prompt
stringlengths 0
158
| response
stringlengths 14
40.2k
|
|---|---|
What was Jesus’ message to the church in Ephesus in Revelation?
|
Answer
Revelation 2 begins a series of brief letters to [seven churches](seven-churches-Revelation.html) that existed during the apostle John’s time in Asia Minor (modern\-day Turkey). Each of these messages includes information apropos to each church, and from these messages we can draw lessons applicable to our own lives today. The first letter is to the church in Ephesus. [Ephesus](Ephesus-in-the-Bible.html) was a city on the western coast of Asia Minor, near the mouth of the Cayster River. The city was famous for its temple of Diana (or Artemis, Acts 19:27\), and pilgrims came to Ephesus from all over the Mediterranean world to worship the goddess.
The first thing to note in this letter to the Ephesian church is that the message is from the Lord Jesus Christ: “To the angel \[or messenger] of the church in Ephesus . . .” (Revelation 2:1\). This is not John’s message to the Ephesian believers; it is a message from the Lord, the One “who holds the seven stars in his right hand and walks among the seven golden lampstands.” The lampstands are the churches themselves, set as lights in a dark world; the stars are the pastors of the churches, held in God’s hand.
Jesus affirms the Ephesians’ positive actions: “I know your deeds, your hard work and your perseverance. I know that you cannot tolerate wicked men, that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false. You have persevered and have endured hardships for my name, and have not grown weary” (Revelation 2:2\-3\). The Ephesian church was a hard\-working group of believers full of fortitude. Also to their credit, they were gate\-keepers of the truth and did not compromise with evildoers, and they showed patient endurance in bearing up under hardship.
However, Jesus also notes their shortcoming: “Yet I hold this against you: You have forsaken your [first love](left-first-love.html)” (Revelation 2:4\). They were hard\-working, but they no longer had the same passion for Christ as when they first believed. Their work was no longer motivated by love.
Jesus called the Ephesians to repent: “Remember the height from which you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first” (Revelation 2:5\). In this case, the corrective was to remember the heights of their former love, repent (change their mind about their current status), and return to their previous way of doing things. It was time for revival in the church.
Jesus warns His church of impending judgment if they did not repent: “I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place” (Revelation 2:5b). In other words, their punishment would be the disbanding or destruction of the Ephesian church. The light in Ephesus would go out.
Jesus adds another commendation concerning doctrinal purity: “But you have this in your favor: You hate the practices of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate” (Revelation 2:6\). We don’t know much about the [Nicolaitans](Nicolaitans.html) and their doctrine, except that it was heretical. Irenaeus, an early church father in Lyons (modern\-day France), wrote that the Nicolaitans promoted fornication and a compromising position on eating food sacrificed to idols, leading many into an unrestrained, carnal lifestyle.
Jesus then promises a blessing to those who heed the word: “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes, I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God” (Revelation 2:7\). The “tree of life” and the “paradise of God” refer to the new heavens and new earth, discussed in Revelation 21–22\. Those who conquer, or the “overcomers,” are simply believers (1 John 5:4\-5\). The Ephesian believers could look forward to the future glory of eternity with the Lord.
Like the Ephesian church, we can easily fall prey to a cold, mechanical observance of religion. Like the Ephesians, many tend to focus solely on doctrinal purity and hard work, to the exclusion of true love for Christ. As this letter shows, no amount of zeal for the truth or moral rectitude can replace a heart full of love for Jesus (see John 14:21, 23; 1 Corinthians 16:22\).
|
What was Jesus’ message to the church in Thyatira in Revelation?
|
Answer
In Revelation 2:18\-29 Jesus sends His message to the church of Thyatira. Thyatira was a wealthy town on the Lycus River in the Roman province of Asia (modern\-day Turkey).
The message was from the Lord Jesus Christ through an angel (or “messenger”): “To the angel of the church in Thyatira write . . .” (Revelation 2:18\). This was not John’s message to the Thyatiran believers; it was a message from the Lord. The description at the end of verse 18 verifies the author of this message is Jesus Christ: “The words of the Son of God, whose eyes are like blazing fire and whose feet are like burnished bronze.” This description removes any doubt of the identity of the One giving the message.
After identifying Himself, Jesus affirms the church’s positive actions: “I know your deeds, your love and faith, your service and perseverance, and that you are now doing more than you did at first” (Revelation 2:19\). Five qualities are listed: 1\) love, 2\) faith, 3\) service, 4\), patient endurance, and 5\) greater works.
Next, Jesus notes their sin: “Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols” (Revelation 2:20\). Apparently, a false prophetess was leading believers into compromise. The church was engaging in sexual immorality and dabbling in idolatry. It is possible that “Jezebel” was her real name, but it is more likely the name was a metaphorical reference to the [Jezebel](life-Jezebel.html) of the Old Testament—another idolatrous woman who opposed God’s ways. Rather than rebuke this false teacher and send her out of the church, the believers in Thyatira were allowing her to continue her deception.
Jesus pronounces judgment on this “Jezebel” and calls the church of Thyatira to repent of their sin: “I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways. I will strike her children dead” (Revelation 2:22\-23\).
Then Jesus encourages those who had remained faithful: “Now I say to the rest of you in Thyatira, to you who do not hold to her teaching and have not learned Satan’s so\-called deep secrets (I will not impose any other burden on you): Only hold on to what you have until I come” (Revelation 2:24\-25\). The faithful believers did not fall into Satan’s trap, and they only needed to remain faithful until Christ’s return.
Jesus lists His promises to the believers in Thyatira: “To him who overcomes and does my will to the end, I will give authority over the nations—‘He will rule them with an iron scepter; he will dash them to pieces like pottery’—just as I have received authority from my Father. I will also give him the morning star” (Revelation 2:26\-28\). These blessings would include 1\) authority over the nations, 2\) victory over all enemies, and 3\) the morning star. This morning star is Jesus Himself, as Revelation 22:16 reveals. Jesus will give Himself to His church, and they will fellowship together forever.
|
What was Jesus’ message to the church in Smyrna in Revelation?
|
Answer
Smyrna was a large, important city on the western coast of Asia Minor, famed for its schools of medicine and science. The words of Jesus to the church in Smyrna in Revelation 2:8\-11 offer insight into the life of a first\-century congregation, and there are many applications for today’s believers.
The message was from the Lord Jesus Christ: “These are the words of him who is the First and the Last, who died and came to life again” (Revelation 2:8\). The identity of the first and the last and the resurrected one could only be Jesus Christ (see Revelation 22:13\).
Jesus starts by acknowledging their trials: “I know your afflictions and your poverty—yet you are rich! I know the slander of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan” (Revelation 2:9\). In their physical poverty, however, the church of Smyrna was “rich”; that is, they had spiritual wealth that no one could take away (Matthew 6:20\).
As for the identity of the “[synagogue of Satan](synagogue-of-Satan.html),” there are a couple of views. One is that this was a group of Gentiles who called themselves “Jews” (i.e., the chosen people of God). Instead of following Judaism, however, these self\-proclaimed “people of God” worshiped the Roman emperor and spoke out against the Christians in Smyrna.
Another view is that the “synagogue of Satan” was a group of physical Jews who followed tradition and the Mosaic Law yet in reality did not know God. They were “not” Jews in the sense that they did not have the faith of their father Abraham (Luke 3:8; John 8:40\), and they were “of Satan” in that they had rejected Jesus Christ (John 8:44\). Jesus dealt with many such religious leaders, as did the apostle Paul (Matthew 23; Acts 18:6\). In fact, Paul differentiates “true” (spiritual) Jews from those who can only claim a physical connection to Abraham: “A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code” (Romans 2:28\-29\).
Adding weight to the latter view is the fact that Polycarp was martyred in Smyrna around A.D. 155\. At Polycarp’s trial, the unbelieving Jews of Smyrna joined with the pagans in condemning him to death. Eusebius writes that “the Jews, being especially zealous . . . ran to procure fuel” for the burning (*The Ecclesiastical History* 4:15\).
After commending the church in Smyrna for their spiritual victories, Jesus warned of coming persecution: “You are about to suffer. I tell you, the devil will put some of you in prison to test you, and you will suffer persecution for ten days” (Revelation 2:10\). Some of the church members would be imprisoned, and this wave of persecution would last for ten days. However, Jesus gives hope to His church: “Do not be afraid,” He says. The Smyrnan believers would have the courage to face the trial (Matthew 5:11\-12\).
Jesus calls them to remain faithful in their suffering: “Be faithful, even to the point of death, and I will give you the crown of life” (Revelation 2:10\). Here, a specific crown is mentioned for those who die as a result of suffering for Christ. This same “martyr’s crown” is also mentioned in James 1:12: “Blessed is the man who perseveres under trial, because when he has stood the test, he will receive the crown of life that God has promised to those who love him.”
Jesus makes a final promise to the believers in Smyrna: “He who overcomes will not be hurt at all by the second death” (Revelation 2:11\). The overcomers, or “conquerors,” refer to all believers (1 John 5:4\-5\). The second death is a reference to the final judgment of the wicked (Revelation 20:6, 14; 21:8\). Believers will not be hurt “at all” by that judgment; their sin was judged at the cross, and, in Christ, there is no more condemnation (Romans 8:1\).
|
Does the teaching on tithing in Malachi 3:9-10 apply to us today?
|
Answer
Malachi 3:9\-10 is often used to teach the need for [Christians to tithe](tithing-Christian.html) to local churches today. That passage reads, “You are cursed with a curse, for you are robbing me, the whole nation of you. Bring the full tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. And thereby put me to the test, says the LORD of hosts, if I will not open the windows of heaven for you and pour down for you a blessing until there is no more need.” Does this teaching apply to Christians today?
First, the context of this passage concerns the Israelites not bringing their offerings to the temple. Because of their disobedience, God had judged them with a small harvest. The Lord challenged them to bring the “full tithe” of grain sacrifices (Leviticus 6:14\-23\) and see that He would bless them with an abundance of future crops. The “storehouse,” mentioned in verse 10, is a place to store grain in the temple.
Second, this passage teaches that the Jews were to give a tithe as part of the temple worship, but it does not teach that Christians are to give to churches. Malachi was written more than 400 years before the start of the first church in Jerusalem. Applying its command of temple giving to the local church takes these verses out of their original context.
Are New Testament Christians commanded to tithe or not? To be clear, a tithe is literally a “tenth,” or 10 percent. Abraham gave a tenth of all he had to the priest of Salem in Genesis 14:20\. Later, the Mosaic Law included commands to give a tenth for tabernacle worship. Tithing is mentioned 18 times in the Law, as the people were to share their produce and livestock to support the Levites, the caretakers of the tabernacle. This same system of tithing would later be applied to the temple (2 Chronicles 31:5\).
Jesus rebuked the religious leaders of His day, saying, “But woe to you Pharisees! For you tithe mint and rue and every herb, and neglect justice and the love of God. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others” (Luke 11:42\). These Pharisees obeyed the Law of Moses in that they tithed scrupulously, yet did not truly love God. They were challenged to do both.
The Law was fulfilled in Jesus Christ (Matthew 5:17\). When the church began to grow beyond the Jewish people and reach Gentiles, leaders struggled with whether or not to command these new believers to follow the Mosaic Law. In the end, only a few [instructions were given](Jerusalem-Council.html) for the sake of peace, but tithing was not among them (Acts 15:19\-21\).
The principle in the New Testament is to give voluntarily to support the needs of others (Acts 2:45; Romans 15:25\-27\), support Christian workers (1 Corinthians 9:11\-12; 1 Timothy 5:18\), and expand Christian outreach (Philippians 4:15\-16\). No specific amount is ever commanded, and no percentage is suggested. While a tithe or tenth of one’s finances may be a good standard to use for Christian giving, it is clear the early church did not focus on a specific amount but rather on meeting needs. This sometimes included giving much more than a tenth, as some believers sold homes or land to meet the needs that existed in the church (Acts 4:34\-37\).
|
What is the sun of righteousness (Malachi 4:2)?
|
Answer
The phrase “the sun of righteousness” appears in Malachi 4:2: “But for you who revere my name, the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in its wings. And you will go out and leap like calves released from the stall.” This blessing is promised to those who fear the Lord and are ready for His return.
“Sun of righteousness” can also be translated “son of vindication.” The context concerns the [Day of the Lord](day-of-the-Lord.html), the time when God vindicates His people and judges sin. This vindication will be clear to all, like the bright light of the sunrise.
The One described as the “sun of righteousness” can be no other than Jesus Christ Himself. The Lord is called “the LORD your righteousness” in Jeremiah 23:6\. And the coming of the Messiah is pictured as a sunrise in several passages. “Arise, shine, for your light has come, and the glory of the LORD has risen upon you” (Isaiah 60:1\). See also 2 Samuel 23:4; Habakkuk 3:4; and Luke 1:78\-79\.
The fact that the sun of righteousness rises with “healing in its wings” invokes the picture of the wings of a bird stretched across the sky, offering healing to those below. A healing effect will infuse the earth during this time, removing the negative impact of past sins (Isaiah 30:26; 53:5\). When Christ returns, God’s righteousness and peace will flood the earth (Isaiah 11:9; Habakkuk 2:14\).
God’s desire has always been to provide righteousness to those who trust Him (e.g., Genesis 15:6\). On some occasions, God’s people were said to be “clothed in righteousness” (Job 29:14; Psalm 132:9; Isaiah 61:10\), and here in Malachi 4:2 God’s people will see the Sun of Righteousness Himself rising over the world. It’s a picture of the future [millennial reign](millennium.html) of Jesus Christ. The darkness of the Antichrist’s reign will vanish, and the light of God will take its place. It’s a new day dawning; God’s people will revel in their freedom like gamboling calves leaping from their stalls (Isaiah 65:17\-25; Hosea 14:4\-7; Amos 9:13\-15; Zephaniah 3:19\-20\).
|
What is the significance of the refiner’s fire and launderer’s soap in Malachi 3:2?
|
Answer
Malachi 3:2, where the phrase *refiner’s fire* is used, has been a popular verse in Western society for centuries due to its use in Handel’s famous oratorio *Messiah*. The verse reads, “But who can endure the day of his coming? Who can stand when he appears? For he will be like a refiner’s fire or a launderer’s soap.” Let’s take a look at the prophet’s similes.
Malachi says that, when the Lord returns, no one will be able to stand before Him. The Lord’s holiness and judgment will be as a refiner’s blazing fire and as a fuller’s bleaching agent. The idea of “standing” before the Lord is associated with “withstanding” or “standing up to”; sinful human flesh will not have the strength, the right, or the desire to resist the Lord in His glory (cf. Psalm 76:7; Revelation 6:17\).
The two similes help clarify why no one will be able to stand in the [Day of the Lord](day-of-the-Lord.html). First, Malachi 3:2 says the Messiah will be like a refiner’s fire, an allusion to the process of purifying metal. A refiner uses a fire to heat metal to a molten state; then he skims off the [dross](meaning-of-dross.html) that floats to the top. The refiner’s fire is, of course, maintained at an extremely high temperature, and such a high degree of heat is the prophet’s picture of the testing people will face on Judgment Day. All judgment has been entrusted to the Son (John 5:22\). Upon Christ’s return, the intense flame of God’s judgment will purify the earth, removing the dross of sin.
Second, the Messiah will be like a launderer’s soap. This type of soap was caustic and quite effective in producing bright white clothing. The HCSB translates it as “cleansing lye.” When Christ returns, He will cleanse the world of all impurity. Every stain of sin will be scrubbed away. The account of Jesus’ [transfiguration](transfiguration.html) contains a reference to His purity, using language similar to Malachi’s: “He was transfigured before them. His clothes became dazzling white, whiter than anyone in the world could bleach them” (Mark 9:2–3\).
The goal of Jesus will be to judge wickedness and purify His people: “He will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver; he will purify the Levites and refine them like gold and silver. Then the LORD will have men who will bring offerings in righteousness” (Malachi 3:3\). Like the refiner’s fire, He will burn away the impurities of the priests. Like launderer’s soap, He will wash away their uncleanness (Deuteronomy 4:29; Isaiah 1:25; Jeremiah 6:29–30; Ezekiel 22:17–22; Zechariah 3:5\). The priests in the millennial kingdom will then be able to offer sacrifices from a pure heart. The sacrifices in those days will be similar to those when the temple was first built: “The offerings of Judah and Jerusalem will be acceptable to the LORD, as in days gone by, as in former years” (Malachi 3:4\).
The refiner’s fire and launderer’s soap indicate the holiness and burning judgment of the Messiah when He returns to reign in Jerusalem at His second coming. His purifying brightness and absolute holiness will affect those who serve Him, creating a cleansed temple and purified priesthood. “See, the Sovereign LORD comes with power, and his arm rules for him. See, his reward is with him, and his recompense accompanies him” (Isaiah 40:10\).
|
Who is the promised messenger of Malachi 3:1?
|
Answer
Malachi 3:1 begins with the promise of a future messenger important in the plan of God: “‘See, I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me. Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come,’ says the LORD Almighty.” This prophecy reveals a significant detail regarding the coming of the Messiah, namely, that His arrival in the temple would be preceded by another messenger sent by God.
The Hebrew phrase for “my messenger” is the same as the meaning of Malachi’s name (Malachi 1:1\). Yet Malachi is predicting a future individual. Malachi 4:5 further identifies this special messenger as “Elijah the prophet.” The New Testament shows how this prediction is fulfilled. The Gospel of Mark begins by declaring John the Baptist as this messenger (Mark 1:2\-4; cf. Isaiah 40:3\-5; Luke 1:17; 7:27\). In Matthew 11:13\-14 Jesus states, “For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John, and if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah who is to come.”
In Matthew 17, Jesus was [transfigured](transfiguration.html) on a mountaintop and met with Moses and Elijah. Peter, James, and John saw this event and asked Jesus about it afterwards. Jesus again noted that John the Baptist was the awaited Elijah, stating, “I tell you that Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but did to him whatever they pleased. . . . Then the disciples understood that he was speaking to them of John the Baptist” (verses 12\-13\). In announcing the birth of John to Zechariah, the angel Gabriel had said, “He will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah” (Luke 1:17\). Thus, John’s association with Elijah was based on similar power and message; Malachi had predicted a *metaphorical* Elijah, not the literal one.
Malachi 3:1 is of great importance in understanding the nature of the Son of God. In the verse, Yahweh God is speaking, and He says that the messenger would prepare the way “before me.” So, it is the LORD God Himself who was coming. Then, God says it is “the Lord” who will come, “the messenger of the covenant.” So, Yahweh is equated with the Lord who was to come, and as we know, the prophecy was fulfilled by Jesus. Therefore, “Yahweh” and “the Lord” are equated with Jesus. It is one of many occasions Jesus is called “God” (Matthew 18:20; 28:20; John 1:1; 8:58; 17:5\).
John the Baptist is the only person who fits the description of the promised messenger. John fulfilled his role through his preaching the need for repentance (Matthew 3:2\), his prediction of the soon\-coming Messiah (Acts 19:4\), and his baptisms (John 1:31\). John also [baptized Jesus](Jesus-baptized.html), at which event both the Father and the Holy Spirit gave evidence that Jesus was indeed the Christ (Matthew 3:16\-17\). As God’s messenger sent to prepare the way for the Lord, John was faithful to his calling and became one of the greatest prophets (Luke 7:28\).
|
What does it mean to profane the covenant (Malachi 2:10)?
|
Answer
In Malachi 2:10 the prophet asks, “Have we not all one Father? Did not one God create us? Why do we profane the covenant of our fathers by breaking faith with one another?” The obvious reference in this verse is the covenant made between the Lord and the people of Israel at Sinai. To profane something is to defile it or treat it contemptuously. Judah had broken the Mosaic Law, thus “profaning,” or showing contempt for, the covenant.
The Jewish people had one “Father” in that their nation had been created by God (Deuteronomy 32:6\). Yet they had become faithless to one another. This description likely includes incivility toward each other (in violation of Leviticus 19:18\) as well as unfaithfulness in their marriage relationships—a discussion of marriage and divorce follows in the next verses. Malachi condemns intermarriage with idolaters (Malachi 2:11\) as well as divorce in general (2:13\-16\).
Malachi 2:11 speaks of mixed marriages between Israel and its non\-Jewish neighbors (the issue was not racial but spiritual—God’s people who married idolaters were also engaging in false worship). The Mosaic Law explicitly taught against this: “Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, for they will turn your sons away from following me to serve other gods” (Deuteronomy 7:3\-4; also see Exodus 34:15\-16\). Idolatry caused by intermarriage was a common problem in Judah. Even King Solomon married those outside of Israel as part of his alliances with other nations, and his heart was turned from the Lord (1 Kings 11:1\-8\). Ezra and Nehemiah, contemporaries of Malachi, also recorded dealing with such marriages (Ezra 9:2; Nehemiah 10:30\).
A New Testament principle regarding marriage also emphasizes spiritual purity. Second Corinthians 6:14\-15 teaches, “Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. . . . What portion does a believer share with an unbeliever?” (see also 1 Corinthians 7:39\).
Malachi calls Judah’s sin the profaning of their covenant with God. In breaking their marriage covenants with their spouses, God’s people showed disrespect for the Mosaic Covenant. God’s word to Malachi was the same as His word to Joshua centuries before: “Israel has sinned; they have violated my covenant, which I commanded them to keep” (Joshua 7:11\).
|
Why must Elijah return before the end times (Malachi 4:5-6)?
|
Answer
Malachi 4:5\-6 offers an intriguing prophecy: “See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before that great and dreadful day of the Lord comes. He will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers; or else I will come and strike the land with a curse.” To this day, Jewish [Seders](Jewish-festivals.html) include an empty chair at the table in anticipation that Elijah will return to herald the Messiah in fulfillment of Malachi’s word.
According to Malachi 4:6, the reason for Elijah’s return will be to “turn the hearts” of fathers and their children to each other. In other words, the goal would be reconciliation. In the New Testament, Jesus reveals that John the Baptist was the fulfillment of Malachi’s prophecy: “All the prophets and the law prophesied until John. And if you are willing to receive it, he is Elijah who is to come” (Matthew 11:13\-14\). This fulfillment is also mentioned in Mark 1:2\-4 and Luke 1:17; 7:27\.
Specifically related to Malachi 4:5\-6 is Matthew 17:10\-13: “His disciples asked Him, saying, ‘Why then do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?’ Jesus answered and said to them, ‘Indeed, Elijah is coming first and will restore all things. But I say to you that Elijah has come already, and they did not know him but did to him whatever they wished. . . .’ Then the disciples understood that He spoke to them of John the Baptist.”
The scribes were the Jewish religious teachers, mostly Pharisees and Sadducees, who provided commentary on the Jewish Scriptures. Peter, James, and John were familiar with their teachings and asked Jesus about Elijah after seeing Jesus with Moses and Elijah at the [transfiguration](transfiguration.html) (Matthew 17:1\-8\). Jesus clearly stated that Elijah had already come, but, tragically, he was not recognized and had been killed. Jesus then predicted He would likewise die at the hands of His enemies (17:13\).
A brief look at the ministry of John the Baptist reveals many notable ways that he was “Elijah.” First, God predicted John’s work as being like that of Elijah (Luke 1:17\). Second, he dressed like Elijah (2 Kings 1:8 and Matthew 3:4\). Third, like Elijah, John the Baptist preached in the wilderness (Matthew 3:1\). Fourth, both men preached a message of repentance. Fifth, both men withstood kings and had high\-profile enemies (1 Kings 18:17 and Matthew 14:3\).
Some argue that John the Baptist was not the Elijah to come because John himself said that he was not Elijah. “And they asked him, ‘What then? Are you Elijah?’ He said, ‘I am not’” (John 1:21\). There are two explanations for this apparent contradiction. First, because Elijah had never died (2 Kings 2:11\), many first\-century rabbis taught that Elijah was still alive and would reappear before the Messiah’s arrival. When John denied being Elijah, he could have been countering the idea that he was the *actual* Elijah who had been taken to heaven.
Second, John’s words could indicate a difference between John’s view of himself and Jesus’ view of him. John may not have seen himself as the fulfillment of Malachi 4:5\-6\. However, Jesus did. There is no contradiction, then, simply a humble prophet giving an honest opinion of himself. John rejected the honor (cf. John 3:30\), yet Jesus credited John as the fulfillment of Malachi’s prophecy regarding the return of Elijah.
As the metaphorical Elijah, John called people to repentance and a life of obedience, preparing the people of his generation for the coming of Jesus Christ, the One who had come “to seek and to save what was lost” (Luke 19:10\) and to establish the ministry of reconciliation (2 Corinthians 5:18\).
|
How do we bring blemished offerings to God (Malachi 1:8)?
|
Answer
In Malachi 1:8, the Lord accuses Israel of bringing Him blemished offerings: “‘When you bring blind animals for sacrifice, is that not wrong? When you sacrifice crippled or diseased animals, is that not wrong? Try offering them to your governor! Would he be pleased with you? Would he accept you?’ says the Lord Almighty.”
Bringing animal sacrifices to the temple that were blind, disfigured, or sick was a direct violation of the Mosaic Law (Leviticus 22:22; Deuteronomy 15:21\). The reason for this command was that such sacrifices dishonored the Lord. “Do not profane my holy name” (Leviticus 22:32\). They were sacrifices in name only; a true sacrifice must cost something, and there was no pain involved in getting rid of something already slated for culling. As God points out, giving such an inferior gift to another person would be unthinkable—what made them think God would be pleased with it?
More importantly, each sacrifice was a symbol of the future sacrifice of Christ, who was “a lamb without blemish or defect” (1 Peter 1:19\). The cheap, marred sacrifices of Malachi’s time were travesties of Christ’s perfection.
The application for Christians today does not involve animal sacrifices, of course, nor is it even directly related to financial offerings. Rather, it is a matter of treating God as holy. This concerns all areas of life, ranging from how we speak of God, to how we obey Him and how willing we are to sacrifice material things like finances.
The larger context of Malachi 1:6\-14 deals with a variety of ways in which God’s people had dishonored or cheated the Lord by their actions. Both the priests and those who presented offerings were neglecting full obedience to God, giving sacrifices that were in violation of God’s Word. Today’s churches are at risk of the same sin, in principle. Simply attending a service, singing songs, listening to sermons, and giving offerings is not what God desires. He deserves the best, and He wants *us*, not just our stuff.
First, He calls us to accept His Son, Jesus, by faith (Ephesians 2:8\-9\), recognizing our sinful status in relation to His perfection (Romans 3:23\).
Second, God expects our full commitment to Him. While our works do not earn salvation or a right standing with the Lord, He saves us to do the good works He has prepared for us. Ephesians 2:10 says, “We are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.”
The sacrifice we offer today is our own selves. “Offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God – this is your spiritual act of worship” (Romans 12:1\). For a believer to knowingly continue in sin is to present to the Lord a “blemished,” unholy sacrifice. God is [holy](holy-holy-holy.html), and He expects His children to honor Him with purity and holiness (1 Corinthians 1:2; Ephesians 1:4; 1 Peter 1:16\). Why would we follow the sin of the ancient Israelites in treating the Lord with disrespect? God makes forgiveness available to us (1 John 1:9\), so there is no reason for living a sinful life.
|
How can we express our doubt to God without offending Him (Malachi 2:17; 3:14-15)?
|
Answer
God is not bothered by our [questions](question-God.html), but He is angered when people accuse Him of wrongdoing. Malachi 2:17 says, “You have wearied the LORD with your words. But you say, ‘How have we wearied him?’ By saying, ‘Everyone who does evil is good in the sight of the LORD, and he delights in them.’ Or by asking, ‘Where is the God of justice?’” The Jews of Malachi’s day were attributing injustice to God, and God says He is weary of their allegations.
First, we should stipulate that God does not actually tire or grow weary in the physical sense. Isaiah 40:28 says, “The LORD is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He does not faint or grow weary.” God describing Himself as “weary” is an [anthropomorphism](anthropomorphism.html) communicating His displeasure with Israel’s complaints. Israel’s question, “Where is the God of justice?” was a cynical and derisive statement of unbelief.
People today often level the same accusation at God. The question is frequently asked, “If God is good, why doesn’t He end the suffering in the world? [Why does He allow evil?](God-allow-evil.html) Why doesn’t God stop war, cure cancer, and end poverty?” Such questions are valid to a degree, but the Bible reveals God blesses both good and evil people (Matthew 5:45; Acts 14:17\). Likewise, both the good and evil suffer due to sin (Genesis 3:16–19; Ecclesiastes 2:18–22\). God even allows godly people to suffer (Job 1\-2; 2 Timothy 3:12\). However, true and lasting justice is coming. God will punish the wicked and reward His people perfectly in the afterlife (Job 21:7–26; 24:1–17; Psalm 73:1–14; Jeremiah 12:1–4\). The people of Israel had forgotten that God ultimately blesses those who trust Him. Yes, those who practice evil may enjoy apparent success, but it is short\-term (Psalm 1\). Malachi 3:1–6 gives four predictions showing that God’s justice would certainly be revealed in the future.
In Malachi 3:14–15, the Israelites make a second accusation: “It is vain to serve God. What is the profit of our keeping his charge or of walking as in mourning before the LORD of hosts? And now we call the arrogant blessed. Evildoers not only prosper but they put God to the test and they escape.” Malachi lived during the post\-exilic period, when many Jews had returned to Israel from Babylon. The Jews had seen the fulfillment of God’s promises to return them to the land and restore the temple worship. However, they felt that God was not blessing their religious efforts, and they claimed that God was blessing those who did evil rather than those who worshiped the Lord. They were saying, in so many words, “What’s the point of serving the Lord? Sinners do whatever they want and get away with it!”
There are two problems with this accusation. First, much of Israel’s worship of God had become hypocritical. Malachi’s prophecies were meant, in part, to correct the loveless, empty worship of the day.
Second, looking only for rewards in this life is shortsighted. Rather than acknowledge God’s ultimate justice and the eternal rewards, the Israelites sought earthly recompense for their worship. Today, this same attitude is seen in those who follow the [prosperity gospel](prosperity-gospel.html). Those who seek earthly gain in religion make the same mistake as the Jews of Malachi’s time. Scripture is filled with examples of faithful believers whose lives ended in poverty and who endured persecution. Jesus Himself did not have earthly riches. He spoke of storing up treasures in heaven (Matthew 6:19–20\), something the Israelites of Malachi’s time had missed.
God is not bothered by our questions, but He is “wearied” when we petulantly accuse Him of injustice or when we claim that there is no benefit to worshiping the Lord. Such accusations reveal a lack of faith, and such claims take the short\-term over the long\-term, eternal view. We are to live by faith, and a lack of faith is wearisome to our God (Luke 9:41\).
|
What does Malachi 2:16 mean when God says, “I hate divorce”?
|
Answer
In Malachi 2:16 we read, “‘I hate divorce,’ says the LORD God of Israel.”\* In our society, where the divorce rate is particularly high, this wording jars us. We have become so used to divorce that the prophet’s condemnation of it seems overly strong. Yet this is God’s Word: He hates divorce.
Though the Mosaic Law sometimes allowed for divorce (Deuteronomy 24:1\-4\) and Ezra once commanded the post\-exilic Jews to break off their ungodly marriages to pagan wives (Ezra 10:10\-11\), Malachi makes it clear that God objects to divorce.
Jesus’ teaching on divorce is equally strong. The religious teachers asked Jesus, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” (Matthew 19:3\). Jesus answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate” (Matthew 19:4\-6; cf. Genesis 2:24\). Jesus then noted that the Law had allowed divorce only because people had a “hardness of heart” and were bent on doing what they wanted anyway. Divorce was never part of God’s original design (Matthew 19:8\).
Divorce was apparently rampant among Malachi’s Jewish audience. God’s response was, “So guard yourselves in your spirit, and do not be faithless” (Malachi 2:16b). What the people needed was a commitment to personal holiness and a steadfast fidelity to their spouses.
God says, “I hate divorce,” not to hurt those already suffering from broken marriages but to reprimand unfaithful spouses. Verse 14 says, “The LORD was witness between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant.” The men had been unfaithful to their wives—likely, they were involved in adulterous relationships and divorcing their wives in order to remarry. God’s statement is not a condemnation of those hurt by divorce; rather, it is warning to adulterers who create situations leading to divorce.
After hearing what Jesus said regarding divorce in Matthew 19, “the disciples said to him, ‘If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry’” (Matthew 19:10\). The disciples, like so many in our contemporary society, wrestled with the idea of being faithful in marriage when so many easy ways out exist.
While the world sees divorce as a valid option for almost any reason, God’s original intent for marriage is seen in the first couple, Adam and Eve. One man and one woman in a committed, loving, lifelong relationship. Such faithfulness in a relationship is meant to reflect God’s forever love for His people (Hosea 2:19; Ephesians 5:31\-32\).
\*An alternate translation of Malachi 2:16 would read something to the effect of, “If he hates and divorces his wife...” instead of “I hate divorce.” While this is a different statement that God Himself saying, “I hate divorce,” it would not change the point of the passage that divorce does violence to the wife the husband has sworn to protect.
|
How can I know if I am hearing God, hearing Satan, or hearing my own thoughts?
|
Answer
Life is full of decisions that do not have absolute, specific\-by\-name, how\-to directions in the Bible. How many hours a day should my kids spend on screens? Is it okay to play certain video games? Am I allowed to go on a date with a coworker ? Is it okay to miss work because I stayed up too late the night before? We all have notions about the truth, but how do we know for sure that these ideas are coming from God? Am I hearing God? Or am I only hearing myself? Worse yet, am I hearing the temptations of Satan disguised as the leading of the Holy Spirit? Sometimes distinguishing our own ideas from God’s leading is difficult. And what if our urges are actually coming from the enemy of our souls and not from God? How do we “take every thought captive” (2 Corinthians 10:5\) when we aren’t sure where the thoughts are coming from?
Most commonly, God communicates through the Bible, His inspired Word, preserved through the centuries for us today. It is through the Word that we are sanctified (John 17:17\), and the Word is the light for our path (Psalm 119:105\). God can also guide us through circumstances (2 Corinthians 2:12\), the promptings of the Spirit (Galatians 5:16\), and godly mentors providing wise counsel (Proverbs 12:15\). If God wants to speak to us, nothing can stop Him. Here are some ways to discern the source of our thoughts:
**Pray**
If we are confused about whether or not we are hearing God, it is good to pray for wisdom (James 1:5\). (It’s good to pray for wisdom even when we don’t think we’re confused!) We should ask God to make His will known to us clearly. When we pray, we “must believe and not doubt, because the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind” (James 1:6\). If we have no faith, we “should not expect to receive anything from the Lord” (James 1:7\).
Talk to God in prayer and earnestly wait for His answer. However, keep in mind that God doesn’t give us everything we desire, and sometimes His answer is, “No.” He knows what we need at any given time, and He will show us what is best. If God says, “No,” then we can thank Him for the clarity of His direction and move on from there.
**Study the Word**
The Bible is called “God’s Word” for a reason—it is the primary way God speaks to us. It is also the way we learn about God’s character and His dealings with people throughout history. All Scripture is “breathed out by God” and is the guide for a righteous life (2 Timothy 3:16–17\). While we speak to God in prayer, He speaks to us through His Word. As we read, we must consider the words of the Bible to be the very words of God.
Any thought, desire, inclination, or urge we may have must be brought to the Word of God for comparison and approval. Let the Bible be the judge of every thought. “For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double\-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart” (Hebrews 4:12\). No matter how urgent the urge, if it goes against what Scripture says, then it is not of God and must be rejected.
**Follow the Holy Spirit’s Leading**
The Holy Spirit is God—a divine Being with a mind, emotions, and will. He is always with us (Psalm 139:7–8\). His purposes include interceding for us (Romans 8:26–27\) and giving gifts to benefit the church (1 Corinthians 12:7–11\).
The Holy Spirit wills to fill us (Ephesians 5:18\) and produce in us His fruit (Galatians 5:22–25\). No matter what decisions we’re making day to day, we can’t go wrong when we exhibit love, joy, peace, etc., to the glory of God. When we have a random thought pop into our heads, we must learn to “test the spirits” (1 John 4:1\). Will following this inclination lead to more Christlikeness? Will dwelling on this thought produce more of the fruit of the Spirit in me? The Holy Spirit will never lead us to gratify the sinful desires of the flesh (Galatians 5:16\); He will always lead us toward sanctification (1 Peter 1:2\). Life on earth is a spiritual battle. The enemy is eager to supply diversions to distract us from God’s will (1 Peter 5:8\). We must be vigilant to ensure that what we heed is more than a feeling but is truly from God Himself.
Remember, God wants to show us the right path to take. He’s not in the business of hiding His will from those who seek Him.
Here are some good questions to ask as we examine whether or not we are hearing God: Are the promptings confusing or vague? God is not the author of confusion; He is the bringer of peace (1 Corinthians 14:33\). Do the thoughts go against God’s Word? God will not contradict Himself. Will following these promptings lead to sin? Those who “keep in step with the Spirit” have “crucified the flesh with its passions and desires” (Galatians 5:24–25\).
In addition, it is good to seek counsel from a Christian friend, family member, or pastor (Proverbs 15:22\). Our pastors are there to help shepherd us: “Have confidence in your leaders and submit to their authority, because they keep watch over you as those who must give an account” (Hebrews 13:17\).
God does not want us to fail. The more we listen to God, the better we will be at distinguishing His voice from the other noises in our heads. Jesus, the Good Shepherd, gives His promise: “He goes on ahead of them, and his sheep follow him because they know his voice” (John 10:4\). Others may speak, “but the sheep \[do] not listen to them” (verse 8\). The better we know our Shepherd, the less we have to worry about heeding the wrong voice.
|
Who is really “playing God”?
|
Answer
This question brings to the surface some of the hidden considerations involved in end\-of\-life decision\-making. The primary consideration for many people is whether life can have “meaning” beyond certain thresholds of suffering or the loss of vital functions. One problem in evaluating such “meaning” is the often subjective nature of the decision\-making process.
A deeper consideration is the will of God, the Giver of life and the Giver of wisdom—wisdom that is sorely needed amid life’s suffering (Psalm 27:11; 90:12\). It is God who gives life purpose and meaning up to the point of death. As a gift from God, life should be preserved. God Himself is sovereign over the time and manner of our death. A doctor who administers a life\-saving treatment is not “playing God”; he is honoring the gift of God.
The conflicting values in end\-of\-life decision\-making lie at two extremes. At one end of the spectrum are those who promote [euthanasia](euthanasia.html), or [mercy killing](mercy-killing.html): suffering is evil and must therefore be eliminated—by killing the sufferer, if necessary. At the other end are those who view life as sacred, to be extended at all costs, using any technology available.
The problem with the first view, besides the fact that euthanasia is murder, is that Scripture nowhere urges us to avoid suffering at all costs. In fact, believers are called to suffer like Christ in order to fulfill His righteous and redemptive purposes in us (1 Peter 2:20\-25; 3:8\-18; 4:12\-19\). Often, it is only after someone has been disillusioned by significant suffering and loss that he takes stock of what is truly meaningful and can then make progress in advancing God’s purposes.
The complication inherent in the other view is the definition of “life.” When does life actually end? The classic illustration is the so\-called persistent vegetative state in which a person can live for many years by simply being fed and hydrated. Many assume that such patients have no cognitive awareness and therefore have no “life” at all. Neurologists measure patient response to certain neurological stimuli in an attempt to inform the decision\-makers. However, others believe that, if a person in this condition has a heartbeat, then there is hope and life must be preserved, even if only by machines.
The best answer probably lies somewhere between the two views. The Christian will attempt to preserve life, but there is a difference between preserving life and prolonging death. Artificially maintaining a semblance of life functions simply because someone finds it too emotionally difficult to allow their loved one to die would indeed be “playing God.” Death comes at the “appointed” time (Hebrews 9:27\). When a patient’s body begins shutting down, when medical intervention will not heal but only prolong the natural process of dying, then removing the machines and allowing that person to die is not immoral. This calls for wisdom. Alternately, actively speeding up death is wrong. That would be “playing God.” Passively withholding life\-saving treatment might also be wrong. But allowing life to run its course, providing palliative care, and permitting a person to die in God’s time is not wrong.
Given these considerations, a clear and present danger of “playing God” exists at both extremes: eliminating suffering at all costs, and utilizing every possible therapy at all costs. Rather than play God, we should let God be God. Scripture tells us to depend on God for wisdom (James 1:5\) and to weigh what is meaningful while life remains (Ecclesiastes 12\).
|
What does it mean that love is patient?
|
Answer
First Corinthians 13 is the most beloved chapter in the Bible on [love](agape-love.html). Often recited at weddings, this chapter serves as a pattern for the ideal marriage. Yet many have not reflected on the larger context and its implications for today. In verse 4 we read, “Love is patient.” Three words fraught with meaning.
After making the point that love is a necessary ingredient in all ministry (verses 1\-3\), the apostle Paul begins to describe love. “Patient” is at the top of the list—“long” patience or “endurance,” according to some other translations. Godly love and a patient spirit go hand in hand.
Patience is noted as part of the [fruit of the Spirit](fruit-of-the-Holy-Spirit.html) in Galatians 5:22\-23\. Love is also mentioned there, revealing the close connection between these two attributes. Both love and patience are products of the Spirit’s presence in one’s life.
Since God is love (1 John 4:8\), He is necessarily patient. “The LORD, the LORD, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness” (Exodus 34:6; see also Psalm 86:15; 103:8; 145:8\). Even in judgment, God’s patience is evident: “God’s patience waited in the days of Noah” (1 Peter 3:20\).
The Corinthians needed patience. Their sin of improperly taking the Lord’s Supper, for example, was partly the result of impatience and refusing to wait for others (chapter 11\). Arguments regarding spiritual gifts (chapters 12 and 14\) were likewise partly attributable to a lack of patience.
An insistence on one’s own schedule is selfish, and it is opposed to godly love. Patient endurance and long\-suffering are hallmarks of a loving character. Love melts away the impatience and frustration that so often hamper one’s dealings with others. When the object of one’s love fails or disappoints in some way, what is the proper response? According to 1 Corinthians 13:4, the *loving* response is patience.
|
What does it mean that love is kind (1 Corinthians 13:4)?
|
Answer
First Corinthians 13 stands as one of the most famous chapters in the Bible. The subject is love, and many consider this portion of Scripture to be Paul’s greatest literary work. In verse 4, we read, “Love is kind.”
In verses 1\-3 the word *love* is mentioned three times, in the context of great religious endeavors—which are nothing without love. Then Paul begins to paint a picture of love’s qualities, and one of the first strokes of his brush reveals that love is kind.
Kindness is noted as part of the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22\-23\). Love is also in the list, revealing the close connection between love and kindness. Living a life of love marked by kindness is one aspect of living in a way that pleases God.
Kindness is characterized by benevolence and tenderness. A kind person is disposed to help others and to do so with sympathy and consideration. Godly love will make a person kinder. No one can be loving and unkind at the same time.
God is love (1 John 4:8\), and that means He is kind. God’s kindness leads to repentance (Romans 2:4\) and salvation (Romans 11:22\). The ultimate expression of God’s kindness is found in “the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus” (Ephesians 2:7\).
Love is kind. May the Lord fill us with His love so that we might be kinder, more forgiving people for His glory.
|
What does it mean that love does not envy (1 Corinthians 13:4)?
|
Answer
First Corinthians 13 offers one of the Bible’s richest expositions regarding love. Verse 4 notes that love “does not envy.” So, selfish jealousy is at odds with God’s type of love.
The Greek word translated “envy” means “to burn with zeal.” Literally, the sense is “to be heated or to boil over with envy, hatred, or anger.” In the context of 1 Corinthians 13, the idea is that love does not focus on personal desires. It is not eager to increase possessions. God’s type of love is selfless, not selfish.
Envy is the opposite of God’s command not to covet (Exodus 20:17; Deuteronomy 5:21\). “Love is the fulfillment of the law” (Romans 13:10\). The one who truly loves will be in conformity to the Ten Commandments, and envy will be excluded.
In contrast to God’s command, the Corinthian believers were ranking some [spiritual gifts](spiritual-gifts-survey.html) as more important than others and envying those who had the “best” gifts. In chapter 12, Paul points out that the different gifts are meant to serve one another and build up the church. No one person has all the gifts, but each child of God has at least one, and love demands that each gift be used to serve others rather than self.
“Envy rots the bones” (Proverbs 14:30\). When we crave what someone else has rather than being grateful for what God has given, we hurt ourselves. Instead of envying others, we are called to love them.
True love—God’s love—rejoices when others are blessed. There is no room for envy. Love does not seek to benefit itself and it is content with what it has, because its focus is on meeting the needs of the loved one.
|
What does it mean that love does not boast (1 Corinthians 13:4)?
|
Answer
In 1 Corinthians 13, the famous Bible chapter on [love](agape-love.html), the apostle Paul details God’s greatest gift. Part of the description of love is a list of negatives—what love is *not*. One of these negatives, found in verse 4, is love “does not boast.”
The Greek word translated here as “boast” means “to brag or point to oneself.” In contrast to the kindness and patience mentioned in the beginning of the verse, boasting is not a mark of love. Paul’s mention of boasting is significant, given his teaching against arrogance elsewhere in the epistle.
Earlier portions of this letter reveal that the Corinthian Christians were boasting about many things. They touted their allegiance to different apostles, creating division within the church (chapters 1–3\). They were critical of Paul (chapter 4\). They boasted of their tolerance for immorality within the church (chapter 5\). They sued each other in court (chapter 6\). These and other arrogant actions are ultimately countered in chapter 13, with love as the proper corrective. According to verse 4, real love does not boast. There’s no arrogance in love.
The actions of the Corinthians are sometimes evident among today’s believers. Rather than live with kindness and patience (verse 4\), many promote division within the church, criticize church leaders, brag of their enlightened attitude toward sin, and bring lawsuits against fellow Christians. The remedy for these flaws is found in 1 Corinthians 13\. A Christian who exhibits godly love will not boast.
The reason that love does not boast is simple: love is focused on the loved one, not on oneself. A braggart is full of himself, magnifying his own accomplishments and too occupied with self\-aggrandizement to notice others. Love turns the perspective outward. A person with God’s type of love will magnify others, focus on their needs, and offer help with no thought of repayment or recognition. When someone says, “Look at how great I am!” it’s braggadocio talking, not love.
Paul had chances to boast, but he chose not to. He had served the Corinthians without a salary, completely gratis, but he did not boast of his sacrifice. Instead, he wrote, “If I preach the [gospel](gospel-message.html), that gives me no ground for boasting” (1 Corinthians 9:16\). Elsewhere, Paul wrote that no Christian has a right to boast about salvation: we are saved by grace through faith, “so that no one can boast” (Ephesians 2:9; see also Romans 3:27\-28\).
Boasting is unloving and sinful. Those called to reflect Christ should strive for the same attitude as that of Christ Jesus (Philippians 2:5\), showing a love that draws people to the Lord and gives glory to the heavenly Father (Matthew 5:16\).
|
What does it mean that love is not proud (1 Corinthians 13:4)?
|
Answer
First Corinthians 13 offers tremendous insight regarding the Christian perspective of love. As love is described, the stipulation that love “is not proud” is included (verse 4\).
The very word translated “proud” offers valuable information. It comes from a Greek word meaning to “puff up” or “blow up.” The English idiom “having a big head” communicates the same idea. To be puffed up is to have an inflated opinion of oneself. But pride cannot coexist with godly love. Christian love is not proud or focused on self.
Jesus Christ is the perfect example of selfless love. Philippians 2:6\-8 says that Jesus, though He is “in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death – even death on a cross.” Jesus did not focus on Himself. Instead, He became a servant and in humility died to save us. As John 15:13 teaches, “Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.”
In contrast to the humility of love, the Corinthian believers were known for their proud behavior at times. They argued over which apostle they followed (chapters 1\-3\), spoke poorly of Paul (chapter 4\), boasted of their tolerance of sinful behavior (chapter 5\), took fellow believers to court with lawsuits (chapter 6\), dishonored God in their taking of the Lord’s Supper (chapter 11\), and argued about which spiritual gifts were most important (chapter 12\). Paul’s exhortation that “love is not proud” provided a proper corrective for their self\-centered attitudes.
Pride is a sin. John taught that the pride of life “is not from the Father but is from the world” (1 John 2:16\). The Proverbs summarize God’s attitude regarding pride: “Pride and arrogance and the way of evil and perverted speech I hate” (Proverbs 8:13\), and, “Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall” (Proverbs 16:18\).
William Penn, the founder of the Colony of Pennsylvania, wrote, “A proud man then is a kind of glutton upon himself; for he is never satisfied with loving and admiring himself; whilst nothing else, with him, is worthy either of love or care” (from *No Cross, No Crown*, chapter XII). This is exactly why love and pride are anathema to each other. In pride we become the objects of our own love; in humility we learn to love others. A person with godly love is not concerned with benefiting himself. The only thing love sees is the need.
When the [Good Samaritan](parable-Good-Samaritan.html) stopped to help the man in need on the Jericho road, he didn’t concern himself with how “Jews do not associate with Samaritans” (John 4:9\). The Good Samaritan did not care how it looked to others. He was there to help (Luke 10:30\-37\). His humble focus on someone else’s need is the illustration Jesus used of loving our neighbor as ourselves.
|
What does it mean that love is not rude (1 Corinthians 13:5)?
|
Answer
The description of love in 1 Corinthians 13 includes a list of what love is *not*. We read that love “is not rude” in verse 5\. Love, then, has good manners.
The Greek phrase could literally be translated “does not act unbecomingly” or “does not act inappropriately.” Christian love does not seek to cause problems, and it does not belittle others. Christian love involves choosing appropriate actions and responses that help other people.
Rudeness is finding more and more acceptance in today’s culture. Public behavior and words that were unthinkable a generation ago are now commonplace. We live in what essayist Merrill Markoe in the *Wall Street Journal* calls a “renaissance of rudeness.” The fact is that rudeness is rooted in selfishness. Manners are meant to reduce the friction of human interaction; discourtesy reveals a lack of consideration for others. The ill\-mannered person is communicating that “it’s all about me.” Love, by contrast, cannot be selfish, for the simple reason that love is concerned for the other person’s well\-being. Therefore, love is mannerly.
When Christians give testimony to what they believe and defend the faith, they are to do so “with gentleness and respect” (1 Peter 3:15\). In other words, we are to witness in a loving, courteous way. This is not to say that Christians should never speak negatively regarding the actions of others. The gospel message condemns sin and calls sinners to repentance and faith in Jesus (Acts 17:30\). However, there is a right way and wrong way to do anything, and speaking against sin need not be abrasive. Christians are called to speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15\), and, as we know, love is not rude.
A husband who loves his wife will not treat her rudely but with courtesy and respect. A pastor who loves his congregation will not speak of them condescendingly to others. A Christian who loves his neighbor will remember his manners and act in a decorous, fitting way. A life of love is shown in our words and actions and will impact others to bring glory to the Lord.
|
What does it mean that love is not self-seeking (1 Corinthians 13:5)?
|
Answer
Love is the greatest gift that God gives. In 1 Corinthians 13, we have an elegantly beautiful description of God’s type of love. To help us understand all that love entails, the apostle Paul includes some things that love is *not*. For example, love “is not self\-seeking” (verse 5\), also translated as love “does not insist on its own way” (ESV).
The Greek phrase literally means “does not seek the things of itself.” Self\-focus, which is the antithesis of love, marked the Corinthian church. This was evident in the church’s divisiveness regarding leadership (chapters 1–3\), its attitude toward Paul (chapter 4\), its attitude toward legal issues with other Christians (chapter 6\), its attitude toward the Lord’s Supper (chapter 11\), and its attitude toward spiritual gifts (chapter 12\). Paul wanted these believers to stop focusing on their own needs and preferences and serve God and one another.
The corrective to self\-seeking is God\-seeking. The remedy for selfishness is love. Jesus said, “’You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second \[commandment] is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself’” (Mark 12:30\-31\). Love for God and others is to mark the believer; not love for self.
Some have mistakenly interpreted “love your neighbor as yourself” as teaching self\-love *in order to* love others. That is, we must love ourselves first, before we can truly love others. But this is not the teaching of the passage. Self\-love is assumed to be the default condition; Jesus was teaching that concern for others must equal the natural concern we have for ourselves. Also, Jesus was appealing to the Torah, specifically Leviticus 19:17\-18, which reads, “Do not hate your brother in your heart. Rebuke your neighbor frankly so you will not share in his guilt. Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.” The context deals with treating others fairly, without vengeance, and with love. It has no reference to self\-love.
This focus on others and their needs corresponds to Philippians 2:4, “Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others.” The command appeals to the selfless actions of Jesus Christ as the ultimate example. The New Testament often mentions the need to turn from self and toward helping other people.
A person who demands his own way, who tramples on others’ rights for the sake of upholding his own, or who insists on having his due is not showing love. Love is considerate of others, always. The one who loves is willing to forgo recognition and lay down his rights for the sake of the loved one. Jesus showed love in this way: He “did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45\). No self\-seeking there.
Christian love is not about us but about others. Putting love into practice involves following the example of Jesus, considering the needs and interests of others, and denying our personal desires in order to serve those in need.
|
What does it mean that love is not easily angered (1 Corinthians 13:5)?
|
Answer
Love is an attribute of God and one of His gifts to us. First Corinthians 13 offers tremendous perspective regarding the true nature of Christian love. A portion of the description says that love “is not easily angered” (verse 5\). This helps us understand what true love looks like (and what it doesn’t).
If love is not easily angered, then a person with a “short fuse,” who becomes angry easily, is not showing love. Love is called “patient” in verse 4 (both love and patience are listed as [fruit of the Spirit](fruit-of-the-Holy-Spirit.html) in Galatians 5:22\-23\). Patience includes the ability to tolerate weaknesses in others without readily expressing anger. “Love covers over a multitude of sins” (1 Peter 4:8\); it doesn’t fly off the handle at every provocation.
Anger itself is not sinful but can quickly lead to sinful expressions. For this reason, Paul wrote to the Ephesians, “‘In your anger do not sin’: Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry” (Ephesians 4:26\). There are times when we become angry, yet we are called to express our anger in non\-sinful, constructive ways. Love will guide us in the proper handling of anger. Jesus Himself was angry on at least one occasion: “He looked around at them in anger . . . deeply distressed at their stubborn hearts” (Mark 3:5\). Jesus was angry at people’s adamant refusal to acknowledge the truth, but He did not sin (Hebrews 4:15\). In fact, He used the situation for good, healing a man’s hand.
Rather than pretend that we will never feel angry, Scripture simply says to be “slow to become angry” (James 1:19\). God is “slow to anger, abounding in love” (Psalm 86:15\), and this description is quite telling. The truth that God is measured in His wrath is immediately followed by the truth that He overflows with love. The connection between the two is obvious. Love puts the brakes on anger, slowing it down for the sake of the one loved.
Being hot tempered usually involves making snap judgments, seeking instant vindication, and refusing to grant second chances. However, true love refuses to jump to conclusions, take revenge, or hastily judge anyone.
The fact that love is “not easily angered” highlights God’s patient love for the world. “He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9\). May God grant us the type of love that can keep our anger in check.
|
What does it mean that love keeps no record of wrongs (1 Corinthians 13:5)?
|
Answer
In 1 Corinthians 13, the “love chapter,” we have a list of love’s attributes. Included in the description of love are some things that love is *not*. Verse 5 says that love “keeps no record of wrongs.” Or, as the Amplified Bible translates it, “It takes no account of the evil done to it \[it pays no attention to a suffered wrong].”
This idea of keeping no list of wrongs directly connects with Paul’s words to the Corinthian believers earlier in the epistle. Some in the church were bringing lawsuits against other Christians. Instead of settling church matters among themselves in a spirit of humility and love, they were dragging each other to court. Paul takes a firm stand on the matter: “The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated?” (1 Corinthians 6:7\). To combat the attitude of demanding one’s “pound of flesh,” Paul wrote that love “keeps no record of wrongs.” In fact, it is better to be cheated than to be unloving.
Jesus Christ provided the ultimate example of this type of love. On the cross He paid the price for the sins of the entire world. While we were still sinners, Christ died for us (Romans 5:8\). Jesus kept no record of wrongs; rather, He prayed, “Father, forgive them,” from the cross as He died (Luke 23:34\).
Colossians 3:13\-14 also ties forgiveness to love: “Forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity.” Refusing to keep a record of wrongs is a clear expression of God’s love and forgiveness.
So often, people say they love each other, but, as soon as one gets angry, out comes the list of past sins! Accusations fly, painful memories are dredged up, and bygones are no longer bygones. This is not love. True, godly love forgives and refuses to keep track of personal slights received. The focus of love is not one’s own pain, but the needs of the loved one.
Obviously, we should not allow people to continue to hurt or abuse us or others. That’s not what 1 Corinthians 13:6 is teaching. The goal is to have a spirit of reconciliation, to forgive those who seek forgiveness, letting the past stay in the past.
Some people have an ax to grind, but Christian love seeks to bury the hatchet. Love keeps no record of wrongs, for we forgive as Christ has forgiven us. When Peter asked Jesus, “Lord, how often will my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? As many as seven times?” Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you seven times, but seventy\-seven times” (Matthew 18:21\-22\). That is love.
|
What does it mean that love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth (1 Corinthians 13:6)?
|
Answer
First Corinthians 13:4\-6 contains a list of several things love “does not” do. The final item in this list is that love “does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.” Love loves the truth. Love does not love evil, or, as the ESV puts it, “it does not rejoice at wrongdoing.”
Corinth was an evil place with pervasive idol worship and rampant sexual immorality. The recently converted Christians in Corinth sometimes had a hard time shaking the old habits. One man involved in egregious immorality had been tolerated in the church (chapter 5\), and the Lord’s Supper had been dishonored to the point of including gluttony and drunkenness (chapter 11\). To combat these evils, Paul taught that love does not enjoy or “delight in” such actions; rather, true love finds joy in truth and righteousness.
Psalm 1:1\-2 offers the proper attitude concerning truth: “Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers; but his delight is in the law of the LORD, and on his law he meditates day and night.” The “blessed” person despises evil but loves God’s truth, reflecting upon it constantly.
Psalm 5:4 says, “You are not a God who delights in wickedness.” The God who is love (1 John 4:8\) delights in what is true and just. God loves us, and He “desire\[s] truth in the inner parts” (Psalm 51:6\). In other words, God does not ignore our sin just because He loves us. In fact, it is *because* of His great love that He provided the means of cleansing our sin in Christ (1 John 4:10\).
True love rejoices in what is right and good. Anything that covers up sin or seeks to justify wrongdoing is the polar opposite of godly love. Love does not sweep sin under the rug. Love does not try to find ways to get away with bad behavior, and it does not put up with injustice. Instead, it treasures truth, celebrates good behavior, and promotes virtue. True love has nothing to hide.
Further, to “not delight in evil” carries the idea of not gloating over someone else’s guilt. It is common for people to rejoice when an enemy is found guilty of a crime or caught in a sin. This is not love. Love rejoices in the virtue of others, not in their vices. Sin is an occasion for sorrow, not for joy.
Basically, to exhibit God’s kind of love, we must have God’s perspective on sin and righteousness. The better we understand love, the more we will sorrow over those who commit sin. The more we love the truth, the better we can love those around us.
|
What does it mean that love always protects (1 Corinthians 13:7)?
|
Answer
The “love chapter,” 1 Corinthians 13, mentions four specific attributes of love that are “always” put into action. The first of these is that love “always protects” (NIV) or “love bears all things” (ESV and NKJV).
The Greek word for “protects” is *stegei*, which literally means “to cover” and includes the idea of protecting and preserving. “Protects” shares something with the other three actions of love in verse 7 (trusts, hopes, and perseveres): in the original language, all four words end with the same sound, creating a poetic rhythm and a pleasing phonetic iteration.
Also of note, the four “always” statements in verse 7 use the Greek word *panta*, which corresponds to another four uses of the same word (translated “all”) in verses 2\-3\. First, Paul mentions four spiritual gifts used to their utmost:
If I can solve *all* mysteries . . .
If I have *all* knowledge . . .
If I have *all* faith . . .
If I give away *all* I possess . . .
. . . but, he says, if I employ these gifts without love, “I am nothing” (verse 2\) and no one benefits.
Then, Paul provides the missing ingredient, love. Verse 7 is the counterpoint to verses 2\-3, connected by the repetition of *panta*. Love . . .
. . . *always* protects
. . . *always* trusts
. . . *always* hopes
. . . *always* perseveres
God’s type of love protects. That is, it watches out for others. It withstands difficulty. And, if there is a shortcoming or fault in the loved one, love has the ability to cover it (see Proverbs 10:12\). Love is not based on selfish desire or even mutual benefit; rather, it seeks the benefit of the other person. Love aims to give rather than receive.
In the Old Testament, God’s protection of Israel was a sign of His love. “Though we are slaves, our God has not deserted us in our bondage. . . . He has granted us new life to rebuild the house of our God and repair its ruins, and he has given us a wall of protection” (Ezra 9:9\).
The Psalms also highlight the connection between God’s love and His protection. Psalm 68:5 declares God to be a “father to the fatherless, a defender of widows.” Psalm 91:14 also promises God’s protection of those who love and trust Him.
We find a wonderful example of love’s protective nature in the story of Christ’s birth. When Joseph learned of Mary’s pregnancy, he was faced with a choice: “expose her to public disgrace” or “divorce her quietly” (Matthew 1:19\). Joseph, being a righteous man, was planning to keep the matter quiet. In other words, he was covering over what he saw as a fault in Mary, and he protected her from public shame. This is love.
One of the marks of love is that it always seeks to protect the loved one. This doesn’t mean that we excuse wrongdoing or seek to evade the natural consequences of sin; it means that we strengthen what is weak, shield what is vulnerable, and forgive what is provoking.
|
What does it mean that love always trusts (1 Corinthians 13:7)?
|
Answer
In 1 Corinthians 13:7, we see that love is more than an abstraction or ideal; it is action. Four specific actions are “always” performed by true love, and the second is that love “always trusts” (NIV) or “believes all things” (ESV).
First, we should understand what this description of love does *not* mean. The fact that love believes all things does not make a loving person a dupe. Neither does it mean that love is naïve, undiscerning, or credulous. We’re not talking about gullibility here, and a foolish lack of skepticism is not a part of love.
The Greek word translated as “believes” is a form of the verb *pisteuo*, which means “to believe, place faith in, or trust.” The word is a common one, used 248 times in the New Testament. Many times, this word is found in contexts in which belief is an expression of love.
Those who love will always “believe” in the other person. There is no second\-guessing or questioning of whether the person should be loved. Love is simply given. It is unconditional. The loved one does not need to perform anything or achieve a certain goal in order to be loved. Just as Christ loves His children unconditionally, He calls us to love others. Love is based on who He is, not on what others do.
Some scholars suggest this teaching of “love always trusts” is directly connected to Paul’s rebuke of lawsuits earlier in his letter. In chapter 6 we read of believers bringing lawsuits against one another in the local courts. Love that “always trusts” would not do such a thing.
A person with God’s type of love will “always trust.” That is, he will not be suspicious of the one he loves. He will be slow to believe any damaging news concerning the loved one and will always give the benefit of the doubt. Whatever the situation, love is ready to trust. To trust someone means that you are “ever ready to believe the best” (AMP) of him or her. The loved one may have a checkered past or be in some other way undeserving of trust, yet true love is able to look past that and meet the need of the individual. Mistrust, cageyness, and suspicion are at odds with godly love.
If brothers and sisters in Christ would believe in one another, setting suspicion aside and extending unconditional love, what a difference it would make in the church! When our focus is on Christ, we can show His love to meet the needs of others.
The final verse of 1 Corinthians 13 lists three things that will always remain: faith (*pistis*), hope, and love. The Christian need never be without these gifts. His nature is to believe and to love.
|
What does it mean that love always perseveres (1 Corinthians 13:7)?
|
Answer
First Corinthians 13:7 lists four specific actions that love “always” performs. The fourth and final one is that love “always perseveres” (NIV) or “endures all things” (ESV). There is a persistence to love, even in the tough times.
The Greek word *hupomenei* carries the idea of “remaining” or “enduring.” Love doesn’t quit or give up. Love lasts. The love spoken of in 1 Corinthians 13 is not a fleeting romance or a fading feeling. Instead, godly love always perseveres. During good times and bad, the love of God’s people endures the challenges of life and remains steadfast.
In the wedding vows, a husband and wife take each other “for better or for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish; from this day forward until death do us part.” The basis of this pledge is the fact that love perseveres.
Jesus modeled enduring love: “Having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end” (John 13:1\). During His most difficult night, He washed the feet of His disciples and prayed for them. His love even endured the cross (Hebrews 12:2\).
Earlier in his epistle, Paul had spoken to the Corinthian believers regarding endurance: “When reviled, we bless; when persecuted, we endure” (1 Corinthians 4:2\). Such perseverance in the face of opposition can only come from the love of God rooted in the heart.
Endurance for the sake of endurance is not the point of this teaching. It is endurance motivated by love for God and others. “If you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God” (1 Peter 2:20\). We are called to endure for what is right. We must show love whether or not it is convenient or easy.
A person with God’s type of love will consistently seek what is best for his loved one. There is no fair\-weather friendship in love. It’s not an on\-again, off\-again proposition, but a commitment to always seek the highest good, no matter what adversity befalls.
|
What does it mean that love never fails (1 Corinthians 13:8)?
|
Answer
The statement “love never fails” comes from best\-known chapter in the Bible on love, 1 Corinthians 13\. Among its many quoted phrases is a portion of verse 8, “Love never fails.”
Love never fails, and the [English Standard Version](English-Standard-Version-ESV.html) adds to our understanding of these words, translating them as “Love never ends.” The next sentence contrasts love with other spiritual gifts: “But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.” Prophecies, [tongues](gift-of-tongues.html), and knowledge are all temporary. Not so with love. Because love is a basic attribute of God (1 John 4:8\) and because God is eternal, love will also be eternal. Love will never fail.
Scripture reveals [God’s eternal love](agape-love.html) for us, a love that never fails. God chose us (John 17:24; Ephesians 1:4\-5\), died for us (Romans 5:8\), and will never leave us (Hebrews 13:5\). In fact, nothing at all can separate us from God’s eternal love: “I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 8:38–39\).
The Greek word translated “fails” in the NIV is related to a verb meaning “to fall.” By saying, “Love never fails,” the Bible means that God’s type of love will not fall or falter. It is constant forever. As God says in Jeremiah 31:3, “I have loved you with an everlasting love.”
The truth that love never fails is emphasized in some classical literature, too. During the famous balcony scene of the play *Romeo and Juliet*, Romeo begins to pledge his love for Juliet with these words: “Lady, by yonder blessed moon I swear / That tips with silver all these fruit\-tree tops.” However, Juliet cuts him off: “O, swear not by the moon, the inconstant moon, / That monthly changes in her circled orb, / Lest that thy love prove likewise variable” (II:ii). Juliet had it right. Love should not wax and wane; it should be steady and constant, a perpetual light in a dark world.
There is nothing mercurial about love. It is not based on whims, feelings, or passing fancies. Love is rock\-solid, intent on benefitting the one loved, regardless of the cost. God’s love never fails, and it never ends.
|
What is the significance of 40 days in the Bible?
|
Answer
The number *40* shows up often in the Bible. Because *40* appears so often in contexts dealing with judgment or testing, many scholars understand it to be the number of “probation” or “trial.” This doesn’t mean that *40* is entirely symbolic; it still has a literal meaning in Scripture. “Forty days” means “forty days,” but it does seem that God has chosen this number to help emphasize times of trouble and hardship.
Here are some examples of the Bible’s use of the number *40* that stress the theme of testing or judgment:
In the Old Testament, when God destroyed the earth with water, He caused it to rain 40 days and 40 nights (Genesis 7:12\). After Moses killed the Egyptian, he fled to Midian, where he spent 40 years in the desert tending flocks (Acts 7:30\). Moses was on Mount Sinai for 40 days and 40 nights (Exodus 24:18\). Moses interceded on Israel’s behalf for 40 days and 40 nights (Deuteronomy 9:18, 25\). The Law specified a maximum number of lashes a man could receive for a crime, setting the limit at 40 (Deuteronomy 25:3\). The Israelite spies took 40 days to spy out Canaan (Numbers 13:25\). The Israelites wandered for 40 years (Deuteronomy 8:2\-5\). Before Samson’s deliverance, Israel served the Philistines for 40 years (Judges 13:1\). Goliath taunted Saul’s army for 40 days before David arrived to slay him (1 Samuel 17:16\). When Elijah fled from Jezebel, he traveled 40 days and 40 nights to Mt. Horeb (1 Kings 19:8\).
The number *40* also appears in the prophecies of Ezekiel (4:6; 29:11\-13\) and Jonah (3:4\).
In the New Testament, Jesus was tempted for 40 days and 40 nights (Matthew 4:2\). There were 40 days between Jesus’ resurrection and ascension (Acts 1:3\).
Whether or not the number *40* really has any significance is still debated. The Bible definitely seems to use *40* to emphasize a spiritual truth, but we must point out that the Bible nowhere specifically assigns any special meaning to the number *40*.
Some people place too much significance on [numerology](Biblical-numerology.html), trying to find a special meaning behind every number in the Bible. Often, a number in the Bible is simply a number, including the number *40*. God does not call us to search for secret meanings, hidden messages, or codes in the Bible. There is more than enough truth in the plain words of Scripture to meet all our needs and make us “complete and thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:17\).
|
Who was Silas in the Bible?
|
Answer
Silas was a leader in the early church, a fellow missionary with Paul, and a “faithful brother” (1 Peter 5:12\). He was a Hellenistic Jew who, it seems, was also a Roman citizen (Acts 16:37\). He is also referred to as “Silvanus” in Paul’s Epistles (e.g., 1 Thessalonians 1:1\).
When we first meet Silas in Scripture, he is a leader and teacher in the Jerusalem church (Acts 15:22, 32\). After the [Jerusalem Council](Jerusalem-Council.html), Silas was chosen to help communicate the council’s decision to Antioch, along with the apostle Paul. Soon afterwards, Paul set out on his second [missionary journey](missionary-journeys-Paul.html), and he chose Silas to accompany him (Acts 15:40\-41\).
On this journey, [Paul and Silas](Paul-and-Silas.html) traveled to Greece. In Philippi, the missionaries were arrested, beaten, and imprisoned. But “about midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns to God, and the prisoners were listening to them” (Acts 16:25\). God then miraculously released them, and the jailer, having witnessed their faith, asked them, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” Paul and Silas answered, “Believe on the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved” (verses 30\-31\). The jailer was saved that night, and he and his family were all baptized. The next day, the city officials learned that Paul and Silas were Roman citizens, and they were immediately fearful; their mistreatment of Paul and Silas the day before had violated Roman law. The city leaders immediately released Paul and Silas from custody. The missionaries left town, but they left behind a body of believers—the first church in Europe.
The start of the Philippian church is a great reminder that, even in extremely difficult times, God can bring about great things. God will glorify His name, even through our trials and tribulations. Paul and Silas had this perspective, and that’s why they were able to sing at midnight.
The fact that the prisoners were “listening” to Paul and Silas singing hymns is not a detail to be skipped over lightly. As followers of Jesus Christ, we, too, have people watching how we react to life’s circumstances. If Paul and Silas had been griping or protesting or whining about the injustice of their situation, the jailer would have never been drawn to believe in the Lord Jesus. But they responded to their situation gracefully and with joy—their actions were completely foreign to how others expected them to react. Because they were “salt” and “light” (Matthew 5:13\-14\), others had their hearts opened to the gospel.
Later, Silas and Timothy ministered in Berea (Acts 17:14\), and Silas spent extra time in Corinth, ministering after Paul left that city. Silas served with Peter as well; in fact, he is thought to have delivered the epistle of 1 Peter to its recipients (1 Peter 5:12\).
Silas is a great example of someone who used his gifts to serve the Lord and others with all his heart. The apostles called him “faithful,” and he was known as one to “encourage and strengthen the brothers” (Acts 15:32\). Multitudes in the early church were blessed by Silas, and Paul and Peter were heartened by his faithful companionship. Silas was “a brother . . . born for adversity” (Proverbs 17:17\).
|
How does psychology work with Christian counseling?
|
Answer
Psychology and Christianity often find themselves at odds. Some have promoted psychology as a complete answer to the human condition and the key to living a better life. Some psychologies consider faith in God as an illusion created as a sort of coping mechanism. In reaction to these unbiblical ideas, some Christians discount all psychology. Some fear using a soft science to help people with emotional or psychological disturbances, believing psychology to be too subjective and that man’s problems are better addressed spiritually. Some Christians, especially those involved in biblical counseling, believe the Bible contains all that is necessary to overcome any issue, psychological or otherwise; psychology is unnecessary because the Bible alone is our life manual. On the one hand, we have Christians believing that a person’s struggles are primarily spiritual and that God alone can heal, and on the other hand, secular psychologists claiming all struggles are biological or developmental disruptions that man can fix himself. Despite this polarization, psychology and biblical counseling need not be at war.
It is important to recognize that psychology is not monolithic; there are many different theories of psychology, some of them even contradicting the others. The concepts of human nature, life struggles, health, and treatment modality in psychology span a broad spectrum. The majority of counselors and psychologists today practice somewhat eclectically; they are not strictly Freudian or Jungian but are versed in several theories and employ different parts of the theories for different presenting issues. For instance, a counselor may gravitate toward existential theory when counseling for grief, but bring in cognitive behavioral theory when counseling for behavioral issues. In other words, a counselor may cherry\-pick what he thinks will help the most. A psychologist is free to use certain person\-centered techniques *without* accepting theories concerning [self\-actualization](self-actualization.html). It is common to work out of one or two primary theories and use a variety of techniques from myriad theories.
Christian counselors often adopt certain psychological theories *in part*, but they do not embrace any underlying philosophies that deny God or biblical truths. In essence, Christian counselors use psychology as a tool, but they do not view it as absolute truth. Psychology is not a competing religion, but a field of study that could actually lead to a deeper understanding of humanity and, therefore, of God as Creator, Savior, and Healer.
[Nouthetic counseling](nouthetic-counseling.html), or biblical counseling, is a form of counseling that relies solely on Scripture and the power of the Holy Spirit to achieve results. Rather than promote any psychological theory, nouthetic counselors state that Scripture is sufficient for all human difficulties. Certainly, the Bible speaks of the power of the Holy Spirit to transform our lives. The Word is powerful (2 Timothy 3:16\-17; Hebrews 4:12; Isaiah 55:11\) and allows the godly person to be “thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:17\). Plus, God is our ultimate healer (Exodus 15:26; Matthew 8:17\). However, it is interesting to note that those who ascribe to Bible\-only counseling do not necessarily ascribe to Bible\-only medical treatment or Bible\-only education. The question becomes what parts of life are to be led *only* by Scripture and what aspects can be informed by secular learning.
Paul spoke of becoming all things to all men for the sake of evangelism (1 Corinthians 9:19\-23\). When people are seeking psychological treatment, it may be helpful for a Christian to use psychological theories *as corrected by biblical truth*. A Christian counselor can use the tools of psychology to reveal to people their need for a deeper healing than what psychology can provide. Spiritual discussions are not rare in counseling rooms. A counselor is expected not to impose his or her values or beliefs upon a client, but often just opening the topic leads a client to search. And we know that when people search for God, they find Him (Jeremiah 29:13; Proverbs 8:17; Matthew 7:7\).
More practically speaking, many instructions or concepts in the Bible do not seem easily applicable. For instance, we know that we should abstain from immorality, but other than through prayer and “fleeing” it (1 Corinthians 6:18\), we do not know how. Psychology might provide practical techniques to overcome the struggle with lust. Knowledge gleaned from psychology may provide insight into what is encouraging a person to remain in sin, and if we can identify internal proclivities to sin, we can strip those things of their power.
Psychology may also help people become aware of the importance of expressing their emotions and bringing them to God, much like we see happening in the Psalms. Ultimately, psychology may help open the door to an understanding of our deepest needs. We will not experience full satisfaction or fullness of life through therapy, but we will increase our hunger for fullness of life. In turn, we can take our hunger to God, for life comes from Him alone (John 14:6\).
Nouthetic counseling is opposed to psychology. However, there can be genuine Christian counseling that is biblical and also uses psychological theories. If well\-trained Christian counselors are able to integrate their faith with their education, they can remain faithful to biblical standards but also avail themselves of the science of psychology.
Solid counseling should recognize that neither the counselor nor the client is the healer. Only God can truly heal. Counseling is one tool that can help us come to an understanding of who we are in Christ and find meaning in our lives. However, it is not a quest to find worth in and of ourselves or to find healing apart from God. Nouthetic counseling is correct in stating that the deepest problem is in the soul, and only the Holy Spirit can truly transform that.
|
Why do I face the consequences of Adam’s sin when I did not eat the fruit?
|
Answer
The Bible says, “Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned” (Romans 5:12\). It was through Adam that sin entered the world. When Adam sinned, he immediately died spiritually—his relationship with God was broken—and he also began dying physically—his body began the process of growing old and dying. From that point on, every person born has inherited Adam’s sin nature and suffered the same consequences of spiritual and physical death.
We are born physically alive but [spiritually dead](spiritual-death.html). This is why Jesus told Nicodemus, “You must be born again” (John 3:7\). Physical birth provides us with a sinful human nature; spiritual rebirth provides us with a new nature, “created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness” (Ephesians 4:24\).
It may not seem fair to be saddled with Adam’s sin nature, but it’s eminently consistent with other aspects of human propagation. We inherit some physical characteristics such as eye color from our parents, and we also inherit some of their spiritual characteristics. Why should the passing on of spiritual traits be any different from the transmission of physical traits? We may complain about having brown eyes when we wanted blue, but our eye color is simply a matter of genetics. In the same way, having a sin nature is a matter of “spiritual genetics”; it’s a natural part of life.
However, the Bible says we are sinners by deed as well as by nature. We are sinners twice over: we sin because we are sinners (Adam’s choice), and we are sinners because we sin (our choice). “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23\). We are more than *potential* sinners; we are *practicing* sinners. “Each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away” (James 1:14\). A driver sees the speed limit sign; he exceeds the limit; he gets a ticket. He can’t blame Adam for that.
“I did not eat the fruit.” True, but Scripture says that we, individually and as a human race, were all represented by Adam. “In Adam all die” (1 Corinthians 15:22\). A diplomat speaking at the United Nations may do or say things that many of his countrymen disapprove of, but he is still the diplomat—he is the officially recognized representative of that country.
The theological principle of a man representing his descendants is called “[federal headship](federal-headship.html).” Adam was the first created human being. He stood at the “head” of the human race. He was placed in the garden to act not only for himself but for all his progeny. Every person ever born was already “in Adam,” represented by him. The concept of federal headship is clearly taught elsewhere in Scripture: “One might even say that Levi himself, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, for he was still in the loins of his ancestor when Melchizedek met him” (Hebrews 7:9\-10, ESV). Levi was born several centuries after Abraham lived, yet Levi paid tithes to [Melchizedek](Melchizedek.html) “through Abraham.” Abraham was the federal head of the Jewish people, and his actions represented the future twelve tribes and the Levitical priesthood.
“I did not eat the fruit.” True, but all sin has consequences beyond the initial wrongdoing. “No man is an island, entire of itself,” John Donne famously wrote. This truth can be applied spiritually. David’s sin with Bathsheba affected David, of course, but it also had a ripple effect that affected Uriah, David’s unborn child, the rest of David’s family, the whole nation, and even Israel’s enemies (2 Samuel 12:9\-14\). Sin always has undesirable effects on those around us. The ripples of Adam’s momentous sin are still being felt.
“I did not eat the fruit.” True, you were not physically present in the actual Garden of Eden with the juice of forbidden fruit staining the corners of your guilty mouth. But the Bible seems to indicate that, if you *had* been there instead of Adam, you’d have done the same thing he did. The apple, as they say, doesn’t fall far from the tree.
Whether or not we think it’s “fair” to have Adam’s sin imputed to us doesn’t really matter. God says that we have inherited Adam’s sinful nature, and who are we to argue with God? Besides, we are sinners in our own right. Our own sin probably makes Adam look like a puritan in comparison.
Here’s the good news: God loves sinners. In fact, He has acted to overcome our sin nature by sending Jesus to pay for our sins and offer us His righteousness (1 Peter 2:24\). Jesus took the death that was our penalty upon Himself, “so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Corinthians 5:21\). Note the words “in him.” We who were once in Adam can now be in Christ by faith. Christ is our new Head, and “in Christ all will be made alive” (1 Corinthians 15:22\).
|
What was in the shadow of Peter that healed people (Acts 5:15-16)?
|
Answer
The early days of the church were a time of phenomenal growth and apostolic miracles. In Acts 5:15\-16 we read, “People brought the sick into the streets and laid them on beds and mats so that at least Peter’s shadow might fall on some of them as he passed by. Crowds gathered also from the towns around Jerusalem, bringing their sick and those tormented by evil spirits, and all of them were healed.”
One thing we must note: nowhere does the passage say that anyone was *actually* healed by being in Peter’s shadow. Neither does the passage tell us that the apostles ever commanded people to line the streets or condoned such actions. The only facts that we can draw from the wording of verse 15 are that people obviously had a high regard for Peter’s miracle\-working and that they placed faith in the efficacy of even his shadow. Verse 16 does say people were healed at that time, but there is no indication that Peter’s shadow was the cause. In fact, the verse specifies that “all were healed”—even those who were *not* under Peter’s shadow.
People wanted to believe there was something special about Peter, and they began seeking proximity to him in hopes of having some power pass over them. It wasn’t the first (or last) time that people sought a special blessing through a physical object. The paralyzed man in John 5 believed that water in a certain pool could heal his lameness. Some Ephesians in Acts 19 believed that healing power was concentrated in articles of Paul’s clothing (cf. Matthew 9:21\). Some people today put their trust in handkerchiefs that have been “prayed over,” in relics of the saints, or in holy water.
In Acts 3 God’s power was demonstrated through Peter and John when a lame man was healed. The news spread quickly, and a great crowd gathered in Solomon’s Colonnade, full of amazement. Peter spoke to the crowd, correcting their assumption that he and John had special power in themselves: “Men of Israel, why does this surprise you? Why do you stare at us as if by our own power or godliness we had made this man walk?” (verse 12\). The apostle then goes on to point the crowd to Jesus: “It is Jesus’ name and the faith that comes through him that has given this complete healing to him, as you can all see” (verse 16\).
In Acts 5, the sick were not being healed by shadows or auras or magical garments; they were being healed as a direct answer to the apostles’ prayer in Acts 4:30: “Stretch out your hand to heal and perform miraculous signs and wonders through the name of your holy servant Jesus.” The miracles performed by the apostles were demonstrations of the Lord’s power and mercy, affirming Christ Jesus as Savior and testifying that their message was true.
Trusting shadows is not wise. What if it had been a cloudy day? Would those in need have been out of luck? What happened at high noon, when Peter had no shadow to speak of? We are glad that God’s power to heal is not dependent on anyone’s ability to be in the right place, at the right time, under the right conditions. Shadows come and go, but God’s power is constant.
|
What is phileo love?
|
Answer
The Bible speaks of two types of love: *phileo* and [*agape*](agape-love.html). Both are Greek terms and appear at different points throughout Scripture. The Greek language also had terms for two other types of love, [*eros*](eros-love.html) and [*storge*](storge-love.html), which do not expressly appear in the Bible.
To better understand *phileo* love, we need to take a brief look at the other types of love. *Storge* is an affectionate love, the type of love one might have for family or a spouse. It is a naturally occurring, unforced type of love. Some examples of *storge* love can be found in the stories of Noah, Jacob, and siblings Mary, Martha, and Lazarus.
As its name indicates, *eros* is passionate or sexual love (*eros* is the source of the English word *erotic*). While *eros* is important within a marriage relationship and is created by God (see Song of Solomon), it can also be abused or mistaken for *storge* love. The Bible is clear that sexual immorality (out\-of\-control *eros*) is a sin (1 Corinthians 6:18; 1 Thessalonians 4:3\).
*Agape* speaks of the most powerful, noblest type of love: sacrificial love. *Agape* love is more than a feeling—it is an act of the will. This is the love that God has for His people and that prompted the sacrifice of His only Son, Jesus, for our sins. Jesus was *agape* love personified. Christians are to love one another with *agape* love, as seen in Jesus’ [Parable of the Good Samaritan](parable-Good-Samaritan.html) (Luke 10:25\-37\).
Finally, we have *phileo* love. *Philia* refers to brotherly love and is most often exhibited in a close friendship. Best friends will display this generous and affectionate love for each other as each seeks to make the other happy. The Scriptural account of David and Jonathan is an excellent illustration of *phileo* love: “After David had finished talking with Saul, Jonathan became one in spirit with David, and he loved him as himself. . . . And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself” (1 Samuel 18:1\-3\).
Since *phileo* love involves feelings of warmth and affection toward another person, we do not have *phileo* love toward our enemies. However, God commands us to have *agape* love toward everyone. This includes those whose personalities clash with ours, those who hurt us and treat us badly, and even those who are hostile toward our faith (Luke 6:28; Matthew 5:44\). In time, as we follow God’s example of *agape* love for our enemies, we may even begin to experience *phileo* love for some of them as we start to see them through God’s eyes.
|
What is psychoanalytic theory, and is it biblical?
|
Answer
Psychology and biblical counseling have a history of opposition. However, there are Christian counselors who use certain techniques found in psychological theories while still giving biblical counsel. The key is to critically evaluate the psychological theory against the truth of the Bible to determine what may be helpful and what is clearly opposed to God. We must “test the spirits,” as it were (1 John 4:1\). Psychology is a vast field, and a Christian counselor will need to examine a variety of psychological theories. The following is a review of psychoanalytic theory. Please refer to our other articles for reviews of other common psychological theories.
**Explanation of Psychoanalytic Theory**
Psychoanalytic theory is, in many ways, the first psychological theory. Developed by Austrian neurologist Sigmund Freud and the target of many pop\-culture references, it has had a lasting impact on the field of psychology. The theory has served as a foundation on which to build many other psychological theories, but is itself no longer widely used.
Psychoanalytic theory posits that human behavior is determined, largely, by the unconscious and instinctual drives. Freud spoke of libido, which he later expanded to life instincts, and death instincts. He also originated the concepts of the id, the ego, and the superego. The id is the part of the psyche consisting of biological instincts and ruled by pleasure. It is often thought of as demanding, selfish, and needy. The ego is the psychological portion of a personality that is ruled by reality. It is charged with controlling the id and provides rationality and intelligence to the personality. The superego is the moral aspect of personality, akin to the conscience. Freud proposed that the moral code of the superego is an internalization of the values of parents and society. The superego strives for perfection and houses the emotions of pride and guilt. Freud spoke of psychic energy being shared among the three aspects of personality; human behavior is a result of how this energy is shared.
Freud also spoke of the “conscious” and the “unconscious.” The unconscious part of the mind is what controls automatic responses and, according to Freud, is the root of neuroses. Certain types of anxiety stem from the unconscious, largely as a result of the interaction among the id, ego, and superego. Freud coined the term “ego\-defense mechanism” to refer to anything people use to protect their egos and cope with anxiety—denial, for example, is a common defense against fear.
Freud believed that personality is largely developed by the age of six. A child must journey through a number of psychosexual stages. In each stage is a specific need that must be met, based on the child’s center of pleasure at that stage. If the need is not met, the child will become stuck at that stage and develop psychological difficulties. Erik Erikson later theorized psychosocial stages of development, in which a child must overcome various social crises. Each stage, once passed, aids the child’s socialization in areas such as trust versus mistrust or identity versus role confusion. Erikson’s stages allow for lifelong development.
Freud suggested that therapy should be aimed at making the unconscious, conscious. Psychoanalysis also attempts to strengthen the ego so that the personality can be more reality\-based, giving the client more freedom to live well. The therapist is expected to be a blank slate on which the client can project previous developmental disruptions. Client insight is considered necessary for change. Well\-known therapeutic methods include free association and dream interpretation.
**Biblical Commentary on Psychoanalytic Theory**
Freud’s deterministic view of humanity is contrary to the Bible’s teaching. Scripture proclaims Jesus as the Savior and our relationship with Him as transformational. Freud did seem to have an idea of the depravity of man, however. His concept of the id, which is ruled by pleasure, is not unlike the Bible’s description of the sin nature (Philippians 3:18\-19; Galatians 5:16\-24; Romans 1:24\). The ego, the part of us Freud claimed interacts with reality, is perhaps that part of man that is able to recognize God’s general revelation and knows that he was made for eternity (Ecclesiastes 3:11; Romans 1:20\). The superego, or the conscience, is where the battle is waged between our old, sinful nature and our new, godly nature. Freud thought the superego was created by social influence. Christians believe that morality comes from God. The goal of the psychoanalyst of making the unconscious, conscious sounds similar to revealing the “thoughts and attitudes of the heart” (Hebrews 4:12\). However, while Freud claimed that self\-awareness and ego strength are enough to make us healthy, we know that true health only comes from Christ and His Word.
Psychoanalytic theory treats God as an illusion, an obviously unbiblical perspective. Some of its concepts seem helpful in describing the depravity of man and explaining humanity’s inward turmoil, but the theory’s solution is incorrect. We cannot obtain psychological health merely by reliving the past. Freedom does not come through self\-awareness, but through Christ (John 8:32\). Also, Freud’s concept of psychological health is rather egocentric and minimizes the importance of loving others. Loving others is, of course, basic to the spiritual health of a Christian (John 13:34\). To be truly healthy, we need Jesus to heal past wounds and make functional changes. The power of the Holy Spirit residing within is what brings health, not projection onto a therapist.
Please note that a large portion of this information has been adapted from [*Modern Psychotherapies: A Comprehensive Christian Appraisal*](https://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?event=AFF&p=1011693&item_no=828520) by Stanton Jones and Richard Butman and [*Theory and Practice of Counseling and Psychotherapy*](https://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?event=AFF&p=1011693&item_no=02083X) by Gerald Corey.
|
What does the Bible say about hypocrisy?
|
Answer
In essence, “hypocrisy” refers to the act of claiming to believe something but acting in a different manner. The word is derived from the Greek term for “actor”—literally, “one who wears a mask”—in other words, someone who pretends to be what he is not.
The Bible calls hypocrisy a sin. There are two forms hypocrisy can take: that of professing belief in something and then acting in a manner contrary to that belief, and that of looking down on others when we ourselves are flawed.
The prophet Isaiah condemned the hypocrisy of his day: “The Lord says, ‘These people come near to me with their mouth and honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. Their worship of me is made up only of rules taught by men’” (Isaiah 29:13\). Centuries later, Jesus quoted this verse, aiming the same condemnation at the religious leaders of His day (Matthew 15:8\-9\). John the Baptist refused to give hypocrites a pass, telling them to produce “fruits worthy of repentance” (Luke 3:8\). Jesus took an equally staunch stand against sanctimony—He called hypocrites “wolves in sheep’s clothing” (Matthew 7:15\), “whitewashed tombs” (Matthew 23:27\), “snakes,” and “brood of vipers” (Matthew 23:33\).
We cannot say we love God if we do not love our brothers (1 John 2:9\). Love must be “without hypocrisy” (Romans 12:9, NKJV). A hypocrite may look righteous on the outside, but it is a façade. True righteousness comes from the inner transformation of the Holy Spirit not an external conformity to a set of rules (Matthew 23:5; 2 Corinthians 3:8\).
Jesus addressed the other form of hypocrisy in the Sermon on the Mount: “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the [plank in your own eye](take-the-plank-out-of-your-eye.html)? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye” (Matthew 7:3\-5\). Jesus is not teaching against discernment or helping others overcome sin; instead, He is telling us not be so prideful and convinced of our own goodness that we criticize others from a position of self\-righteousness. We should do some introspection first and correct our own shortcomings before we go after the “specks” in others (cf. Romans 2:1\).
During Jesus’ earthly ministry, He had many run\-ins with the religious leaders of the day, the Pharisees. These men were well versed in the Scriptures and zealous about following every letter of the Law (Acts 26:5\). However, in adhering to the letter of the Law, they actively sought loopholes that allowed them to violate the spirit of the Law. Also, they displayed a lack of compassion toward their fellow man and were often overly demonstrative of their so\-called spirituality in order to garner praise (Matthew 23:5–7; Luke 18:11\). Jesus denounced their behavior in no uncertain terms, pointing out that “justice, mercy, and faithfulness” are more important than pursuing a perfection based on faulty standards (Matthew 23:23\). Jesus made it clear that the problem was not with the Law but the way in which the Pharisees implemented it (Matthew 23:2\-3\). Today, the word *pharisee* has become synonymous with *hypocrite*.
It must be noted that hypocrisy is not the same as taking a stand against sin. For example, it is not hypocrisy to teach that drunkenness is a sin, *unless* the one teaching against drunkenness gets drunk every weekend—*that* would be hypocrisy.
As children of God, we are called to strive for holiness (1 Peter 1:16\). We are to “hate what is evil” and “cling to what is good” (Romans 12:9\). We should never imply an acceptance of sin, especially in our own lives. All we do should be consistent with what we believe and who we are in Christ. Play\-acting is meant for the stage, not for real life.
|
How did God use dreams and visions in the Bible?
|
Answer
God used dreams and visions (visions are “waking dreams”; see Numbers 24:4\) several times in the Bible to communicate with people. Visions seem to have been common enough that their lack was sorely noted. An absence of visions was due at times to a dearth of prophets (1 Samuel 3:1\) and other times due to the disobedience of God’s people (1 Samuel 28:6\).
**Old Testament Dreams and Visions**
God used visions in the Old Testament to reveal His plan, to further His plan, and to put His people in places of influence.
*Abraham* (Genesis 15:1\): God used a vision to restate the [Abrahamic Covenant](Abrahamic-covenant.html), reminding Abram that he would have a son and be the father of many nations.
*Abimelech* (Genesis 20:1\-7\): Abraham’s wife, Sarah, was beautiful—so beautiful that when Abraham came into a new area he occasionally feared that the local ruler would kill him and take Sarah for himself. Abraham told Abimelech king of Gerar that Sarah was his sister (she was his half\-sister). Abimelech took Sarah into his harem, but God sent him a dream telling him not to touch Sarah because she was Abraham’s wife. The king returned Sarah to her husband the next morning; the dream had protected Sarah and safeguarded God’s plan for Sarah to be the mother of His chosen people.
*Jacob* (Genesis 28:10\-17\): Jacob, with his mother’s help, stole Esau’s firstborn inheritance. Jacob then fled Esau’s anger, and on his journey he had his famous dream of a ladder reaching to heaven on which angels ascended and descended. In this dream Jacob received God’s promise that Abraham’s blessing would be carried on through him.
*Joseph* (Genesis 37:1\-11\): Joseph is one of the most famous dreamers, and one of the most famous dream\-interpreters, in the Bible. His first recorded dreams are found in Genesis 37\. They showed through easily deciphered symbols that Joseph’s family would one day bow to him in respect. His brothers didn’t appreciate the dream and in their hatred sold Joseph into slavery. Eventually, Joseph ended up in prison in Egypt.
*Pharaoh’s cupbearer and baker* (Genesis 40\): While in prison Joseph interpreted some dreams of Pharaoh’s cupbearer and baker. With God’s guidance, he explained that the cupbearer would return to Pharaoh’s service, but the baker would be killed.
*Pharaoh* (Genesis 41\): Two years later, Pharaoh himself had a dream which Joseph interpreted. God’s purpose was to raise Joseph to second\-in\-command over Egypt and to save the Egyptians and the Israelites from a horrible famine.
*Samuel* (1 Samuel 3\): Samuel had his first vision as a young boy. God told him that judgment was coming upon the sons of Samuel’s mentor, Eli. The young Samuel was faithful to relay the information, and God continued to speak to Samuel through the rest of his life.
*The Midianite and Amalekite armies* (Judges 7:12\-15\): The pagan enemies of Israel had a divinely inspired dream. God told Gideon to sneak into the enemy camp at night, and there in the outposts of the camp, Gideon overheard an enemy soldier relate a dream he had just had. The interpretation, from another enemy soldier, mentioned Gideon by name and predicted that Israel would win the battle. Gideon was greatly encouraged by this revelation.
*Solomon* (1 Kings 3:5\): It was in a dream that God gave Solomon the famous offer: "Ask what you wish Me to give you." Solomon chose wisdom.
*Daniel* (Daniel 2; 4\): As He had done for Joseph, God placed Daniel in a position of power and influence by allowing him to interpret a foreign ruler’s dream. This is consistent with God’s propensity to use miracles to identify His messengers. Daniel himself had many dreams and visions, mostly related to future kingdoms of the world and the nation of Israel.
**New Testament Dreams and Visions**
Visions in the New Testament also served to provide information that was unavailable elsewhere. Specifically, God used visions and dreams to identify Jesus and to establish His church.
*Zacharias* (Luke 1:5\-23\): God used a vision to tell Zacharias, an old priest, that he would soon have an important son. Not long after, Zacharias and his wife, Elizabeth, had John the Baptist.
*Joseph* (Matthew 1:20; 2:13\): Joseph would have divorced Mary when he found out she was pregnant, but God sent an angel to him in a dream, convincing him that the pregnancy was of God. Joseph went ahead with the marriage. After Jesus was born, God sent two more dreams, one to tell Joseph to take his family to Egypt so Herod could not kill Jesus and another to tell him Herod was dead and that he could return home.
*Pilate’s wife* (Matthew 27:19\): During Jesus’ trial, Pilate’s wife sent an urgent message to the governor encouraging him to free Jesus. Her message was prompted by a dream she had—a nightmare, really—that convinced her that Jesus was innocent and that Pilate should have nothing to do with His case.
*Ananias* (Acts 9:10\): It would have taken nothing less than a vision from God to convince Ananias, a Christian in Damascus, to visit Paul, the persecutor of Christians. But because Ananias was obedient to God’s leading, Paul regained his sight and found the truth about those he was trying to kill.
*Cornelius* (Acts 10:1\-6\): God spoke to an Italian centurion named Cornelius who feared the God of the Jews. In his vision, Cornelius saw an angel who told him where to find Simon Peter and to send for him and listen to his message. Cornelius obeyed the vision, Peter came and preached, and Cornelius and his household full of Gentiles were saved by the grace of God.
*Peter* (Acts 10:9\-15\): While Peter was praying on the rooftop of a house in Joppa, God gave him a vision of animals lowered in something like a sheet. A voice from heaven told Peter to kill the animals (some of which were unclean) and eat them. The vision served to show that Christians are not bound by kosher law and that God had pronounced Gentiles “clean”; that is, heaven is open to all who follow Jesus.
*Paul*: Paul had several visions in his missionary career. One sent him to preach in Macedonia (Acts 16:9\-10\). Another encouraged him to keep preaching in Corinth (Acts 18:9\-11\). God also gave him a vision of heaven (2 Corinthians 12:1\-6\).
*John* (Revelation): Nearly the entire book of Revelation is a vision John had while exiled on the island of Patmos. John’s vision explains in more detail some of the events that God had shown Daniel.
**Today’s Dreams and Visions**
With the completion of the Bible, God does not have to use dreams and visions as much as He did before. That is not to say that He cannot or does not; God can communicate with us however He chooses. But when we have a decision to make, our first stop should always be the Bible, not a dream.
|
What does the Bible say about pets?
|
Answer
In Western society, pets have never been more popular. Many homes are graced with the presence of a cat or a dog—or a hamster, turtle, goldfish, chinchilla, newt, parakeet, or gecko. Everything from albino pythons to hissing cockroaches are caged and kept as pets. The Bible does not really address the issue of keeping pets. The only possible example of a pet owner is the poor man in Nathan’s parable, a man who “had nothing except one little ewe lamb he had bought. He raised it, and it grew up with him and his children. It shared his food, drank from his cup and even slept in his arms. It was like a daughter to him” (2 Samuel 12:3\). We can draw some conclusions about pets, however, based on what the Bible says on other topics.
Psalm 147:9 tells us that God is concerned for all His creation, including the animals He created: “He provides food for the cattle and for the young ravens when they call.” In Psalm 104:21, we see that “the lions roar for their prey and seek their food from God”; it is implied that God feeds them. Also, in Luke 12:6 Jesus says, “Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies? Yet not one of them is forgotten by God.”
If God cares for the animals, so should we. In fact, it is God’s care for animals that most fully explains our desire to have pets. God created mankind in His image (Genesis 1:27\), and we have inherited the part of God’s nature that cares for the animals. At the very beginning, God blessed the people He had made and commanded them, “Fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground” (Genesis 1:28\).
When a child maintains an aquarium, for example, he or she is reflecting the nature of God, to a certain extent. An aquarium is creation in microcosm. The child creates the environment for the fish to live in, maintains the habitat, and feeds and cares for the creatures in the tank. The fish depend fully on the child to meet their needs, much like all of creation depends on God. Keeping a pet, then, is a weighty responsibility—it is modeling the Creator and exercising dominion over a portion of creation.
Many parents introduce a pet into their home to teach their children responsibility and other positive character qualities. Such life lessons are definitely biblical. Pets also provide companionship, amusement, and unconditional love. It’s why pets are taken to hospitals and nursing homes to interact with people in need. Any animal that helps us show love more freely is a good thing.
Those who have pets should love them, provide for them, and care for their needs. Loving an animal is not wrong, as long as we love people more. The care we show an animal entrusted to us is a gauge of personal integrity: “A righteous man cares for the needs of his animal” (Proverbs 12:10\).
|
What is the meaning of the Parable of the Great Banquet (Luke 14:15-24)?
|
Answer
The Parable of the Great Banquet is found in Luke 14:15\-24\. It is similar to the [Parable of the Wedding Feast](parable-wedding-feast.html) (Matthew 22:1\-14\), but with some significant differences. The story in Luke’s Gospel was told at a dinner that Jesus attended. Jesus had just healed a man with dropsy and taught a brief lesson on serving others. Jesus then says that those who serve others “will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous” (Luke 14:14\). At the mention of the resurrection, someone at the table with Jesus said, “Blessed is the man who will eat at the feast in the kingdom of God” (verse 15\). In reply, Jesus tells the Parable of the Great Banquet.
In the parable, a man planned a large banquet and sent out invitations. When the banquet was ready, he sent his servant to contact each of the invited guests, telling them that all was ready and the meal was about to start (verses 16\-17\). One after another, the guests made excuses for not coming. One had just bought a piece of land and said he had to go see it (verse 18\). Another had purchased some oxen and said he was on the way to yoke them up and try them out (verse 19\). Another gave the excuse that he was newly married and therefore could not come (verse 20\).
When the master of the house heard these flimsy excuses, he was angry. He told his servant to forget the guest list and go into the back streets and alleyways of the town and invite “the poor, the crippled, the blind and the lame” (verse 21\). The servant had already brought in the down\-and\-out townspeople, and still there was room in the banquet hall. So the master sent his servant on a broader search: “Go out to the roads and country lanes and make them come in, so that my house will be full” (verses 22\-23\).
Jesus ends the parable by relating the master’s determination that “not one of those men who were invited will get a taste of my banquet” (verse 24\).
The statement that prompted the parable is key. The man who, in verse 15, looks forward to dining in the Messianic kingdom probably subscribed to the popular notion that only Jews would be part of that kingdom. The parable Jesus tells is aimed at debunking that notion, as the following explanation makes clear:
The master of the house is God, and the great banquet is the kingdom, a metaphor that was suggested by the speaker at the table. The invited guests picture the Jewish nation. The kingdom was prepared for them, but when Jesus came preaching that “the kingdom of heaven is near” (Matthew 4:17\), He was rejected. “He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him” (John 1:11\).
The excuses for skipping the banquet are laughably bad. No one buys land without seeing it first, and the same can be said for buying oxen. And what, exactly, would keep a newly married couple from attending a social event? All three excuses in the parable reveal insincerity on the part of those invited. The interpretation is that the Jews of Jesus’ day had no valid excuse for spurning Jesus’ message; in fact, they had every reason to accept Him as their Messiah.
The detail that the invitation is opened up to society’s maimed and downtrodden is important. These were the types of people that the Pharisees considered “unclean” and under God’s curse (cf. John 9:1\-2, 34\). Jesus, however, taught that the kingdom was available even to those considered “unclean” (cf. Acts 10\). His involvement with tax collectors and sinners brought condemnation from the Pharisees, yet it showed the extent of God’s grace (Matthew 9:10\-11\). The fact that the master in the parable sends the servant far afield to persuade everyone to come indicates that the offer of salvation would be extended to the Gentiles and “to the ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8\). “Rejoice, O Gentiles, with his people” (Romans 15:10\).
The master is not satisfied with a partially full banquet hall; he wants every place at the table to be filled. John MacArthur’s comment on this fact is that “God is more willing to save sinners than sinners are to be saved.”
Those who ignored the invitation to the banquet chose their own punishment—they missed out. The master respects their choice by making it permanent: they would not “taste of my banquet.” So it will be with God’s judgment on those who choose to reject Christ: they will have their choice confirmed, and they will never taste the joys of heaven.
The basic message of the Parable of the Great Banquet could be stated this way: “The tragedy of the Jewish rejection of Christ has opened the door of salvation to the Gentiles. The blessings of the kingdom are available to all who will come to Christ by faith.”
The inclusion of the Gentiles is a fulfillment of Hosea 2:23, “I will say to those called ‘Not my people,’ ‘You are my people’; and they will say, ‘You are my God.’” God is “not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9\), and “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved” (Romans 10:13\).
|
What does the Bible say about being a man?
|
Answer
The world offers conflicting views of what being a man is all about. Some say that being a man requires grit, square\-jawed determination, a working knowledge of weaponry, and, preferably, rock\-solid abs. Others say that manliness is about getting in touch with one’s feelings, caring for the less fortunate, and being sensitive. Still others would include leadership skills, a good work ethic, physical stature, riches, or sexual prowess. Can these things truly define masculinity, or is there another standard?
To know what a true man is, you need look no further than the life of Jesus Christ. As the Son of Man, Jesus is the epitome of manhood, the perfect example of what true maturity looks like. Jesus was full of the Holy Spirit and lived in complete dependence on and obedience to the will of God. Christ fully displayed the [fruit of the Spirit](fruit-of-the-Holy-Spirit.html) (Galatians 5:22\-23\). A true man of God will show evidence of these works of the Spirit as well.
A true man, like Jesus, is obedient to the Father’s will and is about His Father’s business (Hebrews 10:9\). Like Christ, the godly man will shun sin and follow after righteousness. He will, in the power of the Spirit, seek to keep God’s law and live in God’s will. He will evince a determination to accomplish God’s will, whatever the cost (Isaiah 50:7\). He will endure opposition and never lose heart (Hebrews 12:3\). He will be a man of the Word, using Scripture to overcome temptation (Matthew 4:1\-10\). He will be a man of prayer (Mark 1:35\). He will be a man of love and sacrifice (John 13:1\).
“Be on your guard; stand firm in the faith; be men of courage; be strong. Do everything in love” (1 Corinthians 16:13\-14\). According to these verses, a true man is vigilant against danger, faithful to the truth, brave in the face of opposition, persistent through trials, and, above all, loving.
The Bible’s qualifications for [elders and deacons](qualifications-elders-deacons.html) also contain a good description of a godly man: “Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self\-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own family well. . . . He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil’s trap” (1Timothy 3:2\-4, 7\).
“Deacons, likewise, are to be men worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain. They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience” (1 Timothy 3:8\-9\).
A true man is someone who has “put away childish things” (1 Corinthians 13:11, NLT). A true man knows what is right and stands firm in the right. A true man is a godly man. He loves the Lord, he loves life, and he loves those whom the Lord has entrusted to his care.
|
Are mermaids mentioned in the Bible?
|
Answer
Mermaids are mythical sea creatures with the upper body of a female human and the tail of a fish. Their male counterparts are called mermen. A mermaid’s demeanor ranges from seductive to sinister, depending on the legend. These creatures have been a part of sea lore since man began sailing the oceans. Tales of mermaids first appeared as long ago as the time of ancient Assyria—the Assyrian goddess Atargatis transformed herself into a mermaid out of shame for unintentionally committing murder. Images of the ancient Philistine god Dagon (1 Samuel 5:2\) could easily pass for modern conceptualizations of a merman. Mermaids are also associated with Sirens in Greek mythology, specifically in Homer’s *The Odyssey*. Ancient Far East folklore depicts mermaids as the wives of powerful sea\-dragons. In more recent history, Hans Christian Andersen’s popular fairy tale “The Little Mermaid” (1836\) sparked depictions of mermaids in opera, art, literature, and movies.
Written accounts of sightings by sailors abound. Even Christopher Columbus documented seeing mermaids while exploring the Caribbean. It is commonly believed that these sightings were actually misinterpreted encounters with aquatic mammals such as manatees and dugongs. A lonely or love\-starved sailor, stuck at sea for months on end, may have, after witnessing a broad tail with no dorsal fin disappearing under the waves, conceivably put the rest of the pieces together in his mind to construct a mermaid.
Throughout the centuries, hoaxes have been presented to prove the existence of mermaids. Notably, P. T. Barnum displayed a stuffed “Fiji mermaid” in his museum. Other hoaxes utilized papier\-mâché or parts of various animals stitched together. In 2004, Internet photos of “Fiji mermaids,” which surfaced in the wake of the South Asian tsunami, were no more real than Barnum’s exhibit.
The Bible never mentions mermaids, not even the biblical creation account in Genesis 1–2, but this neither proves nor disproves the existence of mermaids. There are many creatures in the world which are not mentioned in the Bible, and universal negatives can be difficult to prove.
In July 2012 the National Ocean Service (NOS) issued a statement that “no evidence of aquatic humanoids has ever been found.” This statement was in response to public inquiries following a pseudoscientific documentary on mermaids which aired in May 2012 on Animal Planet. Similar to the reaction to Orson Welles’s *War of the Worlds* radio broadcast in 1938, a great number of people had mistaken the fictional film for a factual documentary.
One problem with the idea of the existence of mermen and mermaids is theological. We know that Christ died for humanity: “the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared” (Titus 3:4, NASB). If there do exist sentient, non\-human humanoids in this world, they, too, have been affected by the curse of sin (Romans 8:22\). But God the Son did not become a merman to redeem a race of half\-human sea creatures; He became a human to redeem the human race (Hebrews 2:14\). This would seem to rule out the existence of mermen, unless they are more fish than human.
Whether or not mermaids exist, we praise God for His many wonderful creations. God made the universe (Genesis 1:1\) and everything in it (Acts 17:24\), including all the creatures under the sea (Genesis 1:20\-23\).
|
How do I choose a good Christian counselor/therapist?
|
Answer
In order to understand Christian therapy or biblical counseling, it is important to know a bit about its history. Psychotherapy is usually associated with Sigmund Freud or Carl Rogers. However, Christians generally view the theories behind [psychoanalysis](psychoanalytic-theory.html) as unbiblical and thus unhelpful in therapy. In the past 50 years, Christians from various professions have sought to bridge the gap between psychology and the Bible. The pioneers of Christian therapy wanted no association with man\-made theories. Today, however, many Christian counselors have found some value in the science of research, therapeutic technique, and sociocultural studies. However, the useful parts of these theories are given different weights in a biblical worldview.
There are Christian counselors today with opposite approaches to counseling. There is nothing inherently sinful about [psychological treatment methods](psychology-Christian-counseling.html), even if they were invented by those who disbelieve the Bible. Counselors who don’t believe that the Bible has much to say about the practice of therapy are not seeing the problem through God’s perspective. On the other hand, counselors who do not believe that psychology has a place in therapy are missing the value of studying the most complex being God made: the human. Most Christian counselors agree that the Bible is the foundation for understanding the mind because God made the mind. The Bible proclaims itself to be sufficient for everything we need, and counseling is no exception (2 Peter 1:2–4; Hebrews 4:12; 2 Timothy 3:16–17\).
Does a Christian really need a “Christian” counselor or “Christian” therapist, or can he just go to any counselor—much like he goes to a doctor for a broken leg? The difference between therapeutic counseling and treating a broken leg is that counseling is designed to minister to our *souls*. Yes, our outward lives and emotional pains are motivations to seek counsel, but ultimately it is our souls that are in peril. Therefore, we are best served by a Christian counselor because a believer will have the truth from God, which cannot be replaced by man\-made philosophy.
Secular psychology is a band\-aid solution to a terminal illness. The band\-aid serves a purpose and is helpful for a time, but only the salvation of Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit can cure what truly ails the soul. A counselor who is led by Jesus can use the Bible alone, the Bible and psychological literature, or psychology alone to help a client. The key ingredient is *Jesus*. He is the healer. He is the medicine for all of life’s trials and troubles (Psalm 103:3\).
Unfortunately, a counselor may have a desire to counsel biblically but not be equipped to counsel. It is important to examine credentials. Did he go to a university or get a certificate through another type of organization? What are his beliefs about God? It is helpful to ask the counselor about his education and how he intends to use Scripture in his practice. Another important trait of an effective and equipped counselor is the ability to listen and empathize. He can be knowledgeable of Scripture and therapeutic techniques, but if he doesn’t listen well, the client won’t feel helped. Lecturing a client is rarely therapeutic. The counselor must be interested in learning about the client in order to help repair what is broken or strengthen what is weak.
To choose a counselor, start with prayer and commit to follow where the Lord leads. Second, find a trusted [pastor](pastoral-counseling.html) or a church that emphasizes discipling its members. Another possible source of help can be professional counselors who specialize in biblical (or [nouthetic](nouthetic-counseling.html)) or Christian counseling. Secular counseling can be helpful, also, if it is done in conjunction with (and not in lieu of) biblical discipleship.
There is no perfect Christian counselor or Christian therapist. Counselors are human and are therefore sinners. To help choose Christian or biblical counselors, these questions are helpful: Do they listen well? Do they know how to empathize? Do they understand how the Bible applies to a situation? Do they give both positive and critical feedback? The counselee should feel the counselor is “for” him or her, in the sense of being an ally against a problem.
Small support groups of positive, safe, biblically wise people are also helpful for growth; of course, participating in a support group requires honesty and vulnerability. A humble surrender to the Lord and time spent seeking Him are central to healing. Study the Word personally and pray, because only the Holy Spirit can produce spiritual fruit (Galatians 5:22\-23\). On the road to recovery, keep your eyes on Jesus and keep moving toward the end of the race (2 Timothy 4:7; Hebrews 12:1\).
Here is a helpful link on finding a [Christian counselor](http://www.ccef.org/counseling/choosing-a-christian-counselor).
|
What is Adlerian therapy (or Individual Psychology), and is it biblical?
|
Answer
Pop psychology has invaded our television shows and advice columns and is thriving in the self\-help industry. Counseling or psychotherapy is increasingly prevalent in society and seemingly well accepted. Christian reaction to secular psychology is cautious, and for good reason. Some secular psychology fails to uphold—or even tolerate—biblical principles. However, psychology is a diverse field offering multiple theories and therapy forms, some of which are not overtly unbiblical. The following is a brief overview of Adlerian therapy, also termed “individual psychology.”
**Explanation of Adlerian therapy**
Adlerian therapy, named for its founder, Alfred Adler, is in the psychodynamic field of therapy. Adler was a colleague of Freud for several years, but their paths diverged, and Adler developed a different approach to therapy. Adlerian therapy assumes that humans are socially motivated and that their behavior is purposeful and directed toward a goal. Adler believed that feelings of inferiority often motivate people to strive for success, and he emphasized the conscious over the unconscious. Adlerian therapy affirms biological and environmental limits to choice, but it is not deterministic. Adlerian therapy recognizes the importance of internal factors, such as perception of reality, values, beliefs, and goals. It has a holistic concept of persons, taking into account both the influence of society on the client and the client’s influence on society.
Adler held that people have a guiding self\-ideal—in essence, an image of perfection toward which they strive—and he sought to understand a person’s behavior through a knowledge of his goals. Adler held that one’s lifestyle (the way he or she moves toward the self\-ideal) is mostly formed at a young age but is affected by later events. Birth order is seen as relevant to lifestyle. Who we are depends more on our interpretation of experience than on the experiences themselves. Therefore, identifying and reframing faulty perceptions is an important part of Adlerian therapy.
Adler emphasized social interest and community feeling—how one interacts with the world based on an awareness of the larger human community. To Adler, social interest is a sign of mental health. When people feel connected to others and are actively engaged in a healthy, shared activity, their sense of inferiority decreases.
Adler also talked of life tasks: friendship (social), intimacy (love\-marriage), and societal contribution (occupational). Each of these tasks requires a capacity for friendship, self\-worth, and cooperation.
Adlerian therapy begins by investigating a client’s lifestyle and identifying misperceptions and misdirected goals. Clients are then reeducated with the hope they will have an increased sense of belonging and a higher level of social interest. In short, an Adlerian therapist encourages self\-awareness, challenges harmful perceptions, and admonishes the client to act to meet his or her life tasks and engage in social activities. Counselors teach, guide, and encourage.
**Biblical Commentary on Adlerian therapy**
Many of Adler’s concepts are in line with the Bible. Humans were created for community and for work (Genesis 2:15, 18\). The Bible is filled with “one another” commands and verses regarding life purpose. We are also told to “be transformed by the renewing of \[our] mind\[s]” (Romans 12:2\) and to take our thoughts captive (2 Corinthians 10:5\). Adler’s awareness of the harm of faulty cognition is similar to a Christian’s awareness of the destructive nature of the enemy’s lies. Warnings against false teachers and encouragements to remain in the truth abound in the New Testament (for example, John 14:26; John 15:5; Ephesians 4:14\-25; 1 John 4:1; and 1 Timothy 4:16\). “To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, ‘If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free’” (John 8:31\-32\). Clearly, truth is vital to our sense of freedom and well\-being.
Adler’s concept of limited freedom is also biblical. The Bible speaks of our ability to make choices and affirms personal responsibility. However, our freedom is limited in that we are “slaves” to the sinful nature apart from salvation in Christ (Romans 6:16\-18; 7:15\-25\).
Adlerian therapy focuses on reframing events and reeducating clients. The Bible, too, offers us a different perspective on life experiences. We know that God is at work for the good of those who love Him (Romans 8:28\) and that the coming glory will far outweigh present hardship (2 Corinthians 4:17\). Both these concepts help give us a different interpretation—and generally more acceptance—of our circumstances. However, Christians are not merely reeducated; they are made new (2 Corinthians 5:17\).
There is some concern that Adlerian therapy sometimes views God as a projection of our ideal selves rather than as actually existing. Also, there is no solid definition in Adlerian theory about what constitutes good social interest or a good guiding self\-ideal. The therapy is, therefore, subjective, and much depends on the counselor’s worldview.
The primary area in which Adlerian therapy misses the mark is its view of inferiority feelings. Our sense of inferiority is not due to a lack of striving or rooted in discouragement; it is about being dead in our sins. Self\-improvement does not come through reframing our thoughts or becoming more engaged in society. A therapist’s encouragement will not solve the problems in our lives. Rather, it is through Christ’s work of redemption that we are made alive and new. When we know the truth, we begin to cull out the enemy’s lies and gain God’s perspective (1 Corinthians 2:16\). In Christ we persevere and act in ways that glorify God (Philippians 4:13\). As part of the body of Christ, we have a sense of belonging (Ephesians 4:15\-16\). We are “accepted in the Beloved” (Ephesians 1:6, NKJV), and when we know that God loves us, we can love Him and others in return.
Please note that a large portion of this information has been adapted from [*Modern Psychotherapies: A Comprehensive Christian Appraisal*](https://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?event=AFF&p=1011693&item_no=828520) by Stanton Jones and Richard Butman and [*Theory and Practice of Counseling and Psychotherapy*](https://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?event=AFF&p=1011693&item_no=02083X) by Gerald Corey.
|
What is Pascha?
|
Answer
*Pascha* comes from both the Greek and Latin words for “[Easter](Easter-Sunday.html),” the holiday that celebrates the day Jesus Christ rose from the dead. The verbal form of this word, *pascho* in Greek, means “to suffer.” Originally, the Hebrew word *pasach* referred to the Passover feast (Exodus 12\) that was celebrated during the same week Jesus was crucified. In the Jewish tradition, Passover is 8 days long, beginning Nissan 15, to celebrate the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt.
Different religious traditions celebrate Easter at different times. The Western Church (both Roman Catholic and Protestant) celebrates Pascha or Easter on the Sunday immediately following the Paschal full moon of that year. This Paschal full moon is based on historical tables rather than lunar events. Easter always falls on a Sunday between March 22 and April 25\. The Orthodox (Eastern) Church bases their Easter on a Julian calendar that they claim follows the ruling of the [Council of Nicea](council-of-Nicea.html).
Interestingly, in one passage of the New Testament, the apostle Paul refers to Jesus as “Christ our *pascha* Lamb” or “Passover Lamb.” First Corinthians 5:7 reads, “For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.” During the Jewish Passover, a spotless lamb was killed at sundown and roasted as a meal for the family in the home. At the first Passover, the Lord required that blood from the lamb be marked on the sides and top of the door of each Jewish family’s home.
In the New Testament, Jesus became the sacrificial lamb of Passover, which represented freedom and salvation for God’s people. In fact, some have observed that the blood on the posts and lintel of the door can be connected to form a cross. The cross has become the “door” that provides salvation for believers and causes death to “pass over” them.
|
What is Jungian analytic psychology, and is it biblical?
|
Answer
Without a doubt, there are many theories of psychology that are at odds with the Bible. However, it is possible to incorporate certain aspects of secular theory into Bible\-based counseling. The key is to compare a psychological theory with the truth of the Bible; ideas and methods that line up with Scripture may be helpful. Psychology is a big field, and a Christian counselor needs to examine a variety of psychological theories. The following is a review of Jung’s analytic psychology. Please refer to our related articles for reviews of other common psychological theories.
**Explanation of Jungian Analytic Psychology Theory**
Carl Jung was a student and contemporary of Freud. However, his analytic psychology varies greatly from Freud’s psychoanalysis. Jung’s theory embraces religion – albeit as a psychological concept – and focuses more on meaning than on biological determination. Jung believed that people are shaped by their past and future and that people generally move toward greater self\-realization and wholeness to ultimately achieve "individuation," wherein the conscious and unconscious parts of personality are integrated.
Jung embraced the concept of a personal unconscious, but viewed it as connected to human history and influenced by the transpersonal (the spiritual, transcendent part of man). The collective unconscious, Jung posited, contains memories of human history and guides human development. Jung valued spirituality and experiential knowledge. At times, Jung used Christian terminology, and he once famously affirmed God’s existence, but his concept of “God” was anything but the God of the Bible.
Jung’s theory of personality rests on archetypes. Known through dreams, myths, and traditions, archetypes are ideas and images shared in the human experience. Jung identified them as the persona, or mask worn by an individual in public; the anima, or feminine side; the animus, or masculine side; the shadow, which most humans prefer not to acknowledge and which they often project onto others; and the self, which functions when the other aspects of a person are increasingly integrated and whole. In analytic theory, both men and women have feminine and masculine sides. Jung also suggested personality types. His introversion, extroversion, thinking, feeling, sensation, and intuitive types provide a loose foundation for the Myers\-Briggs Type Indicator personality test.
According to Jung, health depends on becoming increasingly self\-realized and whole—fulfilling one’s destiny as determined by the unconscious and living with a balance among the archetypes. He maintained that it was not possible to achieve complete individuation in this lifetime, but that it is something toward which humans should work. In some ways, Jung saw psychological health as the same as spiritual health.
Jungian therapy is very individualized, based on client type. Symbols carry great importance. Experience is highly valued. The goal of analytic therapy is to make the unconscious, conscious so that the unconscious can guide the client to self\-realization and a proper balance of archetypes. Many psychologists view Jungian analytic psychology as a growth therapy that works best for the middle\-aged and the fairly well\-adjusted.
**Biblical Commentary on Jungian Analytic Psychology**
Jung’s acceptance of spirituality is refreshing to some Christians. However, Jung does not suggest that there is any truth to be found in spirituality; it is simply a means of connection with the collective unconscious. Jung saw spirituality as a personal, mystical experience. This is clearly at odds with biblical teaching. Faith is not just a personal, mystical experience; it is founded in the truth of God.
The concept of the collective unconscious is disconcerting to most Christians. However, the Bible neither confirms nor denies its existence. We all come from Adam and Eve and thus can be viewed as a human family. Archetypes and thematic symbols could be structure placed in us by God.
Jung’s concept of the shadow archetype caused him to embrace suffering and look for meaning within pain, rather than attempt to avoid discomfort. Christians know there is meaning in suffering. However, Jung was somewhat noncommittal about the nature and existence of evil. At times he seemed to trivialize evil or explain it away. Other times, he spoke of evil and good co\-existing, and even suggested that Satan be added to the Godhead! Jung’s thoughts are clearly unbiblical here. Evil does exist, but it is separate from God. In God there is no evil (Psalm 92:15; John 1:4\-5\). Evil is not eternal and is not a co\-equal force with good. Satan is a created being who has been defeated (John 14:30\-31; 16:33; Hebrews 2:14\-15\). Though he currently has power in the world (2 Corinthians 4:4\), Satan will ultimately lose it all (Revelation 20:7\-10\). Sin is not something we attempt to balance with good, but something that dies in us when we are made alive in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17, 21\).
Perhaps the most problematic aspect of Jung’s theory is his emphasis on the self. He seems to promote a concept of health in which a person must simply become his or her true self. The driving force of this “becoming” is the unconscious. The Bible paints a very different picture. Humans are fallen creatures (Romans 5:12\). There is nothing we can do to make ourselves better, for we are dead in sin (Ephesians 2:1, 8\-10; Colossians 2:13\). Certainly, we are expected to know ourselves and to properly steward the gifts God has given us (Romans 12:1\-8; 1 Corinthians 12\). However, our process of self\-discovery must be based on God to be truly glorifying to God and beneficial to us. It is as we look to God to know Him more that we also learn more of ourselves. “Whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it” (Mark 8:35\).
Please note that a large portion of this information has been adapted from [*Modern Psychotherapies: A Comprehensive Christian Appraisal*](https://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?event=AFF&p=1011693&item_no=828520) by Stanton Jones and Richard Butman and [*Theory and Practice of Counseling and Psychotherapy*](https://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?event=AFF&p=1011693&item_no=02083X) by Gerald Corey.
|
What is behavior therapy, and is it biblical?
|
Answer
Christians have a variety of views concerning psychology. Some accept psychology as a legitimate field of study useful in assisting people with the problems of life. Others reject it outright. Scientists, too, vary in their acceptance of psychology as efficacious; psychology is, in many ways, an art form not always based on measurable evidence. Behavior therapy stands out in this regard. It is perhaps more easily accepted due to its emphasis on the scientific method. Christians can use behavior therapy in a biblical manner if it is properly corrected by the Bible.
**Explanation of Behavior Therapy**
B. F. Skinner and Albert Bandura are the primary behavior theorists. In its purest form, behavior therapy is rarely practiced, though certain of its concepts and techniques are used in conjunction with other theories.
Behaviorists view humans as both products and producers of their environments. The goal of behavior therapy is to increase a person’s ability to respond to his or her environment. Behaviorism depends heavily on the scientific method and deals with present life problems rather than with past sources of those problems. Clients are expected to be engaged in therapy in order to actively change their maladaptive behaviors.
A behavior therapist functions much as a physical therapist would, identifying a problem and suggesting ways for the problem to be solved. Using an ABC model, behavior therapists explain that an “antecedent event” influences a “behavior,” and “consequences” follow. Through such techniques as classical conditioning (a la Pavlov’s dogs), operant conditioning (reinforcement, punishment, and shaping), exposure, and social learning, behavior therapists help clients modify their behaviors.
**Biblical Commentary on Behavior Therapy**
Many psychologists found behaviorism to be overly reductionist, and Christians should have problems with it as well. A focus on environmental influences on behavior minimizes the complexity of personhood. People are more than mechanisms responding to stimuli, after all. Human behavior is multifaceted, and behaviorism oversimplifies the issue. Also of concern for Christians, behaviorism is founded in naturalism and therefore leaves little, if any, room for God’s existence or any concept of spirituality.
Even with all its problems, behaviorism hits upon a truth. The Bible does demonstrate that we are influenced by our environments. “Bad company corrupts good character” (1 Corinthians 15:33\). One reason God instructed the Israelites to destroy the nations they conquered was that He knew the pagan culture would be a negative influence. Paul provides warnings against associating with those who would draw believers away from God and against doing things that might harm another believer’s faith (1 Corinthians 5:6\-13; 10:14; 1Timothy 4:7, 14\-16; Romans 14:13\).
The Bible is certainly not opposed to behavior modification or increased choice (1 Timothy 4:7, 10; Romans 12:1\-2; Galatians 5:1\). However, following God is not about cleaning up our act. Jesus did not come to save us from poor behaviors but from the death of sin. Behavioral techniques can help Christians who are struggling against their sinful natures, but for complete victory nothing can replace the power of the Holy Spirit (Galatians 5:16; John 15:5\).
Please note that a large portion of this information has been adapted from [*Modern Psychotherapies: A Comprehensive Christian Appraisal*](https://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?event=AFF&p=1011693&item_no=828520) by Stanton Jones and Richard Butman and [*Theory and Practice of Counseling and Psychotherapy*](https://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?event=AFF&p=1011693&item_no=02083X) by Gerald Corey.
|
Was Junia/Junias a female apostle?
|
Answer
At the end of the book of Romans, Paul greets many individuals by name. Romans 16:7 reads, “Greet Andronicus and Junias, my relatives who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.” Many have suggested that one or both of these individuals were actually apostles, interpreting the phrase “*among* the apostles” to mean Andronicus and Junias were part of (or “among”) that group. If this is a correct reading, it would be significant because Junia (as the name appears in the [KJV](King-James-Version-KJV.html) and [ESV](English-Standard-Version-ESV.html)) would be the only female apostle mentioned in the New Testament.
The scholar Dr. Daniel Wallace has extensively researched the Greek grammar of the phrase: “In sum, until further evidence is produced that counters the working hypothesis, we must conclude that Andronicus and Junia were *not* apostles, but were known to the apostles” (from [http://bible.org/article/junia\-among\-apostles\-double\-identification\-problem\-romans\-167](http://bible.org/article/junia-among-apostles-double-identification-problem-romans-167)).
Historically, there has been much discussion regarding the gender of Junia/Junias as well as the meaning of the phrase regarding apostleship. [John Chrysostom](John-Chrysostom.html), writing in the fourth century, noted Junia as named among the apostles. Many of Chrysostom’s contemporaries interpreted Junias as a man’s name, a matter that biblical scholars still debate to some extent today, although the feminine identification is more common.
Outside of Romans 16:7, Junia is not mentioned in the Bible or in the extra\-biblical writings of her time. Later writings are conflicting and inconclusive in determining the true identity of this individual. With the existing information, the syntax of the Greek language provides the best means of understanding what Paul meant when he wrote that Junia was outstanding (or “well known”) among the apostles.
The Greek language construction is not 100 percent definitive, but strongly leans in favor of translating the verse as the ESV does: “Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles.” The wording here makes it clear that Andronicus and Junia were known *to* the apostles but were not apostles themselves.
The fact that Junia was “in Christ before I was” would make Junia one of the earliest Christians, since Paul had become a believer within three years of the resurrection (Galatians 2\). She may have even been in Jerusalem for [Pentecost](day-Pentecost.html) when [Peter](life-Peter.html) preached in Acts 2\. Whenever Junia first believed, she was likely living in or near Jerusalem during the early days of the church. This would have given her ample time to become acquainted with the apostles.
Romans 16:7 also says that Junia was imprisoned for her faith at some point before Romans was written (approximately A.D. 55\). This fact would make her one of the first believers arrested for her faith (she was maybe even in prison alongside Paul). Further, she was involved in the formation of the early church in Rome.
It is unlikely that Junia was an apostle, yet Romans 16:7 gives a short but impressive résumé of her service to Christ. Two thousand years later, we still know her name.
|
What is reality therapy, and is it biblical?
|
Answer
Mental health counselors often disagree about the legitimacy of secular counseling theories; Christians have proven even more skeptical. Many secular theories are based on unbiblical philosophies that are unacceptable to Christians. However, not everything the theories posit is inherently unbiblical. When Christian counselors think critically about the theories to which they ascribe and apply the theory’s concepts carefully, they can successfully integrate biblical truth with psychological theories. Reality therapy is a relatively new form of counseling. Below is an explanation and a biblical evaluation of its concepts:
**Explanation of Reality Therapy**
Reality therapy was founded by William Glasser and is based on his choice theory. Choice theory says that individuals have five inherent needs: survival, love and belonging, power or achievement, freedom or independence, and fun. According to reality therapists, the need to love and belong is most important, as other people are essential in meeting the other’s needs. A client’s issues are founded either in lack of relationship or lack of healthy relationship. However, the problem is not external but has to do with the client’s choices. Choice theory assumes that people choose their behaviors in order to satisfy needs or to mitigate the pain caused by unmet needs.
Additionally, choice theory speaks of a “quality world,” consisting of memories of things that made a person feel good in the past. A quality world is one’s personal concept of what the world *should* be, based on wants and needs. Reality therapists help clients uncover and prioritize these wants and needs. They also develop a personal relationship with the client in order to help the client learn how to better connect with others.
Because reality therapists believe that behavior is chosen and purposeful, they do not refer to people as being depressed or anxious. Rather, to increase the sense of personal responsibility, they speak of a person “depressing” or “anxietying.” In other words, a person chooses those outcomes. He may not directly choose to feel depressed, but he “depresses,” indirectly, as a means of coping or seeking to meet a previously unmet need. Behavior is an act involving thought, feeling, and physiology.
Reality therapists emphasize the aspects of relationship that a client can control. They speak of choice and responsibility and maintain a focus on the present, particularly on current relationships. Discussing symptoms is somewhat discouraged, unless it is for the sake of relationship\-building. The goal of reality therapy is to help clients learn to fulfill their basic needs. Reality therapists are mentors, advocates, and communicators of hope. They also confront clients and work with a sense of urgency.
**Biblical Commentary on Reality Therapy**
Reality therapy’s emphasis on wants and needs may dismay many Christians. The Bible speaks of self\-sacrifice and the need to trust in God to meet our needs. Our primary goal is not fulfillment but to live a godly life—which will lead to fulfillment. Also, reality therapy does not assign limits to how one’s needs are met. Clearly, many people strive to meet the need for “fun” in unbiblical ways.
However, the Bible does affirm that human beings have needs. We were created for relationship and to belong—God said it was not good for man to be alone (Genesis 2:18\), and He sent His Son in order to restore a relationship with us (John 17:24\). He adopts us into His family; we are no longer outsiders (Ephesians 1:4\-6\). The command to love God and love others (Matthew 22:37\-40\) further affirms the importance of relationship. The Bible also speaks of survival needs (Matthew 6:31\-33\), freedom in Christ (Galatians 5:1\), achievement through fulfilling our God\-given purpose (Ephesians 2:10\), and delight in God (Psalm 37:4\).
The Bible definitely affirms choice and personal responsibility. Every command God makes requires a subsequent choice on our part—to obey or disobey. We are instructed to take our thoughts captive (2 Corinthians 10:5\), not to conform to this world (Romans 12:2\), to live at peace with others inasmuch as we can (Romans 12:18\), to seek reconciliation in relationships (Matthew 18:15\-17\), to work as unto the Lord (Colossians 3:23\), to watch our doctrine (1 Timothy 4:15\-16\), and the like. Christians are active participants in life, and our choices do matter.
A sense of urgency is also very real in the New Testament. Today is the day of salvation (2 Corinthians 6:2\), for we know not when our Lord will return (Matthew 24:42\-44\).
Where reality therapy falls short is in not recognizing the primary human need—that of salvation and a restored relationship with God. We may find love and belonging on this earth, but unless we are adopted into God’s family, we will never be truly fulfilled.
Please note that a large portion of this information has been adapted from [*Modern Psychotherapies: A Comprehensive Christian Appraisal*](https://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?event=AFF&p=1011693&item_no=828520) by Stanton Jones and Richard Butman and [*Theory and Practice of Counseling and Psychotherapy*](https://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?event=AFF&p=1011693&item_no=02083X) by Gerald Corey.
|
What is cognitive-behavior therapy, and is it biblical?
|
Answer
Cognitive\-behavior therapy, which is widely used today, grew out of behavioral therapy. Though many Christians are leery of psychology in general, cognitive\-behavior theory seems to be more in sync with biblical principles. The following are brief explanations of cognitive\-behavior therapy and a biblical analysis of its concepts.
**Explanation of Cognitive\-behavior Therapy**
Albert Ellis, Aaron Beck, and Donald Meichenbaum are associated with cognitive\-behavior therapy. As the name suggests, cognitive\-behavior therapy is, in some ways, an expansion of behaviorism. Cognitive\-behavior theory says that human difficulties stem from thought. It is not the event but a person’s belief *about* that event that causes emotional disturbance. The goal of this type of therapy is to challenge irrational thoughts and to help clients separate their self\-evaluation from their evaluation of their behavior – that is, to differentiate one’s identity from one’s actions. Rather than being what you do, you are a being who does things. Cognitive\-behavior therapy aims to help clients accept themselves in spite of imperfections.
Cognitive\-behavior therapy is based on a view that humans have potential both for rational and irrational thought. People are prone to positives such as happiness, love, thought, self\-preservation, growth, and [self\-actualization](self-actualization.html); they are also prone to negatives like repeated mistakes, intolerance, avoidance of thought, self\-blame, and self\-destruction. Cognitive\-behavior therapists use an ABC\-DEF model comprising an “activating event” that leads to a “belief” which leads to an emotional and behavioral “consequence.” The cycle is broken by a “disputing intervention,” leading to an “effect,” and a new “feeling.” In essence, human emotional disturbance is thought to be a result of internalizing negative thought. Through cognitive restructuring, self\-improvement is made possible as irrational thought is replaced with constructive thinking.
**Biblical Commentary on Cognitive\-behavior Therapy**
Romans 12:2 and 2 Corinthians 10:5 are supportive biblical texts for the cognitive\-behavioral approach. God instructs us to guard our thoughts. Satan is the "father of lies" (John 8:44\); if our minds are not firmly grounded in truth, then we are more susceptible to his deceptions. James 2:14 also speaks of how our beliefs affect our behaviors.
However, there is a danger in cognitive\-behavior theory being more oriented to the *utility* of a client’s belief than to its *truth*. Rather than replace lies with truth, cognitive\-behavior therapy simply replaces unhelpful thoughts with helpful ones. This opens wide the door to relativism.
The cognitive\-behavioral view of human nature is inaccurate. The theory is rooted in naturalism and therefore is not cognizant of the spiritual and does not accept the concept of God. Even so, in some ways the cognitive\-behavioral view alludes to the fact that human beings possess a sinful nature. However, it also suggests that humans are capable of self\-salvation. We are not. Revising our thoughts will not save us.
At the same time, cognitive\-behavioral therapy’s goal of self\-acceptance is not inherently unbiblical. We are accepted by God in our imperfection (Ephesians 2:1\-10; Colossians 2:13; Romans 5:6\-8\). However, we are not left imperfect. It is important to balance the truth of our justification with the process of sanctification.
Cognitive\-behavior therapy may have some helpful techniques for Christians seeking to take their thoughts captive or improve in other areas requiring self\-control. It can also be useful in revealing the enemy’s lies so that Christians are not duped into self\-loathing or self\-defeating behaviors. However, to be free of false thoughts and to truly grow, we need to be grounded in God’s truth and sanctified by the power of the Holy Spirit.
Please note that a large portion of this information has been adapted from [*Modern Psychotherapies: A Comprehensive Christian Appraisal*](https://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?event=AFF&p=1011693&item_no=828520) by Stanton Jones and Richard Butman and [*Theory and Practice of Counseling and Psychotherapy*](https://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?event=AFF&p=1011693&item_no=02083X) by Gerald Corey.
|
What is person-centered therapy, and is it biblical?
|
Answer
Christians have had varied reactions to psychological theories. Some believers claim the entire field is corrupt, and others fail to ever question the theories posed. We believe there can be a balanced approach to psychology in which secular theories are filtered through a biblical framework to glean what is useful. Psychology itself is not an integrated field promoting a cohesive theory. However, some concepts remain consistent in terms of actual counseling practice. Ideas from Carl Rogers, founder of person\-centered therapy, are among these.
**Explanation of Person\-centered Therapy**
Person\-centered therapy developed in stages as Rogers did not claim to offer a complete paradigm. What is now called “person\-centered therapy” is considered by some counselors to be a basic approach on which to build other theories.
Humanistic in philosophy, person\-centered therapy assumes that people are generally trustworthy, capable of self\-reflection, and capable of self\-directed growth (toward [self\-actualization](self-actualization.html)). Given the proper environment, people will live up to their capabilities. A person\-centered therapist or counselor is primarily present to provide the client with a positive environment through relationship. A counselor must be “congruent” (genuine or authentic), exhibit unconditional positive regard, and provide accurate empathic understanding. With such a supportive relationship, a client is bound to come to know himself or herself and grow. Rather than focus on client complaints, person\-centered therapists focus on the client. Therapy is meant not to solve problems but to help people become better at handling their own problems. Counselors must be present with their clients and generally focus on the immediate.
There are no person\-centered techniques of which to speak, which is why some counselors follow Roger’s call to be genuine, accepting, and empathic, and then employ other techniques and methods to promote client growth. Person\-centered therapy is often used in crisis intervention and for training workers in service\-oriented fields. Natalie Rogers, Carl Rogers’s daughter, used person\-centered therapy as a springboard to create expressive arts therapy.
**Biblical Commentary on Person\-centered Therapy**
Biblically, there is a glaring problem with person\-centered therapy in terms of its view of humanity. Humans are not inherently motivated toward positive growth. We were created in God’s image; we do have eternity in our hearts (Ecclesiastes 3:11\); we know there is something better. But Adam and Eve sinned, introducing a sinful nature into the rest of humanity (Romans 5:12\). Without God, our hearts are deceitful (Jeremiah 17:9\), we desire that which is evil (Galatians 5:17\-21\), and we are dead in sin (Colossians 2:13\). We may desire to somehow be restored to our original purpose, to gain a sense of satisfaction and rightness in the way we are living. We miss Eden, but we cannot get back to it. It is not through our own effort or through a positive relationship with a counselor that we will grow. It is only by the work of the Holy Spirit (2 Corinthians 5:17, 21; Philippians 1:6; Ephesians 4:22\-24\). Also, we need more than growth. We need [salvation](Christian-doctrine-salvation.html); we need [sanctification](sanctification.html). Our sinful nature needs to be overcome for us to be fully restored.
Person\-centered therapy’s concept of humanity can also lead to selfishness. Self\-actualization is about the self and the removal of personal barriers. Knowing oneself and reaching one’s full potential become paramount; this can mean that a client fails to fulfill responsibilities to others and becomes increasingly self\-focused. Any time a person sets out to “find himself,” while neglecting his other relationships, he is being selfish. Person\-centered therapy teaches that human nature is inherently good and trusts that self\-actualization for individuals will lead to goodness generally. The Bible calls us to be selfless, not self\-seeking (Philippians 2:4\). We know the negative results when people begin to care only for themselves.
Person\-centered therapy is phenomenological in approach, meaning that subjective experience determines a client’s concept of truth. Because of person\-centered therapy’s emphasis on accepting a client no matter what, the door is open to relativism. Even if one client defines morality differently from another, the therapist must unconditionally accept both definitions.
Person\-centered therapy might offer helpful direction in relating to others. Certainly, the Bible applauds authenticity, as we are to be honest in all we do (Proverbs 12:22; Philippians 4:8; Colossians 3:9; 1 Peter 3:10\). We are called to love others, not based on what they do but based on God’s unconditional love for us (John 13:34\-35\). And taking time to listen to another’s story and accurately respond with care and concern is loving. In person\-centered therapy, however, “unconditional positive regard” can be a trap. Christians respond with a balance of love and truth (Ephesians 4:15\). We love everyone, but we do not accept everything they do. Sin is sin and should be labeled as such. At times, we must put up boundaries and allow discipline in the lives of those we love. Person\-centered therapists would disagree.
The concepts behind person\-centered therapy can be a reminder that God created us with a purpose for which we long. However, seeking to know ourselves will not restore us to that purpose. Instead, we must seek to know God and allow Him to reveal to us the unique purpose He has for us. We must rely on the power of His Holy Spirit and the solid foundation of His Word in order to be healed and sanctified (John 17:17\).
Please note that a large portion of this information has been adapted from [*Modern Psychotherapies: A Comprehensive Christian Appraisal*](https://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?event=AFF&p=1011693&item_no=828520) by Stanton Jones and Richard Butman and [*Theory and Practice of Counseling and Psychotherapy*](https://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?event=AFF&p=1011693&item_no=02083X) by Gerald Corey.
|
Did Moses copy the Law from the Code of Hammurabi?
|
Answer
Hammurabi was a Babylonian king who reigned from 1795 to 1750 B.C. He is remembered today for promoting and enforcing an organized code of laws. The Code of Hammurabi, discovered on a stele in 1901, is one of the best preserved and comprehensive of ancient writings of significant length ever found. The Hammurabian Code is divided into 12 sections and consists of 282 laws, 34 of which are unreadable. The Code is primarily a case\-by\-case formula of customary law covering administrative, civil, and criminal issues. The complexity of the laws and their subject matter reveal much about ancient Babylonian culture.
About 300 years after Hammurabi, in 1440 B.C., Moses recorded the Law for the Israelites. Because the Mosaic Law contains some similarities to Hammurabi’s Code, some critics of the Bible believe that Moses copied from the Hammurabian Code. If they’re right, and Moses simply stole from the Babylonians, then the whole episode at Mount Sinai is false (Exodus 34\), and the inspiration of Scripture is suspect.
Both Levitical law and Hammurabi’s Code impose the death penalty in cases of adultery and kidnapping (Leviticus 20:10; Exodus 21:16; cf. Statutes 129 and 14\). Also, there are similarities in the law of retaliation, such as “an eye for an eye” (Leviticus 21:23\-25; cf. Statute 196\). Statute 206 of the Hammurabian Code says, “If during a quarrel one man strike another and wound him, then he shall swear, ‘I did not injure him wittingly,’ and pay the physicians.” The Law of Moses is comparable: “If people quarrel and one person hits another with a stone or with their fist and the victim does not die but is confined to bed, the one who struck the blow will not be held liable if the other can get up and walk around outside with a staff; however, the guilty party must pay the injured person for any loss of time and see that the victim is completely healed” (Exodus 21:18\-19\).
There are other examples, but in all truth, such resemblances do not demonstrate that Moses plagiarized Hammurabi’s Code. What the similarities do show is that murder, theft, adultery, and kidnapping are problems in every society and must be addressed. Even today, countries throughout the world have similar laws. Such parallels certainly don’t prove plagiarism.
Similarity in penal codes should be expected in civil societies. Both Babylon and Israel had laws against murder, but it doesn’t follow that one stole the idea from the other. Should one country *not* prosecute a crime simply because another country has a similar law?
The differences between Mosaic Law and the Hammurabian Code are equally significant. For example, the Law of Moses went far beyond the Code of Hammurabi in that it was rooted in the worship of one God, supreme over all (Deuteronomy 6:4\-5\). The moral principles of the Old Testament are based on a righteous God who demanded that mankind, created in His image, live righteously. The Law of Moses is more than a legal code; it speaks of sin and responsibility to God. The Hammurabian Code and other ancient laws do not do this.
The Code of Hammurabi focused exclusively on criminal and civil laws and meted out harsh, and sometimes brutal, punishments. In this way, Hammurabi has more in common with Draco than with Moses. The Law of Moses provided justice, but it also dealt with spiritual laws and personal and national holiness. As a result, the Mosaic Law dealt with the *cause* of crime, not just its effects. The Mosaic Law elevates the value of human life, and its whole tenor is more compassionate than that of the Hammurabian Code. The spiritual dimension is what makes the Law of Moses unique.
In his book *Highlights of Archaeology in Bible Lands*, Fred Wight writes, “The Mosaic Law gives strong emphasis to the recognition of sin as being the cause of the downfall of a nation. Such a thought is entirely lacking in Hammurabi’s Code. . . . The great fundamental principle of the laws of God in the Hebrew Bible may be summed up in the words: ‘Be ye holy, for I am holy’ \[Leviticus 11:45]. Such a principle as this was utterly unknown to the Babylonians as seen in their law code.”
There is a dramatic difference in perspective between Hammurabi and Moses. One’s focus is horizontal, while the other’s is vertical. Archaeologist Alfred Hoerth, author of *Archaeology and the Old Testament*, says, “The Old Testament law code is religiously oriented, while others are civil. The Mesopotamians believed the god Shamash gave Hammurabi his law code so people could get along with one another. In the Bible, the law code was given primarily so people could get along with God.”
This is what sets the Mosaic Law apart from all the other law codes of antiquity: its strong emphasis on spiritual matters. The closest the Hammurabian Code comes to effect such spirituality is its proclamation that those who stole from the gods would be put to death. Unlike the Mosaic Law, Hammurabi’s Code had no provision for forgiveness.
The theory that Moses’ Law is simply a rewording of Hammurabi’s has largely been abandoned today, due to the fact that similar law codes, even older than Hammurabi’s, have been found in various other places. These would include the Cuneiform laws, written as early as 2350 B.C.; the Code of Urukagina, 2380 B.C.; the Code of Ur\-Nammu, 2050 B.C.; and others.
Most critics accede to the fact that the Babylonian laws were probably well\-known to the Hebrews of Moses’ day. When God communicated His Law, He used language that the Israelites were already familiar with, and this would explain similar wording for similar laws.
Both Hammurabi and Moses recorded a complex system of laws that were unique to their times. Hammurabi claimed to receive his code from the Babylonian god of justice, Shamash. Moses received God’s Law atop Mount Sinai directly from Yahweh, the God of the Israelites. There are some similarities between the Mosaic Law and the Code of Hammurabi, as would be expected from two legislative systems. However, their significant differences demonstrate the baselessness of the charge that Moses copied from the Code of Hammurabi.
|
What is bibliomancy?
|
Answer
Bibliomancy is the practice of [divination](Bible-divination.html) by means of a book. Generally speaking, bibliomancy involves turning to a random page in a sacred book in order to find the answer to a question posed. In ancient times, the works of Homer and Virgil were used. Now, bibliomancy often refers to fortune\-telling by means of the Bible. But, by no means is the Bible the only book sometimes used in bibliomancy. Other books sometimes used are the *I Ching*, the *Mahabharata*, and the Qur’an. The process of bibliomancy involves asking a clear question, opening the book to a random page, and trailing a finger in slow circles until “the spirit” says to stop. The verse where the questioner’s finger points supposedly contains the answer.
The story is told of a man who wanted to find out what God had for his future, so he closed his eyes, opened the Bible randomly, and stuck his finger on the page. He opened his eyes and read Matthew 27:5, “Judas . . . went away and hanged himself.” Not liking that answer, the man tried again. This time, his finger landed on Luke 10:37, “Go and do likewise.” Again, not liking that answer, the man tried again. This time his finger landed on John 13:27, “What you are about to do, do quickly.”
All joking aside, bibliomancy is not biblical. God’s Word condemns all forms of divination in no uncertain terms (Deuteronomy 18:10; Acts 16:16\-19\). Occult practices are not made less evil simply because the Bible is being used in the process. Yes, God speaks to us through His Word. Yes, God leads us to specific Bible verses that will speak to us in a time of need. Yes, God sometimes causes us to stumble on a verse at precisely the time we need the message the verse contains. But God’s Word was meant to be studied, understood, and applied. We are to study God’s Word intentionally, not randomly. Ours is a reasonable faith, not one based on esoteric interpretations of random verses. Our wisdom comes from God (James 1:5\).
|
Is there such a thing as the evil eye?
|
Answer
The evil eye is a belief within [folk religion](folk-religion.html) that someone can look at another person and cause injury, illness, or even death. The superstition of the evil eye was held in ancient Greece and Rome, and it persists in many cultures today.
The evil eye is also called the “envious eye” or the “invidious eye,” because the person casting it is jealous of something. According to the superstition, a resentful person can transmit a curse, wittingly or unwittingly, simply by looking at someone or something in envy. The evil eye is said to bring sickness upon anything from livestock to fruit trees to people. Some attempt to ward off the evil eye with superstitious beads, amulets, hand gesture, or sayings.
Some translations of Mark 7:22 include “an evil eye” as one of the sins that begin in the heart (KJV, NKJV, ASV). The Greek is “*ophthalmos ponēros*” (literally, “evil eye”); however, this is not a reference to anything superstitious. What Jesus is speaking of is a person that is looking to be involved in evil—our modern idiom “looking for trouble” is a good equivalent. Most of today’s translations render the phrase as “envy.”
The believer in Jesus Christ does not need to fear superstition. Yes, Satan is real, but any power he has to hurt God’s children is limited by God Himself (see Job 1–2\). Satan has been defeated through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (Colossians 2:11\-15\).
Relying on the power of the Holy Spirit and using the Word of God, the believer can have victory over the evil one. That is how Christ defeated Satan and withstood temptation (Matthew 4:1\-11\). Paul tells the church to be strong in the Lord and use the spiritual armor that God has given us (Ephesians 6:10\-20\). We do not need good luck charms; we need only faith in Christ. The Bible tells us, “You, dear children, are from God and have overcome \[the evil spirits in this world], because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world” (1 John 4:4\).
Superstition is fraught with fear, but “God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind” (2 Timothy 1:7\). Those who haven’t accepted Jesus Christ as their personal Savior can be directly influenced by the evil one, and that is why they are fearful and superstitious. When a person receives Christ, he can live in freedom from fear and superstition, for he realizes that Satan is a defeated foe. The believer is loved by God, and God’s love casts out fear (1 John 4:16\-18\).
|
Who was Titus in the Bible?
|
Answer
Titus was an early church leader, a trusted companion of the apostle Paul, and a faithful servant of the Lord.
Titus was a Gentile (Galatians 2:3\) who was led to faith in Christ by Paul (Titus 1:4\). He was drawn to the ministry and became a co\-worker with Paul, accompanying him and Barnabas from Antioch to Jerusalem (Titus is included in the “other believers” of Acts 15:2\). At the [Jerusalem Council](Jerusalem-Council.html), Titus would have been a prime example of a born\-again Gentile Christian. Titus was living proof that the rite of circumcision was unnecessary for salvation (Galatians 2:3\).
Later, Titus went to Corinth to serve the church there (2 Corinthians 8:6, 16\-17\). On Paul’s third missionary journey, which took place from A.D. 53 to 57, Paul arrived in Troas and expected to meet Titus there (2 Corinthians 2:12\-13\). Not finding his friend, Paul left for Macedonia. Titus rejoined Paul in Philippi and gave him a good report of the ministry in Corinth (2 Corinthians 7:6\-7, 13\-14\). When Titus returned to Corinth, he hand\-delivered the Epistle of 2 Corinthians and organized a collection for needy saints in Jerusalem (2 Corinthians 8:10, 17, 24\).
Several years later, Titus and Paul traveled to the island of Crete, where Titus was left behind to continue and strengthen the work. Titus’s task was administrative, mostly: he was to maintain sound doctrine and “straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town” (Titus 1:5\). When Artemas and Tychicus arrived in Crete to direct the ministry, Paul summoned Titus to join him in Nicopolis, a city in the province of Achaia in western Greece (Titus 3:12\).
The last mention of Titus in the Bible indicates that he was with Paul during Paul’s final Roman imprisonment. From Rome, Titus was sent to evangelize Dalmatia (2 Timothy 4:10\), an area which later became known as Yugoslavia and is now called Serbia and Montenegro.
As a Gentile Christian, Titus would have been particularly effective in combating the heresy of the Judaizers. The Judaizers insisted that all Christians were bound by the Mosaic Law. Usually, the Judaizers honed in on circumcision: Gentiles must be circumcised, they said, in order to truly be saved (see Paul’s refutation of this teaching in Galatians 5:1\-6\). Titus knew this teaching well, for the subject had come up in Syrian Antioch, leading to the Jerusalem Council, of which he had been a part.
Titus was a faithful servant of the Lord and a dedicated aide to Paul. He must have been trustworthy and dependable, since Paul appointed him to lead works in Corinth, Crete, and Dalmatia. Indeed, Paul calls him “my partner and fellow worker” (2 Corinthians 8:23\). Knowing the difficult situations in both Corinth and Crete, we can infer that Titus was an insightful man who could handle problems with grace. Scripture says that Titus had a God\-given love for the Corinthian believers; in fact, in returning to Corinth, Titus went “with much enthusiasm and on his own initiative” (2 Corinthians 8:16\-17\).
May we have the same zeal for the Lord that Titus showed. Every believer would do well to model Titus’s commitment to truth, fervor in spreading the gospel, and enthusiastic love for the church.
|
Are the “angels” of the churches in Revelation 1–3 real angels, or are they human messengers?
|
Answer
In Revelation 1, John the apostle sees the glorified Christ in a vision. Jesus is standing among seven golden lampstands. In His hand, Jesus holds seven stars (Revelation 1:13, 16\). In verse 20 Jesus explains, “The mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand and of the seven golden lampstands is this: The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the [seven lampstands](seven-candlesticks-lampstands.html) which you saw are the seven churches.”
The meaning of the lampstands is plain. They represent the seven churches of Asia Minor. We know that a lampstand is intended to give light. The people of God, both as individuals and as congregations, are to be bearers of light. Jesus told His followers that they were the “light of the world” (Matthew 5:14\). Paul told the church in Philippi that they were “seen as lights in the world” (Philippians 2:15\). Since Jesus is the “true light” of the world (John 1:9\), it makes sense that He is standing “among the lampstands” (Revelation 1:13\)—the light shed abroad by the churches comes from Him. The stars held in Jesus’ hand are also light\-bearers.
However, the meaning of the angels is less plain. The Greek word *angelos* simply meant “messenger”; usually, the word was used for supernatural “messengers” from God. However, sometimes the word was applied to human messengers of God’s Word: John the Baptist is called an “*angelos*” in Matthew 11:10\.
Some scholars interpret the angels of Revelation 1:20 as heavenly beings. Others view them as the human messengers who bore John’s letter. Others identify them as those who actually read the message to the congregations, that is, church leaders such as pastors, elders, or bishops. A pastor of a church functions as a “messenger” for God, delivering God’s Word to the congregation.
If the angels of the seven churches are heavenly beings, then that would perhaps mean that each church had a “[guardian angel](guardian-angels.html)” or some type of heavenly being associated with each congregation. There is a difficulty with this interpretation. John was writing the letters to them. Why should he write letters to angels—were the letters going to be read to the congregations by celestial beings? That is highly doubtful.
A better view is that the “angels” are envoys sent to John. During the time that the apostle was exiled on the Isle of [Patmos](Patmos-in-the-Bible.html), it is possible that local congregations sent delegates to him to inquire of his condition. These delegates could be the “angels” or “messengers” that were entrusted with the letters on their return trip.
Probably the best interpretation, however, is that the seven angels are the human leaders—the bishops, elders, or pastors—in the churches. Jesus used the apostle John to write messages addressed to seven notable church leaders, and these leaders would then share the messages with the rest of the church. The fact that the “stars” are held in Jesus’ “right hand” is significant. The Lord Himself protects, upholds, and guides the leaders of the church with His strength and wisdom.
|
Can a Christian burn incense?
|
Answer
At first glance, it seems pretty innocent to use incense. Other than a possible fire danger, is burning incense really a problem for the one who has put his or her trust in Jesus Christ?
First, some history. Evidence points to the use of incense for religious purposes in ancient Egypt, China, India and the Middle East. Worshipers in Buddhist temples bow to idols while waving bundles of burning incense sticks. Incense is used to burn the scalps or arms of Buddhist monks and nuns, and the scars mark them for life. Within [Hinduism](hinduism.html), the use of incense is pervasive. The incense stick is rotated between the palms before being placed in a holder in honor of the gods.
Judaism has a long tradition of incense use, going back to the [tabernacle](tabernacle-of-Moses.html) in the wilderness. God gave instructions for constructing the altar of incense, which was set in the Holy Place in front of the veil before the Holy of Holies. Every day, a priest burned incense on the altar within the tabernacle. Exodus 30:34 describes the exact composition of this holy incense, which had a balsamic fragrance. Exodus 30:8 tells us the incense was to burn perpetually before the Lord. “Strange” incense (that which did not follow God’s recipe) was forbidden for use in worship.
Later, in the [temple](Solomon-first-temple.html), about half a pound of incense was burned daily. For the Jews, incense was to be a symbol of prayer, as David says, “May my prayer be set before you like incense” (Psalm 141:2\).
Incense is still used by priests within the Eastern Orthodox Church. It also finds a place in Roman Catholic tradition and even some Lutheran churches. Incense burning has seen resurgence among the [emergent church](emerging-church-emergent.html) movement in an effort to return to “vintage” Christianity.
Incense is also being used today among neo\-pagans and Wiccans in procedures designed to release power and invoke spells. Practices vary among these groups, but Christians should have absolutely no part in them. We worship the Creator of the universe not the creation. To worship or burn incense to any person or thing other than God is to deny the Lord Jesus Christ.
Since the death, burial and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ the [veil](temple-veil-torn.html) between the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies has been removed (Matthew 27:50\-51\). The Law has been fulfilled (Matthew 5:17\). It is no longer necessary to burn incense to approach God, as we read in Hebrews 9:11\-14\.
The Christian has freedom to burn incense or not to burn incense. It is a matter of conviction. However, there are some basic questions to be asked. What is our purpose for burning incense? God knows our motives (Proverbs 21:2\). If our motivation is to increase the power of our prayers or to somehow be more pleasing to God, then we are falling into the trap of legalism or mysticism. We are not told to burn incense in Scripture. Hebrews 10:19\-22 says we approach God with confidence and full assurance of faith.
Another question to ask is, will my actions cause a weaker brother in Christ to stumble? Because of the link between incense and pagan religions, Christians who were saved out of paganism may struggle with using incense. Biblically, we must consider those of a weak conscience who may construe our use of incense as an approval of idolatrous practices (see Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 10:23\-33\). We are “called to be free,” but we must use our freedom to “serve one another in love” (Galatians 5:13\).
|
What is the eternal state of the believer?
|
Answer
A study of “the eternal state” is rightly seen as a subdivision of the greater study of [eschatology](Eschatology.html), or the doctrine of last things. It must be admitted first that the only sure word of testimony regarding this subject is the Holy Bible; no other “holy book” or philosophy is as trustworthy or as informative as the Bible.
The Greek word most often translated “eternal” in the Bible is *aionos*, from which we get our word *eon*. Essentially, this word denotes having no beginning and no end, or having a beginning but no end, with respect to time. The exact meaning is always determined by the context. When this word is combined with “life” (Greek *zoe*), it denotes not only life without end, but a certain quality of life that is distinguished from mere biological life.
We know that all believers will receive resurrected bodies (1 Corinthians 15:42\). Thus, we will not exist as disembodied spirits, but we will possess glorified bodies especially suited for an existence in the eternal state.
The Bible gives few details of what that state will be like. Scripture says that God creates a new heaven and a new earth, and the [New Jerusalem](new-jerusalem.html) descends from God to the new earth (Revelation 21:1\-2\). In this new creation, “the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God” (Revelation 21:3\). “So, we will be with the Lord forever” (1 Thessalonians 4:17\).
Our existence in the eternal state will be markedly different from what we are used to now: “There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away” (Revelation 21:4\). The curse that came with sin will never hold sway again (Revelation 22:3\). We can hardly imagine a world without pain or sorrow, but that’s what God promises—a reality beyond imagination. “As it is written: ‘No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him’” (1 Corinthians 2:9; cf. Isaiah 64:4\).
Neither will our existence in the eternal state be marred by bad memories of the old earth. Joy will swallow up all distress: “Behold, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind” (Isaiah 65:17\).
The eternal state will involve serving the Lord (Revelation 22:3\), seeing God face to face (verse 4\), and living in perfect health (verse 2\) and holiness (verse 5\). Second Peter 3:13 says that the new heaven and earth will be “the home of righteousness.” Sin will not cast its shadow anywhere in that realm.
From the beginning of creation, it has been God’s plan to bring His redeemed ones to this place of completion and glory (Romans 8:30; Philippians 1:6\). No more sin, no more curse, no more death, no more good\-byes—all because of Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross. In the eternal state, God’s perfect plan will be brought to glorious realization, and mankind will accomplish its chief end, “to glorify God and to enjoy him forever.”
|
How can the Incarnation be reconciled with God’s immutability?
|
Answer
Great theological minds have had to wrestle with this very question, often in the course of responding to false teachers. As the early theologians formulated their answers, they upheld the affirmations of Scripture.
On the one hand, they upheld the full divinity of Jesus Christ, and rightly so. There are biblical passages that explicitly assert His divinity, such as John 1:1, and other passages which imply His divinity by showing Him performing actions that only God can do: judging humanity, forgiving sin, healing people, and creating the cosmos.
At the same time, the early theologians upheld the full humanity of Jesus Christ. Scripture gives proof that Jesus was a human being, able to suffer, die, and experience weaknesses, both physical and emotional.
When “the Word became flesh” (John 1:14\), He did not become two people (one divine and one human), but He became one Person with two distinct natures, a fully divine nature and a fully human nature. The Word was unchanged as He entered a [union](hypostatic-union.html) with sinless human nature in a physical body (Hebrews 10:5\).
Here lies the specific answer to the question: as to Jesus’ divine nature, He is unchanging. As to His human nature, He is changeable. As God, Jesus is unchangeable, infinite, ever\-supreme in every way. But as to His human nature, He is changeable, subject to weakness, able to suffer, able to die. He is simultaneously divine and human, infinitely strong and suffering weakness, immortal and mortal. He is the God\-man.
The Son of God did not change His nature at the Incarnation. The divine nature did not “blend” with the human nature—that would have required change. Rather, the divine nature resides with the human nature in the Person of Christ. The Incarnation means that Jesus can lay claim to both His divine nature and His human nature.
In John 17:5, Jesus prays to the Father, “Glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.” Both of Jesus’ natures are evident in this request. He refers to His pre\-existence with God in which He shared the Father’s glory (evincing His divine nature), and He asks to be glorified (evincing His human nature).
God must be immutable, since He cannot degrade into a worse state and He cannot improve into a better state. He is ever\-perfect and, as God, cannot be otherwise. Perfection is an absolute, and it is impossible for Him to be “more perfect.” By contrast, a human being lacks infinite capacities. A human is finite and mutable and always has room for improvement, which explains the fact that Jesus “grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men” (Luke 2:52\).
In the end, the great theological minds of the fourth and fifth centuries who wrestled with this problem responded by saying, in so many words, “We cannot fully explain it, but based on Scripture, we know that Jesus Christ was both human and divine. We are bound to affirm what Scripture affirms even if we must admit that aspects of the Incarnation are a wonderful mystery. Mysterious or not, we avow what God has revealed to us concerning this.”
There is a wonderful connection to our salvation that flows out of this mystery of the Incarnation. It is that Christ, God the Son incarnate, is the ideal ambassador between God and humanity (1 Timothy 2:5\). As God, He can perfectly represent God to us; as a human, He can perfectly serve as our advocate before God the Father, making peace on our behalf. “My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense–Jesus Christ, the Righteous One” (1 John 2:1\).
|
What is the Dake Bible?
|
Answer
The Dake Bible was first published in 1961 and is the result of the work of a man named Finnis Jennings Dake (1902\-1987\), a Pentecostal minister. As a result of a criminal conviction, his ordination as a pastor with the Assemblies of God was revoked. The charges were eventually dismissed. He later joined the Church of God but in later years became independent of any denomination.
The Dake Bible itself is an extensive work, with some 35,000 commentary notes and over 50,000 cross references, using the [*King James Version*](King-James-Version-KJV.html) as its basic text. Most Bible scholars consider Dake’s notes to be the personal viewpoints of Finnis Jennings Dake rather than objective or strictly based on the Bible. Dake wrote from a [Charismatic](Charismatic-movement.html) viewpoint, so the Dake Bible definitely is of that persuasion.
There are many study Bibles to choose from, and some are better than others. Many people like to use several different study Bibles when they do an in\-depth study, because each set of notes carries with it the personality of the person(s) who helped edit it.
The bottom line is that, like any study Bible, the Dake Bible has its good points and its bad points. Due to its strong Pentecostal/Charismatic emphasis, there are far better study Bibles available than the Dake Bible. The Dake Bible can be useful as part of an overall study, but due to its strong Charismatic emphasis, it should not be used as a primary study tool.
|
Is being a sperm/egg donor a sin?
|
Answer
These are difficult questions to answer. Some people would say that using donated sperm to fertilize an egg—or donating your own egg so someone else can conceive—is wrong because it seeks to bypass God’s will. If God wanted that person to have children, the thinking goes, she wouldn’t need sperm from anyone other than her husband. However, if we take this reasoning to the extreme, then we would have to say that it is also God’s will for a person with appendicitis to die, because performing life\-saving surgery would “bypass God’s will.” Such reasoning is fallacious because medical intervention is not inherently sinful.
Still, there is a difference between saving a life in jeopardy (performing an appendectomy) and using medical procedures to aid in God’s creation of a new life. Just how much scientific advancement is God\-honoring (1 Corinthians 6:19–20; 10:31\)? Is all technology something God desires His children to make use of? In these “gray” areas, a believer in Jesus needs wisdom. It is good to gather detailed information and make a careful study of the procedures involved in donating sperm/eggs or receiving donated sperm/eggs. Also, it is wise to consult with doctors and other believers and, above all, to spend much time in prayer.
Ultimately, the creation of life is still in God’s hands (Psalm 139:13–16; Ephesians 2:10; Psalm 110:3\). Science may aid someone in getting pregnant, but technology is not the source of life, and God can still prevent any pregnancy He doesn’t want to happen. At the same time, God allows sin even though He disapproves of it. So, the question remains: is it sinful to donate sperm/eggs or to receive donated sperm/eggs? There are some important issues to consider regarding donating sperm that could help someone make an informed, God\-honoring decision. The first two questions are for a man who is considering donating sperm:
First, is the donated sperm to be distributed among unknown mothers? If so, you have no way of knowing if your child will grow up in a loving home, if he will be brought up to know the Lord, or even if she will have a two\-parent home. Would contributing to an abusive family situation honor the Lord? If there’s a possibility that your child will not be reared in a godly home, and if that possibility leaves you without peace as you pray about it, then it’s probable that the Lord doesn’t want you to donate.
Second, what effect will your donation have on the child it helps to create? If you are not going to rear the child yourself, the child may struggle for years with questions about why you would “sell” him and never be a part of his life. Online blogs exist for children searching for their biological fathers (or “sperm donors”), as they try to come to terms with their unusual heritage.
Now, a question for a married woman considering using donated sperm: have both you and your husband considered the ethical and moral implications of introducing another man’s sperm into your body? God designed marriage to be a union of a man and a woman to become “one flesh” (Genesis 2:24\).
For women considering donating eggs, the questions concerning their children’s home life and emotional well\-being apply just as much to women as to men. Also, how will the eggs be used? To actually aid an infertile couple in pregnancy or to further embryonic stem\-cell research?
And, finally, a question for anyone to consider: is the sperm from the sperm bank used to fertilize more than one ovum (as in the [in\-vitro](in-vitro-fertilization.html) procedure)? Will the donated eggs all be fertilized? If so, multiple zygotes/embryos will be created, and some of them may later be destroyed because too many are growing in the womb. Other “extra” embryos are frozen and never implanted. If you agree that abortion is wrong, then you would probably agree that such treatment of embryos is also wrong.
A believer should pray, read God’s Word, and wait for a clear answer from the Lord (Acts 17:11; 2 Timothy 2:15; Colossians 1:9–10\). Your decision affects many other people, and it affects the potential life (or even death) of other human beings.
|
What does it mean "to live is Christ" (Philippians 1:21)?
|
Answer
Philippians 1:21 says, “For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain.” Most people focus on the second part of the verse, “[to die is gain](to-die-is-gain.html),” and contemplate the joys of heaven. But we should not overlook what comes before. The importance of the phrase “to live is Christ” cannot be overstated. In all honesty, this phrase should be central to every Christian’s life.
In this statement, the apostle Paul is saying that everything he has tried to be, everything he is, and everything he looked forward to being pointed to Christ. From the time of Paul’s conversion until his martyrdom, every move he made was aimed at advancing the knowledge, gospel, and church of Christ. Paul’s singular aim was to bring glory to Jesus.
“To live is Christ” means that we proclaim the gospel of Christ. Paul preached in synagogues; he preached at riversides; he preached as a prisoner; he preached as an apostle; he preached as a tentmaker. His message was constant: “Jesus Christ and him crucified” (1 Corinthians 2:2\). He brought the message of Christ’s sacrifice to kings, soldiers, statesmen, priests, and philosophers, Jews and Gentiles, men and women. He would preach to literally anyone who would listen.
“To live is Christ” means that we imitate the example of Christ. Everything that Jesus did and said, that’s what Paul wanted to do and say. The church benefitted from his godly example: “Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ” (1 Corinthians 11:1\). What would Jesus do? That’s what we want to do.
“To live is Christ” means that we pursue the knowledge of Christ. We want to know Christ better and better each day. Not just a set of facts about Christ, but Christ Himself. “I want to know Christ—yes, to know the power of his resurrection and participation in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, and so, somehow, attaining to the resurrection from the dead” (Philippians 3:10\-11\).
“To live is Christ” means that we are willing to give up anything that prevents us from having Christ. Paul’s testimony in this regard: “Whatever were gains to me I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. What is more, I consider everything a loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them garbage, that I may gain Christ and be found in him” (Philippians 3:7\-9\). We cling to the promise of our Lord in Mark 10:29\-30 that our sacrifices for Jesus’ sake will be repaid a hundredfold.
“To live is Christ” means that Christ is our focus, our goal, and our chief desire. Christ is the center point of our mind, heart, body and soul. Everything that we do, we do for Christ’s glory. As we run the “race marked out for us,” we lay aside the entangling sin and worldly distractions, “fixing our eyes on Jesus” (Hebrews 12:1\-2\). He is our life.
|
What is Gestalt therapy, and is it biblical?
|
Answer
Because psychology is a study of human behavior and cognition, people sometimes view it as a comprehensive theory of humanity. No single psychological theory, however, accounts for the sum of human life. It is only through knowing God that we can come to understand His creation, especially the nuances of the human mind and the complexity of human behavior. Only in God’s Word can we find guidelines to live our lives as originally intended. The value of psychology is that some of its theories, when filtered through biblical truth, can offer the Christian helpful insights.
**Explanation of Gestalt Therapy**
Founded by Fritz Perls, Gestalt therapy is an existential approach to counseling. Its name comes from the German word *Gestalt*, which means "form." In the context of Perls’s ideas, *Gestalt* refers to a unified whole or something that cannot be separated into parts without losing its essence. Gestalt therapy is based on field theory in that it holds that a thing must be seen in its environment to be fully understood. Also, that environment is constantly changing; interrelational connections and processes are very important. Perls viewed personality holistically (as opposed to the mechanistic view taken in therapies such as behaviorism). He emphasized the present over the past and process over content. Today, Gestalt therapy is not practiced as Perls originally designed it. His methods are viewed as not particularly supportive of the client, and today’s Gestalt therapists tend to take a softer approach.
Gestalt therapy assumes that humans are consistently in the process of becoming and that personal growth is made possible through insight and relationship with others. Gestalt therapy is aimed at helping clients become more self\-sufficient through awareness of their internal and external realities. Counselors also help clients reintegrate or "re\-own" any aspects of themselves they may have disowned. Perls was known for being confrontational; he would intentionally frustrate clients at times in order to increase their awareness. Rather than promote a client’s conscious effort to change, Gestalt therapists adhere to a paradoxical theory in which change is a product of self\-awareness. So, the key to our becoming more patient is to realize we are impatient. What is important is to be ourselves fully in the current situation; striving to become what we "should" be is discouraged.
Gestalt therapists help clients deal with "unfinished business." Various techniques bring a client’s past emotional struggles into the present and help him work through those experiences. Gestalt therapists view client resistance to making contact with their environments as informative—something to be explored rather than simply overcome. A therapist’s goal is to help the client attend to the present; dialogue is an important part of the process. Clients are charged with increasing their own awareness and making and responding to personal meaning. Therapists are expected to be themselves and relate with clients personally. A therapist’s ability to be "in the moment" with clients is more important than the technique he uses.
**Biblical Commentary on Gestalt Therapy**
Gestalt therapy can be challenging to quantify because it is largely experiential; however, we can comment upon certain of its underlying concepts. The concept that people are integrated beings is accurate. We are a complex blend of many interrelated parts, including heart, soul, mind, and strength (Mark 12:30\). Also, environment is important to who we become (1 Corinthians 15:33\).
However, Gestalt therapy places an undue emphasis on its brand of authenticity. Freedom is viewed as being "the true you." For Christians, freedom is found in submitting to the Holy Spirit. More important than being true to ourselves is being true to God (Romans 6:15\-19\). It is the truth that sets us free (John 8:32\)—free to celebrate our identity in Christ. He must increase, and we must decrease (John 3:30\).
Also, there is some valid concern over Gestalt therapy’s emphasis on self\-awareness. "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?" (Jeremiah 17:9\). Relying on our own perceptions and creating a "personal meaning" for ourselves will not result in an accurate understanding of truth. At the same time, Gestalt therapists are adept at pointing out inconsistencies, a skill that can be useful in cutting through pretense. Gestalt therapists attend to non\-verbal behaviors that belie a client’s words and reveal his true emotional state.
The concept of reintegrating parts of ourselves that we have disowned may or may not be biblical, depending on the part in question. If it is emotions we have disowned, then, certainly, it is biblical to reintegrate them. Emotions are part of being human and provide useful information (John 11:35\). Owning our pasts helps us to see where God has intervened and redeemed (1 Timothy 1:12\-14\). Even owning up to our own sinful drives is helpful. However, Christians should not give in to their sinful natures for any reason. A believer must not fall for the lie that sinning is justified if he is simply "being himself." Christians have the power of the Holy Spirit to live a sanctified life in Christ; they are being restored to the design God originally intended for humanity. Christians have been made new and are called to put off the sinful nature (Ephesians 4:20\-24\).
Gestalt therapy can be helpful in bringing to light the human tendency to deceive ourselves and others. It stresses our need to live in the present without wallowing in the past or fearing the future. Its emphasis on living genuinely is also helpful. We need to acknowledge our pain and bring it to God for healing.
A danger of Gestalt therapy is that it relies on humans to be curative in themselves—relationship and authenticity are seen as salvific; being "who you really are" is the supposed cure to life’s ills. The Bible declares that humans are dead, not merely deceived. We need a Savior to rescue us from sin and restore us to life (Ephesians 2:1\-5\). We need to be set free through a knowledge of God’s objective truth (John 8:32\).
Please note that a large portion of this information has been adapted from [*Modern Psychotherapies: A Comprehensive Christian Appraisal*](https://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?event=AFF&p=1011693&item_no=828520) by Stanton Jones and Richard Butman and [*Theory and Practice of Counseling and Psychotherapy*](https://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?event=AFF&p=1011693&item_no=02083X) by Gerald Corey.
|
What is postmodern therapy, and is it biblical?
|
Answer
[Postmodernism](postmodernism-dangers.html) is a worldview opposed to modernism. Rather than rely on scientific fact and a sense of absolute truth, postmodernists believe that reality is constructed. Reality does not exist apart from observation. Many Christians fear to engage postmodernism, as it clearly denies absolute truth and espouses relativism. However, certain of its tenets are worthy of further examination. Postmodernism has invaded much of Western culture, and it is important to understand the worldview of those with whom we have to do. Postmodernism has also affected psychotherapy; namely, it has given rise to a social constructionist approach to counseling. Specific therapeutic practices considered postmodern include the collaborative language systems approach, solution\-focused brief therapy, solution\-oriented therapy, and narrative therapy. While each approach is unique, we can better understand them all with a general explanation of postmodern approaches to counseling and a biblical commentary.
**Explanation of Postmodern Therapy**
Rather than believe themselves to be experts who can solve client problems, therapists using a postmodern approach view the client as the expert. Such therapists want to enter the client’s experience of life and explore his thoughts. Story is an important theme. How a client narrates his or her own life is indicative of any problem he or she may be experiencing. It is not so much that a client *experiences* depression as that he *considers* himself to be depressed. Social constructionists challenge conventional perspectives and believe that knowledge is socially created and that language is culture\-bound. Therapists explore client language and story, at times challenging the client’s view, to help him become “unstuck”; that is, to help him find a different point of view and a new set of actions. A client narrates his or her story in new ways to form new meanings.
Many postmodern therapies attempt not to focus on a specific problem, but rather on a solution. Clients are encouraged not to wallow in the past but to live in the present. Clients have the power to live and view their lives as they see fit; counselors encourage them to do so in ways that are “useful.” Postmodern therapists highlight what works for the client and encourage continuation of the same. The problem is that postmodernism does not define “useful.” Theoretically, a serial killer could view his actions as acceptable because they make him feel better, and the postmodern therapist would have to agree.
Rather than affirm problems, therapists and clients look for exceptions. Therapy is not oriented toward pathology but toward growth. Clients make and reach positive goals with the therapist’s assistance. Some therapies aim at concrete actions, and others are oriented toward forming a new life narrative.
**Biblical Commentary on Postmodern Therapy**
Any form of therapy that denies truth is clearly unbiblical. However, certain techniques in postmodern therapies can be useful, even to Christians. Many times our perspective on life causes us problems. The Bible teaches us to be grateful in all things (1 Thessalonians 5:18\). When we think of our lives as a series of tragedies or disappointments, it is difficult to be grateful and easy to fall into depression or some other maladaptive behavior. A Christian counselor can use the postmodern activity of retelling our life stories in order to see our stories from God’s perspective rather than from our own. Of course, a Christian counselor will dispense with postmodernism’s relativity. If we define ourselves and our stories any way we like, without a foundation of truth, we are in for trouble.
Postmodern solution\-focused therapies are effective in that they help clients get out of their ruts. The Bible calls us to action. We are not merely to agree with God; we are to do something about it. James says that faith without action is dead (James 2:14\-26\). If we acknowledge our problems but do nothing to resolve them, we have not followed God’s mandate. We have become those who look in the mirror and go away unchanged (James 1:23\-24\). Certainly, we do not solve our problems solely by ourselves, and at times all we can do is give them to God. But casting our cares on God and inviting Him to do His healing and sanctifying work in our lives still requires action on our part.
The most obvious difficulty with postmodern therapy is its denial of absolute truth. That denial results in failure to recognize humanity’s real problem. We do not find ourselves in counseling offices solely because we have chosen to narrate “unhelpful” stories for ourselves. We are there because we live in a fallen world tainted by sin. Only God can rescue us from sin, and that is the absolute truth.
Please note that a large portion of this information has been adapted from [*Modern Psychotherapies: A Comprehensive Christian Appraisal*](https://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?event=AFF&p=1011693&item_no=828520) by Stanton Jones and Richard Butman and [*Theory and Practice of Counseling and Psychotherapy*](https://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?event=AFF&p=1011693&item_no=02083X) by Gerald Corey.
|
What is existential therapy, and is it biblical?
|
Answer
Psychological theories are generally based in more pervasive philosophical concepts, such as naturalism or humanism. These underlying philosophies often cause Christians to reject a psychological theory. However, once psychological theories receive some biblical correction, Christian counselors can effectively use them to assist clients. Existential therapy is unique in that it is more of a philosophical orientation to therapy than an actual therapeutic theory.
**Explanation of Existential Theory**
Viktor Frankl and Rollo May are the primary existential therapy theorists. Frankl lost his family to Nazi concentration camps and was himself a prisoner in Auschwitz and Dachau. Though he had already begun forming an existential approach to therapy prior to his imprisonment, Frankl tested his views on finding meaning in suffering and found them confirmed during his time in the concentration camps. May also experienced suffering and was greatly influenced by [Søren Kierkegaard](Soren-Kierkegaard.html) and Paul Tillich.
Existential therapy assumes human freedom and a corresponding human responsibility for choices and actions. Clients are encouraged to reflect on life, recognize the importance of their own choices and reactions, and learn to exercise responsibility in shaping their own lives. Meaning is a primary focus. Existentialism posits that humans possess a capacity for self\-awareness; freedom, which necessitates responsibility; the ability to create a personal identity and establish meaningful relationships; a drive to search for meaning and purpose, which leads to the formation of goals and values; anxiety; and an awareness of death or nonbeing. Existential therapy seeks to balance one’s awareness of limitations and tragedies with an awareness of opportunities and potential.
Existential therapy is used to help clients become more self\-aware and better able to authentically interact with the world. After clients realize they have not taken personal responsibility, they are encouraged to live life actively and redefine themselves. Therapy also addresses any anxieties a client has, to date, been too afraid to confront. Existential therapists aim to provide clients with insight that leads to action. Rather than “fix” clients, existential therapists model authenticity and join clients on their own life journey. Existential therapy is particularly helpful to clients who are at some sort of crossroads or change in life. Clients who are committed to dealing with their problems and interested in discovering meaning in their lives respond well to the existential approach.
**Biblical Commentary on Existential Theory**
Søren Kierkegaard, one of the founders of existential philosophy, was a Christian thinker and writer. However, other famous existentialist philosophers, such as Nietzche, who ultimately decided that embracing meaninglessness was the only option, are clearly not Christian. Existentialism, then, leaves room for God, but it can also be used to deny His existence.
That being said, existentialist therapy’s view of the human condition is not unbiblical. The Bible presents mankind as capable of self\-awareness—we are called to “examine ourselves” (2 Corinthians 13:5\), and the Psalms certainly depict an awareness of self in the midst of struggle. The Bible also affirms human freedom and responsibility as well as the importance of relationship. The Bible provides us with meaning, purpose, values, and goals. It also addresses our anxieties and informs our concept of death.
Existential therapy largely sees people’s problems as stemming from inauthenticity (the denial of personal freedom and responsibility) and unresolved anxiety. Humans are in search of meaning, and they struggle when they fail to find it. The Bible states that the human struggle results from sin, which in some ways can be seen as a failure to use our God\-given freedom appropriately. However, the solution is not merely to accept responsibility and use our freedom more wisely; we need salvation from death (Ephesians 2:1\-5; Romans 5:6\). The Bible speaks of eternity being set in our hearts (Ecclesiastes 3:11\). There is a universal search for meaning and purpose. Biblically, true meaning and purpose are found only in God (Ephesians 2:10\).
There is a danger in existential therapy of finding the wrong solution to client problems. Cultivating relationships and discovering subjective personal meaning will not solve root problems. Discovering God and accepting Christ’s work of redemption are what we really need. For some unbelievers at a crossroads, an existential approach to therapy may aid in their recognition that their deepest longing is for God and prompt them to seek Him. For those who already know God, existential therapy can be useful in helping learn to live out their true freedom in Christ (Romans 14; Galatians 5:1\), find peace in the midst of anxiety (1 Peter 5:7\), deal with the reality of death, and find meaning and purpose in life.
Please note that a large portion of this information has been adapted from [*Modern Psychotherapies: A Comprehensive Christian Appraisal*](https://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?event=AFF&p=1011693&item_no=828520) by Stanton Jones and Richard Butman and [*Theory and Practice of Counseling and Psychotherapy*](https://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?event=AFF&p=1011693&item_no=02083X) by Gerald Corey.
|
Why does God allow deception?
|
Answer
God’s desire is that all people [repent](Bible-repentance.html) and be saved (2 Peter 3:9\). At the same time, Satan, the “father of lies” (John 8:44\), deceives the very people who need to accept the truth. “The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ” (2 Corinthians 4:4\). Surely, God could stop Satan’s lies and give people a fighting chance.
The Bible presents a consistent picture of how sin and deception are related. What’s revealed is that the way we tend to think of deceit is, well, a bit deceived. Spiritually speaking, deception is deeper than merely being tricked or lied to. In order to be saved, one does not need any particular level of intelligence, philosophical ability, or wisdom (Galatians 3:28; 1 Corinthians 1:20, 26\). In fact, mankind has an unfortunate habit of using increased knowledge to develop more sophisticated ways to sin.
Key to understanding spiritual deception is the fact that we often choose what we *want* to believe rather than what we *should* believe, even in the face of the evidence (Luke 16:31\). “Even after Jesus had done all these miraculous signs in their presence, they still would not believe in him” (John 12:37\). Notice that they *would not* believe Jesus, despite the miracles. Their unbelief was willful.
[Eve’s](Eve-in-the-Bible.html) fall into sin is the earliest example of how spiritual deception works. When the serpent asks her, “Did God really say . . . ?” Eve responds by quoting what God had said, although she added to the command (Genesis 3:1–3\). She knows what to do and what not to do. The serpent then tempts her with what she can gain by eating from the tree (Genesis 3:4–5\), and she notices other attractive aspects of the fruit (Genesis 3:6\). Eve was lied to, and the serpent was cunning (2 Corinthians 11:3\), but she ultimately chose to disobey God, even though she knew the commandment.
When confronted with her sin, Eve said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate” (Genesis 3:13\). The original Hebrew word for “deceived” implies trickery and craftiness. Eve was tricked, but she also had a choice in the matter. She exercised her God\-given free will to make a wrong choice, seeking pleasure and personal promotion over what God had willed for her.
The same dynamic is at work today. Satan appeals to our natural desires and urges us to fulfill them in ways that dishonor God. Our desire for self\-satisfaction makes Satan’s deception all the more potent.
God has sent the Savior (John 3:16\), He fills the world with signs of Himself (Romans 1:20\), He makes Himself available to those who seek Him (Deuteronomy 4:29\), and He secures anyone who comes to Him (John 6:37\). When people reject what is “clearly seen” of God (Romans 1:20\), it leads to a downward spiral of “foolish hearts” made dark (verse 21\), idolatry (verse 23\), and sexual impurity (verse 24\). Finally, mankind “exchanged the truth of God for a lie” (verse 25\). In other words, the spiritual deception of mankind is the direct result of rejecting readily apparent truth. The unbeliever has made an exchange—the truth for a lie—and the devil is happy to facilitate the swap by presenting the sinner with a wide array of lies from which to choose.
Anyone who resists God risks falling into spiritual deception (2 Thessalonians 2:8–10\). Nature abhors a vacuum, and the void created by the eviction of truth will soon be filled by something less than true. Give up the truth, and you’ll believe just about anything.
Eve didn’t sin because she was hopelessly outmatched by a demonic force, making her do wrong when she thought she was doing right. Yes, she was lied to, but she chose to listen to the lie. That was followed by her longing look at what was forbidden and, finally, her taking the fruit in hopes of a better life.
All human sin is based in human choice (1 Corinthians 10:13\). When we reject the truth, we make ourselves vulnerable to the lie. Repeated rejection of spiritual truth brings spiritual deception as a divine consequence.
God often allows spiritual deception as a form of punishment for willful sin, and in order to cultivate an awareness in our lives of how badly we need the One who is Himself Truth, our Lord Jesus Christ (John 14:6\).
|
What are boundaries, and are they biblical?
|
Answer
A boundary is a “dividing line.” In geography, a boundary is that which marks the end of one property or jurisdiction and the beginning of another. In interpersonal relationships, a boundary is what divides one person from another, so that each can have separate identities, responsibilities, and privileges. A boundary creates necessary “space” between individuals. Healthy boundaries define expectations and show respect for others.
Biblically speaking, boundaries are related to self\-control. The Bible commands us to control *ourselves*, whereas our human nature desires to control *others* (Titus 2:12\). If left unchecked, our natural desires run roughshod over others. Personal boundaries help to limit our selfish inclination to control or manipulate others. Likewise, boundaries protect us from those who have no self\-control and who wish to control us. A person with clear, healthy boundaries communicates to others what is and is not permissible, saying, in effect, “This is my jurisdiction, and you have no right to interfere.”
Boundaries can be used in healthy ways and sinful ways. The way to know which boundaries are godly is to examine the motive. Are you protecting yourself or someone weaker from potential harm, either emotional or physical? If so, then you are setting healthy and needful boundaries. However, if you are maintaining distance simply because you desire to exclude someone, that is sinful. Boundaries that maintain [cliques](Christian-cliques.html) or prohibit ministry opportunities are unhelpful.
Proper boundaries aid believers in keeping out worldly influences. Children of the light have no fellowship with darkness and are thus separate from the world (2 Corinthians 6:14\). Being kind and friendly is Christ\-like, but we are not to embrace the world’s way of doing things (James 4:4\). Our wish is not to keep people away, but when people are being destructive, the boundaries we set can limit the evil they commit against us.
Boundaries are about taking responsibility for our own lives. God gives us freedom to choose to live within His boundaries or outside of them, and to live outside of God’s boundaries means to accept the consequences. Living inside God’s boundaries brings blessing, and living outside of them brings destruction and death (Romans 6:23\). Adam and Eve had one boundary in the Garden of Eden: abstain from the fruit of [the tree of the knowledge of good and evil](tree-knowledge-good-evil.html). The Lord gave them freedom to remain within His bounds, but they chose to overstep the boundary and sin. Their response to God’s revelation of their sin was to blame someone else rather than take responsibility for their lack of self\-control. Eve blamed Satan, and Adam blamed Eve (Genesis 3:12\-13\). Boundaries limit destructive behaviors, and that is why both God and society have laws and consequences for those who overstep those laws (Romans 13:1\-4\).
A healthy marriage requires boundaries. Marital boundaries keep sex and intimacy within the relationship while respecting each person’s needs. Violating these boundaries will quickly destroy trust.
Boundaries are also helpful in parenting. Setting healthy limits for children will protect them (Proverbs 22:6\). Unhealthy boundaries tend to be controlling and selfishly motivated. Boundaries should guide a child to individuate into the person God created him or her to be. Boundaries allow children to develop an identity separate from their parents within the safety of their family. Without an identity, people “vanish” into other people or expect them not to have any differences.
Children often feel boundaries are “mean” when they are immature. When they grow up, they usually realize the boundaries were to keep them safe. Adults who were raised without protective boundaries often feel that someone saying “no” to them is “mean,” because they never learned self\-control. Naturally, when children do not get what they want, they are disappointed, but learning to accept “no” from others is essential to godly character; however, setting boundaries with children must be done in loving ways in order for the child to feel loved (Ephesians 6:4; Colossians 3:21; Titus 2:4\). The Lord’s instruction for parents is that they teach a child boundaries (Proverbs 19:18\). Boundaries help a child see that life is not about pursuing what he wants but surrendering to the Lord and following Him. Boundaries set with unconditional love will teach children to surrender to the Lord because they trust God knows what is best and will bring true contentment.
Learning boundaries as a child is important. It is more difficult to learn boundaries later in life. Children will not grow up to respect God’s boundaries if they do not learn boundaries in their home. Modeling is necessary; parents cannot teach boundaries and not abide by them themselves.
A person with healthy boundaries takes responsibility for his own life and allows others to live theirs. The goal of boundaries is to make sacrifices for people when appropriate, but never in a destructive manner. We should be available for people in a crisis, but unavailable to indulgent demands. Being gracious is not a blank check for others to continually drain our emotional account. Saying “yes” out of fear of rejection is really a selfish motive for being kind. Being kind in order to gain someone’s favor smacks of hypocrisy and shows a need for boundaries. Fear of man’s disapproval can lead to [codependency](codependency.html), the unhealthy alternative to interdependency.
Boundaries teach us to accept one another as being different yet still valuable. God uses boundaries to help us appreciate the differences in people rather than be upset by them. A godly friend tells us what we need to hear, not necessarily what we want to hear (Proverbs 27:6\). We are free to be ourselves with others if we control ourselves. Boundaries are not selfish when we use our freedom to serve and love one another because we are keeping our own flesh under control (Galatians 5:13\). In a godly relationship, both people are free to love each other and to be themselves because neither is using or manipulating the other.
Self\-control is a [fruit of the Spirit](fruit-of-the-Holy-Spirit.html) (Galatians 5:22\-23\). A believer who sees his need for self\-control so he can take responsibility for his own actions and not encroach on others will seek the Lord’s help for growth in this character trait. Boundaries are a fruit of submitting to God’s will, and He will enable us to make godly choices.
Being Christ\-like means we can say “no” in unselfish, helpful ways. Sometimes, love requires us to say “no” to those we love. For example, if a family member is abusing alcohol at a family gathering, then it is Christ\-like to tell him not to do so. A proper boundary has then been set. If the response is to get angry, leave, and never come back, then that person simply was not able to respect the boundary. It is not sinful to say "no" to someone if he is crossing personal boundaries in harmful and destructive ways. Every boy or girl on a date should have clear boundaries that must not be crossed.
Boundaries can be difficult to establish because saying “no” may have been off limits or mistakenly taught as being ungodly. God says to tell the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15\). God tells us to humbly control ourselves, lovingly confront sin, graciously accept others, and overcome evil with good (Romans 12:21\). Plus, He promises wisdom in every circumstance (James 1:5\).
|
Do Catholics worship idols / practice idolatry?
|
Answer
Sadly, our Catholic friends and family members have been indoctrinated to believe that the use of statues, relics, and other articles is acceptable and even necessary for worship. They have been taught by the Roman Catholic Church that the images and icons used in the church are not actually “worshiped” but are simply “visual aids” to worship.
The Catholic Church long ago began making allowances for the idolatrous use of images by the way they reference the [Ten Commandments](Catholic-Ten-Commandments.html). In the Catholic catechism and in most official Catholic documents, the first and second commandments are combined and then summarized with “I am the Lord your God. You shall not have other gods beside Me.” Suspiciously absent is what comprises the second commandment in the Protestant numbering of the Ten Commandments: “You shall not make any graven images.”
While it is understandable for “you shall not make any graven images” to be considered an aspect of “you shall not have other gods beside me,” based on the history of idolatry involving graven images throughout biblical and extra\-biblical history, it seems unwise to not include “you shall not make any graven images” in every listing of the Ten Commandments. The omission seems especially suspicious in light of the fact that the Roman Catholic Church has long been accused of the idolatrous use of graven images.
There are good reasons for not using images in worship. First of all, the use of physical images to “aid” worship violates the command to worship God “in spirit and in truth” (John 4:23\-24\). Also, no one knows what God looks like, and John 1:18 is clear concerning this truth: “No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.” And, because God is Spirit (John 4:24a), it is irreverent to delineate Him as an iconic representation. No one alive knows what Jesus Christ looked like in the flesh, and, since there were no cameras when He walked the earth, the only description of His appearance is found in Isaiah 53:2\-3, which says that He had “no stately form or majesty.”
The lack of a physical description of Christ has not stopped the Catholic Church from depicting Him. Throughout Catholic churches, institutions, convents, monasteries, and every other Catholic\-affiliated building and shrine, there are paintings of God the Father, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, Mary, Joseph, and a myriad of canonized saints. There are statues in abundance; there are relics, such as bone fragments, said to have belonged to certain saints. Some shrines even contain pieces of wood purported to be part of Jesus’ cross. All of these things are held to be sacred objects worthy of high regard. The idolatry is rampant and fairly obvious to non\-Catholics, yet Catholics do not believe they are committing idolatry. They have been cleverly taught to believe that they do not worship these idols; they simply “venerate” them. The problem is that “veneration” still gives honor and reverence to something and/or someone other than God; therefore, veneration is idolatry.
Yes, Catholics do practice a form of idolatry, in violation of God’s command. The best way to reach our Catholic friends with the gospel of grace is to pray that the Holy Spirit will draw them and that they will respond to the Spirit’s leading. Their eyes and hearts are blinded by the false teaching they are continually hearing, and, until they begin to seek the truth, we must leave it in God’s capable hands. As we pray, we must keep loving them and trust that God will prepare the soil of their hearts (Luke 8:11\-15\). Never give up hope; the Holy Spirit does miracles every day.
|
Who were Jannes and Jambres?
|
Answer
The Bible does not give us much information on Jannes and Jambres. In fact, the names of these two men appear only once in the entire Bible, in 2 Timothy 3:8\. In a passage describing the wickedness of the last days, Paul says, “Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so also these men oppose the truth—men of depraved minds, who, as far as the faith is concerned, are rejected. But they will not get very far because, as in the case of those men, their folly will be clear to everyone” (verses 8\-9\).
Long\-standing Jewish tradition says that Jannes and Jambres were the two chief magicians who withstood Moses and Aaron in Exodus 7\. “Aaron threw his staff down in front of Pharaoh and his officials, and it became a snake. Pharaoh then summoned wise men and sorcerers, and the Egyptian magicians also did the same things by their secret arts: Each one threw down his staff and it became a snake. But Aaron’s staff swallowed up their staffs” (verses 10\-12\). Later, these same sorcerers duplicated the changing of water into blood (Exodus 7:22\) and the production of frogs (8:7\). However, the sorcerers were powerless to duplicate the other [plagues](ten-plagues-Egypt.html) (8:19\).
The names “Jannes” and “Jambres” appear in the [Talmud](Talmud.html) as well. According to one midrash, the two magicians left Egypt with the Israelites after the first Passover (see Exodus 12:38\) and were later instrumental in promoting the worship of the golden calf that Aaron made (Exodus 32\). Another midrash identifies the “two servants” of Balaam as Jannes and Jambres (Numbers 22:22\). According to the midrashim and other sources, Jannes and Jambres continued to exert a wicked influence on Israel until the time of Phinehas (Numbers 25\). These stories are interesting, but they should not be taken as equivalent to inspired Scripture.
Paul confirms the traditional names of the sorcerers who challenged Moses without lending credence to the legends found in apocryphal works. His intention was to use the wickedness of Jannes and Jambres, as presented in the Talmud, as an illustration of a widespread, active rejection of the truth in the last days.
|
What does the Bible say about anal sex?
|
Answer
The Bible does not overtly mention anal sex. The account of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19 is often used as the basis for declaring anal sex a sin. In that account, a group of men sought to gang rape two angels who had taken the form of men. The reasonable presumption is that the men of Sodom wanted to have forcible anal sex with the angels. The men’s homosexual lust is obvious, but anal sex is not explicitly mentioned in the passage. The words *sodomy* and *sodomize* come from this biblical account. Sodomy is, literally, “the sin of Sodom.” The strict understanding of *sodomy*, based solely on the events of Genesis 19, would have to be “forcible anal sex, with one male homosexually raping another male anally.”
In modern language, the term *sodomy* has acquired a broader definition than what is biblically warranted. Today, “sodomy” is often used to refer to any non\-penile/vaginal sexual act, including anal and oral sex. If the biblical text is used as the basis for the definition, though, “sodomy” cannot include oral sex or, technically, even consensual anal sex.
The Bible clearly and explicitly condemns homosexuality as an immoral and unnatural sin (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Romans 1:26–27; 1 Corinthians 6:9\). The Bible strongly condemns rape, as well (Deuteronomy 22:25–27\). The question is, does the Bible condemn all anal sex, even if it does not involve homosexuality or coercion? Outside of marriage, all forms of sex, including anal sex, are sinful and immoral.
Is anal sex acceptable between a husband and his wife? The Bible nowhere gives a specific list of what is allowed or disallowed sexually between a husband and wife. In determining whether something is sexually permissible between a husband and wife, we can ask ourselves the following:
1\. *Is it God\-honoring?* Our bodies are meant to glorify the Lord, not to be controlled by our passions and not to be used for sexual immorality (1 Corinthians 6:12–13\). “Therefore honor God with your bodies” (1 Corinthians 6:20\).
2\. *Is it exclusively between the husband and wife?* Sex is to be between a husband and wife only (1 Corinthians 7:2\).
3\. *Is it loving and other\-oriented?* First Corinthians 7:3–4 instructs, “The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife.” Each spouse lovingly yields his or her body to the other.
4\. *Is sex happening regularly?* “Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self\-control” (1 Corinthians 7:5\).
5\. *Is it unifying the husband and wife?* Sexual intimacy unites a husband and wife (1 Corinthians 7:5\) and solidifies the “one flesh” aspect of marriage, not just physically but emotionally, intellectually, spiritually, and in every other way.
6\. *Do both the husband and wife agree?* Whatever is done sexually should be fully agreed on between the husband and his wife (1 Corinthians 7:5\). Neither husband nor wife should be coerced into doing something he or she is not absolutely comfortable with.
With those principles in mind, figuring out the boundaries of what is acceptable within marriage gives a husband and wife a great opportunity to seek the Lord’s wisdom. Together they can learn how to love each other more deeply and meaningfully. Sex is a lot more than just sharing your body—it is a journey of intimacy.
The Bible does not explicitly speak for or against anal sex within marriage. The medical community, however, warns of the significantly increased risk of tissue damage and bacterial infection that accompanies anal sex. By following biblical principles and factoring in the medical risks, a couple can come to a God\-honoring decision together.
|
What is the origin of religion?
|
Answer
From the earliest times, humans have looked around and above them and wondered about the world, the universe, and the meaning of life. Unlike animals, humans have a built\-in desire to understand how we got here, why we are here, and what happens after we die. Adam and Eve knew God personally (Genesis 3\) and spoke of Him (4:1\). Their children brought sacrifices to the Lord (4:3\-4\). And during the time of their grandchildren, “men began to call on the name of the LORD” in corporate worship (4:26\).
In all of history and in every culture, people have felt a need to worship what they perceive to be the source of life. The Bible explains why—we are created in God’s image (Genesis 1:27\), and God has set eternity in our hearts (Ecclesiastes 3:11\). We were created to be in relationship with our Creator. The rituals and practices of religion began as an expression of the creature’s desire to worship the Creator.
Biologist Julian Huxley dismissed the existence of religion as a vestige of past ignorance and superstition: “Gods are peripheral phenomena produced by evolution.” In other words, primitive man invented the idea of God in an ancient, superstitious time, and theism has no relevance in today’s society. Theories based on an evolutionary premise imagine that man’s belief in God was first expressed in animism, ghost\-worship, totemism, and magic. Not all scholars have reached this conclusion, however. The Rev. Wilhelm Schmidt presents evidence of a monotheistic faith being the first religion practiced by men and offers many powerful arguments in support. For more information, see [here](http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v14/n3/schmidt). Man began with a belief in one God, and then his theology degenerated into a belief in multiple gods.
The Bible says that after the flood God initiated the unconditional [covenant](Noahic-covenant.html) between Himself and Noah and his descendants (Genesis 9:8\-17\). Men disobeyed God’s command to spread out and fill the earth, and they built a city and began making a monumental tower instead. God confused their language and forced them to disperse (Genesis 11:1\-9\). After that time, many polytheistic religions sprang up around the world. Later, God made Himself known to Abram and introduced the [Abrahamic Covenant](Abrahamic-covenant.html) (circa 2000 B.C.).
After God redeemed Israel from Egyptian bondage, He gave them the [Mosaic Covenant](Mosaic-covenant.html) and later the [Davidic Covenant](Davidic-covenant.html). In all of these events, it is God who reached down to His people, drawing them into relationship with Him. This is unique in the history of world religions.
With regard to Christianity, God Himself was responsible for introducing the [New Covenant](new-covenant.html)—an unconditional promise to unfaithful Israel to forgive her sins on the basis of pure, undeserved grace through the sacrifice of the Messiah. This New Covenant also opened up the way for Gentiles to be saved. In all of this, it is God who initiates the relationship. Biblical religion is based on the fact that God reached down to us; it is not man’s attempt to reach up to God. Biblical religion is a response to what God has done for us, not a code of conduct that we must perform for God.
One reason we have so many different religions is the deception imposed on the human race by the enemy of our souls, who seeks glory and worship for himself (2 Corinthians 4:4; 1 Timothy 4:1\). Another reason is man’s inherent desire to explain the unexplained and to make order out of chaos. Many of the early pagan religions taught that, to prevent disasters from befalling them, they needed to appease their fickle, petulant gods. Through the centuries, religion has often been hijacked by kings and rulers in order to subjugate their people in a state\-run “church” system.
The true religion that God initiated thousands of years ago with Israel pointed forward to a coming Messiah who would provide the way for all people to be reconciled to their Creator. After Christ came, Christianity spread by word of mouth as the disciples of Jesus took the gospel to the world and the Holy Spirit changed lives. God’s Word was also preserved in writing and is available today throughout the world.
|
What is the curse of Jeconiah?
|
Answer
Jeconiah, also called “[Jehoiachin](King-Jehoiachin.html)” (1 Chronicles 3:16, NIV) and “Coniah” (Jeremiah 22:24\), was a king of Judah who was deported as part of the [Babylonian captivity](Babylonian-captivity-exile.html) (Esther 2:6; 1 Chronicles 3:17\). He is also listed in the genealogy of Jesus, in Joseph’s family line (Matthew 1:12\).
The curse of Jeconiah is found in Jeremiah 22\. First, the LORD likens the king to a signet ring on God’s hand—a ring that God will pull off (verse 24\). Then, God pronounces a curse: “Record this man as if childless, a man who will not prosper in his lifetime, for none of his offspring will prosper, none will sit on the throne of David or rule anymore in Judah” (verse 30\).
The problem is that the curse of Jeconiah seems to invalidate Jesus’ right to the throne of David. The [Davidic Covenant](Davidic-covenant.html) promised that the Messiah, the “Son of David,” would reign forever on Jerusalem’s throne (1 Chronicles 17:11\-14\). If Jesus is a descendant of Jeconiah, then how can He be the Messiah, since the curse bars any of Jeconiah’s descendants from assuming David’s throne?
There are three possible solutions to this difficulty. First, the “offspring” of Jeconiah mentioned in the curse could be a limited reference to the king’s own children—his *immediate* offspring, in other words. On a related note, the phrase “in his lifetime” could apply to the entire verse. The curse would only be in force while the king lived. This is exactly what happened, as Jeconiah was not successful as a king (he only reigned for three months before he surrendered to Nebuchadnezzar’s forces), and none of his sons (he had seven of them, 1 Chronicles 3:17–18\) reigned over Judah.
A second solution concerns the [virgin birth](virgin-birth.html). Jesus only had one human parent, Mary. His mother was of David’s line, but not through Jeconiah (Luke 3:31\). Joseph was Jesus’ legal father, but not His physical one. Thus, Jesus was of royal blood through Mary, but the curse of Jeconiah stopped with Joseph and was not passed on to Jesus.
A third possible solution is that God reversed the curse on Jeconiah’s family. This is hinted at by the prophet Haggai, who told Zerubbabel, Jeconiah’s grandson, that God would make him a “signet ring” on God’s hand (Haggai 2:23\). Zerubbabel was blessed by God as the governor of Judea, and he prospered in that role when the Jewish exiles returned to Jerusalem. The “signet ring” imagery of Jeconiah’s curse is repeated in Zerubbabel’s blessing, which must be more than coincidence. Several rabbinic sources teach that Jeconiah repented in Babylon and that God forgave him and lifted the curse.
|
How can I overcome disappointment with life?
|
Answer
One of the unfortunate byproducts of living in a sinful, fallen world is that every person, Christian or not, experiences pain and suffering and disappointment in this life. From failed relationships to unfulfilled dreams, life can be filled with sorrow and disappointment. In fact, Jesus assured us of it: “In this world you will have trouble” (John 16:33\). No one is immune.
In overcoming disappointments, it is important to keep them in perspective. Even though we cannot eliminate suffering or disappointment this side of heaven, it can become less formidable when viewed from a different vantage point. The first thing to keep in mind is this: no amount of suffering or disappointment we experience in this life can ever undo what God has done for us in Christ. Apart from Scripture, it is very difficult to have a proper perspective on suffering and disappointment, and these things will rarely make sense to those unacquainted with God’s Word. Neither psychology nor philosophy can offer a sufficient explanation for it. No social science can work restoration on the soul; only God can do this (Psalm 23:3\). The truth is, our trials and disappointments, though we may not like them, do serve a purpose. It is through trials that we learn patience and humility, endurance and trust—virtues that strengthen us and develop godly character.
Also, it is during the difficult times that we learn to rely on God and experience firsthand the absolute trustworthiness of His Word. We also learn the truth of what Paul taught: God’s power is at its strongest when we are at our weakest (2 Corinthians 12:9\). As A. W. Tozer observed, “If the truth were known, the saints of God in every age were only effective after they had been wounded.”
It is important that our perspective includes eternity. Our time on earth is an incalculably small fraction of our eternal journey. Consider the apostle Paul and the persecution he was subjected to while spreading the gospel. Although his litany of suffering seems unbearable by any measure, he amazingly referred to his hardships as “light and momentary troubles.” This is because he focused on the “eternal glory” that far outweighed any earthly disappointments he experienced (2 Corinthians 4:17; see also Romans 8:18\). We can do this, he said, when we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but rather on what is unseen, our heavenly home (2 Corinthians 4:18\).
It is faith that allows us to see the unseen. That’s why faith is such an indispensable element of the Christian life. Scripture teaches that we live by faith (2 Corinthians 5:7\) and that without faith it is impossible to please God (Hebrews 11:6\). We know that, as followers of Christ, we will experience disappointment and endure trials where our faith is indeed put to the test. And the apostle James tells us we should “consider it pure joy” when we face these trials, as this is how our faith strengthens and we mature as Christians (James 1:2\-4\).
Now, even though disappointments plague us until our final heartbeat, we can minimize them by understanding and applying the principle of reaping and sowing found throughout the Bible. “He who sows righteousness reaps a sure reward” (Proverbs 11:18\), whereas “he who sows wickedness reaps trouble” (Proverbs 22:8\). When we faithfully live in accordance with God’s perfect Word, we forgo bringing unnecessary troubles and disappointments into our lives in the first place. As the psalmist declared, “How can a young man keep his way pure? By living according to your Word” (Psalm 119:9\).
It also helps to remember the absolute sovereignty of God. *Everything* occurs either by His prescription or permission and in perfect accordance with His sovereign purposes and unfathomable ways (Romans 11:33\). Prayer is the ultimate acknowledgment of God’s sovereignty. In the midst of our trial and disappointments, prayer gives us strength. It did for Moses (Exodus 32:11; Numbers 14:13; 20:6\), David (Psalm 55:16\-17\), and Daniel (Daniel 6:10; 9:20\-23\). And before our Savior took on the sins of the world, He spent His final night in prayer (Matthew 27:36\-44; John 17\). Now He invites the “weary and burdened” to come to Him, and He will give us rest (Matthew 11:28\).
Being a child of God means we are never alone in our trials (Hebrews 13:5\). God gives us the strength and grace we need to endure any circumstance and to overcome any disappointment (Philippians 4:13; Psalm 68:35\). His peace will guard our hearts when we look to Him (Philippians 4:6\-7\). As Maurice Roberts stated, “The degree of a Christian’s peace of mind depends upon his spiritual ability to interpose the thought of God between himself and his anxiety.” If we keep our mind on God, nothing can steal our peace.
|
Was Adam with Eve when she spoke to the serpent (Genesis 3:6)?
|
Answer
The Bible notes that Eve was the first to eat the fruit from the tree after being deceived by the serpent. Where was Adam during that time? Was he with Eve when she and the serpent were conversing?
Genesis 3:6 says, “So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate.” The key phrase, in consideration of our question, is “who was with her.” Traditional Jewish interpretation takes this phrase to mean that Adam was with Eve the whole time she was being tempted and that he heard the whole conversation.
This understanding helps to explain the emphasis on “Adam’s sin” in the New Testament (Romans 5:12\). Adam was created first and placed in the Garden of Eden to care for it along with Eve. Adam then actively participated in breaking the one prohibition God had given him. If Adam had not been present when Eve spoke with the serpent, it would be more difficult to understand why the first sin is emphasized as being Adam’s.
Another view is that the phrase “who was with her” simply means that Adam was with Eve when she offered him the fruit. In other words, Eve heard the serpent’s lies, believed they were the truth, and ate the fruit. Then she found her husband, and once she had him “with her,” she gave him the fruit, too.
This understanding would explain why Adam did not intervene in the serpent’s deception of Eve and why the New Testament insists that Eve was “deceived” but Adam was not (1 Timothy 2:14\). The fact that death came through Adam’s sin instead of Eve’s is explained by the idea that the [federal headship](I-did-not-eat-the-fruit.html) of mankind was vested in Adam, as the one first created (1 Timothy 2:13\).
Of course, there is a third view, that Adam was in the vicinity of the tree while Eve was being tempted. He was near enough to still be considered “with” his wife, yet far enough away not to hear the conversation.
|
How was the woman a helper suitable for the man (Genesis 2:18)?
|
Answer
In Genesis 2:18, we read of the one thing that was not declared “good” in all of God’s creation: “Then the LORD God said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone.’” The same verse includes God’s solution: “I will make him a helper fit for him.” Eve was the solution to Adam’s deficiency.
Two Hebrew terms in this verse provide important information to better understand the creation of Eve as the first woman. The word translated “helper” is the Hebrew term *‘ezer*. This word is even used of God, sometimes, noting that He is our Helper (Psalm 115:9\-11\). We would certainly not view God, as a Helper, as subservient to humans, nor should we understand the role of “helper” in Genesis 2:18 as a position of subservience. The concept of an “ideal partner” seems to convey the thought best.
The second important Hebrew word in this verse, translated “fit” is *kenegdow*. It literally means “according to the opposite of him.” In other words, the focus is on an appropriate match. Eve was not created above or below Adam; she was complementary. The animals Adam had named each had an appropriate companion (Genesis 2:20\), and Adam was given a fitting companion as well. Eve was “just right” for him.
Further, God’s statement that it was [not good for man to be alone](not-good-for-man-to-be-alone.html) implies that Adam was lonely and incomplete by himself. He had been created for relationship, and it is impossible to have relationship alone. With the creation of Eve, Adam experienced the joy of love for another person.
The Bible is unique in its depiction of women’s valued status as a complementary companion. No other ancient text from the Middle East offers commentary on the creation of women. It is in the Bible that we learn of the important role women have had since the beginning of human existence. Both man and woman were made in God’s image, according to Genesis 1:27, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”
The apostle Paul refers to Genesis when he says, “A man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh” (Ephesians 5:31\). Husband and wife are to live as one, united in love for God and for one another, modeling the love Christ has for [His bride](bride-of-Christ.html), the Church.
|
How is a woman’s desire for her husband a curse (Genesis 3:16)?
|
Answer
As God pronounces judgment on Eve for her part of the transgression in Eden, He says, “Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you” (Genesis 3:16\). This verse causes some puzzlement. It would seem that a woman desiring her husband would be a good thing, and not a curse.
The Hebrew phrase in question does not include a verb and is literally translated “toward your husband your desire.” Since this judgment is predictive, the future tense verb “will be” is added for clarity: “Your desire will be for your husband.” The most basic and straightforward understanding of this verse is that woman and man would now have ongoing conflict. In contrast to the ideal conditions in the Garden of Eden and the harmony between Adam and Eve, their relationship, from that point on, would include a power struggle. The NLT translation makes it more evident: “You will desire to control your husband, but he will rule over you.”
God’s pronouncement of this curse on the first couple signals a change in the marriage dynamic. Sin had wrought discord. The battle of the sexes had begun. Both man and woman would now seek the upper hand in marriage. The man who was to lovingly care for and nurture his wife would now seek to rule her, and the wife would desire to wrest control from her husband.
It is important to note that this judgment only states what will take place. God says that man and woman will live in conflict and their relationship will become problematic. The statement “he shall rule over you” is not a biblical command for men to dominate women.
In the New Testament, God affirms His ideal relationship between man and woman in marriage. Christlike qualities are emphasized. What the curse of sin created, believers in Christ are called to correct by living according to God’s Spirit. Ephesians 5 says that the wife should willingly submit to her husband’s authority in the home, in essence, refusing to scratch the curse\-fueled itch to seize control (verses 22\-24\). Husbands are to love their wives unconditionally and sacrificially, just as Christ loves the Church (verses 25\-30\). The whole passage begins with an emphasis on mutual submission to one another: “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ” (verse 21\).
From the beginning, God’s focus has been love and respect between husband and wife. Though sin has tainted the original beauty of this relationship, God commands believers in Christ to pursue this ideal relationship between husband and wife, an ideal perfectly illustrated in Christ’s relationship with the Church.
|
Why is "the devil made me do it" not a valid excuse?
|
Answer
The first instance of “the devil made me do it” used as an excuse was in the Garden of Eden. Eve says, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate” (Genesis 3:13\). Her excuse did not get her off the hook (verse 16\), and it won’t help us much, either.
Yes, the devil and his demons tempt us to sin (Genesis 3; Luke 4; 1 Peter 5:8\). But “the devil made me do it” is far too often used to excuse our own bad choices. Except in an instance of demon possession, the devil cannot *make* us do anything. The devil is absolutely worthy of blame for much of the evil in the world, but using the devil as a scapegoat for our own sinful choices is counterproductive to achieving victory over sin.
[Demon possession](demon-possession.html) is a condition in which a demon or demons have complete control over a person. Demon possession involves demons actually inhabiting a person and controlling his or her actions (see Mark 9:22\). Christians cannot be demon possessed. The indwelling Holy Spirit will not allow it (Romans 8:9; Ephesians 5:18\). Therefore, the devil and his demons cannot control a believer. They cannot make us do anything involuntarily. So, rather than blame the devil, we need to look at ourselves.
James 1:14 declares, “Each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his *own* desire” (emphasis added). Why do we sin? We sin because we are sinners. We are plagued by and infected with sin (Romans 3:10\-23\). While [demonic oppression](demonic-oppression.html) and influence are real, the primary problem is our sinful natures. “Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these” (Galatians 5:19\-21\). Notice, it’s the “works of the flesh” in this list, not the works of the devil.
As Christians, we have the indwelling Holy Spirit to help us overcome sin (1 John 4:4\). We have everything we need for life and godliness (2 Peter 1:3\). If we sin, we have no excuse. We cannot blame the devil. We cannot blame our circumstances. We can only blame ourselves. And, until we recognize that the problem resides within us (Romans 7:20\), we will never arrive at the solution.
It may sound harsh to tell someone that the problem is himself and his own choices. But it’s no harsher than a doctor telling a patient to quit smoking and that the tobacco company is not to blame for his poor health. To find a cure, you have to start with a correct diagnosis and then move to the correct treatment. The correct diagnosis is sin. The treatment is to submit to God and obey His Word. God can enable us to achieve victory over sin (Romans 7:24\-25; 1 John 5:3\-5\).
If you are a Christian and you commit a sin, the devil did not make you do it. He may have tempted you to do it. He may have even influenced you to do it. But he did not *make* you do it. You still had a choice. God never allows you to be tempted beyond your ability to withstand, and He always provides a way of escape (1 Corinthians 10:13\). A Christian saying “the devil made me do it” is denying the truth of 1 John 4:4, “Little children, you are from God and have overcome them, for He who is in you is greater than he who is in the world.”
Here are some articles that may help in the spiritual battles we all face:
[How can I overcome sin in my Christian life?](victory-over-sin.html)
[What is the key to victory when struggling with sin?](struggling-with-sin.html)
|
Why did Noah release a raven? Why did he later release a dove (Genesis 8)?
|
Answer
Following the Genesis flood, as the ark was resting on Mount Ararat, Noah released a raven and dove from the ark at different times. The goal in sending these birds was to determine if the flood waters had abated enough for Noah and his family to exit the ark.
In Genesis 8:6\-7 we read, “At the end of forty days Noah opened the window of the ark that he had made and sent forth a raven. It went to and fro until the waters were dried up from the earth.” The “40 days” here is after the tops of the mountains were visible (verse 5\), over seven months after the flood began. A raven was released and apparently never returned. No reason is provided regarding why a raven was selected rather than another bird. However, a raven can eat carrion and would feed off dead animals in the water. A dove, on the other hand, would return to its point of origin if no land was found.
Noah sent a dove in Genesis 8:8\-9: “Then he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters had subsided from the face of the ground. But the dove found no place to set her foot, and she returned to him to the ark, for the waters were still on the face of the whole earth. So he put out his hand and took her and brought her into the ark with him.” The dove returned with no indication that a place had been found to alight.
A week later, in Genesis 8:10\-11, Noah sent the dove again: “He waited another seven days, and again he sent forth the dove out of the ark. And the dove came back to him in the evening, and behold, in her mouth was a freshly plucked olive leaf. So Noah knew that the waters had subsided from the earth.” Things had begun to grow once again; the earth was becoming more habitable.
Another week passed. Then, in Genesis 8:12, Noah sends out the dove one more time: “Then he waited another seven days and sent forth the dove, and she did not return to him anymore.” The dove had no need to return to the ark, since it had found a home on land. The ark could soon be emptied, and humanity could begin to establish itself again in the world.
From Genesis 7:11 to 8:14, we know that the flood lasted a total of one year and ten days. The raven and the dove were released over a period of 21 days after the mountaintops became visible (Genesis 8:10\-12\). The raven served as a first attempt to discover dry land, and the dove became Noah’s way of determining when to leave the ark.
|
Why did God also destroy animals in the Flood (Genesis 6-8)?
|
Answer
God sent the Flood as a judgment on mankind’s wickedness. But it wasn’t only human beings who died. Most of the animals were also swept away. Genesis 6:7 states, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them.” Why did God destroy animal life in the Flood, since they were not guilty of sin?
First, it should be noted that God did not destroy *all* animal life. Two of every kind of unclean animal were placed on the ark, and seven of every clean animal (Genesis 7:1\-4\). In addition, sea life was not harmed. The destruction included land animals and birds.
God had a plan to recreate. Just as God had created human and animal life in the beginning of time, so now He would recreate human and animal life. Genesis 8 closes with the animals leaving the ark at the beginning a new world. They went with the command to go forth and multiply (Genesis 8:17\).
We can assume that, in some way, animal life had become corrupted along with human life. Genesis 6:13 states, “I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence through them.” The phrase “all flesh” is used throughout the narrative to include both human and animal life. How was animal life corrupted? This is not explained. Some have suggested the use of animals in sinful, pagan sacrifices as the reason. Others have considered that the violence filling the earth was due, in part, to animals (this would correspond with the theory of large dinosaurs being destroyed by the Flood). Regardless of how the animals became corrupted, God viewed them as part of creation that needed to be recreated.
Another concern was Noah’s welfare. Perhaps the land animals were destroyed so that Noah and his family could live safely after exiting the ark. Eight humans living in a world of unchecked wildlife would have had a slim chance of survival, most likely. But with only the animals on the ark, the ratio of animal life to human life would make living together much safer. God could have chosen a different method, but He chose to save Noah and his family, along with a large boat of animals, to restart life on earth.
Elsewhere in the Old Testament, we see that a person’s sin can contaminate other people or animals at times (e.g., Joshua 7:24\-25; Romans 8:19\-22\). In a ceremonial sense, perhaps, the animals that died in the Flood could be viewed as morally contaminated because of their association with humankind. They were part of that [antediluvian](antediluvian.html), sin\-infested world.
In summary, God destroyed many animals in the Flood, but not all of them. In fact, He spared many more animals than He did humans. God chose to recreate using a limited number of animals, sparing only those land animals that He led to the ark. After the Flood, God provided for a safe coexistence between human and animal life.
|
How should a Christian view gun control?
|
Answer
The recent shootings across the United States have caused much heartache. The senseless and tragic incidents have also renewed the intensity of discussion regarding American gun laws. Politicians, sportsmen, and theologians have all weighed in on the issue of gun control. Guns are readily available in the U.S., and ownership is protected by the Constitution. How should a Christian view gun control? What does the Bible have to say that would apply to gun control?
The Bible was written long before the invention of any type of gun, so the phrase “gun control” will not be found in Scripture. However, the Bible records many accounts of wars, battles, and the use of weapons. Warfare is presented as an inevitable part of living in a fallen world (Mark 13:7; James 4:1\), and weaponry is a necessary part of warfare. Weapons in the Bible were also used for personal protection. In some parts of Israel, robbers were common (see Luke 10:30\), and many people carried weapons when they traveled. Carrying a weapon for self\-defense is never condemned in the Bible. In fact, it was mentioned in a positive light by Jesus Himself on one occasion (Luke 22:35\-38\).
Christians are called to submit to governing authorities, and they are to obey the laws of the land (Romans 13:1\-7; 1 Peter 2:13\-17\). This would have to apply to gun laws, too. If American gun laws change, American Christians should submit to these changes and work through democratic means toward any desired alternatives. The Bible does not forbid the possession of weapons, and neither does it command such possession. Laws may come and go, but the goal of the believer in Jesus Christ remains the same: to glorify the Lord (1 Corinthians 10:31\).
Another biblical principle to consider is that “all who draw the sword will die by the sword” (Matthew 26:52\). Jesus said this to Peter when Peter tried to mount an imprudent “defense” of Jesus against the mob that had come to arrest Him. Peter’s actions were not only futile against such a “large crowd armed with swords and clubs” (verse 47\), but his rash behavior also belied Jesus’ submissive attitude (verse 50\) and worked against the fulfillment of Scripture (verse 54\). There is “a time for war and a time for peace” (Ecclesiastes 3:8\), and Peter confused the two.
Christianity supports personal freedom. Romans 14:1\-4 indicates that, when Scripture does not clearly address a particular issue, there is freedom for individual choice. America has historically embraced the concept of personal freedom that resonates with this principle, and the founding documents guarantee wide freedoms regarding firearms. Some point to Matthew 5:9, in which Jesus pronounces a blessing on the peacemakers, and apply it to the issue of gun control. The idea is that guns are antithetical to peace. This may be more of a philosophical or political idea than a theological one, however. There is nothing theologically, or even logically, that links guns to a lack of peace; sometimes, guns help *maintain* civil peace.
Debates over *whether* to control guns or *how much* to control them depend largely on political and philosophical arguments, not moral ones. This is not to say that there is no moral component to the issue. Obviously, the gun itself is amoral, an object that can be used for good or for evil. More important is the morality of the person wielding the gun, and that is too often the missing consideration in the gun control argument. The fact that some sinners use guns to commit sin does not mean guns are the problem. Sin is the problem, and that’s a moral and spiritual issue. Since the very beginning of humanity, people have been killing other people, with and without weapons (see Genesis 4\). Taking a certain weapon out of circulation might make murder more difficult but by no means impossible.
As far as the Bible is concerned, the use of guns is a matter of personal conviction. There is nothing unspiritual about owning a gun or knowing how to use one. There is nothing wrong with protecting oneself or loved ones, even if it involves the use of weapons. We need not pretend there is never a need for guns, but pointing a gun at a person should always be a last resort. We should seek to neutralize threats without violence whenever possible.
So, how should a Christian view gun control? With the authority God has entrusted to it, the government has the right to allow or disallow gun ownership to whatever degree it deems right. We, as citizens, are called to submit to whatever gun control laws the government institutes. This is not, however, a statement on the wisdom of gun control. There are good reasons to allow law\-abiding citizens to own guns. Ultimately, guns are not the problem. Sinful people are the problem.
|
Why did Abraham banish Ishmael (Genesis 21:14)?
|
Answer
“Abraham made a great feast on the day that Isaac was weaned. But Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, whom she had borne to Abraham, laughing. So she said to Abraham, ‘Cast out this slave woman with her son, for the son of this slave woman shall not be heir with my son Isaac’” (Genesis 21:10\).
Abraham was not happy with Sarah’s response (Genesis 21:11\). He cared about Sarah, but he did not share her view that [Hagar](Hagar-in-the-Bible.html) and [Ishmael](Ishmael-in-the-Bible.html) should be sent away. Ishmael was his own son, after all.
Then God spoke to Abraham on this issue: “Be not displeased because of the boy and because of your slave woman. Whatever Sarah says to you, do as she tells you, for through Isaac shall your offspring be named. And I will make a nation of the son of the slave woman also, because he is your offspring’” (Genesis 21:12\-13\). God’s promise to make another nation from Ishmael began to be fulfilled when Ishmael had twelve sons who presided over twelve tribes (Genesis 25:16\).
Abraham obeyed the Lord. “So Abraham rose early in the morning and took bread and a skin of water and gave it to Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, along with the child, and sent her away” (Genesis 21:14\). As far as we know, Abraham did not see Ishmael again. Ishmael appears later at Abraham’s burial (Genesis 25:9\).
Sending away Hagar and Ishmael may seem cruel from our perspective, but the Bible records both Abraham’s concern and God’s command. Abraham expressed compassion for his son, but he also demonstrated obedience when God required something different from what Abraham personally desired. In doing so, Abraham models a humility that still applies today.
God calls us to obedience, and that requires us to be willing to give up personal desires in order to follow Him. Those who love the Lord know that the Lord’s will is what matters most. Abraham obeyed God and was known as a friend of God (James 2:23\). His faith followed God’s will, even in difficult times.
|
Did women in the Bible have a choice about whom they married?
|
Answer
Many of the marriages mentioned in the Bible were arranged marriages in which the parents were involved in choosing a mate for their children. The practice of arranged marriage varied greatly from one family and one community to another. However, many cultures have practiced arranged marriages from the earliest times. For example, Abraham commanded his servant to find a wife for his son, Isaac (Genesis 24\). The servant found a potential wife for Isaac, Rebekah, but it is plain that Rebekah was given some choice regarding whether she accepted the offer (verses 57\-58\).
Rebekah’s son Jacob later found a woman he loved and made a deal with her father, Laban, to work seven years in exchange for Rachel in marriage (Genesis 29\). Though the marriage was arranged, Rachel and Jacob appear to have both desired the arrangement.
Unlike Western marriages that often include much dating prior to a marriage, ancient Jewish custom included a much more reserved practice that usually included an attraction between the man and woman, an agreement between their two families, a dowry given to the wife’s family, and a seven\-day wedding celebration. The Jewish custom of betrothal made premarital sexual activity less likely, and divorce occurred less frequently.
In summary, arranged marriages were standard in ancient times, and the Old Testament contains several examples. The practice of arranged marriage arose from a strong sense of family and fidelity that often helped provide a stronger commitment to the marriage covenant. However, many marriages in the Bible were based on a formal arrangement in which both the man and the woman desired to be married.
|
What are the seventy weeks of Daniel?
|
Answer
The “seventy weeks” prophecy is one of the most significant and detailed Messianic prophecies of the Old Testament. It is found in Daniel 9\. The chapter begins with Daniel praying for Israel, acknowledging the nation’s sins against God and asking for God’s mercy. As Daniel prayed, the angel Gabriel appeared to him and gave him a vision of Israel’s future.
**The Divisions of the 70 Weeks**
In verse 24, Gabriel says, “Seventy ‘sevens’ are decreed for your people and your holy city.” Almost all commentators agree that the seventy “sevens” should be understood as seventy “weeks” of years, in other words, a period of 490 years. These verses provide a sort of “clock” that gives an idea of when the Messiah would come and some of the events that would accompany His appearance.
The prophecy goes on to divide the 490 years into three smaller units: one of 49 years, one of 434 years, and one 7 years. The final “week” of 7 years is further divided in half. Verse 25 says, “From the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty\-two ‘sevens.’” Seven “sevens” is 49 years, and sixty\-two “sevens” is another 434 years:
49 years \+ 434 years \= 483 years
**The Purpose of the 70 Weeks**
The prophecy contains a statement concerning God’s six\-fold purpose in bringing these events to pass. Verse 24 says this purpose is 1\) “to finish transgression,” 2\) “to put an end to sin,” 3\) “to atone for wickedness,” 4\) “to bring in everlasting righteousness,” 5\) “to seal up vision and prophecy,” and 6\) “to anoint the most holy.”
Notice that these results concern the total eradication of sin and the establishing of righteousness. The prophecy of the 70 weeks summarizes what happens before Jesus sets up His [millennial kingdom](millennium.html). Of special note is the third in the list of results: “to atone for wickedness.” Jesus accomplished the [atonement](substitutionary-atonement.html) for sin by His death on the cross (Romans 3:25; Hebrews 2:17\).
**The Fulfillment of the 70 Weeks**
Gabriel said the prophetic clock would start at the time that a decree was issued to rebuild Jerusalem. From the date of that decree to the time of the Messiah would be 483 years. We know from history that the command to “restore and rebuild Jerusalem” was given by King Artaxerxes of Persia c. 444 B.C. (see Nehemiah 2:1\-8\).
The first unit of 49 years (seven “sevens”) covers the time that it took to rebuild Jerusalem, “with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble” (Daniel 9:25\). This rebuilding is chronicled in the book of Nehemiah.
Converting the 360\-day year used by the ancient Jews, 483 years becomes 476 years on our solar calendar. Adjusting for the switch from B.C. to A.D., 476 years after 444 B.C. places us at A.D. 33, which would coincide with Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem (Matthew 21:1–9\). The prophecy in Daniel 9 specifies that, after the completion of the 483 years, “the Anointed One will be cut off” (verse 26\). This was fulfilled when Jesus was crucified.
Daniel 9:26 continues with a prediction that, after the Messiah is killed, “the people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary.” This was fulfilled with the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70\. The “ruler who will come” is a reference to the Antichrist, who, it seems, will have some connection with Rome, since it was the Romans who destroyed Jerusalem.
**The Final Week of the 70 Weeks**
Of the 70 “sevens,” 69 have been fulfilled in history. This leaves one more “seven” yet to be fulfilled. Many scholars believe that we are now living in a huge gap between the 69th week and the 70th week. The prophetic clock has been paused, as it were. The final “seven” of Daniel is what we usually call the [tribulation period](tribulation.html).
Daniel’s prophecy reveals some of the actions of the [Antichrist](antichrist.html), the “ruler who will come.” Verse 27 says, “He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’” However, “in the middle of the ‘seven,’ . . . he will set up an abomination that causes desolation” in the temple. Jesus warned of this event in Matthew 24:15\. After the Antichrist breaks the covenant with Israel, a time of “great tribulation” begins (Matthew 24:21, NKJV).
Daniel also predicts that the Antichrist will face judgment. He only rules “until the end that is decreed is poured out on him” (Daniel 9:27\). God will only allow evil to go so far, and the judgment the Antichrist will face has already been planned out.
**Conclusion**
The prophecy of the 70 weeks is complex and amazingly detailed, and much has been written about it. Of course, there are various interpretations, but what we have presented here is the [dispensational, premillennial](dispensational-premillennialism.html) view. One thing is certain: God has a time table, and He is keeping things on schedule. He knows the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46:10\), and we should always be looking for the triumphant return of our Lord (Revelation 22:7\).
|
Why did God allow Solomon to have 1,000 wives and concubines?
|
Answer
First Kings 11:3 states that Solomon “had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines.” Obviously, God “allowed” Solomon to have these wives, but allowance is not the same as approval. Solomon’s marital decisions were in direct violation of God’s Law, and there were consequences.
Solomon started out well early in his life, listening to the counsel of his father, David, who told him, “Be strong, show yourself a man, and observe what the Lord your God requires: Walk in his ways, and keep his decrees and commands, his laws and requirements, as written in the Law of Moses, so that you may prosper in all you do and wherever you go” (1 Kings 2:2–3\). Solomon’s early humility is shown in 1 Kings 3:5\-9 when he requests wisdom from the Lord. Wisdom is applied knowledge; it helps us make decisions that honor the Lord and agree with the Scriptures. Solomon’s book of [Proverbs](Book-of-Proverbs.html) is filled with practical counsel on how to follow the Lord. Solomon also wrote the [Song of Solomon](Song-of-Solomon.html), which presents a beautiful picture of what God intends marriage to be. So, King Solomon *knew* what was right, even if he didn’t always follow the right path.
Over time, Solomon forgot his own counsel and the wisdom of Scripture. God had given clear instructions for anyone who would be king: no amassing of horses, no multiplying of wives, and no accumulating of silver and gold (Deuteronomy 17:14\-20\). These commands were designed to prevent the king from trusting in military might, following foreign gods, and relying on wealth instead of on God. Any survey of Solomon’s life will show that he broke all three of these divine prohibitions!
Thus, Solomon’s taking of many wives and [concubines](concubine-concubines.html) was in direct violation of God’s Word. Just as God had predicted, “As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the LORD his God” (1 Kings 11:4\). To please his wives, Solomon even got involved in sacrificing to Milcom (or Molech), a god that required “detestable” acts to be performed (1 Kings 11:7\-8\).
God allowed Solomon to make the choice to disobey, but Solomon’s choice brought inevitable consequences. “So the Lord said to Solomon, ‘Since this is your attitude and you have not kept my covenant and my decrees, which I commanded you, I will most certainly tear the kingdom away from you and give it to one of your subordinates’” (1 Kings 11:11\). God showed mercy to Solomon for David’s sake (verse 12\), but Solomon’s kingdom was eventually divided. Another chastisement upon Solomon was war with the [Edomites](Edomites.html) and Aramians (verses 14\-25\).
Solomon was not a puppet king. God did not force him to do what was right. Rather, God laid out His will, blessed Solomon with wisdom, and expected the king to obey. In his later years, Solomon chose to disobey, and he was held accountable for his decisions.
It is instructive that, toward the end of Solomon’s life, God used him to write one more book, which we find in the Bible. The book of [Ecclesiastes](Book-of-Ecclesiastes.html) gives us “the rest of the story.” Solomon throughout the book tells us everything he tried in order to find fulfillment apart from God in this world, or “under the sun.” This is his own testimony: “I amassed silver and gold for myself, and the treasure of kings and provinces. I acquired . . . a harem as well–the delights of the heart of man” (Ecclesiastes 2:8\). But his harem did not bring happiness. Instead, “Everything was meaningless, a chasing after the wind; nothing was gained under the sun” (verse 11\). At the conclusion of Ecclesiastes, we find wise counsel: “Here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole \[duty] of man” (Ecclesiastes 12:13\).”
It is never God’s will that anyone sin, but He does allow us to make our own choices. The story of Solomon is a powerful lesson for us that it does not pay to disobey. It is not enough to start well; we must seek God’s grace to finish well, too. Life without God is a dead\-end street. Solomon thought that having 1,000 wives and concubines would provide happiness, but whatever pleasure he derived was not worth the price he paid. A wiser Solomon concluded that his life of pleasure was “meaningless” (Ecclesiastes 12:8\), and the book of Ecclesiastes ends with the warning that “God will bring every deed into judgment” (verse 14\).
|
What was the significance of weaning a child in the Bible (Genesis 21:8)?
|
Answer
According to Jewish custom, the time when a child is weaned is cause for celebration. A weaned child has survived the fragile stage of infancy and can now eat solid food rather than breastfeed from his or her mother.
In Genesis 21:8, we read, “And the child grew and was weaned. And Abraham made a great feast on the day that Isaac was weaned.” Though Ishmael laughed at the celebration (Genesis 21:9\), Isaac’s parents considered this event an important occasion. They had a son who had survived the most difficult stage of childhood and could now eat on his own.
According to Jewish rabbinical traditions, weaning could take place anywhere between 18 months and 5 years of age. In one important biblical parallel, Samuel was weaned prior to being taken to Eli the priest to serve the Lord. First Samuel 1:24 says, “And when she had weaned him . . . she brought him to the house of the LORD at Shiloh. And the child was young.” No exact age is given, but the weaning is mentioned, and Samuel’s youth is emphasized, so he was likely between 2 and 4 years old.
High infant mortality rates existed in ancient cultures. One reason for large families was the fact that many young children did not live to adulthood. Because of the risks that infants faced, the celebration of a child’s weaning was a natural and important part of the culture. If a child had developed past the need for the physical support of a mother, then he or she had reached a new stage of life that greatly increased the likelihood of good health.
Today, Jewish tradition continues the practice of celebrating the weaning of a child. Psalm 104 is often read during this time; part of that psalm says, “Bless the LORD, O my soul! O LORD my God, you are very great! You are clothed with splendor and majesty, covering yourself with light as with a garment, stretching out the heavens like a tent. He lays the beams of his chambers on the waters; he makes the clouds his chariot; he rides on the wings of the wind; he makes his messengers winds, his ministers a flaming fire” (Psalm 104:1–4\).
|
Why wasn’t Cain’s punishment death (Genesis 4:14)?
|
Answer
After Cain killed his brother Abel, God gave the following judgment to Cain: “And now you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand. When you work the ground, it shall no longer yield to you its strength. You shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth” (Genesis 4:11\-12\). It would seem to many that Cain received a lesser punishment than he deserved for murder. Why wasn’t Cain given capital punishment?
First, the punishment he received was severe. Cain believed it to be worse than death. He replied to God, “My punishment is greater than I can bear. Behold, you have driven me today away from the ground, and from your face I shall be hidden. I shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me” (Genesis 4:13\-14\). Previously, Cain had been “a tiller of the ground” (Genesis 4:2, NKJV), so this particular punishment took away his livelihood. In addition, Cain feared death at the hands of another person. To prevent others from killing Cain, God [marked](mark-Cain.html) him somehow (what type of mark is uncertain). Instead of being put to death, Cain was forced to live the rest of his life with unfruitful work and the guilt of having killed his brother.
Second, God had additional plans for Cain’s life. Cain’s family line is found in the verses that follow the pronouncement of his judgment. Many notable achievements are attributed to Cain’s family members (Genesis 4:20\-22\). On a negative note, a descendant named Lamech is mentioned as also committing murder. While the reason for this detail is not given, one possible explanation is to reveal that the judgment upon Cain extended to some of his descendants who also lived violently.
Another reason some suggest for Cain’s punishment not being death was that there were too few people on the earth. While this is one possible reason, it is not given as a clear answer in the text of Scripture. Instead, Cain had a [wife](Cains-wife.html) (one of Adam and Eve’s other descendants) and built a town. Adam and Eve had Seth and certainly other children who provided the world’s other initial inhabitants.
Later, when God instituted the [Noahic Covenant](Noahic-covenant.html), murder became a capital crime (Genesis 9:6\). The death penalty was codified in the Mosaic Law in Numbers 35:30\-31, 33\. Cain lived before God required death as a punishment for murder. So, God provided an appropriate punishment. The Judge of all the earth always does right (Genesis 18:25\).
|
Why did God mandate capital punishment for murder (Genesis 9:6)?
|
Answer
After Noah, his family, and the animals exited the ark, God gave a new command: put to death anyone who murders another person. Genesis 9:6 says, “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.” The severest of penalties is to follow murder, and God Himself gives the reason for it.
God specified that murder was to be punished by death because of the nature of man. Man is created in God’s own image (Genesis 1:27\). As murder destroys an image\-bearer, it is a direct affront to God Himself. Humans are unique among God’s creations—none of the animals are created in God’s likeness—and murder is a unique crime.
Another, secondary reason for the mandate is quite practical. The immediate context includes another command given to Noah and his three sons: “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth” (Genesis 9:1\). Murder, of course, would work against humanity’s being fruitful and multiplying. The death penalty for murder thus served as a deterrent to anyone who sought to thwart God’s plan to replenish the earth. This was especially important when Noah’s family first departed from the ark, at which point only eight people were alive.
Before the Flood, Cain had murdered Abel, and, although Cain was judged by God, he was not put to death (Genesis 4\). Lamech, a descendant of Cain, also murdered someone (Genesis 4:23\-24\). By the time of God’s judgment in Genesis 6, it appears that crime was rampant, including the crime of murder. After the Flood, a new standard was raised as part of the recreated earth: God would no longer tolerate murder. Later, murder was condemned in the [Ten Commandments](Ten-Commandments.html) (Exodus 20\). The punishment for premeditated murder was death (Numbers 35:30\-34\).
In the New Testament, Jesus provided a wider application of the Old Testament command against murder. He taught, “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire” (Matthew 5:21\-22\). Murder is wrong, and the attitude behind the action is just as wrong. God sees the heart and its intentions (1 Samuel 16:7\).
Murder is consistently listed as a sin throughout the New Testament (e.g., Revelation 22:15\). Man still bears the image of God, and God’s view of murder has remained the same.
|
What is the story of Abraham and Lot?
|
Answer
The story of [Abraham](life-Abraham.html) (originally Abram) and [Lot](Lot-in-the-Bible.html) begins with Abraham’s father, [Terah](Terah-in-the-Bible.html). Terah left Ur of the Chaldeans and traveled west to Haran with Abraham; Abraham’s wife, Sarah (originally Sarai); and Lot, Abraham’s nephew. Terah died in Haran (Genesis 11:32\).
In Genesis 12:1\-3, Abraham received a calling from the Lord: “Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you. And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.” This promise included a land, a nation, and a people. Abraham obeyed, taking Sarah and Lot with him, along with their servants and possessions, and settled at Shechem (Genesis 12:6\).
After a brief time in Egypt during a famine (Genesis 12:10\-20\), they returned to Canaan. There, Abraham’s and Lot’s servants were involved in arguments over grazing areas for their large herds of livestock. Abraham and Lot agreed to part ways, with Abraham giving Lot first choice of land. Lot chose the land of the plain of Jordan, near Sodom and Gomorrah, because of the rich pastureland there. Abraham settled near Hebron (Genesis 13\). Lot’s choice proved to be a foolish one, as the wickedness of Sodom was very great (verse 13\). The grass was greener near Sodom, but greener is not always better.
An alliance of four kings attacked Sodom, and Lot and many others were taken captive. Upon hearing the news, Abraham led a force of 318 men to rescue Lot. As Abraham returned victoriously from the battle, he gave a tenth of the spoils to a priest named [Melchizedek](Melchizedek.html) (Genesis 14\). God then renewed His covenant with Abraham (Genesis 15\), which included the promise of a son.
Abraham and Lot’s story reveals how God can call anyone to accomplish great purposes. It also illustrates the folly of making decisions based solely on external appearances. “There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death” (Proverbs 14:12\). The path to Sodom seemed right to Lot, but it almost cost him his life.
|
How can there be subordination / hierarchy in the Trinity?
|
Answer
It may sound strange to speak of subordination within the [Trinity](Trinity-Bible.html). After all, Jesus and the Father are “one” (John 10:30\). Subordination makes us think of a lower rank or a subservient position. To understand how there can be subordination in the Trinity, it is important to understand that there are different types of subordination. The biblical or orthodox view of the triune nature of God acknowledges an *economic* subordination in the Trinity but denies the heretical view of an *ontological* subordination.
What does this mean? Simply that all three Persons of the [Godhead](Godhead.html) are equal in nature. God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit all have the same divine nature and divine attributes. Contrary to the teaching of many cults, there is no [ontological](ontological-Trinity.html) subordination (no difference in the *nature* of the three Persons of the Godhead). This means that the Trinity is not comprised of greater and lesser gods; rather, there is one God existing eternally in three co\-equal Persons.
What the Bible does teach is an economic (or relational) subordination within the Trinity. The three Persons of the triune Godhead voluntarily submit to each other respecting the roles They perform in creation and salvation. So, the Father sent the Son into the world (1 John 4:10\). These roles are never reversed in Scripture: the Son never sends the Father. Likewise, the Holy Spirit is sent by Jesus and “proceeds from the Father” to testify of Christ (John 14:26; 15:26\). And Jesus perfectly submitted His will to the Father’s (Luke 22:42; Hebrews 10:7\).
Economic or relational subordination is simply a term to describe the relationship that exists among God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Essentially, economic subordination within the Trinity refers to what God *does* while ontological subordination refers to who God *is*.
Biblically, all three Persons of the Trinity have the same essence, nature, and glory, but each One has different roles or activities when it comes to how God relates to the world. For example, our salvation is based on the Father’s power and love (John 3:16; 10:29\), the Son’s death and resurrection (1 John 2:2; Ephesians 2:6\), and the Spirit’s regeneration and seal (Ephesians 4:30; Titus 3:5\). The different tasks that we see the Father, Son, and Spirit perform are the result of the eternal relationship that exists among the Persons of the Trinity.
The issue of subordination within the Trinity is nuanced, and the distinction between ontological and economic subordination is fine indeed. Theologians within Christian orthodoxy continue to debate the limits of subordination and its relation to the Incarnation of Christ. Such discussions are profitable as we study the Scriptures and think through the truth about the nature of God.
|
What is the ontological Trinity / immanent Trinity?
|
Answer
In their discussion of the [Trinity](Trinity-Bible.html), theologians have developed a number of terms to help explain, as precisely as possible, what God is like. When someone speaks of the “ontological Trinity,” also known as the “immanent Trinity,” it is in reference to the nature of God.
Ontology is the philosophical study of the nature of being. The “ontological Trinity” refers to the being or nature of each member of the Trinity. In *nature*, essence, and attributes, each Person of the Trinity is equal. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share the same divine nature and thus comprise an ontological Trinity. The teaching of the ontological Trinity says that all three Persons of the Godhead are equal in power, glory, wisdom, etc.
The ontological Trinity is also sometimes called the “essential Trinity.” It is often mentioned in conjunction with the [*economic Trinity*](economic-Trinity.html), a term that focuses on the relationships within the Trinity and each Person’s role in creation and salvation. The term *ontological Trinity* focuses on who God *is*; the term *economic Trinity* focuses on what God *does*.
The ontological Trinity is basic Christian doctrine and is foundational to all Christian belief. John 10:30 says that Jesus and the Father are one, by which it is meant that they are of one nature. In Matthew 28:19 Jesus tells us to [baptize](Christian-baptism.html) “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” clearly equating the three Persons of the Godhead.
Below is the best symbol for the Trinity we are aware of (click to expand):
[](img/trinity.svg)
|
What is synonymous parallelism in Hebrew poetry?
|
Answer
Synonymous parallelism is a poetic literary device which involves the repetition of one idea in successive lines. The first half of a verse will make a statement, and the second half will essentially say the same thing in different words. The statements are “parallel” in that they are juxtaposed, or side by side, and they often share similar syntax. The statements are “synonymous” in that they say the same thing, with some minor variations. Other types of parallelism found in Hebrew poetry include [antithetical parallelism](antithetical-parallelism.html) and [synthetic parallelism](synthetic-parallelism.html), but synonymous parallelism is probably the most common.
In English poetry, one of the tools used is end rhyme:
“Out flew the web and floated *wide*;
The mirror crack’d from side to *side*”
(Tennyson)
End rhyme is formed by matching *sounds*; synonymous parallelism is formed by matching *thoughts*. English poets want their sounds to rhyme; Hebrew poets wanted their ideas to rhyme.
Psalm 120:2 is an example of synonymous parallelism:
“Save me, O Lord, from lying lips
and from deceitful tongues.”
The idea of “lying lips” in the first line of the poetry is repeated in the second line as “deceitful tongues.” The two expressions use different words to describe the same thing—a mouth that can’t tell the truth. The meanings of both lines are synonymous.
Proverbs 3:11 is another instance:
“My son, do not despise the Lord’s discipline
and do not resent his rebuke.”
“Do not despise” is equal to “do not resent”; the Lord’s “discipline” is synonymous with His “rebuke.” The first part of the command lines up rather neatly with the second part of the command. That’s synonymous parallelism.
Sometimes, the parallelism serves to amplify the theme as well as restate it. Take Proverbs 17:25, for example:
“A foolish son brings grief to his father
and bitterness to the one who bore him.”
In this proverb, the foolish son brings two things (“grief” and “bitterness”) to two people (his “father” and “the one who bore him,” i.e., his mother). The parallel structure links “grief” with “bitterness”—synonymous feelings of pain. And the father and mother are linked via parallelism, as well. The poet simply means “parents,” but he mentions them separately to fill out the poetic form. As a result, the point is made that both parents keenly feel the anguish of having a foolish son.
The prophetic books of the Old Testament also contain poetry. An example of synonymous parallelism is found in Isaiah 53:5:
“But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities.”
Isaiah predicts that the Messiah would suffer for “our transgressions,” a phrase synonymous with “our iniquities” in the next line. His suffering is referred to as a “piercing” and a “crushing.” These ideas are related but not exactly synonymous. They are set in parallel to give us a fuller picture of what the Messiah would experience on our behalf: a crushing load of sin (spiritual and emotional pain) and the piercing of the nails (physical pain).
When we read poetic portions of the Old Testament, we should look for the parallelism that helps to expand the thoughts presented and emphasize certain themes. To miss the parallelism is to overlook part of the beauty of the Bible.
|
Why did God rest on the seventh day of creation (Genesis 2:2)?
|
Answer
In Genesis 2:2 we read, “And on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done.” If God is [omnipotent](God-omnipotent.html)—if He has all power—it doesn’t make much sense that He would need to “rest.” After we’ve had a busy week, we take a nap—but *God*?
First, we should quote the verse correctly. It doesn’t say God “needed” to rest; it simply says that He did rest. Also, it is clear from Scripture that God did not rest because He was tired. Genesis 17:1 calls God the “Almighty God.” Psalm 147:5 says, “Great is our Lord, and mighty in power; His understanding is infinite.” God is all\-powerful; He never tires and never needs to rest. As Isaiah 40:28 says, “The everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth, neither faints nor is weary.” God is the sum of perfection; He is never diminished in any way, and that includes being diminished in power.
When God said, “Let there be light,” the light appeared. He simply *spoke* creation into existence (Genesis 1:1\-3\). Later, we read that Jesus Christ “is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power” (Hebrews 1:3\). Forget the image of Atlas straining under the weight of the world on his shoulders. It’s not like that. The entire universe is held together by Jesus’ word. The creation and maintenance of the universe is not difficult for God. A mere word will suffice. As Psalm 33:9 declares, “For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood firm.”
The Hebrew word translated “rested” in Genesis 2:2 includes other ideas than that of being tired. In fact, one of the main definitions of the Hebrew word *shabat* is “to cease or stop.” In Genesis 2:2 the understanding is that God “stopped” His work; He “ceased” creating on the seventh day. All that He had created was good, and His work was finished.
The context of Genesis 1–2 strongly affirms the idea of God’s “rest” being a cessation of work, not a reinvigoration after work. The narrative tells us which things God created in each of the first six days. His power is displayed through the creation of light, mountains, seas, the sun, moon and stars, plant and animal life, and, finally, humanity. There are many parallels between the first three days of creation and the second three days. However, the seventh day is a sharp contrast. Instead of more creating, there is *shabat*. Instead of God “doing” more, He “ceased” from doing.
God did not merely “rest” on the seventh day; He “stopped creating.” It was a purposeful stop. Everything He desired to create had been made. He looked at His creation, declared it “very good” (Genesis 1:31\), and ceased from His activity. In the Jewish tradition, the concept of *shabat* has been carried over as the “[Sabbath](Sabbath-day-rest.html).” The Law of Moses taught there was to be no work at all on the seventh day (Saturday). Because God ceased from work that day, the Israelites were to cease from their work on the Sabbath. Thus, the days of creation are the basis of our universal observance of a seven\-day week.
Simply put, God’s “rest” was not due to His being tired but to His being completely finished with His creative work.
|
Did God literally and visibly walk in the garden (Genesis 3:8)?
|
Answer
Genesis 3:8 says, “And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden.” We know that God is spirit (John 4:24\), so how exactly could He be “walking” in the garden?
First, it is clear from Genesis 3:8 that God’s approach in the garden was heralded by a “sound” or a “voice.” The verse begins by stating, “They heard the *sound*” of the Lord God. Whatever form God took, it certainly allowed for the physical production of sound. His walk was audible; He was making noise.
The verse also mentions the “presence” of God “among the trees” of the garden. It was a presence that Adam and Eve acknowledged and thought they could hide from. So, God’s garden walk included both sound and some sort of presence among the trees.
Even given these two statements, interpretations differ greatly. Some emphasize the fact that God the Father is invisible and cannot be seen by humans. According to this view, God did not appear in the flesh; rather, He took on a symbolic, incorporeal appearance, such as a cloud, much like He did with the Israelites in the desert with Moses (Deuteronomy 31:15\).
Others suggest that the idea of God “walking” refers to a [theophany](theophany-Christophany.html)—an appearance of God in a tangible, human form. Theologians who hold this view point to a parallel in Genesis 18, where God appears as one of three (seemingly human) visitors to Abraham.
Another theory is based on the Hebrew phrase translated “the cool of the day.” This could be literally translated “the wind of that day.” Some think this might refer to a strong wind. If so, Adam and Eve’s reaction makes more sense. They heard God’s approach as a terrible wind that lashed the trees of the garden, and they took cover. God called (using a Hebrew word that also means “to summon”) Adam to face judgment. Acts 2 records an interesting parallel: the coming of the Holy Spirit was accompanied by “a sound like the blowing of a violent wind” (verse 2\). Also, God spoke to Job “out of the whirlwind” (Job 38:1\).
Regardless of whether God appeared in human form or in a cloud, or whether He made His presence known by a windstorm, it is clear God Himself confronted the sinners and issued judgment. To the praise of His grace, this judgment also included the promise of a future Redeemer (Genesis 3:15\). Thus began a great saga that ultimately led to Jesus Christ, the perfect sacrifice for sin and substitute for sin’s judgment. Through Christ, those who believe are forgiven of sin and receive eternal life (John 3:16\).
|
Why didn’t Adam and Eve immediately die for their sin (Genesis 3)?
|
Answer
God commanded Adam not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil: “Of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die” (Genesis 2:17\). However, Adam and Eve ate of the tree and lived to tell about it. How can we reconcile God’s warning with their continued existence?
Interpreters typically answer this question in one of two ways. First, many note that Adam and Eve *did* die, though not immediately. The Hebrew phrase translated “in the day” in Genesis 2:17 is sometimes used to mean “for certain” (e.g., Exodus 10:28; 1 Kings 2:37, 42\). So, Adam and Eve “certainly” died; it’s just that their death took place much later (Genesis 5:5\). This view is also supported by Genesis 3:22, in which God determines to bar man from the tree of life to prevent him from living forever. Adam and Eve lost eternal life, were expelled from the Garden of Eden, and eventually experienced physical death.
The second way to view the warning of Genesis 2:17 is that “death” refers to spiritual death. When Adam and Eve ate of the forbidden fruit, they experienced a separation from God, a loss of relationship due to their sin. Their first actions after sinning were to cover themselves up and hide from God (Genesis 3:7\-8\). This alienation from the Source of Life can be viewed as [spiritual death](spiritual-death.html).
A third approach understands that both physical and spiritual death were with the result of [original sin](original-sin.html). The moment Adam and Eve sinned against God, their souls were separated from God, and their bodies began to die. Their spiritual deadness and susceptibility to physical death have been passed on to all humanity (Romans 5:12\).
Praise the Lord, He did not abandon Adam and Eve. He provided clothing for them (Genesis 3:21\) and allowed them to have children (Genesis 4\). He also promised “the seed of the woman” to crush the power of the serpent (Genesis 3:15\). This promise was fulfilled in Jesus Christ, who defeated sin and death on the cross and provides abundant life now (John 10:10\) and eternal life with God in heaven (John 3:16\). As Romans 5:19 says, “For as by the one man’s \[Adam’s] disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s \[Jesus’] obedience the many will be made righteous.”
|
Why did God punish Pharaoh for Abram’s lie (Genesis 12:17)?
|
Answer
In Genesis 12, Abram and his wife Sarai (their names were later changed to Abraham and Sarah) traveled to Egypt due to a famine in Canaan. Abram instructed his wife to tell people in Egypt that she was his sister instead of his wife. His reason was to protect himself. Because Sarai was so beautiful, Abram feared someone would kill him and take Sarai as his wife. The plan to pass her off as his sister would ensure that Abram would be well received by those he met.
In Egypt, Sarai’s beauty attracted the attention of Pharaoh, the ruler of that country. Sarai was taken into Pharaoh’s house, and many gifts were given to Abram (Genesis 12:16\). Genesis 12:17 says, “But the LORD afflicted Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai, Abram’s wife.” This seems puzzling. After all, the king was the victim of Abram and Sarai’s deceit.
The result of this punishment reveals the reason for it. When Pharaoh realized Sarai was Abram’s wife, he summoned Abram and said, “What is this you have done to me? Why did you not tell me that she was your wife? Why did you say, ‘She is my sister,’ so that I took her for my wife? Now then, here is your wife; take her, and go” (Genesis 12:18\-19\). If God had not caused the plagues to come upon Pharaoh and his household, he may not have known anything was wrong. The affliction led to the discovery that Sarai was Abram’s wife. If Pharaoh had kept Sarai, Abram would not have had a son by Sarai in fulfillment of God’s promise to him (Genesis 12:2; 17:19\). Abram was wrong to lie, but God graciously intervened in order to keep His covenant with Abram.
In the end, Pharaoh returned Abram’s wife and provided protection for him: “Pharaoh gave men orders concerning him, and they sent him away with his wife and all that he had” (Genesis 12:20\). Despite Abram’s wrongdoing, God worked to fulfill His promise. Abram left Egypt with his wife Sarai, the protection of the king, and added prosperity.
This incident is a good example of how God sometimes allows bad things to take place in someone’s life as part of a larger situation. God used the affliction of Pharaoh’s household to bring about good for Abram. We may not always know why bad things happen, but that does not mean they are without purpose. God has a larger purpose behind everything that takes place in life (Jeremiah 29:11\). As Paul taught in Romans 8:28, “We know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.”
Abram unwisely trusted in his own cunning to preserve his life, and he was caught in a lie. God proved His strength is perfect and that He is the only One with the power to save. Further, we see God has a greater purpose in all things, including suffering. His will is sovereign, and His Name will be glorified.
|
Who were the priests of On?
|
Answer
In Genesis 41, we read that [Joseph](life-Joseph.html) married the daughter of the priest of On. Verse 45 says, “Pharaoh . . . gave \[Joseph] Asenath daughter of Potiphera, priest of On, to be his wife.” The priest of On led the worship of the Egyptian sun god. Joseph’s marriage to his daughter seems to go against the Old Testament directive not to intermarry with pagans (Deuteronomy 7:3; Nehemiah 13:27\). Was Joseph sinfully embracing Egyptian culture? Or is there more to the story? Here are some considerations:
First, it is clear that Joseph was a godly man, full of faith (Hebrews 11:22\). He was not hesitant to give glory to God in Pharaoh’s presence (Genesis 41:25, 32\), and Pharaoh recognized the power of God in Joseph (verse 38\). Given Joseph’s staunch, lifelong commitment to do what was right, it’s unlikely that he would accept a sinful union to a pagan wife. There must be more to the story.
Second, Joseph was given his wife by Pharaoh. Joseph had just interpreted a prophetic dream for Pharaoh, and the king responded by honoring Joseph with a high\-ranking office in Egypt and placing him in charge of preparing for a future famine. Joseph’s rewards included a new position, a new Egyptian name (“[Zaphenath\-Paneah](Zaphenath-Paneah.html)”), and an Egyptian wife from a high\-profile family. The marriage of the daughter of the priest of On to a foreigner just out of prison was, in all likelihood, shocking to the Egyptian people. But the marriage cemented Joseph’s place in Egyptian society and removed all doubt as to Pharaoh’s approval of him.
Third, God permitted Joseph to take this wife. Scripture says nothing negative about the marriage to Asenath, even though she was the daughter of the priest of On. Through Asenath, Joseph had two sons, [Manasseh](Manasseh-in-the-Bible.html) and [Ephraim](Ephraim-in-the-Bible.html), who became the ancestors of two tribes in Israel. It could be that Asenath embraced the God of Israel who had so blessed Joseph. It could also be that, in giving Asenath to Joseph, the Pharaoh sanctioned Joseph’s religion, allowing Joseph to raise his family in the faith of his fathers. Certainly, Joseph did not become an idolater himself.
Fourth, God used this marriage to strengthen Joseph’s new position as a national leader. The city of On was also known as Heliopolis, “The City of the Sun.” It was the center of worship of the sun god, Ra, and was located 10 miles northeast of modern Cairo. The priests of On were considered to be among the most intelligent and cultured persons in Egypt, and their erudition was second to none. The ancient historian Herodotus reported that “the men of Heliopolis are said to be the most learned in records of the Egyptians” (*History* 2:3, trans. by G. Macaulay). The high priest in On held the title of “Greatest of Seers.” When Joseph married into this family, he joined a social class befitting a national leader. Also implied in the marriage arrangement was Pharaoh’s confidence that Joseph, too, was a “seer,” or prophet, of the highest caliber.
The Mosaic Covenant later forbade intermarriage between the people of Israel and the people of Canaan in order to avoid idolatry (Exodus 34:15–16\). But Joseph lived before the law was given, he was not marrying a Canaanite, and he did not fall into idolatry. God used Joseph’s marriage to the daughter of the priest of On to accomplish His will and provide for His people, the family of Jacob.
In short, Joseph did not sin by taking Asenath as his wife. The union could have been, in fact, a sign of Asenath’s adoption of her husband’s faith. In any case, God allowed Joseph to marry into the high\-profile family of a respected priest, and He worked through that marriage to bless many.
|
What is the story of Sarah and Hagar?
|
Answer
[Sarah](life-Sarah.html) was the wife of [Abraham](life-Abraham.html). [Hagar](Hagar-in-the-Bible.html) was the servant of Sarah. God had promised Abraham many descendants, but, ten years after the promise, Sarah was still unable to have children, and they were both on the verge of becoming too old to have children at all. Sarah chose to give her servant Hagar to Abraham, in accordance with the custom of the day, so that Sarah could have a child through her (Genesis 16:2\).
Hagar conceived, and she began to despise her mistress. Sarah in turn began to deal harshly with her, and Hagar fled to the desert to escape. The angel of the Lord met Hagar in the wilderness, commanding her to return to Abraham and Sarah. The angel relayed a promise from God: “I will surely multiply your offspring so that they cannot be numbered for multitude” (Genesis 16:10\). The angel also predicted Ishmael’s name and character (Genesis 16:11–12\).
Later, God fulfilled His promise to Abraham and Sarah. Sarah gave birth to a son named Isaac (Genesis 21\). Hagar’s son Ishmael would have been about 14 years old at the time of Isaac’s birth. Abraham sent Hagar and Ishmael away after Isaac was weaned (around age 2 or 3, making Ishmael approximately 16\), according to God’s command. At that time, God repeated His promise that Ishmael would father a great nation. Hagar was in the desert and near death when the angel of God called to her, saying, “What troubles you, Hagar? Fear not, for God has heard the voice of the boy where he is. Up! Lift up the boy, and hold him fast with your hand, for I will make him into a great nation” (Genesis 21:17\-18\).
[Ishmael](Ishmael-in-the-Bible.html) and his mother lived in the wilderness of Paran, where he became an expert with a bow and later took an Egyptian wife (Genesis 21:20\-21\). He is seen once again in Scripture when he returned to help bury his father Abraham (Genesis 25:7\-10\).
Ishmael, the son of a bondservant, became the father of 12 sons who were called princes. He lived to 137 years of age. Sarah died at the age of 127 in Hebron, where she was buried (Genesis 23:1\-2\). The Bible does not record Hagar’s death. She is last mentioned in Genesis 25:12\.
Many observations can be made regarding the story of Sarah and Hagar. First, God can and often does work through ways that appear unlikely from a human perspective. Abraham miraculously became a father at age 86 and again at age 99\. Isaac’s mother, Sarah, was barren. God’s promise to Abraham did not depend on human strength, and with God nothing is impossible (Luke 1:37\). God used a seemingly impossible situation to make Abraham the father of the Jewish people, just as He had predicted.
It is clear from this story that God works despite misguided human effort. Sarah had no business offering her servant to Abraham, and Abraham had no business sleeping with Hagar. And Sarah was wrong to mistreat her servant as she did. Yet God worked through these situations. Hagar was blessed, and Abraham and Sarah were still the recipients of the promise. God’s mercy is great, and His sovereign will is accomplished regardless of human frailty.
This unlikely family story is one readers would expect to end badly. Yet God kept His promise; Isaac became the son of promise through whom the tribes of Israel would arise. Hagar’s son, Ishmael, also became a great leader. Regardless of how a situation looks from a human perspective, God continues to work both to accomplish His will and to fulfill His promises.
In Galatians 4, Paul uses the story of Sarah and Hagar to illustrate the results of two different covenants: the New Covenant, based on grace; and the Old Covenant, based on the Law. In Paul’s analogy, believers in Christ are like the child born of Sarah—free, the result of God’s promise. Those who try to earn their salvation by their own works are like the child born of Hagar—a slave, the result of human effort.
|
Why was Abraham promised land that belonged to others (Genesis 12)?
|
Answer
In Genesis 12:1\-3, the Lord says to Abraham, “Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you. And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.” This blessing included land that, at the time the promise was made, belonged to other people.
There are several reasons why this transfer of ownership was appropriate. First, “the earth is the LORD’s, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it” (Psalm 24:1\). As the Creator of the earth, God has the right to do with it as He pleases. He can take land away or give it according to the counsel of His will (Psalm 135:6\).
The land pledged to Abraham was part of God’s provision for the Jewish people. After the Exodus from Egypt, the Jews were given the [Promised Land](Promised-Land.html), confirming God’s power to predict the future and fulfill His promises.
Second, giving the land to Abraham’s descendants was, in part, a judgment on the sinful Canaanites. In Genesis 15:16 the Lord gives a timeframe for the transfer of the land, as well as a reason for it: “In the fourth generation your descendants will come back here, for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure.” This statement clearly shows that God had a reason for wresting the land from the Canaanites—namely, their sin. At the edge of the Promised Land, Moses told the children of Abraham, “It is on account of the wickedness of these nations that the LORD is going to drive them out before you” (Deuteronomy 9:4\). Abraham did not inherit the land immediately because it was not time yet for judgment to fall. God eventually took the land from the idolaters and turned it over to His children.
Third, the prosperity promised to Abraham required much land. Prosperity in Abraham’s time involved acquiring land and having much livestock. God’s promise to make Abraham prosperous would virtually require giving him large amounts of land.
Fourth, the geographical portion of the [Abrahamic Covenant](Abrahamic-covenant.html) served as the historical basis for Israel’s eventual settlement of the land. Though there were many nations living in Canaan when Israel crossed the Jordan River, God’s promise to Abraham was Israel’s claim to the land. In Genesis 15:18\-21, God further defined the borders of the land promised to Abraham: “To your offspring I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates, the land of the Kenites, the Kenizzites, the Kadmonites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites and the Jebusites.”
Yes, God promised Abraham land that belonged to others. The reasons for this transfer of land include the need to punish the Canaanites’ sin and the need for God’s chosen people to have a land of their own, eventually to become the birthplace of the Messiah.
|
Why did Abraham bargain with God in regard to Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 18)?
|
Answer
When God revealed His plan to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah due to the wickedness of those cities, Abraham asked God to spare the people. In fact, Abraham engaged in a lengthy conversation to mediate for the cities.
First, Abraham wanted God to spare the righteous people who lived in Sodom and Gomorrah. He asked, “Will you indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked? Suppose there are fifty righteous within the city. Will you then sweep away the place and not spare it for the fifty righteous who are in it? Far be it from you to do such a thing, to put the righteous to death with the wicked, so that the righteous fare as the wicked! Far be that from you! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?” (Genesis 18:23\-25\).
Second, Abraham’s nephew [Lot](Lot-in-the-Bible.html) lived in Sodom. God did spare Lot and his two daughters, perhaps as a direct result of Abraham’s request. Genesis 19:29 states, “So it was that, when God destroyed the cities of the valley, God remembered Abraham and sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow when he overthrew the cities in which Lot had lived.” Abraham certainly wanted to see his own extended family protected from God’s judgment.
Third, Abraham had compassion for the people of Sodom and Gomorrah. While he understood God’s judgment of sin, Abraham asked God to spare the city even if there could be found as few as ten righteous people (Genesis 18:32\). God agreed to spare the city for the sake of ten righteous people. Apparently, fewer than ten righteous were found, since God did destroy the cities, sparing only Lot and his two daughters. (God also planned to rescue Lot’s wife, but she died when she disobeyed God and turned back to look at the city as it was being destroyed.)
Abraham’s compassion for the people of Sodom and Gomorrah reveals the heart of a man who cared greatly for others, including those who did not follow God. In fact, the angelic visitors who visited Lot were threatened by men of Sodom who desired to have sex with them. Though Sodom’s citizens were wicked, Abraham did not wish to see their destruction.
Like Abraham, we are called to have great compassion for others, including those whose lives do not follow God’s ways. Also, we must ultimately accept God’s judgments, even when His decisions are not our desired choices.
Abraham’s request for these cities to be spared was denied. God sometimes says “no” to our requests, too, even when we pray with good intentions. The Lord may have other plans that we do not understand, yet which are part of His perfect will.
Finally, consider how God did answer Abraham’s request by rescuing Lot and his daughters. Although Abraham’s mediatory work did not result in the sparing of the cities, it did bring about the salvation of Abraham’s nephew. Abraham’s prayers on behalf of others were important, just as our prayers are today.
|
What is the difference between a blessing and a birthright (Genesis 25)?
|
Answer
When twins Jacob and Esau were born, Esau came first, technically making him the [firstborn](firstborn-in-the-Bible.html). As the firstborn son, Esau automatically held the “birthright.” A birthright was an honor given to the firstborn, bestowing “head of household” status and the right to inherit his father’s estate. The son with the birthright would receive a double portion of whatever was passed down (see Deuteronomy 21:17\). Yet, even before the twins were born, the Lord predicted that Esau would serve Jacob (Genesis 25:23\).
Later in Genesis 25, Esau sold his birthright, giving it up for a meal because he was hungry. “Thus Esau despised his birthright” (Genesis 25:29\-35\). When the time came for Isaac to bless his sons, Jacob deceived his father into giving him Esau’s blessing instead (Genesis 27\).
A blessing could be given regardless of birthright. However, a greater blessing was given to the one who held the birthright. After Jacob’s deception, Esau complained that “he took my birthright, and now he’s taken my blessing!” (Genesis 27:36\). Esau begged his father for some type of blessing to be given to him, and he did receive a secondary, inferior blessing (verses 38\-40\).
An interesting parallel took place later in the life of Jacob. Jacob’s son Joseph had two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh. Manasseh was the elder son and should have had the birthright. But when Jacob bestowed his blessing upon his grandsons, he crossed his hands, much to Joseph’s surprise, placing his right hand on the younger son. In this way, Ephraim, the younger son, received the greater blessing (Genesis 48\).
In Genesis 49, Jacob gave blessings to each of his 12 sons. Reuben, the firstborn, had forfeited his birthright due to an egregious sin (verse 4\). The birthright was instead given to Joseph’s sons (1 Chronicles 5:1\). All of Jacob’s sons received some sort of blessing.
While a birthright belonged to the firstborn son, anyone could receive a blessing. In the time of the patriarchs, such blessings acted as a “last will and testament” and were highly prized as a means of revealing God’s will.
|
What is antithetical parallelism in Hebrew poetry?
|
Answer
A major literary device in Hebrew poetry is parallelism. Often, the parallelism is [synonymous](synonymous-parallelism.html)—the same idea is restated in different words, side by side (see Psalm 40:13\). Antithetical parallelism provides an antithesis, or contrast. A verse containing antithetical parallelism will bring together opposing ideas in marked contrast. Instead of saying the same thing twice, it says one thing and then a different thing.
The antithetical parallelism in Ecclesiastes 10:2 is quite apparent:
“The heart of the wise inclines to the right,
but the heart of the fool to the left.”
Two hearts, two directions. The wise man’s heart desires one thing, and the fool’s heart desires something completely different. Their inclinations are antithetical.
Often, but not always, antithetical parallelism is set up with the conjunction *but*. Here’s another example, from Proverbs 19:16:
“He who obeys instructions guards his life,
but he who is contemptuous of his ways will die.”
Again, we have two ideas in antithesis. One person follows advice and thus lives in safety, whereas another person despises his life and is heading for trouble. In this proverb, we have a couple things that do not seem to be complete opposites—and this is what makes the poetry rich.
“Guards his life” contrasts neatly with “will die” in Proverbs 19:16\. It’s a choice between life and death. But, strictly speaking, “obeys instructions” is not the opposite of “is contemptuous of his ways.” The poetry requires us to do a little reading between the lines. We can start by asking the question, how is *not* obeying instructions equal to being contemptuous of one’s ways? The answer could be something like this: disobedience brings destruction, so willful rebellion is tantamount to despising one’s own life. The proverb is communicating more than meets the eye. The full meaning could be stated this way:
“He who obeys instructions loves his life and will preserve it (because the instructions are healthy),
but he who disobeys instructions is showing contempt for his life, and he will die.”
Proverbs 10:2 contains another example of antithetical parallelism:
“Ill\-gotten treasures are of no value,
but righteousness delivers from death.”
Or, to fill out the meaning:
“Ill\-gotten treasures lead to death and are of no value,
but righteousness, which refuses to cheat others, leads to life—great value, indeed.”
Sometimes, the Hebrew poets used a combination of parallel styles. Consider the words of Wisdom personified in Proverbs 8:35\-36:
“For whoever finds me finds life
and receives favor from the Lord.
But whoever fails to find me harms himself;
all who hate me love death.”
The first two lines exhibit synonymous parallelism: finding “life” equals receiving “favor.” Lines 3 and 4 also present synonymous ideas: “harm” is equated with “death.” However, the two halves of the quatrain are in contrast with each other. (Notice *but* at the start of the third line.) The first two lines, taken together, describe someone who finds Wisdom. The last two lines describe the fate of one who “hates” Wisdom and therefore fails to find it.
Much of the Bible was originally written in poetic form. Psalms, Proverbs, the Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, and Lamentations are almost entirely poetic. Most of the prophets also wrote in poetry, some of them exclusively so. Because poetry is so pervasive in the Hebrew writings, it is beneficial for the student of the Bible to study the structure and forms of parallelism.
|
Subsets and Splits
Top Long Responses
Returns the prompts and responses where the response length falls within a specified range, ordered by decreasing length, which provides basic insight into the distribution of response lengths.