​THE MINISTRY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT
John 16:12-15
12 “I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. 14 He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you. 15 All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore, I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you.
 
 
I. HOLY SPIRIT GUIDES THE CHRISTIAN
    A. CHARACTER OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. “Spirit of Truth”
         1. Impeccable in His character. “Holy”
         2. Infallible in His teaching. “Truth”
    B. COMPOSER OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. 12
                   1. Inspirer of Holy Scripture.
                    2. Interpreter of Holy Scripture.
    C. COMFORTER TO THE CHRISTIAN. (John 14:16,26; 15:26; 16:7)
    D. COMMUNICATES WITH THE CHRISTIAN.
                         1. Spirit indwells the believer. (John 14:16-17)
2. Spirit instructs the believer. “guide you into all truth”
II. HOLY SPIRIT GLORIFIES CHRIST
     A. HOLY SPIRIT EXALTS CHRIST. 14
                           1. His person. (v. 14) “glorify me”
                            2. His pre-eminence.
     B. HOLY SPIRIT ENLIGHTENS THE CHRISTIAN. (v. 15)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
THE MINISTRY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT
John 16:12-15
12 “I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. 14 He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you. 15 All things that the Father has are Mine;  therefore, I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you.
 
 
INTRODUCTION: These words of Jesus were spoken directly to His disciples. The Holy Spirit would later direct these men to write the New Testament Scripture that we have today. As believers in Jesus Christ, we enjoy the ministry of the Holy Spirit in our lives. He reveals Christ to us and teaches us the things of Christ. 
 
The world has no clue of the spiritual truth found in the Word of God.  The Spirit of truth (Holy Spirit) “the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him.” (John 14:17)
 
“But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” 1 Cor. 2:14
 
Paul gave the reason for this in Ephesians 4:18: they have their “understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart.”
 
I. HOLY SPIRIT GUIDES THE CHRISTIAN
 
    A. CHARACTER OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. “Spirit of Truth”
         1. Impeccable in His character. “Holy”
         2. Infallible in His teaching. “Truth”
 
    B. COMPOSER OF HOLY SCRIPTURE.
         1. Inspirer of Holy Scripture.
 
“For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” 2 Peter 1:21
 
         2. Interpreter of Holy Scripture.
 
“Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.” 1 Cor. 2:12-13
 
    C. COMFORTER TO THE CHRISTIAN. (John 14:16,26; 15:26; 16:7)
The word “Comforter” literally means “one called alongside to help.” Jesus promised He would send another “Helper” just like Himself. The Holy Spirit is the believer’s “helper, comforter, counselor, exhorter, intercessor, encourager, and advocate (defense attorney).” MacArthur
 
    D. COMMUNICATES WITH THE CHRISTIAN.
         1. Spirit indwells the believer. (John 14:16-17)
 
 “And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you forever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.” John 14:16-17
         2. Spirit instructs the believer. “guide you into all truth”
 
“But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.” John 14:26
 
“But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.” 1 John 2:27
   
II. HOLY SPIRIT GLORIFIES CHRIST
 
     A. HOLY SPIRIT EXALTS CHRIST.
          1. His person. (v. 14) “glorify me”
 
“But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me.” John 15:26
 
          2. His pre-eminence.
Jesus said the Holy Spirit would “show you things to come” (v. 13). The book of Revelation reveals to us the future and presents Christ in all His glory as King of Kings.
 
     B. HOLY SPIRIT ENLIGHTENS THE CHRISTIAN. (v. 15) “shall show it unto you”
 
Jesus stated in three verses (13, 14, 15) that the Spirit shows truth to the Christian.
 
“But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.  But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.” 1 Cor. 2:9-10
 
 “Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.” 1 Cor. 2:12-13
 
 

​Abortion is a very emotional issue that always seems to arouse passion, not matter which side of the belief an individual finds themselves on.  A place to begin would be by noting a view that is not very popular today, but once was defended particularly in certain Roman Catholic ethical circles. It is the view that one is never justified in taking a life. There is a difference, so the argument goes, between taking a life and letting one die. The former is never a moral option; the latter may be. If one simply does nothing in a case where mother and/or baby are endangered, and one or both die, one has simply let them die. This was the best that could be done in this case, and at least no life was taken. It is not hard to see why this view is unpopular today. One runs the risk of losing two lives, when it seems quite clear that one could be saved.[1]  This view advocates a position of personal responsibility in taking ownership over one’s own healthcare.  Many today still hold this view.
Now in society many have gone the other way entirely by placing most, if not all the responsibility for treatment and care on the patient himself or herself.  The pendulum has swung all the way from regarding the physician as god to seeing the patient as god. Personal autonomy now dominates modern medicine. Abortion and euthanasia are justified by people who believe that they have the right to do with their bodies whatever they wish. Similarly, those who want alternative therapies say they are entitled to use whatever therapeutic option is available, even if others think it is strange or ineffective. Therefore, the responsibility for health care is placed solely on patients’ shoulders—health-care professionals become little more than counselors and providers of the services patients want.
The biblical view of responsibility for health is God-centered rather than self-centered. Our bodies are gifts (or better, loans) from God for which we are responsible to care—they have been purchased by the blood of Christ. They are not our own to do with as we please. Instead, by faith, we should pursue good health to glorify God, serve others (Rom. 14:7–8; 1 Cor. 6:19–20; 2 Cor. 5:15; Phil. 1:20–26), and participate in everything that God has given us to enjoy (1 Tim. 6:17). Only in this context will believers be able to experience the abundant life Christ has offered (John 10:10).[2]
Although health is ultimately from God (Ps. 103:1–5), each individual bears a great responsibility for his or her own health. However, health care should be a partnership among health-care professionals, the patient, and the family or close friends and relatives. Absolute autonomy brings isolation, while faith in God and association with others provide companionship, confidence, and comfort. When considering alternative medicine, it would be wise to seek guidance not only from a physician whom you trust but also from members of the church whom you believe possess gifts of knowledge, wisdom, discernment, and counseling. Responsibility for health can be shared when people of the church use their gifts for the good of others (Rom. 12:3–8; 1 Cor. 12:7, 12–26; Eph. 4:11–16; 1 Peter 4:7–11).[3]
 
A National Debate
      Abortion is a monumental issue that ignites heated debates. Divisions in the state and in the church are multiplying, with major denominational church bodies coming down on both sides of the issue. The fires of controversy show no signs of abating, but rather of intensifying.[4]
      Federal funds are given to secular humanist activities that are diametrically opposed to Christian values: grants to universities that promote naturalistic concepts of education, science, psychology, and sociology; Planned Parenthood, which promotes abortion; the National Endowment to the Arts, which awards grants worth thousands of dollars to what many Christians consider pornographic and blasphemous art projects; and public school systems, where humanistic values are taught through sex education, value clarification, and naturalistic evolution.[5]
      Examples of the devastating consequences of legalizing an immoral act include the Supreme Court’s 1857 Dred Scott decision that declared that no black person, free or slave, could claim United States citizenship, and the Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade that in effect, legalized abortion throughout pregnancy. In the Roe decision, the Court contradicted years of legal, religious, and social objections to abortion. Many women, in the vulnerable position of contemplating an abortion they don’t really want, rationalize that since the procedure is legal, it must also be moral.[6]
      The law of our land is often immoral and unjust. That should be declared from tens of thousands of pulpits in America.[7] When the American Medical Association was formed in 1847, abortion was commonly practiced “before quickening.” But through the efforts of the AMA and antiobscenity crusaders and (ironically) feminists, abortion became illegal everywhere in the U.S. by 1900.[8]  The key reversal of this legal situation came on January 22, 1973, when the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade.
 
      One individual who holds strongly to the idea that abortion in general is morally permissible is Emily Letts, a 25-year old abortion counselor at a women’s center. When Letts found herself pregnant, she immediately knew she was going to have an abortion simply because she was ready to care for a child; she then decided that she would make a video to be the first of its kind that would show the actual surgical procedure in the clinic and focus on the woman’s experience. The result was a disturbing and mixed message. The main goal of this video, other than informative purposes, was to show a positive abortion story to prove to woman that they do not have to feel guilty. Emily Letts, in her interview with Cosmopolitan, repeated over and over the fact that she felt no guilt about terminating the life of her child. Guilt is her main focus throughout the whole process; she says this society-imposed guilt is unnecessary and inspires them to stop the guilt. Letts herself said, “Even women who come to the clinic completely solid in their decision to have an abortion say they feel guilt for not feeling guilty.”[9]
Many Christians have taken the position that it is not the church’s business what the state legislates, since the church is not to legislate morality. However, the state does have the responsibility of legislating morality. Traffic laws deal with the moral issue of how one drives one’s car. Justice is a moral issue; laws are an attempt to promote justice. The essence of legislation is morality. The church has the responsibility to speak to the legislature. The state’s primary function is the preservation of society and the preservation of life. When the state is involved in legislation that does not respect and promote the sanctity of life, the church must speak out. While we recognize the separation of power between church and state, we cannot recognize the autonomy of the state before God. The state is also a servant of God. If there is any legislation on which the church has the responsibility to speak, it is on this one, since the heart of the issue is the sanctity of life.[10]
 
The Procedure And The Rationale
Induced abortions are commonly what we think of when we hear people talk about abortions. This class of abortions is characterized by outside or external intervention into the reproductive process with a view to terminating pregnancy. There are several kinds of induced abortions. Therapeutic abortions are performed to save the mother’s life. Because of the present state of medicine, such abortions are rare.[11]  Much more common is the abortion by the choice of the mother.  More than one million legal abortions were performed in the U. S. annually. More than 2% of U. S. women (of reproductive age) obtained abortions each year, and a fourth of pregnancies (excluding those ending in miscarriages) were aborted.[12]
Ectopic or tubal pregnancies are examples. In this kind of pregnancy the fertilized egg does not implant in the uterus but in the fallopian tube. Only two options are open to the doctor. Either he intervenes to take the baby’s life in order to save the mother’s life, or both baby and mother die. Another potential cause of therapeutic abortion is maternal heart disease. At one time women with heart disease were at risk in full-term pregnancies. However, that is almost never the case today. The most common candidates for therapeutic abortions are pregnant women with cancer (especially uterine cancer). If treatment of the cancer requires either radiation or chemotherapy, that will likely kill the baby. Hence, it must be decided whether to delay treatment until the birth of the baby, or begin it immediately and risk losing the child.[13]
The question of when life begins has been pivotal to the discussion. Agreement is difficult because no consensus has emerged. Different points on the conception-birth continuum have been preferred, with the added problem of variant medical definitions of “life” itself.
There are some who maintain that the moment of birth is when a fetus becomes a person. There are good reasons for this argument. This is a rather clear line of demarcation, indicating a new status, a new moment of independent existence with individuation beginning with the snipping of the umbilical cord.[14]
Another view points to the moment of “quickening”; another to the time when the circulatory system is fully developed. Others say that the principle of life in the Old Testament is the “breath” of life in man. Therefore, life would be present when the lungs develop and the fetus could breathe on its own.
The moment of conception has been seen by many groups to be the beginning of life, since all the potentiality of personhood is then present. David and others speak of their conception as part of their personal history.[15]
There may be occasions where there are not preferential health issues but a very strong idea that death will occur for one or both parties involved. With ectopic pregnancies, the baby’s life must be taken, for the baby is developing outside the uterus, and without intervention both mother and baby will die. Intervention must come so early in the pregnancy that even if a mother wanted to save the baby, the baby would be too premature to survive. In cancer cases where treatment for cancer or the removal of the cancer would terminate pregnancy (as, e.g., with cancer of the uterus), we think commencement of treatment for the mother is morally permissible.[16]
To refer to an embryo as a blob of protoplasm is to be guilty of a severe form of reductionism. The “parasite” term is equally inaccurate, as parasites have an independent life cycle that includes reproduction. As for the analogy to cancer, a cancer left to natural development destroys life. An embryo left to natural development produces life—a difference that cannot be ignored.[17]
Abortions can be divided into those that are spontaneous and those that are induced. Spontaneous abortions are not usually thought of as abortions. What characterizes this class of abortions is that there is no outside or external intervention. There are two basic kinds of spontaneous abortions.[18]
Many ethics based textbooks on college campuses today espouse abortion under almost any circumstances. “Therapeutic abortions are usually not thought to be morally problematic, but induced abortions are intensely controversial and are the focus of the ongoing moral debate.”[19] The moral argument against abortion rests on the premises that the unborn fetus is obviously a human life, it is wrong to take a human life, and abortion is the taking of a human life. Therefore, based on these premises, abortion is wrong.[20] Comparing the liberal argument for abortion to the moral argument, both arguments agree on the wrongness of murder, but the disagreement comes from one differing premise – the question of the life, potential life, or absence of life of the unborn.[21]
The issue of therapeutic abortions must be dealt with separately. Generally they are used in two situations: where there is clear and present danger to the life and physical health of the mother, and where there is concern for the psychological well-being of the mother, especially in the case where the woman has been victimized by a rapist. In the first instance, there are two basic points. Some argue that in the case of the danger to the life of the mother, it is better to destroy the fetus to save the mother. The actual life is more valuable than the potential life. Others say the fetus should be saved, basing this on the matter of certainty versus probability. Suppose that the death of the mother is 99 percent probable if the child is left to be born. If there is an abortion, that means 100 percent certainty of death for the fetus. If there is one chance in 100 for both to survive, this group holds that the chance should be taken.[22]
As to specifics, if the problem occurs late in the pregnancy, the child can likely be taken prematurely without dying, i.e., probably both lives can be saved. If the mother’s illness is diagnosed early in pregnancy, treatment should be delayed as long as possible and the baby taken prematurely. Of course, a lot depends on the nature of the illness. In some cases both lives cannot be saved. However, with advances in medical technology the number of times one life must be lost is rare indeed. [23]
The question of when life begins has been pivotal to the discussion. Agreement is difficult because no consensus has emerged. Different points on the conception-birth continuum have been preferred, with the added problem of variant medical definitions of “life” itself.
There are some who maintain that the moment of birth is when a fetus becomes a person. There are good reasons for this argument. This is a rather clear line of demarcation, indicating a new status, a new moment of independent existence with individuation beginning with the snipping of the umbilical cord.
Another view points to the moment of “quickening”; another to the time when the circulatory system is fully developed. Others say that the principle of life in the Old Testament is the “breath” of life in man. Therefore, life would be present when the lungs develop and the fetus could breathe on its own.
The moment of conception has been seen by many groups to be the beginning of life, since all the potentiality of personhood is then present. David and others speak of their conception as part of their personal history.[24]
Two words of caution are in order. First, to repeat that in light of advances in medical technology, the actual number of cases where the life of either mother or baby must be sacrificed is very small indeed. Second, abortion to save the mother’s life has been called therapeutic abortion. In the current discussions on abortion the meaning of “therapeutic” has been expanded to cover anything that affects the well-being of the mother. This now includes whether she is depressed at the thought of having another child or whether having a child fits in with her career goals.[25]  While words, in the past, have seemed to hold tightly to meanings first assigned to them, this is not always the case today.  Both sides of the argument may use the same vocabualary, but attached very different meanings to the same word. This is certainly true with the use of the word therapeutic, when used in the abortion discussion. 
 
A Biblical Perspective
            No teaching in the Old Testament or New Testament explicitly condemns or condones abortion. Exegetically, the debate has been waged on implicit grounds. The Old Testament passage that has received the greatest attention concerning this matter is Exodus 21:22–24.
When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.
There is a built-in ambiguity with this text, giving rise to differing interpretations of its precise meaning and application. The theological house is divided between “maximum” and “minimum” positions. The problem centers in the words no harm follows. To what “harm” does the verse refer? This problem is linked to another, namely the question of what is meant by the “miscarriage” of the pregnant woman. Is the text referring to an incident where the woman, being jostled by fighting men, is induced to a premature childbirth in which the anguish and inconvenience of premature delivery is recompensed by the law even though the premature child lives and thrives? Or is the text speaking of a case where the induced premature birth yields a stillborn fetus and further considerations come into play only if the mother suffers additional complications, even death?[26] 
The commandment rules out abortion because, as genetic science shows, the fetus is from the moment of conception a human being in process (we might say) of arriving. The fact that for several months it cannot survive outside the womb does not affect its right to the same protection that other human beings merit, and which it will itself merit after birth. Abortion can only ever be justified (and then only as a necessary evil) when the pregnancy genuinely endangers the mother’s life—and, as doctors know, there are few such cases today. Legalizing abortion on other grounds is a social evil, whatever arguments of convenience are invoked.[27]
After the Ten Commandments, God gives Moses a variety of laws. Here, and in the books of Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, there are as many as seven groups of laws. They are collections of rules and detailed procedures.
Here guidance is found for owning servants and settling quarrels. There is compensation for injuries to people or damage to property. The weaker members of society—orphans, widows, the poor and the stranger—are given special protection.[28]
These verses enumerate four crimes that required the death penalty: premeditated murder (vv. 12, 14; cf. the sixth commandment in 20:13 and Gen. 9:6); physical violence against parents (Ex. 21:15); kidnapping (v. 16; cf. Deut. 24:7); and verbal abuse of parents (Ex. 21:17; cf. the fifth commandment in 20:12 and note Lev. 20:9). Allowance was made for unintentional, accidental deaths (Ex. 21:13). A “guilty” person could escape to one of the six cities of refuge after Israel was in the land (Num. 35:6–34; Deut. 19:1–13; Josh. 20). Because of the importance of the home its sanctity was guarded, parents protected, and children controlled; disrespectfulness was to be dealt with in the same way as murder.[29]
From the protection of life the law passes to that of the body against all injuries, whether by man (vers. 18–27) or by beast (vers. 28–32). The principle here is, so far as possible, compensation, coupled with punishment in grave offences.[30] Though in recent decades both proponents and opponents of abortion have cited these verses for support, several observations prohibit using these verses to support abortion.
            They appear in the context of the Book of Exodus with its concern for preserving infant life (Ex. 1; 2). The fact of pregnancy as part of the case must imply concern for the unborn child, or the situation could involve any bystander and be covered by other verses (vv. 12–14, 18, 19).
            If one is seriously considering the spirit of the law, they must pay attention to the implications (implicit understanding) of a particular commandment. The converse of a prohibition must be affirmed: what the law implicitly affirms is a part of the complex of what the prohibition explicitly negates. Wanton destruction of life is prohibited. This implies an implicit command to promote the sanctity and safeguarding of life. The sanctity of life is the supreme basis for the prohibition of murder. The question is, Does the sanctity of life include concern for potential life? There is no way we can prove decisively that it does. But in light of the overwhelming concern in the Scriptures for the safeguarding and preservation of life, the burden of proof must be on those who wish to destroy potential life.[31]
            Even if it is asserted that a fine was assessed for the death of the child rather than the death penalty, which does not indicate that unborn life is valueless or can be extinguished without penalty but just the opposite (see differing penalties involving adults, children, and slaves, vv. 30–32).  Verses 22–23 are basic to the pro-life position on abortion, for they indicate that the aborting of a fetus was equivalent to the murdering of the child. The guilty party was punished as a murderer (“life for life”) if the mother or the unborn child, or both, died.[32]
            The case in Exodus describes unintentional injury.[33]  It was freedom too, because under this Law each person was protected from wrongs others might commit against him, and then was charged with a responsibility for others’ welfare.
            The Old Testament Law was given to Israel by a loving God. It’s very provisions constantly reveal God’s love in action.[34]  Some sins, according to these laws, required the death penalty in ancient Israel. These included wilful murder, the murder or cursing of one’s parents, and the abduction and enslavement of an individual. Other offences, such as quarrelling and hitting another man, or a slave, or a pregnant woman, were regulated for. So, too, were cases as diverse as knocking out the tooth of a slave, or what to do if your ox gores someone to death. The specific cases mentioned help to illustrate the absolute principles of the Ten Commandments, and highlight particular applications of these laws, which are to cover the whole of life. The basic principle, however, is that of verses 23–5: ‘If there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.’[35]
            God’s law shows that He is concerned about everything: men, women, children, the unborn, property, and even animals. This is His creation, and He has the right to tell us how to manage it. The Law did not change people’s hearts, but it did help to control their conduct and give order to the nation. Laws and government have been instituted by God, and we should respect them (Rom. 13).[36]
            In the New Testament the word abortion is used only in a figurative sense. One passage often cited to support an antiabortion stance is Luke 1:39–42, when Mary visited Elizabeth and the child “leaped in her womb.” Other passages that speak of persons being conceived in sin and known by God in the womb are also referred to. The question exegetically is whether or not these allusions are to be taken as religious hyperbole or poetry. However, the message of these passages clearly indicates that God is involved with man’s history prior to his birth.[37]

 
 
CONCLUSION
 
The crucial concern here is that we can say with certainty that at any stage of development the fetus is a potential life, a potential human being, with a high level of probability of becoming a human being if left to the normal course of its life. With this in mind, let us look at the essence of the debate: What is the relationship of abortion to the biblical prohibition against murder? Does the Bible have anything to say about the destruction of a potential life?
            Bible students remember that in the Old Testament there are five distinctions made in the broader application of the Decalogue’s prohibition of killing, including distinctions for manslaughter and involuntary murder. In the New Testament, however, we have an authoritative application and interpretation of this prohibition.
            The prohibition “You shall not kill” is not a universal prohibition against taking human life in any context, but it is wider in its scope than simple first-degree murder. Jesus includes in his understanding of this mandate a prohibition against hatred. Hatred is understood as murder of the heart. In effect Jesus says that the law implicitly prohibits potential murder (and potential adultery). Left to its own, hatred results in murder; lust, in adultery. He says that the law prohibits the potential destruction of life. This is not the same as prohibiting the actual destruction of potential life. But these two are very close to being the same, similar enough to raise serious questions about abortion. In terms of the sanctity of life, potentiality is clearly an issue with Jesus.[38]

 
 
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Campbell, Iain D.  Opening Up Exodus, Opening Up Commentary.  Leominster: Day One Publications, 2006.
 
Edersheim, Alfred .  Bible History: Old Testament.  Oak Harbor: Logos Bible Software, 1997.
 
Feinberg,  John S. and Paul D. Feinberg, Ethics for a Brave New World.  Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1993.
 
Hannah, John D.   "Exodus" In , in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, ed. J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck.  Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985.
 
Knowles, Andrew.  The Bible Guide, 1st Augsburg books ed.  Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 2001.
 
Mohler, Albert, “‘I Feel Super Great About Having an Abortion’ — The Culture of Death Goes Viral.”
 
Nelson, Thomas. The Woman’s Study Bible.  Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1995.
 
Packer, J. I.   Growing in Christ.  Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1994.
 
Piper, John.  Brothers, We Are Not Professionals: A Plea to Pastors for Radical Ministry (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers
 
Richards, Larry and Lawrence O. Richards, The Teacher’s Commentary.  Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1987.
 
Sproul, R.C.  Following Christ.  Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1996.
 
Stewart, Gary,   Basic Questions on Suicide and Euthanasia: Are They Ever Right?, BioBasics series.  Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1998.
 
Story, Dan .  Christianity on the Offense: Responding to the Beliefs and Assumptions of Spiritual Seekers.  Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1998.
 
Tan, Paul Lee ,  Encyclopedia of 7700 Illustrations: Signs of the Times.  Garland, TX: Bible Communications, Inc., 1996.
 
Vaughn, Lewis, Doing Ethics: Moral Reasoning and Contemporary Issues, Third Ed., W.W. Norton & Company, 2013.
 
Wiersbe, Warren W.   Wiersbe’s Expository Outlines on the Old Testament.  Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1993.
 
Wiersbe, Warren W.   With the Word Bible Commentary.  Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1991.


[1] John S. Feinberg and Paul D. Feinberg, Ethics for a Brave New World (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1993), 73-74.
 

[2] Gary Stewart, Basic Questions on Alternative Medicine: What Is Good and What Is Not?, BioBasics Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1998), 14.
 

[3] Ibid, 15.
 

[4] R.C. Sproul, Following Christ (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1996).
 

[5] Dan Story, Christianity on the Offense: Responding to the Beliefs and Assumptions of Spiritual Seekers (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1998), 137.
 

[6] Gary Stewart, Basic Questions on Suicide and Euthanasia: Are They Ever Right?, BioBasics series (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1998), 54.
 

[7] John Piper, Brothers, We Are Not Professionals: A Plea to Pastors for Radical Ministry (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2002), 212.
 

[8] John Piper, Brothers, We Are Not Professionals: A Plea to Pastors for Radical Ministry (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2002), 212.
 

[9] Mohler, Albert, “‘I Feel Super Great About Having an Abortion’ — The Culture of Death Goes Viral.” AlbertMohler, N.p., 8 May 2014, Web, 11 March 2015.
 

[10] R.C. Sproul, Following Christ (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1996).
 

[11] John S. Feinberg and Paul D. Feinberg, Ethics for a Brave New World (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1993), 50.
 

[12] Paul Lee Tan, Encyclopedia of 7700 Illustrations: Signs of the Times (Garland, TX: Bible Communications, Inc., 1996), 839.
 

[13] John S. Feinberg and Paul D. Feinberg, Ethics for a Brave New World (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1993), 50-51.
 

[14] R.C. Sproul, Following Christ (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1996).
 

[15] R.C. Sproul, Following Christ (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1996).
 

[16] John S. Feinberg and Paul D. Feinberg, Ethics for a Brave New World (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1993), 74.
 

[17] R.C. Sproul, Following Christ (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1996).
 

[18] John S. Feinberg and Paul D. Feinberg, Ethics for a Brave New World (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1993), 50.
 

[19] Lewis Vaughn, Doing Ethics: Moral Reasoning and Contemporary Issues, Third Ed., W.W. Norton & Company, 2013, p 164.
 

[20] Ibid, pg. 165.
 

[21] Ibid, pg. 171.
 

[22] R.C. Sproul, Following Christ (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1996).
 

[23]John S. Feinberg and Paul D. Feinberg, Ethics for a Brave New World (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1993), 74.
 

[24] R.C. Sproul, Following Christ (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1996).
 

[25] John S. Feinberg and Paul D. Feinberg, Ethics for a Brave New World (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1993), 75.
 

[26] R.C. Sproul, Following Christ (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1996).
 

[27] J. I. Packer, Growing in Christ (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1994), 260.
 

[28] Andrew Knowles, The Bible Guide, 1st Augsburg books ed. (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 2001), 53-54.
 

[29] John D. Hannah, "Exodus" In , in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, ed. J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), Ex 21:12–17.

[30] Alfred Edersheim, Bible History: Old Testament (Oak Harbor: Logos Bible Software, 1997), Ex 20:18–24:12.
 

[31] R.C. Sproul, Following Christ (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1996).
 

[32] Warren W. Wiersbe, Wiersbe’s Expository Outlines on the Old Testament (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1993), Ex 21:12–36.
 

[33] Inc Thomas Nelson, The Woman’s Study Bible (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1995), Ex 21:22.
 

[34] Larry Richards and Lawrence O. Richards, The Teacher’s Commentary (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1987), 97.

[35] Iain D. Campbell, Opening Up Exodus, Opening Up Commentary (Leominster: Day One Publications, 2006), 87-88.
 

[36] Warren W. Wiersbe, With the Word Bible Commentary (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1991), Ex 21:1.
 

[37] R.C. Sproul, Following Christ (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1996).

[38] R.C. Sproul, Following Christ (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1996).

​Over the last few decades, people in the field of management have been involved in a search for a “best” style of leadership. Yet, the evidence from research clearly indicates that there is no single all-purpose leadership style. Successful leaders are those who can adapt their behavior to meet the demands of their own unique situation[1].  The choice of a leadership style has intrigued both academicians and practitioners[2]. 
Situational Leadership requires incredible judgment based on task knowledge and human assessment[3].  It is the responsibility of the leader to use his or her skill to assess what type of leadership technique to use. 
Situational leadership is a management style developed by noted management gurus Ken Blanchard and Paul Hersey. The fundamental precept of situational leadership is that there is no one "best" style of leadership, and that the most successful leaders are the ones who can adapt their style to a given situation. Situational leadership consists of four general styles of management[4]. 
 A leadership model that links the effectiveness of a leader's style to the current work environment is referred to as situational leadership[5].   Situational Leadership focuses on the appropriateness or readiness of the follower[6].   The leaders' perception of the follower and the situation will affect what they do rather than the truth of the situation. The leader's perception of themselves and other factors such as stress and mood will also modify the leaders' behavior[7].
The two basic leadership behaviors are directive and supportive.  Directive leadership allows the one in authority to make decisions and demands on those he is leading.  Supportive leadership gives tools from the leader to the followers to allow them to be involved in the decision making process.  Blanchard derived four situational leadership styles, which were based on these two basic kinds of leadership behaviors, directive and supportive:
Directing:  provides specific instructions and closely monitors progress; works best when followers are inexperienced[8].
Coaching:  With the selling and coaching style of leadership, the leader is still very involved in the day-to-day activities. The decisions still ultimately lie with the leader; however, input is requested from the employees before the decision is implemented[9].
Supporting:  provides direction and works together with followers to solve problems; works best when followers are not yet comfortable making decisions.
Delegating:  turns over responsibility for making decisions to followers; works best when followers are experienced and comfortable making decisions[10].


[1]Schermerhorn, John . "Situation Leadership." Mid-American Journal of Business 12 (1997): 5-12.
 

[2]Butler, John K., Jr. and Richard M. Reese.   “Leadership Style and Sales Performance: A Test of the Situational Leadership® Model.”  The Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management Vol. 11, No. 3 (Summer, 1991), pp. 37-46
 

[3] http://engineering.ucsb.edu/~tacy/capstone/leadership/my_leadership_style.pdf
 

[4] http://smallbusiness.chron.com/four-basic-leadership-styles-used-situational-managers-2982.html
 

[5] http://www.money-zine.com/Definitions/Career-Dictionary/Situational-Leadership-Styles/
 

[6] Schermerhorn, John . "Situation Leadership." Mid-American Journal of Business 12 (1997): 5-12.
 

[7] http://changingminds.org/disciplines/leadership/styles/situational_leadership.htm
 

[8] http://www.money-zine.com/Definitions/Career-Dictionary/Situational-Leadership-Styles/

[9] http://smallbusiness.chron.com/define-situational-leadership-2976.html

[10] http://www.money-zine.com/Definitions/Career-Dictionary/Situational-Leadership-Styles/

​Paul certainly had to identify church culture with his ministry at Corinth.  There were factions in the church that each had their own view on the church.  This is still seen today.  Unfortunately, few churches create their culture on purpose. Instead, they drift into a culture[1].
1 Corinthians 3:3 for you are still of the flesh. For while there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not of the flesh and behaving only in a human way? 4 For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not being merely human? [2]
It is not difficult to determine a believer’s spiritual maturity, or immaturity, if you discover what kind of “diet” he enjoys. The immature believer knows little about the present ministry of Christ in heaven. He knows the facts about our Lord’s life and ministry on earth, but not the truths about His present ministry in heaven. He lives on “Bible stories” and not Bible doctrines.[3]  The Corinthians had focused on men when in fact God alone was the source of blessing (3:5-9) and ministers were only servants accountable to Him (3:10-17). Since that was so, a minister needed to beware of cultivating the praise of men—as certain leaders in the Corinthian church apparently were doing (3:18-23), and needed instead to seek by faithful service to gain the praise of God (4:1-5).[4]   Each church should be about the business of making disciples that make disciples.  Every program should have this as a projected end.  The key question to ask for each program is whether it is a context for making disciple-making disciples[5].
A true pastor (leader) must be a servant. He must have a servant’s mind (Phil. 2) and be willing to put Christ first, others second, and self last.[6]  The foundation of the church was not the church leaders but Jesus Christ. Each person builds on this foundation. What is built may be something valuable or something worthless. Final evaluation of the value of one’s work will be revealed at the Day of Judgment. Paul explained the condition for rewards with appropriate warnings for leaders and followers.  Paul’s warnings do not mean human leaders are unimportant. People are saved only by Christ, and there is no other basis for salvation. Church leaders build on the foundation. From this thought Paul appealed to the Corinthians to act on what he had written. The apostle emphasized both the responsibility of leaders and the importance of their example. They were “entrusted with the secret things of God.” These secret things granted to these leaders are things that human wisdom cannot discover but can only be revealed by God to His people.[7]


[1] http://stephenblandino.com/2010/11/8-words-that-define-your-churchs.html
 

[2] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. 2001 (1 Co 3:3–4). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

[3] Wiersbe, W. W. (1996). The Bible exposition commentary (1 Co 3:1). Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.

[4] Walvoord, J. F., Zuck, R. B., & Dallas Theological Seminary. (1985). The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures (1 Co 3:1–4). Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.

[5] http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/changing-a-church-culture
 

[6] Wiersbe, W. W. (1992). Wiersbe’s expository outlines on the New Testament (425). Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.

[7] Dockery, D. S. (1998). The Pauline Letters. In D. S. Dockery (Ed.), Holman concise Bible commentary (D. S. Dockery, Ed.) (554). Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

In Mark chapter 4, there is a story about Jesus calming a storm. Not a metaphorical, difficult-situation-in-life kind of storm, but a real, actual, literal, life-threatening thunderstorm. Mark’s Gospel account tells us that it was a “great windstorm” (4:37), letting us know that these were furious, hurricane-like conditions. And Jesus does this not by summoning some sort of higher authority or appealing to a greater power, but by waking up from a nap and simply saying “Quiet. be still,” which was the equivalent of a dog owner rebuking his unruly pet and saying “hush, be muzzled.” The water fell dead still. Eerily still.
Now, if you’ve grown up in the church, this is the part of the message where the pastor says, “Just like Jesus calmed this storm, He can calm the storms of your life.” Like my drive home in a thunderstorm, when we think of getting through a metaphorical “storm” in our life, here is our progression of thought: 1) Something bad happens, 2) I cry out to God, 3) He rescues me, 4) I experience joy and relief. And while there is an element of truth in this statement that allows us to take comfort in the fact that the God who controls the wind and the sea is capable of handling the difficulties of our lives, the problem with this interpretation is that it doesn’t quite fit the narrative in the way it is typically taught. Notice the reaction of the disciples after Jesus calmed the storm:
“He said to them, “why are you so afraid? Have you still no faith?” And they were filled with great fear and said to one another, “Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?” (Mark 4:40-41, emphasis mine). 
At this point, the storm was over. So why the fear? Why the terror? Why the dread? Why not joy, relief, and celebration?
BECAUSE, IN THAT MOMENT, JESUS BECAME MORE UNMANAGEABLE THAN THE STORM THAT ALMOST KILLED THEM. THERE WAS NO SIGH OF RELIEF. ONLY STUNNED SILENCE AND HOLY FEAR.They had seen miracles. They had seen healing. They had seen demons cast out. But no one had ever calmed a storm before. When they asked, “Who is this?” it was rhetorical. They knew the answer. Only God can do that. They were paralyzed in a bewildered moment of awestruck worship at the staggering realization: The Lord of glory—Yahweh, the Great I am, the Almighty--is standing with us in this boat. It was a haunting realization.
But this is not a picture of Jesus that most of us are accustomed to. The god we find most commonly in the modern church is an impersonal force who is just there to help us get our relationships and finances in order. He really needs us to vote the right way before he can do anything significant. He’s conveniently on board with helping us use our church to grow our personal platforms and celebrity status. He can be downloaded off of the internet and reduced to glorified spiritual pep-talk status. We live cupcake lives, and he is the icing on top. He is impossibly practical, pedantically mundane, and sounds a lot like the advice we can find get from a talk show Monday-Friday.
He might provide us with a weekly emotional pick me up, but he doesn’t leave us in awestruck fear. He leaves us immune to truths that should render us speechless. He leaves us checking our watches for how much longer the service is going to last and complaining about how we didn’t like the songs we sang that day and maybe--MAYBE— gets our attention one day a week as long as he isn’t infringing on baseball games or trips to the beach or the pregame show or our sleep or the next Netflix binge or whatever else we can find to keep ourselves distracted.
This god doesn’t leave us in a dreadful wonder of his glory. Of his power. Of his—dare I say it--holy terror. He might be a god we like, but he isn’t a God we fear. The only problem with this god is that he isn’t God at all. 
THERE’S A WORD FOR A GOD YOU CAN EASILY EXPLAIN. IT’S CALLED AN IDOL. You can explain an idol. You can fit it on a bumper sticker. You can control it. You can give it definitions and neat lines. But, as Elisabeth Elliot so pointedly said,“A god who is small enough to explain is not big enough to worship.”

““A god who is small enough to explain is not big enough to worship.”


— Elisabeth ElliotWe prefer a god who is easy to walk away from. A god who wouldn’t dare make us feel uncomfortable and demands nothing. A god who mostly wants me to be entertained on Sunday. A god who really needs us to put on a t-shirt and serve in the nursery and give some money. A god who dispenses a plethora of self-help strategies that ultimately leave us looking back to ourselves for salvation. 
But that’s a god I can walk away from. A god I can be indifferent to. A god I can explain. And, therefore, a god I can’t worship.
But the Lord, the Great “I AM,” the God who calls the raging seas into quiet submission, will not be defined on anyone else’s terms. He will not be reduced to pithy one-liners and empty sales pitches and marketing campaigns and recycled cliches. 
Don’t get me wrong. There is great value in practical counsel. We need to be able to live out the high, theological concepts of Scripture in real, tangible, knowable ways. But if your knee-jerk reaction in the chaos is to look to yourself for the next 3-step solution, you will find yourself in an endless spiral of hopelessness. A shallow, superficial, 1-sided view of suffering may fit neatly into the kiddie-pool safety of our everyday lives, but a kiddie pool faith won’t survive a hurricane world. 
If we go back to the beginning of this story, there’s a small detail at the scene in Galilee in Mark 4:35 that is easy to overlook: “On that day, when evening had come, he said to them, “Let us go across to the other side.”
This is important. Read from the beginning of the passage slowly. Jesus never said that there wouldn’t be a storm. He just said they would see the other side. And make no mistake, Jesus knew exactly what was coming. As skilled sailors and fishermen, He intentionally took them to the brink of their greatest fear and intentionally orchestrated an impossible circumstance in order to demonstrate His immeasurable strength. 
We can pretend all day that safety and comfort are God’s top priorities for His people, but the consistent message of Scripture is clear: If you want to see the Savior, you have to sail into the storm. Want to wear a crown? Carry a cross. Want a resurrection? Not without a crucifixion. Want new life? Die to sin and self.
You have to go through it. Not watch it from the shore. Not hear about it from someone else. You have to go through it. But when you do—when you have been shipwrecked by the seas of agony or you are drowning in the depths of your sin and have convinced yourself that you are incapable of being saved— He will swallow your brokenness in a wave of everlasting mercy from the bottomless fountain of living water and throw you onto the shore of His immovable character and steadfast love. He will overwhelm you and terrify you in His power, but simultaneously comfort you with the grace of knowing that He is for you and that you are completely and irrevocably His. 
WITH YOU, IN THE CHAOS, YOU WILL FIND A GOD OF POWER. OF GLORY. OF HOLY SPLENDOR. A GOD WHOSE VOICE CAN SOMEHOW BOTH COMFORT THE BROKENHEARTED AND SCARE HELL OUT OF ITSELF.When God says “peace, be still,” it is not so we can breathe a sigh of relief, but to take our breath away with holy wonder. And in a moment of divine paradox, the same voice that tamed the seas with the roar of the lion will ask, “why are you so afraid?” with the tender call of a gentle lamb.
Incomparable power. Indescribable peace. One moment. Two incomprehensible realities. Not either/or. Both/and.
That’s a power I can’t imagine. That’s a peace I can’t comprehend. That’s a paradox I can’t explain. 
That’s a God that I can worship.

Thankful for the progress in the last two weeks. On 10/14 I got a brand new shoulder. Though there is still lots of work to do, glad for how far the Lord has brought us the last 14 days. Grateful for Conway Christian High School and Brumley Baptist Church for their patience and support. Looking forward to being back at all the games and activities at both places very soon. Eternally indebted to Meggin Ward Crow, the best nurse I've ever had. God is good all the time.

For many years, people throughout the world have been asking the same question:  “Did Jesus Christ rise from the dead?”  This is a question that should be of great interest, not only because the resurrection of Jesus is important for history, but also because within the answer lies the whole foundation of Christianity.  “The bodily resurrection of Christ is an indispensable foundation of the Christian faith.  No deviation on this doctrine should be tolerated within the ranks of orthodox Christianity”.[1] This belief is of such importance that the body of Christ must stand or fall based on what is true about the resurrection.
 
WHY THE RESURRECTION?
The resurrection of Christ has been a hot topic of debate between Christians and non-Christians for many centuries.  To the Christian, it seems that the resurrection of Christ needs no proof.  Because, for the Christian, “in His resurrection, and perhaps most especially in the coming of His Holy Spirit, He gave and shared new life with all who trusted in Him”.[2]  However, to the skeptic, a man rising from the dead can be a hard concept to grasp.  “Enemies of the church have sensed the critical place of the resurrection as evidenced by their repeated attacks upon it.”[3]  Believers, on the other hand, insist that it happened because people who knew Jesus actually saw him after his death.  “To multiply evidence of the critical place of the resurrection in the Christian faith is unnecessary.  How much depends on the testimony of those who professed to have seen Jesus alive after His death”.[4]  One must examine all the evidence and come to a rational conclusion on the matter. 
 
Theories of the Resurrection
     There are many different theories that non-believers have for the resurrection. 
Ever since the disciples began to proclaim that Jesus was risen from the dead, some have denied the historical resurrection and have tried to come up with ways of explaining away the evidence through alternative theories.  Most of these alternative explanations have proved to be blind alley sand have been unanimously rejected by contemporary scholarship.[5]
 
First is the theft theory.  This theory is simple:  Jesus’ disciples stole his body from the tomb and buried it elsewhere.  “Advanced first by the chief priests and elders of Israel immediately after the soldiers had reported the happenings at the tomb, it was probably the readiest explanation of the moment, for the possibility of such a thing occurring had been in their minds since the burial of Christ and their plans had been made with the object of preventing such an occurrence.”[6]  This theory is easily put to rest.  “The soldiers were instructed to state that while they slept, the disciples came and stole the body of Jesus.  If they were asleep, how did they know the body had been stolen?  Or if stolen, that the disciples had taken it.”[7]
     The next theory to consider is the swoon theory.  “According to this theory, Jesus was not dead when He was in the tomb, but was merely in a swoon, or faint; then after a temporary lapse of consciousness, He revived, was seen by some of His disciples, lived long enough to be seen by Paul, then finally died in some secret corner.”[8]  As with the one before, this theory also has some major holes in it. 
After undergoing such fearful suffering, He would not be an inspiring sight.  He would be an object of pity, rather than an inspiration to service.  He would be looked upon as a failure. There would be no incentive to proclaim Him as the risen Lord.[9]
 
     Even before his crucifixion, Jesus was put through agonizing torture that no mortal man would have survived.  “Under no circumstances could Jesus have recovered from the
Roman scourging and crucifixion, not to speak of the lance thrust, as quickly as this theory demands.  Moreover, the purpose of the lance thrust was to ensure that the victim was actually dead.”[10] 
The third theory about the resurrection of Christ is the vision theory.  This theory “indicates that the appearances of Jesus to His disciples were purely subjective in nature and were due to the excited state of mind in which they found themselves after the death of their Master.”[11]  This theory can be taken apart very easily.  “For the application of such a theory as this, it is rightly indicated that a certain attitude of mind is required.  There must needs be an expectancy of something about to happen.  At least such would be the most favorable ground for visions of this nature.”[12] 
Next is the telegram theory.  “According to this theory, the appearances of Christ were not purely subjective but had an objective cause; which, however, was not the body of Christ risen from the grave, but the glorified spirit of Christ producing visions of Himself for the comfort of His disciples, as if sending telegrams from heaven to let them know that all was well.”[13] As with the others, there are some problems with this theory.  The biggest one being Christ’s body.  What happened to it?  “As in the case of previous theories, no explanation is given in this theory respecting the disposal of the body of Jesus.  Evidently it remained in the tomb.  If so, the preaching would have been refuted with equal certainty by producing the body.”[14]
     The fifth and final theory is known as the legend theory.  “According to this theory, there were no appearances to be accounted for.  This theory says that the sightings of Christ after His resurrection were Christophanies, or visions of Christ.  This theory is very imaginative and therefore “fails to explain the reason for the sudden change in the disciples from sad, discouraged, fearful individuals, to joyous, courageous witnesses to a risen Lord.”[15]
Thesis on the Resurrection
The primary source of information on the resurrection of Christ comes solely from the New Testament.
Scripture lays great emphasis upon the resurrection of Jesus. We are informed therein that He died for our sins and rose again for our justification.  Children of God are esteemed to be united with Him in death and resurrection.[16]
 
Also found in the New Testament are four short biographies of Jesus that attest to His death and resurrection.  “Each of His four biographers—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—affirms that He did rise on the third day after His death; and from that time the doctrine of His resurrection became interwoven in all of the preaching and writing of His apostles as the foundation of the Church, and linked it with every hope of the human race.”[17]   The most important point to note about the New Testament gospels is their consistency.  “Their simple memoirs and pastoral letters touch upon almost every conceivable subject that affects the interests of man here or hereafter, and they have been exposed for centuries to the fierce light of the most hostile criticism; but science can not lay its finger upon a single false statement, nor even point to one anachronism.”[18]
Another important point to note about the Gospels is that they were written by four different people and from four different points of view.  Because of this, there are some differences.  Why are these differences important? 
The most obvious response is that the reporters sensed that what they were writing was of supreme importance for the faith.  As a result, the reporters must have taken special care in gathering their research materials and expressing themselves on paper.[19]
 
     More evidence for the resurrection of Christ are the witnesses who reported seeing him alive after his death.  There are many witnesses throughout Scripture that give detailed accounts of seeing, talking with, and even touching Christ after His resurrection.
Turning then to the testimony of the original witnesses, we find them affirming in the most solemn manner that Jesus was seen after His resurrection, not once nor twice only, but again and again, appearing to Mary Magdalene; to Joanna and other women; to Simon Peter; to the two disciples on the way to Emmaus; to the ten disciples who were together on the evening of the day He rose, to the eleven as they sat at meat(sic); to all of them again when He ascended to heaven from the mount of Olives[20]. 
 
These people knew that this man was Jesus.  This could not be a case of mistaken identity.  “There can be no question about the certainty of the identity of Jesus.  The disciples knew Him.  His characteristic actions would be known to them:  and there could be no mistake in their identification of Him.”[21]
     In his book, Beyond Resurrection, A.J.M. Wedderburn gives five reasons that Christ’s resurrection is a reality.  The first of these reasons is the coming to faith of the disciples.  The Gospels tell the whole story of Jesus’ arrest, trial, and crucifixion.  They also tell how after Jesus’ death, His disciples went back to their old jobs.  This is evidence that they did not expect Jesus to rise from the dead.  “Now it is true that some have argued that this gives a misleading impression:  the disciples really expected Jesus’ imminent resurrection, and the accounts of their dejection and despair are simply an artful ploy to offset the thrill of the resurrection appearances, a dark backcloth against which the brilliance of the resurrection shines more brightly.”[22] This however, is not the case.  Even though Jesus had told the disciples that he was going to rise from the dead, they did not understand. 
There is, in short, much to be said for the Gospels’ portrayal of the disciples as despairing and despondent, as very far from confidently expecting the resurrection of the crucified Jesus.  And had they previously expected it then it would seem that they had forgotten their martyrology in the heat of the moment.  Far likelier, therefore, is the assumption that the disciples were taken by surprise by the turn of events and that nothing that Jesus said had really in fact prepared them for what was to come[23]. 
 
     The next reason that Wedderburn gives is the subsequent celebration of the resurrection by the church on the first day of the week.  “It could easily be overlooked, and often is, how significant is the fact that the first Christians chose to celebrate the first day of the week as their special day of celebration and meeting together?”[24]   Why did the early Christians choose the first day of the week as their day of worship.  “Other explanations have been offered, but they seem implausible in comparison with the very obvious explanation that this day was venerated because it was affirmed that on it Christians had first encountered the risen Jesus.”[25]
     Wedderburn’s third reason for the reality of Christ’s resurrection is the women at the tomb.  “It is a persistent and at the same time puzzling feature of the resurrection stories that it was a woman or women who first discovered the empty tomb, and in some cases women first encounter the risen Jesus.”[26]
     Wedderburn’s fourth reason is the failure of anyone to produce Jesus’ body subsequently.  “It is also true that it remains a striking and puzzling feature of the rise of the Christian church and of its proclamation of the risen Jesus that the only refutation offered of its claim that Jesus had risen from his grave seems to have been the Jewish counter-claim that the disciples had stolen Jesus’ body[27].”  If, as the Jewish officials claimed, the disciples had stolen Jesus’ body, then they would have had to dispose of it somehow, leaving His remains to be found.   
     Wedderburn’s final reason for the reality of Jesus’ resurrection is the absence of any cult around Jesus’ grave.  Today, all across the world, people are able to visit the tombs of well-known religious leaders, but not Christ. “Although cultic veneration of heroes’ graves was well-attested in the Graeco-Roman world, we never read of any Christian veneration of that of Jesus.”[28]  There is no grave because there is no body. 
 
CONCLUSION
     For the Christian, Jesus’ resurrection is the most important date in history.  From His resurrection comes our hope, our reason to live.  Because He lives, so do we.  “By rising, He shattered the hold that death had over all of us.  Death could not keep Him down.  And if we are joined to Him, neither can it keep us down.”[29]  Christ has triumphed over the grave, and because of Him Christians have the same promise.  We too will one day be transformed to live with Him forever.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Works Cited
Anders, Max.  New Testament Commentary:  Matthew.  Nashville, Tennessee:  Broadman and Holman, 2000. 
 
Bergant, Diane.  “What Happened?”  America, April 5, 2004.
 
Boice, James Montgomery.  The Parables of Jesus.  Chicago, Illinois:  Moody, 1983. 
 
Brookes, James H.  Did Jesus Rise?:  A Book to Remove Doubts.  New York, New York:  Loizeaux Brothers, Inc., 1945.
 
Craig, William Lane.  The Son Rises:  The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus.  Chicago, Illinois:  Moody Press, 1981.
 
Eddleman, H. Leo.  Teachings of Jesus.  Nashville, Tennesse:  Convention Press, 1955.
 
Erickson, Millard.  Introducing Christian Doctrine.  Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker.  1992.
 
Geisler, Norman.  The Battle for the Resurrection. Nashville, Tennessee:  Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989.
 
Harris, Murray J.  3 Crucial Questions about Jesus:  Did Jesus Exist?  Did Jesus Rise From the Dead?  Is Jesus God?.  Grand Rapids, Michigan:  Baker Books, 1994.
 
MacArthur, John.  MacArthur New Testament Commentary:  Matthew 24-28.  Chicago, Illinois:  Moody, 1989.
 
Parsons, Elmer R.  Witness to the Resurrection.  Grand Rapids, Michigan:  Baker Book House, 1967.
 
Proctor, William.  The Resurrection Report.  Nashville, Tennessee:  Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1998.
 
Thomson, Alexander.  Did Jesus Rise From the Dead.  Grand Rapids, Michigan:  Zondervan Publishing House, 1911.
 
Wedderburn, A.J.M.  Beyond Resurrection.  Peabody, Massachusetts:  Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1999.
 
Wells, Samuel.  “Broken and Shared.”  Christian Century, June 14, 2005.


     [1] Norman Geisler.  The Battle for the Resurrection. (Nashville:  Thomas Nelson, 1989), 28.
 

[2] Samuel Wells.  “Broken and Shared.”  Christian Century, (June 14, 2005) 8.
 

[3] Elmer R. Parsons.  Witness to the Resurrection. (Grand Rapids, Michigan:  Baker Book House, 1967). 12.
 

[4] Ibid 13
 

[5] William Lane Craig.  The Son Rises:  The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus.  (Chicago, Illinois:  Moody Press, 1981.) 23.
 

[6] Alexander Thomson.  Did Jesus Rise From the Dead?  (Grand Rapids, Michigan:  Zondervan Publishing House, 1911.) 20
 

[7] Thomson, Did Jesus, 21.
 

[8] Thomson, Did Jesus, 22.
 

[9] Thomson, Did Jesus, 21.

[10] Murray J.Harris.  3 Crucial Questions about Jesus:  Did Jesus Exist?  Did Jesus Rise From the Dead?  Is Jesus God?.  (Grand Rapids, Michigan:  Baker Books, 1994.) 37.
 

[11] Thomson, Did Jesus, 22
 

[12] Thomson, Did Jesus, 23

[13] Thomson, Did Jesus, 24
 

[14] Thomson, Did Jesus, 25
 

[15] Thomson, Did Jesus, 26
 

[16] Thomson, Did Jesus, 11
 

[17] James H.Brookes. Did Jesus Rise?:  A Book to Remove Doubts.  (New York, New York:  Loizeaux Brothers, Inc., 1945) 7
 

[18] Brookes  Did Jesus Rise? 70
 

[19] William Proctor. The Resurrection Report.  (Nashville, Tennessee:  Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1998) 44
 

[20] Brookes  Did Jesus Rise? 75
 

[21] Thomson, Did Jesus, 53
 

[22] A.J.M. Wedderburn.   Beyond Resurrection.  (Peabody, Massachusetts:  Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1999) 39.
 
 

[23] Wedderburn.   Beyond Resurrection.  46.
 

[24] Wedderburn.   Beyond Resurrection.  48
 

[25] Wedderburn.   Beyond Resurrection.  49
 

[26] Wedderburn.   Beyond Resurrection  57
 

[27]Wedderburn.   Beyond Resurrection  61
 

[28] Wedderburn.   Beyond Resurrection  63
 

[29] Diane Bergant.  “What Happened?”  America, April 5, 2004

Is the beginning of life or the beginning of personhood the key issue in the abortion debate? Pro-choice advocates who opt for the former often say no one really knows when human life begins. That is a religious, philosophical or metaphysical question. But if the beginning of life is the key, and it is impossible to know when it begins, then when and whether to abort are decisions between the mother and her physician.[1]  It is a widely held Christian conviction is that embryonic life is indeed sacred—that personhood begins at the moment of fertilization.[2]

Those who argue that “viability” is the point where babies should get rights of protection know that a baby’s living without an umbilical cord is not the criterion of human personhood and the condition of the right to life. They all acknowledge this because their own living on a respirator or dialysis machine would not jeopardize our own personhood. The source of food and oxygen does not determine personhood. They know that the size of a human is irrelevant to human personhood. They know this because they do not make a one-month-old postborn baby vulnerable to killing even though it is so much smaller than a five-year-old. Yet they act as if the littleness of the embryo makes it less human.[3]

Adam and Eve were created in God’s image to be equal in personhood but distinct in gender (Gen. 1:26–27; 5:1–2). The phrase “a helper who is like him” (Gen. 2:18), conveys equality and compatibility on the one hand but also indicates a functional distinction that was part of creation.[4]  We know from the Bible that God has emotions, values, chooses, appreciates beauty, demonstrates creativity, makes distinctions between right and wrong, loves and even sacrifices Himself for the sake of others. We know from the Bible that God is a Person, with identity and individuality.

These attributes constituting personhood mark humanity from the rest of creation. In fact, all those elements of good which are found in man must have their source in likeness to the Divine.[5]

According to Psalm 139:13–18 God has His eye on us before we are born. These verses avow that personhood does exist from the moment of conception. The psalmist affirms God’s knowledge of his life from the pre-embryonic stage through death. The Lord weaves and knits together our beings in the wombs of our mothers (v. 13; see Gen. 9, Sanctity of Life; Jer. 1, Abortion). We are in a real sense “prescription babies” in that God has a custom design for every individual, equipping each for specific achievement and purpose (see Is. 43:7, 21; Rom. 9:20; 1 Thess. 1:4). Even the greatest tragedies can be overruled or transformed to good within the providence of God (Rom. 8:28). We praise God for the wonderful way in which He fashioned our bodies, our minds, and our spirits. We marvel at the magnitude of His thoughts (vv. 17, 18). We are grateful that He never finishes His edification process (Eph. 2:10; 1 Pet. 5:10). Even our worst negative traits can be transformed into positive qualities (Rom. 12:2).[6]

The defining, or lack thereof, of personhood has dramatic and far-reaching implications.  Unfortunately, many who use the same language, have very different meanings for the same basic words. 



[1] John S. Feinberg and Paul D. Feinberg, Ethics for a Brave New World (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1993), 57.


[2] Gary Stewart, Basic Questions on Sexuality and Reproductive Technology: When Is It Right to Intervene?, BioBasics Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1998), 24.


[3] John Piper, Brothers, We Are Not Professionals: A Plea to Pastors for Radical Ministry (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2002), 216-17.


[4] Paul H. Wright, "Gender Equality" In , in Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary, ed. Chad Brand, Charles Draper, Archie England et al. (Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2003), 632.


[5] Larry Richards and Lawrence O. Richards, The Teacher’s Commentary (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1987), 28.


[6] Inc Thomas Nelson, The Woman’s Study Bible (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1995), Ps 139:13.

 God’s power is evidenced by his creation of each individual. God created our ‘reins’ (our innermost being, that is, those things that control us—minds, hearts, wills). He ‘covered’ us while we were in the womb. The word ‘covered’ may also be translated ‘knit’ or ‘wove’. By using this term the psalmist pictures himself as a fine piece of art and God as a skilled craftsman.

The psalmist’s conclusion is that he is ‘fearfully and wonderfully made’. Henry writes: ‘… we may justly be astonished at the admirable contrivance of these living temples, the composition of every part, and the harmony of all together.’[1]  David praised God for His omniscience and omnipresence. Verses 13–15 draw together the concepts that a person is formed in his or her mother’s body and that humans are made from the clay of the earth (Gen. 2:7). Thus we, no less than Adam, are God’s creation.[2]

David delights to meditate upon the purposes of God’s providence. He cannot even begin to count all the individual components of that theme. His last thoughts as he falls asleep were of God. When he awakes, he finds himself still in the Lord’s presence, still occupied in contemplating the mystery of his being.[3] God has always been at work in David’s life. He formed him in his mother’s womb. He sees his every action and knows his every thought. There is nowhere David can go which is beyond God’s saving presence and love. The vastest distance, the deepest darkness—even death itself—are no barriers to God.[4]

If the work of God in forming the fetus is precious, how much more precious are thy thoughts, the thoughts of God, toward His creation. How great is the sum of them! Were we to total them they would be immeasurable. If I should count them, they are more in number than the sand. “If all is glorious deeds my song would tell, the shore’s unnumbered stones I might recount as well”—Pindar (b.c. 518–442). More than the sands of the sea are the delightful thoughts of God toward us.[5]

 

God has His eye on us before we are born. These verses avow that personhood does exist from the moment of conception. The psalmist affirms God’s knowledge of his life from the pre-embryonic stage through death. The Lord weaves and knits together our beings in the wombs of our mothers (v. 13; see Gen. 9). We are in a real sense “prescription babies” in that God has a custom design for every individual, equipping each for specific achievement and purpose (see Is. 43:7, 21; Rom. 9:20; 1 Thess. 1:4). Even the greatest tragedies can be overruled or transformed to good within the providence of God (Rom. 8:28). We praise God for the wonderful way in which He fashioned our bodies, our minds, and our spirits. We marvel at the magnitude of His thoughts (vv. 17, 18). We are grateful that He never finishes His edification process (Eph. 2:10; 1 Pet. 5:10). Even our worst negative traits can be transformed into positive qualities (Rom. 12:2).[6]



[1] Roger Ellsworth, Opening Up Psalms, Opening Up Commentary (Leominster: Day One Publications, 2006), 126-27.


[2] Duane A. Garrett, "The Poetic and Wisdom Books" In , in Holman Concise Bible Commentary, ed. David S. Dockery (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1998), 233.


[3] James E. Smith, The Wisdom Literature and Psalms, Old Testament Survey Series (Joplin, MO: College Press Pub. Co., 1996), Ps 139:17–18.


[4] Andrew Knowles, The Bible Guide, 1st Augsburg books ed. (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 2001), 246.


[5] KJV Bible Commentary, ed. Edward E. Hindson and Woodrow Michael Kroll (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1994), 1176.


[6] Inc Thomas Nelson, The Woman’s Study Bible (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1995), Ps 139:13.