Barnes church of Christ

Under the Mosaical Law those who accidentally caused the death of another could flee for safety to one of six cities of refuge. Today, the sinner has his “city of refuge” in Christ. The analogy is distinct. Furthermore, even the very names of those cities teach valuable truths Consider:
KEDESH. This city’s name meant, “separate; set apart.” This describes Jesus (who is the soul’s city of refuge) as one who was fully set apart for the work of the Father. Jesus Himself stated, “For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me” (John 6:38). Such unselfishness of His own will and welfare (to our benefit) ought to compel our appreciation and loyalty.
SHECHEM. This name meant, “shoulder.” “Shoulder” indicates the bearing of another’s burden; to prop one up; to sustain. Such aptly describes Jesus. In the teaching of the lost sheep, when it was found, “he layeth it on his shoulders” (Luke 15:5)—away from the thorns, wolves and dangerous waters. Thanks be to God for the world’s wonderful shoulder.
HEBRON. The southwestern city meant, “friendly association; fellowship” We all need friends. Man is a social being. God created us that way. Unfortunately, many have (or will) encounter circumstances in which they become lonely. Who, then, is our friend? “Hebron” indicates that Jesus is our friend. He will always be there. He will never leave. It is Jesus who told us, “I say unto you my friends” (Luke 12:4; cf. John 15:12-15). Furthermore, Jesus gives us friends through Christian fellowship (Mark 10:29-30). Truly, Jesus is our friend—our true friend.
BEZER. This means, “fortified.” Likewise, Jesus is a strong defense. He is called Mighty God (Isa. 9:6). No one, not even Satan, can snatch us out of the hand of God (John 10:28). Truly, “if God be for us, who can be against us?” (Rom. 8:31).
RAMOTH. Its meaning is, “exalted, eminence.” If we exalt a worthy man, how much more ought we exalt the prince and savior of our souls?! (Acts 5:31).
GOLAN. This northeast city’s name meant, “passage, transmigration.” Such aptly describes Jesus, who said, “I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved” (John 10:9). Yes, Jesus is the passage (John 14:6).
The six cities of refuge—an amazing description of the relation of Jesus and ourselves. May these six terms help us better our appreciation and loyalty to Jesus.

Gary Henson

“These were the appointed cities for all the children of Israel, and for the stranger that sojourneth among them, that whosoever killeth any person unwittingly might flee thither, and not die by the hand of the avenger of blood” —JOSHUA 20:9

The twentieth chapter of the book of Joshua consists of only nine verses, yet it contains a most valuable analogy for men living today. It is the account of the cities of refuge.
There were six cities chosen by God which were evenly located within the nation of Israel. These cities were designated as a place of safety for anyone who accidentally caused the death of another. As long as he remained within the city, the avenger of blood of the one who died could not harm him. Consider some of the analogies for men living today.
First: Just as God provided a city of refuge in Moses’ day, He also has provided “a city of refuge” for man today. That place is in Christ. Man has sinned (Rom. 3:23) and punishment is certain (Rom. 6:23). However, to escape, we can go to Jesus. Second Timothy 2:10 tells us of “the salvation which is in Christ Jesus.” Thus, just as the man had to be in the city for protection, man today must, must be in Christ.
Second: The way to the cities were clearly marked. The cities were upon hills to be easily seen, and there were signs posted for direction. The way to safety was plain. Likewise, directions to the salvation of the soul are made clear in the Bible. Paul stated, “When ye read, ye may understand” (Eph. 3:4). Jesus said, “If ye abide in my word, ye shall know the truth” (John 8:32). Yes, God’s instructions to safety is made clear to all.
Third: The manslayer himself had to go to the city. He could not send a representative. So it is with salvation in Christ. It is personal. One cannot be saved simply because his relative is a Christian. We are told, “Repent and be baptized every one of you for the forgiveness of sin” (Acts 2:38). Salvation is strictly personal.
Fourth: After the slayer entered the city, he had to remain in the city for safety. If he ever stepped out, the avenger could kill him. Likewise, the one who has entered into Christ must continue to abide in Him by faithful obedience to His Word. We are warned, “Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life” (Rev. 2:10), and “If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned” (John 15:6). Yes, one must remain in Christ by faithfully obeying His Word—the New Testament.
The circumstances and conditions concerning the slayer and the cities of refuge are so easy for us today to understand. We would think for a man under this law to fail to comply with these instructions to be wholly without excuse. What then, can be said of those of us today who do the same with Jesus?

Gary Henson

Today, many people claim they miraculously speak in tongues–languages totally unknown to humanity. It is maintained that, since Jesus promised believers the ability to speak in tongues (reference is made to Mark 16:17), then believers today should be able to speak in tongues.
Although their desire to please God must be appreciated, we must kindly point out their error (Eph. 4:15).
First, the tongue speaking which is spoken today is not the tongue speaking of the Bible. Today, the speaking is ecstatic utterances. It is not a human language at all. Some call it “jibber-jabber.” However, in the 1st century, tongue speaking was the miraculous ability to speak in a foreign, human language. This is made abundantly clear in Acts 2. In verse 4, the apostles “began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.” Then, when those who lived in foreign lands [who had traveled to Jerusalem for the day of Pentecost (v:1)] heard them, “they were confounded, because every man heard them speak in his own language” (v:6) and they asked “how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?” (v:8). Thus, whatever it is our religious friends are uttering today, it is not what they were doing in the New Testament–and those in the New Testament were speaking in tongues.
Second, believers today do not have the ability to do the miraculous (which includes speaking in tongues). Again, God makes it clear, the miraculous ability was to cease. He said, along with other miracles, “whether there be tongues, they shall cease” (1 Cor. 13:8). When ? When the “perfect is come, then that which is in part [i.e., the miraculous (v:9)] shall be done away” (v:10). What then, is the “perfect”? It is the completed revelation of God in the 27 books of the New Testament–it “is that good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God” (Rom. 12:2); it is “the perfect law of liberty” (Jam. 1:25).
Yes, believers had the miraculous ability to speak in foreign, human languages, but only as long as the N.T. was in the making. Today, the N.T. has long been completed (some 1900 years), and so has ceased the tongue speaking.

Gary Henson

It appears that many seem to think so. In a report, of the top ten study Bibles purchased, the King James Version did not even place. [The NKJV was sixth]. The versions which occupied the other nine positions were unreliable “thought translations.”
Of the general translations, KJV was second and NKJV was third. However, that version which was the best seller was the “thought translation,” NIV.
A reliable version is a version that is a “word for word” translation. Such a version strives to give us the English equivalent to the original Greek words which God selected (1Cor. 2:13). However, “thought translations” merely give us that which the translating committee THINK God means. But, if the translating committee “thinks wrong,” then we do not have God’s Word—we have man’s! And when one follows man’s teachings, he follows in vain, “teaching for doctrines the commandments of men” (Mat. 15:9).
The warning to refrain from adding to and taking away applies to Bible translators too (Rev. 22:18-19)!! God said, “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish from it, that ye may keep the commandments of Jehovah your God which I command you” (Deut. 4:2). When a translator “mis-thinks” what God means, then, as he writes his translation, he will either be adding to or taking away from what God is commanding, and the reader is not able to “keep the commandment of Jehovah.”
May we as members of the Lord’s church be aware of this trend and infiltration of non-word-for-word translations (Deut. 4:2; Mat. 5:18; 1 Cor. 2:13; Rev. 22:18,19). It is sadly getting (rather, has gotten) to the point that, not only do we have to help people who are mislead to see what the Word of God says, we also have to help people see what the Word of God is.

Gary Henson

At a former Cosmic Questions Conference, which is sponsored by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, 200 people debated about a Designer for nearly five hours. The USA Today (April 20, 1999) highlighted the statement of Nobel Prize-winning physicist, Steven Weinberg as he scoffed at the idea of a miraculous creation by a Supreme Being: “Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you’d have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things.” Evidently, Mr. Weinberg does not fully grasp the implications of his statement.

Atheists continue to speak of that which is good and evil. However, if there is no God and all that exists owes its origin to self-creation (the big-bang) and evolution on earth, then there is no absolute moral standard by which to judge who and what is good or evil! If we are merely matter in motion, then there is no moral difference between a man killing a cockroach or killing a child. There would be no good act nor evil act. Rather, it would be acts that we like or dislike. Thus, if a man desired (liked) to kill a child, then we could not say he is an evil person doing an evil thing. Yet, this is precisely what Weinberg said!

Why do atheists (from Nobel Prize winners to those across the fence) continue to speak of good and evil, and objective moral right and wrong? It is because God put that “ought to” in us and there is no getting away from it. Romans 2:14-15 teaches, “For when the Gentiles which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves; Which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the meanwhile accusing or else excusing one another.”

So, the next time your atheist friend speaks of an objective moral right or wrong act, why not help him see that he just proved the existence of God?!

Gary Henson

During the Vietnam war, US aircraft flew over the jungles of that country spraying the dense vegetation with the chemical “agent orange.” The idea was to kill the plants which would take away the native’s advantage in their jungle battle tactics. Sadly, it is told, agent orange was sprayed upon some of our own troops as they were in the fields, resulting in subsequent and serious physical problems. Truly this is a horrible tragedy–to use something which is thought to be harmless, but all the while is gradually being absorbed and ensuring tremendous ailments and destruction.
Today there is another “agent orange” being applied to people and is doing far greater damage. It too is thought to be harmless, yea, even beneficial. The agent? Ungodly, destructive philosophies of men. The means of application? The camouflaged “classrooms” of life.
When brother Thomas Warren was preparing himself to challenge atheistic philosophers in debate, he went to obtain the doctor of philosophy at Vanderbilt University. To his surprise, most of the students did not intend to become philosophers, but rather writers for the mass media of entertainment Those brilliant minds were studying the ungodly philosophies of men and becoming writers of this nation’s television shows, movies, books and songs! Thus, as the people of this nation watch sit-coms, dramas, talk-shows and movies, and sing-a-long with the radio and CD’s, we are being taught the philosophies of man by means of these “classrooms.”
Brother Bill Nick, commenting upon the recent radical change in theater, music and literature, wrote, “Behind all of this is a departure from the normative standards of the Bible, and a glorification of philosophies of men.” He goes on to list some of the philosophies: “Rooted in the secular existentialism of Sartre, Jasper, Huxley and Heidegger, and the religious existentialism of Barth, Brunner, Tillich and Niebuhr….” 1
Regarding this writing of philosophy into the books and movies, Francis Schaeffer stated, “The really dangerous thing is that our people are being taught this modern 20th Century morality without being able to understand what is happening to them.” 2
Brethren, the individual Christian, the church and our nation need to realize that TV and other mass media contain a deeper and far greater danger than the obvious language, violence and nudity. They contain and are indoctrinating us with the philosophies of men—ungodly systems of values by which one lives. And if the success of this ploy is doubted, one only needs to reflect upon the change in the moral character and values of our country these past recent years.
May at least WE be wise to this matter and VERY selective as to what is watched, read and heard. May our God help us to warn others.

Gary Henson
“Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy…” Co. 2:8

1Bill Nicks, “The Movies.” Editor, Thomas Eaves, Living Soberly, Righteously And Godly, page 179.
2Francis Schaeffer, Escape From Reason, page 65.

The assault upon the minds of man to socially accept and imbibe in intoxicating drink is intense. From the persuasive influence of professional athletes to the “cute” frogs, dogs and lizards, society is gradually becoming more tolerant of drinking. Thus, in the midst of this mental transition, it must be asked: “What does the Bible teach regarding the drinking of intoxicating drinks?”

FIRST, if the Bible teaches that man is not to become drunk, and if the original (Greek) word includes the entire drinking process (from the first drink to staggering drunk), then even one drink of intoxicating drinks is sinful. The Bible does teach that man is not to become drunk. “Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God” (Gal. 5:21; cf., 1 Cor. 6:10; Eph. 5:18). Also, the original (Greek) word does includes the entire drinking process (from the first drink to staggering drunk). METHUSKO [mequskw] is defined as: “To make drunk, or to grow drunk (an inceptive verb [relating to the beginning (GH)], marking the process of the state expressed) to become intoxicated” (Vine’s, 1.341); “to begin to be softened” (Young’s Concordance, p. 275); “to grow drunk (marking the beginning)” (Bullinger’s, p. 238). Thus, METHUSKO includes the beginning of the drinking process–the first drink. To illustrate, consider a man who is a weight lifter going to the gym for an hour-long workout. Near the end of his workout he is getting very exhausted and is straining with every lift. Yet, at the beginning of his workout (before the grueling exercises had its weakening effect) he was still in the workout process. He was weak at the end because of, not only the latter exercises, but also because of the exercises which he did at the beginning. Thus, the workout was a cumulative process which lead to his exhaustion; even the first lift (although unnoticed) had a weakening effect. Likewise, METHUSKO describes such a cumulative process. Thus, although one will eventually become staggering drunk, he is METHUSKO even when he begins with the first drink. Therefore, even one drink of intoxicating drinks is sinful.

SECOND, if the Bible teaches that the Christian is to refrain from harming the body, and if intoxicating drinks harm the body, then the use of intoxicating drinks is sinful. The Bible does teach that the Christian is to refrain from harming the body. “What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s” (1 Cor. 6:19-20). Thus, the Christian is not to do that which destroys the property of God. Rather, the physical body is to be used to glorify God. However, intoxicating drinks do harm the body. As reported by Dr. Melvin H. Knisley, professor of anatomy at the Medical College of South Carolina, at the 28th International Congress on Alcohol and Alcoholism: “Even one beer destroys brain cells” (brain cells cannot be replaced). Also, in a report of the United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare: “Alcohol is indisputably involved in the causation of cancer and its consumption is one of the few types of exposure known to increase the risk of cancer at various sites in the human body.” Therefore, the use of intoxicating drinks is sinful.

CONCLUSION: The answer to the question is: The Bible DOES teach that the drinking of intoxicating drinks is sinful. May we have the courage to do and stand for that which is God’s Will.

Gary Henson