text:
Hercules Clusters II [1]
In our region of the galaxy, stars have lots of elbow room -- our nearest neighbor is four light-years away. But there are other neighborhoods in which the stars are separated by mere light-months or even -weeks. And they've been that way since close to the beginning of time.
These neighborhoods are known as globular clusters, and two of them are in good view in the constellation Hercules -- M13 and M92. They're in the northeast as the sky gets good and dark.
Each of them is a ball of hundreds of thousands of stars, yet is only a few dozen light-years across. So each star in the cluster has lots of close neighbors.
All of these neighbors are old and sedate, though. The clusters are probably around 13 billion years old, so their stars were born within a billion years of the Big Bang. Any star that's that old has to be less massive than the Sun, which means it's also fainter than the Sun. Such stars are also cooler than the Sun, so they shine yellow, orange, or red.
Many of the stars are so small and faint that they'd need to be quite close to be visible from any of their neighbors. Even so, with so many neighbors, the skies of any planet in these clusters is likely to be ablaze with stars -- thousands of bright, colorful dots strewn across the firmament.
Under clear, dark skies, M13 is just visible to the unaided eye. M92 is fainter, so you need binoculars or a telescope to pick out this old and crowded stellar neighborhood.
Script by Damond Benningfield, Copyright 2010


text:
Enter your email address to receive email notifications of new photos.
Email Address
They look so dejected and lost.
Proving that photos don't always tell the right story. 🙂
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Name *
Email Address *
Notify me of follow-up comments by email.
Notify me of new posts by email.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Mate I was kidding with the subject line, your lucky to be in one piece, as you know.
The irony of the whole incident is the fact that I am the one who is restricted to 33bhp for 2 years. Had the road not been wet then I could perhaps have shot off in front of him and then slowed down once I was safely in lane, but even so I am not sure that he would have let me re-enter the lane too easily.
This is the daft thing, I was reading your post and nearly straight away thought "why didn't you just gun it past him". It's tricky to comment without being there, but a 17yr old is unlikely to be driving anything over a 1.2ltr car. And an SV650 could maybe out accelerate a porche 911 on a good day.
But as I said, dont know the ins/outs not being there, plus it was wet, plus you've only got 33break, plus thats put down via a V-Twin which again can get _interesting_ in the wet.
And the peak power of the sv is 9300rpm! Not great when you need it asap. Great fun in the dry though!
911 = 1500kg@325bhp = 217bhp/tonne
sv650 = 165kg@33bhp = 200hp/tonne
Corsa = 1100kg@80bhp = 73bhp/tonne
Dude, you should have smoked him
sv650 = 165kg@70bhp = 420hp/tonne
next time


text:
Poet::Util::Web - Web-related utilities
# In a script... use Poet::Script qw(:web); # In a module... use Poet qw(:web); # Automatically available in Mason components
This group of utilities includes
Return $str with HTML entities escaped/unescaped.
Return $str URI escaped/unescaped, from URI::Escape
Return $str escaped for Javascript, borrowed from JavaScript::Value::Escape.
Create a URL by combining $path with a query string formed from hashref $args. e.g.
make_uri("/foo/bar", { a => 5, b => 6 }); ==> /foo/bar?a=5&b=6
Jonathan Swartz <firstname.lastname@example.com>
This software is copyright (c) 2012 by Jonathan Swartz.
This is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the same terms as the Perl 5 programming language system itself.


text:
I have a lot of baby items that I need to get rid of. All of the items are BRAND NEW or in LIKE NEW condition. These items are in excellent condition, and are very usable. I would love for them to go to someone who could really use them. These items include:a) Georgia Bulldog Crib Set (Bumper Comforter included)- Brand new - $45b) Pink Pack and Play - $25c) Red Pageant Dress ( Size 0-3months ) - Brand New - $20d) Jenny Lind Style Crib ( Brand New ) No Mattress - $75e) Huge bag of MISC. baby clothes ( mostly infant girls 0-12months) $5f) Box of MISC. Toys ( most are brand new ) - $5g) Brand New Fancy Black Dress with Matching Jacket ( Size 18months )- Still has the tags - $20h) Brand New Preemie Sleeper - $10i) Winnie The Pooh Vibrating Chair - $15j) Little Einsteins Activity center - $30k) George Brand Black Diaper Bag - $10l) Buggy Cover- $5m) Lambs Ivy Nursery Hanging ( Rainbows Clouds ) - Brand New - $10n) Pink Baby Swing ( Used only once ) - $20o) High Chair that attaches to the table - $7p) Pink Play Mat - Brand New - $5q) Clown Play Mat - $5r) Winnie The Pooh Stroller ( Small Chocolate Stain on the seat) - $25s) Large amount of Various Recieving Blankets - $7t) Brand New Bottle Warmer - $8I will post some pictures on here of the items that I have. If you are interested, please email me at firstname.lastname@example.com. And, I will send you the pictures of the items you are interested in. Some of these items have been in storage, and will need to be cleaned up.Thanks in advance!Tiffant
Copyright 2004-2018 SuperAds Inc


text:
Gerald Thomas Wilson
Dr. Gerald Thomas Wilson, 82, of Benton passed away on July 11, 2013, at Saline Memorial Hospital.
Gerald Wilson, born and raised in Jonesboro and a Navy veteran of the Korean War, was a 1958 graduate of Arkansas State University with a Bachelor of Science degree in biology. He later graduated from Abilene Christian University with a Master of Science degree in physiology, and received a Ph.D. in genetics from Kansas State University.
He also completed post-graduate work at the University of Tennessee Medical School and post-graduate work in immunology from Texas Tech University School of Medicine.
Dr. Wilson served on the faculty of Arkansas State University, Kansas State University, Abilene Christian University, the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, and was dean of science and mathematics for 12 years at Tyler Junior College in Tyler, Texas, while serving as an adjunct professor at the University of Texas at Tyler.
He also served as medical education manager for Schering Corp., an international pharmaceutical company in Kenilworth, NJ.
Gerald was active in the Church of Christ in the various places he lived and was currently a member of Northside Church of Christ in Benton.
Dr. Wilson was selected as "Boss of the Year" in Tyler, Texas, in 1987 and was the recipient of a Master Teacher designation by the University of Texas, Austin, in 1992. During his professional career, Dr. Wilson was a member of Lions Clubs and Rotary Clubs, and a past member of Genetics Society of America, America Society of Microbiology, New York Academy of Science, and Texas Academy of Science.
He was preceded in death by Jeanette Wilson, his loving wife of 59 years; his parents, Herbert Quincy Wilson and Phareta Pauline Wilson of Jonesboro; one sister, Marilla Gill; and two brothers, Herbert Wilson and Joe Wilson.
Survivors include his brother, the Rev. J. Leon Wilson; two sons, John M. Wilson (Susan) of Benton, and G. David Wilson (Denise) of Dallas; eight grandchildren, Aaron Wilson (Suzanne) of Cary N.C., Christie Pinney (Dr. Ted) of Bryant, and Julie Bittle (Matthew) of Benton, Melanie Jones (Colt), Brian Wilson, Brett Wilson, Lauren Dunlap and Alyssa Dunlap, all of Dallas; nine great-grandchildren, Chelsea Wilson, Bryce Wilson, Tyler Pinney, Tatum Pinney, Jackson Bittle, Molly Bittle, Brayden Wilson, Cohen Seaman and Gentry Jones; and many family members and friends, all of whom loved him and will miss him dearly.
Visitation will be held from 2 to 4 p.m. at Dial and Dudley Funeral Home, 4212 Hwy. 5 North, Bryant, on Sunday, July 14.
Funeral service will be held at 10 a.m. on Monday, July 15, 2013, at the funeral home. Burial will be held in Jonesboro at Memorial Gardens Cemetery.
Memorials may be made to Northside Church of Christ, 917 N. East St., Benton, AR 72015; or Hot Springs Concert Band, P.O. Box 8667, Hot Springs, AR 71909.
Online guest book: www.dialanddudleyfuneralhome.com.


text:
In-state college tuition for many illegal immigrants is happening in Massachusetts, thanks to President Barack Obama and a governor who saw an opportunity to realize a goal not everyone shares with him, especially among immigrants.
In-state college tuition for many illegal immigrants is happening in Massachusetts, thanks to President Barack Obama and a governor who saw an opportunity to realize a goal not everyone shares with him, especially among immigrants.
Gov. Deval Patrick on Monday directed state education officials to treat undocumented immigrants under 30 who have work permits as in-state students, slashing thousands off their college tuition bills.
Those immigrants can now get work permits under the president's June declaration of amnesty, provided they meet several requirements and pay a $465 fee.
From there it's a short step to Massachusetts, where the state charges all immigrant students with work permits as though they were residents.
The move riled some lawmakers, who accused Patrick of doing an end run around the Legislature, which has repeatedly rejected the new policy.
Error: Embedded data could not be displayed.
Helena Marques, director of the Immigrant Assistance Center in New Bedford, said she had five angry callers on the line Monday who were protesting the change. "They want the governor to lower costs for poorer students and legal immigrants," she said.
She said the immigrant community is sharply split on the idea of giving illegal immigrants equal status with those who patiently went through the lengthy legal immigration process.
State Rep. Antonio F.D. Cabral, D-New Bedford, said that Obama's decision automatically made these students eligible for in-state tuition, because while the amnesty remains in place they are treated as legal.
A similar status would apply to someone seeking asylum, until the cases were decided, he explained. So in theory the students might ultimately be eligible for deportation if they lose their work permits, he said.
Several lawmakers who spoke to The Standard-Times were not eager to come down on either side of the divide. State Sen. Mark Montigny, D-New Bedford, said he would have no comment until he learned the details of Patrick's directive.
Cabral focused on the legal reasoning behind what the governor has done, saying it seems to be in order. Rep. Chris Markey, D-New Bedford, also was unfamiliar with the details of the governor's order.
The House Minority Leader, state Rep. Bradley Jones, R-North Reading, issued a press release saying "Gov. Patrick's most recent attempt to usurp the power of the Legislature is cause for concern." The policy change "must be stopped immediately," he said.
Bristol Community College President John "Jack" Sbrega was enthusiastic about Patrick's move.
"I have always been in favor of it," he said. "From a community college point of view it seems to me we should be supportive of anything that provides greater access and opportunity for a population as long as they are legal, and they are under the terms of this decree," he said.
Sbrega said that once the procedures are in place, not much adjustment needs to be made to admissions procedures. Students who are already enrolled will be able to obtain a rebate for the current semester, but not previous ones.
At UMass Dartmouth, spokesman John Hoey said that the university was not expecting a large number of students to be affected by the change.
Since the status of immigrants became an issue, Hoey said, top administrators "have formed a working group to discuss what steps to apply with any changes in state or federal policy."
But at this point, "we don't know what the real impact will be," he said.


text:
I would suggest that if you don't have a good Bible commentary in your home, that you get a copy of something like Wycliffe's One Volume Bible Commentary, so that you have a resource book that you can go to and look up any given verse in the Bible and find an explanation for it. Very important. Now, you oughta have such a tool in your own home, so that you can look up verses; and they are really the key to answering theological questions. You'll notice that whenever a question is asked, I'll always go to various passages to answer it; and so that's where you get your answers; and you can do a lot of it on your own.
There are many questions that you have asked that have been asked before; and I'm not supposed to give a commercial; but I would remind you that we have a tape album entitled Questions and Answers, and there are many of them covered in that album; and if you'd like to have that, why you can get that at the tape table. But here we go for tonight. I'll try to divide the questions between those that that are theological, and those that are asking for the interpretation of some verse; and, hopefully, we'll be able to answer the question that you're asking or at least one that you're interested in.
First question, John chapter 3 verse 5 is a common question. "Jesus answered, 'Verily, verily I say unto thee, except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.'" Now, what does it mean here when it talks about water? "Being born of the water and the Spirit." Well, some folks suggest that it's reference to baptism. That in order to be saved, you must not only be born of the Spirit, but you must enter into water baptism. However, that's one thing that this verse does not mean. It's not a reference to water baptism. If you'd just look over in John 4 verse 2, you might be interested in noting that it says, "Though Jesus Himself baptized not, but His disciples." Salvation is accomplished other than by baptism. Jesus was involved in leading many people to salvation. I would be convinced that the woman at the well was truly saved, and Jesus did not baptize her. At least there's no record of that. Jesus led the thief on the cross to Himself, and said, "This day shalt thou be with Me in Paradise," and He never entered into baptism. There's no reason to believe that...that there is water here in John 3:5; and another thought is that Nicodemus, to whom Jesus was speaking, wouldn't have the remotest concept of Christian baptism, because Christian baptism never even occurred until the day of Pentecost, and that was after Jesus had died and that's a long time in the future, and been risen from the dead. So that Christian baptism is something way in the future. Nicodemus, who was the teacher of Israel, a ruler of the Jews, would have had absolutely no concept; and when you said to Nicodemus, "You must be born of the water and the Spirit," Nicodemus without any further clarification wouldn't have thought, "Oh, I've gotta be baptized like the Christians are." There weren't any Christians yet. They weren't called Christians till Antioch, and baptism wasn't even instituted as the rite for the identification of a Christian at the point of salvation till after Jesus had died.
Well, other people say the water doesn't mean baptism, but the water means physical birth, that what Jesus is saying to him is, "You must be born physically," and we use the term the water breaks, and that the baby is encased in water, and...and that what he's saying here is, "You must be born of water and Spirit in order to enter the Kingdom of God." But that's a ridiculous statement to make to an old man like Nicodemus, to tell him he must be born. He knows that. If he wasn't born, he wouldn't be trying to get in the Kingdom of God anyway. So it...it...it... and, besides, I...I hate to destroy some folks' thoughts about this, but the...the Greeks didn't call it water anyway. It isn't really water. We just call it that in English, but let's not assign our medical colloquialisms to the Greeks. They didn't term it that, and Nicodemus wasn't certainly thinking about that.
You say, "Well, what water is it?" Well, it's clearly the water that Nicodemus would understand, and for that you go back to Ezekiel chapter 36. If Nicodemus was a teacher of Israel and an authority on the Old Testament, he would've only thought of one passage, one familiar, famous, well-known passage, and that would've been the key to interpreting what Jesus said, and that's why Jesus never went any further with His statement then to say water and Spirit and leave it there, because Nicodemus would've understood. In Ezekiel chapter 36 verse 24, we have the promise of God to the nation of Israel to be fulfilled when the Messiah comes. "I will take you from among the nations, gather you out of all countries, bring you into your own land...now watch...Then will I sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean; from all your filthiness and from all your idols will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you and a new spirit will I put within you; I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh. And I will put My Spirit within you."
Now, notice, He says, "I will wash you with water and cleanse you of sin and place My Spirit in you." That's the water Nicodemus would've understood. It is the water of cleansing that occurs at salvation. If you wanna put it in Paul's term, it is the washing of the water by the Word that occurs when you're saved. It isn't baptism. It isn't physical birth. It is simply the concept of cleansing that occurs at the point of regeneration and salvation. You must have that promised cleansing and the implanting of the Spirit to enter into the Kingdom of God. That's what he's saying. So don't confuse baptism or the water that we associate with physical birth with the concept that Nicodemus would've understood; and that's a good point to remember. Whenever you are studying a Bible passage, remember that what is said will have its primary interpretation located at the point in time in which it was said to the people to whom it was said; and it's important that you reconstruct that situation so that you'll understand. Nicodemus clearly understood, "Oh, what You're saying is there must be a purification of the inside, and there must be the planting of God's Spirit within my heart to make me fit for His Kingdom." That's exactly right.
Okay, another question. We're gonna take some short ones. Last time we did this we got into long ones. So we'll try to take short ones. Were the seven days of Creation literal 24-hour days? Oh, this is common question, because we are involved in struggling along the way here with the world trying to tell us that we came from monkeys and so forth; and...and always they tell us that the world has to be so many millions of billions of years old; and the geological age - I don't know if you've ever seen a geological age chart, but this is the way it kinda goes. About 20 billion years ago was the origin of the elements, the stars, and the galaxies. Now that's conjecture, because nobody was around, obviously, to observe that. About 5 billion years ago, the earth and the solar system; about 3 billion years ago, the evolution of replicating chemicals or life; about 1 billion years ago, the evolution of multi-cellular life; about 600 million years ago, the evolution of complex marine invertebrates; about 350 million years ago, the evolution of marine vertebrates and land plants; about 250 million years ago, the evolution of amphibians and insects; about 200 million years ago, the evolution of reptiles and flowering plants; 100 million years ago, the evolution of mammals and birds; 50 million years ago, the branching of evolutionary ancestors of apes and men; and 3 million years ago, the evolution of modern man.
Now, that is a very, very late-dating, but that's kinda the way it is. Sometime 20 billion years ago, something happened; and, puff, the whole thing started. Now, that is totally, absolutely out of whack with the Scripture. It...it really couldn't be much clearer than it is. If you look with me at Genesis chapter 1, you will find that the earth was created in seven days. Are they 24-hour days? Let's find out.
The first day is indicated in verse 3, "And God said, 'Let there be light'; and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day." Now, whatever that first day was, it had an evening and a morning. It seems to me that the only thing with one evening and one morning is a 24-hour day, and God makes that clear all the way down the line. In verse 8, "And the evening and the morning were the second day." In verse 13, "And the evening and the morning were the third day." In verse 19, "And the evening and the morning were the fourth day." Verse 23, "And the evening and the morning were the fifth day." God is talking here about evening and morning; and evening and morning makes 24-hour day.
There is no reason to feel that we have to try to harmonize this evolutionary monstrosity with the Scripture. The Bible claims the earth was created in seven days, actually in six days, and the seventh day God rested. That's all we really need to know; but I just would draw your attention to Exodus 20:11, which is God's own commentary on the Creation; and this is what He says. Verse 9, "Six days shalt thou labor and do all thy work." Does that mean six literal days, or does that mean six years or six decades or 6 million billion trillion geological ages? Oh, no, it means six days. You work for six days, you get a day off.
"But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. Don't do any work, or your son or your daughter, your manservant, your maidservant, your cattle, your stranger," so forth. Why? "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day." You see, the parallel there demands a six-day Creation to equate it with a six-day working and one day off Sabbath. It's...it's clear. The Hebrew word yameemfor days always in the plural form means a literal day, never an indefinite period. Always a literal day.
But the reason that evolutionists need 20 billion years is that they can't figure out how come things got the way they are, because they don't wanna believe in God; and they can't say God created man. They don't wanna give God that right, so they have to get man to evolve, and that takes a long time...Incidentally, the ordinals...the ordinals, you know, are first, second, third...the ordinals, the first day, the second day, the third day, the fourth day, are used in connection with a given day. The word day is used at least 1480 times in the Old Testament and always with an ordinal. The meaning is a 24-hour day. Never anything else.
So we believe the world was created in 24-hour days, six of them; and, you know, I'd rather believe the Bible than try to figure out some ridiculous other thing to explain it. It's simple to me, and I believe that man's probably somewhere around 10,000 years old. Isn't that something? So is the earth, 'cause man was only made six days later...
Now I wanna answer another question that...that is interesting. Comes out of Isaiah chapter 11 verse 2. Isaiah 11 verse 2. Somebody asked what are the sevenfold Spirits of God? You'll look at Isaiah 11:2, you'll find that. Now, you...you have to go to Revelation, of course, for the initial indication relative to the sevenfold Spirit; but then when you...when...and that's probably where the confusion comes from. It talks about the sevenfold Holy Spirit, the sevenfold Spirit in the Book of Revelation. As you go into Isaiah 11, you'll find it clearly defined there. "And the Spirit of the Lord shall rest on Him...and here are seven different ways to describe the Holy Spirit, that's all...the Spirit of wisdom, the Spirit of understanding, the Spirit of counsel, the Spirit of might, the Spirit of knowledge, and the Spirit of awe or the Spirit of reverence or the Spirit of worship."
The sevenfold Spirit doesn't mean there are seven different Spirits; and when in Revelation 1:4, it says, "The seven Spirits," it doesn't mean there are seven different holy spirits. It means there is one Holy Spirit with a sevenfold manifested ministry; and that's what it's saying; and you don't need to believe that there are seven different Holy Spirits. There's one, but there is a sevenfold manifestation of His ministry according to all of these things: wisdom, understanding, counsel, power, knowledge, and reverence or worship.
Now, a question that has come up frequently, I suppose, recently in my own ministry as people have asked me, especially relative to the recent emphasis in our own area on the evangelism ministry of Campus Crusade, I Found It, and some of the other things that we've been involved in and watching. Discuss what should be our responsibility relative to evangelism. In fact, this question is a little bit longer. It says what is the priority of evangelism in the Christian life? How does it fit in with the priority of fellowship, Bible study, and prayer? It can be very confusing if a person tries to run around doing everything, and they often are sort of intimidated into evangelizing, jumping into the world to preach the Gospel and not meditating on the Word in preparation.
Well, that's a difficult question to answer, because it's...it's so unique to everybody's life; but I'll...I'll give you a rather general answer. I kinda look at evangelism, and I always have looked at it this way; and...and my study of Scripture has never done anything but confirm it. But true evangelism is the overflow of a lifestyle...The purest, truest, most beneficial, dramatically effective evangelism there is is not the superficial, runaround, zap everybody on a shallow basis evangelism. Now, there are some conservation and some harvesting to be done at that kind of evangelism, because some people are ready; and all you have to do is just give 'em the Word, and they're...they're plucked. But on the other hand, the New Testament style of evangelism was a corporate group of believers living in a community with such godly lives that the attraction was their lifestyle, their living pattern, their joy, their happiness, their peace, all the fruit of the Spirit that drew the surrounding people to find out what it was that they had.
For example, in the Book of Acts, when the church is born, you have a pattern set. The church met together. As far as we know, this is what they met for: prayer, fellowship, the apostles' doctrine, and the breaking of bread. It doesn't say they had a Tuesday night evangelism class, or it doesn't say they...they went out on the street and had street meetings. But what it does say is that they...that they loved each other, they had all things in common, they prayed together, they fellowshipped, they studied the apostles' doctrine, they went into the temple daily; and out of the overflow of their life came the Gospel, and the Lord added daily to the church such as should be saved.
And I think sometimes we can be forcing ourselves to run around and talk a Gospel that we haven't really yet known what it is to live, and that's the real guts of evangelism. I think God wants me to live the life in my community, around the people who are right around my world, to win them to Christ. Not that He doesn't want me to go out door to door, to go out and reach people or to talk to the guy I meet on the airplane or whatever. He does, but that's just the edge of evangelism. The priority is to be right with God; and I've said this again and again, you take care of the depth of your ministry, you take care of the depth of your life before God, and He will multiply the breadth of it. You be a holy vessel, and you'll be amazed what God'll do with you; but you run around trying to do everything and don't care of the righteousness aspect of it, and I'm not sure you're much use to God at all. He'll be working in spite of you.
Okay, a little less theological question. What about dating? Is it normal or abnormal? For some guys at Grace, it's definitely abnormal...You know, we...we have this running problem of guys at Grace who won't date, and many lovely young ladies. Very frustrated. Some of the...I see some red ears, you know. Obviously, we're not Aunt Martha's Lonely Hearts Club, and people don't...people don't come here just to find a mate. Although, in the process, they do; and in case you wonder whether anybody does date around here, it seems to be that they do, because we marry somewhere between two and four couples a week. So somebody is dating, and...something is...I don't think they're blind weddings, frankly. I think there has been some planning.
And so, you know, it's not as if it isn't working out; but I know there is a certain frustration that we've talked about in regard to this. Lemme give a simple answer if I can. I think that there is a...there is one reason why, perhaps our young people in the college department and...and career and maybe high school, too, I don't know. But perhaps the one...one reason why they are not as involved in that is the fact that we have a high ideal of marriage, No. 1, and I think that we've tried to teach that. We've tried to convey that, and we have disciplined people who have had their marriage break up, and where we felt there was sin, publicly. And I think and I hope and pray that our young people have a very high ideal of marriage, and they see a tremendously important reality in the commitment of one person to a person of the opposite sex. And I think maybe the fruit of all of this has been that they see that thing as such a high and lofty thing, that it's very difficult to treat it as a social occasion. That's...that's one reason, I think.
Secondly, I think we also reject the world's flippant, self-styled approach to easy come/easy go relationships between the sexes; and I think that our...we're more oriented toward ministry and more oriented toward the spiritual dimension than we are toward the socializing aspect of it. I spoke at a church in this area one time. I spoke to their singles college and career and all, and they weren't even interested in what I was saying. That's hard on me, because, you know, I mean I'm used to being, you know, speaking where people are interested; and I went in. They were bored to death. They were all sitting there, you know, and just looking at their watches, because there was a party going on afterwards, and they just wanted to get to the party, see? That's why they were there. It wasn't a church that was concerned with Bible study. The week before me, the speaker was Steve Allen, so it wasn't...I realize...I realized that I was out of my element, and I said, "Open your Bibles," and there wasn't a sound. You know, I mean and there wasn't a Bible in the place, you know, so there I was doing my little exposition all alone.
So I don't think that we are in the situation of seeing ourselves as a social entity, but rather as a group of people in ministry; and I would say, also, that perhaps, because we've carried this thing a little too far, we tend, when finally somebody does date, we tend to say, "Aha, there's something going on." See? You know. "He likes her." Hmmmmm, we've got 'em married before they've even, you know, finished their miniature golf, you know, and so...I mean two lines of bowling doesn't constitute engagement...
So I...I think there are some reasons; but I would just...I would just add that I think that dating is acceptable in our society. It's not Biblical. In the Biblical generation, of course, the father and the mother arranged everything; and, of course, that's the way it ought to be; but...but we're trying to work with it. I think that dating can be beneficial, because it...it develops an understanding and a sensitivity to the opposite sex and helps you to develop a sense of social etiquette, a sense of communication with those of the other sex. God has always designed that a man and a woman would complement each other in terms of filling out needs and so forth; and I think a young man can be of great assistance to a young lady in many ways of complementing her life and broadening his own experience. I think it's good to teach yourself how to give and how to build up somebody else and how to minister to somebody else. Certainly, to be with a...a person of the opposite sex is to prepare yourself, in some sense, for the giving that is marriage. To learn how to do that is very important.
So I think it's good. I think there ought to be a...there oughta be a stimulation in that area, to minister to each other, to learn how to gracefully deal with a person of the opposite sex, to learn how to be sensitive and...and gentle, and to learn how to be responsive, and to learn how to give a little to somebody else. It's easy, if all you ever do is spend your time with your own friends, to develop a very isolated lifestyle that may wind up making you a difficult person to be married to in the long run. And, after all, if you're gonna be married, you're gonna spend your life giving yourself to someone of the opposite sex. A little practice wouldn't hurt.
I would also caution that it would be wise if you would make sure you choose your dating very carefully, very carefully. Make sure you find the Biblical pattern and follow it. The Bible says a lot about who you pick. When you're picking a partner, there are several things you oughta remember. No. 1, pick a person on the basis of their reputation. Proverbs 22:1 says, "A good name is rather to be chosen than great riches." Associate with someone with a very good reputation. Secondly, someone who's appearance is what it ought to be. Looks reveal character. The Bible talks about a proud look. The Bible talks about a wonton look. Isaiah 3:9 says, "The show of their appearance does witness against them." So reputation and appearance. Speech, out of the abundance of the...of the heart what? The mouth speaks. Clothes, 1 Timothy talks about modesty. Clothes will reveal a vain heart. Companions. One really great way to tell somebody's character is to find out who they run around with. Who are their friends? And all of these things oughta come into your choice as you choose someone to be with and to socialize with and to minister with.
I would also encourage you to date in a group setting, and to avoid a situation where you might be tempted to compromise your purity and your Christian testimony. So I'm for dating. I mean that's what I did, and I dated my wife, and look how it all turned out, you know? Fantastic. I thank God for that process, because, in our life, it worked right into the will of God; and it can still work that way as it has in many and many of yours.
Well, another question. One right out of Isaiah, as long as you're there. Look at 48:16, Isaiah 48:16. This is a very important verse, and the question is this. Does Isaiah 48:16 relate to the Trinity? Does Isaiah 48:16 relate to the Trinity; and that is a very good question and a very excellent observation, because indeed it does. Isaiah 48:16 says, "Come near unto Me; hear this: I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I; and now the Lord God and His Spirit hath sent Me."
Now, the first thing we wanna do is find out who it is speaking, and that's important. So to find out who is speaking, we go back to verse 12. "Hearken unto Me, O Jacob and Israel, My called: I am He; I am the First, I also am the Last." Who is the Alpha and the Omega of Revelation? Who is it? Jesus Christ. So we know who the speaker is. It is Jesus Christ. The Creator, verse 13, "Mine hand also has laid the foundation of the earth; My right hand has spread out the heavens; when I call unto them, they stand up together." So we know it is the Lord Jesus Christ speaking.
Now we come to verse 16, "Come near to Me and hear this, says the Lord. I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I." And He's again speaking of His eternality. "And now...He says...the Lord God and His Spirit hath sent Me." There you have the whole Trinity. The Lord God, Yahweh, and the Holy Spirit. Yes, this verse definitely does teach the Trinity, as do many, many other verses; and I think it's very important for us today to be aware of the fact that we need to uphold the doctrine of the Trinity. I am amazed at how much the unity movement has moved into Christianity. It's really shocking.
So, for example, the largest Pentecostal organization in the world is called the United Pentecostal Church, and they deny the Trinity. They do not believe in the Trinity. The United Pentecostal Church. We'll be saying more about that in our coming series, because that's one of the theological issues that we must face in that movement.
Now, beloved, to deny the existence of the Trinity is a very serious, cardinal error in theology. You are either denying the existence of God the Father, denying the unique existence of the Son, or you're denying the unique existence of the Holy Spirit; and to deny any of those, in my mind, is the ultimate in heresy. So it's a serious matter. You ought be well apprised. Other passages you might know are Matthew 3, where you have Jesus being baptized, the Spirit descending like a dove, and the Father's voice saying, "This is My beloved Son in whom I am well pleased." All of them there, all of them present at the same time, at the same scene. There are people who wanna say, "Well, we don't believe in the Trinity. Once He was the Father, then He became the Son, and now He is the Spirit." Well, how do you explain all three of them at the baptism at the same time? In Romans 8:9, they're all there. In 1 Corinthians 12, they're all there. In 2 Corinthians 13, they're all there. Ephesians 4, they're all there. So we believe in the Trinity. That's a very important doctrine.
Okay, another question. Should a person be excommunicated from the church for not paying his tithes?...It's...it's...it's too bad that someone would ask that question, because it reflects such a...a tragic passing on of information that someone would even think that. Lemme answer that as briefly as I can, because it's not an easy question to answer in terms of all the ramifications. Should a person be excommunicated from a church for not paying his tithes? No, in the sense that you mean it. Yes, in another sense; and here's what I mean.
In the first place, tithing is not the issue in the church, right? We've been through that again and again. We went through that whole study. Listen, if you haven't listened to the tapes on Biblical giving, get 'em and listen to 'em. Don't be confused about that. More people get under the...the burden of guilt because they don't know what they're doing relative to giving, and it is unnecessary. The Bible has stated very clearly what God's pattern is. There are two kinds of giving throughout all of God's history, from before Moses, through Moses, the New Testament, the church age, right to today, two kinds of giving: required giving and free will giving. Required giving was always taxation. The Jewish tithe in the Old Testament, 10 percent to the Levites, 10 percent for the ceremonies, 10 percent every third year for the welfare system. They paid 23 percent every year to the...to the theocracy, the national government of Israel. And, in addition to that, they had to give the corners of the field. They had to pay the...the third of a shekel temple tax. These...these things were in addition to that. You could say that an average Jew would pay somewhere between 20 and 25 percent annually on his income; but that went to the government; and in Malachi it says, "Bring your tithes into the treasury," is the Hebrew word; and he's saying pay your taxes.
Giving in the Old Testament was always free will. It was always whatever you wanna give. It was always the...the freedom that you had to give in whatever way you felt God had laid it upon your heart. That's why in 3:9 of Proverbs it says, "Honor the Lord with your substance, with the first fruits of your increase, and your barns will be full." In other words, whatever your heart purposes, whatever it desires; and remember how we saw that when the temple was being built, God said, "Have everybody bring their offerings, and let him do it willingly, out of his heart, whatever he wants." You tell him to give whatever he wants, willingly out of his - and they came, and they gave, and they gave, and they gave, and, finally, they made an announcement, "Please do not give anymore. We have too much."
And you have the same thing in the New Testament. In the New Testament, required giving is, "Pay your taxes," isn't it? "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's." Romans chapter 13, the government is there, and if it exacts custom and tribute, pay it. Jesus did. The apostles did. And giving in the New Testament is not tithing. It's "As a man purposes in his heart, so let him give, not grudgingly, not of necessity, but...what?... God loves a cheerful giver; and he says, "You can sow sparingly and reap sparingly, and sow bountifully and reap bountifully."
So the two kinds of giving. All required giving was toward taxation; and all free will giving was giving to God. So in that sense, we're not tithing in the church. Oh, we can't say, "If you don't pay the church so much, you're gonna be excommunicated," because there isn't a so much that you're supposed to give. That's between you and God. "As every man purposes in his heart, so let him...what?...give. Second Corinthians. "As every man purposes in his heart, so let him give." That's the only standard.
Now, on the other hand, if you take the question in its technical meaning, should person be excommunicated from a church for not paying his tithes? If you use it in the sense of taxes, if there is somebody in the church who is not paying his taxes, he is defrauding the government, he is actually committing an offense against the government, as well as violating Romans chapter 13, then I think the church could take course to deal with him as a sinning member. You see what I mean? It would be no different than any other criminal act. If he was hiding it, and we knew about it, and he was cheating on his taxes, and we found out about it, then we would be responsible to go through the Matthew 18 process, to go to him and exhort him. If he didn't hear it, to take two or three, and if he didn't hear it, to tell it to the church, and if he didn't change and pay the taxes that the government requires and the godly pattern of life that God asked of him, then we would have the right to discipline.
But...in a sense that the question is meant, you can't be excommunicated for not paying your tithes, because what you give to the Lord is just between you and Him and nobody else; and nobody here knows whether you do or not, 'cause there isn't any amount; and that's the way it oughta be. That's the way God designed it. You give freely from your heart whatever you wish. And, as I said, be sure you get that straightened out. Get those tapes if you haven't gotten it, and get an understanding of that.
Here's a very provocative question. I have a friend who worships Christ and loves Christ and accepts Him as the Son of God, but the minister of the church he attends has never taught him about the deity of Christ, and he does not believe Christ is God. Is my friend a Christian?
What's the answer? No. What Christ does he worship? What Christ does he love? What Christ is he calling the Son of God? If it is not God in human flesh, then it is some other Christ, right? And then you're right into Galatians chapter 1; and what happens there? "I marvel that you are so soon removed from Him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another Gospel." What you've got is another Gospel. You've got another Christ.
Listen, you could say to a Mormon, "Do you worship Christ?" "Yes." "Do you love Christ?" "Yes." "Do you believe Christ is Son of God?" "Yes." You could say to a Jehovah's Witness, "Do you worship Christ?" "Yes." "Do you love Christ?" "Yes." "Do you believe Christ is Son of God?" "Yes." And you could say to both of them, "But you're not saved, because you don't see Christ as the living God in human flesh." It isn't just to believe in Christ. It is to believe in the Christ that is God in human flesh...That's the basic...the basic, bottom line reality of the Christian faith. That's why you just can't go around saying, "Would you like to receive Christ? Do you believe in Christ?" Because you're gonna get all kinds of yeses from people who don't know who Christ is.
Remember that in your evangelism, would you? Remember that in your evangelism you must tell people who He is. The proclamation of Christ, Acts 20, when Paul spoke about Christ, he says, "And I testified." And he uses the word diahmarturomi, "I gave a thorough testimony about who Christ is." You...you don't want somebody coming and accepting a Christ that is undefined, do you? No. Be sure that the person worships the Christ who is the Christ.
Listen, there have been many Christs, there are many Christs, and there are gonna be many Christs. Read Matthew chapter 24 where Jesus says, "In the latter times many Christs, false Christs, false prophets, false Messiahs, are gonna come along." You better be sure that the one you worship is the true Christ of God. God in human flesh. It's sad to think about, but this is the category of people who in Matthew 7 say, "Lord, Lord, have we not done all of this?" And He says, "In your name...and He says...depart from Me...what?...I never knew you. Some other Christ you've been serving, not Me."
Okay, another verse, what does Proverbs 24:3 and 4 mean? Well, it's...it's really not difficult to see what it means. Throughout this section of Proverbs, you have the writer extolling the virtues of divine wisdom as over against human wisdom. Human wisdom is a disaster, leads you nowhere. Divine wisdom is a blessing that brings prosperity; and here he relates it to the home. "Through wisdom...Proverbs 24:3...through wisdom is an house builded." And he's not talking about the wisdom of a carpenter and a mason. He's talking about the wisdom of those in the house who are building the household. "And by understanding it is established; and by knowledge shall the chambers be filled with all precious and pleasant riches." The word wisdom and the word knowledge and the word understanding all refer to the same thing. They all refer to the revelation of God.
If you study Psalm 119, you will find that the term wisdom, understanding, knowledge, statutes, law, all of those different terms are references to the very same thing, which is the revelation of God; and he's simply saying, "It is through obedience to God's truth that a home is rightly established, and it is through obedience to God's knowledge that its rooms will be filled with the true riches," really precious, pleasant riches. Not just fancy furniture and fancy décor, but the true riches. Do you really wanna build a household? Much more important than building a house. You really wanna make a home? Then fill it with the truth of God. That's what he's saying. It's a serious word.
In chapter 23 verse 4, he is a contrast there. "Labor not to be rich, and cease from your own wisdom." Don't work for the world's riches based on your own ideas. Work for the true, pleasant, precious riches that are based on God's revelation and God's truth. Very important difference, and that's the meaning that he's after.
One other Scripture that I wanna share with you. Matthew chapter 5 verse 39. In Matthew 5:39, the question arises. Are the commandments given here applicable in this age or only for the Kingdom age? Now, there is a kind of a...I don't wanna get into this long theological discussion, but there is a school of thought that says that the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5:6 and 7, has no relationship to today. It has only relationship to the future Kingdom on earth when Christ returns. Now, I believe it does have relationship to that. I believe that it does relate to the Kingdom of the future. No question about it, and we'll get into that when we study Matthew after 1 Corinthians; but I don't feel that we can say that these principles have no meaning for today, because it's very clear that they do.
Lemme show you why I say that. It's clear from just looking at the principles that they are applicable today. Let's read from 39 to 42, well, 38. "You have heard that it has been said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you that you resist not evil; whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him two. Give to him that asks thee; and from him that would borrow of thee, turn not thou away."
Now, that's pretty specific stuff. Some wanna make the Sermon on the Mount Kingdom stuff, because they wanna get rid of that kinda stuff. They don't wanna have to face the fact that if a guy hits you on the right side, you give him the other side to hit. They don't like the idea that if somebody takes you to court to sue you for your coat, you offer him your other cloak. And the fact that if somebody asks you to do a big favor, you do twice as much. They don't really wanna grapple with that, and so it's easier to kinda postpone it into the next Kingdom.
But it really doesn't do that. It's really not fair to do that. This was a law, and I want you to see this. This was a law designed for the civil courts to discourage private revenge. You can go back in Exodus...and by that I mean the law in Exodus "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life," and so forth. That was a law not given to individuals. It didn't say, "If your neighbor knocks your tooth out, go knock his tooth out." Or "If your neighbor kills your sheep, go kill his sheep." It was the very opposite. It was a law given to force things into a civil court to eliminate private revenge. Those were civil court orders, the very opposite of personal revenge.
He's saying in Exodus 21:24, Leviticus 24, Deuteronomy 19, where those statements are made, He is saying, "Do not avenge. Let the civil courts rule, and the rules for the court are: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." In other words, if a man has been wronged, then the person who wronged him needs to pay. If he has killed his sheep, then he should give him a sheep to make up for it; and it's not a literal thing where you lose an eye, you poke out your other...the...the eye of the...of the adversary. It's not that at all. It's simply saying that there should be courts that make just restitution for a person wronged.
But the Pharisees had appealed to this law and twisted it right out of its context and were using it for personal revenge. "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth and a life for a life." They were going right out and...and just working their own havoc, and Jesus is here condemning the Pharisees for that. He is saying, "You...you heard it said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth,' and, man, you twisted it, and you ran with it, and you're going around seeking personal revenge. I say to you those things may belong in a civil court. That's the Old Testament pattern, but I say to you the only proper personal attitude for you to have is that if you're hit on one side, you don't seek revenge. You give 'em the other; and if he makes you go one mile, you go two; and if he wants your coat, you give him your cloak." And, again, Jesus is dealing with the attitude of the Pharisees, and He's saying, "Instead of having a revenging attitude, your attitude oughta be an attitude of absolute sacrifice and love." We have no right to hate the person who tries to deprive us. We only have the responsibility to love him.
Paul put it this way in Romans 12, didn't he? "Render not evil for evil, but good for evil." Pay back evil with good. It's just 1 Corinthians 13, so to say that it doesn't apply today is foolish. What He's saying to us is when somebody wrongs you, don't take revenge, give them even more. Have such a spirit of love and magnanimity that revenge is the furthest thing from your mind. You can only think like 1 Corinthians 13. "If you needed one coat, maybe you need two. Take this one."...Help the thief pack his bag as he leaves your house. See if there's anything he might need that he didn't get rather than seek revenge. You see, it's an attitude, isn't it that Jesus is dealing with. It's the spirit. It's an attitude of heart.
Please explain James 2:20. "But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?" What does this mean? "Faith without works is dead." Does this mean that to be saved we have to do works? Well, let's find out. Back up, verse 14. We gotta get the context. "What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and hath not works? Can faith save him?" Now what are you saying, James? That's why Martin Luther said that the Book of James was "a right strawyepistle." He didn't like it, because it kind of fouled up his doctrine of justification by faith; but that's only because he didn't study it in deep detail to see what was really being said.
What...what does the Bible teach about salvation? Abraham was justified by works, Romans 4? Is that what it says? Abraham is justified by what? Faith. Abraham was not justified by works. Romans chapter 3 says, "No man is justified by works. By the deeds of the law shall...what?...no flesh be justified." None. There's no way that we can be justified. In Romans 3:27, it's...or 28, "Therefore, we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law." Salvation is by faith, not by works. Galatians chapter 3 tells us the same thing, that you cannot be justified by works. You cannot be saved by what you do in terms of deeds. He says, "They that are of faith...Galatians 3:9...are blessed with faithful Abraham." It's all a matter of faith.
"The man that is justified...he says in verse 10...but no man is justified by the law in the sight of God. The just shall live by faith." The Bible teaches you're saved by faith. You say, "Well, then what in the world is James saying, can faith him?" James is looking at this from the standpoint of evaluation. He is looking at a man who says, "I have faith," and he's saying, "All right, if you have true saving faith, then I oughta see some evidence of it, right?" "By their fruits you shall...what?...know them." He's simply saying, "If your faith is genuine, then it's gonna manifest itself."
"If any man be in Christ, he is a new creation. Old things are passed away. Behold all things become...what?...new." There's gonna be a manifestation, and so he says, "What kind of faith have you got, my friend? I don't see any evidence. For example...he says...if a brother or sister be naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you who claims to having faith says, 'Depart in peace; be warmed and filled.'" Just what he needs. Condolence. "Hope you feel better, hope you find some food." But you don't give him the things needful to the body. What kind of faith is that? If you're really saved, it's gonna be a working kind of salvation that'll bear fruit. That's all he's saying. So in verse 18, he...so in 17, "And so faith, if it doesn't have works, is dead, because it's alone." So it's a dead faith, not a living faith. "If a man may say, 'Thou hast faith, and I have works.' Show me your faith without your works, and I'll show my faith by my works." And he contrasts two kind of faith. One kind of faith is the faith that doesn't have any works, and it's dead faith. The other faith is the faith that produces something, and it's living faith. One saves and one doesn't...That's what he's saying. "Oh, but," he says, "I believe. I believe." "Yeah," he says, "the devils believe and they tremble." Not enough to believe unless that believing results in an act of commitment to Christ that results in a changed life that bears fruit. That's his whole point.
Will God bless a believer who willfully marries an unbeliever? Now, that's a very, very important question, and the answer, basically, is twofold. Or really it's...it's two opposites. Yes and no. God will bless a believer, because God grants to a believer forgiveness of sin and continual forgiveness. He grants to a believer Heaven. He grants to a believer the presence of the Holy Spirit. We are blessed with all blessings in the heavenlies, in Christ Jesus. So there is a sense in which just being a believer has brought us into contact with the very great blessing of God.
But I want you to look with me at a book we studied recently, Jude verse 21, and...and here we go into what I was saying a minute ago, that you can't answer any theological question without interpreting a verse; but in Jude verse 21, where Jude is speaking very directly to Christians, he tells them how to experience blessing. Backing to verse 20, "But you, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Spirit...now watch...keep yourselves in the love of God." Now that little phrase is the little phrase that I wanna pull out. "Keep yourselves in the love of God."
You'll remember when we studied Jude 21, that we noted that what Jude is saying there is that God's love showers down blessing, and it's up to us to keep ourselves in the place of blessing. It's as if God draws a great big circle on His world and says, "You get in that circle, and that's where the blessings come. That's where it rains blessing. You step out of that circle, God hasn't changed His blessing. You've stepped out of the place of receiving them." Or one other illustration we used is the Christian has a bucket. If you hold your bucket upside right, you receive blessings. If you turn it upside down, all the blessings bounce off. God hasn't changed. It all depends on what you're doing with your spiritual bucket; and so in any given situation in a Christian's life, you can ask the question, "Will a Christian receive blessing?" In a very general sense, yes; but in the sense of specifics, the only time a Christian receives specific blessing from God is when that Christian is within the circle of blessing, and may I define the circle of blessing? The circle of blessing is surrounded with a line that is one great big O, and it stands for obedience; and, as soon as a Christian steps outside the obedience circle, he forfeits blessing.
God never blesses sin, and God never continues to bless, in terms of day-to-day outpouring of special blessing, a Christian who willfully acts in sin. Now, the question is phrased in such a way that the person who asked it, when they said, "Will God bless a believer who willfully marries an unbeliever," the person is aware of the fact that God has forbidden this, and that's correct. To show you a couple of illustrations of that, notice 1 Corinthians chapter 7 verse 39, and you'll see a phrase at the end of it. It says, "The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband lives." In this particular chapter, Paul is discussing why it's better to be single if you have the gift of singleness. God's given you the gift of singleness, you might as well enjoy it. I wrote an article on being single. It's in this month's Moody Monthlyif you wanna get it, so this is the last point in my article. But it says, "The one good reason to stay single is that once you get married it's for life. The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband lives." This is God's pattern. "But if the husband is dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will...and then comes this qualifier that God wants made very clear about marriage...only in the Lord."
Marriage is to be only in the Lord, and if you were to go to 2 Corinthians chapter 6 and verse 14, "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers, for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? And what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord has Christ with Satan?...That's what that word referring to...What part has he that believes with one who doesn't believe? What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God. As God has said: 'I'll dwell in them and walk in them; I'll be their God, and they will be My people.'" So there is no fellowship between a believer and an unbeliever. That is an unequal yoke. God forbids that a believer marry an unbeliever. If you go ahead and do that willfully, purposefully, pointedly, you will step outside the circle of obedience.
Pastor friend of mine called me on the phone Friday, and he said, "I have a situation in my church that's just breaking my heart, and I just wanna share it with you and have you pray with me about it. I married two couples," he said, "in my church, and somewhere along the line in the time since I'd married them, they have swapped wives, and they are now living with each other's wife, and they have now come back and said they know it's wrong, and they've repented of the sin, but they don't love their wife. They love the new one they swapped for, and they want to get a divorce and be remarried and maintain their position of leadership in the church. And their justification is the fact that they are repentant, and they have confessed it."...
And, of course, the answer is they have also forfeited the blessing of God, and leadership is a blessing, because they have stepped outside the circle of obedience. So anytime a believer steps out of the circle of obedience, he forfeits the right to God's blessing. Now gracious and loving and merciful God will still be kind enough to grant some blessing; but, at the same time, you can be sure you'll receive His chastening hand; because, as soon as you step over that line, you run smack into the chastening of God.
How do you stay humble and still use all the power that God has given you through the Holy Spirit? The person is wrestling with the fact that if God really releases his power in you, fantastic things are gonna happen, and it's gonna be hard to stay humble. Well, lemme say this. How do you stay humble and still use all the power that God has given you? If you don't stay humble, you'll never use any of the power that God has given you, because God can only work through those who are humble. Only when we are humble can the power be used. We have to be emptied of our self before we can be filled with His power.
Paul said to the Philippians, "If you're gonna be useful to God, then you're gonna have to humble yourselves." This similarly is indicated in Ephesians chapter 5, I think it's verse 18. "Be not drunk with wine which is excess, but be filled with the Spirit." And then verse 21 says, "Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God." Not only a humility before God, but a humility before people makes you a potential to be filled with the Spirit. You have to be emptied of yourself. And so we could say that before anybody would ever see the power of God working in his life, he would have to be emptied of himself; and when you start to talk about humility, that's...it's a difficult thing to define. But when you think you're finally humble, you can be sure you're not...and when you think you're proud, and you wrestle with your pride, and you weep over your pride, you're closer to being humble than you ever will be any other way.
Another question, and perhaps this one is asked by a new Christian. While Jesus was teaching, did He ever call on His powers of deity? Well, the answer to that is yes. Jesus called on His powers of deity repeatedly to corroborate His teaching. He would teach and, of course, there would be the response of certain people, "Well, why should we believe this guy?" So in John chapter 14 and verse 11...or verse 10, He says, "Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? Do you have trouble believing that I am God? The words that I speak unto you I speak not of Myself; but the Father that dwells in Me, He doeth the works. Believe Me...or that is believe My word, literally...that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me...In other words, believe My words about being God, now here...or else believe Me for the very works' sake." John 14:11. "Believe Me for the very works' sake."
At the end of the Gospel of John, the 20th chapter, the 31st verse, 30th verse, "And many other signs." And what is a sign for? What does a sign do? Points to something, doesn't it? A sign, it tells you you're going somewhere. It points to something. "Many signs pointing to something did Jesus in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book. But these signs are written, that you might believe Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing, you might have life through His name." Jesus did many signs pointing to His deity, many miracles, and the Gospel of John records many of them. The Gospel of Matthew just loaded with them, as well as Mark and Luke, but Matthew, particularly.
In Matthew 15:29, for example, "Jesus departed from there and came near to the Sea of Galilee, and went up into a mountain and sat down. And great multitudes came." And, of course, this is the teaching setting. Jesus in a mountain in Galilee and the masses of humanity come. "And they came, the lame, the blind, the dumb, the maimed, and many others, and put them down at Jesus' feet, and He healed them, insomuch that the multitude wondered when they saw the dumb to speak, the maimed to be well, the lame to walk, and the blind to see. And they glorified the God of Israel." That's exactly what Jesus wanted them to do. He corroborated His constant teaching, His constant claims with many, many acts of deity...
Here's an interesting question regarding a hymn. We sing The Church's One Foundationa lot, and somebody asks what is the mystic sweet communion that we share with those whose rest is won? That's a good question. It's kind of like, "Here I raise my Ebenezer," and everybody looks around and says, "Your what?" What is the mystic sweet communion that we share with those whose rest is won?
All right, think about it. What is communion? What is communion? Fellowship, right? Koynoneah. What is sweet communion? Good fellowship, nice fellowship, happy fellowship, blessed fellowship. What is a mystic element of communion? Well, it's...it's not just physical. It's...it's beyond that. It's a spiritual kind of thing. So now we know we're talking about some kind of nice, spiritual fellowship, and we "share it with those whose rest is won." What is rest? What is it to win rest? Well, it means to enter Heaven. Those whose rest is won are those who have died in the Lord as Revelation says and rest from all their what? Their labor. And what the songwriter is saying is that, as the church of Jesus Christ, we not only share communion with the living church, the church militant, but we share communion with the church triumphant. I have never seen the Apostle Paul, but I share a mystic sweet communion with him and Peter and Jesus and Moses and David and a whole lot of others, and some special little favorites that I have in the New Testament. That's all it's talking about.
Look at Hebrews 12...now I'm gonna get into interpreting hymns every time we do this; but it's a fair question. Hebrews 12:22. Now here talking about the church, really, in terms of a definition. "But you are come to Mount Zion unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels...now here comes the church...to the general assembly and church of the Firstborn, who are written in Heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect." In other words, when you became a Christian, you didn't come to Sinai where there was thunder and smoke and death. You came to Zion where was the church of the Firstborn. Those who know the First, the Protatakas, Christ, and who are written in Heaven and some of whom are already made perfect. In other words, you joined a church that is not only visible, but what? Invisible. Not only militant but triumphant. That's the whole point. A mystical fellowship we share with the glorified saints.
Is it true that you already love some people who are in Heaven that you've never met? You know, I feel that way about certain writers. I feel that way about people that I read whose life touches my life; and, even though they're dead, I sense a...a love and a fellowship with them in Christ.
Okay, another question, and this is one that probably comes up a lot in your school. Is the belief in Adam and Eve being the only first ones created a major doctrine of the Bible? Well, we could talk about this for along time about Adam and Eve, but the...the question is - has a little sub-note. It says, "I know of someone who believes God created mankind, not just one Adam. Does this distort the truth?" In other words that, when it says "God created Adam, the Hebrew, Adam, meaning man, it means that God created a race, rather than an individual, so that what we really had in the Garden was a whole race of people.
Well, if you take that view, then immediately you've got a problem, because which of those Adams got Eve or did all of them get Eve? And if you've got all Adams and all Eves, then how many trees are there, and who's eating of what? You got lots of problems, and did they all eat at the same instant? You see, what you have to do, as soon as you've removed Adam and Eve from being single individuals, you've got to explain away and allegorize the whole rest of the Genesis account because nothing makes sense.
Now, lemme draw your attention backwards to Genesis and show you a couple of things about this, why we can't do this. In Genesis chapter 2, you know, it's no problem for me, because I just take what the Bible says. I don't need to extrapolate and interpret and...and go any further. If it says He made Adam and Eve, then that's one man and one woman, I don't have a problem with that. I don't need to explode that to accommodate some genealogical, sociological, or whatever perspective.
But in Genesis 2:18, "And the Lord God said, 'It is not good that man should be alone." Now the first thing we learn about man, whoever this one was, that he was what? Alone. Now, it seems to me that if you've got somebody who's alone, you've just got one somebody or he wouldn't be alone, right? "I will make an helpmeet or a help fit for him...a helper...And out of the ground, the Lord God formed every beast of the field, every fowl of the air." Now, there's plurality, right? Every beast and every fowl, "And He brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them; and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. And Adam gave names to the cattle and the fowl of the air, every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him." Now, you see what you've got is a plurality of animals and a plurality of fowl; and contrast, you've got one man who's all alone. Now, that's the whole point of the passage. God is trying to say that man doesn't...man shouldn't be alone, and He makes a clear contrast between the beasts who had theirs, and the fowl who had theirs, and man who has no one. "And the Lord God gave him a divine anesthetic, deep sleep. He slept, and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh...did a little surgery there...And the rib which the lord God had taken from man, made He a woman and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, 'This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, because was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, shall cleave unto his wife; and they shall be one flesh. And they were both naked."
Now both in any language means how many? Very good class... "The man and his wife, they were naked, and they were not ashamed." I don't know what would've happened if there was a whole lot of 'em there naked. There may have been different response. Now, back in Genesis one, you have a...an indication paralleling Genesis two. In verse 20, "Let the waters bring forth the moving creature that has life, and fowl that may fly above the earth. And God created great sea monsters and every living creature that moves in the water." And all I wanna point out to you here is that God is creating in multiples, lots of fish and lots of birds and lots of animals. In verse 24, "He says, 'Get the...all kinds of cattle and creeping things and beasts," and, oh, it goes on and on. And then He gets down to man, and He just makes one, and it's singular all the while.
Why, if God was making a plurality of men, did He not speak in the same plural terms that He'd speaking in reference to animals just in the verses prior? No. So we conclude, then, that there is but one Adam and but one Eve who become the mother and father of us all. Now, this interpretation is supported in the New Testament. For example, the whole argument of the Apostle Paul in Romans 5 is predicated on a single Adam, on a one Adam. If you wanted...if you want to eliminate the fact that there's one Adam, then you have just wiped out Paul's whole argument in Romans 5, because Paul is trying to show in Romans chapter 5, you see, Paul is saying, "Christ has died and provided salvation for every man." Right? That's the first part of 5, 5:1 to 10. "Christ has died and provided salvation for every man." And the Jewish mind is saying, "Now wait a minute. How can one Man's deed affect everybody?...How can...how can Jesus Christ do one thing, one Man doing one thing, and it affects everybody?"
And Paul says, "Lemme show you how," in verse 12. Here's a good illustration. "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world...and death by sin, so death passed on all men for all have sin." By how many men did sin enter the world? How many? One man. One man. Now, Paul's argument here is this. You shouldn't be hung up on the fact that salvation came through one man. Did you forget that sin also came through one man? See his parallel? If by one man sin entered the world, then by one Man can come eternal life. Now his entire argument is predicated on the fact that Adam was only one man. So if you're gonna fiddle around with Adam and make him a group of people, then you've just destroyed Paul's whole argument, and then you've got problems in the New Testament.
And I would draw you to one further indication of Matthew chapter 19 verses 4 and 5. In Matthew 19:4 and 5, we have the testimony of Jesus to the veracity of the record of Adam and Eve; and Jesus agreed with it the way it was recorded...Just listen, and He's talking about divorce here, and the Pharisees are giving Him a little trouble. "And He says, 'Did you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'For this cause shall a man leave father and mother and shall cleave to his wife, and they...how many?...two shall be one flesh?'"
Jesus here is giving credence to the Genesis record. Jesus did not treat it as an allegory. He treated it as an absolute, and so on the basis of Genesis account, on the basis of the testimony of Jesus, on the basis of the argument of the Apostle Paul in the Book of Romans chapter 5, there is only once conclusion, and that is that Adam was one man, and out of his loins was taken one woman, Eve, and they were those who were the forerunners of the whole human race. Okay?
While you're in Matthew, I'll do a little question relative to interpretation. Look at Matthew 25, and the question is a general question. How do you interpret the parable of Matthew 25:14 to 30? And this is a parable that has caused some interpretive problems, but lemme just go through it hastily and...and without getting a lot of detail, just tell you what it's about.
"The Kingdom of Heaven is like a man traveling into a far country, called his own servants." You've noticed the Kingdom of Heaven is in italics there, which means it was added to clarify that he's talking about the Kingdom. "The Kingdom of God or the Kingdom of Heaven is like a man who takes a long trip and calls his servants and delivers them his goods." In other words, he's gonna entrust his estate to his servants. "To one he gave five talents...maybe $160.00 or so, maybe $200.00 with inflation...to another he gave two talents, to another one, to every man according to his ability, and he went away. Now, he that received the five talents traded with the same, made five more. And likewise he who had received two, gained two more. He that received one went and dug in the earth and hid his lord's money.
"After a long time, the man came back and started to take account. The man with five came...in verse 20...and brought other five, and said, 'Lord, you gave me five talents. I have gained beside five more.' And his lord said, 'Well done, good and faithful servant. You've been faithful over a few things. I'll make you rule over many things. Enter the joy of your lord.' He also that had received two talents came, 'Lord, you delivered to me two talents. Behold, I have gained to other talents beside.' His lord said, Well, good and faithful servant. You've been faith over a few things; I'll make you ruler over many. Enter thou in the joy of thy lord.'"
Now, what you have here is simple. The Master is Christ. The servants are subjects in His Kingdom, and I think in His broad Kingdom, His universal Kingdom. They're just human beings, and their talents are capacities for glorifying God, and God has said to them, "You have capacity to glorify Me." The capacity may vary...and the first two servants took their capacity to glorify their Lord, and they did it, and when He came back, he said, "I will make you ruler over many." What he's really doing to them is saying, "The Kingdom is like this, if you will take advantage of opportunity that God gives you to glorify Him, you will be a part of His Kingdom." And when He says, "Enter the joy of thy Lord," He is saying you have been saved. That is the point of salvation. They're not Christians until then. They're human beings who are given the opportunity to invest their life in glorifying God. When they do it, they are...they become a part of His Kingdom, and they receive His eternal joy...
It's like the catechism says, "The chief end of man is to glorify God and...what?...enjoy Him forever." "You glorify Me, I'll give you joy." But there's a third man here, and he symbolizes the unbelieving people of the world. "And he said, 'Lord...verse 24...I know you're a hard man, reaping where you haven't sown, and gathering where you..." and he gives a lot of this dialogue about his mistrust of God. "And I was afraid, and I hid it in the earth," and, in other words, he did nothing with the opportunity to glorify God. To glorify and honor His Lord. "You wicked, slothful servant, you knew that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not spread. You should therefore put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with interest. Take therefore the talent from him, and give it to him who has ten. For every one that shall be given, and he shall have abundance; but from him that hath not, shall be take away that which he hath. And cast the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
That's obviously hell. The question came does this mean a man lost his salvation? No, he never gained it. The Lord never said to him, "You shall rule over many in My Kingdom," and He never said, "You'll enter into the joy of the Lord," because the man never used the opportunity for glorifying God that God gave him. Now that's the simple explanation of the parable; and believe me, folks, the best way to interpret a parable is as simple as possible. The further tangled into the parable you get, the more problems you're gonna have. You know, there are sermons on what the five talents were. Talent one was this, and...that's no...there's no sense in that. Just take the general thrust of the story in most cases, and don't try to make something out of every little, tiny thing. The general thrust we've tried to cover in just the statement that we've made.
Why are the tribes of Joseph and Manasseh both mentioned in Revelation 7? This is kinda fun. Turn to Revelation 7. This is just one of those curiosity questions. It's kind of fun, and you can go to a party and say, "Why are...tribes of Joseph and Manasseh?" And no one will know but you, and it's a wonderful feeling. So Revelation chapter 7, because, frankly, no one bothers to ask this question anyway. You'll have to bring it up. Why are the tribes of Joseph and Manasseh both mentioned in Revelation 7?
Doesn't the tribe of Joseph include Manasseh? Now, how many tribes were there in Israel? Well, Joseph was one of the...the son. Joseph had two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh...Why is it that you have both mentioned here? Joseph and Manasseh? Well, look at Revelation 7. You have Manasseh at the end of verse 6, and Joseph in the middle of verse 8. Now, I don't wanna get too involved. If you don't know what's going on, don't worry. Just pray for a minute or two.
Joseph is never really considered a tribe. Joseph was split into two. Ephraim and Manasseh, and Ephraim and Manasseh were considered to be tribes. Manasseh is here, and Ephraim's place is taken by Joseph, and the question is why does Joseph appear and not Ephraim? And the answer is that it is likely, as a punishment for Ephraim's idolatry, and you will remember that it was Ephraim that was responsible for leading in the split of Israel into the two kingdoms; and it is, perhaps, because of that, that Ephraim's name is withheld from that special place of usefulness in preparation for the Kingdom.
The ten tribes who seceded, remember the ten northern tribes who seceded? Took their name from Ephraim, who led in that secession and Jeroboam I was their king, and he was born of the tribe of Ephraim. So it may be that, because of that terrible thing that occurred in the splitting of Israel, that Ephraim's tribe is left out of that final glorious ministry that occurs in the salvation of Israel in the Tribulation. It also is interesting to note that the reason you can split Joseph into two is because Dan is omitted. You say, 'Well, why is Dan omitted?" Because of gross idolatry.
In Deuteronomy 29, golden calves were set up in tribe...you know, all the tribes had a territory. You know that. Ephraim and Manasseh shared, basically the same territory, but all the others had a territory; but Dan is left out; and, in fact, here Dan is replaced by Levi, the priestly tribe. So Ephraim and Manasseh had the same land, but are often spoken of as two separate tribes, because they were the sons of Joseph. Levi replaces Dan, and Levi, the priestly tribe, had how much land? No land. But Levi is brought in in Dan's place. Joseph is brought in in Ephraim's place because of sin.
You know what's really kind of exciting? This is just a footnote to all of that. Ezekiel 37, I think it is 19, gives you a picture of the wonderful grace of God, even to Ephraim, who was responsible for such a terrible crime. In Ezekiel 37:19, "Say to them, 'Thus saith the Lord God: I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel, his fellows, and put them with him." God say, "Someday...Ezekiel 37's talking about the Kingdom, the future...I'm gonna take that Ephraim gang and all the tribes that revolted with him, and put 'em with Joseph...I love this...even with the stick of Judah, I'm gonna rejoin." Remember the northern kingdom was all the ten tribes, and the southern kingdom was called what? Judah, Judah and Benjamin, the north, all the others. But Judah was the south and Israel was the north. "I'm gonna bring those ten. I'm gonna join them back with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they shall be one in...what?...My hand.'"
God says, "With all of Ephraim's problems, someday in the Kingdom, I'm gonna bring Ephraim back." Now you know why that has to happen? And Dan, too. You know why that has to happen? Because God is a covenant...what?...keeping God. He never breaks His promise. Oh, by the way, Dan is mentioned in 48:2, I don't wanna leave you just guessing. This is the division of the kingdom, and it tells in verse 2 that Dan is going to have a lovely spot right in the kingdom during the millennial age. Dan arrives back. Ephraim arrives back. Why? Because God is a covenant-keeping God.
Now, listen, people, this is just one reason why I believe in the restoration of Israel in the future. God goes to great pains in Revelation to leave Ephraim and Dan out, and goes in great pains to make sure in Ezekiel He gets Ephraim and Dan back in, because God never breaks His Word. And the people today who teach that there is no future for Israel are gonna have to live with the problem that they're forcing God to break His Word, and He doesn't do that.
Romans 9:21 to 23. Let's look at that. Romans 9:21 to 23. And the question here is...the Bible speaks of vessels of mercy and vessels of destruction which God specifically made for His purpose. Does that mean people like Judas were made by God for destruction? That's a very provocative question and, of course, you get ultimately into the whole area of God's sovereignty. But lemme show you something most interesting about Romans 9:21...Paul is saying here that God is sovereign. Paul is clearly saying that. There's no other message here. Verse 18, "He has mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will, He hardens," and the argument comes, "Well, it doesn't seem fair," and verse 21, Paul says, "Hath not the potter power over the clay of the same lump to make one vessel to honor and another to dishonor?" A potter can make a vessel anyway he wants. He's the potter, and the vessel is simply clay.
But I want you to notice what happens in verse 22. "What if God, willing to show His wrath and make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, mercy which He had before prepared unto glory." Now, I don't wanna get too deep, and I just wanna give you one or two thoughts. Notice. There are "vessels of wrath...at the end of verse 22...fitted to destruction"...Verse 23, "Vessels of mercy, which He had prepared to glory."
Now, in the Greek, you have two serious distinctions here in the Greek tense, and you must recognize it. I should say in the Greek voice, which is similar to English. You realize the different between active and passive? An active, the subject does the acting; and in passive, the subject receives the action. Now, notice, verse 22 is a passive, "Vessels of wrath fitted to destruction." God is not the subject...the verb is passive. Verse 23, "Vessels of mercy, which He had prepared to glory." God there is the subject, and the verb is active. Listen, God says, "I prepare vessels for glory, but vessels are prepared for destruction." And what is happening there in the Greek tense is God is taking one step away from the responsibility of preparing a person from his creative act for hell. God doesn't take that responsibility. He says, "There are vessels that have been prepared for destruction." And if you study the Bible very carefully, you'll see that everywhere in Scripture, the responsibility for such preparation lies right in the very heart of the man who goes to hell. Is that right?
Jesus said, "You will not come to Me that you might ________." At the end of the Book of Revelation, He says, "Come, let him that is athirst come."...And so God says, "I fit for glory, but vessels are fitted for destruction." Judas was not created by God to occupy hell. Another reason I know that is that hell was never even made for human beings. It was made for the devil and his angels. Judas went there, because Judas chose to betray Christ, chose to reject the truth, chose to pay a sad, sad price...
Well, let's close with that. You know, we've seen some things tonight, maybe in somewhat of a random manner, but seems like the Lord always has a way of kind of wrapping things around a theme or...or so...It seems to me that what we've seen tonight...is that God has drawn some standards for life. God says..."There is gonna be a hell. There's gonna be a Heaven. There are gonna be some people that I'm gonna prepare for My Heaven, and there are gonna be some people who are gonna be prepared for hell...and the choice is theirs. There are gonna be some servants...and they're gonna take the capacity to glorify Me, and they're gonna do it; and I'm gonna say, 'Go into My Kingdom and into My joy.' And there are gonna be some people who gonna have that same opportunity and that same capacity, and they're not gonna do it, and I'm gonna say, 'Cast that unprofitable servant into outer darkness.'" And that's the decision that every person makes; and someday, when Jesus comes back, the people that are His are going into His Kingdom, and the people that have turned their back are going to be destroyed in His Judgment...
And then another thing we kinda saw tonight that I think is really important...is the fact that, for those of us who are in His Kingdom already, for those of us who are in His family who have been prepared for glory, there are some standards for blessing, right? There's a great big circle, the big O, stands for obedience; and if we're in it, we're gonna get rained on with blessing; and if we're outside of it, we're gonna run right into His chastening. These are the lessons really summing up the whole Gospel, right? Let's pray.
This sermon series includes the following messages:
Please contact the publisher to obtain copies of this resource.Publisher Information


text:
Raleigh, NC (SportsNetwork.com) - Mark Barberio scored the first two goals of his career as the Tampa Bay Lightning took a 5-3 victory over the Carolina Hurricanes on Sunday.
Ondrej Palat had a goal and two assists while Teddy Purcell and Nikita Kucherov also scored for the Lightning, who had lost four of six coming in. Ben Bishop stopped a career-high 48 shots in the win.
"I'm sure they were frustrated, but that's what you're supposed to do," Bishop said of stopping a career-high in shots.
Eric Staal had a goal and an assist, with Alexander Semin and Ron Hainsey also scoring for the Hurricanes, who have lost three of four.
"It was a tough night," said Staal. "We did what we wanted to do and threw a lot of shots at the net, but they were able to capitalize on their chances. We didn't sulk and cry and fought back into it, but it wasn't enough."
Justin Peters was yanked from the start in the first period after giving up three goals on just seven shots. Anton Khudobin finished the game in net and made 15 stops.
Tampa drew first blood at 6:09 on the power play when Alex Killorn sent a short pass from the right side to the left with Barberio sneaking in the shot for his first NHL goal.
It was 2-0 for the Lightning just 1:23 later as Martin St. Louis sent a pass from the left wing to the slot where Palat one-timed it home on a rush play.
Tampa took a 3-0 lead at 15:07 of the first when Tom Pyatt's pass from behind the net slid to the front with Kucherov snapping it in for his eighth of the year.
The Lightning scored their fourth goal of the game just 24 seconds into the second period as a scramble in front of the net saw Purcell get the puck in for his 10th of the year.
Carolina finally got on the board at 1:46 of the second while on the power play as Semin went end-to-end and was able to sneak in a soft shot from the left circle.
Just under four minutes later, the Hurricanes made it a two-goal game as Staal stripped the puck from Jean-Philippe Cote in the neutral zone, and from the right circle was able to beat Bishop with a low shot.
Tampa, though, got one back at 8:12 of the second as a loose puck slid out to the slot and Barberio one-timed it home for his second of the game.
The Canes made it a two-goal game at the 6:14 mark of the third period after John-Michael Liles' shot from the high slot was blocked in front, with Hainsey slamming in the rebound from the left circle.
That was it for the scoring, though, as Bishop finished the third period with 16 saves to hold on for the win.
Game Notes
Carolina plays in Philadelphia on Tuesday ... Tampa Bay hosts Ottawa on Thursday ... The Lightning have won all three matchups with the Hurricanes this season, and seven of the last eight, overall ... Tampa went 1-for-2 on the power play, while Carolina was just 1-for-5.


text:
- Visit
- Exhibitions
- Research
- Shop Online
- Collections
- Learn
- Join and Give
About This Artwork
Walter Ellison
American, 1899–1977
Train Station, 1935
Oil on cardboard
20 x 36 cm (8 x 14 in.)
Signed lower right: Walter W. Ellison
Signed lower right (vertically on suitcase): W W E
Charles M. Kurtz Charitable Trust and Barbara Neff Smith and Solomon Byron Smith funds; through prior gifts of Florence Jane Adams, Mr. and Mrs. Carter H. Harrison, and the estate of Celia Schmidt, 1990.134
In this highly structured composition, Walter Ellison clearly displayed the realities of segregation in the United States in the 1920s and 1930s. Ellison, who joined many other Southern African Americans in the Great Migration of the early 20th century, came to Chicago in the 1920s and studied at the School of the Art Institute. Here he depicted wealthy white travelers (helped by black porters) boarding trains destined for Southern resort towns like Miami and West Palm Beach. On the right, working- and middle-class African Americans move through doorways indicating Northern destinations, seeking to escape the poverty and oppression of the rural South.
— Permanent collection label
Exhibition, Publication and Ownership Histories
Exhibition History
Chicago, 1418 Lake Shore Drive, Chicago No-Jury Society of Artists, Inc., Twelfth Annual Exhibition, June 13-27, 1936, cat. 98, as R. R. Station, Macon, Ga.
Art Institute of Chicago, New Acquisitions: Early American Modernist Painting, June 25-November 25, 1990, no cat.
Art Institute of Chicago, Telling Images: Stories in Art, September 1996-June 1999, ill. p. 38.
Art Institute of Chicago, A Century of Collecting: African American Art in the Art Institute of Chicago, February 15-May 18, 2003, no cat.
Chicago, Terra Museum of American Art, Chicago Modern, 1893-1945: Pursuit of the New, July 17-October 31, 2004, cat. 30.
Art Institute of Chicago, They Seek a City: Chicago and the Art of Migration, 1910-1950, March 3-June 3, 2013, cat. 64.
Publication History
Derrick Joshua Beard Fine Arts, Opening Exhibition, November 30-December 2, 1990, fig. 9. [This is an exhibition catalogue, but Train Station was not shown.]
Andrea D. Barnwell and Kirsten P. Buick, "A Portfolio of Works by African American Artists Continuing the Dialogue: A Work in Progress," Art Institute of Chicago Museum Studies 24, 2 (1999), pp. 186, 193-94, cat 5, ill.
Judith A. Barter et al., "American Modernism at the Art Institute of Chicago, From World War I to 1955," (Art Institute of Chicago/Yale University Press, 2009), cat. 103.
"Paintings at the Art Institute of Chicago, Highlights of the Collection," (Art Institute of Chicago/Yale University Press, 2017) p. 122.
Ownership History
Irwin Weinberg. Sold by Galerie Americana to the Art Institute of Chicago, 1990.


text:
Contact details
Mitchelstown Cave, located midway between Cahir and Mitchelstown in county Tipperary, is one of the most spectacular caves in Europe. The cave's unusual formations, shapes, colour and history make for an enthralling visit.
Read more
Want to know more? Ask a question in our Community, they're the people who know Ireland best.
For more information on travel, accommodation and attractions have a look at our brochures and maps.
If you're a visitor from the island of Ireland you may want to visit one of these sites… Otherwise proceed to Ireland.com
Ireland.com uses cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies from Ireland.com.