Cain and Abel

"And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground" 

(Genesis 4: 2, KJV)

Here in this chapter, just shortly after the fall of man, we see the first two children of Adam and Eve. There names are Cain and Abel. They are the two men who are the representatives of the two ways to God. The wrong way and right way to God. The two ways relate to man's way of approaching God in worship and God's way of man approaching the Lord in worship. We have Cain, the Religious Man and Abel the Righteous Man. Let us consider the two points below. 

1. Cain, the Religious Man (Gen. 4: 1-3, 5-8, 9-13) 

Our first example Cain, was a tiller of the ground as our text states. When he approached God he "brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD" (4: 3). Then we read that God had respect for Abel's offering, but unto Cain's offering God did not have respect. Cain then became very angry (see 4: 5). Next, God spoke to Cain about his anger and attitude (see 4: 6-7). However, Cain's anger and demeanor did not change, which eventually lead to his murdering his brother Abel (see 4:  8). God questions him about where his brother Abel is? This is an opportunity for Cain to repent. This same opportunity was first given to Adam and Eve, when God questioned them (see 3: 9-13). But like his parents, Cain does not owe up to his sin. For his response to God was "I know not: Am I my brother's keeper?" (4: 9). Then we read that God cursed him from the earth. The Lord curses him on the very point "a tiller of the ground" that he depended on to provide sustenance for himself and others. The Lord cursed the ground for Adam's sin, "in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, til thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return" (3: 17-19). So we learn from these verses that Adam's curse was that the earth would only yield its fruit in sorrow, thorns and thistles, in the sweat of your face, and that man would return to the earth that was cursed. Now as for Cain, God said, "When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth." (4: 12). The contrast between Adam and Cain is obvious, the ground would still yield its fruit for Adam; whereas, for Cain, the earth would no longer yield its fruit to him.  

Now there is still the question about Cain's sacrificial offering to the Lord. He offered unto the Lord the fruit of the ground, which God did not accept. Dr. Spiros Zodhiates gives this interesting comment about Cain and Abel's offerings:

"That God accepted Abel's sacrifice and rejected Cain's was not based on the fact that Cain's sacrifice was bloodless. Many of the required OT offerings were bloodless (as meal and meat offerings). The difference was in the hearts of the two men. Abel offered in faith (Heb. 11: 4), while Cain did not. This basic difference is indicated by the wording of the passage: God "had respect unto Abel and to his offering; but unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect." Only when they are offered in faith do the sacrifices and service of men please God (Isa. 1:11-17; Eph. 6:5-7)."[1]

Yes, I agree with Dr. Zodhiates that the main difference between the two brothers was that Abel offered his sacrifice in faith; whereas Cain did not. However, I do not totally agree with Dr. Zodhiates insinuating that it did not matter whether Cain's sacrifice was bloodless or not. It does matter. To begin with, the Levitical offerings that was required of the Jews to offer up to God was not established until the time of Moses. The fact that Abel offered up to God "the firstlings of the flock," a lamb. It is made clear here that a blood sacrifice was required for forgiveness of sins (see 4: 4). Abel knew this , because he and his brother were no doubt instructed by their parents in what God required of them in presenting an offering to Him. 

2. Abel, the Righteous Man (Gen. 4:  4, 10; Heb. 11: 4) 

In these few verses we observe the brief life of a man of faith, Abel. For twice we read of Abel's voice crying out from the grave. (1.) The first cry, is a cry for justice (see 4: 10); (2.) next, we see Abel's second cry, a cry of faith; though dead, his brief life spoke of faith and righteousness (see Heb. 11: 4). Now keep in mind, I am not talking about two separate cries from Abel. Just two points about the same cry. (To be Continued...)

---

[1] Spiros Zodhiates, Hebrew Greek Key Study Bible [KJV], (AMG Publishers, Chattanooga, TN, 1991), pg. 8.

Rahab the Harlot: Her Scarlet Thread of Faith

"By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she received the spies with peace"

(Hebrews 11: 31, KJV)

 

 

 

 

To open this little bio on Rahab the harlot, her name is mentioned 9 times in the Bible as a person or place (see Josh. 2: 1; 6: 17, 25; Psalm 87: 4; 89: 10; Isa. 51: 9; Matt. 1: 5 [Gr. Rachab]; Heb. 11: 31; Jam. 2; 25). Rahab was a prostitute who lived in Jericho who by faith received the spies and later was delivered from destruction. Our Daily Bread author Dave Branon gives this brief introduction on Rahab:

 

"Meet Rahab. If what we read about her in Joshua 2 were all we knew, we might lump her in with all of the other renegades and bad examples in the Bible. But her story doesn't stop there. Matthew 1: 5-6 reveals that she was King David's great-great grandmother--and that she was in the lineage of our Saviour, Jesus. And there's more. Hebrews 11:31 names Rahab as a woman of faith who was saved from the fall of Jericho (see Josh. 6:17). And in James 2:25, her works of rescue were given as evidence of her righteous faith." (Our Daily Bread, RBC Ministries, Vol. 57, Num. 6, 7, 8; Dave Branon, Fri., Oct. 26, 2012).

 (To be Continued...)



More on the Lost Art of Hospitality

"Distributing to the necessity of saints; given to hospitality"

(Romans 12: 13, KJV) 

Here in this second blog on hospitality, my focus will be primarily on the negative affect that a lack of genuine hospitality has had upon fellow saints personally.The question could be asked, why was the ancient church well known for its hospitality, whereas today's church is not? In some cases a person's life depended on the hospitality shown to him or her during biblical times. However, the art of hospitality today has almost disappeared here in North America. The importance of hospitality still applies today to promote Christian love, unity, provision, and a warm sense of genuine Christian community as well as a platform in sharing the message of the gospel. In recent years the church has fallen so short of its responsibility in the area of showing hospitality that one writer has said of the church:

 

"A cold, unfriendly church contradicts the gospel message. Yet unfriendliness stands out as one of the most common criticisms people have of local churches. It doesn't take people long to figure out that there is a "churchy" love among Christians that ends at the back door of the sanctuary or in the parking lot. It is a superficial, Sunday-morning kind of love that is unwilling to venture beyond the walls of the church building"[1]

 

I personally have experienced the lack of love and unfriendliness from three specific local churches in my life. So I can certainly attest to the words of Mr. Strauch. I well remember in my first local church spending many morning coffee breaks in the kitchen alone without anyone to talk to among the fellow brethren. I knew all too well what it was to be alone in a crowd. I could say more but I shared enough of my experiences in my first blog on this subject of hospitality. I will say this though, that my experience in the second local congregation was not much better. At present, the third congregation I am attending is somewhat friendly, but only in a "churchy" kind of way as Mr. Strauch so aptly puts it. Their love only extends as far as the walls or parking lot of the church building. One dear elderly single woman was less fortunate than I in one local church she had attended. For Mr. Strauch writes about her experience:

 

"An elderly single woman, who now attends our church, related an experience to me that dramatically illustrates why we need fresh teaching on the subject of Christian hospitality. At one time in her life, she had to travel more than an hour by bus every Sunday to attend a small suburban church. Each week after the Sunday morning service, she would eat alone in a restaurant and spend the entire afternoon in a park or library so that she could attend the evening service. She did this for four years. What left her with sour memories of this church was the fact that in four years no one invited her home to eat a Sunday afternoon meal or to rest. It wasn't until she announced she was leaving that an elderly woman in the church invited her home for a meal on her final Sunday."[2]

 

This is indeed sad to hear, but this elderly woman's experience is not some isolated incident that just happened to her. There are many incidents of this sort that could be told by many fellow saints who had left such local congregations who failed to extend their hand in loving hospitality to them.

 

However, from my own personal experience, sometimes when hospitality is demonstrated, it can be done in a wrong spirit. The Apostle Peter warns "Use hospitality one to another without grudging [complaint]" (1 Pet. 4: 9). I have been in the homes of such dear saints who provided good food, but it was not done in love. Either they had to be told to do it, or they did it out of obligation. I remember one particular home I was often invited to by a young brother in the Lord who was around my age at the time. It was his parent's house. The food was great, but the fellowship was quite lacking. He would often leave me in the living room alone, while he would spend all his time on the phone talking to either his girlfriend at the time or other friends. He never really took the time to sit and enjoy a time of fellowship in either getting to know me personally, or to share what we have enjoyed from God's Word that week. So the hospitality shown to me was not really genuine. It left me with many sour memories.

 

At the day of Pentecost in Acts chapter 2, the beginning of the church, hospitality was one of the major marks of the early church. "And all that believed were together, and had all things common; and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need." (Acts 2: 44-45). Both spiritual and physical needs were met in the early church. The early church had its problems no doubt, but they were known for their Christian love and hospitality for one another.

 

Here are some ideas for showing hospitality...

---

[1] Alexander Strauch, The Hospitality Commands, (Lewis & Roth Publishers, Littleton, Co., 2007), Pg. 17.

[2] Alexander Strauch, The Hospitality Command, Ibid., pg. 5.

The Song of Solomon

  by Harry Reeder

I confess the Song of Solomon has always intimidated me as a preacher. Its vivid and excitable statements of marital sexual intimacy and the penchant of commentators to interpret it allegorically have combined to make me cautious. Even the ancients recommended that a young man not read the Song of Songs until he was either married or age 30. Yet, “all Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable…” (2 Tim. 3:16).

The Song of Songs is presented as a dramatic narrative that includes Solomon’s bride, the never-named Shulammite, secondly Solomon, thirdly, the daughters of Jerusalem, and fourthly, the brothers of the Shulammite. It could be the Shulammite is Naamah the Ammonite, Solomon’s first wife; the mother of Rehoboam (1 Kings 14:21) who was born one year before Solomon became king, which probably occurred around age 20. Thus she would be his first love. It’s possible that Solomon met her through one of his father’s mighty men, Zelek the Ammonite who might have lived in the rural Ammonite town of Shulah. Now, how can a pastor use this “profitable” book? Let me recommend five ways.

First, this book celebrates marital, sexual intimacy enjoyed as God’s good gift. It elevates erotic love with dynamics of care and tenderness, associated with the depths of transparency, intensity, and delight between husband and wife. When read, one quickly recognizes the God-designed, benevolent, and powerful instrument of sexual intimacy within marriage. This explains Hebrews 13:4, which declares the marriage bed is to be held sacred and honored by all.

Second, it extends and promotes intimacy within marriage by affirming recreational and ministerial sexual intimacy and not only procreational sexuality. In 1 Corinthians 7:1-5 Paul emphasizes the husband and wife are to give themselves to each other with this ministry mindset. They do not come together to take from the other but to give - the sexual relationship is not hierarchal but reciprocal. The husband/wife relationship and the gift of sexuality is not for personal gratification but for the joy of giving gratification knowing that it is “more blessed to give than to receive” (Acts 20:35). In other words, giving actually heightens one’s experience, and taking diminishes one’s experience.

Third, the Song of Songs is countercultural. It powerfully presents sexuality to be enjoyed within a relationship that is defined by God. It is covenantal, monogamous, and heterosexual. Any other definition of marriage will destroy a society.

Fourth, it attacks today’s resurgence of neo-paganism, which declares the spiritual as good and the physical as evil. When God made man - male and female - and the marriage covenant, He declared that both the spiritual and physical are “good.” The fall brought death to both. Therefore, redemption renews both. We are not only born again spiritually, we are renewed so that our bodies become “temples of the Holy Spirit” anticipating the new body, the new heavens and new earth. This includes God’s good gift of sexual intimacy within marriage as renewed and by grace properly enjoyed. Any other use of sexuality is idolatry and is destructive.

Finally, while one must refrain from allegorizing the text in its entirety in order to promote spiritual meaning, it is valid to see how Christ is being presented. Ephesians 5, while defining the marriage relationship between man and woman, also declares that the marriage covenant is a proper way to understand the relationship between Christ and His bride, the church. In 1859 the great Presbyterian preacher James Henley Thornwell had the opportunity to announce the wedding of his daughter, Nancy. In the weeks leading up to this event, the hundreds traveling would end up at a funeral, not a wedding as she took ill from cholera typhoid and began a rapid demise. Thornwell, overcome, came to his daughter’s bedside in her waning moments and said, “Oh my dear daughter, such tragedy!” She replied, “Father, do not weep. I know my Savior.” He said, “But this was to be your wedding, your whole life now before you.” She, the youth, yet with greater maturity said, “Father, but I now go to a greater Groom that I am prepared to meet.” Nancy Witherspoon Thornwell was laid to rest in a wedding gown, and the tombstone reads: “As a bride prepared for her Groom.”

The Song of Solomon obviously has much pastoral use in the issues of marriage and biblical sexuality. Yet, its glorious and ultimate use is to point the people of God as the bride of Christ to our glorious, majestic, and intimate relationship with the Bridegroom, Jesus Christ. Our gown is spotless, our relationship pure by His blood, righteousness, and promised presence. With Him there are more than ten thousand joys.

Genesis 6:1-3, The Sons of God

"And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years."

(Genesis 6:1-3, KJV)

 

 



Genesis 6: 4: The Nephilim

NOTE: The above is a PhotoShop picture and is not to be considered authentic.
However, it does serve as a good example of what a giant of that size would look like when compared to normal humans.

"The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown."- Genesis 6:4 (NASB).

The Nephilim are a group of people known as giants mentioned in Genesis 6. As noted in the photo above, the giants who existed before the flood were much bigger than people that are known to be the tallest today. However, I am sure not all of the giants before the flood were as big as the one depicted in the picture above which is PhotoShopped.

 Noted author Rob Skiba gives these interesting comments on the Nephilim below:

"If the account given in 1 Enoch (and other ancient texts as well) is to be believed, the immediate offspring - the first generation of Nephilim - were MASSIVELY huge! Upwards of 300 cubits or more.[1]

"And all the others together with them took unto themselves wives, and each chose for himself one, and they began to go in unto them and to defile themselves with them, and they taught them charms and enchantments, and the cutting of roots, and made them acquainted with plants. And they became pregnant, and they bare great giants, whose height was three thousand ells: Who consumed all the acquisitions of men. And when men could no longer sustain them, the giants turned against them and devoured mankind. And they began to sin against birds, and beasts, and reptiles, and fish, and to devour one another's flesh, and drink the blood. Then the earth laid accusation against the lawless ones."

- Enoch 7 [emphasis mine]

The Bible seems to confirm the enormous size of some of these hybrids as well - even when referring to those who came after the Flood:

"Yet I destroyed the Amorites (who were descendants of Canaan) before them, though they were tall as the cedars and strong as the oaks."

- Amos 2:9 (NIV) [emphasis mine]

Most scholars refer to Post-Flood Nephilim in terms of 9 to 18 foot giants. But GOD, through the prophet Amos refers to giants who were as tall as cedar trees! Ever see a cedar tree? Very large. In fact, the "cedars of Lebanon" were often referenced in the Bible as being renowned for their enormous height. They can grow to over 100 feet tall! But even a modest cedar grows to between 30 and 50 feet in height. And giants of this size have apparently been found in the past. Giants who were between 30 and 100 feet tall would certainly explain the comments made by the Hebrew spies when they first scouted out the land of... Canaan:

"They gave Moses this account: “We went into the land to which you sent us, and it does flow with milk and honey! Here is its fruit. But the people who live there are powerful, and the cities are fortified and very large. We even saw descendants of Anak there. The Amalekites live in the Negev; the Hittites, Jebusites and Amorites live in the hill country; and the Canaanites live near the sea and along the Jordan.”

"Then Caleb silenced the people before Moses and said, “We should go up and take possession of the land, for we can certainly do it.”

"But the men who had gone up with him said, “We can’t attack those people; they are stronger than we are.” And they spread among the Israelites a bad report about the land they had explored. They said, “The land we explored devours those living in it. All the people we saw there are of great size. We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them.”

- Number 13:27-33 (NIV) [emphasis mine]

I would suggest that nothing smaller than 24 to 36 foot tall giants would make someone describe themselves as feeling like a "grasshopper" by comparison! For the sake of illustration I have created the following graphic to show you what the various sizes of men would look like if standing side by side:

The Christian's Self-Image

"For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he"

(Prov. 23: 7, KJV) 

"The THOUGHTS we sow today, will be the ACTIONS we reap tomorrow!" -JDS

(Based on Gal. 6:7) 

I have written on this text Proverbs 23: 7 more than once, and still I find myself returning back to it. There is so much that can be said about our thought life. In this blog my focus is going to be on how Christians view themselves. For our self-image determines how we will live our lives, whether in a negative or positive context. The late Anthony A. Hoekema had this to say about how our self-image affects our life: 

"It will be generally granted, I believe, that what someone thinks of himself has much to do with the kind of life he will live. A person who sees himself as inferior to others will probably do inferior work, whereas a person who believes himself to be more capable than others will probably do better work. A man tends to live up to his self-image."[1] 

The above words of Mr. Hoekema among God's people have been proven to be true time and again. Coming from a Old Paths Assembly background I know this all too well. How often I heard from such fellow brethren that we are nothing more than wretched, worthless, hell deserving sinners saved by God's grace. I also have parroted such words about myself as well. Here I am, a born again Christian, a saint, a child of God, a believer in Christ--and I was still calling myself a rotten sinner? I thought it was the proper humble view that I should have about myself as a Christian. What I failed to realize then, was the negative impact it was having on my self-image. Again, quoting Hoekema: 

"All this having been said, it would seem that people who accept the Christian view of man as a creature made in God's image and redeemed from sin by the sacrifice of God's own Son would have, for the most part, a very positive self-image. Unfortunately, however, this is by no means the case. Conservative evangelical Christians often have a rather negative self-image... In some of the official formularies used by evangelical Christian churches one finds sentences in which believers are urged to "loathe" or to "abhor" themselves. Again the terminology is unfortunate. Whereas all Christians would agree that we must abhor our sins and loathe our continuing sinfulness, I do not believe that the Scriptures require us to abhor and loathe ourselves."[2] 

How very true are the above words by Hoekema. For modern day Christians often suffer from a poor view of themselves. After God has redeemed us by the precious blood of Christ are we to continue calling ourselves "sinners?" Is such a view of ourselves going to help us become better saints? "For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he" (Prov. 23:7). If we are still calling ourselves "rotten sinners," how can we make progress in our walk with Christ? Just think for a moment, if we are still viewing ourselves as poor sinners, when we are precious saints in God's eyes, washed in the blood of Christ and are forgiven. How then can we still identify ourselves as sinners? Was the Apostle Paul mistaken when he said, "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new" (2 Cor. 5:17). No! Of course Paul was not mistaken! He rightly identified the Corinthian believers as "new creatures" in Christ Jesus. He identified them as Christians, or saints if you will, because they were in Christ. You see, how we identify our self will affect how we behave. If we still believe or view ourselves as wretched sinners, then we are going to continue behaving as such. However, if we grasp the truth of our redemption in Christ, and the new life and identity we have in Christ, then our behavior will conform to what a Christian should be.  

The reason that many believers today live defeated lives is due to the fact in how they view themselves. As long as they continue thinking of themselves as "worthless sinners," instead of identifying themselves as the saints they were meant to be, they will continue living frustrated, defeated lives. Oh may God's people open their eyes to their true God given identity in the Lord Jesus Christ!  

Where once we were sinners,

Now we are saints;

Where once we were identified with Satan,

Now we are identified with the Saviour. 

-Jerry Sheppard 

"You act the way you act because you believe the way you believe. You behave the way you behave because you think the way you think. Right belief results in right action. Right thinking results in right behaviour. How you believe determines what you do. Correct belief and correct thinking will always result in correct action."[3]

 

Sow a thought, Reap an act;

Sow an act, Reap a habit;

Sow a habit, Reap a character;

Sow a character, Reap a destiny. 

-Warren Wiersbe

---

[1] Anthony A. Hoekema, The Christian Looks at Himself, (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, Michigan, Third Ed. 1979), pg. 14.

[2] Anthony A. Hoekema, The Christian Looks at Himself, Ibid., pgs. 15-16, 17.

[3] Timothy Klaver, quoted from his Journal.

Is The Trinity True? (The UCG's View Refuted)

As can be observed in the diagram above, this gives a good explanation of the Trinity. It shows what the Trinity is and is not. It shows the importance of correctly understanding this difficult doctrine (see my blog defending the Trinity in one of the three blogs I wrote on Mormonism). There are many cults today as well as heretical so called Christians who deny this Biblical teaching on the Trinity. Below is a excerpt taken from the booklet "Is God a Trinity" written by the "United Church of God." I will address each of the seven points in the "excerpt" below from an exegetical biblical response.

 

SEVEN SCRIPTURES THAT DEBUNK THE TRINITY AS A SINGLE BEING

 



"The following seven scriptures show the fallacy of claiming that the Father and the Son are one being as the Trinity teaching asserts. How can one reconcile belief in the Trinity with these simple questions?
(1.) Hebrew 1:5 tells us that Jesus was begotten by His Father. Did He beget Himself?
(2.) In Matthew 22:44, the Father said Jesus would sit at His right hand until his enemies were made His footstool. Was Jesus to sit at His own right hand?
(3.) In Matthew 24:36, when Jesus told His disciples that no one knows the day or the hour of His return but the Father only, did He really know but made up an excuse to not tell them?
(4.) In John 14:28, Jesus said His Father was greater than He was. Does this mean He was greater than Himself?
(5.) In John 17:1, Jesus prayed to His Father. Was He praying to Himself?
(6.) In Matthew 27:46, Jesus cried out, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?" Had He forsaken Himself?
(7.) In John 20:17, Jesus said He would ascend to the Father after His resurrection. Did He ascend to Himself?
These and many other biblical passages demonstrate to a rational Bible reader that the Trinity teaching is not only unbiblical, but also utterly illogical!"  

(To be Continued)



Where is Paradise Located?

Many Dispensationalists believe the term "paradise" in the Bible refers to a compartment next to hell where Old Testament saints resided until the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. Then they were released and went to heaven. According to Spiros Zodhiates, he says "Paradise undoubtedly refers to the place of the righteous ones in Hades. "Abraham's bosom" in Luke 16 and the "paradise" of Luke 23:43 are synonymous terms referring to the place of rest and comfort for the righteous dead. Before the resurrection of Christ, it would seem that Hades was the place where all the dead -- both righteous and unrighteous -- went."[1] Is this really true? Is that what God's Word teaches us about "paradise?" There are only three reference to the word "paradise" in the Bible. All of them mentioned in the New Testament. They are as follows Luke 23: 43; 2 Cor. 12: 4; Rev. 2: 7.  Let us consider each of these verses and consider what the correct interpretation is for whether "paradise" is a compartment next to hell, or if it is really another word for heaven?  

1. Luke 23: 43, "Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise." (NASB). Here we see a conversation that took place during the last moments of Jesus' earthly life spent on a cross between two thieves. A conversation that took place between Jesus and a thief. After the second thief repented of his sin (see 23:41) he turned to Christ and said, "Jesus, remember me when You come in Your kingdom!" (23: 42). In which the Lord Jesus responded, "Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise." (23: 43). No where in this chapter is it ever implied that Jesus was speaking about a supposed compartment next to hell (Hades). I believe Jesus was referring to heaven here. 

2. 2 Corinthians 12: 4, "How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter." (KJV). Here we see Paul speaking about his supernatural experience he had 14 years in the past. The phrases "caught up to the third heaven...caught up into paradise" (12:2, 4). It is interesting to notice "Paul was not describing two separate visions; "the third heaven" and "paradise" are the same place (cf. Rev. 2:7, which says the tree of life is in paradise, with Rev. 22:14, which says it is in the city). The first heaven is earth's atmosphere (Gen. 8:2; Deut. 11:11; 1 Kings 8:35); the second is interplanetary and interstellar space (Gen. 15:5; Ps. 8:3; Isa. 13:10); and the third is the abode of God (1 Kings 8:30; 2 Chron. 30:27; Ps. 123:1)."[2] Here we see the location of "paradise" is in heaven, not in a compartment next to Hades (Hell).  

3. Revelations 2: 7, "He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God." (KJV). And the location of this "tree of life" is in the midst of "the city" (Rev. 22: 14). So what can we draw from this passage? Well, if "paradise" was located in another compartment next to Hades (Hell), why then does 2 Cor. 12: 4 speak about the Apostle Paul being "caught up into paradise." The passage does not say that he was "brought down into paradise," no, it clearly refers to Paul being "caught up to the third heaven" (12: 2). Then in Revelation 2: 7 we read about "the tree of life...in the midst of the paradise." And Rev. 22: 14 refers to the "tree of life" in the midst of "a city." Where do we ever read about the "tree of life" or of a "city" being located in the Dispensationalists view of a supposed "paradise" in a compartment next to Hades. No, the Bible clearly speaks about "paradise" as another term for "heaven." So when Jesus said to the thief on the Cross, "Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise." (Luke 23: 43), He was referring to heaven. The evidence speaks for itself.

---

[1] Spiros Zodhiates, Life after Death, (AMG Publishers, Chattanooga, TN., 2002), pg. 41.

[2] John MacArthur, The MacArthur Study Bible, (Crossway Publishers, Wheaton, Illinois, 2010), pg. 1735.

Our Illusionment of People

"Jesus did not commit Himself to them..., for He knew what was in man"

(John 2:24-25)

 

 

When it comes to personal relationships with people, such as family and friends, it is so easy getting critical of them because they don't meet up to the expectations and standard we expect of them. This is especially true in the family of God. We expect better behaviour from fellow brethren and sisters in Christ then we do of nonChristians in the world. This of course results in us becoming cynical, harsh and critical in our judgments of them. However, it is true that for the Christian there is a much higher standard of living expected of him or her. "Be ye holy; for I am holy" (1 Pet. 1: 16; Lev. 11: 44). In the classic devotional "My Utmost for His Highest" Oswald Chambers gives this insight on disillusionment:

 

 

"Disillusionment means having no more misconceptions, false impressions, and false judgments in life; it means being free from these deceptions. However, though no longer deceived, our experience of disillusionment may actually leave us cynical and overly critical in our judgment of others. But the disillusionment that comes from God brings us to the point where we see people as they really are, yet without any cynicism or any stinging and bitter criticism. Many of the things in life that inflict the greatest injury, grief, or pain, stem from the fact that we suffer from illusions. We are not true to one another as facts, seeing each other as we really are; we are only true to our misconceived ideas of one another. According to our thinking, everything is either delightful and good, or it is evil, malicious, and cowardly.

 Refusing to be disillusioned is the cause of much of the suffering of human life. And this is how that suffering happens--if we love someone, but do not love God, we demand total perfection and righteousness from that person, and when we do not get it we become cruel and vindictive; yet we are demanding of a human being something which he or she cannot possibly give. There is only one Being who can completely satisfy to the absolute depth of the hurting human heart, and that is the Lord Jesus Christ. Our Lord is so obviously uncompromising with regard to every human relationship because He knows that every relationship that is not based on faithfulness to Himself will end in disaster. Our Lord trusted no one, and never placed His faith in people, yet He was never suspicious or bitter. Our Lord's confidence in God, and in what God's grace could do for anyone, was so perfect that He never despaired, never giving up hope for any person. If our trust is placed in human beings, we will end up despairing of everyone." (MUFHH: July 30 reading).

 

You see our illusion of people is rooted in our misconception of what we expect of them. For when God is not at the centre of our lives, then we set people up in our lives to be our little gods, demanding of them absolute perfection that is not in them to give us.  Also, how dare we expect of them what we ourselves cannot give as well. No one should ever expect this of anyone except for God. This is a lesson I had to learn as well. There was a time I had high expectations of my fellow brethren and sisters in Christ, when they failed to deliver, I became angry, frustrated, and critical of them. This certainly had an affect on my spiritual life as well as my relationship with God. For I was not putting Christ at the centre of my life. (To be continued)



Do Vampires Really Exist Today? (Part 2)

Now in this second part to "Do Vampires Really Exist Today?" I will be elaborating on the subject of the different types of vampires and the history of vampires. There is much that could be said historically about vampires, but here in this blog on the topic, I will just give a brief summary and will look at what the Scripture says about the issue.

According to Hebrew legend, Lilith was the first woman created. Among ancient Babylonian gods and goddesses, Lilith was the demon Lilitu who preyed upon men. Sometimes referred to as the first original vampire. Now whether this is true or not is up for debate.

1. Vlad Tepes: Or Vlad the Impaler (1431-1476), or sometimes Vlad Dracul, (where the original term came for the name Dracula) as he was called by his comtemporaries of his time. He was the emperor of Romania who was both a villian and hero. Here is a brief biography on Vlad:

"The history of Vlad Dracula is surrounded by myth and legend I had a really tough time sorting out the facts from the legends, the truth is that nobody is too sure what is what. We do know that he was the character that was the inspiration for Bram Stokers Novel "Dracula" being the very famous Count Dracula. The book then brought about the very vampires that are well known to this day and made Vlad the Impaler a famous character from history.

Vlad the Impaler -Tepes (pronounced tzse-pesh) was born in the town of Sighisoara in Transylvania (now known as northern Romania) in 1431 and later ruled the area of Southern Romania known as Wallachia. His father was Vlad Dracul who was a knight in the Order of the Dragon which was a union of central and Eastern European rulers who were a tad worried about the rising Ottoman empire.

The Order of the Dragon's coat of arms was a dragon (the Ottomans) and a cross (Christianity). Vlad Dracul bore this coat of arms on everything, flags, coins, and his seal. It attracted the nickname of "Dracul" I believe coming from the story of the evil dragon in St. George and the Dragon, Dracul meaning Devil in Romanian.

The second son was soon born to Vlad Dracul - that being Vlad II - therefore the name developed an "a" representing the son of Dracul - "DRACULA", the son of the Devil.

The word "tepes" in Romanian means "impaler" and Vlad was so named because of his cruel and gruesome habit of impaling humans and leaving them to rot in the sun as a means of punishing his enemies.

In fact, Vlad was called Tepes (the Impaler) only after his death in 1476. Impalement was considered a particularly gruesome form of execution, the victim was stuck on a sharp stake usually the width of a big burly man's arm (ohhh that's gotta hurt!). Vlad was said to especially enjoyed mass executions, where several victims were impaled at once, and their stakes hoisted upright. As they hung suspended above the ground, the weight of their bodies would slowly drag them downwards, causing the sharpened end of the stake to pierce their internal organs causing a slow painful death. In order to better enjoy these mass spectacles, Vlad routinely ordered a banquet table set up in front of his victims, and would enjoy a leisurely supper amid the pitiful sights and sounds of the dying. I'm glad that I wasn't around in those days to be invited to one of Vlad's dinner parties.

It is estimated that Vlad killed some 20,000 men, women and children - the amount of people he killed varies from anywhere between 20,000 to 500,000. He showed no mercy and often tortured his enemies before killing them.

At the same time that Vlad became notorious for his sadism, he was also respected by his subjects because of his fierce campaigns against the Turks. He was a respected as a warrior and a stern ruler who tolerated no crime against his people, and during his reign erected several monasteries. He was a hero that was both worshiped and feared by his people.

But maybe there was a bit more to Vlad's murderous bloodthirsty habits than we first thought. In 1985 an Idaho physician Dr. Thomas McDevitt suggested that he may have suffered from a bizarre allergic reaction to blood. He claimed that in some allergic reactions to a given substance, sufferers also developed an addiction to that same substance, and if deprived of it they could react in a highly bizarre and deranged manner. Could Vlad of just been throwing a tantrum every time he craved blood? Portraits of the price depict him with dark circles beneath his eyes, puffy cheeks and a sallow pallid complexion - classic characteristics of some types of allergy victim.

There are various descriptions of the death of Dracula. The most popular being that he was killed in battle against Turks near Bucharest in December 1476. It was also said that he was murdered by disloyal Wallachian boyars just as he was about to overcome the Turks and send them packing. Other stories describe the Impaler falling in defeat, surrounded by rotting bodies of his loyal Moldavian troops. There is another account of Vlad accidently being struck down at the moment of victory by one of his own men (now that's a nasty accident).

Whatever happened to Vlad's body? Well that's surrounded by plenty of legends as well, none can be confirmed:

The general thought amongst Vlad historians and experts is that the body of Vlad the Impaler was entombed near the alter in a Snagov Monastery located on an Island in the middle of a lake accessible only by boat. It is well documented that his head was taken and put on display in Constantinople for all to see that the reign of this terrible man was truly over."

(http://www.castleofspirits.com/vlad.html)

2. Historical vampires: Elizabeth Bathory, the infamous Blood Countess of Hungary (August 7, 1560 – August 21, 1614), Anastasie Dieudonne of Haiti (November 27, 1927), and Fritz Haarman, in Hanover, Germany (around 1945-46) were all true vampires from history. Let us look at a brief biography on each one of them.

Elizabeth Bathory: (Aug. 7, 1560 - Aug. 21, 1614) The most completely authenticated case in history, since it is a part of actual old court record, is that of the beautiful Countess Bathori, who lived in Hungary about three hundred years ago. The complete minutes of the trial, her final confession, the testimony of her servants, the record of the conviction and the amazing punishment inflicted on her by the law-all still exist. She was rich and owned a castle on the edge of the Carpathian Mountains, which had a mysterious and evil reputation in the neighborhood. For many years the peasants believed that she practiced magic, and was, in league, like Faust, with the devil. They did not dream, however, of the even more dreadful secret that the castle actually hid, for what occurred there, over and over again, was more terrifying than anything in the Bluebeard stories or the horror tales of Poe. Over a period of several years a number of young and pretty peasant girls and boys had disappeared from the neighborhood and had never been heard from again. For a long time it was supposed that they had been carried off by bandits from the mountains. But finally suspicion was directed toward the already mysterious castle of the Countess Bathori, and after an investigation a company of the King's Guard appeared suddenly one night with search warrants from the Emperor, placed the Countess under arrest and thoroughly searched the castle. In an underground dungeon they found six of the missing children, emaciated, but still alive, chained so that they could not kill themselves, which they would all too willingly have done to escape the slower death they were suffering. The bones of several others who had finally died were found in an oubliette. The Countess herself, under subsequent threats of legal torture, confessed that each night she went to the dungeon, opened a vein in the arm of one of the prisoners, drank quantities of blood, and also bathed her face and shoulders in it. She believed, in her mad, magical superstition, that this would keep her always young and beautiful. As a matter of fact, the records say, she had a marvelously smooth and lovely skin, a complexion like "snow and roses." It was a cruel period, and Hungary in those days was a cruel country. Instead of executing the Countess Bathori, the judges sentenced her, making the punishment fit the crime, to have the skin flayed from her face and neck. So her face became an object frightful to look upon instead of beautiful, as it had once been.

Fritz Haarman: (1879 - 1925) The most famous case of a modern human vampire attested by the courts and legal record is that of Fritz Haarman, in Hanover, Germany, who was executed after the World War. He was a true vampire, scientifically speaking. He lured no less than twenty-seven youths into his home and drank their blood.

Anastasie Dieudonne: (Nov. 27, 1927?) From the quite modernized town Of Aux Cayes in that tropical West Indian island, where American Marine officers in motor cars pass every day, came the authenticated confession of a coppery-haired, handsome mulatto woman, by name Anastasie Dieudonne, that she had for several months been draining the blood from her nine-year old niece. The child, once healthy and robust, had begun to fade away. Neighbors and relatives thought she had some wasting disease. Physicians, including those of the American clinic at Trouin, could find nothing wrong with her. Then an old black native doctor was called into conference. "She is the victim," he said, "of a vampire, or a loup garon. The life-blood is being secretly sucked from her body. If the monster is not discovered, she will die." "Bosh!" said many of the natives, who are not very superstitious in a modernized town like Aux Cayes. It looked like, bosh, indeed, when the old man carefully went over the girl's entire body and found not even a pinch-prick. But he was not satisfied and made a second examination. This time he discovered, a small, clean, unhealed incision hidden on the middle of her great toe. Anastasie Dieudonne subsequently confessed that she had been giving the girl a stupefying vegetable drug and then sucking her blood. She was, of course, an unbalanced creature, driven to this dreadful practice by an uncontrollable urge. She was literally, in actual fact, a human vampire.

Now let us look at two specific modern day human vampire types that have become a part of a popular sub-culture.

3. Psychic vampires: These vampires drain energy rather then blood and are homo sapiens biologically speaking.

4. Sanguinarians: Humans who simply drink blood.

Do Vampires Really Exist Today? (Part 1)

"For the life of the flesh is in the blood"

 

(Lev. 17:11, ESV) 

 

Since this is October, the time of the year where Halloween is celebrated at the end of this month by many people. I thought I would write a blog on Vampires. No doubt this is an interesting topic, especially for many young people. Books, movies, T.V. shows, and magazines about vampires is a multi-million dollar business. Unfortunately in recent years, some young people have taken a very unhealthy interest in vampire lore. So much so that a number of them believe they really are vampires. This of course raises a question, "Do vampires really exist?" Below is a picture of the three vampiress's from the movie "Van Helsing."

 

 

 

 

 

So do vampires really exist today, or are they nothing more than myth and bed time stories? Well, yes and no. No, the Hollywood version of  vampires who possess superhuman strength and can turn into a bat, rat, wolf, or even mist is certainly not true. However, yes, there are those people today who really do drink blood and call themselves vampires. But they certainly don't possess superhuman abilities. They are just regular people like ourselves who just happen to have a taste for blood. Authors Donna Howell and Nita Horn wrote this interesting assessment about the appeal of vampires among young people today: 

"Vampires have gone from being inferior, damned, subhuman creatures of the night hunted by mad mobs with pitchforks to superior beings who no longer have to hide. They're macho. They're cool. They're envied by many young people. They're faster, stronger, and physically perfect, shedding away the mortal imperfections of their days as a human, not sharing in the weaknesses that mankind suffers for merely being mortal such as cancer, sickness, loss of loved ones, and here's a biggie, imperfect bodies. (Whether it's true or not, many of the stories I heard from these chat sessions, and several of the online testimonies on vampire sites, claimed that after they discovered what they were meant to be and officially became a vampire, they lost all their weight or their cancer disappeared or they believe they truly "became immrtal," etc. If they are giving themselves over to dark influences, the changes they face after their initiation doesn't surprise me at all. They are dealing with powerful, deceptive forces that can mimic miracles.)

"More frightening than anything else, there was the perk of obtaining eternal life without accountability to God (everlasting life without a SAVIOR?).”[1]

As you can see from the research the authors had done for the chapter entitled, "Interview with a (Modern) Vampire" for the book "God's Ghostbusters." The two authors raised some concerns about the false claim to eternal life without a Savior that has appealed to many young people who are seduced into wanting to become a vampire. However, this claim to eternal life is only physical in contrast to Christianity's offer of eternal life through the Lord Jesus Christ. Vampires can be killed, whereas Christians can only be killed physically, for they live on spiritually. Modern vampirism offers salvation apart from Christ. In a sense, you become your own god, answerable to no one. Is not this the same lie Satan said to Eve in the Garden of Eden. "You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." (Gen. 3: 4-5). did you catch that, "you will be like God." So when Adam and Eve ate the fruit, the consequences were quite devastating to the entire human race. Man never became God, instead he came to know the misery and ravages of sin and death. Sadly, many young people have bitten into the forbidden fruit of the modern vampire craze. Again, authors Donna Howell and Nita Horn give this revealing insight on one of Stephenie Meyer's Twilight novels:  

"The brilliant contrast of the black background with the pale, white hands holding the bright, red apple (admittedly said by Stephenie Meyer to represent the "forbidden fruit" of the Book of Genesis, symbolizing the "forbidden" relationship between main characters Bella [human] and Edward [vampire], similar to the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and Bella's deliberate choice to partake of the said "forbidden fruit" by choosing to be with Edward) is eye-grabbing, even amongst all other titles across the visually chaotic and colorfully competitive layout of your average local book retailer."[2]

 

 

Among HLV (Human Living Vampires), the real modern vampires of today, there are four primary groups:

1. Historical vampires: Elizabeth Bathory, the infamous Blood Countess of Hungary  (August 7, 1560 –  August 21, 1614), Anastasie Dieudonne of Haiti (November 27, 1927), and  Fritz Haarman, in Hanover, Germany (around 1945-46) were all true vampires from history.

2. Vlad Tepes: Or Vlad the Impaler (1431-1476), or sometimes Vlad Dracul, where the original term came for the name Dracula as he was called by his comtemporaries of his time. He was the emperor of Romania who was both a villian and hero.

3. Psychic vampires: These vampires drain energy rather then blood and are homo sapiens biologically speaking.

4. Sanguinarians: Humans who simply drink blood. (To be Continued...)

---

[1] Donna Howell and Nita Horn, God’s GhostBusters, (Defender Publishing, Crane, Missouri, 2011), pg. 58.

[2] Donna Howell and Nita Horn, God's Ghostbusters, Ibid., pg. 32.



 

 

 



Lessons from Job's Life: On Suffering

"Through all this Job did not sin nor did he blame God"

(Job 1:22)

 

If I were to ask you this question, "How do you respond to the trials in your life?" What would your answer be? Does such suffering make you bitter or better? If someone real close to you dies tomorrow, or if you lose your job, or you lose all your earthly possessions in a fire. Would you be still able to say with Job: "Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked I shall return there, the LORD gave and the LORD has taken away, blessed be the name of the LORD" (Job 1:21).

 

The Book of Job is the oldest book in the Bible, which means Job had far less Scripture to live by than we Christians do today. Yet, when suffering came into Job's life he valiantly responded to it in a godly way. So if Job was able to do that with very little of God's Word to go by, then we are without excuse today. Since we as Christians have the whole revelation of God's Word in our possession, then we should know better than to "blame God" during times of difficulties in life. This truth really hits home to my heart, perhaps more so than anybody.

 

Unlike non-Christians who do not know Christ, we as believers should be confident in our God during difficult circumstances in life. Trials should not so easily move or distress us as it does the ungody who do not know God. Consider Paul's words to the Church at Corinth, "For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory" (2 Cor. 4: 17).  You see what Paul is getting at here, he was reminding the Corinthian saints that their present hardships is but for a brief moment in time compared to the eternity they will spend in heaven. The problem with most Christians is that our affections are too much tied to this present world, when our affections should be focused on heaven (see Col. 3: 1-2). (To be Continued)