Split (1)

train · 9.53k rows

prompt stringlengths 0 158	response stringlengths 14 40.2k
What does it mean to live by the sword and die by the sword?	Answer The saying “live by the sword, die by the sword” is an idiom that basically means “what goes around comes around.” More to the point, “if you use violent, forceful, or underhanded methods against other people, you can expect those same methods to be used against you.” The proverb “live by the sword, die by the sword” has a biblical origin. It comes from a conversation between Jesus and His disciple Peter just before Jesus was arrested in the Garden of Gethsemane. After Jesus was betrayed by Judas, a group of soldiers moved in to arrest the Lord. In a rash attempt to protect Jesus, Peter pulled out his sword and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear—you can be sure Peter was trying to do more damage than that (John 18:10\). Jesus rebuked Peter and put a quick stop to the bloodshed. Jesus replaced the wounded man’s ear, healing him instantly (Luke 22:51\). Then He told Peter to put his sword away, for “all who draw the sword will die by the sword” (Matthew 26:52\). Jesus also told Peter that He would not fight the arrest, for it was God’s will that He drink the cup that was given to Him (John 18:11\). Jesus had come to die as a sacrifice for sin, and now was the time. Jesus’ placating of Peter also showed His concern for His disciple—in warning Peter against using violence, Jesus prevented Peter from being arrested himself. “Live by the sword, die by the sword” has become a common expression, adapted from Jesus’ words to Peter. The proverb’s meaning is still basically the same: a person who lives violently will probably at some point be killed in a violent manner. Violence begets violence. Those who practice violence will come to violent ends.
What does it mean to make a covenant with your eyes?	Answer In Job 31:1, Job says that he had made a covenant with his eyes—a promise not to look at something: “I made a covenant with my eyes / not to look lustfully at a young woman.” It is clear that Job was speaking about his personal purity. In defending his conduct, Job says that he worked diligently not to look at young women in impure ways. Job 31 includes Job’s final defense of his [integrity](Bible-integrity.html). Here, he lists many positive things he had done to walk with integrity before the Lord. Part of living a life above reproach is avoiding [lust](what-is-lust.html), and an integral part of avoiding lust is controlling what the eyes are allowed to view. In Job 31:4 Job offers the reason he would not look at women in sinful ways: “Does he not see my ways / and count my every step?” Job understood that God sees everything we do. There is no way to hide anything from God, including our sin; if we are looking at things that we should not look at, God knows. Job sought to live his life accordingly. The principle of making a covenant with our eyes is a good one for us in this day of rampant [pornography](pornography-Bible.html). Like Job, we are to live knowing that God sees everything we do. This includes our thoughts and actions. From entertaining lustful thoughts to stealing lascivious looks to other sexual actions outside of marriage, the idea that God sees everything we do should serve to purify us. “Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account” (Hebrews 4:13\). Jesus also addressed the issue of how we use our eyes: “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:27–28\). The Pharisees of Jesus’ time focused on pure living, including keeping the Ten Commandments and its command not to commit adultery. However, Jesus spoke not only to the command but also to the motivation behind the command—God desires purity of heart. God’s standard is higher than ours. It’s not just the letter of the Law that God cares about but the spirit in which it’s kept. James 1:27 says that religion that God accepts as “pure and faultless” includes “keep\[ing] oneself from being polluted by the world.” Part of being “unpolluted” in this world would have to involve maintaining a pure thought life. Sexual purity is an important aspect of the Christian life. “Do not offer any part of yourself to sin as an instrument of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer every part of yourself to him as an instrument of righteousness” (Romans 6:13\). “Every part of yourself” includes the eyes. In many ways, our eyes function as gates to the mind, and we must be vigilant gate\-keepers to avoid letting sin in. Job made a promise to himself to guard his eyes around women, and his example is worthy of emulation.
How should a Christian view prescription drugs?	Answer Many Christians wrestle with their decisions over accepting valid medical therapies, including the use of prescription drugs. The Bible does not give us much on this subject, but if we examine the purposes of prescription drugs we can present an ideal approach to their uses based on biblical principles. We know from Scripture that ill health, disease, and death are the result of sin in the world. Much of Jesus’ earthly ministry involved combatting that curse, as He healed people everywhere He went (see Matthew 15:31\). Jesus is the exact representation of God’s being (Hebrews 1:3\), and by healing people He showed us God’s compassion and His identity as the Great Physician who will one day restore all of creation to health (Romans 8:18–22\). So, it is clear from Jesus’ ministry that to seek healing is not wrong; in fact, it is very right! Also, Luke, the writer of both the Gospel of Luke and Acts, was a physician (Colossians 4:14\). Dr. Luke may not have dispensed prescriptions in the manner that doctors do today, but he was in the business of treating people’s physical ailments, using the medicines and treatments of his day. In the days before prescription drugs, people sought relief from pain in other ways. [Alcohol](sin-alcohol.html) is mentioned in Proverbs 31:6–7 as being given to the terminally ill and others who suffer. Also, in 1 Timothy 5:23, Paul advises Timothy to drink a little wine to relieve his stomach ailment. Since other drugs had not yet been developed, fermented drinks were often used as remedies for pain and suffering, and the use of such analgesics is approved in God’s Word. Also, we should keep in mind that most of today’s prescription medicines are based on elements occurring naturally in creation. A doctor may prescribe Amoxil, for example, but where did that antibiotic come from? It came from a substance produced by a blue\-green mold called Penicillium notatum. Where did the mold come from? God made it. So, we can say that God created the penicillin mold and gave it the useful property of killing infectious bacteria. God then allowed people to discover this property, isolate the acting agent, and purify it for use in the human body. Is it wrong to use God’s own creation to improve the health of humanity? Not at all. In fact, He is glorified in such discoveries. All of this should help us decide how we should think about prescription drugs. There is nothing wrong with seeking a doctor’s help when we are sick. There is nothing wrong with taking the drugs that doctor prescribes in the way that they are prescribed. Are there dangers and side effects associated with prescription drugs? Yes, of course, and doctors and pharmacists will explain the risks. Is it possible to abuse prescription drugs, overuse them, or develop unwanted dependencies? Yes, and the children of God must never allow themselves to be brought under the habitual control of a substance (see 1 Corinthians 6:12 for this principle stated in a different context). In the end, a Christian’s use of prescription drugs is between that Christian and the Lord. The Bible does not command the use of medicinal treatments, but it certainly does not forbid it, either. The child of God should care for his or her body as being the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 3:16\). This means taking preventative care, maintaining a healthy diet, and getting proper exercise. It also means taking advantage of the wisdom that God has given skilled researchers and physicians. We understand that God is the Healer, no matter by what means He heals, and we give the glory to Him.
What does it mean to watch and pray?	Answer Jesus used the phrase watch and pray on a couple of different occasions. Once was the night before the crucifixion. Jesus took His disciples with Him to the Garden of Gethsemane, where He prayed that “this cup be taken from me” (Matthew 26:39\). After the prayer, He found His disciples sleeping. He was grieved that they could not even pray with Him for an hour and warned them to “watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak” (Matthew 26:41\). Another occurrence of the phrase watch and pray is found earlier in Jesus’ ministry when He prophesied about the end times. Luke chapter 21 details many of those events, and Jesus warns that they would happen suddenly: “Be careful, or your hearts will be weighed down with carousing, drunkenness and the anxieties of life, and that day will close on you suddenly like a trap” (Luke 21:34\). He then says, “Be always on the watch, and pray that you may be able to escape all that is about to happen, and that you may be able to stand before the Son of Man” (verse 36\). “Watch and [pray](why-pray.html).” The word translated “watch” means “to have the alertness of a guard at night.” A night [watchman](watchmen-in-the-Bible.html) must be even more vigilant than a daytime guard. In the daytime, danger can often be spotted from a distance. But in the night everything is different. A night watchman must use senses other than sight to detect danger. He is often alone in the darkness and without the defenses he would otherwise employ. There may be no indications of enemy attack until it happens, so he must be hyper\-vigilant, suspecting it at any moment. That is the type of watching Jesus spoke about. Jesus warned us that we are too easily distracted by the physical and will be caught unaware if we do not continually discipline ourselves. In the Garden of Gethsemane, sleepiness overcame the disciples. Their physical need overpowered their desire to obey Him. He was grieved when He saw this, knowing what was ahead for them. If they did not remain spiritually vigilant, in tune with Him (John 15:5\) and ready to deny the flesh, they would be overcome by the evil one (1 Peter 5:8\). Jesus’ disciples today must also watch and pray. We are easily distracted by this world, our fleshly needs and desires, and the schemes of the enemy (2 Corinthians 2:11\). When we take our eyes from Jesus and His soon return, our values begin to shift, our attention wanders, and soon we are living like the world and bearing little fruit for God’s kingdom (1 Timothy 6:18–19\). He warned us that we must be ready at any moment to stand before Him and give an account of our lives (Romans 14:12; 1 Peter 4:5; Matthew 12:36\). “Watch and pray.” We can only remain faithful when we are devoted to prayer. In prayer, we continually allow God to forgive us, cleanse us, teach us, and strengthen us to obey Him (John 14:14\). In order to keep watch, we must pray for endurance and freedom from distractions (Hebrews 12:2; Luke 18:1; Ephesians 6:18\). We must pray without ceasing (1 Thessalonians 5:17\). When we live with the eager expectation of the Lord’s return and expect persecution until then (2 Timothy 3:12; Matthew 24:9; 1 Peter 4:12\), we are more likely to keep our lives pure and our hearts ready to meet Him.
Why did Job’s wife tell him to curse God and die?	Answer [Job](life-Job.html) faced many forms of suffering. He lost his children and wealth in a single day. He was then struck with painful sores over his entire body. After this time, his wife added to the pain by saying, “Are you still maintaining your integrity? Curse God and die!” (Job 2:9\). In short, Job’s wife was saying, “Give up!” Job’s life had completely fallen apart. Instead of encouraging Job to faithfully endure, his wife said he should just lie down and die. Even worse, she told him to curse God before he died. She saw God as the problem, the One who had abandoned Job in his time of trouble. It is easy to see Job’s wife as doing wrong in this scene, yet her response was natural, from a purely human point of view. She had lost her children, too, along with her home and wealth, and now she watched her husband suffer in excruciating pain. If living faithfully before the Lord means being treated like this, she reasoned, it was better to die. Also, her comments merely match what Job’s three friends later reflect in their speeches to Job. It is Job’s hope\-filled response to his wife that is key to understanding his faith. In response to his wife’s bitter outlook, Job first rebukes her: “You are talking like a foolish woman” (Job 2:10a). He then asks, “Shall we accept good from God, and not trouble?” (Job 2:10b). His words are commended by God: “In all this, Job did not sin in what he said” (Job 2:10c). Job’s response was a godly answer to the pain he was facing. God allows both good and “evil” (that is, calamity, as in Isaiah 45:7\), yet it is a temptation to view bad happenings as God’s punishment upon our lives. While this may sometimes be the case, it is clear that God also allows suffering for other reasons. In Job’s case, the suffering was not the result of God’s judgment at all, and Job was later blessed with twice as much as before his time of trouble. In the New Testament, Jesus came as God’s suffering Messiah (Isaiah 53\) on our behalf so that we may have eternal life. Jesus was without sin, yet He endured great suffering. He set an example for His followers in this regard. There are times when believers will endure various types of [suffering and pain](Bible-suffering.html) even though they have done nothing wrong. Job’s wife suggested that he “curse God and die.” Job wisely refused to take that route. Instead, he taught us that we are to accept both good and bad from the Lord, trusting that His plan is best. James 5:10–11 says we should, “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.”
What is doctrine?	Answer The word translated “doctrine” means “instruction, especially as it applies to lifestyle application.” In other words, doctrine is teaching imparted by an authoritative source. In the Bible, the word always refers to spiritually related fields of study. The Bible says of itself that it is “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16\). We are to be careful about what we believe and present as truth. First Timothy 4:16 says, “Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers.” [Biblical doctrine](sound-doctrine.html) helps us understand the will of God for our lives. Biblical doctrine teaches us the nature and the character of God (Psalm 90:2; 97:2; John 4:24\), the path of salvation through faith (Ephesians 2:8–9; Romans 10:9–10\), instruction for the church (1 Corinthians 14:26; Titus 2:1–10\), and God’s standard of holiness for our lives (1 Peter 1:14–17; 1 Corinthians 6:18–20\). When we accept the Bible as God’s Word to us (2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:20–21\), we have a solid foundation for our doctrine. There can be disagreement within the body of Christ over secondary points of doctrine, such as eschatology, church organization, or the gifts of the Holy Spirit. But truly biblical doctrine is that which incorporates the “whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27\) and draws conclusions based on that which seems most closely aligned with the character of our unchanging God (Numbers 23:19; Hebrews 13:8\). However, the Bible is not always the foundation upon which people or churches build their doctrinal statements. Our sinful natures do not easily submit to God’s decrees, so we often pick and choose the parts of the Bible we are comfortable with and discard the rest. Or we replace what God says with a man\-made doctrine or tradition. This is nothing new. Jesus rebuked the scribes and Pharisees for “teaching as doctrines the commandments of men” (Mark 7:7, ESV; cf. Isaiah 29:13\). False doctrine was rampant in New Testament times, and the Scriptures tell us it will continue (Matthew 7:15; 2 Peter 2:1; 1 John 4:1\). Second Timothy 4:3 says, “For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.” The Bible gives stern warning to those who would teach false or incomplete doctrine simply because it is more compatible with man’s ideas. First Timothy 6:3–4 says, “If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing.” The apostle Paul wrote harsh words about perverting [the gospel](gospel-message.html) with false doctrine: “Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!”(Galatians 1:7–9\). Doctrine is the worldview by which we govern our lives. If our doctrine is based soundly upon Scripture, we can know we are walking in the path God designed for us. However, if we do not study the Word of God for ourselves (2 Timothy 2:15\), we are led more easily into error. Although there are a variety of minor issues upon which Christians disagree, true doctrine is clearer than many imply. Second Peter 1:20 says that “no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation.” There is a right interpretation of everything God says, and it is our job to discern that meaning, not create an interpretation to suit our tastes. God wants us to know His heart and has given us His Word upon which we can build godly lives (see Matthew 7:24\). The more we study true doctrine, the more we understand God and ourselves.
What are the seven baptisms mentioned in the Bible, and what do they mean?	Answer Historically, [baptism](origin-baptism.html) has been used as a rite of initiation, showing the inductee’s entrance into a new belief or observance. Baptism in the church is also a token of the forgiveness of sins we experience at salvation—in much the same way that Pilate attempted to show his innocence by washing his hands with water (Matthew 27:24\), Christians show they are cleansed by Christ when they are baptized by water. Some Bible students have identified seven baptisms in Scripture. The seven baptisms are usually listed as being these: 1\) The baptism of Moses (1 Corinthians 10:1–3\) – when the Israelites were delivered from slavery in Egypt, they were “baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea.” That is, they were identified with Moses and his deliverance by passing through the Red Sea and following God’s presence in the cloud (Exodus 13:21\). Paul uses this as a comparison to the way that Christians are identified with Christ and His salvation. Those who followed Moses passed through the water and were thus initiated into a new life of freedom and Law\-keeping; those who follow Jesus Christ, who is greater than Moses, pass through the waters of baptism and are thus initiated to a new life of freedom and grace. 2\) The baptism of John (Mark 1:4\) – as John the Baptist preached repentance of sins in preparation for the coming of the Messiah, he baptized people in the Jordan. Those who were [baptized by John](baptism-of-John.html) were showing their faith in John’s message and their need to confess their sin. In Acts 18:24–25, a disciple of John’s named Apollos preaches in Ephesus; however, only knowing the baptism of John and the need for repentance, he needed to be further instructed in the death and resurrection of Christ. Later in the same city, Acts 19:1–7, Paul encounters some more followers of John. These disciples had been baptized for repentance, but they had not heard of the new birth or the Holy Spirit. Paul taught them the whole message of salvation in Christ, and they received the message and were subsequently baptized in Jesus’ name. 3\) The baptism of Jesus (Matthew 3:13–17\) – this was Jesus’ act of identifying with sinful humanity. Although Jesus did not need to repent of sin, He came to John to be baptized. John balked at performing the baptism, saying that Jesus should be the one baptizing him (Matthew 3:13–14\). But Jesus told John to proceed with the baptism: “Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness” (verse 15\). In this baptism, Jesus put His stamp of approval on John’s ministry and also began His own. As Jesus came up from the water, the Father spoke from heaven, and the Holy Spirit descended in bodily form upon Jesus (verses 16–17\). 4\) The baptism of fire (Matthew 3:11–12\) – John prophesied that Jesus would baptize men “with fire.” This speaks of Jesus’ judging the world for its sin (see John 5:22\). Immediately after mentioning the [baptism by fire](baptism-fire.html), John describes Jesus as overseeing a harvest to come: “His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire” (verse 12; cf. Matthew 13:24–30, 36–43\). Those who are judged by Christ in the last day will be cast into the lake of fire (Revelation 20:15\). 5\) The baptism of the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 1:13–14; 1 Corinthians 12:13\) – John also predicted that Jesus would baptize men with the Holy Spirit (Matthew 3:11\). This is a spiritual baptism, and it is the baptism that saves us. At salvation, we are “immersed” in the Holy Spirit. The Spirit covers us, indwells us, fills us, and makes us a part of the spiritual body of Christ. The [baptism of the Spirit](Spirit-baptism.html) is what initiates us into new life in Christ. The first people to experience the baptism of the Spirit were the believers in Acts 2 on the Day of Pentecost. The spiritual entity known as the body of Christ is formed by this baptism: “We were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body” (1 Corinthians 12:13\). 6\) The baptism of the cross (Mark 10:35–39\) – Jesus used the language of baptism to refer to His sufferings (and those of His disciples). James and John, the Boanerges, had come to Jesus asking for a place of honor in the kingdom. Jesus asked them, “Can you . . . be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?” (Mark 10:38\). They replied that they could, and Jesus confirmed it: “You will . . . be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with” (verse 39\). The “baptism” Jesus speaks of here is the suffering He was to endure. James and John would suffer, as well. 7\) The baptism of believers (Matthew 28:19\) – this is a washing in water to symbolize the action of the Holy Spirit in a believer’s heart. [Believer’s baptism](believers-baptism.html) is one of the two ordinances given to the church. Different churches practice different [modes of baptism](baptism-mode.html), but all who follow Christ should be baptized, since it is commanded by our Lord. Water baptism pictures some wonderful spiritual truths. When we are saved, we are “buried” with Christ and “rise” to newness of life; our sins are “washed away,” and we are cleansed. It is Spirit baptism that saves us, but water baptism is our outward expression of that event. “All of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death\[.] We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life” (Romans 6:3–4\). Of the seven baptisms found in Scripture, only two are of personal significance to the Christian today: the baptism of the Holy Spirit (that saves us) and believer’s water baptism (that identifies us with the church). The other baptisms were uniquely for other times, limited to certain people, or (in the case of the baptism of fire) still future.
What is a sin of commission?	Answer There are two basic ways we sin: either by omission or commission. [Sins of omission](sin-of-omission.html) are those in which we knew we should have done something good, but refused (James 4:17\). A sin of commission is a sin we take action to commit, whether in thought, word, or deed. A sin of commission can be intentional or unintentional. Foreknowledge is not the issue. If you visit another country in which traffic drives in the left lane, and you drive in the right lane, you are still breaking the law whether you know it or not. The Old Testament Law prescribed special sacrifices for sins that were unintentional but were nevertheless sins (Numbers 15:22–24; cf. Hebrews 9:7\). Humanity’s first sin was a sin of commission. God forbade the eating of a certain fruit (Genesis 2:16–17\). Adam and Eve knew God’s command and disobeyed anyway (Genesis 3:6\). They took action to commit a sinful act. When King David committed adultery and then had Uriah killed to cover it up, both were sins of commission (2 Samuel 11\). The Bible does not hide the often sordid details of the lives of people He loved and used anyway. Its pages are peppered with sins of commission by great leaders such as Abraham (Genesis 20:2\), Moses (Exodus 2:11–12\), David (2 Samuel 12:13\), Solomon (Nehemiah 13:26\), Peter (Matthew 26:74–75\), and Paul (Galatians 1:13\). We are all guilty of sins of commission. We all commit intentional sin by acting in ways God has forbidden. We also commit unintentional sin in our ignorance of God’s standards (Acts 3:17; 1 Peter 1:14; Leviticus 4:13–14\). Our sin nature keeps us from fellowship with God. We may be able to limit the number of sins we openly commit, but we cannot cleanse our hearts. Jesus said that “what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander” (Matthew 15:18–19\). That’s why we need Jesus. We cannot stop ourselves from sinning, and by sinning we eliminate any hope of connecting with a holy God. Only when we allow Christ’s death and resurrection to be our substitute can our sin be expunged (Colossians 2:14; Romans 6:6\). 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.” Jesus took upon Himself all our sins of commission and omission and [paid the debt](it-is-finished.html) we owe God. Psalm 51 is the prayer David wrote after he had been confronted with his own sin of commission. He had sinned greatly, and there would be consequences (2 Samuel 12:14–15\). But he knew how to repent. And he had enough confidence in the mercy of God to cry out, “Create in me a pure heart, O God, and renew a steadfast spirit within me. Do not cast me from your presence or take your Holy Spirit from me. [Restore to me the joy of your salvation](restore-joy-salvation.html) and grant me a willing spirit, to sustain me” (Psalm 51:10–12\). David models for us the right way to deal with our sins of commission. When we recognize our sin against God, we can turn to Him, acknowledge that sin, and ask for His cleansing. We can trust in the power of Jesus’ shed blood to [wipe away our sin](sin-God-not-forgive.html). God promises to restore us to fellowship and strengthen us to live in a way that pleases Him (Philippians 4:13\).
What was Elihu’s message to Job?	Answer Elihu was one of Job’s friends—not one of the three who had come to comfort [Job](life-Job.html) at the beginning of the book, but one who arrives later and offers the last and longest single speech to Job. Elihu is identified only as the “son of Barakel the Buzite, of the family of Ram” (Job 32:2\). In Job 32—37 Elihu offers a response to Job that lifts up the Lord, condemns Job’s three friends, and rightly confronts Job. In Job 32 Elihu focuses his response on rebuking Job’s three friends, [Eliphaz](Eliphaz-the-Temanite.html), [Bildad](Bildad-the-Shuhite.html), and [Zophar](Zophar-the-Naamathite.html). In verse 12 he notes, “I gave you my full attention. / But not one of you has proved Job wrong; / none of you has answered his arguments.” Because Elihu was younger than the other friends of Job, he had held his peace during their conversation to that point (Job 32:4–7\). But he could finally take no more. Elihu speaks up because he is “very angry with Job for justifying himself rather than God” and with Job’s three friends, “because they had found no way to refute Job, and yet had condemned him” (Job 32:2–3\). In Job 33 Elihu turns his attention to Job. He declares Job wrong in saying he was without any sin and that God would not answer. Elihu says, “But I tell you, in this you are not right, / for God is greater than any mortal” (Job 33:12\). In Job 34 Elihu shifts to declaring God’s justice. Verse 12 specifically states, “It is unthinkable that God would do wrong, / that the Almighty would pervert justice.” In Job 35 Elihu turns again to Job in condemnation. In verses 13–14 Elihu says, “Indeed, God does not listen to \[the arrogant person’s] empty plea; / the Almighty pays no attention to it. / How much less, then, will he listen / when you say that you do not see him, / that your case is before him / and you must wait for him.” In Job 36—37 Elihu highlights God’s greatness. This lengthy portion declares many of God’s attributes. In Job 36:26 Elihu states, “How great is God—beyond our understanding! / The number of his years is past finding out.” Elihu rightly points Job to God’s might, saying, “Listen to this, Job; / stop and consider God’s wonders” (Job 37:14\). In short, Elihu condemns Job’s friends and Job’s claim of being without sin, declares God’s justice, condemns Job’s attitude toward God, and exalts God’s greatness. Elihu’s four\-part speech is followed by God breaking His silence to directly answer Job. In Job 42:7 the Lord condemns Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar. Elihu is not mentioned again after he finishes his speech, but, significantly, he is not rebuked by God. Elihu’s life and speech offer many insights for today. First, he dealt with the real issues of the situation rather than looking at the situation from a human perspective. Second, he emphasized God and His greatness rather than focus on a human response to problems. Third, he responded with respect, allowing others to speak first before offering his own response. These traits can help us today as we seek to understand why God [allows suffering](innocent-suffer.html) and as we attempt to help others who face suffering.
What is the meaning of exousia in the Bible?	Answer Exousia is a Greek word most often translated as “[authority](Bible-authority.html)” or “power.” It is especially used in terms of moral influence. Exousia can also be thought of in terms of jurisdiction or dominion over a certain realm, right, privilege, or ability. Exousia is used in Matthew 7\. Verses 28–29 say, “When Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed at his teaching, because he taught as one who had authority \[exousia], and not as their teachers of the law.” The word is also used in Matthew 9:6 when Jesus demonstrates that He has “authority” to forgive sins by healing a paralyzed man. The word is again used in Matthew 21:23–27 when the chief priests and elders question Jesus’ authority. Interestingly, in Luke 4:6 it is exousia with which Satan tempts Jesus. However, in Ephesians 1:18–23 we see that Jesus is far above all authority, dominion, and power. Colossians 1:15–20 and Colossians 2:10 also affirm the supremacy of Jesus. True exousia is His. When Jesus commissioned His disciples, He gave them a measure of authority, too. In Mark 6:7 Jesus gives the Twelve authority, or exousia, over impure spirits when He sent the disciples out to preach. Ephesians 2:2 talks about the “ruler of the kingdom \[exousia] of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient.” But this is not a ruler we need fear. Ephesians 3:10–11 says, “\[God’s] intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms, according to his eternal purpose that he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Ephesians 6:12 tells us that we struggle against those powers or authorities. But it also assures us that God has given us spiritual armor for the battle and that we can be strong in the Lord and His mighty power. Colossians 1:13–14 encourages, “For he has rescued us from the dominion \[exousia] of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.” Colossians 2:15 tells us that Christ has “disarmed the powers and authorities \[exousia]” and “made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.” We battle a defeated foe because we serve the One who has authority over all (see also 1 Corinthians 15:20–28 and 1 Peter 3:21b–22\). Paul uses exousia when talking about the “right” the apostles had to receive financial help from those they served (1 Corinthians 9:1–18; 2 Thessalonians 3:9\). He also uses the word in talking about a potter’s “right” to form his clay as he wishes (Romans 9:21\)—a picture of God’s right to make and mold us. Exousia is used in Romans 13 and Titus 3:1 in the context of governmental authority. It is also used in 2 Corinthians 10:8 and 13:10 to talk about the authority God gave Paul for building up the church. Exousia is used multiple times in Revelation discussing the power and authority given to various players in the end times. It is also used in Revelation in reference to the ultimate authority of Christ. Revelation 22:14 is a great encouragement: “Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city.” Ultimately, believers will be given the right, or exousia, to eat from the tree of life.
Was Jesus a carpenter?	Answer There is every evidence from Scripture that, before He began His ministry, Jesus was employed as a carpenter. His earthly father, Joseph, was also a carpenter, which means that Jesus was likely His father’s apprentice. It is bizarre to think that God Incarnate was taught to build things by a human man, but it seems that in this, as in all other aspects of His earthly life, Jesus submitted Himself to the humility of being fully human (Philippians 2:6–8\). People called Jesus a carpenter (Mark 6:3\), and He was known as a carpenter’s son (Matthew 13:55\). There is some evidence that the Greek word used for “carpenter” (tekton) could also be translated more broadly as “artisan,” “contractor,” or “handyman.” It is possible, therefore, that Jesus and Joseph were the sort of men you call when something needs to be fixed—be it made of wood, stone, or something else. It is also possible that they acted as civil engineers, even designing bridges or other structures that were needed by the people of the town. This throws an interesting light on Jesus’ later comments about the temple. As they were going past the temple, His disciples, perhaps knowing of His interests and past profession, pointed out the grandeur of the great buildings. Jesus told His disciples that those structures would all be thrown down (Mark 13:2\). In addition to being a prophecy, Jesus’ words were perhaps a reminder of the importance of the spiritual over the physical. Jesus made a prophecy that the Jews would destroy the temple and that He would raise it up again in three days. By this, He was referring to His resurrection (John 2:19–21\). Looking back on that statement after His death and resurrection, the disciples believed in Him (verse 22\). The night of His arrest, Jesus told His disciples of a future building project of His: “I go and prepare a place for you” (John 14:3\). The Son of God and the Carpenter of [Nazareth](Jesus-of-Nazareth.html) is right now building His church (Matthew 16:18\) and preparing an eternal dwelling place for all who trust in Him.
What does Jesus want us to learn from what He said about the widow’s mite?	Answer The Gospels of Mark and Luke both relay an incident involving a widow’s gift to God. She didn’t give much—just two mites—or did she? The story is often called the story of the widow’s mite or the story of the widow’s offering. One day, Jesus was sitting with His disciples near the temple treasury watching people depositing money into the offering receptacles. The court of women held thirteen such receptacles, and people could cast their money in as they walked by. Jesus watched as the rich were contributing large sums of money, but then along came a widow with two small coins in her hand. The ESV calls them “two small copper coins, which make a penny” (Mark 12:41\). The KJV calls the coins “mites.” These were the smallest denomination of coins. The widow put her coins into the box, and Jesus called His disciples to Him and pointed out her action: “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on” (Mark 12:43–44; cf. Luke 21:1–4\). There are several things that the story of the widow’s mite teaches us. First, God sees what man overlooks. The big gifts in the temple were surely noticed by people; that’s probably what the disciples were watching. But Jesus saw what no one else did: He saw the humble gift of a poor widow. This was the gift that Jesus thought worthy of comment; this was the gift that the disciples needed to be aware of. The other gifts in the treasury that day made a lot of noise as they jingled into the receptacles, but the widow’s mites were heard in heaven. Second, God’s evaluation is different from man’s. The widow’s two mites added up to a penny, according to man’s tabulation. But Jesus said that she had given more than anyone else that day (Mark 12:43\). How could this be, when “many rich people threw in large amounts” (Mark 12:41\)? The difference is one of proportion. The rich were giving large sums, but they still retained their fortunes; the widow “put in everything—all she had to live on” (Mark 12:44\). Hers was a true sacrifice; the rich had not begun to give to the level of her sacrifice. Third, God commends giving in faith. Here was a woman in need of receiving charity, yet she had a heart to give. Even though the amount was negligible—what could a widow’s mite buy?—she gave it in faith that God could use it. The widow’s faith is also evident in the fact that she gave the last of her money. Like the [widow of Zarephath](Elijah-widow.html), who gave her last meal to Elijah (see 1 Kings 17:7–16\), the widow in the temple gave away her last means of self\-support. Does that mean the widow left the temple completely destitute, went home, and died of starvation? No. The Bible teaches that God provides for our needs (Matthew 6:25–34\). We don’t know the details of this particular widow’s future, but we can be certain that she was provided for. Just as God provided for the widow and her son in Elijah’s day (1 Kings 17:15–16\), God also provided for the widow in Jesus’ day. It is interesting that, just before Jesus commented on the widow’s mite, He commented on the scribes “who devour widows’ houses” (Mark 12:40\). The religious officials of the day, instead of helping the widows in need, were perfectly content to rob them of their livelihood and inheritance. The system was corrupt, and the darkness of the scribes’ greed makes the widow’s sacrifice shine even more brightly. “God loves a [cheerful giver](cheerful-giver.html)” (2 Corinthians 9:7\), and He is faithful to take care of His own.
How could Job say, “Though He slay me, I will trust in Him”?	Answer In Job 13:15, Job declares, “Though he slay me, yet will I hope in him.” This faith\-filled statement has challenged countless believers through the centuries to strive for a similar trust in the Lord in the face of trials. [Job](life-Job.html) made this statement when he was in a terrible time of pain and suffering. He had lost all of his children, his wealth, and his health. His friends were of no help. His wife offered no support and was in fact telling him to give up (Job 2:9\). Job felt as though his life was over. The only thing left was to die. But, as Job says, even if God did “slay” him, Job would still trust in Him. Of note here is the fact that Job realizes that, ultimately, the [suffering](innocent-suffer.html) he endures is allowed by God. It is God who has the right and the power to “slay” Job. Even in the midst of his pain, Job knows that “the LORD brings death and makes alive; / he brings down to the grave and raises up” (1 Samuel 2:6\). The Lord alone holds the “[keys of death](keys-of-death.html)” (Revelation 1:18\). The faith of Job is seen in the fact that even if God’s plan results in Job’s death, Job will continue to trust in God. Nothing can shake the faith of someone so grounded in the goodness and glory of God. Job may not understand what is happening to him and why, but he knows that God is good, loving, and trustworthy. In the following verse, Job adds, “Indeed, this will turn out for my deliverance, / for no godless person would dare come before him!” (Job 13:16\). The idea seems to be that, if Job dies, he will be with God (the this refers to Job’s death). At the same time, Job maintains his innocence: he is not a “godless person” and will therefore be admitted to God’s presence. Job realizes his pain was not permanent. With God, there is a way of escape. The suffering of this life is temporary and will end for those who trust in the Lord. After this life, there is eternal life with God in heaven for the believer. In fact, Jesus came to offer eternal life to all who would believe (John 3:16\). By God’s grace, faith is all that is required to be made right with God (Ephesians 2:8–9\). Job appears to also challenge God at the risk of his own life. In other words, Job is willing to go before God with his case even if he dies in the process. Job’s statement that he is innocent in Job 13:16 becomes more insistent throughout the rest of the book. The final chapter of Job shows the results of Job’s pleading. Job oversteps what was right in saying he was without sin. As a result, Job ends his conversation with God differently, stating, “Surely I spoke of things I did not understand, / things too wonderful for me to know” (Job 42:3\). He concludes, “I despise myself / and repent in dust and ashes” (Job 42:6\). The apostle Paul echoes Job’s statement of faith in Philippians 1:20, “I eagerly expect and hope that I will in no way be ashamed, but will have sufficient courage so that now as always Christ will be exalted in my body, whether by life or by death.” When we suffer and do not understand why, we can trust that God has a greater plan in place that we cannot see. Instead of seeking to defend ourselves before God, Job’s experience shows us we can instead trust the Lord. He has a perfect plan in place, and “by life or by death,” may Christ be exalted.
Who was Dorcas / Tabitha in the Bible?	Answer Dorcas, or Tabitha, in the Bible lived in the town of [Joppa](Joppa-in-the-Bible.html), a city on the coast of the Mediterranean Sea. Dorcas was also called Tabitha—Dorcas is a Greek name meaning “gazelle,” and Tabitha is the Aramaic rendering of the same name. Dorcas, or Tabitha, was a charitable person who made things, especially clothing, for the needy in Joppa. The story of Dorcas in Acts 9 is notable because [Peter](life-Peter.html) raised her back to life after she had died. Dorcas was known for her good works and acts of love for the poor (Acts 9:36\); she was much loved in the community of Joppa. When she became ill and died, the believers who knew Dorcas heard that Peter was in the nearby town of Lydda, and they sent for him. The Bible does not specifically say that the disciples at Joppa were hoping for Peter to resurrect Dorcas, but they did call urgently for him (Acts 9:38\). When Peter arrived at the home where Dorcas’ body had been laid out, he went up to see the body. There were many widows there, weeping. They all showed Peter “the robes and other clothing that Dorcas had made while she was still with them”—tangible evidence of Dorcas’ loving service (Acts 9:39\). What happened next is proof that our God is full of glorious, unrestrained power: “Peter sent them all out of the room; then he got down on his knees and prayed. Turning toward the dead woman, he said, ‘Tabitha, get up.’ She opened her eyes, and seeing Peter she sat up. He took her by the hand and helped her to her feet. Then he called for the believers, especially the widows, and presented her to them alive. This became known all over Joppa, and many people believed in the Lord” (Acts 9:40–42\). Bringing Dorcas back from the dead was not done for Dorcas’ sake—Peter knew she was in paradise, with Jesus, and that her life after death was preferable to her life on earth (see Luke 23:43\). Peter’s motive, at least in part, for raising Dorcas to life may have been for the sake of the widows and others in Joppa who needed the help Dorcas could provide. The resurrection of Dorcas was also a major reason so many people in Joppa believed. This miracle performed in the name of the Lord led many to faith in Christ. Dorcas is a fine example of how we are to meet the needs of those around us. Christians are to “continue to remember the poor” (Galatians 2:10\). Part of “religion that God our Father accepts” is “to look after orphans and widows in their distress” (James 1:27\). This was the type of religion Dorcas practiced. We also see in the story of Dorcas how the [Body of Christ](body-of-Christ.html) functions as a whole. We are united in Christ, and the believers in Joppa mourned the loss of Dorcas as a close family member. “There should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. If one part suffers, every part suffers with it” (1 Corinthians 12:25–26\). Dorcas was one of their own, and her absence left a huge void in their lives.
Who was the Ethiopian eunuch?	Answer The Ethiopian eunuch mentioned in the Bible was a high court official of Candace, the queen of Ethiopia. He was in Israel to worship the Lord at the temple, which means he was probably a Jewish proselyte. On his trip home to Ethiopia, he had a life\-changing encounter with [Philip](Philip-in-the-Bible.html) the evangelist (Acts 8:26–40\). A [eunuch](eunuch-eunuchs.html) is a man who has been castrated for the purpose of trusted servitude in a royal household (see Esther 1:10; 4:4; and Daniel 1:9\). A king would often castrate his servants to ensure they would not be tempted to engage in sexual activity with others in the palace (specifically, the royal harem) or to prevent their plotting an overthrow (eunuchs were incapable of setting up a dynasty of their own). Eunuchs have been employed in many civilizations, including the Ancient Middle East, Ancient Greece and Rome, China, Korea, and Thailand. Jesus mentions them in Matthew 19:12\. The story of the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8 is a marvelous depiction of God’s role in evangelism. The story starts with Philip, one of the seven original deacons, who had just preached the gospel in Samaria (Acts 8:4–8\). Philip was visited by an angel who told him to go south to a road that ran from Jerusalem to Gaza, in the desert (Acts 8:26\). Philip didn’t ask why he was being sent to the middle of nowhere; he just went (verse 27\). On the road, in a chariot, was the Ethiopian eunuch, who was just returning from Jerusalem. The eunuch was sitting in his chariot reading the [book of Isaiah](Book-of-Isaiah.html). The Spirit of the Lord told Philip to go over and join the chariot, and when Philip drew close he overheard the eunuch reading from Isaiah out loud. Philip asked the Ethiopian whether or not he understood what he was reading. The eunuch replied, “How can I, unless someone guides me?” He then invited Philip to come sit with him in the chariot (verse 31\). The passage the Ethiopian eunuch was reading was this: “He was led like a sheep to the slaughter, / and as a lamb before its shearer is silent, / so he did not open his mouth. / In his humiliation he was deprived of justice. / Who can speak of his descendants? / For his life was taken from the earth” (Acts 8:32–33; cf. Isaiah 53:7–8\). The eunuch was wondering whom the prophet was talking about, “himself or someone else?” (Acts 8:34\). Philip used this opportunity to explain the passage: this was a prophecy about Jesus Christ, who meekly gave His life to save the world. As Philip explained the [gospel](gospel-message.html), the Ethiopian eunuch believed. When they came to some water by the side of the road, the eunuch asked to be baptized (Acts 8:36\). Philip agreed to [baptize](water-baptism.html) him, and the Ethiopian eunuch “gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him” (Acts 8:38\). As soon as the Ethiopian eunuch came up out of the water, “the Spirit of the Lord suddenly took Philip away, and the eunuch did not see him again, but went on his way rejoicing” (verse 39\). Tradition says that the eunuch carried the gospel back home to Ethiopia and founded the church there. Philip found himself at Azotus, and he carried on preaching the gospel on his way to Caesarea (Acts 8:40\). There are many elements of God’s providence and intervention in the story of the Ethiopian eunuch. The account reveals the importance of these three things: the Word of God, the Holy Spirit’s leading, and a human evangelist. In order for a person to accept the truth, he must first hear the truth preached (Romans 10:14\). It is God’s desire that the truth be preached everywhere (Acts 1:8\). The Spirit of the Lord had been preparing the eunuch’s heart to receive the gospel. As the eunuch read Isaiah, he began to ask questions, and at just the right moment the Lord brought Philip across his path. The field was “ripe for harvest” (John 4:35\), and Philip was God’s laborer in the field. This was no coincidence. It was God’s plan from the very beginning, and Philip was obedient to that plan.
Who was King Uzziah in the Bible?	Answer King Uzziah in the Bible was one of the good kings of Judah. His father was [King Amaziah](King-Amaziah.html), and his mother was a woman named Jecoliah, from Jerusalem. Uzziah was the father of [King Jotham](King-Jotham.html). Ministering during Uzziah’s reign were the prophets Hosea, [Isaiah](life-Isaiah.html), Amos, and [Jonah](life-Jonah.html). The kings in the northern kingdom of Israel during his time were Jeroboam II, [Zechariah](King-Zechariah.html), [Shallum](King-Shallum.html), Menahem, Pekahiah, [Pekah](King-Pekah.html), and [Hoshea](King-Hoshea.html). Uzziah is also called [Azariah](Azariah-in-the-Bible.html) in 2 Kings 14:21\. King Uzziah was sixteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned for 52 years in Judah from approximately 790 to 739 BC. He “did what was right in the eyes of the Lord” as his father Amaziah had done (2 Chronicles 26:4\). King Uzziah sought the Lord “during the days of Zechariah, who instructed him in the fear of God.” This Zechariah is most likely a godly prophet to whom Uzziah listened. As long as Uzziah made a point to seek God, God made him prosperous (2 Chronicles 26:5\). Unfortunately, after Zechariah died, Uzziah made some mistakes later in his life. King Uzziah in the Bible is shown as a wonderfully intelligent and innovative king, under whom the state of Judah prospered (2 Chronicles 26:6–15\). He was used by God to defeat the Philistines and Arabs (verse 7\), he built fortified towers and strengthened the armies of Judah (verses 9 and 14\), and he commissioned skilled men to create devices that could shoot arrows and large stones at enemies from the city walls (verse 15\). He also built up the land, and the Bible says he “loved the soil” (verse 10\). The Ammonites paid tribute to King Uzziah, and his fame spread all over the ancient world, as far as the border of Egypt (verses 8 and 15\). Unfortunately, King Uzziah’s fame and strength led him to become proud, and this led to his downfall (2 Chronicles 26:16\). He committed an unfaithful act by entering the temple of God to burn incense on the altar. Burning incense on the altar was something only the [priests](anointed-priest.html) could do. By attempting to do this himself, Uzziah was basically saying he was above following the Law. It was not a humble thing to do. Eighty courageous priests, led by a high priest named Azariah, tried to stop the king: “It is not right for you, Uzziah, to burn incense to the Lord. That is for the priests, the descendants of Aaron, who have been consecrated to burn incense. Leave the sanctuary, for you have been unfaithful; and you will not be honored by the Lord God” (2 Chronicles 26:18\). Uzziah became angry with the priests who dared confront him. But, “while he was raging at the priests in their presence before the incense altar in the Lord’s temple, leprosy broke out on his forehead” (verse 19\). Uzziah ran from the temple in fear, because God had struck him (verse 20\). From that day to the day of his death, King Uzziah was a leper. He lived in a separate palace and was not allowed to enter the temple of the Lord. His son, Jotham, governed the people in his place. King Uzziah is also mentioned in the book of Matthew as one of the ancestors of Joseph, Jesus’ legal father (Matthew 1:8–9\).
What is a eulogy?	Answer A eulogy is a speech (or a piece of writing) that praises a person, event, or thing. Most often, we think of a eulogy as a speech at a funeral given to honor the deceased. Eulogy comes from the Greek eulogia, meaning “good speech” or “fine language.” The Bible does not say anything specifically about eulogies. However, it has much to say about our [speech](power-of-words.html). Ephesians 4:29 says, “Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen.” Philippians 4:8 instructs, “Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.” Certainly, focusing on those things that are admirable about a person, event, or thing and then sharing those things is appropriate. We are to “honor one another above \[ourselves]” (Romans 12:10\) and “show proper respect to everyone” (1 Peter 2:17\). Surely, this makes the giving of a eulogy acceptable in God’s sight. Believers do not resort to flattery, but they should be people who [encourage](Bible-encouragement.html) others, speak positively, and give honor where honor is due (see Romans 13:7\). The Bible does not say anything specific about acceptable [funeral practices](Christian-funeral.html), of which eulogies are often a part. However, it does instruct us to “mourn with those who mourn” (Romans 12:15\). Speaking about the positive aspects of a deceased loved one can be a way to mourn. Life is a gift from God, and all people are His creation, worthy of honor and respect as being made in the image of God. Thus, honoring the deceased is a fitting and sound practice. Hebrews 11 could be considered a “eulogy” of sorts; that chapter is an excellent example of a writing in praise of those who have gone before us. Eulogies can be a helpful way to honor people or commemorate an event. In giving a eulogy of any kind, it is important to ensure that it builds up the listeners or readers. It is also important to make sure that, while we speak or write in praise of the person or event, we always remember that the highest praise goes to God, the Creator and enabler of all.
In what way was John the Baptist the greatest (Matthew 11:11)?	Answer In a discourse about [John the Baptist](life-John-Baptist.html), Jesus honored the prophet with these words: “Truly I tell you, among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist” (Matthew 11:11a). John certainly did not see himself as “great”—he did not see himself as worthy enough to baptize Jesus (Matthew 3:13–14\) or even to carry His sandals (Matthew 3:11\). The “greatness” that Jesus refers to concerning John has to do with John’s unique position in history, not with any special talent, holiness, or personal merit. In fact, immediately after stating that John is the greatest “among those born of women,” Jesus says, “Yet whoever is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he” (Matthew 11:11b). More on this paradox later. One reason that Jesus called John the Baptist the “greatest” was that John held the honor of being chosen by God as the forerunner to the Messiah. John’s mission was to personally prepare the world for Christ’s arrival. John’s ministry was predicted in Isaiah 40:3 and Malachi 3:1\. After Jesus came, John introduced Him to the world as the Lamb of God who would take away the sin of the world (John 1:35–36\). John was the herald who introduced to the world the Hero of all history. It was this introduction that accredited Jesus before the Jewish crowds and leaders, some of whom believed on Jesus, and many of whom did not. John was also the “greatest” in that he preached with the power of Elijah (Luke 1:17; 3:7–18\). John shared many qualities with [Elijah](John-Baptist-Elijah.html), including calling a nation to repentance, rebuking the king, and persevering in the face of public misunderstanding and malicious persecution (Matthew 11:16–18; Mark 6:14–19\). John was also the “greatest” in that God had chosen him to break the [430 years of divine silence](400-years-of-silence.html) that had existed since the prophet Malachi. John was the Spirit\-anointed bridge from the Old Testament to the New. John was the last of the Old Testament prophets and stood on the cusp of a new dispensation. His preaching was the end of the Law and the beginning of the Promise. He was the last in the long line of prophets who predicted Christ, yet he was the only one who could actually see Christ in the flesh. Moses, Isaiah, and the rest of the prophets had pointed to a far\-distant personage they could see only faintly. John pointed at an actual human being who stood directly in front of him. No other prophet had that privilege. Jesus’ full statement in Matthew 11:11 is paradoxical: “Truly I tell you, among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet whoever is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.” How can John be the greatest, if even the “least in the kingdom” is greater than John? Again, the answer has to do with the Christian’s unique position in history, not with his personal merit. John died without seeing the fullness of God’s plan in Christ (see Mark 6:17–29\). John never saw the crucifixion of Christ or His glorious resurrection. Yet even the “least in the kingdom of heaven” knows of these events and understands their meaning. The baptism of John was insufficient to save (see Acts 18:24–26; 19:1–7\). The [disciples of John in Ephesus](receive-Spirit-Acts-19.html) needed to hear the whole gospel, not just what John had taught. They needed to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, the one John had predicted. They needed the baptism of the Holy Spirit. John was truly the greatest prophet of his era—the Old Testament time—yet all Christians today have a fuller perspective on the work of Christ.
What is the synagogue of Satan in Revelation?	Answer The synagogue of Satan is mentioned twice in Revelation, once in Jesus’ letter to the first\-century church in [Smyrna](church-in-Smyrna.html) and once to the church in [Philadelphia](church-in-Philadelphia.html). In both cases, the synagogue of Satan is opposed to the mission and message of the church. To the church in Smyrna, Jesus says, “I know your afflictions and your poverty—yet you are rich! I know about the slander of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan” (Revelation 2:9\). To the church of Philadelphia in Asia Minor, Jesus says, “I will make those who are of the synagogue of Satan, who claim to be Jews though they are not, but are liars—I will make them come and fall down at your feet and acknowledge that I have loved you” (Revelation 3:9\). In short, the synagogue of Satan was a group of unbelieving Jews who were persecuting Christians. These groups were guilty of slandering the church in Smyrna and opposing the church in Philadelphia in some way. The majority of the persecution the New Testament church faced came from the Jewish community. Even most of the Roman persecution was an effort to appease the Jewish authorities. This is true of Pilate’s condemnation of Jesus (John 19:1–16\) and Paul’s imprisonment by the Roman governors Felix (Acts 24:27\) and Festus (Acts 25:16\). This pattern held true throughout the Roman world in the first century. As long as Christians were considered a sect of Judaism, they were exempt from the required observance of certain aspects of Roman state religion. However, as Christians were expelled from synagogues and denounced by the Jewish leadership, Rome began to see Christianity as a new religion that did not have these same exemptions. Therefore, Christians outside the protective umbrella of the synagogue were open to Roman persecution. The synagogue of Satan say they are Jews (the people of God), and they persecute those who believe in Jesus the Messiah (the true people of God). In reality, by rejecting the Jewish Messiah, they have renounced their status as “true” Jews, and that is why Jesus calls them “liars.” This distinction between ethnic Jews and faithful Jews is also seen in Romans 9:6 (“Not all who are descended from Israel are Israel”) and Romans 2:28–29 (“For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter”). By their persecution of the true people of God, these unbelieving Jews had become a synagogue of Satan—a gathering of people who were actually following the devil’s priorities. Both churches are promised victory over the synagogue of Satan. This promise echoes Isaiah 60:14: “The children of your oppressors will come bowing before you; all who despise you will bow down at your feet.” In the context of Isaiah 60, an oppressed Jerusalem will be vindicated. Those who oppress her will bow down at her feet and will have to admit that she is indeed blessed by God, and—in the language of Revelation 3:9—that God loves her. But Isaiah 60:14 applied to these Jews and the Church is something of a reversal. In Isaiah 60, the oppressing Gentiles will bow down at the feet of Jews and admit that God loves them. In Revelation 2—3, oppressing Jews will bow down at the feet of the persecuted Church (with a significant population of Gentiles in it) and admit that God loves them. This is a striking role reversal. Internet searches of “synagogue of Satan” produce quite a few links to sites that claim the “synagogue of Satan” refers to the Jewish people today and that promote all kinds of conspiracy theories about how the Jews run the world. Quite frankly, this is a misinterpretation and misapplication of the verses in Revelation. The synagogue of Satan refers to specific Jewish communities in Smyrna and Philadelphia that were persecuting the church, not to any modern situation. Likewise, no modern situation should be used as an interpretive tool to explain a passage firmly rooted in the first\-century Roman world.
Why do Christians believe in proselytization?	Answer The origin of the word proselyte is a Greek word meaning “stranger” or “newcomer.” At first, a proselyte was simply a convert to Judaism, usually from Greek paganism. Today, the word proselyte refers to a new convert to any religion or doctrine. Proselytization is the seeking of converts, and it is something Christians are commanded to do (Matthew 28:18–20\). Although Christians are commanded to proselytize, the Bible is clear that the conversion of the human heart is first and foremost an act of God. Before the disciples could evangelize the world, Jesus told them to wait in Jerusalem for the Holy Spirit to come (Luke 24:49\). The making of a proselyte is more than just getting someone to agree to a set of doctrines. A true convert is someone who has been raised from death to life (Ephesians 2:1\), born again (John 3:3\), and rescued from the kingdom of darkness to be translated into the kingdom of righteousness (Colossians 1:13\). The making of a proselyte is truly God’s work. It is “not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit, says the LORD Almighty” (Zechariah 4:6\). However, there is also a human element required in the process of proselytization. When Cornelius needed to be saved, God sent a human preacher (Peter) to share the gospel with him. “Peter opened his mouth” (Acts 10:34, ESV), and so must we. “How can they hear without someone preaching to them?” (Romans 10:14\). It has pleased God “through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe” (1 Corinthians 1:21\). Christians believe in proselytization because we believe that the universal problem (sin) has a universal solution (Christ’s sacrifice). “All have sinned” (Romans 3:23\) and are deserving of death. Yet Christ “was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification” (Romans 4:25\). This is the [gospel](gospel-message.html), the good news that must be shared with a needy world. We proselytize because we believe the need is urgent. Christians attempt to proselytize all nations because Jesus desires all nations to hear and respond to the gospel (Luke 24:47\). Jesus did not speak of conversion to a religious system, but He presented Himself as the liberty of the oppressed and a sign of the Lord’s favor (Luke 4:18–19\). In regards to the nations, God says He will change the speech of the peoples to a pure speech, so that they may [call upon the name of the Lord](call-upon-the-name-of-the-Lord.html) and serve Him (Zephaniah 3:9\). This prophecy of Zephaniah refers to the eventual conversion of the believing from all nations, showing that God loves and calls people of all races, nationalities, and creeds to be His own. The prophecy goes on to say that the people will seek refuge in God’s name, and there will be no more lying and no more fear. Christians believe in proselytization because we believe in this refuge of God, and we want all people to come to Him and enjoy His rest and peace and love. It is a joyful thing for a Christian—perhaps the most joyful thing—to know that those we know and love are safe in Him (Acts 15:3\). Christians engage in witnessing, sharing the gospel, and speaking the truth (all considered proselytization) for the sake of that joy. We are compelled by the Holy Spirit to speak, and those who convert are also drawn by Him. That is one difference between Christianity and other religions. A true proselyte to Christianity is drawn by God Himself, not manipulated into conversion by human means (John 6:44\).
What did Job’s three friends have wrong, and what did they have right?	Answer Job’s three friends, [Eliphaz](Eliphaz-the-Temanite.html), [Bildad](Bildad-the-Shuhite.html), and [Zophar](Zophar-the-Naamathite.html), have historically been known for offering lengthy speeches that resulted in their being condemned by God (Job 42:7–9\). At one point [Job](life-Job.html), weary of their unhelpful rhetoric, told them, “You are [miserable comforters](miserable-comforters.html), all of you!” (Job 16:2\). But did they get everything wrong? Perhaps they got a few things right. Job’s friends did at least three things right that can be seen in Job 2:11–13\. First, they came to him when he was suffering. Second, they empathized with him: “they began to weep aloud, and they tore their robes and sprinkled dust on their heads” (verse 12\). Third, they spent time with him. Verse 13 states they were with him for seven days before they offered their advice. They commiserated with their friend in silence. But their silence did not last forever, and these three men gave a series of speeches to Job, recorded in chapters 4—25\. The speeches of Job’s three friends include many inaccuracies, primarily involving why God allows people to suffer. Their overarching belief was that Job was suffering because he had done something wrong. As a result, they repeatedly encourage Job to admit his wrong and repent so that God would bless him again. God clearly condemned their advice: “I am angry with you \[Eliphaz] and your two friends, because you have not spoken the truth about me” (Job 42:7\). For this reason, we should always be careful about how we interpret individual verses from Job. It is unwise to pull an isolated verse from the [book of Job](Book-of-Job.html) and use it to understand God—if the verse comes from a speech of Eliphaz, Bildad, or Zophar, then we have no guarantee that it accurately reflects the character of God. As with any single verse, we must look at the [context](context-Bible.html). Though, in the end, Job erred in overstating his righteousness (Job 42:1–6\), he had done nothing to deserve his suffering. The trials Job endured were not related to his behavior. Instead, God used the sufferings as a test and as part of His sovereign plan in Job’s life. Following Job’s time of suffering, God blessed Job with twice as much as he had before (Job 42:10\). Much can be learned from the example of Job and his friends. When we are aware of a friend who is hurting, we can follow the positive example of these men by going to the person, mourning with him, and spending time together. Our physical presence with a hurting friend can be a great comfort in and of itself, even if we have no words to say. In addition, we can gain wisdom from what Job’s friends did wrong. We should not assume that troubles are the sure sign of God’s judgment (cf. John 9:1–3\). Instead of telling a hurting person to admit his wrong and repent (when we do not know the reason for the suffering), we can join together and encourage a friend to endure faithfully, knowing God sees our pain and has [a purpose for it](innocent-suffer.html). When we turn our focus to God, we can offer great encouragement and hope to those in need, helping those who suffer to see God at work. This is a great application of Romans 12:15: “Mourn with those who mourn.” When we are willing to enter into the pain of a suffering friend, we follow the example of Jesus, who came to bear our pain and suffer in our place. Our help to those in need is ultimately a way we serve Christ (Matthew 25:40\).
What does the Bible say about despair?	Answer Despair is the complete loss of [hope](Bible-hope.html). Circumstances can press in around us to the extent that we cannot see a way out. When fear grips us, hopelessness is right behind. The apostle Paul knew firsthand what that was like. Yet he wrote in 2 Corinthians 4:8, “We are hard pressed on every side, but not crushed; perplexed, but not in despair.” Paul could suffer so many hardships yet not despair because his hope was not based on earthly circumstances. He held on to the knowledge that God was ultimately in control of it all (cf. Isaiah 55:8–9\). He knew that, whether he lived or died (Philippians 1:23–24\), whether he had plenty or had nothing (Philippians 4:12–13\), God was in control and his sufferings would have meaning for all eternity (2 Corinthians 4:17\). To despair means we have turned our backs on hope. We have chosen to disbelieve God and His [many promises](promises-of-God.html) to deliver and provide (Psalm 46:1; 50:15; 144:2; Proverbs 18:10; Philippians 4:19\). Despair means we have fixed our gaze on this world and are looking to it for happiness. Jesus warned us not to “fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matthew 10:28\). We may be exceedingly sorrowful, as Jesus was the night before His crucifixion (Matthew 26:38–39; Luke 22:42–43\). But, as children of God, we cannot despair because we have hope in God. Our hope rests on eternity and not the few days we live on this earth (James 4:14\). Like Abraham, we are “looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God” (Hebrews 11:10\). Psalm 43:5 gives us a model of how to talk to ourselves when tempted to despair: “Why, my soul, are you downcast? Why so disturbed within me? Put your hope in God, for I will yet praise him, my Savior and my God.” This psalm reminds us that, regardless of how desperate or frightened we may be at any moment, there is the hope that we will once again praise God and rejoice in His goodness. Hope is a gift of God and one of the “three things \[that] will last forever” (1 Corinthians 13:13, NLT).
Who was Muhammad?	Answer Muhammad, or Mohammed, is the founder of [Islam](Islam.html) and is considered a prophet by Muslims and [Baha’is](Bahai-faith.html). In fact, in order to convert to Islam, one only has to say, “There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is his prophet \[or messenger].” Muhammad (c. AD 570—632\) was from [Mecca](Mecca-in-Islam.html), a city near the Red Sea in what is now Saudi Arabia. An orphan from childhood, Muhammad was raised by an uncle, a man named Abu Talib, and became a merchant. Muhammad was a religious man, often going on retreats to the mountains where he would pray. During one of these retreats, he reported being visited by the angel Gabriel, who supposedly gave Muhammad a revelation from [Allah](who-is-Allah.html), the Muslim name for God. Muhammad reported having several other revelations from Allah as well, and Muslims regard him as Allah’s last and greatest prophet to mankind. Muhammad proclaimed that “God is One,” that is, there is no Trinity and Jesus was simply another prophet, along with Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, and, of course, Muhammad himself. He also taught that complete surrender (the word islam means “surrender” or “total submission”) is the only way to please Allah. Muslims credit Muhammad with restoring the “true” religion of Islam to a world that had corrupted it. Early on in his endeavors, Muhammad did not win many followers; many of the Meccan tribes were hostile to him and opposed his message. Muhammad moved north to the city of Medina for protection. After eight years of conflict with the Meccan tribes, Muhammad gathered 10,000 converts, took up arms, and marched against Mecca. He and his followers took over Mecca and destroyed all the pagan idols there. There was very little bloodshed or resistance from Mecca, and the city fell to Muhammad relatively easily. From Mecca, Muhammad and his followers set out to destroy all the other pagan temples in western Arabia, and they succeeded. The rest of Muhammad’s life was given to the promotion and growth of Islam throughout the Arabic world. Sometimes Muhammad used his great wealth (from plundering) to bribe people into Islam. Other times, he used terrorism and conquest. Muslims swept through the Arabian Peninsula, conquering tribe after tribe. When approaching a city, Muhammad would offer terms of peace: accept Islam, the only true religion, and submit to Muhammad, and all would be well. If a city rejected these terms, Muhammad’s forces would proceed to sack the city. According to Abdullah ibn Umar, a companion of Muhammad, “Allah’s Apostle \[Muhammad] said: ‘I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshiped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah’s Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform all that, then they save their lives and property from me’” (Bukhari: vol. 1, bk. 2, no. 24\). Muhammad claimed to have continued to receive revelations from Allah until his death, and Muhammad’s revelations were compiled after his death and canonized into what is now called the [Qur’an](errors-Quran.html), the Muslim holy book. Other respected writings in Islam include the Hadith, which is a collection of teachings, deeds, and sayings of Muhammad; and the Tafsir, which is a commentary of sorts on the Qur’an. Because of the content of Muhammad’s revelations, in particular the denial of God’s triune nature, the teaching that salvation must be [earned by works](five-pillars-Islam.html), and the denial of the deity of Jesus Christ, Christians regard Muhammad’s revelations as false, coming from a source other than the One True God. Indeed, the differences between the God of the Bible and the Allah of Islam are too great to consider them the same deity, despite Muhammad’s proclamations that his revelations came from the God of Adam, Abraham, Jesus, et al. Allah’s “mercy” is dependent upon the right actions of his followers. The God of the Bible, in contrast, has always given His followers the promise of forgiveness dependent on His grace through faith, rather than on the ability of men (Genesis 15:6; Exodus 34:6–9; Psalm 130:3\).
What is usury in the Bible?	Answer Usury is, by modern definition, the illegal practice of lending money at unreasonably high rates of interest. Usury is usually carried out with the intention of the lender, or usurer, gaining an unfair profit from the loan. A modern slang term for a usurer is loan shark. Somewhat complicating the matter is the fact that, before the creation of usury laws, usury could refer to interest in general. Now, usury refers to exorbitantly (and illegally) high interest rates. The King James Version uses the word usury in its now obsolete sense. For example, in Exodus 22:25, the basic rule regarding interest is “If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as an usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury” (KJV). However, in the English Standard Version, the same verse reads, “If you lend money to any of my people with you who is poor, you shall not be like a moneylender to him, and you shall not exact interest from him.” In the Old Testament, the Israelites were forbidden from charging “usury,” or interest, on loans to fellow Jews (Deuteronomy 23:19\), but they were allowed to charge interest on loans to foreigners (Deuteronomy 23:20\). The earlier iterations of this law in Exodus 22:25 and Leviticus 25:35–38 make it clear that it deals with loans made to fellow Israelites who were experiencing poverty. Having to pay back the loan with “usury,” or interest, would only put them further into debt and was not beneficial to the economy. Loans to foreigners, however, were considered more of a business deal—such loans were seen as international commerce and therefore allowed. This law served as a reminder to the Jews that helping those in need is something that should be done without expecting anything in return. Many of the loans we are familiar with in modern times come from banks, and the Bible doesn’t say much about this. While the Bible does not prohibit the charging of interest, it does warn against becoming too concerned with money, telling us that we cannot serve both God and money at the same time (Matthew 6:24\). We are reminded that the desire to be rich leads to destruction and that the [love of money](love-money-root-evil.html) is the root of all sorts of evil (1 Timothy 6:9–10\). In addition, God’s wisdom includes a warning not to take advantage of the plight of the poor. “Sharks” who gouge the needy in the time of their distress will not enjoy their spoils for long: “He that by usury and unjust gain increaseth his substance, he shall gather it for him that will pity the poor” (Proverbs 28:8, KJV), or, in another translation, “Whoever increases wealth by taking interest or profit from the poor / amasses it for another, who will be kind to the poor” (NIV).
What was Zophar the Naamathite’s message to Job?	Answer Zophar the Naamathite is first mentioned in Job 2:11 as one of three friends who arrive to comfort Job after they heard of the bad things that had happened to him. Verses 12–13 show their response to his distress: “When they saw him from a distance, they could hardly recognize him; they began to weep aloud, and they tore their robes and sprinkled dust on their heads. Then they sat on the ground with him for seven days and seven nights. No one said a word to him, because they saw how great his suffering was.” After [Eliphaz](Eliphaz-the-Temanite.html) and [Bildad](Bildad-the-Shuhite.html), Zophar spoke third in offering advice to Job. Zophar’s speech begins in chapter 11\. Giving the strongest of the three initial speeches, Zophar declares that Job deserved even worse than what he got. In verse 6, he states, “Know then that God exacts of you less than your guilt deserves” (ESV). Job responds in chapter 12 that it was the Lord who brought this suffering upon him, and in chapter 13 maintains his innocence: “I know I will be vindicated” (Job 13:18\). Zophar’s second speech (in Job 20\) focuses on the theme that the one who commits wickedness will suffer for it. In his words, “A flood will carry off his house, / rushing waters on the day of God’s wrath. / Such is the fate God allots the wicked, / the heritage appointed for them by God” (Job 20:28–29\). In Job 21, Job answers that God, for some reason, does allow the wicked to prosper: “They spend their years in prosperity / and go down to the grave in peace” (Job 21:13\). Zophar’s assessment of Job’s condition was not accurate, because Job had done nothing wrong and was suffering, while others who did evil lived “safe and free from fear” (verse 9\). Job’s other two friends each give three speeches, but Zophar gives only two. Following Job’s extended defense after Bildad’s third speech, a fourth man, [Elihu](Elihu-Job.html), speaks up (Job 32\). Elihu’s two concerns are expressed in Job 32:2–3: “He burned with anger at Job because he justified himself rather than God. He burned with anger also at Job’s three friends because they had found no answer, although they had declared Job to be in the wrong” (ESV). In the end, Zophar is rebuked by God along with his two friends: “My anger burns against you . . . for you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has” (Job 42:7\). Zophar last appears in verse 9, where we find him offering the sacrifices God had required: “So Eliphaz the Temanite and Bildad the Shuhite and Zophar the Naamathite went and did what the LORD had told them.” Despite his bad advice and his inaccurate portrayal of God, Zophar repented when rebuked by God and was forgiven. Zophar and his friends serve as an example of how people often view [suffering](Bible-suffering.html) from a human perspective that overlooks God’s divine plan. While it is true that those who do wrong often suffer, God also allows suffering for other reasons often unknown to us at the time. Instead of assuming all suffering is due to a person’s wrongdoing, we should examine our own lives before the Lord and see how we can live for Him during times of struggle (James 5:11\), knowing that suffering can serve as part of His sovereign plan.
Who is Allah?	Answer Allah is an Arabic word that means “God” or, more accurately, “the God.” In Western culture, it is commonly believed that the word Allah is used exclusively by Muslims to describe their god, but this is not actually true. The word Allah is used by Arabic speakers of all Abrahamic faiths (including Christianity and Judaism) as meaning “God.” However, according to Islam, Allah is God’s proper name, while Christians and Jews know Him as [YHWH](YHWH-tetragrammaton.html) or Yahweh. When Arabic\-speaking Christians use the word Allah, it is usually used in combination with the word al\-Ab. Allah al\-Ab means “God the Father,” and this usage is one way Arab Christians distinguish themselves from Muslims. Before the inception of [Islam](Islam.html), most Arabs were polytheistic pagans, believing in an unfeeling, powerful fate that could not be controlled or altered or influenced by human beings. Muslims regard [Muhammad](who-was-Muhammad.html) as the last and greatest prophet, and they credit him with restoring to the Arabs the monotheistic faith of their ancestors. Islam and Judaism both trace their spiritual lineage to Abraham, but the God\-concept of Islam is different from that of Judaism and Christianity in some significant ways. Yahweh and Allah are both seen as omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, and merciful. However, in both Judaism and Islam, God’s mercy is dependent, at least partly and many times fully, on man’s actions. The Islamic concept of Allah and the Jewish concept of Yahweh both deny the triune nature of God. They eliminate God’s Son, Jesus, and they also eliminate the Holy Spirit as a distinct Person of the [Godhead](Godhead.html). Without Jesus, there is no provisionary salvation—that is, salvation is based on man’s effort rather than God’s grace. Without the Holy Spirit, there is no sanctification, no peace, no freedom (Romans 8:6; 2 Corinthians 3:17\). Christians trust that by Jesus’ death and resurrection, along with the indwelling of His Spirit, sin is forgiven, the conscience is cleansed, and the human soul is freed to pursue God and goodness without the fear of punishment (Hebrews 10:22\). A Muslim may love Allah and wish to please Allah, but the question in his mind will invariably be “Is it enough? Are my works enough to merit salvation?” Christians believe that God sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to provide an answer to the question “is my work enough?” The answer is, no, our work is not enough (Matthew 5:48\). This is shocking to anyone who has been trying on his own to appease God. But this was the point of Jesus’ famous Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:1–48\). The Jews that Jesus spoke to, just like the Muslims who follow Allah, were trapped by the knowledge that nothing they did would ever meet God’s perfect standard. But Christ’s perfect life, atoning death, and resurrection did meet God’s standard (Hebrews 10:10; Romans 8:1–8\). Jesus’ message to the Jews and His message now, to Muslims and everyone else, is “repent and believe” (Mark 1:15\). This does not mean “stop sinning” and “believe that God exists.” It means “turn from sin and stop trying to please God by your own ability” and “believe that Christ has accomplished everything for you.” The promise to those who trust Christ is that they will become the children of God (John 1:12\). Allah offers no such promise. Muslims believe Allah will be merciful to them based on his evaluation of their performance. But salvation is never sure; it is never a promise. When the Western world looks with horror on things like [jihad](jihad-Bible.html) and acts of Islamic terrorism, they get a glimpse of the powerful fear that Allah instills in many of his followers. Faithful Muslims are faced with a terrible choice: obey the violent commands of an omnipotent deity whose mercy is given only to the most passionate and devoted followers (and perhaps not even then), or give themselves up as hopelessly lost and headed for punishment. Christians should not regard Muslims with hatred, but instead with compassion. Their god, Allah, is a false god, and their eyes are blinded to the truth (see 2 Corinthians 4:4\). We should be praying for Muslims and asking God to show them the truth, revealing His promise of mercy and freedom in Christ (2 Timothy 2:24–26\).
What does it mean to make a joyful noise unto the Lord?	Answer Several places in Scripture command us to make a joyful noise unto the Lord (Psalm 66:1; 95:1–2; 100:1; 1 Chronicles 15:16\). The verses that follow explain what that means. For example, Psalm 98:4–6 says, “Make a joyful noise to the Lord, all the earth; break forth into joyous song and sing praises! Sing praises to the Lord with the lyre, with the lyre and the sound of melody! With trumpets and the sound of the horn make a joyful noise before the King, the Lord!” This psalm goes on to describe the sea roaring, the rivers clapping their hands, and the hills breaking forth in song. The picture is that of all creation joining together in noisy [worship](true-worship.html) of God. A joyful noise is not merely noise for its own sake. Our world is filled with noise, much of it harmful or distracting. A joyful noise is a bold declaration of God’s glorious name and nature, with shouts, clapping, and other outward expressions of praise. A joyful noise often includes music, such as singing, playing instruments, and dancing (Psalm 95:1; 98:6; 149:3; 1 Chronicles 15:28\). While there is a time for quiet reverence in the presence of the Lord (Psalm 5:7; 95:6\), God also delights in our outward displays of joyful abandon as we worship Him with all we have. Scripture is filled with examples of God’s servants praising Him in a variety of ways, many of them noisy and active. David danced (2 Samuel 6:14\); Miriam played the tambourine, singing and dancing (Exodus 15:20–21\); the children of Israel shouted and sang (2 Chronicles 15:14\); Solomon lifted hands before all the people (1 Kings 8:22\); Paul and Silas sang loudly in jail (Acts 16:25\); and Jesus was welcomed into Jerusalem with loud shouts of joy (John 12:13\). Often what we term “reverence” is merely “fear of man.” Self\-centered reserve is usually the motivation that keeps us from singing aloud, dancing for joy, or lifting hands in worship when it is appropriate to do so. We fear that we might be seen as undignified or fanatical. At those times, we are rejecting the opportunity to make a joyful noise unto the Lord. Rather than focus on praising God, our focus is “What will people think?” Others excuse their lack of joyful noise\-making by claiming it is not their personality style. However, most of the people who refuse to make a joyful noise unto the Lord think nothing of shouting, clapping, and cheering at their favorite sporting event or music concert. For reasons not found in Scripture, many churches have adopted a somber, funeral\-like atmosphere that squelches any expression of joy. While corporate worship services should always be “done decently and in order” (1 Corinthians 14:40\), they should never stifle the joyful expression of praise brought before the Lord by His people. When the fear of man either prompts or stymies any type of outward expression, we are not doing “all for the glory of God” (1 Corinthians 10:31\). On the other hand, some pretend to be making a joyful noise to the Lord, when in truth they are merely showing off. Some denominations encourage chaos under the guise of making a joyful noise. Hysterical emotionalism, bizarre noises, and screaming are not found in scriptural worship. The joyful noise God desires does not draw attention to the noise\-maker or disrupt others. A joyful noise begins within a pure heart and radiates upward, finding expression in ways that honor God. When joy overflows, our actions reflect that joy. Just as God commands us to thank Him because we need to be thankful (1 Chronicles 16:34; 1 Thessalonians 5:18\), He also commands us to make a joyful noise, because we need to express joy to Him. God’s requirements are never made from His need, but for our good. When the fruit of the Spirit dominates our lives, we cannot help but express it—and part of that fruit is joy (Galatians 5:22\). God wants us to find such joy and excitement in Him that we cannot contain it. Ephesians 5:18–19 instructs us to “be filled with the Spirit, addressing one another in [psalms and hymns and spiritual songs](psalms-hymns-spiritual-songs.html), singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart.” When we are filled with the Holy Spirit, we desire to sing to Him and edify others. Musical talent has nothing to do with it. A joyful noise incorporates many creative expressions of praise: dancing, singing, clapping, shouting, raising hands, and playing instruments. When the focus of our hearts is God and His greatness, our noise is a sweet sound to His ears.
What was Bildad the Shuhite’s message to Job?	Answer Bildad the Shuhite is first mentioned in Job 2:11 as one of three friends who come to comfort [Job](life-Job.html). Bildad, along with [Eliphaz](Eliphaz-the-Temanite.html) and [Zophar](Zophar-the-Naamathite.html), visit Job after they heard of the calamity that had befallen him. When Bildad first arrives, he cannot believe the horrific nature of Job’s condition. He mourns silently with Job for seven days (Job 2:12–13\). After Eliphaz, Bildad the Shuhite is the second of Job’s friends to speak. In Job 8, Bildad’s perspective is that Job should repent of his wrong. If Job repents, according to Bildad, all the material things he had lost will be restored: “If you will seek God earnestly / and plead with the Almighty, / if you are pure and upright, / even now he will rouse himself on your behalf / and restore you to your prosperous state” (Job 8:5–6\). The implication of Bildad’s speech is that Job is not pure and upright and that material prosperity is directly linked to one’s righteous behavior. Job responds in Job 9 with a wish that he could plead his case before God and lamenting the fact that there is no one to intervene on his behalf. Bildad’s second speech, in Job 18, focuses on the theme that God punishes the wicked. His logic is that, since Job is being punished, he must have done something wrong. In Job 19, Job responds with a plea to be left alone: “How long will you torment me / and crush me with words?” (verse 2\). He also asks for his friends’ pity (verse 21\) and declares that his God is alive and knows all things. God would be the one to judge him fairly, and Job puts his trust in Him (verses 25–27\). Bildad’s third speech, in Job 25, focuses on the idea that a person cannot be righteous before God. The center of this brief chapter says, “How then can man be in the right before God? / How can he who is born of woman be pure?” (Job 25:4\). Job answers in Job 26 with sarcasm, arguing that only God can know all things and fully understand the situation. In Job 42:7 Bildad and his two friends are rebuked by the Lord: “I am angry with you . . . because you have not spoken the truth about me.” In Job 42:9 Bildad, along with his partners\-in\-crime, obey the Lord’s command to offer burnt offerings, and they are forgiven their sin of misrepresenting the Lord. Bildad’s and his friends’ speeches are an example of how people often view [suffering](Bible-suffering.html) from a human perspective and assume that suffering is always the result of doing something wrong. In the end, Bildad and company discover that God had allowed Job to suffer as part of His divine plan and that Job was not to blame for his trials.
What was Eliphaz the Temanite’s message to Job?	Answer Eliphaz the Temanite is first mentioned in Job 2:11\. He is one of Job’s three friends and would\-be comforters. However, Eliphaz, along with Bildad and Zophar, failed in his attempt to comfort his suffering friend. The sympathy shown to Job in Job 2:12–13 was soon swallowed up in accusations, fuzzy theology, and wrangling over Job’s character. After Job’s complaints in Job 3, Eliphaz is the first of the friends to speak. Chapters 4—5 contain his first speech, which focuses on the theme of the innocent prospering. In other words, Eliphaz thought that [Job](life-Job.html), who was obviously not prospering, must have done something wrong. No life encountering such suffering can be innocent, according to Eliphaz. Following the speech by Eliphaz, Job replies with a statement regarding his innocence. Eliphaz provides a second speech, in Job 15, asserting that Job does not fear God. If Job did fear God, Eliphaz reasons, he would not face such suffering. Job responds that his friends are “[miserable comforters](miserable-comforters.html)” (Job 16:2\). Eliphaz offers a third speech, recorded in Job 22\. This time, he accuses Job of great wrongdoing: “Is not your wickedness great? / Are not your sins endless?” (Job 22:5\). He then proceeds to list all of Job’s supposed sins (verses 6–9\). From Eliphaz’s perspective, God would only allow great evil to befall someone who had done something very bad. Job replies by asking for God to intervene on his behalf (Job 23\). God does intervene. God speaks on Job’s behalf and rebukes Job’s friends, saying, “My anger burns against you . . . for you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has” (Job 42:7\). Eliphaz and his companions are required to offer burnt offerings, and Job prays on their behalf. In the end, Job’s fortunes are restored (doubled), and he is blessed with new children in place of those who had died. Eliphaz is an example of someone responding with the world’s wisdom to suffering. It made sense to Eliphaz that suffering was the consequence of sin and that, if a person suffered, he was being punished by God. However, Eliphaz was wrong. Job’s life is a clear example of how sometimes [the innocent suffer](innocent-suffer.html). God can use suffering as part of His divine plan to strengthen a believer’s life and to change the lives of others for His glory.
Was Jesus created?	Answer The Bible teaches that Jesus was not created but was rather the Creator. “In \[Jesus Christ] all things were created: . . . all things have been created through him and for him” (Colossians 1:16\). The doctrine of the eternality of Christ is one of the distinguishing marks of biblical Christianity. While Jesus is held in high esteem by Muslims, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and others of various theological beliefs, those groups teach that Jesus was a created being. It is orthodox Christianity’s affirmation of the full deity of Christ and His uncreated nature that makes Christianity unique from all other religions and philosophies. Various world religions may agree on some important issues such as the existence of a transcendent, objective morality and the value of a strong family life, but the answer to the question “[who is Jesus Christ?](who-is-Jesus.html)” quickly separates those who adhere to biblical Christianity from those who do not. The early creeds of the church unequivocally teach that Jesus was not created but that He is an eternally divine Person, the Son of God. [Muslims](Islam.html) teach that Jesus was a virgin\-born human prophet, but came into existence just like everyone else. [Mormons](Mormons.html), who adhere to a modern\-day form of [Arianism](arianism.html), believe that Jesus had a beginning, just as God the Father had a beginning. [Jehovah’s Witnesses](Jehovahs-Witnesses.html) say that Jesus was the first creation of Jehovah and was originally called [Michael the archangel](Jesus-Michael-Archangel.html). So on which side of the creator/creature divide does Jesus actually fall? Is Jesus a creature, and thus part of the created order, or is He, along with the Father and the Holy Spirit, the Creator of all created things? Is Jesus heteroousios (“of a different substance”) than the Father, as the 4th\-century heretic Arius held; or are Christ and the Father homoousios (“of the same substance”), as Athanasius maintained and the [Council of Nicea](council-of-Nicea.html) decreed? When attempting to answer the question of “was Jesus created?” there is no better person to look to than Jesus Himself. During His public ministry, Jesus continually assumed for Himself divine prerogatives. He continually exercised rights that would never be appropriate for a created being. He said that He was [“Lord of the Sabbath”](Lord-of-the-Sabbath.html) (Mark 2:28\), and, since the Sabbath was instituted by God, Jesus’ claim to be “Lord” of the Sabbath was an assertion of deity. Jesus spoke of His unique, intimate knowledge of the Father (Matthew 11:27\) and of the glory He shared with the Father “before the world began” (John 17:5\). Jesus accepted the worship of others (Matthew 14:32–33\) and described a future time when He will sit in judgment over all nations (Matthew 25:31–44\). Luke tells us that Jesus went so far as to personally forgive a woman’s sins—something only God can do—and attributed her forgiveness to her faith in Him (Luke 7:48–50\)! Jesus’ disciples were equally clear in their belief in Jesus’ deity and uncreated nature. John tells us that “in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word \[Jesus] was God” (John 1:1\). After having encountered the risen Jesus, the apostle Thomas exclaimed to Him, “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28\). The apostle Paul referred to Christ as “God over all” (Romans 9:5\) and stated that “in \[Christ] the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily” (Colossians 2:9\). In the early days of the church, Jesus was both the object of prayer (Acts 7:59\) and the One in whose name the forgiveness of sins was proclaimed (Acts 2:38; 10:43\). After having interrogated Christians under the threat of death, the Roman administrator [Pliny the Younger](Pliny-the-Younger.html) wrote in his letter to the Emperor Trajan (c. AD 110\) that “\[the Christians] were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light when they sang in alternative verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god” (Letters 10\.96\). Jesus, God the Son, was not created. He has always existed; He has no beginning or end. The Son took on human flesh at a particular point in human history (John 1:14\). Christians refer to this event as the [Incarnation](incarnation-of-Christ.html) (“the act of being made flesh”). This act was integral to our salvation (Galatians 4:4–5; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 9:22\). From the Incarnation onward, the eternal, uncreated Son is both truly God and truly man. But there was never a time when the Son did not exist. He was never created. Jesus always was and will forever remain “our great God and Savior” (Titus 2:13\).
What is irreligion?	Answer The term irreligion refers to a spectrum of non\-religious belief systems, including [secular humanism](secular-humanism.html), [agnosticism](agnosticism.html), [atheism](atheism.html), and antitheism. It covers beliefs that are simply indifferent to religion, that reject religion, and that are hostile to religion. Irreligion is partly defined by cultural context. Today, atheism is the most common understanding of irreligion. In 18th\-century England, even deism would have been considered an irreligious point of view. Irreligion is increasing in popularity worldwide. According to a global poll taken in 2017, 25% of people claim they are not religious and an additional 9% are convinced atheists, with percentages in these categories increasing every time a poll is taken. A survey conducted in 2012 showed that 36 percent of the world’s population are not religious. Interestingly, irreligion does not necessarily coincide with a rejection of the church. Some countries that have high irreligion rates, like Sweden and Albania (over 50 percent for both countries) also show a high percentage of the population affirming that they are part of a religious group—Lutheran and Muslim for those two countries, respectively. Another demographic shows that 47 percent of atheists living in Scandinavia are also members of the national churches. The conclusion is obvious: belief in God is not necessary to obtain or claim membership in the organized church. In Jesus’ day, the [Pharisees](Sadducees-Pharisees.html) classified the irreligious as “sinners” (Mark 2:16\). That is, the Pharisees considered themselves separate from anyone who did not follow their prescribed rules. There was the world of their religion—which added the Pharisees’ own traditions and subsidiary laws to the Law of God—the world of paganism, and the world of irreligion. The world of religion had plenty of problems. During His ministry, Jesus repeatedly confronted the religious leaders of that time, telling them that they were too focused on the rules and the tenets of their religion, hoping to find salvation in doing good works and in keeping their traditions, rather than in God (John 5:39\). Their religious system was unhealthy and ineffective not only for themselves but for those they proselytized (Matthew 23:15\). Irreligion is often a reaction against the oppressive nature of religion that attempts to appease God or the gods. Finding perfection too high a goal, or the law too heavy a burden, or the gods too capricious, or their ears deaf to prayer, people turn away from religion. Thankfully, the true God has already been appeased, through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ (Romans 3:25\). He knows that the law is a burden to man, who cannot attain perfection (Romans 3:10–11, 20\), and He therefore provides salvation by grace through faith (Romans 5:1; Philippians 3:9\). Jesus says to those in bondage, “Come to me, for my yoke is easy and my burden is light” (Matthew 11:28\).
What is the magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church?	Answer The magisterium of [Roman Catholicism](Roman-Catholicism.html) is the special teaching authority of the Church itself. According to Catholic doctrines, this teaching authority resides only within the Pope and Catholic bishops. This implies that only those doctrinal statements that proceed from the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) can be true. It also means that, at times, the teaching authority of the RCC is uniquely free from error, a property called “infallibility.” The Catholic magisterium operates at different levels. The general opinions of the Pope and bishops are considered authoritative but not infallible. Catholics are obligated to agree with and obey these kinds of statements, but the RCC does not guarantee them free from error. When bishops and the Pope are in agreement on a doctrinal issue, when there is an official council, or when the Pope speaks ex cathedra, such pronouncements are considered both authoritative and infallible. Ex cathedra declarations are mandatory beliefs for all Catholics and are claimed to be completely free from any mistake, error, or misunderstanding. Catholicism claims this magisterium is necessary because, without it, humanity cannot correctly understand God’s revelation. Without an error\-free magisterium, we would be dependent on fallible, limited human interpretation. Catholicism also claims scriptural support for their view, citing 1 Timothy 3:15 and [Jesus’ comments to Peter](Peter-first-pope.html). This is a thin defense, at best, so the primary argument for the magisterium comes from the Catholic concept of [church tradition](Catholic-tradition.html). The necessity of the magisterium should be questioned. Claiming the need for a magisterium suggests that God chose to reveal Himself incompletely and in a manner humanity could not understand without further, human\-dependent revelation. But Catholicism cannot provide infallible evidence for the infallible magisterium, so a person must trust his own fallible reasoning to believe it. In that case, why not trust our reasoning to interpret God’s Word directly? If reason, evidence, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit can lead a person to a particular truth, why would God restrict that to only a few people regarding the most important subject of all? Further, the Catholic concept of the magisterium contradicts the Bible, which claims God has revealed enough of Himself that we ought to seek Him; that those who do not are without excuse (Romans 1:18–20\). Their rejection cannot be blamed on “misinterpretation,” but on a refusal to accept what God has revealed (1 Corinthians 2:14\). The idea of relying on the bare authority of men, rather than on reason and the evidence of nature and Scripture, also contradicts biblical principles. Repeatedly, mankind is told to follow evidence and the written Word (John 10:35; Acts 17:11; 1 Timothy 2:15\). We’re admonished to test spirits (1 John 4:1\), confront false teachings (1 Timothy 6:3–4\), and avoid bad reasoning (Colossians 2:8\). At no time are we told to accept teaching simply because “the church” said so. In fact, we’re explicitly warned that even the most pious\-seeming messengers can carry lies (2 Corinthians 11:13–14; Galatians 1:8\). This means we need to be cautious and we are personally responsible for our beliefs (Hebrews 5:13; Romans 14:5\). In application, the concept of the magisterium also runs into trouble. Within Catholicism, there is often debate about exactly which statements are and are not infallible, and under what circumstances new statements should be considered infallible. The strongest assurance of infallibility is that of a Pope speaking ex cathedra, yet this very concept wasn’t formally defined by Catholicism until 1870\. And, this power of the pope has only been used once since then, in 1950, to declare that Mary was bodily resurrected and [ascended to heaven](assumption-Mary.html). If such pronouncements are rare, don’t typically deal with fundamental issues, and are disputed even within Catholicism, what’s the point in claiming an infallible magisterium at all? The ability to excuse errors in the magisterium also makes the doctrine problematic. Numerous decrees of the Catholic Church have been changed, modified, or outright repealed in the centuries since Christ. In all cases, there are reasons—of varying strength—given for why the altered pronouncements were not really meant to be infallible. But this, again, raises the question of whether the doctrine is meaningful at all. If it’s rarely used, rarely defensible in practice, and easily dismissed when errors are found, then it’s impractical to believe in the first place. There is a more reasonable, scriptural, and practical approach to truth than the Catholic magisterium. This is the renewal of each individual believer’s mind (Romans 12:2\) under submission to the Holy Spirit (John 14:16–17\), coupled with an honest pursuit of the truth (John 8:32; Matthew 7:7\). God has revealed what we need to know through His creation (Psalm 19:1; Romans 1:19–20\) and in His Word (John 20:31; 2 Timothy 3:15\-16\), not in the authority of fallible men.
Who was the Shulammite woman?	Answer The Shulammite woman, or Shulammite maiden, is the bride of [Solomon](life-Solomon.html) who features in the [Song of Songs](Song-of-Solomon.html). She is only mentioned once by the title “Shulammite,” in Song of Solomon 6:13\. Her exact identity is unknown, although there are a couple of theories. She is most likely called the Shulammite because she came from an unidentified place called Shulem. Many scholars consider Shulammite to be synonymous with Shunammite (“person from Shunem”). Shunem was a village in the territory of Issachar, north of Jezreel and south of Mount Gilboa. Other scholars link Shulem with Salem, believing Solomon’s bride was from Jerusalem. Still others believe that the title Shulammite (“peaceful”) is simply the bride’s married name, being the feminine form of Solomon (“peaceful”) and only used after her marriage to the king. One theory on the identity of the Shulammite is that she is the daughter of Egypt’s king, whom Solomon married (1 Kings 3:1\), but there is no evidence supporting this theory in the Song of Solomon. Another speculation points to [Abishag](Abishag-in-the-Bible.html), a young Shunammite who served King David in his old age (1 Kings 1:1–4, 15; 2:17–22\). It is plausible that Abishag is the Shulammite; we know she was from Shunem, which could be the same place as Shulem. Also, as David’s personal servant, Abishag would have been known to David’s son, Solomon. Solomon’s half\-brother Adonijah attempted to have [Abishag](Solomon-Adonijah-Abishag.html) as his own wife, and Solomon prevented the union (1 Kings 2:13–25\). Solomon uses passionate language to describe his bride and their love (Song 4:1–15\). Solomon clearly loved the Shulammite—and he admired her character as well as her beauty (Song 6:9\). Everything about the Song of Solomon betrays the fact that this bride and groom were passionately in love and that there was mutual respect and friendship, as well (Song 8:6–7\). This points to the fact that the Song of Solomon is the story of Solomon’s first marriage, before he sinned by adding [many other wives](Solomon-wives-concubines.html) (1 Kings 11:3\). Whoever the Shulammite was, she was Solomon’s first and truest love.
What is the Russian Orthodox Church?	Answer According to tradition, the Russian Orthodox Church is what came of a community of believers founded by the apostle [Andrew](Andrew-in-the-Bible.html), who visited Scythia and Greece, along the northern part of the Black Sea. According to the tradition, while on his missionary journeys, Andrew eventually reached Kiev, the current home of St. Andrew’s Cathedral. Later, Princess Olga of Kiev converted to Christianity, and eventually her grandson, Vladimir the Great, made Byzantine Rite Christianity the official religion in Kiev. This marked the birth of what became the Russian Orthodox Church, part of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Like other Orthodox churches, the Russian Orthodox Church is trinitarian, believes the Bible to be the Word of God, and teaches that Jesus is God the Son. In these matters, the Russian Orthodox Church aligns with Scripture. However, their doctrine has much more in common with Roman Catholicism than with evangelical Christianity. Russian Orthodox services are liturgical and filled with symbolism. Mary has a special place in Russian Orthodoxy as the [Mother of God](Mary-mother-God-theotokos.html). The Russian Orthodox Church promotes the use of icons (sacred images) and teaches that salvation is conferred through the observance of the [sacraments](ordinances-sacraments.html)—the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith alone is not taught in Russian Orthodoxy. Members of the Russian Orthodox Church regard the decisions of their church councils to be infallible. Count Leo Tolstoy, author of novels such as Anna Karenina and War and Peace, was baptized (as an infant) into the Russian Orthodox Church. In 1880, Tolstoy raised the church’s ire by publishing Critique of Dogmatic Theology. The church excommunicated Tolstoy in 1901, blacklisted his books, and decreed that no candles could ever be burned for Tolstoy within any of its churches. The word orthodox refers to adherence to a set of beliefs as they were originally set forth. Orthodox churches, including the Eastern, Oriental, Celtic, Polish, and other types of Orthodoxy, claim to adhere to the Christian faith as it was practiced by the early church. However, the biblical descriptions of the early church bear little resemblance in belief or practice to Orthodox Churches or any of the other high church orders. The Russian Orthodox Church is one of the autocephalous (self\-governing) [Eastern Orthodox](Eastern-Orthodox-church.html) churches. Being the head of a self\-governing body, the bishop of the Russian Orthodox Church does not report to a bishop higher than himself. There is no pope in Russian Orthodoxy. While the minimization of bureaucracy is commendable, the fact remains that the Russian Orthodox Church, like all other churches of this type, depends on a wide and many\-faceted power structure consisting of bishops, monks, priests, archbishops, cardinals, nuns, and so on. In contrast, the early church, in obedience to Christ’s teachings, considered themselves all brothers and sisters and did not hold any one man above another, because God was their Father and Teacher (see Matthew 23:8–10\). The Russian Orthodox Church claims exclusive jurisdiction over any Christian living within the former republics of the USSR. The Russian Orthodox Church is not to be confused with the Orthodox Church in America or the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, an institution created in the 1920s by communities of Christians who wished to disassociate themselves from communism. In any case, it is clear that the Russian Orthodox Church is largely a socio\-political, rather than spiritual, institution. The [body of Christ](body-of-Christ.html) is a spiritual brotherhood of believers and is not limited by borders or nationalities or political beliefs, nor does it hold physical jurisdiction or control over any man (1 Corinthians 12:27; Ephesians 3:6; 4:12; 5:23; Colossians 1:24\). With Christ as its head, the Church spans ages, crosses borders, defies human control, and thrives despite persecution. There are undoubtedly members of the body of Christ who are also members of the Russian Orthodox Church, but religious institutions are not to be confused with Christ’s body or followed as if they held His authority.
What does it mean that the church is the pillar and foundation of the truth?	Answer Catholic apologists are fond of citing 1 Timothy 3:15 as evidence that “the church”—specifically, the Catholic Church—is the true, infallible earthly source of spiritual knowledge. In particular, they claim this verse not only supports the inerrancy of Catholic teachings but that it also contradicts the doctrine of [sola scriptura](sola-scriptura.html). Read completely out of context, the verse could be taken that way: “If I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15\). But, as with any Bible text, what something means out of context is irrelevant. Looking at the verse in light of its scriptural setting not only defeats this particular claim, it strongly contradicts [other aspects of Catholicism](Catholic-questions.html). First of all, it would be one thing to use 1 Timothy 3:15 to generically claim “the church” as a source of authority or truth on earth. Catholic apologists, however, frequently point to this passage and extract concepts such as an inerrant magisterium, an infallible Pope, and so forth. The scope of the verse in no way supports that kind of overreach. This is particularly true in light of what Paul and the rest of the New Testament says about the church and truth. First Timothy 3:15 is the end of Paul’s description of proper conduct for church members, including leaders. He nowhere mentions a unique power of these leaders to make doctrinal or interpretive decisions. Nor does he declare members of the body incapable of making those interpretations themselves. In fact, in verse 14 Paul specifically says that his written words are what define proper conduct. This actually suggests the concept of sola scriptura; Paul is assigning authority to the written Word. He does not say, “The church will tell you what this letter means.” At the start of the epistle, Paul explicitly tells Timothy to oppose those who teach unsound doctrine (1 Timothy 1:3–7, 18–19\). He does not tell Timothy to oppose those who disagree with “the church” or with church leaders. This echoes other statements of Paul that indicate that the content of a belief is what matters, not the person who proclaims it (2 Corinthians 11:14; Galatians 1:6–8\). Paul refers to those proclaiming the gospel as stewards of the truth, not the source of it (1 Corinthians 4:1; 9:17\). Elsewhere, Paul explicitly says there is only one “true” foundation for our faith, which is Christ (1 Corinthians 3:11\), so what he says in 1 Timothy 3:15 must be taken in that context. It’s also short\-sighted to use 1 Timothy 3:15 to support Catholicism, given the words that come directly before and after it. In 1 Timothy 3:1–13, Paul says that church leaders ought to be “the husband of one wife” and to have demonstrated control over their household and children. Yet Catholicism demands that priests be unmarried and celibate, a prohibition that Paul condemns a few verses later (1 Timothy 4:1–3\). That’s hardly a ringing endorsement of Catholic doctrine. How, then, should 1 Timothy 3:15 be interpreted? Judging by the context of 1 Timothy, as well as the rest of Scripture, certainly not that “the church” has an infallible grasp of truth. In this case, Paul seems to be saying that the ekklesia—the body of believers, “the church”—is the structure that holds up and holds forth the gospel to the world. For that reason, the conduct of the body and its selection of leaders are critically important. This interpretation is strongly supported by Paul’s use of two Greek words, stulos and hedraioma, translated as “pillar” and “foundation.” Stulos means “pillar, column, prop, or support” and is found in the New Testament only here, in Revelation 3:12, and in Revelation 10:1\. Hedraioma means “prop or support” and is found only in this verse. Both words come from Greek root words that imply something that stiffens, stabilizes, steadies, or holds. These are completely different words than what are used for other occurrences of “foundation” in English Bibles. For instance, Paul’s reference to Christ as our “foundation” in 1 Corinthians 3:11 uses the word themelios, which means “foundation of a building” or “initial and founding principles of an idea.” So, in 1 Timothy 3:15 Paul is not referring to “the church” as the source of truth or the creator of truth. He’s saying “the church” is what holds up and holds firm the truth in the world. Again, this interpretation fits with Paul’s warnings not to be swayed by carnal philosophies (Colossians 2:8\), false teachers (2 Timothy 4:3\), or any person who changes the gospel (Galatians 1:8\). Rather than fall prey to false doctrine, we’re to compare teachers to the Word of God (Acts 17:11; 1 Corinthians 4:6; 2 Timothy 3:16; Romans 15:4\). “The church,” that is, the entire population of Christian believers, bears the earthly responsibility of holding up the truth of the gospel. The ultimate basis of that truth is Christ, not the proclamations or infallibility of members of that body. Paul is calling on believers to care for the structure that “supports” or “props up” our message to the world. First Timothy 3:15 cannot be taken to mean that the church itself is the source or standard for truth.
What is the meaning of Christus Victor?	Answer The term Christus Victor, Latin for “Christ is the conqueror,” originated with a 1931 book by Gustaf Aulén, which presents a [theory of Christ’s work of atonement](atonement-theories.html). Aulén argued that the Christus Victor model of atonement was espoused by the early church fathers and is therefore closer to the truth than [Anselm’s](Anselm-of-Canterbury.html) satisfaction (or commercial) theory, formulated in the eleventh century; and the Reformers’ [penal substitution theory](substitutionary-atonement.html), which was a modification of Anselm’s view. Christus Victor asserts that “the work of Christ is first and foremost a victory over the powers which hold mankind in bondage: sin, death, and the devil.” In contrast, the satisfaction model says that Christ had to die in order to restore God’s honor that had been offended by mankind’s sin; the penal substitution model says that Christ was punished for the sake of justice—that God’s just punishment of sin was satisfied by Christ so that the punishment would not fall on humanity. Perceived Problems with the Satisfaction and Substitution Theories Adherents to the Christus Victor model of atonement usually object to the penal substitution model because the substitution model is “violent” and supposedly places God in a disagreeable light. The idea that God is a Judge who was willing to kill His own Son to atone for the sins of humanity is repugnant to opponents of substitutionary theory. Those like Aulén dislike the idea that God cares so much about the satisfaction of His justice that He would choose to punish Jesus. Aulén also claimed that the satisfaction and substitution models pit God and Jesus against one another, while Christus Victor places them on the same side, fighting evil together. Problems with Christus Victor Christus Victor has two main flaws. First, it is based primarily on Aulén’s rejection of the idea of the atonement as a legal exercise, rather than on arguments from Scripture. The Bible clearly presents the suffering of Christ as a [propitiation](propitiation.html), or satisfaction (1 John 2:2\). The question then is, what was satisfied? Anselm said Christ’s death satisfied God’s honor. The Reformers said Christ’s death satisfied God’s wrath and His demand for justice. As for it being God’s desire that Christ die, the prophet says, “It was the LORD’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, / and . . . the LORD makes his life an offering for sin” (Isaiah 53:10\). Second, because Christus Victor asserts that Christ’s sacrifice was not offered to satisfy God’s justice, then the Law—instead of being upheld as righteous—is placed under the heading of “evil things defeated by Christ’s sacrifice.” If God and Jesus are fighting alongside one another against the powers of darkness, they would be fighting Satan, man’s sin, and, ironically, the Law that made sin a problem in the first place. God is fully aware that the Law puts us into a bind, legally speaking. Paul, who was himself an expert in the Law, explains that the Law exists to show us that we are sinful (Romans 7:1–12; 3:20\). He calls the Law holy, righteous, and good (Romans 7:12\). God upholds justice because He is perfect (1 John 5:5\). He also knows that we cannot attain perfection and that we will violate justice, because it is in our nature to do so (Romans 3:9–20\). But if we admit our sins and throw ourselves upon God’s mercy, rather than attempting to appease Him according to a Law we will inevitably disobey, we will be forgiven and covered by Christ’s blood, shed on our behalf (1 John 1:7; John 3:17–18\). Christus Victor sees the penal substitution theory of the atonement as violent and unpleasant. However, the doctrine of propitiation is biblical, and the Bible does say that Christ took our punishment upon Himself. He became a curse for us (Galatians 3:13\), and He was made sin on our behalf (2 Corinthians 5:21\).
What is solipsism?	Answer Solipsism is the belief that anything other than one’s own mind is uncertain to exist. This can involve anything from skepticism about one’s senses and experiences, to belief that anything outside of the mind is non\-existent. As with any abstract philosophical view, it has thousands of different varieties and applications. Assorted versions of solipsism have been applied to Christian, [atheist](atheism.html), and [pantheist](pantheism.html) worldviews, and to everything in between. From a straightforward standpoint, the Bible doesn’t suggest anything like solipsism. God is said to have created (Genesis 1:1; John 1:1–3\), and this creation is said to have changed (Genesis 1:2–3\) and will be changed again (Revelation 21:1–2\). This reality is described as having different, distinct parts (Genesis 1:4–7\). Likewise, human beings are called on to respond to our experiences as a means to realize the will of God (Romans 1:20; Matthew 11:21–23\). A person holding to solipsistic views has to interpret such ideas in a highly metaphorical way, which does not come naturally to the text. Nor is such a view of reality or of Scripture hinted at in the writings of the early Church Fathers. Also, solipsism should be distinguished from general skepticism and fact\-checking. The Bible encourages a cautious skepticism (Acts 17:11\), especially with respect to spiritual ideas (1 John 4:1\). Simple awareness that we’re fallible and that we need to double\-check our experiences is not solipsism. True solipsism, in fact, cannot be connected to our experiences at all. Solipsism corrodes any logic or evidence that would support the reality of experience. If our experiences are artificial, imaginary, or false, then any experience that might lead us to believe in solipsism could be part of the illusion and therefore unreliable. At the same time, any experience that might lead us to doubt solipsism could be dismissed for the same reason. As a result, solipsism is neither proved nor contradicted by any possible experience—which means that solipsism as a philosophy is practically meaningless. The idea is both un\-falsifiable and un\-verifiable. True or false, we can’t know it or disprove it, and so we can’t make any meaningful decisions about it. This is one reason that solipsism, and arguments that imply it, are generally considered dead ends in philosophical discussions. That is, introducing solipsism makes the conversation pointless. As soon as one argues that our experiences—on a fundamental level—are unreliable, we’re left incapable of knowing anything. That’s not only contrary to how we experience life, it makes all reason and experience useless. Solipsism fits the category of ideas that are interesting but not worth bogging down in (Colossians 2:8; Titus 3:9\). Some people find solipsism troubling in that it’s a hard concept to shake off. If our own senses and experiences can’t be trusted, then what does that make of our relationships, our science, or our religion? The solution to this angst is realizing how impractical solipsism is. That is, belief in solipsism can’t really be lived out in any meaningful way. Nor can it be proved or disproved by any possible experiences or evidence. To break loose from a concern over solipsism, one has to realize that it’s a pure abstraction with no practical application. A simple metaphor for being stuck in solipsistic thinking is the children’s tune “The Song That Never Ends,” which has these lyrics: This is the song that never ends. Yes, it goes on and on, my friends. Some people started singing it not knowing what it was. And they’ll continue singing it forever, just because . . . (repeat from beginning ad nauseam) If you accept the song’s claim (that you have to keep singing), you’re stuck in the loop forever, as the song says. But if someone asks why you’re constantly singing, the only reason you could give is, “because the song says so”! The solution is realizing that, other than the song itself, there is absolutely no reason why you have to keep singing. You weren’t compelled to start, and you’re not compelled to continue—unless you arbitrarily decide that you must obey the song for some reason. Solipsism works much the same way in our minds. If we wanted to, we could chalk up everything we experience as a figment of our imagination, including all signs to the contrary. But we’d have to do the same with all signs pointing to solipsism in the first place. And we have no tangible reasons to think it’s true in any case. Like the children’s song, we might well get hung up on the idea, but there’s absolutely nothing suggesting we do so other than the idea itself.
Why have so many claimed to see apparitions of Mary?	Answer Many people claim to have seen apparitions of Mary or other Catholic saints. However, biblical teachings don’t speak highly of [supernatural visions](lady-fatima.html) that go against sound biblical teachings. Why, then, do people claim to see these visions, and how should we interpret them? Human beings were designed to be with God, so we naturally desire spiritual experiences. This can lead us to jump to conclusions, misinterpret, or overreact to situations that seem to be supernatural. It also makes us vulnerable to false teachings (2 Timothy 4:3–4\). It’s not unusual to see what we want to see or expect to see, and this can lead us to interpret an odd experience as an apparition of Mary. True messages from God are unmistakable (John 3:1–2\) and in harmony with the rest of His Word (John 20:31\). Apparitions of Mary, by their very nature, cannot be either one of these. Sometimes, those who claim to have seen an apparition of Mary are simply lying (see Ezekiel 13:6\). Sometimes, basic human superstition or misunderstanding comes into play. Most claims regarding apparitions of Mary involve vague details, few actual witnesses, and so forth. People looking for mystical signs, patterns, or apparitions will tend to find them, even when they aren’t really there. This is an attitude the Bible actually discourages (1 John 4:1; Mark 13:22; 2 Corinthians 13:5\), because it distracts from the legitimate moments when God truly speaks through supernatural means (e.g., Matthew 11:21; Acts 2:22; Hebrews 2:4; Exodus 3:20\). It is quite possible that some of those who claim to have been visited by Mary did have a real supernatural encounter—although the supernatural being contacting them was a demon masquerading as Mary, rather than Mary herself. None of this is to say that every claim regarding apparitions of Mary is due to overt satanic influence or that all people making such claims are blatantly lying. But every spiritual claim must be judged against the written Word of God. God can, in fact, speak to people in [visions and dreams](dreams-visions-Bible.html) (Habakkuk 2:2; Isaiah 1:1; Acts 2:17\). He has also, on occasion, sent angels to deliver His messages (Matthew 1:20; Luke 1:13; Genesis 19:12; Judges 6:11–12\). However, the Bible clearly warns that the devil is capable of creating visions and experiences as well (2 Corinthians 11:14; 2 Thessalonians 2:9\), so we can’t treat every such incident as if it comes from God. Instead, we must compare our experience to the fixed, objective, written words of God (Acts 17:11; Galatians 1:8\) and the doctrines they teach. Any apparition that contradicts or undermines the Word of God is a lying spirit. There are no biblical descriptions of apparitions or appearances of the dead, other than when Saul consulted a [witch](witch-of-endor.html) who conjured the spirit of the prophet Samuel (1 Samuel 28\). This event seems to be unique in history, however, and the Bible is clear that we are not to communicate with the dead. The question of whether these visions support false Catholic doctrines must be considered when interpreting apparitions of Mary. In other words, there are more biblically sound, reasonable explanations for apparitions of Mary than simply accepting them at face value.
What does it mean that Job was blameless and upright?	Answer Job 1:1 includes the statement that [Job](life-Job.html) was “blameless and upright.” This cannot mean that Job was sinless (Romans 3:23\), so what does it mean? The Hebrew word translated “blameless” is tam and can be translated as “blameless,” “perfect,” or “upright.” The same word is used in Proverbs 29:10, which states, “The bloodthirsty hate a person of integrity / and seek to kill the upright.” A blameless person is someone whose life exhibits integrity. “Upright” in Job 1:1 is a translation of the Hebrew yashar, meaning “upright” or “just.” This word is used in parallel in this verse with blameless. In Psalm 37:37 the same word is used in parallel with “those who seek peace”: “Consider the blameless, observe the upright; / a future awaits those who seek peace.” The fuller context in Job 1:1 is, “This man was blameless and upright; he feared God and shunned evil.” So, the description of Job being “blameless and upright” is linked to the fear of God and the avoidance of evil. The parallelism can be seen like this: Blameless/upright God\-fearer/one who turns from evil In short, Job was “blameless and upright” in that he was a man of integrity who trusted in God as his redeemer (see Job 19:25\), sincerely worshiped the Lord, loved his family, and was consistent in his walk with God. Following a description of Job’s riches and his children, the text mentions the feasts held by Job’s sons. A specific example of Job’s blameless and upright nature is then given: “When a period of feasting had run its course, Job would make arrangements for them \[his children] to be purified. Early in the morning he would sacrifice a [burnt offering](burnt-offering.html) for each of them, thinking, ‘Perhaps my children have sinned and cursed God in their hearts.’ This was Job’s regular custom.” (Job 1:5\). Verse 5 contains some significant details: 1\) Job offered sacrifices to God, 2\) he was concerned for the spiritual welfare of his children, 3\) he feared the Lord (since he was concerned about his sons’ cursing God), 4\) he was sensitive even toward unknown sin, and 5\) he lived with this attitude continually. All of these factors serve as examples of Job’s blameless and upright life, and they set the stage for the challenge Satan brings before God (Job 1:6–12\). Further, these character traits of Job stand out to the reader of the rest of the [book of Job](Book-of-Job.html) containing the details of Job’s suffering. According to conventional wisdom, those who live like Job should be blessed, not cursed. In fact, [Job’s three friends](Jobs-friends.html) thought he must have done something wrong, and they were adamant that Job somehow deserved his suffering. God uses the example of Job to show that He will sometimes allow people to suffer even when they have done nothing specifically wrong to “deserve” the suffering. Sometimes, suffering is part of God’s plan to purify and mature us. James 5:11 uses Job’s life as an example of how to [endure suffering patiently](patience-of-Job.html): “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.”
Who was Nimrod in the Bible?	Answer Nimrod in the Bible was the great\-grandson of [Noah](life-Noah.html) through the line of Ham and Cush (Genesis 10:8\). What we know of him comes from four verses in Genesis: Cush was the father of Nimrod, who began to be a mighty one on the earth. He was a mighty hunter before the Lord; so it is said, “Like Nimrod, a mighty hunter before the Lord.” His kingdom began in Babylon, Erech, Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. From that land he went forth into Assyria, where he built Nineveh, Rehoboth\-Ir, Calah, and Resen, which is between Nineveh and the great city of Calah. (Genesis 10:8–12, BSB) There are other mentions of Nimrod in Micah 5:6, which refers to Assyria as “the land of Nimrod” and in 1 Chronicles 1:10, which includes his name in a genealogy. In Genesis 10, Nimrod is called “a mighty warrior on the earth” (verse 8\) and “a mighty hunter before the Lord” (verse 9a). So famous was Nimrod’s prowess as a hunter of wild animals that his skill became proverbial, and the ancients used to compliment people by saying, “This man is like Nimrod, the greatest hunter in the world” (verse 9b, NLT). Nimrod was obviously a mighty man with great skill and plenty of ambition. The fact that Genesis 10:8 calls Nimrod “a mighty one” (KJV) has led some to associate him with the [Nephilim](Nephilim.html), which are called “mighty men” in Genesis 6:4 (KJV). This association, although untenable, has led still others to believe that Nimrod was a giant. Many legends have sprung up around Nimrod. In Jewish legends, Nimrod promoted the worship of many gods and was the sworn enemy of Abraham, whom Nimrod tried to murder (see Genesis Rabbah 38:13\). Islamic literature also teaches that Nimrod and Abraham battled one other (Qur’an 21:68–70; 37:97–99\). Scottish minister and writer Alexander Hislop claimed that Nimrod was married to [Semiramis](who-Semiramis.html), a famous queen in the ancient world. All of this is speculation. Equally unsubstantiated are the descriptions of Nimrod from Jewish historian [Josephus](Flavius-Josephus.html), who links Nimrod to the building of the [Tower of Babel](Tower-of-Babel.html): “\[Nimrod] said he would be revenged on God, if he should have a mind to drown the world again; for that he would build a tower too high for the waters to reach. And that he would avenge himself on God for destroying their forefathers” (Antiquities of the Jews, Book 1, Chapter 4\). So, the motive for building the Tower of Babel, according to Josephus, was to protect humanity against another flood. Further, according to Josephus, Nimrod “persuaded \[his subjects] not to ascribe \[their strength] to God, as if it were through his means they were happy, but to believe that it was their own courage which procured that happiness” (ibid.). Of course, construction of the Tower of Babel ended with another show of God’s power: the Lord confused the languages of the people, making it impossible for them to communicate effectively enough to finish the job. Nimrod has lent his name to our vocabulary: today, a “nimrod” is “a hunting expert or devotee.” (And, for a brief time in the 1980s, nimrod was a less\-than\-heroic slang term for “geek” or “socially awkward person.”) Nimrod appears as a character in the mythology of many ancient cultures; he shows up in Hungarian, Greek, Arabic, Syrian, and Armenian legends. There is evidence that the Epic of Gilgamesh and the myth of Hercules both find their origins in Nimrod’s life. Nimrod was undoubtedly a powerful, charismatic hero\-figure of the ancient world. It isn’t hard to see why so many myths and legends would spring up in the wake of such a man. In the end, however, Nimrod’s power and glory came to nothing, because God is stronger than even the mightiest of men, and He cannot be thwarted. Nimrod was a mighty hunter before the Lord, but humility before the Lord is the posture of the wise (Proverbs 3:34; 11:2; James 4:6; 1 Peter 5:5\).
Should a Christian study sociology?	Answer Sociology is the study of social behavior, norms, origins, and development. It deals with the behavior of man\-made institutions and organizations and how people behave when organized into groups, as opposed to individually. Since God is a relational Being, human beings are also relational. Part of being created in God’s image (Genesis 1:27\) is that we are social creatures who naturally organize into societies. Sociology, then, can be seen as part of a broader study of human nature. Sociology seeks to understand social structure and behavior, social disorder, and change. Traditionally, sociology has focused on social class, law, religion, and deviance. However, because modern human institutions tend to rely heavily upon one another, and because they affect society at large, sociology as a science has grown to include evaluation of the medical, military, penal, educational, and technological spheres of society. The first true sociologist was the French philosopher Auguste Comte, who, after the French Revolution, desired to find a way to solve humanity’s problems. He proposed that sociological [positivism](positivism.html) was the answer. Positivism is a philosophical system that relies on logical proofs to decide what is true. It rejects the metaphysical and, therefore, rejects Christianity. Comte postulated that sociology could be used to collect data that could be rationally analyzed and eventually used to overcome humanity’s troubles. Despite Comte’s idealistic goals and the expansion of sociology, humanity’s problems have not been solved but have, in fact, increased. Later sociologists noticed the failure of positivism, hence, the rise of anti\-positivism, another approach to sociology. Anti\-positivism says that empiricism cannot be applied to human social behavior in the same way it can be applied to the laws of nature. For anti\-positivists, the object of sociology is “to interpret the meaning of social action, and thereby give a causal explanation of the way in which the action proceeds and the effects which it produces” (Max Weber, a noted sociologist, in The Nature of Social Action, 1922\). There are many other sociological theories, and the question each of them tries to answer is whether or not humanity can be improved, and if so, how. For a Christian, the answer is not found in sociology but in the Bible. The truth is, man is sinful, susceptible to the temptations of [the evil found within himself](sin-nature.html) and in the world around him (Romans 3:10–11; Matthew 18:7; Mark 14:38\). The problem (sin) is universal, and there is only one cure, the work of Jesus Christ on the cross (Hebrews 9:13–15\). By faith in Christ’s work and by the indwelling of God’s Holy Spirit, we have the power to reject sin and choose righteousness (Hebrews 2:17–18\). The answer to society’s ills lies not in data collecting, logical inferences, social engineering, or in other man\-made fixes. The answer is Jesus. Society’s problems can only be solved as individuals within society find a right relationship with God through Christ. There is no reason why a Christian should not study sociology. Understanding the patterns of human behavior and the cause and effect of that behavior is good, useful knowledge that can be applied in many contexts. However, sociology, as man’s perspective on man, will not and cannot improve man himself—only God can do that.
To what do the various musical terms in the book of Psalms refer?	Answer Several musical terms are used in the titles or verse breaks of the Psalms. In most Bible translations, a footnote will state that the meaning of these musical terms is uncertain. Many versions of the Bible will not attempt to translate the terms but instead will transliterate the Hebrew letters into a word pronounceable in English. The following list of musical terms in the [book of Psalms](Book-of-Psalms.html) gives a reference where each term can be found, along with suggested meanings: Alamoth: Psalm 46:1\. The meaning of this word is uncertain, although it has been suggested that the term refers to the music’s pitch being high or soprano, since its Hebrew root refers to young women or virgins. Gittith: Psalm 81:1\. Many meanings for gittith have been suggested, including “tune from Gath” and “song from the grape harvest.” Higgaion: Psalm 9:16\. The meaning of this word is uncertain, with some suggesting it refers to a musical interlude. The KJV translates it as “solemn sound” in Psalm 92:3\. Mahalath: Psalm 53:1\. This most likely refers to an unidentified song tune or to a certain style of playing it. [Maskil](maskil.html): Psalm 32:1\. The word means “prudent” and could refer to a contemplative style of music. The NET Bible translates it as “a well\-written song.” [Miktam](michtam.html): Psalm 59:1\. This technical word is of uncertain meaning to us. Muth\-labben: Psalm 9:1\. This word can be translated as “to die for the son,” which could be the title of the tune used to accompany the song. However, the exact musical use of this term is uncertain. [Selah](selah.html): Psalm 3:2\. Selah is the most frequently used musical term in the Psalms, occurring 71 times in the book. Most scholars believe it refers to a pause or silence. Some Bibles translate it as “interlude.” Selah is also found in Habakkuk 3:3, 9, and 13\. Sheminith: Psalm 6:1\. This musical term refers to a musical instrument—possibly an eight\-string lyre—and can also be found in 1 Chronicles 15:21\. [Shiggaion](shigionoth.html): Psalm 7:1\. We are uncertain of this word’s meaning. Suggestions range from “dirge” to “rapid change of rhythm.” The Psalms are songs and therefore include many musical terms that were important for those originally playing and singing these sacred tunes. Though the meaning of most of these terms has been lost, we can appreciate their importance and consider how God has used and continues to use these songs to the praise of His glory.
What sort of prayers should we pray for unbelievers?	Answer We can learn how to pray for unbelievers by modeling the prayers Jesus prayed. John 17 is Jesus’ longest recorded prayer and shows us how He prayed. Verse 3 says, “Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.” He prayed that people come to know God the Father. And the means by which they could know God is through Christ the Son (John 14:6; 3:15–18\). If this was Jesus’ desire, we know we are right when we pray similarly. Any prayer that agrees with God is an [effective prayer](effective-prayer.html) (James 5:16; 1 John 5:14\). Second Peter 3:9 also gives us a glimpse into the heart of God toward unbelievers. It says, “The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.” It is not God’s desire that anyone spend eternity away from His presence (Romans 6:23\). Jesus Himself told us to pray that the Lord of the harvest would send forth laborers into His harvest (Matthew 9:38\). When we pray for [repentance](repentance.html) in the lives of unbelievers, we are in agreement with God. We can also pray for opportunities to be the hands and feet of Jesus so that people can come to know His goodness (Galatians 6:10; Colossians 4:5; Ephesians 5:15–16\). We can pray for boldness, like the apostles did, in seizing those opportunities when God makes them available (Acts 4:13, 29; Ephesians 6:19\). We can also pray that God will orchestrate whatever circumstances are necessary to turn stubborn hearts toward repentance. Psalm 119:67 says, “Before I was afflicted I went astray, but now I obey your word.” It often takes painful circumstances to drive us to Christ. When we pray for loved ones who don’t know Jesus, it is tempting to ask God for protection and blessing. However, it is sometimes necessary to pray the opposite if that is what it takes to break the control that idolatry has on their lives. Comfort, materialism, sensuality, and addiction are false gods that keep unbelievers in bondage. Praying the will of God may require that we ask Him to remove His protection and comfort in order to drive them to the place where they must seek God. There is nothing more important for our unsaved loved ones than that they seek God and find Him. Praying for others touches the heart of God (James 5:16\). It is one way we show love for other people (1 John 4:7\). Even when we are not sure how to pray, we can take comfort in the promise of Romans 8:26\. God knows we don’t always know what to pray. He has sent the Holy Spirit to intercede for us so that the desires of our hearts are transported to the throne room of heaven.
Who were the Kenites?	Answer The Kenites were an ancient people living near the land of Canaan around the time of Abraham (Genesis 15:18–21\). The Bible mentions several dealings between the Israelites and the Kenites, who were always on friendly terms with each other. Moses’ father\-in\-law, Jethro, also known as Reuel, was “the priest of [Midian](Midianites.html)” and a Kenite (Judges 1:16\). Jethro lived south of Canaan near Mount Sinai (Exodus 3:1\). When Moses fled from Egypt, he went to Midian, where he right away met Jethro’s seven daughters, all shepherdesses. [Moses](life-Moses.html) eventually wed one of them, a woman named Zipporah (Exodus 2:16–21\) and thus married into the Kenite tribe. Moses lived among the Kenites for many years before God called him as the one to deliver the Israelites from their enslavement in Egypt. It seems that the Kenites in Midian knew enough about the one true God to maintain a priest. The name Reuel means “friend of God.” After the exodus, Reuel’s knowledge of God dramatically increased, and he joined Moses and Aaron in bringing a burnt sacrifice and other offerings before the Lord to worship Him (Exodus 18:9–12\). It is probable that the Kenites and the Midianites were related in some way. Reuel lived in Midian when Moses met him. Also, in Numbers 10:29, Moses’ father\-in\-law is called “Reuel the Midianite” (elsewhere, he is called a Kenite). Scripture also links the Kenites to the tribe of the Rekabites (1 Chronicles 2:55\). The Kenites were friendly to Moses and the Israelites during the time of the exodus. It seems that Jethro, Hobab, and other Kenites joined with Moses and traveled all the way to Canaan with the people of God (Exodus 18:1–7; Numbers 10:29–33\). The Kenites settled near Jericho until they eventually moved south to live in the desert region of [Negev](Negev-in-the-Bible.html) (Judges 1:16; cf. 1 Samuel 27:10\). However, a Kenite named Heber stayed in Canaan, migrating north to near Kedesh. It was Heber’s wife, Jael, who killed [Sisera](Sisera-in-the-Bible.html) during the time of [Deborah and Barak](Deborah-and-Barak.html) (Judges 4:11, 17–23\). During King Saul’s reign, God instructed Israel to destroy the [Amalekites](Amalekites.html). But mercy was shown to the Kenites who lived among the Amalekites; before Saul attacked, “he said to the Kenites, ‘Go away, leave the Amalekites so that I do not destroy you along with them; for you showed kindness to all the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt.’ So the Kenites moved away from the Amalekites” (1 Samuel 15:6\). There are some who claim that the Kenites were descendants of Cain, due to the similarity between the Hebrew words translated "Cain" and "Kenite." However, unless someone in Noah’s family was a descendant of Cain, all of Cain’s descendants would have been wiped out in the Flood. Further, even if a member of Noah’s family was a descendant of Cain, there would be no way, post\-Flood, for a distinct line of Cain to re\-emerge. For example, if Ham’s wife was a descendant of Cain, all of Ham’s descendants would be descendants of Cain. With that said, the important point is this: the Bible nowhere connects the Kenites with Cain.
Is there misogyny in the Bible?	Answer A misogynist is a person who hates or looks down on women. The term misogyny generally refers to attitudes and behaviors that degrade, insult, or abuse women on the basis of their gender. Examples of misogyny would be treating women as morally or intellectually inferior to men, allowing for female abuse, or referring to women using hateful or abusive language. Critics of Christianity sometimes claim there is misogyny in the Bible, but such claims are contradicted by both the Scriptures and history. Unfortunately, those seeking to expose misogyny in the Bible often use the same misguided approach as those seeking to justify misogyny with the Bible. That is, they tear single verses from their immediate context, force modern cultural conventions onto ancient cultures, and neglect the overall message being put forward. Worse, they ignore the profoundly positive effect biblical Christianity has had for women worldwide. A simple consideration of context eliminates most claims of misogyny in the Bible. A perfect example of this is Ephesians 5:22–24, which says wives are to submit to their husbands “as to the Lord.” Critics and misogynists alike prefer to cite those words—out of context—to support the claim that the Bible teaches women are to be subjugated to men. However, the very next words command husbands to love their wives “just as Christ loved the church” (Ephesians 5:25\) and to love them “as their own bodies,” providing and caring for them just as Christ does for His church (Ephesians 5:28–30\). Considering that Christ acted as a servant to His disciples (John 13:5\) and commanded us to do the same (John 13:13–16\)—even sacrificing His life for their sake (John 15:12–14\)—it’s impossible to justify a misogynist interpretation of Ephesians 5\. Misogyny is diametrically opposed to the teaching of the Bible. According to Scripture, all people are absolutely equal in the eyes of God regardless of gender, race, and ability (Galatians 3:28\). Further, women were treated as valued and respected persons both by Christ and the early church. Jesus rescued a guilty woman from her accusers (John 8:9–11\), was referred to as “teacher” by Mary and Martha (John 11:28\), and openly taught the woman at the well (John 4:9–10\), in defiance of social pressures. The early church not only attracted women followers (Acts 8:12; 17:12\), but many of them were instrumental in the proclamation of the gospel (Philippians 4:3\). In many ways, the Bible countered the truly misogynistic treatment of women in ancient times, and the effects of this radical worldview are reflected in history. Those criticizing the Bible for its attitude toward women should consider the status of women in the pagan cultures of the Old Testament, New Testament, and early church eras. Even in our modern era, one has only to contrast the status of women living in nations with a Christian heritage to those living in nations without it. Likewise, one should consider the horrific misogyny of industries such as pornography and the sex trade, both of which exist in direct opposition to biblical commands. As with many other social issues, biblical Christianity lays a foundation leading inescapably to ideas such as value, equality, and freedom for women. Ethics rooted in a Christian worldview have resulted in levels of female equality and opportunity that non\-Christian cultures have either never offered or have only considered under pressure from cultures with a Christian background. It’s also important to note the difference between misogyny described and misogyny endorsed. Books of history may detail the horrors of the Holocaust and the black plague, but we don’t see this as the publisher’s approval of Hitler or epidemic disease. There are certainly descriptions of misogyny in the Bible, but those acts are condemned. One example is the rape and murder of the concubine in Judges 19:25–29, an act so appalling that it sparked a civil war. Critics of the Bible eagerly point to such incidents without mentioning that the act in question is described and decried, not encouraged. Likewise, questions about misogyny in the Bible need to be separated from whether or not men have attempted to hijack Scripture to justify their prejudice. Men have also, at times, attempted to bolster misogyny using science, history, and even national laws, even when such interpretations are ridiculous. Neither the Israelites, Jesus, nor the early Christian church exhibited misogyny, and the Bible’s ethical framework leaves no room for it. In this way, the Bible cannot be blamed for misogyny or used to justify it. If anything, the need to tear Scripture from its context and twist its meaning shows the opposite: in order to claim misogyny in the Bible, one has to divorce passages from the rest of the text and from Christianity itself.
Who was Gomer in the Bible?	Answer Gomer in the Bible was the unfaithful wife of [Hosea](Hosea-in-the-Bible.html) the prophet. The Lord used [Hosea and Gomer’s relationship](Hosea-marry-prostitute.html) as an object lesson to show how Israel had sinned against Him by following other gods and how God remains faithful even when His people don’t. God gave Hosea an unusual command: “Go, marry a promiscuous woman and have children with her, for like an adulterous wife this land is guilty of unfaithfulness to the Lord” (Hosea 1:2\). Hosea obeyed by marrying Gomer, and the couple had two sons and a daughter (verses 3–8\). Some commentators believe that Gomer was a prostitute or that she had been guilty of repeated sexual sin before she married Hosea. Others believe that God’s description of Gomer as “promiscuous” is prophetic—that is, God’s command anticipated her infidelity, and only later did she become an adulteress. We do know that, after bearing three children, Gomer left Hosea to live with another man (or, if she was originally a prostitute, to return to her former lifestyle). God then gave Hosea another, even more amazing, command: “Go, show your love to your wife again, though she is loved by another man and is an adulteress. Love her as the Lord loves the Israelites, though they turn to other gods” (Hosea 3:1\). Hosea obeyed, buying his wife back with fifteen shekels of silver and some barley (verse 2\). This loyal love, undeterred by Gomer’s unfaithfulness, God meant as a picture of His own love for His wayward, idolatrous people. Hosea prophesied during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezkiah in Judah and the last six kings in Israel. Isaiah was a contemporary prophet, and he used some very strong language to describe Judah’s unfaithfulness. Through Isaiah, God calls Jerusalem “a whore” (Isaiah 1:21, ESV) because of her spiritual unfaithfulness. The people were interested only in pleasure (Isaiah 5:11–12\) and had forgotten things like justice and righteousness in favor of violence and chaos (Isaiah 5:7\). Through Isaiah, God speaks passionately about His love for Judah, calling them a vineyard that should have yielded a beautiful crop but instead yielded only “wild grapes” (Isaiah 5:1–2\), nothing of value. God says through Hosea that Israel had left Him to cherish “prostitution, wine and new wine” (Hosea 4:11\), and He makes it clear that both the men and the women were committing adultery with cultic prostitutes in worship of false gods (verse 12\). Gomer was a fitting symbol of Israel because of the sexual nature of the idolatry that the people were practicing. Their spiritual adultery was resulting in actual, physical adultery. Such ritual prostitution was a common method of worshiping Baal. Hosea says that God will remove the names of the Baals from Israel’s mouth and betroth her to Him forever, in righteousness and justice, in steadfast love and mercy (Hosea 2:17, 19\). God will heal them by His own power (Hosea 14:4–7\). These passages foreshadow the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit dwelling in us is who keeps us from following Israel’s bad example and straying from the Lord. The metaphors of prostitution and adultery are used repeatedly throughout Scripture to describe unfaithfulness to the Lord. Many of the prophets used sexual immorality as a picture of spiritual unfaithfulness to the Lord to whom the people belonged (Ezekiel 16:32; 23:27; Jeremiah 13:27\). In the New Testament, similar language is employed in James 4:4 and Revelation 17:2\. Gomer’s infidelity was a symbol of Israel’s spiritual unfaithfulness, but Hosea’s marriage to and redemption of Gomer is an enduring symbol of God’s faithfulness and provisional redemption of His unfaithful people, then and now, through Jesus Christ. God’s words to ancient Israel should fill us with hope today: “I will betroth you to me forever; / I will betroth you in righteousness and justice, / in love and compassion. / I will betroth you in faithfulness, / and you will acknowledge the Lord” (Hosea 2:19–20\).
How many psalms did David write?	Answer Contrary to popular belief, David is not the only author of [the Psalms](Book-of-Psalms.html). In fact, of the 150 Psalms, David is named as the author of only 75\. David is specifically noted as the author of 73 psalms in the titles of the psalms. These include Psalms 3—9; 11—32; 34—41; 51—65; 68—70; 86; 101; 103; 108—110; 122; 124; 131; 133; and 138—145\. In addition to these psalms, David is mentioned as the author of two psalms by writers in the New Testament. Psalm 2 is attributed to David in Acts 4:25: “You spoke by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of your servant, our father David: ‘Why do the nations rage and the peoples plot in vain?’” And Psalm 95 is attributed to David in Hebrews 4:7: “God again set a certain day, calling it ‘Today.’ This he did when a long time later he spoke through David, as in the passage already quoted: ‘Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts.’” The first psalm of David’s that we find is Psalm 3, written when David fled from his son Absalom. From this title we surmise that David’s psalms are not organized in chronological order but rather by themes. David’s psalms are found throughout the five books of the Psalms that were likely grouped upon the completion of Psalms during the time of Ezra in the fourth century BC. Many of David’s psalms lack background information regarding their context, but thirteen do share details of their setting: 1\. Psalm 3: A Psalm of David, when he fled from Absalom his son. 2\. Psalm 7: A Shiggaion of David, which he sang to the Lord concerning the words of Cush, a Benjaminite. 3\. Psalm 30: A Psalm of David. A song at the dedication of the temple. 4\. Psalm 34: Of David, when he changed his behavior before Abimelech, so that he drove him out, and he went away. 5\. Psalm 51: A Psalm of David, when Nathan the prophet went to him, after he had gone in to Bathsheba. 6\. Psalm 52: A Maskil/Maschil of David, when [Doeg the Edomite](Doeg-the-Edomite.html), came and told Saul, “David has come to the house of Ahimelech.” 7\. Psalm 54: A Maskil of David, when the Ziphites went and told Saul, “Is not David hiding among us?” 8\. Psalm 56: A Miktam of David, when the Philistines seized him in Gath. 9\. Psalm 57: A Miktam of David, when he fled from Saul, in the cave. 10\. Psalm 59: A Miktam of David, when Saul sent men to watch his house in order to kill him. 11\. Psalm 60: A Miktam of David; for instruction; when he strove with Aram\-naharaim and with Aram\-zobah, and when Joab on his return struck down twelve thousand of Edom in the Valley of Salt. 12\. Psalm 63: A Psalm of David, when he was in the wilderness of Judah. 13\. Psalm 142: A Maskil of David, when he was in the cave. A Prayer. David’s psalms express a heart devoted to God. His music comforted King Saul, influenced his nation, and continues to change lives today.
Is carbon dating a reliable method for determining the age of things?	Answer Carbon dating, or radiocarbon dating, like any other laboratory testing technique, can be extremely reliable, so long as all of the variables involved are controlled and understood. Several factors affect radiocarbon test results, not all of which are easy to control objectively. For this reason, it’s preferable to date objects using multiple methods, rather than relying on one single test. Carbon dating is reliable within certain parameters but certainly not infallible. When testing an object using radiocarbon dating, several factors have to be considered: First, carbon dating only works on matter that was once alive, and it only determines the approximate date of death for that sample. For example, a steel spearhead cannot be carbon dated, so archaeologists might perform testing on the wooden shaft it was attached to. This provides good information, but it only indicates how long ago that piece of wood was cut from a living tree. Radiocarbon dating can’t tell the difference between wood that was cut and immediately used for the spear, and wood that was cut years before being re\-used for that purpose. Nor can it tell if a much older spearhead was attached to a brand\-new shaft. Most archaeological items can’t be directly carbon dated, so their dating is based on testing done on nearby objects or materials. This makes the results subject to the researchers’ assumptions about those objects. If the spear head is dated using animal bones nearby, the accuracy of the results is entirely dependent on the assumed link between the spear head and the animal. This is perhaps the greatest point of potential error, as assumptions about dating can lead to circular reasoning, or choosing confirming results, rather than accepting a “wrong” date. Second, radiocarbon dating becomes more difficult, and less accurate, as the sample gets older. The bodies of living things generally have concentrations of the isotope carbon\-14, also known as radiocarbon, identical to concentrations in the atmosphere. When an organism dies, it stops taking in new carbon\-14, and whatever is inside gradually decays into other elements. Carbon\-14 normally makes up about 1 trillionth (1/1,000,000,000,000\) of the earth’s atmosphere. So even brand\-new samples contain incredibly tiny quantities of radiocarbon. Eventually, the amount of carbon\-14 remaining is so small that it’s all but undetectable. Tiny variations within a particular sample become significant enough to skew results to the point of absurdity. Carbon dating therefore relies on enrichment and enhancement techniques to make smaller quantities easier to detect, but such enhancement can also skew the test results. Normal errors in the test become magnified. As a result, carbon dating is only plausible for objects less than about 40,000 years old. The other major factor affecting the results of carbon dating is gauging the original proportion of carbon\-14 itself. Carbon dating is based on the loss of carbon\-14, so, even if the present amount in a specimen can be detected accurately, we must still know how much carbon\-14 the organism started with. Scientists must assume how much carbon\-14 was in the organism when it died. Complicating matters is the fact that Earth’s carbon\-14 concentrations change drastically based on various factors. As samples get older, errors are magnified, and assumptions can render carbon dating all but useless. For example, variations in greenhouse effects and solar radiation change how much carbon\-14 a living organism is exposed to, which drastically changes the “starting point” from which a radiocarbon dating test is based. Likewise, different living things absorb or reject carbon\-14 at different rates. Two plants that died at the same moment, but which naturally contained different levels of radiocarbon, could be dated to drastically different times. Modern effects such as fossil fuel burning and nuclear testing have also changed atmospheric carbon\-14 levels and in turn change the “starting point” for a radiocarbon test. All in all, setting the parameters of the carbon\-14 test is more of an art than a science. Contamination and repeatability are also factors that have to be considered with carbon dating. A tiny amount of carbon contamination will greatly skew test results, so sample preparation is critical. Even then, a large proportion of radiocarbon dating tests return inconsistent, or even incoherent, results, even for tests done on the same sample. The explanation given for these outliers is usually “contamination.” Inconsistent results are another reason why multiple samples, multiples tests, and various parallel methods are used to date objects. Due to all these factors, it’s common for carbon dating results of a particular sample, or even a group of samples, to be rejected for the sole reason that they don’t align with the “expected” results. That’s not unusual in science, so far as it goes, but the relationship between assumptions and interpretations must be kept in mind. At best, it needs to be acknowledged. At worst, it can make carbon dating circular and self\-confirming, though there are other means of dating that can reduce this risk. In short, carbon dating is as useful as any other technique, so long as it’s done properly and the results are objectively interpreted. It is not, however, an inherently error\-free or black\-and\-white method for dating objects.
Does the Bible say anything about holy war?	Answer The concept of “holy war” is most commonly expressed as a war justified on the grounds of religious differences. As typically understood, this concept is neither taught nor encouraged by the Bible. The ancient Israelites were never given a broad mandate to wage war on behalf of their faith, though they were given a specific time, place, and that which they were instructed to conquer. Jesus Christ explicitly contradicted the holy war concept through both His teachings and His example. The concept of “[just war](war-Bible.html),” meaning justifiable war waged by a legitimate government, is not the same as a “holy war.” Critics sometimes claim that holy war is encouraged in the Old Testament. However, the nation of Israel was given a mandate only to conquer the land of Canaan (Numbers 34:2\). This command was for a specific place, time, and people, not an endorsement of religious warfare. Nor was the conquest of Canaan made on the basis of religion, in and of itself. On the contrary, God repeatedly stated that this conquest was due to the wickedness of the Canaanites, not the merit of Israel (Deuteronomy 9:4–6\). Historically, this is exactly how the nation of Israel interpreted these commands. No attempts were made to conquer other lands or to expand that territory through combat. Christians are strictly forbidden from using violence in an attempt to spread their faith. Christ directly told His disciples not to use violence to further His ministry (Matthew 26:52–54\). He lived out a philosophy of peacemaking and taught others to do the same (Matthew 5:9–10\). When arrested and facing death, Jesus clearly said that His kingdom was not earthly, so His disciples would not fight to protect Him (John 18:36\). Christians expect persecution, not conquest, since Christ experienced the same (John 15:18–21\). The example of the earliest believers was that of civil disobedience (Acts 5:25–29\) and submission (Romans 13:4–5\), never armed revolution or conquest. In fact, for the first three centuries of its existence, Christianity was effectively illegal, yet it spread throughout the Roman Empire. The occurrence of “holy war,” historically speaking, is rare. Secular historians note that more than 90 percent of the wars fought in human history had no religious motivation. The remaining 7 percent of conflicts account for about 2 percent of all deaths in war. Islam accounts for more than half of these religious wars, despite existing for only about 1/3 of human history; in Islam’s first three centuries, its growth was fueled by armed conquest. If there’s any reason the concept of “holy war” exists, it’s fair to say that reason is Islam. It’s also worth noting that atheistic regimes have resulted in untold millions of deaths, just in the last 100 years alone. Religious belief, historically, hasn’t been a major cause of conflict, while non\-belief has enabled some of history’s worst atrocities. The Bible maintains a strict emphasis on God’s righteousness and mankind’s fallibility. Jesus preached a message of peace and lived it out perfectly. His earliest followers did the same, and every attempt to justify “holy war” by nominal Christianity was met with opposition and dissent from within the church. Historically and theologically, “holy war” has never been a part of biblical Christianity.
What is the prayer of faith?	Answer The phrase “the prayer of faith” comes from a passage in James 5, which says that “the prayer of faith \[or “the prayer offered in faith,” depending on the translation] will save the one who is sick” (James 5:15, ESV). Some Christians believe this verse means that, if only one prays with enough faith, healing for the sick person is guaranteed. Others believe that “the prayer of faith” simply refers to the prayer offered by the elders of the church, and the word save refers sometimes to the spiritual and emotional comfort of God, rather than physical healing (see 2 Corinthians 1:3–5\). Here is the context of the verse: “Is anyone among you sick? Let them call the elders of the church to pray over them and anoint them with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise them up. If they have sinned, they will be forgiven. Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective” (James 5:14–16\). The “prayer of faith” is made by the [elders of a church](duties-elder-church.html) visiting a sick person under their spiritual care. The prayer, accompanied by an [anointing with oil](anointing-oil.html), is offered “in the name of the Lord”; that is, in the Lord’s authority and subject to His will. Prayer is made in full confidence of God’s power to heal. If the particular illness is the result of personal sin, then confession and repentance of that sin is also called for. The “raising up” of James 5:15 is not necessarily physical—if it were, then no believer should ever die! Many Christians do die from disease or injury every year, but this doesn’t mean they are lacking faith or that those praying for them lack faith. It simply means that it was not the Lord’s will to heal in that particular instance (see 1 John 5:14\). The prayer of faith is offered in faith, and part of faith is trusting that God knows best. Those who pray should be unwavering in their confidence that God will always do what is right. Having prayed the prayer of faith, we can cheerfully commit our lives into God’s hands. The restoration of the sick one that James 5:15 guarantees as a result of the prayer of faith includes emotional, spiritual restoration that comes in the form of God’s comfort and peace. Jesus talked to His disciples repeatedly about prayer. He told them to pray for God’s kingdom to be represented on earth and for His will to be done; He told them to pray for their daily sustenance, for forgiveness, and for strength against temptation (Matthew 6:9–13\). He also told them that anything they asked for in His name, for God’s glory, would be done for them (John 14:13–14\), and He assured them that God knows how to give good gifts to His children (Matthew 7:11\). All of these passages emphasize God’s goodness and concern for us, but none of them guarantee physical healing. We ask for God’s will, we plead for what we desire, and we pray in His name, but sometimes physical healing is not His plan for us.
Does 2 Chronicles 5:14 teach slaying in the Spirit?	Answer “Slaying” people in the Spirit is the practice of laying hands on a person who then loses control of his body to the extent that he falls helplessly to the ground, supposedly overcome by the power of the Holy Spirit. This behavior typically occurs in Charismatic and Pentecostal circles. The person thus “slain” may lie on the floor for minutes or hours, convulsing, crying out in ecstatic utterances, or simply lying quietly. People are often [“slain” in the Spirit](Spirit-slain.html) during revival meetings or praise services led by a Charismatic minister with a reputation for having the ability to “slay” people in such a fashion. Some try to use 2 Chronicles 5:14 to justify the behavior demonstrated by being slain in the Spirit. In that passage, King Solomon and the priests of Israel are dedicating the newly built temple in Jerusalem. As the ark of the covenant is being brought into the temple for the first time, there is music and loud singing in praise to God. Then something spectacular happens: “The house of the LORD, was filled with a cloud, so that the priests could not stand to minister because of the cloud, for the glory of the LORD filled the house of God” (2 Chronicles 5:13–14, ESV). Using 2 Chronicles 5:14 as a proof text for slaying in the Spirit hinges on the word stand. The reasoning is that, if the priests could not “stand” to minister, they must have fallen to the ground, just like happens in modern\-day Charismatic services. The fact that we fall to the ground incapacitated proves that the glory of the Lord is among us, just like it was in Solomon’s day. This interpretation of 2 Chronicles 5:14 requires several assumptions and ignores the definition of the word stand in this context. The word here does not mean “maintain an erect posture”; it means “take one’s place.” Other translations of the same verse say the priests “could not perform their service” (NIV); “could not carry out their duties” (NET); and “were unable to complete their duties” (ISV). The idea is simply that the priests were prevented from taking their positions in the temple, not that they were knocked flat. The priests may have “knelt on the pavement with their faces to the ground” with the other onlookers (2 Chronicles 7:3\), but otherwise they remained upright. The ESV translates the same Hebrew word for “stand” in 2 Chronicles 5:14 as “stay” in Exodus 9:28\. In that verse, the pharaoh tells Moses, “There has been enough of God’s thunder and hail. I will let you go, and you shall stay no longer” (emphasis added). Was pharaoh telling Moses that Moses would soon fall to the ground, shaking and uttering unintelligible words? No, he was saying that Moses would soon be allowed to leave his place in Egypt and go to another place. We must remember that the church is only obligated to follow those instructions clearly given to us in the New Testament. We cannot apply an Old Testament event in Israel to the New Covenant church with haphazard disregard of context and dispensation. Even if the priests in Solomon’s time were struck down in a temporary fit of spiritual ecstasy (which they were not), it would not give license for believers today to seek such an experience. Remember, when Saul was filled with the Spirit, “he stripped off his garments, and he too prophesied. . . . He lay naked all that day and all that night” (1 Samuel 19:24\). Should we imitate Saul’s behavior, too? There is a big difference between narrative in the Bible and commands in the Bible. The Lord truly fed Israel with manna in the wilderness, but that doesn’t mean we should sit outside with bowls in our hands today, waiting for it to rain bread. We have no command to do so. The fact that the glory of the Lord filled the temple and the priests could not perform their duties is narrative—it is an accurate telling of history. But the priests had no command to seek the same experience the next week. Neither do we. The church is never commanded to seek a repeat of the priests’ experience, and we are never commanded to be slain in the Spirit. Also arguing against being slain in the Spirit is the fact that we cannot base theology on what we have seen or experienced. Experience\-based doctrine will invite deception. Jesus said, “A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a sign” (Matthew 16:4\), and He warned that in the last days “false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive” (Matthew 24:24\). No, the miraculous is no guarantee that God is at work. “The righteous will live by faith” (Romans 1:17\). In our faith system, we are being matured to believe God when there are no signs, to trust Him when there is no evidence, to follow Him when there is no proof of the truth except that God said it. Faith, “confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see,” is primary (Hebrews 11:1\). The Charismatic movement is not the faith movement; rather, it is the signs movement. It teaches people to seek after a sign or to rely on personal experience rather than on the written Word of God. Those who live by faith do not need signs and wonders to keep their faith alive or to prove the Word. They do not need to engage in extra\-biblical practices to somehow prove God’s presence. Those who live by faith read the Word of God, believe what God has said, and live accordingly. God wants us to be alert, conscious, aware, ready, and watchful (Luke 21:36; 1 Corinthians 16:13; 1 Peter 5:8; 2 Timothy 4:5; Revelation 3:2\). God never teaches chaos, unconsciousness, confusion, mysticism, or the practices of pagan spiritualism. He teaches self\-control, self\-discipline, the renewing of the mind, growth in knowledge and love, the necessity of faith, and the awareness of God’s presence in our waking moments. The fact that the priests in 2 Chronicles 5:14 “could not perform their service” is not due to their falling to the ground. Nothing in the passage suggests the priests were laid out on their backs or physically incapacitated in any way. Rather, the visible glory of the Lord filling the temple made the priests keep their distance. This was the Lord’s temple, the Lord’s work, and the Lord’s day. The priests became awed observers of the glory of God.
What does the Bible say about self-deception?	Answer We live in a world full of lies, and deceit comes from many sources. There are lying spirits who lead astray (1 Timothy 4:1\); there are “evildoers and impostors” looking for dupes (2 Timothy 3:13\); and, perhaps most insidious, we have ourselves to deal with. Self\-deception is common in our fallen world. Our own hearts are deceitful—so much so that we easily fool ourselves (Jeremiah 17:9\). Isaiah 44:20 speaks of an idolater who is misled by his own “deluded heart.” The prophet Obadiah identifies arrogance as one of the roots of self\-deception: “The pride of your heart has deceived you” (Obadiah 1:3\). Human pride always blinds us to truth. It promises honor, but it delivers disgrace: “Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall” (Proverbs 16:18\). James 1:22 warns us against deceiving ourselves: “Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says.” The self\-deception that James has in mind relates to an inappropriate response to truth. God’s Word is meant to change us (see Psalm 119:11 and John 17:17\). We can sit in church for years, listening to sermon after sermon, but if we never allow the Word we hear preached change us, then we are self\-deceived. We can read the Bible from cover to cover, but unless we put its commands into practice, we deceive ourselves. Such deception is common among religious people who accumulate truth in their minds, assuming that this is what “true religion” is all about. But Scripture was not given merely to produce theologians; it was given “so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:17\). Holding the truth in one’s mind is not necessarily a character\-changing quality. James 1:23–24 illustrates: merely looking at oneself in a mirror is not necessarily an appearance\-changing experience. The mirror can tell us our hair is a mess, but unless we get out the brush and attack the problem, the tangles will remain. James goes on to contrast self\-deceived, “worthless” religion with “pure and faultless” religion, giving a practical example of each. One type of self\-deception is to believe that our words do not matter: “Those who consider themselves religious and yet do not keep a tight rein on their tongues deceive themselves, and their religion is worthless” (James 1:26\). In contrast, those who successfully avoid being self\-deceived practice true religion: “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after [orphans and widows](orphans-and-widows.html) in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world” (verse 27\). Empty religion allows a person to employ his bodily members and his material resources toward self\-centered objectives. But God approves of “faith expressing itself through love” (Galatians 5:6\). Self\-deception is illustrated tragically by [Samson](life-Samson.html). This mighty hero of Israel disclosed the secret of his strength to Delilah, who betrayed him to his enemies as he slept. Once his hair had been cut, Delilah called, “Samson, the Philistines are upon you!” Samson “awoke from his sleep and thought, ‘I’ll go out as before and shake myself free.’ But he did not know that the Lord had left him” (Judges 16:20\). Samson learned the hard way that forgetting the Word of God is a form of self\-deception. The bravado of the giant [Goliath](David-and-Goliath.html) is another example of self\-deception. He strutted and boasted and flung insults at Israel, sure that his great size and physical strength would ensure victory against the much smaller and weaker David. But he was wrong; in fact, Goliath didn’t even know what battle he was fighting. His fight was not with David, but with David’s God (1 Samuel 17:41–51\). Self\-deception can also occur in relation to one’s security, as shown in Jesus’ [parable of the rich fool](parable-rich-fool.html). The man in the story was thrilled that his land produced an unusually abundant crop. He believed he’d come to a time in his life when he could “take life easy; eat, drink and be merry” (Luke 12:19\). But this was wishful thinking, for he would die that very night (verse 20\). The [church of Laodicea](church-in-Laodicea.html) was the victim of self\-deception concerning their spiritual condition. This lukewarm church had convinced itself that everything was all right: “I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing” (Revelation 3:17a). Jesus, who always speaks truth, set them straight: “You do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked” (verse 17b). To avoid self\-deception, we must be like the one who “looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues in it—not forgetting what they have heard, but doing it—they will be blessed in what they do” (James 1:25\). Remembering the Word, doing the Word, and continuing in the Word—this is what changes character and counters self\-delusion. Like a mirror, the Word of God will always show us the truth.
Who was Ethan the Ezrahite in the Psalms?	Answer Ethan the Ezrahite is the songwriter\-author of Psalm 89\. The title of that psalm says it is “a maskil of Ethan the Ezrahite.” In addition to Psalm 89, Ethan the Ezrahite is mentioned in 1 Kings 4:31 as a wise man, yet not as wise as King Solomon, who “was wiser than anyone else, including Ethan the Ezrahite.” First Chronicles 2:6 gives the added information that Ethan had four brothers and was the son of Zerah (called Mahol in 1 Kings 4:31\). He was of the tribe of Levi. First Chronicles 15:17 mentions an Ethan who was involved with bringing of the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem. Since he is called “Ethan the son of Kushaiah,” he is probably a different person from the author of Psalm 89\. However, 1 Chronicles 15:19 adds that the son of Kushaiah was a musician, one of the men to sound the bronze cymbals, and this had led some scholars to assume a link between the two Ethans. If they are the same person, then Ethan the Ezrahite is probably also known as Jeduthun (1 Chronicles 16:38–42 and the titles of Psalms 62 and 77\). Another way to learn about Ethan the Ezrahite is through his psalm. Verse 1 opens, “I will sing of the Lord’s great love forever; / with my mouth I will make your faithfulness known through all generations.” Ethan emphasizes praise to God for His covenant with David (verses 1–4\) and honors God’s character and power (verses 5–18\). In verses 19–37, recording God’s own words in a vision, Ethan details God’s faithfulness to David and his descendants. Then Ethan expresses lament at the king’s defeat (verses 38–45\) and asks God to remember the covenant (verses 46–52\). Ethan concludes, “Praise be to the Lord forever! / Amen and Amen” (verse 52\). Even in times of suffering and struggle, this psalmist calls God’s people to bless the Lord and call upon His strength in time of need.
What is a soul link?	Answer The idea of a soul link is a New Age belief that finds its roots in Hindu mysticism and Greek mythology. A soul link is often called a soul mate, soul twin, or twin flame. A soul link is supposedly felt by two people who are spiritually connected. Being “linked” indicates that their souls originated from the same spiritual source before assuming physical form. Belief in soul links is tied to [reincarnation](reincarnation.html), as many people believe that the two halves of a soul link will find each other over and over again as they are reincarnated. Some people point to 1 Samuel 18:1 as mentioning a soul link: “The soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David” (KJV). However, this verse is simply saying, in an idiomatic way, that Jonathan and David were “bound together in close friendship” (NET). They were committed to each other, but there was no mystical union of souls. The concept of a soul link or soul mate comes from Plato. In his work The Symposium, Plato tells a comedic story about the first human beings who had two faces and four arms and legs. Those humans threatened to overthrow the gods, so in response the gods split the humans in two. This would assure twice the amount in tribute the gods would receive from humans, plus it would humble humanity. After the split, though, the humans were so unhappy that they ceased to eat, so the gods sewed up their bodies and healed them. Ever since then, according to the myth, human beings have sought their other half taken from them by the gods, and, when they find that other half, they feel complete. Much romantic literature and art is based on this concept. Humans often do feel incomplete. Loneliness and the sense that something is lacking is a universal feeling. It is possible to live in the world’s largest cities, surrounded by other people, yet be overwhelmed with loneliness. This feeling of incompleteness is not solved or overcome with romantic love, as anyone who has been in love can attest. The only truly satisfying “soul link” is the one we can enjoy with our Creator. God has fashioned man to desire a relationship with Him, and when we are “linked” to Him in our souls, we feel satisfied (Psalm 1; John 3:29; 7:38; 16:22\). Sadly, sin drives us constantly to find that satisfaction elsewhere (Jeremiah 2:13\). Anything from a pagan idol to a glass of wine can become our substitute for God. Lovers, drugs, work, television, sports, and even our own families can become idols when we try to find wholeness in them or when we use them as distractions from the emptiness we feel without God. The Bible tells us to abide in Christ, or we can do nothing (John 15:4\), and this is amazingly true, both on a deep, spiritual level and on a practical, everyday level. Personal dysfunctionality is inextricably linked to our distance from God. When we seek a soul link between ourselves and our Creator, all other things we need—including joy, pleasure, satisfaction, security, and wholeness—will be added to us (see Matthew 6:33: Psalm 16\).
Why are there so many atheists?	Answer Before we can discuss [atheism](atheism.html), we need to define it. According to an official atheism website, atheists define themselves this way: “Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.” Those who identify as atheists prefer to emphasize their lack of belief rather than the refusal to believe. They consider atheism to be intellectually superior to faith in God. However, this definition clashes with the biblical worldview, which states, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God’” (Psalm 14:1; 53:1\). Since atheists can agree with people of faith that every human being has the freedom to choose what he or she thinks or believes, we will define atheism here as the choice to disbelieve in any kind of Supreme Being to which mankind is accountable. Statistics show that atheism is on the rise in countries that have historically had a strong Christian influence. These statistics include those raised in godless homes, but they also show an alarming increase among those who once held to some form of religious faith. When we hear of a prominent figure in Christianity renouncing the faith he or she used to claim, we are left wondering, “Why?” Why would so many people stop believing in God when His handiwork is everywhere (Psalm 19:1; 97:6; Romans 1:20\)? Every culture on earth recognizes some form of deity, so why are so many people claiming they do not believe in any god at all? There are several reasons people may define themselves as atheists. The first is ignorance. Due to lack of correct information, a person may conclude that nothing exists beyond this universe and man’s experience of it. Since there remains a great deal we do not know, ignorance often invents ideas to fill in the blanks. This often results in either false religions or atheism. Sketchy information about God is often tainted by mythology or religious superstition to the extent that anything supernatural sounds like a fairy tale. Exposed to a mishmash of confusing claims, some people decide there is no truth to any of it and throw the baby out with the bathwater. Disillusionment is another reason some people become atheists. Due to negative experiences, such as having a prayer go unanswered or seeing hypocritical behavior in others, a person may conclude that God does not exist. This response is often fueled by anger or hurt. These people reason that, if God existed, He would behave in ways they could comprehend or agree with. Since He did not respond the way they wanted Him to, they conclude that He must not exist at all. They may stumble over complicated concepts such as hell, Old Testament genocide, or eternity and conclude the God of the Bible is too confusing to be real. Disillusionment propels people to find comfort in what is seen and known, rather than an invisible deity. To avoid the possibility of more disappointment, they abandon any attempt at faith and find a measure of comfort in deciding that God simply does not exist. Closely linked to the disillusioned are those who call themselves “atheists” when, in fact, they are anti\-God. Atheist is a label some hide behind to mask a deep hatred toward God. Often due to childhood trauma or abuse in the name of religion, these people are consumed by an antipathy toward all things religious. The only way they can retaliate against a God they consider cruel is to deny Him vehemently. Events of the past have left wounds so deep that it is easier to deny the reality of God than admit that they hate Him. True atheists would not include this group in their numbers, as they recognize that to be angry with God is to acknowledge His existence. But many people do, in fact, call themselves atheists while simultaneously expressing outrage toward a God whose existence they deny. Still others reject the idea of God because they want Him to be easier to find. When well\-known atheist Richard Dawkins was asked, “What would you say if you faced God after death?” he responded, “I would say to Him, ‘Why did you take such great pains to conceal yourself?’” Some people frown at the fact that God is Spirit, invisible, and found only through faith (Hebrews 11:6; Jeremiah 29:13\). They adopt the attitude that the Creator of the universe owes them evidence of His existence beyond what He has already lavishly given (Psalm 19:1; 102:25; Romans 1:20\). Jesus dealt with this mindset when He walked the earth. In Mark 8, Jesus had just fed four thousand people with a sack lunch, but the intellectual elites came to Him demanding that He perform a sign to “prove” He was the Messiah (verse11\). Jesus illustrated this hardness of heart in His parable about the rich man in hell who longed to warn his brothers about what awaited them after death (Luke 16:19–31\). From heaven, Abraham answered, “If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.” The most likely explanation for the continuing rise of atheism has not changed since the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3:6; Romans 3:23\). The very essence of all sin is self\-determination. By denying the existence of a Creator, atheists can do whatever they please without concern for future judgment or eternal consequences (Matthew 12:36; Romans 14:12; 1 Peter 4:5; Hebrews 4:13\). In the twenty\-first century, self\-worship has become culturally acceptable. Atheism appeals to a generation raised on evolutionary theory and moral relativism. John 3:19 says, “Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.” If human beings are self\-created, self\-determined, and self\-centered, then there is no moral law or lawgiver to whom they must submit. There are no absolutes and no one to whom they are ultimately accountable. By adopting such a mindset, atheists can focus on seeking pleasure in this life alone. As long as scientists, professors, and philosophers peddle their atheistic viewpoints as truth and wisdom, people will continue to buy it because the idea of self\-determination appeals to our rebellious natures. The attitude is nothing new, but the changing cultural norms are making it more openly acceptable. Romans 1:18–31 details the results of this rejection of God’s authority. Verse 28 says, “God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done.” Our world is seeing the results of that depravity. What atheists call “enlightenment,” God calls foolishness. Verses 22–23 say, “Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools.” Since the “fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” (Psalm 111:10; Proverbs 1:7; 9:10\), then the denial of the Lord (atheism) is the beginning of foolishness.
Who was Heman the Ezrahite in the Psalms?	Answer Heman the Ezrahite is the named author of Psalm 88 in the Old Testament. The title to this psalm notes, “A song. A psalm of the Sons of Korah. For the director of music. According to mahalath leannoth. A maskil of Heman the Ezrahite.” It is clear from this title that Heman was from “[the sons of Korah](sons-of-Korah.html),” meaning from the family of Korah, and that Heman was likely both a songwriter and musician. Heman worked closely with King David and is also named a [seer](seer-Bible.html) in 1 Chronicles 25:5\. Another Heman is mentioned in 1 Chronicles 2:5, but he is from the tribe of Judah and a different Heman from the one mentioned in [Psalms](Book-of-Psalms.html). The Heman in Psalm 88 is a Levite mentioned with his family line in 1 Chronicles 6:33: “From the Kohathites: Heman, the musician, the son of Joel, the son of Samuel.” Heman was the grandson of Samuel, the final judge of Israel who anointed King Saul and King David. In addition, Heman is listed as one of three main musicians appointed by King David “for the ministry of prophesying, accompanied by harps, lyres and cymbals” (1 Chronicles 25:1\). Heman’s family was well known, mentioned in 1 Chronicles 25:4–6: “As for Heman, from his sons: Bukkiah, Mattaniah, Uzziel, Shubael and Jerimoth; Hananiah, Hanani, Eliathah, Giddalti and Romamti\-Ezer; Joshbekashah, Mallothi, Hothir and Mahazioth. (All these were sons of Heman the king’s seer. They were given him through the promises of God to exalt him. God gave Heman fourteen sons and three daughters.) All these men were under the supervision of their father for the music of the temple of the Lord, with cymbals, lyres and harps, for the ministry at the house of God.” His musical family of fourteen sons and three daughters was prominent during the reign of King David. Heman and his family were also present when the [ark of the covenant](ark-of-the-covenant.html) was brought to Jerusalem: “All the Levites who were musicians—Asaph, Heman, Jeduthun and their sons and relatives—stood on the east side of the altar, dressed in fine linen and playing cymbals, harps and lyres. They were accompanied by 120 priests sounding trumpets” (2 Chronicles 5:12\). Heman and the other Levites were formally dressed, sang, and played instruments at this time. It seems that Heman was still serving during the time of King Solomon, son of David. Heman was considered very wise. Solomon, the wisest of all, was compared to Heman: “He was wiser than anyone else, including Ethan the Ezrahite—wiser than Heman” (1 Kings 4:31\). The musician and sage Heman served in Israel as a Levite, a seer, a songwriter, a godly father, and a man of influence during the time of David and Solomon. Today, his only known song is Psalm 88, a song of one passionate for God: “Lord, you are the God who saves me; / day and night I cry out to you” (Psalm 88:1\).
Who was Miriam in the Bible?	Answer Miriam in the Bible is Moses’ older sister. She is called “Miriam the prophetess” in Exodus 15:20\. She plays an important role in several episodes of Moses’ life and in the exodus of Israel from Egypt. Miriam is the sister who watches over her baby brother [Moses](life-Moses.html) among the bulrushes on the banks of the Nile. Their mother had hidden Moses in a basket on the river bank to protect him from Pharaoh’s decree to throw all Hebrew baby boys into the river (Exodus 1:22—2:4\). As Miriam watches, Pharaoh’s daughter discovers and pities Moses, and Miriam quickly intervenes to ask if the Egyptian princess would like a Hebrew woman to nurse the child for her. The princess agrees, and Miriam quickly gets their mother. Pharaoh’s daughter commands Moses’ biological mother to nurse him and bring him back to her when he is older. By the grace of God, Miriam helps save the infant Moses (Exodus 2:5–10\). Miriam had another brother, Aaron. Their parents, Amram and Jochebed (Exodus 6:20\), were both from the Levite tribe of Israel (Exodus 2:1\). Together, God uses Moses, Miriam, and Aaron to lead the people of Israel from slavery in Egypt to the Promised Land in Canaan (Micah 6:4\). After miraculously [crossing the Red Sea](parting-Red-Sea.html) on dry ground and seeing the Egyptian army overthrown in the sea, Miriam leads the women with a tambourine in worshiping God with song and dance (Exodus 15:20–22\). The words to Miriam’s song are recorded in verse 21: “Sing to the Lord, / for he is highly exalted. / Both horse and driver / he has hurled into the sea.” In this same passage, she is given the title “prophetess,” the first of only a handful of women in Scripture identified that way. Others called a “prophetess” are Deborah (Judges 4:4\), Huldah (2 Kings 22:14\), Isaiah’s wife (Isaiah 8:3\), Anna (Luke 2:36\), and Philip’s four daughters (Acts 21:9\). Unfortunately, Miriam later falls into a spirit of complaining. Both Miriam and Aaron criticize Moses for marrying a Cushite or Ethiopian woman, but Miriam is listed first (Numbers 12:1\) so it is likely she instigated the complaint. While the complaint was ostensibly against [Moses’ wife](Moses-wife.html), the discontent ran deeper: “‘Has the Lord spoken only through Moses?’ they asked. ‘Hasn’t he also spoken through us?’” (Numbers 12:2\). In her criticism, Miriam was questioning the Lord’s wisdom in choosing Moses as the leader. God was angry that Miriam and Aaron were so willing to speak against the servant He had chosen. The Lord struck Miriam with leprosy. Aaron, realizing the foolishness of their words, repented of his sin, and Moses, ever the intercessor, prayed on behalf of his sister: “Moses cried out to the Lord, ‘Please, God, heal her!’” (Numbers 12:13\). After a week\-long quarantine, Miriam was healed and rejoined the camp. As Miriam’s leprosy convicted Aaron of the foolish words they had spoken against God’s chosen servant, it should also remind us not to judge those around us or live in jealousy when God has given a specific call to someone else (see Titus 3:1–15; James 1:26; 4:11–12; Ephesians 4:31; Philippians 4:8\). Miriam had an opportunity to show the people of Israel what it meant to live in love as a servant of God without complaining, and, for most of her life, she did; but she failed in the matter of Moses’ wife. We, too, have opportunities to show the grumblers and complainers around us what it is to be a servant of Jesus Christ. Let us draw them to Jesus through our love and servanthood and not be drawn away from Him ourselves. Our next encounter with Miriam is at the end of the 40\-year desert wandering. Because of their grumbling and lack of faith in God, the first generation of Israelites to leave captivity was not allowed to enter the Promised Land. This included the prophetess Miriam. Most of the older generation had already died in the wilderness when Israel comes back to Kadesh, where they had started their wanderings. It’s here that Miriam dies and is buried (Numbers 20:1\). Hers was a life of responsibility and service, of God’s calling and providence, yet it also reminds us that no one is too important to receive [God’s discipline](Lord-God-discipline.html) for personal sin (see 1 Corinthians 10:12\).
What does it mean to have a wilderness experience?	Answer A “wilderness experience” is usually thought of as a tough time in which a believer endures discomfort and trials. The pleasant things of life are unable to be enjoyed, or they may be absent altogether, and one feels a lack of encouragement. A “wilderness experience” is often a time of intensified temptation and spiritual attack. It can involve a spiritual, financial, or emotional drought. Having a “wilderness experience” is not necessarily a sign that a believer is sinning; rather, it is a time of God\-ordained testing. A “wilderness experience” is often linked to a “mountaintop experience”; that is, the struggle follows a success of some kind. The period of trial comes on the heels of a period of accomplishment or achievement. There are several biblical examples of people enduring a “wilderness experience.” The people of Israel, in leaving Egypt, experienced a miraculous deliverance [through the Red Sea](parting-Red-Sea.html). The triumph of finally being free from slavery was their “mountaintop experience.” Yet what followed was a journey through the desert. They were tried in an actual wilderness, and they failed the test. As a result, their “wilderness experience” stretched to forty years. Others who can be said to have had a “wilderness experience” include the prophet Elijah (1 Kings 19:1–9\); the apostle Paul (Galatians 1:17–18\); and, of course, the patriarch Job. Jesus also had a “wilderness experience.” After Jesus’ baptism, “at once the Spirit sent him out into the wilderness, and he was in the wilderness forty days, being [tempted by Satan](Jesus-temptations.html)” (Mark 1:12–13\). Jesus’ experience teaches us some important facts: 1\) it is not a sin to be tempted; 2\) it is God’s will that times of testing come our way—Jesus was “full of the Holy Spirit” when He went into the wilderness (Luke 4:1\); and 3\) we are never without God’s grace—Jesus may have been “with the wild animals,” but “angels attended him,” too (Mark 1:13\). In a “wilderness experience,” a believer may struggle simply to survive from day to day. Financial, material, physical, or emotional burdens may press on him. The flesh cries out for relief. The believer is forced to wait on the Lord, find God’s peace and joy in the midst of trouble, and through it all mature in his walk with Christ. Paul offers this encouragement for those who “have this [treasure in jars of clay](treasures-in-jars-of-clay.html)”: “We are hard pressed on every side, but not crushed; perplexed, but not in despair; persecuted, but not abandoned; struck down, but not destroyed. We always carry around in our body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be revealed in our body” (2 Corinthians 4:7–10\). The reason for these trials, Paul says, is “to show that this all\-surpassing power is from God and not from us” (verse 7\). The wilderness is an unpleasant place, fleshly speaking. We naturally want prosperity, health, and easy going. But the same God who created the garden also created the wilderness. There will be times of trial and pressure. Our faith will be tested. But the God of grace will meet us even in the wilderness. Missionary Amy Carmichael knew this truth: “Bare heights of loneliness . . . a wilderness whose burning winds sweep over glowing sands, what are they to HIM? Even there He can refresh us, even there He can renew us.”
What are the Vedas?	Answer The Vedas are a set of four [Hindu](hinduism.html) holy texts, written about 2,500 years ago. The first and most important of the Vedas is the Rig\-Veda, a set of ten books comprising hymns and mantras to and about various deities. The second Veda is the Sama\-Veda, a collection of melodies meant to be sung during Hindu sacrifices and offerings, called yajna. The third Veda is the Atharva\-Veda, which consists of more hymns, mantras, and incantations, and most of these are to be sung outside the context of the yajna. The final Veda is the Yajur\-Veda, which is a guidebook for priests performing yajnas. It has two sections: black and white. The word Veda is Sanskrit for “knowledge,” and Hindus believe the knowledge in the Vedas to be divine in origin. This knowledge within the Vedas falls into four categories: Samhitas, which are mantras and benedictions; Aranyakas, which are writings delineating the symbols and ceremonies concerning sacrifices; the Brahmanas, which are writings about the rituals and sacrifices; and Upanishads, which are discussions about spiritual knowledge and Hindu philosophy. Sometimes a fifth category is employed—Upasanas, which are writings of worship. There are orthodox and heterodox approaches to the Vedas within Hinduism, much the same as the orthodox and heterodox approaches to Christian Scripture. Some Hindus see the Vedas as divine, authoritative truth, while others see them as non\-authoritative. It is not clear how old the Vedas actually are, because they were transmitted via oral tradition, perhaps for many centuries, before being written down. Once they were written down, it was often upon birch bark or palm leaves, materials that do not stand the test of time. So, it is likely that most of the earliest manuscripts have been lost. Even the texts today are somewhat fluid, varying from school to school in the Vedic tradition, and divided into shruti (“the heard”) and smriti (“the remembered”). That is not to say that there is no consistency within the Vedas—in fact, the Vedic schools have elaborate methods for passing on what is heard and remembered intact; inherent within the mneumonic technique are many forms of recitation done to eliminate mistakes as the information is passed down orally. The Vedas are unlike the Bible in that they do not proclaim truth and salvation. They are mainly thoughts, ideas, speculation, and poetry about man and the universe, plus prescriptions for sacrifice and ritual. They are undoubtedly fascinating and beautiful writings, but they cannot be relied upon to reveal the knowledge of God. Only the Bible, which is God’s own communication to mankind, can be relied upon as true. Only the Bible is trustworthy to lead men from sin to a saving knowledge of God in Christ (2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19–21\).
Who was Anna the prophetess in the Bible?	Answer Anna is mentioned in the Bible as a [prophetess](prophetess-Bible.html) and one of the people connected to Jesus’ childhood. She was the daughter of Penuel from the tribe of Asher. Her name, which she shares with Hannah in the Old Testament, means “favor” or “grace.” All we know of her is found in three verses in the New Testament book of Luke. When Anna encounters the infant Jesus in the temple, we see that her life is indeed overflowing with favor and grace. “And there was a prophetess, Anna” (Luke 2:36, ESV). Anna is among only a handful of women in the Bible bearing the title “prophetess.” The others are Miriam, the sister of Moses (Exodus 15:20\); Deborah, the judge (Judges 4:4\); Huldah, the wife of Shallum (2 Chronicles 34:22\); Isaiah’s wife (Isaiah 8:3\); and Philip’s four unmarried daughters (Acts21:9\). “She was very old; she had lived with her husband seven years after her marriage, and then was a widow until she was eighty\-four” (Luke 2:36–37\). Anna had been married only seven years when she became a widow, and she remained a widow for the rest of her life. Most translations indicate that Anna was eighty\-four years old when she met Jesus. But it is also possible to translate the text to mean Anna had lived eighty\-four years after her husband died. That would mean Anna was at least 104 years old—if she had married at the age of thirteen. Either way, she had spent the vast majority of her life without a husband and was ministering before the Lord in the temple. “She never left the temple but worshiped night and day, fasting and praying” (Luke 2:37\). After becoming a widow, Anna dedicated herself wholly to the Lord. She never left the temple in Jerusalem but spent her time worshiping, fasting, and praying. It is possible that Anna was given living quarters at the temple because of her designation as prophetess, or she may have lived close by. What stands out is that her devotion was constant for the majority of her life, and her devotion was rewarded with an encounter with her Savior. Her many years of sacrifice and service were worth it all when she beheld the Messiah, the One for whom she had waited so long. “Coming up to them at that very moment” (Luke 2:38\). Mary and Joseph arrive at the temple with the baby Jesus to satisfy the Old Testament law. They needed to make the purification offering (see Leviticus 12:6–8\) and to present Jesus as their firstborn before God (see Exodus 13:2, 12–15\). While they’re there, a man named Simeon cradles the Lord Jesus in his arms, praises God, and utters a prophecy concerning Jesus and Mary. At this moment, Anna enters. She immediately recognizes Jesus as the long\-awaited Savior and begins thanking God. “She gave thanks to God and spoke about the child to all who were looking forward to the redemption of Jerusalem” (Luke 2:38\). Anna the prophetess is among the first few to bring honor to the kingly babe born in a stable. Good news is meant to be shared, and Anna shares it with everyone who was anticipating the Messiah. The Redeemer had come, the prophecies were being fulfilled, and Anna was blessed to see it happen.
What can we learn from the prayer of Moses (Psalm 90)?	Answer Psalm 90 marks the beginning of Book Four of Psalms. Psalm 90 is the oldest psalm, written by [Moses](life-Moses.html) by the year 1440 BC. It is entitled “From Everlasting to Everlasting” and is noted as “A Prayer of Moses, the man of God.” What can we learn from the prayer of Moses? First, Moses emphasizes the eternal nature of God. Verses 1–2 declare, “Lord, you have been our dwelling place / throughout all generations. / Before the mountains were born / or you brought forth the whole world, / from everlasting to everlasting you are God.” Second, Moses speaks of the fragile nature of humanity in verses 3–6\. Verse 5 says, “Yet you sweep people away in the sleep of death— / they are like the new grass of the morning.” Our time on earth is short. Third, Moses emphasizes humanity’s sinful nature and his shortcomings before a perfect God. Verses 7–8 note, “We are consumed by your anger / and terrified by your indignation. / You have set our iniquities before you, / our secret sins in the light of your presence.” Fourth, Moses stresses how short life is for people in comparison with God’s eternal nature in verses 9–12\. Moses says, “Our days may come to seventy years, / or eighty, if our strength endures; / yet the best of them are but trouble and sorrow, / for they quickly pass, and we fly away” (Psalm 90:10\). This verse also teaches an existence after death. We do not just “end”; rather, we “fly” to somewhere else. Verse 12 adds the lesson we should glean from the brevity of earthly life: “Teach us to number our days, / that we may gain a heart of wisdom.” Fifth, Moses prays for God’s grace upon His people in verses 13–17\. Verse 17 concludes, “May the favor of the Lord our God rest on us; / establish the work of our hands for us— / yes, establish the work of our hands.” Without God, our work amounts to nothing. In Psalm 90 Moses focuses on God’s greatness, our human weakness, and our need for the Lord to provide grace for our daily needs. We are to seek wisdom and to live each day to its fullest for the glory of God. Of great importance is Moses’ emphasis to “number our days.” While this poetic psalm may not literally mean we are to count each day by number, it does focus on the need to live every day for maximum impact. The apostle Paul wrote, “Be very careful, then, how you live—not as unwise but as wise, making the most of every opportunity, because the days are evil” (Ephesians 5:15–16\). God calls us to use every moment of every day to honor Him.
What are the different types of fasting?	Answer Usually, [fasting](fasting-Christian.html) is the abstaining from food for a certain period of time. There are different types of fasting in the Bible, however, and not all of them involve food. Many people in the Bible fasted, including Moses, David, and Daniel in the Old Testament and Anna, Paul, and Jesus Christ in the New Testament. Many important figures in Christian history attested to fasting’s value, as do many Christians today. Biblical fasting is often closely linked to repentance, as in the examples of David, the nation of Israel, and the city of Nineveh. Fasting is also related to passionate prayer, as in the examples of [King Jehoshaphat](King-Jehoshaphat.html) and Queen Esther. Biblical fasting comes from a humble heart seeking God (Isaiah 58:3–7\). John MacArthur comments on Isaiah 58: “The people complained when God did not recognize their religious actions, but God responded that their fastings had been only half\-hearted. Hypocritical fasting resulted in contention, quarreling, and pretense, excluding the possibility of genuine prayer to God. Fasting consisted of more than just an outward ritual and a mock repentance, it involved [penitence](penitence-Bible.html) over sin and consequent humility, disconnecting from sin and oppression of others, feeding the hungry, and acting humanely toward those in need.” The regular fast is done by abstaining from all food, both solid and liquid, except for water. This is the type of fasting Judah’s King Jehoshaphat called for when his country was confronted with invasion (2 Chronicles 20:3\). The Lord defeated their enemies, and the men of Judah blessed the Lord (2 Chronicles 20:24–27\). After the Babylonian Captivity, the people returning to Jerusalem prayed and fasted, asking God for His protection on their journey (Ezra 8:21\). The Lord Jesus fasted during His forty days in the wilderness being tempted by Satan (Luke 4:2\). When Jesus was hungry, Satan tempted Him to turn the stones into bread, to which Jesus replied, “Man shall not live by bread alone” (Luke 4:4\). Another type of biblical fasting is the partial fast. The [prophet Daniel](life-Daniel.html) spent three weeks fasting from certain foods. In Daniel 10, the prophet says, “I, Daniel, mourned for three weeks. I ate no choice food; no meat or wine touched my lips; and I used no lotions at all until the three weeks were over” (Daniel 10:2–3\). Note that Daniel’s fast to express his grief on this occasion only omitted “choice” food, and it also involved relinquishing the use of oils and “lotions” for refreshment. Today, many Christians follow this example and abstain from certain foods or activities for a short time, looking to the Lord for their comfort and strength. Also mentioned in the Bible is the absolute fast, or the full fast, where no food or water is consumed. When Esther discovered the plan for all the Jews to be killed in Persia, she and her fellow Jews fasted from food and water for three days before she entered the king’s courts to ask for his mercy (Esther 4:16\). Another example of an absolute fast is found in the story of [Saul’s conversion](Damascus-Road.html). The murderous Saul encountered Jesus in His glory on the road to Damascus. “For three days he was blind, and did not eat or drink anything” (Acts 9:9\). Immediately following that time of blindness and fasting, Saul dedicated his life to preaching Jesus Christ. In the cases of Esther and Saul, the absolute fast only lasted three days. However, Moses and Elijah took part in miraculous, forty\-day absolute fasts. When Moses met God on the mountaintop to receive the tablets of stone, he ate no bread and drank no water (Deuteronomy 9:9\). And, after Elijah defeated the prophets of Baal on Mt. Carmel, infuriating Queen Jezebel, Elijah fled for his life and spent forty days of fasting in the wilderness (1 Kings 19\). The Bible also mentions a sexual fast, although not by that name. In Exodus 19:15, the people of Israel were to prepare for their encounter with the Lord at Mt. Sinai, and part of their preparation was to abstain from sexual relations for three days. And in 1 Corinthians 7:5 Paul says that a married couple can mutually agree to abstain from sex for a short period of time in order to devote themselves to prayer. But then they are to “come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self\-control.” The purpose of fasting is not to get God to respond as a genie in a bottle to grant our every wish. Fasting, whether it is regular, partial, absolute, or sexual, is a seeking after God’s heart, all other blessings and benefits being secondary to God Himself. This is what sets apart biblical fasting from other religious and cultural practices around the world.
What is Evangelism Explosion?	Answer Please note: the information below is based on our general assessment of [Evangelism Explosion](http://evangelismexplosion.org/). As with any active ministry, current events may drastically change both perceptions and interpretations. GotQuestions.org is not associated with Evangelism Explosion, nor can we officially vouch for any particular aspect of their ministry. The information below is fair and accurate, to the best of our knowledge, at the time this article was written. We encourage all persons to carefully investigate any ministry prior to committing time or money to it, rather than relying on any one review by a third party. Evangelism Explosion is a program designed to teach witnessing techniques to Christian believers. Its primary goal is to equip Christians to engage others in conversations about the Bible, morality, and salvation, with a goal of leading people to saving faith. The ministry provides direct training materials, tracts, and other resources. Doctrinally, Evangelism Explosion is well within the bounds of conservative, [evangelical](evangelicalism.html) Christianity. The organization promotes views of Scripture, God, sin, and salvation that are consistent with biblical principles. In particular, the ministry teaches that Christ was virgin\-born, sinless, crucified for our sin, and resurrected, and it teaches that faith in Christ is the sole means of salvation. Evangelism Explosion also holds the Bible to be inspired, inerrant, and authoritative. While the ministry is exclusively focused on evangelism training, it seems to hold biblically sound positions on those social issues that intersect evangelistic efforts. Evangelism Explosion was originally developed by D. James Kennedy in 1962\. Today, it trains people in 220 different nations of the world, resulting in millions of decisions to trust in Christ. It is one of the more commonly used, frequently cited versions of evangelistic training. The Evangelism Explosion method begins with two diagnostic questions: 1\. Have you come to the place in your spiritual life where you know for sure if you died today that you would be in heaven? 2\. Suppose something were to happen, and you did die today and stand before God, and He were to ask you, “Why should I let you into My heaven?“ What would you say? As with any structured program, there are benefits and drawbacks to using Evangelism Explosion, and individuals have varied opinions about how effective it is. The program has remained popular for more than sixty years, with many churches crediting their success to its influence. In the past, some criticized Evangelism Explosion for being “confrontational evangelism” and encouraging Christians to be pushy or overly aggressive. Of course, a strident, impersonal message can harden people against further attempts at evangelism. To their credit, the leaders of Evangelism Explosion took such criticisms to heart, and in the late 1990s revised the training program for a simpler approach and to place more emphasis on relationship\-building. At the same time, the ministry stated that diluting the gospel message was not an option, regardless of how it was perceived. Every evangelistic encounter is different, because every person is different. Programs like Evangelism Explosion can be a great way to learn witnessing techniques, so long as one remembers the uniqueness of every situation. As training programs go, Evangelism Explosion is a biblically sound approach. Training, practice, and knowledge are invaluable when spreading the gospel.
What is the New Thought movement?	Answer The New Thought movement is based on the teachings of a 19th\-century thinker by the name of Phineas Quimby. Quimby was a self\-proclaimed healer and a follower of Mesmer, the hypnotist. Quimby believed that illness in the body originated in the mind and that bodily illnesses could therefore be overcome with the “Truth.” His idea was that, if the mind was corrected of wrong thinking, the body would be cured of its diseases and problems. Mary Baker Eddy, the founder of [Christian Science](Christian-science.html), was a patient of Quimby’s, and some of his ideas appear in her theology. She shared the idea that disease in the body is caused by problems in a person’s thoughts. Another offshoot of the New Thought movement, which was mostly spread by Quimby’s writings, is the [law of attraction](secret-law-attraction.html), which is essentially the belief that thought can bring things into existence—that by thinking you are successful or rich or talented you will become successful or rich or talented. Among the main beliefs held by followers of New Thought is the assertion that “true human self\-hood is divine.” Within this we see the original lie that Satan told man: through knowledge of good and evil “you will be like God” (Genesis 3:5\). Satan appealed to man on the basis of man’s desire to attain divinity and to control his own destiny. The New Thought movement appeals to people on the same basis, enchanting followers with the lie of divine potential. New Thought ideology is directly opposed to biblical teaching. We cannot create our own reality by “[positive thinking](power-positive-thinking.html)” or become healthy by [declaring](positive-confession.html) ourselves to be so. The reality is that disease of the body is a result of the fall of creation. Adam’s sin brought death and decay into the world (Genesis 2:17; Romans 5:12\). We are created beings, part of creation, and therefore the chaos brought into nature by sin also affects our natural bodies. We are susceptible to viruses, injuries, old age, auto\-immune disorders, genetic and hormonal malfunctions, deformities, and death—all because of sin’s entrance into the perfect paradise God originally planned for us (Genesis 3:17–19; Romans 8:19–22\). There is no escaping this curse; it affects every person who has ever lived, in one way or another. Despite the pain and illnesses we endure throughout our lives, God’s promise of redemption through Jesus Christ is our hope (Psalm 16:5–11; Romans 5:2; Colossians 1:27\).
Why is there so much disagreement about holy communion?	Answer Holy communion or the [Lord’s Supper](communion-Christian.html) (also known in some churches as the Lord’s Table or the Eucharist) is a source of significant disagreement within the church as a whole. What’s agreed upon is found clearly in Scripture: communion was instituted by Jesus during His last supper with His disciples. During that time, He served them bread and “the cup.” He told them that these elements were His body and blood (Matthew 26:26–28; Mark 14:22–24\). He also instructed them to repeat the ceremony in remembrance of Him (Luke 22:19\). Disagreements over holy communion stem from many questions: Was Jesus speaking of His body and blood figuratively or literally, or were His words a mystical combination of the figurative and literal? How often is the church to observe communion? Is the Eucharist a means of grace or simply a memorial? What was in the cup—fermented wine or unfermented grape juice? Because Jesus did not give specific, step\-by\-step instructions regarding the ritual, naturally, there is some conflict about the hows and wheres and whens, and what exactly the bread and wine represent. There are arguments about whether or not the elements actually become the blood and body of Christ (the Catholic doctrine of [transubstantiation](transubstantiation.html)), whether they somehow contain His Spirit (Luther’s doctrine of [consubstantiation](consubstantiation.html)), or whether the wine and bread are simply symbols of His body and blood. There are differing opinions about the liturgy that should be spoken and whether or not confession should be part of the ritual. Denominations differ on the frequency of the communion, how it should be performed, and by whom. There are four biblical accounts of Jesus’ last supper with His disciples, three in the Synoptic Gospels and one in 1 Corinthians 11:23–34\. When we look at these accounts in combination, we know the following: 1\. During the Passover meal, Jesus blessed, broke, and offered bread to His disciples, saying, “Take eat, this is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 2\. He also passed around a cup, telling them to divide it among them: “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood, poured out for many, for the forgiveness of sins.” He also instructed all of them to drink it. 3\. It was during this last meal that Jesus mentions that one of His disciples would betray Him. 4\. Jesus says He will not drink of the fruit of the vine again until He drinks it anew with His followers in the Father’s kingdom. As He instituted the Lord’s Supper, Jesus was focused on the spiritual relationship between Himself and His disciples. He did not provide particulars of how or when or where or by whom the elements should be served, and, therefore, different churches have some freedom to decide those details for themselves. For example, whether a church observes communion once a week or once a month is not really important. However, other disagreements over communion are theologically significant. For example, if partaking of the Lord’s Table is necessary in order to receive grace, then grace is not really free and must be earned by deeds we perform, in contradiction of Titus 3:5\. And, if the bread is actually the body of Christ, then the Lord is being sacrificed again and again, in contradiction of Romans 6:9–10\. These matters are significant enough to have divided the church through the years and actually became an issue of contention during the Protestant Reformation. Understanding that we are saved by grace, through faith, apart from works (Ephesians 2:8–9\) and considering Jesus’ words concerning the elements of communion to be figurative, we focus on the beauty of the new covenant (Matthew 26:28\) brought into effect by Jesus’ own blood. We remember His sacrifice for us as often as we partake of the Lord’s Table (Luke 22:19\). And we look forward to once again sharing the cup with Christ in the kingdom of God (Matthew 26:29; Mark 14:25; Luke 22:18\).
Which psalms predict the coming of Jesus Christ?	Answer The [book of Psalms](Book-of-Psalms.html) is a collection of inspired songs used in worship of God, and many of them foretell the coming of the Messiah and predict events that were fulfilled in the life of Jesus Christ. In total, twenty\-five different psalms (one out of every six psalms) include at least one [messianic prophecy](messianic-prophecies.html). Messianic psalms are quoted in eleven New Testament books, especially the gospels and the book of Acts. Below are nearly seventy specific references to Christ in the Psalms fulfilled in the New Testament. Some scholars see additional allusions, but we’ve only included those with the clearest connections to Jesus. The following list provides the reference(s) in Psalms where each prophecy is found and the New Testament fulfillment: Concerning the Messiah’s birth: 1\. The Messiah will come from the lineage of David (Psalm 89:3–4, 29–36; 132:11–17; Matthew 1:1\). 2\. The Messiah will come for all people (Psalm 18:49; Ephesians 3:4–6\). 3\. The Messiah will know His Father from childhood (Psalm 22:9; Luke 2:40\). 4\. The Messiah will be called by God while still in the womb (Psalm 22:10; Luke 1:30–33\). Concerning the Messiah’s nature and name: 5\. The Messiah will be called King of the Jews (Psalm 2:6; John 12:12–13; 18:32\). 6\. The Messiah will be the Son of God (Psalm 2:7; Luke 1:31–35; Matthew 3:16–17; Hebrews 1:5–6\). 7\. The Messiah is God (Psalm 45:6–7b; Hebrews 1:8–9\). 8\. The Messiah will call God His Father (Psalm 89:26; Matthew 11:27\). 9\. The Messiah will be God’s only “begotten” Son (Psalm 89:27; Mark 16:6; Colossians 1:18; Revelation 1:5\). 10\. The Messiah will be eternal (Psalm 102:25–27a; Revelation 1:8; Hebrews 1:10–12\). 11\. The Messiah is the creator of all things (Psalm 102:25–27b; John 1:3; Ephesians 3:9; Hebrews 1:10–12\). 12\. The Messiah will be Lord and King (Psalm 110:1a; Matthew 22:41–45\). 13\. The Messiah will be a Priest after the order of Melchizedek (Psalm 110:4; Hebrews 6:17–20\). 14\. The Messiah will be the “Stone” rejected by the builders (Psalm 118:22; Matthew 21:42–43\). Concerning the Messiah’s ministry: 15\. Infants will give praise to the Messiah (Psalm 8:2; Matthew 21:15–16\). 16\. The Messiah will reveal that the Hebrew Scriptures were written of Him (Psalm 40:6–8b; Luke 24:44; John 5:39–40\). 17\. The Messiah will do God’s (His Father’s) will (Psalm 40:7–8; John 5:30\). 18\. The Messiah will not conceal His mission from believing people (Psalm 40:9–10; Luke 4:16–21\). 19\. The Messiah will communicate a message of mercy (Psalm 45:2; 55:12–14; Luke 4:22\). 20\. The Messiah will be angered by unethical practices by the Jews in the temple (Psalm 69:9a; John 2:13–17\). 21\. The Messiah will teach in parables (Psalm 78:2; Matthew 13:34–35\). 22\. The Messiah will calm the stormy sea (Psalm 107:28–29; Matthew 8:24–26\). 23\. The Messiah will act with righteousness (Psalm 45:6–7c; John 5:30\). 24\. The Messiah will come in the name of the Lord (Psalm 118:26; Matthew 21:9\). Concerning the Messiah’s betrayal and death: 25\. Political/religious leaders will conspire against the Messiah (Psalm 2:1–3; Matthew 26:3–4; Mark 3:6\). 26\. The Messiah will feel forsaken by God at His crucifixion (Psalm 22:1b; Mark 15:34\). 27\. The Messiah will pray without ceasing before His death (Psalm 22:2; Matthew 26:38–39\). 28\. The Messiah will be despised and rejected by His own (Psalm 22:6; Luke 23:21–23\). 29\. The Messiah will be mocked (Psalm 22:7; 109:25; Matthew 27:39\). 30\. Unbelievers will say to the Messiah, “He trusted in God, let Him now deliver Him” (Psalm 22:8; Matthew 27:41–43\). 31\. The Messiah will be abandoned by His disciples (Psalm 22:11; 69:20; Mark 14:50\). 32\. The Messiah will be encompassed by wicked beings (Psalm 22:12–13; Colossians 2:15\). 33\. From the Messiah’s body will flow blood and water (Psalm 22:14a; John 19:34\). 34\. The Messiah will be crucified (Psalm 22:14b; Matthew 27:35\). 35\. The Messiah will thirst while dying (Psalm 22:15; 69:21; John 19:28\). 36\. The Messiah will be observed by Gentiles at His crucifixion (Psalm 22:16a; Luke 23:36\). 37\. The Messiah will be observed by Jews at His crucifixion (Psalm 22:16b; Matthew 27:41–43\). 38\. The Messiah’s hands and feet will be pierced (Psalm 22:16c; Matthew 27:38; John 20:25\). 39\. The Messiah’s garments will be parted among the soldiers through the casting of lots (Psalm 22:18; John 19:23–24\). 40\. The Messiah will be accused by false witnesses (Psalm 27:12; 35:11; 109:2; Matthew 26:59–61\). 41\. The Messiah will cry out to God, “Into thy hands I commend my spirit” (Psalm 31:5; Luke 23:46\). 42\. There will be many attempts to kill the Messiah (Psalm 31:13; Matthew 27:1\). 43\. The Messiah will have no bones broken (Psalm 34:20; John 19:32–33\). 44\. The Messiah will be hated without cause (Psalm 35:19; John 18:19–23; 15:24–25\). 45\. The Messiah will be silent as a lamb before His accusers (Psalm 38:13–14; Matthew 26:62–63\). 46\. The Messiah will be God’s sacrificial lamb for redemption of all mankind (Psalm 40:6–8a; Hebrews 10:10–13\). 47\. The Messiah will be betrayed by one of His own disciples (Psalm 41:9; Mark 14:17–18\). 48\. The Messiah will be hated and rejected without cause (Psalm 69:4; Luke 23:13–22; John 15:24–25\). 49\. The Messiah will be condemned for God’s sake (Psalm 69:7, 9; Matthew 26:65–67; Romans 15:3\). 50\. The Messiah will be rejected by the Jews (Psalm 69:8a; John 1:11\). 51\. The Messiah’s very own brothers will reject Him (Psalm 69:8b; John 7:3–5\). 52\. The Messiah’s heart will be broken (Psalm 69:20a; John 19:34\). 53\. The Messiah will be offered gall mingled with vinegar while dying (Psalm 69:21a; Matthew 27:34\). 54\. The Messiah will offer up prayer for His enemies (Psalm 109:4; Luke 23:34\). 55\. The Messiah’s betrayer will have a short life (Psalm 109:8a; Acts 1:16–18; John 17:12\). 56\. The Messiah’s betrayer will be replaced by a more faithful man (Psalm 109:8b; Acts 1:20–26\). Concerning the Messiah’s resurrection and exaltation: 57\. The Messiah will be resurrected (Psalm 16:8–10a; Matthew 28:6; Acts 2:25–32\). 58\. The Messiah’s body will not see corruption (natural decay) (Psalm 16:8–10b; Acts 13:35–37\). 59\. The Messiah will be glorified into the presence of God (Psalm 16:11; Acts 2:25–33\). 60\. The Messiah will ask God for His inheritance (Psalm 2:8a; John 17:4–24\). 61\. The Messiah will have complete authority over all things (Psalm 2:8b–9; 8:6; Matthew 28:18; Hebrews 1:1–2\). 62\. The Messiah will destroy those who do not honor Him (Psalm 2:12; John 3:36\). 63\. The Messiah will bring many people into the family of God (Psalm 22:22; Hebrews 2:10–12; Matthew 12:50; John 20:14\). 64\. The Messiah’s enemies will stumble and fall (Psalm 27:2; John 18:3–6\). 65\. The Messiah’s throne will be eternal (Psalm 45:6–7a; Luke 1:31–33; Hebrews 1:8–9\). 66\. The Messiah will ascend back into heaven (Psalm 68:18a; Luke 24:51; Ephesians 4:8\). 67\. The Messiah will give good gifts unto believing men (Psalm 68:18b; Matthew 10:1; Ephesians 4:7–11\). 68\. The Messiah will be exalted to the right hand of God (Psalm 80:17; 110:1, 5; Acts 5:31\). (Adapted with permission from [Shalach.org](http://www.shalach.org/PropheciesTable/prophecieslst1.htm))
How should a Christian view modernism?	Answer Modernism arose in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, due to some major changes in the world, including the rise of industrial societies, the development of larger, more populated cities, and the terrible tragedy of World War I. Because of a combination of these and other factors, people in Western society began to think and believe differently, and this shift in perspective has been labeled “modernism” by historians and philosophers. Religious skepticism and atheism are hallmarks of modernism. Sigmund Freud, who spoke of the drives of the unconscious mind; and [Friedrich Nietzsche](Friedrich-Nietzsche.html), who believed that the human “will to power” was important in man’s evolution, were influential in the rise of modernism, and their ideas still help shape culture today. Modernism can be seen most vividly in the world of art and literature, where it stimulated a complete break from the styles and forms of the past. “Modern art” rejected realism and objective thinking and began to lean toward expression of the subjective, inner world. Stream\-of\-consciousness writing styles and abstract forms of painting predominated. Self\-consciousness and the expression of one’s self became major themes in art, as it had become in life. A Christian should regard modernism from two angles: first, modernism provides a clue to understanding humanity. Modernism is humanity’s attempt to understand itself and human life without the aid of God’s revelation. Its rejection of God and focus on self are the results of society’s embrace of falsehood. Christians are to be ambassadors for Christ, speaking the truth to a world that is lost and deceived by Satan. A Christian should treat those ensnared in untruths with gentleness, with prayer, and with speaking the truth in love (2 Timothy 2:24–26; Ephesians 4:15\). Second, a Christian should see modernism as another step toward the fulfillment of the prophecies in the Bible. Paul says that in the end times people will be “lovers of self” (2 Timothy 3:3\). Peter mentions that a hallmark of the last days will be the presence of “scoffers” and skeptics (2 Peter 3:3\), and Jude echoes the warning (Jude 1:18\). Modernism, with its emphasis on self\-expression and self\-fulfillment and rejection of God, has nudged humanity that much closer to the final judgment. Again, a Christian should view modernism as the expression of man’s attempt to understand himself and as the partial fulfillment of prophecy. Christians should engage the culture influenced by modernism with courage and truth. The children of God should use their talents and intelligence to influence culture with art, literature, philosophy, and science based on the truth of God. We should refuse to keep our light covered (Matthew 5:14–16\). This means injecting Christian thought into the culture rather than keeping it to ourselves to be enjoyed only by others like us.
What are some popular illustrations of the Holy Trinity?	Answer Illustrating the Trinity is a noble goal, but it is ultimately an exercise in futility. Theologians through the centuries have racked their brains in a quest to formulate a doctrinally sound, fully satisfying illustration of the [Triune Godhead](Godhead.html). What stymies their efforts is the fact that God is [transcendent](God-transcendent.html), and some of His qualities are unknowable (Isaiah 55:8–9\). [Trinity](Trinity-Bible.html) is the theological term applied to God to indicate His perpetual existence as three distinct Persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) who nevertheless remain one indivisible God. The concept of a Triune God is more than difficult to comprehend—it’s impossible to comprehend, for the simple reason that we have nothing in our world that has a corresponding existence. Humans, the most complex creatures we know of, exist as single persons, not as unified multiples. Despite the fact that nothing in our world can fully illustrate the Holy Trinity, teachers and theologians through the years have offered several analogies drawn from the realms of nature and mathematics in order to help explain the unexplainable. Here are a few of the illustrations: One popular and simple illustration of the Trinity is the egg. A chicken egg consists of a shell, a yolk, and an egg white, yet it is altogether one egg. The three parts create a unified whole. The shortfall of this illustration, and others like it, is that God cannot be divided into “parts.” The Father, the Son, and the Spirit are one in essence, but the same cannot be said for the shell, yolk, and white of an egg. A similar illustration uses the apple: the fruit’s skin, flesh, and seeds all comprise the apple, just as the Father, Son, and Spirit all comprise God. This illustration has the same weakness as the egg illustration, namely, the parts of the apple, considered independently, are not the apple. By contrast, each Person of the Trinity, taken independently, is still God. Another illustration is said to have originated with St. Patrick. As Patrick was evangelizing the people of ancient Ireland, he explained the concept of the Trinity by using a very common plant in Ireland: the shamrock, a member of the clover family with three small, green leaves on a single stem. One legend has it that Patrick in his travels happened upon some Irish chieftains in a meadow. The tribal leaders were puzzled about the doctrine of the Trinity, and so Patrick bent down and plucked a shamrock. The three leaves, said Patrick, are still one plant, just as the three Persons of the Trinity are one God. Another legend is similar, except that it has Patrick teaching in the province of Connaught, where he spoke to the daughters of King Laoghaire, Ethne and Fedelm. The shamrock analogy is perhaps better than the egg and apple analogies, although it shares the weakness of possibly dividing God into “parts.” Another common illustration of the Trinity involves the different states of matter (solid, liquid, and gas). The illustration typically uses water as the example: water exists as a solid (ice), a liquid, and a gas (water vapor). No matter what physical state water is in, it is still water. Its chemical composition remains the same—it is H20, no matter if it’s floating unseen in the atmosphere to create humidity, or floating in chunks in your tea to help relieve the humidity. The problem with this illustration is that liquid water, when it freezes, “switches” from liquid to solid, and, when it boils, it “switches” to vapor. However, God does not “switch” states or modes. Liquid water can become solid or gas, but God the Father never becomes the Son or the Spirit. The idea that God manifests Himself differently at different times and in various contexts (like water manifests itself variously as solid, liquid, or gas) is called [modalism](Modalistic-Monarchianism.html), and it is a heresy to be avoided. Some people have found useful illustrations of the Trinity in geometrical designs. The triangle, for example, has three independent sides connected to form one shape. Another design is the triquetra, which features three congruent, interwoven arcs, forming a triangle of sorts in the center: ![Holy Trinity](https://www.gotquestions.org/img/Holy-Trinity.jpg) Expanding on the triangle/triquetra design is this illustration of the Trinity: ![Trinity illustration](https://www.gotquestions.org/img/trinity.jpg) In his short book Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions, published in 1884, Edwin Abbott writes of a Square living in Flatland, a land of only two dimensions. In a life\-changing encounter, the Square receives a visit from the Sphere, who lives in Spaceland, a realm of three dimensions. Even though the Square cannot imagine more than two dimensions (he has nothing in his world to relate), he accepts the word of the Sphere and the existence of a third dimension. However, when he attempts to relay his newfound knowledge to the other inhabitants of Flatland, the Square is treated as a lunatic and locked in jail. In a way, the Square’s plight in Flatland is similar to ours. We cannot understand the concept of a Triune Being any more than the Square could fathom the Sphere. But we accept the Word of God, and by faith we understand that God exists in a realm and in a manner beyond our experience. The egg, the apple, the shamrock, the states of matter, and various geometric shapes are as close as we can come to illustrating the Trinity. We cannot completely understand God’s existence. An infinite God cannot be fully delineated in a finite illustration.
Is Hillsong a biblically solid church?	Answer Hillsong Church was founded in 1983 in Sydney, Australia, by former "Global Senior Pastors" Brian and Bobbie Houston. Hillsong is probably best known for their praise and worship music, having recorded dozens of popular songs since 1992, including the church favorite “Shout to the Lord.” Besides being Australia’s largest church, Hillsong has locations around the world, including campuses in Kiev, London, New York, Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Moscow, São Paulo, and other cities. Hillsong Church was originally a part of the [Assemblies of God](Assemblies-of-God.html) of Australia (now called the Australian Christian Churches), but formed its own denomination in 2018\. Brian Houston stepped down from his leadership role in March 2022 amid allegations of sexual misconduct. Is Hillsong Church a biblical church? Their stated beliefs on their official website include the basic doctrines of the triune God, salvation by grace through faith in Christ, and the reality of heaven and hell. There are a couple of concerns, however. One statement on their “What We Believe” page is curiously lacking: “We believe in the power and significance of the Church and the necessity of believers to meet regularly together for fellowship, prayer and the ‘breaking of bread.’” This statement alludes to Acts 2:42, which says the early church “devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.” What’s missing in the Hillsong statement is “the apostles’ teaching.” Why is this omitted? A more obvious concern is Hillsong’s ordination of [women as pastors](women-pastors.html), in contradiction of Scripture’s teaching that men are to be the spiritual leaders of the church (1 Timothy 2:11–12\). Bobbie Houston, co\-pastor of Hillsong Sydney, told The Christian Post in an October 16, 2014, interview that, when it comes to women in leadership, “the church needs to come of age sometimes and just grow up.” Probably most troubling is Hillsong’s embrace of the [Word of Faith movement](Word-Faith.html). From the Hillsong website: “We believe that God wants to heal and transform us so that we can live healthy and blessed lives in order to help others more effectively.” Going along with the teaching that God always wills to heal and that “blessed” equals “healthy” is the [prosperity gospel](prosperity-gospel.html), which adds that God wills to enrich us financially. In Pastor Brian Houston’s 1999 book You Need More Money, he promotes the prosperity gospel: “We have to become comfortable with wealth, and break the bondage, guilt and condemnation of impoverished thinking. Poverty is definitely not God’s will for His people. In fact, all His promises talk of blessing and prosperity” (page 8\). Houston insists that he only promotes seeking wealth for unselfish purposes—such as investing in ministry—but it is hard to reconcile the idea that “poverty is definitely not God’s will” with Paul’s teaching to be “content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want” (Philippians 4:12, emphasis added). The Hillsong Church has been criticized for its leaders’ reticence to take a position on homosexuality. Former Hillsong New York Pastor Carl Lentz, fired in 2021 for marital infidelity, declined to comment on gay marriage in a televised 2013 interview: “Often people want you to make these big statements about things \[e.g., gay marriage] and I don’t believe it’s fair. I don’t think a public forum is always the best place to talk about something that’s so sensitive and important to so many because in a public forum there’s no discussion there” (quoted by Meeks, G., “NYC Megachurch Pastor Believes Sexuality Shouldn’t Be Discussed in Public Forum,” Charisma News, 12/20/2013\). The fact that any issue is “sensitive” or “important” should not prevent a pastor from clearly communicating God’s Word in a public forum. Can we only answer direct questions about morality privately or when we can “discuss” the matter? As with many ministries, there are positive and negative facets to Hillsong. Are there people being saved through the Hillsong Church? Yes, and we praise God for that. Can a Christian worship the Lord with a Hillsong\-produced song? Yes. Can a person be misled with the false idea that God always wants us to be healthy and rich? Unfortunately, yes. Should a church exercise discernment in the matter of song choice and where the royalties are going? Again, yes. “Do not treat prophecies with contempt but test them all; hold on to what is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:20–21\).
From whom are the modern Palestinians descended?	Answer Prior to the mid\-20th century, the term Palestinian was used as regional term, much like referring to residents of parts of the United States as “Southerners.” This usage dates back to several centuries before Christ. The word Palestinian has its roots in a Hebrew word meaning “[Philistine](Philistines.html).” Until Israel was re\-established as a nation in 1948, Palestine was the term for the territory between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River. The word Palestinian was applied to anyone living in that area. As one of the longest continually inhabited places on earth, this region has changed political ownership numerous times and has been a nexus of migration for many different cultures. The modern\-day “Palestinians” represent a mixture of local inhabitants and many other groups of Muslims brought from Bosnia, the Balkans, and the Caucasus by the Turks in the 16th to 19th centuries; and from the Sudan, Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon by the British in the 20th century. The term Palestinian did not take on its current popular meaning until the mid\-20th century. In common use today, the term Palestinian is primarily applied to non\-Jewish, Arabic\-speaking residents of this region. This usage is highly controversial, however, since for most of human history a “Palestinian” was simply a person born or living in that land. When used in reference only to non\-Jews, it implies an historical claim to the territory in opposition to Israel. In reality, the concept of Palestine as a nation\-state in opposition to Israel or as a racial group predating the presence of Jewish inhabitants is historically false. Recent genetic studies have confirmed that the ancestries of Jewish and Arabic inhabitants of Palestine are extremely similar. Geneticists have concluded that the people living in these regions share a common ancestry, through people groups continually living in the Palestine territory. This directly contradicts the claim that certain inhabitants, particularly Jewish inhabitants of Israel, have no ancestral claim to the land. At the same time, there is no evidence suggesting that modern Palestinians are direct descendants of either the [Canaanites](Canaanites.html) or the Philistines of the Old Testament. Many Arabs are descendants of Ishmael; but, since the land of Canaan was promised to the sons of Jacob, Arabs have no biblical claim to the land of Palestine. Regardless of definitions and precise lineage, Palestinians, like all human beings, are ultimately descended from the same original mother and father (Genesis 3:20\). Human beings have often forgotten this when constructing cultural, geographic, and political lines. Much of the angst over who should or should not be called a Palestinian, or whether it matters where such a group came from, is based on divisions that forget our common heritage.
Do animals sin?	Answer Animals, with all creation, are certainly affected by sin. But do animals themselves sin, or is sin a strictly human practice? According to the Bible, [sin](definition-sin.html) is a transgression of the law. It is rebellion against God in thought, word, or deed (1 John 3:4\). Animals did not rebel against God; man did. When God created the world, sin did not exist (Genesis 1:31\). Sin entered the world through the rebellious choice of one man, Adam (Genesis 3:11; Romans 5:12\). Because of that disobedience, the world was cursed and has groaned under the weight of that curse ever since (Genesis 3:17–19; Romans 8:21–22\). Some of the repercussions of man’s fall were that the ground grew thorns (Genesis 3:18\), pain became part of life (Genesis 3:16\), and physical death became a reality (Genesis 3:19\). The animal world is subject to the curse, not because of their own sin, but because sin by its nature has widespread repercussions. As part of the curse of man’s sin, animals turned upon mankind and each other, many surviving only through violence and bloodshed. Animals do not sin. They are incapable of sin because they were not created as independent moral agents. For an act to be sinful, there must be the violation of an indisputable law. Sin does not begin with the act; it originates in a soul that has the law of God written upon it (Romans 2:15; James 1:14\). Human beings are created in the image of God with an everlasting soul (Genesis 1:27\). Animals are not. When God created Adam, He “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul” (Genesis 2:7\). That living soul contains a conscience—an innate knowledge of right and wrong—and the ability to make moral choices apart from the survival instinct. We humans have the ability to choose obedience to God’s moral law, but we choose to follow our own inclinations instead (Genesis 8:21; Isaiah 53:6\). Animals do not have an immortal soul created in God’s image. Although they can choose obedience, it is usually due to external motivators such as treats and training. Animals do not have the law of God imprinted upon their hearts and therefore cannot transgress it. After the flood, God established a new order of human existence (Genesis 9:8–17\). He made a [covenant with Noah](Noahic-covenant.html) that included the prohibition against murder, based upon the truth that mankind was created in His own image. Genesis 9:5–6, says, “And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each human being, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of another human being. Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind” (emphasis added). Animals that killed humans were to be killed, not as a punishment for sin but because they had destroyed the image of God. This principle is carried through in the Mosaic Law (Exodus 21:28\). God did not require such accounting for a person shedding animal blood; in fact, God required animal sacrifices as a sign of repentance for ancient Israel (Numbers 6:14; Leviticus 9:2\). Throughout history, God has established the pattern that, wherever there is sin, He makes provision for that sin—a means by which man can be made right with Him again (Genesis 3:21\). Romans 5:20 says, “But where sin increased, grace increased all the more.” Wherever sin exists, God provides a way for forgiveness. Jesus Christ came to earth as a man in order to be the sacrifice for mankind’s sin so that we could be made right with God (Philippians 2:5–11; 1 Timothy 2:5\). No such provision has been made on behalf of animals, signifying, again, that they do not possess immortal souls, they have no moral law written upon their hearts, and they do not bear the responsibility of sin. Animals cannot sin against God, and thus they require no means of forgiveness from God. Animals do not sin. When a tomcat “sleeps around,” it is not sinning, for the moral laws of God do not apply to cats. When a black widow spider kills and eats its mate, it is not guilty of murder, for murder can only be committed by and against a free moral agent, created in God’s image. Mankind is obligated to keep the law of God, which was specifically given to him, and he alone bears the responsibility for the law’s transgression. When Adam fell, he dragged the animal world down with him, and “the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it” (Romans 8:20\). All creation now “waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed,” because “the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay” when, in God’s good time, the curse is reversed (Romans 8:19, 21; cf. Revelation 22:3\).
Why did John the Baptist refer to the Pharisees as a brood of vipers?	Answer [John the Baptist](life-John-Baptist.html) condemned the Pharisees and Sadducees as a “brood of vipers” in Matthew 3:7\. A “brood of vipers” is a “family of snakes.” Because vipers are venomous, John was essentially calling the religious leaders “deadly sons of serpents.” It’s quite a bold denunciation—and one Jesus repeated to the Pharisees in Matthew 12:34\. The [Pharisees and Sadducees](Sadducees-Pharisees.html) were the religious leaders in Israel during the time of John the Baptist and Jesus. The Pharisees were the Law\-keepers and promoters of tradition, and the Sadducees comprised the wealthier ruling class. Over the centuries, these well\-meaning groups had become corrupt, legalistic, and hypocritical and would eventually be responsible for crucifying the Son of God. They earned their label “brood of vipers,” a sobriquet with deeper meaning than is obvious at first glance. The viper was seen to be an evil creature. Its venom was deadly, and it was also devious—the viper that bit Paul was hiding in the firewood (Acts 28:3\). The Hebrew Scriptures, which the Pharisees knew well, associate the serpent with Satan in Genesis 3\. For John to call the Pharisees a “brood of vipers” implies that they bore satanic qualities. This idea is clearly stated by Jesus in John 8:44, where He says the unbelieving Jews “belong to \[their] father, the devil.” When John and Jesus called the Pharisees a “brood of vipers,” they were pointing out that these men were deceitful, dangerous, and wicked—deceitful in that they were hypocrites (Matthew 23:15\); dangerous in that they were blind leaders of the blind (Matthew 15:14\); and wicked in that their hearts were full of murder (John 8:37\). Another fascinating detail is found in Jesus’ use of the epithet “brood of vipers” to describe the Pharisees. In Matthew 23:33, He says, “You brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?” Farmers, then as now, often burned the stubble of their fields to get the land ready for the next planting season. As the fires neared the vipers’ dens, the snakes would slither away from the flames, but they often did not escape being consumed. Snakes fleeing the fire was a common sight, and Jesus’ words to the Pharisees would likely have called it to their minds. How could they think they would escape the fire of God’s judgment by relying on their own works, which were not at all honest or good? John’s and Jesus’ calling them a brood of vipers was meant to make them aware of their own wickedness and call them to repent.
Is it a sin for a Christian to go to a strip club or to watch strippers?	Answer The short answer is, yes, it is sinful for a Christian—or anyone—to attend a strip club and watch strippers. However, the very fact this question is raised deserves some more attention. Often, when someone asks whether a certain activity is “a sin,” the question is based upon the false premise that God has a list of sins that we can avoid to stay within His good graces. As long as we keep away from those particular “sins,” the thinking goes, then we are free to live any way we please. This is a wrong understanding of sin and of what it means to be a follower of Jesus Christ. Going to a strip club feeds the lust of the flesh (1 John 2:16\) and is therefore sinful. Sin can be defined as any thought, word, or deed that “falls short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23\). Since the fall of Adam in the Garden of Eden, every human being has been born with a predisposition to sin (Genesis 3:11; Romans 5:12\). We are born with a desire to please ourselves, rebel against God’s authority, and satisfy God\-given desires in ungodly ways. Any misuse or abuse of God’s design means we are falling short of the glory of God. Sexuality is an area of human experience that God created to be positive, not negative. Sexuality is a gift from God, and He has set the parameters for its enjoyment within marriage (Hebrews 13:4; 1 Corinthians 6:18\). Strip clubs promote sexual expression outside of God’s parameters, turning His positive gift into something negative. Rape, pornography, homosexual activity, and fornication are also negative expressions of God’s gift of sexuality. God designed marriage as the only healthy, holy avenue of sexual expression, so any sexual activity outside the marriage relationship is sin (1 Corinthians 6:9; Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:6\). While the Ten Commandments is a good starting place for understanding God’s boundaries about sexuality, Jesus went even further, explaining the intent behind the Law: “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell” (Matthew 5:27–29\). Jesus was warning us that lust is a serious error that will lead us away from God (James 1:13–15\). Rather than make choices based upon whether something is “a sin” or not, followers of Jesus seek to honor God in everything they do. Rather than ask whether something is “wrong,” we should ask what is “right” about it (see Philippians 4:8\). When wondering whether an activity is sinful, it is simpler to ask ourselves, “If Jesus were spending the week with me, would I do this?” If the answer is “no,” then the event in question is most likely sin. Since the whole purpose of strip clubs is to celebrate lust, sensuality, perversion, and immorality, there is no question about whether or not Jesus would condone it. The environment of a strip club is contrary to the character of Jesus and those who want to follow Him. The only reason that a Christian could righteously be in a strip club would be to minister to the people trapped in that lifestyle. It is good for Christians to stay out of strip clubs. However, we don’t earn “points” with God by avoiding certain sins. We become right with God by trusting in the blood of Jesus to cleanse us from our sinful natures (1 John 1:7; Titus 3:5\). When our hearts are made new by the power of the Holy Spirit, we want to do those things that are pleasing to Him (Colossians 1:10\). When we know Him, we know what pleases Him. Jesus said, “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me” (John 10:27\). True followers of Jesus don’t have to wonder whether perversion or lust is a sin or not. We want to keep our hearts and lives pure, as He is pure (Matthew 5:8\). We desire to live holy lives, as He is holy (1 Peter 1:15–16\). If we call ourselves His followers, then we actually follow Him. We go where He goes and do what He does. We want to avoid thoughts, words, and deeds that are contrary to our identity as children of God—not so that He will accept us but because He already has (1 John 3:1, 9–10; Philippians 2:15\).
Who was Origen of Alexandria?	Answer Origen of Alexandria (AD 185—254\), also known as Origen Adamantius, was one of the earliest and most important Christian scholars. He is remembered both for prodigious scholarship and fanatical commitment to purity. He is credited with producing hundreds of works on theology, textual criticism, and biblical interpretation. Among Origen’s most important works are the Hexapla, De Principiis, and Contra Celsum. A few of his views were unorthodox, to the point that later generations debated whether he was a saint or a heretic. In the year 202, Origen’s father was beheaded for his Christian faith. To support his family, the teenaged Origen began teaching grammar and basic Christian beliefs. His writing and education career grew quickly. Before long, he was running an entire school and hosting visits from politicians and academics. All the while, Origen produced scholarly work both in high quality and massive quantity. At one point, he was said to have kept seven scribes working at top speed. The scholar Jerome (AD 354—420\) would later ask, sarcastically, “Has anyone read everything Origen wrote?” Origen studied under non\-Christian philosophers in his birth city of Alexandria, Egypt, in order to better understand their arguments. This fueled one of his most important works, De Principiis (On First Principles). This is believed to be Christianity’s first comprehensive work of [systematic theology](systematic-theology.html). In it, Origen not only laid out a structured approach to Christian belief, but did so through (then) contemporary Greek philosophy. Another of Origen’s most important works is his Hexapla (Sixfold). This book is one of the earliest examples of textual criticism and scholarly apologetics, as well as a true interlinear Bible. The Hexapla is formatted in six columns: one column of Hebrew text in parallel with five columns of various Greek translations. Origen’s purpose in compiling this was to counter [Gnostic](Christian-gnosticism.html) and Jewish attacks on early Christianity. This work also provided Christians with a comprehensive guide to the Old Testament. The original is estimated to have been more than 6,500 pages long and took more than 28 years to complete. Origen also responded to an anti\-Christian work, written shortly before his birth, by the Greek philosopher Celsus. Celsus’ work broadly attacked the history, philosophy, prophecies, and social duties of Christianity. In Contra Celsum (Against Celsus), Origen produced a detailed, powerfully intellectual defense of Christianity, one of the first and best of the early church era. In it, Origen answers Celsus point by point, weaving evidence, logic, and philosophy together in support of Christianity. Understanding Origen’s work can be challenging. He believed all Scripture had three levels of meaning: literal, figurative, and moral, and he often expounded various ways to interpret the same passage. Origen is a prime example of early church scholars accepting non\-literal interpretations of certain passages, such as the creation account of Genesis. He was also a vocal critic of the view that only specially ordained men had the spiritual authority to interpret Scripture. Much of his work was a deliberate effort to promote knowledge over mere authority, including church leadership. Some of Origen’s ideas were unorthodox and put him at odds with fellow believers. For instance, Origen believed in the pre\-existence of souls and that one’s status in the present world was proportional to one’s commitment to God during this pre\-existence. His negative attitude toward the material world wasn’t much different than that of the Gnostics he so strongly opposed. He also considered the Trinity a ranking, not an equality, and believed that everyone, even demons, would one day be forgiven and purified by God. These claims were key to his being declared a heretic by various councils in the centuries after his death. Origen’s radical approach to purity of lifestyle was infamous. He lived in extreme asceticism, without shoes or a bed, and often worked instead of sleeping. He fasted twice a week and avoided all meat and wine. According to Roman historian [Eusebius](Eusebius-of-Caesarea.html), Origen’s quest for purity led him, through an extremely literal interpretation of Matthew 19:12, to self\-castration. Even among his admirers, this was seen as an extreme and unnecessary step, though later scholars would debate whether or not Origen actually performed the deed. Eventually, Origen’s uncompromising attitude toward Christianity and knowledge ran him afoul of the Roman Empire. Sometime after AD 251, a plague swept through Rome, and Emperor Decius laid blame on Christians for failing to worship him as a divine being. During the Decian persecution, Origen was imprisoned and brutally tortured but purposefully kept alive, in hopes he would recant his faith. True to his reputation, “Adamantius” remained a “man of steel” and was released from prison when Emperor Decius died. Unfortunately, Origen’s body hadn’t weathered the torture as well as his faith, and he died from his injuries very shortly after being freed. Origen devoted his life to making evidence, reason, and Scripture accessible to as many people as possible. His legacy is an excellent counter to any claim that early Christianity was shallow, superstitious, or anti\-intellectual. Heretic or not, Origen is among the most important figures of the early church.
Why do many of the psalms of David sound so sad?	Answer Many of the psalms are what are called “[psalms of lament](psalms-of-lament.html).” These songs include themes related to sadness, discouragement, and even complaints to God. Why were these sad psalms included in the Bible? Isn’t God’s Word supposed to encourage us? First, as a book of songs, [Psalms](Book-of-Psalms.html) includes the full range of human emotions. Many of the psalms are songs of joy and thanksgiving. Others are indeed sad, expressing the inevitable sorrow faced in human life. Psalm 6:6–7 expresses a deeply felt grief: “I am worn out from my groaning. / All night long I flood my bed with weeping / and drench my couch with tears. / My eyes grow weak with sorrow; / they fail because of all my foes.” David sometimes felt as though God had abandoned him: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? / Why are you so far from saving me, / so far from my cries of anguish? / My God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer, / by night, but I find no rest” (Psalm 22:1–2\). This particular psalm was prophetic, pointing us to the emotions that Christ felt on the cross (cf. Mark 15:34\). Second, songs of [lament](lament-in-the-Bible.html) were sometimes used in repentance. Psalm 51:1–2 is set in the context of David’s repentance following his adultery with Bathsheba. David says, “Have mercy on me, O God, / according to your unfailing love; / according to your great compassion / blot out my transgressions. / Wash away all my iniquity / and cleanse me from my sin.” At the same time, David expresses his honest feeling that his bones have been “crushed” (verse 8\) and he cannot shake his guilt on his own (verse 3\). Third, many psalms of lament follow a specific outline ending with an expression of trust in the Lord. The traditional pattern is 1\) opening address, 2\) complaint, 3\) request, and 4\) expression of trust. All of these elements can be seen in Psalm 2\. The psalmist addresses God, offers his complaint, asks for the Lord’s help, and then leaves himself at the mercy of God for a response. These psalms, though sad in parts, should encourage us that “weeping may stay for the night, / but rejoicing comes in the morning” (Psalm 30:5\). Some who have studied the book of Psalms have observed that the kinds of complaints found in the psalms of lament fall into three categories: 1\) concerns with the psalmist’s life or actions, 2\) concerns with an enemy, or 3\) concerns with God’s actions or inactions. For example, in Psalm 22 the psalmist is concerned with God’s apparent inaction. In Psalm 51, however, David’s concern is his own sin. At other times, the lament focuses on Israel’s enemies, wondering why God had allowed an opponent victory (Psalm 35\). While some psalms may be sad, not all are. In addition, the psalms of lament show the human condition expressed in poetic form. In reading the Psalms, we readily identify with the reality of human emotions and look to the Lord for help during times of need (Psalm 46:1\).
What does the Bible say about child sexual abuse?	Answer Sexual abuse perpetrated against a child is a deplorable reality of living in a sin\-stricken world. The psychological, emotional, spiritual, and physical damage of the abuse remain long after molestation has ended. The Bible speaks vehemently against hurting children and against [sexual sins](sexual-sin.html) and perversions of all kinds. It also offers hope for healing and forgiveness. Why does child sexual abuse happen? The short answer to “why” abuse happens is that we live in a world marred by sin. Often, those who molest children have themselves been molested. They may have been hurt in some other way as well and choose to victimize children in an attempt to regain a sense of power or worthiness. Sexual abuse can be the result of anger or selfishness or narcissism. Sometimes, it can even stem from a misguided attempt to find intimacy. Whatever the emotional, familial, or psychological history of the molester, sexual abuse is evil. Molestation or sexual abuse is NEVER the fault of the abused child. Many victims of abuse experience shame and guilt. But children cannot be held responsible for crimes perpetrated against them. This is not to say that victims of abuse are absolved of responsibility for their own actions, including those prompted by scars of the abuse. But there is nothing shameful about having been abused. The shame belongs to the abuser alone. What does the Bible say about sexual abuse against children? Caring for children is spoken of highly in the Bible. For example, James 1:27 says that caring for children in need pleases God: “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.” Ephesians 6:4 says, “Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord.” Psalm 127:3 calls children “a heritage from the Lord.” [Jesus’ interactions with children](Jesus-and-children.html) (notably in Matthew 18\) demonstrate the value God places on them. The Bible speaks often about caring for the weak, poor, and needy—and this would include at\-risk children (Proverbs 14:31; 17:5; 19:17; 31:8–9\). Followers of Christ are consistently called to love others. Molesting a child can in no way be mistaken for love. The Bible also speaks strongly against sexual sin. Sex is a gift given by God meant for marriage. Sexual perversion of all kinds is soundly condemned. Sexually assaulting a child is never justifiable; it is always wrong. How can I heal from being sexually abused? If you or someone you know is being molested, or you suspect abuse, you must contact the appropriate authorities. If you were abused as a child and suspect that your abuser is still harming others, please report it. Medical, legal, and psychological intervention are likely necessary. Children should never be left in abusive situations. Check with your local department of human services for reporting procedures. There is hope and healing in Christ, even for those who have been sexually abused as children. The journey to healing will look different for each person. It begins with a recognition of the abuse and the damage it has done. Healing continues as the abused person learns to trust Jesus and release the pain to Him. The road is long and will require safe companions, such as a counselor, a pastor, and loving family members. Our Savior, Jesus, said that He is the fulfillment of this prophecy: “The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor” (Luke 4:18–19\). Meditate on those words. Psalm 72:12–14 encourages those in pain to call on the Lord: “For he will deliver the needy who cry out, the afflicted who have no one to help. He will take pity on the weak and the needy and save the needy from death. He will rescue them from oppression and violence, for precious is their blood in his sight” (see also Psalm 22:24 and Psalm 34:18\). It requires faith to believe that God sees and that He cares. Coming to a place of acceptance and even forgiveness for one’s abuser will take time, God’s grace, and exerted effort. But it is possible. In Jesus there is healing and freedom. Call out to God in your distress. Can I be forgiven if I have sexually abused a child? Yes. God is gracious and merciful. No sin is beyond His ability to forgive (see Romans 5:20\). Jesus came to cleanse all sin: “Truly I tell you, people can be forgiven all their sins” (Mark 3:28\). When we recognize our sin, turn from it, and cry out to God, He forgives. Often, abusers have been abused themselves. In addition to God’s forgiveness, they require professional assistance in stopping their behaviors, healing from their own past wounds, and seeking forgiveness from those they have injured. Child molestation is a sad reality, but it is not beyond God’s ability to overcome. God can redeem and restore. We praise Him “who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to his power that is at work within us” (Ephesians 3:20\). The “more than we can imagine” includes healing and forgiveness.
What happened at the Council of Ephesus?	Answer The Council of Ephesus, held in AD 431, was the third of the Ecumenical Councils, after [Nicea](council-of-Nicea.html) in 325 and [Constantinople](Council-of-Constantinople.html) in 381\. The Council of Ephesus was primarily concerned with the doctrine of [Nestorianism](nestorianism.html), though it also denounced [Pelagianism](pelagianism.html) and re\-affirmed the [Nicene Creed](Nicene-Creed.html). The Council of Ephesus scrutinized the ideas of the Archbishop of Constantinople, Nestorius, who had taught that Christ’s two natures, human and divine, were separate. In fact, Nestorius said that Mary ought to be referred to as “Christokos,” meaning “bearer of Christ,” not the then\-traditional “[Theotokos](Mary-mother-God-theotokos.html),” meaning “bearer of God.” He felt that Theotokos implied a blending of Jesus’ divine and human natures, which he believed were joined only by the will. Nestorius’ preferred term, Christokos, suggested a more complete separation of Jesus’ two natures. Historians generally agree that Nestorius’ beliefs were not dramatically different from the orthodox position. However, the debate was more than a matter of terminology in that Nestorianism conflicted with biblical concepts related to the [divinity of Christ](hypostatic-union.html) (see John 10:30\). The conflict on this point of doctrine was especially venomous between Nestorius and Cyril of Alexandria, and Cyril successfully petitioned the Pope to declare Nestorius’ views heretical. Nestorius refused to budge, however, and requested that Emperor Theodosius II call a council to settle the dispute. This request was granted, and at the Council of Ephesus Nestorius planned to denounce Cyril for heresy. Ironically, the council’s ultimate decision was exactly the opposite: it rejected Nestorianism as heretical and removed Nestorius from office. The Council of Ephesus also rejected the concept of Pelagianism. This view held that it was possible, at least in theory, to live a morally perfect life without special aid from God. A belief in Pelagianism amounts to a rejection of the doctrine of [original sin](original-sin.html) (see Romans 5:19\). In rejecting Nestorianism, the Council of Ephesus officially recognized Mary as the “Mother of God,” though at the time this term was explicitly meant to refer only to Jesus’ humanity and only appropriate in Mary’s unique circumstance. Over time, this respect for Mary would mutate, within Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, into belief in her perpetual virginity, sinlessness, and cooperative work in human redemption. Another unfortunate legacy of the Council of Ephesus is bitterness and division. The meeting itself was said to be contentious, heated, and unfriendly. The decision to condemn Nestorianism caused an immediate split in the Eastern Church, creating several splinter groups. Some of these survive today, including the Assyrian Church of the East and Chaldean Catholicism.
What does it mean to shake the dust off your feet?	Answer The command to “shake the dust off your feet” appears only four times in the New Testament. In each case the command is spoken by Jesus to His disciples when He sent them out two by two (Matthew 10:14; Luke 9:5\). In Mark 6:11 Jesus says, “And if any place will not welcome you or listen to you, leave that place and shake the dust off your feet as a testimony against them.” In the Matthew 10 account, Jesus clarifies His meaning: “Truly I tell you, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town” (verse 15\). Shaking the dust off one’s feet conveys the same idea as our modern phrase “I wash my hands of it.” Shaking the dust off the feet is a symbolic indication that one has done all that can be done in a situation and therefore carries no further responsibility for it. In the scriptural examples, Jesus was telling His disciples that they were to preach the gospel to everyone. Where they were received with joy, they should stay and teach. But where their message was rejected, they had no further responsibility. They were free to walk away with a clear conscience, knowing they had done all they could do. Shaking the dust off their feet was, in effect, saying that those who rejected God’s truth would not be allowed to hinder the furtherance of the gospel. Even the dust of those cities that rejected the Lord was an abomination and would not be allowed to cling to the feet of God’s messengers. Embedded within this symbolic gesture was the implication that God also saw the dust\-shaking and would judge people accordingly. There was a spiritual significance to a disciple of Jesus shaking the dust off his feet. It was a statement of finality about people who had been given the truth and who had rejected it. On their [first missionary journey](missionary-journeys-Paul.html), Paul and Barnabas put Jesus’ words into practice. They had been preaching in Pisidian Antioch, but some of the Jewish leaders of that city stirred up persecution against the missionaries and had them expelled from the region. “So they shook the dust off their feet as a warning to them and went to Iconium” (Acts 13:51\). Antioch may not have welcomed the gospel as they should have, but that didn’t keep the message from spreading to other areas. Paul and Barnabas had done all they were sent to do, and the responsibility was now on the shoulders of those in Antioch. The apostles had proclaimed truth boldly. Some had accepted it eagerly; some had rejected it with violence. The apostles were not responsible for the Antiochians’ level of acceptance, only for their own obedience to God. There are situations in our lives where God calls us to stand firm, proclaim truth, and give patient testimony. Sometimes we need to continue until we see the results of that testimony. Other times God gives us the freedom to move on. We figuratively “shake the dust off our feet” when, under the Holy Spirit’s direction, we surrender those people to the Lord and emotionally let go. We have the freedom then to move into the next phase of ministry. Jesus’ instruction to “shake the dust off our feet” reminds us that we are only responsible for our obedience to God, not for the results of that [obedience](obedience-to-God.html).
Why is the book of Psalms divided into five books?	Answer The [book of Psalms](Book-of-Psalms.html) is the longest book of the Bible, with 150 “chapters”—more properly called “psalms” or “songs.” Psalms is divided into five books: Book 1: Psalms 1—41 Book 2: Psalms 42—72 Book 3: Psalms 73—89 Book 4: Psalms 90—106 Book 5: Psalms 107—150 It is uncertain why Psalms is divided into five books. Some sources, including Jewish Midrash traditions, suggest the five\-fold division is based on the five books of [the Torah](what-is-the-Torah.html) (Genesis to Deuteronomy). The division of the Psalms is not based on authorship or chronology, as several authors composed Psalms, and their individual songs are mixed throughout the various collections. David is listed as the author of 73 psalms, Asaph of 12, and the sons of Korah of 11\. Other psalms were written by Solomon, [Heman the Ezrahite](Heman-the-Ezrahite.html), [Ethan the Ezrahite](Ethan-the-Ezrahite.html), and Moses (Psalm 90\). The earliest extant copy of Psalms is from the Dead Sea Scrolls from about the first century AD. That copy shows that the division into five books extends to at least that time and certainly earlier. It is most likely that [Ezra](life-Ezra.html) and/or other Jewish religious leaders compiled the Psalms into their existing order during Ezra’s lifetime in the fourth century BC. Interestingly, the Psalms was one of the most popular writings among the [Dead Sea Scrolls](dead-sea-scrolls.html), with thirty scrolls of all or parts of the book included. Overall, Psalms is the book of the Old Testament with the most Hebrew manuscripts available for research, indicating its enduring popularity among both Jews and Christians. Each of these five books or sections of Psalms ends with a doxology or a song of praise. The final verse of each concluding psalm includes either “Praise the Lord!” or “Amen.” For example, the final verse of Psalm 41 ends this way: “Praise be to the Lord, the God of Israel, / from everlasting to everlasting. / Amen and Amen.” Psalm 150, the final psalm, serves as the fitting final doxology, concluding with the words, “Let everything that has breath praise the Lord. / Praise the Lord.”
Should a Christian study philosophy?	Answer The word philosophy comes from the Greek word philosophia, which means “love of wisdom.” The study of philosophy is about using rational argument and critical thinking to analyze the way human beings think and know and perceive the world around them—both the physical world and the abstract world of ideas. Questions like “what is real?” and “can the truth be known?” and “what is beauty?” are all philosophical questions. As lovers of God and believers in Jesus Christ, we should love wisdom (Proverbs 4:6; 7:4\), and there is therefore nothing wrong with a Christian studying philosophy. A study of philosophy is good and proper insofar as it furthers a pursuit of truth. The [book of Ecclesiastes](Book-of-Ecclesiastes.html) delves deeply into philosophical matters, dealing as it does with several different worldly philosophies before concluding that a philosophy that fears and obeys God is the best (Ecclesiastes 12:13\). All necessary questions pertaining to God, eternity, and the godly life are answered in the Bible. However, as a field of academic study, philosophy can be enlightening and beneficial in one’s dealings with the world. It is fascinating to study how men have thought through the ages about the nature of reality and their purpose (or lack thereof) in the cosmos. It is as equally fascinating to find that various philosophers throughout history have hit upon biblical truths, sometimes unwittingly. An understanding of the various philosophies of men is a valuable tool in evangelism. It helps to know where people are “coming from” and to have an idea of why they think the way they do. Does this person subscribe to Spinoza’s version of pantheism? Has he been reading Hobbes? Does he lean toward rationalism, subjectivism, or existentialism? An evangelist with some knowledge of philosophy can more readily engage individuals who care about such things and meet them where they are. Paul gives a great example of this as he was able to engage the philosophers on [Mars Hill](Mars-Hill.html) because of his familiarity with Greek writings (Acts 17:28\). He also quoted a Cretan philosopher to make a point in Titus 1:12\. Faith is often seen as a “non\-intellectual” pursuit, something understood with the spirit and the heart and not with the mind. Some people—even some Christians—go so far as to say faith is opposed to reason, as if faith were necessarily irrational or anti\-intellectual. If it doesn’t make sense, that’s okay. But the Bible presents faith in God and in the gospel as being grounded in reality. We believe in what is real; our faith is founded upon historical happenings recorded by eyewitnesses to extraordinary events. Luke writes of the “many convincing proofs” of Jesus’ resurrection (Acts 1:3\). The ministry of Christ “was not done in a corner,” as Paul points out to a skeptical king (Acts 26:26\). The idea that faith and reason are in conflict goes all the way back to ancient times. The Greek culture, the birthplace of philosophy, could not understand the Christian message, which seemed irrational to them. As Paul said, the preaching of the cross was foolishness to the Greeks (1 Corinthians 1:23\)—an intimation of the limitations of human philosophy. Man\-made philosophy, while a valid field of study in its own right, can never arrive at the truth of the gospel on its own. Paul warned of giving heed to “opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge” (1 Timothy 6:20\) or “so\-called knowledge” (NLT). Much of secular philosophy falls into that category. We need God’s revelation to see the truth. “By faith we understand” (Hebrews 11:3\). Without God’s revelation of the Bible, man in his natural state cannot understand the things of the Spirit of God (1 Corinthians 2:14–16\). Wisdom does not come from the natural mind because man’s mind and his reason are fallen; that is, they are affected by sin. Wisdom is a gift from God (James 1:5\). To be truly able to think rationally, a person must be introduced to the ultimate source of wisdom, which is God Himself. We need “the mind of Christ” (1 Corinthians 2:16\). Through faith, we rely on God’s direction and not simply our own wisdom (Proverbs 3:5–6\). Christians can and should study philosophy if led in that direction, but, as in all things in life, the study must be carried out in submission to God. Philosophy can be used to build beautiful and enlightening arguments based on what is revealed by God to be true, or it can be used to deconstruct and confuse a fallen mind that trusts itself rather than its Creator. We praise the Lord for Christian philosophers through the centuries who have exerted a positive influence in the world of philosophy and have pointed people to the truth: [Augustine](Saint-Augustine.html), [Aquinas](Saint-Thomas-Aquinas.html), [Calvin](John-Calvin.html), [Kierkegaard](Soren-Kierkegaard.html), and others. We are also indebted to more modern thinkers such as [C. S. Lewis](C-S-Lewis.html), Alvin Plantinga, Norman Geisler, [Francis Schaeffer](Francis-Schaeffer.html), and William Lane Craig, who have continued to prove that Christian theology more than holds its own in the study of philosophy.
What happened at the Council of Constantinople?	Answer The First Council of Constantinople occurred in AD 381 in the city of the same name (modern Istanbul, Turkey). It is considered the second of the Ecumenical Councils, after [Nicea in 325](council-of-Nicea.html). At the Council of Constantinople, Christian bishops convened to settle several doctrinal disputes prompted by unrest in the religious leadership of the city. While not as memorable as the Council of Nicea, the council dealt a fatal blow to [Arianism](arianism.html), clarified the language used to describe the Trinity, and sharpened the distinctions between the Eastern and Western branches of the church. The immediate motivation behind calling the first Council of Constantinople was a series of controversies. The Council of Nicea had met more than fifty years prior to settle the Arian controversy, a debate over whether or not Jesus was fully divine. Despite the council’s nearly 300\-to\-2 decision rejecting Arianism, the view persisted and continued to cause division among Christians. Constantinople itself was considered an “Arian” city until a new Emperor, Theodosius I, attempted to forcibly replace its church leaders with non\-Arians. This attempted purge did not go over well, and further unrest ensued. Theodosius attempted to install Gregory Nazianzus as Bishop of Constantinople. However, before Gregory could be formally consecrated, a rival group broke into the cathedral and attempted to consecrate Maximus the Cynic, instead. Their consecration ritual was interrupted by an angry mob, leading Theodosius to ask Pope Damasus for advice. Damasus’s order was for Theodosius to call a meeting of bishops who would formally reject Maximus and settle (again) the Arian controversy. True to form, the beginning of the Council of Constantinople was marred by controversy. The man first selected to preside over the Council, Meletius of Antioch, died soon after the council opened. Gregory was then elected to lead the discussions, but a late\-arriving contingent of bishops opposed both Gregory’s leadership of the council and his installment as Bishop of Constantinople. This led to an argument that threatened to derail the entire process. Gregory offered to resign both offices, a solution that ended the controversy and allowed the council to continue. Once under way, the Council of Constantinople again strongly denounced Arianism. Council members also discussed the hierarchy of bishops, rules for bringing heretics back into the church, and disciplinary issues among church leaders. Central to these discussions were careful applications of correct terminology when discussing the Trinity. In particular, it extended the language of the Nicene Creed to more precisely reflect the orthodox position. Here is the Nicene Creed with the changes made by the Council of Constantinople in brackets: We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker \[of heaven and earth], and of all things visible and invisible, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the \[only\-begotten] Son of God, begotten of the Father \[before all worlds], Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down \[from heaven], and was incarnate \[by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary], and was made man; he \[was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and] suffered, \[and was buried], and the third day he rose again, \[according to the Scriptures, and] ascended into heaven, \[and sitteth on the right hand of the Father]; from thence he shall come \[again, with glory], to judge the quick and the dead; \[whose kingdom shall have no end]. And in the Holy Ghost, \[the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets. In one holy catholic and apostolic Church; we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.] Much as a prior emperor, Constantine, had called the Council of Nicea to determine the boundaries of “orthodox” Christianity, Theodosius I intended the Council of Constantinople to unify Roman Christians under a common core of belief. To some extent, this goal was achieved, in that several doctrinal points were clarified. Arianism began to decline and eventually withered away. At the same time, the Council of Constantinople heightened the growing divide between the Eastern and Western Churches. One of the council’s declarations proclaimed that “the Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honor after the Bishop of Rome, because Constantinople is New Rome.” This generated disagreement over the relative importance of the five major Christian jurisdictions: Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, and Jerusalem. When the [Great Schism](great-schism.html) occurred centuries later, one of the primary disagreements was the hierarchy of Rome and Constantinople.
Is Christianity a religion or a relationship?	Answer Religion is “the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.” In that respect, [Christianity](Christianity.html) can be classified as a religion. However, practically speaking, Christianity has a key difference that separates it from other belief systems that are considered religions. That difference is relationship. Most religion, theistic or otherwise, is man\-centered. Any relationship with God is based on man’s works. A theistic religion, such as Judaism or Islam, holds to the belief in a supreme God or gods; while non\-theistic religions, such as Buddhism and Hinduism, focus on metaphysical thought patterns and spiritual “energies.” But most religions are similar in that they are built upon the concept that man can reach a higher power or state of being through his own efforts. In most religions, man is the aggressor and the deity is the beneficiary of man’s efforts, sacrifices, or good deeds. Paradise, nirvana, or some higher state of being is man’s reward for his strict adherence to whatever tenets that religion prescribes. In that regard, Christianity is not a religion; it is a relationship that God has established with His children. In Christianity, God is the aggressor and man is the beneficiary (Romans 8:3\). The Bible states clearly that there is nothing man can do to make himself right with God (Isaiah 53:6; 64:6; Romans 3:23; 6:23\). According to Christianity, God did for us what we cannot do for ourselves (Colossians 2:13; 2 Corinthians 5:21\). Our sin separates us from His presence, and sin must be punished (Romans 6:23; Matthew 10:28; 23:33\). But, because God loves us, He took our punishment upon Himself. All we must do is accept God’s gift of salvation through faith (Ephesians 2:8–9; 2 Corinthians 5:21\). [Grace](grace-of-God.html) is God’s blessing on the undeserving. The grace\-based relationship between God and man is the foundation of Christianity and the antithesis of religion. Established religion was one of the staunchest opponents of Jesus during His earthly ministry. When God gave His Law to the Israelites, His desire was that they “love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength” (Deuteronomy 6:5; Matthew 22:37\). “Love” speaks of relationship. Obedience to all the other commands had to stem from a love for God. We are able to love Him “because He first loved us” (1 John 4:19\). However, by Jesus’ time, the Jewish leaders had made a religion out of God’s desire to live in a love relationship with them (1 Timothy 1:8; Romans 7:12\). Over the years, they had perverted God’s Law into a works\-based religion that alienated people from Him (Matthew 23:13–15; Luke 11:42\). Then they added many of their own rules to make it even more cumbersome (Isaiah 29:13; Matthew 15:9\). They prided themselves on their ability to keep the Law—at least outwardly—and lorded their authority over the common people who could never keep such strenuous rules. The Pharisees, as adept as they were at rule\-keeping, failed to recognize God Himself when He was standing right in front of them (John 8:19\). They had chosen religion over relationship. Just as the Jewish leaders made a religion out of a relationship with God, many people do the same with Christianity. Entire denominations have followed the way of the Pharisees in creating rules not found in Scripture. Some who profess to follow Christ are actually following man\-made religion in the name of Jesus. While claiming to believe Scripture, they are often plagued with fear and doubt that they may not be good enough to earn salvation or that God will not accept them if they don’t perform to a certain standard. This is religion masquerading as Christianity, and it is one of Satan’s favorite tricks. Jesus addressed this in Matthew 23:1–7 when He rebuked the Pharisees. Instead of pointing people to heaven, these religious leaders were keeping people out of the kingdom of God. Holiness and obedience to Scripture are important, but they are evidences of a transformed heart, not a means to attain it. God desires that we be holy as He is holy (1 Peter 1:16\). He wants us to grow in grace and knowledge of Him (2 Peter 3:18\). But we do these things because we are His children and want to be like Him, not in order to earn His love. Christianity is not about signing up for a religion. Christianity is about being born into the family of God (John 3:3\). It is a relationship. Just as an adopted child has no power to create an adoption, we have no power to join the family of God by our own efforts. We can only accept His invitation to know Him as Father through adoption (Ephesians 1:5; Romans 8:15\). When we join His family through faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus, the Holy Spirit comes to live inside our hearts (1 Corinthians 6:19; Luke 11:13; 2 Corinthians 1:21–22\). He then empowers us to live like children of the King. He does not ask us to try to attain holiness by our own strength, as religion does. He asks that our old self be crucified with Him so that His power can live through us (Galatians 2:20; Romans 6:6\). God wants us to know Him, to draw near to Him, to pray to Him, and love Him above everything. That is not religion; that is a relationship.
What is a Third Way church?	Answer Politicians and economists have been speaking of the “Third Way” for about a hundred years now. Only recently has the term Third Way been used in an ecclesiastical context, with some churches now claiming to be “Third Way” congregations. In a secular context, Third Way refers to a “middle ground” between two perceived extremes. Political liberalism and conservatism, for example, are sometimes cited as both being too “extreme,” necessitating a Third Way between the two. Followers of Third Way thinking often call themselves “Moderates” and attempt to draw from the values of both sides of the issues. In a church context, Third Way commonly refers to those seeking a “middle ground” on the issue of homosexuality or [gay marriage](gay-marriage.html). Third Way churches reject the polarization of society. They seek to “engage the culture” without being judgmental of others and without redefining their own core beliefs. They don’t wish to withdraw from society, and they don’t want to abandon their convictions. Offered the choice of either fighting or surrendering, they choose neither. The Third Way is touted as the way of acceptance, love, equality, and interaction. Theological positions take a secondary place to [“love.”](God-love-and-homosexuality.html) Concerning the issue of [homosexuality](homosexuality-Bible.html), Third Way proponents try to promote peace, saying that the issue of sexual orientation should not divide Christians. On one hand, they reject the church’s traditional stance that homosexuality is sinful; on the other hand, they may stop short of performing gay weddings. The “middle ground” the Third Way seeks is the teaching that homosexuals can indeed be true Christians, in need of affirmation and support, and that it is time to stop fighting against homosexuals and start including them in the church. Amazingly, Third Way proponents do not see their position as a “compromise” in the least. The problem is, on some issues, there really is no “Third Way.” As much as some people love to dwell in the gray areas, there does exist a black and a white in the matter of homosexual behavior. The Bible is abundantly clear that homosexual practice is evil, and it is just as clear that marriage is a lifetime commitment between one man and one woman. Will the church of the living God continue to be “the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15\), or will the church abandon its mission in a morass of compromise and concession? The church is God’s [ekklesia](definition-ekklesia.html), His “called\-out assembly.” We are to reflect the holiness of God into a sin\-darkened world, not reflect society’s gloominess back upon itself. The biblical principle of “come out from them and be separate” (2 Corinthians 6:17\) is still valid; the church is called to choose sides on moral issues, not to find a “third way.” Dr. Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, points out the impossibility of finding middle ground on the issue of gay marriage. He writes, “There is no third way on this issue. . . . The issue is binary. A church will recognize same\-sex relationships, or it will not. A congregation will teach a biblical position on the sinfulness of same\-sex acts, or it will affirm same\-sex behaviors as morally acceptable. Ministers will perform same\-sex ceremonies, or they will not” (“There Is No ‘Third Way’—Southern Baptists Face a Moment of Decision (and so will you),” AlbertMohler.com, June 2, 2014\). Churches that have opted to identify as “Third Way” congregations are finding that even their middle\-of\-the\-road stance is divisive. In choosing to affirm homosexual behavior, they by necessity turn their backs on the traditionalists within their congregations. In ignoring biblical teaching, Third Way churches are, in fact, choosing a side, and congregations are being split as a result. There is a broad road, Jesus said, and a narrow road (Matthew 7:13–14\). There is the right way and the wrong way, but no Third Way. The idea that a church can choose to not take an official position on homosexuality is wishful thinking. Culture is drawing a line in the sand, and the church must be equipped with the [full armor of God](full-armor-of-God.html) and be willing to “stand firm” (Ephesians 6:14\).
Who are the Navigators?	Answer The Navigators is an interdenominational ministry dedicated to evangelizing the lost and training Christians so that they, too, will disciple others. The Navigators works with students, military personnel, businessmen and women, church leaders, inner\-city families, and new believers from all walks of life. They operate a conference center, host youth camps, and work in more than one hundred countries. They publish their own study materials and other books through NavPress and are the publishers of the well\-known [The Message](The-Message-MSG.html) Bible paraphrase. The Navigators is an evangelical Christian ministry committed to the Word. Doctrinally, they are sound. The organization believes the Bible is the inerrant Word of God; and the doctrines of the Trinity, the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ, and salvation by grace through faith are all in line with what the Bible says. The Navigators ministry began over eighty years ago in California, when a young man named Dawson Trotman felt the call of God to teach the principles of discipleship to others. Trotman began teaching local Sunday school classes, using 2 Timothy 2:2 as a guiding light: “The things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable people who will also be qualified to teach others.” In 1933, Trotman and his friends started to work with sailors in the U.S. Navy. Before long, 125 men on their ship, the U.S.S. West Virginia, were involved, maturing in Christ and actively sharing their faith. In 1949, the first overseas missionary from the Navigators left for China. The Navigators takes its name from the fact that the ministry was originally to Navy servicemen. Although the ministry has broadened beyond military personnel, it still seeks to help people “navigate spiritually, To Know Christ and to Make Him Known as they look to Him and His Word to chart their lives” (from the Navigators’ [official website](http://www.navigators.org/)). Through NavPress, The Navigators offers a wide variety of Bible studies; devotionals; and books on social issues, leadership, men’s and women’s issues, marriage resources, spiritual growth, and more—they even have Christian novels. Currently, The Navigators has more than 4,600 staff members—each raising his or her own financial support—from 70 different nationalities. Their emphasis is still on creating “spiritual generations of laborers”—that is, each disciple of Christ disciples others, forming new “generations” of believers growing in the Lord. They do this by meeting with new believers individually and in small groups to study the Bible together and pray, encourage, counsel, and teach.
What is the history of Masada?	Answer Masada is a famous mountain fortress above the western shore of the Dead Sea in Israel. The history of Masada goes back to 31 BC, when [Herod the Great](Herods.html) completed construction on this “palace of refuge” that he had built in the case of a revolt against him. According to the [historian Josephus](Flavius-Josephus.html), King Herod was an Edomite appointed by the Roman Empire as a client king over Judea. Because he was not a Judean and was cruel to his subjects, Herod was despised by the Jews. Some modern psychologists, examining Herod’s track record, have classified him as bipolar and suffering from extreme paranoia. From his extensive building projects, including Masada, to his numerous political assassinations, Herod exhibited paranoia about losing power. His unhealthy suspicions were evident to everyone. Masada is built on a high elevation. The fortress contains a number of barracks, armories, and defensive structures. It also has huge storehouses and cisterns, which contained months’ worth of food and water. The primary defense of Masada was a single\-file “snake path” up the 1,300\-foot mountain. The path was extremely easy to defend from vantage points above. About one hundred years after Herod the Great built the “impregnable” fortress of Masada, it became home to a group of Jewish Zealots who hid there during the Roman conquest of Israel. After the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, Masada was the last Jewish holdout. As the Romans worked south in a final purge of the land, they came to Masada and the Jewish resistance there. In AD 72, a Roman legion under the command of General Flavius Silva finally surrounded Masada, but they couldn’t reach the small band of holdouts living at the top. In true Roman fashion, the Romans brought in thousands of slaves and spent a number of months building a huge siege ramp up the backside of the mountain. When the Romans finally breached the fortress in the spring of AD 73, they found a ghastly scene. The Zealots, choosing death over capture, had committed ceremonial suicide. In total, 953 men, women, and children died in a final rejection of Roman oppression. Accounts of the siege of Masada and the mass suicide were later reported by two women who had hid in a cistern with five children. They recounted the final words of their leader, Eleazar, which Josephus wrote down: “Since we, long ago, my generous friends, resolved never to be servants to the Romans, not to any other than to God himself, who alone is the true and just Lord of mankind, the time is now come that obliges us to make that resolution true in practice.” Israel became a formal nation again in 1948\. And, nearly 1,900 years after the fall of Masada, the fortress still figures significantly in Israeli culture. As part of defending their renewed country, all Israeli men and women are asked to serve a term in the IDF—the Israeli Defense Forces. Upon their completion of basic training, new IDF soldiers climb the “snake path” to Masada at night and are sworn in during a torch\-lit ceremony at the top of Masada. Their final declaration of the night before descending the mountain as full\-fledged soldiers is “Masada shall not fall again.”
How many people were raised from the dead in the Bible?	Answer The Bible records several accounts of people being raised from the dead. Every time a person is raised from the dead, it is a stupendous miracle, showing that the God who is Himself the Source of Life has the ability to give life to whom He will—even after death. The following people were raised from the dead in the Bible: The widow of Zarephath’s son (1 Kings 17:17–24\). Elijah the prophet raised the [widow of Zarephath’s](Elijah-widow.html) son from the dead. Elijah was staying in an upper room of the widow’s house during a severe drought in the land. While he was there, the widow’s son became ill and died. In her grief, the woman brought the body of her son to Elijah with the assumption that his presence in her household had brought about the death of her boy as a judgment on her past sin. Elijah took the dead boy from her arms, went to the upper room, and prayed, “Lord my God, let this boy’s life return to him!” (verse 21\). Elijah stretched himself out on the boy three times as he prayed, and “the Lord heard Elijah’s cry, and the boy’s life returned to him, and he lived” (verse 22\). The prophet brought the boy to his mother, who was filled with faith in the power of God through Elijah: “Now I know that you are a man of God and that the word of the Lord from your mouth is the truth” (verse 24\). The Shunammite woman’s son (2 Kings 4:18–37\). The prophet Elisha raised the [Shunammite woman’s](Elisha-Shunammite-woman.html) son from the dead. Elisha regularly stayed in Shunem in an upper room prepared for him by this woman and her husband. One day, while Elisha was at Mount Carmel, the couple’s young son died. The woman carried the body of her son to Elisha’s room and laid it on the bed (verse 21\). Then, without even telling her husband the news, she departed for Carmel to find Elisha (verses 22–25\). When she found Elisha, she pleaded with him to come to Shunem. Elisha sent his servant, Gehazi, ahead of them with instructions to lay Elisha’s staff on the boy’s face (verse 31\). As soon as Elisha and the Shunammite woman arrived back home, Elisha went to the upper room, shut the door, and prayed. Then he stretched out on top of the boy’s body, and the body began to warm (verse 34\). Elisha arose, walked about the room, and stretched himself out on the body again. The boy then sneezed seven times and awoke from death (verse 35\). Elisha then delivered the boy, alive again, to his grateful mother (verses 36–37\). The man raised out of Elisha’s grave (2 Kings 13:20–21\). Elisha is connected with another miracle that occurred after his death. Sometime after Elisha had died and was buried, some men were burying another body in the same area. The grave diggers saw a band of Moabite raiders approaching, and, rather than risk an encounter with the Moabites, they threw the man’s body into Elisha’s grave. Scripture records that, “when the body touched Elisha’s bones, the man came to life and stood up on his feet” (verse 21\). The widow of Nain’s son (Luke 7:11–17\). This is the first person Jesus raised from the dead. As the Lord approached the town of [Nain](Nain-in-the-Bible.html), He met a funeral procession leaving the city. In the coffin was a young man, the only son of a widow. When Jesus saw the procession, “his heart went out to \[the woman] and he said, ‘Don’t cry’” (verse 13\). Jesus came close and touched the coffin and spoke to the dead man: “Young man, I say to you, get up!” (verse 14\). Obeying the divine order, “the dead man sat up and began to talk” (verse 15\). The mourning was turned to awe and praise: “God has come to help his people,” the people said (verse 16\). Jairus’ daughter (Luke 8:40–56\). Jesus also showed His power over death by raising the young daughter of [Jairus](Jairus-in-the-Bible.html), a synagogue leader. The Lord was surrounded by crowds when Jairus came to Him, begging Him to visit his house and heal his dying twelve\-year\-old daughter (verses 41–42\). Jesus began to follow Jarius home, but on the way a member of Jarius’ household approached them with the sad news that Jairus’ daughter had died. Jesus turned to Jarius with words of hope: “Don’t be afraid; just believe, and she will be healed” (verse 50\). Upon arriving at Jarius’ house, Jesus took the girl’s parents, Peter, James, and John and entered the room where the body lay. There, “he took her by the hand and said, ‘My child, get up!’ Her spirit returned, and at once she stood up” (verses 54–55\). Jesus and His disciples then left the girl, alive and well, with her astonished parents. Lazarus of Bethany (John 11\). The third person that Jesus raised from the dead was His friend [Lazarus](Lazarus-in-the-Bible.html). Word had come to Jesus that Lazarus was ill, but Jesus did not go to Bethany to heal him. Instead, He told His disciples, “This sickness will not end in death. No, it is for God’s glory so that God’s Son may be glorified through it” (verse 4\). A couple days later, Jesus told His disciples that Lazarus had died, but He promised a miracle: “I am going there to wake him up” (verse 11\). When Jesus reached Bethany, four days after Lazarus’ death, Lazarus’ grieving sisters both greeted Jesus with the same words: “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died” (verses 21 and 32\). Jesus, speaking to Martha, promised to raise Lazarus from the dead (verse 23\) and proclaimed Himself to be “[the resurrection and the life](resurrection-and-life.html)” (verse 25\). Jesus asked to see the grave. When He got to the place, He commanded the stone to be rolled away from the tomb (verse 39\), and He prayed (verses 41–42\) and “called in a loud voice, ‘Lazarus, come out!’” (verse 43\). Just as Jesus had promised, “the dead man came out” (verse 44\). The result of this miracle was that God was glorified and “many of the Jews who had come to visit Mary, and had seen what Jesus did, believed in him” (verse 45\). Others, however, refused to believe in Jesus and plotted to destroy both Jesus and Lazarus (John 11:53; 12:10\). Various saints in Jerusalem (Matthew 27:50–53\). The Bible mentions some people who were [raised from the dead en masse](resurrected-with-Jesus.html) at the time of the death of Christ. When Jesus died, “the earth shook, the rocks split and the tombs broke open” (verses 51–52\). Those open tombs remained open until the third day. At that time, “the bodies of many holy people . . . were raised to life. They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people” (verses 52–53\). On the day that Jesus was raised to life, these saints were also raised and became witnesses in Jerusalem of the life that only Jesus can give. Tabitha (Acts 9:36–43\). Tabitha, whose Greek name was [Dorcas](Dorcas-in-the-Bible.html), was a believer who lived in the coastal city of Joppa. Her return to life was performed by the apostle Peter. Dorcas was known for “always doing good and helping the poor” (verse 36\). When she died, the believers in Joppa were filled with sadness. They laid the body in an upper room and sent for Peter, who was in the nearby town of Lydda (verses 37–38\). Peter came at once and met with the disciples in Joppa, who showed him the clothing that Dorcas had made for the widows there (verse 39\). Peter sent them all out of the room and prayed. Then “turning toward the dead woman, he said, ‘Tabitha, get up.’ She opened her eyes, and seeing Peter she sat up. He took her by the hand and helped her to her feet” (verses 40–41\). The overjoyed believers received their friend, and the news spread quickly throughout the city. “Many people believed in the Lord” as a result (verse 42\). Eutychus (Acts 20:7–12\). Eutychus was a young man who lived (and died and lived again) in Troas. He was raised from the dead by the apostle Paul. The believers in Troas were gathered in an upper room to hear the apostle speak. Since Paul was leaving town the next day, he spoke late into the night. One of his audience members was [Eutychus](Eutychus-in-the-Bible.html), who sat in a window and, unfortunately, fell asleep. Eutychus slipped out of the window and fell three stories to his death (verse 9\). Paul went down and “threw himself on the young man and put his arms around him” (verse 10\). Eutychus came back to life, went upstairs, and ate a meal with the others. When the meeting finally broke up at daylight, “the people took the young man home alive and were greatly comforted” (verse 12\). Jesus (Mark 16:1–8\). Of course, any list of people raised from the dead must include Jesus Christ. His death and resurrection are the focal point of Scripture and the most important events in the history of the world. The [resurrection of Jesus](bodily-resurrection-Jesus.html) is notably different from other events in which people rose from the dead: Jesus’ resurrection is the first permanent return to life; everyone else who had been raised to life died again. Lazarus died twice; Jesus rose, nevermore to die. In this way, Jesus is “the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep” (1 Corinthians 15:20\). Jesus’ resurrection justifies us (Romans 4:25\) and ensures our eternal life: “Because I live, you also will live” (John 14:19\).
Who was Constantine the Great?	Answer Constantine the Great (AD 280—337\) was one of Rome’s most powerful and successful emperors and the first to self\-identify as a Christian. He is known for his economic, political, and military achievements, as well as his religious reforms. Medieval writers praised him as the ideal ruler, against whom all kings were measured. Over time, his reign was viewed with waning enthusiasm. Historians also began to debate how committed Constantine was to Christianity or how devoutly he actually followed it. Constantine was influential in Christian history for his personal faith, religious politics, issuing the Edict of Milan, and calling the [Council of Nicea](council-of-Nicea.html). Constantine was the son of a Roman official and his Christian concubine. This placed him in line to succeed the throne of the Western Roman Empire. At age 31, he prepared to attack his chief rival with an army outnumbered 4\-to\-1\. Before the battle, Constantine claimed to have seen a vision of Jesus, with a specific symbol, telling him, “By this sign, conquer.” Constantine ordered his troops to mark their shields with this symbol, the [Chi\-Rho](Chi-Rho-symbol.html), then a symbol commonly representing Christianity. The Chi\-Rho combines the first two letters in the Greek word for “Christ” and resembles a capital P with an X drawn through the spine. Constantine’s forces routed the enemy, and he became emperor. The Chi\-Rho symbol would be part of Constantine’s personal signature for the rest of his life. As emperor, Constantine issued the [Edict of Milan](Edict-of-Milan.html), which declared Roman citizens free to worship whatever gods they chose. The Edict of Milan ended longstanding persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire. At that time, Constantine did not (yet) claim to be a Christian himself, nor did he advocate for an official state religion. Based on his continued use of certain pagan symbols, scholars believe Constantine’s early religion was generally theistic, rather than specifically Christian. His boldness in using Christian language grew during his reign. After assuming control of the entire Roman Empire, he built lavish churches and came to openly espouse Christianity. During Constantine’s reign, controversy arose over the teachings of [Arius](arianism.html), who denied the full divinity of Jesus. Constantine called a meeting of Christian bishops, the Council of Nicea, to settle the dispute. Contrary to popular myth, this meeting did not discuss the canon of the Bible, nor was Constantine influential in the council’s decisions. Emperors saw themselves as responsible for promoting “correct” forms of worship; Constantine’s interest was not to declare orthodoxy but to let the bishops determine it so that he could enforce it. Further, Constantine was not known for his philosophical ability and found himself lost in deeper discussions of theology. Rather, he acted as the council’s mediator and host, roles at which he excelled. Constantine’s Christian faith has frequently been critiqued, if not questioned outright. On one hand, he made great strides in securing political and social rights for Christians and initiating general humanitarian reforms. He poured time and money into building churches and publicly supporting Christianity. Particularly toward the end of his reign, Constantine vocally professed faith in Christ and credited his success to God. He was baptized shortly before his death, according to the common practice of his time. On the other hand, Constantine continued many pagan practices, including veneration of the sun. His interest in Christian orthodoxy was motivated primarily by a desire to maintain social order. There are also reasons to suspect that Constantine was as ruthless toward rivals as prior emperors had been. One of his sons, a brother\-in\-law, and his second wife were executed for reasons still unknown. He freely blended pagan practices with Christian beliefs, leading scholars to suggest his public adoption of Christianity might have been a savvy political move, linking him to a rising social force in the Roman Empire. Ultimately, whether Constantine was a committed Christian, a shrewd, Christian\-friendly politician, or something in between is an open question. Without doubt, he ended centuries of persecution and greatly enhanced the social standing of Christianity. He committed resources to churches and Christian education, and his leadership helped to clarify important Christian doctrines. However, Constantine’s actions resulted in some negative complications. Free from persecution, the church naturally attracted more false converts. The melding of Christian themes with secular politics set a pattern that contributed to later disasters such as the [Inquisition](inquisitions.html) and the [Crusades](Christian-crusades.html). Constantine’s blending of pagan, building\-and\-priest\-centered worship with Christianity also contributed to the rise of Roman Catholicism. Constantine’s legacy is complex and not wholly understood, but he stands as one of the dominant figures in Christian history. Without doubt, his influence helped transform Christianity from a persecuted minority into the eventual state religion of the Roman Empire and the most widespread faith in history.
Why does the Bible speak against wearing clothing made of different types of fabric?	Answer There are two passages in the Mosaic Law that forbid the wearing of different types of fabric; that is, the wearing of blended fabrics—those woven from two different materials. Leviticus 19:19 says, “Keep my decrees. Do not mate different kinds of animals. Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.” And Deuteronomy 22:9–11 commands, “Do not plant two kinds of seed in your vineyard; if you do, not only the crops you plant but also the fruit of the vineyard will be defiled. Do not plow with an ox and a donkey yoked together. Do not wear clothes of wool and linen woven together.” While the Deuteronomy passage specifically forbids wearing a woven garment of wool and linen, the Leviticus passage seems broader, forbidding clothes woven of two different types of fabric, no matter what the material. However, wool and linen would have been the primary options for the ancient Israelite when it came to making thread for weaving. Woolen thread would have been made from the hair of a sheep or goat, although today it is made from a variety of other animals as well (llamas, alpacas, etc.). Linen was made from fibers contained in the stalk of the flax plant (see Joshua 2:6\). There is no evidence that ancient Israel cultivated cotton, and of course they did not have synthetics like nylon or polyester. Thus, we can assume that wool and linen are in view in the Leviticus passage, even though the materials are not specifically stated. Neither passage says anything about wearing two garments made of different kinds of material. For example, a linen undergarment worn with a woolen outer garment may have been acceptable. Nor do the commandments say anything about clothing that is not woven, such as leather or animal skins, being used with a lining made of wool or linen. The prohibition pertains only to wearing a single garment woven with both wool and linen. The rule against wearing different types of fabric was not a moral law. There is nothing inherently wrong with weaving linen and wool together. In fact, the ephod of the high priest was made of linen and dyed thread (Exodus 28:6–8; 39:4–5\). The dyed thread would have been made of wool. This fact is probably the key to understanding the prohibition. The ephod of the high priest was the only garment that could be woven of linen and wool. No one else was allowed to have such a garment. Apparently, this rule was to place some distance between the high priest and the people, with the ultimate purpose of reminding Israel of how holy God truly is. A similar prohibition in the Law regarded anointing oil. God gave a special recipe for the anointing oil, and it was strictly forbidden to duplicate the recipe for common use. No Israelite was allowed to make this oil for his own purposes (Exodus 30:31–38\). The passages forbidding wearing clothes woven with wool and linen include a list of other prohibitions against [mixing of various kinds](commands-against-mixing.html). It is interesting to note that [ancient Hittite](Hittites.html) laws also forbade the sowing of different kinds of seed in the same field. It appears that mixing of this kind was reserved for sacred purposes, and the average person was not allowed to engage in these practices. In the Old Testament, the prohibitions may have been to maintain distance between the people and the high priest (and therefore God, whom the high priest represented). In other cases, the prohibitions may have been designed to keep the Israelites from imitating the superstitious or religious practices of the pagan nations surrounding them. Even though we do not understand all that is behind these prohibitions, we can be sure that the ancient Israelites would have understood exactly why the rules were in place. So, is it wrong for a Christian today to wear clothing made of two different types of material? The clear and unequivocal answer is “no.” As we have seen, the prohibition was only for linen and wool, which would be uncommon today, anyway. Other types of blends were simply not in view. Beyond that, the prohibition was for ancient Israel, not for the New Testament Christian. The ceremonial laws for ancient Israel as recorded in the Old Testament simply [do not apply](Christian-law.html) today.
Why are Psalms 14 and 53 nearly identical?	Answer Psalm 14 and Psalm 53 are nearly identical. Only a slight change of thought near the end of each psalm differentiates the two. Why would the Bible include two psalms that are very nearly the same? A close look at Psalms 14 and 53 offers some insight in this matter. Although subtle, three distinctions are observable in these two psalms. First, each has a different title. Psalm 14 begins, “For the director of music. Of David.” In contrast, the title of Psalm 53 is “For the director of music. According to mahalath. A maskil of David.” Though both psalms contain similar lyrics, they seem to have had different tunes associated with them. Second, there is one clear difference toward the end of each psalm. Psalm 14:5–6 states, “But there they are, overwhelmed with dread, / for God is present in the company of the righteous. / You evildoers frustrate the plans of the poor, / but the Lord is their refuge.” By contrast, Psalm 53:5 says, “But there they are, overwhelmed with dread, / where there was nothing to dread. / God scattered the bones of those who attacked you; / you put them to shame, for God despised them.” What is the difference? Psalm 14 focuses more on God’s deliverance of the righteous, while Psalm 53 focuses more on God’s defeat of the wicked. It is possible that one of the songs is an adaptation of the earlier song, and the change in lyrics commemorates a specific event. The third difference between the two psalms regards the use of God’s name. Psalm 14 uses “the Lord” (Yahweh) in verses 2, 4, 6, and 7\. Psalm 53 uses “God” (Elohim) in all seven places where God is mentioned. Psalms 14 and 53 are very similar in content, but they were likely very different musically. In today’s culture, singers commonly record “remakes” of older songs that may be slightly different lyrically and feature completely new musical settings. This was likely the case in these two psalms. The musical differences would have been in sound and not words, and we only see the similarities. However, those originally singing these two psalms would have likely sung them very differently. The theme in both psalms is the salvation of God. Both psalms end with these words: “Oh, that salvation for Israel would come out of Zion! / When the Lord restores his people, / let Jacob rejoice and Israel be glad!” (Psalm 14:7; cf. 53:6\).
Who was Gamaliel in the Bible?	Answer Gamaliel was a first\-century [Jewish rabbi](Jewish-rabbi.html) and a leader in the Jewish Sanhedrin. Gamaliel is mentioned a couple of times in Scripture as a famous and well\-respected teacher. Indirectly, Gamaliel had a profound effect on the early church. Gamaliel was a [Pharisee](Sadducees-Pharisees.html) and a grandson of the famous [Rabbi Hillel](Shammaite-vs-Hillelite.html). Like his grandfather, Gamaliel was known for taking a rather lenient view of the Old Testament law in contrast to his contemporary, [Rabbi Shammai](Shammaite-vs-Hillelite.html), who held to a more stringent understanding of Jewish traditions. The first biblical reference to Rabbi Gamaliel is found in Acts 5\. The scene is a meeting of the Sanhedrin, where John and Peter are standing trial. After having warned the apostles to cease preaching in the name of Jesus, the Jewish council becomes infuriated when Simon Peter defiantly replies, “We must obey God rather than human beings!” (Acts 5:29\). Peter had no intention of ceasing to proclaim the gospel, regardless of the possible repercussions. Peter’s defiance enrages the council, who begin to seek the death of the apostles. Into the fray steps Gamaliel. The rabbi, “who was honored by all the people” (Acts 5:34\), first orders the apostles to be removed from the room. Gamaliel then encourages the council to be cautious in dealing with Jesus’ followers: “In the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God” (Acts 5:38–39\). The Sanhedrin is persuaded by Gamaliel’s words (verse 40\). That the council acquiesced to his advice speaks to the influence that Gamaliel possessed. Later rabbis lauded Gamaliel for his knowledge, but he may be better known for his most famous pupil—another Pharisee named [Saul of Tarsus](Saul-of-Tarsus.html) (Acts 22:3\), who later became the apostle Paul. It was under the tutelage of Rabbi Gamaliel that Paul developed an expert knowledge of the Hebrew Scriptures. Paul’s educational and professional credentials allowed him to preach in the synagogues wherever he traveled (see Acts 17:2\), and his grasp of Old Testament history and law aided his presentation of Jesus Christ as the One who had fulfilled the Law (Matthew 5:17\). Gamaliel is also mentioned by the [historian Josephus](Flavius-Josephus.html), who wrote of the nobility of Gamaliel’s son, Simon (Vita, 38\). Josephus’ description of Gamaliel’s family is consistent with the picture we see of him in the [book of Acts](Book-of-Acts.html). The [Talmud](Talmud.html) also mentions Gamaliel, but there is still much that we do not know about him. As with many figures from ancient history, our knowledge of Gamaliel is limited. From the sources that we do possess, it is clear that Gamaliel and his family were revered as men of wisdom and prudential judgment. In God’s sovereign plan, this Jewish rabbi preserved the lives of the apostles in the early church and helped equip the greatest Christian missionary.
Did the Apostle Thomas take the gospel all the way to India?	Answer The apostle [Thomas](Thomas-in-the-Bible.html) was one of the original [twelve disciples](twelve-apostles-disciples-12.html) of Jesus (Matthew 10:3\). He is sometimes known as [“Doubting Thomas](doubting-Thomas.html),” because he declared that he would not believe that Jesus was resurrected until he could touch Jesus’ wounds (John 20:25\). He is also known as one of the first missionaries in the early church. After the Day of Pentecost, the gospel began to spread from Jerusalem to other parts of the world. According to tradition, Thomas took the gospel of Christ to the subcontinent of India. Various historical records and traditions indicate that Thomas traveled by sea to India in AD 52\. He was later martyred and buried there after witnessing to the Indian people. The tomb of St. Thomas is in Mylapore, India. A poet, St. Ephrem, recorded in his hymns and poetry that Thomas worked miracles in the Indian city of Edessa. A Syrian ecclesiastical calendar has an entry which reads, “3 July, St. Thomas who was pierced with a lance in ‘India.’ His body is in Urhai (Edessa) having been brought there by the merchant Khabin.” A tradition observed by the people of Edessa honors Thomas, calling him “the Apostle of India.” Many other accounts and traditions mention Thomas in connection with India. While these accounts and documents are compelling, there is no way to be absolutely certain that Thomas took the gospel to India. Based on the biblical record, we can be sure that Thomas did exist as one of Jesus’ disciples, that he was a faithful follower of Christ, and that he proclaimed Christ’s deity (John 11:16; 14:5; 20:24–29\). Outside of that, there is no way to be entirely sure. It is possible, likely even, that Thomas took the gospel to India—there is no reason why he could not have done so—but there is no way to be absolutely sure the extra\-biblical histories are correct. Since none of the accounts are recorded in the authoritative and inerrant Word of God, some of the stories of Thomas may be embellished; others may be entirely the product of legend.
Why did Jesus call the Canaanite woman a dog?	Answer In Matthew 15:21–28, Jesus encounters a Canaanite (Syrophoenician) woman who begs Him to cure her daughter. Jesus initially refuses her request by saying, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs” (Matthew 15:26\). Taken out of context, and especially in English, it’s easy to mistake this for an insult. In the flow of the story, however, it’s clear Jesus is creating a metaphor meant to explain the priorities of His ministry. He is also teaching an important lesson to His disciples. Jews in Jesus’ day sometimes referred to Gentiles as “dogs.” In Greek, this word is kuon, meaning “wild cur” (Matthew 7:6; Luke 16:21; Philippians 3:2\). Non\-Jews were considered so unspiritual that even being in their presence could make a person ceremonially unclean (John 18:28\). Much of Jesus’ ministry, however, involved turning expectations and prejudices on their heads (Matthew 11:19; John 4:9–10\). According to Matthew’s narrative, Jesus left Israel and went into Tyre and Sidon, which was Gentile territory (Matthew 15:21\). When the Canaanite woman approached and repeatedly asked for healing, the disciples were annoyed and asked Jesus to send her away (Matthew 15:23\). At this point, Jesus explained His current ministry in a way that both the woman and the watching disciples could understand. At that time, His duty was to the people of Israel, not to the Gentiles (Matthew 15:24\). Recklessly taking His attention from Israel, in violation of His mission, would be like a father taking food from his children in order to throw it to their pets (Matthews 15:26\). The exact word Jesus used here, in Greek, was kunarion, meaning “small dog” or “pet dog.” This is a completely different word from the term kuon, used to refer to unspiritual people or to an “unclean” animal. Jesus frequently tested people to prove their intentions, often through response questions or challenges (see John 4:16–18; and 4:50–53\). His response to the Canaanite woman is similar. In testing her, Jesus declined her request and explained that she had no legitimate expectation of His help. The woman, however, lived out the principle Jesus Himself taught in the parable of the persistent widow (Luke 18:1–8\). Her response proved that she understood fully what Jesus was saying, yet had enough conviction to ask anyway (Matthew 15:27\). Jesus acknowledged her faith—calling it “great”—and granted her request (Matthew 15:28\). So, according to both the context and language involved, Jesus wasn’t referring to the Canaanite woman as a “dog,” either directly or indirectly. He wasn’t using an epithet or racial slur but making a point about the priorities He’d been given by God. He was also testing the faith of the woman and teaching an important lesson to His disciples.
What is the doctrine of penal substitution?	Answer In the simplest possible terms, the biblical doctrine of penal substitution holds that Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross takes the place of the punishment we ought to suffer for our sins. As a result, God’s justice is satisfied, and those who accept Christ can be forgiven and reconciled to God. The word penal means “related to punishment for offenses,” and substitution means “the act of a person taking the place of another.” So, penal substitution is the act of a person taking the punishment for someone else’s offenses. In Christian theology, Jesus Christ is the Substitute, and the punishment He took (at the cross) was ours, based on our sin (1 Peter 2:24\). According to the doctrine of penal substitution, God’s perfect justice demands some form of atonement for sin. Humanity is [depraved](total-depravity.html), to such an extent that we are spiritually dead and incapable of atoning for sin in any way (Ephesians 2:1\). Penal substitution means Jesus’ death on the cross [propitiated](propitiation.html), or satisfied, God’s requirement for justice. God’s mercy allows Jesus to take the punishment we deserve for our sins. As a result, Jesus’ sacrifice serves as a substitute for anyone who accepts it. In a very direct sense, Jesus is exchanged for us as the recipient of sin’s penalty. Penal substitution is clearly taught by the Bible. In fact, much of what God did prior to Jesus’ ministry was to foreshadow this concept and present it as the purpose of the Messiah. In Genesis 3:21, God uses animal skins to cover the naked Adam and Eve. This is the first reference to a death (in this case, an animal’s) being used to cover (atone for) sin. In Exodus 12:13, God’s Spirit “passes over” the homes that are covered (atoned) by the blood of the sacrifice. God requires blood for atonement in Exodus 29:41–42\. The description of Messiah in Isaiah 53:4–6 says His suffering is meant to heal our wounds. The fact that the Messiah was to be “crushed for our iniquities” (verse 5\) is a direct reference to penal substitution. During and after Jesus’ ministry, penal substitution is further clarified. Jesus claims to be the “good shepherd” who lays down His life for the sheep in John 10:10\. Paul, in Romans 3:25–26, explains that we have the righteousness of Christ because of the sacrifice of Christ. In 2 Corinthians 5:21, he says that the sinless Christ took on our sins. Hebrews 9:26 says that our sins were removed by the sacrifice of Christ. First Peter 3:18 plainly teaches that the righteous was substituted for the unrighteous. There are quite a few [different theories](atonement-theories.html) about how, exactly, Christ’s sacrifice frees us from the penalty of sin. Penal substitution is the most logically and biblically sound view.
What is more important, the death of Christ or His resurrection?	Answer The [death](meaning-of-the-cross.html) and [resurrection](resurrection-Christ-important.html) of Christ are equally important. Jesus’ death and resurrection accomplish separate but necessarily related things. The death and resurrection of our Lord are really inseparable, like the warp and weft of cloth. The cross of Christ won for us the victory that we could never have won for ourselves. “Having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross” (Colossians 2:15\). On the cross God piled our sins on Jesus, and He bore the punishment due us (Isaiah 53:4–8\). In His death, Jesus took upon Himself the curse introduced by Adam (see Galatians 3:13\). With the death of Christ, our sins became powerless to rule over us (Romans 6\). By His death, Jesus destroyed the works of the devil (John 12:31; Hebrews 2:14; 1 John 3:8\), condemned Satan (John 16:11\), and crushed the head of the serpent (Genesis 3:15\). Without the sacrificial death of Christ, we would still be in our sins, unforgiven, unredeemed, and unsaved. The cross of Christ is vital to our salvation and was thus a main theme of the apostles’ preaching (Acts 2:23, 36; 1 Corinthians 1:23; 2:2; Galatians 6:14\). But the story of Jesus Christ did not end with His death. The resurrection of Christ is also foundational to the gospel message. Our salvation stands or falls based on the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, as Paul makes clear in 1 Corinthians 15:12–19\. If Christ is not physically risen from the dead, then we ourselves have no hope of resurrection, the apostles’ preaching was in vain, and believers are all to be pitied. Without the resurrection, we are still sitting “in darkness and in the shadow of death” waiting for the sunrise (Luke 1:78–79\). Because of Jesus’ resurrection, His promise holds true for us: “Because I live, you also will live” (John 14:19\). Our great enemy, death, will be defeated (1 Corinthians 15:26, 54–55\). Jesus’ resurrection is also important because it is through that event that God declares us righteous: Jesus “was raised to life for our justification” (Romans 4:25\). The gift of the Holy Spirit was sent from the resurrected and ascended Lord Jesus (John 16:7\). At least three times in His earthly ministry, Jesus predicted that He would die and rise again after three days (Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:34\). If Jesus Christ had not been raised from the dead, He would have failed in His prophecies—He would have been yet another false prophet to be ignored. As it is, however, we have a living Lord, faithful to His Word. The angel at Jesus’ empty tomb was able to point to fulfilled prophecy: “He is not here; he has risen, just as he said” (Matthew 28:6\). Scripture links the death and resurrection of Christ, and we must maintain that link. Jesus’ entrance into the tomb is as equally important as His exit from the tomb. In 1 Corinthians 15:3–5, Paul defines the gospel as the dual truth that Jesus died for our sins (proved by His burial) and that He rose again the third day (proved by His appearances to many witnesses). This gospel truth is “of first importance” (verse 3\). It is impossible to separate the death of Christ from His resurrection. To believe in one without the other is to believe in a false gospel that cannot save. In order for Jesus to have truly arisen from the dead, He must have truly died. And in order for His death to have a true meaning for us, He must have a true resurrection. We cannot have one without the other.
What is an omen?	Answer An omen is a sign with prophetic significance that portends an exceptionally notable or disastrous event. Natural phenomena, strange birth defects, or animals acting in unexplainable ways are all commonly seen as omens. Omens can be good or evil, that is, they can foretell a good, positive event or an evil, harmful one. The superstitious might consider finding a heads\-up penny a good omen but see a black cat crossing their path as a bad omen. Omens are closely tied with fortune\-telling and divination, as the omen must be “read” or “divined” by someone who knows how. Throughout the ancient world, omens (also referred to as signs and portents) were believed, divined, and obeyed. For example, in ancient Assyria if the king received an evil omen, he would go into hiding and the Assyrians would place a decoy king on the throne in anticipation that the evil event would befall the false king instead of the true one. Signs sometimes occurred in the Bible in association with prophecies from God. Isaiah the prophet said that he and his children were “signs and symbols” to Israel (Isaiah 8:18\). The names of Isaiah’s children were meaningful to Israel’s future (see Isaiah 8:1–4\). Also, God made Isaiah walk naked and barefoot as “a sign and omen against Egypt and Cush” (Isaiah 20:3, NET). In this case, God placed Isaiah’s nakedness in the sight of those doomed lands as a sign to them about their destruction. Another divine prophecy accompanied by a sign in the [book of Isaiah](Book-of-Isaiah.html) is the backwards movement of the shadow on the sundial (Isaiah 38:7–8\). These events—these “omens”—were clear confirmations of God’s plan. Another example of a sign or “omen” happened before the exodus. God sent Moses to Pharaoh with a sign: when Moses threw his staff down, God turned it into a serpent. This miracle was specifically designed to convince those who did not believe (Exodus 4:1–5\). The presence of a snake in the royal court should also have been a sign to Pharaoh of the plagues to come, but he failed to heed the omen. Another person who tragically failed to heed a divine omen was Pontius Pilate. During Jesus’ trial, Pilate’s wife sent him an urgent message: “Don’t have anything to do with that innocent man, for I have suffered a great deal today in a dream because of him” (Matthew 27:19\). These portents occurred in the Bible, usually through God’s prophets, when it served God’s purpose. However, the Bible expressly forbids divination of any kind: “Let no one be found among you who . . . interprets omens. . . . Anyone who does these things is detestable to the Lord” (Deuteronomy 18:10–12\). We do not live by [superstition](superstitions.html), and we should not be searching for good or evil omens. Our understanding of the spiritual world does not come through the occult. God has given us the ultimate sign of His goodness, love, and grace in Jesus Christ (1 John 4:9\). The Bible is our source for spiritual insight (2 Peter 1:19–21\).
What is the New Apostolic Reformation?	Answer The New Apostolic Reformation, or NAR, is an unbiblical religious movement that emphasizes experience over Scripture, mysticism over doctrine, and modern\-day “apostles” over the plain text of the Bible. Of particular distinction in the New Apostolic Reformation are the role and power of spiritual leaders and miracle\-workers, the reception of “new” revelations from God, an over\-emphasis on spiritual warfare, and a pursuit of cultural and political control in society. The seeking of signs and wonders in the NAR is always accompanied by blatantly false doctrine. Growth in the New Apostolic Reformation is driven primarily through small groups and church planting, often completely independent of a parent congregation. The movement is not centrally controlled, and many of its followers will not self\-identify as part of it or even recognize the name. All the same, thousands of churches and millions of believers adhere to the teachings of the New Apostolic Reformation. Popular teachers associated with the New Apostolic Reformation include Bill Johnson, Rick Joyner, Kim Clement, and Lou Engle. The New Apostolic Reformation teaches that God’s intended form of church governance is apostles and prophets, holding leadership over evangelists, pastors, and teachers. However, this has not been the case for the vast majority of Christian history. So, according to the New Apostolic Reformation, God began to restore prophets and apostles over the last thirty to forty years. Only now, as the church is properly guided by the appropriate spiritual leaders, can it fulfill its commission. This commission is seen as more than spiritual, as it includes cultural and political control. In the New Apostolic Reformation, apostles are seen as the highest of all spiritual leaders, being specially empowered by God. True maturity and unity, per the New Apostolic Reformation, is only found in those who submit to the leadership of their apostles. According to this teaching, as the church unifies behind the apostles, these leaders will develop greater and greater supernatural powers. Eventually, this will include the ability to perform mass healings and suspend the laws of physics. These signs are meant to encourage a massive wave of converts to Christianity. These apostles are also destined to be recipients of a great wealth transfer (in the end times), which will enable the church to establish God’s kingdom on earth. Prophets in the New Apostolic Reformation are almost as important as apostles. These people have been empowered to receive “new” revelations from God that will aid the church in establishing dominion. According to the New Apostolic Reformation, only prophets, and occasionally apostles, can obtain new revelations. Evangelists, pastors, and teachers cannot. The prophets’ new revelations are crucial to overcoming the world, and the success of the church depends on the apostles following through on the information prophets provide. Most of their prophecies are extremely vague and easy to re\-interpret, and the New Apostolic Reformation is willing to modify them, since they set no standard of infallibility for themselves. According to New Apostolic thinking, mankind lost its dominion over earth as part of the fall of Adam. So Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross not only resolved our sin debt, but it empowered mankind—specifically, Christians—to retake control of the earth. The New Apostolic Reformation sees seven areas in which believers are supposedly empowered and expected to dominate: government, arts, finances, education, religion, family, and media. Of these, the New Apostolic Reformation sees government as the most important because of its ability to influence all of the other facets of life. As a result, the New Apostolic Reformation overtly encourages Christian control over politics, culture, and business. In some ways, this is nothing unusual, as people should be expected to vote and lobby according to their convictions. The New Apostolic Reformation, however, is often accused of pushing for outright theocracy. Spiritual warfare, according to the New Apostolic Reformation, is meant to resolve worldly concerns. For example, economic troubles or health problems in a particular city are seen as the result of a demonic spirit’s influence. Prayer, research into the specific name of that demon, and other spiritual disciplines are then applied in an effort to combat this presence. This is necessary not only for the health of the region, but also because the church cannot take “dominion” over that area until the demonic control has been lifted. Biblically, there are major problems with the New Apostolic Reformation. Claiming that Christians have access to certain spiritual gifts is one thing, but their distinctive approach to the role of apostles and prophets is a stretch from [what is found in the Bible](apostles-prophets-restored.html). More to the point, the office of apostle requires traits that are impossible today. For example, true apostles must be personal eyewitnesses of the risen Christ (1 Corinthians 9:1; 15:7–8\), specifically designated as apostles by Jesus (Galatians 1:1; Acts 1:2; Luke 6:13\), and already verified by miraculous signs (Matthew 10:1; 2 Corinthians 12:2; Acts 5:12\). The idea of [new revelations from God](personal-prophecy.html), especially those that come in the form of vague, easily reinterpreted mysteries, runs counter to the idea of a faith delivered “once for all” to mankind (Jude 1:3\). The fact that New Apostolic Reformation prophecies frequently turn out to be false suggests a false spirit behind those predictions (Deuteronomy 18:22\). The tendency of the New Apostolic Reformation to treat [spiritual warfare](spiritual-warfare.html) as a type of Christianized voodoo is not only unbiblical, but dangerous. Likewise, the emphasis on an [earthly kingdom](Christian-dominionism.html) contradicts Jesus’ own declaration that the Kingdom of God was spiritual, not political (John 18:36\). It places an unhealthy emphasis on political and worldly approval, rather than Christlike influence. Though it uses the word new, the New Apostolic Reformation is actually a reworking of a very common, very old approach. Since the beginning of Christianity, various groups have claimed to have a “new revelation” from God to correct all of the errors of the present world. These movements contend that “real” spirituality or maturity or truth is found only by those who listen to their leadership. Some of these sects, such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormonism, endure and become religions in their own right. Others fade away. Much of what the New Apostolic Reformation teaches has at least some basis in Scripture, albeit carried much further than the Bible intends. That, however, still makes those doctrines unbiblical, and Christians should flatly reject the New Apostolic Reformation’s teachings and those who choose to be associated with it.
What does the Bible say about a false witness?	Answer Bearing false witness is mentioned many times in the Bible, exclusively as something bad. “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor” is the ninth of the Ten Commandments that Moses brought back with him from his encounter with God on Mount Sinai (Exodus 20:16\). False witness, or spreading a false report, is associated with being allied with the wicked (Exodus 23:1\), willing to do violence to others (Psalm 27:12\), and sowing discord among brothers (Proverbs 6:19\). The Bible calls bearing false witness [lying](Bible-lying-sin.html) (Proverbs 14:5\) and compares a man who bears false witness against his neighbor to a violent weapon (Proverbs 25:18\). Lies harm people. A false witness is one who stands up and swears before others that something untrue is true, especially with the intention of hurting someone else or ruining his reputation. This happened to David (Psalm 27:12\), Jesus (Matthew 26:60; Mark 14:56\), and Stephen (Acts 6:13\). When the wicked Queen Jezebel wished to procure a vineyard for her sulking husband, [King Ahab](Ahab-and-Jezebel.html), she employed two false witnesses. Naboth, the rightful owner of the vineyard, was seated in an honorable place on a day of fasting, but “then two scoundrels came and sat opposite him and brought charges against Naboth before the people, saying, ‘Naboth has cursed both God and the king.’ So they took him outside the city and stoned him to death” (1 Kings 21:13\). What the “scoundrels” said against Naboth was absolutely untrue; they were bearing false witness with impunity and with the queen’s blessing. As a result, an innocent man was killed. When a person is righteous and his enemies can find nothing with which to blame him, bearing false witness is a common weapon. The lies told by a false witness come from the sinful human heart—along with murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, slander, and evil thoughts (Matthew 15:19\). Jesus said that man is defiled by these evil things that come from the heart. The only possible cure for an evil heart that bears false witness is to receive a new, pure heart, which can only be given by God (Ezekiel 36:26\). When a person is indwelt by the Holy Spirit, he will be like a fresh spring or a fruitful tree or a budding vine, bursting with good things (John 7:38; Psalm 1:1–6; John 15:4–5\). The old is gone, and the new takes its place (Ephesians 4:22–24\). Those who are in Christ have a new heart that speaks the truth: “Each of you must put off falsehood and speak truthfully to your neighbor” (Ephesians 4:25\). A person who bears false witness is controlled by the flesh rather than by the Spirit of God, and he should repent of that sin and turn to Christ. "There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to Him...a lying tongue...a false witness who breathes out lies..." (Proverbs 6:16–19\).
What does it mean that Jesus loves the little children?	Answer The famous children’s hymn “Jesus Loves the Little Children” was written by C. Herbert Woolston (1856—1927\). The tune for the hymn was composed by George F. Root and originally had the title “Tramp, Tramp, Tramp, the Boys Are Marching.” The lyrics are familiar to many: Jesus loves the little children All the children of the world Red and yellow Black and white They are precious in His sight. Jesus loves the little children Of the world. The second and third verses use the same structure, but swap out “Jesus loves the little children” for “Jesus died for all the children” and then “Jesus rose for all the children.” Modern versions read, “Ev'ry color, ev'ry race, all are cover'd by His grace” instead of “Red and yellow, black and white. They are precious in His sight.” The Bible supports the concept communicated by this children’s hymn. In fact, the Bible records several instances when [Jesus interacted with children](Jesus-and-children.html) and treated them with love. According to these passages, Jesus values children and took the time to bless them individually. One of the most well\-known accounts of Jesus loving the little children is found in Mark 10:13–14, 16: “People were bringing little children to Jesus for him to place his hands on them, but the disciples rebuked them. When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, ‘Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.’ . . . And he took the children in his arms, placed his hands on them and blessed them.” Jesus also healed many children throughout His earthly ministry—healing them from disease (John 4:46–52\), casting out demons (Mark 7:24–30; 9:14–27\), and raising at least one child from the dead (Luke 8:40–56\). Jesus clearly taught that He wants each of us to have the humility of children: “He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them. And he said: ‘Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven’” (Matthew 18:2–4\). What does this mean? Jesus is talking about humility. Jesus is exhorting us to seek the humility of a child—to have a faith destitute of ambition, pride, and haughtiness. Children are teachable, and we should be, too. The Bible is clear, Jesus loves the little children of the world.
What are prophetic dreams?	Answer Prophetic dreams occur many times in the Bible and are experienced by all sorts of people, including prophets (Daniel 7:1\), ungodly kings (Daniel 2\), and average men (Genesis 31:24\). Sometimes the dreams required interpretation, as with Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in Daniel 2\. Other times, no interpretation was necessary as God spoke clearly to the dreamer, as in the story of Abimelech and Abraham’s wife (Genesis 20:1–6\). The definition of a prophetic dream might be something like this: a supernatural night vision that contains foresight. Daniel was careful to give praise to God, who alone gives the wisdom to interpret such dreams (Daniel 2:20–23\). It would be impossible to say, definitively, whether or not God gives prophetic dreams to people today. There are many reports of prophetic dreams, especially in areas where access to the Bible and the gospel are limited. God may sometimes use dreams to guide people to places where they can hear the gospel and be saved. A wide variety of spiritual or prophetic dreams are reported by a wide variety of Christians in many countries. But none of these are verifiable to the degree that we can say “yes, God definitely gives prophetic dreams today.” If you think you have had a prophetic dream or have heard a firsthand story from another person who has had a prophetic dream, the first question to ask is “is this dream from God?” Compare the content of the dream and its message to the Scriptures; if anything seems to contradict God’s words or His nature, it is wise to disregard the dream—even if it comes true. God will never go against His Word. The Bible is our standard for truth and the revelation that God has given. We can always ask God for wisdom (James 1:5\) when examining a dream.
Is there any evidence for the giants mentioned in the Bible?	Answer Giants are mentioned in the Bible in several places (e.g., Genesis 6:4; Joshua 12:4\). Og, king of Bashan (Deuteronomy 3:11\); the intimidating people in Canaan reported by Moses’ spies (Numbers 13:30–33\); Goliath (2 Samuel 21:19\); and the Anakites (Deuteronomy 9:1–2\) are all examples of giants in Scripture. The Bible’s references to giants have led some people to seek further evidence of giants, sometimes lending credence to sensationalistic theories and unfounded claims. Various giant myths exist the world over. Nearly every culture has ancient tales of giant (usually human\-like) creatures that terrorize villages and require heroic effort to subdue. Could these stories be vague remembrances of actual history? If so, most are colossally exaggerated. The “giants” of the Bible were not the giants of myth—forty\-foot colossi who sat on houses and picked their teeth with elm trees. The giants of the Bible were tall—[Goliath](how-tall-was-Goliath.html) was maybe nine or ten feet in height—but they were not gargantuan. The Bible’s giants were powerful and bigger than average, but they were human. Some consider as evidence for giants certain written accounts outside of the Bible, archaeology and eyewitness accounts of archaeological finds, graphic depictions of giants found in ancient art, and recent historical records. First, we should deal with archaeological evidence for giants. There are many accounts of archaeologists finding very large bones and weaponry or other artifacts that supposedly only a giant could have used. The truth is there is no proof of skeletal remains or fossils of giants, and no hard evidence of giant\-sized utensils, weapons, or other gear. The large majority of the purported discoveries, especially the largest and most striking examples, do not exist except in eyewitness accounts that cannot be verified. Another argument is that the visual depictions of very large people, such as found on Egyptian jars and tombs, are pictures of giants. Art historians usually conclude that these giant figures are simply representations of gods or kings and that their larger size was a way to show their importance or their high rank in comparison to other figures near them. Another explanation is that the smaller people are depictions of children, not lower\-ranking men. True\-to\-life anatomical art did not exist in any culture until the Renaissance, and, up until then, children were often depicted as proportionally exact to adults, just smaller. These arguments are valid and logical. We know that Egyptian art was highly emblematic. The fact that the Egyptians depicted the god Anubis as a man with a dog’s head is no reason to assume there was an actual man with a dog’s head whom they worshiped. That said, there is no way to prove the actual intention of the ancient artists. Historians form theories based on what they feel is the most likely, most reasonable explanation for what they are seeing in ancient artifacts. There are also written accounts outside of the Bible, although these should be viewed with skepticism. These include the [Book of Enoch](book-of-Enoch.html), the [Book of Jasher](book-of-Jasher.html), and the writings of the Jewish historian [Josephus](Flavius-Josephus.html). Enoch and Jasher are [pseudepigraphical](pseudepigrapha.html), and Josephus sometimes cited unreliable sources. Josephus, in a passage about the Israelites moving their camp to Hebron, mentions that the Jews encountered the inhabitants of that land, including “the race of giants, who had bodies so large, and countenances so entirely different from other men, that they were surprising to the sight, and terrible to the hearing. The bones of these men are still shown to this very day” (Antiquities of the Jews, Book 5, ch. 2, § 3\). Many people in recent history are documented to be very tall: Robert Wadlow measured in June 1940 at 8 ft, 11\.1 in. tall; John Carroll in 1966 was 8 ft, 7\.5 in.; and Sultan Kösen in 2011 measured 8 ft, 2\.8 in. tall (www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world\-records/tallest\-man\-ever, accessed 1/3/22\). Such individuals stand out today, just as they did in ancient times. The Bible mentions extraordinarily large people, especially those who interacted with Israel, but there is nothing in the text to suggest gigantic beings of fabulous size. Seeking to confirm the Bible’s record with hearsay, specious claims, and manufactured evidence is misguided and unnecessary.

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.