Some of the preacher friends of mine realize something that God has never done. He has never tried to prove He exists. Most that want to put out a belief or thought or plan attempt to give their bonafides, the reasons that they should be believed. They may roll out a string of alphabet as proof of their intelligence. Others make flat statements without proof of any kind and use ridicule to put down any objection. God simply says, “In the beginning…”. He does not have to prove He is. He does not have to prove that He is. Simply, He is. I like that. That is my God. I don’t attempt to prove He is, He has written His name on creation. His song is sung by the Birds. What He has created declares He is.
Tag Archives: creation
SWIMMING IN THE POOL OF GRACE
William Andrew Dillard
Parson to Person
A childhood memory is that of the simple joy of reading comic books, and one in particular: Donald Duck. It seems Donald had a rich uncle who was also very stingy. He had accumulated so much money that it filled a swimming pool. This uncle (scrooge by name) loved to dive off the diving board into the pool of money and wallow in it, throwing it into the air and immersing himself in the sheer glee of it all.
This little story is at best crude, but it does have a way of illustrating the marvelous, fathomless grace of God toward his creation, and specifically mankind.
The word “grace” is commonly defined as “Unmerited favor.” It is first employed in the Bible in Genesis 6:8, “But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.” The law of first mention is that a word finds its clearest meaning in the context of its initial usage. Here and throughout the Bible, it is clear that great favor of a totally unmerited nature is bestowed upon mankind. It is favor that builds upon itself as it finds welcome acceptance in its beneficiaries.
Certainly, Noah did not merit the favor of God, but this favor (grace) was bestowed upon him by which he escaped the global flood, and repopulated the earth.
The multiple instances of grace being bestowed on various saints of old would require a sizeable book, but suffice it here to fast forward to the New Testament where the word and its meaning takes on expanded appreciation, though remaining far from our comprehensive understanding. As the apostle John presented the Word in the first chapter of his gospel, he spoke of this abundant grace. Moreover, he recorded the testimony of John the Baptist about Jesus: “And of his fullness have all we received, and grace for grace. For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.” John 1: 16-17.
In an attempt to better understand the idea of the phrase “grace for grace,” most scholars say this means grace piled on top of grace. Another likens it to the continuous supply of manna to the Hebrews in the wilderness wanderings. By grace it was there this morning, and by grace will be there the next day to replace what was used. But in the writings of John, it is contrasted with law which came by Moses. Thus, it is conveying the unmerited favor of the New Covenant: the church, the faith once delivered to the saints in contrast to the law and its penalties of the Old Testament. It is favor beyond that of spiritual salvation to that of comprehension to the point of spiritual maturity. It is unmerited favor piled upon unmerited favor. To a submissive people to Him, it is as David of old said, “Blessed be the Lord, who daily loadeth us with benefits, even the God of our salvation.” Psalm 68:19. What a spiritual pool of grace we have in Christ Jesus! Enjoy the swim!
William Andrew Dillard
PRESUMING ON GOD
Man’s propensity to presume on the Creator God of heaven and earth appears to know no end, at least not in this age. Spurred on by religious charlatans who prey on the ignorance of folks, the name it and claim it crowd forges onward, full steam ahead. Let’s think about that for a minute.
God has shown His mighty power in times past to accomplish purposes within His holy will for a people, place, or thing.
Here are a few of those displays of His might power aside from creation itself. He brought the mighty Egyptian nation to its knees and its military to its destruction in ways so far removed from human thinking that it stands out in the minds of modern Christians as an all time great, miraculous action. Shall we mention Joshua and the conquest of Jericho? What about Daniel in the lion’s den or the three Hebrew children in the fiery furnace, or Elijah on Mt. Carmel, or Peter being released from prison, or Paul in shipwreck? On and on it goes for the Lord has wrought might works to show Himself both to His people and to the heathen.
So now, the world’s religious in name only, presume that if God is the same yesterday, today, and forever as the scriptures declare, then all they have to do is call upon Him to do mighty things, and if He likes you, He will, but if he doesn’t He won’t. So, they pick out an isolated incident like that of Jabez, and without the slightest idea of what that is all about, they beseech the Lord for personal riches or popularity which they can parlay into wealth, and are perplexed that He does not answer them as they wish.
If God has done this before, and if He is the same, and if He really is no respecter of persons, why then, oh why, does He not do it again for us, they ask. It may just be that they are asking God to become a respecter of persons and do for them what He is not doing for others. Then there is the fact that they are asking amiss to consume it upon personal lusts as James points out in his epistle.
This sort of thing bleeds over into the life of nominal Christians as well. Those who do not live a true Christian life will become ill or have some tragedy occur. Then they want the church to pray for them. For what? That they might have healing? For what? So that they might continue to pile up judgment against themselves by living a life of sin and iniquity rather than serving the Lord who bought them with His precious blood?
Enough presuming on God already! It is fruitless except in an evil way. Let those who would ask of God first surrender to Him and pray for grace that they might serve Him according to His will in the short time of this pilgrimage. It is the only fitting thing to do for one Who has saved us unto himself
William Andrew Dillard
UNDERSTANDING THE THEOLOGICAL POWER OF CONJUNCTIVES
There is great power in language conjunctives to transmit proper, cohesive thought. It is true in daily language usage, but greater in theology. Think!
To help assure continuity of thought, such conjunctives as “furthermore, and, additionally,” signifies continuing thought with previous statements. Words such as “therefore, subsequently, but, however, conversely” signal a change in thought pattern to a different or opposite effect.
Obviously, the use or misuse of these powerful unions of thought convey strong implications in both spoken and written form. Unfortunately, the translators of the English Bible choose to use what they thought was a neutral conjunctive “and” almost exclusively. But, it is not neutral. “And” being used to imply both continuous and diverse thoughts may confuse the reader, especially the unstudied one.
Genesis 1:1-2 is a case in point. Verse One denotes the Almighty, Triune, Creator creating (cutting out, forming, shaping in perfection ) both the heavens and the earth.
Verse two states, “And the earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep.” There is no mention of the heavens being in such chaotic state. Focus is shifted from the universal cosmos to the planet earth. The shift does not convey a continuation of the actions of verse one, but a different effect altogether. What a difference would be made if readers were reading “but” or however” that is contextually warranted instead of “and.” The context warranting such understanding does not reference the heavens being in such a chaotic state, but both were created instantly by the power of the Word of the Almighty. Yet it is the earth only that is portrayed as a chaotic mess of which God is not the author. It is simple: The perfect God never does an imperfect thing!
The prophet Isaiah underscored this fact. He wrote in 45:18 that the Creator did not create either the heavens or the earth in vain “tohu” the same Hebrew word used to describe the chaotic condition of the earth in Genesis 1:2. The method of creation is simply the Word of His mouth, and a sudden reality, as denoted in Isa. 48:3. In the ancient Hebrew language, there is a distinct difference between a consecutive conjunction and a simple conversive conjunction. Consecutive conjunctions are employed in all the verses of Genesis 1:3-31, but in Genesis 1:2 it is a simple conversive conjunction that is not to be understood as consecutive to verse one action.
While this theological explanation may not be fully appreciated by the average person, it is a vital part of the overall understanding that is to be derived from the pages of Holy Writ both here and in other places as well. In English, context demands the proper use of conjunctives.
Posted: 10 Apr 2016 07:14 PM PDT
Don Boys, Ph.D.
Evidently the three college professors who wrote to the Chattanooga newspaper were not well-read in the current literature. They seem to be where they were during their college days but those days are long gone. Let me provide some up-to-date information that will help honest and inquiring minds make a judgment on the controversy of origins.
Only an uninformed fanatic says that evolution or creation can be proved scientifically. Christians believe in creationism because we believe in the veracity of the Bible but we also have scientific evidence to support our position.
In every debate I’ve had with evolutionary scientists, the arrogant, asinine accusation is made, “Well, evolution is science while creationism is religion.” Evolution is about as scientific as a voodoo rooster-plucking ceremony in Haiti. Almost.
Science means to know and systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, etc. It is based on observation and experimentation. Evolutionists don’t “know” anything about man’s origins. They guess, suppose, speculate, etc., but they don’t know. Honest scientists have become weary and embarrassed at the confusing, convoluted, and contradictory claptrap that often passes as science. They have watched their colleagues rush to defend Darwin rather than putting him to rigorous tests.
World famous scientist G. G. Simpson stated, “It is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not about anything…or at the very best, they are not science.” Neither creationism nor evolution can be observed or tested.
Need I remind my readers of the many incredible mistakes made by evolutionists because of their faith: Haeckel’s recapitulation theory that only third-rate scientists believe; also the vestigial organ error; the failure of the fossil record (that no informed evolutionist uses to prove his position), etc.
Let me dwell on the fossil record since most people assume it supports evolution. It does not.
Dr. David Kitts, professor of geology at the University of Oklahoma, said, “Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them….” And Lord Zuckerman admitted there are no “fossil traces” of transformation from an ape-like creature to man! I assume that all college professors know that Darwin admitted the same fact. I also assume they know that Darwin was not trained as a scientist but for the ministry, so evolutionists are worshipping at the feet of an apostate preacher!
Famous fossil expert, Niles Eldredge confessed, “…geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them.” Dr. Eldredge further said, “…no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures.”
World famous paleontologist Colin Patterson agreed saying, “there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.” Not one.
All the alleged transitional fossils, that were so dear to the hearts of evolutionists a generation ago, are now an embarrassment to them. Breaks my heart! Archaeopteryx is now considered only a bird, not an intermediate fossil. The famous horse series that is still found in some textbooks and museums has been discarded and is considered a phantom and illusion because it is not proof of evolution. In fact, the first horse in the series is no longer thought to be a horse! And when a horse can’t be counted on being a horse then of course we’ve got trouble, real trouble right here in River City.
Surely it is not necessary for me to remind college professors that Piltdown Man was a total fraud and Nebraska Man turned out to be a pig’s tooth, not an ape man! And in recent years we have discovered that Neanderthal Man was simply a man with rickets and arthritis, not the much desired “ape man.” Need I go on? The truth is that only a fool says evolution is a fact as compared to gravity, and to equate scientific creationists with flat earthers as some evolutionists do is outrageous irresponsibility.
Dr. Soren Lovtrup, Professor of Zoo-physiology at the University of Umea in Sweden, wrote, “I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology: for a long time now people discuss evolutionary problems in a peculiar ‘Darwinian’ vocabulary…thereby believing that they contribute to the explanation of natural events.” He went on to say, “I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science.” He also said, “Evolution is ‘anti-science.’” And so it is.
Do those who teach evolution know that scientists have characterized Darwinism asspeculation, based on faith, similar to theories of little green men, dead, effectively dead, very flimsy, incoherent, and a myth. Hey, with friends like that, evolutionists don’t need scientific creationists to hold their feet to the fire. Nevertheless, our public school textbooks and teachers, even up to most colleges and some universities, are not up to date on current thought. Did you get that–current “thought”?
I have assumed that the three college professors are familiar with all the world famous scientists I quoted above. All of them! If not, they are really uninformed, and should stay out of the evolution/creation discussion until they spend some time to bring themselves up to date.
So you see evolutionists are dishonest or uninformed when they suggest that creationists are backwoods, snake handling fanatics. In fact, over a thousand scientists with advanced degrees belong to one group that takes a stand for scientific creationism and against the guess of evolution.
Those college professors were correct in stating that Darwin’s book does not deal with the origins of life even though its title was Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. So a book about origins does not deal with the beginning of life!
Later Darwin suggested that life began in a warm little pond, but he never suggested where the pond came from! Most evolutionists teach that life started there also, but scientists have proved conclusively that spontaneous generation is impossible. So where did the first spark of life come from? You think maybe God was involved?
And would it be possible to remind everyone that Darwin and his followers were racists who believed that blacks were closer to the nonexistent ape men than whites? Thomas Huxley, Henry F. Osborne, Professor Edwin Conklin, and others preached white superiority – because of their evolutionary bias. The haters for a hundred years after Darwin can be tied to Darwin starting with Nietzsche (who asserted that God was dead, called for the breeding of a master race and for the annihilation of millions of misfits), followed by Hitler, Mussolini, Marx, Engels, Stalin, etc. Evolutionary teachings have resulted in soaking the soil of Europe in innocent blood. After all, evolutionists tell us that man is only a little higher than the animals rather than a little lower than the angels as the Bible teaches, so what’s a few million lives to be concerned about?
I don’t have the space to deal with numerous problems that evolutionists have such as the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, origin of the universe, beginning of life from non-living matter, the Cambrian explosion, etc.
Evolution is a guess, a speculation, a hypothesis, a theory, and a faith. Yes, evolution is a religion as I document in my book, Evolution: Fact, Fraud or Faith? And, since it is a faith, it should not be taught in public schools. At least, any thinking, honest person would agree that if it is, then scientific creationism should be taught along with it. After all, we do believe in balance and fairness, don’t we? Or do we?
Sorry, professors, evolution is NOT a fact. It is a fraud, a fake, a farce and a faith, and taxpayers should demand that the religion of evolution be kept out of public schools unless the truth of scientific creationism is taught as well.
Boys’ new book, Evolution: Fact, Fraud, or Faith? was published this week by Barbwire Books; to get your copy of Evolution: Fact, Fraud, or Faith? click here . An eBook edition is also available.
(Dr. Don Boys is a former member of the Indiana House of Representatives; ran a large Christian school in Indianapolis, wrote columns for USA Today for eight years; authored 15 books and hundreds of columns and articles for Internet and print media publications; defended his beliefs on hundreds of talk shows. These columns go to newspapers, magazines, television, and radio stations and may be used without change from title through the end tag. His web sites are www.cstnews.com and www.Muslimfact.com and www.thegodhaters.com. Contact Don for an interview or talk show.)
Well, we creationists have been vindicated–again by evolutionary scientists. This week in Australia’s Herald Sun scientists reported on “new” evidence regarding the human appendix: “Its removal is one of the most common surgical procedures in Australia, with more than 70,000 operations each year. However, we may wish to rethink whether the appendix is so irrelevant for our health.”
The article continued to relate that the appendix harbors “good” bacteria and when the intestines are emptied during a bout of diarrhea, the appendix “reseeds” the intestines with “good” bacteria and restores the body back to good digestive health.
Creationists have known the benefit of the appendix and tonsils for decades! I wrote in the 1994 edition ofEvolution: Fact, Fraud, or Faith? (new, expanded edition to be published this month by Barbwire Books) the following:
“Another major error made by evolutionists is that of allegedly useless organs in man that are supposed to be withered memorials of man’s past evolution. As late as the 1960s, evolutionary textbooks listed over 200 ‘useless’ organs, but later information has proved that almost all ‘vestigial organs’ have some function during our lifetime. The tonsils, appendix, and thymus gland are known to protect us against infections, especially during our younger years, but until recent years, they were thought to be unnecessary.”
So there! That qualifies as an “I told you so” event.
Atheist David Mills asserted that the human appendix is harmful to our well-being! However, he is wrong because scientists have finally discovered that the appendix serves an important function in the human immune system. If evolutionists had declared these organs as having an “unknown purpose” rather than being unnecessary (there is a difference, you know) I would have agreed; however, now we know that those organs are necessary for proper functioning of the immune system, etc.
Because of their ignorance, for a hundred years doctors took out those “unnecessary” healthy organs to the detriment of their patients. If those scientists had not been controlled by an atheistic worldview, they could have done an enormous amount of research, but since they did not believe God designed those organs with a purpose in mind, the “experts” perpetrated crimes upon children and adults and furthered their crimes by not researching those organs for a hundred years.
Irreparable harm has resulted from this teaching as hundreds of thousands of tonsils, adenoids, appendixes, etc., were removed from children and adults in the past hundred years. How much research has not been done on various “useless” organs because scientists taught other scientists that many organs and glands were useless? We should pity the distraught evolutionists who had all their “vestigial” organs removed only to discover, post-surgery, that they were all important! Not essential but important. I have been told that some of the more desperate, dogmatic, and depressed evolutionists/atheists had their brains removed, but that hasn’t been confirmed!
One’s worldview changes everything. If a person is convinced that he evolved from the animals, then it is understandable when he acts like an animal. If he thinks life is accidental, then he will face each day without purpose to life. It surprises no one that he will live a hedonistic, selfish life. Since he assumes that he and others are not made in the image of God, he has no obligation to treat others in a kind, gracious, and friendly manner.
Evolution is supposed to be an advance from the simple to the complex; however the vestigial organ argument militates against that position! After all, if many human organs were needed and worked well in the past but are now useless and unnecessary, that is not evolution! Evolution would be the appearance of new organs not the degeneration of old ones.
Only four or five organs are now believed, by some evolutionists, to be unnecessary and those are questionable. And of course, just because an organ may not be necessary does not mean that it is useless. A thumb is not really essential, but it is surely handy when you have to grasp or pick up an object.
Zoologist S. R. Scadding asserted: “The ‘vestigial organ’ argument uses as a premise the assertion that the organ in question has no function. There is no way, however, in which this negative assertion can be arrived at scientifically….I conclude that ‘vestigial organs’ provide no special evidence for the theory of evolution.” That means none, zero, zilch, and nil evidence for evolution based on vestigial organs.
Those human organs may not be necessary for life, but non-thinking evolutionists are unnecessary and should be unemployed.
If evolutionists had followed their much touted scientific method, they would not have made fools of themselves so many times. An honest scientist will keep an open mind so that he will not “jump to conclusions” (often wrong conclusions) until he has made many observations with the same results. He must be very careful to base any conclusion on what he has actually seen, rather than what he wanted to see. And he must always be willing to change his mind. To the credit of most evolutionists, they have done that regarding the recapitulation theory and vestigial organs; however, there are some poorly trained scientists (or scientific fanatics) hanging to those silly, discredited theories like an insecure kid clutches a security blanket. It has been over 65 years since the Recapitulation theory was shown to be a fraud but still being taught; so, how long will it take for doctors to stop removing healthy “vestigial” organs?
No, there are no vestigial organs. God provided man with an incredible body that has the astounding ability to not only reproduce itself, but also to repair itself! But before the body can repair itself, it must review the injury (or illness), report on the problem, then resolve the problem before repair begins. What machine can doanything similar to that? Only fools would suggest that no design was involved!
While I don’t believe in vestigial organs, maybe, just maybe, the atheists/evolutionists have encased inside their skulls a vestigial organ that is shrunken and stunted from disuse for decades.
(Boys’ new book, The God Haters was published by Barbwire Books; to get your copy of The God Haters click here . An eBook edition is also available.)
“Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God,” Hebrews 10:7.
Jesus Christ shed His blood and laid down His life for me! When I take a moment to let this truth sink in it humbles me. To see the sacrifice it took to cover my sins is sobering. How can I ever give anything back to Him that measures up to that? My life is all I have to give.
Sin absolutely wrecked our world. All of God’s creation feels its effects, including you and I. We are a broken people. Sin has devastated our lives and separated us from God. Just anything will not work as a worthy sacrifice to reconcile us back to God.
In today’s passage, we see the writer of Hebrews quote a psalm of David’s. Verse 4 speaks of the impossibility of the blood of bulls and goats to remove sin. The animal sacrifices in the Old Testament were great pictures that showed us the seriousness of our transgressions before God, but they fell short of paying the price for sin.
Then Jesus entered the world and became the answer for our sins. He offered Himself as the ultimate sacrifice. His death and shed blood was able to accomplish what the blood of animals never could.
Now we have a reason to serve Him. The knowledge of what Jesus did on our behalf should serve as all the motivation we will ever need. When we consider the enormous gift that God gave to us, we should react by giving Him our lives.
Is the truth of Jesus’ sacrifice serving as your motivator for doing His will?
“Give unto the Lord the glory due unto his name; worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness,” Psalm 29:2.
In Psalm 29, David depicts the power and glory that God demonstrates in nature. It ends with the Lord giving His people peace after the storm.
In the frontier saga, Salt Lick I, Robert Brock writes the true account of his third grade teacher caught up inside a tornado. Helpless, she prayed as the lights went out. After the storm, her family found her in an oak tree with her hair tangled in the limbs. The storm had vacuumed the air from her lungs, but they were able to revive her.
Mankind is a part of the natural environment in which God has placed him. “God that made the world . . . hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; that they should seek the Lord . . . though he be not far from every one of us” (Acts 17:24, 26, 27). People from the mountain have a different culture from those raised on the beach. We are not only products of God’s design, but He sets people under the care of particular parents with siblings and environments of His choosing to influence their character and prepare them for His service. In all this supernatural selection, we see God’s power and glory which makes us understand we are not in control.
Like the third grade teacher, God’s children see His power in the storms of life, also they see His grace and peace in the calm. Like David, they should praise God when the hurricane is blowing trees down in their lives and when the sun is shining after the storm.
IN OTHER WORDS
The same God that was in charge of Hurricane Rita was in charge of the bluebonnet fields of West Texas.
As if the evolutionist’s challenge of divine creation were not bad enough, there have been some Christians who compromise with evolution by actually allowing for “millions of years.” The idea of the “geologic column” was literally invented by the God- and Bible-hating amateur geologist Charles Lyle (1797–1875). It exists nowhere except in the textbooks, and has not even the smallest shred of empirical evidence to support it, but has nevertheless become “gospel” to the evolutionist.
Inexplicably, Christian leaders became so intimidated by evolution that they concocted theories that would accommodate both the Bible and the “millions of years” of the geological ages. The “Gap Theory,” for example, was created for the sole purpose of fitting the geological ages into the Bible, teaching that Gen_1:1 indicates complete creation, while Gen_1:2 and what follows is the recreation after a “gap” of millions of years between the two verses. Similarly, the Day Age Theory teaches that each “day” of Creation consisted of millions of years, which again allows for the geological ages.
All such God-dishonoring theories are shown to be false not only by the statement that “God created,” but also by the word day. While the Hebrew yôm (H3117) at times refers to an indefinite time, such as the span of life (Psa_102:3) or even a “full” year (Lev_25:29; 1Sa_27:7), its most common and natural reference in its more than 2,200 appearances is to a normal twenty-four-hour period (Gen_39:10). This is all the more clearly demonstrated in the Creation account by the qualifiers first, “second,” “third,” etc., being coupled with “evening and morning,” which is never used in the OT in a nonliteral manner. Further, why were the sun and moon created? To distinguish between and “rule” the two parts of a solar day (Gen_1:16). Further still, nonliteral usages, such as “the day of the Lord” (e.g., Isa_2:12; Eze_30:3), a period that is longer than a single day, are always clarified by the context. This is common even in modern usage and is always clear in context. To deny such truth is not only to dishonor God but to show oneself foolish.
The normal use of day in the OT serves to encourage us not only to praise God as Creator “every day” (Psa_145:2), but also to meditate on His Word “all the day” (Psa_119:97).
Scriptures for Study: What did the psalmist do seven times a day and why (Psa_119:164)? What else should we do “from day to day” (Psa_96:2)?
A little clarification from my point of view. The author has correctly state that some that indicate a gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 is to allow millions of years in there.
That I do not refute.
Yet there are those that believe in a young earth and still believe in this gap because of a firm belief that God does not create an earth without form and void. They believe that the original was created in perfection and a catastrophic event caused the void and no form.
They believe the rest of the chapter is the event of re-creation which took 6 24 hour days and one 24 hour day of rest. God created a mature, yet young earth.
Gen_2:18 reveals the exact reason God provided Eve for Adam: “The LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.” Here is an often misunderstood (even hated) verse, but it, along with 1Co_11:9— “Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man”—could not be clearer. Before we chalk all this up to some supposed “male chauvinism,” let us consider the truly incredible reason for it.
The Hebrew for help here is ‘ēzer (H5828), which speaks of a “helper, assistant, one who aids.” The most significant aspect of this word, however, is that most of its twenty-two occurrences indicate divine aid, especially in the Psalms (Psa_20:2; Psa_33:20; Psa_70:5; Psa_89:19; Psa_115:9-11; Psa_121:1-2; Psa_124:8; Psa_146:5). Think of it! A godly wife is actually divine aid. God made her specifically to aid the man. Why? Because he needs it! Meet, then, is negeḏ (H5048), which includes such concepts as “over against, corresponding to, and counterpart.” So God made man a counterpart, a helper who complements him, an assistant who is appropriate and suitable for his needs.
I certainly identified with a sign in a wallpaper and paint store that read, “Husbands choosing colors must have note from wife.” How true that is for me! If it’s not blue, then I don’t really care. If it weren’t for my wife’s knowledge, my clothes would seldom be coordinated. And that’s just one area in which she is a helper who is appropriate and suitable for my needs.
One writer says it well: “As a result of the Creation order, men and women are oriented to one another differently. They need one another, but they need one another differently. The man needs the help; the woman needs to help.” That says it perfectly. When we understand that principle, when we are related to our spouse as God has designed us to be, we will see our marriages transformed.
Scriptures for Study: Read the verses in Psalms mentioned above. How is God’s help pictured in Psa_33:20 and Psa_115:9-11? What response does such help generate in us (Psa_146:5)?