Join us for the best summer yet!

Here are Cobbey Crisler insights on some citations for
“Is the Universe, Including Man, Evolved by Atomic Force?"
(the Christian Science Bible Lesson for December 17, 2017)
Hope you enjoy them and downloadable "Happy Christmas" &
"Joy to the World" poems by Ken Cooper!
With unconditional love and joy, Warren Huff

Warren’s (W’s) PS#1—Cobbey Crisler on God’s questions to us in Job 38.1, 4, 7 (RR)
“Chapter 38 is the examination, the only examination higher than a self-examination. That is what? God’s examination of us.

In Job 38:1 we find "the LORD answering Job out of the whirlwind.” What's the whirlwind? It's a beautiful example of to-and-fro and what's been going on in Job’s thought all the way up to this point.

This chapter is one series of questions. Once again you can wonder how does God communicate to man? Here [in] chapter 38 it tells us by question which requires an answer from us. That's rather interesting, isn't it?
A question requires an answer from Job.

[Job 38:2] "Who [is] this that darkeneth counsel by word, without knowledge?”

We have to answer that question. To fulfill communication. God makes demands on us and we are expected to fulfill those demands, and that's our relationship with God.

Look how Jesus applied that when he healed his cases and man was equipped to respond.

In Job 38:3 look at the authoritative statement which sounds like so many of the statements Jesus made when he healed. "Gird up now thy loins like a man:" What did Job look like down there on all fours on the ash heap'?

Like an animal. "Gird up your loins like a man; Get into your manhood.

"I will demand of thee and answer thou me.

[Job 38:4] “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?” God expects us to answer. Where are we? What book of the Bible describes the foundations of the earth being laid by God? Are we there? We’re in the first chapter of Genesis. That requires then that answer.

Job 38:7 “When the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?”

[These are “NOT rhetorical questions, but ones that we are expected to answer. What could this (“Laying the foundations of the earth”) mean to the Jewish reader but the first Genesis 1? The dominion man IS there… “I and my Father are one.”… The whole question of origin is what God brings out… We must answer every question posed by God in these chapters to get the same (turn-around) results that Job did… If God comes to each one of us and asks us this, how long are we going to put off our answer? It took 40 years for Israel to make it to their Promised Land walking straight it would have taken 6 months. How many years in our lives are we going to spend wandering rather than adopting straight routes to answer God’s demands?”

“Finally, Job 38:33 requiring man’s thought to get to what level? Look at the demand and question in this verse: “Do you know the ordinance of heaven?”Do you know the laws of heaven? We have to answer that. Do we? Because if our answer is “Yes,” look at the next one. “Can you set that very same dominion on the earth?” Can you exercise that dominion in heaven? What does the Lord’s Prayer (in Matthew 6:10) say? “Thy kingdom come” Where? “Thy will be done” Where? Taking that heavenly law and exercising it on earth, God is suggesting to man, not suggesting, inspiring, man, with His concept of dominion herein Genesis 1 [Verse 26]. Isn’t it appropriate that God is the first to introduce that dominion?

Now, back to the last chapter of Job and we'll see what occurs [there]

In Job 42:2 Job says, "I know that you can do every [thing}, and no thought can be withholden from thee."
The Book of Job: A Mental Court Case, by Cobbey Crisler** plus marginal notes from Cobbey’s comments in Warren’s Bible on Job 38: 1-4, 7, 33 Job 42:2)]

W’s PS#2—Cobbey Crisler on citation B2, John 1:3: “All things were made by Him…”
“John 1:3 continues with a statement that is quite absolute, "All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. " Is there any reservation for qualifications? "All things were made by him. That is [an] enormous commitment to make at the beginning of a book. The theology of this book is therefore committed right squarely on what principle if we're now defining the theological principle on which the Bible is based? Not only oneness of God, but the fact He's one, also means He's all. "All things were made by Him.” Everything is created by Him. That also poses problems, because all we have to do is open our eyes and look around us. And what we see, we'd rather not think was created by God. But as of now, we've just started the book. So, let's see what the style of the author is and his theological commitments. "All things were made by Him.”

“He doesn't leave it there. The very next sentence adds, “Without him was not any thing made that was made." Why is he saying that? Why y Him,” doesn’t that take care of the other part? What is the difference? What’s the distinction that he is implanting in his readers' thought right at the beginning of the book? "All things were made by Him.” What would you call that? That kind of statement is an absolute, but is it also an affirmation. It's a real solid plus. This is a plus of the theological view of John. "All things were made by Him."

“What have we got now? Denial. Here is how we're going to deal with the minus element. The minus element is without Him, "without him was not any thing made that was made.” Any hint of a minus existing after the all-things-were-made-by­ him being declared, is removed, because it is the other side of the same coin.

“The plus, the minus, the affirmation, the denial is a mathematical approach. Dealing with the plus, dealing with the minus and ending up with one, not dualism. One, so there’s no doubt that the key to the gospel is monotheism. It challenges the reader’s thought to see if he’s there at that altitude before he continues any further in the gospel. It forces the reader to get to that height in order to remotely communicate with what's in the gospel.”
Book of John, A Walk with the Beloved Disciple, by B. Cobbey Crisler**

W’s PS#3—Cobbey Crisler on II Corinthians 5:1-6 (B6)
II Cor. 5, verse 1. Where we are now is a tabernacle, which if “dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens…” (We look out of heavenly consciousness—every window has a heavenly view. We worship where we live—Our bodies are our ultimate idols, if we are living there.

Verse 4. For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened:” Jesus said take my yoke upon you for my yoke is easy and my burden light.”…

Verse 6. It’s not what we see but what we know that matters: “Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord.” This is one of the most radical statements in the whole Bible that virtually skated over.

It is foolhardy to adapt ourselves to live in corporeality. You are a tenant in a tomb if at home in the body. Why be so satisfied with data coming to us from the 5 channels of the corporeal senses?
Jesus said “Take no thought for your body.”

Socrates said “The dead body will not be me. Don’t let him talk about burying Socrates. Say only that you are burying the body.”

Ishmael (In Moby Dick said “My body is but the lees of my better being.”
Transcribed from marginal notes in Warren’s Bible from a talk on Job by Cobbey Crisler**

W’s PS#4 on Luke 1: 5-17 (B8)
“We know that Zacharias and Elisabeth had a reputation for being extremely religious and deeply devoted to the monotheism of Judaism. They had one domestic tragedy however. They had no children, and for a woman in that day and age, as well as throughout the Old Testament, it was a tragedy. If one tried to explain it surgically, there may have been a physical obstruction that prevented the normal operation of her reproductive capacity physically. That would be bad enough. But Elizabeth was well beyond the age of child bearing. Biology was completely against anything occurring as of this moment.

Did biology stop such things before when you remember some of the Old Testament precedents? Remember Sarah and the wives of Abimelech. Also Hannah, Rachel and Sampson's mother.

The whole attitude of the time used to be that if a woman could not bear a child and in the early Old Testament, you remember, they did have several wives—she moved all the way down the ladder as far as priority. In fact, her husband was fully justified to separate himself, to divorce her. She was looked down upon by the other wives.

You remember when Sarah realized she could not bear a child, she offered Hagar as Abraham's second wife. And Abraham married Hagar and had a child by Hagar, who is Ishmael.

In those days sterility was entirely blamed on the wife. Consequently the wife took it very much to heart feeling that God was punishing her for something. Do you remember the deep sense of sorrow that Hannah was in when she prayed to have a child (I Sam. 1:1-20)? Elisabeth undoubtedly went through some of that same agony.

Something completely different is now going to occur after centuries of an absence of this sort of intervention. In fact, between the Old and New Testament we have about a four-hundred-year gap. Prophecy had declined to the point where it finally disappeared altogether. Ritual had increased. The ceremonial law became primary. And ecclesiasticism lost the Spirit that breaks through the inspired Word of the Bible.

In Luke 1:8-11, Zechariah went through the motions of his office in the Temple, burning the incense. The people waited outside for Zechariah to bless them. While he was in there, he had a vision. In Verse 12, it says "he is troubled." Luke uses that word a lot. Mary is troubled when the angel comes to her (Luke 1:29). Zacharias is troubled here. He doesn't know what to make of what he is seeing and hearing while in a trancelike state.

The announcement comes in Verse 13. Notice how angels begin their opening lines, "Fear not." Does that sound familiar? Who else said that? In Greek it's phobeomai, the root of our word "phobia." The phrase "fear not" appears158 times in the New Testament: phobeomai 95 times, phobos 47 times·(p. 1275, in the 1 volume Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 1985). The angel deals with that negative condition of thought right away, "Fear not" or sometimes translated, "Be not afraid.” This changes the mentality which might obstruct the next spiritual move forward.

Then, very often you find, after dealing with that minus-side of human thinking, he moves to support the plus-side, saying, "Be of good cheer," or "only believe." Those are two opposing states of mind.

Jesus would say, "Decide on one of them. Don't remain a divided kingdom." "Fear not," "Remove the sense of fear." "Believe." "Be of good cheer." "Be of good comfort." Remember the states of some of those he said it to, for instance telling the paralyzed man to "Be of good cheer.'' What obviously had accumulated was an obstruction in the thought of that man.

If Jesus is the incisive healer that the gospels inform us he was, then every word he uttered gives us his method.

Every thought he expresses allows you and me to follow as an example, as he apparently expected us to do. Remember, anyone who believed on him would do the works that he did (John 14:12).

Zacharias hearing these words (Luke 1:13), "Fear not, for thy prayer is heard;” gives another bit of information. We really hadn't been told that this has been a matter of domestic prayer. They had actually been praying, as a couple, in order to have a child. The angel assures Zechariah that his wife "will bear a son and that his name should be .John.”

It’s a little hard to guess the exact condition of Zacharias. He is struck dumb

(Luke 1:20). He is speechless. He is unable to talk. There are also one or two verses which Simply he could not hear either (Luke 1:21,22). The implication is there.

As we find out from a later verse (Luke 1:63, 64 ), the name John is an important thing for the restoration to a normal state of being able to speak and hear, if he was unable to do either one.

You can imagine when one is communing with an angel, you don't really look at your watch. Zacharias was in there for an abnormally long period of time (Luke 1:21). The people were out there waiting for him to come out. In a sense they were looking at their watches and Zacharias wasn't showing up. Meanwhile back inside Zacharias hardly believes what he is hearing. He received the message (Luke 1:15) that his child, and Elisabeth's child, will not drink spirits but "he will be filled with Spirit, the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb."

That's the initial use of the words "Holy Ghost." We won't research that term while we are going through our course because we're only discussing it as Luke presents it in his gospel. mLet me recommend to you that you look up every time those two words appear, then write down the descriptive words. Then the Word is communicating to you directly what the definition of the Holy Ghost is, what it is meant to convey. For instance, here we are told that it is something that human thought can be filled with.

The word "ghost" is somewhat inappropriate for our century especially when it conveys "Halloween" for most of us. The word "ghost" in Greek is the word pneuma, which has many other meanings. A pneumatic tire is one filled with air. So we have air, ghost, wind, spirit, and breath. All imply movement, motion. Remember, that’s how the Bible begins, the Spirit, the pneuma, or in Hebrew the ru(a)h. In Hebrew ru(a)h means the same thing, all of those meanings. They're very close in both languages, ru(a)h and pneuma.

"The spirit moved upon the face of the waters" (Genesis 1:2), and look what happened. Look what happens when the Spirit moves, the source of inspiration. We have all of Genesis 1 following the movement of the Spirit. Linguistically, then, we would not be far off in looking at this term quite simply.

One of the problems with theology is that the human mind interposes and insists upon locking-in on certain human opinions. That's what, then, becomes scholastic theology rather than God's theology. Man-made religion distorts and makes things very complex. It's probably quite logical for most of us to see that the truth, whatever it is, must be simple. It must communicate to a two-year old in terms that two­year old can comprehend, as well as an octogenarian. Simplicity must be the rule.

If the word" ghost, refers to all of these things, then it has something to do with what is a daily moment-by-moment requirement for you and me, namely, breathing. We breathe, and the fact is that we inhale and then we exhale. Let us discuss the Holy Ghost from the standpoint that it is really the act of breathing spiritually. However odd that may sound.

The best way we can test that out is to do our own studying on it. For instance,

“filled with the Holy Ghost." When we inhale what are we? We're filled with air, aren't we? What happens if that's all we do and we decide to stop there? We explode, or something, right? So what is the lesson we learn from breathing humanly? Whatever we take in, we must give out. There's a great lesson in that because the air we take in is still free. No one is charging us for it yet. It's our utilization of that air that is the very basis of life, activity, sharing, speaking, and communicating

Notice how Jesus communicated. We often see him just looking around him and translating ordinary human events, as if they were shadows of what really existed for him spiritually. He then used patterns of speech that you and I were familiar with on a daily basis. His teaching method used parables.

What do you think we would begin to look like, feel like, live like, and speak like, if we honestly, regularly, and as natural as breathing, took in only inspiration? If we breathed in only what God is revealing about anything and everything, international events, our marriage, our community, our church?

Suppose we just simply refused to fill our lungs, spiritually translated, with anything but the inspired or God's view of things? Then what would happen when we give that out? Are we able to distribute that same sense to others?

At one point in John 20:22, it says Jesus "breathed on his students" the Holy Ghost. What did they do when the Holy Ghost came upon them? They went out and brought in results (Luke 10:17). It was almost as if they breathed in through prayer and let out through healing. That was the natural sequence, breathing in the facts divinely, then the manifestation of those facts, and utilization of them.

In Verse 17 we're told that John the Baptist is to go as forerunner before the Lord. Notice, it's not what scholars call "Elijah redivivus" or "Elijah reincarnated, coming back to earth in that sense. Luke very properly says that John the Baptist will "go before the Lord in the spirit and power of Elias, '' which is the Greek form of Elijah, "to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children," and so forth. Where is all that information corning from? The angel is quoted here as giving it to Zacharias in Luke 1:13.

In Malachi notice in Chapter 4, Verse 5, there was an expectation among the Jews based on this verse. Elijah the prophet would prepare the way of the Lord. Then in Verse 6 you see the balance of the quotation that we ran into in Luke (1:17).

Bible scholars will tell you that some of those verses are excerpted for us in the New Testament. We're expected to look them up, not just simply take the verses for granted. If the gospel writers had wanted to tell us everything, they would have probably put in whole chapters. But since no one really has the right to take dis­ covery away from anyone else, we find the gospel writers tantalizing u·s in some cases, simply adopting a one-liner and then expecting you to look that up. Thus we are forced to become Scriptural students.

In Malachi 3:1, you will find another well known verse quoted in the New Testament referring to John the Baptist, "I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way," and so forth.

Luke has now shown us his method of approach. We have everything starting from an angelic method that is absolutely coincident with Bible prophecy….

John the Baptist had been predicted hundreds of years earlier and Zacharias and Elisabeth were to be his human parents. Zacharias, just like Abraham, said, “How can this happen?" In fact, in Verse 18, the question, “Whereby shall I know this?is word-for-word what Abraham said in Genesis 15:8.

The angel Gabriel is used as the name of this angel, identifying the character of the angel. Gabriel also appears in the Book of Daniel. Every time Gabriel appears, this angel has a special characteristic. It appears in order to assist human thought so that it will be able to comprehend, understand, and yield to the divine.

Gabriel says to Daniel, "I have come that man might understand" (Daniel 9:22), our link, then, to the intelligent, divine plan. Gabriel begins to give some of that plan to Zacharias (Luke 1:19)

Elisabeth conceives (Verse 24). In Verse 25 you get some hint about how women felt when they were unable to have a child. She calls it "reproach, “that her having a child "takes away her reproach among men."
Luke the Researcher, by B. Cobbey Crisler**

W’s PS#5—Cobbey Crisler on John 1.19-23(B10) John the Baptist authority questioned
John 1:19. "And this is the record of John.” John the Baptist is about to be "pinned to the wall" by an early inquisition. The Sanhedrin, or ruling body of the Jews, were the ones who were authorized to challenge the prophets. They wanted to find out whether they really have legitimate Scriptural backing for what they are saying and revealing. John the Baptist is suddenly attracting many people. What is his right or authority to do this? When they ask, "Who are you?, " this is a question, if answered the wrong way, could result in excommunication. "Who are you?”

In John 1:20, he answers it in three ways. (1) "I am not the Christ. I know you know this, but let's review it. The word "Christ" comes from what language? Greek, but it is the nearest Greek translation to a Hebrew word meaning "Messiah." It often helps for us to read it, "the Messiah."

Here's what Professor Dodd says, "We shall do well to retain the Hebrew word as a reminder that Christ, or the Messiah, is here rather than a personal name, is neither a personal name nor a theological term but an index to an historical role." In many denominations it has become a proper name. But in neither Hebrew nor Greek is it a proper name. So, "I am not the Christ." What does it mean to a 1st century Jewish audience? "I am not the Messiah." Where do you find the expectations and hope for Messiah? In the Old Testament. The one that they'd been expecting, "I am not the Messiah. "

John 1:21. So, "they ask him a second one. Are you Elias?" Elias is the Greek translation of the Hebrew word "Elijah." Where did they get the idea that Elijah was going to return? Go to Malachi 4 and read Verse 5. There is usually a reason why these things are there. It is an inducement to research. In other words, the Jews were in expectation because of what? Prophecy. That someone symbolizing Elijah would come. That's why they're asking John the Baptist. "Are you the Messiah?" because we expect the Messiah to come. Give your qualifications and credentials, please. If not, then there's one other possibility, "Do you think you're Elijah that was prophesied to come?" What does he say? He says, "I'm not.”

The final thing, Number three, is, “Are you that prophet?

And he answered, “No." He rejects the three possibilities that were prime prominent Jewish expectations of the period. Are you that prophet? What prophet?

Again, where should we look for the answer? In the Old Testament. Read Deuteronomy 18:15 and 18 and you will see where the expectation originated. You find Moses saying, "The LORD God would raise up a Prophet like unto me." Verse 18 tells you a little bit more. It's a description of the man who would fulfill that prophecy. Prophecy and fulfillment, if either one is worth its salt, must dovetail with the other. They're designed for one another like a key in a lock. One should take that prophecy as it were an overlay or pattern and apply it to the possibility of Jesus fulfilling it and see if it fits. That’s one way of utilizing the prophecy and comparing it with the fulfillment.

Do you notice that the three expectations of the Jews might be summarized this way? Of whom was the prophet to remind the people? Of Moses. The prophet was to come “like unto me.” That was Moses saying it. Weren’t they really expecting Moses, Elijah, and the Messiah?

Hasn’t that expectation been fulfilled in a way? Least suspected because the Bible has been bound together with law, prophets, and gospel. And the Moses-like prophet, the Elijah-like individual, and the Messiah, three possibilities.

John rejects all three. John is apparently wrong in rejecting one of them. But it’s beautiful that he is. In Matthew 11:11-15, Jesus goes into a long dissertation about who John the Baptist is, and he says, using the language we’re already used to, “If thou dost receive it, this is Elias which was to come.” What’s the if-qualification? Receptivity. Bearing directly on the comprehension of the Scriptures. It seems clear that, if Jesus is right, John didn’t even comprehend his own role as well as Jesus did. Because it all depended on your insight into Scripture.

John 1:22. It wasn’t that John didn’t see his role as prophetic. He did. But apparently he had missed that verse in Malachi about Elias, because when they asked him later in this verse, “What do you say of yourself, then?”

John 1:23. He says, “I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord.” He finds that where? Isaiah 40:3. That makes him safe from this inquisition at least temporarily. He has pulled out of the Scripture some possible authority for what he’s doing. That’s where John the Baptist has come up with the idea that he is fulfilling prophecy.”
Book of John, A Walk with the Beloved Disciple, by B. Cobbey Crisler

W’s PS#6—Cobbey Crisler on Luke 7.19-22 (B11) Jesus’ measuring standard—works!“Jesus responds in the next verses to John the Baptist’s question about whether Jesus really is the Messiah they were waiting for. There is only one answer Jesus has for John. Jesus doesn’t dictate the answer. He tells John the Baptists disciples to just go and look and conclude for themselves what they had seen and heard. Jesus had opened blind eyes, corrected lame limbs, cleansed lepers, enabled the deaf to hear perfectly, raised the dead, and preached the good news of victory to the poor. Then they were to take their observations back to John the Baptist.

That would be the only answer Jesus would give: his works. If that’s the only answer Jesus gave for the effectiveness of theology, I doubt that the rules have changed.

What would be the measure of effective theology to Jesus right here and now, if he looked around at every denomination on the face of the globe? Would they have to come up against that same merciless, yet really merciful, measurement? Are we producing? Are we solving problems?

In the twentieth (and twenty-first) century, problems seem to be multiplying faster than the loaves and fishes did. We have very little time. We can’t afford to waste time on anything that doesn’t work, especially religion.”
Luke the Researcher, by B. Cobbey Crisler**

W’s PS#7—Cobbey Crisler on Mark 6.34-44 (B12) Divine supply not exhausted at 5,000!
“Verse 34. And he sees that “they were as sheep not having a shepherd.”

Look up that comment and you will find it in the Old Testament. Then read around it in the Old Testament to get the context of it. You will hardly find a statement by Jesus that does not have an Old Testament root or precedent, which is why he is always saying, “It is written.” But, many of the times when he doesn’t say it-is-written, it is implied.

The only so-called miracle in all four gospels is the feeding of the “five thousand,” Verses 35-44. I put it in quotes because they were only counting the men. Out of the little boy’s lunch box comes five loaves and two fishes. We hear that from the gospel of John Chapter 6, Verse 13. They feed a multitude. Now we have a lesson on economics given to us by the Master. He didn’t regard that as a problem either. No Malthusian limitation on man that we’re going to outgrow our supply, and, therefore, we should kill off sectors of the human race in order to meet the supply. That’s Malthus and his philosophy of necessity. But we find Jesus saying instead in Matthew 14:16, “They need not depart.” Malthus says they need to be killed, but Jesus is saying, “They need not depart.”

Mark 6.37. The disciples say it would be impossible to feed the multitude, that it would take about “two hundred pennyworth.” The group was considerably more than five thousand if you count the women and the children.

What Jesus said to all the disciples made them become part of the remedy. Twelve baskets were taken around. There were twelve disciples. Each one was made to participate in the abundant result and learn from it. They started out with only five loaves and two fishes. They ended up with more fragments left over than they had when they started out. More available. That’s divine economics. It doesn’t exhaust.”
What Mark Recorded, by B. Cobbey Crisler**

**You can buy your own transcripts [IN FULL!!] to most of Cobbey’s 28 inspiring Bible talks at a new website: Please email your order or inquiry to, or directly to Janet Crisler, at]

American Camp Association

(November - May)
410 Sovereign Court #8
Ballwin, MO 63011
(636) 394-6162

(Memorial Day Weekend - October)
19772 Sugar Dr.
Lebanon, MO 65536
(417) 532-6699

Support our mission!

CedarS Camps

to top