prompt
stringlengths 0
158
| response
stringlengths 14
40.2k
|
|---|---|
What is a holy convocation?
|
Answer
A convocation is a summoned assembly. The holy convocations commanded in the Mosaic Law were held on special religious days that required a gathering of God’s people. Some translations call the holy convocations in the Law “sacred assemblies.”
Some examples of holy convocations in the Bible are Sabbaths (Leviticus 23:2–3\); Pentecost (Leviticus 23:21\); Passover (Exodus 12:16; Leviticus 23:7\); and the Feasts of Weeks, Tabernacles, and Trumpets (Numbers 28:26; 29:1; Leviticus 23:35–36; 23:24\). The Feast of Unleavened Bread called for two holy convocations, one on the first day and the other on the seventh day (Exodus 34:18\). Every year on the tenth day of the seventh month was the [Day of Atonement](Day-Atonement-Yom-Kippur.html); Israel was commanded to fast on this day and to gather at the tabernacle or temple. This was called the “holy convocation” (Leviticus 23:27; Numbers 29:7, ESV).
Today, the word *convocation* used in religious contexts is often associated with the gathering of a synod, a council that meets for the purpose of deciding upon doctrines or the application of doctrines within an organization. A convocation can be an ecclesiastical meeting of importance, an academic meeting led by a university, a gathering of alumni at a college, a meeting of governing officials to fill a chancellorship or other high office, or simply a graduation ceremony.
|
What was the significance of Aaron’s rod?
|
Answer
Aaron’s rod, or staff, played an important part in God’s plan to lead the Israelites out of Egypt and into the Promised Land. In ancient Israelite culture, a rod was a symbol of authority. Shepherds used rods to guide and correct their flocks (Psalm 23:4\). When God called the shepherd Moses to lead the Israelites out of Egypt, He demonstrated His power by performing miracles using Moses’ rod (Exodus 4:1–5; Numbers 20:11\). God also chose Moses’ brother, [Aaron](life-Aaron.html), to perform miracles with his own rod (Exodus 7:19; 8:5, 16\).
Aaron’s rod was the one that turned into a snake in Pharaoh’s court; when the Egyptian magi also turned their staffs into snakes, the snake that had been Aaron’s rod swallowed theirs up (Exodus 7:8–10\). It was Aaron’s rod that God used to turn the water of Egypt into blood (Exodus 7:19–21\). And it was Aaron’s rod that summoned the [plagues](ten-plagues-Egypt.html) of the frogs (Exodus 8:5–6\) and gnats (verses 16–17\). After Moses and Aaron had led the Israelites out of captivity, God set apart Aaron and his sons as priests (Exodus 28:1; Numbers 18:1\). The rest of the Levites were to minister to the Lord in the tabernacle, offer sacrifices, and hear from God for the good of the whole nation.
The most famous story of Aaron’s rod begins with a few of the Levites becoming disgruntled about the extra authority given to Moses and Aaron. In Numbers 16, Korah, who was also a Levite, joined with two others, [Dathan](Dathan-in-the-Bible.html) and Abiram, to incite a rebellion against Moses and Aaron. In verse 3 [Korah](rebellion-of-Korah.html) says to Moses, “You have gone too far! The whole community of Israel has been set apart by the Lord, and he is with all of us. What right do you have to act as though you are greater than the rest of the Lord’s people?” Because of this defiance of the Lord’s authority, God caused the earth to open up and swallow these three men and their families (verses 28–33\).
However, rather than submit to the Lord, the other tribal leaders jointed the revolt. Numbers 16:41 says, “But the very next morning the whole community of Israel began muttering again against Moses and Aaron, saying, ‘You have killed the Lord’s people!’” The Lord desired to wipe out the whole company, but Moses and Aaron fell on their faces and pleaded with Him not to destroy them. God relented and, instead, sent a plague throughout the company of rebellious Israel; the plague killed 14,700 of them (verse 49\).
To put an end to the unrest, God once again used Aaron’s rod for a miracle. God commanded Moses to have the leader of each tribe of Israel bring his rod or staff to the tent of meeting, with Aaron’s rod representing the tribe of Levi. Each of the twelve leaders was to have his name inscribed on his rod. The Lord told Moses, “Buds will sprout on the staff belonging to the man I choose. Then I will finally put an end to the people’s murmuring and complaining against you” (Numbers 17:5\). They left their rods before the Lord, and in the morning “Aaron’s staff, representing the tribe of Levi, had sprouted, budded, blossomed, and produced ripe almonds” (verse 8\). Aaron’s rod didn’t just sprout buds; it brought forth flowers and fruit, a clear demonstration of the power of the One who gives life. Verse 10 says, “And the Lord said to Moses: ‘Place Aaron’s staff permanently before the Ark of the Covenant to serve as a warning to rebels. This should put an end to their complaints against me and prevent any further deaths.’”
Hebrews 9:4 tells us that Aaron’s rod remained in the [Ark of the Covenant](ark-of-the-covenant.html) as a testimony of God’s choice of Aaron and Moses to lead His people. Aaron’s rod was also a reminder that God does not put up with rebellion against Himself or His chosen representatives on earth (1 Corinthians 10:10\). Those who murmur, complain, and cause division within the Body of Christ are to be rebuked (James 5:9; 1 Timothy 5:20; 2 Timothy 2:23\). God’s plans on this earth are far beyond any single human being. He desires that we work together, in one accord, to obey Him and reflect His glory.
|
How can a friend stick closer than a brother (Proverbs 18:24)?
|
Answer
Proverbs 18:24 teaches, “One who has unreliable friends soon comes to ruin, / but there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother.” Given the fact that we normally think of blood being thicker than water, this proverb is rather jarring: there are ways that a friend can be more faithful than a brother.
The ESV translates the first line of the proverb this way: “A man of many companions may come to ruin.” In any translation the emphasis is on the plurality of friends. A person with many friends may still run into problems. A large number of friends does not equal help in the time of need. Many popular celebrities have faced this dilemma—they can have thousands of fans, yet fame is fickle, and the fans quickly disappear during difficult times. Our era of social media promotes many superficial connections who are called “friends,” but there are few true friends. Even the most connected can be lonely.
In contrast, the second line of this [antithetical proverb](antithetical-parallelism.html) tells us, “There is a friend who sticks closer than a brother.” The concept of friendship is a strong one in Proverbs, and the word *friend* is used nine other times in the book. Wisdom is called a friend (7:4\), a friend loves at all times (17:17\), a poor man is deserted by his friend (19:4\), everyone is a friend to a man who gives gifts (19:6\), a person with gracious speech has the king as his friend (22:11\), faithful are the wounds of a friend (27:6\), the sweetness of a friend comes from his earnest counsel (27:9\), and do not forsake your friend and father’s friend (27:10\).
From these verses, we see there are two kinds of “friends.” There is the friend who exists because you have something to offer (such as a material gift or popularity\-by\-association), and there is a friend who exists due to genuine love and friendship. Proverbs 18:4 offers a contrast between these two types of friends. You can amass as many friends of the first type as you want but still come to ruin; however, even one friend of the second type is a great advantage.
The genuine or authentic friend is someone who sticks closer than a brother. In other words, he or she can be counted on. This friend is steadfast; he or she will be there for you even more so than a family member. Brotherhood is one of the strongest relationships we know. A friend who sticks closer than a brother is a trustworthy friend, indeed.
A wonderful biblical example of this type of closer\-than\-a\-brother friendship is what existed between [David and Jonathan](David-and-Jonathan.html). They became fast friends following the battle in which David killed Goliath. Despite the many hardships both men faced, they remained faithful to one another as friends and protected one another from harm. [Jonathan](Jonathan-in-the-Bible.html) even risked his life interceding for David before King Saul, who sought to kill David. After Jonathan’s death, David wrote a lament for his friend: “Jonathan lies slain on your heights. / I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; / you were very dear to me” (2 Samuel 1:25–26\). Their friendship was stronger than David’s relationship with any of his own brothers.
Jesus was known as a “friend of sinners” (Luke 7:34\), and He has promised, “Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you” (Hebrews 13:5\). Jesus is truly the Friend who sticks closer than a brother, and blessed are those who have Him as their Friend (see John 15:14\).
|
Who were the Hellenistic Jews in the Bible?
|
Answer
The [Hellenistic](Hellenism.html) Jews are first mentioned in the Bible in Acts 6:1: “In those days when the number of disciples was increasing, the Hellenistic Jews among them complained against the Hebraic Jews because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food.” The believing Jews are here divided into two groups. There were those who had remained in Judea, near Jerusalem, who used the Hebrew language, and who were appropriately called “Hebrews.” The other group consisted of those who were scattered among the Gentiles, who spoke the Greek language, and who used the Greek translation of the Old Testament, called the Septuagint. These were called “Hellenists,” from a word meaning “Greek” or “Greek\-speaking.” To “Hellenize” is to adopt Greek culture and ideas.
Dissensions arose between the Hellenistic Jews and the Hebraic Jews. The Hebraic Jews prided themselves on the fact that they had always lived in the land of the patriarchs and that they used the language that their fathers spoke. They were near the temple and regularly worshiped there. On the other hand, the Hellenistic Jews from other parts of the world were jealous of the first group and made to feel like outsiders. Sadly, the strife between the two groups was not automatically eliminated by their conversion to Christianity, as the complaints concerning food distribution to widows of the two groups show. However, in a wonderful example of godly wisdom and Christian unity, the early church worked through the dispute, and the office of [deacon](deacons-church.html) was formed (Acts 6:2–6\).
After Acts 6, the Hellenists appear again in Acts 9:29, when Paul “talked and debated with the Hellenistic Jews, but they tried to kill him” in Jerusalem. The KJV translates the word for the group as “Grecians.” Among the Grecian Jews, just as among the Hebraic Jews, there were those who rejected Jesus as the Christ and resisted the preaching of the gospel, even to the point of trying to kill the Christian missionaries.
|
Who was William Tyndale?
|
Answer
William Tyndale (c. 1494—1536\) was an English [Reformer](Protestant-Reformation.html) who is sometimes called the “Captain of the Army of Reformers” due to his pioneering work to advance the truth of God in the face of much resistance. A scholar fluent in eight languages, Tyndale is best known today for his English translation of the Bible.
Tyndale was influenced by the works of [John Wycliffe](John-Wycliffe.html), [Desiderius Erasmus](Desiderius-Erasmus.html), and [Martin Luther](95-theses.html). Like Wycliffe and Luther, Tyndale was convinced that the way to God was through His Word. The problem in Wycliffe’s time had been that the Bible was available only in Latin, a language most people could not read. Wycliffe remedied that problem by translating the Bible into English, using the [Latin Vulgate](Latin-Vulgate.html) as his source. Wycliffe’s Bible was promptly banned in England, and many copies of it were destroyed.
One hundred, fifty years later, Luther and Tyndale began their reforms. These men, like Wycliffe before them, believed that Scripture should be available to everyone. To that end, Luther made a German translation of the Bible, and Tyndale began to translate the New Testament into English—but, for these translations, they bypassed the Vulgate and used Erasmus’s Greek and Hebrew texts as their source.
For his work on the English Bible, Tyndale drew the ire of the [Anglican Church](Anglicans.html), the [Roman Catholic Church](Roman-Catholicism.html), and other powerful entities. The established church taught that they alone were the conservators and interpreters of God’s Word and that the laity had no business reading it for themselves. Tyndale worked tirelessly to make the Bible accessible to all, even if the church opposed him. Tyndale famously said, “I defy the Pope and all his laws. If God spare my life ere many years, I will cause the boy that drives the plow to know more of the scriptures than you!”
Tyndale was forced to flee England, where English\-language Bibles were illegal, and he found a short\-lived haven in Cologne, Germany, in 1524\. Officials of the [Holy Roman Empire](Holy-Roman-Empire.html) raided Tyndale’s printing press in Cologne in 1525, and Tyndale fled to Worms, where he continued his work. Taking advantage of Johannes Gutenberg’s moveable\-type press, Tyndale succeeded in printing 6,000 copies of the entire New Testament in 1526\. Revisions followed in later years. Tyndale eventually moved to Antwerp, Holland, where, in 1530, he published his translation of the first five books of the Old Testament.
[Tyndale’s new English Bibles](Tyndale-Bible.html) had to be smuggled into England. But the Church of England waged war against them. The Bishop of London, Cuthbert Tunstall, preached against Tyndale’s Bibles and publicly burned them at St. Paul’s Cathedral. The Archbishop of Canterbury, William Warham, tried to buy up all the copies of Tyndale’s New Testament in order to have them burned.
Tyndale produced other works, as well. He is the author of the books *The Parable of Wicked Mammon* and *The Obedience of a Christian Man*—the latter work spoken of favorably by Queen Anne Boleyn. Later, Tyndale published *The Practice of Prelates*, in which he condemned divorce—even for kings—incurring the wrath of King Henry VIII (who was divorced). Tyndale thus became an enemy of the state as well as an enemy of the established church.
In 1535 Tyndale was betrayed by Henry Phillips, who had feigned a friendship with him. Tyndale was imprisoned near Brussels, Belgium, for nearly a year and a half for the crime of producing a Bible in the vernacular. Then, on October 6, 1536, Tyndale was led outside to a stake where he was strangled and burned alive. His last words were reported to be “Lord, open the king of England’s eyes.”
Tyndale’s dying prayer was answered. By 1539 every parish in England was required to have a copy of the Bible *in English* and to make it available to every parishioner. Over the next seventy years, two million copies of the Bible were sold in England. And when the translators of the King James Version produced their Bible in 1611, they relied heavily on Tyndale’s wording. In fact, about 90 percent of the phrasing of the KJV matches Tyndale’s.
Tyndale’s legacy is the Bible he gave to the English\-speaking people. His translation, the first in English to come directly from Hebrew and Greek texts, was also the first English translation to be mass\-produced as a result of advances in the art of printing. Tyndale and others like him, who “did not love their lives so much as to shrink from death” (Revelation 12:11\), helped pave the way for our having a Bible today.
|
Is Christmas related to Saturnalia?
|
Answer
Christmas, the day on which Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ, is sometimes linked to the pagan festival known as Saturnalia. There may be an ancient connection—not, however, for the reasons some skeptics assume. Christianity has always been aware that [December 25](December-25.html) is almost certainly not the actual date of Jesus’ birth. The early church did not celebrate December 25 as a day of any significance, and it wasn’t connected to the birth of Jesus until sometime during the reign of [Constantine](Constantine-the-Great.html), several hundred years later.
Saturnalia was a week\-long Roman festival honoring the god Saturn; since it started on December 17, it fell within what we now call the Christmas season. Interestingly, historical accounts differ about whether Saturnalia celebrations were examples of debauchery or charity. Some accounts mention the rich paying rent for the poor, masters and slaves exchanging clothes, and so forth on Saturnalia. Yet, for most of history, debauchery seems to dominate celebrations of the holiday; in fact, the word *Saturnalia* became synonymous with immorality and carousing.
To modern eyes, some Saturnalia customs come across as hedonistic perversions of Christmas traditions. For instance, singing from house to house naked, feasting excessively, eating baked goods shaped like people, and exchanging bawdy gifts. In reality, there’s some historical evidence suggesting that these events were reformed, absorbed, and transformed over time as a result of Christmas’s popularity overtaking that of Saturnalia. Christians may have “redeemed” portions of the celebration.
The early motive for celebrating Jesus’ birth on December 25 may have been akin to that which inspires modern churches to hold “fall festivals” or “Bible costume parties” on October 31\. That is, Christians desire to provide a spiritually positive alternative to what they perceive as a pagan celebration. Over time, as the Roman Empire was Christianized, customs associated with Saturnalia were “cleaned up” and absorbed into the celebration of Christmas.
There is another Roman holiday, Sol Invictus, that seems to have been gradually absorbed by Christmas, too. Sol Invictus (“Invincible Sun”) celebrated, on December 25, the renewing of the Sun King and was linked to the winter solstice (although the solstice itself never falls on December 25\). Constantine, the first Christian emperor, was raised in this cult of the Unconquered Sun God, and he had a hand in turning Roman culture toward Christ and away from paganism. The first reliable historical evidence of Christmas being observed on December 25 dates from his reign.
So, Christians readily and comfortably acknowledge that the date and some of the history of Christmas might have a connection to the pagan holidays of Saturnalia and Sol Invictus. But the meaning of any cultural custom, including a Christmas celebration, is determined by current usage, not origin. Like a family celebrating a Bible costume party on [October 31](Christians-celebrate-Halloween.html), it’s the people celebrating who decide what the celebration means. Christians of centuries past chose December 25 as the day to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ, the true “Unconquered King.” The use of this date continues today. Christmas and Saturnalia could be historical neighbors with indirect connections, but they are not the same holiday, and they never were.
|
What is an oblation?
|
Answer
An oblation is an offering, donation, gift, or sacrifice; or the act of giving an offering. Specifically, an oblation is an offering solemnly given to God. The term *oblation* is understood to refer more to non\-bloody offerings, like Cain’s over Abel’s; the [firstfruits offering](firstfruits-offering.html) is an obvious oblation (Exodus 23:16\). So, an offering of meat would be a sacrifice, an offering of grains or fruit would be an oblation, and an offering of liquid (wine or oil) would be a libation, although the three could be combined (as in cakes of oil and flour) or offered together. The word *oblation* comes from the Latin *oblatus*, meaning “sacrifice,” and is etymologically related to *offering*.
In the early Catholic Church, people would give an oblation of bread. Some of the bread would be consecrated for [the Eucharist](Holy-Eucharist.html), while the rest was given to the poor or kept for the clergy. Even today, the Catholic Church speaks of Eucharistic Oblation: at the Mass, the priest consecrates the bread and wine, and they supposedly become the body and blood of Christ. The priest then literally offers “the Victim” to the Father as an oblation, and the Father in turn gives the oblation back to the congregants to “receive” Christ and become “united” with Him. The liturgy of the Eucharist includes a prayer of oblation in which participants pledge to surrender themselves to God as a living sacrifice.
An oblation, then, can also refer to people’s offering of themselves. In Roman Catholicism, a layperson or clergy member can choose to serve a specific [monastic order](Christian-asceticism-monasticism.html), maintaining a private life but vowing to follow the rules of the order as closely as possible. Such a person is called an oblate. Oblates may reside in the monastery and participate in monastic life, but their lack of formal vows allows them to leave at any time. In earlier years, an oblate could also be a child dedicated by his parents for monastic life.
|
What does the Bible say that would apply to selfie culture?
|
Answer
The term *selfie*, which was the Oxford Dictionary’s 2013 word of the year, refers to a photo taken of oneself, usually with a camera phone, and posted on a social media site. Selfies can range from silly “duck\-faced” snapshots to pornographic videos. A “selfie culture” is one in which people take a lot of selfies, of course. But, for the purposes of this article, we will further define a selfie culture as a widespread obsession with self\-expression, self\-esteem, and self\-promotion, evidenced by the proliferation of self\-portraits on social media. The Bible was written before the advent of camera phones, but God’s Word still has plenty to say about one’s view of self.
While there is nothing inherently wrong with taking a selfie and sharing it with others, selfie culture, as defined above, is steeped in [narcissism](narcissism.html). Need yourself to appear thinner before posting? There’s an app for that. The selfie mentality seems to find a boldness and arrogance behind the camera that would never be expressed in person: there are selfie sub\-categories such as “selfies with homeless people” and “selfies at funerals.” By posting selfies, any person can taste a droplet of fame, which can quickly become addicting. However, this obsession can impact self\-worth and true relationships when personal value is based upon the number of “likes,” followers, replies, or comments received in response.
When we apply biblical standards to the mindset commonly advanced in the selfie culture, we find an immediate clash of values. Jesus called John the Baptist “the greatest in the kingdom of God” (Luke 7:28\). Yet John’s approach to personal fame is summed up in his famous statement “He must increase, but I must decrease” (John 3:30\). Jesus was clear that to be great in the kingdom of God one must become a servant (Matthew 23:11\). His life was the antithesis of the selfie culture’s obsession with self. Whenever the people tried to make Jesus king, He slipped away from them and went to lonely places to pray (John 6:15\).
Jesus also rebuked what we could call a selfie culture among some of those who desired to follow Him. Jesus said, “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple. And whoever does not carry their cross and follow me cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14:26–27\). In direct opposition to our self\-centered desires, Jesus said, “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will find it” (Matthew 16:25\).
For the modern church living in the selfie culture, the New Testament expounds upon Jesus’ words, exhorting us to stand firm in the teachings we first received. Galatians 5:24 reminds us that “those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.” Those “passions and desires” are described in 1 John 2:15–16 as “the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life.” The “pride of life” certainly defines self\-absorption.
A selfie culture obsessed with self\-expression cannot get enough of itself. Like lust or greed, an insatiable thirst for attention only grows when indulged. We are told not to chase after self\-gratification and so distinguish ourselves from those who do not know God (1 Thessalonians 4:3–7\). We are also instructed not to desire to be rich but to seek wisdom, godliness, and contentment instead (1 Timothy 6:6, 9–10; Proverbs 3:13–16\).
Christians living in the selfie culture must beware of creating a “selfie Christianity.” After all, living for Jesus is different from living for self. The biblical doctrines of sin, repentance, and sacrifice are still needed. And the warning of 2 Timothy 4:3 still stands: “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 battle cries of New Testament Christianity have always been “Take up your cross and follow Jesus! Be crucified with Christ. Store up for yourselves treasure in heaven, not here on earth” (Luke 9:23; Galatians 2:20; Matthew 6:19\). But the battle cries of selfie Christianity sound like this: “God thinks you are awesome! Follow your dreams! [Speak positively](positive-confession.html), and God will bless it.” This pseudo\-gospel has integrated with the selfie culture.
Psalm 119:36 says, “Incline my heart to your testimonies, and not to selfish gain.” The focus of the Bible is God, not us. The Bible is the historical account of God’s limitless love pursuing undeserving Man. It is the story of redemption, accessed only through repentance (Matthew 4:17; Acts 3:19\). God does bless His people (Genesis 24:1; Psalm 128:1\). He does delight in pouring out His grace, mercy, and blessing on those who fear Him (Ephesians 1:6; Psalm 112:1\). But when we view God as merely a means to obtain earthly blessing, we have bought into a false gospel. When Jesus is presented as the ticket to get what we want from God, “another Jesus” is being preached (see 2 Corinthians 11:4\).
As we take our selfies and post them for others to see, we must take care to maintain godliness, modesty, and propriety. Selfie culture tends to foster a love of self. But Jesus said the greatest commandment is to “love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength” (Mark 12:30\). When we love God, obedience follows naturally. We cannot [love God](love-God.html) biblically and continue to be infatuated with ourselves. The closer we draw to God, the more we see the depravity of our own hearts. Self\-infatuation has no room for the love of God. We can only serve one master (Matthew 6:24\). Jesus came not to refine our flesh but to kill it (Romans 6:6; Galatians 2:20\), and until we are willing to crucify our selfie mindset, we cannot be His true disciples.
|
What is Candlemas?
|
Answer
Candlemas is a [liturgical](liturgy-liturgical.html) church service (“Candle Mass”) that celebrates the presentation of Jesus at the temple and the ceremonial purification of Mary. Candlemas is observed on different dates in different churches, but generally it is either on February 2 (forty days, inclusive, after Christmas Day) or on the Sunday that falls between January 28 and February 3\. Churches that celebrate Christ’s birth on January 6 celebrate Candlemas on February 14\. Candlemas is so called because it is on this day that candles are blessed with “holy water” and incense; also, a candle\-lit procession often precedes the Mass. Modern observances of Candlemas Day mostly take place in [Anglican](Anglicans.html), [Orthodox](Eastern-Orthodox-church.html), and [Roman Catholic](Roman-Catholicism.html) churches.
Candlemas harks back to an event in Luke 2, in which Joseph and Mary follow the command in Leviticus 12\. The Law dictated that, for each son born, the mother would remain unclean for seven days. On the eighth day, the boy was to be [circumcised](circumcision.html). On the fortieth day (for a male child), the mother would be considered clean, and the boy would be presented to the priest. The mother would also bring a burnt offering of a year\-old lamb and a pigeon or turtledove for a sin offering. If she could not afford a lamb, she would bring two pigeons or turtledoves. On the fortieth day after Jesus was born, Mary and Joseph brought Jesus to the temple with two doves to fulfill their responsibilities under the Law (Luke 2:22–24\). While there, they met Simeon, a righteous, Spirit\-filled man who had been promised he would see the Messiah before he died. While he held the baby Jesus, he praised God and prophesied that Jesus would cause the “fall and rising of many in Jerusalem” and that Mary would suffer as well (verses 25–35\). They also met [Anna](Anna-the-prophetess.html), an elderly prophetess who recognized Jesus as the Messiah (verses 36–38\).
Candlemas is also known as “The Presentation of Jesus at the Temple,” the “Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary,” and “The Meeting.” Observance of the feast is historically very old (the earliest known sermon on Candlemas is dated to AD 312 and the earliest rites to AD 381\). Candlemas was initially a small celebration, but it was elevated after prayer and fasting broke a plague ravaging Constantinople in 541\. The next year the “Feast of the Meeting of the Lord” became one of the twelve major feast days throughout Europe. Down through the years, Candlemas has picked up several superstitions in addition to priests blessing candles. In parts of Europe, people traditionally eat crepes on Candlemas, and, as they prepare their crepes, they hold a coin in their hand. This is believed to ensure wealth and happiness for a year. In Scotland, it was the day rent was due for the quarter, while in America, Candlemas coincides with Groundhog Day. In other areas, it became the day to move cows from hay meadows so fields could be plowed and planted for the year’s harvest. Some Christians observe the practice of leaving Christmas decorations up until Candlemas.
Should Christians celebrate Candlemas? In general, there’s nothing wrong with remembering the day Jesus was brought to the temple and Simeon and Anna were able to worship their Messiah. So, there’s no specific harm in celebrating Candlemas. However, the superstitions associated with Candlemas, like predicting weather (as done on Groundhog Day) or believing it unlucky to embark on a sea voyage, should be rejected. Catholic churches, of course, use Candlemas to place an emphasis on the Virgin Mary and her supposed [perpetual virginity](perpetual-virginity-Mary.html), a doctrine not taught in Scripture.
|
What does it mean that there is nothing new under the sun?
|
Answer
Ecclesiastes 1:9 is the origin of what has become a common proverb, “There’s nothing new under the sun.” The verse reads like this: “What has been will be again, / what has been done will be done again; / there is nothing new under the sun.” As a modern idiom, “there’s nothing new under the sun” is often used as a world\-weary complaint against life’s monotony. When Solomon wrote the statement, he was emphasizing the cyclic nature of human life on earth and the emptiness of living only for the “rat race.”
The phrase “under the sun” is used 29 times in [Ecclesiastes](book-of-Ecclesiastes.html) and nowhere else in Scripture. The intended meaning in Ecclesiastes is that what happens “under the sun” in a life separated from God is universal—the point of view in Ecclesiastes is an earth\-bound perspective.
To say there is nothing new under the sun means there is nothing really new on the earth. All the activity of a man during his lifetime is lost in the grander scheme of things and will soon be forgotten (Ecclesiastes 1:11\).
To say there is nothing new under the sun does not ignore inventions or advances in technology; rather, these innovations do not amount to any basic change in the world. In Solomon’s time, many advances took place in society, but, from the larger perspective of life, human nature has remained and always will remain the same.
The context of Ecclesiastes 1 discusses how the earth operates. The sun (verse 5\), wind (verse 6\), and water (verse 7\) continue to function as they have in the past. Despite human efforts (verse 2\), the world continues unchanged. Part of the writer’s frustration from this observation is that “no one remembers the former generations, / and even those yet to come / will not be remembered / by those who follow them” (verse 11\). People tend to forget the past, repeating its mistakes as a result.
Does the fact that there is nothing new under the sun mean that people should not try to improve themselves, the lives of others, or the world around them? The entire book of Ecclesiastes should be read before jumping to any conclusion. In the end, Solomon writes this: “Now all has been heard; / here is the conclusion of the matter: / Fear God and keep his commandments, / for this is the duty of all mankind. / For God will bring every deed into judgment, / including every hidden thing, / whether it is good or evil” (Ecclesiastes 12:13–14\).
In other words, life involves more than what happens “under the sun.” Living for God and His glory is the goal of life. Those who do not seek this goal will be judged. Even our good deeds that have gone unnoticed in this life are seen by God and will be rewarded in the future. This knowledge should result in a life lived for God, with a deep love for others and desire to make a difference.
Jeremiah 29:11 says, “‘For I know the plans I have for you,’ declares the LORD, ‘plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.’” The [Great Commission](great-commission.html) also gives a specific mission for the Christian life: “Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:19–20\). The Christian life is not meaningless. There may be nothing new under the sun, but Jesus promises, some day, to make all things new (Revelation 21:5\).
|
What is the story of Rehoboam and Jeroboam?
|
Answer
[Rehoboam](King-Rehoboam.html) and [Jeroboam](Jeroboam-in-the-Bible.html) were both kings reigning in [Israel’s divided kingdom](Israel-Northern-Southern-kingdoms.html). Rehoboam was one of Solomon’s sons and king of Judah in the south (1 Kings 11:43\). Jeroboam was one of Solomon’s former officials, an Ephraimite, and king of Israel in the north (1 Kings 11:26\).
While [Solomon](life-Solomon.html) was still alive and Jeroboam was working for him, a prophet named [Ahijah](Ahijah-in-the-Bible.html) told Jeroboam that God would take ten of the twelve tribes of Israel away from Solomon’s son Rehoboam and give them to Jeroboam (1 Kings 11:29–31\). This judgment against Solomon’s house came because they had forsaken God and worshiped idols (verse 33\). Along with the announcement that Jeroboam would be king, God gave him a conditional promise: “If you do whatever I command you and walk in obedience to me and do what is right in my eyes by obeying my decrees and commands, as David my servant did, I will be with you. I will build you a dynasty as enduring as the one I built for David and will give Israel to you” (verse 38\). When Solomon heard that God had chosen Jeroboam to rule, the king tried to kill Jeroboam, who fled to Egypt (verse 40\).
After Solomon died, his son Rehoboam became king, and Jeroboam returned from Egypt (1 Kings 12:1–2\). But Rehoboam was a vain and foolish man. Jeroboam, a “mighty man of valor,” warned Rehoboam not to make the same mistake his father had made by taxing them heavily to finance a luxurious lifestyle (verses 3–4\). Rehoboam defied the advice to lighten the yoke of oppression: “My father laid on you a heavy yoke; I will make it even heavier. My father scourged you with whips; I will scourge you with scorpions!” (1 Kings 12:14\).
The people responded to Rehoboam’s harshness by rebelling against the new king and making Jeroboam king over Israel (1 Kings 12:16–20\). Only the tribes of Judah and Benjamin followed Rehoboam, son of Solomon. The other ten tribes sided with Jeroboam. King Rehoboam gathered 180,000 warriors in an attempt to take back the ten tribes, but God prevented it, saying, “This is my doing” (1 Kings 12:24\). So King Rehoboam returned to Jerusalem, the capital of Judah. Jeroboam reigned from Shechem and later from Tirzah in Israel.
Once established in the northern kingdom, King Jeroboam feared that, if the people traveled to the temple in Jerusalem to worship, they would return to Rehoboam. So he set up centers of worship in Bethel and Dan, building golden calves and telling the people, “It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem. Here are your gods, Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt” (1 Kings 12:28\). Jeroboam made shrines on the high places, installed priests who were not of the tribe of Levi, appointed a festival, and sacrificed at the altars (1 Kings 12:31–33\). In spite of God’s offer to establish his dynasty in Israel, Jeroboam chose [idolatry](idolatry-definition.html), and the prophet Ahijah told Jeroboam that his family would not endure (1 Kings 14\).
As Jeroboam was turning people away from God in the northern kingdom, Rehoboam was turning people away from God in the southern kingdom. Rehoboam reigned in Jerusalem for seventeen years, but “he did evil because he had not set his heart on seeking the Lord” (2 Chronicles 12:14\). After Rehoboam there were good kings and bad kings over Judah. Every other generation or so, a great king stepped forward and turned the people back to the true God. That never happened among the kings of the northern kingdom. They all followed the mold of Jeroboam. Jeroboam reigned over the ten tribes of Israel for twenty\-two years and was succeeded by his son Nadab. But then Nadab was murdered after two years on the throne, and the assassin killed all of Jeroboam’s family, fulfilling Ahijah’s prophecy (1 Kings 15:25–30\). All subsequent monarchs of the kingdom of Israel followed Jeroboam’s lead. Not one of them was faithful to Israel’s God.
The schism that occurred during the days of Rehoboam and Jeroboam was the end of a united Israel. This division continued during their reigns: “There was continual warfare between Rehoboam and Jeroboam” (2 Chronicles 12:15\) and for centuries afterward.
|
What is the organic church?
|
Answer
The organic church, sometimes also called “simple church,” is an idea that promotes a simpler model of Christian fellowship. It is “organic” in that it is more “basic” and more “natural” than today’s popular church model. The organic church idea counters the modern evangelical philosophy that has led to large programs and buildings, a professional pastorate, a complex business model, and an unfortunate dependence on money. The organic church looks to the church in Acts 2 for its model, focusing on small groups of Christians gathering for the purpose of spiritual growth and mutual help and comfort, while studying the Bible and being led by the Holy Spirit to do His work. The website organicchurch.org describes an organic church as “a group of believers in Jesus Christ who are learning to live by the indwelling Lord together. They have left behind the man\-made religious system normally referred to as Christianity, along with all the ‘baggage’ associated with that system.”
The term *organic church* has been hijacked to describe a variety of different types of Christian meetings, from house churches to cults. It is important to remember that the organic church, or the concept of an organic church, is an idea, not a movement, per se. And it is important, of course, before joining any group, organic or not, to prayerfully consider its teachings in light of Scripture. Some Christians are becoming disillusioned with the current church system and are seeking ways of returning to a more biblical, simpler way of doing things. People have noticed this phenomenon and have given it a name: the organic church or the simple church.
The organic church phenomenon has received criticism, with the main argument being that, if we eliminate programs, sanctuaries, and organizational structure, Christendom will disappear, and the church will stop growing and eventually die. But this opinion is driven by fear, a lack of faith, and a failure to observe the facts. It is well documented that the church grows and thrives most vigorously in nations that persecute Christianity and disallow gatherings of Christians. The more Satan attempts to squash the church, the more it grows. Furthermore, Jesus said, “I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it” (Matthew 16:18\). That being so, it is highly unlikely that the church will wither and die as a result of there being not enough programs or no building to meet in.
The organic church encourages the equality of the brotherhood, with all people being led by the Spirit and growing together. It operates on the promise of Ephesians 4:11–12: “Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up” and the belief that God is always faithful to give [gifts to His people](spiritual-gifts-survey.html) (verse 8\). The organic church philosophy is that the gifts of teaching, shepherding, evangelism, and all the others are given specifically for the growth of the church (which is not a building, but a group of people) and are not predicated on the existence of seminaries, traditions, ecclesiastical documents, church creeds, hymn books, or worship bands.
An organic church, or simple church, is a group of believers meeting to study the Bible and follow the Lord without the burden of the programs, traditions, and structures that, particularly in Western culture, may have become more of a hindrance than a help.
|
Is truth relative?
|
Answer
When someone says that truth is relative, what he normally means is that there is no [absolute truth](absolute-truth.html). Some things may appear true to you but not true to me. If you believe it, it is true for you. If I don’t believe it, it is not true for me. When people say things like “that’s fine if God exists for you, but He doesn’t exist for me,” they are expressing the popular belief that truth is relative.
The whole concept of “relative truth” sounds tolerant and open\-minded. However, upon closer analysis, it is not open\-minded at all. In essence, to say that “God exists for you but not for me” is to say that the other person’s concept of God is wrong. It passes judgment. But no one really believes that all truth is relative. No sane person says, “Gravity works for you, but not for me,” and proceeds to jump off tall buildings believing no harm will follow.
The statement “truth is relative” is, in fact, a self\-refuting statement. In saying, “Truth is relative,” one states a purported truth. But, if all truth is relative, then that statement itself is relative as well—which means we can’t trust it to be true all the time.
Certainly, there are some statements that are relative. For example, “the Ford Mustang is the coolest car ever made” is a relative statement. A car enthusiast may think this to be true, but there is no absolute standard by which to measure “coolness.” It is simply one’s belief or opinion. However, the statement “there is a red Ford Mustang parked outside in the driveway, and it belongs to me” is *not* relative. It is either true or false, based on objective reality. If the Mustang in the driveway is blue (not red), the statement is false. If the red Mustang in the driveway belongs to someone else, the statement is false—it does not match reality.
Generally speaking, opinions are relative. Many people relegate any question of God or religion to the realm of opinion. “You prefer Jesus—that’s fine if it works for you.” What Christians say (and the Bible teaches) is that truth is not relative, regardless of the subject matter. There is an objective spiritual reality, just as there is an objective physical reality. God is unchanging (Malachi 3:6\); Jesus likened His teachings to a solid, immovable rock (Matthew 7:24\). Jesus is the only way of salvation, and this is absolutely true for every person at all times (John 14:6\). Just like people need to breathe in order to live, people need to be [born again](born-again.html) through faith in Christ to experience spiritual life (John 3:3\).
|
What is the Moravian Church?
|
Answer
The Moravian Church considers itself to be the oldest Protestant denomination and has its roots in the teaching of the [Reformer](Protestant-Reformation.html) John Hus. The Moravian Church was founded in 1457 in the Czech Republic by a small group of Hussites desiring more radical reform of the church. They established a community called the Unity of the Brethren (or, in Latin, *Unitas Fratrum*) in Kunwald. In 1467 they established a priesthood/episcopacy and divided into three branches: Moravian, Polish, and Bohemian.
The Moravian Church has long been associated with cross\-cultural [missionary activity](Christian-missions.html). In the 1720s Count Nicholas Ludwig von Zinzendorf of Germany accepted Moravian refugees onto his estate. They signed a Brotherly Agreement and formed a community called Herrnhut (“The Lord’s Watch”), which was led by Zinzendorf. In 1732 missionaries from Herrnhut went to St. Thomas Island. Missions efforts expanded to the rest of the Caribbean (largely to the African slave population there), Greenland, Labrador (to the Inuit people), Surinam, Guyana, South Africa, and North America (to the native tribes). The pioneering efforts of the Moravians in spreading the gospel were responsible for untold thousands of people coming to faith in Christ. It was through the testimony of the Moravians that John Wesley experienced conversion.
Moravian missionaries came to the United States during the colonial period. The Moravians gained a permanent presence in Pennsylvania by 1741\. The Moravian Church now has about one million members, mostly in eastern Africa, but also in the Caribbean basin; South Africa; Winston\-Salem, North Carolina; and Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.
The Moravians are sometimes known as “God’s happy people.” They stress the importance of community, commonly calling one another “Brother” or “Sister.” Some early critics objected to Moravian settlements because the Moravians affirmed “ordinary” people: they accepted members of all races, nationalities, and social classes; allowed women to hold positions of leadership; and emphasized the spiritual lives of children. The community of Herrnhut promoted the “theology of the heart,” centering more on the believer’s relationship with Christ than on doctrine.
Moravians believe that faith is completed in love and that the ability to live in loving community is a sign of true faith. They attempt to avoid legalism while also striving to live ethically and in loving service to others. Church services are a blend between free church and liturgical, but music is central in Moravian life and worship.
The Moravian Church practices [infant baptism](infant-baptism.html), which is seen as entry into a covenant of grace rather than a cleansing of original sin. Infants who are baptized undergo confirmation to become adult members of the church. However, membership in the church is not a requirement to partake in communion. Baptized children who have been prepared for communion by talking with a pastor and members of other Christian churches are all invited to partake.
Communion in Moravian churches includes what is known as the Right Hand of Fellowship. Both before and after the consecration and partaking of the elements, congregants shake hands. The first handclasp is meant to show oneness in Christ and a desire to be at peace with one another. The second is for renewed dedication to service of Christ and signifies unity of purpose. In a similar vein, communion is viewed as a reminder of social responsibility—receipt of Christ’s love, forgiveness, and new life so that partakers may in turn proclaim the gospel and share God’s gifts with others. Practically, Moravians understand themselves called to reach out to the poor, homeless, persecuted, and sick, inviting all to the feast of God’s gifts, both visible and invisible.
Moravians also celebrate lovefeasts, usually on church year holidays, congregational anniversary days, or the like. Moravians say that lovefeasts originated in the gatherings of the early church after Pentecost when believers broke bread together, often in tandem with the celebration of communion. The Moravian Church began the practice of holding lovefeasts in 1727 when, after a communion service, congregants were reluctant to return home; so Count Zinzendorf provided food so they could remain and participate in religious conversation, prayer, and singing. Lovefeast services today are mainly song services. Food is distributed to the congregation, usually a sweet bun and coffee or lemonade. The only requirements for the food being distributed are that it be simple and easy to hand out. Often, lovefeast services attract many visitors.
The Moravian Church worldwide (called the *Unitas Fratrum* or the Unity) is divided into provinces governed by Provincial Synods. Individual congregations send delegates to the synod, which meets once every three to four years. The synods elect members of the Provincial Elders Conference. Local congregations are governed by a Board of Elders, which is elected by the membership. Pastors are accountable to the Board of Elders and the Provincial Elders Conference. Leadership offices also include deacon, presbyter (essentially a senior deacon), and bishop (elected from among the presbyters by the synods and ordained). Bishops serve the Moravian Church worldwide rather than a particular province. They do not hold any administrative authority but function as a pastor to the pastors.
The Moravian Church views itself as Christocentric with a special emphasis on community and love. They often like to say, “In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, liberty; in all things, love.”
|
Who/what is Baphomet?
|
Answer
*Baphomet* is the name of a false god associated in times past with the [Knights Templar](Knights-Templar.html) and today with Satanism and the occult. Modern representations of Baphomet picture it with a goat’s head on a human body (with both male and female traits); between the goat’s horns is a torch, and the image often includes a [pentagram](pentagram-meaning.html). The origin of Baphomet\-worship is subject to much debate. Even the origins of the word *Baphomet* are unknown. Some believe it is a French corruption of *Mahomet* (“Muhammad”). Others believe it to be a code from [Kabbalah](Kabbalah.html) meaning “the father of the temple of peace of all men.” Or the Arabic word for “the father of understanding.” Or, finally, the Jewish [Atbash](Atbash-code.html) cipher as applied to *Sophia*—the Greek goddess of wisdom.
However its name came to be, Baphomet apparently arrived in Europe with the Knights Templar upon their return to France from [the Crusades](Christian-crusades.html). In the early 1300s, the [Inquisitors](inquisitions.html) of King Philip IV accused the Knights of discovering and worshiping the foreign god Baphomet during the war. Some Knights did confess, but only under torture, and the convicted gave different accounts of the idol’s form: it had one face, it had three faces, it was just a human skull, it looked like a cat. Worshiping an image of an animal or man presumed to be Muhammad is inconsistent with Islam, but it would match the misinformed beliefs about Islam found in France at the time. In addition, there is no mention of Baphomet in Templar literature. Attempts have also been made to link Baphomet to [Free Masonry](free-masonry.html), but these accusations are either inconclusive or complete fabrications.
The modern representation of Baphomet originated in 1861 with the French occultist Eliphas Levi, who drew an image of the “Sabbatic Goat or Baphomet of Mendes” in his book *Dogme et Rituel de la Haute Magie* (*Dogmas and Rituals of High Magic*). Levi’s image is a hermaphroditic figure, sitting cross\-legged, with the head of a goat. The figure contains several opposites: one male arm and one female, women’s breasts but a Caduceus phallic symbol, one arm pointed up at a white moon and the other pointed down at a dark moon. The contrasts were to symbolize conflicting forces in the universe that must be balanced to make true light. Levi meant to combine several icons: the Templar figure; Satan; the fertility god\-goat of Mendes, Egypt; and the goat that witches supposedly worship at their Sabbats, or pagan holidays. The goat\-like appearance of Baphomet also resembles Pan, Puck, and the Celtic Cernunnos. Levi claimed the name *Baphomet* came from reading the Latin abbreviation for “the father of the temple of universal peace among men” backwards.
In 1897 Stanislas de Gauaita adapted the head of Levi’s Sabbatic Goat to fit inside a pentagram. De Gauaita’s version of Baphomet included an upside\-down, five\-pointed star surrounded by two circles. Between the circles are five Hebrew letters, one on each point of the star, spelling the Hebrew word for “Leviathan.” Around the arms of the star on the top is the name *Samael*, the angel of death in Talmudic lore; and on the bottom, *Lilith*, a female demon who was Adam’s first wife according to pagan beliefs. In 1969 Anton LaVey adopted the pentagram goat for his Church of Satan and definitively identified it with Baphomet.
Aleister Crowley, the occultist and magician of the late 19th to mid\-20th century, interpreted Baphomet as the “divine androgyne.” Crowley rejected the concepts of the biblical God and Satan and followed the Gnostic teaching that Satan brought wisdom to mankind—that old lie of the serpent in the garden. Baphomet was his symbol and represented life, love, and light. With the addition of the [Zodiac sign](astrology-Bible.html) Capricorn (the goat), liberty is added.
The myth of Baphomet has grown over the last few centuries via occult symbolism and numerology. Christians should obviously avoid the use of Baphomet; the ideas it represents are patently unbiblical. It is the Lord God alone who gives wisdom (Proverbs 2:6\), and to seek for wisdom or enlightenment from a source other than God is to be led astray: “The idols speak deceitfully, diviners see visions that lie; they tell dreams that are false” (Zechariah 10:2\). We should have nothing to do with Baphomet or other blatantly [occult](occult.html) icons. As Joshua told the Israelites who were inheriting the land of Canaan, “Do not associate with these nations that remain among you; do not invoke the names of their gods or swear by them. You must not serve them or bow down to them” (Joshua 23:7\).
|
What biblical prophecies were fulfilled in AD 70?
|
Answer
Much of importance happened in Israel in AD 70, and many link the events of that time to prophecies in the Bible. In studying this subject, it’s good to remember that prophecy does not describe the future in the same way that history describes the past. That’s why there are varied interpretations of biblical prophecy. Predictions dealing with the end times, a category known as [eschatology](Eschatology.html), are of particular interest to many people. Within modern Christianity, most of these discussions are less about *which* events are predicted than *when* the events will happen. The most common point of reference for these opinions is the significant year of AD 70, when the Romans destroyed the Jewish temple.
Virtually all Christian interpretations of biblical prophecy agree that several prophecies were fulfilled in or before AD 70\. Jesus predicted the destruction of the temple (Luke 21:6; Matthew 24:2\) and, some would argue, the Jewish genocide at the hands of Rome (Luke 23:27\-31\). Historically, these events align extremely well with Jesus’ statements. There is broad agreement within most Christian interpretations that these prophecies were literally fulfilled in AD 70\.
There is debate over whether additional prophecies, such as those found in Daniel chapter 9, Matthew chapters 24 and 25, and Revelation chapters 6—18, were also fulfilled in AD 70 or if they are yet to come. [Partial preterism](partial-preterism.html) and [full preterism](preterist.html) hold that most, if not all, of the prophetic events in the Bible were completed by the end of the first century, mostly prior to AD 70\. [Dispensationalism](dispensationalism.html) holds that only the temple destruction and possibly the genocide were actually fulfilled in AD 70 and that the rest of the prophecies will have a future fulfillment during the tribulation.
In terms of historical evidence, there is little to make a definitive case one way or the other. The events of AD 70 can be made to fit certain prophetic claims, depending on one’s perspective. Of course, if one is willing to apply a high enough degree of symbolic interpretation, any prophecy can be made to conform to almost any event. It should be noted, however, that most non\-dispensational interpretations require the book of Revelation to have been written prior to AD 70, something that general scholarship does not support.
The most serious difficulties in claiming all the prophecies were fulfilled in AD 70 are theological. In particular, preterism requires scriptural passages to be interpreted with a chaotic blend of extremely literal and extremely figurative language. One would have to interpret words, verses, and phrases that appear in the same discourse, or even the same paragraph, with a different literal\-figurative assumption.
The most reasonable interpretation is that the genocide and destruction of the temple were prophecies fulfilled in AD 70, and that the other events described in Daniel, Matthew, and Revelation are yet to occur. They are truly [end\-times](questions_end-times.html) predictions.
|
Does the Bible promise that godly parenting will always result in godly children (Proverbs 22:6)?
|
Answer
Proverbs 22:6 notes, “Train up a child in the way he should go; / even when he is old he will not depart from it” (ESV). Does this verse promise that raising children in a godly manner will always result in children who follow God as adults? What about all the godly parents whose children rebel?
[Proverbs, as a literary form](proverb-Bible.html), are not direct promises; rather, they are general observations of life that are typically true. This helps to explain why some parents faithfully raise their child to follow God, yet the child rebels against God as an adult.
Proverbs 22:6 teaches that it is generally true that a child raised to love God will continue to do so as a grown\-up. This was the observation of life from 3,000 years ago, and it continues to prove itself today. Most Christian parents who raise their kids in a godly manner will leave a legacy of children who love God as adults. Bringing up a child in “the training and instruction of the Lord” (Ephesians 6:4\) dramatically increases the likelihood that the child will hold to Christ in later life.
A great biblical example can be found in the [life of Timothy](life-Timothy.html). In 2 Timothy 1:5 Paul says, “I am reminded of your sincere faith, which first lived in your grandmother Lois and in your mother Eunice and, I am persuaded, now lives in you also.” Timothy’s mother and grandmother both loved God and raised Timothy to do so as well. Timothy joined Paul as a missionary associate as a young man and became one of his most trusted companions. The New Testament mentions Timothy by name twenty\-five times as a missionary, aide to the apostles, and pastor.
[Godly parenting](good-parent.html) is essential today, just as it has been throughout history. Fathers and mothers are the key to raising godly young men and women who love God and live for Him. Despite the blessing that pastors, youth leaders, and other godly influences are, no one can replace the role of godly parents who live out their Christian faith and pass it on to their children. This is why the author of Proverb 22:6 could rightly claim, “Start children off on the way they should go, / and even when they are old they will not turn from it.”
|
What is the Christian and Missionary Alliance Church?
|
Answer
The Christian and Missionary Alliance (C\&MA or CMA) is a global “movement,” begun in the late 19th century in New York, focused on fulfilling the Great Commission through the local church. As of 1974 the Christian and Missionary Alliance is also officially a denomination, though it retains its focus on overseas missions and planting churches both overseas and in the U.S. The Alliance focuses not only on the “doing” aspects of the Christian life but also on the “being” aspect. Fulfilling the Great Commission requires both knowing God relationally and serving others. The Christian and Missionary Alliance’s vision for ministry is “We believe that God’s instrument to complete this mission is His Church. That’s why we focus our efforts and resources into developing dynamic, healthy local churches—in the United States and across the world. To accomplish the vision, we will develop healthy people (fully devoted followers of Christ), who will build these churches serving as ministry centers to successfully win the lost. Out of these ministry centers and churches will flow international workers committed to pushing back the darkness in areas where unengaged, unreached people groups abound.”
The Christian and Missionary Alliance’s founder, Dr. A. B. Simpson, conceptualized the “Fourfold Gospel,” which has become the foundation for the Alliance movement. The Christian and Missionary Alliance looks at Jesus Christ as Savior, Sanctifier, Healer, and Coming King. The Christian and Missionary Alliance’s statement of faith lines up with the majority of evangelical Christianity in the U.S. They hold to a [premillennial return of Christ](premillennialism.html). Christian and Missionary Alliance churches tend to be moderately [charismatic](Charismatic-movement.html), with an emphasis on the present healing ministry of the Holy Spirit.
The Christian and Missionary Alliance attempts to fulfill the Great Commission by building community, meeting practical needs, and establishing churches. According to their official website, the Christian and Missionary Alliance is driven by seven core values: (1\) Lost people matter to God. He wants them found. (2\) Prayer is the primary work of God’s people. (3\) Everything we have belongs to God. We are His stewards. (4\) Knowing and obeying God’s Word is fundamental to all true success. (5\) Completing the Great Commission will require the mobilization of every fully devoted disciple. (6\) Without the Holy Spirit’s empowerment, we can accomplish nothing. (7\) Achieving God’s purposes means taking faith\-filled risks. This always involves change.
More information is available at their website: [cmalliance.org](http://www.cmalliance.org/).
|
What does it mean that everything is meaningless?
|
Answer
The [book of Ecclesiastes](Book-of-Ecclesiastes.html) starts out with a startling exclamation:
“‘Meaningless! Meaningless!’
says the Teacher.
‘Utterly meaningless!
Everything is meaningless’” (Ecclesiastes 1:2\).
Other translations have the word *vanity* or *futility* in place of *meaningless*. The point is the same: [Solomon](life-Solomon.html) in his old age has found everything in this world to be empty and void of meaning. This lament becomes the theme of the whole book.
Saying that everything is meaningless sounds depressing, but we must keep Solomon’s point of view in mind. This is found in Ecclesiastes 1:14: “I have seen all the things that are done under the sun; all of them are meaningless, a chasing after the wind.” The key phrase is *under the sun*, which is repeated throughout the book. Solomon is sharing an earth\-bound perspective. He is only considering life “under the sun”; that is, a human life lived to the exclusion of any consideration of God. From that godless perspective, everything is indeed “meaningless.”
In the book of Ecclesiastes, Solomon discusses ten vanities—ten things that are “meaningless” when considered from the limited point of view of “under the sun.” Without God, human wisdom is meaningless (2:14–16\); labor (2:18–23\); amassing things (2:26\); life itself (3:18–22\); competition (4:4\); selfish overwork (4:7–8\); power and authority (4:16\); greed (5:10\); wealth and accolades (6:1–2\); and perfunctory religion (8:10–14\).
When Solomon says, “Everything is meaningless,” he did not mean that everything in the world is of zero value. Rather, his point is that all human efforts apart from God’s will are meaningless. Solomon had it all, and he had tried everything, but when he left God out of the equation, nothing satisfied him. There is purpose in life, and it is found in knowing God and keeping His commands. That’s why Solomon ends his book this way:
“Now all has been heard;
here is the conclusion of the matter:
Fear God and keep his commandments,
for this is the duty of all mankind” (Ecclesiastes 12:13\).
|
Does the Bible say anything about the possibility of time travel?
|
Answer
The Bible does not directly address the idea of time travel, at least not the type of time travel commonly featured in science fiction. Scripture indicates that each person has an appointed time of death (Hebrews 9:27\) and that his days are known by God before they happen (Jeremiah 1:5; Acts 17:26\). Scripture speaks often of events occurring according to God’s timetable (Genesis 21:1; John 7:8; 1 Timothy 2:6\), which runs counter to the idea of people changing historical events through time travel.
However, the Bible also indicates that [God is independent of time](God-time.html). While this might not be a literal type of “time travel,” it would be fair to say that God does not experience time in the same narrow way that human beings do (2 Timothy 1:9; Genesis 1:1; 2 Peter 3:8\). There are also instances in the Bible where men are granted visions of the future (Revelation 1:9–11; Daniel 7:13–14\). One could argue that John, for example, in the book of Revelation had an opportunity to “time travel” into the future in order to observe the events of the apocalypse.
Scripturally, we can’t really say whether time travel is possible or impossible. Theologically, we have reasons to believe that whatever happens is under God’s control, meaning any possible time travel by humanity wouldn’t change or interfere with those plans. Since God exists independently of time, human time travel wouldn’t change our relationship to God any more than our learning how to fly, split the atom, or travel into space.
In a sense, we all are “time travelers” in that we all travel through time, one hour, one minute, one second at a time. No one goes any more quickly or slowly than that. We have one trip through life; there are no “do overs.” And that’s a good reason why we should pray with Moses, “Teach us to number our days, / that we may gain a heart of wisdom” (Psalm 90:12\).
|
Who was Dinah in the Bible?
|
Answer
Dinah was the daughter born to [Jacob](life-Jacob.html) from his first wife, Leah (Genesis 30:21\). When Jacob returned to his homeland after working for his father\-in\-law, Laban, for over 20 years, he settled in in a place called Shechem. Dinah was a young woman at this time.
Genesis 34 gives the account of Dinah’s venture into the city to visit the women there. When Shechem, the son of the city ruler, saw her, he raped her. Verse 3 says that he was drawn to her and wanted her for a wife. Shechem appealed to his father, Hamor, to get her for him.
When Dinah’s brothers heard that their sister had been defiled, they were furious. Hamor, ruler of the city of [Shechem](Shechem-in-the-Bible.html), went to speak with Jacob about getting Dinah for his son. Shechem himself offered a great sum: “I will give you whatever you ask. Make the price for the bride and the gift I am to bring as great as you like, and I’ll pay whatever you ask me” (Genesis 34:11–12\). The Bible does not record Jacob’s reaction but follows the story of his sons. They intentionally deceived Hamor and Shechem, pretending to work out a deal with them. Jacob’s sons told the ruler of Shechem that they could not give their sister to a man who was not [circumcised](circumcision.html)—but if Shechem and all the men of the city would be circumcised as the Israelites were, they could intermarry from then on (verses 13–17\).
Shechem was so taken with Dinah that he and his father agreed to this. Because Jacob’s household was so wealthy and large, the men of Shechem thought it would be to their benefit to incorporate this family. So everyone agreed to be circumcised. Genesis 34:25–26 say, “Three days later, while all of them were still in pain, two of Jacob’s sons, Simeon and Levi, Dinah’s brothers, took their swords and attacked the unsuspecting city, killing every male. They put Hamor and his son Shechem to the sword and took Dinah from Shechem’s house and left.” Then the other brothers looted the city, carrying away everything, including their women and children (verses 27–29\).
When Jacob learned what his sons had done, he was horrified. He knew when word got out to the nations around them, they would be in trouble (Genesis 34:30\). His sons replied that their actions were vindicated because the men of Shechem had treated their sister like a prostitute (verse 31\). The next few chapters of Genesis record Jacob moving his family, at God’s instruction (Genesis 35:1\), to new lands. Nothing more is heard of Dinah in the Bible.
|
Who was Naomi in the Bible?
|
Answer
The story of Naomi appears in the Bible in the [book of Ruth](Book-of-Ruth.html). Naomi lived during the time of the judges. She was the wife of a man named [Elimelech](Elimelech-in-the-Bible.html), and they lived in Bethlehem with their two sons, Mahlon and Kilion. Naomi’s life illustrates the power of God to bring something good out of bitter circumstances.
When a famine hits Judea, Elimelech and Naomi and their two boys relocate to Moab (Ruth 1:1\). There, Mahlon and Kilion marry two Moabite women, Orpah and Ruth. After about ten years, tragedy strikes. Elimelech dies, and both of Naomi’s sons also die, leaving Naomi, Ruth, and Orpah widows (Ruth 1:3–5\). Naomi, hearing that the famine in Judea was over, decides to return home (Ruth 1:6\). Orpah stays in Moab, but [Ruth chooses to move](Ruth-and-Naomi.html) to the land of Israel with Naomi. The book of Ruth is the story of Naomi and Ruth returning to Bethlehem and how Ruth married a man named Boaz and bore a son, Obed, who became the grandfather of David and the ancestor of Jesus Christ.
The name *Naomi* means “sweet, pleasant,” which gives us an idea of Naomi’s basic character. We see her giving her blessing to Ruth and Orpah when she tells them to return to their mothers’ homes so that they might find new husbands: she kisses them and asks that the Lord deal kindly with them (Ruth 1:8–14\). But her heartache in Moab was more than Naomi could bear. When she and Ruth arrive in Bethlehem, the women of the town greet Naomi by name, but she cries, “Don’t call me Naomi. . . . Call me Mara, because the Almighty has made my life very bitter. I went away full, but the Lord has brought me back empty. Why call me Naomi? The Lord has afflicted me; the Almighty has brought misfortune upon me” (Ruth 1:20–21\). The name [*Mara*](Marah-in-the-Bible.html) means “bitter.” The cup of affliction is a bitter cup, but Naomi understood that the affliction came from the God who is sovereign in all things. Little did she know that from this bitter sorrow great blessings would come to her, her descendants, and the world through Jesus Christ.
Ruth meets a local landowner, [Boaz](Ruth-and-Boaz.html), who is very kind to her. Naomi again recognizes the providence of God in providing a [kinsman\-redeemer](kinsman-redeemer.html) for Ruth. Naomi declares that the Lord “has not stopped showing his kindness to the living and the dead" (Ruth 2:20\) Seeing God’s hand in these events, Naomi encourages Ruth to go to Boaz as he slept in the threshing floor in order to request that he redeem her and her property. Naomi’s concern was for Ruth’s future, that Ruth would gain a husband and provider (Ruth 3\).
Naomi’s bitterness is turned to joy. In the end, she gains a son\-in\-law who would provide for both her and Ruth. She also becomes a grandmother to Ruth’s son, Obed. Then the women of Bethlehem say to Naomi, “Praise be to the Lord, who this day has not left you without a guardian\-redeemer. May he become famous throughout Israel! He will renew your life and sustain you in your old age. For your daughter\-in\-law, who loves you and who is better to you than seven sons, has given him birth” (Ruth 4:14–15\). Naomi was no longer Mara. Her life again became sweet and pleasant, blessed by God.
|
Will there be a great apostasy during the end times?
|
Answer
The Bible indicates that there will be a great apostasy during the end times. The “great apostasy” is mentioned in 2 Thessalonians 2:3\. The KJV calls it the “falling away,” while the NIV and ESV call it “the rebellion.” And that’s what an [apostasy](apostasy.html) is: a rebellion, an abandonment of the truth. The end times will include a wholesale rejection of God’s revelation, a further “falling away” of an already fallen world.
The occasion of Paul’s writing to the Thessalonians was to correct some of the errors concerning the end times that the believers had heard from false teachers. Among the falsehoods was that “the day of the Lord has already come” (2 Thessalonians 2:2\). The Christians in Thessalonica were afraid that Jesus had already come, they had missed the [rapture](rapture-of-the-church.html), and they were now in the [tribulation](tribulation.html). Paul had already explained the rapture to them in his first letter (1 Thessalonians 4:16–17\). Paul writes his second letter to assure them that, contrary to what they had heard, and despite the persecution they were enduring, the “day of Christ” had not yet come.
In 2 Thessalonians 2:3, Paul makes it clear that the day of the Lord, a time of worldwide judgment (Isaiah 13:6; Obadiah 1:15\), will not transpire until two things happen. First, the falling away, or great apostasy, must occur. Second, the “man of lawlessness” must be revealed, he who is called the “son of perdition,” also known as the [Antichrist](what-is-the-antichrist.html). Once this person makes himself known, the end times will indeed have come. Numerous speculations about the identity of the man of sin, beginning in the first century, have included Caligula, Caius Caesar, Mohammed, Napoleon, and any number of Roman popes. None of them were the Antichrist.
The man of lawlessness, according to 2 Thessalonians 2:4, is the one who “will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God.” Clearly, this has not yet happened; no one since Paul’s time has set himself up as God in the Jewish temple. Two thousand years have passed since the epistle was written, and the “day of the Lord” has not yet come. Paul assures us that it will not come until the falling away comes first.
The Greek word translated “rebellion” or “falling away” in verse 3 is *apostasia*, from which we get the English word *apostasy*. It refers to a general defection from the true God, the Bible, and the Christian faith. Every age has its defectors, but the falling away at the end times will be complete and worldwide. The whole planet will be in rebellion against God and His Christ. Every coup requires a leader, and into this global apostasy will step the Antichrist. We believe this takes place [after the church has been raptured](pretribulationism.html) from the earth.
Jesus warned the disciples concerning the final days in Matthew 24:10–12: “At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold.” These are the characteristics of the great apostasy of the end times.
|
What is a sluggard?
|
Answer
A sluggard is someone who is habitually [lazy](laziness-Bible.html) or inactive. Such a person does not take personal responsibility for his own life. The word *sluggard* is used 14 times in the [book of Proverbs](Book-of-Proverbs.html). In each case, the Bible condemns laziness and warns of the consequences of being a sluggard.
Proverbs 6:9 asks two rhetorical questions, highlighting one of the main traits of a sluggard: “How long will you lie there, you sluggard? / When will you get up from your sleep?” Verse 6 tells the sluggard to learn a lesson from an industrious insect: “Go to the ant, you sluggard; / consider its ways and be wise!”
Proverbs 10:26 says, “As vinegar to the teeth and smoke to the eyes, / so are sluggards to those who send them.” A sluggard is painful as an employee; no boss wants an inefficient sluggard in his employ.
Proverbs 13:4 states, “A sluggard’s appetite is never filled, / but the desires of the diligent are fully satisfied.” In this [antithetical proverb](antithetical-parallelism.html), the sluggard is contrasted with the diligent. The lazy person has unfulfilled desires precisely because he fails to take action.
Proverbs 19:24 uses humor to make its point about laziness: “A sluggard buries his hand in the dish; / he will not even bring it back to his mouth!” Being too sluggish to lift a fork to the mouth—that’s true laziness!
Proverbs 20:4 says, “Sluggards do not plow in season; / so at harvest time they look but find nothing.” Because the sluggard does not work hard or plan ahead, he does not have what he needs to live. Sluggards seem not to understand the law of [sowing and reaping](sowing-and-reaping.html), since they expect the benefits of labor without actually having labored.
Proverbs 21:25 repeats the theme of laziness leading to lack: “The craving of a sluggard will be the death of him, / because his hands refuse to work.”
Proverbs 22:13 paints a humorous picture of a sluggard’s excuse\-making: “The sluggard says, ‘There’s a lion outside! I’ll be killed in the public square!’” This extreme excuse would be like a person today saying, “There could be a wild bear loose on the highway, so I had better not go to work.” For most people, the possibility of a rampaging bear is so remote as to be laughable—and it’s certainly no reason to skip work.
Proverbs 26:14 uses [emblematic parallelism](emblematic-parallelism.html) to again mock the sluggard’s love of sleep: “As the door turns on its hinges, / So does the sluggard on his bed.” The next two verses complete the picture of the slothful person: “The sluggard buries his hand in the dish; / He is weary of bringing it to his mouth again. / The sluggard is wiser in his own eyes / Than seven men who can give a discreet answer.” Of note is the sluggard’s high opinion of himself: he thinks he is smart not to work; it doesn’t matter how many reasonable arguments are brought against him, he persists in his conceit that he is a wise man.
A sluggard is a person who has the ability to work but refuses to. He lacks the drive, personal responsibility, and common sense to provide for his needs. He likes sleep and dislikes work. Sluggards are called to action, to [work hard](Bible-work.html) to honor God with their lives. “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat” (2 Thessalonians 3:10\).
|
What value is there in Christian journaling?
|
Answer
“Journaling” can mean different things to different people. For some, journaling is written prayer. For others, journaling is keeping a record of prayer requests and answers. Some keep a journal of especially poignant spiritual truths, perhaps insights from a sermon or quotes from spiritual books or a collection of Scripture. Some may write accounts of particularly meaningful encounters with God. For some a journal is a form of diary, a place to record the events of their day and a few thoughts or insights about it; these entries may be as brief as one or two phrases or a long narrative. Some might keep a “gratitude” or “joy” journal that lists one or more things each day—small or large—for which they are thankful. Still others journal in the sense that they write out their thoughts or respond to a particular prompt; it is not so much a prayer or specifically God\-directed as it is a written exploration on a topic. Journals can come in a variety of forms—written in a notebook, typed on the computer, in an online forum, shared with friends or private, including art work or pictures or solely visual art without words, etc. The Bible does not mention journaling, so is there value in any of these activities?
Writing or creating art of any kind causes us to slow down enough to attend to our inner being. Words may flow effortlessly, or they may take time to formulate. Either way, writing is a method to help us reflect, contemplate, and more fully digest the things of life. Proverbs 4 talks about gaining wisdom at all costs. Its words imply intentionality and alertness: “My son, pay attention to what I say; turn your ear to my words. Do not let them out of your sight, keep them within your heart; for they are life to those who find them and health to one’s whole body. Above all else, guard your heart, for everything you do flows from it. . . . Let your eyes look straight ahead; fix your gaze directly before you. Give careful thought to the paths for your feet and be steadfast in all your ways. Do not turn to the right or the left; keep your foot from evil” (Proverbs 4:20–23, 25–26\). Journaling can help us pay attention and keep wisdom at the forefront of our thoughts. It can also be a way to guard our hearts as we search our inner being, paying attention to what is going on in our hearts and submitting it to God.
Although the biblical psalms are not true examples of “journaling,” they do illustrate how the truth of our experiences can be expressed alongside the truth of who God is. The varied themes in the [Psalms](Book-of-Psalms.html) and their unabashed candidness demonstrate how we can be perfectly honest with ourselves and with God about our feelings and thoughts. In journals, we can express ourselves to God and remind ourselves of His greatness. Luke 2:19 tells us about Mary treasuring the events around Jesus’ birth and pondering them in her heart. Psalm 111:2 says, “Great are the works of the Lord; they are pondered by all who delight in them.” Journaling can help us ponder the good things of God and give Him praise.
Another benefit of journaling is having a written record to which to later refer. In times of [spiritual dryness](spiritual-dryness.html) or discouragement, one can look back at a journal and find encouragement in God’s past faithfulness or reminders of truth. God often instructed the Israelites to set up forms of remembrance. The [Passover](Passover-Lamb.html), for example, was to serve as a reminder of God’s faithfulness in rescuing the Israelites from Egypt (Exodus 12\). After the Israelites crossed the Jordan River on dry land, God gave Joshua instructions about setting up memorial stones, which were “to serve as a sign among you. In the future, when your children ask you, ‘What do these stones mean?’ tell them that the flow of the Jordan was cut off before the ark of the covenant of the Lord. When it crossed the Jordan, the waters of the Jordan were cut off. These stones are to be a memorial to the people of Israel forever” (Joshua 4:6–8\). Psalms 77 and 143 talk specifically about remembering God’s works in times of hardship. Journals can be one way to remind us of what God has done in our personal histories.
For those who are “natural” writers, journaling can be a way to intentionally use their gifting to grow in Christ. They can explore through journaling the truth presented in Scripture or the things God may be teaching them through life circumstances. Journaling can be used to look back at the past, asking God to reveal truth we may have missed along the way or to bring about healing. We can also use journals to express hopes for the future and submit our desires to God. Journals can be used as a method of personal Bible study. Journals filled with scriptural and spiritual truths can be a quick reference tool.
Journaling is exciting for some and sounds laborious to others. There is no right or wrong way to journal. And, depending on the person, it may be highly valuable or not add much. Journaling is certainly not a requirement for Christian growth, but it can be a great tool.
|
Is it wrong to kill spiders or step on bugs?
|
Answer
There is no biblical prohibition against killing insects, bugs, spiders, or other such creatures. The Old Testament Law even went so far as to separate out the [clean insects](animals-clean-unclean.html) that the Israelites could eat from the unclean insects that they couldn’t—eating bugs is one way to get rid of them! “All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be regarded as unclean by you. There are, however, some flying insects that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper. But all other flying insects that have four legs you are to regard as unclean” (Leviticus 11:20–23\).
Of course, most of us today are not looking to the world of insects as a food source. When we kill spiders or insects, it is often because they are pests in our homes. There is absolutely nothing wrong with keeping a clean and safe home by ridding one’s house of ants, silverfish, centipedes, scorpions, brown recluse spiders, cockroaches, bedbugs, moths, fruit flies, house flies, horse flies, [mosquitoes](why-did-God-create-mosquitoes.html), etc., etc., etc.
Some people choose to rid their homes of pests “humanely”; that is, they would gently catch the black widow spider crawling across their pillow, keep it alive, and deposit it a safe distance from their house. That is fine. Others would rather swat the spider, stomp on it a few times to make sure it’s dead, and then burn the pillow. That’s fine, too. It’s a matter of conscience. The biblical prohibition “thou shalt not kill” (Exodus 20:13, KJV) refers to premeditated murder of a human being, not squashing the spider on your pillow.
We should make a distinction, however, between ridding one’s home of pests and simply killing spiders and insects for no good reason. God has a purpose for “every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth” (Genesis 1:26, KJV). The spiders and insects are God’s creation, and He owns them: “I know every bird in the mountains, and the insects in the fields are mine” (Psalm 50:11\). To treat any of God’s creatures, no matter how small, with wanton cruelty is sin. Focusing a magnifying glass on an ant hill just to see the ants suffer, sprinkling salt on a garden slug just to see it writhe, purposely stepping on any type of bug on the sidewalk just for the morbid satisfaction of it—these are not the actions of a God\-fearing person.
Everyone at some point or another unintentionally kills spiders and insects and other less visible creatures simply by walking down the street. This cannot be helped and is not a sin. It’s also not a sin to keep oneself and one’s family safe and healthy—go ahead and swat the fly, kill the tick, and smash the venomous spider. It’s not sinful to protect one’s property, either—go ahead and exterminate the termites and spray for those weevils. A case can also be made for killing spiders and insects in the interest of learning—go ahead and help your child pin the bugs on the board for her science class. But, out of respect for the Creator of all things, we should not participate in the unnecessary, gratuitous killing of spiders and insects in the wild.
|
What is a love feast?
|
Answer
A love feast or agape feast was a fellowship meal eaten by Christians in the early church. There is biblical evidence for the practice of these communal meals, during which Christians gathered not just for the sake of sustenance and socializing, but for the sake of fellowship (Acts 2:46–47; 1 Corinthians 11:17–34\). The term *love feast* appears in the Bible in the [book of Jude](Book-of-Jude.html). The author of the epistle is talking about false teachers who come into the believers’ fellowship, pretending—they are wolves in sheep’s clothing. These false teachers are described as “blemishes at your love feasts” (Jude 1:12\). The ESV calls the pretenders “hidden reefs,” pointing up the dangerous nature of false teachers and their potential to shipwreck Christians.
Hippolytus of Rome and [Tertullian](Tertullian.html) both wrote about communal meals, though Hippolytus does not use the term *agape* but calls the meals simply “love feasts.” In some traditions, these meals became associated with other rituals, such as the Eucharist. It is possible that the term *agape feast* fell out of usage because it became associated with certain abuses that were taking place during the feasts—including gluttony and favoritism, which Paul addresses in 1 Corinthians 11:17–34\. However, Christians have always practiced communal meals of various kinds. [Communion](communion-Christian.html), or the Lord’s Table, is an ordinance that Jesus gave the church, commanding that we partake of the bread and the cup in remembrance of Him. This was done in the early church at the love feasts (Luke 22:19\). In the context of 1 Corinthians 11, it is clear that Paul equates communal meals with remembering Christ in this way, and that is one of the reasons why abusing the communal meal was so offensive (1 Corinthians 11:20–34\).
Today, love feasts are still observed by the Moravians, Church of the Brethren, Old German Baptists, Dunkard Brethren, and some other denominations. In some cases, the fellowship includes a [foot\-washing ceremony](foot-washing.html), a meal, and the observance of communion. Some house churches have attempted to revive the practice of the love feast, though it is not always called a love feast. Sharing a meal can have spiritual significance because of the [Last Supper](Last-Supper.html) that Jesus ate with His disciples, where He taught them to serve one another. Food brings nourishment, and wine brings gladness (Psalm 104:15; Ecclesiastes 9:7\), and they can be symbols of the free gift of Christ, who is the bread of life and the giver of joy (John 6:35; Romans 14:17\).
|
Who is the Preacher in Ecclesiastes?
|
Answer
Ecclesiastes 1:1 begins the book this way: “The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem” (ESV). The Hebrew word translated here and throughout Ecclesiastes is [*qoheleth*](Qoheleth-in-Ecclesiastes.html), a word also meaning “collector” or “convener.” Some other Bible versions translate it as “Teacher.” Who is this nameless Preacher/Teacher—[Solomon](life-Solomon.html), or someone else?
First, we know the Preacher was a collector of sayings. This fits the biblical description of King Solomon. First Kings 4:32 says that Solomon “spoke three thousand proverbs and his songs numbered a thousand and five.” In Proverbs 1:1 we also see that Solomon was a writer of [proverbs](proverb-Bible.html). These were the collected sayings of Solomon, the son of David, the king of Israel. Solomon, as a “collector” of words, fits the description of Ecclesiastes 1:1\. In fact, Ecclesiastes 12:9 specifically says that the Preacher “set in order many proverbs.”
Second, the phrase “son of David” limits the identification of the author of [Ecclesiastes](Book-of-Ecclesiastes.html) to one of David’s physical sons. Since Solomon was the only son of David that we know of to leave writings, he also fits the identity of the Preacher in this respect.
Third, the Preacher in Ecclesiastes was “king in Jerusalem.” He served as both a writer and a king—again, descriptions that fit Solomon.
Fourth, the Preacher, according to Ecclesiastes 12:9, was “wise,” and we know that King Solomon was given the [gift of wisdom](Solomon-wisdom.html) by God (1 Kings 4:29\).
Fifth, the Preacher “imparted knowledge to the people” (Ecclesiastes 12:9\). This also corresponds with what we know of King Solomon: “He spoke about plant life, from the cedar of Lebanon to the hyssop that grows out of walls. He also spoke about animals and birds, reptiles and fish. From all nations people came to listen to Solomon’s wisdom, sent by all the kings of the world, who had heard of his wisdom” (1 Kings 4:33–34\).
The word translated “Preacher” is used six other times in Ecclesiastes (in the ESV), including the following passages:
Ecclesiastes 1:2: “Vanity of vanities, says the Preacher, / vanity of vanities! All is vanity.”
Ecclesiastes 1:12: “I the Preacher have been king over Israel in Jerusalem.”
Ecclesiastes 7:27: “Behold, this is what I found, says the Preacher, while adding one thing to another to find the scheme of things.”
All the evidence points to Solomon as the Preacher and the writer of Ecclesiastes. As an older man, Solomon looked back at the mistakes he had made in his life and drew practical wisdom and an eternal perspective from them.
|
What similarities are there between the Enuma Elish and the Genesis creation account?
|
Answer
The Enuma Elish, or the “Seven Tablets of Creation,” is a Babylonian creation myth that has a number of literary and cultural connections to the [creation account](creation-story.html) in Genesis 1\. The Enuma Elish is one of the oldest creation records ever discovered, likely dating to 1100 BC (Genesis, which is older, was written around 1400 BC). The title, *Enuma Elish*, is taken from the account’s first two words, which translate to “when in the heights.” Studying this mythology helps Bible scholars understand the non\-empirical, poetic literature so common in ancient Near Eastern writings. However, the Enuma Elish has also been used by skeptics as a supposed proof that the Genesis 1 account is merely mythology or a parallel of contemporary mythologies.
The story presented in the Enuma Elish (which you can [read here](http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/stc/index.htm)) is of a great clash between various gods of the Babylonian pantheon. The two most important characters are the god [Marduk](Marduk-in-the-Bible.html) and the goddess Tiamat. After Tiamat prepares many monsters and lesser gods to destroy the remainder of the pantheon, and a few younger gods have already failed at challenging her, Marduk offers to destroy Tiamat in return for being made highest among the gods. The other gods readily accept this offer, and Marduk becomes locked in mortal combat with Tiamat. After killing Tiamat, Marduk splits her body in two, making one half the sky and one half the earth. He makes humans from his own flesh and bone and brings order to the universe.
On the surface this does not sound anything like the Genesis creation account, but the poetic structure and terminology in their original languages do bear some similarities. Some liberal Bible scholars have used this resemblance to imply that the creation account in Genesis 1 is merely a poetic interpretation of creation rather than a factual account. While there is no denying the similar poetic structures of the Genesis 1 and Enuma Elish creation accounts, this does not mean both are equally mythological, only that they came from similar cultural backgrounds. Writing *form* does not affect the veracity of *content*. A novel can be written in a biographical style, but that doesn’t mean the novel and the biography are equally true (or false).
The Enuma Elish is indeed an important ancient text and is invaluable to scholars of ancient Near Eastern culture and language and, by extension, to biblical scholars. As such, it is an interesting piece of mythology, but it should not be mistaken as the original creation account or a parallel of Genesis 1\.
|
Why can’t all Christians agree on one Bible?
|
Answer
There are many [different versions of the Bible](Bible-versions.html)—with new translations coming out all the time, it seems—and sometimes it’s hard for Christians to agree on [which one is best to use](Bible-translations.html). Different churches recommend different translations, and many church\-goers simply go with the version being preached in the pulpit. The good news is that Christians don’t *have* to agree on one translation of the Bible.
First, because of language barriers, it’s impossible for all Christians worldwide to agree on one Bible. If we all agreed that the KJV (for example) is the one true Bible, then what are Christians to read who speak Spanish or French? There’s no such thing as King James Russian or King James Papiamento. Non\-English translations have to be made, and there’s nothing more “inspired” about a translation in English than a translation in, say, Urdu.
But if we limit our consideration to English translations, Christians still don’t have to agree on one Bible. There are several reasons why various Bible translations are good and even necessary:
1\) Language changes over time, and words and spellings become obsolete. Christians in the 21st century do not have to agree with the spelling of the 14th century. For example, consider John 3:16 in the first English translation ever made, John Wyclif’s 14th\-century version:
“For God louede so the world, that he yaf his 'oon bigetun sone, that ech man that bileueth in him perische not, but haue euerlastynge lijf.”
And here is the same verse in the KJV of 1611:
“For God so loued þe world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life.”
Obviously, these translations (which were necessary in their time) needed to be replaced with translations that reflected contemporary spelling.
2\) Christians don’t have to agree on one version of the Bible because only the original autographs of Scripture were inspired. The words that Joshua wrote in the Book of the Law of God (Joshua 24:26\) were inspired by God. Every translation of those words since that time has involved a measure of human interpretation—that’s the nature of translating. For example, the Hebrew word Joshua wrote concerning false gods was *nekar* in Joshua 24:23\. That inspired word can be translated into English as “strange,” “foreign,” or “alien,” or the gods in question can simply be called “idols.” It’s up to the translator, but the basic meaning does not change. The English translation is not what’s inspired anyway, as most Christians would agree.
3\) Christians don’t have to agree on one version of the Bible because such agreement would tend to foster autocracy and absolutism. Having different translations prevents any one group or church from saying, “Only our translation is holy. We are the only ones who have God’s Word.” This is in fact what happened during the Middle Ages. The Roman Catholic Church (and later the Anglican) held in their grasp all the copies of the Bible (in Latin, which most people could not read), and they forbade anyone else from making a copy or reading it for themselves. Bibles in the vernacular were illegal. Fortunately, the [Reformation](Protestant-Reformation.html) changed all that: Luther made a German translation, and [Tyndale](William-Tyndale.html) an English translation, and the rest, as they say, is history.
4\) Christians shouldn’t have to agree on one version of the Bible because having different translations allows more people access to God’s Word. Various versions of the Bible are written at various reading levels. The [KJV](King-James-Version-KJV.html), for example, is about a 12th\-grade reading level. The [NKJV](New-King-James-Version-NKJV.html) is about a 7th\-grade reading level. The [NCV](New-Century-Version-NCV.html) has a 3rd\-grade reading level. The [ERV (Easy\-to\-Read Version)](Easy-to-Read-Version-ERV.html) is better for people just learning English. John 3:16 in the ERV is, “Yes, God loved the world so much that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him would not be lost but have eternal life.” If all Christians agreed on the NIV Bible, for example, anyone at a reading level lower than junior\-high would have difficulty reading God’s Word.
It’s important to know that not every translation is equally faithful to the original text: some take a more literal approach, and some take a more dynamic approach. But all good translations of the Bible do their best to stay true to the original Greek and Hebrew texts and accurately communicate the Word of God.
In the final analysis, agreement on one particular translation is not all that crucial. Most of the differences are quite minor. Mark 3:5, for example, reads like this in four popular translations:
“He looked around at them in anger and, deeply distressed at their stubborn hearts . . .” (NIV).
“And he looked around at them with anger, grieved at their hardness of heart . . .” (ESV).
“And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts . . .” (KJV).
“After looking around at them with anger, grieved at their hardness of heart . . .” (NASB).
The wording is different, but they all mention Jesus’ look, His anger, His distress/grief, and the people’s stubborn/hard hearts. What is the value in promoting one of these translations to the exclusion of all the others?
The differences among the good translations are *not* differences in doctrine. Whether we’re reading the KJV, the NIV, the NAS, the ESV, or the ERV, Jesus is still the Lord and one\-and\-only Savior, and salvation still comes by grace through faith.
|
What is the first earth age?
|
Answer
The first age of the earth, according to the theory’s proponents, was a time period prior to Genesis 1:2, when human beings existed as pre\-incarnate souls. Proponents of a first earth age also point to Genesis 1:1, Jeremiah 4:18, and 2 Peter 3:5 to support their claims. According to the first earth age concept, God initially created the earth many thousands or millions of years ago, but that world was corrupted by the fall of Satan. In the first earth age view, those who chose to remain loyal to God during that time became the “elect” mentioned in the New Testament and were promised eternal life. In many ways, the first earth age theory is similar to the Mormon teaching of spirit babies. Belief in a first earth age is a subset of the more general [gap theory](gap-theory.html).
While the gap theory generally supposes that there is a long time period covered by Genesis 1:1, belief in the first earth age goes much further by presupposing the [existence of human souls](pre-existence-of-souls.html) prior to the creation of man. Belief in a first earth age does not seem to be very prevalent, and most references to it connect it with Shepherd’s Chapel, led by Arnold Murray. The belief is likewise connected to the false [serpent seed doctrine](serpent-seed.html) and various levels of anti\-Semitic belief. Such associations don’t determine whether it’s true or false, of course, but they do suggest that the first earth age theory be approached with caution and serious scrutiny.
The concept of a first earth age is not biblically sound for several reasons. First, it is not directly supported by the biblical text. Proponents of the first earth age theory refer to various definitions of Greek and Hebrew words that they claim support the idea that there was a “first earth” laid waste prior to the flood. These claims require a heavy dose of bias and do not come naturally from the text or from the definitions of the words in question. Second, and more importantly, the idea of a first earth age is contradicted by passages such as 1 Corinthians 15:46–47, which says that the physical comes prior to the spiritual; this is the opposite of the first earth age model.
|
Who was Phoebe in the Bible?
|
Answer
Phoebe is mentioned only once in the Bible, in Romans 16:1–2, where Paul writes, “I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church in Cenchreae. I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of his people and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been the benefactor of many people, including me.”
Letters of introduction to strangers were common in Bible times. The mention of Phoebe in this way means that she was probably either the bearer of the letter or accompanied those who took it to Rome. The name *Phoebe* means “bright and radiant,” and from Paul’s comments about her it seems that those words characterized her personality and her Christian life.
Paul’s reference to Phoebe as “our sister” indicates that she was a member of the Christian church and his sister in Christ. Her designation as “deacon” (or “servant” in the ESV) could mean that she held an official position within the church as a deaconess or simply that she was someone who was known to serve the church faithfully (the Greek *diakonos* means “servant”). Whether or not Phoebe had the title “[deaconess](women-deacons.html),” it is clear that she was a trusted member of the body of believers in Cenchreae, a seaport about eight or nine miles from Corinth.
Paul commends Phoebe to the Roman believers and asks that they receive her in a gracious and friendly manner into their homes and hearts with love and affection. She was to be welcome in their church fellowship. Asking for her to be received “in a way worthy of \[God’s] people” means that the church should treat Phoebe with the special respect and Christian love that should characterize all believers’ interactions with one another. Even those believers we have never met before should be welcomed with love, for we share a bond in the Lord (John 13:35\). Phoebe was to be aided in whatever business she would be conducting in Rome.
Paul adds that Phoebe was a helper of many. Phoebe may have shown great kindness in various ways to other Christians, perhaps receiving them into her house in the manner of Martha and Mary (Luke 10:38–40\). Perhaps she ministered to the sick, helped the poor, and aided widows and orphans in the manner of Tabitha (Acts 9:36\). Maybe she ministered to strangers and travelers in the manner of John’s “elect lady” (2 John 1\). Paul himself was a beneficiary of Phoebe’s kind servant’s heart. Whatever Phoebe’s precise role in the church, the inclusion of her name in Romans 16 is a testimony to her character and ensures that she will never be forgotten.
|
What is the Assumption of Moses?
|
Answer
The Assumption of Moses is a book, dated to the first century, supposedly relating prophecies told to Joshua by Moses. The book is sometimes referred to as the Testament of Moses. Its contents are referred to by several of the early church fathers, including [Origen](Origen-of-Alexandria.html), but the book was not and is not considered a part of the [biblical canon](canon-of-Scripture.html). Unlike the Bible, the Assumption of Moses is poorly preserved, existing in only one manuscript, translated into Latin, which is dated from after AD 500 and is missing a large portion of the text.
Even though the Assumption of Moses is nearly lost and clearly of a late date, it does have some connection to modern biblical scholarship. The fact that the Assumption of Moses is mentioned—though not canonized—by early Christians makes it historically interesting. It is also possible that Jude alludes to an incident in the Assumption of Moses when he mentions [Michael and Satan disputing](Michael-Satan-Moses.html) over the body of Moses (Jude 1:9\). The story in Jude matches the traditional Jewish story, which is likewise related in the Assumption of Moses. This means the first\-century work is not the origin of that story, but another telling of it.
Jude’s citation of the Assumption of Moses—if, in fact, he was citing that particular work—is not necessarily an endorsement of the work itself. Paul, for example, cited a non\-Christian poet in Acts 17:28 and a non\-scriptural narrative in 2 Timothy 3:8\. Both references were meant to support a particular point Paul was making. Similarly, Jude’s possible allusion to the Assumption of Moses was to help further his point about false teachers.
|
Is getting drunk a sin?
|
Answer
Becoming drunk by alcohol is clearly prohibited in the Bible (Proverbs 20:1; 23:20; 29–32; Isaiah 5:22; Ephesians 5:18\). There are many commands in Scripture about behaviors to avoid, such as drunkenness, sexual immorality (1 Corinthians 6:18\), and lying (Proverbs 6:16–17\). But the Bible is far more than a definitive list of “sins.” When we approach it as such, we are missing the point. God does not want us to check off a list and consider everything else acceptable. The Pharisees did that, and Jesus was not pleased with them (Luke 11:42; Matthew 23:23\). God desires obedience that arises from a loving heart that wants to be like Him (1 Peter 1:15\).
Getting drunk is a sin, but what about drinking in moderation? Drinking alcohol has been the subject of debate within the church for centuries. Years ago the majority of Christians considered drinking alcohol in any amount to be sinful. Today there is a much greater acceptance for moderate consumption of alcohol among Christians. In Bible times, anyone [set apart for God](Nazirite-vow.html) was to totally abstain from any fruit of the vine during the time of his consecration (Judges 13:4; Leviticus 10:9; Numbers 6:3; Luke 1:15\). Wine was sometimes symbolic of worldly contamination (Revelation 18:3\), and those called into priestly service were to abstain from it when ministering in the tabernacle (Leviticus 10:9\). Such warnings have led many followers of Christ to forgo alcohol altogether, deeming any use of it unwise. Although drinking in moderation is not condemned in Scripture, losing self\-control is, and there are many warnings about alcohol’s destructive nature (Proverbs 20:1; 31:4\).
Ephesians 5:18 says, “Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit.” Two elements are being compared: alcohol and the Holy Spirit. Each has the power to take control of a person’s mind and behavior—with vastly different results. Getting drunk leads to a loss of self\-control; being filled with the Spirit leads to more self\-control (Galatians 5:22–23\). We cannot be controlled by both alcoholic spirits and the Holy Spirit at the same time. When we choose to ingest mind\-altering substances, we are effectively choosing to give ourselves over to the control of something other than the Holy Spirit. Anything that takes control of our mind, will, and emotions is a false god. Any master we obey other than the Lord is an idol, and idolatry is sin (1 Corinthians 10:14\).
Getting drunk is a sin. Whether it be alcohol, drugs, or some other addictive behavior, Jesus said, “You cannot serve two masters” (Matthew 6:24\). When we get drunk with alcohol or high on drugs, we are serving a master other than the Lord. Choosing to [follow Jesus](follow-Christ.html) means choosing against our old sinful patterns and lifestyle. We cannot follow Jesus and also follow drunkenness, immorality, or worldly thinking (Galatians 2:20; Romans 6:1–6\). They are going in opposite directions. First Corinthians 6:10 lists drunkards among those who “will not inherit the kingdom of God.” When we choose to be defined by our sin, we cannot also be a Christ\-follower (Galatians 5:19–21\). When we choose drunkenness in spite of God’s command against it, we are choosing disobedience and cannot, in that state, be in fellowship with a holy God who condemns it (Luke 14:26–27; Matthew 10:37–38\).
|
Who was Luke in the Bible?
|
Answer
Little is known about Luke, the author of the books of [Luke](Gospel-of-Luke.html) and [Acts](Book-of-Acts.html) in the Bible. We do know he was a physician and the only Gentile to write any part of the New Testament. Paul’s letter to the Colossians draws a distinction between Luke and other colleagues “of the circumcision,” meaning the Jews (Colossians 4:11\). Luke is the only New Testament writer clearly identifiable as a non\-Jew.
Luke was the author of the gospel of Luke and the book of Acts. Luke does not name himself in either of his books, but Paul mentions him by name in three epistles. Both Luke and Acts are addressed to the same person, Theophilus (Luke 1:3; Acts 1:1\). No one knows exactly who [Theophilus](Theophilus-Luke-Acts.html) was, but we know that Luke’s purpose in writing the two companion books was so that Theophilus would know with certainty about the person and work of Jesus Christ (Luke 1:4\). Perhaps Theophilus had already received the basics of the Christian doctrine but had not as yet been completely grounded in them.
Luke was a close friend of Paul, who referred to him as “the beloved physician” (Colossians 4:14\). Perhaps Luke’s interest in medicine is the reason his gospel gives such a high profile to Jesus’ acts of healing.
Paul also refers to Luke as a “fellow laborer” (Philemon 1:24\). Luke joined Paul in Troas in Asia Minor during Paul’s second missionary journey (Acts 16:6–11\). Some scholars speculate that Luke was the “man of Macedonia” whom Paul saw in his dream (Acts 16:9\). Luke was left in Philippi during the second missionary journey (Acts 17:1\) and picked up again to travel with Paul in the third journey (Acts 20:5\). Luke accompanied Paul on his journey to Jerusalem and Rome and was with him during his imprisonment there (2 Timothy 4:11\). Luke’s vivid description of his travels with Paul in Acts 27 seems to indicate that he was well\-traveled and well\-versed in navigation.
Scholars have noted that Luke had an outstanding command of the Greek language. His vocabulary is extensive and rich, and his style at times approaches that of classical Greek, as in the preface of his gospel (Luke 1:1–4\), while at other times it seems quite Semitic (Luke 1:5—2:52\). He was familiar with sailing and had a special love for recording geographical details. All this would indicate that Luke was a well\-educated, observant, and careful writer.
|
What does it mean that we have eternity in our hearts (Ecclesiastes 3:11)?
|
Answer
Ecclesiastes 3:11 states God has “set eternity in the human heart.” In every human soul is a God\-given awareness that there is “something more” than this transient world. And with that awareness of eternity comes a hope that we can one day find a fulfillment not afforded by the “vanity” in this world. Here is a closer look at the verse:
“In the human heart” is an expression representing the mind, soul, or spirit of each person. God places eternity (Hebrew *olam*) into our heart and soul.
The word translated “eternity” is much debated regarding its translation in this passage. The word *olam* can be translated as “darkness,” “eternity,” or “the future.” The use of this word could indicate darkness (in the sense of ignorance), contrasting this concept with what follows in verse 11: “Yet no one can fathom what God has done from beginning to end.” It could be that Solomon is contrasting human ignorance with God’s perfect wisdom.
A better possibility, and the one that is the typical interpretation, is that *olam* refers to God’s placing an eternal longing or sense of eternity in the human heart. Taking this understanding to be the correct one, Ecclesiastes 3:11 affirms the idea that humans operate in a different way than other forms of life. We have a sense of eternity in our lives; we possess an innate knowledge that there is something more to life than what we can see and experience in the here and now.
The larger context of the chapter aids our understanding of verse 11\. Ecclesiastes 3:1 says, “There is a time for everything, / and a season for every activity under the heavens.” The next seven verses list a series of contrasts: love and hate, scattering and gathering, tearing and mending, weeping and laughter. Then comes verse 11, which begins, “He has made everything beautiful in its time.” In other words, life is comprised of opposite experiences in balance; God has appointed each to its season. Each season is to be considered as part of a whole.
Seasons come and go, but does anything in this life truly satisfy? The answer in [Ecclesiastes](Book-of-Ecclesiastes.html) is, no, all is vanity (Ecclesiastes 1:2\). However, through all the ups and downs and vicissitudes of life, we have a glimpse of stability—God has “set eternity in the human heart.” Life is but a vapor (James 4:14\), but we know there is something past this life. We have a divinely implanted awareness that the soul lives forever. This world is not our home.
|
What sort of condolences should a Christian give someone who is hurting after the death of a loved one?
|
Answer
Losing someone we love is one of the most painful experiences of life. When someone we care about suffers such a loss, it can be frustrating to know how to help. Many times we do nothing for fear of saying the wrong thing. But most who have experienced the death of a loved one appreciate compassionate expressions from others. Often, the best condolence is simply being there.
Many times we feel the need to eliminate the suffering of those in grief, but this is a wrong expectation and can lead to more harm than good. Worn out platitudes, cheery clichés, or unbiblical statements such as “God needed another angel” do nothing to help and force the grieving to pretend they are better for having heard it. If we feel we must voice a condolence, simply stating that we are sorry for their loss or that we are praying for them is adequate.
The most important aspect to remember is that [grief](overcoming-grief.html) is natural and healthy. We cannot adequately recover from a traumatic loss without allowing ourselves to go through the grieving process. God has equipped the human heart with mechanisms to help us deal with life\-changing losses a little bit at a time. Friends of a grieving person need to remember that it is not our job to short\-circuit that process. The best help allows the grieving person freedom to express grief however he or she needs to, whether through words, tears, silence, or anger. Knowing that a safe friend is there and can handle whatever he needs to say gives him comfort. Being a good listener is often the best gift we can give those who need to talk.
There are two approaches a Christian can take to comfort those who have lost a loved one. If we know the deceased was a follower of Christ, then there are many passages of Scripture to help. Choosing opportune times to share scriptures such as Psalm 34:16–19; Psalm 147:3; 1 Thessalonians 4:13–18; and 2 Corinthians 5:8 can remind the grieving person that death is merely a changing of address.
For those who don’t have such hope in eternal life, a Christian can still be a trusted friend and listener. It can be helpful to share with the grieving person about the various stages he or she may go through in the grief process. Although everyone grieves differently, the following are some common stages we go through in coming to terms with the death of a significant person in our lives:
1\. Initial shock – This may include expressions of denial and anger as the mind cannot accept all at once what has happened.
2\. Numbness – This is God’s gift to us as we learn to deal with the loss one piece at a time.
3\. Struggle between fantasy and reality – This stage involves thinking we hear the departed one’s voice, seeing a glimpse of her in a passing car, or reaching for the phone to call her.
4\. Flood of grief – Often triggered by something trivial, months or years after the death, grief can flood in again, bringing the loss back in all its power. We dissolve in copious tears and mourning just when we’d thought we were past the initial pain.
5\. Stabbing memories – Just when we think we are getting past it, someone who doesn’t know the situation will ask how the departed one is doing. An anniversary or another milestone passes without the loved one. The memories are painful but necessary. Talking about the memories with tears is healthy and a part of moving on.
6\. Recovery – A “new normal” emerges, as we begin to believe that life will go on and there will come a day when we won’t hurt like we do now.
These stages are often repeated in a cycle until the heart has healed and moved on with life. The depth of emotion can be unsettling to a person who has never experienced grief before, so it can help him or her to know that the feelings are normal and won’t last forever. The first year after a loss is filled with these stages, and there is no set time limit for grief. The goal is to grieve adequately and then move past it. Grief is only destructive when we get stuck there and refuse to let God heal our hearts.
Many times death brings to the surface questions about eternity. If the grieving person initiates such a conversation, a Christian should take the opportunity to share the [gospel](gospel-message.html). However, we should avoid speculating on the destination of the departed, as only God knows the soul condition of any person and where he is spending eternity. Focus instead upon the good news that Jesus has for the survivor. There are many testimonies of people giving their lives to Christ following the death of a loved one, as they came face to face with their own mortality. A Christian should stay sensitive to the situation and to the Holy Spirit’s leading to bring hope and comfort to those who are grieving.
|
Does China have a role in the end times?
|
Answer
Many students of Bible prophecy consider Revelation 16:12–16 to possibly refer to China in the end times:
“The sixth angel [poured out his bowl](seven-seals-trumpets.html) on the great river Euphrates, and its water was dried up to prepare the way for the kings from the East. Then . . . demonic spirits that perform signs . . . go out to the kings of the whole world, to gather them for the battle on the great day of God Almighty. . . . Then they gathered the kings together to the place that in Hebrew is called Armageddon” (Revelation 16:12–16\).
This passage predicts a massive, climactic conflict known as the [Battle of Armageddon](battle-Armageddon.html). It occurs at the end of the tribulation, after the sixth bowl judgment. At that time, the Euphrates River will be dried up, allowing the “kings from the East” to invade the Near East and march toward Israel. It is the “kings from the East” identification that many associate with China. The Chinese army, or a Chinese\-led coalition, will take advantage of the removal of a natural barrier and sweep westward to meet up with the forces of the Antichrist.
When the end\-times’ force from China joins with the armies of the [Antichrist](what-is-the-antichrist.html), the seventh and final bowl judgment will be poured out. The [Lord Jesus will return](second-coming-Jesus-Christ.html), the most violent earthquake ever will shake the world, and the forces of the Antichrist and the armies of the East will be destroyed (Revelation 16:17–20; 19:11–21\).
It is impossible to know for sure if the Eastern confederacy of the end times will include China; however, it seems likely that China will be involved. Recent years have seen a dramatic rise in China’s power and influence. The development of enormous military strength; intimidation of Hong Kong, Tibet, Taiwan, and other regions; pursuit of global economic dominance; aggressive rhetoric on the world stage; and, of course, the persecution of Chinese Christians—all this has been characteristic of China. It is not hard to imagine that the “kings from the East” who one day march into Israel will include China.
Some people identify another battle, mentioned earlier in Revelation, as a prophecy of China in the end times. The association hinges on the mention of an army of 200 million (Revelation 9:16\) and occasional reports of China’s capability of equipping such a vast army. There are a couple problems with this view. One is that Revelation 9 says nothing of an army from the East; rather, it speaks of a demonic horde that destroys a third of mankind. The “horses” these beings ride are definitely not normal horses (verse 17\). Also, the battle of Revelation 9 occurs after the sixth trumpet judgment; the battle of Revelation 16 involving the kings of the East occurs after the sixth bowl judgment, probably about three and a half years later.
In the end times, many nations, likely including China, will try their hand at conquest. Ultimately, their fight will be against God. The [tribulation](tribulation.html) will be a tumultuous time of warfare, disasters, and divine judgment. But God has it all under control, as Psalm 2:2–6 assures:
“The kings of the earth rise up
and the rulers band together
against the Lord and against his anointed, saying,
‘Let us break their chains
and throw off their shackles.’
The One enthroned in heaven laughs;
the Lord scoffs at them.
He rebukes them in his anger
and terrifies them in his wrath, saying,
‘I have installed my king
on Zion, my holy mountain.’”
|
Who were the Ishmaelites?
|
Answer
Simply put, the Ishmaelites were the descendants of Ishmael, the son of Abram by his wife’s handmaiden, Hagar (Genesis 16:1–12\). From small beginnings, the Ishmaelites became a numerous and mighty people.
The origin of the Ishmaelites was fraught with difficulty. When Sarai was unable to produce a child with Abram, she followed the common cultural practice and gave Hagar to him, and Hagar conceived his child. But Sarai later became jealous and mistreated Hagar, who fled from her mistress into the wilderness. There Hagar met the Angel of the Lord who pronounced the first of three prophecies concerning the child she was bearing. She would give birth to a son, and his descendants would multiply greatly. It was at this time that God told Hagar to name him Ishmael, which means “God hears” (Genesis 16:10–11\).
In the wilderness the Angel of the Lord also predicted that Ishmael—and therefore the Ishmaelites—would be stubborn, untamable, and warlike: “He will be a wild donkey of a man; / his hand will be against everyone / and everyone’s hand against him, / and he will live in hostility / toward all his brothers” (Genesis 16:12\). After hearing the angel’s words, Hagar returned to her mistress and eventually gave birth to Ishmael.
Later, God changed the names of Sarai and Abram to Sarah and Abraham and established a covenant with Abraham’s son Isaac. But Ishmael also had a promise from God: he would be blessed, too, and he would be the father of a great nation, beginning with twelve sons, the first of the Ishmaelites (Genesis 17:20\). The names of the twelve are listed in Genesis 25:12–16; it is from the Ishmaelites that the Arab nations descended.
Ishmael was about fourteen years old when Isaac was born. A year or a few later, when Isaac was weaned, Sarah saw Ishmael mocking her son. Sarah asked Abraham to send Hagar and Ishmael away, and God told Abraham to comply. The Angel of God met Hagar and her son once again and predicted for the third time that Ishmael would father a great nation (Genesis 21:18\).
Later in Israel’s history, the Ishmaelites were also called Midianites (although not all Midianites were descendants of Ishmael), and they engaged in the buying and selling of slaves (Genesis 37:28; 39:1\). Judges 8:24 tells us that it was a custom for the Ishmaelites to wear gold earrings.
During the reign of King David, the Ishmaelites joined a confederacy against God and against His people, Israel (Psalm 83:5–6\). Their goal was to “destroy them as a nation, / so that Israel’s name is remembered no more” (verse 4\). Considering the current turmoil in the Middle East and the hatred often directed against Israel by her neighbors, the prophecies concerning the descendants of Ishmael continue to prove true.
|
What does it mean that the dead know nothing (Ecclesiastes 9:5)?
|
Answer
Ecclesiastes 9:5 reads, “For the living know that they will die, / but the dead know nothing; / they have no further reward, / and even their name is forgotten.” This verse is sometimes used as a proof text for [annihilationism](annihilationism.html), but that concept is not what is being communicated here. The “dead know nothing,” but in what way?
It is clear from other places in the Bible that this verse cannot mean the dead have absolutely no knowledge. For example, Matthew 25:46 speaks of everlasting consciousness: “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” Every person will spend eternity with God in heaven or apart from Him in hell. Each person will have feelings, thoughts, and abilities that exist in eternity.
In fact, Luke 16:19–31 offers an example of human capabilities in the afterlife. Lazarus is in paradise in eternal joy, while the rich man is in torment in hell (called “Hades”). The rich man has feelings, can talk, and has the ability to remember, think, and reason.
The key to understanding the statement “the dead know nothing” is found in the theme of the [book of Ecclesiastes](Book-of-Ecclesiastes.html). Ecclesiastes is written specifically from an *earthly* perspective. The key phrase, repeated throughout the book, is *under the sun*, used about thirty times. Solomon is commenting on an earth\-bound life, “under the sun,” without God. His conclusion, also repeated throughout the book, is that everything from that perspective is “vanity” or emptiness (Ecclesiastes 1:2\).
When a person dies “under the sun,” the earthly perspective, without God, is that it’s over. He is no longer under the sun. There is no more knowledge to give or be given, just a grave to mark his remains. Those who have died have “no further reward” in this life; they no longer have the ability to enjoy life like those who are living. Eventually, “even their name is forgotten” (Ecclesiastes 9:5\).
Ecclesiastes 9:5 displays a [chiastic structure](chiasm-chiastic.html) (ABBA format) like this:
A “For the living know that they will die,
B but the dead know nothing;
B they have no further reward,
A and even their name is forgotten.”
Lines 1 and 4 are parallel thoughts in the sense that the living know death is coming while those who remain after a person dies quickly forget those who have died. The second and third lines lay down associated ideas in parallel: the dead know nothing, and the dead can no longer enjoy or be rewarded for their activities in this life.
The saying “the dead know nothing” seems to be a negative sentiment, but it is not without a positive message. Solomon encourages his readers to live life to its fullest, knowing life is short. In the end, the fullest life is one that honors God and keeps His ways (Ecclesiastes 12:13–14\).
|
Did Jesus have children?
|
Answer
The Bible gives no indication that Jesus was [married](was-Jesus-married.html) or had children, nor is there any evidence from reliable historical sources to give credence to such an idea. For Jesus to have had children, marriage would have been necessary, according to His own teachings. Once again, there is no evidence, biblical or historical, that Jesus was married. His mission on earth was to make spiritual sons and daughters, not physical ones (Galatians 4:4–5; Ephesians 1:5; Hebrews 2:10\).
There are several problems inherent in believing that Jesus had children. First, if Jesus were married or had children, certainly the Gospels would have included that information. In fact, such information would be crucial to our understanding of Him, His nature, and His mission. The biblical Evangelists speak of Jesus’ mother and father and brothers and sisters and cousins, and we can piece together enough detail to identify more probable cousins and an aunt. Peter’s wife and mother\-in\-law are mentioned (Matthew 8:14\), as are Paul’s sister and nephew (Acts 23:16\). If Jesus had a wife and/or children, certainly they would have rated a mention.
Another problem with the idea that Jesus was married or had children is that adding to Scripture is condemned (Revelation 22:18\). The Word of God is complete, and it needs no additions. What we are told in Scripture is all that is relevant and needful to knowing God and His salvation. The Bible is sufficient (2 Timothy 3:15–17\). We do not need to turn to fanciful interpretations of fragmented passages in the [Gnostic gospels](Gnostic-gospels.html) for “the rest of the story.”
Finally, in light of the life Jesus led, one of poverty and homelessness (Matthew 8:20\), He would not have been able to provide for a family, and that would have been a direct violation of His own law, as expressed by the apostle Paul (1 Timothy 5:8\). Jesus’ work on earth was to accomplish God’s will, which He finished (John 17:4\). Doing so required a singleness of purpose that the responsibilities of fatherhood would only have detracted from: “An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife—and his interests are divided” (1 Corinthians 7:32–34\).
None of this is to say that marriage is wrong or that sex within marriage is sinful or that having children is less than ideal. The Bible honors marriage (Hebrews 13:4\) and says that children are a blessing from God (Psalm 127:3\). But the fact remains that Jesus lived a celibate life. We must reject the suggestion that Jesus was married or that He had children, for all the reasons listed above. Almost without exception, those who embrace such myths would deny the deity of Christ and seek to “humanize” Him in the sense of making Him just like any other man.
|
What is the Revived Roman Empire?
|
Answer
The term *Revived Roman Empire* (which is not used in Scripture) refers to a powerful government predicted in biblical prophecy. This regime will rise to power and dominate the world during the end times. According to various interpretations of the books of [Daniel](Book-of-Daniel.html) and [Revelation](Book-of-Revelation.html), the Revived Roman Empire is either a generic world political system or a specific nation under a specific ruler. Various interpreters have centered this empire in Rome itself, in Turkey, or in the Middle East.
The Revived Roman Empire is commonly associated with the fourth beast of Daniel chapter 7\. This beast is described as “terrifying and frightening and very powerful” (Daniel 7:7\). This ten\-horned beast is a prophetic picture of the Roman Empire (verses 19–24\), but, as Daniel watches, a little horn rises from the beast, with “eyes like the eyes of a human being and a mouth that spoke boastfully” (verse 8\). This final horn is the [Antichrist](what-is-the-antichrist.html), who will somehow be connected with the Roman Empire. Since the Roman Empire has been defunct since the fifth century, we expect it to be “revived” in some way to fulfill the end\-times’ prophecies.
The Revived Roman Empire has also been linked to the fifth and final kingdom mentioned in Daniel chapter 2 (Daniel 2:41—43\). This passage concerns Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of an image made of various metals. The iron legs represent the Roman Empire, and the feet made “partly of iron and partly of baked clay” (Daniel 2:33\) represent the final world empire. The fact that it shares the element iron with the fourth kingdom suggests a connection to Rome, and the ten toes could imply a ten\-nation confederacy (matching the ten horns in Daniel 7:20\) led collectively by a single powerful ruler.
Other commentators point to Revelation chapter 13, which describes a beast coming from the sea having ten horns and seven heads (Revelation 13:1\). This depiction connects it to the fourth beast of Daniel 7, which also has ten horns. Revelation describes this government as “blasphemous” (verse 1\) and tyrannical, requiring absolute submission in financial, spiritual, and political matters (verses 4–8\). The global power this nation wields is given to it by Satan (verse 2\). In this context, the symbols are more easily interpreted as references to a particular ruler and a particular political empire yet to come, rather than some figure of prior history.
Speculation about the exact nature of the Revived Roman Empire can be interesting, but we must remember to keep the right perspective. Our primary focus as Christians is supposed to be spreading the gospel, not trying to identify the Antichrist. In particular, we should realize that what’s written about the Revived Roman Empire in the Bible is not very extensive, and we can’t go beyond what’s written (1 Corinthians 4:6\). We know the Antichrist is coming, and we know he will have some connection to the ancient Roman Empire, possibly through ancestry, geography, or the structure of his government. We can read the signs of the times (Matthew 16:3\), but we don’t know enough to be dogmatic in the details.
|
What does it mean that there is a proper time for everything (Ecclesiastes 3:1–8)?
|
Answer
Ecclesiastes 3:1–8 is a well\-known passage that deals with the balanced, cyclical nature of life and says that there is a proper time for everything:
“There is a time for everything,
and a season for every activity under the heavens:
[a time to be born and a time to die](time-to-be-born-and-time-to-die.html),
a time to plant and a time to uproot,
a time to kill and a time to heal,
a time to tear down and a time to build,
a time to weep and a time to laugh,
a time to mourn and a time to dance,
a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them,
a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing,
a time to search and a time to give up,
a time to keep and a time to throw away,
a time to tear and a time to mend,
a time to be silent and a time to speak,
a time to love and a time to hate,
a time for war and a time for peace.”
In this passage, the [Preacher](Preacher-Ecclesiastes.html) says that there is a time for every matter in life. He illustrates this truth by juxtaposing opposites: fourteen pairs of contrasting activities as examples of how life is comprised of various seasons. A straightforward reading of the passage reveals several concepts:
First, the timing of our activities is important. Killing someone (Ecclesiastes 3:8\) is generally considered evil and a crime, but that may change during a time of war, when defending one’s country can be considered a noble act. Dancing (verse 4\) may be appropriate during a time of celebration, but it would not be appropriate for a funeral. Both our actions and the *timing* of our actions are important to God.
Second, these seasons in which certain pursuits are proper are appointed by God. His plan for life involves a variety of experiences and activities. Weeping may be part of life, but life is not *all* weeping; laughter has a place, too (Ecclesiastes 3:4\). Construction is good in its time, but sometimes deconstruction is necessary (verse 3\).
A key to this passage is found a few verses later: “He has made everything beautiful in its time” (Ecclesiastes 3:11\). The proper activity at the right time, bringing about God’s purposes, is a beautiful part of God’s overall plan. A tapestry, viewed from the back, seems a chaotic and unlovely work; but the maker of the tapestry has a wise purpose for the placement of each thread.
Third, Ecclesiastes 3:1–8 serves as a bridge between the first two chapters and the section that follows. People are to accept each day as a gift from the hand of God (2:24–26\). Why? Ecclesiastes 3:1–8 explains it is because God has a reason and a time for all things. People may be ignorant of God’s timing (3:9–11\), but they are called to enjoy life in the present (3:12–13\) and trust in God’s sovereignty (3:14–15\).
God offers much wisdom in the saying, “There is a time for everything, / and a season for every activity under the heavens.” God is sovereign. Our activity in this world is meaningful as we rely on His wisdom, His timing, and His goodness.
|
Does the Old Testament truly predict a second advent of the Messiah?
|
Answer
The Old Testament does prophesy the [second coming of Christ](second-coming-Jesus-Christ.html), also referred to as the second advent of the Messiah. Some Old Testament prophecies concern the first advent, when Christ was born as a human being. Others concern the second advent, which is the ultimate triumph of this Messiah. It’s important to remember that prophecy does not describe the future in the same detail as history describes the past. So, while the prophecies of the Old Testament certainly describe both the first and second advents, most early interpretations of these prophecies melded them into a single event. Particularly during the years leading up to Jesus’ birth, it was assumed Messiah would be a political/military figure with an immediate worldly kingdom (Luke 19:11\). In the light of Jesus’ ministry, it is possible to understand the true purpose of Christ and the real nature of His kingdom.
A careful look at Old Testament prophecies shows an underlying assumption of two advents. Micah 5:2 and Isaiah 7:14 predict the first advent. Separately, Isaiah 53:8–9 predicts a [suffering and dying Messiah](suffering-servant-Isaiah-53.html), who will be given life and greatness according to Isaiah 53:11–12\. Daniel 9:26 describes the Messiah being killed after His appearance. At the same time, prophets such as Zechariah (Zechariah 12:10\) say this same “pierced” Messiah will be seen again by His enemies. So the clues are there.
Many Old Testament prophecies foretell the ultimate triumph of Christ, which will occur at the second advent. These include statements from the books of Zechariah (Zechariah 9:14–15; 12:10–14; 13:1\); Amos (Amos 9:11–15\); Jeremiah (Jeremiah 30:18; 32:44; 33:11, 26\); and Joel (Joel 3:1\); which describe the Messiah coming in triumph to lead Israel into salvation. Note that these are in the context of passages such as Deuteronomy 30:3–5 and so are predictions of the time of Messiah’s final victory.
Also, Scripture records Jesus making direct comparisons to Old Testament prophecies when making His own claims to a second advent. For example, His words in Matthew 24:31 and Mark 13:27 parallel the descriptions of Isaiah 52:15 and Isaiah 59—62\.
All in all, the Hebrew Scriptures indicate that the Promised One would appear, be cut off, and then reappear in victory. The first advent has occurred; the second is still future. Both the New and Old Testaments predict a second advent of the Messiah.
|
How can I receive emotional healing?
|
Answer
Emotional healing is something that every person needs, to one degree or another, for we have all been wounded emotionally. There are many variations of emotional brokenness and pain—as many as there are types of people. Whether the cause is natural or because of another’s sin, the majority of people fight some type of emotional battle.
Some of the most common symptoms of emotional harm are sleeplessness, detachment, depression, anger, isolation, bitterness, frustration, and fear. Some of the most common causes are abandonment, broken trust, chronic pain or illness, rejection, a lack of community, and a sense of life’s meaninglessness. Unfortunately, modern culture is a veritable breeding ground for these emotional destroyers. We are increasingly drawn away from community and toward individualism, away from trustworthy behavior and toward selfishness, away from morals that give our lives purpose and toward existentialism and post\-modernism that detach us from one another and from our humanity, away from healthy choices and healthy practices and toward instant gratification that degrades our physical health. How can a person flounder to the surface of this cultural wave and find emotional healing?
There is no quick and easy path to emotional healing. Some will say that all we need to do is accept Jesus and we will be suddenly healed of our maladies—emotional and otherwise. The fact remains, however, that we are flesh\-bound creatures. Jesus said, “The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak” (Matthew 26:41\); the apostle Paul battled with the flesh and spoke of how it stubbornly resisted the desires of his will and mind to follow God (Romans 7:18–25\).
Following God is the first step to emotional healing. He is the One who restores our souls (Psalm 23:3\); Jesus came, in part, to heal the brokenhearted (Luke 4:18\). But we must remember that healing is a process. It involves moment\-by\-moment choices to trust and obey the Lord. We must choose healthy interactions with others (1 Peter 3:8–12\), healthy thinking based on the truth of Scripture (Philippians 4:4–9\), and healthy activities that benefit our bodies (2 Corinthians 7:1\).
Here are some practical things a follower of Christ can do to find emotional healing:
1\) [Meditate](Christian-meditation.html) on God’s Word, the Bible. God’s instructions are “life to those who find them and health to one’s whole body” (Proverbs 4:22\). The person “whose delight is in the law of the Lord, and who meditates on his law day and night” is blessed (Psalm 1:1–2\).
2\) [Confess](unconfessed-sin.html) any known sin to God. Then take God at His word: “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9\).
3\) Take control of your thoughts—better yet, allow the Holy Spirit to take control of those thoughts. In the Spirit, “we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:5\).
4\) Refuse to fall back into old, sinful habits. “We know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body ruled by sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin” (Romans 6:6\). You have been called to holiness and to walk in newness of life (Romans 6:4\).
5\) [Forgive](forgiveness.html) those who have hurt you. This is important. “Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you” (Ephesians 4:32\). Be cautious of any root of bitterness in the soul (Hebrews 12:15\).
6\) See yourself as God sees you: loved (Romans 5:8\); gifted (2 Timothy 1:7\); set free (John 8:36\); and washed, sanctified, and justified (1 Corinthians 6:11\).
7\) Get involved in a Bible\-teaching local church and open yourself to their [fellowship](Christian-fellowship.html) and teaching ministry. God gives spiritual gifts to His church “to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up” (Ephesians 4:12\). Part of a church’s function is to aid the healing process of those who are emotionally or spiritually wounded.
Jesus Christ can help us find emotional healing. His Spirit is a Spirit of kindness, selflessness, truth, and trustworthiness, and He finds joy in producing such qualities in us (Galatians 5:22–23; 1 John 3:19–24\). When we are indwelt with His Spirit, He can and will delight to turn us around and make us the kind of people who can trust and be trusted by others, resulting in better relationships all around (John 7:38\).
Here are some other passages in the Bible that will help bring emotional healing to the hurting: Psalm 73:23–26; Psalm 34:17–20; 1 Peter 5:7; Psalm 147:3; Psalm 30:11; John 14:27; Matthew 11:28; Romans 5:1; and Romans 8:32\.
|
What is the biblical perspective on multiculturalism?
|
Answer
The concept of multiculturalism can be taken several different ways, though two are more commonly used. The first is the idea of cultural [diversity](Bible-diversity.html) within a certain political or geographic area. The second is a social or political effort to enforce a certain level of cultural diversity. The biblical view of multiculturalism deals with both aspects, though not in an overly prescriptive way. Practically, the Bible is strongly in favor of multiculturalism in the sense that various languages, foods, styles of music, and customs are part of our human heritage. And all people, of all cultures, are equally valued by God. Politically, the Bible has more to say about respecting authority than it does about specific policies. Theologically, the Bible does not support the idea that all cultural religious ideas are equally true or should be treated as such.
According to Scripture, multiculturalism, in the sense of practical diversity, is exactly what we will see in heaven. The Bible speaks of a vast number of people “from every nation, tribe, people and language” praising God at His throne (Revelation 7:9\). The principle of multiculturalism is seen in the Bible’s teaching that race, culture, and gender do not separate us in God’s eyes (Galatians 3:28; Romans 1:16\). The Bible even encourages cooperation with cultural norms, so long as they don’t conflict with God’s commands (1 Corinthians 9:22; 10:33\). So, in the sense that there are many colors and cultures that God has created and that He values, multiculturalism is an extremely biblical concept. What God creates and values, we should also value.
Politically, the Bible has little to say about multiculturalism beyond the command to [respect authority](laws-land.html) (Romans 13:1–2\). By necessity, this means conforming to certain aspects of the local culture. Claiming an unlimited right to offend others is not only unbiblical, it’s unhelpful. An insistence on retaining a totally separate culture from one’s host nation or people is likewise not supported by Scripture. At the same time, love and care for our neighbors means tolerating a certain level of disagreement (Matthew 5:39; Romans 15:1; 1 Corinthians 8:13\). So, a biblical view of multiculturalism involves a certain level of political submission and tolerance. At the same time, Christians are commanded to obey God before obeying men (Acts 5:28–29\), so when laws or cultural norms directly conflict with biblical concepts, we are obligated toward [civil disobedience](civil-disobedience.html).
The one area where a biblical perspective directly conflicts with certain styles of multiculturalism is theology. It is common for multiculturalism to be taken to an extreme of “relativism,” where no particular viewpoint is seen as actually true, correct, or moral. Typically, this is only applied to religious ideas. The claim that all religious ideas are true, all concepts of God are equally valid, or every approach to religion is correct is incompatible with the Bible (John 14:6; 3:36; 1 Timothy 2:5; Exodus 20:2–3\). Christians cannot participate in a style of multiculturalism that embraces spiritual error as if it were spiritual truth (2 Timothy 4:3; Galatians 1:8\), even if their stand results in negative social consequences (John 15:19\).
Multiculturalism, in practice, is simply an expression of God’s creativity. There is much to be valued in different ideas, perspectives, and tastes (Proverbs 11:14; Romans 14:5\). To what extent a particular nation enforces certain choices on others is not so much a biblical question as a political one. The Bible does not support the transformation of multiculturalism into relativism, however. Christians are obligated to be loving, respectful, and tolerant (1 Peter 3:15–16; 2:17\); at the same time, we are commanded not to participate in the sins of any particular culture (Romans 12:2; 2 Corinthians 11:3\), even those of our own culture (Romans 6:17–18; 1 Corinthians 6:9–11\).
|
What is the significance of a scarlet thread?
|
Answer
The Bible mentions a scarlet thread in several different contexts, from an unusual childbirth to the high priestly garments to the conquest of Canaan.
One reference to the scarlet thread in the Bible occurs during the birth of the twin sons of Judah and Tamar (Genesis 38:27–30\). As Tamar was giving birth, the arm of one twin, Zerah, reached out of the birth canal, and immediately the midwife tied a scarlet thread to the baby’s wrist to designate Zerah as the firstborn. As it turned out, however, Zerah was not the firstborn; the arm was withdrawn into the womb, and the other twin, [Perez](Perez-in-the-Bible.html), was born first.
In the case of Perez and Zerah, the scarlet thread was to indicate who was to have the designation and privileges of the firstborn. To all appearances, Zerah seemed to be the one, but God had different plans, and Perez was the firstborn. In God’s providence, it was through Perez that the line of the Lord Jesus Christ proceeded (Matthew 1:3\).
The Bible also mentions scarlet thread or scarlet yarn as part of the tabernacle’s curtains (Exodus 26:1\) and the high priest’s [ephod](ephod.html) (Exodus 28:6\), along with threads of gold, blue, and purple. Scripture does not comment on the significance of those colors in the curtains or ephod, but some commentators surmise that the gold, blue, and purple foreshadow Christ’s glory, heavenly origin, and kingly position, while the scarlet thread represents Christ’s atoning work on the cross through the shedding of His blood.
Another significant mention of scarlet thread is in Joshua 2\. Two spies had been sent to Jericho in advance of the Israelites’ taking of that city. The spies were hidden in Jericho by [Rahab the harlot](life-Rahab.html), who expressed her faith in Israel’s God and protected the spies (see Hebrews 11:31\). Rahab allowed the Hebrew spies to escape from Jericho by letting them down through her window by means of a rope made of scarlet thread. As they departed, the spies told Rahab, “Tie this cord of scarlet thread in the window” (Joshua 2:18\), with the promise that she and her household would be kept safe in the coming invasion. By faith, Rahab obeyed: “And she tied the scarlet cord in the window” (verse 21\).
Later, when the walls of Jericho fell down and the Israelites took the city, Joshua commanded that Rahab and her family be spared (Joshua 6:22–23\). Marking her home was, of course, the “cord of scarlet thread.” It’s easy to dismiss the color of Rahab’s rope as mere coincidence, but the scarlet color is significant. The rope in her window was a sign of her faith and led to her salvation, as she was not destroyed with the rest of Jericho. The scarlet rope—the color of blood—worked for Rahab much as the blood of the [Passover lamb](Passover-Lamb.html) had worked during the exodus: every home marked with blood was spared death that night (Exodus 12:13\). God’s mercy and forgiveness of Rahab the harlot was signified by a rope of scarlet thread, which becomes a symbol of the blood of Christ.
Theologians and Bible students sometimes refer to “the scarlet thread running through the Bible.” By this they mean that the Bible’s theme is Jesus Christ and His sacrifice for the redemption of mankind. The [blood of Christ](blood-of-Christ.html) runs throughout the entire Bible, symbolically. It is seen in the animals killed in Eden to provide garments for Adam and Eve, the ram that took Isaac’s place on the altar of Moriah, the Passover lamb, the institution of the sacrificial system, the scarlet rope of Rahab, and the thousands of years of sacrifices performed at the tabernacle and temple. The scarlet thread runs all the way up to John the Baptist’s declaration, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29\) and to the foot of the cross, where Jesus finally says, “It is finished” (John 19:30\).
“Without the [shedding of blood](Christianity-bloody.html) there is no forgiveness” (Hebrews 9:22\), and that’s why the symbolism of the scarlet thread in the Bible is significant. The scarlet thread is the theme of atonement found throughout the pages of Scripture.
|
What role does Iran play in the end times?
|
Answer
There are several biblical prophecies of the end times that mention Iran, called Persia or [Elam](Elam-in-the-Bible.html) in the Bible. Given the fact that Iran is often in the news as a nation seeking armaments (possibly nuclear) and repeatedly issuing threats against Israel, students of Bible prophecy are taking note.
Iran does have a role to play in the end times, but, first, a little history of Iran and its neighborhood, as it relates to biblical history. Jeremiah prophesied that Elam, a nation east of Babylon, west of Persia, and south of Media, would be conquered and then rise to power again (Jeremiah 49:34–39\). True to that prophecy, [Babylon](Babylonian-empire.html) conquered Elam in 596 BC. But then Persia, under Cyrus the Great, took control of that area, and the Elamites and Medes became part of the Persian Empire. The [Medo\-Persian Empire](Medo-Persian-empire.html) ascended to power and conquered Babylon in 539 BC, fulfilling the prophecy of Isaiah 21:2\. This happened during the time of Daniel (Daniel 5\); in fact, Daniel later resided “in the province of Elam” in Persia (Daniel 8:2\). Persia is the setting for the book of Esther and the first part of Nehemiah.
[Alexander the Great’s](Alexander-the-Great.html) conquests put an end to Persia as a world power, fulfilling the prophecy of Daniel 8\. In the following centuries, Persia was ruled by the Seleucids, the Parthians, the Sassanians, the Romans, the Byzantines, and finally, in AD 636, the Muslims. In 1501, the state of Iran was founded.
In the New Testament, men from Iran are mentioned indirectly as “Parthians, Medes and Elamites” were present in Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:9\). All three of these people groups were Jews who lived in the area of ancient Persia, modern\-day Iran, and they were present in Jerusalem to witness the birth of the church.
Iran’s involvement in the end times will be as one of the nations involved in the battle of [Gog and Magog](Gog-Magog.html), which probably occurs during the first half of the tribulation. Ezekiel 38:5 specifically mentions Persia as an ally of [Magog/Russia](Russia-end-times.html). Other nations included in this coalition will be Sudan, Turkey, Libya, and others. This vast army will come against Israel, who at that time will be “a peaceful and unsuspecting people” (verse 11\).
The outcome of this end\-times invasion is predicted: God supernaturally intervenes, and Gog’s coalition is utterly destroyed. “On the mountains of Israel you will fall, you and all your troops and the nations with you. I will give you as food to all kinds of carrion birds and to the wild animals” (Ezekiel 39:4–5\). Iran, allied with Russia, will think their invasion of Israel is a sure victory, but God has different plans. In protecting Jerusalem, God will send a strong message to the world: “I will make known my holy name among my people Israel. I will no longer let my holy name be profaned, and the nations will know that I the Lord am the Holy One in Israel” (verse 7\).
|
What is middle knowledge?
|
Answer
Middle knowledge is a theological concept developed by Luis Molina and espoused by modern Christian philosophers such as William Lane Craig and Alvin Plantinga. Middle knowledge is the philosophical cornerstone supporting the theology of [Molinism](molinism.html). In short, middle knowledge is God’s omniscient awareness of what “would” happen if certain circumstances were to occur, including the free, un\-coerced choices of creatures in those scenarios.
Middle knowledge is so named because it comes logically between God’s “natural knowledge,” which is truth existing independent of God’s acts or choices, and His “free knowledge,” which is truth dependent on His acts or choices. Like natural knowledge, middle knowledge is not subject to God’s control, a point of great controversy for some theologians. And yet, like free knowledge, truths known by middle knowledge are contingent on God’s actions, meaning which truth is made real is entirely within God’s control.
An analogy to middle knowledge from mathematics is the “Order of Operations,” sometimes known as PEMDAS. The order of operations sets the proper sequence of tasks to be done in arithmetic: Parentheses, Exponents, Multiplication, Division, Addition, and Subtraction. None of these operations happen “before” or “after” another in a chronological sense, but do occur “before” or “after” in a logical sense. That is, when we calculate “(1\+2\) x 3 \= 9,” 1 and 2 are added “earlier,” with multiplication by 3 “later,” only in the logical sense of “earlier” and “later,” not in terms of the passage of time; there is no time involved. Order of Operations simply explains the logical order in which these concepts play out. In much the same way, the concept of middle knowledge implies a logical—not chronological—progression in God’s knowledge, as follows:
Natural knowledge: what “can” happen (independent of God’s control).
Middle knowledge: what “would” happen (independent of God’s control).
Creative command: God’s choice, action, intervention, etc.
Free knowledge: what “will” happen (completely under God’s control).
[Calvinism and Arminianism](Calvinism-vs-Arminianism.html) hold that the salvation of any particular person is determined, respectively, entirely by God’s direct action or entirely by human choice. In rough terms, this is seen as a debate over the interplay between God’s sovereignty and human free will. Molinism, in essence, upholds both real free will and God’s total sovereignty, through the use of middle knowledge. By this, it is claimed that God knows all things a free creature would do in all possible circumstances, and so infallibly enacts His will through those circumstances, rather than directly overriding that creature’s freedom.
Perhaps the strongest scriptural support for middle knowledge, and therefore for Molinism, comes from the use of counterfactuals in the Bible. Counterfactuals are “if\-then” statements about situations or choices. For example, Jesus explicitly says, twice, that under different circumstances certain people would have made a different free choice of whether or not to repent (Matthew 11:21–23; Luke 10:13\). Jesus also refers to different outcomes under different circumstances (Matthew 26:24; John 14:2\). God also references different choices leading to different results in the Old Testament (Exodus 9:15; Isaiah 48:17–19\). Further, the Bible clearly states that God allows us to make choices contrary to His preferences (Matthew 23:37; 2 Peter 3:9; Psalm 5:10; Isaiah 30:1\).
Middle knowledge is often hotly contended by supporters of Reformed theology. [Calvinist](calvinism.html) and [Reformed](reformed-theology.html) theologians object to the idea that God is not directly in control of the choices of free creatures. Molinists would counter that “directly controlled free choice” is a logical contradiction. The counter to this counter, frequently, is to appeal to the mystery of God’s nature and omnipotence, suggesting that there is some way in which God can both decide for us and we be free, without its being a contradiction.
[Open theism](open-theism.html) and [Arminian](arminianism.html) theologians who reject middle knowledge usually do so under the claim that these counterfactuals cannot be logically framed without either being circular or determined beforehand as dependent on God’s nature. This is known as the “grounding objection” and is the most common foundation for critiques of both middle knowledge and Molinism.
Despite what may be said in well\-meaning zeal, middle knowledge is well within the boundaries of orthodox Christianity. Whether or not a person believes in middle knowledge is more a question of philosophical tastes and denominational history than anything else. Truth or falsehood is important, of course, and how one views middle knowledge will affect his theological approach to other issues, particularly evangelism. Yet, in practice, Calvinism, Arminianism, and Molinism apply the same basic biblical, moral, spiritual, and cultural approaches. Middle knowledge is controversial to some but ought never to become a point of division between true believers.
|
Is there a God?
|
Answer
Is there a God? This is among the most fundamental questions asked by mankind. For the majority of human history, the overwhelming answer to this question has been, “yes,” though there have been strong disagreements about what kind of god, God, or gods exist. Certainly, here at GotQuestions.org, we would argue that God exists and that there is [plenty of evidence](Does-God-exist.html) for the fact.
The Bible says there is a God, that [nature demonstrates a Creator](natural-theology.html) (Psalm 19:1\), and that God reveals enough of Himself in the world for people to know of Him (Romans 1:20\). The early Christian church was founded on the use of eyewitnesses, evidence, and good reasoning (Luke 1:1–2; 2 Peter 1:16; Acts 17:11; 1 Corinthians 14:20\). Even Jesus Himself appealed to evidence when defending His claims (John 5:31–47\).
Beyond the Bible, we also have the support of archaeology, science, history, literature, and human experience that there is a God. Naturally, some point to evidence from those fields to attack the idea of God’s existence. And yet the balance of human experience, science, and philosophy seems to indicate that there is a God. Much of what we assume as part of daily life, including reason, morality, and human rights, are nonsensical unless God exists.
There are ample reasons to believe in God; the real question is whether or not a person is open to this evidence. Geniuses of history have been believers, and geniuses of history have been atheists. There is more to the question “is there a God?” than purely intellectual concerns. Ultimately, how a person attempts to answer the question “is there a God?” strongly reflects the answer he or she prefers. There are reasonable and unreasonable approaches, open\-minded and closed\-minded ways to look at the same information. If a person is committed to rejecting God, evidence and reason aren’t going to make much difference. Of course, this is also true for those who believe in God and wouldn’t disbelieve under any circumstances.
Historical, scientific, and personal evidence are meaningless to the person with a deliberate intent to disbelieve. Yet most people don’t want to seem unreasonable, so those who refuse to believe often insert other objections. This results in the common error of demanding direct, miraculous, personal revelation. This is the “if God would show me a miracle, I would believe” approach. Or the “if God would write John 3:16 on the moon” approach. Jesus warned against such unbelief in Matthew 12:39, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign!”
Imagine a person refusing to believe in Abraham Lincoln unless Lincoln posted a YouTube video calling them by name. Or a girl refusing to believe that someone loves her, despite letters, gifts, and conversations to that effect; what she demands is that the person burn her house down to prove his love. Those aren’t reasonable requests, and the person making them is really saying, “I don’t want to believe that.” Such people aren’t going believe the mundane evidence, so they’re just as liable to reject the miraculous evidence (see Luke 16:31\).
Those unsure about whether or not God exists are encouraged to seek Him (Matthew 7:7\), examine the evidence (Acts 17:11; 1 Thessalonians 5:21\), and be open\-minded. Christianity has nothing to fear from the truth (John 10:10\), and we have ample reasons to be confident in our answer to the question “is there a God?”
|
Did Mother Teresa go to heaven?
|
Answer
Mother Teresa, or Teresa of Calcutta (1910—1997\), was born Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu in Macedonia. Mother Teresa was a [Catholic nun](nuns-Catholic.html) and missionary and certainly stands out among the world’s most famous and beloved religious humanitarians of the 20th century. Laying aside the recent rumors of skeptics who say Mother Teresa’s beautiful charitable story was exaggerated and, at times, fabricated by the media and the [Catholic Church](Roman-Catholicism.html), and just assuming her to be every bit of the benevolent spirit she was known to be, we see a woman that set the bar very high in humanitarian efforts. She is known for developing international organizations of missionaries; establishing an orphanage; launching a nursing home, health clinics, and a family clinic; and giving herself to various other charities. Perhaps Mother Teresa is most celebrated for her choice to personally sacrifice common luxuries and comforts in order to care for the most destitute people in the most destitute places. Her famous humanitarian efforts and sacrificial living earned her various honors, awards, and distinctions worldwide—and, because of all of this and her devout religious beliefs, many people of various faiths believe she has undoubtedly entered into eternal rest in heaven.
If one could get to heaven by noble humanitarian acts, and if one could get to heaven by being devoutly religious, then it would be easy to conclude that Mother Teresa now dwells in heaven with the Lord. However, the Bible, contrary to Catholic teaching, is clear that good works and religiosity do not merit grace or earn salvation. God clarifies that we are only saved from eternal hell when we are born again through repentance and belief in Christ Jesus (see John 3:3; Matthew 4:17; Mark 1:14–15; Luke 13:3; 23:39–43; Romans 10:9–11; Acts 4:12\). Perhaps the most terrifying passage in the Bible regarding people who must have seemed righteous to the world yet were rejected by God is Matthew 7:21–24, “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’”
Regarding salvation and eternity in heaven, the will of God is simple and clear in His Word; we must have the righteousness of God imputed to us. This [imputation of righteousness](imputed-righteousness.html) does not come because of our good works but through the finished work of Christ. God will credit righteousness—for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. “He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification” (Romans 4:25\).
Is not Mother Teresa included in Romans 3:12, “All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one”? Isaiah 64:6 says that all of our righteous deeds are like “filthy rags.” Apart from Christ’s work in us, no one pleases God and no amount of “good” we do will ever grant us entrance to heaven, not even for Mother Teresa. It’s true that saving faith produces good works, but good works can never produce salvation (see Romans 3:27–28; Matthew 7:21–23\.)
Mother Teresa’s humanitarian efforts were respectable, commendable, and undoubtedly could have been and could still be used today by God in His perfect will. When it comes to entering heaven, however, her sincere works could never get her there. “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast” (Ephesians 2:8–9, NASB).
Mother Teresa once wrote in a letter to a confidant, “Where is my faith? Even deep down . . . there is nothing but emptiness and darkness. . . . If there be God—please forgive me.” And, eight years later, “Such deep longing for God . . . Repulsed, empty, no faith, no love, no zeal” (*Mother Teresa: Come Be My Light*, Doubleday, 2007\). According to the letters compiled by the Vatican, Mother Teresa’s doubts continued until her death. This perhaps gives the clearest and most sobering picture of where she really stood with the Lord, at least at those particular points in her life.
No one can say for sure whether or not Mother Teresa is in heaven. Her espousal of Catholic doctrine and its works\-based system of salvation is certainly troubling. We can only hope that at some point before her last breath Teresa received [saving faith](salvation-faith-alone.html) in Christ and no longer trusted in Catholicism or her admirable accomplishments as the way to heaven. “Jesus said to him, ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through me’” (John 14:6\).
|
What is a spiritual awakening?
|
Answer
A spiritual awakening is, generally speaking, a newfound awareness of a spiritual reality. A spiritual awakening can be gradual or rapid, and it can mean different things to different people. An internet search of the term *spiritual awakening* leads to sites where one can find the “five stages of spiritual awakening,” “ten (or eleven) signs of spiritual awakening,” and “eight signs you may be experiencing spiritual awakening.” These signs and stages may be physical—everything from gaining or losing appetite, weight, sleep, or energy to physical sensitivity to cell phones. Or the signs can be emotional—a broken heart, changes in relationships, or excessive episodes of grief, fear, rage, or depression. Many secular references to spiritual awakening are in the context of mysticism and [New Age thinking](new-age-movement.html) and should be approached with extreme caution. What the world calls a “spiritual awakening” could be nothing more than an open door to contact demonic spirits.
Biblically, a spiritual awakening is not a waking from spiritual sleep but a resurrection from spiritual death. All people are born in sin and are spiritually dead. Ephesians 2:1 states that, before we knew Christ, we were dead in transgressions and sins. Because of the sin of Adam, which we inherited, we are all separated from God, who is Life (Romans 5:12\). We cannot experience, understand, or relate to a holy and perfect God in our unregenerate state, nor can we enter His kingdom. Our need for spiritual awakening is profound: “The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ” (2 Corinthians 4:4\). We must roused; we must be “awakened” spiritually, or, as Jesus put it, we must be “[born again](born-again.html)” or “born of the Spirit” (John 3:3–8\).
The true spiritual awakening—the new birth that Jesus spoke of—occurs not by some physical, mental, or emotional process but by the power of the Holy Spirit. One who is awakened by the Holy Spirit is recreated into a completely new person (2 Corinthians 5:17; Titus 3:5; 1 Peter 1:3\). That new creation is characterized by a new heart that wants to please and obey God and live for Him (2 Corinthians 5:9\). He has been awakened to a new reality, one that centers on the Savior who redeemed him, the Spirit who awakened him, and the kingdom of God to which he now belongs. This is the true spiritual awakening.
John 9 records the story of the man born blind, whose spiritual awakening led to an acknowledgement of who Jesus is. The man’s receipt of spiritual sight was accompanied by physical sight. The man spoke of the dawning of new light in his life in simple terms: “One thing I do know. I was blind but now I see!” (John 9:25\). He knew the truth of Psalm 36:9, “With you is the fountain of life; in your light we see light.”
The apostle Paul’s spiritual awakening was sudden and dramatic, when Jesus met him on the [road to Damascus](Damascus-Road.html) and changed his life forever (Acts 9\). From then on, Paul’s desire was for all believers to increase in their spiritual awareness: “I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened” (Ephesians 1:18\). The psalmist’s prayer was also for spiritually open eyes: “Open my eyes that I may see wonderful things in your law” (Psalm 119:18\). Our spiritual awakening begins when Jesus sheds His light upon us: “The people living in darkness have seen a great light; on those living in the land of the shadow of death a light has dawned” (Matthew 4:16\).
The proper response to the [Light of the World](light-of-the-world.html) should be as natural as getting up in the morning: “Arise, shine, for your light has come, and the glory of the LORD rises upon you” (Isaiah 60:1\). When the Holy Spirit awakens us to the truth of Christ and indwells us by grace through faith, we can truly sing with [John Newton](John-Newton.html),
“Amazing grace—how sweet the sound—
That saved a wretch like me!
I once was lost but now am found,
Was blind but now I see.”
|
What does it mean to be overrighteous and overwise (Ecclesiastes 7:16)?
|
Answer
Ecclesiastes 7:16 says, “Do not be overrighteous, / neither be overwise— / why destroy yourself?” Given the Bible’s standard of righteousness and the premium it sets on wisdom, it seems strange that Solomon would say not to be overly righteous or too wise.
One key to understanding this warning against being overrighteous and overwise is found in Ecclesiastes 7:15: “In this meaningless life of mine I have seen both of these: / the righteous perishing in their righteousness, / and the wicked living long in their wickedness.” Solomon had witnessed both situations: those who had died doing righteous deeds and those who had died while sinning—and, what’s worse, sinning for a long time while seeming to get away with it. Solomon here is contemplating the fact that sometimes the good die young while evil men live long, iniquitous lives. This is a mystery to him and one of the things that add to the “[vanity](everything-is-meaningless.html)” of a life lived “under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:2–3\).
We must also keep Ecclesiastes 7:17 in mind, because Solomon continues the thought begun with the warning against being overrighteous and overwise: “Do not be overwicked, / and do not be a fool— / why die before your time?” And then verse 18 summarizes the lesson: “Whoever fears God will avoid all extremes.”
Putting it all together, Solomon is teaching moderation in the fear of God. Don’t be overly righteous, overly wise, overly wicked, or overly foolish. Chasing after extremes will not prolong one’s life or provide the satisfaction one desires.
Still, what does it mean to be overrighteous and overwise? Solomon obviously means something different from being *truly* righteous and *truly* wise. To be “overrighteous” is to strive for a self\-made righteousness based on an outward adherence to rules. “Overrighteousness” is an extreme religiosity, perhaps marked by [asceticism](Christian-asceticism-monasticism.html), excessive strictness, and zealous observance of the minutiae of man\-made religion. The Pharisees in Jesus’ day were “overrighteous” in this way; in their fanatical self\-righteousness, they would “[strain out a gnat but swallow a camel](strain-gnat-swallow-camel.html)” (Matthew 23:24\).
To be “overwise” is to think of oneself as self\-sufficient in matters of knowledge, especially when it concerns the things of God. “Overwisdom” will call God’s character and wisdom into question, speculate about His actions, and judge them according to one’s own “superior” wisdom. Job, righteous man that he was, was “overwise” when he began to question God, and God had to ask him, “Who is this that obscures my plans / with words without knowledge? / Brace yourself like a man; / I will question you, / and you shall answer me” (Job 38:2–3\). Job’s reply showed that he had regained true wisdom: “I am unworthy—how can I reply to you? / I put my hand over my mouth” (Job 40:4\).
Self\-righteousness has the potential to lead to much harm. Matthew 23:5 offers an excellent summary of the behavior of the “overrighteous”: “Everything they do is done for people to see.” This type of lifestyle is condemned by God as attempting to be righteous in the wrong way.
In Joel 2:12–13, the Lord calls His people to move beyond external religion and righteousness and to truly return to Him: “Return to me with all your heart, / with fasting and weeping and mourning. / Rend your heart / and not your garments.” The Lord was less concerned with their sacrifices and external adherence to the Law than He was the condition of their hearts.
Solomon knew better than most people the outcome of righteousness that did not arise from a heart that truly loves God. As king, he would have been familiar with the religious leaders of the temple he commissioned to have built in Jerusalem. Thousands of Levites served within its walls. Some certainly did so with a true heart of love for God, while others served with improper motives. Solomon’s words in Ecclesiastes 7:16 reflect the voice of one calling all of God’s people to live for Him with true righteousness and true wisdom. And the next verses (Ecclesiastes 7:17–18\) keep it all in balance.
Though these themes are only mentioned briefly in Ecclesiastes, Solomon and others speak at length regarding true righteousness and wisdom in the book of Proverbs. Its opening words say that proverbs are “for gaining wisdom and instruction; / for understanding words of insight; / for receiving instruction in prudent behavior, / doing what is right and just and fair” (Proverbs 1:2–3\). Proverbs 1:7 adds, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, / but fools despise wisdom and instruction.”
|
What does it mean that husbands are to love their wives?
|
Answer
Ephesians 5:25–33 contains vital instructions for husbands in their relationship with their wives. Verse 25 gives the basic command: “Husbands, love your wives.” In case anyone wonders, the Greek word for “love” here is a form of [*agape*](agape-love.html). Husbands are to love their wives with God’s kind of love—selfless, sacrificial, and unconditional. For a husband to love his wife, he must truly desire what is best for her, and he must work for that best, regardless of the cost to himself.
The standard by which husbands are to love their wives is stated outright, and it’s a high standard, indeed: “Just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” (Ephesians 5:25\). The love of Christ took Him to the cross; the love of a husband for his wife will involve a similar giving of himself, even if the end result is not as bloody. Such is the nature of true love that it is willing to sacrifice for the loved one. Such is the nature of marriage that God intends husbands to sacrifice for their wives.
The goal of husbands loving their wives is also addressed. Christ’s goal for the church ([His “bride”](bride-of-Christ.html)) is “to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless” (Ephesians 5:26–27\). Husbands cannot sanctify their wives exactly like Christ sanctifies the church, but they can set the spiritual goal of their wives being all that Christ wants them to be. Then husbands can, in love, work toward helping their wives achieve that goal of Christlikeness. Husbands who love their wives remember that they are “fellow heir\[s] of the grace of life” (1 Peter 3:7, NASB).
The Bible also gives husbands a practical way to gauge the authenticity of their love for their wives: are they caring for their wives’ needs in a way comparable to how they care for themselves? “Husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church” (Ephesians 5:28–29\). The [“one\-flesh” principle](one-flesh-marriage.html) comes into play here. Selfishness has no place in a marriage. And, ironically, as a husband meets the needs of his wife, he will find that he himself reaps the benefits. Note, too, that the standard for husbands’ love of their wives comes back to Christ’s love of the church.
The remainder of the passage in Ephesians 5 deals with the principle of [leave and cleave](leave-and-cleave.html) (verse 31\) and emphasizes once again the connection between the marriage relationship and the relationship of Christ and His church (verse 32\).
Too often, husbands look earlier in Ephesians 5 and latch on to verse 22: “Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord.” Husbands sometimes take it upon themselves to make sure their [wives submit](wives-submit.html) to their authority. However, *verse 22 was not written to husbands.* It is specifically addressing wives. Husbands are never told to enforce their wives’ submission. Rather, husbands are told to love their wives (verse 25\). Verses 25 through 32 are for husbands, and that is what they should focus on.
What is a husband’s responsibility? To love his wife. Without selfishness, without reservation, and without condition. Love her as Christ loved the church unto death (see John 13:1\). Love her, seek her best good, sacrifice for her benefit, give yourself to her wholeheartedly, and, when that’s all done, love her some more.
|
What was the Edict of Milan?
|
Answer
The Edict of Milan was an important step in securing the civil rights of Christians throughout the Roman Empire. For nearly three hundred years, Christianity was functionally illegal in the Roman Empire. Christians were subject to various levels of persecution, up to and including arrest or execution, depending on the whims of the ruling politicians. In AD 311, the Roman Emperor Galerius issued a decree that Christians be treated with “toleration.” In practice, this simply cancelled the official [persecution of Christianity](Christian-persecution.html) begun by [Diocletian](Diocletian.html) in 303\. Return of confiscated property and the restoration of rights were not, however, part of Galerius’s decree.
In 313, the Western emperor, [Constantine](Constantine-the-Great.html), met with his rival and counterpart, the Eastern emperor, Licinius, in the city of Milan, Italy. As part of their discussions, they issued a joint statement, later known as the Edict of Milan. This proclamation protected full rights for Christian citizens of the Empire, restoring their property, releasing them from prisons, and effectively banning government persecution of their faith. It also declared a general state of religious tolerance, allowing for the expression of virtually any spiritual belief.
Although the Edict of Milan was a landmark in Christian history, it was essentially a footnote to the history of the man primarily responsible for it: Constantine. Though the edict declared tolerance for all faiths, Constantine’s public endorsement of Christianity expanded over his reign. Christianity, a growing subculture within the Roman Empire when the Edict of Milan was issued, became the de facto religion of the Roman Empire by the time of Constantine’s death. Persecutions had been cancelled in the past, but the Edict of Milan in 313 went further by directly protecting the religious rights of Romans. That and the support of a strongly pro\-Christian leader made an official end to the Roman oppression of Christians.
|
How is sorrow better than laughter (Ecclesiastes 7:3)?
|
Answer
Ecclesiastes 7:3 says, “Sorrow is better than laughter, / for by sadness of face the heart is made glad” (ESV). There are many puzzling statements in the [book of Ecclesiastes](Book-of-Ecclesiastes.html), and this is one of them. What does it mean that “sorrow is better than laughter”? Most people would much rather laugh than cry.
The second half of the verse states why sorrow is better than laughter: “By sadness of face the heart is made glad.” Sorrow can have a positive spiritual impact on the heart and soul of man. Through sorrow we can consider the seriousness of life, evaluate our situation, and make changes to improve our lives.
Sorrow is better than laughter in that it provides a different perspective. Laughter is a wonderful tool God has designed to help us express delight and enjoy life. However, life is not all delight and joy. In laughter we rarely consider the difficult areas of our lives and how to improve. It is during difficult times of struggle—sorrowful times—that we are often forced to make adjustments. Further, we tend to look more seriously to God in times of need, relying on His strength in our weakness.
The context of Ecclesiastes 7:3 provides further insight: “It is better to go to a house of mourning / than to go to a house of feasting, / for death is the destiny of everyone; / the living should take this to heart” (Ecclesiastes 7:2\). Few people would claim a funeral is better than a party, yet Solomon claims this is the case. Why? He explains that the “house of mourning” causes the living to consider their ways. More people come to faith in Christ at funerals than at bacchanals.
In the same way, sorrow is better than laughter because it causes us to reflect on our lives and make personal improvements. Those who constantly seek comedy or fun to escape from problems may be working to avoid a serious look at areas in life that need to be addressed. Laughing through life can be a means to avoid appropriate change.
However, those who endure times of sorrow and contemplate ways to change can truly find sorrow is better than laughter. The actual sorrow is not enjoyable, but it can lead to a new way of life or a new perspective that improves life more than laughter ever could.
Sorrow can point an open learner toward greater wisdom. Ecclesiastes 7:19 says, “Wisdom makes one wise person more powerful / than ten rulers in a city.” While laughter can offer many positives, it does not have the same impact as sorrow to cause a person to consider life and grow in wisdom. Sorrow can therefore be better than laughter. The eternal benefits are greater. Sorrow, though painful, leads to reflective thinking, wisdom, and changed actions that improve one’s life and the lives of others.
|
What are unclean spirits?
|
Answer
An unclean spirit is simply a New Testament synonym, a more descriptive Jewish term, for a [demon](demons-Bible.html). The terms *unclean spirit* and *demon* seem to be interchangeable in Scripture. There is no clear difference in their definitions. Some translations refer to them as “impure spirits.”
Throughout the New Testament, the term *unclean spirits* (*akathartos* in the Greek language) is mentioned over twenty times. Throughout those passages we read that unclean spirits can possess people and cause them sickness and harm (Matthew 10:1; 12:43; Mark 1:26; Luke 4:36; 6:18; Acts 5:16; 8:7\), that they are searching for someone to [possess](demon-possession.html) if they are not currently possessing someone (Matthew 12:43\), that some are more unclean or evil than others (Luke 11:26\), that unclean spirits can interact with one another (Mark 5:1–20; Matthew 12:45\), and that unclean spirits are under God’s authority and must submit to Him (Mark 1:27; 3:11; 5:8, 13\).
An unclean spirit or demon is “unclean” in that it is wicked. Evil spirits are not only wicked themselves, but they delight in wickedness and promote wickedness in humans. They are spiritually polluted and impure, and they seek to contaminate all of God’s creation with their filth. Their foul, putrid nature is in direct contrast to the purity and incorruption of the Holy Spirit’s nature. When a person is defiled by an unclean spirit, he takes pleasure in corrupt thoughts and actions; when a person is filled with the Holy Spirit, his thoughts and actions are heavenly.
Some people hold the idea that unclean spirits or demons are deceased humans who may or may not have been evil while alive. However, we know the unclean spirits mentioned in the Bible are not referring to the dead, for several reasons. One, humans are never called “spirits” when the word *spirit* is used as a stand\-alone term, without a possessive. In Scripture, men are said to have a spirit/soul (saying “his spirit” in Proverbs 25:28 and 1 Corinthians 5:5\), but men are not called “spirits.” Another reason is that, once a person dies, he immediately goes either to eternal life with the Lord or to eternal darkness in hell (Hebrews 9:27; 2 Corinthians 5:6–8; Matthew 25:46\). Human spirits, therefore, do not and cannot wander on earth in their spirit bodies. Any unclean spirit that wanders around, taking up residence in places or people or interacting with people in any way, is a [fallen angel](fallen-angels.html)—a demon (Matthew 12:44\). All unclean spirits mentioned in Scripture are demons, and all demons are definitely unclean, unholy, impure, evil spirits doomed to an eternity in hell (Matthew 25:41\).
|
What is Dianetics?
|
Answer
*Dianetics* is the generic term for the beliefs underlying [Scientology](scientology-Christian-cult.html). Dianetics is the claim that each person’s painful past experiences create a lasting impression, termed an “engram,” on that person’s “reactive” (subconscious) mind. According to Dianetics, these engrams are the root cause of various diseases, conditions, neuroses, and injuries. According to Scientology, the list of maladies caused by engrams is extensive, including deficient vision, sexual problems, allergies, joint pain, headaches, and so forth. Engrams are also blamed for psychological disorders from depression to violence. Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard went so far as to claim that, if dianetic therapy was applied worldwide, there no longer would be any crime, war, or insanity.
Through a process referred to as “auditing,” Dianetics principles are applied in an effort to rid the person’s soul—called a “thetan”—of these engrams, ultimately resulting in a person with no reactive, or subconscious, mind at all. This state is called “Clear.” During the auditing process, a trained auditor sits across from the subject and asks him to relive a series of past events. In theory, these events are from any part of the subject’s existence, including infancy, pre\-birth, or even a [former life](past-lives-reincarnation.html). All “memories” are treated as legitimate, and the subject is encouraged to discuss them until he feels at ease with the event. This supposedly removes the engram, and it can no longer produce harmful effects. This process somewhat resembles hypnosis and involves the use of an E\-meter, or electro\-psychometer, a device that works somewhat like a lie detector.
Hubbard began teaching Dianetics principles in the 1950s. Almost immediately, his claims were derided by experts in medicine and psychiatry. Since its inception, Dianetics has been classified as a pseudoscience, in the same category as phrenology, homeopathy, and astrology. There are no scientific studies supporting its effectiveness nor any scientific reasons to think that it would work as advertised. Dianetics’ most proven capability is in generating revenue: auditing sessions are expensive, and the wealthy are profoundly over\-represented in Scientology.
Biblically, the claims of Dianetics are completely false. There are no prior lives from which to remember pain and trauma (see Hebrews 9:27\). A person’s primary moral problem is not the memory of pain but his own in\-born sin (Romans 3:23; 5:12\). Dianetics claims that a person can, through force of will, make himself a better and more moral person. The Bible teaches that true change only happens when a person is reformed by Christ (1 Corinthians 6:10–11\). As a mishmash of pseudoscience, Eastern spirituality, and New Age concepts, Dianetics is not only factually false but incompatible with the worldview of the Bible (Colossians 2:8\).
|
Why do we say, ʺGod bless you,ʺ when someone sneezes?
|
Answer
The saying *God bless you* in response to a sneeze is of ancient origin, and there are a variety of stories about where it first came from. The practice of saying, “God bless you,” when someone sneezes does not come from the Bible, nor is there any mention of the practice in the Bible. However, the saying *God bless you* was used both by Hebrews (Numbers 6:24\) and the early Christians as a [benediction](benediction-Bible.html).
The practice of blessing someone after a sneeze is probably as old as the first century. The origin of the practice is most likely rooted in [superstition](superstitions.html): the belief that a sneeze is the body trying to rid itself of evil spirits, the thought that the heart stops beating when a person sneezes, or the fear that a sneeze somehow opens the body to evil spirits. In these cases, saying, “God bless you,” was a kind of protection or good luck charm that shielded the sneezer from being invaded by spirits or affected by evil. Other cultures have a similar response to sneezes, believing that a sneeze could signal ill health: they might say, “*Salud*” (Spanish for “health”) or “*Gesundheit*” (German for “health”) or “*Sláinte*” (Irish Gaelic for “good health”) or “*Jeebo*” (Bengali for “stay alive”).
During a plague that occurred in Italy in AD 590, sneezing was, or was thought to be, a sign that someone was getting sick with the plague. There is a legend/tradition that Pope Gregory I commanded that, any time a sneeze was heard, the sneezer was to be blessed by saying, “God bless you,” (and making the sign of the cross over his mouth) as protection against the plague. Again, there is no biblical validity to such superstition. At the same time, there is no biblical reason to believe it is sinful to bless someone after a sneeze—in fact, it might just be a good time to extend a kind word and say, “God bless you.”
|
Who is the prince of Persia in Daniel 10?
|
Answer
The prince of Persia is only mentioned in Daniel 10, a highly apocalyptic (and therefore at least partially symbolic) section of the [book of Daniel](Book-of-Daniel.html). Most likely, the prince of Persia is a reference to an evil spiritual entity that wielded authority over the ancient kingdom of Persia.
The prophet Daniel had received a troubling vision concerning a great war (Daniel 10:1\). He went into a three\-week period of mourning, fasting, and prayer. In response to Daniel’s prayer, God sent a heavenly messenger to explain the vision. However, the messenger was delayed for those same three weeks, as he explains to Daniel: “But the prince of the Persian kingdom resisted me twenty\-one days. Then Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, because I was detained there with the king of Persia” (Daniel 10:13\). Later, the angel speaking to Daniel predicts further fighting: “Soon I will return to fight against the prince of Persia, and when I go, the prince of Greece will come; but first I will tell you what is written in the Book of Truth. (No one supports me against them except Michael, your prince)” (verses 20–21\).
Taking this passage at face value, it seems that the prince of Persia is a fallen angel who in some sense had authority or influence over the physical [kingdom of Persia](Medo-Persian-empire.html). In Daniel 10, the prophet is praying about the future of his people and their exile in Persia. A heavenly angel is dispatched with the answer, but a demonic “prince of Persia” obstructs the messenger. This action would make sense, as the divine answer involves the overthrow of the Persian Empire. The angelic messenger finally gets some help from the [archangel Michael](Michael-the-archangel.html), who is apparently the prince (or one of the princes) of Israel in the angelic realm (Daniel 10:13, 21\).
Then the angelic messenger says he will face even more spiritual warfare, returning to fight against the prince of Persia. After that, he will face another spiritual enemy, the prince of Greece (Daniel 10:20\). We know from history (and as was prophesied in Daniel) that [Greece](Greek-empire.html) would be the next world power after Persia, and that Greece would dominate Israel for a time. In this passage, three spiritual entities are mentioned in relation to three earthly nations: the prince of Persia, the prince of Greece, and the prince of Israel (Michael). As the New Testament reminds us, “Our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms” (Ephesians 6:12\). The battle is real.
It seems that, as events play out on earth, there is corresponding activity in the spiritual realm. Whether or not this spiritual prince of Persia’s fate was tied to that of the physical Persian Empire is unknown. We do know that, if his job was to keep the Persian Empire in a place of dominance over the nation of Israel, he failed. It is interesting to note that Iran is modern Persia, and the leaders of Iran still want to dominate or obliterate the nation of Israel. As a Shiite Muslim nation, Iran persecutes Christian believers as well—so perhaps the spiritual prince of Persia is still active today. But, as with all of Satan’s minions, his time is limited, and he can only go as far as God will allow in accomplishing His perfect will.
|
Who was Jethro in the Bible?
|
Answer
Jethro was the father\-in\-law of Moses and father of [Zipporah](Zipporah-in-the-Bible.html). Jethro is first mentioned in the Bible in Exodus 2:16 where he is described as “a priest of Midian.” He is also referred to as Reuel (verse 18\), which could indicate the equivalent of a last name. The name *Reuel* means “friend of God,” so the fact that the Bible calls him first by this name may mean that he was a priest of the Most High God, rather than a pagan deity as some have suggested. Many people in the Bible were called by [two names](more-than-one-name.html) such as Jacob (*Israel*, Genesis 35:10\), Simon (*Peter*, Luke 6:14\), Matthew (*Levi*, Mark 2:14; Matthew 9:9\), and Paul (*Saul*, Acts 13:9\). Sometimes the name change was due to an encounter with God. Other times it may have simply been a second name, in the way that a man named Ben Jones may be called both “Ben” and “Jones.”
Exodus 2 details the account of Moses’ first encounter with Jethro. When Moses was on the run from Pharaoh, after having killed an Egyptian, he found himself in Midian by a well. Jethro’s seven daughters were shepherdesses who came to the well to water their sheep. However, some men chased the women away, and Moses came to their defense. In gratitude for Moses’ care of his daughters, Jethro invited him for dinner.
Over the course of time, Jethro gave his daughter Zipporah to Moses for a wife, and they had two sons (Exodus 2:21; 4:20\). Moses stayed with the Midianites for forty years until God called to him from the [burning bush](burning-bush.html) (Exodus 3\). Jethro, Moses’ father\-in\-law, gave him his blessing to return to his people in obedience to God (Exodus 4:18\).
Jethro is highlighted again in Exodus chapter 18\. Moses had sent Zipporah and their sons back to Midian, rather than take them to Egypt, perhaps due to the dangers he would face in leading an entire nation out of slavery. Moses clearly trusted Jethro to take good care of his family and use wisdom in knowing when to reunite them. In Exodus 18, Jethro brings Zipporah and the children to Moses at Sinai. The relationship between Moses and Jethro was always cordial (verses 7–8\), and Jethro offers some fatherly advice when he sees the overwhelming responsibility facing his son\-in\-law (verses 13–27\). Moses takes Jethro’s advice on how to delegate authority: “Moses listened to his father\-in\-law and did everything he said” (verse 24\). Moses then sends Jethro back to Midian with his blessing (verse 27\).
From all we can tell in the Bible, Jethro was a godly man of integrity who played a small part in God’s great story of deliverance for the Israelites. He is a good role model for in\-laws. He offered wise counsel, stepped in to help when needed, and then got out of the way.
|
What is sensationalism?
|
Answer
Sensationalism is the use of the astonishing, the lurid, or the shocking in order to gin up interest or evoke a strong reaction. A sensationalist is someone who seeks to thrill, startle, or entertain through exaggerated language or showy style. Check\-out stand tabloids rely heavily on the sensationalism of their headlines and cover photos to sell copies of their publications. Unfortunately, religious sensationalism also exists. Sensationalism in religious circles is the use of melodramatic, over\-the\-top theatrical methods in a religious service or overblown, incredible claims in religious literature. A religious sensationalist can be either one who manipulates others through such methods or a wide\-eyed participant mesmerized by the thrill of it all.
When Jesus Christ was on the earth, He performed amazing miracles that dumbfounded people. One example is Jesus’ healing of a paralytic. The Gospel accounts relate that the people were “amazed” (Mark 2:12\), “filled with fear” (Luke 5:26\), and “moved to glorify God” (Matthew 9:8\). It is no surprise that witnesses to the miracle were amazed at the astounding healing. They had never before seen such power. Jesus’ many sensational miracles had similar effects on their observers.
Yet Jesus was no sensationalist. He did not perform miracles in order to please euphoric crowds or stir up His own renown. In fact, He often went out to solitary places to pray, sometimes leaving many sick people behind (see Mark 1:35–38\). He was not interested in thrilling people but in saving them. His concern was doing the will of God, not drawing gasps of amazement from people. Jesus’ manner of dealing with those who sought after sensationalism was to rebuke them: “As the crowds increased, Jesus said, ‘This is a wicked generation. It asks for a sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah’” (Luke 11:29\).
Sensationalism is not too concerned with truth. The sensationalists of Jesus’ day wanted to see the miracles, but most of them were not moved to have faith in God. Though temporarily filled with awe at God’s mighty works, they were not convinced or converted. In John 6, great crowds followed Jesus in response to His many miracles. Even after He [fed thousands](feeding-the-5000.html) with a few fish and barley loaves, they still asked for another miraculous sign (verse 30\). But when He began teaching the hard truths of the gospel, they deserted Him: “From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him” (John 6:66\).
That is the nature of sensationalism. It must keep producing more spectacular events and inducing more emotional responses to keep the sensationalists interested. But true faith is not produced through sight (2 Corinthians 5:7\). Miracles and emotional experiences do not create faith. God must call a person, opening his mind to truth (John 6:44\). Too often, religious leaders believe that sensationalism will convert sinners, and they design their services to impress people and increase followers by sensational messages and methods, rather than relying on the Holy Spirit to give new life.
|
What is the meaning of mene mene tekel upharsin?
|
Answer
The phrase *mene mene tekel upharsin* appears in Daniel 5, along with its translation. Some translations spell *upharsin* as *parsin*. The phrase appeared on a wall in the palace of [Belshazzar](Belshazzar.html), the acting king of Babylon. He is referred to as the “son of Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 5:18, 22\), although he was not Nebuchadnezzar’s immediate successor (Jeremiah 52:31\). The biblical account of the mysterious and frightening appearance of the phrase *mene mene tekel upharsin* has given rise to the modern expression “the handwriting on the wall,” meaning “a portent or warning of inevitable misfortune.”
Daniel 5 tells the story of the Babylonian ruler Belshazzar, a rich and debauched king, who gave a banquet to his court. During the drunken party, the sacred vessels from the Jewish temple, stolen by Nebuchadnezzar in 586 BC, were used in a blasphemous manner. At the height of the festivities, a man’s hand was seen writing on the wall the mysterious words “*mene mene tekel upharsin*” (verse 25\). The king was terrified. But no one could understand what the words meant. All attempts at interpretation by Belshazzar’s wise men failed until the [prophet Daniel](life-Daniel.html) was called in.
Daniel was one of the captives from Judah brought to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar. Daniel was given wisdom from God to read and translate the words, which meant “numbered, numbered, weighed, divided.” Daniel told the king, “Here is what these words mean: *Mene*: God has numbered the days of your reign and brought it to an end. *Tekel*: You have been weighed on the scales and found wanting. *Peres*: Your kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians” (Daniel 5:26–28\). *Peres* is the singular form of *upharsin*. The Bible never identifies what language the words were in.
The handwriting on the wall proved true. In fact, it proved fatal for the dissolute Belshazzar. Just as Daniel had said, the [kingdom of Babylon](Babylonian-empire.html) was divided between the [Medes and Persians](Medo-Persian-empire.html), and it happened that very night. Belshazzar was slain, and his kingdom passed to Darius the Mede (Daniel 5:30–31\).
The appearance of *mene mene tekel upharsin* on the king’s wall is a reminder that whatever we sow, that we will also reap (Galatians 6:7–8\). God is the Judge; He justly weighs all matters and metes out retribution in His time (Psalm 94:2\). Sometimes God speaks very clearly into our lives, convicting us of sin and warning us of pending judgment (see John 16:8\). It does not pay to ignore the “handwriting on the wall.”
|
What does the Bible say about caregiving?
|
Answer
In the world of professional health care, caregiving involves the detection, deterrence, or treatment of any type of illness by a doctor, nurse, or other health care worker. However, a caregiver can also be anyone who provides assistance and support to a family member or friend who has physical, psychological, or developmental needs. Caregiving is practiced by parents who rear their young children, friends who care for a disabled neighbor, and adult children who bring their elderly parents to live with them. As such, caregiving is absolutely biblical. Though the Bible never uses the word *caregiving* to describe selfless acts of love and mercy toward family members and friends, there is no doubt the Bible supports the giving of care.
[Mercy](gift-of-mercy.html), compassion, and selfless love are all behaviors that are strongly praised in the Bible. In fact, during Jesus’ ministry on earth, He told the religious leaders of the day, “I desire mercy, not sacrifice” (Matthew 9:13; 12:7; cf. Hosea 6:6\). He was pointing out that the Pharisees were concerned more with following the letter of the Law than they were with living out its spirit and meaning. Mercy is a prime factor in caregiving—seeing the need of another and providing for that need.
God’s command to honor one’s parents includes the obligation to care for their needs when the time comes. Jesus rebuked the Pharisees, who had a system to bypass this obligation and thereby allow adult children to avoid caregiving: “Why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’ But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’ they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. You hypocrites!” (Matthew 15:3–7\). The Pharisees were lining their own pockets with money that should have gone to providing care to the elderly, and Jesus’ words against this practice were harsh.
[Compassion](Bible-compassion.html) is a characteristic of God. Like a father to his children, God shows compassion to those who fear Him (Psalm 103:13\). Over and over again in the Bible, God shows compassion on the fatherless, the widow, and the sojourner—people who were helpless and friendless and would have needed to depend on the caregivers of their day—and commands that they be provided for and protected (Exodus 22:22; Deuteronomy 10:18; 14:29; 24:17; 24:19; 24:20; Psalm 82:3; 10:18; Job 29:12\). God associates ignoring the needs of the helpless with extreme wickedness and promises judgment on those who refuse to help (Psalm 94:6; Jeremiah 5:28; Ezekiel 22:7; Malachi 3:5\). God calls Himself the “father of the fatherless and protector of widows” (Psalm 68:5; cf. 146:9\).
Caregiving requires the ability to [love selflessly](agape-love.html), not expecting anything in return. Jesus taught that, when the rich give banquets, they should not give to their friends and rich neighbors who can pay them back but instead to the needy and poor who cannot repay (Luke 14:12\). He also said, “Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13\). Caregiving requires this kind of love. Mercy, compassion, and selfless love are not easy—in fact, humanly speaking, they are impossible to do with a completely righteous attitude (Romans 3:10–11\). But God is faithful to provide strength, joy, and cheer if we ask Him (Matthew 7:8; Luke 11:9–12; Galatians 5:22; 2 Corinthians 9:7\). With His strength caregiving (and any other incredible feat of love) is more than possible (Mark 9:23; 10:27\).
|
What is the Pistis Sophia?
|
Answer
The Pistis Sophia is a [Gnostic](Christian-gnosticism.html) document that purports to contain additional teachings of Jesus Christ given after His resurrection. Pistis Sophia, which means “Faith Wisdom,” is not its true title and is found no place in the document itself. The Pistis Sophia was written long after the apostles had died, anywhere from the late second to the fourth century AD. Originally written in Greek, the oldest surviving copy of the Pistis Sophia is in Coptic.
The Pistis Sophia is divided into three sections, with a fourth, unrelated text usually included at the end. The document narrates the events that supposedly took place after Jesus’ resurrection: Jesus spends eleven years (or perhaps eleven months) teaching His disciples. Then, surrounded by flashes of lightning and blinding light, He ascends to a great height but then descends again thirty hours later, wrapped in light, to tell the disciples of His experiences. Jesus says that He ascended through various planes or levels of consciousness where He met several entities; just below the thirteenth level, Jesus met a woman in distress named Pistis Sophia who was enamored with the light of Christ and achieved a salvation of sorts.
The Pistis Sophia and the [Gnostic gospels](Gnostic-gospels.html) are writings by early “Christian” Gnostics, who espoused heretical beliefs couched in Christian language. During the first few centuries AD, Gnosticism became an influential movement, teaching that anything physical is inherently evil and anything spiritual is inherently good. The orthodox Christians during that time held to the books we now have in the Bible and to what is today considered orthodox theology. The Gnostics held a distinctly different view of the Bible, of Christ, of salvation, and of virtually every other major Christian doctrine. However, they did not have any apostolic writings to give legitimacy to their beliefs. So they wrote their own supporting documents.
That is why and how the Pistis Sophia and the Gnostic gospels were created. The Gnostics fraudulently attached the names of famous Christians to their writings, naming their books things like the [Gospel of Thomas](gospel-of-Thomas.html), the Gospel of Philip, the Gospel of Mary, etc. The Pistis Sophia is not a gospel narrative; rather, it is a mystic presentation of Gnostic teachings. It is usually interpreted as an allegory of the soul’s journey to increasingly higher cosmic planes as it apprehends more and more esoteric truth.
The Pistis Sophia is not a source of truth. The early church fathers were nearly unanimous in recognizing the Gnostic texts as promoting false teachings about virtually every key Christian doctrine. There are countless contradictions between the Pistis Sophia and other [Gnostic texts](gnostic-definition.html) and the true Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Gnostic writings can be a resource for the study of early Christian heresies, but their doctrine should be rejected outright. They do not represent genuine Christian faith.
|
Is abortion murder?
|
Answer
The subject of [abortion](abortion-Bible.html) is perhaps one of the most highly charged issues of our day. Finding an honest answer to the question “is abortion murder?” takes courage for those who have performed abortions or [have had abortions](abortion-healing-recovery.html) themselves. The Bible is clear about the fact that murder is wrong (Exodus 20:13\). However, in some cases, the Bible does not forbid killing. Soldiers representing their country were expected to kill soldiers on the opposing side (Joshua 11:20\). That is not murder. Animals were killed for food and for sacrifice (Exodus 24:5; Genesis 9:3–4\). That is not murder either.
Murder is defined as “the unlawful, premeditated killing of one human being by another.” Murder is unlawful killing—that is, killing that is done by the judgment of one human being against another, for personal (rather than national) reasons. The Bible condemns murder repeatedly as a characteristic of a wicked society (Deuteronomy 5:17; Isaiah 1:21; Hosea 4:2; Matthew 5:21\). Determining whether or not abortion is murder involves two considerations: first, whether or not a fetus in utero is actually a human being, and, second, if a fetus is a child, whether or not abortion can be rightly called murder since it is legal in most countries. If murder is unlawful killing, it would follow that a lawful killing would not be murder.
One reason murder is outlawed in many places is that it is unethical for one person to unilaterally decide the fate of another. Under the Old Testament Law, a murderer was not put to death unless there were multiple witnesses: “No person shall be put to death on the testimony of one witness” (Numbers 35:30\). In war, soldiers do not decide to kill for their own purposes; rather, they kill in the national interest—if they fight for an honorable nation, the national interest will be to protect innocent civilians from some threat. Abortion is different. Abortion is killing based on a mother’s unilateral judgment and choice. Such unprovoked killing of the defenseless is unethical and should define abortion as murder in any society—unless the fetus is not human. If the fetus is just a mass of impersonal tissue or something less than human, ending its life would not face the same ethical challenge and would not be considered murder.
So, is a fetus a human? Or is it something else? Biologically speaking, [human life begins at conception](life-begin-conception.html). When the mother’s egg and the father’s sperm come together, they combine and create a new string of DNA that is personalized and totally unique. DNA is coded information, the blueprint for the new human’s growth and development. No more genetic material needs to be added; the zygote in the womb is as human as the mother in whose womb it dwells. The difference between a fetus and any one of us is one of age, location, and level of dependence. When a mother aborts the process of fetal development, she is destroying a unique life.
The Bible clearly points to conception as the beginning of human life. Samson said, “I have been a Nazirite to God from my mother’s womb” (Judges 16:17\). He refers to his unborn self as having already been what God planned him to be—a Nazirite. David says, “You formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb” (Psalm 139:13\). Again, we see David referring to himself as a person in the womb. Then, he says, “Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them” (Psalm 139:16\). David is saying that God had all of his days planned out for him while he was still in the womb. Again, this evidence points to personhood beginning at conception, rather than at the moment of birth. We see God had a similar plan for the life of the pre\-born Jeremiah: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations” (Jeremiah 1:5\).
The Bible considers a fetus to be an unborn child, a planned human being that God is forming from the moment of conception. This being the case, it doesn’t really matter what human jurisprudence says or how socially or politically acceptable abortion is. God’s law takes precedence. A mother who decides to abort her child is unilaterally making a decision to end another person’s life—and that is and always has been the definition of murder.
|
Who are the Three Nephites in Mormonism?
|
Answer
In [Mormonism](Mormons.html), the Three Nephites are three wise and kindly men who, from ancient times to today, have helped spread Mormon theology. [Latter\-day Saints](Latter-Day-Saints.html), or Mormons, believe that, after the death and resurrection of Jesus, He came to the New World to spread the gospel message to the indigenous peoples. Mormons believe Jesus came to the New World to gather the “other sheep” into His fold (John 10:16\). While in the New World, Jesus selected three men from the Nephite people to become His disciples. Mormons also teach that Jesus was married, had children, and after His resurrection received the fullness of Godhood—none of which agree with the Bible’s record of Him.
According to the Book of Mormon, the Nephites were an ancient people in the Americas descended from the Jewish prophet Nephi, son of Lehi. The Nephites separated from the Lamanites (2 Nephi 5:5–17\) and were saved because of the prayers of the righteous (Alma 62:40\). According to 3 Nephi 11:1—28:12, Jesus taught and ministered among the Nephites. After they were converted, they enjoyed many blessings, but then they became proud and vain (4 Nephi 1:43\). Violence and bloodshed ensued (Mormon 2:8\), and they became so wicked that Mormon, a prophet, refused to lead them (Mormon 3:9–11\). Most of the Nephites were put to death (Mormon 6:7–15\). The moral of the story is that the Nephites were destroyed because of their wickedness and pride (D\&C 3:18, 39\). It is important to note that the Bible never mentions Nephites, Lamanites, or the prophet Mormon, and it never suggests that ancient Hebrews settled in the New World.
As for the Three Nephite disciples of Jesus, they desired immortality so that they could “bring the souls of men unto Jesus, while the world shall stand,” i.e., till the second coming of Jesus Christ. According to the Book of Mormon, they were caught up into heaven, although Mormon was told that there would be another change made at the second coming of Christ to give them immortality. The Three Nephites are understood to be “translated beings,” persons who do not experience pain or death until their resurrection to immortality. Mormons consider Enoch, Moses, Elijah, and the apostle John to also be “translated beings.” They refer to John 21:20–22 as “evidence” that John did not die and that he is still roaming the earth, waiting for Jesus to return (a notion John himself dismissed in John 21:23\).
According to Mormonism, the Three Nephites “did minister unto all the people, uniting as many to the church as would believe in their preaching; baptizing them, and as many as were baptized did receive the Holy Ghost.” The Nephites’ purpose was to minister to all the nations on the American continents (3 Nephi 28:27–29\). They also suffered severe persecution from those who did not believe. The Three Nephites are still operating in the world today: they can appear and disappear at will, perform miracles, and increase the ranks of the Mormon faithful.
Mormon, who supposedly lived about four hundred years after the Three Nephites were blessed by Jesus, wrote, “I have seen them, and they have ministered unto me.” Mormon intended to write the names of the Three Nephites (possibly Enoch, Elijah, and John), but God forbade him to do so.
None of the history recorded in the Book of Mormon can be substantiated from the Bible or from archaeology. There is absolutely no evidence, outside the [Book of Mormon](book-of-Mormon.html) itself, that Nephites ever existed, that they were Hebrews, or that they came from Jerusalem to South America circa 600 BC (1 Nephi 18:23–25\). Even worse than the history is the theology of Mormonism, which directly contradicts the Bible in several areas. Contrary to what Mormonism teaches, we will never be gods; there is only [one gospel message](gospel-message.html), once delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3\); we are not saved by baptism or any other good work; and there is no such thing as Nephites.
(Editor’s note: many of the references in our articles on Mormonism are Mormon publications, such as Mormon Doctrine, Articles of Faith, Doctrines of Salvation, History of the Church, Doctrine and Covenants, and so forth. Others are from the Book of Mormon itself, e.g., books such as 1 Nephi, 2 Nephi, and Alma.)
|
What is Hermeticism?
|
Answer
Hermeticism is an esoteric religion based on the supposed writings of Hermes Trismegistus, whose name means “Hermes, Thrice Great” in Greek. Most likely, Hermes Trismegistus was not a historical person. The personage is thought to be an amalgamation of the Greek god Hermes and the Egyptian god Thoth. Several facts point to these two gods being synonymous or in some manner combined and having similar roles in the Greek and Egyptian pantheons. Hermes Trismegistus was a deity of writing, magic, [astrology](astrology-Bible.html), and [alchemy](Bible-alchemy.html). The Bible does not mention Hermeticism, but it does condemn the worship of gods other than the one true God (Deuteronomy 4:15–24; 1 Corinthians 10:1\).
Hermeticism claims to be an ancient philosophy that predates all religions and from which all religions stem. Hermes Thrice\-Great is believed to be an ancient deity associated with the earliest dynasties of Egypt. On the Temple of Esna, to Thoth, there is an inscription that says, “Thoth, the great, the great, the great,” which may be the first instance of the thrice\-great name. Some Jewish traditions teach that Abraham was taught by Hermes, and some Christian writers in the past believed that Hermes Trismegistus was a pagan prophet who foretold the coming of Christianity. The writings attributed to him, called the *Hermetica* or *Hermetic Corpus* are pseudepigraphal—that is, they were written by someone other than the purported author. This collection of wisdom texts about the divine, the cosmos, the mind, nature, alchemy, and astrology is dated to around the first century AD. Followers of Hermeticism in ancient times were alchemists and magicians or sorcerers.
Today, students of Hermeticism and the [occult](occult.html) believe that there is a secret library containing the “forty\-two essential texts” of Hermes Trismegistus that are a kind of New Age holy grail of wisdom. Other New Age philosophers have claimed to have been taught by Hermes Trismegistus while in a trance state. Mystic Edgar Cayce claimed Hermes Trismegistus was an engineer from the lost city of Atlantis who helped construct the pyramids of Egypt. Other spiritualists have called him a new incarnation of Thoth.
A prime characteristic of Hermeticism appears to be the search for secret wisdom or knowledge. For this reason, and because Hermeticism and [Gnosticism](Christian-gnosticism.html) rose to popularity during the same era, the two systems are sometimes confused with each other. There is undeniably something tantalizing about the idea that somewhere out there is a hidden vault or secret book that explains all of life’s mysteries and opens doors to another realm of wisdom. However, according to the Bible, wisdom is not set aside for a select few who have the key to a secret door; rather, wisdom is free to all (Proverbs 8\). God’s wisdom is deep and unsearchable (Romans 11:33\), but He is generous to give it to those who seek it from Him (James 1:5\). God’s [wisdom](fear-Lord-beginning-wisdom.html) is high above the grasp of the wise man and the scholar, and God chooses to give it to those who believe, rather than those who try to attain it with their minds and with striving (1 Corinthians 1:20–21\). “For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews, and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God” (1 Corinthians 1:22–24\).
|
Is it true that the bodies of some saints are incorruptible?
|
Answer
The [Roman Catholic](Roman-Catholicism.html) and [Eastern Orthodox](Eastern-Orthodox-church.html) churches believe that the dead bodies of some of the saints remain miraculously incorruptible, that is, their bodies do not decay as the corpses of “normal” people would. Catholics claim that these saints’ bodies are supernaturally preserved as a fulfillment of Psalm 16:10, “Thou wilt not . . . give thy holy one to see corruption” (Douay\-Rheims Bible).
Some of these “incorruptible” bodies of [saints](saints-Christian.html) are on display in various churches and monasteries around the world. Invariably, the bodies are enshrined, and worshipers and pilgrims pay homage to the remains. There is a lengthy list of saints, including St. Silvan, St. Teresa Margaret, and St. Bernadette of Lourdes, who, after their deaths, were officially declared “incorrupt” by the Catholic Church, which means that their remains were showing little to no decomposition, or at least delayed decomposition.
Of course, a slow rate of decay is not the same as miraculous incorruptibility. Decomposition of a body depends on some external and internal environmental factors, such as the amount of oxygen and moisture to which the corpse is exposed, the ambient temperature, and the presence of various bacteria. A body encased within a dry, airtight coffin in a cold tomb will decay much more slowly than a body exposed to the elements. Nevertheless, every dead thing eventually decays, be it saint, snail, or snapdragon. The Roman Catholic Church knows this full well and takes great care to preserve the appearance of the dead saints they keep in their buildings—many of the “incorruptible” bodies have been fitted with wax masks and hand coverings to hide the fact that decomposition has indeed been occurring. A pilgrim to Lourdes to see St. Bernadette, for example, may as well be visiting a wax museum.
The bodies declared “incorrupt” by the Catholic Church have indeed seemed to decompose more slowly than normal, even without the wax touch\-ups. But, again, slow decay is not necessarily miraculous. A man or woman thought to be headed for sainthood would likely have received a better coffin and a better tomb than the average person. This would greatly contribute to the preservation of the body and lead to a subsequent misunderstanding about incorruptibility.
If the body of an “incorruptible saint” was truly miraculously incorruptible, it would not need to be kept in an airtight and climate\-controlled case.
The Catholic Church’s emphasis on physicality—[relics](Christian-relics.html), corpses, [transubstantiation](transubstantiation.html), icons, beads, statues, etc.—leads many away from the spiritual matters of the heart. And their fascination with the “holy” saints shifts the focus from Christ. Psalm 16:10 is a prophecy of Christ, the only holy (i.e., sinless) person ever to have lived. Jesus, the Holy One of God, truly saw no corruption, having been raised from the dead on the third day after His death.
Those who trust in Christ are promised an incorruptible body some day: “Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption” (1 Corinthians 15:50–53, KJV). (The word *incorruptible* is also translated “imperishable” in other translations.) One day, all believers will be glorified, body and soul, both those who have died and those who remain alive at the return of Christ (cf. 1 Thessalonians 4:15–17\).
|
Does the Bible make a distinction between the secular and the sacred?
|
Answer
We tend to categorize things, and two categories often spoken of are “secular” and “sacred.” By “sacred” we usually mean “Christian\-themed” or “suitable for church use,” and by “secular” we usually mean “worldly” or “not having a Christian theme.” We speak of [“secular” music](secular-music.html) versus “sacred” music, for example. “Sacred” music has overt Christian themes, and “secular” music is everything else.
Does the Bible distinguish between secular and sacred realms? In a sense, yes. The Bible does speak of those who are “set apart” (“sanctified”) for special use. The very word for “church” in the New Testament, [*ekklesia*](definition-ekklesia.html), means “a called\-out assembly.” The people who comprise the church are “sacred”; that is, they are called out of the world and set apart for God. They are “called to be saints” (Romans 1:7, ESV). They are salt and light in the world (Matthew 5:13–16\).
But, in another sense, no, the Bible does not distinguish between secular and sacred. All creation is God’s, and one day all creation will be restored (Romans 8:22\). We know that “God placed all things under \[Christ’s] feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way” (Ephesians 1:22\). He did this “so that God may be all in all” (1 Corinthians 15:28\). In other words, all peoples, cultures, and authorities will one day be brought completely under the lordship of Jesus Christ (see Philippians 2:10–11 and Isaiah 2:2\). Christians engaging the culture should do so with a view to that end.
For the Christian in the workplace, it should not matter whether or not he is in vocational Christian ministry. Even a secular job can be a sacred ministry for the Lord. “Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters, since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving” (Colossians 3:23–24\). Everything we do, from work, to relationships, to hobbies, to eating and drinking, is to be done for the glory of God (1 Corinthians 10:31\).
When we compartmentalize our lives into secular and sacred categories, we risk relegating “church stuff” to Sundays and thinking the rest of the week belongs to us, to live as we please. But this is not biblical. We are to love the Lord with a *whole* heart. We are to serve the Lord with *all* our strength, not just what’s left over after we take care of the “secular” activities. This means that, even as we move through our daily routines, we can honor the Lord and perform our mundane tasks for His sake. The “secular” can be infused with the “sacred.”
A word of wisdom here. Some categorization is good and necessary in life. We must not confuse the purposes of the various institutions in society. God has tasked the church, for example, with spreading the gospel, discipling believers, and blessing the culture it is immersed in. The church has the sacred purpose of gracefully, lovingly, and patiently pointing society to Christ. God has tasked the state, on the other hand, with restraining evil, punishing wrongdoers, and rewarding the righteous through the execution of justice (Romans 13:1–5\). The state, too, has a sacred purpose, since “the one in authority is God’s servant” (Romans 13:4\). Church and state operate in different spheres, by God’s design. But, if both entities do their jobs well, each benefits from the other.
We do not want the church setting tax code and judging criminals; nor do we want the state determining the church’s missionary budget or choosing its pastors. These two entities are to be separate, biblically, but this necessary [separation](separation-church-state.html) can lead to a dangerous secular/sacred rift in our thinking. To consign all “secular” matters to the state and cloister anything “sacred” inside the church is to create a false dichotomy in society. The church can and should be involved in society at large, and the state can and should be concerned with morality and other “sacred” or “religious” matters. Where questions of ethics and morality are concerned, the church must have the state’s ear and the ability to articulate the biblical viewpoint on any given moral issue. When the state is hostile to the church (or vice versa), both are at a disadvantage and society suffers.
The common designations of “secular” and “sacred” are overused. A Christian artist will create art [to the glory of God](glorify-God.html): there is nothing overtly “sacred” about a still\-life of a bowl of pears, but there’s nothing “secular” about it, either. A Christian musician will create music to the glory of God. A Christian homemaker will bake cookies to the glory of God. A Christian mechanic will fix cars to the glory of God. The possibilities are endless; as we walk in the Spirit, the line between secular and sacred becomes increasingly blurred.
|
What is thanatology?
|
Answer
Thanatology is the study of death, dying, and the means by which human beings cope with death. The word itself is derived from the Greek word *thanatos*, meaning “death.” Today, thanatology mostly involves a forensic approach to death mechanisms as well as psychological aspects of the grieving process. While the study of death might seem an odd topic, it is an important part of understanding biology and medicine. Thanatology is also cited in debates over topics such as [assisted suicide](euthanasia.html), [abortion](abortion-Bible.html), and [organ transplants](organ-donation.html).
Thanatology did not exist as a semi\-formal discipline until after World War II. Psychologists, scientists, and philosophers struggling to grasp the enormous death tolls of the war began to organize their thoughts into a more structured study. This endeavor eventually grew into modern thanatology, focusing primarily on biological mechanisms of death and psychological effects on the dying and their survivors.
The oft\-cited Kubler\-Ross model, commonly known as the “five stages of grief,” is related to thanatology in that it was initially meant to refer to how human beings respond to a terminal diagnosis. This cycle of “denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance” is not necessarily accepted as accurate by all modern thanatologists, but it is probably the most well\-known product of thanatology in popular culture.
Modern universities may offer specific credentials in thanatology, mostly emphasizing grief counseling and bereavement.
Not surprisingly, the Bible touches on the psychological aspects of grief and dying. The book of Job is practically a how\-not\-to guide for counseling a bereaved person, as Job’s friends constantly insist that the calamity that befell him is entirely his fault. Jesus demonstrates His [sensitivity to human grief](Christian-condolences.html) at the tomb of Lazarus, where He weeps despite knowing He’s about to raise the man back to life (John 11:34–36\). Scripture also mentions the need to carefully counsel those who are mourning (2 Corinthians 2:5–8\). It references fasting as a means of expressing grief (1 Chronicles 10:11–12; 2 Samuel 1:11–12\). These are only a few examples of the many times Scripture deals with the human response to death and suffering.
Much of the Bible’s message about death is one of comfort (Matthew 5:4\). The Christian perspective on thanatology is unique in that Christianity offers hope of restored relationships after death. According to the Bible, suffering is not necessarily our own fault (John 9:1–3\), but it can always turn out for the good, according to God’s plans (Romans 8:28\). The greatest comfort Christ offers to the dying or bereaved is the hope of heaven (1 Thessalonians 4:13\) and the knowledge that what happens is overseen by a compassionate God (Matthew 10:29–31\).
|
What is nominalism?
|
Answer
When most people think of something as "nominal," they think of a thing that exists in name only. For example, some countries might have an official state religion and citizens are thus "nominal" members of that religion—they are members in name only. Another example could be that a certain economic factor is nominal; a figure exists as something of a placeholder until it is vetted or reconciled with another figure (such as [inflation](Bible-inflation.html)). In these cases, the idea of something being nominal is uncontroversial. But there is a very interesting arena where nominalism is not so easily taken for granted, and that is within the realm of philosophy.
Philosophy has long grappled with the problem of "the one and the many." If we look at two apples sitting next to each other on a table, how is it that each one is an apple while occupying distinct space and being comprised of distinct matter? Most people take it for granted that a red apple and a green apple are both apples, but *how* are they both an "apple"? A common answer is that they have the same basic physical traits, chemical composition, and so forth. But this does not really answer the question of why they are called the *same* thing. Furthermore, a detailed micro\-analysis would determine that each apple is really 100 percent unique from any other thing. Are they called the same because there is something non\-physical uniting them? Or do we say they are the same merely as a convenient way to speak about physical objects?
This brief example should hopefully show that the question of how things can be "one" and "many" is not always a straightforward thing. At least, it is not straightforward for those interested in such inquiry. Historically, philosophers have tried to solve this problem by putting forth different metaphysical arguments. Metaphysics is the philosophical discipline that deals with reality, causation, and related topics. Over time there has been a great deal of back\-and\-forth between the metaphysical positions of nominalism and [realism](Christian-realism.html).
Nominalism is best understood against the view it starkly opposes, which is [Platonic](Plato-Platonism.html) realism (hereafter used interchangeably with realism). Realism generally holds that universals, essences ("what\-ness"), and abstract objects exist in some way. Platonic realism, named after the ancient Greek philosopher Plato, argues that such things exist in their own right, within their own realm which is completely independent of the physical world. For example, in realism there is such a thing as Blueness or the color Blue. The realist says that the water is blue because its color is somehow representative of (or participates in) the universal idea of Blue. Anything that is blue is so called because of its relation to the ultimate Blue. The universal Blue exists in an immaterial and entirely abstract way, but it exists nonetheless. We can say that Socrates is a man because he participates in Man. Particulars like Socrates are always instances of the Universal (Man). These examples merely aim to show some very basic ideas surrounding Platonic realism. Contemporary variations of realism are more complex and nuanced, and they also tend to integrate things like numbers, sets, propositions, and much more.
At first glance, Platonic realism seems bizarre. To ask "where" these things exist is to misunderstand what they are. We come to know about them only by thinking very deeply about various things, such as humanity, justice, beauty, colors, and so on. The conclusion at the end of a long reasoning chain is that the only way such things can make sense to talk about is if they exist in an absolute sense.
Platonic realism seems to resolve certain issues. For example, the question of how there are two apples is resolved by holding that each of them resembles or is an exemplification of the universal Apple. Yet, this type of realism has been hotly contested since it was first advanced.
Opponents of Platonic realism, such as nominalists, point out many problems with this view. A major one is that realism only shifts the problem of the one and the many into the realm of universals. If we take Platonic realism seriously, we end up with an infinite regress of universals/ideas. Against the realists, nominalists argue that realism about universals and abstract objects is untenable or incoherent.
Nominalism is a type of metaphysical anti\-realism. It holds that things like universals, essences, and abstract objects do not exist at all. Instead, these things "exist" simply as names given to physical (concrete) particulars. As mentioned above, an example of an essence or universal would be "Man" or "Blue." For the nominalist, "Man" and "Blue" are simply naming conventions given to physical things. In nominalism, there is no such thing as the color blue or mankind. When he says that "the water is blue," the nominalist does not think that "blue" is anything real. If the nominalist says that "mankind" is depraved, "mankind" will not attach to or signify anything real. As an anti\-realist view, nominalism is related to [conceptualism](conceptualism.html). Conceptualism holds that universals exist as mental abstractions, but do not have extramental existence. There is no realm where "Blue" or "Man" exist. The conceptualist will hold that "blue" exists in his mind as an abstraction from water, whereas the nominalist will affirm only linguistic convention.
Realism and nominalism have gone back and forth for millennia. Fruitful advances have been made in helping those interested to better explicate their own understanding of reality. As alluded to above, there are other problems that realism tries to address. An important one is the nature of change over time. For example, what makes the Amazon River the same river today as it was 500 years ago? Specifically, is it correct to call it the same river? If so, why? Again, it certainly seems as though the physical constituents of the thing cannot provide adequate explanation. By positing the universal "River," the realist can offer a potential solution. Against the realist, the nominalist raises objections such as that universals are unnecessary, are outside of our understanding, or that they create more problems than they solve.
In the Christian worldview, both realism and nominalism are difficult to reconcile with the Bible. The realist typically conceives of universals as uncreated and self\-existent. Yet, the Bible tells us only God exists in this way (Exodus 3:14; John 1:1–3; Colossians 1:16–17; Hebrews 1:3\). On the other hand, the Bible does speak in such way that numbers, as well as terms like *sin* and *humanity* are real. The Bible does not intimate that when God speaks to us about things He is merely using an arbitrary naming convention.
A promising solution to the problem addressed by realism and nominalism was originally advanced by Aristotle and subsequently refined into Christian thought by medieval churchmen like Thomas Aquinas. This view, called "moderate realism," holds that universals do not exist in their own realm, but that they nonetheless exist in the form of the object itself *and* within the mind of the knowing subject. Further explication of this view is beyond the scope of this article, but there are many reasons for Christians to consider it. A Christian moderate realism can place God as metaphysically ultimate while providing a framework for addressing universals and particulars. In contradistinction, nominalism seems to render many passages in Scripture without objective meaning, and therefore faces a tall order to obtain Christian acceptance.
|
What does the Bible say about confidentiality?
|
Answer
The concept of confidentiality does come up in the Bible. As with similar topics, whether or not confidentiality is good, or even possible, depends on whom the information is being kept from and for what purpose. Some details of a person’s life are better kept out of the public eye, even if exposing those secrets would be to our advantage. At the same time, there are some things we might want to keep confidential, especially about ourselves, that would be better [confessed](confession-forgiveness.html) and dealt with.
Obviously, it’s impossible to keep anything “confidential” from God. “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\). So, confidentiality is an earthly concern, but it does not extend vertically to heaven. God is the revealer of secrets (Daniel 2:22\). The king of Aram found this out the hard way; every time his troops tried to ambush Israel’s army, the Israelites were ready for them. The king of Aram could not understand how the Israelites were getting their intelligence until one of his officers discovered the source of the leak: “Elisha, the prophet who is in Israel, tells the king of Israel the very words you speak in your bedroom” (2 Kings 6:12\). So much for confidentiality; if God wants something known, it will be known.
Interestingly, a common synonym for *confidentiality* is *discretion*. This makes sense, in that it’s important to distinguish between information that should be made public and that which should be kept private. Few people would want to go to a counselor or pastor who could not maintain confidentiality. And yet, those advisers have to gauge when information needs to be shared, even if the other person doesn’t want it to be. For example, threats to others or intentions of self\-harm cannot rightly be kept confidential. The book of Proverbs, which extolls the virtues of wisdom, also encourages “discretion” four times in the first five chapters (Proverbs 1:4; 2:1; 3:21; 5:2\). So, the biblical question about confidentiality is not whether or not it is ever acceptable but how to know when a particular piece of information ought to be kept in confidence.
One aspect of confidentiality to consider is exactly whom we are attempting to keep information secret from. There is nothing God cannot see, hear, or know (Psalm 44:21; 90:8\). So any attempt to keep secrets from God is pointless (Jeremiah 23:24; Mark 4:22\). Further, every deed and thought is going to be public knowledge someday (Matthew 12:36; 2 Peter 3:10\). Then again, some secrets are better kept away from our enemies—something Samson failed to consider (Judges 16:16–21\). Aspects of military, law enforcement, or business may also require confidentiality (Joshua 2:1\). This, in some cases, is because the knowledge is literally owned by other people. Betraying confidential information in a business setting, for example, is not significantly different from stealing.
There are aspects of our lives that we are explicitly told not to maintain secrecy over, such as our faith (Matthew 5:14–16\). There are other aspects of our lives that are just between ourselves and God (Matthew 6:6\), even if what’s kept private are good things (Matthew 6:4\). Keeping something confidential out of sound discretion is not necessarily a bad thing. But avoiding confession and [repentance of our sins](repentance.html) is another story (1 Corinthians 4:2; Proverbs 28:13; 1 Peter 2:16\). Whether the information is ours or someone else’s, we need to ask, “Am I keeping this a secret for a good reason?”
The Bible demands confidentiality in some areas. We are obligated to [honor secrets](keeping-secrets.html) told to us in confidence, unless there is a pressing reason not to (Proverbs 11:13; 12:23\). In fact, those who cannot keep secrets are to be avoided: “A gossip betrays a confidence; so avoid anyone who talks too much” (Proverbs 20:19\). The need to maintain confidence even applies when challenging others about their own sin (Matthew 18:15\). Joseph’s initial response to Mary’s pregnancy was a quiet divorce, done in confidence (Matthew 1:19\), a choice credited to his righteousness.
Confidentiality with discretion is important even when the information concerns our enemies (Proverbs 25:9; 17:9\). At some point, it may become necessary to publicly denounce sin (1 Timothy 5:20\). But this is not meant to be our first reaction to such information (Matthew 18:15–17\).
Biblically, there is great value in having the discretion to know when to keep something private and when to pass the information to others. We should be especially wary of hiding personal secrets so that we don’t have to deal with our own sin and the temptation to expose others out of spite or vengeance. Rather than being gossips (Proverbs 16:28; 1 Timothy 5:13\) or overly argumentative (1 Timothy 6:4; 2 Timothy 2:23\), we should take the high road with what we know. Confidentiality is important, but it must be kept in a scripturally sound way.
|
What does it mean to be empathic?
|
Answer
The word *empath* comes from the word [*empathy*](Bible-empathy.html), which is defined as “the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.” An empathetic person is one who can intuitively sense what someone else feels and imagine what it would be like to feel those feelings. An *empathic* person, on the other hand, is one who actually experiences the emotions of another, even becoming physically affected by those emotions and possibly knowing the motivations behind a person’s feelings or actions. Empathic abilities have to do with sensing “body energies,” “vibes,” and other esoteric forces. The concept of being an empath primarily comes out of New Age mysticism coupled with bits of modern science (some biological, some psychological) of how emotions affect our bodies.
Empaths are not mentioned in the Bible, but the Bible does have some relevant things to say. As Christians, we gauge whether something is true by Scripture (John 17:17; Psalm 119:160; 2 Timothy 3:16\). This is important in this discussion because those who promote the idea of being an empath generally gauge truth by emotion. While emotions are not innately bad (in fact, they are a part of how God made us), they should not be our foundation of truth for three reasons: our hearts cannot be trusted (Jeremiah 17:9\), emotions are fickle (Psalm 42:1–5\), and emotions were never meant to lead us (Psalm 119:105; Romans 8:14\).
The concept of the empath, or one having empathic abilities, is explored heavily in science fiction and accepted by many [New Age](new-age-movement.html) philosophies. For example, Deanna Troi, a fictional character in *Star Trek: The Next Generation*, was a half\-human with empathic abilities, which aided her work as a counselor. According to *Trek* lore, Troi’s mother was from an alien race of empaths. An empath also shows up in an episode of the original series of *Star Trek*. Those characters and their storylines further New Age and occult notions.
To lend better understanding to the term *empathic*, we can compare it to the word *telepathic*. Theoretically, a [telepath](Bible-telepathy.html) would be able to literally hear the thoughts of another person inside his own mind. Just as theoretically, an empath would literally feel the feelings of another person. Within the New Age movement, empaths are generally defined as extra\-sensitive beings who can experience the emotions of any person—or animal—standing nearby, regardless of context or knowledge. This understanding is of course very subjective and is on the level of supposed psychic abilities that some claim to have.
The claim that empaths can perceive the physical sensitivities and spiritual urges of others is a characteristic shared by many in the occult. No one except God has the ability to perceive the motivations and intentions of someone else (Psalm 139; John 2:25; 1 Corinthians 2:10–11\). First Corinthians 2:11 says, “Who knows a person’s thoughts except their own spirit within them?” We are not given that insight.
Of course, empathy, or the ability to listen to, understand, and relate to the emotions of others, is a valuable gift, and there is nothing unbiblical about the idea of carrying another person’s burdens, emotional or otherwise (Galatians 6:2\). In fact, God’s Spirit is described as a [comforter](paraclete-Holy-Spirit.html) of the suffering (2 Corinthians 1:3–6\). But claiming the powers of an empath goes beyond proper compassion and godly sensitivity and enters the realm of the psychic.
|
What is totalitarianism?
|
Answer
Totalitarianism is a political system in which the state holds total authority over the society and seeks to control all aspects of public and private life. Examples of totalitarian regimes are Germany under the Nazis, the Soviet Union under Stalin, China under Mao Zedong, and North Korea since 1948\. Totalitarianism is characterized by a dictator or one\-party rule, [censorship](Bible-censorship.html) of media, intimidation of the populace, propaganda in media and education, secret police forces, prohibition of all criticism of the government, and the repression of freedom of religion.
Historically, Christianity has flourished under totalitarian regimes. The book of Acts recounts the persecution of the Christians under Roman rule—including [Nero’s reign](who-was-Nero.html)—and the resulting spread of the gospel. After the stoning of [Stephen](life-Stephen.html), believers were forced to flee from those who wanted to put them to death. “On that day a great persecution broke out against the church in Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria” (Acts 8:1\). It appears from Acts 9:31 that this persecution backfired and actually worked toward the further spread of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Christians today are no less persecuted in some parts of the world where totalitarianism rules. Citing a Pew Research survey, Bishop John McAreavey, chair of the Council for Justice and Peace of the Irish Catholic Bishop’s Conference, stated that [Christian persecution](Christian-persecution.html) is being gravely underestimated, as “Christianity is now the world’s most oppressed religious group, with persecution against them reported in 110 countries” (*The Christian Post*, May 19, 2015\). According to the International Society for Human Rights, a non\-religious organization, 80 percent of all acts of religious discrimination in the world today are directed against Christians, most occurring in North Korea, where a militant, atheistic dictatorship holds power, and the Middle East, where Islamic totalitarianism is on the rise.
As in the early church, God’s sovereign control ensures that the gospel will be preached “in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come” (Matthew 24:14\). No dictator or totalitarian government can prevent the spread of God’s message throughout the world. They can oppress people, but they cannot suppress Truth. God’s plan for salvation will not be thwarted. Jesus will build His church (Matthew 16:18\). Totalitarianism is just another futile effort by the forces of evil to impede the Lord’s work.
|
What is the Druze religion?
|
Answer
The Druze religion is associated with an ethnic group living in the Near East. They are said to have descended from Jethro, the priest of Midian who was Moses’ father\-in\-law (Exodus 18:1\), and they recognize him as their principal prophet and founder of their religion. The Druze religion is monotheistic (believing in one god), and it is considered one of the Abrahamic faiths, along with [Judaism](Judaism.html), [Islam](Islam.html), and Christianity.
The Druze religion differs from classic forms of other monotheistic faiths in several key ways. First, it is unitary, which means it draws beliefs and traditions from many different faiths and sees all faiths as equally valid—all are roads to the same divine source, despite disparate understandings of god or gods. Second, the Druze religion teaches [reincarnation](reincarnation.html), or the transmigration of the soul—something not found in other monotheistic faiths. Third, the Druze religion brings in aspects of [Hinduism](hinduism.html), [Buddhism](buddhism.html), [Gnosticism](Christian-gnosticism.html), [Neoplatonism](Neoplatonism.html), and Pythagoreanism, belief systems considered false by Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Druze groups exist mainly in Syria, Lebanon, and Israel, and their societies are generally close\-knit and insular. Islamic terrorist groups such as ISIS believe the Druze to be “infidels” and have lately made them the target of violence, along with many other religious groups in the Near and Middle East whose beliefs are opposed to radical Islam.
Many of the core beliefs of the Druze religion are unbiblical. As a unitary group, they stand in disagreement with the Bible, which clearly states that there is only one true God and only one way to Him, Jesus Christ (John 14:6; 3:5, 16–17\). Gnosticism, which the Druze religion supports, was opposed by the apostles Paul and John in 1 Timothy 6:20; 1 Corinthians 8:1–3; 1 John 4:1–3; and 2 John 1:7\. Reincarnation is also an unbiblical concept. According to the Scriptures, man dies once and then faces judgment (Hebrews 9:27\) and is therefore not reincarnated.
For these reasons and others, it is safe to say that the Druze religion is not congruent with Christianity or biblical in any way. Salvation is by the Lord, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, through God’s only begotten Son, Jesus Christ (Acts 4:12\).
|
What is a jinx?
|
Answer
A jinx is something (or someone) thought to bring [bad luck](luck.html). To jinx something is to bring misfortune to it. Often, jinxes are spoken of in unserious contexts; for example, the “curse of the Bambino” was a jinx supposedly affecting the Red Sox as a result of their trading Babe Ruth to the New York Yankees in 1919\. Also, people are known to say, “Jinx!” when they utter the same word or phrase at the same time. Someone who seems to have bad luck or attract bad luck to the people around them is also sometimes called a jinx.
In other contexts, however, a jinx is more serious. There is a jinx used in [occult magic](occult.html). There are people who attempt to cast spells and curse others with misfortune, and the Bible does not treat curses, sorcery, or other forms of the occult as fake or laughable. King Balak of Moab asked [Balaam](Balaam-in-the-Bible.html) to curse Israel (Numbers 23:7–8\), and we know that this was a curse related to the practice of divination, not simply an empty threat (Numbers 23:23\). God told Balaam not to curse Israel, which leads us to assume that, if Balaam had cursed them, it would have had some spiritual effect. In the book of Acts, the apostles encountered a sorcerer named [Simon](Simon-the-Sorcerer.html) who was attracted to the miracles and signs being performed by the apostles and wanted to learn how to do them (Acts 8:13\). He was said to have practiced magic in the city, amazing the people so that they called him “Great” and “the power of God” (Acts 8:9–10\). The works Simon did by the power of demons were mistaken for displays of God’s power, but when he saw the true power of God, Simon wanted to switch over because he could see the apostles’ power was greater than his own. All of this, especially the commands of God against sorcery and the occult, lends credibility to the reality of witchcraft (Galatians 5:20; Deuteronomy 18:10–12\).
It has been observed in many cultures that people who want to harm an enemy or bend another person’s will to their own can use spells, curses, and jinxes to manipulate the spiritual world to do their bidding. There is no explanation in the Bible as to why or how this occurs or why demons would do the bidding of humans, unless it is to trick them into believing that they, the humans, are in charge. Furthermore, God forbids casting spells and jinxes, and that should be reason enough to stay away.
|
Who was Lazarus in the Bible?
|
Answer
There are two men called Lazarus in the Bible. The first Lazarus is the subject of a story told by Jesus (Luke 16:19–31\). Lazarus was very poor, probably homeless, and definitely a beggar (Luke 16:20\). He often stayed at the gate of a rich man in hopes of getting scraps from his table. Both men died, and Jesus tells of how Lazarus was taken to “Abraham’s side,” a place of comfort and rest, while the rich man went to “Hades,” a place of conscious torment (Luke 16:22–23\). Some Bible scholars believe that Jesus was telling a parable, that is, a fictional story not meant to be a literal account. However, Jesus uses actual names in the story, He does not interpret the story, and neither does He add a moral to the end. He lets the story stand for itself. Because of these details, the story of Lazarus and the rich man could be a true account, relating the actual fates of Lazarus and the unbelieving rich man. Either way, Jesus’ teaching on the reality of heaven and hell is clear. The Lazarus in Jesus’ story does not appear anywhere else in the Bible, and we do not know when in the timeline of history he may have lived, if he was a real person.
The second Lazarus, also called Lazarus of [Bethany](Bethany-in-the-Bible.html), was the brother of Mary and Martha. These three siblings were friends and disciples of Jesus, and they were people Jesus loved (John 11:5\). Once, an urgent message came from Bethany to Jesus: His friend Lazarus had become ill, and Mary and Martha wanted Jesus to come and heal him, for he was near death. Jesus then puzzled His disciples and friends. He started by saying that the illness would not lead to death; rather, it would be for God’s glory (John 11:4\). Then Jesus stayed two days where He was before suggesting going back to Judea, where Lazarus was but also where Jesus’ enemies had also recently tried to stone Him (John 11:5–8\). During Jesus’ delay, Lazarus died, but Jesus referred to Lazarus as “asleep” and told the disciples He was going to wake him up (John 11:11\). The disciples responded, “Lord, if he sleeps, he will get better,” clearly thinking of physical sleep (John 11:12\). Then Jesus told them plainly that Lazarus had died, but they were still going to see him (John 11:14\). Thomas perfectly expresses the disciples’ confused frustration by saying, “Let us also go, that we may die with him” (John 11:16\)—he saw that Jesus was resolute, but knew the dangers of such a trip (John 11:8\).
When they arrived at Lazarus’ home in Bethany, they found Mary and Martha grief\-stricken. They had buried their brother four days earlier. Jesus had not come to help. They were confused and frustrated, but their faith in Jesus was intact (John 11:17–36\). Everything became clear when Jesus did the unexpected: He went to Lazarus’ tomb and raised him from the dead (John 11:43–44\).
The entire episode of Lazarus’ sickness, death, and restoration to life worked toward giving glory to God and increasing the faith of Jesus’ followers, just as Jesus had said when He heard of Lazarus’ illness. Just before He raised Lazarus, Jesus prayed, “Father, I thank you that you have heard me. I knew that you always hear me, but I said this for the benefit of the people standing here, that they may believe that you sent me” (John 11:41–42\). Jesus’ prayer was answered: Lazarus came back to life, and “many of the Jews who had come to visit Mary, and had seen what Jesus did, believed in him” (John 11:45\).
When Jesus called to Lazarus, Lazarus emerged from the tomb—not a zombie or half\-dead or undead, but fully alive and well. Such is the power of Christ. Scripture never records what Lazarus experienced during his four days in the tomb. We assume that his soul/spirit was in paradise, where the other Lazarus was.
After Lazarus was raised from the dead, the chief priests and Pharisees plotted to kill him, because so many witnesses to the miracle believed in Jesus (John 12:9–11\). The enemies of Christ couldn’t deny the miracle; the next best thing, in their view, was to destroy the evidence—in this case, the evidence was a living, breathing person. But they couldn’t stop the truth from spreading.
|
What is genuflection?
|
Answer
Genuflection (or genuflexion) is a traditional act of honor or worship. It consists of bending one knee to the ground. To genuflect is to drop to one knee and rise, an act customary in the Middle Ages, when respect for a king or noble was demonstrated by going down on one knee, often remaining there until told to rise. Genuflection is still sometimes performed in Western cultures when a man makes a traditional proposal of marriage.
Today, genuflection is common in the religious practices of the “high\-church” [Anglican Church](Anglicans.html) and the [Roman Catholic Church](Roman-Catholicism.html). Roman Catholics genuflect before the elements of the “Blessed Sacrament”—the bread and wine of communion. They genuflect before the elements because of a false belief that they are actually bowing before the Lord, who is present in the [Eucharist](Holy-Eucharist.html). In Roman Catholicism, it is customary for a worshiper to genuflect upon the right knee whenever he comes into or leaves the presence of the Blessed Sacrament, that is, when he enters and exits a pew in the sanctuary. When the Blessed Sacrament is exposed to view, and not hidden within the tabernacle, both of the worshiper’s knees must touch the floor. According to the *General Instruction of the Roman Missal*, “A genuflection, made by bending the right knee to the ground, signifies adoration, and therefore it is reserved for the Most Blessed Sacrament, as well as for the Holy Cross.”
Kneeling or genuflecting in the Bible is done as a token of submission, respect, reverence, and worship to God. In the Old Testament, although the custom was to pray standing, prayers of supplication were often offered on the knees. Solomon bowed before the Lord in the dedication of the temple in which he prayed for God’s blessing on Israel (2 Chronicles 6\). Daniel’s custom was to pray three times a day on his knees, “praying and making supplication before his God” (Daniel 6:11\). David, himself a king and used to others bowing before him, encourages us to “worship and bow down, let us kneel before the LORD our Maker” (Psalm 95:6\).
In the New Testament, many kneeled before Jesus with requests for healing or favors. The leper (Mark 1:40\), the mother of the sons of Zebedee (Matthew 20:20\), and the man with the demon\-possessed son (Matthew 17:14\) all bowed in supplication before the One they knew had the power to heal and grant their supplications. Even Jesus took a posture of humility and supplication as He asked the Father to take away the cup of sorrow He was about to drink (Luke 22:41\). In Acts, we see examples of the apostles and others who knelt in prayer: Stephen (Acts 7:59\), Peter (Acts 9:40\), and Paul (Acts 20:36\).
Ultimately, everyone will kneel in reverence to the King of Kings. “God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (Philippians 2:9–11\).
|
What should I look for in an accountability partner?
|
Answer
Many churches encourage [accountability](accountability.html). An accountability partner is a Christian who pairs up with another for the sake of mutual edification and exhortation to avoid sinful behaviors. They keep each other “accountable”; that is, they honestly report to each other, and each of them considers himself answerable to the other. Though the Bible does not expressly mention this practice, accountability partners can be beneficial when they fulfill the command of James 5:16, “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.” We can draw some guidelines from Scripture about choosing an accountability partner.
There are biblical patterns to follow when it comes to any close relationship. The first of these is the command to be “equally yoked” with anyone we enter a partnership with, “for what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?” (2 Corinthians 6:14\). We should not partner up with unbelievers—not in marriage, not in business endeavors, and certainly not in spiritual matters. Plain and simple, an accountability partner needs to be born again. Someone with the [gift of exhortation](definition-exhortation.html) is ideal.
Second, an accountability partner should be someone we can trust. We should trust him or her to be discreet and keep confidential information confidential: “He who is trustworthy in spirit keeps a thing covered” (Proverbs 11:13\). Accountability partners need to be able to tell one another intimate details about their struggles with sin. Some personal things are disclosed that are not meant to be shared with third parties. Due to the personal nature of many things shared, it is also advisable that accountability partners be of the same gender.
We should also trust our accountability partner to have the courage to tell us the truth. The job of an accountability partner is not to agree with us all the time or stroke our ego; we need someone to accurately assess our needs and point us to Scripture. The truth hurts sometimes, but we know that “wounds from a friend can be trusted” (Proverbs 27:6\).
Having an accountability partner who knows the Word of God and shares it truthfully is important. It is through the Word of God that we are [sanctified](sanctified.html) (John 17:17\). It is through the Word of God that “the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:17\). When looking for an accountability partner, we should search for someone mature in the faith and able to “rightly divide the Word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15\).
Third, a good accountability partner will be one who understands forgiveness; we need a compassionate person who will bear with us and forgive us as the Lord forgives (Colossians 3:13; Ephesians 4:32\). The Holy Spirit is the only One who can make a change in someone’s heart. It is important that accountability partners—who will come to know one another’s struggles—do not attempt to “fix” one another. It is not the job of one sinful human being to fix another. Each person should look at his own sins in a magnifying glass and the sins of others with a telescope (Matthew 7:1–2\). Choosing a judgmental, critical accountability partner will lead only to trouble.
Last, it is important that an accountability partner accentuates the positive. Accountability partners should focus as little as possible on the sin and as much as possible on Christ. To sit around discussing the sins with which we struggle is not biblical: “Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, [think about these things](think-about-these-things.html)” (Philippians 4:8\). The key is to think on Christ, on lovely things, trusting God to sanctify us, as He has promised He will (Hebrews 10:10, 14\).
|
Who was Gehazi in the Bible?
|
Answer
Gehazi is mentioned in the Bible a few times, in the [book of 2 Kings](Book-of-2-Kings.html), as the servant of [Elisha the prophet](life-Elisha.html). Gehazi is featured in a story about a Shunammite woman’s dead child whom Elisha raised to life (2 Kings 4:18–37\) and later in a story about how the king of Israel restored that same woman’s stolen property to her (2 Kings 8:1–6\). But the most well\-known story about Gehazi concerns a sin he committed, the cover\-up he attempted, and the punishment that followed (2 Kings 5:15–27\).
The story of Gehazi’s downfall starts with a man named [Naaman](Naaman-in-the-Bible.html) who commanded the army of Syria. Naaman was a mighty warrior, but had an incurable skin disease called leprosy (2 Kings 5:1\). Elisha the prophet healed Naaman of his leprosy by the power of the Lord (verse 14\), and Naaman praised God and offered Elisha a gift, which Elisha refused to accept (verse 16\). Naaman departed for Syria, but Elisha’s servant Gehazi ran after him and told a lie in order to get Naaman’s gift for himself. In his lie, Gehazi invoked his master’s name, making it appear as if Elisha wanted the gift after all: “My master sent me to say, ‘Two young men from the company of the prophets have just come to me from the hill country of Ephraim. Please give them a talent of silver and two sets of clothing’” (verse 22\).
Naaman was only too glad to comply—he was happy to be able to give something out of gratitude for his healing—and he urged Gehazi to take twice as much silver as he had asked for. Gehazi went home with the silver and the garments, which he hid. Later, when Gehazi came before Elisha, he lied again in response to Elisha’s direct question as to where he had been (verse 25\). It soon became apparent that Elisha knew the truth, its having been revealed to him by God: “Was not my spirit with you when the man got down from his chariot to meet you?” (verse 26\). Then came Gehazi’s punishment: “Naaman’s leprosy will cling to you and to your descendants forever” (verse 27\). And, just like that, Gehazi was a [leper](Bible-leprosy.html).
Elisha asked Gehazi an important rhetorical question: “Is this the time to take money or to accept clothes—or olive groves and vineyards, or flocks and herds, or male and female slaves?” (2 Kings 5:26\). His point was that the miracles of God cannot be bought. The power of God in our lives is not meant for personal enrichment, and God’s servants should not be doing ministry for the sake of earthly rewards. Every one of us should remember that it is not money that cares for our needs—it is God (Hebrews 13:5\).
Gehazi witnessed a miracle, an undeniable display of God’s power that involved the redemption of a man’s health, life, and soul. But all he could think about was money. Naaman needed to see the grace of God in the free and abundant blessing he received; Gehazi destroyed grace by demanding payment.
“The [love of money](love-money-root-evil.html) is a root of all kinds of evil” (1 Timothy 6:10\), and “you cannot serve both God and money” (Luke 16:13\). After years of seemingly faithful service, Gehazi fell. His sin began in the heart, as he [coveted](you-shall-not-covet.html) what Naaman was offering. Other sins soon followed in a series of lies. Gehazi would have been wise to heed Moses’ warning of long ago, “You may be sure that your sin will find you out” (Numbers 32:23\).
|
Is the universe expanding?
|
Answer
Virtually all scientists say that the universe is expanding. The question of concern for many Christians is whether an expanding universe supports [creationism](biblical-creationism.html) or the [Big Bang theory](big-bang-theory.html). The answer is that it supports *both*! Not only that, but the expansion of the universe is mentioned in the Bible, not once but numerous times. Although science only discovered less than a hundred years ago that the universe is expanding, the men who wrote the Bible included the concept in the Scriptures almost 3,000 years ago.
An expanding universe does not negate the biblical story of creation. The great majority of scientists would say that matter is not eternal—that matter did not exist prior to the Big Bang. In fact, the prevailing theory is that nothing at all existed prior to the Big Bang, including time and space. At the moment of the Big Bang—the moment of creation—time began. Space began. Matter began.
Too many Christians see a clash between [science and the Bible](science-God.html) where no clash truly exists. Aspects of the Big Bang theory can actually support the creation account in Genesis. For years, many scientists saw the universe as being infinite and eternal. If the universe has no beginning or end, then there is nothing for a god to create. That view fit perfectly with the beliefs of atheistic scientists.
However, in the early twentieth century, astronomer Edwin Hubble (the man for whom the Hubble telescope was named) found that galaxies are moving away from each other. The universe is expanding. His theory became known as “Hubble’s Law” or the “Law of the Expanding Universe.” The galaxies’ movement away from each other suggests that they were once closer together. The implications of Hubble’s discovery were unsettling to many scientists. If the universe is currently expanding, then, at some time in the distant past, the universe had a beginning.
Many scientists hated the idea of a universe with a beginning. Albert Einstein said the whole idea “irritated” him, although he conceded later in life that he had accepted the idea that the universe had a beginning. Arthur Eddington, a mathematician and the most distinguished British astronomer of his day, wrote in a 1931 letter that “the notion of a beginning is repugnant to me. . . . I simply do not believe that the present order of things started off with a bang. . . . The expanding Universe is preposterous . . . incredible. . . . It leaves me cold.” Eddington later said that he hoped a “loophole” could be found to avoid the implication of a supernatural Creator. But, however hard he and others might try to avoid the truth, the heavens continue to declare the glory of God (Psalm 19:1\).
The Big Bang theory remains today’s prevailing theory concerning the origin of the universe. With it comes the theory that the universe is expanding and that it had a beginning. The Bible, of course, references the beginning of the universe in Genesis 1, and it also speaks of an expanding universe in the following passages:
Isaiah 42:5 – “This is what God the LORD says—the Creator of the heavens, who stretches them out . . .”
Isaiah 44:24 – “ . . . I am the LORD, the Maker of all things, who stretches out the heavens . . .”
Isaiah 45:12 – “My own hands stretched out the heavens; I marshaled their starry hosts.”
Jeremiah 10:12 – “God . . . stretched out the heavens by his understanding.”
Jeremiah 51:15 – “He founded the world by his wisdom and stretched out the heavens by his understanding.”
The prophets of the Bible knew that God had “stretched out the heavens”—a description that bears an uncanny similarity to the theory of an expanding universe. What was often considered a metaphorical, poetic expression turns out to be more literal than ever thought, according to modern science. The Word of God, inspired by God, continues to amaze.
The Bible and science both agree that matter has not always existed. Scientists have no explanation for how the universe began if neither time nor space nor matter existed prior to the Big Bang. But Christians know that God created everything and that He created the universe [*ex nihilo*](creation-ex-nihilo.html) (out of nothing). The Creator, existing before the moment of creation, must be immaterial and beyond time and space. In other words, the only possibility for our existence is the existence of an eternal Being who created everything and “flipped the switch” in the instant of the Big Bang/creation. In that moment, time, space, and matter were all created. But, once again, it’s in the Bible. In fact, it’s in the very first verse: “In the beginning \[TIME] God created the heavens \[SPACE] and the earth \[MATTER]” (Genesis 1:1\).
|
Is it biblical to call the wife of a pastor, elder, or bishop the First Lady of the church?
|
Answer
The practice of calling the wife of an elder of a local church “First Lady” (or “First Lady of the Church” or, for short, “Lady \[first and/or last name]”) does not come from the Bible. No precedent for it can be found in God’s Word, and the practice is in fact antithetical to such principles as servanthood and impartiality among followers of Christ.
First, there are no instructions in God’s Word on conferring the title “First Lady” on anyone; there is no office or role of “first lady” in the local church. In Ephesians 4:11–13 Paul lists the various offices that were established by Christ for the purpose of the church’s “attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ”; not once is the office, role, or title of “first lady” ever mentioned. The passage does not even mention a “pastor’s wife.” Those offices that are listed—apostles, prophets, evangelists, [pastors](https://www.compellingtruth.org/office-pastor.html) and teachers—are not titles but offices or functions.
Second, there is no precedent of a “First Lady” among the various honorable women of God in the Scriptures, either Old or New Testament. For example, Noah’s wife was never consulted by God regarding the building of the ark (Genesis 6—9\). Sarah did not accompany Abraham when he went to offer up his (and her) only begotten son to the Lord (Genesis 22:1–19\). [Moses’ wife](Moses-wife.html) did not help him lead Israel out of Egypt or give the Ten Commandments. [Abigail](Abigail-in-the-Bible.html), even though she proved her great integrity and loyalty, was never referred to by any title other than David’s wife (1 Samuel 25\).
Even the apostle Peter’s wife is only indirectly mentioned in Scripture, by way of a reference to Peter’s mother\-in\-law (Matthew 8:14–15\). Since Peter was a prominent apostle and one of the founders of the church, shouldn’t his wife have some special level of importance? But she is not mentioned. The church had no “first lady.”
Even women who are honored in the New Testament as being great servants of the Lord (e.g., Mary, [Martha](Martha-in-the-Bible.html), [Priscilla](Priscilla-and-Aquila.html), [Dorcas](Dorcas-in-the-Bible.html), etc.) are not assigned any special office or title in the church. This truth includes the “elect lady” to whom John writes his second letter (2 John 1:1\) and a second woman whom he calls her “elect sister” (2 John 1:13\). These “elect” women are not being addressed by some title or office; rather, John is expressing the simple fact that they, like he and all believers, are part of the [universal church](universal-local-church.html). These women are called “elect” ladies because they believe in Jesus as Lord and Savior, and they were chosen by God from the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4\).
The tradition of calling the pastor’s wife “First Lady” borrows from the secular practice of giving special distinction and honor to the wives of governmental chiefs or heads of state (presidents, prime ministers, governors, etc.). The reasoning is that, since honor is given to the office of the President of the United States, for example, then honor should also be given to his spouse—thus, “First Lady” Michelle Obama or “First Lady” Laura Bush. This reasoning is extended to church settings: since pastors are doing a mightier work for God Himself than any earthly head of state, surely they (and their wives) deserve at least as much honor. The thought seems to be, what’s good for the President and First Lady of the White House is good for the pastor and “first lady” of God’s house.
In many churches, the “first lady” is often deemed a leader herself, with decision\-making authority in almost every facet of the ministry. By mere virtue of whom she is married to, she is allowed to have almost equal say in everything that goes on in the ministry. This is not the case in every local church, but it is a widening trend. Using the titles “Pastor” and “First Lady” easily evolves into calling them both “Pastors,” despite the Bible’s prohibition against [women pastors](women-pastors.html).
The reasons no one in the church should be called “First Lady” include the following:
• God is the One who appoints offices in the church and the people to fill them. Often, being married to the pastor is a so\-called first lady’s only qualification for a presumed position of special honor or authority. This in turn means that some local churches have women leaders who aren’t equipped by the Holy Spirit, who are spiritually immature, and who could bring much harm to their ministry.
• “First Lady of the Church” is a man\-made title, borne out of the traditions of men. No matter how well\-meaning, the traditions of men do not take precedence over what God provides for in His Word.
• Use of the title “First Lady of the Church” often extends to calling the pastor’s children “First Son” or “First Daughter.” But God’s church is not a family dynasty, and the elders of a church are not heads of state. They and their wives and offspring are not superior to anyone else in their church who is fulfilling his or her own God\-given role.
• While it is only natural to give more attention and honor to the most visible family in the local congregation, bestowing royal treatment upon them creates a hierarchal structure that is diametrically opposed to the spirit of humility, servanthood, impartiality, and mutual respect that all believers are to give one another regardless of who they are (e.g., Luke 6:31; Romans 11:18; Ephesians 4:1–25; Hebrews 13:16\).
• Distinguishing a pastor’s wife by calling her “first lady” gives her an unnecessary level of prestige among the other women in the church, each of whom is just as much a lady as she. To refer to anyone as “first” and then to treat her accordingly sets a precedent of special privilege and entitlement that have no place in the church of God.
• The “First Lady” title often displays itself in ungodly competition among believers and the parading of the flesh in the church. For instance, in many churches the so\-called “first lady” is expected—and she expects herself—to distinguish herself by wearing the best clothes, showcasing the best hat, purse, shoes and jewelry, and having the best hair. It’s even called “First Lady Style” in some circles, but it is antithetical to 1 Peter 3:3–4, which admonishes women that “your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as elaborate hairstyles and the wearing of gold jewelry or fine clothes. Rather, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight.”
The question will arise, what if people want to show their appreciation for the hard work their pastor and pastor’s wife do for them? Can’t calling her “First Lady” be one legitimate expression of gratitude? Isn’t it enough that people’s hearts be in the right place and they mean no harm to her, the pastor, or the church?
It is biblical to give honor where it is due. But certainly there are other, biblically acceptable ways to show appreciation that don’t involve adding to or contradicting the Word of God. God’s Word on the key offices in the local church is sufficient (2 Timothy 3:15–17\).
No one should assume a title the Lord did not confer upon him or her. Also, the truth that the last shall be first and the first shall be last (Luke 13:30\) should discourage anyone who wants to call a pastor’s wife “First Lady.”
Finally, sometimes the expectations concerning the “First Lady of the Church” end up placing unfair pressure on a pastor’s wife. Sometimes all she genuinely wants is to be her husband’s helpmate and to pray, teach other women, and serve her church family as the Lord has equipped and directed her—without any special title. We must be careful not to let congregations impose extra\-biblical expectations on pastors and their families.
No one in the church should be seeking after titles among fellow believers, especially a title that says “first” of anything. Similarly, no one in the church should use titles or any other means of making an unbiblical distinction of superiority among believers.
|
Who was Saint Thomas Aquinas?
|
Answer
In the middle of the 13th century, a young Catholic scholar made up his mind to join the newly formed Dominican order of [monks](Christian-asceticism-monasticism.html). Though brilliant, the teen was also spectacularly ugly, suffering from obesity and edema, with one eye grotesquely larger than the other. He rarely spoke and was constantly drifting off into his own thoughts. His combination of size, ugliness, and perpetual silence led to the nickname “The Dumb Ox.” His family was so dead\-set on keeping him out of the Dominican order that they kidnapped him and held him captive for more than a year. Yet he persisted, becoming one of the greatest theologians of history, today known as Saint Thomas Aquinas.
Thomas Aquinas’ contributions to philosophy and theology rank him among the most renowned thinkers of history. If Augustine was the first great scholar of the medieval period, Aquinas could be considered the last. His general outlook is known today as [Thomism](Thomism.html). He is remembered for his persuasive case for reconciling faith and reason; his “[Five Ways](Five-Ways-Thomas-Aquinas.html)” to prove the existence of God; an [apologetics](Christian-apologetics.html) text titled *Summa Contra Gentiles*; and his massive work [*Summa Theologica*](Summa-Theologica.html) (“*Comprehensive Survey of Theology*”).
Thomas Aquinas worked to reconcile the prevailing philosophies of Aristotle and Plato with Christian theology. His conclusion was that reason and revelation (faith) are neither opposites nor in conflict. Rather, both philosophy and faith are necessary in order to truly comprehend anything. Aquinas also believed that certain ideas are better understood through reason than through revelation, and vice versa.
Aquinas also held that there are a select few truths that reason can only uncover by applying a significant amount of time, intellect, and knowledge. Since few human beings have access to significant amounts of any of those three things, God chooses to reveal those select truths Himself and save us the work. Aquinas believed that human intellect was not affected by the Fall but that our will was, making revelation that much more necessary for certain truths to be known. Rather than seeing faith and reason as opposing each other, Aquinas saw them as intertwined and mutually supportive.
Aquinas’ writings are still used as valuable resources on Christian thinking. His *Summa Contra Gentiles* was written to equip apologists for encounters with Muslims. *Summa Theologica* was his life’s work, a collection of his entire system of theology. Unfortunately, Aquinas died before he was able to finish the *Summa*. He also wrote volumes on dozens of different philosophical and theological topics.
One of Thomas Aquinas’ most valuable contributions to theology is also one of the most misunderstood. His “Five Ways” of proving the existence of God are the First Mover Argument, the [First Cause Argument](cosmological-argument.html), the Contingency (Necessity) Argument, the [Ontological (Perfection) Argument](ontological-argument.html), and the [Teleological (Design) Argument](teleological-argument.html). Contrary to popular belief, these are not the highest, deepest expressions of Aquinas’ theology, nor are they his view of the best or most powerful means to argue for the existence of God. Rather, these five arguments were Aquinas’ response to a request for a simplified, layman\-friendly introduction to the defense of God’s existence. Many skeptics attack the Five Ways without realizing that they’re only the condensed versions of much more robust, sophisticated arguments.
Aquinas’ popularity within Catholicism exploded during the [Reformation](Protestant-Reformation.html), when his views were used to counter certain aspects of Protestant belief. Today, Aquinas is considered a saint of the Catholic Church. Despite his physical limitations and his early death (before his fiftieth birthday), Thomas Aquinas’ profound thinking is still being used, even today, to defend all aspects of Christianity.
|
What is warfare prayer?
|
Answer
Warfare prayer is a prayer technique popular with [Charismatic](Charismatic-movement.html) Christian denominations. It focuses on using prayer as a weapon to do battle with the spiritual forces of evil, especially in regard to one’s daily life, habits, and struggles. Almost always, warfare prayer is just what it sounds like: prayers prayed for the purpose of waging war against an unseen, spiritual enemy who is bent on making us unhappy by thwarting our dreams and desires.
There is no doubt that [spiritual warfare](spiritual-warfare.html) is real. Christians have an enemy in Satan and his demons (Ephesians 6:12\). Prayer is commanded in the context of putting on the armor of God (Ephesians 6:18\). Some things recommended by warfare prayer adherents are useful. That said, some warfare prayer techniques are unbiblical, and believers should take great care not to be led astray by man’s opinion about how to pray versus God’s command. Promoters of warfare prayer often recommend praying prayers written by others—and to pray them repeatedly.
In the [Sermon on the Mount](sermon-on-the-mount.html), Jesus gave two general guidelines on prayer: pray secretly instead of to be seen by other people and don’t repeat empty phrases (Matthew 6:5–8\). Then, He taught His disciples to pray like this: “Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us today our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one” (Matthew 6:9–13\). Finally, Jesus stressed the importance of forgiveness, saying that those who are forgiving will be forgiven (Matthew 6:14–15\).
Warfare prayer commonly encourages a “take control” attitude, where prayer warriors are told to be bold, decisive, and faithful in prayer. There is nothing wrong with praying boldly and faithfully, as long as we remember who is in charge. It’s not us. Common “warfare prayers” include many “I” statements such as “I declare,” “I decree,” “I bind,” “I overrule,” “I smash,” “I rebuke,” etc. The pray\-er is the acting agent, and there is a danger of praying “My will be done” rather than “[Thy will be done](thy-will-be-done.html).”
Some warfare prayers recommend speaking to Satan in direct address. This is not biblical at all. Our prayers are to be directed to God alone. The Bible never tells us to [rebuke Satan](authority-rebuke-devil.html) or to speak to him or his demons in any way. The rebuking of Satan is done by the Lord, not us. “Even the archangel Michael . . . did not himself dare to condemn \[Satan] for slander but said, ‘The Lord rebuke you!’” (Jude 1:9\). The biblical instruction is to submit to God and resist the devil (James 4:7\), not to demand things of Satan.
Probably the clearest danger in most “warfare prayer” is the focus on material things. Proponents of warfare prayer are often promoters of “[name it, claim it](name-it-claim-it.html)” theology. Many warfare prayers include a “release” of wealth, a “binding” of sickness, or a “decree” of restoration and blessing. Those with enough faith will decree a “sevenfold” blessing upon themselves. They may [“plead the blood”](pleading-the-blood.html) or “cover themselves” with the blood of Christ, things the Bible never tells us to plead or do. The New Testament is clear that God is not obligated to give us material wealth or to heal our sickness, no matter how much we demand or decree it, and no matter how much we denounce the [devil and his wiles](wiles-of-the-devil.html). It is not wrong to pray for blessings, but God knows what will really benefit us, and it might not be a pain\-free life or piles of possessions.
When warfare prayer gurus exhort believers to “command” things to happen in their lives or to aggressively pray for a dream or desire that may or may not be God’s will, this is not faith—it is a recipe for discouragement. Praying in the midst of our spiritual warfare is necessary, but warfare prayer does not mean praying harder, praying more decisively, or assuming authority we do not have. It means praying according to Scripture, trusting in the power of God, and submitting our will to His.
|
What is adoptionism?
|
Answer
Adoptionism is a heretical theology that claims Jesus was God’s *adopted* Son. Adoptionism teaches that, because of Jesus’ sinless life, God chose Him and adopted Him. Adoptionism also goes by the name [dynamic monarchianism](Dynamic-Monarchianism.html); it was declared a heresy by the church in the second century. Scripture makes it clear that adoptionism is not true. Jesus Christ is not adopted; He is “begotten” (John 3:16, KJV).
Adoptionism claims that, before His adoption, Jesus was a mere man, although sinless. However, we know, biblically, that all men are under the curse of Adam and there are no sinless men (Romans 5:12–14\). Further, no man can be justified by the works of the Law (Romans 3:19–20\). Jesus was sinless (2 Corinthians 5:20–21\), but that was because He was not just a man; He was fully God, as well (John 1:1, 14\). The [pre\-existence of Christ](pre-existence-Jesus.html), the titles applied to Jesus, and the worship He received all bear witness of the divine nature of the Lord.
Adoptionism is disproved in the first few words of John’s gospel. John equates Jesus with “the Word of God” and says Jesus was “in the beginning with God.” In fact, “all things were made through him,” and “in him was life and the life was the light of men” (John 1:1–5\). These are not statements one makes about a sinless man adopted by God. Furthermore, John points out that [John the Baptist](life-John-Baptist.html) was sent to bear witness to the light (verse 14\). If Jesus were simply a good man whose good deeds caught God’s attention and earned God’s love, the role of John the Baptist would be pointless. Prophecies in the Old Testament that anticipate Jesus’ virgin birth (Isaiah 7:14\), crucifixion (Psalm 22\), and atoning sacrifice (Isaiah 53:5, 12\) would not make any sense if God simply “noticed” that Jesus was sinless and adopted Him after the fact.
Lastly, John says, “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth” (John 1:14\). The phrase “one and only Son” is translated as “[only begotten Son](only-begotten-son.html)” in some other translations. The idea is that Jesus is the only one of His kind: He is uniquely God’s Son, the only One who shares the same divine nature as God. The Word “became flesh,” so He obviously had an existence before becoming human. Jesus was God’s only Son before He came to earth. Believers have been adopted into God’s family (Ephesians 1:5\), but Jesus was always God’s unique Son.
|
What is mid-Acts dispensationalism?
|
Answer
Dispensationalism is a theological system that recognizes various ages, or dispensations, ordained by God to instruct mankind on how to rightly relate to Him. Classic dispensationalism typically sees [seven dispensations](seven-dispensations.html), starting with the age of innocence in the Garden of Eden and ending with the age of the millennial kingdom. The current age, called the age of grace or the church age, is held by most dispensationalists to have begun in Acts 2 on the [Day of Pentecost](day-Pentecost.html). At that time, the Holy Spirit came upon the believers and empowered them to fulfill the Great Commission, and the church age began. However, mid\-Acts dispensationalism sees that event as still part of the dispensation of Law; the “church” in the first part of Acts was a Jewish congregation under Jewish rules, not the church of the church age. According to mid\-Acts dispensationalism, or Pauline dispensationalism, the church began with the ministry of the apostle Paul in either Acts 9 (Paul’s conversion) or Acts 13 (Paul’s first missionary journey).
Classical dispensationalism sees a biblical distinction between Israel and the church; mid\-Acts dispensationalism moves the dividing line to Acts 9\. Before that time, what we might call the “church” was still a Jewish congregation under the law and distinct from what came later: the Gentile church (the body of Christ) under grace.
Mid\-Acts dispensationalism or the Grace Movement sees the apostles Peter, James, John, and the rest as still operating under the Old Covenant in Acts 1—8\. They were still dutifully keeping the Law and still meeting as a Jewish body in Jerusalem. Peter and the other apostles preached repentance to Israel, but the church age had not yet begun. It was Paul, the “apostle to the Gentiles” (Romans 11:13\), to whom the doctrine of the church—and the doctrine of grace—was revealed. It was only after Paul began to minister that the church age actually began. Thus, the only parts of the New Testament that are specifically for the church are the [Pauline Epistles](Pauline-epistles.html). The rest of the New Testament is only directly applicable to Christian living in the way that the Old Testament is. Truth can be learned from it, but it was not written to Christians.
Mid\-Acts dispensationalism makes a distinction between a “gospel of circumcision,” taught by Peter, and a “gospel of uncircumcision,” taught by Paul, based on Galatians 2:7\. In our view, Paul is referring to different audiences in that passage, not different gospels. The Jews whom Peter ministered to were saved by grace through faith, just as the Gentiles to whom Paul ministered.
Mid\-Acts dispensationalism also takes a different view of the Gentiles who were part of the early church before Paul was converted. Acts 2:10–11 makes it clear that the crowd listening to Peter preach on the Day of Pentecost included Gentile proselytes to Judaism. And Acts 8 shows how Samaritans and an Ethiopian were baptized into Christ before Paul ever started preaching the doctrine of the church or of grace. Thus, there was a joint church body of Jews and Gentiles before Paul began his ministry. The mid\-Acts dispensationalist would acknowledge a mixture of Jews and Gentiles in Acts 2—8 but would specify that the Gentiles were Jewish proselytes and living under Jewish law. The Acts 2 dispensationalist would point out that there is no indication that the Gentiles saved in Acts 8 were ever required to be circumcised.
Most mid\-Acts dispensationalists deny the need for [water baptism](water-baptism.html) today. The Grace Movement teaches that water baptism was a Jewish rite and that Jesus’ command in Matthew 28:19 is not for the church. They exclude water baptism on the basis that the only baptism needed today is the baptism of the Spirit, which occurs at salvation.
Most importantly, mid\-Acts dispensationalism or the Grace Movement implies there are different gospels, a gospel of the kingdom taught by Peter and a gospel of grace taught by Paul. Under the law, works were required, but with the coming of Paul’s doctrine, it is all by grace. However, the Old Testament (and the first part of the New Testament) does not teach justification by works (Romans 4:1–3\); being justified before God has always been by grace through faith, and the Jews in Galilee were not saved a different way from the Gentiles in Achaia.
Mid\-Acts dispensationalism is a particular flavor of dispensationalism that carefully distinguishes Israel from the church. While we disagree with them on water baptism, the role of the law before the church age, and the exact start of the church age, we consider mid\-Acts dispensationalists to be our brothers and sisters in Christ.
|
What does the Bible say about being nosey?
|
Answer
*Being nosey* is a colloquial phrase not found in the Bible. When we say that a person is nosey (or nosy), it generally means he is being overly inquisitive. A nosey person interferes in business that doesn’t concern him, offers unwanted opinions, or asks too personal questions. Paul mentions widows who could be labeled as “nosey”—those who “get into the habit of being idle and going about from house to house. And not only do they become idlers, but also busybodies who talk nonsense, saying things they ought not to” (1 Timothy 5:13\). A “busybody” who intrudes into everybody else’s lives and gets involved in what does not concern her is “nosey,” and the Bible says not to be like that.
Of course, it is not only widows who can have a habit of being nosey. People can be found being nosey in all kinds of situations—offices, churches, families, and social media all contain nosey people. The motive for being nosey could be boredom, dissatisfaction with one’s own life, or a desire to influence others. Paul’s solution for the busybodies in Timothy’s church is the same solution for nosey people today: find something profitable to do (1 Timothy 5:14\).
Being nosey may seem harmless enough, but it is interesting that the Bible associates [idleness](Bible-idleness.html) with evil. Paul tells the women in Timothy’s church to be busy with their own families and so “give the enemy no opportunity for slander” (1 Timothy 5:14\). The writer of Proverbs says, “A perverse person stirs up conflict, and a gossip separates close friends” (Proverbs 16:28\), and Paul equates slander and [gossip](gossip-Bible.html) with foolishness, malice, and even murder (Romans 1:29–32\), sins that lead to spiritual death.
People can ask personal questions in an attempt to offer sincere counsel or help—this is not being nosey. A nosey person is trying to ferret out personal details they can then share with others for the sake of entertainment. It is important not to do be nosey or to be friends with someone who gossips, because “bad company corrupts good character” (1 Corinthians 15:33\) and it is easy to be hurt by someone who is only interested in being nosey. Information should be given and received on a need\-to\-know basis.
|
What does the Bible say about feeling overwhelmed?
|
Answer
We all feel overwhelmed at times. Sometimes it is a result of taking on [too much work](Bible-workaholism.html) or responsibility; other times it is caused by things we cannot control, like physical illness or emotional trauma. Sometimes we can feel overwhelmed when everything is normal and we don’t see any reason for feeling that way. Even things we enjoy can leave us feeling overwhelmed if there is too much to do. We face daily pressures from jobs or school, from friends and family, and from [temptations to sin](temptation-sin.html). These can pile up and seem completely unmanageable. Fortunately, the Bible speaks to us about feeling overwhelmed.
In the Gospels Jesus shows us a way to prevent stress and the feeling of being overwhelmed. He was the sinless Son of God, but He often went away by Himself to get away from large crowds—even from those that needed His help and healing (Mark 1:35\). At times He retreated even from His disciples. Other times, He retreated with His disciples: “Because so many people were coming and going that they did not even have a chance to eat, he said to them, ‘Come with me by yourselves to a quiet place and get some rest’” (Mark 6:31\). It was not selfish of Jesus to get away from people and commune with God. It was wise of Him to seek time for His disciples to rest, as well. We can rightly assume it is okay for us to spend some time alone, too, if we are feeling overwhelmed by people and responsibilities. It is interesting to note that Jesus also enjoyed great inner peace because of His trust in God. Even in the midst of a storm, He could sleep (Matthew 8:23–24\).
There was one occasion when Jesus described Himself as feeling overwhelmed. It was in [Gethsemane](garden-of-Gethsemane.html) just before His arrest, trial, and crucifixion. “He began to be deeply distressed and troubled. ‘My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death,’ he said to \[his disciples]. ‘Stay here and keep watch.’ Going a little farther, he fell to the ground and prayed” (Mark 14:33–35\). In considering the fact that we, too, can be overwhelmed by situations facing us, there are three things to note here: first, Jesus was completely honest about how He felt. Second, He solicited the help of friends. Third, He prayed. Jesus took His burden to His Father. What a good model for us.
God is the God of peace (Romans 15:33; 1 Corinthians 14:33\). Peace is a [fruit of the Holy Spirit](fruit-of-the-Holy-Spirit.html) and something we can ask God for any time, having complete faith that He will answer our prayer. It is clearly God’s will to give us good things (Matthew 7:11\), and we know that His Spirit and the gifts He brings are good (Luke 11:13\). We are told to set our minds on the Spirit, because to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace (Romans 8:6\).
David also dealt with the feeling of being overwhelmed. In two of his psalms, he suggests a specific course of action: prayer followed by remembering the past goodness of God. “My spirit grows faint within me; my heart within me is dismayed. I remember the days of long ago; I meditate on all your works and consider what your hands have done. I spread out my hands to you; I thirst for you like a parched land” (Psalm 143:4–6\). And, “From the end of the earth will I cry unto thee, when my heart is overwhelmed: lead me to the rock that is higher than I. For thou hast been a shelter for me, and a [strong tower](name-Lord-strong-tower.html) from the enemy” (Psalm 61:2–3, KJV). Praise the Lord for His ready ear and His constant faithfulness. There is a rock higher than we.
When we are feeling overwhelmed, it may also help to remove ourselves from the situation, if possible. We may need to decrease our workload, knowing that it is not sinful to let go of some responsibilities for a while. In any case, we continue to rely on God’s strength and pray for peace, knowing that He has promised to help us. “God is our refuge and strength, an ever\-present help in trouble. Therefore we will not fear, though the earth give way and the mountains fall into the heart of the sea” (Psalm 46:1–2\).
|
Is the Adam and Eve story to be understood literally?
|
Answer
Let us assume for a moment that the [Adam and Eve](Adam-and-Eve-questions.html) story is *not* to be understood literally. What would be the result? Would Christianity remain essentially the same with a non\-literal understanding of the story of Adam and Eve? No. In fact, it would have serious implications for virtually every tenet and doctrine of the Christian faith. If Adam was not a real man, then sin did not enter the world through one man as Romans 5:12 states. How, then, did sin enter the world? Further, if the New Testament is wrong about how sin entered the world, what else is it wrong about? If Romans 5:12 is wrong, how do we know that the entirety of Romans 5:8–15 is not wrong?
If the story of Adam and Eve is not to be taken literally—if they did not really exist—then there was no one to rebel, there was no [fall into sin](fall-affect-humanity.html). Satan, the great deceiver, would like nothing better than for people to believe that the Bible should not be taken literally and that the story of the [fall of man](fall-of-man.html) is a myth. Why? Because once we start denying parts of the Bible, we lose our trust in the Bible. Why should we believe anything God’s Word says if we cannot trust everything that it says?
Jesus taught that God created one man and one woman (Mark 10:6\) and mentions Abel, a son of Adam and Eve in Luke 11:51\. Was Jesus wrong in His beliefs? Or did Jesus know there were no literal Adam and Eve and He was simply accommodating His teaching to the beliefs of the people (i.e., lying)? If Jesus is wrong in His beliefs, He is not God. If Jesus is intentionally deceiving people, He is sinning and therefore cannot be the Savior (1 Peter 1:19\).
That is why this is such a serious issue. To deny the literalness of Adam and Eve is to place oneself in opposition to Jesus and the apostle Paul. If one has the audacity to claim he is right and Jesus and Paul are wrong, then Jesus is a sinner, not God and not the Savior; the apostle Paul is a false prophet; and the Bible is not inspired, inerrant, or trustworthy.
The Bible clearly presents Adam and Eve as literal people who existed in a literal Garden of Eden. They literally rebelled against God, they literally believed Satan’s lie, and they were literally cast out of the Garden (Genesis 3:24\). They had literal children, all of whom inherited the sin nature, and that nature was passed down to succeeding generations to this very day. Fortunately, God promised a literal Savior to redeem us from that sin nature (Genesis 3:15\). That Savior is Jesus Christ, called the “last Adam” (1 Corinthians 15:45\), who died on a literal cross and literally rose again. Those who believe in Christ will have literal salvation and spend eternity in a literal heaven.
Christians who deny the story of Adam and Eve essentially deny their own faith. Rejecting the literal interpretation of the Bible’s historical narratives is a slippery slope. If Adam and Eve did not exist, then were Cain and Abel not real? Did Seth exist, and did he father a godly line that led all the way to Abraham and eventually to Jesus Himself? Where in Luke’s genealogy (Luke 3:23–38\) do the names stop referring to literal people and start referring to mythical characters? To dismiss Adam and Eve as non\-literal is to deny the accuracy of Luke’s gospel, cast aspersions on Moses’ record, and remove the foundation of the rest of the Bible.
God’s Word claims to be true (Psalm 119:160\). Jesus Christ declared God’s Word to be truth (John 17:17\). All of God’s Word is God\-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16\-17\). These declarations include the biblical account of Adam and Eve.
|
What is the prophecy of 2,300 days in Daniel?
|
Answer
Daniel 8 speaks of 2,300 days in a prophecy concerning a persecution of the Jewish people during the [intertestamental period](intertestamental-period.html). Similarly, in [Revelation 11 and 12, John mentions 1,260 days](prophecy-1260-days-Revelation.html) in two prophecies concerning another persecution of the Jews during the end times. The main differences between these two prophecies are 1\) Daniel’s has been fulfilled, and John’s has not; and 2\) Daniel predicts the actions of [Antiochus Epiphanes](Antiochus-Epiphanes.html), and John predicts those of the [Antichrist](what-is-the-antichrist.html).
The prophecy of the 2,300 days (“evenings and mornings”) is found in Daniel 8:13–14:
“Then I heard a holy one speaking, and another holy one said to him, ‘How long will it take for the vision to be fulfilled—the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, the rebellion that causes desolation, the surrender of the sanctuary and the trampling underfoot of the Lord’s people?’ He said to me, ‘It will take 2,300 evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary will be reconsecrated.’”
The time period covered, 2,300 days, figures to about 6 1/3 years. We believe this prophecy was fulfilled before the birth of Christ, during the reign of the Seleucid king Antiochus IV (Epiphanes). Antiochus desecrated the temple in Jerusalem and severely persecuted the Jews from about September 171/170 BC to December 165/164 BC. When Antiochus died, the Jews purified and rededicated the temple, just as Daniel had predicted. These events are commemorated in the celebration of Hanukkah.
The detailed prophecies contained in God’s Word are part of what makes the Bible unique among religious texts. Our God can “make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come” (Isaiah 46:10\), and He has revealed significant events in the future, counting out the very days of those periods of time.
|
What is the prophecy of 1,260 days in Revelation?
|
Answer
In Revelation 11 and 12, John mentions 1,260 days in two prophecies concerning another persecution of the Jews during the end times. [Daniel 8 speaks of 2,300 days in a prophecy](prophecy-2300-days-Daniel.html) concerning a persecution of the Jewish people during the [intertestamental period](intertestamental-period.html). The main differences between these two prophecies are 1\) Daniel’s has been fulfilled, and John’s has not; and 2\) Daniel predicts the actions of [Antiochus Epiphanes](Antiochus-Epiphanes.html), and John predicts those of the [Antichrist](what-is-the-antichrist.html).
The 1,260\-day prophecy is found in two passages in Revelation. First, Revelation 11:2–3 says,
“\[The Gentiles] will trample on the holy city for 42 months. And I will appoint my two witnesses, and they will prophesy for 1,260 days, clothed in sackcloth.”
Then, as part of a [symbolic vision](Revelation-chapter-12.html), Revelation 12:6 says,
“The woman fled into the wilderness to a place prepared for her by God, where she might be taken care of for 1,260 days.”
The time period covered, 1,260 days, figures to 42 months, or 3 1/2 years. We believe this prophecy has not yet been fulfilled but will be during the end\-times tribulation. The 42 months refers to the reign of the Antichrist, specifically, the last half (3 1/2 years) of the [seven\-year tribulation](tribulation.html). At the beginning of that time, the Antichrist will break his covenant with Israel and set up “[the abomination that causes desolation](abomination-desolation.html)” (Mark 13:14; cf. Daniel 9:27\)—an act that links the Antichrist to Antiochus Epiphanes, who similarly defiled the temple. The Antichrist will then turn his attention to the genocide of the Jews. During the persecution, Israel (the woman of Revelation 12\) will be protected by God in the wilderness. Also during that troubled time, God will send [two witnesses](two-witnesses.html) to perform miracles and proclaim the truth of Christ in the face of the Antichrist’s lies (Revelation 11:5–6\).
The detailed prophecies contained in God’s Word are part of what makes the Bible unique among religious texts. Our God can “make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come” (Isaiah 46:10\), and He has revealed significant events in the future, counting out the very days of those periods of time.
|
What is the Reptilian conspiracy?
|
Answer
The Reptilian conspiracy is a bizarre theory that says large, humanoid reptiles are taking over the world. According to the Reptilian conspiracy, the human race has been infiltrated by Reptilians—humanoid [aliens](aliens-UFOs.html) who can shape\-shift and take on human form—in order to manipulate human affairs, cause chaos, and create fear and hatred, negative emotions that give them strength. The Reptilians are also called Reptoids, Reptiloids, Saurians, Draconians, or Annunaki and are said to live beneath the surface of the earth, emerging to shape\-shift and take roles in world leadership. Barack Obama, George W. Bush, and Queen Elizabeth II have all been identified as “lizard people” by conspiracy theorists—who claim to have photographic “proof” of their allegations.
The idea of humanity being threatened by large, reptilian creatures has been a staple of science fiction for years: Godzilla and the Creature from the Black Lagoon are old examples. The 1983 television mini\-series *V* added a twist in that the reptile\-like aliens disguised themselves as humans. But the Reptilian conspiracy had its start in 1998 when a British [conspiracy theorist](conspiracy-theories.html) and former sports reporter by the name of David Icke published a book called *The Biggest Secret*. Various science fiction writers and other conspiracy theorists have since continued the idea of reptile\-like humanoids attempting to enslave the world. Politicians sometimes make jokes about the Reptilian conspiracy, accusing one another of being part of it. In one Canadian case from 2003, a politician insulted his opposition by calling him an “evil, reptilian kitten\-eater from another planet.”
The Bible does not address the Reptilian conspiracy for the same reason it does not address belief in the tooth fairy. The Bible’s instruction is “have nothing to do with godless myths” (1 Timothy 4:7\), and the Reptilian conspiracy certainly falls under that classification. While it’s possible that [demons](demons-Bible.html) could take on the shape of an alien or other creature in order to fool humans and cause chaos and fear, there is no evidence that they indeed do such things. Scripture gives no indication that the Reptilian conspiracy is anything other than a delusion or demonic deception.
|
What is noetic science?
|
Answer
Noetic science is a branch of parapsychology concerned with the power and source of human intelligence, including how thoughts cause physical effects. “Noetic” refers to the mind and how human beings utilize intellect. It is often used as a term describing the source of intellect, particularly on a fundamental or metaphysical level. For this reason, the word *noetic* is often used in contexts that have little or nothing to do with noetic science. “Noetics,” in a philosophical context, refers to a branch of metaphysics. “Noetic science” refers to the parapsychological category.
Groups focusing on noetic science are interested in topics such as [telepathy](Bible-telepathy.html), telekinesis, precognition, and self\-healing. Despite claims to the contrary, most of these topics have been exhaustively studied and found to be fictional by multiple scientific means. This classifies noetic science as pseudoscience at best, and science fiction at worst.
The continued popularity of [superstitions](superstitions.html) such as noetic science is well explained by passages such as 2 Timothy 4:3\. Rather than admitting to spiritual and physical truths, people have a bad habit of looking for a “teacher” to tell them what they wanted to hear in the first place. Rather than seeking truth, they seek validation (Romans 1:20\). While not explicitly connected to any particular anti\-Christian ideas, the claims of noetic science are neither wise nor helpful (1 Corinthians 6:12; 1 Timothy 4:7\) and shouldn’t be a part of a Christian’s worldview.
|
What is the gospel?
|
Answer
The word *gospel* literally means “good news” and occurs 93 times in the Bible, exclusively in the New Testament. In Greek, it is the word *euaggelion*, from which we get our English words *evangelist*, *evangel*, and [*evangelical*](evangelicalism.html). The gospel is, broadly speaking, the whole of Scripture; more narrowly, the gospel is the good news concerning Christ and the way of salvation.
The key to understanding the gospel is to know why it’s good news. To do that, we must start with the [bad news](bad-news-good-news.html). The Old Testament Law was given to Israel during the time of Moses (Deuteronomy 5:1\). The Law can be thought of as a measuring stick, and sin is anything that falls short of “perfect” according to that standard. The righteous requirement of the Law is so stringent that no human being could possibly follow it perfectly, in letter or in spirit. Despite our “goodness” or “badness” relative to each other, we are all in the same spiritual boat—we have sinned, and the punishment for sin is death, i.e. separation from God, the source of life (Romans 3:23\). In order for us to go to heaven, God’s dwelling place and the realm of life and light, sin must be somehow removed or paid for. The Law established the fact that cleansing from sin can only happen through the bloody sacrifice of an innocent life (Hebrews 9:22\).
The gospel involves Jesus’ death on the cross as the sin offering to fulfill the Law’s righteous requirement (Romans 8:3–4; Hebrews 10:5–10\). Under the Law, animal sacrifices were offered year after year as a reminder of sin and a symbol of the coming sacrifice of Christ (Hebrews 10:3–4\). When Christ offered Himself at Calvary, that symbol became a reality for all who would believe (Hebrews 10:11–18\). The work of atonement is finished now, and that’s good news.
The gospel also involves Jesus’ resurrection on the third day. “He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification” (Romans 4:25\). The fact that Jesus conquered sin and death (sin’s penalty) is good news, indeed. The fact that He offers to share that victory with us is the greatest news of all (John 14:19\).
The [elements of the gospel](gospel-message.html) are clearly stated in 1 Corinthians 15:3–6, a key passage concerning the good news of God: “For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living.” Notice, first, that Paul “received” the gospel and then “passed it on”; this is a divine message, not a man\-made invention. Second, the gospel is “of first importance.” Everywhere the apostles went, they preached the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. Third, the message of the gospel is accompanied by proofs: Christ died for our sins (proved by His burial), and He rose again the third day (proved by the eyewitnesses). Fourth, all this was done “according to the Scriptures”; the theme of the whole Bible is the salvation of mankind through Christ. The Bible is the gospel.
“I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile” (Romans 1:16\). The gospel is a *bold* message, and we are not ashamed of proclaiming it. It is a *powerful* message, because it is God’s good news. It is a *saving* message, the only thing that can truly reform the human heart. It is a *universal* message, for Jews and Gentiles both. And the gospel is received by faith; salvation is the gift of God (Ephesians 2:8–9\).
The gospel is the good news that God loves the world enough to give His only Son to die for our sin (John 3:16\). The gospel is good news because our salvation and eternal life and home in heaven are guaranteed through Christ (John 14:1–4\). “He has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and into an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade. This inheritance is kept in heaven for you” (1 Peter 1:3–4\).
The gospel is good news when we understand that we do not (and cannot) earn our salvation; the work of [redemption](redemption.html) and [justification](justification.html) is complete, having been finished on the cross (John 19:30\). Jesus is the [propitiation](propitiation.html) for our sins (1 John 2:2\). The gospel is the good news that we, who were once enemies of God, have been reconciled by the blood of Christ and adopted into the family of God (Romans 5:10; John 1:12\). “See what great love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God! And that is what we are!” (1 John 3:1\). The gospel is the good news that “there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Romans 8:1\).
To reject the gospel is to embrace the bad news. Condemnation before God is the result of a lack of faith in the Son of God, God’s only provision for salvation. “For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son” (John 3:17–18\). God has given a doomed world good news: the Gospel of Jesus Christ!
|
Was Yahweh originally a Edomite or Canaanite god?
|
Answer
The idea that Yahweh started out as an [Edomite](Edomites.html), [Midianite](Midianites.html), or [Canaanite](Canaanites.html) deity is a modern myth promoted by secular scholars. The starting point for these theorists is an anti\-scholarly bias against the possibility that God is who the Bible says He is, namely, the one\-and\-only Creator, Author of life, Judge, and Savior of the world (Genesis 1:1; 18:25; Acts 3:15; John 3:16\). Rather than acknowledge that God made man in God’s image (Genesis 1:26–27\), they assume that man made God in man’s image. And when you begin with a premise that is an error, you’re guaranteed an invalid conclusion.
The false theory that Yahweh, the God of the Bible, was created out of the chief god of Edom with influence from Midian relies on the following points:
• During the Exodus out of Egypt, Israel had to pass by the nations of Edom and Midian on their way to the [Promised Land](Israel-land.html) (Canaan). During their forty years in the wilderness, as they fashioned a new religion, Israel was supposedly influenced by Edom’s and Midian’s religious beliefs.
• The Midianites—descendants of Midian, a son of Abraham (Genesis 25:1\)—had a priest named Reuel (Exodus 2:18\) or Jethro (Exodus 3:1 and later). Moses, the author of the first five books of the Bible, married [Jethro’s daughter](Zipporah-in-the-Bible.html). Moses then presumably brought much of his father\-in\-law’s theology into his own new religion and our Scripture, including Jethro’s god(s).
• God’s name in Scripture is transliterated from the Hebrew as [*YHWH*](YHWH-tetragrammaton.html), probably meaning “I Am” (Exodus 3:13–14\). There is an obscure reference in a 13th\-century BC Egyptian document to a region in Edom associated with *JWH*, possibly indicating that *JWH* was a national god of Edom. Of course, the spelling *JWH* is similar to *YHWH*.
• Edom, populated by descendants of Esau (Abraham’s grandson and Israel’s/Jacob’s brother), worshiped a local god named Qos; certain Bible verses show that Israel’s God acted locally and in some of the same places as Qos; therefore, the Hebrew concept of God may be based on Edom’s Qos. Some Bible verses referring to areas within Edom include the following:
Deuteronomy 33:2 – “The LORD \[*Yahweh*] came from Sinai and dawned over them from Seir; he shone forth from Mount Paran.”
Judges 5:4–5 – “When you, Lord, went out from Seir, / when you marched from the land of Edom, / the earth shook, the heavens poured, / the clouds poured down water. / The mountains quaked before the Lord, the One of Sinai, / before the Lord, the God of Israel.”
Habakkuk 3:3a – “God came from [Teman](God-came-from-Teman.html), the Holy One from Mount Paran.”
This last error—that Yahweh is linked to the god of Edom because of His localized actions—is especially inexcusable for any serious scholar. Verses throughout the Bible speak of God’s appearing and acting in many specific locations. There is no logically sound reason for concluding that Moses and all the Bible writers after him were confused about whether God was some petty, magical deity haunting the neighborhood or the Being greater than the universe He created. In fact, the remainder of Habakkuk 3:3 lays the question to rest: “His glory covered the heavens and his praise filled the earth.” This is not a description of a local god. See also Deuteronomy 10:14; 2 Chronicles 2:6; Psalm 19:1–4; and Hebrews 1:10–12\.
So, the whole theory that Yahweh was borrowed from local mythologies in Edom and Midian rests on 1\) Israel’s route through the desert, 2\) Moses’ choice of a wife, 3\) a similarly spelled word, and 4\) mentions of Edom in the Bible. It’s not much to go on, but it’s all the theorists have. When you reject the truth of God’s revealing Himself in Scripture, you’re left to grasp at straws.
Sadly, the confusion about Yahweh’s being an Edomite or Midianite god is common among modern scholars. They “discover” tiny clues from which they fabricate entire myths—all of which just happen to “disprove” the Bible. They even claim to know more about ancient cultures and beliefs than the very people who lived at that time, spoke that language, read those Scriptures, and worshiped that God. The Bible refers to such scholars as “claiming to be wise, they became fools” (Romans 1:22\).
|
What does the Bible say about nutrition?
|
Answer
The subject of nutrition, as we think of it today, is not directly mentioned in the Bible—that is, the Bible doesn’t talk about calories and the balance of fat, protein, and carbohydrates a person needs. Neither does it mention GMOs or the benefits of eating whole foods versus processed foods, because the production of food had not yet been industrialized. Furthermore, there was no scientific understanding of the elements in food and what they do to and for the human body. However, from biblical principles we can deduce that it is beneficial and even morally right to emphasize a healthful diet.
First of all, the Bible encourages us to care for our bodies, and good nutrition is naturally part of that. God cares about man’s physical comfort and well\-being (Exodus 22:27\). Paul argues that, since a believer’s body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, he should flee sexual immorality, which harms the body that was bought by Christ’s blood (1 Corinthians 6:18–20\). This argument can be carried over to other issues, including drug and alcohol abuse and how we treat food. Food is fuel. It is not meant to be used purely for pleasure, or we could eat nothing but chocolate and cheese pizza and be healthy. Food is meant for nutrition and [good health](Bible-health.html).
Our bodies can be considered machines that carry us from place to place as we carry out the work God has planned for us (Ephesians 2:10\). An unhealthy body will make us slow, lethargic, and prone to illness and injury. Good nutrition is crucial for proper brain function and hormonal balance; eating the right food contributes highly to our ability to think clearly and to our general quality of life. Therefore, good nutrition can help support our service for the Lord.
God gives food to us, as He does to the creatures of the animal kingdom (Psalm 147:9; 104:27; 136:25\). The earth has been created to produce foods that are full of vitamins and minerals and amino acids that the body needs to survive and be healthy. Food is a gift from God; it is His provision. Why do whole, raw, unprocessed foods contain the most nutrition? Because they come right from God’s hand.
|
What does it mean that a wife is supposed to be a helpmeet / help meet?
|
Answer
The word *helpmeet* comes from Genesis 2:18 in the King James Version of the Bible, which says, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.” *Meet* in this context is an adjective that means “suitable.” What the verse actually says is that God created a “help” for Adam, and this helper was “meet” (suitable, fit, proper) for him. Through the years the phrase *help meet* morphed into a single word, *helpmeet*, which is sometimes used as a synonym for *helpmate*, meaning “spouse” or “companion.” Modern translations render the phrase in Genesis 2:18 as “a helper fit for him” (ESV); “a helper suitable for him” (NIV and NASB); or “a helper comparable to him” (NKJV).
It is interesting to note that the only part of God’s creation declared to be “not good” concerns Adam’s solitary state. God stated that it was not good for man to be alone (Genesis 2:18\). A man is, by nature, a social creature; God created us to need companionship. And, of course, a man alone cannot propagate. Adam by himself was incomplete. This is why God created Eve as a “help meet”: to complete Adam, to provide society for him, and to enable him to produce children. Eve was exactly what Adam needed—a helper suitable for him.
Does this mean that every man must have a wife, a helper to complete him? No. In fact, the apostle Paul said that [celibacy](gift-of-celibacy.html) is a good thing for the servant of God (1 Corinthians 7:7–9\). Does it mean that every woman must be a wife and a completer of a man? No. Not every woman wants to marry or is led to matrimony. However, the Genesis passage sets the standard for most people in most contexts. A wife is the helper suitable for her husband.
So what exactly does it mean to be a suitable helper? The key is the word *suitable*. A suitable wife is compatible with her husband in many respects—physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually. This doesn’t mean the man and woman are the same in everything, only that they fit together in harmony. They [complement](complementarianism.html) each other. The B\-flat key on the piano is not the same as the G, but together they make a harmonious chord. Similarly, a suitable helper for a husband is a wife who is different from him, but well\-suited to him, one who completes him in every way and who brings harmony, not discord, to the relationship.
|
What is the Noble Eightfold Path?
|
Answer
The Noble Eightfold Path is the foundation of [Buddhist](buddhism.html) practice. The eight concepts contained in the Noble Eightfold Path are the attitudes and behaviors that Buddhists strive to emulate as a means of living out the [Four Noble Truths](Four-Noble-Truths.html). These eight concepts fall into three major categories: Wisdom, Conduct, and Concentration. According to the Four Noble Truths, all life is suffering caused by desires for impermanent things, and since all things are impermanent—even the self—the only way to be free of suffering is to shed all desires. This is done, according to Buddhism, by following the Eightfold Path.
Although called a “path,” these eight components are not intended to be followed in any particular order. Instead, they are meant to be followed simultaneously, in order to shed desires and attain Nirvana. The Eightfold Path, and Buddhism itself, is often represented by an eight\-spoked wheel, similar to the steering wheel of a sailing ship. The components of the Noble Eightfold Path are right view, right intent, right speech, right behavior, right livelihood, right effort, right awareness, and right meditation.
The components of Right View and Right Intent are sometimes referred to as the Wisdom aspects of the Noble Eightfold Path.
“Right view” essentially means believing in the Four Noble Truths: that life is suffering; suffering is caused by desiring temporary things; everything is temporary; and only by following the eightfold path can one shed all desires. It also includes an awareness of concepts such as rebirth ([reincarnation](reincarnation.html)) and the law of [*karma*](karma.html). Biblically, it’s true that one must submit to a particular truth in order to be saved (John 8:32\), but the Bible disagrees that specific knowledge is somehow an active part of one’s salvation (Ephesians 2:8; 1 Corinthians 3:19\).
“Right intent” refers to a willingness to change for the better, according to the Noble Truths and Eightfold Path. A person with right intent is committed to the precepts of Buddhism and seeks to compare his thoughts and behaviors to it. Biblically, believers are called on to compare their faith and actions to the standards of Christ (2 Corinthians 13:5; Romans 13:14; John 15:14\). However, the Bible also acknowledges that what a person wants, deep down, is not always what he should want (Jeremiah 17:9\). Buddhism provides no answer for how a person is supposed to change his deep desires in order to find enlightenment (see 2 Corinthians 10:12\).
The components of Right Speech, Right Behavior, and Right Livelihood are sometimes referred to as the Ethical aspects of the Noble Eightfold Path.
“Right speech” refers to using words honestly, politely, and purposefully. This means avoiding gossip, lying, or verbally abusive speech. Right speech is applied to written words as much as those spoken. One interesting side effect of the Buddhist approach to right speech is avoidance of discussion of certain spiritual or metaphysical topics. According to Buddhism, some questions of ultimate reality are irrelevant to one’s pursuit of the Eightfold Path, so discussing them is not “right speech.” Biblically, we are told to maintain control of our words (Proverbs 10:19\) and to avoid unnecessary conflict (1 Timothy 6:4\).
“Right behavior” includes avoiding acts such as murder, theft, adultery, and so forth. The general principle guiding what is right vs. what is wrong is whether or not the act would bring harm to another person. Of course, the Bible gives a challenging approach to behavioral ethics (Matthew 7:12; 1 Corinthians 9:27\), combining behavior with attitude under a single approach to morality and ethics (Matthew 5:21–22, 27–28\). And the Bible’s standard for right vs. wrong is ultimately not whether it brings harm to another person but whether it contradicts God’s holy nature.
“Right livelihood” is similar to right behavior, but it is specifically focused on one’s occupation. According to this principle, one ought not cheat, lie, or participate in businesses that harm or abuse people. Because of Buddhist approaches to animal life and violence, this rule precludes any work involving slaughter of animals, selling of meats, or the manufacture or selling of weapons. According to the Bible, a person is to conduct all parts of his life, including business, with equal moral and ethical concern (Psalm 44:21; Romans 2:16; 2 Corinthians 4:2\). God also expects us to be good stewards of nature (Leviticus 19:25; 25:2–5, Habakkuk 2:8, 17\). However, the Bible does not prohibit the use of animals (Mark 7:19; Genesis 1:28\) or legitimate means of self\-defense (Luke 22:36\).
The components of Right Effort, Right Awareness, and Right Meditation are sometimes known as the Concentration aspects of the Noble Eightfold Path.
“Right effort” requires a sense of persistence and caution in applying the other aspects of the Eightfold Path. It implies a drive to avoid pessimistic thinking and negative emotions such as anger. Once again, this presents a problem in that human nature is inclined to be selfish and lazy. Buddhism presents no particular means to change those aspects in a person who isn’t inclined to change them. The Bible speaks of God’s willingness and ability to change the heart, even when we’re resistant (2 Thessalonians 3:13; 1 Corinthians 6:11\).
“Right awareness” is similar to right effort but focused more on internal mental and philosophical aspects. Buddhism encourages a high level of self\-awareness, with special attention given to how a person responds to his experiences and environment. This type of mindfulness is centered on the present, with less emphasis on the past or future. Biblically, we are likewise called on to guard our thoughts and to be careful of how our surroundings affect our spiritual lives (1 Corinthians 15:33; 6:12\).
“Right meditation” is a core practice of Buddhism, involving breathing, chanting, and other focusing techniques. The goal of this style of meditation is to empty the mind completely of everything but the object of concentration. The ultimate expression of this form of meditation is *samadhi*, when a person progresses through various reflective levels until he attains a state of complete non\-perception and non\-feeling. This represents another conflict with biblical teaching. The Bible applauds the concepts of meditation and reflection (Psalm 1:2; 119:15\) but not with the goal of “emptying” the mind. Rather, the goal of [Christian meditation](Christian-meditation.html) is to focus on the truth of the Word of God. Biblically, meditation is the filling of the mind with God’s revealed Word.
In summary, there are some points of agreement between biblical Christianity and the Buddhist Noble Eightfold Path. However, the many differences are both fundamental and irreconcilable. According to the Eightfold Path, a person who can’t pull himself up by his own bootstraps is simply out of luck. His only option is to hope that his desires, intentions, and efforts change on their own. The Bible explains that a person’s heart can’t be trusted to seek good in and of itself (Jeremiah 17:9; Romans 3:10–12; 7:18–24\), but any heart can be changed through a relationship with Christ (Romans 7:25; Galatians 3:13\).
|
Why will the nations need healing in the New Jerusalem?
|
Answer
One of God’s promises concerning the [eternal state](eternal-state.html) is that the nations of the world will have healing. The question comes up, though, as to why exactly healing is needed. Isn’t the [New Jerusalem](new-jerusalem.html) a place of perfection already?
The promise of the healing of the nations is found in Revelation 22, after the creation of the new heaven and new earth (Revelation 21:1\). John writes, “Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations. No longer will there be any curse. The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and his servants will serve him. They will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads. There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light. And they will reign for ever and ever” (Revelation 22:1–5\).
The healing of the nations is linked to the [tree of life](tree-of-life.html), as God reestablishes Eden. It is the leaves of this tree that are said to be “for the healing of the nations” (Revelation 22:2\). It is possible that the tree of life in the New Jerusalem is literal and that its leaves and various fruits will somehow enrich our existence in the eternal state. All the nations represented there will be “healed” of their divisions and strife in their equal access to the tree of life.
It is also possible that the tree of life in the New Jerusalem is symbolic and that its “healing” signifies the eternal life that all will enjoy there. The different fruits it bears could represent the unlimited variety of our existence in heaven. The clear flowing river that waters the tree could picture the spiritual life of God’s redeemed—the “[living water](living-water.html)” Jesus promised in John 4:13–14\.
The healing the tree of life’s leaves provide is not the healing of the wounds of battle—warfare will have ended. The healing is not needed for combating sickness—there will be no more sickness, death, or pain (Revelation 21:4\). No, the “healing” is a reference to the perpetual blessing of the new heaven and earth; never again will the world be plagued by physical disorders or spiritual malaise or corruption. There will be no more warfare, no strife, no conflicting factions. God will heal all that ails His creation, and there will be no more curse (Revelation 22:3\).
In the eternal state, everything will be blessed, and the tree of life represents that blessedness. There will be perfect sinlessness, perfect government, perfect service to God, perfect communion, and perfect glory. It is impossible for us to imagine being totally separated from sin and living in a glorified state before God. But the Lord assures us that “these words are trustworthy and true” (Revelation 22:6\).
|
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.