Parkway church of Christ: Recent Episodes
None
“If a man should go about and utter wind and lies, saying, “I will preach to you of wine and strong drink,” he would be the preacher for this people!” (Micah 2:11).
Sadly, people continue to scour the Bible looking for passages to justify the casual and social consumption of intoxicants. Deuteronomy 14:26 is popularly used by Catholics, denominationalists, non-denominationalists and now even by some calling themselves “gospel preachers” as a proof-text for the social, recreational and casual use of alcohol, including both wine and “strong drink.” The context and circumstances of the passage are almost always ignored.
Deuteronomy 14:23-26 says, “And you shall eat before the LORD your God, in the place where He chooses to make His name abide, the tithe of your grain and your new wine and your oil, of the firstborn of your herds and your flocks, that you may learn to fear the LORD your God always. (24) But if the journey is too long for you, so that you are not able to carry the tithe, or if the place where the LORD your God chooses to put His name is too far from you, when the LORD your God has blessed you, (25) then you shall exchange it for money, take the money in your hand, and go to the place which the LORD your God chooses. (26) And you shall spend that money for whatever your heart desires: for oxen or sheep, for wine or similar (“strong” in some versions) drink, for whatever your heart desires; you shall eat there before the LORD your God, and you shall rejoice, you and your household.”
These were Jewish worship instructions. Eventually, Jerusalem was the place where God put His name. Before that, the Tabernacle was set up at Gilgal and Shiloh. Jews would travel there for worship for various special services throughout the year (Lev. 23). Those traveling great distances were authorized to sell goods for money, then use the money to buy what they needed for worship. All that they did was “before the Lord.” As we shall see, the Hebrew word that is translated “strong drink” is actually a generic term that describes a drink that may be either sweet or bitter; either unfermented or fermented; non-intoxicating or intoxicating. The context provides the answer to the question of which it is. People, and especially religious people should not be so quick to assume that Moses is advocating for the consumption of a “strongly” alcoholic beverage. Far too many youths and others are already looking for reasons to consume alcohol. It is foolish and dangerous to misuse a Bible verse in a way that makes them believe that they have scriptural justification for doing so!
A couple of things should be noted about “similar” drink (Heb. shekar) of Deuteronomy 14:26. IF shekar is describing intoxicating drink in this verse, then Moses authorizes the consumption of that intoxicating drink here and it is condemned in other Old Testament passages like Proverbs 20:1 and Isaiah 5:11, 22. This would make Moses contradict himself and would also amount to a contradiction in Scripture. IF shekar is describing intoxicating drink in this verse, then Moses authorized the use of intoxicating drink “before the Lord” at a worship service and condemned its casual and social use elsewhere . These consequences are not viable, for the Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35).
The tithe of Deuteronomy 14:23 and the subsequent harvest feast was of newly harvested products. The “wine” of verse 23 is tirosh which is used in the Old Testament only of fresh grape juice and it is only logical that the items used and consumed were from things newly harvested. Verse 26 uses the generic word yayin which is used of both fermented and unfermented wine depending upon context. That this wine was the unfermented wine of freshly squeezed grapes is confirmed by the fact that the travelers of verse 26 would buy their products from the local producers, that the priests were forbidden to consume alcoholic beverages (Leviticus 10:9-10) and by the fact that no yeast (inherent in fermented products) was to be present during the Passover celebration (Exodus 12:15).
Verse 26 switches to items purchased for food and drink. Of course, food and drink used in the harvest feast still had to meet all food and drink restrictions under the Law (Deuteronomy 14:3-21). This includes prohibitions against the use of alcoholic wine and strong drink (Proverbs 20:1; 31:4-6; Isaiah 5:22; 28:7, 56:12). In every passage where shekar (strong drink) is fermented it is forbidden to drink for casual and social purposes. It is unreasonable to think that the Jews were normally forbidden to drink fermented wine and similar drink but then allowed to do so religiously “unto the Lord” at the harvest tithe and feast! If this passage authorizes the consumption of alcohol then it authorizes its use during a religious service. That notion is absurd. What sense would it make for God to condemn the use of fermented fruit drinks in all other situations except at worship services and feasts?
I wonder how many people realize that by using Deuteronomy 14:26 as a social drinking passage they are actually using a passage that addressed a special religious service of the Jews. Have they not read Galatians 3:10 and 5:3? One obligates himself to keep all tenets of the law of Moses if he seeks justification by that law on any point.
There is another explanation of the text that harmonizes with all other passages where the Hebrew word shekar (strong drink) is used.
Shekar Is A Generic TermLike the word oinos (wine) in the New Testament and yayin (wine) in the Old Testament, the word shekar (strong drink) in the Old Testament is a generic term. Any of these words can refer to either fermented or unfermented drinks depending upon their contextual use. When oinos and yayin are used of freshly squeezed grape juice it is used of unfermented non-intoxicating drink. When they are used of juices that have fermented they refer to intoxicating drink. The same is true of the word shekar (similar or “strong” drink).
It should be noted that the word “strong” is actually no a part of the meaning of the Hebrew word shekar. Translators include the word because most uses of the word shekar are of a fermented drink. Yayin was a drink made from grapes. Shekar was a drink made from grapes, dates, or honey. Like fresh grape juice or grape juice reconstituted from boiled down grapes (grape syrup), shekar starts out very delicious and sweet. Of course if it is exposed to air and bacteria (yeast) the sugar converts into alcohol or vinegar and it becomes bitter. Isaiah 24:9 provides and excellent commentary on the word shekar. In describing God’s judgment of the people of the earth Isaiah describes many changed conditions going from comfortable and enjoyable to miserable and sad. One change would be that their shekar which was typically valued for its sweetness would be turned bitter. The verse describes the sadness of their sweet and delicious drink having turned “bitter.” Our English word “sugar” derives from the Hebrew word shekar (and of its cognates). Like Isaiah 24:9, Deuteronomy 14:26 uses the generic term shekar, not of a fermented beverage but of a sweet unfermented beverage that was enjoyable to drink. At a harvest feast the Jews would have used the fresh produce that was readily available to them from the locals. The verse speaks of buying the things that they needed for their worship and sustenance. The yayin was fresh unfermented grape juice and the shekar was a fresh, sweet and unfermented drink made usually from dates and honey. This describes the shekar of Deuteronomy 14:26.
This fact is confirmed by several Bible scholars. In the book, “Wine in the Bible,” Samuele Bacchiocchi cites some examples. Robert Young allows for this explanation when he defines shekar as a “sweet drink that either satiates or intoxicates” (Youngs Analytical Concordance). In its unfermented state it “satiates” or fully satisfies. In its fermented state it “intoxicates.” The Popular and Critical Bible Encyclopedia makes this same distinction. Its 2nd definition of shekar is “date or palm wine in its unfermented state.” This is what the Jews freely drank at their harvest celebration in Deuteronomy 14:26. It would be an absolute contradiction for Moses and other prophets to have consistently condemned the use of shekar at other times and places and then authorize it at special worship gatherings “before the Lord.”
Applying Deuteronomy 14:26 today ignores both the peculiarly Jewish context of the passage and the overall context of Mosaical Law related to the consumption of alcoholic wine and strong drink. While we are encouraged to consider Old Testament examples, principles and definitions, we are not under the Law of Moses today. One cannot establish legal approval of a practice today by citing Old Testament law (Col. 2:14; Eph. 2:14-15; 2 Cor. 3:13-14). People are quick today to cite Deuteronomy 14:26 as modern authority for alcohol consumption but they never cite the food laws of Deuteronomy 14:3-21 as binding today. This is rank hypocrisy. If Deuteronomy 14:26 authorizes the use of a certain type of beverage today, it would only authorize the consumption of unfermented sweet drinks; not the consumption of intoxicating drinks!
Deuteronomy 14:26 has to do with practicing tithes and worshipping at Old Testament appointed places (Shiloh, Jerusalem, see verses 23-26). It is not license to drink alcohol today. It was license for farmers and others who lived great distances from Jerusalem to sell their crops or animals and bring the cash to the place of worship rather than bringing cumbersome quantities of materials to offer to God. Upon arrival at the place of worship they would then buy the things that they needed for sustenance and worship. This included unfermented yayin and shekar. It is sad that my own brethren would so twist and contort such a passage in their foolish but ongoing efforts to justify social drinking of intoxicants. They may be telling people what they want to hear but they are not telling them what God wants them to hear. “If a man should go about and utter wind and lies, saying, “I will preach to you of wine and strong drink,” he would be the preacher for this people!” (Micah 2:11).
—Tim Haile
One of the most important interpretive rules is to approach a study of more difficult passages from the perspective of the facts that we know to be true from simpler and less complicated passages. Begin your study with what is knowable and obviously true. Some people forget this rule when studying passages dealing with the incarnation or temptation of Christ.
The Bible addresses both the impeccability and temptability of Christ. The “scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35), so there is perfect harmony between these two doctrines. It is just a matter of collecting the facts and properly defining the terms.
What We Know About Jesus And SinGod prophesied through Isaiah that Christ would not fail or be discouraged. “He will not fail nor be discouraged till He has established justice in the earth; and the coastlands shall wait for His law” (Isaiah 42:4). All three persons of God are in this verse. God the Father makes the proclamation about God the Son and communicates to Isaiah through God the Holy Spirit. Had Jesus sinned and failed in His mission it would have been an indictment of all three persons of the Godhead. Had Christ failed in His mission so would have the Father and Holy Spirit. Had Christ failed it would have made God a liar, yet “it is impossible for God to lie” (Hebrews 6:18). “God cannot lie” (Titus 3:5). “God is not a man, that He should lie” (Numbers 23:19). Men are “liars” when they contradict God (Romans 3:4). If one claims that God could have been wrong in Isaiah’s prophecy about the infallibility of Christ, one not only denies the deity of Christ, he also denies the deity of the Father and the Holy Spirit.
God is not fallible and Jesus is God. The Bible teaches that God is infallible. That is, He is incapable of sinning or being wrong. Zephaniah said, “The Lord is righteous in her midst, He will do no unrighteousness. Every morning He brings His justice to light; He never fails, but the unjust knows no shame” (emphasis mine, TH, Zephaniah 3:5). Jesus is GOD (John 1:1; John 14:9; Matthew 1:23; Hebrews 1:3; 1 Timothy 3:16; Colossians 2:9). To say that Jesus could have sinned is to deny the deity of Christ.
God is light and Jesus is light and there can be no sin in God. John wrote, “This is the message which we have heard from Him and declare to you, that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all” (1 John 1:5). John provides his own commentary on the terms “light” and “darkness” in this verse and later in verse 8. Light means “truth & righteousness.” Darkness means “sin.” So, in God is no sin. John 8:12 records Jesus saying, “I am the light of men.” John had earlier affirmed this in John 1:4, 5 when he spoke of God the Word (Jesus) coming as a “light” into the world and shining upon the darkness of men. Jesus is included in the “God” of 1 John 1:5 in Whom is no sin. Some agree that Jesus didn’t sin but also claim that He could have sinned. However, this passage goes beyond the hypothetical. It teaches that God’s nature is intrinsically incompatible with sin. Jesus told the disciples in John 8:23, “You are from beneath: I am from above: you are of this world: I am not of this world.” Christ could not have sinned and retained His nature as God.
We know that satan had nothing in Jesus. He had no hold on Jesus. Jesus said, “I will no longer talk much with you, for the ruler of this world is coming, and he has nothing in Me” (John 14:30). The verb “has” is present active and indicative. The indicative mood means whether an action really occurs or has occurred or will occur, which means that satan never had any sway or hold on Jesus and never would have. Jesus, is, was, and forever will be, GOD (Hebrews 13:8). This is why Jesus decisively met every temptation with indignant rebuff. Satan had nothing in Him.
The universe would have ended had Jesus sinned. I have been telling people for 40 years that had Jesus sinned we would not be standing here discussing it today. Jesus said in Matthew 5:17-18, “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.” The universe would have ended if Jesus had sinned. Had Jesus sinned you and I would have never been born and would not be alive to discuss this issue or any other.
Jesus was foreordained to be the “lamb without blemish and without spot”(sinless) from “before the foundation of the world” (1 Peter 1:19-20). He was “the lamb slain from the foundation of the world” (Revelation 13:8). The absolute impeccability of Christ was the basis upon which He was sent by God to be the Savior of the world. Had Christ sinned, God’s plan to redeem mankind would have failed. The entire Godhead would have failed.
Jesus said near the beginning of His ministry that His meat was to do the will of God and to finish the work. He said that He “always” did the will of His Father (John 4:34; 8:29). He was prophesied to be God’s “righteous servant” in securing salvation for sinners (Isaiah 53:11). Isaiah wrote by inspiration and could not have been wrong in His 700 year old description of Christ.
But there is an even older prophecy of Christ’s sinless perfection. Genesis 3:15 predicted that there would come a time when the seed of woman (Christ, Galatians 4:4) would “crush” the head of Satan. Had Christ sinned this would not have happened and the prophecy would have failed.
ConclusionWe have seen several reasons for believing that Christ could not have sinned. The above passages lead us to conclude that Christ could not have sinned or failed and God still be God. The temptations of Christ (Matt. 4:1-11; 16:1; 22:18; John 8:6) were not to determine whether or not Christ would sin, but to provide us with a perfect example of how to overcome temptation. The temptation of Christ was not some divine fact finding mission or experiment.
The garden prayer was Christ’s request for the Father to help Him physically, which He did (compare Luke 22:43 with Matthew 4:11 — the angel ministered to Him). Jesus then departed from the garden with firm resolve and strength to deal with His arrest, trials, tortures and crucifixion. Jesus had prayed for the cup to “pass” or pass away, not in the sense of avoiding the cross, but in the sense of enduring it and that it would pass quickly. We know that He did not pray to sinfully avoid the cross, for Hebrews 12:2 speaks of Christ enduring the cross for the “joy that was set before Him.” Christ’s mission did involve and require a human body, but His spirit which animated that body was divine (Hebrews 10:5-10). Though his body was born in Bethlehem Ephrathah, His spirit was “of old, even from everlasting” (Micah 5:2).
For my article on the temptation of Christ see: http://www.biblebanner.com/ga_art/deity/tempt.htm
–Tim Haile
In the Luke 15 parables of lost things, Jesus spoke of the rejoicing that one does after finding a lost sheep or lost coin (Luke 15:5, 6, 9). He compared this to the rejoicing done in heaven among the angels of God over the recovery of a lost soul (Luke 15:7, 10). He later described the departure and recovery of a lost son and the rejoicing and celebrating that occurred in response to the restoration of that lost son (Luke 15:24, 32).
Some say that the rejoicing in these passages authorizes clapping at baptisms and this has become a common practice among many different religious people. The clapping is done after a person emerges from the water of baptism. Christians should certainly experience and express joy in response to the restoration of the lost and in the conversion of alien sinners. The question is whether or not clapping is the appropriate and scriptural way to express this joy. A few things need to be considered.
- Clapping is wrong if it takes the form of applause. Baptism is not a work of human achievement, merit or personal accomplishment.Not all clapping serves the purpose of applause. A person might clap to the tune of a song. Such clapping amounts to participation in the song and is not intended as applause for the singer or musicians. Some people who clap at baptisms do not intend it as applause. Of course it is worth considering that the hand action and the sound that is produced by clapping hands is precisely the same regardless of the clapper’s intentions. The clapper would certainly not want to leave the impression that he thought of baptism as a work of merit or personal accomplishment that is to be rewarded by applause.
When clapping is done for applause it is done to reward some personal talent or skill that has been demonstrated in a performance or competition. We typically applaud at sporting or other entertainment events to reward those who excel or succeed in their performance. To follow up on an earlier scenario, the one who clapped to the beat of a musical performance at a concert might also then clap in applause to reward a good performance. Baptism is no such activity! Quite the opposite, baptism is an act of humble submission to God. It is not a performance or personal achievement. The apostle Peter described it as an “an appeal to God for a good conscience” (1 Peter 3:21). Paul makes this very clear in Colossians 2:12 when he wrote, “Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.” Paul here states that baptism is a divine operation, not a human operation! It is not a performance to be rewarded. It is not an item on a check list.
Many of us have labored for years to refute the false claim that baptism is a work of human merit. Christians are often accused of believing that we “earn” salvation through baptism. We have responded over the years with passages like Colossians 2:12, pointing out that baptism is a divine operation, not a work of human merit. We have pointed out that baptism is simply a condition of salvation, as are faith, repentance and confession (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; Romans 10:10; Acts 8:37). After meeting these conditions one is still saved by grace (Ephesians 2:8; Titus 3:5). Meeting the conditions of God’s grace does not earn the sinner salvation. Rather, by meeting these conditions the sinner demonstrates his dependence upon God for salvation.
When clapping is done for the purpose of applauding baptism it actually strengthens the hands of the false accusers. The applause leaves the impression that we do believe that baptism is a work of human merit and accomplishment! Those practicing clapping for baptism will have a very difficult time explaining themselves to those who accuse them of believing that oneearns salvation through baptism.
The expression “be baptized” is in the passive voice in passages like Acts 2:38; 8:36 and 10:47, 48. The passive voice suggests the idea of being acted upon. Though Peter “commanded” baptism (Acts 2:38 and 10:48), the person being baptized is through baptism “appealing to” God’s saving grace and mercy for a clean conscience (1 Peter 3:21 — “Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”) This is precisely the point of Colossians 2:12. By submitting to baptism one exercises his faith in “the operation of God.”
Clapping to applaud the baptized person for what he has done treats baptism like a game-winning basketball shot or football touchdown. Baptism is not that type of action.
- Clapping for baptism makes baptism a more important salvational act than other conditions of salvation.The rejoicing in Luke 15 was over sinners who repented. The lost sheep was one of a hundred sheep but became lost and was then found (Luke 15:4-6). The silver coin was one of ten coins but was lost and then found (Luke 15:8, 9). The lost son was a member of his father’s house but was lost and then restored (Luke 15:13-24).
If clapping is an appropriate form of rejoicing, why do people clap for baptism but not for those who repent and are restored? Luke 15 is obviously dealing with the principle of restoration. Why not also clap for the other conditions of salvation? No condition of salvation is more important than the other conditions. Jesus said, “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned” (Mark 16:16). Baptism is meaningless in the absence of belief.
Jesus said, “No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish” (Luke 13:3, 5). Peter said, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). Baptism is meaningless without repentance.
Jesus said, “Therefore whoever confesses Me before men, him I will also confess before My Father who is in heaven. But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 10:32-33). Paul said, “For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation” (Romans 10:10). Baptism is meaningless without confession.
- If the word “rejoice” authorizes clapping for baptisms, then do other New Testament uses of the word authorize clapping for other things?The Greek word that is translated “rejoice” in Luke 15:6 and 9 is also used in other passages. It is used in 1 Corinthians 13:6 where Paul said that the person who acts by love does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but “rejoices in truth.” If the “rejoicing” in Luke 15 authorizes clapping for baptisms, why wouldn’t the “rejoicing” of 1 Corinthians 13:6 authorize clapping for truth teachers and preachers? Should churches be clapping for preachers after sermons? Class teachers after Bible classes? Song leaders after song services? (since songs are a form of teaching, Col. 3:16). Since prayers are to be asked “according to God’s will” (1 Jn. 5:14), does that mean that we should clap for public prayer leaders after prayers?
Where will this end! What about the man who makes remarks in preparation of the observance of the Lord’s Supper? Should we clap for him following his remarks? And what about the partakers themselves? If Luke 15 authorizes clapping for people for obeying the command to be baptized, then what about those who obey the command to observe the Lord’s Supper? Should someone say after the observance of the Lord’s Supper, “How about a round of applause for ourselves for doing what God commanded us to do?”
Paul also used this same Greek word in Philippians 2:17 and 18 when he spoke of his rejoicing with the Philippians and their rejoicing with him. Were they to applaud one another?
Surely we can see that the New Testament word “rejoice” does not mean clapping (and certainly not the clapping of applause!).
ConclusionThe New Testament is silent regarding the practice of clapping at baptisms, restorations or other things. However, we do read of “receiving one another” in the faith and “admonishing one another” (Romans 15:7, 14). We read of extending the “right hand of fellowship” to those with whom we enter fellowship (Galatians 2:9). We read of “comforting one another” with “words” (1 Thessalonians 4:18). We read of exhorting one another (Hebrews 3:13).
John expressed his joy for his brethren in words. He said that he had “no greater joy” than to hear that his children were “walking in truth” (3 John 4). The book of Philippians is known as the book of rejoicing, and how do we know of Paul’s joy and that of his Philippian brethren? Paul spoke it and wrote it and admonished them to continue to rejoice. In fact, he told them to “rejoice in the Lord always” (4:4). Did he intend perpetual clapping?
Joy can also be expressed in the singing of psalms, hymns or spiritual songs (Romans 15:9-11). James said that if anyone is merry, “let him sing psalms” (James 5:13). Singing a psalm, hymn or spiritual song is a very appropriate way of rejoicing with others after a baptism.
The most important lesson is that we avoid the pitfalls of error. Baptism is misunderstood by the vast majority of even “religious” people. Young people need to be taught the true nature and purpose of baptism. It is not a mere “check mark” in the list of things that one must do. It certainly isn’t a work of merit or personal achievement. It is a humble act of contrition and submission.
—Tim Haile
When believers think of “God’s book” they typically think of the Bible, and rightly so. The Bible is certainly God’s book. It contains the “inspired” and “holy scriptures” (2 Timothy 3:15-16). The Bible was produced by “holy men” writing what they were “carried along” by the Holy Spirit to write (2 Peter 1:21). It is our exclusive and all-sufficient guide of faith and practice (2 Timothy 3:17). The Bible is the book that gives us “all things that pertain unto life and godliness” (2 Peter 1:3). It was written to show us how to be saved and have spiritual life with God for eternity.
However, king David of old spoke of another “book” of God. This book also contains instructions. Not for spiritual life but for physical life. It is a manual for the development and maintenance of physical life.
Psalm 139 is a psalm about God’s omniscience (thus, omnipresence). The inspired king David acknowledged that God knew his thoughts and his words (vs. 2 & 4). God knew whether David was sitting, standing or lying down (vs. 2 & 3). David then discussed the implications of such “wonderful” divine knowledge. There was no place that he go to escape God’s “presence” (God’s knowledge and awareness of him), not in the earth, sky, remotest seas or in darkness (vs. 7-12). David then discussed his formation in his mother’s womb and observes that God beheld his “substance” even there. In speaking of his own fetal development, David said,
“For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth.Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them” (Psalm 139:13-16).
What “book” does David have reference to? Some conflate this passage with Jeremiah 29:11 and say that it is the book of God’s plans for the individual’s life upon the earth. Jeremiah 29:11 says, “For I know the plans I have for you, declares the LORD, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.” Of course, it is a misapplication of this passage to apply it to individuals today. Most people may not be aware of this, but the verse immediately preceding this one says, “For thus says the LORD: When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will visit you, and I will fulfill to you my promise and bring you back to this place” (Jeremiah 29:10). God was speaking to the house of Judah and His “plan” to return them to Jerusalem after 70 years of Babylonian captivity. He was not speaking of some personal life plan for individuals today.
Furthermore, the “book” of Psalm 139:16 cannot refer to God’s plans for the lives of individuals upon the earth because David was not even speaking of life in general. He was speaking particularly of the “formation” and development of life in the womb. He describes the time when he was “knitted” and “intricately woven” together in his mother’s womb. The writing of God’s “book” is mentioned in connection with his “unformed substance.” David is speaking of the genetic instructions that are housed in every cell of the human body. He is talking about DNA. These instructions constitute an assembly and maintenance and repair book for all living things. It is God’s book because He designed it.
The “Book” Of Psalm 139:16The word “book” in Psalm 139:16 is translated from the Hebrew word (çêpher) and is used 188 times in the Old Testament. You can see our word “cipher” in this Hebrew word. The word always suggests intelligent deliberation, intent and purpose. It is used of genealogical records in Genesis 5:1 and Nehemiah 7:5, which involves order. It is often used of the book of the covenant or book of the law of Moses, which expresses a moral and religious code of instructions (Exodus 24:7; Deuteronomy 30:10; Joshua 1:8; 2 Kings 23:21; 2 Chronicles 17:9; 34:31; Nehemiah 8:8). It is used of God’s catalogue of the saved, which list was not recorded on paper but in God’s mind, showing that the book’s information can be contained in different formats (Exodus 32:32; Psalm 69:28). It is used of a written statement of divorcement expressing intent (Deuteronomy 24:1). It is used of various letters that contained plans about how certain things were to be done. We see this in David’s letter to Joab regarding the treatment of Uriah (2 Samuel 11:14), in Jezebel’s letter to the Jewish leaders regarding Naboth (1 Kings 21:8) and in Jeremiah’s letter explaining God’s plans for captive Jews (Jeremiah 29:1, 11). It is used of particular books of the larger book of the law in describing additional actions of various kings, such as the book of Chronicles (1 Kings 14:19, 29; 15:7, 23, 31; 16:5, 14, 20, 27) and the book of Kings (2 Chronicles 16:11; 20:34; 24:27; 25:26; 27:7).
David used this word in Psalm 139:16 in describing the formation of the various parts, organs and tissues of the human body. David didn’t talk about four nucleotides or how their sequencing produces different amino acids for the production of different proteins for different traits and purposes, but he did use the Hebrew word cepher which implies things like order, instructions, plans and actions.
Our cells contain a veritable bookof coded instructions. DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) is the molecule in the nucleus of every cell that contains the genetic information for making new cells. The information in DNA works alongside RNA (ribonucleic acid) in the manufacture of the proteins that determine unique biological traits (such as eye and hair color). These traits are passed along to subsequent generations through the reproductive process. The amount of information contained in DNA is staggering. It has been estimated that one gram of DNA could house 215 petabytes of information. Just one petabyte is a million gigabytes. This capability has led researchers to pursue ways of using DNA as a storage medium.
Using the most advanced technology available at the time, it still took the Human Genome Project 13 years to map the first blueprint of the human genome (1990-2003). Twenty years later, geneticists continue to be fascinated by the function of DNA and the sheer volume of information that it contains. This is because of the possible combinations and repetitions of the base nucleotides in forming proteins. It can take sequences (strings) of as many as 2000 nucleotides to produce one particular protein.
Gene structure wasn’t known until 1953 (though there were earlier suspicions about the concept dating back to the mid 1800s). David could not have known about gene molecules and their unique double helix structure but he knew enough to exclaim that we are “fearfully and wonderfully made.” He was right. A study of genetics is a study of intelligent design.
Psalm 139:16 contains a powerful evidences argument. Job wasn’t a student of gravitational physics, yet he said that the “earth hangs upon nothing” (Job 26:7). Isaiah wasn’t an astronaut, yet he spoke of “the circle of the earth” (Isaiah 40:22). David wasn’t a mariner, yet he spoke of “the paths of the seas” (Psalm 8:8). David wasn’t a geneticist, but he spoke of a book that instructs cells to do certain things in the development and maintenance of life. These men could not have known these things without guidance from a superior intelligence. The Bible affirms that intelligence to be the great architect of all things — God.
—Tim Haile
There have been many cultural and counter-culture movements over the past several decades. The latest one is known as wokeness or wokism. It always helps to have a good name for one’s movement. The word “woke” has an appealing sound to it. It is certainly good to be awake to the truth about important issues.
Sermon from Sunday morning, January 16, 2022 Sermon from Sunday evening, January 16, 2022
In our adult Bible class, we spend time studying the different books of the Bible. This page contains the questions for our study of Proverbs. These questions are simply used as an aid to study. If you are able to join us, we meet for Bible study every Sunday morning at 9:00am and Wednesday evening
Sermon from Sunday morning, November 14, 2021 Sermon from Sunday evening, November 14, 2021
Sermon from Sunday, October 31, 2021 Sermon from Sunday morning, November 7, 2021 Sermon from Sunday evening, November 14, 2021
Confusion exists in the religious world over the significance of the Sabbath. The Sabbath is the seventh day of each week. The Old Testament also spoke of a sabbath of years in preparation of the jubilee year (Leviticus 25:8). The root (shavat) in the Hebrew means “desist, cease, rest.” God “rested” on the seventh day
House democrats (and 3 spineless republicans) just passed one of the most godless bills in the history of the US congress. Let us hope that it doesn’t pass in the senate because the word is that President Biden will sign it into law if they do. It is called the “Equality Act,” but don’t be
When religious people speak of “freedom” they usually have reference to spiritual freedom. This is the freedom that one obtains from the bondage of sin and of Satan (John 8:34; 1 John 3:8; Hebrews 2:14-15). This type of freedom is obtained by knowing and obeying God’s “truth” (John 8:32; 1 Peter 1:22). Paul explained this