Split (1)

train · 9.53k rows

prompt stringlengths 0 158	response stringlengths 14 40.2k
What does it mean to backslide?	Answer The word backslide, in a Christian context, implies movement away from Christ rather than toward Him. A backslider is someone who is going the wrong way, spiritually. He is regressing rather than progressing. The backslider had at one time demonstrated a commitment to Christ or maintained a certain standard of behavior, but he has since reverted to old ways. Backsliding may manifest itself in several ways, e.g., dropping out of church, losing fervor for the Lord, walking away from a ministry or a family, or falling back into old habits. Some people use the word backslide to mean that a person has lost his or her salvation. However, since a saved person is secure in Christ (John 10:28–29\)—God will not kick His children out of His family—that is not how we will use the word. Rather, when we speak of backsliding, we simply mean that someone is growing cold toward Christ. A backslidden condition could indicate the person was never saved to begin with—in which case, the backslider is only showing his true colors. But it’s also possible for children of God to backslide, temporarily. The Bible uses the phrase fall away rather than backslide, but the idea is similar. In the Bible to “fall away” can mean two different things. In one instance, the person is saved but experiencing a temporary period of questioning that we could call a “crisis of faith.” In the other instance, the person was never saved at all but only temporarily behaving as a saved person would. We will call this taking Christianity for a “test drive.” The Backslide Crisis of Faith: In Mark 14:27 Jesus tells His disciples, “You will all fall away.” What He meant was that, when He was arrested, they would experience a crisis of faith, a life event so shocking that they would run from Jesus and question the very core of their beliefs. It was a night of offense, a night of stumbling for them. But this was a temporary condition. Three days later, Jesus rose from the dead and appeared to the disciples. Their faith and hope were restored, stronger than ever. The apostle Paul tells us how to handle a fellow believer who is backsliding: “Brothers and sisters, if someone is caught in a sin, you who live by the Spirit should restore that person gently. But watch yourselves, or you also may be tempted” (Galatians 6:1\). James concurs: “My brothers and sisters, if one of you should wander from the truth . . . someone should bring that person back” (James 5:19\). The backslider has wandered from where he should be and is “stuck” in sin, but the church will work to restore him and set him back on the path of righteousness. There are events in life, such as the death of a loved one, that may cause us to question God. This is okay, as long as we go to God with those questions rather than using them as excuses to live in rebellion. The result of a crisis of faith is often that we come to know God more intimately than before. In times of trial, we should delve into the Word, pray with persistence (Luke 18:1\), and surround ourselves with those whose faith is strong. The Backslide Test Drive: We see another type of “falling away” in Hebrews 6:4–6 and Luke 8:13\. Hebrews 6 describes the [apostate](apostasy.html), someone who had only “tasted the goodness of the word” (verse 5\) and later rejects it. In Luke 8:13 Jesus illustrates apostasy with [the rocky soil](parable-sower.html)—some fall away or backslide because “they have no root.” In each of these passages, a person appears outwardly to be a Christian, at least for a while, but he has not committed himself to God. Such a person might be attending church, reading his Bible, listening to Christian music, and hanging out with Christian friends. He likes the wholesome atmosphere and good company that being around Christians affords. But his heart has not changed; he has never been born again. Eventually, he backslides or apostatizes. He had taken Christianity for a test drive and decided he wasn’t buying. Salvation comes by means of a genuine confession of Jesus as Lord to a heart that believes in Jesus’ death and resurrection (Romans 10:9–10\). If a person who has been truly saved later backslides—that is, he slips back into spiritually damaging attitudes and behaviors—the slide will be temporary. The [chastening of the Lord](chasten-chastening.html) will bring him back (see Hebrews 12:4–13\). The [Good Shepherd](Good-Shepherd.html) will seek out the wandering lamb (Luke 15:3–7\). If a person who was never saved but only putting on a good front backslides—that is, he drops the charade and shows his true colors—his last condition will be worse than the first (Hebrews 10:26–31\). How can we tell one type of backsliding from the other? We can’t always, unless given time, and, even then, we don’t know how much time God will take in restoring the backslider. Only God can see the heart.
Does the Greek word arsenokoitai in 1 Corinthians 6:9 really mean “homosexuals” or something else?	Answer In 1 Corinthians 6:9–10 Paul lists some sinful lifestyles that give evidence that a person is not saved: “Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men . . . will inherit the kingdom of God.” In other words, a practicing, unrepentant idolater, adulterer, or homosexual is fooling himself if he thinks he is going to heaven. Christians are saved from such sins. There are some interpreters today who object to lumping homosexuals in with the other sinners listed in this passage. The wording “men who have sex with men” is unclear, they say, and should not be construed as a condemnation of all same\-sex activity. In an attempt to make [homosexual behavior](homosexuality-Bible.html) compatible with Christianity, they attempt to redefine the Greek word. The phrase “men who have sex with men” (translated “homosexuals” in the NASB) is a translation of the Greek word arsenokoitai. Those who object to this translation say that arsenokoitai does not refer to all homosexual relationships but only to those involving abuse, coercion, or unfaithfulness. They say the word does not refer to “loving, faithful” same\-sex relationships. Arsenokoitai is a compound word: arseno is the word for “a male,” and koitai is the word for “mat” or “bed.” Put the two halves together, and the word means “a male bed”—that is, a person who makes use of a “male\-only bed” or a “bed for males.” And, truthfully, that’s all the information we need to understand the intent of 1 Corinthians 6:9\. As in English, the Greek word for “bed” can have both sexual and non\-sexual meanings. The statement “I bought a new bed” has no sexual connotation; however, “I went to bed with her” does. In the context of 1 Corinthians 6:9, koitai connotes an illicit sexual connotation—the apostle is clearly speaking of “wrongdoers” here. The conclusion is that the word arsenokoitai refers to homosexuals—men who are in bed with other men, engaging in same\-gender sexual activity. It is interesting to note that arsenokoitai was not a common word in the Greek language to refer to homosexuality. Some have even claimed that the apostle Paul invented the word. This is not the case. In the [Septuagint Greek translation](Septuagint.html) of the two verses in the Mosaic Law that refer to homosexuality both contain forms of arseno and koitai (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13\). This likely indicates that Paul had Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 in mind when he wrote 1 Corinthians 6:9, making it abundantly clear what Paul meant by the word arsenokoitai. The notion that some homosexual relationships are accepted is not even hinted at in this passage. The men’s commitment level or the presence of “love” is not addressed. The idea that the condemned same\-sex activity is linked to economic exploitation or abuse is also a forced reading with no textual basis. Paul’s reference to “homosexuals,” together with a reference to “effeminate” men in the same verse (in the NASB), effectively covers both active and passive homosexual behavior. God’s Word is not open to personal interpretation in this matter. Homosexuality is wrong; it always has been, and it always will be. Just two verses later, 1 Corinthians 6:11 says, “And that is what some of you *were*. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God” (emphasis added). This statement negates the idea of “homosexual Christianity” being acceptable to God. Paul tells the Corinthian believers that practices such as homosexuality were evidences of their former life before Christ. Now they have been [born again](born-again.html), and they have a new nature and new desires. The old nature remains, and the temptations continue, but child of God has been called to fight against sin, not live in it any longer. By the life\-changing grace of God, the Corinthians’ new life stands in opposition to the way they used to live.
How is an eternity in hell a just punishment for only a human lifetime of sin?	Answer The Bible says that hell is eternal (Matthew 25:46\). Many people struggle with the justice of that. They question how it is just for God to punish a person for eternity in response to only a human lifetime of 70, 80, 90, or even 100 years of sin. How does a sinner’s finite lifespan merit an infinitely long punishment? There are two biblical principles that clearly declare eternity in hell to be the just punishment for sin, no matter how long one’s earthly life lasted. First, the Bible declares that all sin is ultimately against God (Psalm 51:4\). The extent of the punishment depends, in part, on the target of the crime. In a human court of law, a physical assault against an individual will usually result in a fine and possibly some time in jail. In contrast, a physical assault against the president or prime minister of a country will likely result in a lifetime in prison. And this is the case despite the fact that the crime was a one\-time offense, not a continual, ongoing action. God is infinitely higher and greater than any human being. How much more are our crimes worthy of a great punishment in light of the fact that our sins are against God (Romans 6:23\)? Second, the idea that we cease sinning after death is not taught in the Bible. Are those who go to hell suddenly sinless and perfect? No. Those who go into eternity without Christ will be confirmed in their wickedness. The hard\-hearted will be eternally hard\-hearted. There will be “weeping and gnashing of teeth” in hell (Matthew 25:30\), but no repentance. Sinners in hell will be given over to their own nature; they will be sin\-infected, evil, immoral, and depraved beings for all of eternity, forever unredeemed and unregenerate. The lake of fire will be a place of eternal rebellion against God—even as that rebellion is judged (Revelation 20:14–15; cf. Revelation 16:9, 11\). Unsaved people do not only sin for 70, 80, 90, or 100 years. They sin for eternity. What it comes down to is this—if a person wants to be separated from God for eternity, God will grant that desire. Believers are those who say to God, “Your will be done.” Unbelievers are those to whom God says, “Your will be done.” The will of the unsaved is to reject salvation through Jesus Christ and remain in sin; God will honor that decision, and its consequences, for eternity.
What is a Christian minister?	Answer A minister is, literally, a “servant,” but the word has taken on a broader meaning in religious circles. Today, a Christian minister is seen as someone authorized to conduct religious services. A person who leads worship services, administrates a church, or conducts weddings and funerals is considered a Christian minister. Synonyms of minister are clergy and pastor. In the Bible, the role of minister is not linked to licensing or being an “official” wielding some kind of authority. In Romans 15:16 Paul says that he was called to be “a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles. \[God] gave me the priestly duty of proclaiming the gospel of God, so that the Gentiles might become an offering acceptable to God, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.” Following in Paul’s footsteps, any person who desires to serve God by “proclaiming the gospel so that . . . others might become sanctified by the Holy Spirit” is a Christian minister. Broadly speaking, being a servant of Christ makes one a Christian minister. Individual churches can define more specific roles for that church’s ministers or pastors. Although Scripture indicates that the spiritual authority of a local body should be a man (1 Timothy 2:12\), other ministering roles are available to both men [and women](women-in-ministry.html). In most non\-Catholic churches, a senior minister is responsible for the majority of the preaching and for overseeing church government. In the New Testament, such men are referred to as “overseers,” “elders,” or “shepherds” (Acts 20:28; Titus 1:7; 1 Timothy 3:1–2\). These terms are referencing “ministers” in an official capacity—those having been called by God to lead a church. There are strict guidelines for those aspiring to the office of overseer. An elder or minister must be “blameless, faithful to his wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient . . . not overbearing, not quick\-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. Rather, he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self\-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.” (Titus 1:6–9\) First Timothy 3:1–7 adds that the role of overseer is “a noble task.” Also, a minister should not be a recent convert and must “have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil’s trap.” Even in the first\-century church, there were some who infiltrated the church, posing as ministers but motivated only by greed and lust (2 Peter 2:1–2, 19; Matthew 7:15; Acts 20:29\). Not everyone who calls himself a Christian minister is worthy of that title. God takes such imposters seriously (Jude 1:12–13\). A true Christian minister is someone gifted by God for church leadership (1 Corinthians 12:28–29\). He has been ordained by a like\-minded governing body (Acts 6:6; 13:3; 2 Timothy 1:6\). And he lives in accordance with the Scriptures defining his role.
Does the fact that dispensational theology is a recent development argue against its legitimacy?	Answer While certain aspects of [dispensational theology](dispensationalism.html) have been present throughout church history, the system of dispensational theology was not formalized until [John Nelson Darby](John-Nelson-Darby.html) began teaching it in the mid\-1800s. Dispensational theology first became popular in the days of [Cyrus Scofield](C-I-Scofield.html) with the publication of the Scofield Reference Bible in the early 1900s. The better part of wisdom says that, if someone is the first person in 2,000 years of church history to think of something, it should be seriously questioned. After all, if it is a true and important doctrine, surely God would have revealed it to someone much earlier in church history. What are the implications of this principle for dispensational theology? Should dispensational theology be rejected because it is new? There are two key points to consider. First, while a new doctrine should be viewed skeptically, newness alone is not a sufficient reason for rejection. Every system of theology was new when it was first understood and organized. The only true test of a doctrine is whether or not it is biblical. Is it taught in the Bible (2 Timothy 3:16–17\)? Does it contradict any clear teaching of Scripture (Psalm 119:160; John 17:17\)? Agreement with the Word of God is the only foolproof standard by which to evaluate a doctrine. Dispensational theology should stand or fall by comparing it with Scripture. Its newness should not be the determining factor in its evaluation. Second, while dispensational theology as an organized system is new, the concepts that comprise dispensational theology are not. The teaching of a literal millennial kingdom can be found as early as “[The Shepherd of Hermas](Shepherd-of-Hermas.html),” written in the middle of the second century AD. Belief in there being a distinction between Israel and the church in God’s program for the ages did not become prominent until Israel became a nation again in 1948\. After all, how can there be a distinction between Israel and the church if there is no such thing as Israel? But, even with that in mind, there were believers who rejected the idea that the church replaced Israel prior to Israel’s becoming a nation again. The only significant aspect of dispensational theology that has little to no support in church history is the concept of the pretribulational rapture. While some see hints of a belief in a pretibulational rapture in “The Shepherd of Hermas,” there definitely was no one explicitly advocating the concept until the 1800s. This fact should cause all Bible interpreters, whether dispensational or non\-dispensational, to examine the issue closely. But, again, the relative newness of a particular teaching is not the core issue. The question always has to be, is it biblical? If dispensational theology is true, why did God wait so long before revealing it? Perhaps God wanted other more important doctrines to be developed first. Perhaps God chose to reveal dispensational theology in recent centuries due to the fact that the end times are approaching. The “why” cannot be explicitly answered, biblically. The key point is this—dispensational theology as a whole, and each of its core doctrines, should be evaluated using Scripture. It should be accepted or rejected based on whether or not it is in agreement with the Word of God.
What does it mean to be still and know that I am God?	Answer This popular saying comes from Psalm 46:10, “Be still, and know that I am God; / I will be exalted among the nations, / I will be exalted in the earth.” This verse comes from a longer section of Scripture that proclaims the power and security of God. While the threat the psalmist faced is not mentioned specifically, it seems to relate to the pagan nations and a call for God to end the raging war. Here is the whole psalm: “God is our refuge and strength, an ever\-present help in trouble. Therefore we will not fear, though the earth give way and the mountains fall into the heart of the sea, though its waters roar and foam and the mountains quake with their surging. There is a river whose streams make glad the city of God, the holy place where the Most High dwells. God is within her, she will not fall; God will help her at break of day. Nations are in uproar, kingdoms fall; he lifts his voice, the earth melts. The LORD Almighty is with us; the God of Jacob is our fortress. Come and see what the LORD has done, the desolations he has brought on the earth. He makes wars cease to the ends of the earth. He breaks the bow and shatters the spear; he burns the shields with fire. He says, ‘Be still, and know that I am God; I will be exalted among the nations, I will be exalted in the earth.’ The LORD Almighty is with us; the God of Jacob is our fortress.” Notice that the majority of the psalm is written in the third person as the psalmist speaks about God. However, God’s voice comes through in verse 10, and the Lord speaks in the first person: “Be still, and know that I am God; I will be exalted among the nations, I will be exalted in the earth.” Be still. This is a call for those involved in the war to stop fighting, to be still. The word still is a translation of the Hebrew word rapa, meaning “to slacken, let down, or cease.” In some instances, the word carries the idea of “to drop, be weak, or faint.” It connotes two people fighting until someone separates them and makes them drop their weapons. It is only after the fighting has stopped that the warriors can acknowledge their trust in God. Christians often interpret the command to “be still” as “to be quiet in God’s presence.” While quietness is certainly helpful, the phrase means to stop frantic activity, to let down, and to be still. For God’s people being “still” would involve looking to the Lord for their help (cf. Exodus 14:13\); for God’s enemies, being “still” would mean ceasing to fight a battle they cannot win. Know that I am God. Know in this instance means “to properly ascertain by seeing” and “acknowledge, be aware.” How does acknowledging God impact our stillness? We know that He is omniscient (all\-knowing), omnipresent (present everywhere), omnipotent (all\-powerful), holy, sovereign, faithful, infinite, and good. Acknowledging God implies that we can trust Him and surrender to His plan because we understand who He is. I will be exalted among the nations, I will be exalted in the earth. It was tempting for the nation of Israel to align with foreign powers, and God reminds them that ultimately He is exalted! God wins, and He will bring peace. During Isaiah’s time, Judah looked for help from the Egyptians, even though God warned against it. Judah did not need Egyptian might; they needed reliance on the Lord: “In repentance and rest is your salvation, in quietness and trust is your strength” (Isaiah 30:15\). When we are still and surrendered to God, we find peace even when the earth gives way, the mountains fall (verse 2\), or the nations go into an uproar and kingdoms fall (verse 6\). When life gets overwhelming and busyness takes precedence, remember Psalm 46:1, “God is our refuge and strength, an ever\-present help in trouble.” Run to Him, lay down your weapons and fall into His arms. Acknowledge that He is God and that He is exalted in the earth. Be still and know that He is God.
What is the Mishnah? What is a midrash?	Answer The Mishnah is the oral law in Judaism, as opposed to the written [Torah](what-is-the-Torah.html), or the Mosaic Law. The Mishnah was collected and committed to writing about AD 200 and forms part of the [Talmud](Talmud.html). A particular teaching within the Mishnah is called a midrash. [Orthodox Judaism](Orthodox-Judaism.html) believes that Moses received the Torah (the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy) from God and that he wrote down everything God spoke to him. However, they also believe that God gave Moses explanations and examples of how to interpret the Law that Moses did not write down. These unwritten explanations are known in Judaism as the Oral Torah. The Oral Torah was supposedly passed down from Moses to Joshua and then to the rabbis until the advent of Christianity when it was finally written down as the legal authority called halahka (“the walk”). The two main sections of the Oral Torah are the Mishnah and the [Gemara](Gemara.html). The Mishnah (משנה, “repetition”) essentially records the debates of the post\-temple sages from AD 70—200 (called the Tannaim) and is considered the first major work of “Rabbinical Judaism.” It is composed of six orders (sedarim), arranged topically: • Zeraim (“seeds”) – discussions concerning prayer, diet, and agricultural laws • Moed (“festival”) – discussions about holidays • Nashim (“women”) – discussions about women and family life • Nezikin (“damages”) – discussions about damages and compensation in civil law • Kodashim (“holy things”) – discussions regarding sacrifices, offerings, dedications, and other temple\-related matters • Tohorot (“purities”) – discussions regarding the purity of vessels, foods, dwellings, and people After the Mishnah was published, it was studied exhaustively by generations of rabbis in both Babylonia and Israel. From AD 200—500, additional commentaries on the Mishnah were compiled and put together as the Gemara. Actually, there are two different versions of the Gemara, one compiled by scholars in Israel (c. AD 400\) and the other by the scholars of Babylonia (c. AD 500\). Together, the Mishnah and the Gemara form the Talmud. Since there are two different Gemaras, there are two different Talmuds: the Babylonian Talmud and the Jerusalem (or Palestinian) Talmud. The Talmud can be thought of as rabbinical commentaries on the Hebrew Scriptures, just like there are commentaries written on the Bible from a Christian perspective. In Judaism the Talmud is just as important as the Hebrew Bible. It is used to explain the laws that may not be clear in Scripture. For example, Deuteronomy 21:18–21 is the law governing the punishment of a rebellious son. But what behaviors make a son “rebellious”? The Scripture only mentions gluttony and drunkenness. Are there other behaviors that would be classified as rebellious? What if only one parent thinks the son rebellious? How old does a son have to be to be held accountable for his rebellion? There are many questions that are not directly addressed in the Law, and so the rabbis turn to the Oral Law. The midrash on Deuteronomy 21:18–21 states that both parents must consider the son rebellious for him to be presented to the elders for judgment. The Talmud also states that in order to be considered rebellious the son must be old enough to grow a beard. A second type of writings in the Talmud is called the Aggadah (also spelled Haggadah). Aggadah are not considered law (halakha) but literature that consists of wisdom and teachings, stories, and parables. The Aggadah are sometimes used with halakha to teach a principle or make a legal point. For example, one Aggadah tells the story of baby Moses being held by Pharaoh at a banquet. As baby Moses is sitting in Pharaoh’s lap, he reaches up, removes Pharaoh’s crown, and places it on his own head. Pharaoh’s advisers tell him that it is a sign that Moses will one day usurp the king’s authority and that he should kill the baby. But Pharaoh’s daughter, insisting that the baby is innocent, offers a test. She tells her father to place the baby on the ground with both the crown and some hot coals. If the baby Moses takes the crown, he is guilty; but if he takes the hot coals, he is innocent. The Aggadah goes on to say that an angel pushed Moses’ hand to the coals. Moses then burned his mouth with the coal, and that is why Moses was “slow of speech and tongue” as an adult (Exodus 4:10\). There are many Aggadah in the Talmud that are prophetic about the Messiah. One such is the story of the White Ram. It is said that God created a pure White Ram in the Garden of Eden and told him to wait there until God called for him. The White Ram waited until Abraham agreed to sacrifice his son of promise, Isaac. When God stopped the sacrifice of Isaac, God brought the White Ram to be substituted for Isaac. The White Ram, created before the foundations of the earth, was slain, and this anecdote presents a picture of our Messiah as the Lamb of God slain from the foundation of the world (1 Peter 1:20; Ephesians 1:4; Revelation 13:8\). The White Ram willingly laid down his life for Isaac. Also, the ram’s two horns were made into shofars (trumpets). According to Aggadic tradition, one shofar sounded when God announced Himself to Moses (Exodus 19:19\), and the other horn will sound at the coming of the Messiah (see 1 Thessalonians 4:16\). Different sects of Judaism have different views on the Talmud. The Orthodox sect holds that the Oral Law or Talmud is just as inspired as the Bible, but Conservative and Reform Jewish sects do not. Reform and Conservative sects believe they can interpret the Talmud as written by rabbis but are not necessarily required to follow it. Karaite Jews do not follow the Talmud or rabbinic teachings at all but only the Hebrew Bible. While Christians can certainly study the Talmud for background information, we should not take it as inspired Scripture.
What is a measure of faith (Romans 12:3)?	Answer In the English Standard Version of the Bible, Romans 12:3 says, “For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned.” The New American Standard Bible, King James Version, and Holman Christian Standard Bible also contain “measure of faith,” while “measure of faith” is presented as “the faith God has distributed to each of you” in the New International Version and “the faith God has given us” in the New Living Translation. Right away, two facts are apparent about the “measure of faith”: first, it is the standard by which we correctly appraise ourselves, and, second, it is meted out by God. Because each believer receives his measure of faith by God’s allotment, we are prevented from thinking of ourselves “more highly” than we ought. Looking at the broader context of Romans 12:3, we notice there is something else given by God. The grace of God is mentioned as a gift to Paul in the same verse, and that same grace is mentioned as a gift to all believers in verse 6: “We have different gifts, according to the grace given to each of us.” So, immediately following his discussion of the measure of faith, Paul speaks of the [gifts of the Spirit](spiritual-gifts-list.html): prophesying, serving, teaching, encouraging, giving, leading, and showing mercy. Recognizing that our measure of faith comes from God prevents pride and encourages “sober judgment.” Each of us should recognize the limits of his or her own gifts. At the same time, we must acknowledge the gifts that others possess and that each believer is divinely placed into Christ as a vital and functioning part of His spiritual Body (Romans 12:4–8; cf. 1 Corinthians 12:27\). No member should consider himself or herself as superior to any other but should instead recognize that God has placed us just where He wants us with the gifts He has chosen for us (1 Corinthians 12:11\). God has given to each a “measure of faith” to use for Him. This “faith” is the gift from which all the other gifts flow. Faith is the first gift we receive (for justification), and faith is the gift that brings the other gifts of the Spirit into our lives. When a person is born again, God gives him gifts as a new member of the family of God. We receive the gifts according to the measure that God has given us, and we exercise the gifts according to the same measure of faith. “To each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it” (Ephesians 4:7\). God deals to everyone his portion. Not everyone receives all the gifts, nor is the same gift given to everyone in the same measure. Our sovereign God distributes each gracious gift according to the measure of faith that He has bestowed on us.
What is a glory cloud?	Answer During the previous century, some churches began to report the appearance of a “glory cloud”—they believed this to be a physical manifestation of God’s presence in the form of a glittery cloud that lingered over worship services. Such clouds have been reported in services all over the world, from one\-room house churches in Brazil to mega\-churches in California. Those who have witnessed this phenomenon describe it as a glittering swarm of [gold\-like particles](gold-dust-church.html) that settles on skin and hair and then vanishes upward. Some describe hands and faces covered in oil or a glittery residue that returns even after wiping it off. There are also reports of feathers or “jewels” falling from these clouds. Some pastors, usually in the Charismatic or Pentecostal movement, claim that the cloud has so enveloped them before preaching that they could hardly see the congregation. They attribute it to the tangible presence of God anointing them for preaching. They use as their biblical foundation Old Testament passages such as 2 Chronicles 5:14; 1 Kings 8:11; Ezekiel 10:4; and Exodus 40:35\. The term glory cloud is not found anywhere in Scripture, and many rightly wonder whether such a thing is biblical. It is significant that the “proof texts” for a glory cloud come entirely from the Old Testament. The New Testament contains no examples of God manifesting Himself in such a cloud. Since the church lives under the New Testament covenant, we have no basis for believing such a phenomenon to be a genuine work of God. The first biblical reference to God’s presence in a cloud is found in Exodus 13:21\. As the Israelites moved toward the Promised Land, “the LORD went before them by day in a pillar of a cloud, to lead them the way; and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light; to go by day and night.” Exodus 40:35 associates the cloud with God’s glory: “And Moses was not able to enter into the tent of the congregation, because the cloud abode thereon, and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle.” In order for it to fill the tabernacle, the “glory of the Lord” must have had a physical manifestation recognizable to the people. However, there is no indication in Scripture that the clouds were glittery or filled with golden dust. In fact, every time gold or jewels are mentioned in connection with God, they are always of the purest variety. No independent gemologist has ever verified that any element produced in these services is authentic. The Lord told Moses, “No man may see me and live” (Exodus 33:20\). He allowed Moses only a [fleeting glimpse of His glory](God-Moses-face-to-face.html) in passing (Exodus 33:22–23\). Those who encountered the cloud of God’s glory in the Old Testament were often unable to approach it (see Exodus 40:34–35; 2 Chronicles 7:2; and 1 Kings 8:11\). By contrast, those experiencing the modern version of a “glory cloud” greet it with singing, dancing, shouting, and basking in the glitter that engulfs them. This response is inconsistent with biblical accounts. When the glory of God was present in a cloud, the power of His presence was so overwhelming that mortal men could not enter it. Ezekiel truly experienced the glory of the Lord. He writes, “Like the appearance of a rainbow in the clouds on a rainy day, so was the radiance around him. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD. When I saw it, I fell facedown, and I heard the voice of one speaking” (Ezekiel 1:28; cf. 44:4\). When the Lord gave Isaiah a vision of His glory, Isaiah’s response was to cry, “Woe to me! I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty” (Isaiah 6:5\). Abject humility akin to horror always followed Old Testament displays of the glory of God (2 Chronicles 5:14; 7:3; Isaiah 6:5\). The responses of Ezekiel and Isaiah to the glory of the Lord were nothing similar to the responses of those in modern Charismatic churches. God has displayed His glory in a thousand ways (Psalm 19:1\), the foremost being the Person of His Son. Jesus stated that to see and know Him is to see the glory of God. He told His followers in John 11:40, “Did I not tell you that if you believe, you will see the glory of God?” He also said, “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9\). He has given His children the Holy Spirit, which means we carry the glory of God with us everywhere we go (1 Corinthians 6:19; 2 Corinthians 5:5\). Although the Lord God can manifest any way He chooses to, He does not need a glittery cloud to communicate His presence to those who have received His offer of salvation. We do not seek a sign (Matthew 16:4\). We can enjoy His presence every moment of every day as we surrender to Him and choose to walk in the Spirit (Galatians 5:16, 25\).
What is the story of Saul of Tarsus before he became the apostle Paul?	Answer It is difficult to overestimate the influence of the [apostle Paul](life-Paul.html). He is known worldwide as one of the greatest Christian missionaries. His inspired writings cover a large portion of the New Testament, and it is safe to say that he remains one of the most read authors in human history. His abrupt turnaround from zealous persecutor of Christians to one of Christianity’s greatest proponents surely shaped the history of the early Christian church. But who was Saul of Tarsus before he became the apostle Paul? What do we know about his life prior to meeting Christ on the [Damascus Road](Damascus-Road.html)? Saul of Tarsus was born in approximately AD 5 in the city of Tarsus in Cilicia (in modern\-day Turkey). He was born to Jewish parents who possessed Roman citizenship, a coveted privilege that their son would also possess. In about AD 10, Saul’s family moved to Jerusalem. Sometime between AD 15—20 Saul began his studies of the Hebrew Scriptures in the city of Jerusalem under [Rabbi Gamaliel](Gamaliel-in-the-Bible.html). It was under Gamaliel that Saul would begin an in\-depth study of the Law with the famous rabbi. There has been some debate over whether Saul was raised in Jerusalem or in his birthplace of Tarsus, but a straightforward reading of his own comments indicates that Jerusalem was his boyhood home (Acts 22:3\). We know that Paul’s sister’s son was in Jerusalem after Paul’s conversion (Acts 23:16\), which lends weight to the idea that Paul’s entire family had moved to Jerusalem when he was young. It is quite possible that Saul was present for the trial of [Stephen](life-Stephen.html)—a trial that resulted in Stephen becoming the first Christian martyr (Acts 7:54–60\). The historian Luke tells us that Stephen’s executioners laid their garments at the feet of Saul (Acts 7:58\), who was in full approval of the mob’s murderous actions (Acts 8:1\). Saul later ravaged the church, entering the homes of believers and committing them to prison. Saul’s anti\-Christian zeal motivated him not only to arrest and imprison male Christians (the “ringleaders”) but to lock up female believers as well (Acts 8:3\). Paul’s post\-conversion correspondence to various churches reveals even more about his background. In his second letter to the church in Corinth, Paul describes himself as a Hebrew, an Israelite, and a descendant of Abraham (2 Corinthians 11:22\). In his letter to the Philippian church, Paul says he was a [Pharisee](Sadducees-Pharisees.html) of the tribe of Benjamin (Philippians 3:5\). While on his way to Damascus to arrest and extradite Christians back to Jerusalem, Saul was confronted by the very One whom he was persecuting (Acts 9:3–9; 22:6–11; 26:12–18\). What followed was one of the most dramatic conversions in church history. Saul of Tarsus became the apostle Paul, an ardent missionary to an unbelieving world and a fine example of faithful service in the face of fierce persecution (Acts 14:19; 16:22–24; 2 Corinthians 11:25–26\). Saul’s education, his background as a Pharisee, his Roman citizenship, and his unflagging zeal all contributed to his success as a missionary, once those credentials and traits had been subjugated to the lordship of Christ.
What is spiritual theology?	Answer Spiritual theology is a branch of theology that emphasizes living “in the spirit” instead of “in the flesh.” In other words, it is concerned with how a person grows and develops spiritually. While there are biblical, evangelical approaches to spiritual theology, the term spiritual theology is most often used in Catholic circles, where it involves the exploration of the works an individual must perform in order to advance to “perfection” in the Christian life. Spiritual theology is seen by Catholic theologians as the uniting of the theologies of asceticism and [mysticism](Christian-mysticism.html). Catholic theologian Fr. Jordan Aumann defines spiritual theology as “that part of theology that, proceeding from the truths of divine revelation and the religious experience of individual persons, defines the nature of the supernatural life, formulates directives for its growth and development, and explains the process by which souls advance from the beginning of the spiritual life to its full perfection.” Note that, in this definition, “religious experience” is given equal weight with “divine revelation.” In other words, spiritual theology is not drawn from the Bible alone; it comes from experience in addition to the Bible. This fact alone should cause us to be wary of such a theology. According to spiritual theology, in order to attain “perfection” in the Christian life, one must practice vocal prayer, meditation, and contemplative prayer; must [pray the Rosary](praying-rosary.html); must put off sin and serve God; and must experience hardship and suffering, including “[the dark night of the soul](dark-night-soul.html).” As the soul progresses closer to perfection, it must go through three stages: the purgative, the illuminative, and the unitive ways. The main problem with spiritual theology, besides its departure from Scripture alone, is that it focuses on physical means to a spiritual end. Scripture teaches that we are born again by the Spirit of God and that we are kept by the Spirit of God and that we are sanctified by the Spirit of God. Simply practicing rituals or maintaining discipline is no guarantee of salvation, let alone spiritual growth. John Wesley established his “Holy Club” with its rules and “method” of holy living years before his conversion. Religion does not equal regeneration. The Bible commands followers of Christ to walk in the Spirit: “So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh” (Galatians 5:16\). Christians are those who have been born again, those “who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit” (Romans 8:4\). We should all desire to “grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord” (2 Peter 3:18\). But we follow Christ, not [St. Teresa of Avila](Teresa-of-Avila.html), [St. John of the Cross](St-John-of-the-Cross.html), [St. Catherine of Siena](Catherine-of-Siena.html), Thomas á Kempis, St. Ignatius of Loyola, or any of the others that Catholics lift up as models of perfection. We must always guard against legalism. The example of the Galatians provides a warning for us: in an attempt to “grow spiritually,” the churches of Galatia were slipping into legalism. They were trying to live a “good Christian life” by going back to the Law and Old Testament ordinances. Paul rebuked such a course of action: “Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard? Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh?” (Galatians 3:2–3\). God, who began the good work in us, will complete it (Philippians 1:6\). Prayer, meditation, and other spiritual disciplines are good and helpful in our spiritual growth. But we should reject manmade methods that promise perfection. We should avoid programs that are touted as an aid in “receiving salvation” and in “cooperating with Christ’s redemption.” The just will live by faith (Galatians 3:11\). We live by the power of the Spirit, not by the works of the flesh or by adherence to the Law.
What kind of bodies will people have in hell?	Answer The Bible indicates that both believers and non\-believers will have resurrected bodies on the last day (Daniel 12:1–2\). Those going to hell will be eternally separated from God. That’s the “[second death](second-death.html)”—being cast into the lake of fire to be tormented for eternity, separated from God (Revelation 20:14\). One clue that people in hell have a body of some kind is Jesus’ account of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16\. The rich man in hell had the ability to feel “torment” and “agony” (verses 23–25\), the ability to see and speak (verses 23–24\), and a “tongue” that he wanted cooled (verse 24\). Since this story is set before the resurrection on the last day, it seems that those now in hell exist in an “intermediate” state; many theologians believe this to include a “[spiritual body](spiritual-body.html)” of some type—or perhaps the spirit takes on some of the attributes of the body it inhabited. People currently in heaven also have a “spiritual body,” it would seem. Lazarus’ “finger” is mentioned in Luke 16:24\. And, when the three disciples saw Moses and Elijah on the [mount of transfiguration](transfiguration.html), the two prophets did not appear as disembodied spirits; rather, they were recognizable individuals. They were visible as “men . . . in glorious splendor” (Luke 9:30\). Even pre\-resurrection, Moses and Elijah have a body of some kind. Another indication that people will have physical bodies in hell is that Jesus warned us to “fear Him who can destroy both body and soul in hell” (Matthew 10:28\). The eternal, continuing destruction of hell is the product of God’s justice and wrath, and the destruction of that place will affect the “body” as well as the soul. The problem some people have with the concept of having a physical body in hell is that, if the fire of hell is taken literally, that would mean one’s bodily tissue would be perpetually burning and regenerating to be burned again. But Scripture teaches that the resurrection body will be [different from the bodies we now possess](resurrection-body.html). Our earthly bodies are fit for this world; the resurrection body will be fit for eternity—in either heaven or hell. God has good news regarding the harsh reality of hell’s existence. God, in His justice, prepared hell for the punishment of sin; but, in His mercy, He also provided the means by which we can be saved. Romans 5:8–9 states, “But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him.” Because of Christ’s sacrifice and our faith in His atoning blood, we can be at peace with God (Romans 5:1\). We can look forward to the time when we will live with Him for all eternity in the resurrected bodies He will give us. What a blessing it is to be at peace with God. To be called His child, His friend. We can enjoy the peace and joy of His presence both now and forever.
What does it mean to be born of water (John 3:5)?	Answer In John 3, Jesus uses the phrase “born of water” in answer to Nicodemus’s question about how to enter the kingdom of heaven. He told Nicodemus that he “must be born again” (John 3:3\). Nicodemus questioned how such a thing could happen when he was a grown man. Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit” (John 3:5\). Being “[born of the Spirit](born-of-the-spirit.html)” is easily interpreted—salvation involves a new life that only the Holy Spirit can produce (cf. 2 Corinthians 3:6\). But there are a couple different schools of thought on what Jesus meant when He said, “born of water.” One perspective is that “born of water” refers to physical birth. Unborn babies float in fluid in the amniotic sac for nine months. When the time for birth arrives, the amniotic sac bursts, and the baby is born in a rush of “water,” entering the world as a new creature. This birth parallels being “born of the Spirit,” as a similar [new birth](new-birth.html) occurs within our hearts (2 Corinthians 5:17\). A person once\-born has physical life; a person twice\-born has eternal life (John 3:15–18, 36; 17:3; 1 Peter 1:23\). Just as a baby contributes no effort to the birth process—the work is done by the mother—so it is with spiritual birth. We are merely the recipients of God’s grace as He gives us new birth through His Spirit (Ephesians 2:8–9\). According to this view, Jesus was using a teaching technique He often employed by comparing a spiritual truth with a physical reality. Nicodemus did not understand spiritual birth, but he could understand physical birth so that was where Jesus took him. The other perspective is that “born of water” refers to spiritual cleansing and that Nicodemus would have naturally understood it that way. According to this view, “born of water” and “born of the Spirit” are different ways of saying the same thing, once metaphorically and once literally. Jesus’ words “born of water and the Spirit” describe different aspects of the same spiritual birth, or of what it means to be “born again.” So, when Jesus told Nicodemus that he must “be born of water,” He was referring to his need for spiritual cleansing. Throughout the Old Testament, water is used figuratively of spiritual cleansing. For example, Ezekiel 36:25 says, “I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities” (see also Numbers 19:17–19; and Psalm 51:2, 7\). Nicodemus, a teacher of the law, would surely have been familiar with the concept of physical water representing spiritual purification. The New Testament, too, uses water as a figure of the new birth. Regeneration is called a “washing” brought about by the Holy Spirit through the Word of God at the moment of salvation (Titus 3:5; cf. Ephesians 5:26; John 13:10\). Christians are “washed . . . sanctified . . . justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Corinthians 6:11\). The “washing” Paul speaks of here is a spiritual one. Whichever perspective is correct, one thing is certain: Jesus was not teaching that one [must be baptized in water](baptism-John-3-5.html) in order to be saved. Baptism is nowhere mentioned in the context, nor did Jesus ever imply that we must do anything to inherit eternal life but trust in Him in faith (John 3:16\). The emphasis of Jesus' words is on repentance and spiritual renewal—we need the “living water” Jesus later promised the woman at the well (John 4:10\). [Water baptism](water-baptism.html) is an outward sign that we have given our lives to Jesus, but not a requirement for salvation (Luke 23:40–43\).
What is the Greek Orthodox Church?	Answer The Greek Orthodox Church (GOC) is a branch of [Eastern Orthodoxy](Eastern-Orthodox-church.html), which formally broke with the Western (or Roman Catholic) Church in AD 1054\. Even though the Greek Orthodox Church is separate from Catholicism, many of its practices are similar, such as the veneration of saints. The term orthodox means that they believe they hold the correct opinion on true Christianity. The Greek Orthodox Church claims to trace its roots to the apostles and early church fathers, calling itself “the Mother Church of Christendom.” While they do hold to many foundational truths of Christianity, such as the Trinity, they have also added many practices and beliefs at variance with biblical Christianity. Many Greek Orthodox Churches conduct their Sunday service, called a Divine Liturgy, in Greek, which is a problem for anyone who does not speak Greek. Their structure more resembles Catholicism than Protestantism. Worship services are filled with formality, ritual, and choral music. Within a typical 75\-minute service, they will light candles for various reasons, kneel in tandem, kiss icons, and make the “[sign of the cross](sign-of-the-cross.html),” although they repeat the gesture backward from the way Roman Catholics do. Observing the Eucharist is central to their service and for continuing their “process” of salvation. A few Greek Orthodox practices that differ from evangelical Christianity are as follows: 1\. Communion – Only baptized and faithful Orthodox may partake of the elements of Holy Communion, which they suggest become the actual body and blood of Christ, a belief called “[transubstantiation](transubstantiation.html),” although some Orthodox theologians object to that term. There is no solid scriptural foundation for believing that bread and drink become the physical body and blood of Jesus. Such a concept hints at cannibalism, which is only spoken of in Scripture as a most heinous desperate act (Leviticus 26:29; Deuteronomy 28:53–57; Jeremiah 19:9; Lamentations 2:20; 4:10; Ezekiel 5:10\). The Greek Orthodox Church believes that the partaking of communion helps guarantee their salvation. 2\. Veneration of saints – The Greek Orthodox Church states that their practice of kneeling before or kissing the images of Mary and deceased saints is a way of showing reverence to their memories, rather than worshiping them. Their website states, “The Orthodox Church worships God alone. Yet, she does offer veneration to individuals who have been important human instruments of God in the history of salvation. Among those so venerated is Mary, the Mother of God, the [Theotokos](Mary-mother-God-theotokos.html).” Evangelical Christians consider this inclusion of saints in worship as a violation of 1 Timothy 2:5, which states, “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” Scripture also records several responses of men or angels when someone bowed before them (Revelation 22:9; 19:10\). Acts 10:24–25 says, “As Peter entered the house, Cornelius met him and fell at his feet in reverence. But Peter made him get up. ‘Stand up,’ he said, ‘I am only a man myself.’” The persistent focus on celebrating deceased saints draws attention away from Jesus and therefore does not agree with Scripture’s focus. Revelation 5:13 describes a scene in heaven: “Then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all that is in them, saying: ‘To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be praise and honor and glory and power, for ever and ever!’” 3\. Salvation – The Greek Orthodox Church claims that salvation is by faith in Christ. However, they differ from the evangelical concept of faith by adding, “Orthodox Christians throughout their lives receive salvation and renewal through faith, works, and the sacraments of the Church.” They teach that the purpose of Christ’s death and resurrection was so that we could become divine as He is divine. Their website states that “the Holy Spirit is the agent of [deification](deification.html) whose task it is to incorporate us into the life of the Holy Trinity.” They believe that it is baptism that “introduces the believer into the life of the Kingdom”; therefore, they baptize infants, stating that “holy anointing or [Chrismation](chrismation.html) grants the gift of the Holy Spirit for growth in the image and likeness of God.” However, this contradicts the New Testament teaching that the gift of the Holy Spirit is for those who hear and believe “the message of truth, the gospel” (Ephesians 1:13\). Infants and young children have no way of understanding the message or of making a decision to “deny themselves, take up their cross daily, and follow Jesus” (Luke 9:23\). While the Greek Orthodox Church claims to believe in salvation by faith, they add this: “According to St. Paul, not only loving deeds but also the sacraments of Baptism (Rom 6:1–11\) and the Eucharist (1 Cor 10:16–22; 11:23–32\) are decisive to salvation.” Sadly, many who have grown up in the Greek Orthodox Church tradition have never heard the real gospel of grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8–9\), either because all services were in Greek or because the true message was lost in all the pomp. 4\. Scripture – The Greek Orthodox Church uses Scripture but includes twelve non\-inspired, [apocryphal](apocrypha-deuterocanonical.html) books. On par with Scripture is their “Holy Tradition,” which includes “the writings, teachings, and acts of the apostles, saints, martyrs, and fathers of the Church, and the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils.” Their website states, “All of this collective wisdom and experience through the centuries are combined to form this second great source of sacred authority.” Although wisdom passed down through the ages can be of value, Bible\-believing Christians do not consider any other writings or revelations equal to the 66 books of the Bible. It is dangerous to consider human experience and man’s “collective wisdom” as a “source of sacred authority.” 5\. Life after death – The Greek Orthodox Church’s doctrine of life after death is vague. They maintain that they do not support the Catholic idea of purgatory, yet they state that “a partial judgment is instituted immediately after our physical death, which places us in an intermediate condition of partial blessedness (for the righteous), or partial suffering (for the unrighteous).” They believe that “a change is possible during this intermediate state and stage,” and therefore include prayers for the dead, along with almsgiving on their behalf. This contradicts the biblical teaching that there is no change possible after death (see Hebrews 9:27\). This also does not comport with Jesus’ description of what happens immediately after death in His account of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19–31\). 6\. Feasts and holy days – Greek Orthodoxy resembles ancient Judaism in its designation of holy days, feasts, and remembrance celebrations. While it is not wrong to celebrate special days and feasts, the Greek Orthodox Church borders on legalism in its rigid adherence to religion, much like the Pharisees of Jesus’ day (Matthew 23:23; Luke 7:30\). The extreme focus on tradition, ritual, repetition, and formality creates an environment for a false understanding of what it means to have a saving relationship with Jesus. Although perhaps not intentional, such focus on outward displays can leave the impression that pleasing God equals strict obedience to the Greek Orthodox Church tradition. Romans 14:5 gives the Christian freedom in regards to days: “One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind.” Mankind has always been prone to create external religion out of anything spiritual. Every denomination has elements that are more traditional than biblical. People feel comfortable with routine and tradition and may come to equate favorite traditions with godliness. However, Scripture warns against this. Jesus said, “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’ But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’ I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted’” (Luke 18:10–14\). Any church tradition that replaces or nullifies God’s truth or that exalts itself as the only right way to God is guilty of pharisaical pride and should be avoided.
What is the angelic conflict doctrine, and is it biblical?	Answer The angelic conflict doctrine is the idea that our creation as human beings was essentially God’s reaction to the [fall of Lucifer](Lucifer-Satan.html) and the angels that followed him. According to the angelic conflict doctrine, the earth was originally made for the angels; however, the highest angel, Satan, chose to rebel. In the process of the rebellion and God’s subsequent judgment, [the earth was ruined](Lucifers-flood.html), making it “formless and empty” (Genesis 1:2\). This was the beginning of the “angelic conflict,” which continues today and will continue until Satan is finally cast into the lake of fire (Revelation 20:10\). According to the angelic conflict doctrine, Satan and the demons had a chance to repent of their sin, but they refused. God held a trial in heaven and sentenced Satan to an eternity in hell. But Satan appealed the ruling, stating that it was not fair. The trial is currently in the “appeal stage,” and Satan is free to roam the earth. To show that Satan’s claim of God’s unfairness was baseless, God offered proof of His eminent justice. He reformed the earth and created another, inferior race of beings (humans) who were like the angels in that they had a free will. Mankind, like the angels, had a choice to follow God or rebel, and, like one third of the angels, they rebelled. However, when given a later choice to repent and be saved, Adam and Eve did. Every person throughout history who accepts God as his Savior is further proof that Satan has no excuse for his rebellion. Every believer in Christ stands as a witness to the goodness of God and the abject evil of Satan. The angelic conflict doctrine is associated with the [gap theory](gap-theory.html) (or old\-earth creationism). We do not believe that the angelic conflict doctrine is true. It may not be an overt contradiction of orthodox Christian doctrine, but it has some inherent flaws: 1\) God does not “react” to sin as though He lacks sufficient knowledge to anticipate it. The angelic conflict doctrine leads to an implicit denial of God’s sovereignty and omniscience. God’s creation of mankind was His plan from eternity past. There is no biblical indication that God was motivated to create anything due to the angels’ rebellion. 2\) The angelic conflict doctrine teaches that the fallen angels had a chance to exercise faith and be “saved,” but they refused. (Some versions of this theory say that all the angels rebelled, but that two thirds of them repented and were saved). The Bible never hints at such a thing. In fact, 1 Peter 1:12 says that the preaching of the gospel through the Holy Spirit is something “even angels long to look into”—seeming to suggest that salvation is a mystery to the angels. 3\) The angelic conflict doctrine teaches that Satan ruined the earth, destroying the original creation and requiring a “re\-creation.” Yet there is no solid biblical evidence for an “original” earth before the current one was made. 4\) The angelic conflict doctrine attempts to link certain epochs of human history (e.g., the Old Testament era, the [Church Age](church-age.html), the tribulation, etc.) with various phases of the heavenly “trial” of Satan. The result is a complex, highly speculative narrative only weakly tied to Scripture. The whole angelic conflict doctrine relies on assumptions and much “reading between the lines” of God’s Word. As with many errors, the angelic conflict doctrine comes from a doctrinal imbalance. While most Christians underemphasize the issues of spiritual warfare as Paul describes in Ephesians 6, this doctrine errs in the other direction. In this case, people place an overemphasis on the activity of angels. The motivation for God’s creation was not the sin of angels or a courtroom objection of Satan. God willed to create all things in spite of the rebellion of men and angels.
What is Advent?	Answer Advent is the season of the year leading up to [Christmas](Christmas-true-meaning.html). It is observed with various traditions and rituals by Catholics and other [liturgical](liturgy-liturgical.html) groups such as Lutherans, Anglicans, and Methodists. In recent years, Advent celebrations of one type or another have been added to many evangelical services as well. The word advent itself means “arrival” or “an appearing or coming into place.” Christians often speak of Christ’s “first advent” and “second advent”; that is, His first and second comings to earth. His first advent would be the [Incarnation](incarnation-of-Christ.html)—Christmastime. The Advent season lasts for four Sundays. It begins on the fourth Sunday before Christmas, or the nearest Sunday to November 30\. Advent ends on Christmas Eve, and then begins the official Christmas season, which includes the ”twelve days of Christmas,” leading to [Epiphany](three-kings-day-epiphany.html), and continues through the first Sunday after Epiphany. So, Advent is the season of preparation, and Christmas is the season of celebration. The Eastern Orthodox Church observes Advent, or the Nativity Fast, for 40 days, from November 15 through December 24\. In the West, Advent has developed a more festive tone, although many churches also keep a fast and focus on prayer and [penitence](penitence-Bible.html) akin to what takes place during the [Lenten](what-is-Lent.html) season (sometimes, Advent is even called “Little Lent”). Advent is seen as a time to prepare one’s heart for Christmas and for the eventual return of Christ (and the judgment He will bring to the world). Churches that observe Advent usually decorate their sanctuaries in the liturgical color of Advent, purple (or in some cases royal blue). Some churches change the color to rose on the third or fourth Sunday of Advent to signify a greater emphasis on the joy of the season. One of the most common Advent traditions involves the use of evergreen wreaths, branches, and trees. On the first Sunday of Advent, churches and homes are decorated with green to symbolize the eternal life that Jesus brings. An Advent wreath—an evergreen circle with four colored candles surrounding a white one in the middle—is placed in a prominent spot. The candles are then lighted one at a time, on successive Sundays. The first candle is the candle of “hope” or “expectation.” The three remaining candles on the perimeter are given various meanings depending on the church. On Christmas Eve or Christmas Day, the center white candle is lighted; this is the “Christ Candle,” a reminder that Jesus, the [Light of the Word](light-of-the-world.html), has come. [Advent calendars](advent-calendar.html), used to count down the days till Christmas, are popular in many homes. An Advent calendar contains a number of covered “windows” that are opened, one a day, until Christmas Day. Each open window reveals a picture related to the season or a poem or a Bible verse or a treat of some kind. Many parents find that an Advent calendar is a good way to teach their children the true meaning of Christmas—although there are secular versions of the calendars, too. Should Christians observe Advent? This is a matter of personal conviction. Here is the biblical principle: “One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord” (Romans 14:5–6\). There is certainly nothing wrong with commemorating Jesus’ birth and anticipating His return—such commemoration and anticipation should be an everyday part of our lives. Are Christians required to observe Advent? No. Does observing Advent make one a better Christian or more acceptable to God? No. Can celebrating Advent be a good reminder of what the season is truly all about? Yes, and therein lies its greatest value.
What did it mean to tear one’s clothes in the Bible?	Answer The tearing of one’s clothes is an ancient tradition among the Jews, and it is associated with mourning, grief, and loss. The first mention of someone tearing his garments is in Genesis. “When Reuben returned to the cistern and saw that Joseph was not there, he tore his clothes” (Genesis 37:29\). A short time later, “Jacob tore his clothes, put on sackcloth and mourned for his son many days” (Genesis 37:34\) when he thought that Joseph had been killed. Other biblical examples of men who tore their clothes to express pain and sorrow include David, when Saul and Jonathan were killed (2 Samuel 1:11–12\); Elisha, when Elijah was taken up into heaven (2 Kings 2:11–12\); Job, when he was bereft of all he possessed (Job 1:20\); Jephthah, when he learned the result of his rash vow (Judges 11:34–35\); Mordecai, when he learned of Haman’s plot to destroy the Jews (Esther 4:1\); Ahab, when Elijah pronounced a judgment against him (1 Kings 21:27\); and Paul and Barnabas, when the people of Lystra began to worship them (Acts 14:14\). Sometimes, the tearing of one’s clothes was accompanied by other signs of humility and grief, such as shaving one’s head (Job 1:20\), throwing dust on oneself (Job 2:12\), and wearing sackcloth (2 Samuel 3:31\). There were times when people should have torn their garments but did not. The prophet Jeremiah received the Word of God concerning a soon\-coming judgment on Judah. Jeremiah faithfully wrote the prophecy in a scroll and delivered it to King Jehoiakim. The king listened to the first part of the prophecy, but then he took a knife, cut the scroll in pieces, and burned it in a brazier (Jeremiah 36:23\). This impious act was met with chilling stoicism from his aides: “The king and all his attendants who heard all these words showed no fear, nor did they tear their clothes” (verse 24\). If ever there was a time to tear one’s clothes, this was it; but these men had no fear of God, no remorse, no conviction of sin. It is interesting that the high priest was not allowed to tear his clothes: “The high priest, the one among his brothers who has had the anointing oil poured on his head and who has been ordained to wear the priestly garments, must not . . . tear his clothes” (Leviticus 21:10\). The special nature of the high priestly office dictated a separation from some of the common customs, including that of mourning. Tearing one’s clothes was a public and powerful expression of grief in ancient times. The practice is continued today in the Jewish practice of keriah. Today’s ritual is less spontaneous and more regulated: the garment is cut by a rabbi at a funeral service, as the bereaved recite words relating to God’s sovereignty. One tradition says that the mourner must tear the clothing over the heart—a sign of a broken heart. More important than outward shows of grief are true sorrow for sin and genuine repentance of the heart. The prophet Joel relayed God’s command: “Rend your heart and not your garments” (Joel 2:13\). The One who sees the heart requires more than external ritual. And the command came with a promise: “Return to the LORD your God, for he is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and abounding in love, and he relents from sending calamity” (Joel 2:13; cf. Psalm 34:18\).
If God is love, why does He condemn homosexuality?	Answer A common argument for the acceptance of homosexuality and same\-sex marriage is that, if God is love, He would not condemn the love of others. The main problem with this is the kind of “love” we’re talking about. First John 4:8 says, “Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.” The “love” referenced here is the Greek agape. This type of love is the conscious act of sacrificing one’s own desires, comfort, and even well\-being for the sake of another. It is love that sent Jesus to die on the cross for our sins (John 3:16; Romans 5:8\). The greatest fulfillment of this love is to sacrifice one’s life for another (John 15:13\). The question, then, becomes what constitutes the well\-being of another? The world and maybe even our own sensitivities might say that allowing others to live in a homosexual relationship is to see to their well\-being. The Bible says otherwise. Romans 1:26 says homosexuality is disgraceful and dishonoring. First Corinthians 6:9 says it will keep a person from the kingdom of God. First Corinthians 6:18 says that sexual immorality, including homosexuality, is a sin against one’s own body. If homosexuality results in a dishonoring, harmful separation from God’s blessing, then the loving thing to do is to stay away from it. To encourage others to indulge in sin is to encourage them to reject God’s blessings on their lives. It is the opposite of love. That being said, those with homosexual attractions are in desperate need of love. Even if they agree with the Bible that homosexuality is a sin and resolve not to seek fulfillment of their sexual desires, they must still find love in other relationships—the self\-sacrificing love of [agape](agape-love.html) and the friendly companionship of [phileo](phileo-love.html). When our emotional and social needs for love are met, we are less likely to seek fulfillment in unbiblical ways. The need for love is no different for single heterosexuals than it is for those with homosexual attraction. For every believer, living a life of holiness is crucial—and this is true for heterosexual believers and for those struggling with same\-sex attractions. Living in holiness, for the single person, includes chastity and abstinence. Believers should not condone any sexual relationships outside of a heterosexual marriage. At the same time, believers need to show agape and phileo love. Same\-sex attracted people can and should be a part of loving, vibrant, non\-sexual relationships within the body of Christ. Marriage or heterosexuality is not the goal. Holiness is the goal. Glorifying God in all we do is what we are called to do, and being a part of the body of Christ is the place where we can and should find the most loving and meaningful relationships. It is a lie that all humans need sexual fulfillment (Matthew 19:12\). It is a lie that sex equates to love. The God who created us insists that sex is an expression of love between a man and woman who are married to each other. Outside of that context, sex is harmful and very much unloving. If we love others, we will not encourage them to sin, bringing harm to themselves. Instead, we will follow the greatest commandment and provide for them the real love they need.
Who should I donate to?	Answer With the myriad of charitable giving options out there, how can a Christian make a wise decision regarding whom to donate to? What causes, missions, organizations, charities, etc., are most worthy of consideration? How can money be invested to have the greatest possible eternal impact? Many people struggle with these questions. Here are some principles that should help make the decisions a little easier. Whom to donate to? — Sound Doctrine “You must teach what is in accord with sound doctrine” (Titus 2:1\). Does the cause/mission/organization/charity proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ and uphold the authority of God’s Word? Does everything the ministry does ultimately have the goal of fulfilling the [Great Commission](great-commission.html), that is, evangelizing the lost and equipping believers into becoming fully devoted followers of Jesus Christ (Matthew 28:19–20; Acts 1:8\)? Even if the primary focus of the cause is to be the hands and feet of Jesus and minister to peoples’ physical needs, is the gospel still forefront in everything it does? Whom to donate to? — Effectiveness and Expertise “Still other seed fell on good soil, where it produced a crop—a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown” (Matthew 13:8\). Is the cause having an impact? Is the charity actually accomplishing its mission, goals, and purposes? Is the organization demonstrating expertise in solving problems? In a crowded field, does one outreach seem to stand out from the rest in truly making a difference in peoples’ lives? Whom to donate to? — Stewardship “Moreover, it is required of stewards that they be found faithful” (1 Corinthians 4:2\). Is the ministry using its money wisely? Is the cause investing its resources in the things that truly matter? As in the [Parable of the Talents](parable-talents.html), is the organization burying its treasure or putting it to work in the kingdom of God? Do the charity’s financial priorities appear to be in line with the priorities the Word of God outlines? Whom to donate to? — Accountability “Plans fail for lack of counsel, but with many advisers they succeed” (Proverbs 15:22\). Is the organization open and honest about its finances and decisions? Does any one individual have too much influence, or is there a good balance of people involved in important decisions? Is the leadership open to “iron sharpening iron” counsel (Proverbs 27:17\)? Is the charity willing to fully disclose all of its appropriate financial information? Is the cause open to constructive criticism, or is it closed to feedback (Proverbs 27:6\)? Whom to donate to? — Prayer “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you” (Matthew 7:7\). Ask God for wisdom in regards to how He wants you to invest your money in ministry (James 1:5\). Ask God to give you a passion for the things He wants you to donate to. Ask God to make it abundantly clear how you can best make financial sacrifices for an eternal impact. Whom to donate to? — Trust God and Give “The point is this: whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver” (2 Corinthians 9:6–7\). While the above principles should help, there is no biblical “thou shalt…” on this question. We believe that, while a Christian’s primary giving should be to the [local church](tithes-church-ministry.html) he/she attends, there is also much freedom with this issue. Should a Christian support a child sponsorship program or donate toward ending human trafficking? Should a Christian donate to a local rescue shelter or a global evangelism outreach? There is no universal right or wrong answer to these questions. It is a matter of discernment, priorities, and passion. Ask God to give you a passion toward the outreach He wants you to support. Do the research with the above principles in mind. Then, give!
What are holy days?	Answer In the Bible, the word holy means “set apart.” God is [holy](holy-holy-holy.html). Christians are [called to be holy](holy-life.html). A holy day, then, is a day that is set apart to focus on the things of the Lord. There are holy days mentioned in the Bible, and, over the centuries, Christian churches have instituted other holy days by tradition. The Bible mentions at least eight holy days (or groups of days), also known as feasts or festivals. They are [Passover](Christians-celebrate-Passover.html), Unleavened Bread, First Fruits, [Pentecost/Weeks](Feast-of-Weeks.html), [Trumpets](Feast-of-Trumpets.html), [Tabernacles/Booths](Feast-of-Tabernacles.html), [Purim](Feast-of-Purim.html), and the [Day of Atonement](Day-Atonement-Yom-Kippur.html). Of those eight, seven are commanded in the Mosaic Law (Purim was a later development). These Jewish/Old Covenant holy days are not mandated for followers of Jesus Christ, but they can be observed as a remembrance of how [Jesus perfectly fulfilled them](Jewish-feasts.html). Over the centuries, various Christian churches have instituted holy days (or groups of days). The two most common are [Christmas](Christian-Christmas.html) and [Easter](Easter-Sunday.html). Other commonly observed Christian holy days include [Lent](what-is-Lent.html), [Palm Sunday](Palm-Sunday.html), [Maundy Thursday](Maundy-Thursday.html), [Good Friday](Good-Friday.html), [Pentecost](Pentecost-Sunday.html), and [Advent](what-is-Advent.html). The New Covenant does not advocate the observance of any Christian holy days, but neither does it forbid such observance. Romans 14:5 appears to be the guiding principle: “One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.” If a Christian is going to observe a holy day, he/she should be fully convinced that it does not violate God’s Word, that it can be done to the glory of God (1 Corinthians 10:31\), and that it would be spiritually beneficial (1 Corinthians 6:12; 10:23\). Ultimately, for the follower of Jesus Christ, every day should be a holy day. Every day of our lives should be set apart to worship God, obey His Word, and live a holy life. That is likely why the New Testament does not advocate specific holy days. Perhaps a good way to put it would be, “For the Christian, there are seven holy days: Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday.”
What does the Bible say about steroids?	Answer First, let it be clear that this article is not about the use of steroids for valid medical purposes. Steroids are used to treat many different medical conditions, including severe allergies, arthritis, chronic inflammation, etc. When prescribed by a medical professional for a physical condition, steroids are no different from any other prescription drug; their use is not a question of right vs. wrong but of discernment in light of the possible side effects. The question at hand is the use of steroids for non\-medical purposes, e.g., rapid muscle development and increased athletic performance. Human growth hormone (HGH), testosterone, and many muscle\-building supplements should also be included in the discussion of anabolic steroids. First, there is the question of legality. Anabolic steroids, without a valid prescription, are illegal. The Bible commands that we obey the laws of the government (Romans 13:1–7; 1 Peter 2:13–17\). Therefore, a Christian should not use steroids without a prescription. Second, there is the question of health. Steroid use and, especially, steroid abuse have significant health risks. It is one thing to risk the side effects for a valid medical reason. It is another thing entirely to put your health at risk for something unnecessary. The Bible instructs us “honor God with our bodies” (1 Corinthians 6:19–20\). Steroids, in [bodybuilding](Christian-bodybuilding.html) and [athletics](sports-Christian.html), are essentially a shortcut. They make muscle growth easier and faster. The Bible gives us no reason to believe athletic goals are worth placing our physical health at risk (1 Timothy 4:8\). Therefore, a Christian should not use steroids to accomplish such an eternally insignificant goal. Third, there is the issue of [vanity](Bible-vanity.html). Generally speaking, excessive weightlifting/bodybuilding is the male equivalent of many women’s preoccupation with losing weight or spending hours putting on makeup. The Bible does not say anything positive about vanity (Psalm 119:37; 1 Samuel 16:7; Ecclesiastes 2:11\). To spend too much time on a frivolous activity and to risk physical health in doing so—this is the height of vanity. While the Bible does not specifically mention steroids, there are several biblical principles that definitely apply to steroid use. Outside of valid medical reasons, steroids should not be used. Christians are called to obey the law, to honor God with the use of their bodies, and to not give into the sins of vanity and pride. No, Christians should not use steroids for non\-medical purposes.
How old is the Bible?	Answer Since the Bible was written by around [40 different authors](Bible-authors.html) over a period of around 1,500 years, the question “How old is the Bible?” cannot be answered with a single number. The first book of the Bible to be written, likely Genesis or Job, was completed around 1400 BC. The last book of the Bible to be written, likely Revelation, was completed around AD 90\. So, if you go by when the Bible was first started to be written, the Bible is over 3,400 years old. But, if you go by when the Bible was completed, the Bible is over 1,900 years old. Most conservative Bible scholars believe that either the [Book of Genesis](Book-of-Genesis.html) or the [Book of Job](Book-of-Job.html) was the first book of the Bible to be written, likely by Moses, and likely during the 40 years of wilderness wandering in between the exodus from Egypt and the death of Moses. This would put the date of authorship somewhere between 1450 BC and 1400 BC. Also, most conservative Bible scholars believe the [Book of Revelation](Book-of-Revelation.html) was the last book of the Bible to be written, by the apostle John, between AD 90 and 95, during John’s exile on the island of [Patmos](Patmos-in-the-Bible.html). It is possible that John wrote 1, 2, or 3 John, or even the [Gospel of John](Gospel-of-John.html), after the Book of Revelation. But the consensus is that the Book of Revelation was the last of John’s writings. The Bible is truly an amazing book. The Bible is between 3,400 and 1,900 years old and has influenced many people and cultures all around the world. Even as it dates back to ancient history, the Bible’s message is completely true and [applicable today](Bible-apply-today.html). Only through divine inspiration could the Bible have been written so long ago, and over such a long period of time, and still be [free of error and contradiction](Bible-errors.html).
Regulative vs. normative principle of worship—which viewpoint is correct?	Answer The regulative principle of worship maintains that Scripture gives specific guidelines for conducting corporate worship services and that churches must not add anything to those guidelines. For example, churches following the regulative principle in worship often do not use musical instruments, since there is no New Testament command or example that would warrant their use in the church. The normative principle is the idea that anything not expressly forbidden by Scripture can be used in corporate worship. One of the foundational differences is that the former considers the Bible’s instructions as a strict code of conduct while the latter sees them as principles to follow. Both hold to the truth of God’s Word, but they differ on whether or not it clearly establishes an unalterable blueprint for corporate worship. The regulative principle is most often associated with [Reformed churches](Reformed-church.html), while the normative principle is widely promoted by modern [evangelicalism](evangelicalism.html). While the more liturgical churches, such as Catholic, Episcopalian, and Orthodox, may appear to follow the regulative principle, they also include many elements not found in Scripture. The presence of formality and repetition does not necessarily mean a service is regulative, just as the presence of a more relaxed atmosphere does not indicate a normative approach. Often, tradition gives the appearance of biblical truth, when in reality it just seems right because it is familiar. But formalism is not synonymous with biblical fidelity. The supporters of the regulative form of worship believe that God, the One to be worshiped, has clearly instructed us on how to worship Him. They also point to Paul’s instructions to the churches at Colossae and Corinth as evidence that there is a right and a wrong way to conduct services. The Corinthian church was becoming disorderly in her abuse of spiritual gifts (1 Corinthians 11:17–18, 33; 14:23\). They were allowing women to disrupt the services (1 Corinthians 14:34\) and were profaning the Lord’s Supper (1 Corinthians 11:20–22\). The entire chapter of 1 Corinthians 14 addresses specific guidelines for behavior in corporate worship in response to those abuses. The church at Colossae was warned not to incorporate “human tradition” within their services (Colossians 2:8\). So, because of Paul’s specific instructions to several early churches, some have concluded that, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, he was giving general instructions for all corporate worship experiences. Here are some strengths of the regulative principle: It seeks to honor God and His Word. It keeps the focus on God\-centered worship rather than man\-pleasing activity. It effectively eliminates worldliness or elements with pagan roots that have been given a Christian flair. It consults the Bible, rather than popular opinion, for the final word on church questions. One weakness of the regulative principle is that it can easily become legalistic in its strict rejection of anything not found in the Bible. It can also place worship in a category saved only for corporate settings, rather than encourage it as a daily practice. It also does not account for many aspects of a worship service not dealt with in the Bible, such as length of services, instrument use, how much technology should be employed, and dozens of other cultural questions not applicable in Bible times. The normative principle of corporate worship also uses the Bible as the final authority but teaches that anything not expressly forbidden may be incorporated in services. Drama, special music, movie clips, and PowerPoint presentations may all be used in normative worship services since they are not forbidden in Scripture. The supporters of this style of worship point out that every church and every culture expresses worship differently, even those in Bible times. They hold that the Bible’s instruction on worship services was not meant to be a list of rules but to be a guideline for understanding the heart of God. They argue that regulating worship services creates an unnatural attitude toward worship and God, rather than allowing the corporate expression to be a continuation of a worshiping lifestyle (Deuteronomy 6:6–8; 1 Corinthians 10:31\). Here are some strengths of the normative principle: It encourages creative expressions of worship through the arts and technology. It creates a more relaxed and relevant environment for new believers and those not familiar with the “churchy” atmosphere. It allows for differences in taste and style, while still maintaining allegiance to biblical principles. It brings Scripture into current culture, minimizing the tendency of postmoderns to view the Bible as outdated and irrelevant. Some weaknesses to the normative approach are that it opens the door to worldliness in its efforts to incorporate culture. It can also tend toward entertainment\-based gatherings rather than pure worship of God. It may also slide toward a man\-centered focus as it incorporates whatever is popular with the congregation. So which viewpoint is correct? Every Bible\-believing church body must be regulated by the authority of Scripture. If it does not, it has ceased to be a New Testament church. But within those churches that hold fast to God’s Word, there is a vast array of acceptable expressions of worship. Many congregations embrace a combination of both views. The extreme of either is displeasing to God. Extreme regulators can become pharisaical, creating rules out of principles and judging anyone who veers from those rules (Matthew 7:1\). But extreme normatives can be guilty of walking on the edge of worldliness and justifying questionable activities by claiming they are being “all things to all people” (1 Corinthians 9:22\). Paul addressed this issue in 1 Corinthians 10:23–24\. “‘I have the right to do anything,’ you say—but not everything is beneficial. ‘I have the right to do anything’—but not everything is constructive. No one should seek their own good, but the good of others” (cf. 1 Corinthians 6:12\). Galatians 5:13 says, “For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.” It would appear from these passages and others like them that the desire of God’s heart in corporate worship is that all believers set aside their own preferences in favor of what most benefits others. It is also clear that simply because something is popular or appealing does not mean we should use it. The Bible does give us guidelines for the assembly of the church, and no congregation has the authority to completely disregard them. Several elements are vital for a healthy congregation: reading the Bible (1 Timothy 4:13\), preaching the Bible (2 Timothy 4:2\), singing hymns and spiritual songs (Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16\), prayer (Matthew 21:13; 1 Thessalonians 5:17\), and celebrating the Lord with two ordinances, baptism and the Lord’s Supper (Matthew 28:19; 1 Corinthians 11:23–26\). The overarching goal of corporate worship is “to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ” (Ephesians 4:12–13\). The church is to function as a [body](body-of-Christ.html), unified in Spirit, for the purpose of accomplishing God’s will on earth. However, even though we are unified by one Spirit (Ephesians 4:5\), people and cultures have unique needs. Different styles of worship appeal to different people and meet needs that other styles don’t meet. The prevailing law governing every church should be the law of love (Galatians 5:14\). If a drug addict is saved because a church showed parts of the Home Run movie one Sunday, then that church has fulfilled God’s law. Either viewpoint—regulative or normative—can accomplish that goal as long as we keep Hebrews 10:24–25 the center of our focus: “And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds, not giving up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but encouraging one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching.”
What is transcendental meditation?	Answer Transcendental meditation (or TM) is a technique for achieving inner peace and spiritual renewal by focusing on a mantra repeated silently. As the mind “settles,” the practitioner is able to “transcend” thought and enter a silent state of bliss and tranquility. The practice of transcendental meditation has its roots in [Hinduism](hinduism.html). It originated in India, where it was taught by the guru (or maharishi) Mahesh Yogi, based on his interpretation of Hindu Vedic traditions. The maharishi began teaching the practice in the 1950s, and it has since become one of the most widely researched and practiced meditation techniques. Scientific studies, including those done by the American Cancer Society, concluded that transcendental meditation does not have any provable effect on disease. However, many people who practice transcendental meditation report increased relaxation and better self\-understanding. Though transcendental meditation has been called both religious and non\-religious, the similarities between the practice of transcendental meditation and the practice of religious prayer rituals cannot be denied. The basic posture for transcendental meditation is sitting for 15–20 minutes, with eyes closed, repeating a mantra or a simple sound to clear the mind of thought. When compared to Muslim prayers, which have a prescribed posture and include verbal repetition; or to the prayers practiced by some Christians, which can include a repeated word or phrase, and the injunction to kneel or assume a specific posture, the similarities are obvious. Because of its similarity to religious prayer and its apparent appeal to something greater than the self for healing, transcendental meditation has been called religious. On the other hand, in Christianity or Islam, the object of the prayer is a Divine Spirit and often includes petition, but the practice of transcendental meditation clears the mind and does not appeal to a god, and this is partly why the practice has been called non\-religious. It is unclear what actually happens to the body and mind during transcendental meditation. Research continues, but so far there is only experiential rather than scientific evidence for transcendental meditation’s benefits. This is not to say that transcendental meditation has no effects, only that Western medicine does not have a way to measure them. Transcendental meditation is an inherently spiritual practice, and it depends on the metaphysical world. Scientific method depends upon the physical or natural world, and it is not surprising that it is ineffective in studying the metaphysical or supernatural world. The Bible has nothing to say about transcendental meditation, per se, but it has some things to say about the mind that may be helpful in deciding whether or not to practice transcendental meditation. The Bible is clear about what to [meditate](Christian-meditation.html) on: not a meaningless word or phrase, but on the Word of God. The person “who meditates on his law day and night” is blessed (Psalm 1:2\). Peace is a fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22\). Peace is not found in the emptying of one’s mind but in the filling of one’s mind with the Word. Also, to set one’s mind on the flesh is death and to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace (Romans 8:5–6\). Those who practice transcendental meditation are setting their minds on their own spirit, looking within themselves in order to transcend themselves, rather than on the Spirit of God. The warning about setting one’s mind on the flesh does not mean that the body is evil or that thinking any thoughts about oneself is automatically evil. The Bible is simply warning us of the emptiness inherent in human flesh—its inability to give life. Searching one’s own mind—or emptying one’s mind of all thought—may result in numbness or a temporary escape from reality, but transcendental meditation does not and cannot bring true peace. It looks to the spirit of the human creature and to the creation, which are inherently limited in their power. Only the life\-giving, dynamic Spirit of Christ, the Creator, can create within us true peace, joy, health, and life.
Who was Haman the Agagite?	Answer Haman is introduced in Esther 3:5–6 as an enemy of [Mordecai](Mordecai-in-the-Bible.html) and the Jewish people: “When Haman saw that Mordecai would not kneel down or pay him honor, he was enraged. Yet having learned who Mordecai’s people were, he scorned the idea of killing only Mordecai. Instead Haman looked for a way to destroy all Mordecai’s people, the Jews, throughout the whole kingdom of Xerxes.” Haman’s goal was the genocide of the Jews, becoming the opponent of Esther and her people in the [book of Esther](Book-of-Esther.html). Haman was an Agagite and the son of Hammedatha. Haman was likely a descendent of [Agag](Agag-in-the-Bible.html), king of the [Amalekites](Amalekites.html), long\-time enemies of the Jewish people. God had told [King Saul](life-Saul.html) to destroy the Amalekites centuries earlier (1 Samuel 15:3\), but Saul failed to obey the command. His disobedience led to the loss of his kingdom and, in Esther’s time, the threat of annihilation for all Jews. Haman was married to a woman named Zeresh, and they had ten sons. Haman was a close confidant of [King Xerxes](Xerxes-in-the-Bible.html) (or Ahasuerus). Haman took personally the fact that Mordecai would not bow down to him, and his personal slight grew into a murderous hatred of all Jews. Using his connection with the king, Haman was able to pass a law commanding the genocide of the Jews: “Dispatches were sent by couriers to all the king’s provinces with the order to destroy, kill and annihilate all the Jews—young and old, women and children—on a single day, the thirteenth day of the twelfth month, the month of Adar, and to plunder their goods” (Esther 3:13\). Haman had selected the day for the slaughter by casting lots (in Hebrew, purim). Wanting to make an example of Mordecai, Haman built a special gallows, about 75 feet high, to hang his enemy on (Esther 5:14\). God has a way of turning the tables, though. Much to Haman’s chagrin, King Xerxes (who was unaware of Haman’s vendetta against Mordecai) commanded that Mordecai be honored for thwarting an assassination attempt against the king. To Haman’s utter mortification, the king commanded that Haman do the honors—Haman had the task of walking Mordecai through the city on horseback and proclaiming the king’s admiration for him (Esther 6:10–11\). Zeresh and Haman’s advisers saw this turn of events as an ill omen that presaged Haman’s downfall (Esther 6:13\). [Queen Esther](life-Esther.html), a Jewess herself, used her position to intercede for her people. She did this by inviting the king and Haman to two banquets—which Haman (who was unaware of the queen’s ancestry) took as a great honor. At the second banquet, Esther confronted the king regarding Haman’s plot against her people. The king was furious and left the room (Esther 7:7\). Seeing he had incurred the wrath of Xerxes, Haman fell before Esther to plead for his life. The king re\-entered the room, saw Haman on the couch with the queen, and said, “Will he even molest the queen while she is with me in the house?” (Esther 7:8\). One of the king’s eunuchs then informed the king that Haman had prepared gallows for Mordecai. “And the king said, ‘Hang him on that.’ So they hanged Haman on the gallows that he had prepared for Mordecai. Then the wrath of the king abated” (Esther 7:9–10, ESV). Haman’s hostility toward the Jewish people resulted in his own death. Proverbs 26:27 held true: “Whoever digs a pit will fall into it; if someone rolls a stone, it will roll back on them.” On the fateful day appointed for the destruction of the Jews, it was the Jews’ enemies who were destroyed instead (Esther 9:6–9, 16\). The ten sons of Haman were also hanged (verse 14\). The Jewish [Feast of Purim](Feast-of-Purim.html), a celebration of the deliverance detailed in the book of Esther, is named after the lots that Haman cast. On Purim, the book of Esther is read in the synagogue, and every time the name “Haman” is read, the audience drowns out the sound with ratchet\-type noisemakers called graggers (or groggers) or by anything loud and annoying: alarm clocks, toy xylophones, balloons popped with pins, dolls that cry, toy police sirens, whistles, etc. Haman’s evil name is blotted out symbolically, and Haman’s life is an example of the fate that faces those who oppose God and His people. Setting oneself against God and persecuting His people is futile—it did not work for Haman, it did not work for Antiochus Epiphanes, it did not work for Adolph Hitler, and it will not work for [the Antichrist](what-is-the-antichrist.html).
What is the doctrine of the impassibility vs. passibility of God?	Answer To be “passible” is to be “capable of feeling, especially suffering” or to be “susceptible to emotion.” When theologians speak of God’s “passibility” versus His “[impassibility](divine-impassibility.html),” they are referring to His freedom to respond emotionally versus a perceived lack of empathy for His creatures. The doctrine of the passibility of God has to do with the theology of the “suffering” of God. Does God suffer? Can He truly feel emotional pain? Some theologians see the impassibility of God as one of His attributes, right up there with His immutability, omniscience, or eternality. They see God as “apathetic” in the sense that He exists above human emotion and remains untouched by it. Others see God’s passibility as one of His essential attributes—they insist that God does indeed suffer with us. Both sides of the issue face the danger of pushing things too far. When the doctrine of divine impassibility is pushed to an extreme, the result is [deism](deism.html), which views God as cold, distant, and impassive—a God who deigns not to interact with humanity. Conversely, when the doctrine of divine passibility is taken to an extreme, the result is [open theism](open-theism.html), which views God as not knowing the future and being as surprised as we are by each turn of events. Arguing for the doctrine of God’s impassibility is the fact of God’s immutability (His unchanging nature). The reasoning is that, if God “suffers” in response to a source of pain, then has He not changed? Those who argue for impassibility do not deny that God has emotions; rather, they affirm that God’s emotions are voluntary and purposeful, not knee\-jerk reactions to events on earth. Also, according to promoters of God’s impassibility, God’s absolute power and sovereignty argue against His suffering: someone who suffers must be subject to the circumstance that causes the suffering; therefore, God cannot suffer, since He is not subject to anything. However, arguing for the doctrine of God’s passibility are many Scripture passages that seem to indicate that God does respond emotionally to events on earth. It’s impossible to read much of Scripture without realizing that God feels compassion for His people (Isaiah 14:1\); that He feels wrath against sin (Psalm 38:3\); and that He is pained by the rejection of His love and grace (Luke 19:41–42\). Jesus, who is “the exact representation” of God’s being (Hebrews 1:3\), wept at Lazarus’s tomb (John 11:35\). Jesus, who showed us the Father (John 14:8–10\), often showed that He was passible. We see passibility in the description of Him as our Great High Priest who is able to “empathize with our weaknesses” (Hebrews 4:15\). The prophets predicted Jesus to be “a man of suffering, and familiar with pain” (Isaiah 53:3\). Likewise, God’s children must enter into the suffering of each other. Paul wrote from prison for the church to “remember my chains” (Colossians 4:18\). The author of Hebrews tells the church to “continue to remember those in prison as if you were together with them in prison, and those who are mistreated as if you yourselves were suffering” (Hebrews 13:3\). It is this suffering with those who suffer that truly defines passibility. “Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn” (Romans 12:15\). As God’s people share each other’s sorrow, they reflect the passibility of God. Those who argue for the passibility of God point out that it is God’s eternal, divine sympathy that leads Him to be involved in His creation and to voluntarily allow His heart to be touched by the suffering of His people. God is [transcendent](God-transcendent.html), yes, but He is not aloof. Biblical statements such as “God is love” (1 John 4:8\) reveal a passionate God who listens to our cries for help (Psalm 69:33\), shows compassion (Mark 6:34\), and knows our suffering firsthand (Hebrews 2:18\). The doctrine of the passibility of God does not teach that God is fickle, has mood swings, or cannot control His responses. God is never the victim of circumstance. The doctrine of passibility does teach that God is emotionally invested in His creation; He is involved because He cares.
Why doesn’t the book of Esther mention God?	Answer The [book of Esther](Book-of-Esther.html) is surprising in several ways. One fact that may startle readers is that the book does not mention God at all. This has caused some to question its place in the biblical canon, but, in reality, the absence of God’s name fits perfectly with the theme of the book. Here are some reasons why God’s name may not have been referenced in Esther: first, one emphasis of Esther appears to be how God works behind the scenes. The book of Esther records no miracles and no direct intervention of God at all. In Esther’s story, the Lord redeems His people through the faith and courage of one strategically placed woman and her cousin. All the while, things are happening behind the scenes to bring about the final result. Also, it is possible God is not mentioned directly in Esther because of the circumstances of its writing. Jewish tradition claims authorship by Mordecai. If Mordecai is the author, he wrote the book in Persia while serving under King Ahasuerus (or Xerxes). Instead of directly crediting God for the victory of the Jewish people, Mordecai may have written the book to better fit the polytheistic context of Susa. This would have kept him protected from harm by the king or other enemies while still communicating the account of God’s work through Queen Esther. Another emphasis in Esther is the theme of fasting. There are six separate feasts throughout the book, and these stand in stark contrast to Esther’s choice to fast for three days before confronting the king with the matter of saving the Jewish people. She likewise asked other Jews to join her: “Go, gather together all the Jews who are in Susa, and fast for me. Do not eat or drink for three days, night or day. I and my attendants will fast as you do” (Esther 4:16\). It is understood that fasting is done before God and to request God’s help. So, even though God’s name is not directly mentioned, Esther is involved in a religious observance meant to supplicate God’s mercy. Finally, the book of Esther may not mention God because the emphasis is on God’s providence. Mordecai states in Esther 4:14, “If you remain silent at this time, relief and deliverance for the Jews will arise from another place, but you and your father’s family will perish. And who knows but that you have come to your royal position for such a time as this?” In his rhetorical question, Mordecai alludes to divine sovereignty without calling it such. The principle is that God places people in particular places at particular times to accomplish His particular plans. The book of Esther may not directly mention God, yet it clearly reveals God at work. His name is not written in the book, but His fingerprints, as we say, are all over it. The coincidences, the amazing reversals, and the poetic justice that led to the deliverance of the Jews in Persia all proclaim the presence of God.
How can I learn to not take offense at little things?	Answer Trying to not take offense is like trying to not think about elephants. If someone says, “Don’t think about elephants,” we automatically think about them. If we focus on trying not to take offense, we will keep thinking about the offense. This principle applies to just about any sin a person can commit. When we focus on a behavior, even in an attempt to eliminate it, the result is more of that behavior. This is just how our minds work. Thankfully, there is another, better way to address this problem. People are lured and enticed into sin as a result of desire—wanting is the beginning of sinning (James 1:14\). Every sin or bad behavior begins with desire. Desire itself is not bad; there are many good desires. But the desires that lead to sin are wrong desires, the desires based in false perspectives and misplaced expectations about others and ourselves. To eliminate a bad behavior, we must first discover the desire behind it. For many people, the tendency to take offense at little things is rooted in a false perspective of security. We all desire security and safety; we desire the good opinion of others. We secure those good opinions with performance: what we do, how we speak, how we dress, how we express ourselves, etc. When our security is based on our performance, we may feel threatened when someone expresses something negative about us. The natural response to that threat is to take offense or become angry. Even a casual, flippant, or offhand remark can gnaw at us and steal our peace. The way to prevent taking offense is to address our desire for security. As long as feelings of security are rooted in ourselves, the tendency to take offense, even at the little things, will exist. If, however, our feelings of security are not rooted in ourselves or our performance, our perspective will change and our response to the actions and comments of others will become more balanced. Remember the acronym *COP. Cover.* Twice in the book of Proverbs, we are told to “cover” offenses (Proverbs 10:12; 17:9\). The covering of offense is related to love. First Peter 4:8 says, “Love covers over a multitude of sins”—and that “multitude” would have to include small slights. In any relationship, there are many irksome things that should just be “covered” for the sake of love. By covering an offense, or not revealing it to others, we are empathizing with the offender and extending the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps he did not mean what he said; perhaps we misunderstood. Perhaps the offender was having a bad day or wasn’t thinking straight. Covering the offense of another helps us, too. Remember the elephant? When we focus on the needs of the person who offended us, we no longer think about how offended we feel. Overlook. “A person’s wisdom yields patience; / it is to one’s glory to overlook an offense” (Proverbs 19:11\). Forgiveness is an honorable thing. When you cover an offense, you give grace and empathy to the offender. When you overlook an offense, you choose to give something valuable to yourself—the reminder that your security is not based on others’ opinions of you but on the security you have in Christ (see Ephesians 1:5–7\). Pray. Jesus told His disciples on multiple occasions that if they prayed for anything in His name (or, according to His will) they would have what they asked for. Do you believe that God wants you to be angry with others, or forgiving of them? Do you believe that your security is in Him, rather than in yourself? If you pray consistently, asking Him to help you not take offense, He will answer that prayer. If you ask Him to remind you of His secure and steadfast love, He will answer that prayer. You can confidently pray for help in every offending situation (Hebrews 4:16\). In Bethany, as Jesus was reclining at a table, a woman entered the room with an [alabaster jar](alabaster-box.html) of fine perfume. The woman broke the container and anointed Jesus’ head with the fragrant ointment (Mark 14:3\). Immediately, she was criticized; in fact, “they rebuked her harshly” (verses 4–5\). The woman could have taken offense at their words. It would have been natural for her to react in kind. But she didn’t have to. Jesus came to her defense: “Leave her alone” (verse 6\). The woman’s love of Christ and her meek response to an offense were honored, and “wherever the gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her” (verse 9\). To sum up, when we take offense, it is because someone has hurt us or frightened us. God has given us two ways to deal with the offense. First, by remembering that the other person also has things that hurt and frighten him. When we love the offender and focus on his needs (cover and overlook), we will no longer notice the offense. Second, by remembering that, when we belong to Christ, we are fundamentally secure in Him; we do not need to react and defend ourselves, because He has promised to defend us (Isaiah 35:3–4\). When we struggle to trust Him or to believe that we are secure in Him, all we need to do is pray for the strength to do so, and we know that He will answer (John 14:13–14\).
What does it mean to be a godly husband?	Answer When asking how to be a godly husband, one of the first truths to recognize is that no one is naturally godly. Neither men nor women can be everything God wants them to be in their own strength. So to be a godly husband or wife requires that we first surrender our lives to the lordship of Jesus Christ. To be “godly” means we must have God. When His Spirit lives in us, He empowers us to live godly lives (Galatians 2:20; Titus 2:12\). Philippians 2:3–4 lays a foundation for all godly relationships, including marriage: “Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others.” In marriage, this means that a husband and wife are no longer their own bosses. Each has willingly surrendered to the other the right to do whatever they want whenever they want. This can be particularly hard for men, especially if they had been single for a long time. It may never cross a man’s mind that his wife is not as passionate as he is about spending the weekend at the football game or hunting cabin. But this passage instructs us to intentionally consider the feelings and ideas of others, rather than assume that they think as we do. First Peter 3:7 says, “Husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered.” The term “weaker vessel” has often been misunderstood. It does not imply inferiority, since the verse continues by stating that a woman is a co\-heir with her husband. Within the context of this verse, “weaker” means that a woman is not to be treated as “one of the guys.” She is created differently, in both body and spirit. “Understanding” is key. A husband must study his wife, learn who she is, and make choices that highlight her strengths and beauty. Physical confrontation, verbal bullying, and emotional neglect have no place in a Christian marriage. To live with her in an understanding way means that a wise husband controls his own needs and desires so that hers are met. He does not belittle her, minimize her contributions to the family, or expect her to do what God has given him to do. He makes the study of one woman a lifetime endeavor, and he wants to be an expert at it. Ephesians 5 continues this description of a godly husband. Verse 25 says, “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.” This comparison with Christ and the church says a great deal. Husbands are to show sacrificial, unconditional love for their wives in the same way that Jesus loves us, His bride, even when we are unruly, disobedient, and unlovable. Verse 28 goes on to say, “Husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.” Men usually have no problem loving their own bodies. Sexual fulfillment, muscular prowess, and other physical needs are often top priorities. God is instructing husbands to give their wives the same priority that they give those physical needs. Jesus willingly subjected His own body to abuse, humiliation, and need for the sake of His bride, the church. That is the model this Scripture gives for husbands to follow. Christian wives desire godly leadership, not dictatorship. However, a man cannot lead where he has not been. A leader goes first, forging the way, wrestling through spiritual issues and then presenting God’s instruction to his family. An ongoing personal relationship with Jesus is crucial in order to lead a family spiritually. God holds men responsible for the spiritual and physical well\-being of their families (1 Timothy 5:8\). Even if the wife may be better at teaching and leading, the husband is still to be involved in teaching their children. He must lead by example in church attendance, Bible reading, prayer, and spiritual disciplines. It is difficult for a Christian wife to respect her husband in other areas when he has not been consistent in leading her spiritually. Both single and married men can benefit from these traits of a godly leader. A leader is: • First a servant (Matthew 23:11\) • Teachable (Proverbs 19:20\) • Filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 6:3\) • Enthusiastic about his role (Ephesians 6:7\) • A model of humility and forgiveness (1 Peter 5:6; Ephesians 4:32\) • Loving to those he leads (Matthew 5:46; John 13:34\-35\) • Ready to admit his failures and areas where he needs growth (Philippians 3:12\) More specifically, a man can become a godly husband by considering the following: 1\. Does your schedule indicate that your family is a top priority in time, energy, and focus? 2\. Are you heeding the counsel of 1 Peter 3:7 and really studying your wife? 3\. Are you taking the initiative to lead your wife spiritually by sharing the things God is teaching you? 4\. Are you sensitive to your wife’s physical state and sexual needs? They will be different from yours, and a godly husband respects that without pouting or trying to “punish” her. 5\. Are you accepting equal responsibility for the children? Even if your wife is better at some aspects of parenting, your children are your responsibility. Your wife needs a partner who willingly shares the load with her. 6\. Examine your tone of voice. Have you fallen into a habit of harshness, blame, or subtle disapproval? 7\. Do you ever resort to physical or verbal abuse in any form? If you need anger management help, get it. 8\. In areas where your wife is weak, are you helping her to grow rather than criticizing or shutting down? 9\. Are you a good listener? Wives need to share their hearts, and you must be the safest place for her to do that. 10\. Are you the guardian of her heart, dreams, and self\-worth? You cannot be God to her, but you can encourage her to connect with God in such a way that her deepest emotional needs are met in Him. Men often measure themselves by externals, which are outside their control. Money, fame, physical ability, and power are fleeting and temporary. However, a husband can choose to define success by how well he has followed God’s command to cherish his wife and lead his family. A happy wife is a testament to her husband. While he is not responsible for the way his wife responds, every husband can control how well he is following Jesus’ model in loving and leading the ones God has entrusted to him.
What does the Bible say about law enforcement / the police?	Answer It’s fairly well known that God gave a set of laws and with it guidelines for the enforcement of those laws. Not only did the [Mosaic Law](Mosaic-Law.html) define sin, but it specified penalties for those who broke the Law. Any law is essentially meaningless without enforcement. The people in Bible times may not have had a police force as we think of one today, but they definitely had those who promoted justice by enforcing the law. The Bible’s references to [watchmen](watchmen-in-the-Bible.html) (Ezekiel 33:6\), armed guards (Nehemiah 4:13\), and judges (Ezekiel 44:24 and the whole book of Judges) could be seen as examples of law enforcement. God is a God of justice (Deuteronomy 32:4\), and He demands justice of His people: “Follow justice and justice alone” (Deuteronomy 16:20\). This command implies the necessity of law enforcement. God has always given the responsibility of enforcing the law (and thereby maintaining justice) to man. “Defend the weak and the fatherless; / uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed. / Rescue the weak and the needy; / deliver them from the hand of the wicked” (Psalm 82:3–4\). Romans 13 deals with submission to government authorities, and the same passage is instructive on the purpose of law enforcement and police work: “Rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. . . . The one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer” (Romans 13:3–4\). Police officers or peace officers represent the “rulers” mentioned in this passage and extend their authority. Therefore, a Christian involved in law enforcement or police work is doing a good and godly thing. The police officer who enforces the just law of the land should consider himself or herself God’s servant and, toward the lawbreaker, an agent of God’s wrath sent to keep the peace. One of the most important jobs of every police officer is the restraint of evil in society—a dangerous career, a noble calling, and a profession congruent with a biblical desire for justice and righteousness.
Did Esther have sex with Xerxes before they were married?	Answer Esther 2 describes [King Xerxes’](Xerxes-in-the-Bible.html) (or Ahasuerus’) search for a new queen of Persia. A group of beautiful young virgins from the city of Susa was selected (verse 3\). Among this group was Esther, a Jewess who kept her ethnic background hidden (verse 8\). [Esther](life-Esther.html) gained favor with Hegai, the man in charge of these women (verse 8\). He provided her with food, cosmetics, and seven female servants (verse 9\). Each woman required 12 months of preparation to appear before the king, and then it was only for one night. None of the women would return to the king unless he summoned her by name (verse 14\). It appears that each of these women had sexual relations with the king. Esther 2:13–14 says, “This is how she would go to the king: Anything she wanted was given her to take with her from the harem to the king’s palace. In the evening she would go there and in the morning return to another part of the harem to the care of Shaashgaz, the king’s eunuch who was in charge of the concubines.” The fact that each woman spent the night with the king implies sexual relations. Esther took her turn after 12 months of preparation, and she was chosen as queen: “She was taken to King Xerxes in the royal residence in the tenth month, the month of Tebeth, in the seventh year of his reign. Now the king was attracted to Esther more than to any of the other women, and she won his favor and approval more than any of the other virgins. So he set a royal crown on her head and made her queen instead of Vashti” (Esther 2:16–17\). Eventually, Esther would rescue her people from genocide, but she first endured the lust of the king. Despite her difficult situation, she trusted in God and helped others as she was able. Through her efforts, many lives were saved, even though it came at great personal cost. Did Esther have a choice of whether or not to sleep with the king? Her choice was likely either submit or die. Even in those troublesome times, though, God was at work. This young woman, left as an orphan, living as a slave, and serving the lust of a king, became the heroine of Israel. Her brave actions saved a nation and led the Jewish people to a new level of influence in Susa.
What is a peace offering?	Answer The modern idea of a peace offering, also known as a fellowship offering, is that of “a propitiatory or conciliatory gift.” A man who offends his wife will often visit a florist with the thought that bringing home flowers will help smooth things over—the bouquet will be a “peace offering” of sorts. Propitiate means “to make someone pleased or less angry by giving or saying something desired,” and conciliatory means “intended to placate or pacify.” These definitions are interesting because the phrase peace offering has come to mean something completely different—almost the exact opposite—of what it originally meant in the Bible. A peace offering in the Old Testament Law is described in Leviticus 7:11–21\. It was a voluntary sacrifice given to God in three specific instances. First, a peace offering could be given as a freewill offering, meaning that the worshiper was giving the peace offering as a way to say thank you for God’s unsought generosity. It was basically just a way to praise God for His goodness. The second way a peace offering could be given was alongside a fulfilled vow. A good example of this was when Hannah fulfilled her vow to God by bringing Samuel to the temple; on that occasion she also brought a peace offering to express the peace in her heart toward God concerning her sacrifice—it was a way to say, “I have no resentment; I am holding nothing back in the payment of my vow.” The third purpose of a peace offering was to give thanksgiving for God’s deliverance in an hour of dire need. None of these three reasons to sacrifice had anything to do with propitiation, with appeasing God, or with pacifying Him. There were under the Old Covenant sacrifices intended to represent propitiation (Leviticus 1—2; 4\) but with the understanding that God has always been a God of grace (see Ephesians 2:8–9\). He does not expect us to appease Him with our works but only to confess our need and dependence on Him. Under the Old Covenant, this relationship was expressed by the sacrificial system, which always looked forward to the sacrifice of the Messiah. Under the New Covenant, the Law has been written on our hearts (2 Corinthians 3:3\), and the Holy Spirit of God gives us the power to live our lives accordingly (Romans 8:1–8; 1 Thessalonians 1:5\). The sacrifices we give now are spiritual (Hebrews 13:15\) and living (Romans 12:1\). Most sacrifices in the Old Testament system were not eaten by worshipers, but the peace offering was meant to be eaten—only a portion of the animal or grain brought to the altar was burned; the rest was given back to the worshiper and to the poor and hungry. The beautiful picture here is of God’s provision for His people, both physically and spiritually. His grace and goodness are present throughout the offerings. In the peace offering, God was providing what we need: a way to thank Him for His goodness and physical sustenance. God is not interested in taking from us. That is not His heart at all. But the lie we so often believe is that our good actions bring about His goodness, and our sinful actions must be paid for in personal sacrifice. The peace offering shows that worshipers in the Old Testament were not any more responsible for their salvation than worshipers in the New Testament. Throughout the ages, people have been tempted to think that sacrifices create God’s favor. This belief is evident in our modern understanding of a peace offering as a propitiation for wrongdoing. But only Christ’s sacrifice creates favor with God and covers wrongdoing, and the Old Testament sacrifices were a picture of that future provision.
What does the Bible say about the angel Gabriel?	Answer The angel Gabriel is a messenger who was entrusted to deliver several important messages on God’s behalf. Gabriel appears to at least three people in the Bible: first to the prophet Daniel (Daniel 8:16\); next to the priest Zechariah to foretell and announce the miraculous birth of John the Baptist (Luke 1:19\); and finally to the virgin Mary to tell her that she would conceive and bear a son (Luke 1:26–38\). Gabriel’s name means “God is great,” and, as the angel of the annunciation, he is the one who revealed that the Savior was to be called “Jesus” (Luke 1:31\). The first time we see Gabriel, he appears to Daniel after the prophet had a vision. Gabriel’s role is to explain the vision to Daniel (Daniel 8:16\). Gabriel’s appearance was that of a man (Daniel 8:15; 9:21\). When Gabriel visited Daniel a second time, he came to him “in swift flight at the time of the evening sacrifice” (Daniel 9:21\). Gabriel’s “flight” might suggest wings, but wings are not mentioned. It is also clear that Gabriel’s appearance was rather terrifying, as Daniel fell on his face at the sight of him (Daniel 8:17\) and was sick for days after his experience with the angel and the vision (Daniel 8:27\). In Daniel 10 we see another interaction between the prophet and “one in the likeness of the children of men” (verse 16\); however, no name is given to this messenger. The angel says he has come to help Daniel understand his vision, so it is very possible that this passage is also referring to the angel Gabriel. From the language in the passage, it is also possible that there are actually two angels with Daniel—one speaking to him and another strengthening him so that he can respond (Daniel 10:16, 18\). The angel also refers to a battle occurring in the spiritual realms. This angel, who we can reasonably assume is Gabriel, and the angel Michael were apparently engaged in battle with a series of demonic kings and princes, including those called the prince or kings of Persia (verse 13\) and the prince of Greece (verse 20\). Gabriel says that he was sent from heaven in specific answer to Daniel’s prayer. Gabriel had left to bring the answer as soon as Daniel started praying (Daniel 10:12\). But Gabriel ran into trouble on the way: “The prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me twenty\-one days” (Daniel 10:13\) and actually kept him from coming to Daniel as quickly as he might have otherwise. Here we have a glimpse into the spiritual world and the battles taking place behind the scenes. The holy angels such as Gabriel are performing God’s will, but they are resisted by other spiritual beings who only want wickedness in the world. Gabriel’s message to the priest Zechariah, the father of [John the Baptist](life-John-Baptist.html), was delivered in the temple as Zechariah was ministering before the Lord. Gabriel appeared to the right of the altar of incense (Luke 1:11\), a symbol of prayer, and told Zechariah that his prayers had been heard (verse 13\). Zechariah’s barren wife, Elizabeth, was going to conceive and bear a son; this miraculous child was to be named John, and he would fulfill the prophecy of the coming of Elijah (verse 17; cf. Malachi 4:5\). Gabriel’s message was met with disbelief, so Gabriel struck the doubting priest dumb until the day of the child’s circumcision (Luke 1:20, 59–64\). Gabriel’s appearance to Mary was to announce the virgin birth of the Lord Jesus Christ. The mother of the Messiah was assured of her favor with God (Luke 1:30\) and told that her Son would fulfill the [Davidic Covenant](Davidic-covenant.html): “He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end” (verses 32–33\). In response to Mary’s question about how this was to happen, since she was a [virgin](virgin-birth.html), the angel Gabriel said the conception would be the result of the Holy Spirit’s work in her, and therefore “the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God” (verse 35\). In all three appearances, Gabriel was met with fear, and he had to begin his conversations with words of comfort and cheer for Daniel, Zechariah, and Mary. It is possible that Gabriel was also the angel that appeared to Joseph in Matthew 1:20, but this is not certain, since that angel is unnamed in Scripture. What we do know is that Gabriel is one of God’s good and holy angels. He has a favored position as an angel who “stands in the presence of God” (Luke 1:19\), and he was selected to deliver important messages of God’s particular love and favor to individuals chosen to be part of God’s plan.
Why did Queen Vashti refuse to appear before Xerxes?	Answer The [book of Esther](Book-of-Esther.html) begins with a description of [King Xerxes](Xerxes-in-the-Bible.html) (or Ahasuerus) of Persia celebrating with the leading men of his kingdom. At the conclusion of seven days of feasting, the king called [Queen Vashti](Vashti-in-the-Bible.html) to appear before him. We are told this was “in order to display her beauty to the people and nobles, for she was lovely to look at” (Esther 1:11\). However, Queen Vashti refused to come before the king and his men; “then the king became furious and burned with anger” (verse 12\). The text itself does not clearly address why Vashti refused to appear. A variety of theories have emerged. According to Esther 1:11, Queen Vashti was told to appear “wearing her royal crown,” and one rabbinical tradition interprets this as the king’s instruction to wear only her royal crown—in other words, she was told to appear in the nude. According to that tradition, Queen Vashti refused because she did not want to be put on display before a group of salacious, drunken men. This view is not found in the biblical text, nor can it be supported by history. However, it is likely that Vashti refused to appear because she would have been humiliated in some way. The king and his men had been feasting and drinking for seven days. It is almost assured that they did not have noble intentions in calling her to the party. While nothing more specific is noted, the context—especially the reference to her beauty—indicates that her attendance at the feast was sought to entertain the men in some way. Queen Vashti likely knew the potential consequences of refusing the king, but refuse she did. One of the king’s wise men, named Memucan, saw a dangerous precedent being set: “Queen Vashti has done wrong, not only against the king but also against all the nobles and the peoples of all the provinces of King Xerxes. For the queen’s conduct will become known to all the women, and so they will despise their husbands and say, ‘King Xerxes commanded Queen Vashti to be brought before him, but she would not come.’ This very day the Persian and Median women of the nobility who have heard about the queen’s conduct will respond to all the king’s nobles in the same way. There will be no end of disrespect and discord” (Esther 1:16–18\). Such a bad example as Queen Vashti had set must be dealt with harshly, according to Memucan. Xerxes agreed with his adviser’s appraisal, and the result was that Vashti was never again to come before the king. Her royal position as queen was to be given to another “who is better than she” (Esther 1:19\). Queen Vashti’s removal from the throne opened a vacancy in the [Persian kingdom](Medo-Persian-empire.html). Chapter 1 thus sets the stage for the introduction of [Esther](life-Esther.html), an unlikely candidate for queen, since she was an orphaned Jewess raised by a cousin. However “unlikely” Esther may have been, God chose her to perform a great work in protecting the Jewish people from genocide. Still today, Jews around the world commemorate Esther and the deliverance she wrought with the Feast of Purim. Many scholars believe this is the same feast that was observed by Jesus in John 5:1\.
What is textualism?	Answer Textualism is the practice of adhering to the actual text of any document. Much courtroom debate centers around textualism as lawyers, judges, and juries must give heed to what the law actually says. Textualism is especially appropriate in [biblical hermeneutics](Biblical-hermeneutics.html). As conservative Bible scholars are fond of saying, “When the plain sense makes common sense, seek no other sense.” Textualism dictates that every word should be taken at its primary, ordinary, literal, historical meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and self\-evident and fundamental biblical truths, clearly indicate otherwise. Text without context is pretext or a disguise for deception. Each passage of Scripture has one true interpretation, and, after that is found, we may make application, but only in view of the original context. That means we do not use the Scriptures allegorically—we do not try to spiritualize passages to change their original meaning. Words have meaning, and textualism is concerned with those exact words. “Every word of God is flawless” (Proverbs 30:5\). Jesus used textualism in His reading of Scripture. Often, He began an answer to a question with “Haven’t you read . . .?” (see Mark 2:25, 26; 12:10, 26\). When asked by a lawyer what he must do to inherit eternal life, Jesus said, “What is written in the Law?” (Luke 10:26\). In the Law of the Lord, every jot and tittle is important (Matthew 5:18\); a careful reading is required. A good example of textualism used by the biblical writers is Paul’s argument for the superiority of the Abrahamic Covenant over the Law. Referring to Genesis 12:7, Paul says, “The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say ‘and to seeds,’ meaning many people, but ‘and to your seed,’ meaning one person, who is Christ” (Galatians 3:16\). Notice that Paul’s argument hinges on the use of the singular versus the plural form of the word seed. Paul is concerned with the exact form of one word in the Old Testament—that is textualism. Textualism is the basis of solid [exegesis](Biblical-exegesis.html), the process of getting out of Scripture what is truly there. Textualism is not needed for [eisegesis](exegesis-eisegesis.html), which is the reading into the passage what one wants to find, ignoring context or the real meaning of the words used. Eisegesis is akin to “proof texting,” which is yanking something out of context and using it to bolster some personal idea. Textualism requires us to examine the original language, the diction (the words used), the syntax, and the grammar of the passage. We must give attention to the customs and historical background of the passage, too. How did the original writer intend his words to be taken? How would the intended audience have understood what he said? Words matter. As another example, in John 3:5 Jesus says to Nicodemus, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.” Some people try to use this verse to teach baptismal regeneration, but it is important to follow the rules of textualism here. What does the text actually say? The first thing to note is that the word baptism is found nowhere in the context. We must then determine what Jesus meant by His reference to “water” and what Nicodemus would have understood that reference to mean. (For a discussion of this verse, see our article [here](baptism-John-3-5.html).) When we open the Scriptures, our job is to diligently study (2 Timothy 2:15\). We must be reverent students of the Word to dig out (exegete) the original meaning. After determining the correct interpretation of a passage, we can draw out principles and life lessons. However, losing sight of the text will open us up to immature, aberrant interpretations or unbalanced applications. Textualism helps us be vigilant and objective in our study and keep the wording of the text in plain sight. As Isaiah 8:20 says, “Look to God’s instructions and teachings!” (NLT).
Should we stand when the Bible is read?	Answer In Nehemiah 8:5, the priest [Ezra](life-Ezra.html) gathered the people who had rebuilt Jerusalem’s wall for the reading of God’s law: “Ezra opened the book. All the people could see him because he was standing above them; and as he opened it, the people all stood up.” Some churches today follow this tradition and teach that we should stand when the Word of God is read. Standing to hear the Bible read is certainly a sign of respect. Just as we stand when reciting the pledge of allegiance to show respect for the flag, and we stand when the national anthem is played to show respect for our country, many Christians stand for the reading of the Bible. However, there is no biblical command that teaches people must stand when Scripture is read. In fact, Ezra was not reading the Bible in a church. Ezra read from [the Torah](what-is-the-Torah.html), standing on an outside platform in Jerusalem at a one\-time event hundreds of years before the start of the church (see Acts 2\). Though many positive principles can be gleaned from this passage, there is no explicit command to repeat this action during today’s church gatherings. Further, the standing that took place in Nehemiah 8:5 did not last long. The following verse states, “Ezra praised the Lord, the great God; and all the people lifted their hands and responded, ‘Amen! Amen!’ Then they bowed down and worshiped the Lord with their faces to the ground.” (Nehemiah 8:6\). Verses 7–8 add, “The Levites . . . instructed the people in the Law while the people were standing there. They read from the Book of the Law of God, making it clear and giving the meaning so that the people understood what was being read.” These men helped interpret and possibly translate the teachings of the Law to the people of Jerusalem. Nehemiah 8:12 says that the day Ezra read the Scriptures was a day of rejoicing: “Then all the people went away to eat and drink, to send portions of food and to celebrate with great joy, because they now understood the words that had been made known to them.” As Psalm 119:162 says, “I rejoice in your word like one who discovers a great treasure” (NLT). In hearing God’s Word, the Israelites learned about [the Feast of Booths](Feast-of-Tabernacles.html). They chose to celebrate it for the first time since returning to Jerusalem. The feast lasted seven days, followed by a sacred day with no work. Like the people of Judah during Ezra’s day, we should always show respect for the Word of God. Standing while it’s read is one way to show respect, but there are other ways. The best way to show respect for God’s Word is to heed it and allow it to change our lives. “I have hidden your word in my heart that I might not sin against you” (Psalm 119:11\).
What is the mystery of faith?	Answer The mystery of faith is a term that occurs in 1 Timothy 3:9\. Depending on the English translation, the Greek phrase τὸ μυστήριον τῆς πίστεως is translated “the mystery of faith,” “the mystery of the faith,” or “the deep truths of the faith.” The verse in which the phrase appears is about [deacons](qualifications-elders-deacons.html). Paul is advising Timothy about what sort of man should be trusted with the office of deacon in order to serve the local church body. Paul says a deacon should be dignified, truthful, and one who “holds to the mystery of faith with a clear conscience” (1 Timothy 3:9\). In this context, Paul is simply saying that the man who serves the church should be a believer who is mature, who has a firm grasp on the basic elements of the gospel, and whose life matches his profession of faith. A [“mystery”](mystery-of-God.html) in the New Testament is something that had at one time been hidden but is now revealed to God’s people. Jesus told His disciples, “To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted” (Matthew 13:11, NASB). The apostle Paul often spoke of such “mysteries”: Jesus’ incarnation (1 Timothy 3:16\), the indwelling of the Spirit (Colossians 1:26–27\), the unity of the church (Ephesians 3:4–6\), the rapture (1 Corinthians 15:51–52\), and the gospel itself (Colossians 4:3\). All these truths were “hidden” from the prophets of old but have been revealed plainly to us today. They are “mysteries” that are no longer mysterious to the child of God. “The mystery of faith” is the divinely revealed truth about grace, redemption, and forgiveness in Christ. The message of Christ’s sacrifice for sin and His resurrection (the message that Paul refers to as “the faith”) is easy to understand. The basic gospel message is simple enough for even the youngest believer, but it is also a humbling mystery that was only hinted at throughout the time of the Old Covenant. Now God’s plan of salvation has been revealed in His Son, Jesus Christ, and we are held responsible to “hold” that message firmly. When Paul advises Timothy to appoint deacons who “hold to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience,” he is telling Timothy to find mature believers—men who understand the message of the gospel and are living it out. “Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God!” (Romans 11:33\). Oh, the condescension of Christ who has made manifest the mysteries of heaven to us!
Did Paul ever meet Jesus in person?	Answer The subject of Jesus Christ and His saving work were at the forefront of the apostle Paul’s ministry. “Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel!” he said (1 Corinthians 9:16\). This great apostle consistently focused his evangelistic efforts on convincing people that Jesus was the promised Messiah of Israel as well as the risen Lord and Savior of the Gentiles. The unique identity of Jesus was at the center of Paul’s theology. But had Paul ever met Jesus during Christ’s three\-and\-a\-half year public ministry? Had the future apostle ever seen or heard Jesus in person? While we lack any direct evidence, there are several considerations that may favor the idea that Paul had possibly seen Jesus prior to the crucifixion. First, Paul had been a resident of Jerusalem as a child (Acts 22:3\) and was also there years later to approve of Stephen’s stoning (Acts 8:1\). The presence of Paul’s nephew in Jerusalem after Paul’s conversion (Acts 23:16\) suggests that Paul and his family had resided there for some time. Jesus was known to have visited Jerusalem (Mark 11:11; John 2:13; 5:1\). It is quite possible that Paul could have seen Jesus or heard Him speak during one of Jesus’ several trips there. Second, Paul’s devotion to the Law would have provided him motivation to be present in Jerusalem during Passover—a time where both he and Jesus would have been in close proximity. Third, as a Pharisee, Paul would have been keenly interested in the teaching of a popular, if unconventional, rabbi. As Paul told Herod Agrippa, the things Jesus did were “not done in a corner” (Acts 26:26\). Fourth, in one of Paul’s epistles, the apostle hints that he may have had a pre\-conversion acquaintance with Jesus (2 Corinthians 5:16\), although his statement is far from conclusive. None of these considerations in any way establish that Paul had seen or heard Jesus personally prior to His atoning death at Calvary. We cannot say for sure whether or not Paul had ever met Jesus. Of course, Paul did encounter the Lord Jesus on the [Damascus Road](Damascus-Road.html) after Christ’s resurrection. While Jesus’ appearance to Paul may have been different in character from Christ’s pre\-ascension appearances, this encounter with Paul was no merely subjective vision, as both Jesus’ voice (Acts 9:7\) and the bright light (Acts 22:9\) were perceived by Paul’s traveling companions. The Lord chose Paul to proclaim His name to both Gentiles and the children of Israel (Acts 9:15\). Paul later underwent intense persecution for the gospel of Christ (Acts 14:19; 2 Corinthians 11:25–26\). It was in part through his tireless efforts that the gospel of grace spread throughout the Mediterranean world.
Who were Sanballat, Tobiah, and Geshem?	Answer Sanballat, Tobiah, and Geshem were three enemies of the Jews who made several attempts to stop [Nehemiah](life-Nehemiah.html) from rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem. Sanballat and Tobiah are first mentioned in Nehemiah 2:10 as upset about Nehemiah’s work: “When Sanballat the Horonite and Tobiah the Ammonite official heard about this, they were very much disturbed that someone had come to promote the welfare of the Israelites.” In verse 19, they, along with Geshem the Arab, mock Nehemiah, saying, “What is this you are doing? . . . Are you rebelling against the king?” When the construction was taking place, their anger grew: “When Sanballat heard that we were rebuilding the wall, he became angry and was greatly incensed. He ridiculed the Jews” (Nehemiah 4:1; cf. verse 7\). The Horonites and [Ammonites](Ammonites.html) were two of the people groups God had driven from the Promised Land for the Israelites. Sanballat, Tobiah, and Geshem were regional governors serving under the king of Persia. Sanballat, called a Horonite, was probably from Horonaim, a city of Moab. Tobiah the Ammonite was governing an area east of the Jordan River. Geshem the Arab was most likely from the region south of Judah. Generations after Israel had first possessed the Promised Land, some of their old enemies were back, seeking to keep Jerusalem in ruins. Sanballat, Tobiah, and Geshem used various ploys in their attempt to disrupt the Jews’ work. These three men sought to harm Nehemiah (Nehemiah 6:2\); intimidate him with false reports (verses 5–6\); deceive him with false prophets (verses 7–13\); and influence the nobles of Judah (verses 17–19\). Nehemiah adds that Eliashib the high priest was related to Tobiah (Nehemiah 13:4\) and one of his grandsons was the son\-in\-law of Sanballat (Nehemiah 13:28\). The efforts of Sanballat, Tobiah, and Geshem were futile for the simple reason that they were fighting God’s plan. The wall of Jerusalem was completed in record time (Nehemiah 6:15\). Nehemiah’s response to his enemies is instructive to us. Rather than fear or worry or seek revenge, Nehemiah took the matter to the Lord: “Remember Tobiah and Sanballat, my God, because of what they have done; remember also the prophet Noadiah and how she and the rest of the prophets have been trying to intimidate me” (Nehemiah 6:14\).
How should a Christian view rationalism vs. empiricism?	Answer Rationalism vs. empiricism is a philosophical debate about the way human beings gain knowledge. There is a wide array of theses associated with rationalism and empiricism. Empiricists look to the world outside themselves as the source of knowledge, while rationalists look to the world within themselves as the source of knowledge. The empiricist holds that we cannot truly know something without first examining the related empirical evidence—that is, what we can see, smell, hear, touch, or taste. We learn by experiencing the world around us in concrete ways. The rationalist would argue that humans have an innate knowledge that does not come from experience but simply exists within us from birth. Based on that innate knowledge, the rationalist also holds that humans can reason toward new knowledge. The debate between rationalism and empiricism focuses on the divide between using the scientific method and one’s own rationale (independent of external evidence) to arrive at “truth.” A famous rationalist, [Rene Descartes](Rene-Descartes.html), said, “I think, therefore I am.” By this he meant that, since we have thoughts and ideas that originate a priori (without prior understanding), we can know that we exist or that we are real. The empiricist, on the other hand, must grapple with whether or not he—or indeed, anything at all—has true existence. If all he has to base reality upon are the senses or his own feelings of pain or pleasure, there is no guarantee that he himself is not a hologram or a figment of someone else’s imagination. He could be living in a dream state, trapped in a coma. There’s no way for him to be sure. The rationalist says, “Nonsense, you know you’re real, and so do I, and that’s all there is to it. You don’t need extra evidence to prove your existence. You think, and therefore you are.” When it comes to a Christian view of rationalism vs. empiricism, a believer in God should start with the same questions that any philosopher starts with: how do I know that I know what I know? When I look at the world around me, how can I be sure that my understanding of it is right? When I examine my own thoughts, how do I ensure that my thoughts—and my examination of them—are correct? The answer to these questions is not found in confidence in oneself or one’s mind, but trust in God. The writer of Proverbs tells us to trust in the Lord with all our heart and lean not on our own understanding (Proverbs 3:5\). “But,” someone may ask, “how can I know that my perception of this knowledge from God is not subject to the same human errors that the rest of knowledge is subject to?” The answer is found in the very next verse, Proverbs 3:6: “In all your ways submit to him, and he will make your paths straight.” What this means—and it is a theme echoed throughout all Scripture—is that the only Being who truly knows what He knows is God. Since we are finite, our minds are unable to be completely sure of our thoughts or knowledge, whether we are empiricists looking at the evidence, or rationalists depending on innate knowledge. Even those embroiled in the rationalism vs. empiricism debate will admit that the human experience includes both a search for empirical data and a reliance on innate knowledge. But every human being is subject to error, and neither method of knowing will give us perfect understanding. That is why we must trust God to provide the answers and the knowledge we need (James 1:5\). God’s Word is truth (John 17:17\). Many people, in all stages of faith, struggle to trust God. Job, after challenging God and hearing God’s response, concluded that “surely I spoke of things I did not understand, things too wonderful for me to know” (Job 42:3\). It is tempting, in such a humanistic era, to believe that we by our own power can rise to any height of knowledge if we simply find the correct method. But the Bible tells us that we have limited power and that we must trust God if we are ever to have peace (Isaiah 26:3\). If the issue of rationalism vs. empiricism, or any other philosophical conundrum, is causing you to worry, remember Paul’s exhortation to believers: “Do not be anxious about anything, but in every situation, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus” (Philippians 4:6–7\).
What is the sea of forgetfulness?	Answer The phrase sea of forgetfulness is not actually in Scripture. When people mention the “sea of forgetfulness,” they are usually referring to several passages that talk about God’s forgiveness, and how when we are justified in Christ, God forgets our sins so completely that they might as well be buried at the bottom of an ocean. The main passage that contains the idea of a sea of forgetfulness is Micah 7:19: “He will again have compassion on us, and will subdue our iniquities. You will cast all our sins into the depths of the sea.” Another verse, Isaiah 1:18, says that God will make our scarlet sins as white as wool. Psalm 103:12 expresses the thought in yet another way: “As far as the east is from the west, so far has He removed our transgressions from us.” A sea of forgetfulness represents a place where our sins are sent very far away from us, so that they can no longer affect us. It does not mean that we, as believers, no longer sin or that our sins are [erased from God’s mind](does-God-forget.html). It only means that our sins no longer have any bearing on our salvation. Jesus’ perfect life, sacrificial death, and glorious resurrection is the only means by which we are saved (Acts 4:12\). When we trust in Christ, we come under a new paradigm. Although our sins still grieve God and cause ruin in our lives and in the lives of others, our salvation is secure (Romans 8:1, 31–39\). The idea that our sins are lost in a sea of forgetfulness is a comfort. We are no longer judged by our sins (Romans 8:1\), and that fact frees us to live life in a way that pleases God. When we fear judgment, ironically, we are tempted to sin even more, because we want to escape from the fear of judgment, and sin is often pleasurable for a time (see Hebrews 11:25\). But, eventually, the fear of judgment returns. This is a vicious cycle. Spiritual growth requires that we recognize the total forgiveness that exists in Jesus Christ and that we rest in that forgiveness. Many people do not believe they require salvation. They believe that they are good enough to reach heaven on their own merit, and they do not accept the truth about their own fallen state. These people are deceived, and they do not have a relationship with God (1 John 1:8, 10\). Every person needs God’s forgiveness and salvation—a relationship based on dependence on His grace. If we admit that we are sinners and trust in Christ, He forgives and cleanses us (1 John 1:9\). Our sins are no longer part of the equation and will not be remembered (Jeremiah 31:34; Hebrews 8:12\).
What does the Bible say about ghost hunting?	Answer Ghost hunting is the practice of going to supposedly haunted locations to investigate the presence of spirits. Self\-proclaimed ghost hunters are riding a wave of popularity right now, having their own “reality” shows and taking advantage of society’s craving for thrills and chills. Usually, these ghost hunters use electronic equipment like EMF (electromagnetic field) meters, infrared cameras, and audio recording equipment. They search for cold spots in the air or voices or lights—all supposed indications of a ghost infestation. Ghost hunting has been called “pseudoscience” and “techno\-mysticism” and has been widely criticized for drawing unscientific conclusions from gathered data. The Bible does not have anything specific to say about the practice of ghost hunting, but it does have a few things to say about spirits and the occult. In the time of the Old Testament, seeking the advice of or making contact with the dead was a practice of Israel’s pagan neighbors. The Law of God strictly forbade contacting the dead; the practice of seeking the dead was “an abomination” (Deuteronomy 18:11–12\). The Law warned against turning to mediums and necromancers in several places (Leviticus 19:31; 20:6, 27\). Consistently throughout the Bible, communications with the dead are associated with evil. The good king Josiah was known for eliminating all such practices during his reign (2 Kings 23:24\). Interestingly, King Saul also rid the land of mediums and spiritists during his reign, but then, when God had turned away from him, he disguised himself and visited a medium, the so\-called [witch of Endor](witch-of-endor.html). In one of the most enigmatic passages in all Scripture, the medium proceeds to call up the spirit of Samuel, and the deceased prophet gives Saul the same message he had already received from God—namely, that Saul’s kingdom would be taken from him (1 Samuel 28:1–25\). Ghost hunting is not exactly the same as what mediums do, but it still falls under the umbrella of contacting the dead. Those who investigate paranormal activity often speak to the spirits and ask them to communicate in return—a clear violation of the biblical command. Ghost hunters purport to do their hunting for scientific reasons, to really know what is there and if there is any justification for belief in the supernatural. However, ghost\-hunting organizations do not truly follow the scientific method. They rely instead on the subjective, emotional responses of the ghost hunters, and they use “the history of the location” and even [Ouija boards](ouija-boards.html) as valid data\-gathering techniques. It is safe to assume that there is more than a scientific motive for ghost hunting. Ghost hunting is just a way to re\-package the old, sinful fascination with [the occult](occult.html) for a technological age. According to the Bible, the only true instance of a haunting would be due to the presence of demons. Should these ghost hunters ever stumble on the genuine presence of demonic forces, they will likely suffer the same fate as the [seven sons of Sceva](seven-sons-of-Sceva.html) (Acts 19:14\-16\), or worse.
Why was it important to rebuild the walls around Jerusalem?	Answer The answer to why it was important to rebuild Jerusalem’s walls is found in Nehemiah 1:3\. Some Jews who visited Jerusalem returned to Persia and reported to [Nehemiah](life-Nehemiah.html), the king’s [cupbearer](what-is-a-cupbearer.html). The men said, “Those who survived the exile and are back in the province are in great trouble and disgrace. The wall of Jerusalem is broken down, and its gates have been burned with fire.” After the [Babylonian Captivity](Babylonian-captivity-exile.html), a remnant of the Jewish people had returned to Jerusalem under the leadership of Zerubbabel and [Ezra](life-Ezra.html). These returned exiles had rebuilt the temple, but they were now in need of protection. The lack of fortified walls around the city left the people defenseless against enemies. Weather, wild animals, opposing people, and other opponents could easily enter and cause “great trouble” to the people. According to the report Nehemiah received, the remnant in Jerusalem was shamed. A city with broken walls revealed a defeated people. The Jews who had returned to their homeland were both in unsafe conditions and humiliated at living in a destroyed city. In Nehemiah 2:17, Nehemiah told the Jewish leaders, “You see the trouble we are in: Jerusalem lies in ruins, and its gates have been burned with fire. Come, let us rebuild the wall of Jerusalem, and we will no longer be in disgrace.” Also, the rebuilding of Jerusalem’s walls would show God’s blessing upon His people again. Nehemiah quoted God’s words to Moses in his prayer, saying, “If you return to me and obey my commands, then even if your exiled people are at the farthest horizon, I will gather them from there and bring them to the place I have chosen as a dwelling for my Name” (Nehemiah 1:9\). Rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem was an important sign to the enemies of Israel. Nehemiah told their enemies, “The God of heaven will give us success. We his servants will start rebuilding, but as for you, you have no share in Jerusalem or any claim or historic right to it” (Nehemiah 2:20\). And rebuilding the walls showed that God was with His people. Upon the completion of the walls, Nehemiah wrote, “When all our enemies heard about this, all the surrounding nations were afraid and lost their self\-confidence, because they realized that this work had been done with the help of our God” (Nehemiah 6:16\). The destruction of Jerusalem’s walls left its people exposed to great trouble and shame. Rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem was important because it revealed God’s blessing, served as a sign to Israel’s enemies, and showed God was with His people. The walls provided protection and dignity to a people who had suffered the judgment of God but had later been restored and returned to the Promised Land.
What does the Bible say about chanting?	Answer To chant is to speak or sing rhythmically, in words or sounds. There is a wide variety of different types of chanting, from basic two\-note chants to simple melodies, to complex melodies and harmonies. There are chants that are considered to be a form of speech and others that are considered to be music. Chanting is thought to be one of the first forms of what is now Western music. Battle cries, the shouts of protesters, and even the calls of sports fans can be considered chanting. There is nothing in the Bible that says how we are to sing, technically speaking. Chanting or singing, the Bible tells us to make a joyful noise unto the Lord (Psalm 95:1–2\). The question of whether a Christian should chant is therefore mostly a question of motive. We know that the Bible commands psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, so these are condoned as a form of worship (Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16\). We also know that there are songs that are displeasing to God. When Israel had turned away from God in their hearts, He said that He would no longer listen to the melody of their harps or the noise of their “idle” songs (Amos 5:23; 6:5\). Taking away the ability to make music was sometimes a sign of judgment on Israel and on other nations (Amos 8:3, 10; Ezekiel 26:13\). Music itself, whether accompanied by instrumentation or simply sung with the voice, is not evil. But when a song is given to God out of the wrong motive—or directed to an idol—it is wicked. We can say the same of chanting. Chant and song, like prayer, can be performed with a wrong motive. For example, chanting in order to appease God by vain repetitions or empty phrases is wrong. Chanting in order to induce a trance\-like state is wrong. Chanting in order to gain the approval of men or to appear righteous is wrong (Matthew 6:5, 7\). God calls that kind of behavior hypocritical. On the other hand, a chant or song, like prayer, can be given for the right reasons: to worship God, to express thanks and dependence on Him, and to petition Him. If a prayer is from a thankful, dependent heart, it is a beautiful expression of worship. The prayerful hymn “Jesus, the Very Thought of Thee,” found in many evangelical [hymnals](what-are-hymns.html), was originally written in Latin and is still used as a chant in some churches. Whether the prayer is sung, spoken, or chanted, nothing of substance changes. Another consideration is what is being chanted. Chanting is common in [yoga](Christian-yoga.html), Buddhism, and Native American worship rituals. Of course, the words and the motives for chanting in pagan religions are unbiblical. Chanting used to connect the human soul to evil spirits is harmful. When a person’s motive is to pray to or petition an idol or demonic spirit, and chanting is the method used to make that connection, that kind of chanting is evil. Chants or mantras spoken or sung for the purpose of opening the mind to undefined spiritual influences are also dangerous. Chanting in a church setting is usually associated with Catholicism, but other liturgical traditions such as Lutheranism also employ chanting. Some chants, such as Asperges, are based on Scripture and are eminently biblical. Other chants, such as Ave Maria and Salve Regina, are nothing more than [prayers to Mary](prayer-saints-Mary.html) and are therefore unbiblical. In conclusion, chanting, as a form of expression, is not, in itself, evil. A chant is like a song or a prayer. Its rightness or wrongness depends on the purpose of the chant, the subject of the chant, and the motive of the mind, heart, and voice producing the chant.
What does it mean that baby Jesus was wrapped in swaddling clothes?	Answer Swaddling clothes are cloths and bands used in the practice of swaddling, or essentially “wrapping” an infant tightly in cloth. The idea behind swaddling is that it helps the baby transition from the womb (a very snug place) to the outside world. Swaddling clothes are still used today, but with some modifications. In general, swaddling has been proved to help infants sleep better, to prevent them from scratching themselves, and to reduce the risk of SIDS. In ancient times, like today, a swaddled infant was safe if wrapped and watched properly. Many cultures still practice swaddling today. The biblical passage that refers to swaddling clothes is Luke 2: “And she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn” (Luke 2:7, ESV). We can assume from the fact that she swaddled the baby Jesus that [Mary](virgin-Mary.html) was an attentive and loving mother. The angel who spoke to the shepherds on the hillside mentions swaddling clothes as part of the sign to the shepherds that they had found the Messiah (Luke 2:12\). There are some interesting theories about Luke’s detail of Jesus’ swaddling clothes. Some have postulated that the swaddling clothes were a foreshadowing—a prophetic reference—of Jesus’ burial cloths. The Greek word sparganoo is the root word used in the phrase “swaddling clothes,” and it means “to clothe in strips of cloth.” But this word sparganoo is never used in the New Testament to refer to burial cloth. In the descriptions in the Gospels of Jesus’ burial, we see variations on the phrase “wrapped in linen cloth,” and different Greek words are used for the binding. The swaddling clothes could prefigure Jesus’ burial (the Magis’ gift of [myrrh](gold-frankincense-myrrh.html) in Matthew 2:11 is a clearer bit of foreshadowing), but the link can’t be proved linguistically. When the Son of God came into our world, He was entrusted to responsible, loving parents who sought to meet His every need. Baby Jesus was wrapped in swaddling clothes according to the custom of the day, an action that showed the tender care and affection of His mother.
What does it mean that God is omnibenevolent?	Answer The word omnibenevolent comes from the Latin word omni, meaning “all,” and the word benevolent, meaning “good” or “charitable.” When we say that God is omnibenevolent, we are saying that God is absolutely good and that no action or motive or thought or feeling or anything else about Him is not purely good. He is “all\-good.” The Bible provides many testimonies of God’s goodness, including Jesus’ own, when He asserted that no one is truly good except God Himself (Mark 10:18\). This can only mean that, although human beings can do good things, only God is omnibenevolent, or wholly good. To believe in a perfect being, one must accept that God can be omnibenevolent. If God is completely self\-sustaining, independent of need, the “un\-caused cause” and “un\-moved mover,” He must also be perfectly good. If God were simply a good and powerful being, but not perfectly good, there would be an element of contingency. That is, we could conceive of a being of potentially greater benevolence—and someone with greater goodness would be greater than God. Since the goodness of anything is measured by its perfection, God must be perfectly good in order to also be omniscient and omnipotent. All three aspects of His person must be in place for us to conceive of any one of the three. The most common objection to the assertion that God is omnibenevolent, as well as omnipotent and omniscient, is the problem of evil. If God is all\-knowing and all\-powerful and perfectly good, [why does evil exist](God-allow-evil.html)? Philosophers debate this question endlessly. Some solve the problem by saying that Lucifer’s and then, later, man’s free will was the cause of evil and that God was not involved in causing evil. One might then ask, “Why then did God create a being who could choose evil?” and the typical answer to that is “because He wanted beings who would be able to make choices”; i.e., He did not want robots. Philosophically speaking, God’s omnibenevolence is a complicated issue. The problem of evil is a complex one. However, we do know that, for God to be God, He must be omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient. And, really, the issue comes down to believing the Bible, which presents God as always good (Psalm 106:1; 135:3; Nahum 1:7\). His message to sinners, through Christ, is “good news” (Luke 2:10\); His revelation of Christ is called the appearing of “the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior” (Titus 3:4, ESV). It is the goodness of God that leads us to repentance (Romans 2:4\), goodness is one of the results of His indwelling Spirit (Galatians 5:22\), and He brings goodness to fruition in our lives through faith (2 Thessalonians 1:11\).
What does the Bible say about injustice?	Answer The Bible has a lot to say on the subject of injustice. We know that God is in favor of justice; we know that He is against injustice, even in the most basic terms. The writer of Proverbs mentions this: “The LORD detests differing weights, / and dishonest scales do not please him” (Proverbs 20:23\). Justice is foundational to God’s throne (Psalm 89:14\), and God does not approve of partiality, whether we are talking about a weighted scale or an unjust legal system (Leviticus 19:15\). There are many other verses, in both Old and New Testaments, that give us an idea of God’s distaste for injustice (2 Chronicles 19:7; Job 6:29; 11:14; Proverbs 16:8; Ezekiel 18:24; Romans 9:14\). Isaiah lived in a time when Judah was struggling under the weight of injustice: “Justice is driven back, / and righteousness stands at a distance; / truth has stumbled in the streets, honesty cannot enter. / Truth is nowhere to be found, / and whoever shuns evil becomes a prey. / The LORD looked and was displeased / that there was no justice” (Isaiah 59:14–15\). God’s message for them was simple: “Learn to do right; seek justice. / Defend the oppressed. / Take up the cause of the fatherless; / plead the case of the widow” (Isaiah 1:17\). Later, God tells them to “loose the chains of injustice” (Isaiah 58:6; cf. Psalm 82:3\), indicating that injustice is a form of bondage and oppression. In the book of James, we see more deeply into the heart of God regarding injustice. God is not petty or obsessive. He does not value justice simply for the sake of having orderliness. There are deeper issues at stake. In James 2, we see a discussion about partiality. James speaks to a group of believers who have been judging the people in their gathering according to their social status. In the human heart, injustice is a sign of partiality, judgmentalism, and a lack of love. When we strive to be righteous by our own human measurements, we invariably forget God’s measurement: perfection. Anything less than perfection is, to God, a scale out of balance. Every human is, because of the fall, unjust. We do a lot of incongruent things. We make mistakes, we blow hot and cold, we do and say things that are totally contradictory. As James says, “We all stumble in many ways” (James 3:2\). Injustice permeates our lives, as we judge unfairly and hold others to a different standard than we are willing to abide by ourselves. The only way to truly escape injustice is to first accept that God is perfectly just and humans are inherently unjust, i.e., less than perfect, and then to accept God’s righteousness (1 John 1:5–9\). Only when we are no longer concerned with making ourselves righteous can we trust the One who justifies the ungodly (Romans 4:5\). Then, as God’s children, we can see clearly to combat the injustice around us with a merciful attitude (Micah 6:8; James 1:27\). Jesus is totally just; there is no injustice in Him at all. Because of His perfection, Jesus can provide true justice. In fact, “the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son” (John 5:22\). We look forward to the time when righteousness and justice will be the order of the day and injustice will be banished forever: “Of the greatness of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David’s throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the LORD Almighty will accomplish this” (Isaiah 9:7\).
Who was Mordecai in the Bible?	Answer Mordecai is first introduced in Esther 2:5–7: “Now there was in the citadel of Susa a Jew of the tribe of Benjamin, named Mordecai son of Jair, the son of Shimei, the son of Kish, who had been carried into exile from Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, among those taken captive with Jehoiachin king of Judah. Mordecai had a cousin named [Hadassah](Hadassah-in-the-Bible.html), whom he had brought up because she had neither father nor mother. This young woman, who was also known as [Esther](life-Esther.html), had a lovely figure and was beautiful. Mordecai had taken her as his own daughter when her father and mother died.” These verses note the following facts about Mordecai: 1\) he was a Jew from the [tribe of Benjamin](tribe-of-Benjamin.html), 2\) he lived in Susa, the capital of Persia, 3\) his great\-grandfather, Kish, had been taken captive by Nebuchadnezzar, and 4\) he acted as a father to Esther. When Esther was selected as one of the virgins to possibly be the next queen of [King Xerxes](Xerxes-in-the-Bible.html) (or Ahasuerus), Mordecai advised her not to reveal her Jewish background (Esther 2:10\). Esther was crowned queen (verse 17\). In Esther 2:21–23, Mordecai, who worked at the palace gate, hears of an assassination plot against the king. Mordecai reports the plot to Esther, and the queen passes the intelligence on to Xerxes. The would\-be assassins are stopped, and Mordecai’s name is recorded in the king’s chronicles as the one who took action to preserve the king’s life. Mordecai was hated by [Haman](Haman-the-Agagite.html), an Agagite who held a prominent office in the kingdom. Haman’s hatred was due to Mordecai’s refusal to bow in honor to him (Esther 3:5\). As a Jew, Mordecai would only bow to the Lord God of Israel. Haman was not content with simply doing away with Mordecai, however: “Having learned who Mordecai’s people were, he scorned the idea of killing only Mordecai. Instead Haman looked for a way to destroy all Mordecai’s people, the Jews, throughout the whole kingdom of Xerxes” (verse 6\). Haman spoke to the king and secured the king’s permission to annihilate the Jewish people on a select date in the future. When Mordecai heard of the decree, he tore his clothing, put on sackcloth, and sat in ashes (Esther 4:1\). Mordecai had been checking on Esther each day. When she discovered he was mourning, she inquired of the cause. Mordecai informed Esther of Haman’s plot against the Jews, telling her to go before the king and plead for the Jews’ lives (Esther 4:8\). At this, Esther balked—she did not have freedom to enter the king’s presence without a summons; to approach the king uninvited was punishable by death (verses 9–10\). Mordecai responded with logic: if she did not go before the king, she was dead anyway, for she herself was endangered by the king’s edict (verse 13\). Mordecai ends his message to the queen with this famous statement: “Who knows but that you have come to your royal position for such a time as this?” (verse 14\). Esther agreed that she must break the Persian law that forbade access to the king, saying, “If I perish, I perish” (Esther 4:16\). She fasted for three days and then entered the king’s presence uninvited. Xerxes received her graciously, however, and Esther took the opportunity to invite the king and Haman to a banquet (Esther 5:1–4\). At the meal, the king asked Esther if she had a request, and Esther asked for their presence at another banquet the next night. Haman, who was ignorant of the queen’s ethnicity, was pleased to be honored with not one banquet but two. On the way home, he was “happy and in high spirits. But when he saw Mordecai at the king’s gate and observed that he neither rose nor showed fear in his presence, he was filled with rage against Mordecai” (verse 9\). Once he arrived home, he issued an order to build a 75\-foot\-high gallows upon which to hang Mordecai (Esther 5:14\). That night after Esther’s first meal, King Xerxes couldn’t sleep. As a sleep\-aid, he had his chronicles read to him. It just so happened that the account of Mordecai’s thwarting the assassination was read. The king then discovered that nothing had been done to repay Mordecai for his good deed. At that moment, Haman entered the palace in order to obtain the king’s permission to hang Mordecai—he never got the chance to ask, though, because the king ordered Haman to immediately take Mordecai through the streets of Susa to pay him homage (Esther 6:10–11\). Haman was thus humbled before his enemy, and Mordecai received due honor. After his humiliating experience of honoring Mordecai, Haman returned to the palace for Esther’s second banquet. During the meal, the king again asked Esther if she had a request. This time, she pleaded for the king to rescue her and her people from destruction (Esther 6:3–4\), and she pointed out Haman as the one wanting to kill her (verse 6\). Haman was summarily put to death on the very gallows he had erected for Mordecai, and the Jews were given permission to defend themselves. The Jews successfully overcame Haman’s evil plot, and Mordecai was rewarded with a promotion. The final verse of Esther notes, “Mordecai the Jew was second in rank to King Xerxes, preeminent among the Jews, and held in high esteem by his many fellow Jews, because he worked for the good of his people and spoke up for the welfare of all the Jews” (Esther 10:3\). The story of Mordecai illustrates the truth of Psalm 75:7, “It is God who judges: / He brings one down, he exalts another,” and Psalm 147:6, “The LORD sustains the humble / but casts the wicked to the ground.” Mordecai’s faithfulness and integrity put him in good stead with the king of Persia, and his concern for his Jewish compatriots brought the blessing of God.
Who was Abigail in the Bible?	Answer Abigail was one of David’s wives. Her story is found in 1 Samuel 25\. At the beginning of the story, Abigail is the wife of a wealthy man named [Nabal](Nabal-in-the-Bible.html) who lived in a town called Maon in the wilderness of Paran, an area near the Sinai Peninsula. Abigail was “an intelligent and beautiful woman” (1 Samuel 25:3\) who saved her husband and his household, prevented [David](life-David.html) from doing something rash, and secured an unexpected future for herself. The story of Abigail in the Bible is an interesting one for many reasons. For one, Nabal is a rather bizarre character. For no apparent reason, Nabal refuses David’s request for food and shelter. Despite knowing of David’s previous benevolence to his shepherds, Nabal churlishly refuses to aid David and his men as they tried to keep one step ahead of [King Saul](life-Saul.html). David’s request was not unreasonable, but Nabal, who is described as “surly and mean” (1 Samuel 25:3\), essentially spits in the faces of David’s servants, saying, “Who is this David? Who is this son of Jesse? Many servants are breaking away from their masters these days. Why should I take my bread and water, and the meat I have slaughtered for my shearers, and give it to men coming from who knows where?” (verses 10–11\). David did not take this rejection well. He swore to kill every male associated with Nabal’s household (1 Samuel 25:22\). He had strapped on his sword and was on his way with four hundred armed men (verse 13\), when Abigail met him on the road. She offered David gifts of wine, grain, prepared meat, and cakes of figs. Then she fell down in front of David, pleading with him to show mercy to her husband, Nabal (verse 23\). In her plea, Abigail shows that she understands Nabal’s character: “Please pay no attention, my lord, to that wicked man Nabal. He is just like his name—his name means Fool, and folly goes with him” (verse 25\). In taking up Nabal’s cause and asking David to spare his life, Abigail proves herself to be a righteous, caring woman. At great risk to herself, she approaches David, an angry man bent on revenge, and intercedes for her husband, despite his bad behavior. Her request can be seen as a picture of Christ, who offered Himself as a sacrifice to save foolish sinners from the consequences of their own actions and who continues to intercede for us (Hebrews 7:25\). Abigail’s propitiation saves the day. David thanks Abigail for staying his hand and repents of his own foolish and rash decision to slaughter Nabal’s household (1 Samuel 25:32–34\). In fact, David sees Abigail’s coming to him as a blessing from God, and he sends her home in peace (verse 35\). Meanwhile, Nabal, insensitive to his wrongdoing and the danger that he had been in, holds a kingly feast for himself and gets drunk (1 Samuel 25:36\). Abigail waits until the next morning for her husband to sober up, and then she tells Nabal everything—how David had been on his way to destroy him and how she herself had saved Nabal. Upon hearing this news, Nabal falls ill: “His heart failed him and he became like a stone. About ten days later, the LORD struck Nabal and he died” (verses 37–38\). David then sends a message to Abigail asking her to become his wife, and Abigail responds affirmatively (verses 40–42\). Scripture says that we should not seek [vengeance](revenge-vengeance.html) for ourselves. Rather, we should “leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: ‘It is mine to avenge; I will repay,’ says the Lord” (Romans 12:19; cf. Deuteronomy 32:35\). This is exactly what happened in Abigail’s story. David was prevented from taking revenge, and the Lord Himself took care of the matter in due time. David and Nabal can be seen as representative of the two responses men have to Christ. Nabal does not repent or acknowledge his sin; neither does he thank Abigail for her willingness to risk her own life on his behalf. On the other hand, David’s heart is tender and repentant, and he calls Abigail blessed for her actions. David is spared the consequences of the sin he had planned, but Nabal dies in his sin. In the end, Nabal’s wealth, his wife, and his very life are taken from him. Abigail—a savior full of beauty, wisdom, and discretion—enters a loving relationship with David. In Abigail, we have a small picture of the ultimate Savior, the Source of beauty and wisdom, who desires a loving relationship with us forever.
Is freedom of speech a biblical concept?	Answer Freedom of speech is defined by Webster’s dictionary as “the right to express facts and opinions subject only to reasonable limitations (as the power of the government to protect itself from a clear and present danger) guaranteed by the 1st and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution and similar provisions of some state constitutions.” Freedom of speech, according to this definition, is a right given to the citizens of the United States by law. In that sense, freedom of speech is not a biblical concept but a political one specific to a certain time and place in history. The founders of the United States believed that mankind has certain “inalienable rights” including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under that umbrella of liberty falls freedom of speech. Thomas Jefferson spoke of these rights as having been endowed to man by his Creator; he called the right to liberty “inherent” and postulated that governments are instituted in order to allow man (the governed) to secure those rights and to pursue his rights freely. The liberty and consent of the governed were, in Jefferson’s mind, imperative for governments to be efficient and beneficial. The idea that the Creator has endowed us with the right to liberty is debatable, but it is true that God created man with a free will. Adam and Eve had the liberty to partake of any fruit in the garden (except one), and they even had the liberty to disobey. God created man to serve Him, to know Him, and to enjoy Him forever in eternity, so liberty within the bounds of righteousness is certainly a biblical ideal. Christians believe that serving God and enjoying a relationship with Him is the ultimate liberty. The ultimate freedom is found in belonging to Christ (Galatians 5:1; 2 Corinthians 3:17\). Sin brings bondage (Romans 7:14\), but the one who belongs to Christ is spiritually free (Romans 8:2\). But does that spiritual freedom from sin entail political freedom of speech? Perhaps not directly, but speaking the truth in love is a biblical mandate (Ephesians 4:15\). Therefore, any government law that guarantees citizens the right to speak the truth aligns with godly principles. By the same token, any law that suppresses a person’s right to speak truth is working against God’s command. Freedom of speech does not guarantee that truth is told, of course, but it does permit it to be told. In the final analysis, there is no conflict between biblical principles and the civic principle of freedom of speech. Despite the First Amendment, in the United States today, Christians do not have total freedom of speech. There are things we believe, ideas clearly taught in the Scriptures, that are now considered “hate speech” in our world of political correctness. A society that proudly proclaims freedom of speech and then creates laws against hate speech is talking out of both sides of its mouth. Laws and governments aside, there are still what we might call “social laws” in place, and when Christians are faced with ostracization due to their beliefs, it certainly does not demonstrate freedom of speech. Many believers throughout history have been persecuted by their societies because the expression of their beliefs did not line up with the status quo. A notable example is [Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego](Shadrach-Meshach-Abednego.html), whose refusal to bow down to the king’s idol landed them in the midst of a fiery furnace (Daniel 3:1–26\). God wants us to obey Him and to speak according to His Word. If obedience to that principle makes people hate us or gets us thrown in jail or even killed, we are not to back down. God wants us to speak the truth boldly (Ephesians 6:20\), but He never promises that we will always be free to speak without consequences.
Isn’t it unloving to tell someone he/she is sinning?	Answer Talk of sin is commonly frowned upon today. Even many pastors avoid making statements that could be seen as remotely condemning or reproachful. The conventional wisdom is that it is unkind or unloving—and therefore ungodly—to take a stand against certain activities. However, what is socially acceptable is not always biblically acceptable, and the issue of loving someone doesn’t really have anything to do with whether or not that person’s behavior is acceptable to God. Yes, God loves everyone, and, since everyone is a sinner, God loves sinners. God loves the whole world (John 3:16\), but it doesn’t follow that He approves of sin. A good parent loves his children, but that doesn’t mean he lets them do everything they want. When a son lies to his mother, she can still love him; but she doesn’t have to approve of lying, and she can, in love, correct him. It is entirely possible to love someone and, at the same time, point out his or her error. In fact, love sometimes requires us to point out an error. If a relative is dabbling in illicit drugs, isn’t the most loving thing to confront the drug use and offer to help? If a married friend is flirting with someone not his spouse, what’s more loving—turning a blind eye and hoping for the best, or warning the friend of imminent consequences? Sin destroys (James 1:15\), and love attempts to prevent destruction. “Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth” (1 Corinthians 13:6\). It is important to define love correctly. If by “love” one means “applaud a sinful lifestyle,” “ignore sin,” or “profess that actions don’t matter,” then that’s a faulty view of love. Biblically, [love](agape-love.html) is doing what is best for someone, regardless of the cost. Love is therefore truthful. Deception cannot bring about the “best” for anyone. Jesus exhibited the perfect balance between truth and grace (John 1:14\). He embodied both. Jesus always spoke what was precisely and unequivocally true, and He countered those who opposed the truth with harsh reproofs (see Matthew 23:33\). But Jesus had nothing but words of comfort and grace for those who came to Him in repentance, no matter what their sin (see Luke 7:48\). We can’t ignore the truth and call it “grace” any more than we can ignore grace and call it “truth.” The truth is, God will judge sin; the grace is, God saves us from sin. We can and should love unrepentant sinners and those who refuse to acknowledge their sin. We should want what is best for them, and we should do good to them. And we should tell them the truth about their sin, along with the message of God’s grace in Christ—sin can be forgiven, and hearts can be renewed. In all of this, it is important to allow the Bible (and the Bible alone) to define sin and righteousness. If the Bible says something is sin, then no amount of societal pressure, worldly wisdom, or personal experience should make us say anything different. Truth is truth, no matter what anyone says or how anyone feels. It is just as important to communicate the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15\) and to strive for a Christlike balance of truth and grace. Also, it’s important to approach every situation with a spirit of humility and forgiveness. “Love covers over a multitude of sins” (1 Peter 4:8\). We don’t need to point out every sin or pick apart every deed. Paul, who frequently found himself in social and religious maelstroms, said it well: “The Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Opponents must be gently instructed, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth” (2 Timothy 2:24–25\). As we instruct others of the truth, let us do so gently and with kindness to everyone.
What does the Bible say about motives?	Answer The Bible has a lot to say about our motives. A motive is the underlying reason for any action. Proverbs 16:2 says, “All a person’s ways seem pure to them, but motives are weighed by the LORD.” Because the human heart is very deceitful (Jeremiah 17:9\), we can easily fool ourselves about our own motives. We can pretend that we are choosing certain actions for God or the benefit of others, when in reality we have selfish reasons. God is not fooled by our selfishness and is “a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart” (Hebrews 4:12\). Human beings can operate from a variety of motivations, often negative. Pride, anger, revenge, a sense of entitlement, or the desire for approval can all be catalysts for our actions. Any motivation that originates in our sinful flesh is not pleasing to God (Romans 8:8\). God even evaluates the condition of our hearts when we give offerings to Him (2 Corinthians 9:7\). Selfish motives can hinder our prayers. James 4:3 says, “When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures.” Because our hearts are so deceitful, we should constantly evaluate our own motives and be willing to be honest with ourselves about why we are choosing a certain action. We can even preach and minister from impure motives (Philippians 1:17\), but God is not impressed (Proverbs 21:27\). Jesus spoke to this issue in Matthew 6:1 when He said, “Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.” Those involved in ministry must stay alert to this tendency toward selfishness, because ministry begun for pure reasons can quickly devolve into selfish ambition if we do not guard our hearts (Proverbs 4:23\). So what is the right motivation? First Thessalonians 2:4 says, “Our purpose is to please God, not people. He alone examines the motives of our hearts” (NLT). God is interested in our motives even more than our actions. First Corinthians 4:5 says that, when Jesus comes again, “he will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of the heart. At that time each will receive their praise from God.” God wants us to know that He sees what no one else sees. He knows why we do what we do and desires to reward those whose hearts are right toward Him. We can keep our motives pure by continually [surrendering every part of our hearts](surrender-to-God.html) to the control of the Holy Spirit. Here are some specific questions to help us evaluate our own motives: 1\. If no one ever knows what I am doing (giving, serving, sacrificing), would I still do it? 2\. If there was no visible payoff for doing this, would I still do it? 3\. Would I joyfully take a lesser position if God asked me to? 4\. Am I doing this for the praise of others or how it makes me feel? 5\. If I had to suffer for continuing what God has called me to do, would I continue? 6\. If others misunderstand or criticize my actions, will I stop? 7\. If those whom I am serving never show gratitude or repay me in any way, will I still do it? 8\. Do I judge my success or failure based upon my faithfulness to what God has asked me to do, or how I compare with others? Personal satisfactions, such as taking a vacation or winning a competition, are not wrong in themselves. Motivation becomes an issue when we are not honest with ourselves about why we are doing things. When we give the outward appearance of obeying God but our hearts are hard, God knows. We are deceiving ourselves and others, too. The only way we can operate from pure motives is when we “walk in the Spirit” (Galatians 5:16, 25\). When we allow Him to control every part of us, then our desire is to please Him and not ourselves. Our flesh constantly clamors to exalt itself, and only when we walk in the Spirit will we not gratify those desires of our flesh.
Would a human clone have a soul?	Answer The prospect of [cloning humans](cloning-Christian.html) for reproductive purposes raises many moral, ethical, and medical questions. It also touches on deeper theological questions. Perhaps none is more basic than this: would a cloned human have a soul? For some, the answer seems obvious. For others, there are reasons to wonder. Some go so far as to claim human cloning would be impossible because no soul would be created! How one views this issue hinges, almost completely, on his view of how a soul comes to be created. As with other narrow, non\-salvation topics, the Bible gives no direct answers. In those circumstances, we should not be dogmatic, but careful. All that being said, and based on several spiritual, scientific, and practical points, it seems the best answer to whether clones would have souls is “almost certainly, yes.” Christians have differing opinions on how immaterial souls are created. There are two biblically supportable positions on that issue, known as (soul) creationism and [traducianism](traducianism.html). The first says God creates the soul when the child is conceived. The second says physical conception itself, via the parents, creates the soul. Other beliefs, such as the [pre\-existence of souls](pre-existence-of-souls.html), are not biblically sound and won’t come into play here. Before looking further, it’s important to establish some terms. Here, human refers to a biological member of homo sapiens: the material and genetic aspect. Person refers to the complete individual: mind, body, soul, and spirit, with an emphasis on the spiritual aspect. Clone and MZ twin refer to humans created through the processes described below. In typical nuclear transfer cloning, the nucleus (information center) of an unfertilized egg cell is removed. It is replaced with the nucleus of a donor cell taken from the organism being cloned. This newly formed cell is stimulated and starts to divide. This results in an organism with DNA identical to the donor’s. In therapeutic cloning, growth happens in a lab environment and creates tissues. In reproductive cloning, growth happens in the womb of a surrogate mother and can result in the birth of a fully formed duplicate of the donor. Biologically speaking, something very much like human clones already exist. Identical twins, or mono\-zygotic twins (MZ twins), are the result of this natural process: one sperm and one egg join, creating a single fertilized cell, called a zygote. Then this zygote splits into two or more completely separate embryos, which then develop independently. MZ twins are, for all practical purposes, each other’s clones. In other words, biologically (genetically) duplicated humans already exist. The mechanism of their creation is vastly different from laboratory\-based cloning, but the end result is materially the same. This is a key point to remember when examining different views on whether or not clones have souls. One’s position must be consistent and applied to both natural clones such as MZ twins and those who might eventually come through reproductive cloning. The creationist view would easily affirm that clones have souls, in that God is directly involved in the creation of each soul at the appropriate time. Perhaps God imbues a single soul into a fertilized zygote, creating additional souls if or when the zygote splits. The Bible is not clear, but for the sake of this issue, the details are irrelevant. According to soul creationism, the method that creates the physical body has nothing to do with its being imbued with a soul. Conceived, cloned, or otherwise, the soul creationism view says God creates the soul, and there are no scriptural or spiritual reasons to think He would not do that with all human beings. The traducian view, however, introduces several wrinkles. According to traducianism, both the body and the soul are inherited from the parents. In particular, it holds that a person’s sin nature is inherited from Adam via his or her father. This implies that the moment at which sperm and egg combine to create the DNA of a new human, a soul is simultaneously created. But, in cloning, there are no “parents,” only one human contributing genetic material that is then duplicated. There is no “conception,” only the replication of existing DNA. This raises questions about the transmission of souls, according to traducianism. For instance, a clone would have neither a “father” nor a “mother” in the normal sense. The resulting human would have DNA from only the single donor. Genetically, the clone’s “father” is the donor’s father, and the clone’s “mother” is the donor’s mother. But in terms of conception, the clone itself would have no such parents. If the biological joining of the parents’ essence is what creates souls, where could a clone’s soul come from? The same line of questioning, through traducianism, would have to consistently account for the concept of the sin nature being inherited from the father. Traducianism holds, for example, that it was the lack of a biological human father that resulted in Jesus being born free from a sin nature. If a clone lacks a literal human father, would the clone also lack an inherited sin nature? Would the sin nature be duplicated through the clone’s DNA? Strictly speaking, the inheritance of a sin nature is a separate question from obtaining a soul and raises many other points of possible debate. The point is simply that, if traducianism is to hold that both soul and sin nature are passed along at conception, it must account for both occurring (or not) during cloning. Note, of course, that one’s perspective on this issue must account for natural clones, such as MZ twins. At the moment of conception, there is one zygote. Later, there may be two, without any additional conception having occurred. Few (if any) traducians would suggest that only one of a set of twins or triplets actually has a soul, or that they share a single soul, so there needs to be some consistent way to account for the imparting of souls that covers all naturally made humans, which could then be compared to a cloning process. In short, traducianism leaves room to question whether or not a human clone would have a soul, if interpreted to mean souls are created by biological conception itself. Claiming that God decides when to imbue a soul would no longer be traducianism, but soul creationism. In response, one who holds to traducianism might well argue that the creation of a soul is simply something that occurs when a human—of any type—is created, through whatever physical means. Whether or not this holds up to deeper scrutiny is subject to debate and better left to a separate discussion. In a more practical sense, few Christians would suggest that how one is conceived impacts one’s spiritual or moral status. For example, the common claim that abortions should be allowed “in cases of rape or incest” implies that people conceived under those circumstances are not persons, less human or less valuable, than those conceived in the “right” way. That’s more of a moral debate than a theological one, but our positions have to be consistent. If the circumstances of conception (or lack of conception) affect whether or not one has a soul, then one’s moral or spiritual worth is certainly up for grabs. Christians must carefully consider their stance on this issue. There is no hard and fast, crystal\-clear answer to the question of whether or not a cloned human would possess a soul. That being said, most interpretations of the Bible, and the general sense of Christian theology, would suggest cloned humans would, in fact, have souls. It’s possible to construct a theological framework where they would not. Yet most Christians would find that framework self\-contradictory and unnecessary. Lacking perfect understanding, we’re obligated to treat all human beings as persons, worthy not only of the value God places in His creations (Psalm 104:24\) but the love that He expects us to show each other (James 2:8\). That includes artificially cloned humans, if or when such persons come to exist.
Was Jesus actually born in September?	Answer The time of year that Jesus was born is a matter of some debate, but the exact timing of Jesus’ birth is nothing to be dogmatic about, given the Bible’s lack of detail on the subject. Of course, the traditional date of celebrating Jesus’ birth is [December 25](December-25.html), but the Bible nowhere points to His being born in mid\-winter. One alternative theory is that Jesus was born sometime in September. Those who propose that Jesus was born in September make their case using the following points: first, at the time of Jesus’ birth, there were shepherds in the fields watching their flocks (Luke 2:8\). According to some sources, shepherds were not normally in the fields during December, due to the cold and wet conditions in Judea during that time of year. Therefore, Luke’s account suggests that Jesus may have been born in late summer or early fall (i.e., in September). The problem with this argument is that the average low temperature in Bethlehem in December is in the low\-to\-mid\-forties—the same as Jacksonville, Florida. Second, the idea of a September birth of Jesus includes a consideration of [the census](Quirinius-census.html) affecting Mary and Joseph (Luke 2:1–4\). Some argue that Roman censuses would not have been taken in winter, as cold temperatures and poor road conditions would have made participation in a census difficult. However, others point out that Roman officials were not all that concerned with the burdens they placed on the citizenry. It was either obey Caesar or else; ease and convenience did not factor into the law\-making process. Third, and most significant, the theory that Jesus was born in September depends on the timing of [John the Baptist’s](life-John-Baptist.html) birth. These biblical facts lay the groundwork: John’s father, a priest named Zechariah, was taking his turn to serve in the temple when the angel Gabriel appeared to him and announced that Elizabeth, Zechariah’s wife, would conceive a son (Luke 1:8–13\). After Zechariah returned home, his wife conceived, just as the angel had said (Luke 1:23–24\). Gabriel then visited Mary to announce the miraculous conception of Jesus, and this visit came in the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy (Luke 1:26, 36\). Another important detail: Zechariah “belonged to the priestly division of Abijah” (Luke 1:5\). Using the above information, the calculations are made thus: the priests in the Abijah division served from June 13—19\. Assuming that Elizabeth conceived shortly after Gabriel’s announcement to Zechariah, her sixth month—the month that Gabriel visits Mary—would be December or January. Assuming that Mary conceives shortly after Gabriel’s announcement to her, Jesus would have been born nine months later, i.e., August or September. There is still one problem with using those calculations to arrive at a September birth of Jesus. We just aren’t sure exactly when the Abijah division of priests served. The priestly divisions were created by David and instituted during Solomon’s reign (1 Chronicles 24:7–18\), but the [Babylonian exile](Babylonian-captivity-exile.html) required a “reset” of the divisions and their rotation (Ezra 2\). Zechariah’s division could have served in mid\-June, but other sources calculate Abijah’s course to have ended on October 9 of that same year. An October conception of John would place Jesus’ birth in December or January. In the final analysis, no one knows in what month Jesus was born. It could have been December. It could have been September or some other month. Usually, supporters of the September date are reacting against the fact that some ancient pagan holidays were celebrated in late December. But it should be noted that the Christian observance of December 25 has nothing to do with paganism today. If anything, Christian practice has “redeemed” the date from paganism and given it a new meaning full of praise to our Savior.
What is the Annunciation?	Answer The word annunciation comes from a Latin word meaning “to bring news.” The Latin Vulgate uses the phrase annuntiatio navitatis Christi (“the announcement of Christ’s birth”) to refer to the announcement made by the angel Gabriel to the [virgin Mary](virgin-Mary.html) about the impending birth of Christ. The Annunciation brought news of the [Incarnation](incarnation-of-Christ.html). In Luke 1:26–39, Gabriel arrives at the home of a young Jewish girl named Mary, a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph, to tell her that she would become pregnant by means of the Holy Spirit. When the baby was born, she was to call Him Jesus, a name that means “The Lord Is Salvation.” The angel also tells Mary that the baby she would bear would rule an everlasting kingdom and be called “the Son of the Highest.” The Annunciation is dear to Christians because it is a prophecy of the Savior’s birth, a herald of the grace and peace that would come to mankind from God through Jesus Christ. The Annunciation was a main subject of Christian art during the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, with the virgin and the angel commonly used as symbols of purity and grace. The Feast of Annunciation is observed on March 25 by both the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church, where the emphasis is placed on Mary as the [Theotokos](Mary-mother-God-theotokos.html), or “mother of God.” It is unfortunate that Gabriel’s announcement, which lifts up Jesus as “the holy one” and “the Son of God” (Luke 1:35\), should be reinterpreted as an occasion for lifting up Mary, the humble recipient of God’s grace (Luke 1:30, 46–48\). Interestingly, the Qur’an also mentions the Annunciation, though it omits the references to Jesus’ identity as God’s Son and His everlasting kingdom, calling Him only an honored person who will be near to Allah in this present world and the hereafter. This faulty understanding of Jesus is commonly held by other religions. The only religion that claims Jesus is the Son of God is Christianity. The virgin birth had been foretold (Isaiah 7:14\), and “when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship” (Galatians 4:4–5\). Mary was chosen as the woman through whom the Messiah came. The good news that was to change the whole world came first to Mary in an event we now call the Annunciation.
What is the biblical punishment for adultery?	Answer Before answering this question, it is important to clarify a difference between the Old Testament and New Testament. Under the Old Covenant law, given to ancient Israel under a theocracy, the punishment for adultery was death (Leviticus 20:10\). In the New Testament, Jesus brought a new law into effect. The wages of sin is still eternal death (Romans 6:23\), but adultery no longer carries the death penalty civilly. Modern Christians are not living under the old theocracy and are not commanded to harm those who sin. The Old Testament law lists a number of behaviors that were punishable by death, including [adultery](you-shall-not-commit-adultery.html). “If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death” (Leviticus 20:10\). It is important to note that the punishment was the same for both parties involved. There was no double standard that made allowances for a man’s dalliances; he was punished right along with the woman. This law and others concerning sexual immorality in Leviticus 20 are tied to the need for the complete moral separation of Israel from other nations. The Canaanites had been known for their sexual licentiousness, among other things, and God wanted Israel to be holy, or “set apart,” from them (verses 22–24\). Again, this law was given to Israel as part of the Mosaic Covenant. The church is not Israel, and we are not living under the Old Covenant. Today, the Bible does not recommend any such punishment for adultery. However, the act of adultery carries its own punishment. Sexual sin is an offense committed against one’s own body (1 Corinthians 6:18\). The [book of Proverbs](Book-of-Proverbs.html) warns of the consequences of adultery: loss of honor and strength (Proverbs 5:9–11\), a ruined reputation (Proverbs 5:14\), bondage and death (Proverbs 5:22–23\), self\-destruction (Proverbs 6:32\), and the vengeance of a jealous husband (Proverbs 6:34\). “Can a man scoop fire into his lap / without his clothes being burned? / Can a man walk on hot coals / without his feet being scorched? / So is he who sleeps with another man’s wife; / no one who touches her will go unpunished” (Proverbs 6:27–29\). The Proverbs also outline the character of the adulterer: he is called simple and senseless (Proverbs 7:7\) and compared to an animal caught in a snare and then slaughtered (Proverbs 7:22–23\). “A man who commits adultery has no sense; / whoever does so destroys himself” (Proverbs 6:32\). Finally, the proverb writer comes to this terribly grim conclusion about adultery: “Many are the victims she has brought down; / her slain are a mighty throng. / Her house is a highway to the grave, / leading down to the chambers of death” (Proverbs 7:26–27\). A reading of these warnings in Proverbs should be enough to strike fear into anyone’s heart. As drastic as the Old Testament law seems regarding the punishment for adultery, the spiritual consequences are even worse. Thankfully, the sin of adultery is not exempt from Jesus’ promise of forgiveness. We have only to look to the story in John 8 about Jesus’ interaction with an adulteress—caught in the very act and dragged before Him by the Pharisees—to see God’s heart toward the one trapped in the snare of sin. The Pharisees are ready and eager to exact merciless punishment upon the woman (but not the man), and Jesus rebukes them by reminding them that they are just as sinful as she. Then, when they have all walked away from the scene, He gently asks her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” and she says, “No one, sir,” to which He answers, “Then neither do I condemn you. . . . Go now and leave your life of sin” (John 8:10–11\). Jesus is full of grace and truth (John 1:14\). He tells the woman to stop committing adultery, and He forgives her. This is a wonderful picture of John 3:17: “God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.” The punishment for adultery, or for any other sin, is wiped away when we receive Christ’s taking of that punishment for us.
Who were the Sumerians?	Answer The Sumerians were an ancient people that occupied Sumer, that is, the southern region of [Mesopotamia](Mesopotamia-in-the-Bible.html), which is now southern Iraq. It is unclear when the first settlers of the region arrived, but they were a non\-Semitic people that historians believe may have come out of the Samarra culture in northern Mesopotamia or Assyria. The Sumerians established many city\-states in southern Mesopotamia, and their culture thrived there until around 1700 BC when Babylonia subdued the Sumerians and took control of the region during the reign of Hammurabi, the last Sumerian king. The Sumerians are credited with creating one of the first forms of writing, cuneiform, which is made of a series of wedge\-shaped marks carved into clay with a stylus. The famous Epic of Gilgamesh was written in cuneiform and took archeologists a long time to decipher. Once it was translated, they found the Epic of Gilgamesh to be a heroic story about a Sumerian king. The manuscript describes the daring adventures of Gilgamesh and Enkidu, a wild man who was first created by the gods to fight against Gilgamesh but who befriends him and fights alongside him. The epic also contains a fascinating [account of a great flood](Gilgamesh-flood.html) with many similarities to the Genesis account. The Sumerians were also the builders of the city\-state of Ur and the Ziggurat of Ur, an impressive structure built in the worship of the Sumerian moon deity, Nanna. Archeology suggests that the Sumerians were powerful warriors, skilled at agriculture, architecture, and literature. The Sumerians farmed the fertile land by the Tigris and the Euphrates Rivers, and historians have even classified the Sumerians as “proto\-Euphrateans.” The Tigris and the Euphrates are two of four rivers mentioned in Genesis 2:14 that flowed from the Garden of Eden. Today, these rivers still have a common source, in the mountains of Turkey, from which they flow through Syria and Iraq. That area later became known as the “Fertile Crescent” and the “cradle of civilization” because agriculture flourished there and the peoples of that region developed glass, the wheel, and irrigation techniques. The Sumerians have a connection with biblical history. In the Bible, Ur is mentioned as the home of Abram, or [Abraham](life-Abraham.html), who became the first Hebrew patriarch and later the spiritual father of all those who would have faith in the Lord (Genesis 17:5; Acts 3:25; Romans 4:12, 16\). The Bible tells us that Abram was a descendent of Shem (Genesis 11:10–26\), so he was a Semite living in Sumer, or southern Mesopotamia, when the Lord spoke to him and told him to leave his family and the land of his fathers and go to a new land (Genesis 12:1\). By faith (Hebrews 11:8–9\), Abram took his wife, Sarai; his nephew Lot; and all their possessions, and they left their land and traveled to Canaan, which is present\-day Lebanon and Israel. Many scholars also see the Bible’s references to “[Shinar](land-of-Shinar.html)” in Genesis 10:10 and 11:2 to mean Sumer.
Was Solomon saved?	Answer Of course, [Solomon](life-Solomon.html) lived in the Old Testament dispensation and thus did not experience being “born again” or the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, for that was not possible before the Christ’s ascension and the birth of the church (see John 16:7\). The terms born again and saved (in the sense of eternal salvation) are New Testament terms. That kind of language is not used of Old Testament saints. So, when we speak of Solomon’s being “saved,” we are simply referring to his justification before God and his presence in heaven today. King Solomon was greatly used by God in many ways. He received [wisdom and riches](Solomon-wisdom.html) from God. He built a beautiful temple because God chose him for that, and God’s presence later dwelt there. Solomon’s dedication of the temple in 1 Kings 8 is a humble, awe\-filled occasion marked by thousands of sacrifices and a prayer overflowing with faith and praise. God used Solomon to write three books of the Bible: Proverbs, Song of Solomon, and Ecclesiastes. God said concerning Solomon, “I have chosen him to be my son, and I will be his father” (1 Chronicles 28:6\). Surely, these facts allow us to surmise that Solomon was saved and is in heaven today. On the other hand, King Solomon also sinned greatly against the Lord (1 Kings 11:3–13\). Sadly, he married [pagan wives](Solomon-wives-concubines.html), built pagan altars for them, and even participated in pagan worship himself. The only reason God did not immediately take the kingdom from Solomon was that God wanted to keep His covenant with David (1 Kings 11:12\). The record of Solomon’s sins, plus the dismal tone in Ecclesiastes, has led some to suggest that Solomon was not saved and is not in heaven today. Some point to the fact that Solomon is not mentioned in the great hall of faith of Hebrews 11 as another clue that he was not saved. However, many other Old Testament characters are not mentioned there, either, and Hebrews 11 was never intended to be a comprehensive list of the redeemed. Just as in the life of David, there were periods of disobedience in Solomon’s life that required confession and repentance. Do believers today ever sin? Of course they do. The actions of God’s people don’t always match up with what they profess. When believers stumble, they should confess their sins and receive God’s promised cleansing (1 John 1:9\). We know that David did exactly that (Psalm 51\). Did Solomon? Yes, we believe he did. The [book of Ecclesiastes](Book-of-Ecclesiastes.html) is a dark study on a life lived apart from God. Solomon looks back over his wasted years and finds no joy in them, only futility, vanity, and “a chasing after the wind” (Ecclesiastes 1:14\). But he had learned his lesson—albeit the hard way—and he wraps up the book with this advice: “Now all has been heard; / here is the conclusion of the matter: / Fear God and keep his commandments, / for this is the duty of all mankind. / For God will bring every deed into judgment, / including every hidden thing, / whether it is good or evil” (Ecclesiastes 12:13–14\). This surely sounds like a man who has returned to the Lord and is trusting in Him. Of course, the ultimate answer to whether or not Solomon was saved rests with God, not with us. Salvation is in the hands of God and God alone because, as Scripture says, God looks on the heart (1 Samuel 16:7\). But we believe that Solomon did trust in God and, in spite of his disobedience, was a son of God. His writings clearly speak of a man who had a personal relationship with God and knew firsthand the folly of living without God. We assume that, upon his death, Solomon went to paradise. Despite his failures and shortcomings, Solomon was saved, by grace through faith, just as we are today.
Who is Michael the archangel?	Answer Michael the archangel is described in the Bible, in the books of Daniel, Jude, and Revelation, as a warrior angel who engages in spiritual combat. The word [archangel](archangels.html) means “angel of the highest rank.” Most angels in the Bible are portrayed as messengers, but Michael is described in all three books as contending, fighting, or standing against evil spirits and principalities (Daniel 10:13; 21; Jude 1:9; Revelation 12:7\). We do not have a full picture of any angel, and only two are named in the Bible ([Gabriel](angel-Gabriel.html) is the other). Scripture only gives us hints of their movements during human events, but it is safe to say that Michael the archangel is a powerful being. Despite his great power, Michael is still in total submission to the Lord. His dependence on the Lord’s power is seen in Jude 1:9\. The righteous angels have a rank and are submissive to authority, and for this reason they are used as a picture of a wife’s submission to her husband (1 Corinthians 11:10\). Taking into consideration the strength of Michael the archangel, his submission to God is all the more beautiful. If the submission of angels is an argument for woman’s submission, we can see that submission is never meant to take away a woman’s strength or purpose or value. The prophet Daniel is told that Michael the archangel is “the great prince who protects your people” (Daniel 12:1\). Daniel’s people are the Jews, and the fact that Michael “protects” them suggests that God has set various holy angels over various countries or people groups. The demons seem to have a similar hierarchy (see Daniel 10:20\). The fact that Michael is a “great prince” indicates that he has authority in the spiritual realm. There are others—Daniel 10:13 says that Michael is “one of the chief princes.” Michael the archangel has, it seems, a prominent role in the events of the end times. Daniel was told by the angel of the Lord that, during the time of the end, Michael will “arise” and there would be a time of unsurpassed trouble—a reference to the [Great Tribulation](Great-Tribulation.html) (Daniel 12:1\). Israel is guaranteed protection during this time, which will be followed by a great resurrection of the dead—some to everlasting life and others to everlasting shame (Daniel 12:2\). The rapture of the church will be accompanied by “the voice of the archangel” (1 Thessalonians 4:16\); this could be a reference to Michael, but Scripture does not specifically name him here. The last mention of Michael the archangel appears in Revelation 12:7\. During the tribulation, “war broke out in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back.” Michael and the forces of heaven defeat the dragon (Satan), and the Devil is hurled to the earth. There, enraged, Satan “went off to wage war against . . . those who keep God’s commands and hold fast their testimony about Jesus” (Revelation 12:17\). There is a spiritual war being fought over the hearts and souls of mankind. Michael the archangel is a strong angelic prince who protects Israel and submissively serves God by doing battle against Satan. The Devil can do his worst, but “he \[is] not strong enough” to conquer heaven’s forces (Revelation 12:8\).
Who was Saint Francis of Assisi?	Answer Though never officially ordained to the priesthood, Giovanni di Pietro di Bernardone, known today as Saint Francis, is one of the most famous religious figures in history. Nicknamed “Francesco” by his father, Francis was a Catholic friar and preacher who lived from 1181 to 1226 near the town of Assisi, Italy. While fighting as a soldier for Assisi, he had a vision that caused him to change his life and take orders as a Catholic monk. On a trip to Rome, Francis experienced the sufferings of the poor and as a result made the decision to live in poverty. In 1224, Francis is purported to have received the [stigmata](stigmata.html) after having a vision of an angel. Francis founded three religious orders: the Friars Minor, the Order of Poor Ladies (or Clares), and the Order of Brothers and Sisters of Penance. Those who followed the Rule of Saint Francis were called [Franciscans](Franciscans.html). Those in the first order (Friars Minor) took vows of obedience, chastity, and strict poverty. They could receive no money, wear no shoes, and ride no horses; they also had to observe several extended fasts every year. Several non\-Catholic orders based on the Franciscan Rule exist today in the Anglican, Episcopal, and Lutheran Churches. Francis is known today as the patron saint of animals. Depictions of Francis in art often show him surrounded by wildlife, and his statue is often found in gardens and nature parks. He is also considered the patron saint of Catholic Action, ecology, and Italy. Francis is often praised for his humility and service to others. A well\-known prayer, sometimes called the “Peace Prayer,” is often attributed to Saint Francis, although its true origin is much more recent. It begins this way: “Lord, make me an instrument of Thy peace; / Where there is hatred, let me sow love.” Other writings attributed to Saint Francis include prayers in praise of Mary, prayers to be recited before the crucifix, and a celebration of all creation. As with anyone elevated to sainthood, there is some degree of idealization about the life and character of Saint Francis of Assisi. Despite that, it is clear Francis was committed to living his life the way he thought Christ would have lived. His kindness and compassion to the poor and downtrodden flowed out of a humility that saw all people, and indeed all living things, as his brothers and sisters under God. There is no doubt that Francis had a dynamic, likable personality, and his peaceful nature impressed all who came into contact with him. Francis performed many good works, and his humility and aid of the poor and sick are certainly worthy of emulation. However, Francis was Catholic, and many of his teachings depart from biblical truth. His veneration of Mary, his staunch allegiance to the pope, and his extreme [asceticism](Christian-asceticism-monasticism.html) should all be causes of concern to New Testament believers. The New Testament never commands fasting and, in fact, warns believers of those who “forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods” (1 Timothy 4:3\). Also, the Bible does not condone the elevation of men to “sainthood”—everyone who is in Christ is a saint (Romans 1:7\)—or even the naming of ministers as “teacher” or “father” (Matthew 23:8\) because we are all brothers. As with any man\-made system, we should examine the Franciscan Rule in light of Scripture. Then, “hate what is evil; cling to what is good” (Romans 12:9\) and follow Christ (John 21:22\).
What is the significance of thirty pieces of silver?	Answer In Hebrew culture, thirty pieces of silver was not a lot of money. In fact, it was the exact price paid to the master of a slave if and when his slave was gored by an ox (Exodus 21:32\). The slave’s death was compensated by the thirty pieces of silver. There are two other places in the Bible that specifically mention the amount of thirty pieces of silver, and they are directly linked. The first passage is in [Zechariah](Book-of-Zechariah.html), which contains a prophecy that is later fulfilled in the book of Matthew. Leading up to the prophecy of the thirty pieces of silver is a description of a strange episode in Zechariah’s life. God had the prophet Zechariah play the part of a shepherd and care for a flock “doomed to slaughter” (Zechariah 11:4–14\). God used this to illustrate a prophetic judgment against Israel for crucifying Christ, predicting the fall of Israel in AD 70 and the subsequent scattering of the nation. There are several elements in this passage that point to it as a prophecy about Jesus. First, Zechariah says he “got rid of the three shepherds” of the doomed flock (verse 8\). The “three shepherds” are probably a reference to the three religious offices during Jesus’ day that worked to condemn Jesus: the elders, the scribes, and the chief priests (Matthew 16:21\). Second, Zechariah breaks his two shepherding staffs. One is named Favor and is broken to symbolize the breaking of the Mosaic Covenant by the disobedient people and God’s setting aside His favor or providential care to allow judgment to come upon them (Zechariah 11:10\). The second staff, named Union, is broken to represent the breaking up of the nation by the Romans. Another prophetic reference is found in the thirty pieces of silver given to Zechariah after his work as a shepherd. He went to those he worked for and asked them to pay him what they thought he was worth. They gave him thirty pieces of silver, which he sarcastically calls a “handsome price” because it was such a small amount (Zechariah 11:13\)—the price paid for a slave’s accidental death. The employers meant to insult Zechariah with this amount of money. Returning the insult, God tells Zechariah to “throw it to the potter,” and Zechariah tossed the money into the house of the Lord to be given to the potter. These actions are a shockingly accurate and detailed prophecy, for when [Judas Iscariot](Judas-betray-Jesus.html) bargained with the leaders of Israel to betray the Lord Jesus, he asked, “What are you willing to give me if I deliver him over to you?” The murderous cabal then counted out for Judas “thirty pieces of silver” (Matthew 26:15\). That’s all they considered Jesus to be worth. Later, Judas was overcome with guilt for betraying Jesus, and, fulfilling [Zechariah’s vivid prophecy](Matthew-27-9-Jeremiah-Zechariah.html), he threw the thirty silver coins into the temple (Matthew 27:3–5\). The Jewish leaders used the thirty pieces of silver to buy a field from a potter, again as Zechariah had predicted (Matthew 27:6–10\). It was in that field that Judas hanged himself.
What is Ramadan?	Answer Ramadan is a holy month in the religion of Islam and is marked by a time of required fasting. Observance of Ramadan is one of the [Five Pillars of Islam](five-pillars-Islam.html). By fasting during this month, Muslims believe they earn spiritual rewards and draw closer to Allah. Ramadan is the ninth month of the Islamic calendar, which is lunar\-based. Based on the region, either astronomical calculations or moon sightings mark the beginning of this month of fasting, which ends at the next new moon. Ramadan officially commences when a Muslim imam announces it. During the month of Ramadan, Muslims seek the mercy and attention of Allah by fasting from dawn to sunset. Muslims abstain from food, drink, smoking, and sex during the daylight hours. It is said that good works done during the month of Ramadan will result in a multiplication of the normal reward for the same works performed in other months. For this reason, generosity and charity increase during Ramadan. Muslims are also encouraged to read the entire Qur’an during Ramadan and to recite special prayers. Ramadan ends with the feast of Eid al\-Fitr / the Festival of Breaking the Fast. The word Ramadan comes from the Arabic word ramida, which means “intense, scorching heat or dryness.” It is believed among adherents of Islam that Ramadan burns away a person’s sins with good deeds. Muslims seek to suppress everything sinful in themselves, putting away all vices and bad behavior and desires, in order to show their dedication to Allah and their hope that he will be merciful to them. The word Islam means “submission,” and the posture of obedience and self\-denial taken during the month of Ramadan is the ultimate act of a Muslim’s submission to Allah. [Fasting](fasting-Christian.html) is also found in the Bible. For a Christian, fasting is usually accompanied by prayer and is a way to express deep distress and dire need. However, there is a big difference between a Christian fast and the Islamic fast of Ramadan. For one thing, the New Testament never commands a fast (even in the Old Testament, the Jews were only commanded to fast one day a year, on the [Day of Atonement](Day-Atonement-Yom-Kippur.html)). Christian fasts are voluntary, not obligatory. Also, Christians do not believe that fasting will atone for or burn away sins. Self\-denial has long been associated with Christianity (see Mark 8:34\), but what the Bible says about self\-denial is quite different from the Muslim understanding of it. In Islam, self\-denial is a way to persuade Allah to “repay” the worshiper. For a Christian, self\-denial is a natural occurrence due to a change of heart and a desire to follow Jesus (Romans 6:17–18\). The idea that a god will be appeased by works of charity, generosity, or the suppression of natural desires is almost universal in world religions. In fact, the only religion that does not believe in appeasing the gods with good deeds is Christianity. The Bible teaches that a Christian’s faith will result in good works animated by God’s Spirit (James 2:26; Galatians 5:16–18\). Faith itself is a gift (Ephesians 2:8–9\), and, even when Christians falter and sin, we do not have any fear that God’s love will be revoked (Romans 8:1, 38\). Muslims have no such assurance and must continually seek Allah’s approval by performing good works and fasting during the month of Ramadan. To fail to fast during Ramadan is to face the wrath of Allah.
Was King Saul saved?	Answer People have long puzzled over the question of whether or not [King Saul](life-Saul.html) was saved; that is, whether or not Saul was forgiven and justified by God and is in heaven today. It’s not possible to give a definitive answer because, of course, Saul’s salvation rests with God, not with us. We have no certain knowledge of the condition of Saul’s heart. As Scripture says, only God sees the heart (1 Samuel 16:7\). The Bible does indicate that a person’s spiritual transformation will be evidenced by his or her “fruit” (Matthew 7:16–20\). If a person continually produces “bad fruit,” then it is unlikely that he is a true believer. Arguing against Saul’s salvation is his record of jealousy, hatred, and murder. Saul’s rule as king was characterized by failure and rebellion. He directly disobeyed God (1 Samuel 15:1–35\) and broke God’s law by offering a sacrifice that only priests were to offer (1 Samuel 13:1–14\). Saul was visited by evil spirits on several occasions (1 Samuel 16:14; 18:10; 19:9\). Saul spent much time and energy trying to murder David (1 Samuel 18:10; 19:10; 23:14\); he even tried to murder his son Jonathan once (1 Samuel 20:33\). Incredibly, King Saul ordered the slaughter of eighty\-five innocent priests and their families (1 Samuel 22:18–19\). He consulted a witch and asked her to conjure Samuel up from the dead—another direct violation of God’s Law (1 Samuel 28:1–20\). Saul ended his life by committing suicide (1 Samuel 31:4\). There is the tendency to look at the above facts and say, “Saul didn’t obey the Lord much at all, so that means he wasn’t saved.” But that is not quite fair, for there is more to the story. Saul was God’s choice to lead Israel (1 Samuel 9:15–16\). Before Saul was made king, Samuel told him to visit some prophets (1 Samuel 10:5\). At that time, Saul was told, “The Spirit of the Lord will come powerfully upon you, and you will prophesy with them; and you will be changed into a different person. . . . God is with you” (verses 6–7\). The promise that Saul would be “changed into a different person” sounds very much like the born\-again statements in the New Testament (see 2 Corinthians 5:17\). This description, plus the statement in verse 9 that “God changed Saul’s heart,” leads some to believe that Saul was saved. Just as Samuel had said, Saul was filled with the Spirit and prophesied with the other prophets (1 Samuel 10:10–13\). The question remains how exactly Saul was changed. Was his new heart evidence that the Lord had forgiven his sin and saved him for eternity, or was the Lord simply overcoming Saul’s reluctance to be king (see 1 Samuel 9:21\)? The Bible does not say. Those who believe that Saul was not saved point to the litany of abuses, missteps, and outrages that Saul committed, reasoning that no true follower of God could behave in such a way. Those who believe that Saul was saved point to the fact that he was chosen by God and then used by God to prophesy and to defeat the Philistines. Saul made mistakes in his struggle against the flesh, but so do we all (Romans 7:21–23\). Saul walked in the flesh for most of his life and therefore disobeyed the Lord. It doesn\`t make him unsaved. It just makes him a disobedient believer, some say, and the Lord disciplined His child in the way He saw fit. In 1 Samuel 28:19, the spirit of Samuel tells Saul, “Tomorrow you and your sons will be with me.” These words indicate Saul’s fate. Samuel definitely predicts the king’s death. The question then becomes, do Samuel’s words “with me” refer broadly to [Sheol](sheol-hades-hell.html), the place of the dead, or do they refer more specifically to the abode of the righteous? A case could be made either way, but the fact that Saul’s son Jonathan was a righteous man argues for the idea that Saul joined Samuel in the abode of the righteous. Saul’s tragic choice to live according to the flesh caused him much sorrow. Saul started out so well, but his disobedience derailed what could have been a stellar kingship and the beginning of a dynasty. By his sin, King Saul lost everything: his relationship with his son, his leadership role in Israel, the love of his people, and finally his life. Again, it is not our place to judge another person’s salvation. Only God truly knows whether or not Saul was saved. Did Saul begin his career with a humble, God\-fearing heart? Yes. Did he commit egregious sins later in life? Yes. The matter of his salvation is between God and Saul.
What is the origin and meaning of the Celtic cross?	Answer The Celtic cross is a symbol used today in many contexts, both religious and secular. The Celtic cross is like a traditional cross but with a ring around the intersection of the stem and arms. The whole cross is often decorated with ornate Gaelic patterns. Sometimes the Celtic cross is set on a tall base to resemble more closely the traditional Christian cross, and at other times the symbol stands alone. The Celtic cross is sometimes nothing more than a simple “stick” drawing on a gravestone or at a religious site; other times it is sculpted and quite ornate. The Celtic cross is also called the “sun cross” by some who interpret the ring to represent the sun. Celtic crosses are decorated with Insular art, characterized by elaborately interlacing bands. This style of art, also known as Hiberno\-Saxon art, is closely associated with [Celtic Christianity](Celtic-Christianity.html) and Irish monasticism. The fabulously ornate Book of Kells, an illustrated copy of the four Gospels, contains wonderful examples of Insular art, and the same type of patterns visible in the Book of Kells can also be seen on the Celtic cross. Many Celtic crosses also depict scenes from the Bible. Irish legend says that the Celtic cross was first introduced by [Saint Patrick](St-Patricks-Day.html), who was attempting to convert the pagan Irish to Christianity. Some of these pagans worshiped the sun, so it is said that Patrick combined the Christian cross with the circular pattern of the sun as a way to associate light and life with the Christian cross in the minds of his converts. Another story has Patrick marking the pagan symbol of the moon goddess (a circle) with a cross, and blessing the stone, making the first Celtic cross. Another theory suggests that, by laying the symbol of the cross over the symbol of the sun, Christians were illustrating the supremacy of Christ over the sun god or moon goddess. Other explanations of the origin of the Celtic cross abound. Some will swear it was a phallic symbol that was turned into a cross to hide its true meaning; others will say that the cross in the circle is a Druid symbol appropriated by Christians. Still another theory is that the ring was added to the cross for practical reasons—the circle connects the arms of the cross to the stem, thus making the whole design sturdier and preventing stone crosses from breaking as easily. In medieval times, the Celtic cross symbol was used as a public monument—just as present\-day Christians often place a cross atop a church—and, if the Celtic cross had engravings of Bible scenes, as a teaching tool. When these crosses marked a religious holy site, they usually had a longer stem and are called Irish high crosses. Today, the Celtic cross is used most often on gravestones and in funerary monuments, but it has also become a symbol of national pride. Those who identify with the Celtic tradition may wear the Celtic cross design on clothing, in jewelry, or as tattoos. Sports teams and other organizations have also been known to use the Celtic cross as a way to show their Irish heritage.
Why do some people in the Bible have more than one name?	Answer There are several people in the Bible who have more than one name. For example, Ahasuerus in Esther 1:1 is known to history as Xerxes. Esther herself was also called [Hadassah](Hadassah-in-the-Bible.html) (Esther 2:7\). The reasons vary for the different names carried by some Bible characters. One reason that some people in the Bible had more than one name is that God changed their names. In the Old Testament, Abram (“exalted father”) becomes Abraham (“father of a multitude”) in Genesis 17:5\. Sarai (“my princess”) becomes Sarah (“princess”) in Genesis 17:15\. And Jacob (“heel\-catcher” or “deceiver”) becomes Israel (“God’s fighter”) in Genesis 32:28\. In the New Testament, Jesus changed Simon’s name (meaning “one who hears”) to Cephas (“rock”) in John 1:42\. In each case, the name change reflected the work of God in the individual’s life. As God made a promise or changed the nature of the person, He sometimes applied a new name. Another reason that some individuals had more than one name is that other people forced a name change. For example, “Pharaoh gave Joseph the name [Zaphenath\-Paneah](Zaphenath-Paneah.html)” (Genesis 41:45\) in order to make Joseph more “Egyptian.” Pharaoh Necho changed the name of King Josiah’s oldest son, Eliakim, to Jehoiakim (2 Kings 23:34\). Nebuchadnezzar changed the names of Daniel, [Hananiah](Hananiah-in-the-Bible.html), Mishael, and [Azariah](Azariah-in-the-Bible.html) to Belteshazzar, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego in honor of Babylonian gods (Daniel 1:7\). The same thing happened to Hadassah in Persia, whose name was changed to Esther, probably in honor of the goddess Ishtar. Other names of biblical characters were changed because of an event in a person’s life or to signify the person’s character. The men of Gideon’s town gave him the additional name of [Jerub\-Baal](Gideon-Jerubbaal.html) (“let Baal contend”) because, in their minds, Gideon had picked a fight with Baal by destroying that god’s altar (Judges 6:32\). Naomi, upon losing her husband and two sons in Moab, returned to Bethlehem calling herself [Mara](Marah-in-the-Bible.html) (“bitter”). The name Mary is a form of Mara (Ruth 1:20\). Other name changes aren’t really changes at all, but translations from one language to another. Cephas, for example, is the Aramaic form of the Greek name Peter; they both mean “rock.” Joshua is an Anglicization of the Hebrew form of Jesus (see Hebrews 4:8 in the KJV). John is Greek for Jona or Jonah (compare the KJV and the NIV translations of John 1:42\). Understanding that people in the Bible sometimes had more than one name can clear up seeming difficulties. In Matthew 1:9, Matthew mentions Uzziah as the father of Jotham; however, 2 Kings 15:1–7 and 1 Chronicles 3:12 say that Jotham’s father was Azariah. The passages are easily reconciled by reading a little further in 2 Kings 15\. The biblical historian makes it clear that Jotham’s father was called both Azariah (verse 7\) and Uzziah (verse 32\). Different names, same person. Sometimes, we don’t know for sure why a person had more than one name. Moses’ father\-in\-law, for example, was known both as Reuel and [Jethro](Jethro-in-the-Bible.html) (Exodus 2:18; 3:1\). No explanation for the dual name is given, but both names are recorded in Scripture. And one of the most famous name changes in the Bible, Saul to Paul, is never explained. Saul is a Hebrew name; Paul is a Roman name. He began to use Paul exclusively during the first missionary journey (Acts 13\), after the Gentile proconsul of Cyprus was converted. It is quite possible that Saul/Paul had both names from childhood and began to use his Roman name as he travelled farther and farther into the Roman world (Acts 13:9\). It should come as no surprise that the ancient cultures of the Bible often applied different names to the same person. Today we are just as flexible in our giving of names. A girl named Julia, for example, could be called Julie or Jules; or she could go by her middle name, Anne; or her friends could apply a nickname to her such as “Rose” or “Tweety.” If Julie goes to Russia, she’ll be called Yulia or Yuliana; in parts of Eastern Europe, she’ll be Julija or Julita; in Italy, she’ll be called Giulia. All these names can still refer to the same person. Believers look forward to a new name given to us personally by Jesus Himself: “To the one who is [victorious](Bible-overcomer.html), I will give . . . a white stone with a new name written on it, known only to the one who receives it” (Revelation 2:17\). As we enter glory, our Redeemer will apply to us a new name of His own choosing. “Amen. Come, Lord Jesus” (Revelation 22:20\).
What does the Bible say about being in jail or prison?	Answer There are two types of people in jail or prison: those who were wrongfully accused and victimized by an unjust system, and those who are guilty and whose punishment is just according to the system of law they have broken. The Bible has something to say to both the innocent and guilty who are in jail/prison. To the guilty, the Bible recommends truth and submission to the laws of the government, and it offers freedom from the spiritual prison of sin—freedom that comes through the person of Christ (Romans 6:18\). To the innocent and wrongfully accused, the Bible offers peace, patience, and hope in difficult circumstances, as well as the hope of heavenly reward. Obedience to authorities and laws is a biblical principle. God has instituted governments to maintain order and to protect citizens, and if a person knowingly breaks the laws of the land, the Bible says that person will bear the punishment for his actions (Romans 13:1–4\). If going to jail or prison is the appropriate punishment for what a person has done, according to the laws of his nation, the Bible does not excuse that person or seek to free him. The Bible calls submission to rules and authorities “good” (Titus 3:1\). We are not to commit crimes (1 Peter 4:15\). However, the apostle Paul and most of the other apostles were jailed at one time or another for preaching the gospel. If obedience to God’s Word is considered a crime for which one should be jailed, then Christians are to continue in obedience to God, even if prison is the result (Acts 5:29\). There are many examples in Scripture of innocent men who were put into prison. Joseph was thrown in an Egyptian prison because he was wrongfully accused of sexually assaulting his master’s wife (Genesis 39:6–20\). The truth was that the woman propositioned Joseph, and, when Joseph rejected her, she took her revenge by lying about him. The truth was buried, and Joseph wound up in jail, but “the Lord was with him” (verse 21\). John the Baptist was also thrown in prison for unjust reasons: King Herod was angry with him for saying that it was wrong for the king to marry his brother’s wife (Mark 6:17–18\). In prison, John received special encouragement from the Lord (Luke 7:22\). John was eventually [beheaded](beheadings-in-the-Bible.html) on a whim, to appease the wishes of Herod’s spiteful wife. John’s and Joseph’s situations were terribly unjust, but the Bible never says that we will be able to avoid injustice. In fact, Christians are to expect unjust persecution in an unjust world (Matthew 5:10–12\). “Dear friends, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal that has come on you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you” (1 Peter 4:12\). We will “face trials of many kinds” and should rejoice to see them (James 1:2\). The Bible does not promise freedom from struggle or from injustice in this world. However, in the world to come, there will be perfect justice (Isaiah 32:1\). Until that time, God promises to set us free spiritually and emotionally. Wherever the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom—even inside a jail cell (2 Corinthians 3:17\).
When did the church begin?	Answer The [church](what-is-the-church.html) began on the [Day of Pentecost](day-Pentecost.html), fifty days after the Passover when Jesus died and rose again. The word translated “church” comes from two Greek words that together mean “called out from the world for God.” The word is used throughout the Bible to refer to all those who have been born again (John 3:3\) through faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus (Romans 10:9–10\). The word church, when used to reference all believers everywhere, is synonymous with the term Body of Christ (Ephesians 1:22–23; Colossians 1:18\). The word church first appears in Matthew 16 when Jesus tells Peter, “On this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.” (verse 18\). The “rock” here is the statement Peter had made, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (verse 16\). That truth about Jesus is the bedrock of the church that has flourished for over two thousand years. Everyone who makes that truth the foundation of his or her own life becomes a member of Jesus’ church (Acts 16:31\). Jesus’ words, “I will build my church,” were a foretelling of what was about to happen when He sent the Holy Spirit to indwell believers (John 15:26–27; 16:13\). Jesus still had to undergo the cross and experience the resurrection. Although the disciples understood in part, the fulfillment of all Jesus had come to do had not yet been accomplished. After His resurrection Jesus would not allow His followers to begin the work He had given them, to make disciples of all nations (Matthew 28:19–20\), until the Holy Spirit had come (Acts 1:4–5\). The [book of Acts](Book-of-Acts.html) details the beginning of the church and its miraculous spread through the power of the Holy Spirit. Ten days after Jesus ascended back into heaven (Acts 1:9\), the Holy Spirit was poured out upon 120 of Jesus’ followers who waited and prayed (Acts 1:15; 2:1–4\). The same disciples who had quaked in fear of being identified with Jesus (Mark 14:30, 50\) were suddenly empowered to boldly proclaim the gospel of the risen Messiah, validating their message with miraculous signs and wonders (Acts 2:4, 38–41; 3:6–7; 8:7\). Thousands of Jews from all parts of the world were in Jerusalem for the Feast of Pentecost. They heard the gospel in their own languages (Acts 2:5–8\), and many believed (Acts 2:41; 4:4\). Those who were saved were baptized, adding daily to the church. When persecution broke out, the believers scattered, taking the gospel message with them, and the church spread like wildfire to all parts of the known earth (Acts 8:4; 11:19–21\). The start of the church involved Jews in Jerusalem, but the church soon spread to other people groups. The [Samaritans](Samaritans.html) were evangelized by Philip in Acts 8\. In Acts 10, God gave Peter a vision that helped him understand that the message of salvation was not limited to the Jews but open to anyone who believed (Acts 10:34–35, 45\). The salvation of the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:26–39\) and the Italian centurion Cornelius (Acts 10\) convinced the Jewish believers that God’s church was broader than they had imagined. The miraculous calling of Paul on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:1–19\) set the stage for an even greater spread of the gospel to the Gentiles (Romans 15:16; 1 Timothy 2:7\). Jesus’ prophetic words to Peter before the crucifixion have proved true. Though persecution and “the gates of Hades” have fought against it, the church only grows stronger. Revelation 7:9 provides a glimpse of the church as God designed it to be: “After this I looked, and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb.” The church that Jesus began will continue until the day He comes for us (John 14:3; 1 Thessalonians 4:16–17\) and we are united with Him forever as His bride (Ephesians 5:27; 2 Corinthians 11:2; Revelation 19:7\).
What does it mean that we have treasures in jars of clay / earthen vessels (2 Corinthians 4:7)?	Answer In 2 Corinthians 4:7, Paul makes a beautiful statement that “we have this treasure in earthen vessels, so that the surpassing greatness of the power will be of God and not from ourselves.” The context helps us understand what is the treasure in earthen vessels (other translations say “jars of clay”). Paul is exhorting his readers that, even though there is great difficulty in their ministry, he is encouraged (2 Corinthians 4:1\). He acknowledges that in his ministry he had received mercy and that he and the others who shared that ministry are not losing heart (in this case he is also referring to Timothy, see 2 Corinthians 1:1\). They could have confidence because they were walking in the truth of God’s Word and not in their own cleverness or craftiness (2 Corinthians 4:2\). Because their confidence was in His truth and not their own ability, they could fulfill their ministry with good conscience even as God could observe their actions (2 Corinthians 4:2\). Even though Paul and Timothy’s gospel\-proclaiming ministry was at times met with rejection, it was not because of any flaw in the good news itself. Unbelievers suffer from a blindness of the mind and are unable to see the “light of the gospel of the glory of Christ who is the image of God” (2 Corinthians 4:3–4\). Because of this great need, the message of [the gospel](what-is-the-gospel.html) is so important. They weren’t proclaiming or promoting themselves; rather, they were serving others by proclaiming the message of Jesus Christ (2 Corinthians 4:5\). The light that Paul and Timothy were proclaiming had come from God—that same God who had originally created light (Genesis 1:3\) and who had determined that Christ would come to provide light to humanity (John 1:4–9\). God had accomplished the creation of light and the coming of Jesus. What He determines shall happen; it will indeed take place, and God had shone light in Paul’s and Timothy’s hearts that they would be equipped to present the wonderful truth of Jesus Christ and the [eternal life](eternal-life.html) He provides (2 Corinthians 4:6\). It is for this reason that Paul explains that they have the treasure in earthen vessels (2 Corinthians 4:7\) and why that is significant. Paul says elsewhere that, if he will boast, he will boast in the Lord (2 Corinthians 10:17\). He is doing exactly that here when he says that they have the treasure in earthen vessels (2 Corinthians 4:7\). The marvel that Paul is communicating is that, even as Paul and Timothy (and presumably the other disciples) were proclaiming Christ, they were not fulfilling this responsibility in their own power. Instead, God had provided the life, the power, and the message. Paul understood that those who were doing the actual proclaiming were simply earthen vessels—with no glory or merit of their own. As he said to the Corinthians in his previous letter, “Neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but God who causes the growth” (1 Corinthians 3:7\). Such lowly and humble people were given an incredible treasure—the personal and lifegiving knowledge of Jesus Christ in their own lives and the good news to proclaim to others. This shows how surpassing is the strength and power of God, and those who hear the message can be encouraged that the power is from God and His truth. The power does not originate in the cleverness or strength of people. As God uses broken and imperfect people, we can also be encouraged that God can use us to accomplish important things and that, when we use the tools He provides, the power is not our own, but His. We are simply earthen vessels / jars of clay; the treasure is God’s gift inside.
Does the Enneagram of Personality contradict the Bible?	Answer What is known as the “Enneagram of Personality” or the “Traditional Enneagram” is a complex system of understanding individuals that some tout as the most dynamic and open of the various typologies, offer as a path to liberation or [self\-actualization](self-actualization.html), and even promote as a way to know God. The Enneagram is a geometric symbol containing nine points and nine (or more) intersecting lines (the Greek word for “nine” was ennea). The symbol dates to Pythagoras and was introduced to the West by George Gurdjieff in the 1900s. In the 1960s, [occult](occult.html) teacher Oscar Ichazo linked the symbol with nine different personality types. Ichazo taught a system of 108 Enneagrams, but the ones that caught on in the United States were those of the Passions, the Virtues, the Fixations, and the Holy Ideas. Ichazo’s aim was to explain the difference between Essence and personality (or ego). He believed every person is, in his Essence, perfect and in unity within himself as well as with the cosmos. However, the Essence is distorted into the ego. Ichazo saw the Ennegram as a way to examine how that distortion occurs. There are a variety of modern theories regarding the Enneagram. The current Enneagram of Personality comes from Claudio Naranjo’s expansion of Ichazo’s work with later expansions made by Don Riso and Russ Hudson. The idea of nine personality types is based on the concept of the nine divine forms (Plato and, later, Plotinus), the seven deadly sins, and Kabbalah traditions. Ichazo was influenced by many religious, occultic, and philosophical traditions including mystical Judaism ([Kabbalah](Kabbalah.html)), Roman Catholicism, [Buddhism](buddhism.html), [Islam](Islam.html), [Taoism](taoism-daoism.html), and Greek philosophy. Thus, the Enneagram of Personality is a synthesis of many different ideas. According to the Enneagram Institute, the Enneagram can help people restore balance to their “personality structure” and develop more desirable spiritual and psychological qualities. Believers in the Enneagram seek to unravel the mystery of their “true identity.” They see themselves as spiritual beings who have lost contact with their true nature. Once they discover their “true self”—by means of the Enneagram—they experience a spiritual awakening full of freedom and joy—a “conversion,” of sorts. Thus, the Enneagram is seen as a mystical tool in solving mankind’s problem (a lack of self\-knowledge) and providing the means of salvation (self\-discovery). The Enneagram of Personality, as popularized in the West, includes nine types of personality. These are (1\) The Reformer, (2\) The Helper, (3\) The Achiever, (4\) The Individualist, (5\) The Investigator, (6\) The Loyalist, (7\) The Enthusiast, (8\) The Challenger, and (9\) The Peacemaker. Each personality type also has at least one “wing.” The wings are the numbers on either side of the basic type; for example, a type 2 (Helper) would have either a type 1 or type 3 wing, which modifies the way in which the dominant personality is expressed. Each type also has a range of functionality, with three levels considered healthy, three considered average, and three considered unhealthy. Adding to the complexity, each personality type on the Enneagram is also compared to two other types in terms of integration (security or growth) or disintegration (stress). When under stress, a particular type will often behave as someone in an unhealthy range of a different type would act out. For example, according to the Enneagram, a type 2 under stress will act as an unhealthy type 8\. But a type 2 moving in the direction of growth will act more like a healthy type 4\. Personality types on the Enneagram are also grouped into “Centers.” Each Center is formed of three types that share common strengths and weaknesses. The nine types are divided into the Instinctive Center, the Emotional Center, and the Thinking Center. Each center is further characterized by a dominant emotion: anger, shame, and fear. The mapped\-out distinctions are meant to demonstrate a dominant way of being, not the only way of being. Most psychological models and systems of philosophy contain some truth, and the Enneagram of Personality is no exception. There are some ideas associated with the Enneagram that will resonate with students of the Bible and will seem to be helpful. What is dangerous is the purpose of the Enneagram, as presented by its most high\-profile promoters: • [Roman Catholic](Roman-Catholicism.html) Friar Richard Rohr writes that the Enneagram “is concerned with change and making a turnaround, with what the religious traditions call conversion or repentance” (Rohr, R., and Ebert, A., The Enneagram: A Christian Perspective, Crossroad Pub. Co., 2019, p. 4\). • Another Roman Catholic author, Christopher Heuertz, believes the Enneagram is much more than a personality tool in that it provides “nine ways we can find our way back to God” (Heuertz, C. L., The Sacred Enneagram: Finding Your Unique Path to Spiritual Growth, Zondervan, 2017, p. 25\). • Episcopal priest, podcaster, and self\-dubbed “awakener of people” Ian Cron makes the audacious claim that “every number on the Enneagram teaches us something about the nature and character of the God who made us” (Cron, I. M., and Stabile, S., The Road Back to You: An Enneagram Journey to Self\-discovery, InterVarsity, 2016, p. 228\). The problem with each of the above statements is that idea that the Enneagram, not Scripture, provides salvation, spiritual growth, and sanctification. Christians believe in the sufficiency of Scripture in all these matters. We cannot get to know God better through a system that bypasses Scripture. We do not need a form of mysticism with roots in Roman Catholicism, psychological theory, and the occult to inform our understanding of God. When viewed as a means by which to achieve some sort of spiritual liberation or spiritual growth, the Enneagram obviously contradicts the Bible. It “has a form of godliness but den\[ies] its power” (2 Timothy 3:5\). The Enneagram Institute is correct that we are spiritual beings and that we are not living as we were meant to. But the solution is not to get in touch with our “true nature”; it is to cry out to God for salvation. We are sinners in need of God’s forgiveness (Romans 3:23; 6:23\), which is made available by His grace through faith in Jesus (Ephesians 2:8–9\). Those who are dead in sin (Ephesians 2:1\) cannot achieve a spiritual awakening on their own; they must receive the life of Christ—regardless of their personality type. In Christ we are born again and made new (2 Corinthians 5:17\). It is through His power at work in us that we become righteous (Philippians 1:6; 2 Corinthians 3:18\). Our lives are meant to be lived for His glory. There is nothing in the Enneagram that is derived from the Bible. Dr. Gary Gilley, who has researched the matter in\-depth, summarizes the problem with the Enneagram: “The Enneagram remains an unproven theory, having no scientific, medical or psychological validation, and is totally absent from the pages of Scripture” (Gilley, G. E., “The Enneagram, Part 2,” Think on These Things, Vol. 26, Issue 3, June/July 2020, p. 4\). ![](img/Enneagram-of-Personality.png)
What are psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs?	Answer Ephesians 5:18–19 says, “And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but [be filled with the Spirit](Spirit-filled.html), addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart” (ESV). Colossians 3:16 continues that idea: “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God.” So what is the difference between psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, and how are they to be used? The [book of Psalms](Book-of-Psalms.html) is the collection of songs written under the direction of the Holy Spirit (Mark 12:36; 2 Peter 1:21\) by ancient Jewish leaders such as David, Moses, and Solomon. These inspired songs were part of the Hebrew Scriptures and used in corporate worship. The word psalm means “praise.” Although many of the psalms are cries for help, laments over Israel, or questions about God’s plan, the major theme in all of them is worship. Even when the psalmist was crying out his questions or frustrations to the Lord, he usually ended with a call to praise God in spite of everything (Psalm 42:11; 43:5; 71:13–14\). The psalms have a timeless quality and are as relevant to our lives as though they were written yesterday. Many people find great comfort in reading or praying the psalms when they have difficulty finding adequate words to express their hearts to God. We can encourage, challenge, and extend comfort to ourselves and others by memorizing and sharing a psalm. Many of our modern worship songs are based on the psalms, and when we sing them, we are singing God’s Word. A hymn is a song that gives praise, honor, or thanksgiving to God. Unlike psalms, hymns are not written by divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit and are not considered part of Scripture. However, the best ones often incorporate portions of Scripture and are filled with rich doctrinal truth. Hymns are often metrical poems arranged to be sung corporately. Even in Jesus’ day, hymns were part of Jewish worship. After the Last Supper, Jesus and His disciples sang a hymn (Matthew 26:30\). The term spiritual songs is more general. Believers are to express their faith in song—but not just any song; Scripture indicates the songs of believers must be “spiritual.” That is, the songs of the church deal with spiritual themes. They might not directly praise God, but they will teach a doctrine, encourage the body, or prompt others toward love and good works. A spiritual song might express the joy of one’s salvation, revel in the grace of Christ, or exalt the greatness and power of God—in short, a spiritual song can communicate a wide variety of sacred themes. From Psalms to Revelation, the Bible encourages us to “sing a new song to the Lord” (Psalm 96:1; 144:9; Isaiah 42:10; Revelation 5:9; 14:3\). Psalm 40:3 says, “He put a new song in my mouth, a hymn of praise to our God.” A new song is one that arises from the spirit of a person whose heart overflows with adoration for God. Paul’s instruction to the Ephesians about music is preceded by the command to “be filled with the Spirit” (Ephesians 5:18\). When we are filled with the Spirit, then psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs are the natural expression of our hearts. A Spirit\-filled person is a singing person. One clear indication that a person is filled with the Holy Spirit is a natural desire to sing and praise God. Musical ability has little to do with it. God created us to find great spiritual expression through music (Psalm 135:3; Judges 5:3\). Scripture is filled with music, and God delights when we use what He created to worship Him (Deuteronomy 31:19; Psalm 33:2; 149:3\). [Music](Bible-music.html) finds its highest purpose when used as a tool to extoll the greatness of God. It can console, encourage, teach, and even admonish those who are away from God. Music is a biblical way of expressing our worship of the Lord. Spiritual music gives voice to our joy and adoration unlike anything else. Whether a psalm or a hymn or a spiritual song, the purpose of music is to glorify God, and He wants us to use this gift as a means of worshiping Him.
How should a Christian respond to contracting a sexually transmitted disease (STD)?	Answer Since the fall of man in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3:17; Romans 5:12\), sin has created heartache and suffering for human beings. Disease, including sexually transmitted diseases, is one of the consequences of sin. A sexually transmitted disease (STD) is not a worse disease than any other. But the circumstances that led to contracting the disease determine how a person must deal with it. Not all sexually transmitted diseases are contracted through sin. Many innocent marriage partners have discovered the tragedy that their spouse has been unfaithful only when a doctor diagnoses them with a disease. When a Christian contracts an STD from a spouse, the sense of betrayal runs deep. Not only must the adultery be confronted, but the innocent party has been inflicted with a preventable disease through no fault of his or her own. Grief, rage, hurt, and sadness are all reasonable reactions upon discovering such a breach of trust. While medical care needs to be part of the physical healing, working through these issues with a competent [biblical counselor](pastoral-counseling.html) can also help. Forgiveness is crucial whether the marriage survives or not. Forgiving those who have wronged us frees us to move on with the life God has planned for us (2 Corinthians 2:10\-11\). However, many times the sexually transmitted disease is contracted through sexual immorality of one’s own choosing. While Scripture is clear that any sexual behavior outside the boundaries of a one\-man, one\-woman marriage is sin (1 Thessalonians 4:3; Colossians 3:5; Hebrews 13:4\), Christians still cross the line and sometimes find themselves reaping the consequences of that sin. Galatians 6:7 says, “Don’t be deceived: God is not mocked. For [whatever a man sows he will also reap](sowing-and-reaping.html).” When we flirt with sin, we are deceived by thinking it won’t harm us. An STD is one way sexual sin can harm us (1 Corinthians 6:18\). Sin separates us from the fellowship of God. Committing a sin does not remove us from the family of God, but it hinders us from enjoying the full blessing of fellowship with Him. First John 1:9 applies to contracting an STD, just as it does for every other sin believers commit. Contracting the disease is not the sin; sexual immorality is the sin. Many times we think the sin is worse if disease or pregnancy results, but that is not true. The [consequences](consequences-of-sin.html) may seem worse, but the sin is just as evil to God whether or not we experience any physical consequences. Repentance is the first step we should take when brought face to face with our own sin. Repentance means we change our minds about our sin; confession means we agree with God about our sin. We have a total change of thinking that results in a change of direction. When we see our sin as God does, we want to turn from it. Many times only severe consequences will wake us up and cause us to change. Unfortunately, even after repentance and a change of lifestyle, the consequences of sin often remain—grim reminders of the choices of our past. Rather than allow Satan to use an STD to mock and condemn, a Christian can choose to accept the disease as a symbol of the grace of God. Every time the symptoms manifest, a repentant Christian can use the occasion to remember how much Jesus did to make us righteous when we are so unrighteous (2 Corinthians 5:21\). A Christian with an STD can embrace the truth of Romans 8:1 and thank God for His mercy and forgiveness. Living victoriously requires that we adopt the attitude of Joseph when confronted with his evil brothers (Genesis 37:23–28\). He could have wallowed in the past and held on to bitterness and regret. Instead he said, “What you intended for evil, God intended for good” (Genesis 50:20\). God promises to make everything work together for good when we love Him and seek His purpose for our lives (Romans 8:28\). As painful and humiliating as a sexually transmitted disease can be, a victorious Christian trusts that God will make even something bad into good as he or she surrenders to His plan. An STD is a continual reminder of the wages of sin (Romans 6:23\) and also of the greatness of God’s restoring power (Romans 5:20\). It is a source of humility, which is always pleasing to God (James 4:6\). An STD also can be a powerful deterrent to others’ sin as part of a testimony. Ultimately, the outcome of any life event rests greatly on our response to it. We can allow it to define us and hinder us, or we can let God transform it into a tool He uses to make us more like Christ.
What is the danger/consequence of unconfessed sin?	Answer First John 1:9 says, “If we confess our sin, he is faithful and just to forgive our sin and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” This verse is written to Christians and hinges on the word if. God offers total pardon for every sin His children commit IF we confess it to Him. The word confess implies agreeing with God about how bad our sin is. Repentance, or turning away from it, is part of this confession. For those who have not been pardoned by [the blood of Jesus](blood-of-Christ.html), every sin is unconfessed and unforgiven. Eternal punishment awaits those who refuse to repent of their sin and accept Jesus’ sacrifice for it (2 Thessalonians 1:8–9; John 3:15–18\). But what about a Christian with unconfessed sin? According to Scripture, all our sin was paid for when we accepted Jesus’ sacrifice on our behalf. Second Corinthians 5:21 says, “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” When we make that divine exchange at the cross, God chooses to see us as righteous. It is not our righteousness but the righteousness of Christ that God sees (Titus 3:5\). He switches accounts with us: our tarnished rap sheet for His perfect record. We have the full approval and acceptance of God from then on. But what happens when we sin after receiving that perfect record? Imagine standing by a south window on a cold winter day. The air is frigid, but the sun is shining through the window. It begins to warm you, and you bask in its glow. Then you pull the drape closed. Instantly, the warmth stops. Is it because the sun has stopped shining? No, it is because something has come between you and the sun. The moment you open the drape, the sun can warm you again. But it is up to you. The barrier is inside the house, not outside. Unconfessed sin works like that drape. God delights in His children (Psalm 37:23; Romans 8:38–39\). He desires to bless us, fellowship with us, and shower His approval upon us (Psalm 84:11; 115:13; 1 Samuel 2:30\). He wants us to bask in the warmth of His smile. But when we choose sin, we build a barrier between ourselves and our holy Father. We pull the drape on fellowship with Him and begin to feel the chill of spiritual loneliness. Many times, we angrily accuse God of leaving us when, in truth, we have left Him. When we stubbornly refuse to repent, we will be disciplined by our loving Father (Hebrews 12:7–11\). The Lord’s discipline can be severe, even leading to death when a heart has hardened to the point of no return (1 Corinthians 11:30; 1 John 5:16\). God longs for restored fellowship even more than we do (Isaiah 65:2; 66:13; Matthew 23:37; Joel 2:12–13\). He pursues us, disciplines us, and loves us even in our sin (Romans 5:8\). But He leaves our free will intact. We must pull back the drape by confessing and repenting. If, as children of God, we choose to remain in our sin, then we choose the consequences that go with that choice. Broken fellowship and lack of growth result. However, those who persist in sin need to reexamine their true relationship with God (2 Corinthians 13:5\). Scripture is clear that those who know God do not continue a lifestyle of unrepentant sin (1 John 2:3–6; 3:7–10\). A desire for holiness is a hallmark of those who know God. To know God is to love Him (Matthew 22:37–38\). To love Him is to desire to please Him (John 14:15\). Unconfessed sin gets in the way of pleasing Him, so a true child of God wants to confess it, change it, and restore fellowship with God.
Why is sleep/sleeping necessary?	Answer Since God created everything, He also built into us the need for sleep. The first biblical mention of sleep is found in Genesis 2:21 when God placed Adam into a deep sleep and formed Eve from one of his ribs. God built the concept of rest into His creation (Genesis 2:2\). He established the pattern of regular rest when He set aside the Sabbath day for the Jewish people (Exodus 31:16; Leviticus 23:3\). The Bible speaks of sleep both positively and negatively. Sleep is sometimes portrayed as a gift from God in passages such as Proverbs 3:24 and Psalm 4:8\. We know that sleeping is part of being a healthy person because Jesus had to sleep just like we do (Luke 8:23; Mark 1:35\). Some times, God spoke to people while they slept through dreams and visions (Genesis 20:3; 31:24; 1 Kings 3:5; Daniel 7:1\). However, sleep, like all of God’s gifts, can be abused. Verses such as Proverbs 6:9, 19:15, 20:13, and 24:33 symbolize [laziness](laziness-Bible.html) as sleep. Theories abound, both scientific and fantastical, about why we sleep. Research demonstrates the behavioral changes that occur when we are deprived of sleep, but science cannot answer the question “Why?” One possible explanation for our need for sleep is that sleep reminds us that we are creatures, not the Creator. Our physical bodies must be constantly replenished with food, water, oxygen, and sleep in order to continue functioning. Meeting these needs takes up much of our time and energy. We need to be continually reminded of our limitations and that we are completely dependent upon God for our very existence. Physical need is such a reminder. Sleep also allows our minds to rest so that we can focus more clearly during our waking hours. Our minds are similar to computers, with storage capacity, memory, and untapped potential. But they also malfunction if not cared for properly. Just as a computer needs to be rebooted regularly when it becomes overloaded, our brains need to be restarted by a good night’s sleep. Scripture refers often to meeting God in the morning (Isaiah 50:4; Exodus 34:2; Psalm 5:3\). God also promises us that His mercies are new every morning (Lamentations 3:23\), implying that after a good night’s rest we need to call upon Him for strength for that day. A good night’s sleep is often described as a gift from God (Leviticus 26:6; Psalm 4:8\), while tossing on one’s bed is equated with a guilty conscience or fear (Psalm 6:6; 77:4\). Whatever God’s reasons for creating in us the need for sleep, we can thank Him that He supplies every need we have (Philippians 4:19\). He created us with needs and limitations so that we are continually reminded of how much we need Him. Those reminders keep us [thankful](Bible-thankfulness-gratitude.html) and [humble](Bible-humility.html), two qualities that are required before we can live in the presence of God (James 4:6; Psalm 95:2\).
Who were the Canaanites?	Answer The Canaanites were a group of ancient people who lived in the [land of Canaan](land-of-Canaan.html) on the eastern shores of the Mediterranean Sea. Canaan is described in the Bible as extending from Lebanon toward the Brook of Egypt in the south and the Jordan River Valley in the east. In the Bible, notably in Genesis 10 and Numbers 34, this was called the “land of Canaan” and occupies the same area that is occupied by modern Lebanon and Israel, plus parts of Jordan and Syria. The Canaanites are mentioned over 150 times in the Bible. They were a wicked, idolatrous people descended from Noah’s grandson Canaan, who was a son of Ham (Genesis 9:18\). Canaan was [cursed](curse-Ham-Canaan.html) because of his and his father’s sin against Noah (Genesis 9:20–25\). In some passages, Canaanites specifically refers to the people of the lowlands and plains of Canaan (Joshua 11:3\); in other passages, Canaanites is used more broadly to refer to all the inhabitants of the land, including the Hivites, [Girgashites](Girgashites.html), Jebusites, Amorites, Hittites, and [Perizzites](Perizzites.html) (see Judges 1:9–10\). The land of Canaan was the land God [promised](Abrahamic-covenant.html) to give to Abraham’s descendants (Genesis 12:7\). The Canaanites are described in the Bible as a large and fierce people, not easily defeated, so the Israelites would need divine help to come against them, defeat them, and take their land away. God promised Moses and Joshua that help (Joshua 1:3\). After the Exodus, when the Lord told Moses to invade Canaan, Moses sent a group of spies into the land of Canaan to see what the people were like. The spies came back with a report that was both encouraging and daunting. The fruit of the land was huge—it took two men to carry back one cluster of grapes (Numbers 13:23\)—and the land was bountiful in many other ways. However, the Canaanites were strong, and the cities were large and fortified. Also, the Israelite spies had seen what they described as Nephilim and the [descendants of Anak](Anakim.html) there (Numbers 13:28, 33\)—next to these fierce people, the Israelites saw themselves as “grasshoppers” (verse 33\). In the end, the Israelites were so afraid of the Canaanites that they refused to go into the land God had promised to them. Only Joshua and Caleb were confident that God would help them defeat the Canaanites. Because of their unwillingness to trust God, that generation of Israelites was denied entry into Canaan (Numbers 14:30\-35\). After Moses’ death, Joshua was called by God to lead the people of Israel through the Jordan River and into the Promised Land. The first city they came to was Jericho, a strong\-walled city of the Canaanites. Joshua believed God and told the people that God would drive the Canaanites out of the land so that Israel could take the land of Canaan (Joshua 3:10\). The fall of Jericho was a supernatural event, as God overthrew that city (Joshua 6\). This victory was a sign to the people of Israel and to the people of Canaan that God had given the land of Canaan to the Israelites. Despite a long campaign against the inhabitants of Canaan, there remained several pockets of Canaanites in Israel after the land had been divided among the twelve tribes (Judges 1:27–36\). Some of the Canaanites who remained in Israel were pressed into forced labor, but many strongholds remained in the land. The partial obedience of Israel, resulting in these Canaanite citadels, caused much trouble throughout the time of [the Judges](Book-of-Judges.html).
Who was Rebekah in the Bible?	Answer Rebekah in the Bible was the wife of [Isaac](life-Isaac.html) and mother of [Jacob and Esau](Jacob-and-Esau.html). We first meet Rebekah in Genesis 24:15, where she is identified as “the daughter of Bethuel son of Milkah, who was the wife of Abraham’s brother Nahor.” This would have made Rebekah a great\-niece to Abraham and second cousin to Isaac. Abraham had been looking for a wife for his son, Isaac, but he was unwilling for Isaac to marry a Canaanite—Abraham and his family were living in Canaan at the time. So Abraham sent his servant to his own kinsmen, to the city of Nahor, to find a wife for Isaac. The servant came to a well and prayed that God would give him success in this mission. Specifically, he prayed that whichever young woman provided water for him and his camels would be God’s choice to be Isaac’s wife. As the servant was praying, along came a beautiful young virgin named Rebekah, who not only gave the servant a drink but also watered his camels, providing the sign to Abraham’s servant that she was the appointed bride (Genesis 24:10–28\). Everything was settled peaceably between Abraham’s servant and Rebekah’s father—and her brother, [Laban](Laban-in-the-Bible.html)—and the servant took Rebekah back to Isaac. Isaac and Rebekah were married (Genesis 24:67\), but for many years Rebekah could not have children. Isaac prayed for his wife; the Lord answered his prayer, and Rebekah became pregnant (Genesis 25:21\). Rebekah became the mother of Jacob and Esau, the first twins mentioned in the Bible (Genesis 25:22–24\). From these twins came two conflicted nations. God gave Rebekah a prophecy during her pregnancy. She had noticed that the twins were struggling against one another in her womb, and she asked the Lord why they were fighting. The Lord told her that two nations were in her womb and that those nations would be at odds with one another (Genesis 25:22–23\). This prophecy came true. Jacob, whose name was later changed to Israel (Genesis 32:28\), became the father of the [twelve tribes of Israel](twelve-tribes-Israel.html). Esau became the father of the [Edomites](Edomites.html), who warred against Israel for ages and were finally wiped out (Obadiah 1:1–21\). Esau was born first, and he was Isaac’s favorite son (Genesis 25:28\). The younger Jacob was Rebekah’s favorite. As the firstborn, Esau was due the [birthright](birthright-Bible.html), but Rebekah helped Jacob deceive Isaac so that the blessing would fall to the younger son instead of to the elder (Genesis 27:1–40\). When Esau discovered Jacob and Rebekah’s deceit, he planned to kill Jacob. Rebekah devised a plan to help save her favorite son, but it again involved deceiving her husband, Isaac. Rebekah made up an excuse to send Jacob to her brother, Laban, to look for a wife for himself (Genesis 27:41–46\). Deceit was apparently a family trait. Rebekah’s marriage to Isaac was the result of God’s providence, her pregnancy was an answer to prayer, and the lives of her sons fulfilled prophecy. Rebekah’s choice to lie and deceive her husband is an example of how wrongdoing in human beings does not thwart the plans of God and how God can ultimately bring about His will, through His mercy and wisdom, despite our sin (see Genesis 50:20\).
Was Christ supposed to return in 2017?	Answer Leading up to the year 2017, the date\-setters were at it again. Although Jesus told us that [no one knows](Jesus-coming-back.html) when He will return (Matthew 24:36–44\), some people insisted on making predictions concerning the timing of the rapture and/or the second coming. One theory was that Jesus would return in 2017, based on the idea that 2017 was a Jubilee Year and His return would fulfill a medieval rabbi’s prophecy. To understand the now\-defunct theory, we must know what a [Jubilee](Jubilee.html) was. Leviticus 25:9 says a year of jubilee was to be observed after seven cycles of seven years (49 years total). This fiftieth year was a time of celebration and rejoicing for the Israelites. A ram’s horn was blown on the tenth day of the seventh month to start a year of universal redemption. The Year of Jubilee involved a release from indebtedness (Leviticus 25:23–38\) and from all types of bondage (verses 39–55\). Every captive was set free, slaves were released, debts were forgiven, and lands and properties were returned to the families of the original owners. In addition, all labor was to cease for that year, and those bound by labor contracts were released from their obligations. The Year of Jubilee was similar to a sabbatical year (or shemittah) in that fields and vineyards were left fallow (verses 4–7\). During the Jubilee both the land and the people had rest. The idea that Jesus will return during a Year of Jubilee comes from some calculations made by Rabbi Judah ben Samuel in AD 1217\. According to the rabbi, there would be a certain number of Jubilees from ben Samuel’s time until the messianic kingdom would begin. The year 2017 was said to be the end of that predicted period; thus, some people looked for Jesus’ return during Sukkot (the [Feast of Tabernacles](Feast-of-Tabernacles.html)) in 2017 (October 4–11\). They believed that at that time the Messiah would return to give His people rest and cause great jubilation among His redeemed. There were some problems with this theory, besides the fact that it did not come to pass. One problem was based on the Mosaic Law. Leviticus 25:10 says, “Consecrate the fiftieth year and proclaim liberty throughout the land to all its inhabitants.” The “land” here is Israel, and “all its inhabitants” are those living within Israel’s borders. The Jewish interpretation of this command has always said that the Jubilee is only observed when the twelve tribes of Israel are in their land and dwelling in their allotted territories. After the northern tribes were deported by [Assyria](Israel-conquered-by-Assyria.html) in 722 BC, the observance of the Jubilee law ceased, and it has never been resumed. Also, there was no way to be certain that 2017 was an actual Year of Jubilee. And, even if it were, it would not signal the return of Christ. According to some Jewish sources, no commemoration of Jubilee is in order when there is no [Sanhedrin](Sanhedrin.html)—and there has not been a Sanhedrin since the destruction of the second temple in AD 70\. In ancient times, the Jubilee Year began with the Sanhedrin’s blast of the shofar (ram’s horn). Another problem with the theory that Jesus would return in 2017 to set up His kingdom was that the Bible says the kingdom will be preceded by a [seven\-year tribulation](tribulation.html) in which God’s judgments are poured out on the earth. Paul tells us not to be deceived; before the coming of the Lord there must first be a great apostasy, then the Restrainer must be taken out of the way, and then the man of sin (the Antichrist) will be revealed (2 Thessalonians 2:3–8\). Unless we all somehow missed the tribulation, the Antichrist’s reign of terror, and the return of Christ, then 2017 was not the correct date. The [rapture of the church](rapture-of-the-church.html) could occur in a few days—or in a few years or in a few centuries. The fact is we don’t know. The important thing is to be ready when Jesus comes. Make sure you are in Christ, and “keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour” (Matthew 25:13\).
Who was Lydia in the Bible?	Answer Very little is said in the Bible about Lydia. There are only two mentions of her by name in Scripture—in Acts 16 we find the record of her conversion and her subsequent baptism (Acts 16:11–15\). From the story of Lydia we can glean a few useful details about conversion, specifically about the conversion of Jewish believers. Lydia in the Bible was originally from Thyatira but was living in Philippi when she met Paul on his second [missionary journey](missionary-journeys-Paul.html). She was a seller of purple cloth, which Thyatira was famous for, being a center of indigo trade. Lydia apparently had moved to Philippi to ply her trade in that city. Archaeologists have found among the ruins of Thyatira inscriptions relating to a dyers’ guild in the city. It is possible that Lydia was a member of this guild, but there is no evidence from the Bible to prove that detail. Lydia was also a worshiper of God (Acts 16:14\), and, when Paul found her, she was honoring the Sabbath, which means she was likely a Jew. The account of Lydia’s conversion says that she was gathered with a group of other women on the Sabbath at a place of prayer near the river outside of Philippi. The fact that Paul, Timothy, Luke, and Silas came to the riverside to speak to the women most likely indicates there were not enough Jewish men in Philippi to open a [synagogue](what-is-a-synagogue.html) there. Lydia heard the gospel of Jesus Christ, and the Bible says that God opened her heart to pay attention to what Paul was saying (Acts 16:14\). After she believed, Lydia was baptized, along with the rest of her household. Whether “her household” refers only her family, or if there were servants included in the number, is unclear from the biblical account. After Lydia’s conversion and baptism, she insisted that Paul and his friends come to stay at her home, if they judged her to be “a believer in the Lord” (verse 15\). Luke says that “she prevailed upon us,” which indicates the fervency of her desire to be hospitable. The missionaries did indeed judge Lydia to be a true believer, and they stayed at her home while in Philippi. Lydia’s conversion marks the start of a new epoch in the Bible. Up to that point, the gospel had not gone further west than Asia Minor. In fact, on this journey, Paul’s original intention had been to stay in Asia, but God had changed his plans. The Lord sent Paul a vision calling him westward across the Aegean Sea and into Macedonia (Acts 16:6–10\). Lydia, although a native of Asia Minor, is the first person recorded to have been saved in Europe. Later in biblical history, we discover there is a church in Thyatira (Revelation 2:18\). Paul did not visit that city in any of his missionary journeys, and we have no record of who might have established that church. Could it be that Lydia is the one who brought the gospel to her hometown? It’s possible, but by no means certain. The Bible doesn’t say. The story of Lydia in the Bible is a great example of God’s providence and His care for believers. Lydia was a worshiper of God but, like Cornelius in Acts 10, had not yet heard the gospel. God rerouted Paul and friends and also ensured that Lydia would be in the right place at the right time to encounter Paul and hear the good news of Jesus. And, as Lydia heard the gospel, God opened her heart so that she received the life\-giving message. In this story, so full of divine intervention, we see the sovereignty of God in salvation; as Jesus said, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them” (John 6:44\). We also see the immediate bond that a new believer has with other believers in Christ—Lydia showed hospitality to those who brought the good news, and she wouldn’t take “no” for an answer.
What is the story of blind Bartimaeus?	Answer The story of Blind Bartimaeus occurs in the [Gospel of Mark](Gospel-of-Mark.html) and concerns the healing of a blind beggar called Bartimaeus, the son of Timaeus. A parallel account mentions two blind men (Matthew 20:30\), but Mark focuses on the one who was no doubt familiar to his readers. On his way out of Jericho, Jesus was surrounded by a huge crowd, when, from the roadside, Bartimaeus called out to Him to be healed. The events that follow tell us something profound about God’s nature and shed light on the type of [faith](Bible-faith.html) and prayer that are pleasing to God. As Jesus was walking by him, Bartimaeus heard who it was that was passing and called out to Him: “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!” (Mark 10:47\). By calling Jesus the “Son of David,” the blind man was affirming his belief that Jesus was the Messiah (see 2 Samuel 7:14–16\). The people told Bartimaeus to be quiet, but he kept calling out, even more loudly and persistently than before. This is further proof of his faith. In addition to his proclamation of Jesus’ identity as the Messiah, the blind man showed that he believed in Jesus’ goodness and deference to the poor and needy. Bartimaeus believed that Jesus was not like the other religious leaders, who believed that an individual’s poverty or blindness or bad circumstances were a result of God’s judgment. Bartimaeus appealed to Jesus according to the revelation of God’s character in the Psalms—a God who cares for the poor and the brokenhearted (e.g., Psalm 34:6, 18\). Jesus responded to Bartimaeus’s cries by telling His disciples to call the blind man over. Blind Bartimaeus jumped up and went to Jesus, and Jesus asked him, “What do you want me to do for you?” (Mark 10:51\). The beggar could have asked for money or for food, but his faith was bigger than that. Bartimaeus said, “Rabbi, I want to see.” There is no pretention or religious pride in this interchange between God and man. The blind man had a desire, and he ran to Jesus with that desire. He did not preface his petition with a list of good works he had done or with any false humility; he simply expressed to Jesus his desire, trusting that Jesus was both willing and able to fulfill it. Jesus said to him, “Go . . . your faith has healed you,” and Blind Bartimaues instantly recovered his sight and followed Jesus (verse 52\). By saying, “Your faith has made you well,” Jesus emphasizes the necessity of faith. Blind Bartimaeus had the kind of faith that pleases God—a wholehearted trust in the Healer. Jesus showed once again that God “rewards those who earnestly seek him” (Hebrews 11:6\). Blind Bartimaeus understood this truth. He earnestly sought the Lord, and his actions reflected the kind of faith that is pleasing to God.
Who was Joan of Arc?	Answer Joan of Arc was a young farm girl living in France in the early 1400s, near the end of the Hundred Years’ War. At only 13 years old, she claimed to have a vision from God that she would lead the French army to victory against England. She later took part in several battles that seemed to confirm the truth of her claims. However, Joan was executed as a heretic by the [Catholic Church](Roman-Catholicism.html)—the same church that later elevated her to sainthood. Joan of Arc has since been the subject of many artists and writers, and her story, which is remarkable, has been told in several films. Joan was the daughter of a man named Jacques d’Arc and his wife, who were farmers living in eastern France. Joan’s family was loyal to the crown, though they lived in an area of France that was populated mainly with Burgundians, who were loyal to the king’s cousin, John the Fearless. France was in turmoil because of conflicts within the royal family, and the country had been split into warring factions. In 1415, Henry V of England took advantage of this turmoil and invaded. In 1424, Joan of Arc claimed to have a vision from God. She said that the archangel Michael, Saint Catherine, and Saint Margaret appeared to her in her father’s garden and told her that the fate of the kingdom rested upon her. The figures in the vision told Joan that she had to drive the English out of France and secure the crown of the Dauphin, Charles VII. In an astonishing procession of events, Joan went to a commander of the French army and asked for permission to visit the royal French court to deliver her message. She was so convinced of the veracity of her vision that she was not deterred by the commander’s disbelief. She told the court of a military plan that the leaders of the army felt she could only have known by divine revelation, and they began to take her seriously. Over the next several years, Joan of Arc was present at a variety of victorious battles, most notably a siege that ended only nine days after her arrival. Soon, Charles VII rose to the throne. Joan of Arc was a controversial figure, even in her own lifetime. Some said her visions were from God, and others said they were from demons. Though the king and his armies took great care to test her abilities and character, charges of “cross\-dressing” were brought against her because she had disguised herself as a man in battle. This destroyed her reputation as a good Christian, and she was tried as a heretic by the Roman Catholic Church and burned at the stake. She was only 19\. Twenty\-five years after her execution, Pope Callixtus III reexamined the case against her, found that the charges were faulty, and proclaimed her an innocent martyr and a saint. Joan of Arc is now one of nine patron saints of France.
Who was Antiochus Epiphanes?	Answer Antiochus Epiphanes was a [Greek](Greek-empire.html) king of the Seleucid Empire who reigned over Syria from 175 BC until 164 BC. He is famous for almost conquering Egypt and for his brutal persecution of the Jews, which precipitated the Maccabean revolt. Antiochus Epiphanes was a ruthless and often capricious ruler. He is properly Antiochus IV, but he took upon himself the title “Epiphanes,” which means “illustrious one” or “god manifest.” However, his bizarre and blasphemous behavior earned him another nickname among the Jews: “Epimanes,” which means “mad one.” An altercation between Antiochus Epiphanes and a Roman ambassador by the name of Gaius Popillius Laenas is the origin of the saying “to draw a line in the sand.” When Antiochus brought his army against Egypt in 168 BC, Popillius stood in his way and gave him a message from the Roman Senate ordering him to stop the attack. Antiochus responded that he would think it over and discuss it with his council, at which point Popillius drew a circle in the sand around Antiochus and told him that, if he did not give the Roman Senate an answer before crossing over the line in the sand, Rome would declare war. Antiochus decided to withdraw as Rome had requested. But the most famous conflict connected to Antiochus Epiphanes is the Maccabean revolt. During that time of history, there were two factions within Judaism: the Hellenists, who had accepted pagan practices and the Greek culture; and the Traditionalists, who were faithful to the Mosaic Law and the old ways. Supposedly to avoid a civil war between these two factions, Antiochus made a decree outlawing Jewish rites and worship, ordering the Jews to worship Zeus rather than Yahweh. He wasn’t just trying to [Hellenize](Hellenism.html) the Jews but to totally eliminate all traces of Jewish culture. Of course, the Jews rebelled against his decrees. In an act of brazen disrespect, Antiochus raided the temple in Jerusalem, stealing its treasures, setting up an altar to Zeus, and sacrificing swine on the altar. When the Jews expressed their outrage over the profaning of the temple, Antiochus responded by slaughtering a great number of the Jews and selling others into slavery. He issued even more draconian decrees: performing the rite of circumcision was punishable by death, and Jews everywhere were ordered to sacrifice to pagan gods and eat pig flesh. The Jewish response was to take up arms and fight. In 167—166 BC, [Judas Maccabeus](Judas-Maccabeus.html) led the Jews in a series of victories over the military forces of the Syrian\-Greeks. After vanquishing Antiochus and the Seleucids, the Jews cleaned and restored the temple in c. 165\. Antiochus Epiphanes is a tyrannical figure in Jewish history, and he is also a foreshadowing of the coming Antichrist. The prophet Daniel predicts an atrocity in the temple in the end times (Daniel 9:27; 11:31; 12:11\). Daniel’s prophecy concerns a coming ruler who will cause the offerings to cease in the temple and set up “an [abomination that causes desolation](abomination-desolation.html).” While what Antiochus did certainly qualifies as an abomination, Jesus speaks of Daniel’s prophecy as having a still\-future fulfillment (Matthew 24:15–16; Mark 13:14; Luke 21:20–21\). The Antichrist will model Antiochus Ephiphanes in his great pride, blasphemous actions, and hatred of the Jews.
What is a mantra?	Answer The word mantra is used to describe any thoughts, utterances, songs, or other sequences of words or sounds that are supposed to have spiritual efficacy or magical power. A mantra is defined as “a tool of the mind that has a spiritual effect on a person’s will or emotional state of being.” A mantra can be a religious or sacred prayer or chant, but it can also be a spell or supernatural weapon. Mantras are not specific to any one system of thought or religion. Any utterance or thought that is believed powerful enough to affect either the inward state of a person’s soul or the world at large can be called a mantra. Mantra is a Sanskrit word that consists of two parts: the root word man, which relates to thought, and the suffix \-tra, which refers to tools or instruments. The word literally means “a tool of the mind” or “instrument of thought.” Some people say that a mantra is intellectually meaningless but has emotive power of communication, like a bird’s song. Others say that a mantra is by definition meaningful, being, as its etymology suggests, an instrument of the mind. However it is defined, a mantra has a numinous effect, that is, the recitation of the mantra creates a spiritual feeling in the practitioner. The literal Chinese translation of the word mantra is “true words.” The idea is that truth has power. When one speaks something true, it is thought to help bring that truth into existence in a practical way. Many self\-help books and gurus will suggest the repetition of mantras as a way to accept truths. For example, an overly conscientious person whose people\-pleasing tendencies are causing her to ignore her own needs might repeat something like “I am not responsible for making other people happy.” By repeating such a statement, the mind can convince itself to accept the idea, leading to a change in behavior. A mantra can obviously be adjusted to fit a person’s culture, personal needs, and system of belief. One problem with mantras is that their effect is only as good as the idea they express. Repetition does not equate to truth\-telling. Repeat a lie often enough, and we begin to accept it as true. A person might choose the mantra “I know I can fly,” but repeating it won’t make much of a difference, no matter how much he flaps his arms, given the laws of gravity and aerodynamics. The Bible does not support the idea that, by finding the right combination of words or musical tones, a person can create spiritual peace. Peace comes through faith in prayer (see Philippians 4:6–7\). Also, Jesus strongly warned us against mantra\-like chanting: “When you are praying, do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles do” (Matthew 6:7\). Christians are advised to dwell on good, noble, beautiful things (Philippians 4:8\), and the source of those things is God Himself. The mind that is fixed on God’s Spirit is a mind at peace (Romans 8:6; Isaiah 26:3\).
What is a salt covenant?	Answer There is more to salt than meets the taste buds. Salt has been used in many cultures as a valuable commodity. The word salary comes from an ancient word meaning “salt\-money,” referring to a Roman soldier’s allowance for the purchase of salt. Someone who earns his pay is still said to be “worth his salt.” Salt has also been used to express promises and friendship between people. It was even considered by the Greeks to be divine. Today in many Arab cultures, if two men partake of salt together they are sworn to protect one another—even if they had previously been enemies. In some cultures, people throw salt over their shoulders when they make a promise. Who knew sodium chloride was so important? In the ancient world, ingesting salt was a way to make an agreement legally binding. If two parties entered into an agreement, they would eat salt together in the presence of witnesses, and that act would bind their contract. King Abijah’s speech in 2 Chronicles 13:5 mentions just such a salt covenant: “Don’t you know that the LORD, the God of Israel, has given the kingship of Israel to David and his descendants forever by a covenant of salt?” Here, Abijah refers to the strong, legally binding promise of God to give Israel to David and his sons forever. The Old Testament Law commands the use of salt in all grain offerings and makes clear that the “salt of the covenant” should not be missing from the grain offerings (Leviticus 2:13\). Since the [Levitical priests](God-inheritance-Levites.html) did not have land of their own, God promised to provide for them via the sacrifices of the people, and He called this promise of provision a “salt covenant” (Numbers 18:19\). Salt has always been known for its preservative properties, and it is also possible that God instructed the use of salt so that the meat would last longer and taste better—and thus be of more value to the priests who depended upon it for their daily food. The idea of a salt covenant carries a great deal of meaning because of the value of salt. Today, salt is easy to come by in our culture, and we don’t necessarily need it as a preservative because of refrigeration. But to the people of Jesus’ day, salt was an important and precious commodity. So, when Jesus told His disciples that they were “the [salt of the earth](salt-and-light.html),” He meant that believers have value in this world and are to have a preserving influence (Matthew 5:13\). The salt covenant is never explicitly defined in the Bible, but we can infer from the understanding of salt’s value and the contexts in which a salt covenant is mentioned that it has much to do with the keeping of promises and with God’s good will toward man.
What is philosophical theology?	Answer Philosophical theology is a branch of theology in which philosophical methods are utilized to arrive at a clearer understanding of divine truths. There is debate as to whether or not theology and philosophy must both be involved in man’s effort to arrive at the truth, or whether divine revelation can, or should, stand on its own. Over the centuries, there have been several different theories as to how extensively philosophical systems should be applied to theological concepts. Some say that the two must be absolutely separate, that they have nothing to do with one another. Others say that philosophy and reason are necessary if man is to rightly understand divine revelation. Still others take a moderate approach, saying that philosophy is a useful tool but not to be relied on utterly. Philosophical theology came into existence in the 18th and 19th centuries when positivist, modernist, and Enlightenment thinkers attacked Christianity. Theologians wanted a way to explain and defend their beliefs and found they could use philosophical methods to defend divine revelation. The use of philosophy to analyze and explain theology was not without precedent. Thomas Aquinas, [Augustine](Saint-Augustine.html), and other early theologians had used the ideas of Aristotle and Socrates in their writings in an effort to think through and understand the concepts presented in the Bible. Many modern apologists still use philosophical arguments; for example, the [teleological](teleological-argument.html) and [ontological](ontological-argument.html) arguments for God’s existence are rooted firmly in philosophical theology. The Bible says that seeking out a matter, or searching for truth that God has concealed, is glorious (Proverbs 25:2\). We have been given the ability to reason, and there is nothing wrong with studying philosophy. At the same time, we must be cautious. There are many spiritual dangers in the study of philosophy. God warns us to “turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge” (1 Timothy 6:20\). Man\-made theories and human speculation can add nothing of value to God’s Word, which is sufficient to equip us “for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16–17\). Job and his three friends attempted to understand God’s ways through human reasoning and failed. In the end, God told them that they were obscuring revelation by “words without knowledge” (Job 38:2\). Philosophical theology is a tool that can be used in a right way or a wrong way. It is a question of motive and priority: if we attempt to understand God’s ways and thoughts by relying on man\-made constructs, we will be disappointed. Man has been trying to prove his ability to reach up to God ever since the tower of Babel. But if, motivated by love and a desire to know God, we use our minds to better understand His Word, our study will be rewarded. Philosophy is not truth itself but is subservient to the truth. Philosophy can become a tool for better grasping the truth. The inspired, inerrant Word of God is of supreme importance; any human philosophy must take a secondary place. The Bible is the judge of our philosophies, not the other way around (see Hebrews 4:12\).
What does the Bible say about lawyers?	Answer The Bible does not say anything about lawyers as we know them today. Israel was under the legal jurisdiction of Rome during Jesus’ time, so when the Bible mentions “teachers of the law” (Luke 5:17\) or “lawyers” (Luke 14:3, ESV), it is referring to the religious leaders who were experts in the Mosaic Law. The modern\-day court system, with prosecuting attorneys and defense attorneys, did not really exist at that time. Lawyers as we know them today—professional public servants who know the ins and outs of the legal process and can lend their knowledge to resolve various conflicts with clarity and justice—did not appear until after the Middle Ages. The Bible mentions human accusers—those who bring a charge against another in front of a court or magistrate—but they are usually witnesses, not lawyers for the prosecution (Luke 12:58; Matthew 5:25\). The only character in the Bible who comes close to filling the job of a prosecuting attorney is Tertullus, an orator who was knowledgeable of Roman law and who was paid by the Jews to present their initial case against Paul before Governor Felix (Acts 24:1\). The concept of prosecutors and defense attorneys, or advocates, is a biblical one. We have a spiritual Advocate in Jesus Christ, the righteous (1 John 2:1\). He defends our cause before the Judge, God the Father. There is a prosecuting attorney, too: the Accuser, Satan (Revelation 12:10\). [Satan](who-Satan.html) knows the Mosaic Law very well; he knows the Law better than any modern lawyer knows the laws of his land. He knows that man has broken the Law, and he can therefore accuse us. Thankfully, we have an Advocate in Jesus Christ. He is our Defense Attorney who comes before the Judge with a solution: He has fulfilled the Law for us, so that our punishment can be placed on His shoulders and we can be declared not guilty (see Matthew 5:17; Romans 3:24; and Isaiah 53:5\). The legal system today reflects this biblical model. The prosecuting lawyer looks into the law and brings an accusation against the defendant, attempting to show his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Then the defense lawyer argues for the innocence of his client or points to some extenuating circumstance. In the case of the Christian, the extenuating circumstance is Jesus’ sacrifice, which paid our debt to the Lawgiver and allowed us to go free, despite our guilt according to the Law (Romans 8:1–5\). Lawyers today face many ethical and moral challenges. One is how far a lawyer should go to protect and defend a client. Is the use of “sneaky” but legal tactics ever warranted? A Christian lawyer who has an opportunity to win a case and protect a client using a legal but morally questionable tactic should ask himself a few probing questions: Is the tactic clearly immoral? Is the tactic in question going to require something that God has commanded against? For instance, will the tactic require the lawyer or client to tell a lie? Will it require the lawyer or client to cheat someone else or to be unkind to him or her? Finally, will the tactic misrepresent the truth so that the guilty goes free or an innocent person is punished? If any or all of these questions can be answered with a “yes,” it should cast doubt on the ethical use of the tactic. If, however, the lawyer is acting ethically in God’s eyes and simply using the law in a way that will benefit the client, there is no reason why his knowledge and expertise should not benefit the case. Christian lawyers must have a commitment to honesty and a conviction against “winning at all costs” (Proverbs 11:1–3; James 3:16; Philippians 2:3\). When there is a question about the validity of a courtroom tactic, the best course of action is to ask the Holy Spirit for guidance and then trust Him to provide (James 1:5\). Another ethical challenge some lawyers face is the question of defending a client who he or she knows is guilty. A Christian lawyer should not knowingly defend a guilty client if the defense would involve falsehood, excusing the crime, or blame\-shifting. Ignoring justice is something that God “detests” (Proverbs 17:15\). A curse is associated with calling the guilty innocent (Proverbs 24:24\), and blessings are promised to those who convict the guilty (Proverbs 24:25\). Acquitting a guilty man is wrong for several reasons. First, if a guilty person is acquitted, other criminals are emboldened. Second, there is a chance that the man himself will be tempted to repeat his crime, because there was no punishment the first time. Third, on principle, it is wrong to acquit a guilty man, because we must all come to the recognition of our guilt before God if we are to be saved (James 2:10; Romans 3:19–20, 28; 8:1–2\). Defending a client knowing of his guilt is no different, morally, from aiding and abetting the crime itself.
What is the story of the ten lepers in the Bible?	Answer Luke 17:11–19 records an account of ten men who had infectious skin diseases, commonly translated as “[leprosy](Bible-leprosy.html).” In the Israelite community, when a person discovered a rash or skin disorder, he or she had to go to the priest for examination. The priest then determined whether this was a contagious disease and whether the person was to be declared ceremonially unclean (Leviticus 13:1\). Jewish law prohibited anyone with such a disease from associating with the general community. They had to be isolated and many times lived as outcasts until they died (Leviticus 13:45–46\). This was necessary in order to keep infectious diseases from becoming an epidemic. But, for those afflicted, it could be a life sentence. Jesus had healed several individuals who had leprosy or some type of infectious skin disease (Luke 5:12–14; Mark 1:40–42; Matthew 8:2–3; 11:5\). In Luke 17 ten men who were part of a leper colony approached Him together, but they remained at a distance, as per the law. They called out to Him, “Jesus, Master, have pity on us!” Without seeming to do anything to heal them, Jesus merely gave the instruction to go show themselves to the priest. At the moment of Jesus’ instruction, the men were still lepers. No physical change had yet taken place. But, in faith, the men obeyed. As they began to walk to the priest, they were healed. Jesus always required faith on the part of the person who asked for healing. Many times He asked those who wanted to be healed, “Do you believe that I can do this?” (e.g., Matthew 9:28; Mark 9:20–24\). He required a demonstration of faith on the part of the lepers in asking them to walk away, even before He had healed them. The Bible does not record how far they had walked before being healed. However, only one man returned to thank Jesus for the healing. Luke makes special mention of the fact that the one who returned was a [Samaritan](Samaritans.html), a person despised by the Jews (Luke 17:15\). Jesus expressed disappointment that the other nine had not thought to give praise to God for their healing. From this we learn that God desires for us to express our thankfulness to Him for all He does in our lives. Even though Jesus did not withhold healing from the nine who did not thank Him, He made a point of noting their lack of gratefulness (Luke 17:18\). Because they had faith, all ten were physically healed. But Jesus’ final words to the grateful Samaritan imply that this man received spiritual healing in addition to the cleansing of his skin. After the man was already healed of leprosy, Jesus said to him, “Rise and go; your faith has made you well” (verse 19\). It could be that the man’s return to fall at Jesus’ feet gave him spiritual wholeness in addition to the physical wholeness he had received. When we take time to acknowledge the Giver and not just the gifts, we please the Lord as well as enjoy the spiritual healing that comes from gratefulness.
Is same-sex attraction a sin?	Answer In Matthew 5:27–28, Jesus equates lust with adultery. This establishes a biblical principle: if it is a sin to do something, it is also a sin to desire to do that something. The Bible clearly states that homosexuality is a sin (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Romans 1:26–27; 1 Corinthians 6:9\). Therefore, it is also sinful to desire to commit homosexual acts. Does this mean that same\-sex attraction is a sin? To answer this, we must distinguish between active sin and the passive condition of being tempted. It is not a sin to be [tempted](temptation-sin.html). Jesus was tempted, yet He sinned not (Matthew 4:1; Hebrews 4:15\). Eve was tempted in the garden, and she definitely found the forbidden fruit to be appealing, but it seems that she did not actually sin until she took the fruit and ate it (Genesis 3:6–7\). A struggle with temptation may lead to sin, but the struggle is not a sin itself. Heterosexual lust is a sin (Matthew 5:27–28\), but heterosexual attraction is not a sin. It is normal and natural for males to be attracted to females, and vice versa. There is absolutely nothing wrong with people finding the opposite gender attractive. It only becomes a sin if that attraction turns into lust. Once the attraction expands into a desire to do something sexually immoral, it has become sin in the heart. [Homosexuality](homosexuality-Bible.html) is different. Homosexual behavior in any context is an action that the Bible forbids. But, stopping short of the behavior, is same\-sex attraction sinful? Broadly speaking, any desire for something God has forbidden is the result of sin, in this way: sin has so infected the world and our natures that what is evil often looks good to us. We are infected with sin, and sin causes us to have warped and twisted thoughts, desires, and proclivities. We are sinners by nature (Romans 5:12\). The feelings of same\-sex attraction, per se, are not always an active, willful sin, but they are still rooted in the fallen nature. Same\-sex attraction is, on some level, an expression of the [sin nature](sin-nature.html). Pastor and theologian John Piper has some insightful words on the matter of same\-sex attraction: “It would be right to say that same\-sex desires are sinful in the sense that they are disordered by sin and exist contrary to God’s revealed will. But to be caused by sin and rooted in sin does not make a sinful desire equal to sinning. Sinning is what happens when rebellion against God expresses itself through our disorders” (from the sermon “Let Marriage Be Held in Honor,” June 16, 2012\). A passing moment of same\-sex attraction, even if it is repeated often, is better categorized as a temptation, not as a sin. If that spontaneous, fleeting moment is allowed to turn into something more—the passing temptation becomes a lustful intention—then it has become a sin. At what point does temptation become a sin of the heart? To ask it another way, how long can we entertain a temptation before it turns into a wrong thought? The answer is impossible to pinpoint. We do know this: we must all be transformed by the renewing of our minds (Romans 12:2\) and “take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:5\). Because of the sin nature humanity possesses, same\-sex attraction may feel “natural” to some, but it is absurd to say that sin, if it comes “naturally,” should be embraced. Is it right for a person with a proclivity for anger to lash out in rage toward others? Is it right for a kleptomaniac to steal? Is it right for a husband to commit adultery simply because a strong sex drive is part of his nature? Of course not. People may not always be able to control how or what they feel, but they can control what they do with those feelings (1 Peter 1:5–8\). And we all have the responsibility to resist temptation (Ephesians 6:13\). The children of God should think and act differently from the world. Many in the world accept same\-sex attraction and homosexuality as a social norm, but a Christian’s standards for life should come from the Bible, not conventional wisdom (2 Timothy 3:16–17\). We live in the world, and so we experience temptations every day. We have fallen, sinful natures, and so we struggle against ungodly desires. Some Christians struggle against the temptation to act upon same\-sex attraction. The good news is that victory is possible. “Everyone born of God overcomes the world. This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith” (1 John 5:4\).
Dealing with mean people—what does the Bible say?	Answer Unfortunately, we all have to deal with mean people at one time or another. Romans 1:28–30 contains a long list of unrighteous behavior, which includes malice, gossip, slander, insolence, heartlessness and ruthlessness. These are all different facets of meanness, and it’s inevitable that we encounter people driven by such behavior in this world. People are mean for a variety of reasons, many of which have nothing to do with the person to whom they are mean. Often, mean behavior is a reaction to a person’s inner conflicts rather than a rational response to the people around him. However, being the subject of mean behavior is hurtful and demoralizing. What is the biblical response? What does the Bible say about how we should react to mean people? Dealing with mean people—Empathy The first proper response to mean people is empathy, especially when it is a first\-time altercation or offense. A gentle attempt to understand and relate to the pain behind the meanness is much more effective than combativeness in dispelling a conflict. One of the most beautiful examples of empathy in the Bible is Jesus’ response to those who crucified Him and cast lots for His clothing. This is a dramatic example, because what was being done to Jesus was way beyond meanness—it was torture and injustice. Even so, instead of focusing on His own pain, He thought of their spiritual condition. Instead of responding with justified anger, He asked God to forgive them for their ignorant actions (Luke 23:34\). [Stephen](life-Stephen.html), the church’s first martyr, followed that example (Acts 7:59–60\). Dealing with mean people—Confrontation We should be empathetic, and we should always respond with kindness. Being mean to a mean person only escalates the situation; we are called to be peaceful and “[turn the other cheek](turn-other-cheek.html)” (Matthew 5:38–42; Romans 12:18\). But if the mean person is a Christian, the Bible recommends confrontation. We all sin, of course. As James said, “We all stumble in many ways” (James 3:2\), but a pattern of meanness needs to be confronted, per the instructions in Matthew 18:15–17\. We are to confront our brothers and sisters when they sin against us in the spirit of restoration. If they refuse to listen, we should take a few other faithful Christians with us, again in the spirit of reminding the offending Christian that he is not behaving according to his profession of faith. If that does not work, the matter is taken before the local church. If he does not listen to the whole group, he should be treated as an unbeliever—no enmity or retaliation is called for, but the relationship has changed. Dealing with mean people—Humility Remember that sometimes you are the mean person. Do not be like the [unforgiving servant](parable-unforgiving-servant.html) in Jesus’ parable in Matthew 18:21–35\. A servant owed a huge debt to his master; it was an amount he could never pay back. The master completely wiped out the debt. The servant, however, went to another servant who owed him a small amount of money and demanded that he pay up—and when the debtor could not pay, he threw him in prison! The master heard about it and became angry. The master reinstated the unforgiving servant’s original debt and threw him in jail. We should always try to remember, when people are mean to us, that we owed God a huge debt. He forgave us, and we can forgive others.
What is the Age of Grace?	Answer The Age of Grace, also called the [Dispensation of Grace](dispensation-of-Grace.html) or the [Church Age](church-age.html), is the sixth divinely apportioned dispensation of world history, according to [dispensationalism](dispensationalism.html). Dispensationalism is a system theologians use to divide and categorize historical events in the Bible. Most agree that there are seven dispensations, though some believe there are nine or three. The Age of Grace is the dispensation that is occurring right now in history. It began with the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2\) and is made possible by Jesus’ sacrificial death on the cross, His resurrection, and His ascension: “The grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people” (Titus 2:11\). Salvation has always been by the [grace of God](grace-of-God.html), received by faith (Genesis 15:6\). In the [Dispensation of Law](dispensation-of-Law.html), God required His people to follow the Law of Moses and offer sacrifices for their sin—sacrifices that pointed forward to the gracious provision of the Lamb of God (John 1:29\). “The law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ” (John 1:17\). Now, during the Age of Grace, “we are not under the law but under grace” (Romans 6:15\). The Law has been fulfilled (Matthew 5:17\), and God’s grace in Christ is plain for all to see. All that is required for salvation is to trust in Jesus Christ (Acts 16:31\). He has done all that is necessary for salvation (Ephesians 2:8–9\). The term “Age of Grace” could be misleading to some—it is not meant to imply that the people in the Old Testament, before Jesus’ death and resurrection, were denied God’s grace. They still had to trust in the Lord—a trust they showed in offering the sacrifices. The Old Testament worshiper, by sacrificing an animal, was saying, “I trust God will save me despite the fact that I am sinful.” Christians take the same approach today, spiritually, but the practice is different. Instead of offering repeated sacrifices for sins, we trust in the one\-time sacrifice of Christ (Hebrews 10:1–10\). The grace of God has been available throughout all the dispensations (Psalm 116:5\). In this present day, this Age of Grace, our Lord has commanded the gospel to be taken to every corner of the globe, because He “wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:4; cf. 2 Peter 3:9\). His grace is offered to all.
What does the Bible say about spreading rumors?	Answer A rumor is an unconfirmed, widely spread story or statement. Rumors may or may not contain elements of truth, but their veracity is anyone’s guess—rumors carry no factual certainty. Rumors are also known as gossip, and the Bible has a lot to say about that. Scripture warns against spreading rumors and those who engage in gossip. Proverbs 20:19 says, “A gossip betrays a confidence; so avoid anyone who talks too much.” Words are powerful. They can build up or destroy (Proverbs 18:21\). James 3:2–12 instructs us to [control our words](taming-the-tongue.html), stating in verse 5: “Consider what a great forest is set on fire by a small spark.” Spreading “harmless” rumors, then, can cause great destruction. God desires that we use our words to praise Him (Psalm 34:1\), to speak wisdom (Proverbs 10:13\), and to encourage and edify each other (1 Thessalonians 5:11; Ephesians 4:29\). The Bible often includes gossip in lists of specific evils (e.g., 2 Corinthians 12:20; Romans 1:29\). Spreading rumors is so repulsive in the Lord’s sight that He made a prohibition against it in the Law He gave to the Israelites (Leviticus 19:16\). First Timothy 5:13 sternly warns against using idle time to spread slander. And Proverbs 17:4 implies that those who eagerly listen to gossip have low character. So why do we enjoy the rumor mill? Proverbs 26:22 gives one reason: “The words of a gossip are like choice morsels; they go down to the inmost parts.” There is a delicious thrill in hearing scandalous information about someone we know or wish we knew. Jealousy is often the root of spreading rumors. When we learn “the real reason” someone did something, we can alter our opinion of him or her and make ourselves feel better by comparison. We rarely hear rumors that exalt someone’s reputation. We don’t hear rumors that someone’s son worked hard to make the honor roll again, a friend’s spouse is kind and devoted, or that the Joneses saved for ten years to take that luxury cruise. That kind of information is not a “choice morsel.” Instead, we perk up when we hear that someone’s son cheated his way onto the honor roll, that a friend’s spouse only pretends to be kind and devoted because he is having an affair, or that the Joneses blew their retirement to take that luxury cruise. Those kinds of tidbits let us compare ourselves favorably with the ones gossiped about, and we feel more satisfied with our own lives. In Christian circles, spreading rumors has an ally in the guise of the “prayer chain.” Prayer chains are ways that local churches inform other members of prayer needs within that body. They can be useful if the information shared is general knowledge and those informed will truly pray. However, many times prayer chains become excuses for speculation and rumor as the story grows with each telling. A prayer chain can become a real\-life example of the party game “Telephone,” with the last person on the prayer chain receiving information that bears little resemblance to the original request. When this happens, it is nothing more than spreading rumors and can be destructive to individuals and churches. Proverbs 26:20 gives us the antidote for spreading rumors: “Without wood a fire goes out; without a gossip a quarrel dies down.” We cannot stop all rumors, but we can refuse to participate in them. We can break the “telephone” chain and refuse to pass it on. When we hear slanderous news, we should go to the source and check it out. If we are not part of the solution, and the person we are telling is not part of the solution, then the news is not ours to propagate. Our sinful natures enjoy possessing a juicy morsel of information that would gain us attention in the telling. But when we are willing to recognize the selfishness of that desire, we can repent of it and dedicate our mouths to the glory of God (Psalm 19:14\).
What is subjectivism?	Answer Subjectivism is the philosophical theory that there is no truth outside of one’s own experience. It is contrasted with [objectivism](objectivism.html), which believes the opposite: that truth exists outside of experience and that, though we may not entirely understand that truth, it is there and it is absolute. Subjectivism says that truth is subjective and that it is basically dependent on the subject’s mind and experience. Subjectivism is quite like [relativism](ethical-relativism.html) in that it says what is true for one person may not be true for another. Determining good and evil must happen on a case\-by\-case basis, and reality is seen as fluid and plastic, moldable as circumstances demand. One absolute standard, according to the philosophy of subjectivism, does not fit all. It is true that we all have subjective experiences. Part of wisdom is the understanding that other people think and perceive and feel differently. Forcing everyone into the same mold and the same methods is often counterproductive. Two very different personalities can believe objectively in the same truth, even if their way of learning about and relating to that truth is different. Take, for example, the experiences of the apostles Peter and John. Jesus related to those two men in very different ways and taught them each according to what He knew they needed—all without changing Himself or His message (John 21:15–23; Matthew 16:23; John 13:23–25\). Repeatedly, Jesus’ gentleness toward John is evident, while Jesus is tougher and more combative with the strong\-willed Peter. Jesus presented the truth differently, but He did not change the truth. He did not espouse subjectivism. He is the truth (John 14:6\). Subjectivism says that truth actually changes to fit the individual. Largely, subjectivism is a postmodern reaction to the horrible conflicts that have arisen from people fighting over the definition of truth. Over the centuries, the world has been embroiled in many conflicts, with all parties claiming the high ground based on the “truth” they espouse. People have been oppressed because of their beliefs, it seems, since the beginning of time. Given this history, a society whose philosophy is subjectivism feels safe and progressive. But subjectivism brings its own chaos. Today, many in our world empathize with terrorists, puzzle over how many genders there are, and question the very reality of reality. While it may attempt to avert conflict, subjectivism—which is essentially a total rejection of belief—is not immune from conflict. In the void left by the banishment of absolute truth, another principle rushes in: [tolerance](tolerance-vs-convictions.html). Tolerance becomes a rule in and of itself, and when thoughts and ideas can be categorized as “intolerant,” then they can and should be legally suppressed. If one person’s “subjective” ideas might cause an (equally subjective) offense, then that individual’s ideas cannot be tolerated—tolerance is intolerant of intolerance, however it chooses to define it. Thus even subjectivism can and does result in oppression. The fact is objective truth exists and that truth is presented in Scripture (John 17:17\). This is not a popular idea today, but since when have the ungodly loved God’s Word (see Romans 1:32\)? Any philosophy that attempts to explain the universe apart from God’s revealed truth will end badly because it inevitably places the will of the individual in the center. And whenever one will is pitted against another, there will be conflict. Conversely, when all wills are submitted to Christ, there will be peace; conflict ceases (Galatians 5:13; John 13:34–35\). A world that denies the truth and embraces subjectivism will naturally be in conflict with those who hold to [absolute truth](absolute-truth.html). That’s why Jesus promised that His gospel would create conflict (Matthew 10:34–36\). Christians are not to seek peace at the cost of objective truth; therefore, subjectivism is a philosophy Christians cannot accept. Instead, Christians cling to the truth and refuse to deny Christ, even when it results in conflict and persecution (Matthew 5:10–11; 10:33\).
Who was Moses’ wife?	Answer The Bible does not say much about Moses’ wife, [Zipporah](Zipporah-in-the-Bible.html). We know that she was the daughter of a man called Jethro (or Reuel), who was a priest in the land of Midian (Exodus 3:1; cf. 2:18\). The Bible does not explicitly say that Moses had more than one wife. However, Numbers 12:1 leads many to surmise another wife: “Miriam and Aaron began to talk against Moses because of his Cushite wife, for he had married a Cushite.” The question of the number of Moses’ wives hinges on the identity of this Cushite (or Ethiopian) woman. Is this a reference to Zipporah? Or is this another woman? First, some background. While he was still in Egypt, [Moses](life-Moses.html) killed an Egyptian guard who was assaulting a Hebrew slave, and he hid the body. Soon, Moses got word that Pharaoh knew what he had done and was going to kill him, so he fled from Egypt to the land of Midian to avoid prosecution. When he got to Midian, he sat down by a well, and there he encountered a family living in that area. The priest of Midian had seven daughters, shepherdesses who came to water their father’s flock. Some shepherds tried to drive the women away, but Moses fought the shepherds off and helped the women, even drawing water for their animals. The seven reported this heroic action to their father, and he asked Moses to come and eat with his family. Sometime later, Moses was married to Zipporah, the daughter of Reuel, the priest of Midian (Exodus 2:16–22\). In later chapters Reuel is called Jethro. There is no explanation for this name change, but the title “priest of Midian” accompanies both names, and he is called Moses’ father\-in\-law, so it is safe to assume this was the same man. The only other possibility is that there were two priests of Midian, one called Jethro and one called Reuel and that Moses had married a daughter from each family—but that would be very unlikely. More evidence that Moses only had one wife is found in Exodus 4:20: “Moses took his wife and sons, put them on a donkey and started back to Egypt.” Wife is singular, and there is no mention of any other wife or wives that Moses had. On the way to Egypt, Zipporah circumcised their son and thus saved her husband’s life—Moses had neglected to obey the Lord in this matter, and the Lord would have killed Moses had not Zipporah intervened (Exodus 4:24–26\). After this event, it seems that Moses sent Zipporah and his sons back home to stay with Jethro. We don’t encounter Zipporah again until after the exodus when she returns to Moses in the wilderness (Exodus 18\). That brings us to Numbers 12:1 and the reference to Moses’ marriage to the Cushite, or Ethiopian. It is possible, though not probable, that the Cushite is Zipporah. Arguing against that possibility are two facts: 1\) the link between Midianites and Ethiopians is very difficult to trace convincingly; and 2\) the objection to the marriage raised by Miriam and [Aaron](life-Aaron.html) seems to indicate a recent event. Moses and Zipporah would have been married for over 40 years by this time, and it is unlikely that Moses’ siblings would just then be protesting. Much more likely is that Zipporah had died (although her death is not recorded in Scripture) and that Moses had remarried. Some see in Moses’ marriages to two Gentiles as prefiguring the gospel message going into all the world, blessing even the Gentiles (see Acts 1:8\). Zipporah the Midianite was related to the Israelites but only through Abraham’s son by a concubine (Genesis 25:1–2\); the Cushite was farther removed from the lineage of Israel. Moses’ marriages expanded in a widening circle into the Gentile world, helping to show that [in Abraham’s seed](Abrahamic-covenant.html) all the nations of the world would be blessed (Genesis 12:3\).
Who were the Midianites?	Answer [Abraham](life-Abraham.html) had more sons than just Isaac (by Sarah) and Ishmael (by Hagar). He also had six sons by [Keturah](Keturah-in-the-Bible.html), his wife after the death of Sarah: Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak, and Shuah (Genesis 25:2\). The Midianites were the descendants of Midian and therefore children of Abraham. They settled in “the land of the east” (Genesis 25:6\). Most scholars believe the land of Midian was officially on both sides of the Gulf of Aqaba, although the Midianites showed nomadic tendencies later in their history (see Habakkuk 3:7, ESV). When Moses fled the wrath of Pharaoh, he traveled to Midian (Exodus 2:15\). There, Moses met and married his wife, Zipporah, and served his father\-in\-law, Jethro, as a shepherd for forty years. The fact that Jethro was “a priest of Midian” (Exodus 2:16\) indicates that the Midianites, at least during Moses’ time, still retained the knowledge of the God of their father Abraham (cf. Jethro’s words and actions in Exodus 18\). At the end of Moses’ time in Midian, [God appeared to Moses](burning-bush.html)—still in Midian—and commissioned him to lead the Israelites out of slavery (Exodus 3—4\). As the children of Israel traveled through the wilderness, they employed the services of a guide familiar with the desert—Moses’ Midianite brother\-in\-law, Hobab (Numbers 10:29\). However, the relations between the Israelites and the Midianites began to sour when the Midianites joined forces with the [Moabites](Moabites.html) in order to hire Balaam to curse Israel (Numbers 22\). Later, when Israel fell into idolatry and sexual sin with the Moabite women (Numbers 25\), we find that a prominent Midianite woman was also involved (Numbers 25:6\). The Lord then told Moses to wage war against the Midianites: “Treat the Midianites as enemies and kill them. They treated you as enemies when they deceived you in the Peor incident involving their sister Kozbi, the daughter of a Midianite leader” (Numbers 25:17–19\). The Israelites did eventually attack the Midianites, meting out divine retribution against their enemies (Numbers 31\). Five kings of the Midianites were killed, as was Balaam (Numbers 31:8\). This battle was one of the last things Moses accomplished as leader of the Israelites. During the time of the judges, “the Midianites, Amalekites and other eastern peoples invaded the country” and plundered the land (Judges 6:3\). For seven years, “Midian so impoverished the Israelites that they cried out to the Lord for help” (verse 6\). God answered their cries and raised up [Gideon](life-Gideon.html) as a deliverer. With just 300 men, Gideon defeated the armies of the Midianites, although the foe was “thick as locusts. Their camels could no more be counted than the sand on the seashore” (Judges 7:12\). Of course, God was involved, and He was the One who granted the victory over the Midianites (verse 22\). Later references to the Midianites include allusions to God’s victory over them (Psalm 83:9; Isaiah 10:26\). And, in a prophecy of Israel’s future glory in the Messianic kingdom, Isaiah writes, “Herds of camels will cover your land, / young camels of Midian and Ephah. / And all from Sheba will come, / bearing gold and incense / and proclaiming the praise of the Lord” (Isaiah 60:6\).
What does it mean that Job repented in dust and ashes?	Answer In Job 42:6, Job says, “I despise myself and repent in dust and ashes.” Obviously, [Job](life-Job.html) was at a low point in his personal history. But what does it mean that he repented “in dust and ashes”? Dust and ashes were used as signs of mourning in the ancient world. In fact, Job’s three friends offered an example of this early in the [book of Job](Book-of-Job.html). When they saw Job’s suffering, “they began to weep aloud, and they tore their robes and sprinkled dust on their heads” (Job 2:12\). They were “weeping with those who weep” (Romans 12:15\), and they showed their sorrow according to the custom of their day, by sprinkling dust on their heads. This action was accompanied, as it often is in Scripture, with the [tearing of clothes](tear-clothes-Bible.html). Another example of this use of dust and ashes can be found in Ezekiel 27:30\. In describing a future time of mourning over Tyre, the prophet writes, “They will raise their voice and cry bitterly over you; / they will sprinkle dust on their heads / and roll in ashes.” Clearly, the idea of applying dust and ashes is associated with the bitter crying that takes place in this scene. Esther 4:1 offers another example. [Mordecai](Mordecai-in-the-Bible.html) had learned that the Jews were going to all be killed on a certain day according to a new Persian law. In response, Mordecai “tore his clothes, put on sackcloth and ashes, and went out into the city, wailing loudly and bitterly.” As news spread, other Jews responded similarly: “There was great mourning among the Jews, with fasting, weeping and wailing. Many lay in sackcloth and ashes” (Esther 4:3\). The term dust is used 16 times in the book of Job. The idea associated with dust is that it is “nothing.” Dust is associated with lowliness or humility. When Job repented in dust and ashes, he was repenting in humility. The term ashes also has an interesting usage throughout the book of Job. Job sits in ashes following the start of his painful sores (Job 2:8\). He later declares the words of his friends are like ashes (13:12\). Later still, Job says, “\[God] throws me into the mud, / and I am reduced to dust and ashes” (Job 30:19\). Finally, in Job 42:6, he repents in dust and ashes. While repenting and even mourning with dust and ashes was a common practice in ancient culture, it is not a biblical command. Instead, we can learn [humility](Bible-humility.html) from Job’s example of repenting before the Lord and His greatness. Even in Job’s case, when he had suffered without doing anything wrong, it was important for him to continue to live faithfully and humbly in God’s sight. Job lived out the command found in 1 Peter 5:6 (and received the accompanying promise): “Humble yourselves, therefore, under God’s mighty hand, that he may lift you up in due time.”
What is sectarianism?	Answer To be sectarian is to possess a limited range of interest, purpose, or scope, or to be devoted to a particularly narrow tradition or belief system. The word sectarianism comes from the root sect, from which also comes the word section. Often, religious or political groups split into smaller “sections” called “sects.” Ideological conflicts can arise among these smaller groups. Sometimes, those who carefully adhere to one particular sect feel hatred or bigotry toward those of other sects, no matter how closely related their ideologies are. Sectarianism is the result of different, though related, groups maintaining a strict division. The cult of Mormonism, for example, contains several sects. The two main sects are the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter\-day Saints and the Community of Christ. Other sects within the same church are the Church of Christ (Temple Lot), the Church of Jesus Christ, the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter\-day Saints, and, for a while, the Rigdonites. Sectarianism can lead to violence at times. A couple famous examples are the Nationalists vs. the Unionists in Northern Ireland and the Sunni vs. Shia Muslims. Usually, conflict is based on a belief that the ideologies of opposing sects cannot coexist peacefully without doing damage to the religion or political entity as a whole. Within genuine Christianity, there are sects and [denominations](denominations-Christian.html) aplenty. Sectarianism within Christianity does not often lead to physical violence, thankfully. But it can still cause misunderstanding and unnecessary division. Yes, we must contend for the faith and defend the gospel from those who would pervert the grace of God (Jude 1:3–4\). Truth is, by definition, exclusive of falsehood; we must separate from [heresy](heresy-definition.html). But much conflict within the church is unnecessary and unbiblical (2 Timothy 2:23; Ephesians 4:1–8\). Spiritual maturity is associated with unity, which is only possible as the people of God gather around the Word and agree on it (Ephesians 4:13–16\). Sectarianism within Christianity often centers on differing applications of truth and differing traditions, rather than differing facts. Jesus had to deal with a sectarian attitude among His disciples. John came to Jesus one day and said, “Teacher . . . we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us” (Mark 9:38\). Rather than compliment John for his zeal, Jesus rebukes him for his sectarianism: “Do not stop him. . . . For no one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us. Truly I tell you, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to the Messiah will certainly not lose their reward” (Mark 9:39–41\). From this incident, we learn several things. First, the Lord can use people other than those involved in our “sect.” John and the other disciples had assumed that, because the unnamed exorcist was not one of the Twelve, he was therefore not a true follower of Christ. Jesus sets the disciples straight, telling them they had no right to forbid the man from his activity. Further, we learn that the Lord has works in progress that we know nothing about. He doesn’t need to get our approval before He chooses to act; if He desires to use someone not associated with our organization, then that’s His business. Sectarianism is barred by the words “whoever is not against us is for us.” The important facts about the exorcist in Mark 9 are that he was using his gift in the name of the Lord and that Jesus sanctioned him. We cannot assume that other Christians are not “really” serving the Lord simply because they don’t run in our circles. Any service in Christ’s name, even just supplying a cup of water to a disciple, will be rewarded. We should allow the Giver of all good gifts to hand out the rewards as He sees fit. We can avoid sectarianism by allowing God’s Spirit to work in us, for peace is a fruit of the Spirit of Christ (Galatians 5:22; Colossians 3:15\).
What does it mean that a house divided cannot stand?	Answer There are three accounts in the Gospels in which Jesus states that a kingdom divided against itself is laid waste or a house divided cannot stand (Luke 11:17; Mark 3:25; Matthew 12:25\). All three instances of this statement are spoken in response to the Pharisees’ accusation that Jesus was casting out demons by the power of Satan—a [blasphemy](blasphemy-Holy-Spirit.html) that Jesus said would not be forgiven them. Jesus’ argument to the Pharisees was logical: a kingdom that is at cross\-purposes with itself will fall. Any household riven by infighting will tear itself apart. Jesus was obviously casting demons out of people. If Jesus was in league with Satan, or if Satan was somehow working through Jesus, it is unlikely that exorcisms would be a priority, because why would Satan cast himself out? Satan has more practical wisdom than to allow his demonic underlings to group themselves into warring factions. By saying that a house divided cannot stand, Jesus is illustrating the fact that success relies on congruency. This is something we see in daily life all the time. Whether it is a machine, a sports team, a government party, or one’s own mind, things have to work together if anything is to be accomplished. The Bible says that a double\-minded man is unstable in all his ways (James 1:8\), and Paul appeals to the churches that there be no divisions among the believers (1 Corinthians 1:10\). In fact, churches should be unified in their purpose and judgment, avoiding people who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to sound doctrine (Romans 16:17\). Christians are not to quarrel but to be unified around a common understanding of truth. “How good and pleasant it is when God’s people live together in unity!” (Psalm 133:1\). God commands unity among believers because, once conflict enters the midst of any assembly or entity, productivity and usefulness inevitably grind to a halt and the whole organization is weakened and becomes vulnerable to attack. As Jesus said, “Any kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and a house divided against itself will fall.” A [fruit of the Spirit](fruit-of-the-Holy-Spirit.html) is peace (Galatians 5:22\). Christians are, as followers of the [Prince of Peace](Prince-of-Peace.html), peaceful people (Matthew 5:9\). We are called to live in harmony with one another (Romans 12:16\) and, as far as it depends on us, to be at peace with everyone (Hebrews 12:14\). Jesus Christ is building His church (Matthew 16:18\). His “house” will stand; “his kingdom will not be destroyed, / his dominion will never end” (Daniel 6:26\).
The patience of Job—why is Job famous for being patient?	Answer When someone exhibits great endurance through all kinds of trials, annoyances, or provocations, we say that person has “the patience of Job.” The idiom is applied to those who nobly persevere in the face of overwhelming hardships. The expression has its origin in James 5:10–11: “Brothers and sisters, as an example of patience in the face of suffering, take the prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord. As you know, we count as blessed those who have persevered. You have heard of Job’s perseverance and have seen what the Lord finally brought about. The Lord is full of compassion and mercy.” Among the many Old Testament examples of patience, [Job](life-Job.html) is selected as the prime illustration. He is the exemplar of a patient man. There are many reasons why this must be the case. Job’s [patience](Bible-patience.html) stands out because Job’s story is extreme in the amount of suffering he endured. Job lost all of his children and his wealth in a single day. He then was covered in painful sores, and his wife offered him no support—she encouraged him to give up, curse God, and die (Job 2:9\). When Job’s three friends came to comfort him, they could not even recognize him from a distance (Job 2:12\). Adding to Job’s pain, his friends falsely accused him of wrongdoing and blamed his troubles on his unrepentant heart. Through it all, Job patiently endured (Job 2:10\). James used Job as a prime example of patience in suffering because of what may have been in store for James’ readers. By the time of the writing of the epistle of James, Stephen had already been killed as the first Christian martyr (Acts 6—7\). The early Jewish Christians had fled from Jerusalem for safety (Acts 8:1\). Saul had arrested Christians in Jerusalem (Acts 9\). By Acts 12 (approximately AD 42\), James the apostle (not the writer of the epistle) had been killed, and Peter barely escaped death. James wrote his [epistle](Book-of-James.html) sometime between 44 and 49; it was a troubled period, and the early church faced much persecution. The believers were in need of endurance. With the many forms of suffering facing these early Christians, it was important to be reminded that they, like Job, had done nothing to deserve their suffering but were to patiently endure for the sake of Christ. Just as Job faced many struggles, they would face [hardship](endure-hardship.html) in living for God. This is one of the key themes of James (1:2–4, 12–15; 5:7–13\). Still today, the patience of Job serves as an inspiration to Christians who face times of struggle and suffering. No matter what happens, we are called to follow Job’s example as we patiently endure in service and worship to the Lord, remembering that our God is “full of compassion and mercy” (James 5:11\).
What did God mean when He told Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply?	Answer God had just finished all His creation, ending with His masterpieces, the very first man and woman, when He told them to be fruitful and multiply (Genesis 1:28\). The world was now fully created with days and nights, seasons and years, plants and animals, and Adam and Eve; and God set in motion His plan to fill the world He created with people (Isaiah 45:18\). The world was Adam and Eve’s inheritance to fill, and, as stated in the beginning of Genesis 1:28, it was God’s blessing for Adam and Eve to have children and work the earth. Commentator [Matthew Henry](Matthew-Henry.html) wrote that God blessed the first couple with “a numerous lasting family, to enjoy this inheritance . . . in virtue of which their posterity should extend to the utmost corners of the earth and continue to the utmost period of time.” Simply, God desired for Adam and Eve to have many children and for their children to have many children. But fruitfulness also denotes much more. God didn’t intend Adam and Eve to have children just to have children. In the remainder of Genesis 1:28, we see a useful and desired result: to “fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” Was the blessing bestowed upon Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply also a command for us today? Some take this view and refuse all forms of [birth control](birth-control.html). But if Genesis 1:28 is in fact a command to us as individuals rather than a blessing upon mankind in general, we run into a few problems, especially when looking to the New Testament. First, Jesus walked the earth for 33 years having no wife to bear children. As a Jew, Jesus was raised according to Jewish laws and customs (Galatians 4:4\), and He fulfilled the Law of God perfectly (Matthew 5:17\). However, Jesus was not physically “fruitful,” nor did He “multiply,” indicating that Genesis 1:28 is not a command for every person to obey. In addition, Jesus said that [celibacy](gift-of-celibacy.html) is a personal choice, neither condemning it nor praising it above marriage and childbearing (Matthew 19:12\). Second, the apostle Paul encourages Christians that it is better to stay single than be married (1 Corinthians 7:38\) so that individuals can place their entire focus on serving God (verses 32–35\). Paul affirms that being married is a good thing, but he insists that being single is better in certain circumstances. Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the apostle would not encourage us against bearing fruit and multiplying if that were one of God’s direct commands. Finally, if being fruitful and multiplying is an express command for all couples to bear children, we run into the problem of infertility. While the Bible does say that children are a blessing from the Lord (Psalm 127:3–5\), nowhere in Scripture is infertility condemned as a sin or a curse from God. We can have lives that are pleasing to God and bring Him glory whether we have children or not. Indeed, we can be spiritually fruitful and multiply the citizens of the Kingdom of God when we obey Jesus’ command to “go and make disciples of all nations” (Matthew 28:19\).
What does the Bible say about stoning?	Answer Stoning is a method of execution during which a group of people, usually peers of the guilty party, throws stones at the condemned person until he or she dies. Death by stoning was prescribed in the Old Testament Law as a punishment for various sins. Both animals and people could be the subjects of stoning (Exodus 21:28\), and stoning seems to have been associated with sins that caused irreparable damage to the spiritual or ceremonial purity of a person or an animal. Some sins that resulted in stoning in the Old Testament were murder (Leviticus 24:17\), idolatry (Deuteronomy 17:2–5\), approaching near to Mount Sinai while the presence of God was there (Exodus 19:12–13\), practicing necromancy or the occult (Leviticus 20:27\), and blaspheming the name of the Lord (Leviticus 24:16\). Stoning was probably the punishment for various types of sexual sin, as well (Deuteronomy 22:24\); the related passages in Leviticus 20 do not specify the method of execution, only that the guilty party was to be “put to death.” The Mosaic Law specified that, before anyone could be put to death by stoning, there had to be a trial, and at least two witnesses had to testify: “On the testimony of two or three witnesses a person is to be put to death, but no one is to be put to death on the testimony of only one witness” (Deuteronomy 17:6\). Those witnesses “must be the first in putting that person to death, and then the hands of all the people” (verse 7\). In other words, those who testified against the condemned person in court had to cast the first stone. Examples of stonings in the Old Testament are the deaths of Achan and his family (Joshua 7:25\) and Naboth, who was condemned by false witnesses (1 Kings 21\). Stoning was the method of execution chosen by the unbelieving Jews who persecuted the early Christians. [Stephen](life-Stephen.html), the church’s first martyr, was stoned to death outside of Jerusalem by the Sanhedrin. On that occasion, a young man named Saul, who later became the apostle Paul, held the coats of those who cast the stones (Acts 7:54–60\). In another famous passage of Scripture, the Pharisees tried to entrap Jesus into granting approval for the stoning of a woman caught in the act of adultery. Significantly, the adulterous man was absent—the Law prescribed death for both the guilty parties. Jesus’ response is interesting. The woman was clearly guilty, but Jesus understood the duplicity of His enemies. Instead of giving them a direct answer, Jesus turned to those who had dragged the woman before Him and said, “Whichever of you is free from sin, throw the first stone” (John 8:1–11\). By this, Jesus is asking for the witnesses to step forward—the witnesses, bound by an oath, were the ones to cast the first stones. He also shows the compassionate heart of God toward the sinner and silences the mob’s hypocritical allegations. Another mode of execution that was also considered stoning involved throwing the guilty party headlong down a steep place and then rolling a large stone onto the body. This is exactly what a mob in Nazareth tried to do to Jesus after His speech in their synagogue. Hearing His claim to be the Messiah, “they got up, drove \[Jesus] out of the town, and took him to the brow of the hill on which the town was built, in order to throw him off the cliff” (Luke 4:29\). Jesus’ deliverance from this angry mob was miraculous: “He walked right through the crowd and went on his way” (verse 30\). It was not the Lord’s time to die (see John 10:18\), and He could never have died by stoning because the prophecy said none of His bones would be broken (John 19:36\). Stoning is a horrible way to die. That particular manner of execution must have been a strong deterrent against committing the sins deemed offensive enough to merit stoning. God cares very much about the purity of His people. The strict punishment for sin during the time of the Law helped deter people from adopting the impure practices of their pagan neighbors and rebelling against God. The wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23\), and Israel was given a stern commandment to stay pure: “You must purge the evil from among you” (Deuteronomy 17:7\).
What does the Bible say about fighting?	Answer The Bible mentions fighting in several contexts, including the fighting of a soldier against an enemy army (Joshua 8:1–11; 1 Samuel 14:52; 17:19\), the fighting that occurs between people because of an argument or other conflict (2 Corinthians 7:5\), the fighting of the Christian’s soul against spiritual forces of evil (Ephesians 6:12; Jude 1:3\), the fighting that occurs between angels and demons (Revelation 12:7\), and the fighting of a person trying to overcome his own sinful tendencies (2 Timothy 4:7; 1 Timothy 6:12\). Depending on the situation, fighting can be noble and good or it can be sinful, but fighting is not wrong in itself. The object of the fight is what determines the fighting to be righteous or evil. Even God fights on behalf of His people who trust Him (Exodus 14:14; Deuteronomy 1:30; Nehemiah 4:20\). God is called a “man of war” in Isaiah 42:13 (ESV). Fighting in the Bible can be physical or spiritual. Either way, the conflict is intended to establish dominance over the opposition. That opposition can be a human army, Satan, or sin. Fighting involves intense effort; it is a struggle that requires maximum exertion, whether physical, emotional, mental, or spiritual. When Jude tells us to “earnestly contend for the faith” (Jude 1:3, KJV), he uses a form of the Greek word agónizomai, from which we get our English word agonize. Eugene Peterson paraphrases Jude 1:3 as “fight with everything you have.” Some things, like the gospel, are worth fighting for. But there are many more things not worth fighting over. Christians are not to fight one another but are to strive for peace within the body of Christ (Hebrews 12:14; 1 Peter 1:11\). We are not to fight the government but are to submit to its laws (Romans 13:2\), knowing that our true Governor is Christ (Isaiah 9:7\) and we belong to His kingdom. When speaking to Pilate, Jesus said that, if His kingdom were of this world, His servants would take up arms and fight on His behalf—but His kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36\). Peter had to learn this lesson the hard way (Matthew 26:52\). Too often, fighting is a sign of sin in our lives. James gets to the heart of the problem: “What causes fights and quarrels among you? Don’t they come from your desires that battle within you? You desire but do not have, so you kill. You covet but you cannot get what you want, so you quarrel and fight. You do not have because you do not ask God. When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures” (James 4:1–3\). Most fighting is rooted in selfishness and lust. The saints of God should not stoop to bickering, squabbling, or wrangling over the things of this world. Christians are called to fight physically when necessary. There is nothing wrong with fighting to protect the innocent or to [defend one’s home](self-defense.html), one’s family, or one’s country. For example, a Christian soldier is required to fight in order for him to be obedient to his military commanders. Soldiers are mentioned throughout the Gospels, and Jesus never treats them as sinful or wrong in carrying out their duties, nor does He command them to leave the service. John the Baptist tells them to be fair and honorable (Luke 3:14\). In the Bible, several soldiers are also described as devout and faithful men (Acts 10:7; Matthew 8:5–13\). All Christians are called to fight spiritually. God provides the armor (Ephesians 6:10–17\). The [spiritual war](spiritual-warfare.html) is waged against sin, against erroneous doctrines and practices that corrupt the church, and against the old sin nature within us. A believer’s life is compared to the life of a fighting man (2 Timothy 2:1–4; Philemon 1:2\). If the opposition is evil and the cause is good, there is nothing wrong with fighting, according to the Bible.
What are the Holy Days of Obligation?	Answer The Holy Days of Obligation are set times, according to the Roman Catholic Church, when the faithful are obliged to participate in the Mass. On the Holy Days of Obligation, Catholics are also supposed to avoid work or anything that keeps them from resting and worshiping God. According to the 1983 Code of Canon Law, there are ten Holy Days of Obligation. In the United States, [Catholics](Catholic-Biblical.html) are required to observe six of those ten: the Solemnity of Mary, the Mother of God; the Ascension of our Lord; the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary; All Saints Day; the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception; and Christmas. Sundays and the holy days that fall on Sundays (such as Easter) are governed by their own set of rules and are thus not considered an official part of the Holy Days of Obligation. Two of these days, Christmas and the Ascension of Jesus, correspond to events in the Bible; however, the others are based on tradition alone and may even contradict biblical teaching. The idea for consecrated days, or days when worshipers are required to obey particular rites or traditions, comes from one of two places: the Mosaic Law or paganism. It is important to note that the New Testament never commands the observance of special days. This is not to say that observing a holiday is wrong or sinful, simply that holidays are not something believers are obligated to observe. The Holy Days of Obligation should not be obligated. Paul points out that some people consider one day as more holy than another, and others do not. However, if a person believes a day to be holy, he should follow his conscience and be fully convinced in his own mind as to what he should do (Romans 14:5\). Avoiding work on a Saturday or Sunday might fall into this category. Rest on the Sabbath was part of the Mosaic Law, which was fulfilled in Christ. He is now our Sabbath rest (Hebrews 4:9\). Therefore, resting from work on Saturday or Sunday is not an obligation. At the same time, if one wishes to rest from work on the weekend, there is nothing wrong with that. The problem with the Holy Days of Obligation, as with so much of Catholic teaching, is that they are used as a means of receiving grace. In other words, grace must be earned via our works. The biblical teaching is that God’s grace is free—it is unmerited favor. In fact, any attempt to merit salvation destroys the idea of grace altogether: “If by grace, then it cannot be based on works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace” (Romans 11:6\). Another problem is the days devoted to the veneration of [Mary](virgin-Mary.html) and the false doctrines that have been attached to her. In Galatians 4:10–11, Paul expresses concern for the [Galatians](Book-of-Galatians.html) over their observance of days, months, seasons, and years. In context, we see that Paul is concerned about the Galatian church sliding into legalism after learning the freedom of Christ. He is frustrated in knowing that they are being trapped again by the idea of a works\-based righteousness, and he reminds them passionately that salvation is by faith alone apart from the works of the law (Galatians 3:1–10\). Apparently, the Galatians believed that observance of holy days was necessary for salvation—they were marking their calendars with their own “Holy Days of Obligation.” Observing the Holy Days of Obligation cannot save a person. If the observance of any holy day becomes a work upon which one’s salvation hangs, that observance has become a stumbling block and should be forsaken. However, there is nothing wrong in observing holy days as long as God is honored, not man, and as long as the observance is a joyful reminder of God’s work or grace or blessings. A holiday should not be a burden or a religious requirement; instead, the celebration should flow naturally out of the believer’s praise and thankfulness toward God.

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.