Barnes church of Christ

While the terror of God is the beginning point and foundation of the reverential fear of God, the terror of God is to quickly yield to the reverential fear of God. This is observed in Exodus 20:18-20 when God manifested His immeasurable might which caused the people to tremble. Yet, God was using this manifestation of His nature to get them to have reverential fear from their hearts. In 2 Samuel 12, the Israelites had sinned in asking for a king. God sent thunder and rain which caused them to have terror (12:18). When the people repented (12:19) Samuel told them to fear not (12:20), “only fear Jehovah, and serve him in truth with all your hearts; for consider how great things he hath done for you” (12:24). Yet, the fear of terror still lingered as a deterrent from wickedness (12:25; cf. Heb. 12:28-29). 1 John 4:18 aptly applies to this transition of fear: “There is no fear in love: but perfect love casteth out fear, because fear hath punishment; and he that feareth is not made perfect in love.” When a person understands the infinite God and His nature, his terror is to quickly change to reverence.
Furthermore, the kind of fear by which a person is motivated to obey God is a clear indication of the condition of his maturity and his heart. Those who serve due to the fear of the terror of God are those who still love self. They would not be keeping God’s laws nor would they be withholding themselves from sin if it were not for the fact that God was “holding back their hands” with the threat of hell. Such are the children whose hearts’ desire is to cross the street, but grudgingly refrain for fear of a spanking. However, they who serve God willingly and desirously out of respect due to the nature of God are they who love God. They keep the commandments out of love, not terror (John 14:23). Such are the children who do not cross the street because they hold their father in high esteem and do what he says for they wish to please him. Each must ask himself, “Why do I attend worship, attend Gospel Meetings, give in the contribution, teach Bible class, visit the sick, help in evangelism, fulfill my obligation as a preacher, elder or deacon, etc.?” If one is still obeying God out of fear of His terror, then no matter how much time has elapsed since his baptism, he is still severely immature and his heart is not right.
May we live a life of obedience out of a reverential fear of God. Consider His nature, His authority, His power and His wisdom. Take in account His love, His kindness and His rewards. Serve God lovingly (Gal. 5:6) and delight in His law (Psa. 1:2).
Gary Henson

Reverential fear is the disposition of heart that motivates a man to desirously reverence God, His authority, love and obey His commands and hate and shun all forms of evil. “This ‘fear of Jeh[ovah]’ is manifested in keeping God’s commandments, walking in His ways, doing His will, avoiding sin, etc. (Ex 20:20; Dt 6:13,24; 2 S 23:3; Ps 34:4,9; Prov 8:13; 16:6 ).” 1
Reverential fear as a motivation to proper ethical conduct is presented in Exodus 20:18-20. And all the people perceived the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the voice of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking: and when the people saw it, they trembled, and stood afar off. And they said to Moses, Speak thou with us, and we will hear; but let not God speak with us, lest we die. And Moses said unto the people, Fear not: for God is come to prove you, and that his fear may be before you, that ye sin not. This passage is significant to our study for three reasons: (1) it is the account of the giving of the law (the code of ethics) to which the Israelites were to obey, (2) it contains the two senses of fear, and (3) it reveals that the reverential fear not only motivates proper ethical conduct, but it is the motivational factor upon which God desires men to act. In the account, the people were told both, to fear and to fear not. They feared God because of His awesome display of power and were motivated to hear (heed) God’s Will through Moses. Yet, it was not this fear to which Moses appealed for their obedience. Rather, he told them to put away such fear because God wanted them to have a different fear, that is, a reverential fear. This reverential fear was to be the source and reason of their obedience to His law. They were to “fear Jehovah [their] God to keep all his statutes and his commandments” because they were to “love [their] God with all [their] heart, and with all [their] soul, and with all [their] might” (Deut. 6:2,5). It was this fear of which God acknowledged that, in reference to this very account, they had (temporarily) attained (Deut. 5:28,29). Although the fear of terror was predominant under the Old Testament law, God wanted them all along to be motivated to proper ethical conduct by the reverential fear.
Reverential fear as a motivator is also seen in 2 Corinthians 7:1, “Having therefore these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.” The fear in this verse is based upon the blessed promises that God would (1) be their Father, (2) dwell in them, and (3) receive them (6:16-18). Such promises do not instill terror. Rather, they arouse indebtedness with reverence to Him who can give such wonderful promises. It is from this reverential fear that the Christian is motivated to strive for holy living.
Truly, reverential fear motivates those who love and respect God to willingly and lovingly conduct themselves in proper ethical conduct by obeying His commandments and shunning evil. Although God uses, and man is motivated to obedience by both types of fear (as observed in the discussion on Exodus 20:18-20), it is our obedience by reverence that God desires. It is like the father who, when necessary, will obtain his child’s obedience with the switch, but would greatly prefer the child to obey out of respect and high regard for his father.
Gary Henson

1 James Orr (ed.), The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia (Grand Rapids:  Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1949), p. 1102.

Matthew 10:28 and Luke 12:4,5 are two of many verses which make clear that a dreadful fear is used by the Lord to motivate man to proper ethical conduct. “And I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more they can do. But I will warn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, who after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him” (Luke 12:4,5). This passage presents a decision to be made between yielding to the pressure of men who want you to do their evil will (and thus, transgress God’s Will and reap the subsequent wrath of God), or, cleaving to God’s Will (and thus, shun the will of man and reap their persecution). This verse teaches that we must weigh the consequences of the wrath of both parties, and having done so, and thereby having considered the terrors of hell (Matt. 25:41,46; Rev. 20:10; 21:8; et al.), one is motivated to live in accordance to the ethics of the Bible.
In the Old Testament, God used the fear of terror as a means of motivating the people to both, obey Him and shun evil. In a crucial time in Israel’s history, as they were about to cross the Jordan River to obtain the land in which they were to live, God sternly charged them to “observe to do all the words of his law that are written in this book” or else “he will bring upon thee again all the diseases of Egypt, which thou wast afraid of; and they shall cleave unto thee” (Deut. 28:58-60). Thus, the fear of terror was a constant means of motivation to move all the Israelites to obey all the laws for all time (i.e., until the old law was done away, Gal. 3:24; Col. 2:14).
From these considerations, then, the fear (dread, terror, fright) of God is a scriptural and an expected means of producing proper ethical conduct in obedience to God’s Word. Gospel preachers and teachers need to preach this fear of God. Joe Gilmore is correct in stating, “Preachers who ignore the fear of the Lord in the pulpit ignore the greatest means to persuade and or arouse the conscience to consider the works of God and flee from the wrath to come.” We need to persuade people (whether in or out of the church) to obedience to God’s Will by preaching the terror of God and the fear of being lost and going to hell as was preached by Jesus (Matt. 11:20-24; 13:37-43; 25:1-46), John the Baptist (Matt. 3:2,7-12), Peter (Acts 2:36; 3:13-15; 8:20-23), Stephen (Acts 7:51-53), Paul (Acts 13:40; 17:30,31; Gal. 2:11) and all the prophets. Man is to feel terror when he beholds the severity of God (Rom. 11:22), considers the examples of those who were destroyed (1 Cor. 1:11), understands that he can be spewed out of Christ (Rev. 3:16), knows that his name can be blotted out of the book of life (Rev. 3:5) and hears that Jesus will come “in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power” (2 Thess. 1:8,9).
May we today pursue the ethics as taught in the Bible due to a fear of the wrath of God.
Gary Henson

A world renowned comedian, in seeking to obtain obedience from his “son,” told him, “I brought you into the world; and I can also take you out!” It is no secret, human beings are motivated to a desired behavior by fear. Children obey parents for fear of chastisement (Prov. 22:15); Civilians fear law enforcement (Rom. 13:3-5); Military men fear superiors (Acts 16:27); Employees fear employers (Matt. 25:25). Likewise, human beings, in fear of God, will move to obedience. This is made clear in Deuteronomy 6:2, “…fear Jehovah thy God, to keep all his statutes and his commandments.”
The fear of God produces proper ethical conduct. Correct Biblical ethics and the fear of God are inseparable. “Fear and reverence of God…provide both, the motive and manner of Christian conduct (Luke 18:2, 4; Acts 9:31; 1 Pet. 2:17; Rev. 11:18).”1 “…true religion is often synonymous with the fear of God (cf. Jer. 2:19; Ps. 34:11)….”2 “To ‘fear God’ is sometimes used in the N. T. as equivalent to religion (Lk. 18:4; Acts 10:2, 35; 13:16, 26)….”3 Truly, without the fear of God, there are no proper Biblical ethics.
Since the fear of God is the motive to proper ethical conduct, it is no surprise that such fear does not come without its rewards:
“He that feareth the commandment shall be rewarded” (Prov. 13:13). While living on earth, there are providential rewards because “to fear Jehovah our God, [is] for our good always….” (Deut. 6:24) and “there is no want to them that fear him” (Psa. 34:9). “As the heavens are high about the earth, so great is his loving kindness toward them that fear him” (Psa. 103:11; cf. Deut. 5:29). “[They] that fear Jehovah, trust in Jehovah: He is their help and their shield” (Psa. 115:11).
Likewise, the fear of God has its eternal rewards. By heeding the Gospel in fear, there is the promise of entering into His rest (Heb. 4:1,2). With fearful obedience, man works out his salvation (Phil. 2:12). “In every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him” (Acts 10:35).
Gary Henson

1 Colin Brown (ed.), The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1975), p. 623.

2 J. D. Douglas (ed.), New Bible Dictionary (Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, 1982), p. 374,

3 James Orr (ed.), The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1949), p. 1103.

NOTE: Marion’s second edition to his flood book is in the hands of the printers and, hopefully, will be available soon. It is simply outstanding. Below is its Forward. –Gary

Our planet contains numerous mystifying features such as: flash-frozen animals and plants in tropical surroundings found within deep ice of the far north; thick, multiple and rapidly deposited layers of sediment as found in the Grand Canyon and elsewhere throughout the world; fossils of fast-decaying organisms extending through several different sedimentary strata; sea fossils located at the interior of continents; mountain ranges with seemingly inexplicable cause of formation; and many, many more such perplexing features. These features pose the dilemma of their cause as either (1) a single worldwide flood or (2) uniformitarianism (or even multiple catastrophes) throughout thousands of millions of years. Only one of these two can be, and must be, correct. Not both, not neither, but one or the other is the actual cause.
The answer to this dilemma has profound ramifications. If a worldwide flood did not occur, then these features developed over an extensive amount of time encompassing 4.5 billion years or more—a time necessary for promoting the theory of evolution and eliminating the concept of creation by a supernatural God. On the other hand, if a worldwide flood did occur how and when the Bible describes and caused these features, then: (1) the earth is young (a few thousand years), making it impossible for evolution to have occurred; (2) this is evidence of Divine inspiration of the Bible, for mere men of antiquity could not have known and wrote the obscure factors (which this book brings forth) involved in the flood; and (3) there is a creating God Who brought the flood (due to man’s sin [Genesis 6]) and inspired men to record it 1000 to 2000 years later.
How, then, is it to be determined which of these two possibilities is correct? Advocates for an old age of the earth will present matters such as radiometric dating of rocks, radiocarbon dating of organisms, earth’s reception of light from stars seven million light-years from earth, etc. Yet, young earth advocates present the flood (and other matters which are scientifically established) to account for a young earth which harmonizes with the Bible and falsifies the time needed for evolution.
However, traditional scenarios of the flood advanced by young-earth and old-earth advocates (such as: local flood; rain only; rain plus reservoirs of water from beneath the surface of the earth) contain substantial problems which cannot be successfully answered. For fifty-two years, Dr. Fox labored tirelessly on this question, researching extensively in scientific journals and books, lecturing and writing on his breakthroughs, and now presents a second and updated edition of A Study of the Biblical Flood as he expounds his flood model—a model which is new and unique, but explains those puzzling features of the earth, fits the science, and answers the questions. Fox also exposes the old-earth advocate’s acclaimed evidence for an old earth.
To one unfamiliar with Fox’s flood model, this book will be quite enlightening. To one troubled by the unsolvable problems of traditional flood models, this will provide answers. To one distressed by atheistic accusations against the flood (and creation), this will furnish refutations. To one advancing claims against the flood (and creation), this may change the mind of the honest investigator. Quotations and technicalities are supplied to enable the reader to see and examine the research and evidence behind all facets of Fox’s flood model, eliminating the notion for the reader to think Fox merely devised a model from imagination.
As to the author’s immense educational credentials, instructional expertise, and intellectual capabilities, reading “About the Author” at the end of this book would prove most impressing.
I predict Fox’s flood model, upon readers comprehending how it fits earth’s numerous puzzling features mentioned above, will emerge as the academically accepted model of the flood.
Gary R. Henson

Using the preceding rules of the previous series of articles, coupled with diligent study, a reader of the Bible will find no real contradictions. However, (without the rules and study) the Bible does appear to contain contradictions. Why is this the case? Couldn’t God have had the writers write in such a way so as to not ever have even one apparent contradiction?! Couldn’t Mark and John both have used the same means of reckoning time (rather than one Jewish and the other Roman)? Sure, with diligent study the apparent contradictions are explained, but why make it difficult and trying?!
That is exactly the point. With this problem, God is testing the heart of a man to see whether or not he: (1) truly hungers and loves the Truth (Matt. 5:6); and (2) has an honest heart (Luke 8:15) to apply common everyday methods of explaining apparent contradictions to the Bible. Is one going to earnestly and honestly study to determine if there is a valid explanation, or is he going to allow such difficulties to create doubt in the inspiration of the Bible?
Consider the striking similarity of this matter with the parables of Christ. When Jesus spoke a parable, He gave that, which, on the surface was vague. True, the story was understandable, but the difficulty was in the vagueness of its spiritual teaching. In spite of their outward appearance, those who were not truly dedicated to their religious commitment to God, when, upon hearing the vague parables, would seek no further explanation. They would close their eyes, ears and hearts, and even oppose Jesus (Matt. 13:15; 21:45-46; Mark 12:12; Luke 20:19). On the other hand, those who were committed in heart would seek out the meaning of the parables and be rewarded with the explanation (Luke 8:9ff). Matthew 13:10-18 contains all of these characteristics which are under consideration: (1) the difficulty of understanding parables, (2) the two kinds of hearts, (3) the explanation of the parable given to the committed and (4) the purpose of the parables (i.e., the “weeding out” process between the committed and uncommitted hearts).
Yes, God allows falsehood and error to be taught (including the claim of Biblical contradictions) so as to test the heart for its love of God and the Truth (2 Thes. 2:10-12).
Conclusion
The Bible is either inspired of God or it is not. One of those positions must be true. Not neither, not both, but one or the other. Atheists, skeptics and critics attempt to establish their contention that the Bible is not inspired of God by claiming it contains contradictions which are below the production of a perfect, all-powerful God. However, principles have been presented which, when applied, reveal that the Bible contains no contradictions.
Gary Henson

What better way to express how we appreciate young mothers? The things written in this article are representative of the thinking of many Christians. They remind us of our responsibility, our challenge and our hope for the future. Mothers, we salute you! And if you want to know why, keep reading —

1. We love you because God has committed to your trust and care the priceless gift of little children. They are “an heritage of the Lord,” and a reward to woman hood (Psalm 127:3).

2. We love you because little children are a blessing to all people. Think how dull and insipid life would be without the sight and sound of little children. They are examples for us in so many ways. We need to observe their love, innocence, humility, purity, and forgiving spirit (Matthew 18:1-4; 1 Corinthians 14:20).

3. We love you because we know how keenly and fearfully you feel about your responsibility to love, teach, train, nurture, provide for, and be an example to your children (Titus 2:4; 5:2; 2 Timothy 1:5; Proverbs 22:6; Deuteronomy 6:4-9). You have shown your concern by taking advantage of opportunities provided by the church to help you in your task.

4. We love you because we know from experience how much of your time, energy, and patience it takes just to bring your children to Bible study and worship services on the Lord’s Day. Yet it is “worth it” and for the sake of the children and the Lord’s church please don’t let up. So many are counting on you.

5. We love you because you are trying to guide little minds toward the goal of sincere and mature worship and service to God. All of us who have tried to do the same know that it is not always easy to get up on a day when most don’t have to worry about getting the family off to work and school, when you are still tired from a busy week, and maybe not feeling well, and get ready for Bible study and worship.

And, when we hear little voices shuffling during the service–don’t be embarrassed. It just means a young mother cared enough to make the effort. Don’t give up–God will bless you for it.

From: The McLoud Messenger

Does a history book contradict itself when it contains within its pages the following statements: “Ronald Reagan was a movie star;” “Ronald Reagan was the Governor of California;” “Ronald Reagan was the president”? No, because at different points in time each statement was true. As time passes, things change.
So it is with the Bible. At one time Mark was a hindrance (Acts 15:38); later he was helpful (2 Tim. 4:11). At one time Demas was Paul’s fellow laborer (Phi. 24); later he had forsaken Paul (1 Tim. 4:10). At one time Moses feared Pharaoh (Acts 7:29); later he did not (Heb. 11:27).
Applying the well-understood principle, “as time passes circumstances change,” many supposed Bible contra-dictions are explained. [Also cf., John 1:44 and Mark 1:21, 29; Acts 20:9 and 20:10; Matt. 27:34 and Mark 15:23.]

Different Ways of Reckoning Time
George Washington wrote that he was born on February 22nd, while his mother wrote the 11th. A contradiction? No, not when it is discovered that his mother used the “Old Style” of time, while he used the “New Style.” A child is born at 11:59 p.m. Yet, the next morning when visitors arrive at 8 a.m. (eight hours later), the mother says the baby is one day old.
The same applies to the Bible. There is no problem with Matthew 12:40 stating that Jesus was buried three days and three nights, because part of Friday, part of Sunday and all of Saturday still account for three different days. There is no contradiction with the statements of Jesus being crucified at the third hour (Mark 15:25) and at the sixth hour (John 19:14-18). Mark could have been writing according to Jewish time, while John’s account could have used Roman time (beginning at midnight) and began counting at the preliminaries of the crucifixion.
Keeping this principle in mind will help a reader to avoid making the mistake of alleging there are Biblical contradictions in passages which deal with time.

Different Arrangement of Material by the Gospel Writers
Contradictions are leveled against the New Testament when the four different writers have various accounts out of order. However, have not historians presented WWII in various aspects (by nations, by generals, by weapons, etc.) without being charged with contradictions?
So it is with Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Actually, it is implied that a pure chronological sequence was not used by some (Luke 1:3). Thus, when there seems to be a contradiction in sequence of order [for example: Jesus traveling beyond Jordan, to Jerusalem, to Jericho and to Jerusalem (Matt. 19:1; 20:17, 29; 21:1), and Jesus traveling beyond Jordan, to Bethany and to Ephraim (John 10:40, 11:17, 54; 22:1)], the reader must remember that the four writers often used different arrangements of material.
Gary Henson

The usage of symbolism in the American speech saturates our society. There probably never has been a language which did not employ it. “He runs faster than a cheetah,” “His mind is a computer,” “The linebacker is a moose” are all phrases which describe, not a literal actuality, but a superior characteristic in symbolic terms. Since human languages use symbolism, and since the New Testament was written in a human language, then, if this fact is not recognized, a reader may think he has found a contradiction when in fact he has not.
Because of the usage of symbolism there is no contradiction with the statements, “he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one” (Luke 22:36) and “put up again thy sword into his place: For all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword” (Matt. 26:52). Since the two swords in Luke’s account are not physically enough for twelve men, Jesus was using symbolism to warn them about the upcoming trying times. Due to symbolism, there is no contradiction with John the baptizer being said to be Elijah (Matt. 11:15) and not to be Elijah (John 1:21). John was Elijah symbolically, as is made clear in Matthew 17:10-13. The Bible is not contradicting itself when it is said that Jesus was the vine (John 15:5), the chief corner-stone (Eph. 2:20), the good shepherd (John 10:11), a lamb (Acts 8:32), the door (John 10:9), living bread (John 6:51) and the light (John 9:5). Each of these terms are figuratively describing one of the many wonderful relationships between the Son of God and man. Thus, many of the supposed contradictions vanish away when the reader recognizes the usage of symbolic language.

Different Angles or Purposes of the Writers
Two television news teams report the same automobile accident. Both stories are the same in regard to the basic account, yet the reports are not precisely identical. One mentions all the people and bodily injuries, the other one doesn’t. One mentions all the vehicles and faulty parts, the other doesn’t. Contradictions? No. Why? One team, wishing to emphasize driver responsibility to human life, gives a report with details highlighting this aspect. The other, seeking to emphasize equipment safety, presents aspects of the account to highlight that aspect.
The New Testament is no different. When Matthew 8:28 reported two demoniacs while Mark 5:2 reported one, Mark singled out the most prominent character (just as he did in seven other occasions). It is like a person saying “I met the president of the United States” when in fact he also met the twenty others with him. To say that Jesus was a lamb (John 1:36) who was a lion (Rev.5:5) does not contradict when one realizes that the first emphasizes Jesus as the innocent sacrifice, while the second highlights His fierceness in judgment. It is not a contradiction when Matthew reported that Jesus was approached by the centurion, while Luke said it was the elders. Matthew’s report by-passed the elders who merely carried the centurion’s request. In like manner, many today report that they received a letter from the president, when in actuality, the letter came from the president’s communication department. Many such reputed contradictions are clarified when the reader recognizes that the writers wrote from different angles or with different purposes. [Also cf., “Jesus carried the cross” (John 19:17) and “Simon carried the cross” (Luke 23:26); “One animal” (Mark 11:7) and “More than one animal” (Matt. 21:5, 7).]
Gary Henson

Contradictions can also be erroneously claimed by regarding one item as two different items. Two men had a never-ending argument over the authorship of Tom Sawyer. One claimed it was Mark Twain. The other insisted it was Samuel Clemens.
When a Bible character (as well as a place or event) has more than one name, the reader ought to check to see if the two passages are using different names of the same person before he calls it a contradiction. One Bible character had the names: Joseph, Barsabas and Justis. Another was called: Simon, Simeon, Simon Bar-jona, Simon son of Jonas, Simon Peter, Cephas and Peter. The two men who argued over the authorship of Tom Sawyer would have room for five more when considering the writer of First and Second Peter.
This explains the apparent contra-dictions in the four listings of the Apostles (Matt.10:2-4; Mark 3:16-19; Luke 6:13-16; Acts 1:13). It answers why the same area was called the country of the Gergesenes (Matt. 8:28) and the country of the Gadarenes (Mark 5:1). It explains why the woman was a Canaanite in Matthew 15:32, but a Syro-phenician in Mark 7:26. No, there are no contradictions in these verses or verses like them. They are simply cases in which one item has two or more names.
Under A Different Covenant
Recognizing that the people in the four Gospels and the people in Acts to Revelation were living under two different covenants will clarify some supposed contradictions. It is not a contradiction to say that Mr. Smith legally drives on both sides of the road – – if Mr. Smith frequently travels to and drives in London (a nation with a different traffic law).
Jesus’ crucifixion made the law of Moses (under which Christ lived) old (Heb. 8:13). Thus, it is not a contradiction for Jesus to have observed the Passover and the Sabbath when Colossians 2:16 makes clear that such is no part of Christianity. This principle also explains why Hebrews 7:19 states “the law made nothing perfect,” while James 1:25 mentions “the perfect law.” The first was the old law and the second was the new. The principle of “different laws” also explains why the Jews said “by our law he ought to die” (John 19:7) and “it is not lawful for us to put any man to death” (John 18:31). The first refers to the Mosaic law, the second to the restrictions of the Roman law.
We would pray that our religious friends would apply this crucial principle of “different covenants” to the thief on the cross. He lived under a different law than those who received the instructions of the necessity of baptism for salvation (Acts 2:38; 22:16; et.al). To claim that the case of the thief on the cross proves that baptism is not essential, is to make the Bible contradict itself – – which would imply that the Bible is not inspired.
Gary Henson