Genesis 29-31

Notes compiled with my BSF group

JACOB MARRIES RACHEL AND LEAH (Genesis 29:1–30)

Laban deceives Jacob
Did Leah and Rachel willingly join in their father’s plot to deceive Jacob? I don’t know if Rachel willing joined – I don’t think so, because who would want to share her husband? However, Leah definitely knew what was going on and still went ahead with the plan. She knew that Jacob loved Rachel, yet she still chose to deceive Jacob.

An eye for an eye?
Laban promised Jacob the hand of Rachel after he has worked 7 years. However, after 7 years, Laban gave him Leah instead. Is it a coincidence that Jacob was deceived because he deceived his father to give Esau's blessing to him?

God doesn't "allow" anyone to do anything
BSF asked, "Why do you think God allowed Laban to mistreat Jacob?" I do not think God "allows" anyone to do anything. God gave us freedom. We are free to choose to do anything we want. However, we are judged for our decisions. We can choose to do the right thing or the selfish thing -- God leaves that up to us. Come Judgment Day, Laban will be judged for what he has done, just as we all will be judged for what we have done. If God "allowed" anything, He simply allowed Laban to exercise his freedom.

"When the Lord saw that Leah was not loved, He enabled her to conceive, but Rachel remained childless" (Genesis 29:31)

God teaches Jacob how selfish favoritism is not the heart of God.

Leah took comfort in God's blessings (Genesis 29:31-35)
Leah knew she was able to bore Jacob sons because of God’s blessings. Although she craved the love of Jacob, she did not mourn what she did not have; instead, she focused on the blessings from God.

Our troubles in this life are temporary. Our life experiences are part of the training that gets us ready for God’s Millennium that is coming. If we get caught up with this life, we may lose sight of God’s future and not be trained in the way God had hoped for us. We would then play no part in God’s future for us. Thus, always keep things in perspective. Always remember that things of this world are only temporary. It is exercise for the soul, events that make us stronger in our faith, events that help us for eternity with God. When we are trouble with things of this world, keep focused on God, because He is eternal, and our future with him is eternal. Do not lose sight of our eternal future for something that is temporary. 



JACOB'S 12 SONS START THE 12 TRIBES OF ISRAEL (Genesis 29:31–30:24; 35:16–20)

Reuben
Simeon
Levi
Judah
Dan
Naphtali
Gad
Asher
Issachar
Zebulun
Joseph
Benjamin


JACOB IS A GOOD SERVANT TO LABAN (Genesis 30:25-31:16)

Even though Laban deceived Jacob, Jacob still honored Laban’s rules.

Genesis 30:25-30
Colossians 3:22-25
1 Peter 2:18-20; 3:9; 5:6-7
We are to respect our bosses, because all powers of authorities are placed there by God (Romans 13:1). As Jacob has been a good example for us, even when our bosses are not fair and take advantage of us, we should still be responsible workers. As mentioned above, God will judge us for our choices and behaviors. God will thus one day judge unfair bosses. And if we were irresponsible workers, we, too, will be judged for that. We should focus on being godly men and women ourselves so that when we stand in front of God, we can stand blameless. If we behaved irresponsibly because we felt our bosses were unfair, God will not say, "Okay, I forgive you. I understand." In God's eyes, sin is sin. Any sin is a blemish to perfection. He will judge us for our (irresponsible) behaviors. He will also judge the horrible bosses for their unfairness.

Let us all be inspired by Jacob's attitude: My honesty will testify for me in the future, whenever you check on the wages you have paid me (Genesis 30:33).


JACOB LEAVES LABAN (Genesis 31)

"Go back to the land of your fathers and to your relatives, and I will be with you" (Genesis 31:3)
After serving Laban for 20 years (Genesis 31:38, 41), Jacob was commanded by God to return to Canaan.

Despite the unfairness Laban showed Jacob, Jacob continued to trust God and take comfort in God's blessings

Genesis 31:5
He said to them, "I see that your father’s attitude toward me is not what it was before, but the God of my father has been with me.

Genesis 31:7
... your father has cheated me by changing my wages ten times. However, God has not allowed him to harm me.

Genesis 31:9
... God has taken away your father’s livestock and has given them to me.

Genesis 31:12
Look up and see that all the male goats mating with the flock are streaked, speckled or spotted, for I have seen all that Laban has been doing to you.

Genesis 31:42
If the God of my father, the God of Abraham and the Fear of Isaac, had not been with me,you would surely have sent me away empty-handed. But God has seen my hardship and the toil of my hands, and last night he rebuked you.

God disciplines His children
Through these last few chapters, we see that Jacob was not perfect. He started out as a master of deception, but we're beginning to see him change. He has gone through years of hardship under Laban's roof, but because he endured by relying on God and His blessings (as opposed to taking matters into his own hands), Jacob came out a more mature and godly man. Through Jacob's trials, we can gain a deeper appreciation for the following encouragements:

Hebrews 12:7
Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as His children. For what children are not disciplined by their father?

Hebrews 12:14-15
Make every effort to live in peace with everyone and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord. See to it that no one falls short of the grace of God and that no bitter root grows up to cause trouble and defile many.

Ezekiel 1-2

Bible Study with Dr. Chuck Missler

PRELUDE

The Book of Ezekiel
by Chuck Missler

Ezekiel used symbols and allegory more than other prophets. He had a remarkable vision of God’s Throne in Chapter 1, and this vision was referenced throughout the book. God intended his very life to be a sign to Israel; Ezekiel therefore engages in some strange behavior: he shut himself up in his home, bound himself, and was struck dumb. He was to lie on his right and his left sides for a total of 430 days, he ate bread that was prepared in an unclean manner, and he shaved his head and beard, which was shameful for those in his calling. 

Ezekiel was one of the most fascinating and mystical prophets of the Old Testament. He was held captive with King Jehoiachin in the second of three deportations under Nebuchadnezzar, years before Jerusalem was overthrown. Daniel, who had been in Babylon years before Ezekiel arrived, is mentioned three times.

Ezekiel was colorful—and enigmatic—in his prophetic perspectives. He was also very direct, carefully vindicating God’s justice, and also providing insight on Satan’s origin.
The famed vision of the Valley of the Dry Bones, in Chapters 36 and 37, is unquestionably the monumental Biblical fulfillment of the 20th century. The bones (Israel) come together and come back to life, at first as flesh without the spirit. Later, breath is breathed into them. But notice it’s two steps: flesh first, spirit later.

Isaiah, incidentally, makes an interesting remark, speaking of the same thing. He says, "The Lord shall set His hand again the second time to recover the remnant of His people" (Isaiah 11:11). When was the first time? After Babylon, when Cyrus gave the decree to build the Temple. Isaiah is saying that when God gathers them the second time, it will be the last time. From the 19th century on we have seen the move towards Zionism. On May 14, 1948, all the debates should have ended. Are these things literal? Is Israel going to be restored? Argue all you like until May 14, 1948. From that point on throw the old books out unless they agree with what Isaiah is saying, because Israel is there. They are in danger, but they are there. They are being restored, but many people who study Ezekiel 37 fail to read Ezekiel 36: Why is Israel to be restored?

Ezekiel 36:22-24
Therefore say unto the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord GOD; I do not this for your sakes, O house of Israel, but for mine holy name’s sake, which ye have profaned among the heathen, whither ye went. And I will sanctify my great name, which was profaned among the heathen, which ye have profaned in the midst of them; and the heathen shall know that I am the LORD, saith the Lord GOD, when I shall be sanctified in you before their eyes. For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land

God is restoring Israel because His name is on the document. He said He was, that’s why He’s going to do it. Not because Israel deserves it or because of their foreign policy, but because He said He would.

The impending—but ill-fated—invasion of Gog and Magog, described in Chapters 38 and 39, is among the most famous prophetic passages in the Bible and appears on our near horizon. You cannot really understand the caldron of the Middle East without carefully studying this book.

The last nine chapters are about the Millennial Temple. There’s a description of it that is so highly detailed most scholars realize that somehow it is very specific and very literal, but there are mysteries—it is interesting to note the things which are not mentioned. Throughout the entire nine chapters describing Ezekiel’s Temple we don’t see any gold or silver mentioned. There is no Table of Shewbread. No Golden Lamp-stand; no Ark of the Covenant mentioned (Jer 3:16). Where’s the Seat of Mercy? Where’s the Throne?


INTRODUCTION

2 Peter 1:20
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 

Scripture does not have one meaning for you and another for me. In all these prophecies God had an intended communication. They were given to us in the Bible for our learning and enlightenment. Now, there may be areas in the Scripture where you and I may have different views.

However, it is not a selective nor secret knowledge type of thing. Our only guide is the Holy Spirit.

2 Peter 1:21
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.

This is very evident in the book we are about to study,
Ezekiel. It is probably the most ignored book in the Old Testament.


HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

The Two Kingdoms

The Northern Kingdom – Israel
– 19 Kings reigned 250 years
– 7 different dynasties
– Assyrian Captivity, 721 b.c. (no return)

The Southern Kingdom – Judah
– 20 Kings reigned 370 years
– 1 dynasty: The Davidic
– Babylonian Captivity, 606 b.c. (70 years)

Chronology
- 612 BC: Nineveh falls to an alliance of Babylon and Media
- 609 BC: Pharaoh Necho leads army against Assyria. Josiah fights Necho and gets killed (2 Chronicles 35:20-24)
- 606 BC: Battle of Carchemesh. Nebuchadnezzar vs. Pharaoh Necho on the West bank of Euphrates (Jeremiah 46:1-6)
- 606 BC: The Babylonians began the first of three deportations of the Jews; Daniel was in this group
- 597 BC: In the second group was young Ezekiel, then about twenty five years old. He was taken to Tel Aviv near the ship canal Chebar (Ezekiel 3:15). There he lived in his own house with his beloved wife (Ezekiel 8:1; 24:16).
- 592 BC: Five years after Ezekiel came to Tel Aviv, he was called to be a prophet of God, when he was 30 years old; this was 6 years before the destruction of Jerusalem in 586, so while Jeremiah was ministering to the people back home, Ezekiel was preaching to the Jews of the captivity in Babylon. Like Jeremiah, Ezekiel was a priest called to be a prophet.

Ezekiel the Man
Name means “God strengthens” or “God will strengthen”

One of the three that were called the Captivity Prophets (the other two are Jeremiah and Daniel)

Ezekiel was a priest, but he never fulfilled that role because he was taken captive to Babylon during the second deportation in the reign of Jehoiachin (aka, Jeconiah, the king of Judah) (2 Kings 24:10–16). He reigned only three months and was the object of the blood curse that is circumvented by the virgin birth (Jeremiah 22:30).

Ezekiel was with the captives who had been brought down to the rivers of Babylon. The captives had been placed by the great canal that came off the River Euphrates, which was several miles from Babylon itself. Ezekiel’s ministry was among those people.

Ezekiel's Message
Jeremiah had told them to settle down in Babylon for seventy years, but the false prophets told the people that God would destroy Babylon and set the captives free (Jeremiah 28 & 29). It was Ezekiel’s task to tell the people that God would destroy Jerusalem, not Babylon, but that there would one day be a glorious restoration of the people and a rebuilding of the temple.

His messages were not well-received at first (Ezekiel 14-18), but it did ultimately result in the nation being purged of adulterous practices. He later prophesied God’s judgment upon Israel, which took place during the 3rd deportation of Israelites.

The main theme of the book was to proclaim the sovereignty and the glory of God.

Organization of Ezekiel 
Source: Jamieson, Robert; Fausset, A. R.; Brown, David, A Commentary, Critical and Explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments, Logos Research Systems, Inc., Oak Harbor, WA, 1997.

Prophecies about Israel’s Destruction
Ezekiel 1-3: The Call of the Prophet
Ezekiel 4-24: God’s judgment on Jerusalem (Given before the siege of Jerusalem)

Prophecies about the Surrounding Gentile Nations
Ezekiel 25-32: God’s judgment on the surrounding nations (Given during the siege)

Encouragements about the Future (With the destruction of Jerusalem having come and passed, also vindicating his prophecies, Ezekiel turns to focus on the future)
Ezekiel 33-48: God’s restoration of the Jews in the kingdom (Given after the siege)
Ezekiel 33-36: The Israelites return to the Land
Ezekiel 37: The Israelites experience new life and unity (The Valley of Dry Bones)
Ezekiel 38-39: God’s judgment on Gog and Magog
Ezekiel 40-48: The Millennium

Sequence of Events
- Ezekiel’s call to prophesy (Ezekiel 1:1-3:15)
- Symbolical predictions of Jerusalem’s destruction (Ezekiel 3:16-7:27)
- 14 months later, a vision of the temple was polluted by Tammuz or Adonis worship; God’s consequent scattering of fire over the city and forsaking of the temple reveal Himself to an inquiring people in exile; happier and purer times to follow (Ezekiel 8:1-11:25)
- Exposure of the particular sins prevalent in the priests, prophets, and princes (Ezekiel 12:1-19:14)
- A year later, the warning of judgment for national guilt was repeated with greater distinctness as the time drew nearer (Ezekiel 20:1-23:49)
- Two years and five months later—the very day on which Ezekiel speaks—the day of the beginning of the siege took place; Jerusalem shall be overthrown (Ezekiel 24:1-27)
- Predictions were made against Muslim nations during the interval of silence towards his own people; if judgment begins at the house of God, much more will it visit the ungodly world (Ezekiel 25:1-32:32)
- In the 12th year of the captivity, when the fugitives from Jerusalem had appeared in Chaldea (Ezekiel 33:21), Ezekiel foretells better times, the reestablishment of Israel, and the triumph of God’s kingdom on earth over its enemies, Islam, and Gog (Ezekiel 33:1-39:29)
- After an interval of 13 years, the closing vision of the restored kingdom was given (Ezekiel 40:1-48:35)

God intended Ezekiel's life to be a sign to Israel
Source: Wiersbe, Warren W.: Wiersbe’s Expository Outlines on the Old Testament. Wheaton, IL : Victor Books, 1993.

Symbolic Acts
- Played at war (Ezekiel 4:1-3; cf. Revelation 4-5)
- Shut himself up in his home.
- Bound himself.
- Struck dumb.
- Lie on his right and his left sides for a total of 430 days (Ezekiel 4:4-17)
- Ate bread that was prepared in an unclean manner
- Shaved his head and beard, which was considered a shame in his particular calling (Ezekiel 5:1-4)
- Acted like someone fleeing from war (Ezekiel 12:1-16)
- Sat and sighed (Ezekiel 21:1-7)
- Watched his wife die without being able to mourn for her (Ezekiel 24:15-27)


EZEKIEL 1: THE VISION OF GOD’S THRONE

The world is more than 3 dimensions
The Chariot of God’s Throne, described by Ezekiel, is a glimpse of hyperdimensional event. He is not describing an aircraft, UFO, etc. We live in only four of at least 10 dimensions (supported not just by Biblical texts but physics as well).

“30th year” (Ezekiel 1:1)
Source: Pfeiffer, Charles F., The Wycliffe Bible Commentary: Old Testament, Moody Press, Chicago, IL, 1962.
- Year of maturity for a priest (Numbers 4:3)
- Could also mean 30th year since Josiah’s revival (Ezekiel was born during Josiah’s revival)
- Could also mean 30th year of Jehoiachin’s age, 585 BC
- Could also mean 30th year after Josiah’s reform, 593/592 BC
- Could also mean 30th year of the current jubilee period
- Could also mean 30th year of the neo-Babylonian empire, 606/605 BC
- Could also mean 30th year of Manasseh, 667 BC
- Could also mean 30th year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, 592 BC; the fifth year of Jehoiachin’s exile, 595/594 BC
- Could also mean 30th year of the editing of Ezekiel’s book, three years after the 27th year of 29:17 (567 BC) and the 30th year of Jehoiachin’s reign (Cf. 2 Kings 25:27)

King Jehoiachin
The 18th, and next to the last, king of Judah, was the son of the petty tyrant, Jehoiakim, and grandson of the godly Josiah. His name means "The Lord establishes."

Enthroned by Pharaoh Necho of Egypt, Jehoiachin reigned only three months when he was deported to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar in the year 597 BC, along with the upper classes (2 Kings 24:8-16). He was released by Amel Marduk (Evil Merodach), son of Nebuchadnezzar in 560 BC, the 37th year of his exile (2 Kinggs 25:27).

The fifth year of king Jehoiachin’s captivity (592 BC) is the first of 14 date references in the book of Ezekiel (cf. 1:2; 3:16; 8:1; 20:1; 24:1; 26:1; 29:1; 29:17; 30:20; 31:1; 32:1; 32:17; 33:21; 40:1).

The River Chebar
"The great river," "the grand canal," the River Chebar was the main canal that came off the Euphrates River, which watered that area. It was an artificial water course of the Euphrates. Beginning above Babylon, it flowed southeast, passed through Nippur, site of ancient Jewish settlements, and joined the Euphrates again below Ur. This area was removed by quite a few miles from Babylon and, evidently, the Jewish captives were put there to till the land.

Ezekiel’s home was on the river Chebar, at Tel Aviv, the principal colony of the exiles, near the city of Nippur, southeast of Babylon

"... that the heavens were opened, and I saw visions of God" (Ezekiel 1:1)
Contrast with the depression of the captives (Psalm 137:1-2); Cf. Visions of Isaiah (Isaiah 6) and visions of John (Revelation 4-5) – These visions all changed these witnesses dramatically and permanently.

"…windstorm coming out of the north" (Ezekiel 1:4)
North: Generally symbolizes attacks from the enemies (e.g., Babylon, Soviet forces)

Out of the north: Used in Scripture to point toward the throne of God (Isaiah 14:13; Psalm 75:5-7)

"… an immense cloud with flashing lightning and surrounded by brilliant light. The center of the fire looked like glowing metal" (Ezekiel 1:4-5)
- "Our God is a consuming fire" (Hebrews 12:29)
- "God is light …" (1 John 1:5)
- Paul, at the time of his conversion, saw "a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun…" (Acts 26:13)

Missler: "God meets us on our ground"
Missler reminds us that in order to understand the following vision of Ezekiel, we must view it through the eyes of a Levitally trained priest – which was the background of Ezekiel. That is, because Ezekiel was a trained priest, God spoke to Ezekiel based on what Ezekiel would understand best. (God therefore speaks to each one of us uniquely based on how and what we understand.)

The living creatures symbolize the glory and power of God
The following descriptions of the 4 living creatures all speak of God’s constant working in the world, His power and glory, His purpose for man, and His providence.

"… in the fire was what looked like four living creatures" (Ezekiel 1:5)
- Cherubim (4 wings): Seen guarding the Tree of Life (Genesis 3:24) and adorning the Mercy Seat (Exodus 25:10-22)
- Seraphim (6 wings): Vision of the Throne of God (Isaiah 6:1-8)
- Living Creatures (6 wings): Vision of the Throne of God (Revelation 4-5; Daniel 7 – Interestingly, the major difference between John’s and Daniel’s visions is that Daniel did not see the 24 elders. If the 24 Elders represent the Church, as many pastors believe, this difference represents a literal understanding of Ephesians 3:4. Paul spoke of the mystery of the Church that was not made known to Old Testament saints, and indeed, we see here that Daniel’s vision of the Throne of God does not include the Church, represented by the 24 Elders!)
- HaSatan was the “anointed cherub that covereth” (Ezekiel 28:14).

"...straight forward" (Ezekiel 1:9), "No variableness or turning" (James 1:17)
They could see in all directions and move in all directions without turning. This symbolizes how God is moving forward undeviatingly, unhesitatingly toward the accomplishment of His purpose in this world today. Nothing will deter Him—nothing can sidetrack Him at all.

"The appearance of the living creatures was like burning coals of fire or like torches" (Ezekiel 1:13)
- "God is light…" (1 John 1:5)
- "I am the light of the world…" (John 8:12)
- "But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin" (1 John 1:7)

"Each appeared to be made like a wheel intersecting a wheel" (Ezekiel 1:16)
- Cf. the wheels of the throne of “the Ancient of days” (Daniel 7:9)
- Cf. the bases in Solomon’s Temple (1 Kings 7:27-30)
- Cf. the chariot in 1 Chronicles 28:18.

"Their rims were high and awesome, and all four rims were full of eyes all around" (Ezekiel 1:18)
They were "full of eyes," picturing the omniscience of God.

"The eyes of the LORD are everywhere, keeping watch on the wicked and the good" (Proverbs 15:3).

"… the wheels beside them moved; and when the living creatures rose from the ground, the wheels also rose" (Ezekiel 1:19)
These wheels seem to speak of the ceaseless activity and energy of God.

"Wherever the spirit would go, they would go, and the wheels would rise along with them" (Ezekiel 1:20)
These four living creatures are guard the throne of God (Revelation 4):
1) They protect the throne in that they do not allow man in his sin to come into the presence of God
2) They indicate the way that man is to come

"… high above on the throne was a figure like that of a man" (Ezekiel 1:26)
God came to earth a Man, walked the dusty trails of Palestine, until spikes were driven into His feet…
- "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us" (John 1:14)
- "How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace; that bringeth good tidings of good, that publisheth salvation; that saith unto Zion, Thy God reigneth!" (Isa 52:7)

"This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of theLORD. When I saw it, I fell facedown, and I heard the voice of one speaking" (Ezekiel 28)
In the presence of the Lord, Ezekiel fell face down.
Throughout the Old Testament, when men came into the presence of God, they fell face down:
- "Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts" (Isaiah 6:5)

- Daniel also fell face down (Daniel 10:6-8)
- "And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dea" (Revelation 1:17)


The result of this vision fell heavily on Ezekiel. However, God set him up on his feet, called him to be a watchman, fed him with the Word, and filled him with the Spirit (Jeremiah 15:16; Job 23:12; Matthew 4:4; Revelation 10:9).

Other Manifestations of God
Exodus 19:16, 24:10; 1 Kings 19:11, 22:19; Nahum 1:3; Psalm 18:11, 50:3; 1 Samuel 4:4; 2 Samuel 6:2, 22:11; Isaiah 6:1


EZEKIEL 2: THE CALL OF THE PROPHET (Continued)
Only two men in the Old Testament were called by the title of "son of man" (Ezekiel 2:1)
- In Hebrew, "man" was the word Adam, meaning, "son of the dust"
- Daniel was also called the son of man.
- This is also the title that Jesus appropriated to Himself—86 times in the New Testament! Jesus held this title dearly because it spoke of His humanity and what He has done for us because of His love.

"... the spirit came into me" (Ezekiel 2:2)
In Old Testament times, the Holy Spirit did not indwell all believers but indwelt selected persons temporarily for divine service (Exodus 31:1-11; 1 Samuel 10:9-11; Psalm 51:11; Ezekiel 3:24).

"… nation…" (Ezekiel 2:3)
The Hebrew term here is not normally used to speak of Israel! Israel is usually contrasted with the “nations” (a word used to speak of the Gentiles). The fact that this word was now used to speak of Israel shows how Israel had now become “Lo-ammi,” not the people of God (Hosea 1:9).
Why 70 Years? (2 Chronicles 36:21)

The Israelites were enslaved in Babylon for exactly 70 years because they failed to follow the Lord. They were guardians of the Land (Israel) and were supposed to keep (till) the ground for six years, letting the land rest on the seventh year, a Sabbath for the land. However, they failed to keep that for 490 year (Leviticus 25), and so God basically told them that they owe Him 70 Sabbath years.

The 70 years of Babylonian captivity was to make up for the number of years that the Israelites violated His laws with respect to the Land. This becomes particularly heavy when we realize that the Israelites had been sent prophet after prophet after prophet to get them to repent, but they did not repent.

"Thus saith the Lord God" (Ezekiel 2:4, KJV)
In the Hebrew, Ezekiel often used the two-fold name of “Lord God,” or Adonai YHWH. This terminology stresses both God’s sovereign authority (Adonai – My God) and His covenant-keeping faithfulness (YHWH).

By using the phrase, "... thou shalt say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD" (KJV), Ezekiel had exposed himself the possibility of being charged guilty of a capital crime.
The Nation Israel, even in its idolatry, took the concept of blasphemy very seriously. If anyone pretended to be speaking on behalf of God, he did that by putting his life on the line. The Israelites would to him to the test, and if he failed the test, they would stone him (Deuteronomy 18:20-22).

Here, Ezekiel was instructed to declare the prophecy he shared as the Word of God itself.

"…they will know that a prophet has been among them" (Ezekiel 2:5)
Fulfillment is the test of a true prophet (Deuteronomy 18:21, 22; Jeremiah 28:9).

"In it was a scroll, which he unrolled before me. On both sides of it were written words of lament and mourning and woe" (Ezekiel 2:9-10)
There are only two scrolls described this way in the Scripture:
- One was given to Ezekiel to "eat" (Ezekiel 3:1)
- The other was the Seven Sealed Scroll, which brought forth judgment (Revelation 5)

Jeremiah 15:16
When your words came, I ate them; they were my joy and my heart’s delight, for I bear your name, LORD God Almighty.

Revelation 10:8-11
Then the voice that I had heard from heaven spoke to me once more: "Go, take the scroll that lies open in the hand of the angel who is standing on the sea and on the land." So I went to the angel and asked him to give me the little scroll. He said to me, "Take it and eat it. It will turn your stomach sour, but 'in your mouth it will be as sweet as honey.'" I took the little scroll from the angel’s hand and ate it. It tasted as sweet as honey in my mouth, but when I had eaten it, my stomach turned sour. Then I was told, "You must prophesy again about many peoples, nations, languages and kings."

Why "eat" the scroll?
When Jesus was tempted in the desert, Jesus quoted Deuteronomy 8:3 in response to Satan’s temptations: "It is written: 'Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God'" (Matthew 4:4).

It wouldn’t surprise me if these prophets truly chewed on the scrolls, but the point here is the only sustaining food for our spirit is the Word of God. We should ingest it and digest it. Be very aware of word diets, our choices of words that we ingest/digest…



EZEKIEL AND REVELATION

Ezekiel 1 vs. Revelation 4-5
Ezekiel 3:3 vs. Revelation 10:10
Ezekiel 8:3 vs. Revelation 13:14-15
Ezekiel 9 vs. Revelation 7
Ezekiel 10 vs. Revelation 8:1-5

History of the Light-Speed Debate

This article was originally published in the July 2002 Personal Update News Journal.

Visit Koinonia House for a FREE subscription


by Helen D. Setterfield
[Ed Note: We have been following Barry Setterfield's research on the speed of light since 1993 (1). It is interesting that both evolutionists and creation scientists can be blinded by their own presuppositions...]

When we walk into a dark room, flip a switch and the light is instantly on, it seems that light has no speed but is somehow infinite - instantly there - and that was the majority opinion of scientists and philosophers until September 1676, when Danish astronomer Olaf Roemer announced to the Paris Academie des Sciences that the anomalous behavior of the eclipse times of Jupiter's inner moon, Io, could be accounted for by a finite speed of light (2). His work and his report split the scientific community in half, involving strong opinions and discussions for the next fifty years. It was Bradley's independent confirmation of the finite speed of light, published January 1, 1729, which finally ended the opposition (3). The speed of light was finite-incredibly fast, but finite.

The following question was: "Is the speed of light constant?" Interestingly enough, every time it was measured over the next few hundred years, it seemed to be a little slower than before. This could be explained away, as the first measurements were unbelievably rough compared to the technical accuracy later. It was not that simple, though. When the same person did the same test using the same equipment at a later period in time, the speed was slower. Not much, but slower. These results kicked off a series of lively debates in the scientific community during the first half of the 20th century. 

Raymond Birge, highly respected chairman of the physics department at the University of California, Berkeley, had, from 1929 on, established himself as an arbiter of the values of atomic constants (4). The speed of light is considered an atomic constant. However Birge's recommended values for the speed of light decreased steadily until 1940, when an article written by him, entitled "The General Physical Constants, as of August 1940 with details on the velocity of light only," appeared in Reports on Progress in Physics (Vol. 8, pp.90-100, 1941). Birge began the article saying: "This paper is being written on request - and at this time on request ... a belief in any significant variability of the constants of nature is fatal to the spirit of science, as science is now understood." These words, from this man, for whatever reason he wrote them, shut down the debate on the speed of light. Birge had previously recognized, as had others, that if the speed of light was changing, it was quite
necessary that some of the other "constants" were also changing. This was evidently not to be allowed, whether it was true or not, and so the values for the various constants were declared and that was that. Almost. In the October 1975 issue of Scientific American (p. 120), C.L. Strong questioned whether the speed of light might change with time "as science has failed to get a consistently accurate value." It was just a ripple, but the issue had not quite disappeared.

Partly in order to quell any further doubts about the constancy of the speed of light, in October 1983 the speed of light was declared a universal constant of nature, defined as 299,792.458 kilometers per second, which is often rounded off to the measurement we are more familiar with in the West as 186,000 miles per second.

Birge's paper was published in 1941. Just a year later, Barry Setterfield was born in Australia. In 1979 he was 37 years old. That year he received a book from a friend, a book on astronomical anomalies. It was a large book, and near the end of it there was a section on the speed of light, questioning its constancy. Barry was stunned. Nothing he had read or learned in physics or astronomy had even hinted that there was a question regarding the speed of light. It was a constant, wasn't it? As he read, he learned about the measurements that had been taken years before, and the arguments that had gone on in the scientific literature, and he was fascinated. He figured he could read up on it and wrap up the question in about two weeks; it didn't quite work out that way.

Within a couple of years, one of the creationist organizations had started publishing some of Barry's findings. They were still preliminary, but there was so much more to this than he had thought. In the following years his exploration continued, and he read all the literature he could find. His work caught the attention of a senior research physicist at Stanford Research Institute International (SRI), who then asked him to submit a paper regarding his research. It was to be a white paper, or one that was for the purposes of discussion within the Institute.


Barry teamed up with Trevor Norman of Flinders University in Adelaide, and in 1987 Flinders itself published their paper, "Atomic Constants, Light, and Time." Their math department had checked it and approved it and it was published with the Stanford Research Institute logo as well. What happened next was like something out of a badly written novel. Gerald Aardsma, a man at another creationist organization, got wind of the paper and got a copy of it. Having his own ax to grind on the subject of physics, he called the heads of both Flinders and SRI and asked them if they knew that Setterfield and Norman were [gasp] creationists! SRI was undergoing a massive staff change at the time and since the paper had been published by Flinders, they disavowed it and requested their logo be taken off. Flinders University threatened Trevor Norman with his job and informed Barry Setterfield that he was no longer welcome to use any resources there but the library. Aardsma then published a paper criticizing the Norman-Setterfield statistical use of the data. His paper went out under the auspices of a respected creation institution.

Under attack by both evolutionists and creationists for their work, Norman and Setterfield found themselves writing long articles of defense, which appeared in a number of issues of creation journals. In the meantime, Lambert Dolphin, the physicist at Stanford who had originally requested the paper, teamed up with professional statistician Alan Montgomery to take the proverbial fine-tooth comb through the Norman-Setterfield paper to check the statistics used. Their defense of the paper and the statistical use of the data was then published in a scientific journal (5) and Montgomery went on to present a public defense at the 1994 International Creation Conference. Neither defense has ever been refuted in any journal or conference. Interestingly enough, later in 1987, after the Norman-Setterfield paper was published, another paper on light speed appeared, written by a Russian, V. S. Troitskii (6). Troitskii not only postulated that the speed of light had not been constant, but that light speed had originally been about 10^10 times faster than now.

Since then, a multitude of papers on cosmology and the speed of light have shown up in journals and on the web. The theories abound as to what is changing, and in relation to what, and what the possible effects are. There is one person who is continuing to work with the data, however. As the storm around the 1987 report settled down, Barry Setterfield got back to work, investigating the data rather than playing around with pure theory.

Meanwhile, halfway around the world from Australia, in Arizona, a respected astronomer named William Tifft was finding something strange going on with the redshift measurements of light from distant galaxies. It had been presumed that the shift toward the red end of the spectrum of light from these distant galaxies was due to a currently expanding universe, and the measurements should be seen as gradually but smoothly increasing as one went through space. That wasn't what Tifft was finding. The measurements weren't smooth. They jumped from one plateau to another. They were quantized, or came in quantities with distinct breaks in between them.

When Tifft published his findings (7) astronomers were incredulous and dismissive. In the early 1990s in Scotland, two other astronomers decided to prove him wrong once and for all. Guthrie and Napier collected their own data and studied it. They ended up deciding Tifft was right (8). What was going on?

Barry Setterfield read the material and studied the data. The universe could not be expanding if the red shift measurements were quantized. Expansion would not occur in fits and starts. So what did the red shift mean? While most others were simply denying the Tifft findings, Barry took a closer look. And it all started to make sense. The data was showing where the truth of the matter was. 

While many articles continued to be published regarding theoretical cosmologies, with little regard for much of the data available, Barry was more interested in the data. Yet, his work is not referenced by any of the others. The Stanford paper is just about forgotten, if it was ever known, by the folks in mainstream physics and astronomy. However, not only are the measurements still there, but the red shift data has added much more information, making it possible to calculate the speed of light back to the first moment of creation. So Barry wrote another paper and submitted it to a standard physics journal in 1999. They did not send it to peer review but returned it immediately, saying it was not a timely subject, was of no current interest, and was not substantial enough. (It was over fifty pages long with about a hundred and fifty references to standard physics papers and texts.) So Barry resubmitted it to an astronomy journal. They sent it out to peer review and the report came back that the paper was really interesting but that it really belonged in a physics journal. So, in 2000, he sent it off to another physics journal. They refused it because they did not like one of the references Barry used: a university text on physics. They also disagreed with the model of the atom that Barry used - the standard Bohr model. In August 2001, the paper was updated and submitted to a European peer-reviewed science journal. The editor has expressed interest. We will see what will happen. In the meantime everything continues: Barry Setterfield is giving presentations in different countries, the mainstream physicists and theorists are continuing to publish all manner of theoretical ideas, and the subject of the speed of light has erupted full force back into the scientific literature.

There is a reason that Barry's work is not being referenced by mainstream scientists - or even looked at by most. If Barry is right about what the data are indicating, we are living in a very young universe. This inevitable conclusion will never be accepted by standard science. Evolution requires billions of years. 

And there is a reason why the major creation organizations are holding his work at an arm's length as well: they are sinking great amounts of money into trying to prove that radiometric dating procedures are fatally flawed. According to what Barry is seeing, however, they are not basically flawed at all: there is a very good reason why such old dates keep appearing in the test results. The rate of decay of radioactive elements is directly related to the speed of light. When the speed of light was higher, decay rates were faster, and the long ages would be expected to show up. As the speed of light slowed down, so the radioactive decay rates slowed down.

By assuming today's rate of decay has been uniform, the earth and universe look extremely old. Thus, the evolutionists are happy with the time that gives for evolution and the creationists are looking for flaws in the methods used for testing for dates.

But if the rates of decay for the different elements have not been the same through time, then that throws both groups off! Here was an "atomic clock" which ran according to atomic processes and, possibly, a different "dynamical" clock, the one we use everyday, which is governed by gravity - the rotation and revolution rates of the earth and moon. Could it be that these two "clocks" were not measuring time the same way? A data analysis suggested this was indeed happening. Tom Van Flandern, with a Ph.D. from Yale in astronomy, specializing in celestial mechanics, and for twenty years (1963-1983) Research Astronomer and Chief of the Celestial Mechanics Branch at the U.S. Naval Observatory in Washington D.C., released the results of some tests showing that the rate of ticking of the atomic clock was measurably slowing down when compared with the "dynamical clock (9)." (Tom Van Flandern was terminated from his work with that institution shortly thereafter, although his work carries a 1984 publication date.)

In recognizing this verified difference between the two different "clocks," it is important to realize that the entire dating system recognized by geology and science in general, saying that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old, and the universe somewhere around ten billion years older than that, might be thrown into total disarray. The standard science models cannot deal with that.

The standard creation models cannot, at this point, deal with the fact that radiometric dating may be, for the most part, telling the truth on the atomic clock. And, meanwhile, the Hubble spacecraft keeps sending back data which keep slipping into Barry Setterfield's model as though they actually belonged there.


**NOTES**
1. Personal UPDATE, 3/93, pp. 12-16; 3/95 pp. 10-14; 3/98, pp. 13-14; 1/99, pp.13-16.
2. I. B. Cohen, "Roemer and the first determination of the velocity of light (1676)," Isis , Vol. 31, pp.327-379, 1939.
3. J. Bradley, "A letter", Philosophical Transactions , Vol.35, No. 406, pp.637-661, December 1728.
4. R. T. Birge, Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol. 1, January 1929, pp.1-73. See also: http://sunsite.berkeley.edu
5. A. Montgomery and L. Dolphin, Galilean Electrodynamics , Vol. 4 No. 5, pp. 93ff., 1993.
6. V. S. Troitskii, "Physical Constants and the evolution of the Universe", Astrophysics and Space Science Vol. 139, 1987, pp 389-411.
7. W. G. Tifft, Astrophysical Journal , 206:38-56, 1976; 211:31-46, 1977; 211:377-391, 1977; 221:449-455, 1978; 221:756-775, 1978; 233:799-808, 1979; 236:70-74, 1980; 257:442-449, 1982; etc.
8. T. Beardsley, Scientific American 267:6 (1992), p. 19;. J. Gribbin, New Scientist 9 July (1994), 17; R. Matthews, Science 271 (1996), 759.
9. T. C. Van Flandern, "Precision Measurements and Fundamental Constants II," Taylor and Phillips (Eds.), National Bureau of Standards (U.S.) Special Publication 617, 1984, pp. 625-627.

Related References
• Speed of Light Slowing Down? - WorldNetDaily
• Physical Constants and Evolution of the Universe - Astrophysics and Space Science
• The Atomic Constants, Light, and Time - Setterfield.org

What Is Evolution? Reviewing the Terms

Before I share an article from Koinonia House, I thought I'd elaborate a bit on the spirit of true science.

I am a scientist by training, and I have seen enough "scientists" treat science as a religion. I call these people "pseudo-scientists" because true scientists understand that every scientific conclusion we make is based on a set of premises or assumptions. In layman's term, we cannot prove what is absolutely correct. We can only show, under our experimental conditions, these things happen. That is, if these experimental conditions are not met, then we have no data to support what would happen instead. We can make educated guesses, but let us be clear about what they are: They are still guesses. They are not facts. They are not truths.

Therefore, in science, all we have are WORKING THEORIES of how things are. We thought the world was flat until science showed us evidence that the world was round. We thought the sun revolved around Earth until science showed us evidence that Earth revolves around the sun. We thought the speed of light was constant, until recently, we are beginning to discover that it may not be. 

Science is an evolution of WORKING KNOWLEDGE. Any scientist who does not recognize this would be foolish enough to say that he/she has absolute knowledge. He/She has forgotten the very basis of science: Scientific hypotheses are always based on a set of premises. This makes any scientific conclusion a RELATIVE truth. Scientists who ignore experimental premises/assumptions and extrapolate data to announce a finding as an absolute truth are not scientists. I believe we call them politicians, but I've seen them take form in all walks of life.

Below, I attach the Koinonia House article:


From the February 19, 2013 eNews issue
Visit Koinonia House for a FREE subscription


Biologists like to claim that evolution has been proven absolutely, with no question about it among reputable scientists. Scientists may quibble about the specifics of evolution, they say, but not about the fact of it.

There are indeed a growing number of professional scientists who disagree that the evidence points to molecules-to-man evolution. Whether those scientists are "reputable" is not at issue; in today's scientific community, having the audacity to question Darwin can in itself quickly tarnish the reputation of a formerly respected scientist. The fact is, men and women who know their stuff can disagree about the ability of existing evidence, paired with Darwinian ideas, to sufficiently explain the formation of life as we know it. These scientists come from all manner of religious backgrounds, including agnostics who claim no religion at all.

During the next several weeks, we are going to diligently and carefully address some major issues in the evolution debate, things like transitional forms and the reliability of cladistic analysis, radiometric dating, the fossil record, bacteria, and potentially more. To begin our series on evolution, though, we need to start with a return to the definition of "evolution." We've run this article in the past, but a review is necessary before we take this further, especially for new readers. In the following weeks, God willing, we can go on to fascinating topics that are of interest to science lovers everywhere.

There are a number of different concepts that can be used when talking about evolution. Unfortunately, many people do not stop to define the terms they are using when getting into discussions on evolution. Because of this, students of science can easily misunderstand one another.

Below are some general terms often involved in discussions about evolutionary theory, and sorting these out can help one keep definitions straight when discussing origins.

Change over time
The most basic definition of evolution is simply "the process of change or development over a period of time." Hence,
music, cultures, sports teams all "evolve." In biology, classes of animals and plants have experienced marked change over dozens or hundreds or thousands of years. At one time, beavers were as big as today's bears, and ancient ground sloths once grew to be the size of oxen. Little three-toed horses and small camels roamed what is now Texas. Over time, groups of animals diversify, as shown by the fossil record and common observation. This definition is extremely broad, and says nothing about what caused the change or where the beavers or sloths came from in the first place.

Descent with Modification
This term that Darwin used basically means that living creatures have the ability to create offspring like themselves, but with the potential for variation. Today, descent with modification is explained through the field of genetics and studies involving DNA. Through the building-plan code of DNA, creatures can produce offspring like themselves, yet with room for variation. Browneyed parents who have recessive gene coding for blue eyes can produce blue-eyed children. Cats can give birth to kittens with a range of characteristics, all in one litter, depending on the specific DNA coding passed on to each kitten by its mother and its father.

Adaptation
Sometimes an offspring receives certain traits or characteristics from its parents that allow it to survive in certain situations better than in others. Large-beaked finches adapt better to eating hard, large seeds, because their beaks are strong enough to crush them. Finches with long, thin beaks adapt better to getting food out of hard-to-reach places. Finches with large beaks will do better in one environment and will flourish there, while others with long beaks will flourish in other environments.

Survival of the Fittest
This basic concept promoted by Darwin argues that those organisms that are best able to adapt to a particular
environment will live to produce more offspring. For instance, when there is plenty of food, all the finches on an island can do well. However, during times of drought, only the finches with the strongest beaks will be able to eat the hardest seeds, enabling them to survive and reproduce. If other finches with longer, thinner beaks can get seeds from places the rest of the finches can't, these will survive and reproduce. The other finches that can't compete for the food supply will die out. Soon, the "specialized" finches are reproducing more "specialized" offspring like themselves, so that obvious variations start showing up between the different groups of finches.

Natural Selection
Adaptation and Survival of the Fittest work together to create success among certain groups of creatures with certain
genetic variations. "Nature" selects which ones survive based on which ones are best adapted to their environment and best able to overcome the competition. Natural Selection includes both ecological selection (overcoming competition for food, safety, shelter) and sexual selection (which guy gets the girl).

Genetic Drift
This refers to the way small populations of creatures end up reproducing and passing on their genetic information and becoming specialized even if they are not the best adapted to an environment. If all the competition got killed by a lightening storm or flood or avalanche, those left behind would continue to reproduce and survive, whether or not they were the best suited to survive otherwise.

Most of the above concepts can be seen regularly in nature and are largely beyond dispute. However, the following ideas start creating heavy debate:


Speciation
This term refers to the formation of new "species" over time, generally through the mechanisms of natural selection and survival of the fittest. When many people talk about "evolution" they often mean "speciation," arguing that through natural selection, entirely new species have been formed.

Whether this can be proven actually depends on the definition of the term "species" (and there is still a great deal of arguing among scientists over that one). Usually, a species is considered to be a group whose members only reproduce with each other. Finches may become so specialized that they no longer mate with other kinds of finches. These can be considered a new "species" of finch.
Yet, evolutionists often extrapolate to argue that through these processes thousands or millions of years ago, finches evolved from some more generic form of bird, which evolved from some more generic form of vertebrate. The line should be drawn at the DNA evidence. What does the DNA allow for? How much genetic variation was originally available in the DNA of the earliest finches, and how can we determine it?

Natural Selection can only work with the DNA code already present, and cannot create new DNA coding that did not previously exist. The specialized finches are still finches and are not turning into some other kind of bird.

Mutation
To deal with this obvious problem of DNA coding, some evolutionary scientists have argued that through small mutations, new information can be added to the genetic code.

However, there is much debate over this issue. Mutations are naturally destructive and cause damage, and evolutionary scientists have been hard pressed to find beneficial mutations. On rare occasion, a mutation can help a creature survive when it would otherwise not be able to, but only because the mutation has caused a malfunction. For instance, children with sickle-cell anemia are more resistant to malaria, but this is because their red blood cells are not functioning properly, (and large numbers still die from the sickle-cell anemia). 

Many "super bugs" in hospitals are immune to antibiotics because they are actually mutated, sickly bacteria and can't function properly to take in the antibiotics.

When put in competition with normal bacteria outside of a hospital setting, these "super bugs" can die off quickly.

The General Theory of Evolution
This is the popular but controversial idea that all life on earth started in a primordial soup, and that all the variation of life on earth arose through gradual evolution by way of mutation, adaptation, and survival of the fittest.

This is where the heavy argumentation over "evolution" is often focused. The general theory that all life on earth evolved from primordial microbes is based on philosophical beliefs about the nature of nature, on models, on extrapolations, and on guesswork – because it deals with theories about things that cannot be directly observed or reproduced. All the best scientists can do is create models and work to fit the observable evidence to their models. In this sense, evolutionary theory is absolutely a work in progress.

While many concepts in "evolutionary" science are useful in understanding genetics and the variations between species, it is important to recognize where observation ends, and where extrapolation and theorizing begin. Those in the information sciences recognize the vital importance of focusing on information and the genetic code and of determining where the DNA code originated in the first place. Without a mechanism for adding information to the genetic code, natural selection and adaptation can only produce more specialized finches or dogs or horses, but they cannot tell us how finch or dog or horse DNA was programmed in the first place.


References
• Genetic Engineers Unwind Species Barrier - Creation.com
• Definitions of 'Evolution' - SIU Department of Zoology
• Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting The Theory Of Intelligent Design - The Discovery Institute
• Strategic Trends: Archeology - Koinonia House
• Studies On Creation and Evolution - Koinonia House