of Ahab. “So Jehu killed all who remained of the house of Ahab in Jezreel, and all his great men and his close acquaintances and his priests, until he left him none remaining.” (2 Kings 10:11). He then killed all the worshipers of Baal until he had “destroyed Baal out of Israel” (2 Kings 10:28).

Israel descended into such depths of sin that God raised the sword of Assyria against them and destroyed their national identity in Assyrian captivity (2 Kings 17:5-23). Judah emulated Israel’s conduct and God utilized Babylon to execute judgment upon them. He later used the Medes and Persians to judge Babylon. Isaiah specifies ten pagan nations who suffered the judgment of God because of their grievous sin (cf. Isaiah 13-23). The New Testament closes with God’s answer to the martyrs of Christ who cried, “How long, O Lord, holy and true, until You judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” (Revelation 6:10). God administered judgment upon the enemies of His Son and the church and declared, “Rejoice over her, O heaven, and you holy apostles and prophets, for God has avenged you on her!” (Revelation 18:20).

Is a man thinking right about God when he sees all of these biblical examples, yet still declares the death penalty to be harmful, immoral, disrespectful to human life, and inconsistent with the nature of God?

DIVINE LAWS DEMANDING THE DEATH PENALTY

Following the global Flood, God reiterated the need for the increase of the human family (Genesis 9:1). Sin had changed everything, and the tranquil co-existence between man and animal had been supplanted with hostility (Genesis 9:2). The vegetarian status of both man and animals prior to sin had now been changed to allow man to consume meat (Genesis 1:29-30; 9:3).² Divine permission to eat meat was accompanied with a prohibition regarding the consumption of blood. “But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.” (Genesis 9:4), because the “life of the flesh is in the blood” (Leviticus 17:11). Since human life reflects the image of God, the most severe possible penalty is attached to the action of murder that brings it to an end. “Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed; for in the image of God He made man.” (Genesis 9:6).

This principle and penalty embraces all of time. Civil government is ordained of God (Romans 13:1). It is an expression of God’s concern for man’s well-being, and when functioning faithfully, it discourages lawlessness and promotes peace and serenity. Romans 13:4 describes authorized civil authorities as ministers of God, persons who do not bear “the sword in vain,” and avengers divinely bound to execute “wrath on him who practices evil.” 

The sword is a symbol of capital punishment and, when wielded by the state, is an action authorized by God. Any man who attempts to sheathe the state’s sword is in rebellion to God and His will. He is resisting “the ordinance of God” (Romans 13:2). God placed the sword in the hand of the state, and no man has a right to remove it.

“He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death.” (Exodus 21:12). The willful taking of life demands the life of the perpetrator. In ancient times, God granted the right of vengeance to the victim’s nearest relative, designated as the “avenger of blood” who shall “put the murderer to death” (Numbers 35:19). Cities of refuge were provided for accidental slayings, allowing one to live in peace and safety whose act of killing was unintentional (Numbers 35:6-15). Moreover, the taking of life for self-defense purposes is not murder, and such action is not subject to the death penalty. 

The need and desire for self-preservation is divinely implanted. It is as natural and inherent to life as food and drink. It would be wholly inconsistent with the nature of God to design man with such a potent need and then refuse him the right to exercise it. Preserving one’s own life or the life of any innocent victim from the murderous intent of evil doers is perfectly compatible with both the nature of God and the nature of man as designed by God. Exodus 22:2 envisions just such a case as a man kills a thief caught breaking into his home at night in defense of himself and his family and is rendered guiltless.

“And he who strikes his father or his mother shall surely be put to death” (Exodus 21:15). “And he who curses his father or mother shall surely be put to death.” (Exodus 21:17). Mothers descend into the depths of pain and anguish in order to bring life into the world. God’s mothers and fathers are heaven’s gift to children. Parents functioning according to God’s pattern for the home are children’s first insight into the nature of God. Parents are God-like in a child’s eyes. Parents who love God set the feet of their children on the road to eternal bliss. To strike or curse such a parent is an assault upon the heart. It inflicts mental and emotional pain that far exceeds physical suffering. It undermines the peace and joy of the home, the bedrock of society, and afflicts the heart of God.

“He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely be put to death.” (Exodus 21:16). Kidnapping was punishable by death. Stealing a man for slave traffic invited the death penalty even when the victim was yet in the thief’s possession. Robbing a man of his personal freedom was a capital offense. Exodus 21:22-23 contemplates an expectant mother’s losing her life or the life of her miscarried child as she endeavored to shield her husband from an aggressor. The aggressor was to be put to death. Exodus 21:29-30 envisions the death of a man or woman by an ox known to have a violent nature. Unless the relatives of the victim agreed upon financial compensation, the owner of the ox was to suffer the death penalty.

“You shall not permit a sorceress to live.” (Exodus 22:18). Sorcery strikes at the very heart of the sovereignty of God. It is an attempt to circumvent God and take charge of one’s own life. As are all efforts to rid man’s mind and life of God and His restraining influences, it appeals to the lust of the flesh. It fosters defilement (Leviticus 19:31). 

The Canaanites were engrossed in every form of sorcery and it was one of the reasons God removed them from the land (Deuteronomy 18:10-12). Saul’s consultation with the witch of Endor is cited as one of the reasons God “killed him, and turned the kingdom over to David” (1 Chronicles 10:13-14). Sorcerers were to be put to death by stoning (Leviticus 20:27).

All forms of perverted sexual activity, such as incest (Leviticus 20:11-12,14), homosexuality (Leviticus 20:13), and bestiality (Leviticus 20:15) were subject to the death penalty. There are complexities associated with man’s sexual being as designed by God that transcend human comprehension. This truth is mightily reinforced by God’s law concerning even the touching of a man’s genitals. Foolish indeed is the man who refuses to perceive this truth and proceeds to tamper with this aspect of life. Perverted sexual conduct is an egregious assault upon the very core of a man’s being. There is no action of man that calls for more intense judgment. The homosexuality of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboim incurred a judgment that God will not allow man to forget. It is a repetitive theme in both Testaments, a sign-post from God regarding His attitude toward this grievous sin (Jude 7), and the last book in the Bible holds it up as the epitome of sin (Revelation 11:8). A nation is doomed if it allows this sin to reach a level of national acceptance.

“The man who commits adultery with another man’s wife, he who commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress, shall surely be put to death.” (Leviticus 20:10). Heterosexual relationships outside of marriage were punishable by death. Adultery injures the marital relationship like no other sin. There is something unique about the one-flesh relationship in marriage, and there is something unique about the sin that severs it. The stringent nature of Matthew 19:9 bears witness to this truth. Relaxing the rigidity of God’s marital law is to man’s own peril. It is senseless to tamper with the things of God. Those who think right about God would never consider such conduct. There is nothing that creates more excitement in the halls of hell than for man to attempt to modify God’s marital laws intended to protect the sanctity of the home, the foundational unit of society.

Idolatry was a capital punishment offense (Deuteronomy 17:2-7). This grievous evil, the source of so many sins, plagued Israel for almost the whole of their national life until their return from Babylonian captivity. False prophets aiming to lure Israel into idolatry were to be killed (Deuteronomy 13:1-5). Family members, such as one’s wife, son, daughter, brother, or friend who endeavored to entice their family “secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods” (Deuteronomy 13:6) were not to be pitied, spared, or concealed but were to be stoned to death (Deuteronomy 13:8-10). Rumors concerning a city’s involvement in idolatry were to be thoroughly investigated, and if found to be true, the city in its entirety was to be destroyed, and even the spoil of the city was to be burned (Deuteronomy 13:12-17).

Acts of rebellion against decisions made by a tribunal of priests and judges in execution of God’s law were subject to the death penalty (Deuteronomy 17:8-13). Prophets who dared to speak where God had not spoken, or who prophesied in the name of an idol were to be slain (Deuteronomy 18:20). Harlotry by the daughter of a priest was punishable by death (Leviticus 21:9). Child sacrifice to an idol was subject to death by stoning (Leviticus. 20:2). Desecrating the Sabbath with work called for the death penalty (Exodus 35:2). Capital punishment was to be administered to any non-priest who attempted to usurp priestly functions (Numbers 3:10), to a non-Levite who encroached upon Levitical responsibility in performing the services of the tabernacle (Numbers 18:22-23), to any Levite who neglected or refused to give his own tenth of the tithe received from Israel (Numbers 18:25-32), and to any Kohathite charged with transporting the sacred furniture of the tabernacle, if he looked upon or touched any of it (Numbers 4:15,20).

A man proven to be a false witness was to be put to death if such was his intention regarding the accused (Deuteronomy 19:16-21). Capital punishment was to be inflicted upon an incorrigible son (Deuteronomy 21:18-21), a new bride who was verified to be guilty of fornication prior to marriage (Deuteronomy 22:13-21), a man who raped an engaged or married woman (Deuteronomy 22:25-27), and one who blasphemed or cursed God (Leviticus 24:10-16).

CONCLUSION

Capital punishment is ordained by God. God intends for the death penalty to occupy a permanent place in society for as long as the world stands. Opposing the death penalty is an act of defiance against God, the nature of God, and the will of God. Those who manifest aversion to capital punishment are refusing to think right about both God and sin.

ENDNOTES

¹ Jon Nordheimer (1984), “Death Penalty Assailed By Florida Church Leaders,” New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/1984/11/27/us/death-penalty-assailed-by-florida-church-leaders.html, November 27.

² Eric Lyons (2003), “Were All Men Vegetarians Before the Flood?”, Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?