Split (1)

train · 9.53k rows

prompt stringlengths 0 158	response stringlengths 14 40.2k
How should a Christian view realism?	Answer Realism is defined as “the attitude or practice of accepting a situation as it is and being prepared to deal with it accordingly.” In other words, realism encourages people not to be either overly [optimistic](Bible-optimism.html) or pessimistic about circumstances, but instead try to see things exactly as they are. A realist wants the unvarnished truth. There are many different philosophies that stem from realism, including depressive realism (the idea that people who are clinically depressed are able to see reality more clearly) and philosophical realism, which says that reality is absolute and does not depend on observers’ perceptions. Like most philosophical systems, realism is just one way of understanding and dealing with life. Some philosophies, and most likely some branches of realism as well, are opposed to the teachings of Scripture. But the basic premise of realism—that we should look at things as they are and act accordingly—is not anti\-biblical. In fact, the Bible encourages us to seek the truth about life and about ourselves (1 John 1:5–10\) and warns us not to be deceived (James 1:16; Deuteronomy 11:16\). The human mind is easily fooled, having the capacity to accept deceptions as true, and from the beginning Satan has attempted to deceive humanity, often with great success (Genesis 3:13; 2 Corinthians 11:3; 1 Timothy 2:14\). The Bible says that deceptions will increase as time goes on (2 Timothy 3:13\). The desire to find the truth is good and is satisfied in Christ (John 14:6\). One problem with realism is the assumption that human beings can see the truth accurately or that we can form proper conclusions based on what we perceive. We go through the world, taking knowledge in through our senses, listening to the rational (or irrational) arguments of others, and absorbing more subtle emotional and spiritual information through the stories we hear. Our minds are deeply connected to our cultures and the messages of the world. Jesus said that the only way to hear or receive the truth is to be indwelt by the Spirit of truth (John 14:17\). We need God to shed light on our minds so that we can perceive the truth accurately and clearly (2 Corinthians 4:4\). The [prophet Jeremiah](life-Jeremiah.html) said, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?” (Jeremiah 17:9\), and for that reason we are encouraged to “trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge Him and He will make your paths straight” (Proverbs 3:5–6\). This is one of the most difficult things to accept: that even when we try to see things as realistically as possible our minds and hearts can still be deceived. That is why we must trust God, who has been around forever and will be around long after the world has passed away (1 John 2:17\); the God who created reality “is greater than our heart, and knows everything” (1 John 3:20\).
What does the Bible say about being a busybody?	Answer A busybody is a person who meddles in the affairs of others. Sometimes this meddling is under the guise of “helping,” but usually the “help” is unwelcome and uninvited. Busybodies are often people who are dissatisfied with the level of drama in their own lives and gain satisfaction by becoming involved in the problems of other people. [Gossip](gossip-Bible.html) is usually a staple of every busybody, but it is usually camouflaged as a “prayer request” or given under the pretense of asking for advice. The Bible has strong words for busybodies (2 Thessalonians 3:11; 1 Timothy 5:13\). First Peter 4:15 warns us, “Make sure that none of you suffers as a murderer, or thief, or evildoer, or a troublesome meddler.” It is noteworthy that Peter lists meddling as prohibited right along with murder and theft. Busybodies within the church often camouflage their [nosey](being-nosey.html) meddling as compassionate concern. The difference between meddling and concern, however, is whether or not the intrusion is beneficial or productive in the lives of others. Some people have difficulty recognizing themselves as busybodies, so a few questions can aid in determining whether or not attempts to “help” are in fact meddling. A potential busybody should ask him/herself the following questions: 1\. Is this any of my business? (1 Timothy 5:13\) 2\. Has God given me this assignment? (Ephesians 6:19\) 3\. Am I qualified to involve myself with this? (Romans 14:10\) 4\. Is my true motivation to bring help, or do I only want to feel needed? (1 Corinthians 13:1\) 5\. How much of my “discussion” about the situation could be classified as gossip? (Proverbs 11:13\) 6\. What was the result the last time I intruded in a situation that was not my problem? (Proverbs 26: 11\) 7\. Has my opinion been sought by those involved? (Proverbs 27:2\) 8\. Am I motivated by love for this person or by a sense of my own importance? (1 Corinthians 16:14\) 9\. Am I basing my “help” on Scripture or on my own opinion? (Proverbs 16:25\) 10\. Do I respond with anger when my “advice” is not accepted or found to be flawed? (Proverbs 17:10\) The answers to these questions can help us determine whether our involvement in the affairs of others is, in fact, meddling. If we recognize that our real motivation is the enjoyment of being in the center of other people’s issues, it may be time to let God deal with that insecurity. It is important to remember that busybodies rarely think of themselves as insecure. If we find ourselves often embroiled in the secrets of others, it may be wise to seek the oversight of a trusted friend or pastor. An objective person can help clarify our motivations and keep us from becoming a busybody.
What does the Bible say about emotional abuse?	Answer The Bible does not use the words emotional abuse, but there are plenty of characteristics of emotional abuse addressed in Scripture. Emotional abuse can take many forms, including verbal assaults, threats, and insults; and non\-verbal rejection, neglect, and isolation—when these behaviors are recurring, they become a pattern of emotional abuse. The most common victim of emotional abuse is a spouse, a child, or a friend who loves the abuser and is unwilling to walk away from the situation. We have examples of emotional abuse in the Bible: Abigail was almost certainly married to an emotionally abusive husband—Nabal is described as “surly and mean,” insulting, and “wicked” by the people who knew him best (1 Samuel 25:3, 14, 25\). Also, we see King Saul’s verbal mistreatment of his son Jonathan in 1 Samuel 20:30\. The Babylonians “killed the sons of Zedekiah before his eyes. Then they put out his eyes,” ensuring that the last thing he ever saw was the death of his sons (2 Kings 25:7\); this atrocity combined physical abuse with emotional abuse. Delilah’s [nagging](Bible-nagging.html) of Samson “day after day until he was sick to death of it” (Judges 16:16\) is another example of emotional, or possibly psychological, abuse. According to the Bible, the actions of an emotional abuser are sinful and not pleasing to God. The famous passage about [love](Bible-love.html) in 1 Corinthians 13 makes it obvious that emotional abuse is wrong. The apostle Paul describes the actions of real love. First, he says love is patient and kind (1 Corinthians 13:4\). Emotional abuse is neither patient nor kind but instead is quick to flare up at small offenses. Love “keeps no record of wrongs” (verse 5\), but emotional abuse is all about pointing out how another person is wrong in everything he does, so as to protect the ego of the abuser. Love is not rude or selfish or prideful or irritable or resentful—all unfortunate qualities of emotional abuse. Instead, love “always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres” (verse 7\). Sadly, it is the loving person—the one who loves unconditionally—who is most often the target of emotional abuse. According to the Bible’s definition of love, should an emotional abuser be silently tolerated? Does love require that one overlook the [abuse](Bible-abuse.html) and “persevere” through the pain? The answer to both these questions is “no.” There are loving options other than tolerating the status quo. Abuse is a learned behavior, and if we allow it to happen and continue, we are in fact accepting it. We cannot and should not accept verbal or emotional abuse, for at least two reasons: it dishonors the Lord and it often escalates to physical abuse. Abusing someone emotionally is not the behavior of a person walking in fellowship with the Lord. How does a relationship deteriorate to the point of emotional abuse? Somewhere along the way there was a failure to obey God’s commands regarding interpersonal relationships (see Ephesians 5:21\). It takes two people to make a relationship, and each side is to have his or her own fellowship with God through Christ and to be actively choosing to honor God and one another. Without that fellowship with God, and without that commitment to honoring each other, there will be a relationship breakdown. Any relationship plagued by emotional abuse will eventually have to choose one of three paths: one, the abuser admits fault, sees his behavior as harmful, and changes; two, the abused person walks away, at least temporarily; or, three, the abuse is allowed to continue indefinitely, to the harm of both parties. The abuser will only find healing and forgiveness through genuine repentance and calling on the Lord. Second Corinthians 7:10 says that “godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death.” The difference between godly grief and worldly grief is repentance. A person who truly understands the nature of his sin will be able to feel grief that leads to repentance and salvation and a clear conscience. We cannot make choices for someone else. We cannot stop someone’s emotional abuse. That is a choice that the abuser must make. But we can refuse to accept the abuse without arguing or making demands. The most extreme cure for emotional abuse is separation (see 1 Corinthians 7:5\). A separation from the abuser can allow time to seek godly counsel from a pastor or biblical counselor so that spiritual balance can be introduced into the relationship and reconciliation can occur. Regardless of the choices that the abuser makes, we can make the choice to obey God and honor Him in our lives. Accepting the abuse is not the way to go. Refusing to tolerate the abuse while maintaining a calm, spiritual demeanor, and without displaying rancor or contentiousness, will go a long way toward defusing a volatile situation (see Proverbs 15:1; 1 Peter 3:1–2\). The human viewpoint is that we can do “something” to change things. The Word of God tells us that only doing things God’s way brings peace that lasts.
Can a person believe in some sense but not be saved?	Answer There are different levels of belief, and different objects of belief, and not all that’s called “belief” is actually saving faith. James 2:19 says, “You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.” So, if a person simply believes that there is a God in heaven—and that’s the extent of his faith—then he has exactly the same faith as the demons of hell. That’s not saving faith, even though it involves a measure of belief. Therefore, yes, a person can “believe” in some sense but not be saved. [Simon the sorcerer](Simon-the-Sorcerer.html) in Samaria is said to have “believed and was baptized” at the preaching of Philip (Acts 8:13\). But later, when Simon offers the apostles money to have their ability to impart the Holy Spirit (verses 18–19\), he is rebuked sternly by Peter: “May your money perish with you. . . . You have no part or share in this ministry, because your heart is not right before God” (verses 20–21\). Was Simon saved, based on his “belief”? Before we answer that, we should acknowledge the difficulty of building a doctrine on a narrative passage in Acts. Such passages were never meant to be extrapolated into foundational teachings, and we are not necessarily given all the facts we need to make a doctrinal determination. Concerning Acts 8, some would say that Simon lost his salvation (a view that contradicts other passages, such as John 10:28–30\). Others would say that Simon’s initial belief was not genuine—he was never saved to begin with. And others might say that Simon was truly saved but, having a deficient understanding of the Holy Spirit, made a horrible suggestion. After Simon was rebuked, he seems to have some measure of repentance (verse 24\). We are not told how the story ends. Our conclusion is that Simon did not lose his salvation; either he had made a false profession or he offered a horrible suggestion out of ignorance and greed. It is quite possible for a person to have an initial positive response to the gospel without being saved. He may feel his heart stirred at the stories about Jesus. He may even identify with Christ through baptism and church membership and get involved in ministry—all the while not being born again. We see instances of this in Scripture (Matthew 7:21–23; 13:24–30\) and in everyday life. We can illustrate the disconnect between some kinds of “belief” and saving faith this way: many Americans are overweight, and at the same time there are thousands of weight\-loss products available. People will see an infomercial about the latest home exercise equipment, and they say, “That’s just what I need!” and they buy the equipment. They receive their purchase and eagerly use it—for a couple of weeks. Six months later it’s back in the box packed away somewhere. What happened? They believed in a product, but it wasn’t the type of belief that led to lower body weight. Nothing really changed in their lives. They had an initial positive response, but rather than possessing genuine “faith,” so to speak, they were merely indulging a passing fancy. People do this with Christ as well (see Matthew 13:5–7\). In Matthew 7:21–23 Jesus says, “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!’” Notice here that the people Jesus condemns were actively involved in ministry, but they were not genuine believers. They had faith of a sort—they acknowledged who Jesus is—but they had no relationship with Him. Jesus does not say that at one time He knew them, but then He later rejected them. He says, “I never knew you.” They were never saved to begin with. Another passage that shows people “believing” without being saved is Jesus’ first parable. The [parable of the sower](parable-sower.html) in Matthew 13 highlights the various responses that people have to the gospel (the “seed”). In verses 5–7 we see that “some \[seed] fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root. Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants.” Here two of the “soils” had an initial positive response—the seed sprouted but never matured. The picture here is not that these people were saved and then lost salvation but that their initial response, as joyful as it may have been, was not genuine. The [book of Hebrews](Book-of-Hebrews.html) and the warnings contained therein can be also understood this way. The recipients of the epistle were Jews who had come out of the synagogue and joined themselves to the Christian community. They “believed” a lot of things about Jesus, but at least some of them were not saved. Their mental acknowledgement of Jesus had not resulted in commitment to Him. When the persecution of the church began, the “fence\-sitters” were tempted to abandon Christ and go back to the old Jewish sacrificial system. The writer of Hebrews compares them to the generation that came out of Egypt but refused to enter the Promised Land. Although they started on the trip with Moses (an initial positive response) they refused to enter because of unbelief (Hebrews 3:19\). Hebrews chapters 6 and 10 issue warnings against so\-called belief without salvation. In John 6, after [Jesus feeds the 5,000](feeding-the-5000.html), many people turn away from Jesus and no longer follow Him (John 6:66\). Jesus then asks the Twelve if they will abandon Him as well. Peter answers that they could never leave their Lord (verse 68\). Then Jesus says, “Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!” (verse 70\). The “devil” here is [Judas Iscariot](Judas-Iscariot.html), who would later betray Jesus. What’s interesting is that we see Peter and Judas side by side. Both expressed faith in Christ. Both “believed” in the sense that they knew Jesus personally, they saw the miracles, and they had committed years of their lives to Him. But the level of their “belief” was different. Peter would later deny Christ, but after the denial Peter repented and became a pillar of the church (Galatians 2:9\). Judas, on the other hand, betrayed Jesus and never repented, although he realized that he had made a mistake and was sorry (Matthew 27:5\). Judas is never presented as a disciple who lost his salvation; rather, he is one who had never truly believed unto salvation (see John 6:64\). [Peter denied Christ](Peters-denial.html), but only for a short span of time in his life of faith. Judas affirmed Christ, but only for a short span of time in his life of unbelief. Neither Peter’s denial nor Judas’s profession was indicative of the underlying condition of their hearts—a condition that was eventually made evident (see Matthew 7:16\). We see similar professions in the church sometimes. Some people seem to be on fire for God for a short time, only to later repudiate what they believed and abandon themselves to a blatant violation of biblical principles. They did not lose salvation; they never had it—they were simply going through a “Christianity phase” that eventually passed. See 1 John 2:19\. God knows our hearts. We, however, cannot see the hearts of other people and may often be deceived about our own hearts as well. That’s why Paul writes, “Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you—unless, of course, you fail the test?” (2 Corinthians 13:5\). If we want confidence about our spiritual situation, we need to do more than look back to some words we said in the past when we “accepted Christ”; we need to also examine our current condition to see if there is evidence of God’s work in our lives today—changing us from within, convicting us of sin, and drawing us to repentance. [Church discipline](church-discipline.html) (see Matthew 18:15–18\) forces the issue. If a professed believer is living in open sin and no one ever confronts him, then he can remain on the fence. If he is confronted by one, then by two or three believers and then by the whole church, he has to decide. Either he will admit he is sinning and repent, thus giving evidence of his salvation, or he will decide that he never really wanted to be part of this life in Christ anyway and exit the situation. One way or the other, the situation is clarified. The epistle of 1 John is important because it provides many [signs of saving faith](signs-saving-faith.html), so that we can know that our faith is genuine (see 1 John 5:13\). Also, believers have the gift of the Holy Spirit, and “the Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children” (Romans 8:16\).
What is the relationship of faith, works, and security in salvation?	Answer We believe in [eternal security](eternal-security.html), that is, once a person is born again by the power of God, he is saved forever. Jesus gives “eternal life” (John 10:28\), not temporary life. But we often get questions having to do with losing faith. How is salvation maintained? What if someone had saving faith at one time in his life, but later loses faith? Are good works necessary to sustain faith? Are we really secure in Christ? There are four basic approaches to the issues surrounding faith, works, and security. The first approach is to say that you must have faith and continued obedience to be saved. You will not know for sure that you’re saved until you die and your life is finally evaluated by God. Then you will be saved or lost based on your performance in life. This is the basic teaching of the Roman Catholic Church as well as the thought of many Protestants. However, this approach does not adequately explain the teaching of Scripture that we are [saved by grace](saved-by-grace.html) through faith and that salvation is something that takes place here and now—not just in the afterlife. The second approach to the relationship of faith, works, and security says that you are saved by faith to the exclusion of works. In this line of thinking, if you profess faith in Christ and subsequently repudiate your faith or embrace gross sin, you are still saved, because you are saved no matter what you do. This approach, sometimes called [“easy believism,”](easy-believism.html) does not take seriously the warnings in Scripture that emphasize personal holiness and enduring faith. The third approach to faith, works, and security states that you are saved by faith, but you must somehow maintain your salvation through a combination of faith and works—or at least you must avoid flagrant, unrepentant sin. In other words, you may be saved, justified, born again, adopted into God’s family, and indwelt with the Holy Spirit yet still fall away and ultimately be lost. While this approach does take seriously Scripture’s warnings against sin, it still does not properly account for the many passages that speak of assurance of salvation, not to mention that we are saved apart from our works. The final approach to faith, works, and security affirms that you are [saved by faith](salvation-faith-alone.html) based on the merit of Jesus Christ who died for you. In a great exchange, your sin was placed on Christ, and His righteousness was placed on you. The result of being born again and indwelt with God’s Spirit is that He begins to change you from the inside out. Your inner change becomes outwardly visible by continued faith and increasing obedience. If you profess faith in Christ but offer no evidence of a changed life, we have good reason to suspect that your initial profession may not have been genuine (Matthew 7:21\). The first approach fails because it adds works to faith as the means of salvation and denies security. The second approach fails because it ignores the need for a changed life (see Ephesians 1:4\). The third approach fails because it places on us the duty of maintaining salvation instead of on Christ where it belongs (see Galatians 1:1–3\). The fourth and final approach is biblical. We are saved by faith, not by our own good works (Ephesians 2:8–9\), yet we are saved to do good works (Ephesians 2:10\). Many people talk about eternal security. The old Reformed term is [perseverance of the saints](perseverance-saints.html). We persevere because the God who saves the believer is also the God who keeps the believer safe and enables him or her to continue in faith and good works (Philippians 1:6\).
What is the image of the beast?	Answer The book of Revelation contains an apocalyptic vision of two beasts emerging from the sea and land to take control of the world. It’s in this vision (in Revelation 13\) that the image of the beast is first mentioned. The first [beast](beast-of-Revelation.html) is a ten\-horned, seven\-headed monstrosity empowered and given authority by a dragon (Revelation 13:1–2\). One of the heads is mortally wounded but is healed (verse 3\). The beast is blasphemous against God and actively persecutes God’s people on earth (verses 5–7\). It not only rules the world but receives the worship of the world’s inhabitants (verses 4, 7–8\). The first beast is a symbolic picture of the [Antichrist](what-is-the-antichrist.html), and the dragon is Satan (cf. Revelation 12:9\). The second beast is a two\-horned, deceptively benign creature that shares authority with the first beast (Revelation 13:11–12\). The task of the second beast is to cause everyone to worship the first beast. As the second beast deceives the world with miracles, it orders that everyone “set up an image in honor of the beast who was wounded by the sword and yet lived” (verse 14\). It also requires that everyone receive the [mark of the beast](mark-beast.html) in their forehead or right hand (verses 16–17\). The second beast is a symbolic picture of the [false prophet](false-prophet.html). The Bible does not provide many details concerning the image of the beast. We know this, however: the false prophet will have “power to give breath to the image of the first beast so that the image could speak” (Revelation 13:15\). This breathing, speaking image of the beast will then demand worship. Anyone who refuses to worship the image of the beast will be killed. Revelation 20:4 says that the mode of execution for those who do not worship the image of the beast is beheading. It is likely that the image of the beast is the “abomination that causes desolation” in the rebuilt temple, mentioned in Daniel 9:27 and Matthew 24:15\. What exactly is the nature of the image of the beast? The Bible does not say. The old speculation was that the image of the beast is a statue given the appearance of life. With the rise of new technologies come new theories, including a hologram, an android, a cyborg, a human\-animal hybrid, or a human clone. Whatever it is, the image of the beast is the focal point of worship in the “religion of the beast” during the second half of the tribulation. Bowing to the image of the beast is how the deceived people of the world will worship the “man of lawlessness” (2 Thessalonians 2:3\) who sets himself up as a god in the temple of Jerusalem (2 Thessalonians 2:4\). Those who do not worship the image of the beast will suffer the wrath of the Antichrist. But those who do worship the image of the beast will suffer the wrath of God, which is far worse: “If anyone worships the beast and its image . . . they, too, will drink the wine of God’s fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. They will be tormented with burning sulfur. . . . And the smoke of their torment will rise for ever and ever. There will be no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and its image” (Revelation 14:9–11\). The first of God’s [bowl judgments](seven-seals-trumpets.html) is aimed specifically at the worshipers of the image of the beast: “The first angel went and poured out his bowl on the land, and ugly, festering sores broke out on the people who had the mark of the beast and worshiped its image” (Revelation 16:2\). Those who refuse to bow the knee to the Antichrist and the image of the beast may be persecuted on earth, but they will be rewarded in heaven: “I saw what looked like a sea of glass glowing with fire and, standing beside the sea, those who had been victorious over the beast and its image and over the number of its name. They held harps given them by God and sang” (Revelation 15:2–3\). The image of the beast is front\-and\-center in the nightmarish kingdom of Satan, but it will not last. The Bible specifies forty\-two months, or three\-and\-a\-half years, that the Antichrist will have worldwide influence (Revelation 13:5\). After that, the image of the beast will be destroyed, the two beasts will be thrown into the lake of fire (Revelation 19:20\), Satan will be bound (Revelation 20:1–3\), and the Lord Jesus will establish His unending kingdom of perfection (Isaiah 9:7; Luke 1:32–33\).
Who are the Israelites?	Answer The Israelites are the physical descendants of [Abraham](life-Abraham.html) through Isaac and Jacob. God changed Jacob’s name to Israel in Genesis 32:28\. From then on, his sons and other descendants were called “sons of Israel” or “Israelites.” Jacob (or Israel) had twelve sons, the progenitors of the twelve tribes of Israelites. Most properly, any member of one of the tribes of Israel was called an “Israelite.” We see this usage of Israelite often in the Old Testament (e.g., Exodus 5:19; Leviticus 24:10; Nehemiah 9:2\). The word Israelite is found several more times in the New Testament: Jesus calls Nathanael an “Israelite” in John 1:47, and Paul calls himself an “Israelite” in Romans 11:1\. The word Israelite is often used synonymously with the terms Hebrew and Jew. There are some technical differences separating these words, but, for the most part, such interchanging of [terms](names-Israel.html) is acceptable. We sometimes refer to the Israelites or Jews as [“God’s chosen people.”](Gods-chosen-people.html) This appellation is directly tied to the covenant God made with Abraham in Genesis 12:1–3\. The Israelites were also the recipients of other covenants with God: the Mosaic Covenant (Exodus 19—24\), the Palestinian (or Land) Covenant (Deuteronomy 29:1–29\), the Davidic Covenant (1 Chronicles 17:11–14\), and the New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31, 33\). The New Covenant was extended, by the grace of God, to include anyone—Jew and Gentile alike—who has faith in Jesus Christ (Romans 10:12\). In the New Testament, the word Israelite takes on another connotation that has to do with one’s spiritual condition. Jesus called Nathanael an Israelite “indeed” (John 1:47\). Years later, Jesus met with Zacchaeus, who was an Israelite by birth, and said about him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham” (Luke 19:9\). We combine this with Paul’s teaching that “those who have faith are children of Abraham” (Galatians 3:7\) to conclude that salvation is not based on physical lineage but on faith in the Messiah. There is a difference between an Israelite by birth (without faith) and an Israelite “indeed” (possessing the faith of Abraham). Nicodemus, an Israelite leader, had to be born again (John 3:3\). God promised to bless the Israelites as they kept the Law of Moses. Through the years, God has used the Israelites in amazing ways, as Paul summarizes, “They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen” (Romans 9:4–5, ESV). God also promised that all mankind would be blessed through Abraham’s lineage (Genesis 12:3\). Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of this universal blessing.
What is a prophetess?	Answer A prophetess is a female [prophet](prophet-Bible.html). The word prophet comes from the Greek word prophetes, which means “spokesman.” A prophet in the Bible is a person who proclaims God’s Word and therefore speaks for God—a spokesman for God. A prophetess was, therefore, a spokeswoman for God. The faithful prophet or prophetess was one who, regardless of whether or not he or she was listened to, spoke everything God said to speak. There are several prophetesses mentioned in the Bible. In the Old Testament we have Miriam, the sister of Aaron and Moses, who was a prophetess (Exodus 15:20\). Deborah was another prophetess, and she was also the only woman that we know of to judge Israel (Judges 4:4\). Another prophetess in the Bible is [Huldah](Huldah-the-prophetess.html), who lived in Jerusalem during the reign of King Josiah (2 Kings 22:14; 2 Chronicles 34:22\). As Josiah was making reforms in Judah, he found a copy of the Law in the temple. He read it and was troubled over his nation’s disobedience. Josiah inquired of the Lord through Huldah the prophetess. Huldah prophesied a disaster that God would bring upon Judah for its idolatry, but Josiah, because of his humility and tender heart before God, would go to his grave in peace and not see the disaster (2 Chronicles 34:19–28\). An unnamed prophetess is mentioned in Isaiah 8:1–4\. This prophetess bore Isaiah’s son [Maher\-Shalal\-Hash\-Baz](Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz.html), whose name was prophetic. In the New Testament, another prophetess, [Anna](Anna-the-prophetess.html), is mentioned in Luke 2\. Anna was a widow who spent her days in the temple fasting and praying (Luke 2:36–37\). When Mary and Joseph presented the infant Jesus in the temple, Anna immediately recognized Jesus for who He was—the Messiah. She began to give thanks to God and to speak about Jesus to all who were waiting for the redemption of Jerusalem (verse 38\). Four more prophetesses are mentioned in Acts 21:9\. The four virgin daughters of Philip the evangelist were known for their prophecies. We aren’t told the content of their prophecies, but it’s likely that some of the prophecies concerned Paul’s visit to Jerusalem and pending arrest. The Bible also mentions two false prophetesses, women who claimed to speak God’s word but were lying. One of these false prophetesses is a woman named Noadiah who was part of the conspiracy to make Nehemiah afraid to follow God (Nehemiah 6:14\). The other is an unnamed false prophetess referred to as “Jezebel” in Revelation 2:20; this Jezebel\-like woman was teaching the [church at Thyatira](church-in-Thyatira.html) to follow idols and leading them into sexual immorality. The Bible tells us that prophecies will be spoken in the last days by both men and women, young and old, regardless of social status, as God pours out His Spirit (Joel 2:28; Acts 2:17\). This was seen on the [Day of Pentecost](day-Pentecost.html), when God bypassed the priests and scribes and spoke to the people of Jerusalem through the “common” people of the fledgling church, much to everyone’s amazement (Acts 2:12; 4:13\).
What is the definition of godspeed / god speed?	Answer The word godspeed (or god speed) comes from the Middle English god speid, a derivative of the phrase God spede you. Its first known use was in the 15th century. Godspeed is an expression of goodwill when someone is about to start a journey or venture on a daring endeavor. It is akin to saying, “I wish you good success” or “May God prosper you.” The latter half of the compound word, speed, has nothing to do with swiftness; rather, the verb speed used to mean “to prosper or succeed.” Interestingly, the English word goodbye goes back to a contraction of “God be with ye” and carries a similar idea—God’s presence is wished for the person so that he will succeed and prosper. Comparable wishes for God’s blessings are also found in French (adieu) and Spanish (adios), whose farewell words literally mean “I commend you to God.” The word God speed is found in only one passage in the Bible, and only in the King James Version: “If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds” (2 John 1:10–11\). Here John is warning believers against receiving false teachers or contributing to the success of anyone bearing a false gospel. To bid a false teacher “godspeed” is to express a wish for his success. Although we should love all people and desire their welfare, we cannot be faithful to the truth and at the same time wish the enemies of truth success in their endeavors. As John says, extending hospitality to a false teacher is to share in his work of falsehood.
What is moralism?	Answer Moralism is commonly defined as “the practice of morality, as distinct from religion.” A non\-religious person, who nonetheless lives by a personal moral code, can be said to hold to moralism. Another, more negative definition of moralism is “an undue emphasis on morality.” In this case, the moralist would be seen as a prude, a self\-righteous prig, or an overly austere moral snob. Religious moralism is an emphasis on proper moral behavior to the exclusion of genuine faith. Religious moralism and legalism are similar, but differ slightly in that legalism usually refers to a doctrinal position emphasizing a system of rules and regulations—often the Old Testament laws—for achieving salvation and spiritual growth. Paul warned against legalism in Galatians 3\. Moralism doesn’t necessarily point to any established system. The moralist is free to concoct his own set of rules and regulations, usually ones he has no trouble keeping, enabling him to feel good about adhering to them. Christian moralism focuses on moral behavior to such an extent that obedience comes before faith, and grace is often obscured. In practice, moralism begins to look a lot like legalism. Christian moralists tend to reduce the Bible to a manual for moral behavior, often centering on such passages as the [Sermon on the Mount](sermon-on-the-mount.html) and the [Ten Commandments](Ten-Commandments.html). The moralist relies on his moral actions: if he prays, goes to church, and helps his community, then he is good with God. Moralism says that, if you don’t lie, cheat, steal, or cuss too much, then you are a good person and deserving of heaven. But the moralist is self\-deceived in thinking that his good behavior somehow merits eternal life. Moralism cannot replace the gospel. We are all sinners in need of God’s forgiveness and grace. Moralism has no power to justify or sanctify a sinner. We are saved by grace, through faith in Christ (Ephesians 2:8\), not by keeping a moral code, however biblical that code may be. “By the works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight” (Romans 3:20\) pretty well sums up the ineffectiveness of moralism in taking care of the problem of sin. The moralist may receive the accolades of men who appreciate his good behavior—his mantle may be crowded with civic awards—but receiving honor in this world does not guarantee honor in the next. The moralist still needs Jesus. The command to unregenerate sinners is not “be good” but “believe in the Lord Jesus” (Acts 16:31\). Romans 1:17 destroys the idea that moralism can save us: “In the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed—a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: ‘The righteous will live by faith.’” External morality can exist apart from the gospel, but that is not true righteousness, which is a product of the gospel. “From first to last,” God produces righteousness in those who have faith. The Pharisees were moralists. In John 8, they bring a woman to Jesus for having violated the moral code. They were correct in that the woman had sinned. But, in their moralism, they could not see grace. Jesus showed them grace in forgiving the woman (John 8:11\), and He advised the Pharisees to focus on their own sin and seek forgiveness for themselves (verse 7\). Jesus cut through their moralism by pointing them to the universal human need for forgiveness. Once we are saved by Jesus Christ, we are [sanctified](sanctified.html) (made holy) in a continuous, lifelong process by the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit. We do not make ourselves holy, no matter how stringent our adherence to a set of moral laws. The Spirit uses the Word of God to sanctify (John 17:17\), and continual exposure to the Word produces in the believer obedience and spiritual maturity. By the Word, we “grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 3:18\). There is no power in moralism to sanctify the heart. The power to cleanse the heart and grow in Christ lies only in the Spirit of God and the Word of God. Are Christians to live morally? Yes, absolutely. Is God concerned with behavior? Yes, certainly. Can a moral life replace a person’s need for repentance and faith in Christ? No, it cannot. Moralism is no substitute for the saving gospel of Jesus Christ.
What does the Bible say about church hierarchy?	Answer A church hierarchy is a general system of [church government](church-government.html) that ranks leaders into various levels of authority. For example, the Roman Catholic Church has a hierarchy: laity, pastors (priests), bishops, and the pope, with bishops being classified as bishops, arch\-bishops, or cardinals, depending on their appointments and level of responsibility. Some Protestant denominations also have a hierarchy that includes laity, clergy, and bishops (but no pope). Independent churches and non\-denominational church fellowships eschew all hierarchy outside of local congregations, considering the local church to be an autonomous, self\-governing body. The Bible gives basic instructions on how a church should be organized, but it does not indicate a global or regional church hierarchy. The two biblical offices are [elders](duties-elder-church.html) and [deacons](deacons-church.html) (Acts 14:23; 1 Timothy 3:8–13\), with Christ as the head of the church and its supreme authority (Ephesians 1:22; Colossians 1:18\). Since the word for “elders” is usually found in the plural in the New Testament, it seems that each church normally had a plurality of elders. The terms elder, bishop, and pastor are used interchangeably in Scripture. The early church also had [apostles](what-is-an-apostle.html), who were laying the foundation of the church (Ephesians 2:20\). Part of their task was to appoint elders in each new church as it was founded. For example, on the first missionary journey, “Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them in each church \[in Asia Minor] and, with prayer and fasting, committed them to the Lord, in whom they had put their trust” (Acts 14:23\). Sometimes, these appointments were made via an apostle’s representative; for example, Paul charged Titus to appoint elders in the churches in Crete (Titus 1:5\). It is clear that each church had its own elders, and, after the time of the apostles, that is as far up as the hierarchy went. The local church was meant to be autonomous, with the right of self\-government and freedom from hierarchy. The early churches worked together to meet needs. When the church in Jerusalem was suffering persecution and a famine, the church in Antioch sent relief: “The disciples, as each one was able, decided to provide help for the brothers and sisters living in Judea. This they did, sending their gift to the elders by Barnabas and Saul” (Acts 11:29–30\). Note that there was no arch\-bishop or regional director who was overseeing this action; it was simply the believers in Antioch who desired to help, and they did, sending gifts to the elders in the Jerusalem church. In Romans 15:26 and 2 Corinthians 8, the apostle Paul coordinated contributions for the Judean believers, but, again, the work of the apostles was unique to that era, and the unbiblical idea of apostolic succession cannot be used to support a modern church hierarchy. The closest the New Testament comes to hinting at a hierarchy are the actions of the [Jerusalem Council](Jerusalem-Council.html) in Acts 15\. To answer some questions about the keeping of the Mosaic Law in the church, believers from Antioch met with the elders and apostles in Jerusalem (verse 6\). Arguments were heard, and “after much discussion” (verse 7\), the council issued some guidelines in a letter for Gentiles in the growing church (verses 23–29\). Some would point to this incident as supporting a hierarchy and centralized power in the early church. It is better to view Acts 15 for what it is: the apostles and elders giving guidance on an important matter. The decision was not handed down by one person but by a group of men who saw themselves as “brothers” to the disciples asking the question. The letter from the council began this way: “The apostles and elders, your brothers, To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia” (verse 23\). The New Testament does not support an extended church hierarchy covering large geographical areas. No elder in the New Testament was ever given authority over another elder, and each local assembly had its own elders/bishops/pastors. Even the modern distinction between [clergy and laity](clergy-and-laity.html) is a product of church tradition without scriptural basis (the apostles saw themselves as “fellow workers” with us, Philemon 1:24\). No one except the apostles ever exercised authority over more than one church, and, after the first century, there were no apostles.
What is the origin and meaning of gargoyles?	Answer Gargoyles are figures often carved into the architecture of old churches, usually in the form of a grotesque animal or human. Many times gargoyles in Gothic churches were attached to the gutter system of the roof, with the mouth of the gargoyle acting as a spout for rainwater, helping keep the masonry from being destroyed. [Catholic](catholicism.html) churches in the Middle Ages used gargoyles for a secondary purpose, after diverting water from the church walls. Some believe gargoyles on a church were meant to ward off evil; it’s also possible that the gargoyles symbolized evil spirits, monstrous entities, and damned souls. The thinking was that the church offered spiritual safety for those who accepted its authority, but outside the church was spiritual danger. The gargoyles were thus a warning to the populace that it was better to be inside the church than outside. It’s also possible that the thinking behind gargoyles was to create a symbolic representation of hell; again, the outside of the church was contrasted with the inside. But gargoyles date back to pre\-Christian times. One of the earliest examples of gargoyles is a set of lion\-shaped water spouts built into the side of the temple of Zeus in Olympia, Greece. Ancient Egyptian architecture also boasts gargoyles, most of these also shaped as lions. Gargoyles are never mentioned in the Bible. [Demons](demons-Bible.html) are sometimes portrayed as looking somewhat like gargoyles, but it is unlikely that demons would take on such a form, considering their goal of deceiving people into believing them to be angels of light (2 Corinthians 11:14\). Simply put, the Bible gives us no reason to believe that any being resembling a gargoyle exists. Gargoyles are certainly more interesting than undecorated rainspouts, and the symbolism behind them is fascinating. But spiritual safety is not found inside a building or in a works\-based religion; it is found only in Christ (Proverbs 18:10; 2 Samuel 22:3; Psalm 91:2\).
Are the holy angels perfect, or do they sometimes fail God?	Answer Scripture contains many stories of angels doing God’s work. Angels are used in the Bible to protect believers (Psalm 91:11; Matthew 4:6\), carry messages to humankind (Matthew 1:20; Luke 1:26–28; Daniel 9:20–21\), and help judge the earth (Matthew 13:39–49\). Angels praise God and intercede for believers (Psalm 148:2; Matthew 18:10\), but they are not omniscient (Matthew 24:36\). They are described as mighty beings that do God’s bidding and obey His word (Psalm 103:20\). We know that God is perfect (Matthew 5:48\) and that nothing imperfect can dwell in His presence. Since we know that angels do dwell in His presence (Matthew 18:10\), we can assume that the holy angels are indeed perfect. Jesus calls them “holy angels” for a reason (Luke 9:26\). There are two passages in Job that seem to contradict the idea of angels being perfect. The first is Job 4:18, and the second is Job 15:15\. These two verses are part of two separate speeches by Job’s friend [Eliphaz](Eliphaz-the-Temanite.html), who is attempting to help Job make sense of his misfortunes. Job was a righteous man, a good man who feared God and lived blamelessly (Job 1:1\). Therefore, the multiple tragedies he suffered seemed very odd to the religious minds of his friends, for they reasoned that God rewards the good with pleasurable things and the evil with painful things. From that wrong premise, they told Job that his pain and tragedy were the result of sin in his life. When Job maintained his innocence, his friends doubted him. Eliphaz then steps forward and argues against Job’s innocence, using angels as proof: “If God . . . charges his angels with error, how much more those who live in houses of clay?” (Job 4:18–19\). In other words, if even the angels are faulted before God, certainly human beings are incapable of living innocently! In another speech to Job, Eliphaz returns to the same theme: “If God places no trust in his holy ones, if even the heavens are not pure in his eyes, how much less mortals, who are vile and corrupt?” (Job 15:15–16\). There are two things that we must keep in mind. First, Eliphaz was not a truth\-teller. In fact, at the end of the book of Job, when the Lord Himself appears, we read this: “\[God] said to Eliphaz the Temanite, ‘I am angry with you and your two friends, because you have not spoken the truth about me’” (Job 42:7\). Thus, it is important to always know who is speaking in the [book of Job](Book-of-Job.html). The words of Eliphaz and the other two of Job’s friends are unreliable. Second, in the verses previous to Job 4:18, we see that Eliphaz got his information from a spirit that had visited him in the night (Job 4:12–16\). This spirit did not appear to Eliphaz the way the holy angels appeared to Daniel or Mary or Joseph. The holy angels came in the light, announced that their messages were from God, and told the humans they visited not to fear. The spirit that appeared to Eliphaz, on the other hand, frightened him, hid in the darkness, and whispered in his ear. It is certain that the spirit that appeared to Eliphaz was a demon, a fallen angel who was expressing its own bitterness at being charged with error by a holy God. These two passages in Job, though they at first glance may appear to contradict the idea of holy angels, do not prove the imperfection of God’s angels. Instead, they prove the imperfection of man, who is easily deceived and must always ask God for wisdom instead of relying on his own susceptible intellect (see Proverbs 3:5–6; James 1:5\).
Where was Jesus crucified?	Answer The precise location of where Jesus was crucified is a matter of debate. The location is declared to be [“Golgotha,”](Golgotha-Calvary.html) the “[place of the skull](place-of-the-skull.html),” in Matthew 27:33, Mark 15:22, Luke 23:33, and John 19:17\. The Gospels give a few other clues as to the location. John 19:20 says that it was “near the city,” which very likely indicates that it was outside of the city walls. Mark 15:40 states that the location of Jesus’ crucifixion could be seen from a distance, which likely indicates that it was elevated. Matthew 27:39 and Mark 15:29 describe the crucifixion site as being accessible to passers\-by. The two most popular proposed sites of where Jesus was crucified are the [Church of the Holy Sepulchre](Church-of-the-Holy-Sepulchre.html) and Gordon’s Calvary. The Church of the Holy Sepulchre is the traditional site, dating back to the early fourth century AD in the writings of Eusebius. Gordon’s Calvary was first proposed in the mid\-nineteenth century by Otto Thenius, Fisher Howe, and Claude Conder, and then popularized in the late nineteenth century by Charles Gordon. The problem with knowing exactly where Jesus was crucified is that Jerusalem has experienced a massive amount of change in the past two thousand years. Major sections of the city itself have been destroyed and rebuilt multiple times. The Church of the Holy Sepulchre is inside the current city walls, but would its location have been outside of the city walls in the early first century? Gordon’s Calvary is definitely outside of the city walls, but did it even exist in its current form in the early first century, or is it the result of quarrying work that has occurred sometime in the past 2,000 years? It is not the purpose of this article to settle the debate of where Jesus was crucified. There are strong opinions on both sides. Some favor the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and others favor Gordon’s Calvary. There are arguments for other locations as well. Ultimately, the exact location of where Jesus was crucified does not matter. Wherever the location is, there is no biblical reason to revere it. There is no spiritual power or promised blessing at the spot where Jesus was crucified or where He was buried. We are no closer to God in the [tomb](empty-tomb.html) beneath the Church of the Holy Sepulchre or on the top of Gordon’s Calvary than we are in our homes. Jesus was crucified, buried, and [resurrected](resurrection-Christ-important.html) (1 Corinthians 15:3–4\). That is what is important.
What is the behemoth?	Answer The behemoth is a large animal mentioned in Job 40:15–24 as God addresses [Job](life-Job.html). God’s description of this animal focuses on its great size and strength in comparison to Job’s smallness and human frailty. Modern language has picked up on the biblical description and uses the word behemoth to mean “anything of monstrous size or power.” The way the behemoth is described in Job 40 gives us the idea that this animal, familiar to Job, was an unstoppable, fearless creature. It’s impossible to identify what species the behemoth is, but we do know this: the behemoth is a plant\-eater (Job 40:15\) that lives near water (verses 21–23\). It is at home even in a flooded, raging river (verse 23\). The behemoth is very strong and muscular (verses 16, 18\); in fact, “it ranks first among the works of God” (verse 19\), and only its Creator can master it. The behemoth has a massive tail that “sways like a cedar” (verse 17\). Hunting the behemoth is futile, because it cannot be captured (verse 24\). Some commentators identify the behemoth as a hippopotamus, a rhinoceros, or an elephant. However, the description of its cedar\-like tail in Job 40:17 hardly fits the stubby or rope\-like tails of those animals. Another theory is that Job 40 describes a type of [dinosaur](dinosaurs-Bible.html) such as a diplodocus or an apatosaurus. Such sauropods were the largest of all land animals (ten times heavier than elephants), were marsh\-loving plant\-eaters, had tails like trees, and could truly be called “kings” of the animals. The Bible teaches that animals, which must have included Behemoth, were created on the same day as man (Genesis 1:24–27; Job 40:15\). We don’t know when the dinosaurs became extinct, and it’s scripturally possible that some still remained in Job’s day, which was sometime between Genesis 11 (the tower of Babel) and Genesis 12 (the call of Abraham). As Job sought to justify himself and demand an answer from God concerning his troubles, God shows up in the whirlwind (Job 38:1\) and speaks directly to Job. In the end, it is God who does the questioning: “Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me” (Job 38:3\). To help Job remember his place in the world, God points him to two of the mightiest creatures: the behemoth on land and the [leviathan](leviathan.html) in the sea. These animals were incredibly powerful and frightening to behold. They were no one’s pets—except for God’s. The pride and glory of man paled in comparison to the dreadful, untamable strength of the behemoth and the leviathan. How much more humble is man in God’s presence? And that’s the point. Neither Job nor anyone else has the right to criticize God’s work. The One who created Behemoth is worthy of our reverence, awe, and worship. “Will the one who contends with the Almighty correct him? Let him who accuses God answer him!” (Job 40:2\).
What are the four beasts in Daniel chapter 7?	Answer In Daniel 7 the prophet records a night vision that God gave him concerning four world empires, symbolized as four beasts (Daniel 7:1–14\). The four empires are the same as [Nebuchadnezzar](Nebuchadnezzar.html) saw in his dream in Daniel 2, although in that dream they are pictured as various metals in a statue. Daniel’s vision assures us that the world’s empires have a certain amount of authority for a certain length of time, but they will all pass away, and “the holy people of the Most High will receive the kingdom and will possess it forever—yes, for ever and ever” (Daniel 7:18\). The vision of the four beasts troubles Daniel, and he wonders what it means until an angel explains it to him (Daniel 7:15–27\). Even then, the vision and its interpretation continue to cause Daniel distress: “I, Daniel, was deeply troubled by my thoughts, and my face turned pale, but I kept the matter to myself” (verse 28\). Daniel’s vision of the four beasts begins with a windy night and a troubled sea: “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me were the four winds of heaven churning up the great sea” (Daniel 7:2\). As Daniel watches, “four great beasts,” each different from the others, emerge from the dark waters (verse 3\). The first of Daniel’s four beasts is “like a lion, and it had the wings of an eagle” (Daniel 7:4\). As Daniel watches, the wings are torn off the beast, and the creature stands erect like a man and a human mind is given to it. Later, the angel who interprets the dream tells Daniel, “The four great beasts are four kings that will rise from the earth” (verse 17\). This first beast is representative of King Nebuchadnezzar of [Babylon](Babylonian-empire.html). Its rise to human\-like status reflects Nebuchadnezzar’s deliverance from a beastly existence and his insight into the true nature of God (Daniel 4:34–35\). The second beast in Daniel’s vision is “like a bear. It was raised up on one of its sides, and it had three ribs in its mouth between its teeth” (Daniel 7:5\). A voice tells the second beast to devour flesh until it is satisfied. This beast represents the [Medo\-Persian Empire](Medo-Persian-empire.html); the raising up of one side of the creature indicates that one of the kingdom’s parts (Persia) would be dominant. The three ribs in the creature’s mouth symbolize nations that were “devoured” by the Medes and the Persians. These three conquered nations are known to be Babylon, Lydia, and Egypt. The third of the four beasts is “like a leopard,” except it has four bird\-like wings on its back and four heads (Daniel 7:6\). This beast is given authority to rule. The third beast represents [Greece](Greek-empire.html), an empire known for the swiftness of its conquests. The four heads are predictive of the four\-way division of the empire following Alexander the Great’s death. Daniel’s vision of the ram and the goat gives further details of the second and third kingdoms (see Daniel 8\). The final beast that Daniel sees rising from the sea is the most dreadful—“terrifying and frightening and very powerful” (Daniel 7:7\). This fourth beast has “bronze claws” (verse 19\) and “large iron teeth; it crushed and devoured its victims and trampled underfoot whatever was left” totally annihilating its prey (verse 7\). The fourth beast has ten horns. This creature represents the Roman Empire, a mighty kingdom that indeed crushed all its foes. So, Daniel’s vision of the four beasts provided a prophetic look at future world events. Looking back from our perspective, we see these events as world history and can easily see the correlation between each beast and a world empire. However, there was more to Daniel’s vision, and some of it is yet future, even for us. Daniel’s attention is drawn to the destructive fourth beast, and he ponders the meaning of its ten horns. Then, a smaller horn begins to grow from the midst of the ten. As the [little horn](little-horn.html) emerges from the beast, three of the original horns are plucked out by the roots. Daniel sees that the little horn has “eyes like the eyes of a human being and a mouth that spoke boastfully” (Daniel 7:8\). The proud, boastful words of the little horn continue until the Ancient of Days sets up a day of judgment (verses 9–10\). At that time, “the beast was slain and its body destroyed and thrown into the blazing fire” (verse 11\). This is in contrast to the fate of the other three beasts, who lost their authority but were not immediately destroyed (verse 12\). After the fourth beast is killed and its body burned, a “son of man” comes from heaven in the clouds. “He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence” (Daniel 7:13\). This man is given “authority, glory and sovereign power” (verse 14\), and all the nations of earth worship him. The kingdom he rules is everlasting and indestructible. As the interpretation of the vision is given to Daniel, the prophet asks specifically about the fourth beast and its horns (Daniel 7:19\). The angel explains: the beast’s ten horns are ten kings who will arise from that kingdom (verse 24\). The little, imposing horn with the eyes and mouth of a human represents a later king; before him three of the original kings will be subdued. This evil king “will speak against the Most High and oppress his holy people” (verse 25\). He will seek to change times and laws, and he will exert oppressive power over God’s people for three and a half years. This world leader that Daniel saw is the [Antichrist](what-is-the-antichrist.html), the “ruler who will come” who sets up the abomination in Daniel 9:27\. Given the fact that the Antichrist emerges from the fourth beast leads us to surmise that, in the end times, there will be a [“revival” of the Roman Empire](Revived-Roman-Empire.html), featuring a coalition of ten world leaders. The Antichrist will take his position of leadership at the expense of three of those leaders, and he will eventually wield global authority. A true tyrant, the Antichrist will demand worship and seek to control all aspects of life (see Revelation 13:16–17\). The little horn of Daniel 7 is the first beast of Revelation 13\. Notice that the [beast in Revelation](beast-of-Revelation.html) also has ten horns, and John describes it as resembling “a leopard, but \[it] had feet like those of a bear and a mouth like that of a lion” (Revelation 13:2\). In other words, the beast of Revelation contains elements of all of Daniel’s beasts. Like Daniel’s fourth beast, John’s beast speaks proudly and oppresses God’s people for three and a half years (Revelation 13:5–7\). The good news is that the reign of the Antichrist is limited: forty\-two months, and no more. Then, God promises to judge the little horn. “The court will sit, and \[the little horn’s] power will be taken away and completely destroyed forever” (Daniel 7:26\). Or, as John saw it, “The beast was captured, and \[was] thrown alive into the fiery lake of burning sulfur” (Revelation 19:20\). The Son of Man will rule forever. It is interesting to compare Daniel’s vision of the four beasts with King Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of a large statue. Both visions symbolize the same kingdoms of the world. In Daniel 2, the king dreams of the earthly kingdoms as “an enormous, dazzling statue, awesome in appearance” (Daniel 2:31\). However, Daniel sees the same kingdoms as hideous beasts (Daniel 7\). So, we have two very different perspectives on the kingdoms mankind builds. The rulers of the world see their kingdoms as imposing, artistic monuments fashioned of valuable metals. However, God’s prophets view the same kingdoms as unnatural monsters. Daniel’s vision of the four beasts warned Israel that there would be a procession of enemies and world rulers holding authority over them; however, they should not lose heart. In the end, God is in control, and the Messiah to come will defeat the kingdoms of this world and establish His throne forever (Daniel 2:44; 7:13–14; Revelation 11:15\).
How long was Job’s suffering?	Answer The [patience of Job](patience-of-Job.html) is remarkable. James 5:11 speaks of Job’s endurance in his affliction: “You have heard of Job’s perseverance and have seen what the Lord finally brought about.” The words perseverance and finally might seem to suggest a long period of time, but the fact is that the Bible does not specify how long Job suffered. We know that Job [suffered](Bible-suffering.html) for more than a week, at least. Job 2:13 says that, when Job’s three friends arrived, “they sat on the ground with him for seven days and seven nights” in total silence. To these seven silent days we add time for the Job’s friends to hear news of the tragedy, meet together, and travel to Job’s place: when “Job’s three friends . . . heard about all the troubles that had come upon him, they set out from their homes and met together by agreement to go and sympathize with him and comfort him” (Job 2:11\). How long did it take for the bad news to reach Job’s friends? How long did it take the friends to prepare to travel and then make the trip? Scripture doesn’t give any indication. To the travel time and the “silent” week, we add time for the dialogue that follows in Job 3—37\. After that, we have God’s stormy questions in Job 38—41, God’s rebuke of [Job’s three friends](Jobs-friends.html), and the sacrifice of seven bulls and seven rams in Job 42\. It is “after Job had prayed for his friends” (Job 42:10\) that the Lord restores Job’s fortunes. Another consideration is Job’s complaint in Job 7:3: “I have been allotted months of futility, and nights of misery have been assigned to me.” The “months” here could be literal months that Job had already suffered; but “months” could also be Job’s pessimistic prognosis (he foresaw months of pain ahead), or it could simply be an expression of how time seemed to drag on (the days seemed to last “months” because of his suffering). We have even more variables in trying to determine how long Job suffered: how long did the dialogues between Job and his friends take? Did God step in immediately after Job’s final speech in Job 37? How long did it take for Job’s friends to offer the sacrifices? Was God’s restoration immediate, or gradual? Again, the Bible is silent concerning those questions. If Job’s friends lived close by, and if the dialogues all took place on the same day, and if God’s revelation occurred immediately following, and if Job’s friends did not delay in making things right, then it’s possible that Job’s suffering would have lasted for eight or nine days. However, if there were gaps between any of those events, or if Job’s friends lived farther away, or if Job 7:3 refers to literal months, Job’s suffering could have lasted much longer. No matter how long Job actually suffered, it likely felt like an eternity to him. But Job was patient and endured to see God’s blessing after the test: “\[The Lord] gave him twice as much as he had before” (Job 42:10\). Job thus models the patience we should all have, and his story becomes an illustration of the reward we await: “Our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us” (Romans 8:18\).
What is the Moses model of church leadership?	Answer The Moses model or Moses principle (sometimes called the “Moses\-Aaron” leadership style) is a church leadership structure based on the example of Moses’ leadership in the Old Testament. The Moses model could be considered a pastor\-rule or elder\-rule style of [church polity](church-polity.html), but it is definitely not congregational rule. The Moses model is usually associated with the [Calvary Chapel](Calvary-Chapel.html) denomination. In the [theocracy](theocracy-definition.html) that God established in the Old Testament, [Moses](life-Moses.html) was in charge. He listened to God and relayed God’s messages to the people under him. Moses explains his role in Exodus 18:15–16: “The people come to me to seek God’s will. Whenever they have a dispute, it is brought to me, and I decide between the parties and inform them of God’s decrees and instructions.” Moses was the spokesman for God, the teacher of the Law, and the intercessor between the children of Israel and God. The Moses model of church leadership says that pastors should be like Moses in that they speak for God, teach the Word, and intercede on behalf of their people. The pastor listens to Jesus and leads the church accordingly. The Moses model also calls for a board of elders in the church. Because the work of judging the fledgling Hebrew nation was so time\-consuming, Moses’ father\-in\-law, [Jethro](Jethro-in-the-Bible.html), gave him some advice, which Moses followed: “\[Moses] chose capable men from all Israel and made them leaders of the people. . . . They served as judges for the people at all times” (Exodus 18:25–26\). The Moses model of church leadership says that a board of elders should support the pastor in prayer and in taking on some of the work of the ministry. The pastor, Moses\-style, delegates some authority to the leaders he chooses to be under him. There is nothing inherently wrong with the Moses model. Sometimes the Moses model is criticized because of a perceived lack of accountability. The thought is that the Moses model too easily allows pastors to abuse their authority—after all, if they are “like Moses,” then they can lay down the law, and everyone else must toe the line. The board of elders becomes nothing more than “yes” men approving whatever the pastor decrees from his perch on Sinai, and the congregation has no say at all in anything. This criticism may have some merit in some churches, but if it is used as a sweeping condemnation of all churches following the Moses model, it is unjust. A prideful person in any role in any type of church government can be tempted to abuse his or her power. A more valid concern is that the Moses model attempts to apply an Old Testament system of civil government to a New Testament system of church government. Certainly, a study of Moses’ life can provide wisdom for leaders today, and there’s much we can learn from his example. But we should be careful about going too far in structuring churches after laws or histories falling under the Old Covenant. The New Testament gives clear direction for the [pastors or elders](senior-pastor.html) of a church: “Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, watching over them—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not pursuing dishonest gain, but eager to serve; not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away” (1 Peter 5:2–4\). Jesus is the Chief Shepherd, and pastors are the under\-shepherds who follow the Lord’s example of eager servant leadership.
Did the Romans give Jesus 39 lashes?	Answer Just before His crucifixion, Jesus was scourged by the Romans (John 19:1\). The Bible does not directly indicate how many lashes Jesus received. Deuteronomy 25:3 states that a criminal should not receive more than forty lashes. In order to avoid possibly accidentally breaking this command, the Jews would only give a criminal 39 lashes. The Apostle Paul mentioned this practice in 2 Corinthians 11:24, “five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one.” Again, though, Jesus was scourged by the Romans, not by the Jews. There is no reason to believe that the Romans would follow a Jewish tradition. Scourging was the punishment ordered for Jesus by Pontius Pilate: He was to be flogged (Matthew 27:26\) but not killed in that way. His death was to be carried out by crucifixion after the scourging. It is hard to imagine the level of hatred necessary to consign an innocent man to such a fate. Yet the Jewish leaders and Pilate did this very thing, knowing Jesus was innocent. Worse, the man they sent to be flogged and crucified was the Son of God. We hear and refer to the story of Jesus’ death so often that sometimes we fail to stop and think about how evilly He was treated by those He came to save. The [torment](Jesus-last-hours.html) He endured was prophesied in Isaiah: “He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed” (Isaiah 53:5\). The “stripes” referred to in this prophecy are a direct reference to the lashes Jesus received. Whether there were 39 lashes or 40 or some other number, the scourging was a terrible, painful ordeal. And, in a very real way, the death of Christ effected spiritual healing for those who would believe. Isaiah compares humanity to a flock of sheep that has turned away from the Shepherd, each animal going its own way—a picture of disharmony and danger. But “the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all” (Isaiah 53:6\). The pure, perfect innocence of Jesus Christ, His wisdom and creative power, were all present in His human body. The flawless [Shepherd](Good-Shepherd.html) chose to accept an undeserved, cruel death in order to save His sheep. This, too, was prophesied by Jesus. Before His arrest He said, “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. . . . I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. . . . For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father” (John 10:11, 15, 17–18\). Jesus chose to take our punishment. The Father chose to send Jesus to the cross. They conspired to save all who would believe and to show by Jesus’ terrible wounds both the seriousness of our sin and the depth of His love.
Are there pearly gates in heaven?	Answer The idea of there being “pearly gates” in heaven is based on a reference in the book of Revelation describing the twelve gates of [New Jerusalem](new-jerusalem.html). The passage describes an immense and lovely city with a wall built of jasper (a kind of precious stone that can be red, yellow, brown, or green) and twelve foundations of different gemstones. Then it describes the gates themselves: “And the twelve gates were twelve pearls, each of the gates made of a single pearl, and the street of the city was pure gold, like transparent glass” (Revelation 21:21\). In popular imagination, the “pearly gates” are often considered as the entrance into heaven, but Revelation shows the gates as belonging to the city of New Jerusalem. The city and heaven are not exactly synonymous; the city comes “down out of heaven” (Revelation 21:2\) and is part of the new earth (Revelation 21:1\). Also, contrary to the popular idea that the pearly gates bar heaven’s entrance, the Bible says the gates of pearl will always be open: they “will never be shut by day—and there will be no night there” (Revelation 21:22–25\). The gates, made of a single pearl, will be entered by the redeemed in the eternal state: “Nothing unclean will ever enter it, nor anyone who does what is detestable or false, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s book of life” (Revelation 21:26–27\). The promise of entry to the New Jerusalem is both beautiful and daunting. The idea of such a city is wonderful to think about—a place where nothing false or unclean or harmful will ever be able to enter. And the pearly gates will be a dazzling sight. However, we have all done bad things and told lies. Does this mean that we will not be able to enter the New Jerusalem? The answer is “it depends.” We are all sinners, but those whose sin is forgiven by the blood of Christ are named in the Lamb’s book of life. “Blessed is the one whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered” (Psalm 32:1\). Those who are in Christ are the children of God (John 1:12\) and will receive an eternal inheritance (1 Peter 1:4\).
What is the significance of the Eastern Gate of Jerusalem?	Answer The Old City of Jerusalem is surrounded by a wall containing eight major gates. Moving counter\-clockwise from the northern\-most gate are Herod’s Gate, the Damascus Gate, the New Gate, Jaffa Gate, Zion Gate, the Dung Gate, the Eastern Gate, and the Lions’ Gate. The Eastern Gate, facing the [Mount of Olives](Mount-of-Olives.html) across the Kidron Valley, is unique in that it is completely sealed shut. Some commentators see the Eastern Gate’s obstruction as a fulfillment of biblical prophecy. The Eastern Gate of Jerusalem is also called the Golden Gate or the Beautiful Gate (Acts 3:2\). In Hebrew, it is Sha'ar Harahamim, the “Gate of Mercy.” It is currently the oldest gate in the Old City, having been constructed in the 6th or 7th century AD. Also, it is the gate that gives the most direct access to the temple mount—if a person could pass through the arches of the Eastern Gate, he would be very close to where the Jewish temple used to stand. When Jesus entered Jerusalem from the Mount of Olives in Matthew 21, He used a gate in the same location as the current Eastern or Golden Gate. The Eastern Gate was sealed shut in AD 1540–41 by order of Suleiman the Magnificent, a sultan of the Ottoman Empire. It’s believed that the reason for the closing of the Eastern Gate was to prevent the Jewish Messiah from gaining entrance to Jerusalem. Jewish tradition states that the Messiah will pass through the Eastern Gate when He comes to rule. The Muslim Suleiman was attempting to thwart the Messiah’s plans with sixteen feet of cement. The Eastern Gate has remained sealed for nearly the past 500 years. It is the sealing of Jerusalem’s Eastern Gate that has caused many students of prophecy to sit up and take notice. The book of Ezekiel contains several references to a gate that faces east. In Ezekiel 10:18–19, the prophet sees the glory of the Lord leave the temple through “the entrance of the east gate of the Lord’s house”; the glory then moves east of the city to the Mount of Olives (Ezekiel 11:23\). Later, Ezekiel sees the glory of the Lord return to the temple via “the gate facing east” (Ezekiel 43:1–5\). Then, in Ezekiel 44:1–2, we read of the gate being closed: “The man brought me back to the outer gate of the sanctuary, the one facing east, and it was shut. The Lord said to me, ‘This gate is to remain shut. It must not be opened; no one may enter through it. It is to remain shut because the Lord, the God of Israel, has entered through it.’” Finally, in Ezekiel 46:12 we read that there is one person, a “[prince](prince-in-Ezekiel.html),” who may enter via the eastern gate: “When the prince provides a freewill offering to the Lord . . . the gate facing east is to be opened for him. . . . Then he shall go out, and after he has gone out, the gate will be shut.” Some interpret these passages in Ezekiel as references to the Lord Jesus Christ. The glory of the Lord coming into the temple is seen as the [triumphal entry](triumphal-entry.html) (Ezekiel 43:2; Matthew 21:1–11\). The command to permanently shut the gate because the Lord has entered it (Ezekiel 44:2\) is seen as a prediction of the walling\-up of the Eastern Gate by the Muslims in AD 1540\. And, finally, the “prince” to whom the gate will be opened (Ezekiel 46:12\) is seen as Christ Himself at the [second coming](second-coming-Jesus-Christ.html)—the Prince of Peace will return to the Mount of Olives (Zechariah 14:4\) and enter Jerusalem by way of the re\-opened Eastern Gate. This interpretation is popular and leads to much dramatic speculation about how and when the Eastern Gate will be unsealed. However, there are some textual problems with that interpretation. First, there is a difficulty in connecting Ezekiel’s “gate facing east” with the Eastern Gate of the Old City of Jerusalem. Ezekiel specifically says the gate he saw is “the outer gate of the sanctuary” (Ezekiel 44:1\); that is, it’s a gate of the temple court, not a gate of the city. Second, the Eastern Gate of Jerusalem is not the same one that Jesus rode through in His triumphal entry. The modern Eastern Gate was not constructed until centuries after the time of Christ. The original gate that [Nehemiah](life-Nehemiah.html) built (and possibly dating to the time of Solomon) is underground, below the current gate, as documented by archaeologist James Fleming in 1969\. It was through the lower gate (now underground) that Jesus would have entered Jerusalem in AD 30\. Third, the temple that Ezekiel sees in chapters 40–47 is not the same temple that Jesus was in, and the Jerusalem he describes is quite different from the Old City of Jerusalem that we know of today. The millennial temple measured in Ezekiel is significantly larger than the temples of Solomon and Zerubbabel, and the Jerusalem of the millennium will have twelve gates, not eight (Ezekiel 48:30–35\). Finally, and most importantly, the “prince” in Ezekiel 46 is not the Messiah. Rather, he is the overseer of Jerusalem during the [millennial kingdom](millennial-kingdom.html). He is not Jesus, but he serves under Jesus’ authority. We know that this prince is not the Lord because he must make a sin offering for himself as well as the people: “On that day the prince is to provide a bull as a sin offering for himself and for all the people of the land” (Ezekiel 45:22\). Whoever the prince is, he is a man with a sin nature that must be atoned for. In summary, the “gate facing east” that Ezekiel describes is different from the Eastern Gate visible today in the old wall of Jerusalem. The current (sealed) gate did not exist at the time of Christ, so the Lord never entered it. The location of the earlier Eastern Gate (the one Jesus entered) is below present\-day ground level, and it does not agree with the detailed description of the future temple complex as given in Ezekiel 40–42\. We surmise, then, that the eastern gate of Ezekiel 44 will be part of the future millennial temple complex. It is yet to be built. How then do we interpret the coming and going of God’s glory and the closing of the eastern gate in Ezekiel’s prophecy? Like this: the prophet sees the glory of the Lord departing from the temple in chapter 10 because of the gross wickedness of the people—this is the [first temple](Solomon-first-temple.html), destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 BC. Later, in chapter 43, Ezekiel sees the glory return to the temple—this is the new, enlarged temple of the millennial kingdom. In chapter 44, Ezekiel is told that the eastern temple gate “is to remain shut because the Lord, the God of Israel, has entered through it” (verse 2\). In other words, in the millennium the glory of the Lord will not depart from the temple. The avenue of the prior exit (to the east) is blocked, symbolizing the permanent presence of the Lord among His people. The eastern gate will only be opened on the Sabbath and the New Moon to allow for the [prince to bring his sacrifices](millennial-sacrifices.html) (Ezekiel 46:1–2\).
What is a millstone in the Bible?	Answer A millstone is a stone used to grind grain. When grain is milled, two stones are actually used: the bed stone, or base, which remains stationary; and the runner stone, which turns on top of the base, grinding the grain. In Bible times the millstone was a common item, and it is mentioned in several contexts in the Bible. The millstone was in fact so integral a part of society that the Mosaic Law forbade taking someone’s millstone in pledge (Deuteronomy 24:6\). The millstone was needed to grind grain to make bread and sustain life, so taking someone’s millstone would be like taking his or her life in pledge. A millstone was both extremely hard and exceedingly heavy, and it provided a vivid illustration for anyone who had experience with millstones. In the book of Job, God mentions the millstone in His description of a beast called [Leviathan](leviathan.html). This animal was so strong that God compared its impenetrable skin to a millstone: “Its chest is hard as rock, hard as a lower millstone” (Job 41:24\). The “lower” millstone is the base stone upon which the upper millstone turns. A millstone was also chronicled as an instrument of death. A woman killed Gideon’s son [Abimelech](Abimelech-Judges.html) by dropping an upper millstone (the runner stone) from a tower. The stone landed on his head and crushed his skull (Judges 9:53; 2 Samuel 11:21\). Perhaps the most famous mention of a millstone in the Bible is in Jesus’ warning against leading His children astray. He said, “If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them if a large millstone were hung around their neck and they were thrown into the sea” (Mark 9:42\). Causing a child of God to sin will bring severe judgment. If you would find it hard to swim with a millstone hanging around your neck, you should think twice before tempting God’s child.
What is the concept of Nirvana in Buddhism?	Answer Nirvana, according to [Buddhism](buddhism.html), is a complex conceptual state of being in which a person escapes the suffering of the world and realizes his or her oneness with the universe. The person whose consciousness enters Nirvana can eventually leave behind the cycle of [reincarnation](reincarnation.html) to exist spiritually, albeit impersonally. The word Nirvana literally means “blowing out” or “quenching,” but the meaning, when applied to a person’s spiritual life, is more complicated. Nirvana can refer to the act of quenching—either gradually being extinguished or rapidly (like blowing out a candle). The final goal of Buddhism is Nirvana, when the “quenching” of all desire is complete, and the person is transformed into another state. Imagine a candle burning and then being extinguished. Its energy is not destroyed, but it turns into another type of energy. This is a basic illustration of what happens when a soul reaches Nirvana. There are three “fires” that the Buddhist seeks to extinguish in order to find Nirvana. These are passion, aversion (hatred), and ignorance (delusion). On the surface, this quenching sounds biblical. The Bible warns against being consumed by or led by lust/passion (Romans 6:12\) and commands that we “put to death” anything earthly inside ourselves, including sinful passion (Colossians 3:5\). Hatred and willful ignorance are also denounced in Scripture. There are no less than 71 different proverbs that speak of “the fool,” and none of them are positive. Hatred is also a negative state, biblically. “Hatred stirs up conflict, but love covers over all wrongs” (Proverbs 10:12\). However, Buddhism’s quenching of “passion” is far different from the Bible’s directive to “flee youthful passions” (2 Timothy 2:22, ESV). Buddhism does not see sin as the violation of a divine moral code; rather, it recommends the elimination of all desires, which of course is self\-defeating—in order to get rid of all desire, one must desire to have it gone. And it’s not a biblical idea, anyway—God promises to give us the desires of our hearts as we delight in Him (Psalm 37:4\), and the biblical heaven, as opposed to Nirvana, is a place where pleasures abound and desires are fulfilled (Psalm 16\). The concept of Nirvana is opposed to the Bible’s teaching of [heaven](is-Heaven-real.html). Scripture says there is no way to work out our own path to heaven (Romans 3:20\). No amount of meditation, self\-denial, or enlightenment can make one righteous before a holy God. Also, Buddhism teaches that a person who arrives at the state of Nirvana loses all personal identity, all desire, and even his or her body. The Bible teaches that heaven is an actual place, not a state of mind, in which we retain our personal identities and inhabit resurrected bodies. We will not exist in a nebulous state of perpetual apathy; rather, we will enjoy the consummation of our most basic desire—fellowship with God: “You will fill me with joy in your presence, with eternal pleasures at your right hand” (Psalm 16:11\).
Who were the seven sons of Sceva?	Answer The book of Acts records that, in Ephesus, God was performing “extraordinary miracles through Paul” (Acts 19:11\). These apostolic miracles were to substantiate Paul’s message. Some of these miracles involved casting out [demons](do-demons-exist.html) from those who were possessed (verse 12\). Jesus had earlier given His apostles specific authority over demons (Mark 3:15\). Paul, as an apostle, had received that authority as well (see 2 Corinthians 12:12\). There were some religious charlatans in Ephesus who pretended to have special, miracle\-working powers. Sceva, who is identified as “a Jewish chief priest” (Acts 19:14\), had seven sons “who went around driving out evil spirits” (verse 13\). Seeing the success that Paul had in exorcising demons, the seven sons of Sceva began using a new formula invoking the name of Jesus. They would say to the demon, “In the name of the Jesus whom Paul preaches, I command you to come out” (verse 13\). This ploy of Sceva’s seven sons backfired one day. A demon they were trying to cast out refused, saying, “Jesus I know, and Paul I know about, but who are you?” (Acts 19:15\). The demon then turned on them viciously. The demon\-possessed man “jumped on them and overpowered them all. He gave them such a beating that they ran out of the house naked and bleeding” (verse 16\). The seven sons of Sceva were no match for the demonic power they were toying with (see Mark 5:1–4\). The result of the demon’s attack on the seven sons of Sceva was that everyone in Ephesus was “seized with fear, and the name of the Lord Jesus was held in high honor” (Acts 19:17\). In comparing the work of Paul with that of the seven sons of Sceva, the Ephesians could readily see the difference between the power of Christ and the impotency of pretenders. The gospel made great inroads into that city (verses 20 and 26\). We learn several things from the account of the seven sons of Sceva. First, demons are dangerously powerful spirit beings—much stronger than we—who can cause the people they possess to do incredibly violent and uncontrollable things. The seven sons of Sceva obviously didn’t have the proper respect for demons (see Jude 1:8–9\). Second, demons recognize valid authority, and they fear God (see James 2:19\). It’s important to note that the authority over demons belongs only to Jesus (see Luke 8:28, 31\) and to those to whom Jesus gave it. The demon in Acts 19 says that it knows Jesus and Paul (one of Jesus’ [chosen apostles](what-is-an-apostle.html)). It refused to recognize any other authority in Ephesus. The demon’s question “who are you?” is chilling in its implications to the seven sons of Sceva and their total lack of authority. Third, demons cannot be cast out via a formula or a ritual or invoking Jesus’ name. There is no power in incantations, even if they include the name of Christ. The power belongs to Jesus alone. Probably the greatest mistake the seven sons of Sceva made was their failure to realize that Paul was not doing the exorcisms. Jesus Christ was doing the exorcisms through Paul. The problem faced by the seven sons of Sceva was that they had no power over the demon they confronted. They were not apostles. More than that, as religious as they were, they had no relationship with God. They were not believers in Christ. They did not possess the power or the presence of the Holy Spirit. There was nothing in them or their words that would cause a demon to pay them the slightest heed. One proud demon in particular seems to have been fed up with their stage show and gave them a beating they would remember. At one point in Jesus’ ministry, He sent out 70 disciples to whom He had given His authority over demons. When they came back to report to the Lord what had happened, they were excited about being able to [exorcise evil spirits](Christian-exorcism.html): “Lord, even the demons submit to us in your name” (Luke 10:17\). Jesus immediately provided some perspective: “Do not rejoice that the spirits submit to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven” (verse 20\). What is greater than authority over demons? Knowing God is your Father and heaven is your home.
What is spiritual bondage?	Answer The exact phrase spiritual bondage does not appear in the Bible, but Scripture does speak of unbelievers’ being in bondage to sin (Acts 8:23; Romans 6:6, 16, 19; 7:14; 2 Peter 2:19\). Jesus said, “Very truly I tell you, everyone who sins is a slave to sin” (John 8:34\) and that He came to set us free (verse 32\). Evil has a way of taking hold in a person’s life, and [bad habits](habitual-sin.html) are hard to break. For an unsaved person, sin forms a chain that only the Savior can break. So, there is some biblical truth in the idea of spiritual bondage. It is possible to “give the devil a foothold” (Ephesians 4:27\) by harboring sins like anger in our hearts. However, we should not think of spiritual bondage as Christians being bound by [demons](do-demons-exist.html). Ministries that focus wholly on breaking demonic bondage often misapply biblical texts to support their teachings. For example, there is a difference between a person who lives according to the flesh (an unbeliever) and one who lives according to the Spirit (a believer), according to Romans 8:5–13\. The one is in bondage; the other is not. A believer can be guilty of disobeying God, but he cannot practice disobedience (1 John 3:4–10\). That is, a believer is not in bondage to sin. A believer may have a compulsion to steal, and he may even carry out a theft, but he will repent. What a believer cannot do is self\-identify as a thief, enjoy being a thief, and feel no remorse. Romans 8 does not support the idea of spiritual bondage for a believer; it simply delineates the difference between a believer and an unbeliever. There is no doubt that demons oppress and tempt believers, and there are some states of mind that are fertile ground for temptation (Matthew 6:13; 1 Corinthians 7:5; Galatians 6:1\). But there is no evidence to suggest that we are in any way bound by demons or rendered helpless in spiritual warfare. A word search for oppression in the Bible reveals that man’s oppression of his fellow man is a far more common problem. Here is the real danger: that we become obsessed with spiritual bondage and with our own inner workings to the point that sin becomes our focus rather than Christ. The word religion comes from a Latin word meaning “to bind fast.” The idea behind the term religion is that the devotee is bound under an obligation of some sort. [Religion](origin-religion.html) can easily turn into a type of spiritual bondage when we allow our fears of hell, judgment, or demonic activity to control us or when we adopt a religious mindset that says, “If I don’t perform such and such a ritual, there will be bad consequences.” This is not biblical truth. “Perfect love drives out fear” (1 John 4:18\). We are not saved by rituals we perform; in fact, Jesus said that ritualistic religion does nothing but “load people down with burdens they can hardly carry” (Luke 11:46\). Those who believe in Christ are given rest and spiritually protected (Matthew 11:28; Romans 8:37–39; Jude 1:24\). We know that sin is harmful, and some sins are quite habit\-forming. But there is nothing in the Bible to suggest that when we sin we are bound by demons or cinched up in spiritual straps. The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom (Job 28:28; Psalm 111:10; Proverbs 1:7\), and trusting God is the way to safety (Proverbs 3:5–6\). This may seem counterintuitive. How can we trust the One we fear? What it means is that God—not demons, not other men—has omnipotent power in the universe. He is the King. If we set ourselves against Him, we are putting ourselves in the only real danger that exists. But if we trust Him, we are safe. God’s children are free: “You didn’t receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption, by whom we cry, ‘Abba! Father!’” (Romans 8:15, World English Bible).
What is a spiritual harvest and how can I achieve one?	Answer Throughout the Bible, the harvest carries spiritual significance. It is used in parables (Luke 8:4–8\) and as a metaphor for spiritual growth and health (2 Corinthians 9:10; James 3:18\). The harvest has always been a beautiful and important part of life on earth, the time when the year’s work bears fruit and the people are fed. It is symbolic of bounty, health and abundance. Israel celebrated the time of the harvest with a feast, appropriately called the Feast of Harvest (Exodus 23:16\). Jesus spoke of a spiritual harvest waiting to be reaped. As Jesus traveled, “he saw the crowds, \[and] he had compassion for them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd. Then he said to his disciples, ‘The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few; therefore pray earnestly to the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest’” (Matthew 9:36–38\). Here, Jesus referred to the many souls needing to be brought to repentance and faith as a harvest waiting to be realized. Jesus used the same metaphor of a spiritual harvest in Samaria. After talking to the [woman at the well](woman-at-the-well.html), Jesus told His disciples, “Don’t you have a saying, ‘It’s still four months until harvest’? I tell you, open your eyes and look at the fields! They are ripe for harvest” (John 4:35\). In the days following this statement, many of the Samaritans became believers in Christ (verse 41\). Jesus saw the spiritual harvest of souls awaiting in that village. A spiritual harvest is the result of God’s work in the heart of man. It is clear from the [parable of the seed and the sower](parable-sower.html) that some people’s hearts are good soil; when the Word of God is sown there, the person accepts it and continues to mature (Luke 8:9–15\). There is nothing we can do to change the soil—that is God’s job (Ezekiel 36:26\). However, we can be faithful to sow the seed, help the plants to grow, or reap the harvest. The process of spiritual growth and maturity, from the heart’s regeneration to the recognition of faith, is often a long journey. In fact, the Bible indicates that the sower, the tender, and the reaper are likely to be different people at different times (John 4:35–38; 1 Corinthians 3:6–9\). Just like the physical growth of a field, the spiritual growth of people is a natural, organic process, overseen by God Himself. If we don’t see anyone getting saved, it can be discouraging, but we need to remember that sowing is just as important as reaping. Some of us are sowers and may never see the result of our labor. That is why our focus should be on pleasing the One who sent us into the field rather than on controlling the rate of growth or the amount we reap. God’s laborers in the spiritual harvest of souls are promised great reward for their faith and perseverance (James 1:12; 1 Peter 5:4; 2 Timothy 4:8; Hebrews 11\). This applies to all aspects of our spiritual lives, including witnessing and seeing people saved and growing in the Lord, which is the spiritual harvest we all long to see. Sometimes we don’t see it. Nonetheless, believers are exhorted with these words: “Let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up” (Galatians 6:9\) and “A harvest of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace” (James 3:18\) and “Those who go out weeping, carrying seed to sow, will return with songs of joy, carrying sheaves with them” (Psalm 126:6\). Jesus told us to pray to the Lord of the harvest for more laborers (Matthew 9:38\). We should pray about all aspects of the spiritual harvest process, including the preparation of the soil. We can ask God to change people’s hearts. “The Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth” (2 Timothy 2:24–25\). God will use us in His fields, each according to our gifts and the need of the moment, as we trust Him.
What is The Voice translation of the Bible?	Answer The Voice – History [The Voice](http://www.hearthevoice.com) is a dynamic equivalence English translation of the Old and New Testaments. It was produced by the Ecclesia Bible Society and released in 2012 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. The Voice – Translation Method The Voice was produced through an unusual translation process—along with Bible and language scholars, many artists, writers, and musicians helped determine the final text. The Voice attempts to translate the poetry, humor, and beauty of the Bible’s passages to produce an effect similar to what one would experience reading in the original languages. In presenting the text as a literary\-style story, the publishers have chosen a “screenplay style” format. Instead of saying, “And Jesus said unto them,” the text uses a script\-like presentation to indicate who is talking. Breakout sections in another color are used for descriptions of events and other narration. The Voice – Pros and Cons As a dynamic equivalence translation, the focus of The Voice is to communicate the overall meaning of each passage rather than the specific meaning of each word. Because Greek and especially Hebrew are so different from English, this system creates more readable translations. Other dynamic\-equivalent translations include the [CEV](Contemporary-English-Version-CEV.html), [NLT](New-Living-Translation-NLT.html), and [GNB](Good-News-Bible-GNB.html). However, The Voice takes dynamic equivalence a step further with its use of Christian artists in translating less quantifiable elements such as humor and poetry. For instance, consider this familiar passage from Psalm 23: “He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters. He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name’s sake” (KJV). The Voice puts it like this: “He provides me rest in rich, green fields beside streams of refreshing water. He soothes my fears; He makes me whole again, steering me off worn, hard paths to roads where truth and righteousness echo His name.” As with every translation, The Voice makes editorial choices that differentiate itself from other translations. For instance, when referring to the triune God, “Eternal One” is used. The publishers explain that this is the closest they could come to translating the [tetragrammaton](YHWH-tetragrammaton.html), YHWH, the covenant name God revealed to Israel. Similarly, when translating the Greek Christos, instead of using the familiar transliteration, Christ, The Voice chose to put its actual meaning, “Anointed One.” As with any dynamic equivalence translation, The Voice is not designed for a literal, word\-by\-word study, but it may be useful for dramatic readings or getting a feel for the overall message of God’s Word. The Voice – Sample Verses: John 1:1, 14, “Before time itself was measured, the Voice was speaking. The Voice was and is God. . . . The Voice took on flesh and became human and chose to live alongside us. We have seen Him, enveloped in undeniable splendor—the one true Son of the Father—evidenced in the perfect balance of grace and truth.” John 3:16, “For God expressed His love for the world in this way: He gave His only Son so that whoever believes in Him will not face everlasting destruction, but will have everlasting life.” John 8:58, “Jesus: I tell you the truth; I AM before Abraham was born.” Ephesians 2:8–9, “For it’s by God’s grace that you have been saved. You receive it through faith. It was not our plan or our effort. It is God’s gift, pure and simple. You didn’t earn it, not one of us did, so don’t go around bragging that you must have done something amazing.” Titus 2:13, “Watch for His return; expect the blessed hope we all will share when our great God and Savior, Jesus the Anointed, appears again.”
Should a Christian take a vacation?	Answer The Bible does not mention anything specifically about vacations (or for our English\-speaking friends outside of the USA, holidays). However, Scripture does address the concepts of rest and stewardship, both of which are applicable in thinking through whether Christians should take vacations. A vacation is a time of rest, and God set the example of rest in Genesis 2:2–3 when He ceased from creating. In Exodus 20:8–11 God tells His people that they are to rest from their labor on the seventh day—to take a weekly vacation, as it were. The Sabbath command is repeated throughout the Old Testament. In the New Testament, we see [Jesus fulfill the meaning of the Sabbath](Jesus-Sabbath.html). Christians are [no longer under the law of the Sabbath](Sabbath-keeping.html), yet the concept of rest is still important. Jesus said the Sabbath was made for man, meaning that God gave it as a gift to us (Mark 2:27\). Rather than the burden it had become in Jesus’ day, the Sabbath was intended to be restorative. In resting we declare our dependence on God, exercise our faith in His provision, and receive refreshing. Jesus did not take a vacation from His ministry, but He did take times of refreshing and also ensured that His disciples had the same. At a time when “so many people were coming and going that they did not even have a chance to eat,” Jesus says to His disciples, “Come with me by yourselves to a quiet place and get some rest” (Mark 6:31\). Clearly, if Jesus sought time away, taking needed breaks is a good thing. Balance is necessary when planning vacations. Rest is a gift; more than that, it is a human need. We cannot survive apart from the rhythm of work and rest, as can be seen in our daily requirement for sleep. At the same time, rest is not the purpose of life. We must work as well. Ephesians 5:15–17 says, “Be very careful, then, how you live—not as unwise but as wise, making the most of every opportunity, because the days are evil. Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the Lord’s will is.” Moses prays, “Teach us to number our days, that we may gain a heart of wisdom” (Psalm 90:12\), and Jesus says, “We must quickly carry out the tasks assigned us by the one who sent us” (John 9:4, NLT). Clearly, the goal of our lives is not to vacation. But we do need time away from our daily routines in order to receive refreshment from God. God did not design us to work or to minister 24/7, 365 days per year. Another matter to consider concerning vacations is stewardship. We are to be good stewards of our time and finances. It is important to spend our resources on things that have true value. A good vacation will be restorative to our souls and help us continue in our labors for the Lord. A vacation is also a reminder that we depend on God—not ourselves—for our livelihood. Financial stewardship is an important issue in relation to vacations. It is good to consider finances closely when thinking about vacations. Is the expense of the vacation within our financial means? Is the expense proportional to the value of the vacation? Are we being responsible in other areas of finance (paying our bills, giving to the church, helping others, etc.)? This is not to suggest that vacations must be done “on the cheap.” It is not wrong to spend money—even a lot of money—on an experience. The pay off in terms of relationships, replenishment, or joy may be well worth it. The key is to submit our financial decisions to God and to steward our resources well. Vacations are not only permissible for Christians to take, but they are also necessary. As to what exactly a vacation entails, that is a matter of conscience, resources, and practicality. A vacation can be simple or sophisticated, but, as Colossians 3:17 says, “Whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.”
What does the Bible have to say about gay adoption?	Answer The Bible has many positive things to say about [adoption](adoption.html) in general, but it universally condemns [homosexuality](homosexuality-Bible.html) as an immoral and unnatural sin against God. The modern practice of gay/lesbian/homosexual adoption is not mentioned in Scripture, but the homosexual factor cannot be ignored. Gay adoption treats a gay “family” as equal to a heterosexual family, and that violates the biblical model of the family unit as ordained by God. Some people support the idea of gay adoption by pointing to the needs of children on adoption waiting lists—having gay parents is better than having no parents at all, they reason. But there’s no way around these two facts: homosexuality is a perversion of God’s design and a homosexual couple cannot form a “family,” according to God’s definition of a family (see Genesis 1:28; 2:24\). Also, a child’s greatest need is not necessarily to have two parents; a child’s greatest need is to be cared for in a godly, nurturing way and to have godly role models in his or her life. [God’s design for the family](Bible-family.html) is that children grow up in a stable, loving environment provided by a man and a woman in a committed, lifelong relationship. This design is clearly seen in God’s creation of Adam and Eve and God’s command for them to have children. The same design is also seen in God’s choice to entrust His Son to a family unit; God prevented Joseph from divorcing Mary (Matthew 1:19–20\), thus preserving the nuclear family of a husband, wife, and child. Are we saying that adoption should be restricted to stable nuclear families? Absolutely not. The Bible does not directly address the issue of who should be allowed to adopt. So, while we can describe the ideal adoptive situation based on the Bible, we cannot biblically support adoption being restricted to that ideal. Should Christians be supporters of gay adoption? Based on what the Bible says about homosexuality, the answer has to be no. Homosexuality is a perversion of the very nature of what a family is supposed to be. Christians should not support something that directly contradicts God’s will. At the same time, Christians should be known as people who adopt. The Christian life is to be a sacrificial journey of finding ways to reach others with the gospel. Clearing out orphanages and foster care systems through adoption and then raising those children “in the training and instruction of the Lord” (Ephesians 6:4\) would be the Christian thing to do.
Does God have free will?	Answer We first need to define what we mean by “free will.” For the purpose of this article, we will define free will as “the capacity of a conscious mind to make decisions and choices without any external constraints or coercion.” God has a mind and is conscious; He has the capacity to make decisions and choose (He has volition); He does not answer to any authority, is not limited by any external constraints, and cannot be coerced. Therefore, based on this definition, we can say, yes, God certainly possesses free will. God created us with a [free will](free-will.html), too; it’s part of what distinguishes us from rocks and animals. But the volition we possess is of a lesser sort than God’s. Free will with no external constraints is impossible for human beings to have, since we always have limitations of some kind. There are always things that we cannot choose to do, such as flap our arms and fly to the moon. At best, the above definition suggests that human beings only have mostly free will—there do exist external constraints on our choices—and not completely free will. We surmise that God has completely free will in the sense that, in His omnipotence, He is not limited by anything apart from Himself. According to Job 36:23, no one tells God what to do: “Who has appointed Him His way, And who has said, ‘You have done wrong’?” (NASB). Another way to look at free will in human beings is that we have a certain aspect of our decision\-making process that is unconstrained by natural laws. Many events are determined by natural laws: a pen falls when someone drops it (the law of gravity), and robins build nests every spring (animal instinct). But no such natural laws govern one’s choice to put on tennis shoes instead of dress shoes, for example, or to order bacon for breakfast instead of sausage. Mankind operates in a realm subsidiary to the natural world, yet he maintains a limited autonomy within that world. God, on the other hand, has free will in every aspect. The natural world operates subsidiarily to His realm. God is unconstrained by all natural laws; He in fact established those laws and is sovereign over them. God could have created the universe in any of a number of ways, and the way it exists is due to His choice. God was not required to create at all: in Revelation 4:11 we read, “You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being.” The point is that even the act of creation itself was the result of God’s free will: His choice to create was not influenced by any necessity or obligation. God’s volition is absolute; His actions are neither deterministically constrained nor controlled by someone else. There are certain things that God is incapable of doing because His perfect and holy nature disallows it. Titus 1:2 says that God “cannot lie” (NASB). This doesn’t suggest any kind of external control, however; the fact that God’s perfection prevents Him from lying identifies an intrinsic property of God’s own character. God cannot be unfaithful to Himself; He cannot break His Word; He cannot be less than perfect. A lesser being can choose to sin, but [God cannot](can-God-sin.html)—or He would not be God. Also, there are certain things that God is incapable of doing because of the very nature of reality. Can God make a triangular square? No, not if the words triangular and square have any real meaning. God does not deal in absurdities, fallacies, or farces. He deals in reality; in fact, God is the source of reality. He is the I AM WHO I AM (Exodus 3:14\). As the Creator and Sustainer of all that is, God has defined what we call reality. The way things are is the way He chose things to be. Human beings have some measure of free will. But God’s volition is truly free—it is maximal in both quantity and quality. God’s inability to lie or sin or be illogical does not diminish His freedom in any way, since it is the result of His own intrinsic nature; external influences have no hold on Him.
What should we learn from the account of Paul and Barnabas?	Answer Paul and Barnabas traveled together through the island of Cyprus and the province of Asia (modern Asia Minor) preaching the gospel in the [first missionary journey](Paul-first-missionary-journey.html) (Acts 13\). The name Barnabas means “son of encouragement,” and encouragement was his first function in Paul’s life. When the newly converted Saul/Paul came to the Christians at Jerusalem, they were afraid of him. But Barnabas built a bridge between Saul and the other Christians, vouching for the reality of his faith and ministry (Acts 9:26–27\). Later, news reached Jerusalem of a burgeoning church in Syrian Antioch, and Barnabas was sent to encourage the believers there (Acts 11:22\). Many people began coming to the Lord and joining the church, so Barnabas sought out Paul and, finding him, brought him to Antioch. The biblical account calls Barnabas “a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and faith” (Acts 11:24\). While Paul and Barnabas were still in Antioch, a prophet named [Agabus](Agabus-in-the-Bible.html) foretold a famine, and the church determined to send relief to the brothers living in Judea (verses 27–29\). They sent Paul and Barnabas to deliver the gift (verse 30\). After that, the Holy Spirit chose Paul and Barnabas to be missionaries (Acts 13:2\), and the church of Antioch sent them off. Paul and Barnabas took [John Mark](John-Mark-in-the-Bible.html) along as a helper and traveled through many Gentile areas with the gospel. They were “men who . . . risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 15:25\). Halfway through their journey, Mark left Paul and Barnabas, and this became a point of contention later. As they planned a second missionary journey, Paul and Barnabas disagreed on whether to take Mark again. Paul was determined not to bring him, due to his forsaking them previously. Barnabas, ever the encourager, was unwilling to leave John Mark behind. A “sharp disagreement” arose between them, and they parted ways. From that point on, Barnabas traveled with John Mark, and Paul chose Silas as his companion in ministry (Acts 15:36–41\). Later, we see indications that the rift was healed, and Paul considered Mark “helpful” in the ministry (2 Timothy 4:11\). From the relationship of [Paul](life-Paul.html) and [Barnabas](life-Barnabas.html) we can draw an important lesson. Here were two godly men, loved by the churches, filled with the Spirit, enduring persecution together, seeing people saved, and enjoying an effective ministry. Yet they were fallible and did not see eye to eye on everything. They quarreled and parted ways. Even the best and most faithful among us are prone to interpersonal conflicts and mistakes. We are all fallen human beings. The ministries of both men continued—in fact, the number of missionary teams doubled! God can use even our disagreements to further His work. Paul and Barnabas continued to depend on God. They moved forward peacefully, even though it meant parting ways. In matters of personal opinion and practical procedure, Paul and Barnabas differed. In matters of doctrine, they both saw the necessity of sharing the gospel with the world. They were united in what is truly important.
Who was Cornelius in the Bible?	Answer Cornelius in the Bible was a [centurion](Roman-Centurion.html), a commander in the Italian Regiment of the Roman military. He lived in Caesarea. His story in Acts 10 is important because it was in Cornelius’s household that God publicly opened the doors of the church to the Gentile world. The apostle Peter was present to see it happen, just as he had been a witness to the opening of the doors to the Samaritans (Acts 8\) and the Jews (Acts 2\). Despite being a Roman, Cornelius was a worshiper of God, a Jewish proselyte known and respected by the Jewish community (Acts 10:22\). Cornelius was a devout man who regularly prayed and gave to charity (verse 2\). One afternoon, while Cornelius was praying, he saw a vision of an angel of God, who told him that God had heard his prayers (Acts 10:30–31\). The angel told Cornelius to find Peter, who was staying in [Joppa](Joppa-in-the-Bible.html) at the house of Simon, a tanner (verse 32\). Cornelius immediately sent two of his servants and a devout soldier to Joppa to find Peter and bring him back. Meanwhile, God was preparing Peter’s heart to minister to his coming Gentile visitors. God gave Peter a vision of an assortment of animals, both clean and unclean (Acts 10:11–12\). Peter heard a voice saying, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat” (verse 13\). Peter resisted this command, having never eaten non\-kosher food before (verse 14\), but the voice replied, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean” (verse 15\). This vision was repeated three times, and then Peter heard the Spirit saying that three men were looking for him and that he should go with them without hesitation (verses 19–20\). Peter found Cornelius’s two servants and the soldier, and they told Peter of Cornelius’s visitation by an angel and asked him to come and speak to Cornelius (verse 22\). Peter invited the men to stay the night, and the next day Peter followed them back to Caesarea (verse 23\). When Peter entered Cornelius’s home, the centurion fell at Peter’s feet in reverence, but Peter lifted him up, saying, “Stand up . . . I am only a man myself” (Acts 10:25–26\). Peter then reminded Cornelius that it was against Jewish law for Peter to be associating with Gentiles. However, Peter explained, God had shown him in a vision not to call any person common or unclean. Peter understood that the animals in his vision were symbolic of the Gentiles, to whom God was preparing to give the gospel (Acts 10:28–29\). Cornelius then told Peter about the angel who had told him to seek out Peter. Both Peter and Cornelius saw that God had acted to bring them together. Peter then said, “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right” (Acts 10:34–35\), and then he preached the gospel to everyone gathered in Cornelius’s house. As Peter was speaking, the Gentiles received the Holy Spirit, as evidenced by speaking in tongues, and were baptized with water (Acts 10:44–48\). Peter and the Jews who were with him saw the beginning of something new God was doing: “They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have” (verse 47\). The “mini\-Pentecost” in Cornelius’s house was proof positive that the gospel was for all people, not just Jews (see Luke 2:10; Matthew 28:19\) In considering the story of Cornelius in the Bible, it is important to note that being religious is not enough to save a person. Cornelius was as devout as they come, and he worshiped the one true God. Yet he still needed to hear the gospel and respond to it positively. That’s why God sent Peter, so that Cornelius could hear of the death and resurrection of Christ, which Peter clearly preached (Acts 10:39–40, 43\). It was only after Cornelius and his household [received the message](fully-understand.html) about Jesus that they received the Holy Spirit and were born again. The story of Cornelius not only shows the necessity of the gospel but it indicates that God will move heaven and earth to bring the gospel to those who are ready to receive it.
What should we learn from the account of Paul and Silas?	Answer Paul and [Silas](life-Silas.html) ministered together on the [second missionary journey](missionary-journeys-Paul.html) (Acts 15–18\). Paul and Silas are first mentioned together after the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, as both men were part of the group that took the council’s decision back to Syrian Antioch (verse 22\). Silas is called a “prophet” who “said much to encourage and strengthen the believers” in Antioch (verse 32\). After [Paul and Barnabas](Paul-and-Barnabas.html) parted ways, Paul chose Silas as a traveling companion, and they went to Syria and Cilicia, ministering to the churches (Acts 15:41\). After that, Paul and Silas traveled to Derbe and Lystra, where they picked up another companion, [Timothy](life-Timothy.html) (Acts 16:1–3\). Following a journey through Asia Minor, the Spirit led Paul and Silas into Macedonia (verses 6–10\). During the missionaries’ time in Philippi, people were saved and a church was established, but Satan opposed their work. Paul and Silas were arrested, beaten, and put in prison for their preaching (Acts 16:16–24\). While in prison, Paul and Silas sat with their feet in stocks singing hymns. At midnight, an earthquake broke open the prison doors, setting the prisoners free. The jailer feared that his superiors would blame him for the jail break, and he prepared to run himself through with his sword rather than face the punishment. Paul and Silas convinced him not to harm himself, they preached the gospel to him, and he was saved, along with his entire household that night (Acts 16:25–34\). It seems from verse 37 that Silas, like Paul, was a Roman citizen. Paul and Silas then went to Thessalonica together and preached to a synagogue of the Jews. Some of the Jews were convinced of the truth and were saved. Many Greeks and “leading women” also believed (Acts 17:1–4\). Again, Paul and Silas were opposed by Satan, and the unbelieving Jews attacked the house of Jason, one of the new believers, accusing him of harboring “men who have turned the world upside down” (Acts 17:5–8\). Paul and Silas moved on to Berea. There they encountered another group of Jews who were “more noble” than those in Thessalonica. The [Bereans](who-Bereans.html) listened to Paul and Silas, and many of them believed after examining the Scriptures to ensure the truth of what Paul and Silas were saying (Acts 17:11–12\). The last mention of Silas in Acts is in 18:5, as he and Paul are in Corinth. Paul stayed with the Corinthians for a year and six months (Acts 18:11\) and then left for Antioch, apparently alone. The Bible does not say what happened to Silas after that. When Paul left Corinth, he made a promise to return if possible (Acts 18:21\). It is possible that Silas and Timothy remained at Corinth; a tradition says that Silas stayed behind as the pastor. Peter mentions Silas as “a faithful brother” in 1 Peter 5:12\. Paul mentions Silas in 2 Corinthians 1:19 and in the introductions of both the epistles to the Thessalonians. From the biblical record of Paul and Silas we learn the value of faithful companions and dedicated servants of the Lord in spreading the gospel. Paul and Silas were like\-minded and equally committed to the service of God. Whether they were praying for guidance in Asia, blazing new trails in Europe, preaching in synagogues, or singing in jail, Paul and Silas did it together. Their loyalty to the gospel and to each other is a model of how believers should work together today.
Who was Naaman in the Bible?	Answer Naaman in the Bible was the commander of the Syrian army who was healed of his leprosy by [Elisha the prophet](life-Elisha.html). Naaman was highly esteemed by the king of Syria (or [Aram](who-Arameans.html)) because of the many victories won by the Syrian army. The Bible calls Naaman “a valiant soldier.” His story is recorded in 2 Kings 5:1–19\. It so happened that Naaman’s wife had a servant—a little Israelite girl who had been captured during a Syrian raid. One day the little girl told her mistress, “If only my master would see the prophet who is in Samaria! He would cure him of his leprosy” (2 Kings 5:3\). Naaman relayed this information to the king of Syria, who sent Naaman to Samaria with a letter to the king of Israel regarding the matter and a gift of silver, gold, and clothing. In the letter, the Syrian king asked the king of Israel to cure Naaman’s leprosy. Upon reading the letter, the king of Israel was frightened, believing the king of Syria was trying to pick a fight with him. He tore his clothes (a sign of grieving) and said, “Am I God? Can I kill and bring back to life? Why does this fellow send someone to me to be cured of his leprosy?” (2 Kings 5:7\). The king of Israel obviously forgot there was a miracle\-working prophet in his kingdom—the Syrians knew more about God’s work in Israel than did Israel’s own king. Elisha heard about the letter, and he calmed the king’s fear, telling him to send Naaman to him (2 Kings 5:8\). When Naaman arrived at Elisha’s home, Elisha sent a messenger to tell him to wash in the [Jordan River](Jordan-River.html) seven times, and that his flesh would be restored to normal after the seventh wash (verse 10\). Naaman’s response to Elisha’s word was not good. The Syrian commander was furious: Elisha had not come out to meet him personally; there had been no incantations, no ceremony, no spectacle at all (verse 11\). Also, Naaman disliked the idea of bathing in the Jordan, which he considered inferior to the waters of his homeland (verse 12\). He could have stayed home and washed in any one of the rivers near him, and it would have done him more good than the Jordan would ever do. As the proud Naaman was storming off, his servants spoke to him: “If the prophet had told you to do some great thing, would you not have done it? How much more, then, when he tells you, ‘Wash and be cleansed’!” (2 Kings 5:13\). Their logic was solid: Naaman had been prepared to do something monumental—something difficult or expensive or dangerous, even. But the prophet had asked for something simple. Shouldn’t Naaman at least give it a try? Bathing in the Jordan was easy. They persuaded their master that he should try the prescribed cure. So Naaman relented and washed seven times. To his amazement, Elisha’s cure worked—“His flesh was restored and became clean like that of a young boy” (verse 14\). Naaman was cured of his leprosy. After this, Naaman and his retinue returned to Elisha and offered a gift—ten talents of silver, six thousand shekels of gold, ten sets of clothing—Elisha could take whatever he wanted. But the prophet of God would take nothing, despite Naaman’s urging (2 Kings 5:16\). Elisha made it clear that God’s healing was free and that miracles were not for sale (see Acts 8:20\). Before he left for home, Naaman gave evidence that his heart had changed, as well as his body. He said to Elisha, “Now I know that there is no God in all the world except in Israel” (2 Kings 5:15\). Naaman gave up his pagan idols then and there. He asked that he be allowed to take back two mule\-loads of dirt from Israel on which he could offer sacrifices to Israel’s God, promising that he would “never again make burnt offerings and sacrifices to any other god but the Lord” (verse 17\). One thing still bothered Naaman’s conscience. Part of his responsibility as commander of the Syrian army was to accompany the king to the temple of Rimmon, a pagan god of Syria. As the king worshiped, Naaman was to be at his side (2 Kings 5:18\). Naaman asked the Lord for forgiveness in advance, since he now knew that Rimmon was a false god (who could not heal leprosy). Elisha assured Naaman that all would be well and that God saw his heart (verse 19\). Naaman returned to Syria rejoicing in his newfound faith and in his restored physical health.
Is Christian rock music appropriate?	Answer Christian rock is a genre of music that is usually characterized by a heavy beat and simple melodies. Instrumental elements may include guitar, bass, drums, keyboards, or any variety of orchestral or other musical implements. Lyrics of Christian rock generally focus on matters of the Christian faith. If the artists and musicians call themselves a Christian band, they usually profess their faith publicly on social media, album inserts, and at live rock concerts. Rock and roll originated as dance music in the 1950s and ʼ60s. The musical style and lyrics were harsher and often more serious than previous musical offerings. During its rise in popularity, rock music was often associated with drug use, anti\-establishment attitudes, and musical experimentation. All musical talent is a gift from God, whether the person believes in God or not. At the same time, not all music glorifies God. Rock musicians of the ʼ60s and ʼ70s were not famous for their morality but rather often for their wild lifestyles and, later, tragic drug\-related deaths. Despite this stereotype, many talented Christian artists, starting in the late ʼ60s when Christian rock music was born, have embraced the style of rock and used it as a medium for communicating God’s truths. Christian rock music has always drawn a bit of controversy. A lot of Christians struggle with what kinds of music they should listen to because there’s a lot of great music out there that does not carry the “Christian” label. It’s important to note that having a “Christian” label doesn’t make something inherently good, and bearing the “rock” label doesn’t make it inherently bad. God does not condemn any style of music. The original purpose of music was as a means to worship and praise God. The Bible speaks of people singing and playing instruments to worship God. When Mary finds out she is pregnant with Jesus, in order to praise God, she sings (Luke 1:46–55\). Music can also be used to express pain and grief, such as in Psalm 88, a song about the author’s struggle with depression and feelings of abandonment, yet it is still a song worshiping God. One of our freedoms in Christ (Galatians 5:1, 13\) is the ability to choose what kind of music we listen to, including Christian rock music. We must still be wise about how music affects us and our motivations for our interest in any particular song or musical artist, but we are allowed to enjoy any music that strengthens us as followers of Christ (Philippians 4:8\). Whether it is Christian rock, [Christian rap](Christian-rap-music.html), or any other kind of music, we would be wise to examine a song’s benefit to us as individuals (Proverbs 4:23–26\). If the Holy Spirit advises that we keep away from a certain type of music or song, we should heed that warning (1 Thessalonians 5:19\). There are certainly songs that are appropriate for Christians to listen to and relate to, as well as songs that are not healthy for Christians. Unfortunately, a lot of today’s music is written with the purpose of going against Christian morality—perhaps not purposefully, but the lyrics may still create animosity in the listener toward God. The “appropriateness” of music is not defined by musical genres, such as rock, country, or pop. [Music](Christian-music.html) itself is amoral, yet certain songs or styles may affect us in certain ways. Listening to music about lewd women and one\-night stands is going to affect our spiritual health differently than songs that encourage or promote caring for one another. Whether or not Christian rock music is the appropriate style for any given person comes down to a matter of personal evaluation and conviction. We listen to music that we are drawn to. It is part of human nature. As followers of Christ, we need to make sure that we are examining our music choices against our desire to do all things to the glory of God (1 Corinthians 10:31\). We are free to listen to Christian rock music if it proves good for us, but no matter what kind of music we choose, we must be aware of how our hearts respond to it. We are not to be conformed to this world but transformed by the renewing of our minds (Romans 12:2\). If you are not sure if Christian rock music is good or bad for you personally, remember Philippians 4:6, “Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God.”
Why does the Bible describe the moon as a light?	Answer There are several places in Scripture where the moon is described as a “light,” even though, as we know, the moon does not produce any light of its own. Genesis 1:16 describes the [creation](creation-days.html) of the sun and moon this way: “God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night.” Other references to the moon as a light include Isaiah 30:26; Ezekiel 32:7; and Mark 13:24\. Describing the moon as having light is a matter of semantics. The moon is a luminary, even if the light it brings to the night sky does not actually originate with itself. Saying that the moon is a light is an example of phenomenological language, which people use all the time. It is not improper to speak of the “sunrise,” even though the sun does not actually rise (rather, the earth rotates on its axis). In the same way, it is acceptable to designate the moon as a light source. That’s what it appears to be from our perspective. True, without the sun the moon could not function as a luminary, but Genesis 1 does not posit that it would. The two heavenly bodies were created together and described together. As for the phrase to rule the night in Genesis 1:16, this is an idiomatic expression that simply means the moon is the dominant nocturnal luminary. The fact that the moon is sometimes visible in the daytime sky in no way negates the fact that it dominates the nighttime sky. The Bible’s description of the moon as the “lesser light” is not meant to classify the moon as a light source similar to the sun. The language is an accurate description of the comparative luminosity of the moon and the sun. The meaning is that moonlight as it reaches the earth is less bright than sunlight, a fact that we all acknowledge. We do not require the weatherman on TV to use scientifically precise terminology when chatting about the forecast—we do not get confused if he mentions a “sunrise” or “sunset,” even though those are not the technical terms for what’s actually happening in the solar system. We are comfortable with the use of phenomenological language, and we should be able to recognize it in Scripture. God communicated to humanity in a way we could understand and appreciate. The moon does shine, albeit with reflected light, so it is entirely appropriate for the Bible to speak of the moon as a “light.”
What did Jesus mean when He said, “The kingdom of God is within you” (Luke 17:21, KJV)?	Answer In Luke 17:20–21, Jesus says, “The kingdom of God does not come with observation; nor will they say, ‘See here!’ or ‘See there!’ For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you” (NKJV). The context of Jesus’ statement is a question put to Him by His Pharisee detractors who had asked when the kingdom of God would come (verse 20\). Jesus’ answer was that the kingdom of God was not coming in the manner the Pharisees were expecting. The kingdom would not be inaugurated with spectacle or splendor; there would be no great and magnificent leader who staked out a geographical claim and routed the Romans; rather, the kingdom would come silently and unseen, much as [leaven works in a batch of dough](parable-leaven.html) (see Matthew 13:33\). In fact, Jesus says, the kingdom had already begun, right under the Pharisees’ noses. God was ruling in the hearts of some people, and the King Himself was standing among them, although the Pharisees were oblivious to that fact. Various translations render the Greek of Luke 17:21 various ways. The phrase translated “within you” in the KJV and NKJV is translated as “in your midst” in the NIV, NASB, and NET; “among you” in the NLT and HCSB; and “in the midst of you” in the ESV. Earlier versions of the NIV had “within you” with a marginal note suggesting “among you.” There is obviously a difference between saying “the kingdom of God is within you” and “the kingdom of God is among you.” “Within you” comes off as an unfavorable translation, seeing that Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees at the time. Jesus was surely not saying that the kingdom of God resided within the Pharisees’ hearts. The Pharisees opposed Jesus and had no relationship with God. Jesus in other places denounced them as “whitewashed tombs” and “hypocrites” (Matthew 23:27\). The better translation would be “in your midst” or “among you.” Jesus was telling the Pharisees that He brought the kingdom of God to earth. Jesus’ presence in their midst gave them a taste of the kingdom life, as attested by the miracles that Jesus performed. Elsewhere, Jesus mentions His miracles as definitive proof of the kingdom: “If I drive out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you” (Luke 11:20\). There are three popular interpretations of Jesus’ words in Luke 17:21 that the kingdom of God is within you (or among you): 1\) the kingdom of God is essentially inward, within man’s heart; 2\) the kingdom is within your reach if you make the right choices; and 3\) the kingdom of God is in your midst in the person and presence of Jesus. The best of these interpretations, it seems, is the third: Jesus was inaugurating the kingdom as He changed the hearts of men, one at a time. For the time being, Christ’s kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36\). One day, however, the [kingdom of God](millennium.html) will be manifest on the earth (Isaiah 35:1\), and Jesus Christ will rule a physical kingdom from David’s throne (Isaiah 9:7\) with Jerusalem as His capital (Zechariah 8:3\).
Was Jesus being rude to Mary when He referred to her as “woman” in John 2:4?	Answer In John 2, Mary, Jesus, and some of the disciples are attending a wedding. In John 2:3, Mary tells Jesus that the host has run out of wine. Mary obviously wants Jesus to do something special to fix the situation; He had performed no miracles up to this point (John 2:11\), and Mary undoubtedly thought it was time He showed who He was. Jesus’ response, read in modern English, strikes some people as abrupt, even impolite or rude. He responds, “Woman, what does this have to do with me? My hour has not yet come” (ESV). It’s Jesus’ addressing His mother as “Woman” that seems most rude to us. One of the problems with translating from one language to another is that certain phrases have meanings not easily transferred. Phrases that don’t mean exactly what they say are often called “idioms,” and they can cause confusion in translation. For example, exclamations such as “heads up!” or “look out!” actually mean the opposite of their literal words—if someone yells, “Heads up!” we usually duck our heads. A native English speaker understands such idioms instinctively, but in order to translate them, we’d have to pick words that aren’t synonyms—heads up! might translate into words that mean “get down!”—or end up with a confusing phrase. What Jesus says to His mother in John 2:4 sounds almost rude in English. However, in the original language, and in that culture, Mary would not have interpreted Jesus’ words that way. The term woman was used like we use the term ma’am. By addressing Mary this way, Jesus does distance Himself from His mother somewhat—He was exerting His independence from her wishes—but in no way was it a rude manner of speaking. Jesus lovingly uses the same word from the cross when He tells Mary that He is entrusting her to John’s care (John 19:26\). The question Jesus asks His mother isn’t rude, either. It may sound rude in the KJV: “What have I to do with thee?” (John 2:4\), but it was a common idiom. In the Greek, Jesus’ question is “Ti emoi kai soi?” The phrase was used to ask of the connection between two people. The question could be translated as “What business do we have with each other?” Or, in less formal terms, “What does this have to do with me?” (ESV) or “Why do you involve me?” (NIV). Again, Jesus is expressing the fact that He is independent of His mother; as eager as Mary was to see Jesus do a miracle, she had no right to determine the time or the manner in which Jesus publicly revealed His glory. Jesus makes His point gently and without being rude, however. Jesus concludes His statement to Mary with, “My hour has not yet come.” The reference to His “hour” or “time” (NET) means that Jesus was constantly working from a divine timetable. So, He wasn’t going to reveal His power sooner than God the Father intended (see John 5:30\). One of the points Jesus made in His temptation in the desert was that there is such a thing as doing the right thing for the wrong reasons (Matthew 4:1–10\). That is, it would be wrong to perform a miracle if the time and place are not according to God’s will. Jesus did act, performing His [first miracle](wedding-at-Cana.html). He turned the water into wine, but He did so in a very subtle, subdued way. Only the servants, Mary, and a few disciples even knew what He had done. The miracle was to introduce the disciples to His ability, not to show off or to go public with His power (see John 2:11\). So, Jesus isn’t being rude or dismissive in John 2:4\. He’s politely pointing out that He follows God’s timing, not Mary’s; and that this is not His moment to be publicly revealed. Some of the respectful tone is lost in translation, perhaps, but Jesus was not being rude.
What are the heavenly hosts?	Answer On the night that Jesus was born, an [angel](angels-Bible.html) announced the good news to the shepherds in the fields of Bethlehem. “Suddenly a great company of the heavenly host appeared with the angel” and joined in praise to God (Luke 2:13\). Most hymnals include “The Doxology,” one of the great hymns of the faith, and that song includes the line “Praise him above, ye heavenly host.” In both of these contexts, the heavenly hosts are God’s holy angels who dwell in God’s presence. Basically, the word host refers to a great number of individuals or to an army. Modified by the word heavenly, hosts becomes a great number of angelic beings forming a celestial army under God’s command. There is a suggestion of rank and orderliness, of companies and divisions within that heavenly army. The heavenly hosts were created by God and are controlled by God. One of God’s names is “[LORD of hosts](Lord-of-hosts.html),” which occurs often in the Old Testament. In Hebrew, it is Yahweh Sabaoth, meaning “Lord of the heavenly armies” or “God of the heavenly hosts.” The NIV translates the name as “LORD Almighty.” See 1 Samuel 1:3; Psalm 24:10; Isaiah 22:14; Jeremiah 2:19; Amos 4:13; Haggai 2:9; Zechariah 8:6; and Malachi 2:16\. There are places in Scripture where the heavenly hosts include fallen angels, such as in 1 Kings 22:19\. The prophet Micaiah relates a vision of God’s throne room, where he saw “the whole heavenly host” standing on God’s right and left (HCSB). One of these beings in the divine presence is a “deceiving spirit” (verse 22\), so the term heavenly hosts can refer broadly to all angelic beings, holy and unholy. Psalm 148:2 equates the parallel terms angels and heavenly hosts: “Praise him, all his angels; praise him, all his heavenly hosts.” Psalm 103:19–21 gives further information: “The Lord has established his throne in heaven, and his kingdom rules over all. Praise the Lord, you his angels, you mighty ones who do his bidding, who obey his word. Praise the Lord, all his heavenly hosts, you his servants who do his will.” In this passage, the psalmist praises God for the extent of divine authority—there is no part of creation that is not under God’s rule; His throne is “established.” The heavenly hosts (the angels) praise the Lord; they are, in fact, God’s servants who are at His beck and call. They dutifully obey God’s commands, carry out His bidding, and acquiesce to His will. As believers, we will someday inhabit heaven with God and the heavenly hosts. According to Hebrews 12:22, we have been called to the place where dwell “thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly.” When Jesus returns to earth to establish His kingdom, “the armies of heaven \[will be] following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean” (Revelation 19:14\). In this context, the heavenly hosts are all those who inhabit heaven at that time: the redeemed of the church age, Old Testament believers, martyrs of the tribulation, and angels. The angelic army will be augmented by humans redeemed by the blood of the Lamb. We will not become angels, but we will be with them in glory.
Who was Og king of Bashan?	Answer Og king of Bashan was a mighty and infamous Amorite king in the days of Moses who fought the Israelites on their way to the [Promised Land](Israel-land.html). God granted the Israelites victory over King Og’s forces, and Moses and the Israelites possessed Bashan, a fruitful land east of the Jordan River. The victory was significant because of the fearsome strength of Og and the relative inexperience of the Israelite forces. Leading up to the Israelites’ encounter with Og king of Bashan was a battle with another [Amorite](Amorites.html) king, [Sihon](Sihon-king-Amorites.html). Moses had requested that Sihon allow the Israelites to pass through his land—they promised not to take any of the Amorites’ resources along the way—but instead of granting permission, Sihon mustered his forces and attacked the Israelites. God enabled Moses and the people of Israel to defeat the Amorites and take their land (Numbers 21:21–31\). Then the Israelites made their way toward Bashan, and King Og came out to confront them at Edrei (verse 33\). The Israelites were frightened because Og’s reputation preceded him. But God reassured Moses, saying, “Do not be afraid of him, for I have delivered him into your hands, along with his whole army and his land” (verse 34\). The battle between the forces of Og and Moses is described in greater detail in the book of Deuteronomy. There we read that Og was king over sixty fortified cities, all of which the Israelites captured (Deuteronomy 3:3–7\). He was also a very large man—his bed was made of iron and was of enormous size: nine cubits long and four cubits wide (13\.5 feet long and 6 feet wide). The inclusion of this detail emphasizes the size of Og. A man needing this size of bed was likely very tall—ten or eleven feet. This interpretation is supported by the fact that Og was one of the last of the Rephaites (Deuteronomy 3:11\), which means he was strong and tall (see Deuteronomy 2:20–21\). The [Rephaites (or Rephaim)](Rephaim.html) were a group of people who lived in Canaan and elsewhere at the time of Moses and Joshua. The word Rephaites is not an ethnic but rather a descriptive term; it literally means “terrible ones.” The Rephaim were giants and fierce fighters. Earlier, when the Israelites had first tried to enter the Promised Land, the spies reported the land was populated by giants, whom they called “[Nephilim](Nephilim.html)” and “sons of Anak” (Numbers 13:32–33\). Og king of Bashan was one of the last of this race of giants. Goliath, the giant who fought David, was likely another. Og and his sons all lost their lives in their foolish opposition to God’s people (Numbers 21:35\). Despite King Og’s great size and strength, God gave Israel’s army the victory, and they possessed the land of Bashan. The half\-tribe of Manasseh inherited Og’s territory (Joshua 13:29–30\). There is no obstacle too large for God; there is nothing impossible for Him (Matthew 19:26\). God does not quake before giants, and neither should His children.
Is God man-made?	Answer Some people argue that God is man\-made; that is, the concept of God is merely a human fabrication handed down through the generations from those who didn’t know any better. They claim that the idea of a God or gods is simply the way human beings explain things that are too difficult to understand. Some state that belief in the supernatural ignores science and embraces superstition. So, is the idea of God a fantasy based on ignorance and concocted by our forefathers before science proved it to be false? No, God is not man\-made; rather, God made man. Even skeptics agree that there is a beginning for every created thing, including man. So, in order for man to have a beginning, there must be a “[first cause](cosmological-argument.html)” that existed before him. Evolutionists argue that the first cause was an impersonal force, a “big bang,” that started the universe. But even that explanation leaves a lot of unanswered questions. The logical response to this line of thinking is, “What caused the Big Bang? What or who put those forces into motion?” No reasonable answer, outside of the Bible, has been offered. The Bible starts with the [fact of God](is-God-real.html) in Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God . . . .” When we set aside prejudice, the Bible’s answer seems to be the most logical explanation for that first cause. In the beginning was God. He was not created and therefore needs no first cause. He has always been and always will be, apart from time and space (Psalm 90:2\). He introduced Himself to Moses as I AM (Exodus 3:14\). The meaning of His name signifies the eternal aspect of His nature. He always was and always will be the Eternal, Self\-existent One (Revelation 1:8; 4:8\). A second consideration in the matter of whether or not God is man\-made is the nature of God as He has revealed Himself through the pages of His Book. Many attributes of God are not those that human beings would necessarily think to include if they had invented Him. God’s character includes omniscience (Isaiah 46:9–10\), omnipotence (2 Samuel 22:3; Psalm 18:2\), patience (2 Peter 3:9\), and consistency (Malachi 3:6\). He is described as loving (Psalm 25:10\), faithful (Psalm 31:23\), and desirous of having a relationship with us (Jeremiah 29:13; James 4:8\). But He is also perfectly just, and that justice requires payment for man’s high treason against his Creator (Zephaniah 3:5; Romans 6:23\). Rather than hand down a list of requirements we must meet in order to gain His favor (as all other religions include), the God of the Bible took on human flesh, lived among us, and then allowed the people He created to torture Him to death while He forgave them (Luke 23:34; Philippians 2:5–11\). That kind of selfless, sacrificial love is outside human experience and not present in any man\-made religion. Grace is a concept exclusive to the God of the Bible. Man\-made gods are usually fashioned in the image of man. The gods of pagan cultures are fraught with flaws, inconsistencies, and human\-like weaknesses. They are petty, selfish, cruel, and capricious; in short, they behave as man\-made gods would behave, with the same sins and jealousies found in the human heart. In order for God to be man\-made, His nature could only extend as far as man’s imagination. The God of the Bible far surpasses our understanding, yet He leaves hints, like a trail of spiritual breadcrumbs, for us to follow as we come to know Him better. A third point to consider in the matter of whether or not God is man\-made is the spiritual quality of the human soul. Every human being is unique and possesses an innate sense of “me.” We have an inborn understanding of the eternal (Ecclesiastes 3:11\) and the sense that there is more beyond this world. Genesis 1:27 says that human beings were fashioned in the image of God; Colossians 1:16 says we were created for His purposes and His pleasure. We were created like Him in some ways, but He is not necessarily like us (Numbers 23:19\). If God were merely a human fabrication, then many new questions arise: What makes human beings different from animals? Where do humans get the ideas of justice, benevolence, self\-sacrifice, and love—abstract qualities not found in the animal kingdom? Such traits, found in every culture in the world, would never have survived the evolutionary process. However, when we see those traits showcased within the character of God Himself, we understand why we possess them. Another consideration in the matter of whether or not God is man\-made is the [trustworthiness of the Bible](why-should-I-believe-the-Bible.html). In order to contend that God does not exist, one must deal with the accuracy of the Book that tells about Him. Within the pages of the Bible, God has revealed Himself to us and given us hundreds of examples of His dealings with man through the centuries. Many who staunchly argue against the reality of God are also blindly ignorant about the Bible. They often claim it is “an ancient book written by a bunch of Jews.” Statements like that demonstrate the flawed foundation upon which they have constructed their arguments. The Bible is a collection of books written by over 40 different authors, over a 1,500\-year time span, from three continents, and in three different languages. Yet it weaves together the pieces of a single story like a jigsaw puzzle fits together. The Bible is God’s story of His relentless pursuit to redeem His fallen creation. Those who believe that the idea of God is man\-made must also consider the manner in which the Bible portrays mankind, especially the Jews. If the Jews wrote the Bible to honor themselves, they failed miserably. Even the Lord Himself is clear that He chose the Israelites for His own reasons, not because they were deserving of special treatment (Deuteronomy 7:7\). The failures of the Israelite nation are showcased again and again, right up to the crucifixion of the Son of God (Isaiah 65:2; Mark 15:9–15\). Humanity is portrayed realistically, complete with sin, rebellion, and punishment. No group or individual is exalted. This raises the obvious question: if man fabricated the idea of God, what was his motive? Throughout the Old and New Testaments, the only hero is God. Rather than pave the way for personal gain, the truths of the Bible lead to self\-sacrifice and surrender. Rather than instruct us how to earn God’s favor, the Bible warns us that no one is righteous (Romans 3:10, 23\). Throughout history, those proclaiming the Bible’s truths have been martyred, stoned, and driven into hiding (1 Kings 19:10; Acts 7:58; 2 Corinthians 11:25\). If the idea of God is man\-made, then there is no God, really, and the biggest question left unanswered relates to the complexity and apparent [design of the universe](evidence-intelligent-design.html). A single strand of DNA shows such intricate brilliance that random chance cannot come close to explaining it. Beyond that, the billions of perfectly synchronized atoms, molecules, systems, and universes shout to us about a Designer. Removing God from the realm of possible explanations gives rise to many unanswerable questions. No other explanation makes sense. Theories abound, but none can claim definitive scientific evidence for the startling harmonization of the universe’s complexity. Even Charles Darwin had to admit, “To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree” (The Origin of Species, J. M. Dent \& Sons, Ltd., London, 1971, p. 167\). We cannot simply remove the idea of God without replacing that idea with a more reasonable explanation. Questions do not disappear by eliminating the possibility of God. However, when we remove the prejudices and presuppositions that refuse to allow God to be considered, He remains the only logical explanation for this amazing world. Those who have decided that God cannot exist build their worldview around that idea and pretend that their fallible answers fill in the blanks. Denial of God is a strong, almost religious assumption that taints their so\-called search for truth. However, those who truly desire to be open\-minded and pursue truth wherever it may lead find that the evidence always leads to God.
What is the Jedi religion / Jediism?	Answer The Star Wars saga is a cultural phenomenon. Since the release of the first film, Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope, in 1977, Star Wars has gained an enormous global following. The science fiction movies (and books and comic books) relate the account of the inhabitants of an ancient galaxy and their struggle against an oppressive government. There is a quasi\-religion in the Star Wars universe, too, and that religion has adherents in the real world. It’s called Jediism or “the Jedi religion.” In the Star Wars universe, the Jedi are the main keepers of the peace and the “good guys.” The Jedi are also a monastic religious order, of sorts. They follow ancient traditions and use an unseen, mystical power called “the Force,” which supposedly binds and flows through the entire universe. The idea that the Force is real and not fantasy has led to a Jedi religion. Real\-life followers of Jediism treat the fiction of Star Wars as a blueprint for a religious or philosophic belief system. A number of organizations have created everything from doctrinal creeds to training programs to take a person from Padawan (an initiate) to Jedi Master. One group, the Temple of the Jedi Order, is a registered 501c3 tax\-exempt religious organization. The Jedi religion has no centralized structure to create official beliefs. However, Jediism is always nontheistic and focused on doing good for humanity—although what is “good” is defined by the individual, since there is no absolute moral standard for a Jedi to follow. Depending on the website or organization, practitioners of Jediism may hold to the [“13 Keys of the Code of the Jedi,”](http://www.orderofthejedi.org/our-code/) the [“16 Teachings,” the “21 Maxims,”](https://www.templeofthejediorder.org/doctrine-of-the-order) or any combination thereof. The teachings of the Jedi religion are based on a combination of Taoism and Buddhism and instruct Jedis in meditation, self\-actualization, visualization, quieting the mind, and connecting with the Force. The Jedi religion tends to be syncretic, as most Jedi groups accept or even encourage their followers to maintain their original religious affiliation, citing tolerance and the belief that wisdom can come in many forms. Many people take the Jedi religion seriously. Not that they believe in Darth Vader, Jawas, or a planet called Tatooine, but they see value in the idea of the Force as a religious or philosophical guide to life. Although many of the maxims of the Jedi religion are simple calls to honesty, loyalty, and integrity, the core teaching of the Force is directly contrary to the Christian worldview. Jediism’s understanding of the Force as an impersonal power that binds the universe conflicts with the Bible’s teaching of a personal Creator who actively upholds all things (Colossians 1:17\). Also, the Star Wars franchise presents the Force as amoral—a power that can be harnessed and manipulated for one’s own purposes, good or evil. This concept, akin to the [yin yang](yin-yang.html) of Taoism, is contrary to the Bible’s clear presentation of absolute moral standards and the sovereignty of God. The [Taoist](taoism-daoism.html) and [Buddhist](buddhism.html) beliefs from which the idea of the Force is drawn, the Jedi religion’s humanistic emphasis on our ability to tap into mystical power, and its denial of moral absolutes make the Jedi religion incompatible with biblical Christianity.
Why are people irrational?	Answer People have [intellect](Christian-intellect.html) and are rational beings, yet they very often behave in irrational ways. Psychology and social science attempt to give many explanations for human irrationality. These attempts are useful but frequently don’t have a biblical basis. The Bible does address the question of irrationality. According to Scripture, people turn away from reason because they don’t want to acknowledge the truth that they are sinners who need God. Perhaps more importantly, the Bible also addresses why we are capable of being rational in the first place. Asking “why are people irrational?” is useful. Yet the question of “why are people capable of being rational?” is a major stumbling block for the person who rejects belief in God. Ironically, we can only have confidence in human reason if God does, in fact, exist. The counter\-question of “why are people rational?” is better explained first. If all of our “reason” is simply the product of unguided evolution, then we can’t actually trust it. [Evolution](creation-evolution.html) only favors traits that enhance survival. And, as is plain to see, holding to “truth” is not always in a creature’s best interests. “Believing what keeps me alive” is not the same as “believing what is true.” So, if we believe that there is such a thing as Reason, we have to believe that it is non\-physical and not explained by nature or naturalism. In short, either God exists, or we can’t trust our reasoning! Some people don’t want to acknowledge God, so they have to reject truth. This doesn’t mean they’re stupid or insane. But those who turn away from God have to do some mental gymnastics in order to justify their rebellion. People can be irrational over non\-spiritual issues, as well. However, the basic reasons are the same. Whether it involves spiritual or non\-spiritual issues, people tend to be irrational as a defense mechanism. People are capable of reason, but they are often irrational. There are four major factors affecting our application of reason: emotions, ignorance, prejudice, and preference. We sometimes respond with pure instinct, which is emotion. We may attempt to reason through an issue without all the necessary information, which is ignorance. We may dislike something and look for excuses to reject it, which is prejudice. Or we may like something and look for excuses to defend it, which is preference. The spiritual side of why people are irrational is explained in the Bible. Second Peter 2:12 is a good summary of the biblical view of irrational thinking: “These people \[false teachers] blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like unreasoning animals, creatures of instinct.” In this verse, lack of reason is considered a characteristic of animals. Rather than use good reasoning, people who reject the truth choose to follow their instincts—and sinful human nature, followed instinctively, leads people into error. Romans 1:20–23 says more or less the same thing. There is enough evidence of God in the world that people ought to seek Him. Those who don’t are choosing to follow nonsense instead of wisdom, preferring the animalistic approach of instinct and irrationality. In doing this, they choose to maintain ignorance instead of pursue truth. The avenue of truth is available but unsought (see Matthew 7:7\). At the same time, some human irrationality is based on preference and prejudice. Accepting the truth of God means admitting one’s own sin. For some, acknowledging sin and the need of a Savior is unacceptable (John 3:19–20\). If people refuse to hear God’s voice, He will let them suffer the consequences (Psalm 81:12\). Often, this means letting them drift into irrational, illogical thinking (1 Corinthians 2:14\). So, whether or not the issue is spiritual, people are irrational for one of two basic reasons: we don’t care for the truth, or we don’t know enough to know the truth. And, most of the time, especially in spiritual matters, whether or not we care about the truth makes all the difference as to whether we’ll try to learn it (John 7:17\).
What does the Bible mean when it says that we will receive a new heart?	Answer The Bible speaks often of the heart. The word heart can mean different things depending upon the context. Most often, the heart refers to the soul of a human being that controls the will and emotions. The heart is the “inner man” (2 Corinthians 4:16\). The [prophet Ezekiel](life-Ezekiel.html) makes several references to a “new heart” (e.g., Ezekiel 18:31; 36:26\). An oft\-quoted verse is Ezekiel 11:19 where God says, “I will give them an undivided heart and put a new spirit in them; I will remove from them their heart of stone and give them a heart of flesh.” So what does this mean? In Ezekiel 11, God is addressing His people, the Israelites, promising to one day restore them to the land and to a right relationship with Himself. God promises to gather the Hebrews from the nations where they had been scattered (Ezekiel 11:17\) and give them a new, undivided heart (verse 19\). The result of their receiving a new heart will be obedience to God’s commands: “Then they will follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws. They will be my people, and I will be their God” (verse 20\). This prophecy will be fulfilled in the [millennium](dispensation-of-Millennial-Kingdom.html), when Jesus the Messiah rules from Zion and Israel has been restored to faith (Romans 11:26\). Someone whom God has given a new heart behaves differently. [Saul](life-Saul.html) is an example of this in 1 Samuel 10:1 and 9\. God had chosen Saul to be the first king of Israel. Saul was a nobody, but God chose him anyway and sent the prophet Samuel to anoint him king. “Then Samuel took a flask of olive oil and poured it on Saul’s head and kissed him, saying, ‘Has not the Lord anointed you ruler over his inheritance?’” Samuel made several predictions to prove to Saul that God had sent him, and verse 9 says, “As Saul turned and started to leave, God gave him a new heart, and all Samuel’s signs were fulfilled that day.” The new heart God gave Saul transformed him from an average nobody to the king of Israel. Not only was his status changed, but his entire outlook was transformed by the power of God. The human heart was created to mirror God’s own heart (Genesis 1:27; James 3:9\). We were designed to love Him, love righteousness, and walk in harmony with God and others (Micah 6:8\). But part of God’s design of the human heart is free will. That free will carries with it the opportunity to abuse it, as did Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3:11\). God desires that we choose to love and serve Him. When we stubbornly refuse to follow God, our hearts, which were designed to communicate with God, are hardened. God compares rebellious hearts to stone (Zechariah 7:12\). A heart of stone finds it impossible to repent, to love God, or to please Him (Romans 8:8\). The hearts of sinful humanity are so hardened that we cannot even seek God on our own (Romans 3:11\), and that’s why Jesus said no one can come to Him unless the Father first draws him (John 6:44\). We desperately need new hearts, for we are unable on our own to soften our hard hearts. A change of heart toward God requires a supernatural transformation. Jesus called it being “born again” (John 3:3\). When we are born again, God performs a heart transplant, as it were. He gives us a new heart. The power of the Holy Spirit changes our hearts from sin\-focused to God\-focused. We do not become perfect (1 John 1:8\); we still have our sinful flesh and the freedom to choose whether or not to obey it. However, when Jesus died for us on the cross, He broke the power of sin that controls us (Romans 6:10\). Receiving Him as our Savior gives us access to God and His power—a power to transform our hearts from sin\-hardened to Christ\-softened. When we were separated from God with hardened hearts, we found it impossible to please Him. We tended toward selfishness, rebellion, and sin. With new hearts we are declared righteous before God (2 Corinthians 5:21\). The Holy Spirit gives us a desire to please God that was foreign to us in our hardened state. Second Corinthians 3:18 says that we “are being transformed into his image with ever\-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.” God’s desire for every human being is that we become like His Son, Jesus (Romans 8:29\). We can become like Jesus only when we allow God to rid us of our old, hardened hearts and give us new hearts.
What are the definitions of some common theological terms?	Answer The study of any piece of literature must begin with a study of the vocabulary of that piece of literature; that is, we must understand the words used in order to understand the work as a whole. A study of Scripture will uncover many terms that need to be properly defined to ensure proper interpretation. A further delving into theology (“the study of God”) will involve even more theological terms not found in Scripture but which are useful in understanding the truths of God’s Word. Here are the definitions of some of the more common theological terms, arranged alphabetically: Ascension – “the physical, visible departure of the risen Lord Jesus to heaven, ending His earthly ministry” (see Acts 1:9–11\) Atonement – “the act of God by which He reconciles sinful humanity to Himself, causing enmity to end and fellowship to begin” (see Leviticus 17:11; 23:27\) Bema Seat – another term for the Judgment Seat of Christ, using the Greek word for “throne” Christ – literally, “Anointed One” or “Chosen One”; the Greek equivalent of Messiah (see John 1:41\) Confess – “to admit one’s sin; to agree with God; to profess one’s faith” (see Psalm 38:18; 1 John 1:9; 2 Corinthians 9:13\) Covenant – “an agreement between two parties involving promises from each to the other” (see Genesis 15:18; Luke 22:20\) Day of the Lord – “the period of judgment and restoration at the end of time, as God punishes the wicked and sets up His kingdom on earth” (see Zechariah 14:1–5; 1 Corinthians 1:8\) Dispensation – “God’s administration of a certain period of time; a divinely appointed age” (see Acts 14:16; Hebrews 1:1–2\) Elect – “the person or group chosen by God to receive special favor or to perform special service” (see Matthew 24:31; Romans 11:7\) Exegesis – “the study of a particular text of Scripture in order to properly interpret it; the process of understanding a text and making plain its meaning” (see 2 Timothy 2:15\) Faith – “belief in and commitment to God; confidence in God’s character, will, and Word; trust” (see Romans 5:1; Hebrews 11:6\) Fall of man – “humanity’s loss of innocence resulting in his current state of sinfulness, corruption, and alienation from God, precipitated by the sin of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden” (see Genesis 3\) Grace – “God’s blessing on the undeserving; unmerited favor” (see Acts 11:23; Ephesians 2:8\) Great White Throne Judgment – “the final judgment of the wicked before God” (see Revelation 20:11–15\) Hermeneutics – “the study of biblical interpretation” (see 2 Timothy 2:15\) Illumination – “the Holy Spirit’s work of providing spiritual insight into God’s Word so that His children can know Christ better” (see Ephesians 1:17–18\) Immutability – “the quality of God that shows Him to be unchanging in who He is” (see Malachi 3:6\) Impute – “to charge something to the account of another” (see Philemon 1:18; Romans 5:12–19\) Incarnation – “the occasion of God the Son taking on human flesh and becoming a man” (see John 1:14; Philippians 2:6–8\) Indwelling – “the work of the Holy Spirit by which He lives within the believer, sealing him or her until the day of redemption” (see John 14:17; 1 Corinthians 6:19\) Inerrancy – “the Scriptures’ lack of error in their original autographs” (see Psalm 19:7\) Iniquity – “sin, evil, or wickedness” (see Psalm 38:18; Isaiah 53:6\) Inspired – “God\-breathed; the quality of Scripture that ensures its inerrancy, infallibility, and authority” (see 2 Timothy 3:16\) Judgment Seat of Christ – “the judgment of believers who will give an account of their lives to Christ” (see Romans 14:10\) Justification – “the act by which God, for Christ’s sake, declares a guilty sinner acceptable in His sight” (see Romans 3:28; 5:1\) Messiah – literally “Chosen One” or “Anointed One”; the Hebrew equivalent of Christ (see Matthew 1:1\) Omnipotence – “the divine quality of having all power” (see Jeremiah 32:17\) Omnipresence – “the divine quality of being everywhere at the same time” (see Psalm 139:7–12\) Omniscience – “the divine quality of possessing all knowledge” (see Psalm 139:4; Matthew 9:4\) Predestined – “being chosen by God’s sovereign determination ahead of time; in matters of salvation, chosen to be conformed to the likeness of God’s Son, justified, and glorified” (see Romans 8:29; Ephesians 1:11\) Propitiation – “satisfaction; the appeasement of God’s wrath through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross” (see Romans 3:25; 1 John 4:10\) Rapture – “the event in which God snatches away all believers from the earth” (see 1 Thessalonians 4:13–18; 1 Corinthians 15:50–54\) Reconciliation – “the process by which God makes peace between Himself and sinful humanity through the atoning work of Christ” (see Romans 5:8; Colossians 1:21–22\) Redemption – “the act of paying a purchase price by which sinners are delivered from death and sin” (see Romans 3:24; Ephesians 1:7\) Regeneration – “a new birth; the spiritual change that God works in a person’s heart to enable faith and salvation” (see Matthew 19:28; Titus 3:5\) Remission – “forgiveness; a release from sin” (see Hebrews 9:22\) Repentance – “a change of mind; a turning from sin, accompanied by a turning to God” (see Matthew 18:3; Luke 5:32\) Revelation – “an unveiling or uncovering; concerning Scripture, the revealing of God’s Word about Himself and His plan of salvation for the world” (see Daniel 10:1; Romans 16:25\) Righteousness – “holiness; a following of God’s perfect standards” (see Romans 3:22; Galatians 3:6\) Salvation – “deliverance from sin, death, and the wrath of God” (see Psalm 13:5; Hebrews 2:3\) Sanctification – “a setting apart for special use; the process by which God changes the sinner into the image of His Son” (see John 17:17; 1 Thessalonians 4:3\) Second Coming of Christ – “the physical return of Jesus Christ to earth with the armies of heaven at His side to judge His enemies, set up His kingdom, and fulfill the prophecies to Israel” (see Zechariah 12:10; Matthew 24:30; Revelation 1:7\) Sin – “lawlessness; disobedience to God’s will, by either commission or omission, in thought, word, or deed” (see 1 John 3:4; Romans 3:23\) Sovereignty – “God’s complete control over all things in nature and the affairs of men, past, present, and future” (see Isaiah 45:9–13\) Temptation – “an enticement to sin or an invitation to disobey God” (see Matthew 26:41; 1 Corinthians 10:13\) Transfiguration – “the shining forth of divine glory in Jesus Christ in His earthly form” (see Matthew 17:1–8\) Transgression – “sin; any violation of a law or command” (see Psalm 32:1; Isaiah 53:5\) Trinity – “the doctrine that the One God exists in three distinct Persons, three centers of self\-consciousness possessing one indivisible essence” (see Deuteronomy 6:4; Matthew 3:16–17\) Virgin Birth – “the unique act of God by which Jesus Christ was begotten in a virgin’s womb; the method through which the Son of God entered the world of humanity” (see Luke 1:34–35\) Worship – “reverence and devotion; the attributing of glory and honor; biblical worship is directed toward God alone” (see 1 Samuel 1:19; Psalm 29:2; Revelation 15:4\)
Why doesn’t God heal everyone?	Answer It is not always God’s will to [heal](healing-Bible.html) a person physically. A person may sincerely pray and truly have faith that God can heal, but if it is not God’s will to provide the healing at that time, then no healing will come (see 1 John 5:14\). Sometimes God’s blessings come in other ways besides physical healing. If it were always God’s will for people to be healed, then everyone would be healed every time he or she became ill. If good health were always God’s will, then Christians should never die. We can’t blame someone’s malady on a lack of faith, for we know, biblically, that God sometimes uses illness to accomplish His will. Also, it’s not just wayward believers who get sick. Paul “left Trophimus sick in Miletus” (2 Timothy 4:20\), and Paul himself had a physical ailment that the Lord declined to heal (2 Corinthians 12:7–9\). Often, Christians have an over\-simplified idea of healing. They think that, if they are sick, they have only to ask God to heal them and, because God loves them, He will heal them straightaway. Healing is seen as proof of a person’s faith and of God’s love. This idea persists in some circles in spite of the truth that every mother knows: a parent does not give her child everything he asks for every time, no matter how much she loves him. Joni Eareckson Tada struggled with this issue for a long time. As she recounts in her book Joni, she sought physical healing of her quadriplegia. She prayed and fully believed that God would heal her. In her words, “I certainly believed. I was calling up my girlfriends saying, ‘Next time you see me I’m going to be running up your sidewalk. God’s going to heal me’” (quoted in an [interview](http://www.worldmag.com/2013/01/joni_eareckson_tada_on_faith_healing_and_marriage) with Marvin Olasky, January 17, 2013\). Yet Joni is still in a wheelchair today. Forty\-five years after the accident that left her paralyzed, God has still not healed her. Her perspective is one of great faith: “God may remove your suffering, and that will be great cause for praise. But if not, He will use it, He will use anything and everything that stands in the way of His fellowship with you. So let God mold you and make you, transform you from glory to glory. That’s the deeper healing” (quoted on [Grace to You](http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/TM13-2/a-deeper-healing-joni-eareckson-tada), October 16, 2013\). Some feel that God will never heal anyone miraculously today. Others feel that God will always heal a person if he or she has enough faith. But God will not be put into either box. We need to understand that healings, even in the Bible, are very rare indeed. For the first 2,500 years of biblical history, there is no mention of any healings whatsoever. Then during the life of Abraham we have a possible healing, although it is only implied (Genesis 12:17–20\). Then we have to wait until the life of Moses, who performs a number of signs to authenticate his authority as God’s leader. However, the only healing associated with Moses is Miriam’s cleansing from leprosy (Numbers 12:13–15\). In the covenant God gave to Israel, there were a number of provisions to regulate their lives, and there is an emphasis on physicality and material things in the Old Testament. In Deuteronomy 28, God promises to reward Israel’s faithfulness with freedom from disease. This is the clue to the meaning of miracles in the Bible. God promised Israel health, long life, children, flocks, corn, grapes, etc.—and victory over their enemies—if they stayed faithful to the Lord. At the same time, God threatened them with sickness, barrenness, disease, drought, famine, the loss of livestock, and enemy occupation if they forsook the Lord. This is the context of Israel’s relationship with sickness and healing. The promise to be kept “free from every disease” in Deuteronomy 7:15 was specifically part of the [Mosaic Covenant](Mosaic-covenant.html) with Israel under the theocracy; such a promise is not given to the church. With the coming of Christ, we have the fulfillment of the Mosaic Covenant (Matthew 5:17\) and a reversal of the effects of Israel’s spiritual backslidings. Wherever Christ went, He healed the sick, but this was not just because of kindness on His part; His healings were always a sign from heaven of Christ’s authority as Messiah (John 7:31\). He was giving Israel a taste of the kingdom of God (Luke 11:20\). Those who refused His authority were often left sick (Matthew 13:58\). At the pool of Bethsaida, for example, Jesus healed only one in a huge multitude (John 5\). The apostles were also given the specific power to heal the sick, and for thirty\-seven years they went everywhere healing those who heard their message. Again, their miracles, including [healing](gift-of-healing.html), were confirmation of the truth of the gospel the apostles proclaimed. The twelve apostles did not heal everyone, either. Often, there were Christians left unwell in spite of the apostolic power. Paul says to Timothy, “Use a little wine because of your stomach and your frequent illnesses” (1 Timothy 5:23\). Why didn’t Paul just lay hands on Timothy and heal him? It wasn’t because Timothy didn’t have enough faith; it was because it was not God’s will to heal Timothy that way. The healing ministry was not for anyone’s personal convenience; rather, it was a sign from God—to the Jews of the Old Covenant primarily—of the validity of the apostles’ message. We are not living in the apostolic days today. Of course, God can and does heal today when He wants to. The question we need to ask in any given situation is, what does God want? Does He desire to heal the individual in this life, or does He have another plan to show His glory through weakness? Someday, all sickness and death will be eradicated (see Revelation 21:4\). Joni Eareckson Tada will walk again. Until then, there is a greater healing, the cleansing of sinful hearts, that God performs every day.
Are there any conditions to answered prayer?	Answer Some people would like prayer with no conditions. They wish God to be a celestial genie who, when summoned by prayer, must grant any request they make. They find a measure of encouragement in the fable of Aladdin and his lamp, aspiring to that level of control over God’s power in their prayer life. But the biblical fact is that prayer has conditions. It’s true that Jesus said, “If you believe, [you will receive](ask-and-you-shall-receive.html) whatever you ask for in prayer” (Matthew 21:22\). But, even in that statement, we have one condition to prayer: faith. As we examine the Bible, we find that there are other conditions to prayer, as well. Here are ten biblical instructions concerning prayer that imply conditions to prayer: 1\) Pray to the Heavenly Father (see Matthew 6:9\). This condition to prayer might seem obvious, but it’s important. We don’t pray to false gods, to ourselves, to angels, to Buddha, or to the Virgin Mary. We pray to the God of the Bible, who revealed Himself in Jesus Christ and whose Spirit indwells us. Coming to Him as our “Father” implies that we are first His children—made so by faith in Christ (see John 1:12\). 2\) Pray for good things (see Matthew 7:11\). We don’t always understand or recognize what is good, but God knows, and He is eager to give His children what is best for them. Paul prayed three times to be healed of an affliction, and each time God said, “No.” Why would a loving God refuse to heal Paul? Because God had something better for him, namely, a life lived by grace. Paul stopped praying for healing and began to rejoice in his weakness (2 Corinthians 12:7–10\). 3\) Pray for needful things (see Philippians 4:19\). Placing a priority on God’s kingdom is one of the conditions to prayer (Matthew 6:33\). The promise is that God will supply all our needs, not all our wants. There is a difference. 4\) Pray from a righteous heart (see James 5:16\). The Bible speaks of having a clean conscience as a condition to answered prayer (Hebrews 10:22\). It is important that we keep our sins confessed to the Lord. “If I regard wickedness in my heart, The Lord will not hear” (Psalm 66:18, NAS). 5\) Pray from a grateful heart (see Philippians 4:6\). Part of prayer is an attitude of [thanksgiving](giving-thanks-to-God.html). 6\) Pray according to the will of God (see 1 John 5:14\). An important condition to prayer is that it is [prayed within the will of God](praying-will-of-God.html). Jesus prayed this way all the time, even in Gethsemane: “Not my will, but yours be done” (Luke 22:42\). We can pray all we want, with great sincerity and faith, for XYZ, but, if God’s will is ABC, we pray amiss. 7\) Pray in the authority of Jesus Christ (see John 16:24\). Jesus is the reason we are able to approach the throne of grace (Hebrews 10:19–22\), and He is our mediator (1 Timothy 2:5\). A condition to prayer is that we pray [in His name](pray-Jesus-name.html). 8\) Pray persistently (see Luke 18:1\). In fact, [pray without ceasing](pray-without-ceasing.html) (1 Thessalonians 5:17\). One of the conditions to effective prayer is that we don’t give up. 9\) Pray unselfishly (see James 4:3\). Our motives are important. 10\) Pray in faith (see James 1:6\). Without faith, it is impossible to please God (Hebrews 11:6\), who alone can do the impossible (Luke 1:37\). Without faith, why pray? Joshua’s prayer for the sun to stand still, as audacious as that request was, met all these conditions of prayer (Joshua 10:12–14\). Elijah’s prayer for rain to be withheld—and his later prayer that rain would fall—met all of these conditions (James 5:17–18\). Jesus’ prayer as He stood before the tomb of Lazarus met all of these conditions (John 11:41\). They all prayed to God, according to His will, for good and necessary things, in faith. The examples of Joshua, Elijah, and Jesus teach us that, when our prayers line up with God’s sovereign will, wonderful things will happen. There’s no need to be abashed by mountains, for they can move (Mark 11:23\). The struggle we face is in getting our prayers lined up with God’s will, having our desires match His. Congruency between God’s will and our own is the goal. We want exactly what He wants; nothing more, nothing less. And we don’t want anything that He doesn’t want. Godly, [effective prayer](effective-prayer.html) has conditions, and God invites us to pray. When can we pray big? When we believe God wants something big. When can we pray audaciously? When we believe God wants something audacious. When should we pray? All the time.
Is Jesus the Messiah?	Answer Jesus is called [the Messiah](what-does-Messiah-mean.html) in Matthew 1:16\. In fact, every time someone says, “Jesus Christ,” he is referring to Jesus as the Messiah, since Christ means “Messiah” or “Anointed One.” The Old Testament predicts the Messiah, and the New Testament reveals the Messiah to be Jesus of Nazareth. There are several things that the Jewish people who anticipated the Messiah expected Him to be, based on Old Testament prophecies. The Messiah would be a Hebrew man (Isaiah 9:6\) born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2\) of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14\), a prophet akin to Moses (Deuteronomy 18:18\), a priest in the order of Melchizedek (Psalm 110:4\), a king (Isaiah 11:1–4\), and the Son of David (Matthew 22:42\) who suffered before entering His glory (Isaiah 53\). Jesus met each of these messianic requirements. Jesus fulfilled the requirements of the Messiah in that He was a Hebrew of the tribe of Judah (Luke 3:30\), and He was born in Bethlehem (Luke 2:4–7\) to a virgin (Luke 1:26–27\). Another proof that Jesus was the Messiah is the fact that He was a prophet like Moses. Both Moses and Jesus were prophets “whom the LORD knew face to face” (Deuteronomy 34:10; cf. John 8:38\). But Jesus is an even greater prophet than Moses in that, while Moses delivered Israel from slavery, Jesus frees us from the bondage of death and sin. Unlike Moses, Jesus didn’t just represent God—He is God (John 10:30\). Jesus doesn’t just lead us to the Promised Land; He takes us up to heaven for eternity (John 14:1–3\). For these and many more reasons, Jesus is a prophet greater than Moses. The Messiah was to have priestly duties; Jesus was not a Levite, and only Levites were allowed to be priests. So how could Jesus qualify? Jesus is a priest in the order of [Melchizedek](Melchizedek.html) (Genesis 14; Psalm 110:4; Hebrews 6:20\). Melchizedek predated the Jewish temple, and his very name means “King of Righteousness.” Melchizedek was also called the “King of Salem,” which means “King of Peace” (Hebrews 7:2\). Melchizedek blessed Abraham (the greater blesses the lesser, Hebrews 7:7\), and Abraham gave Melchizedek a tithe. Thus, as a priest in the order of Melchizedek, Jesus is greater than Abraham (see John 8:58\) and the Levitical priesthood. He is a heavenly priest who offered a sacrifice that removes sin permanently, not just temporarily covers it. Jesus must also be a king in order to be the Messiah. Jesus was from [Judah](tribe-of-Judah.html), the kingly tribe. When Jesus was born, wise men from the East came looking for the King of the Jews (Matthew 2:1–2\). Jesus taught that He would one day sit on a glorious throne (Matthew 19:28; 25:31\). Many people in Israel saw Jesus as their long\-awaited king and expected Him to set up His rule immediately (Luke 19:11\), although Jesus’ kingdom is currently not of this world (John 18:36\). At the end of Jesus’ life, during His trial before Pilate, Jesus did not defend Himself except to answer affirmatively when Pilate asked if He was the [King of the Jews](King-of-the-Jews.html) (Mark 15:2\). Another way Jesus fits the Old Testament description of the Messiah is that He was the [Suffering Servant](suffering-servant-Isaiah-53.html) of Isaiah 53\. On the cross Jesus was “despised” and “held . . . in low esteem” (Isaiah 53:3\). He was “pierced” (verse 5\) and “oppressed and afflicted” (verse 7\). He died with thieves yet was buried in a rich man’s tomb (verse 9; cf. Mark 15:27; Matthew 27:57–60\). After His suffering and death, Jesus the Messiah was resurrected (Isaiah 53:11; cf. 1 Corinthians 15:4\) and glorified (Isaiah 53:12\). Isaiah 53 is one of the clearest prophecies identifying Jesus as the Messiah; it is the very passage that the Ethiopian eunuch was reading when Philip met him and explained to him about Jesus (Acts 8:26–35\). There are other ways in which Jesus is shown to be the Messiah. Each of [the feasts of the Lord](Jewish-festivals.html) in the Old Testament is related to and fulfilled by Jesus. When Jesus came the first time, He was our Passover Lamb (John 1:29\), our Unleavened Bread (John 6:35\), and our First Fruits (1 Corinthians 15:20\). The pouring out of Christ’s Spirit happened at Pentecost (Acts 2:1–4\). When Jesus the Messiah returns, we will hear the shout of the archangel and the trumpet of God. It is no coincidence that the first fall festival day is Yom Teruah, the Feast of Trumpets. After Jesus returns, He will judge the earth. This is the fulfillment of the next fall festival, Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement. Then Jesus will set up His millennial kingdom and reign from the throne of David for 1,000 years; that will complete the final fall festival, Sukkot or the Feast of Tabernacles, when God dwells with us. To those of us who believe in Jesus as Lord and Savior, the proof that He is the Jewish Messiah seems overwhelming. How is it that, generally speaking, the Jews do not accept Jesus as their Messiah? Both Isaiah and Jesus prophesied a spiritual blindness upon Israel as a judgment for their lack of faith (Isaiah 6:9–10; Matthew 13:13–15\). Also, most of the Jews of Jesus’ time were looking for a political and cultural savior, not a Savior from sin. They wanted Jesus to throw off the yoke of Rome and establish Zion as the capital of the world (see Acts 1:6\). They could not see how the meek and lowly Jesus could possibly do that. The story of [Joseph](life-Joseph.html) provides an interesting parallel to the Jews’ missing their Messiah. Joseph was sold into slavery by his brothers, and after many ups and downs he was made prime minister of all of Egypt. When a famine hit both Egypt and Israel, Joseph’s brothers traveled to Egypt to get food, and they met with Joseph—but they did not recognize him. Their own brother, standing right in front of them, yet they were oblivious. They did not recognize Joseph for a very simple reason: he did not look as they expected him to look. Joseph was dressed as an Egyptian; he spoke as an Egyptian; he lived as an Egyptian. The thought that he might be their long\-lost brother never crossed their minds—Joseph was a Hebrew shepherd, after all, not Egyptian royalty. In a similar way, most Jewish people did not (and do not) recognize Jesus as their Messiah. They were looking for an earthly king, not the ruler of a spiritual kingdom. (Many rabbis interpret the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 as the Jewish people who have suffered at the hands of the world.) Their blindness was so great that no amount of miracles made a difference (Matthew 11:20\). Still, there were many in Jesus’ day who saw the truth about Jesus. The Bethlehem shepherds saw (Luke 2:16–17\). Simeon in the temple saw (verse 34\). Anna saw and “spoke about the child to all who were looking forward to the redemption of Jerusalem” (verse 38\). Peter and the other disciples saw (Matthew 16:16\). May many more continue to see that Jesus is the Messiah, the One who fulfills the Law and the Prophets (Matthew 5:17\).
Was Jesus a rabbi?	Answer It is clear from the gospels that Jesus had a reputation as a Jewish rabbi (Mark 14:45; John 1:38\). Peter (in Mark 9:5\) and Mary Magdalene (in John 20:16\) both referred to Jesus as “Rabbi.” Moreover, the Jewish ruler Nicodemus thought that this title was appropriate for Jesus: “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him” (John 3:2\). Elsewhere, we see Jesus referred to as “Teacher” (Mark 5:35\). According to John 1:38, Rabbi and Teacher are synonymous titles. A [rabbi](Jewish-rabbi.html) (literally, “my master”) is a member of the clergy in the religion of Judaism. Rabbis often function as leaders of synagogues where they provide instruction in the Hebrew Scriptures and Jewish traditions. Rabbis preach sermons, interpret the Old Testament, and perform other functions similar to those of Christian pastors. While Jesus was never part of the official temple leadership, He was still considered a rabbi because of His ministry of teaching. Even the [Babylonian Talmud](Talmud.html) describes Jesus as a teacher who had students (Sanhedrin 43a). During the first century AD, the word rabbi was used in a more informal sense than today. In Jesus’ day, the title “Rabbi” merely signified that a person had a reputation as a wise teacher or sage. [Gamaliel the Elder](Gamaliel-in-the-Bible.html), who taught Saul of Tarsus and who is mentioned in Acts 5:34–40, is referred to in the [Mishna](Mishnah-midrash.html) as a rabbi: “Since Rabban \[Rabbi] Gamaliel the Elder died, there has been no more reverence for the law, and purity and piety died out at the same time” (Sotah 15:18\). We learn from John’s gospel that John the Baptist was also addressed by this title: “They came to John and said to him, ‘Rabbi, that man who was with you on the other side of the Jordan—the one you testified about—look, he is baptizing, and everyone is going to him’” (John 3:26\). So it seems undeniable that Jesus was considered a wise teacher and thus could be properly categorized as a rabbi, as the term was used in Jesus’ time. It wasn’t until after the destruction of the temple in AD 70 that the title of “Rabbi” took on a more formal meaning for those who were ordained in the rabbinic movement. As time went on, the definition of rabbi continued to evolve. So, yes, Jesus was a rabbi, as defined in the first century, but today He would not hold the same title, as defined in modern\-day Judaism.
Why do we celebrate Christmas?	Answer Christians the world over celebrate [Christmas](Christmas-true-meaning.html) in honor of the birth of Jesus Christ in Bethlehem. Various Christmas traditions have been associated with the celebration of Christmas, and different cultures celebrate different ways. The unifying factor is the historical fact that Jesus was born, [c. 5 BC](what-year-was-Jesus-born.html). The angel who appeared to the shepherds the night of Jesus’ birth said, “I bring you good news that will cause great joy for all the people. Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is the Messiah, the Lord” (Luke 2:10–11\). We celebrate Christmas because, as the angel said, the birth of Jesus Christ is “good news.” Good news is meant to be celebrated. In fact, the angel said the news of Jesus’ birth would cause “great joy” and would be “for all the people”—the joyful celebration would be universal. People around the globe would be glad for this occasion. We celebrate Christmas because, as the angel said, “A Savior has been born to you; he is the Messiah, the Lord.” The three titles the angel applies to Jesus are important. Jesus is the Savior who delivers us from sin and death (Matthew 1:21\). He is the human Messiah (or Christ) who fulfills the Law and the Prophets, showing that God is faithful (see Matthew 5:17\). And He is the divine Lord who has entered our world: the Almighty has taken on human flesh; God and man have been fused together in an indivisible, eternal bond; God is truly with us (see Matthew 1:23\). In celebrating Christmas, we celebrate the Savior, because we needed deliverance. We celebrate the Christ in whom all of God’s promises are “Yes” and “Amen” (2 Corinthians 1:20\). We celebrate the Lord who in humility took on “the very nature of a servant” for our sakes (see Philippians 2:6–8\). We celebrate Christmas with gift\-giving because of the “indescribable gift” that God gave to us (2 Corinthians 9:15\). We celebrate Christmas by stringing lights because the Light of the world has come to us (John 1:4; Isaiah 9:2\). We celebrate Christmas with carols and choirs because they are expressive of joy and follow the examples of Mary and Zacharias and Simeon and the angels, all of whom extolled the Lord in poetry (Luke 1–2\). We celebrate Christmas by decorating evergreen trees with stars and angels and tinsel because of the eternal life Jesus brings (John 4:14\)—and stars and angels and beauty were all associated with Jesus’ birth. In celebrating Christmas we celebrate the love and condescension of God. In Texas in 1987, a toddler by the name of Jessica McClure fell into an eight\-inch well casing. Down she went, becoming stuck twenty\-two feet below ground. Once people discovered that “Baby Jessica” was in the well, they took immediate action. They didn’t tell her to find a way to climb back up, and they didn’t just shout happy thoughts to encourage her. No, they went down to where she was and got her. They did whatever it took. Rescuers worked nonstop for fifty\-eight hours to free her. In the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve fell. Down they went, dragging [all humanity](fall-affect-humanity.html) with them into the darkness and death of sin. And what did God do? He did not tell us to find our own way out of the mess we were in, and He did more than shout down happy thoughts to us from heaven. No, He came down to where we were and got us. That’s what Christmas is all about—God’s coming down to rescue us, to do whatever it took to deliver us from sure death. When even one person is in a life\-threatening situation, we understand what has to be done. When God looked down at our sinful planet, He saw a whole world of people in mortal danger. We celebrate Christmas because it was at Christmastime that the Rescuer of all mankind came to save us from the hopeless situation we were in. God did not stay in heaven; He came down to where we are.
If marriage is so difficult, why should I even consider it?	Answer “Marriage should be honored by all” (Hebrews 13:4\). A biblical [marriage](definition-of-marriage.html), consisting of one man and one woman in a loving, lifelong commitment, is an honorable and godly institution. Fads come and go, and the world has its biases, but God’s plan for marriage is still the building block of society. Unfortunately, some people are losing their faith in marriage as an institution. Some, even those who call themselves Christians, denigrate marriage as “a fool’s game” that is bound to end in regret. Some take the disillusioned view that to make a lifelong commitment is foolhardy, since the other person is going to change—we don’t know what our spouse will be like in twenty, or even five, years. He or she could be a completely different person—are we to be held to a vow we made in our youth? If marriage were intended only to gratify the personal desires of a man or woman, then, and only then, the description of holy wedlock as “foolish” might be valid. But a godly marriage is not selfish. The marriage vow is not a lifetime commitment to be loved. It is a vow to give love. Marriage is a commitment to give love for life. It is a determination to live for the benefit of the other person, to stand by and behind the loved one. To give and give and give, even to the point of giving one’s own life (Ephesians 5:25\). Even more fundamentally, man did not invent marriage. God did. When God made mankind male and female, placed them in Eden, and brought them together in marriage, He had a purpose in mind. The most basic purpose was that marriage would produce more people who bear God’s name and reflect His image (Genesis 1:26–28; 2:22–24\). Human reproduction was God’s first stated mandate for the united Adam and Eve. Marriage, God’s first and most fundamental institution, is designed to be the foundation for the family unit. Further, to properly and fully reflect the whole [image of God](image-of-God.html), mankind was created in two genders, “male and female” (Genesis 1:27\). The full reflection of God’s character in mankind requires both genders, man and woman. Marriage is the means by which the two genders are most intimately connected. When man and woman are united in marriage, they together reflect a picture of Christ and the church (Ephesians 5:22–32\). Marriage is about much more than romantic bliss or companionship or sexual intercourse. Believers find true joy in marital partnership with each other when God is their guide. Yes, the honeymoon will end. Yes, both spouses will prove to be somewhat different from what they presented to each other while courting. Yes, sooner or later both husband and wife will be disappointed in something about each other. Yes, people change, and not always for the better. But God had a good idea when He invented marriage—“very good,” according to Genesis 1:31\. God even uses marriage as a metaphor for His relationship with His people (Hosea 2:19–20\). Marriage will reveal weaknesses in each individual. Trials and challenges will come. The strength of the vows will be tested. But we live by faith (2 Corinthians 5:7\). Marriage is God’s institution for mankind. If He invented it, if He designed it to fulfill His purposes, and if He is in it, then it is good. We should not abandon the idea of marriage just because some people have not got out of it what they imagined they would. After all, it is not the takers of this world who find fulfillment, but the givers (Acts 20:35\). Those who by God’s grace emulate the self\-sacrificial giving of Christ will find marriage to be good. It will cost something—actually, it will cost everything! But, it is in giving of ourselves that we find the highest meaning of life in Christ. None of this means that every believer must marry. God knows that it is better for some not to marry, and some situations make marriage undesirable. See 1 Corinthians 7\. A [single person](single-Christian.html) gives self\-sacrificial love in other ways and still reflects the character of God. Marriage is not for all, but marriage itself is a godly institution that should be held in esteem. Marriage should not be miserable, and it won’t be if we understand what God intends marriage to be and follow His instructions. A godly, biblical marriage provides a lifetime of opportunities for two people to bless each other and their family in the name of Jesus Christ. Our Lord blessed His friends’ wedding at Cana with His joyful support (John 2:1–5\), and He still blesses the marital union today.
What is the Church of England?	Answer The origin of the Church of England, the [state church](state-church.html) in England and the mother church of the Anglican Communion, is related to the events leading up to the [Protestant Reformation](Protestant-Reformation.html). England had been torn apart by the wars between the House of Lancaster and the House of York until Henry VII founded the Tudor dynasty in 1485\. His son, Henry VIII, came to the throne of England in 1509, shortly before Martin Luther sparked off the Protestant Reformation by posting his [Ninety\-five Theses](95-theses.html) in 1517\. At this point, the church in England came under the authority of the Roman Catholic pope. Thomas Wolsey was appointed Cardinal in 1515 with papal legate powers that enabled him to bypass the Archbishop of Canterbury and govern the church in England. King Henry VIII wrote a popular book that attacked Martin Luther and supported the Church of Rome. In 1521 Henry was given the title “Defender of the Faith” by the pope. Henry VIII’s first wife, Catherine of Aragon, had produced only one surviving child, Princess Mary, born in 1516\. Henry was desperate for a son and tried to persuade the pope to grant him an annulment of his marriage, claiming it had never been legal. Since the previous pope had specifically granted Henry a licence to marry Catherine of Aragon in 1509, the current pope rejected Henry’s arguments, as presented by Cardinal Wolsey. This failure to obtain an annulment cost the cardinal his job, and he was arrested, but Wolsey died before he could be brought to trial. It was Chief Minister Thomas Cromwell who introduced a series of acts cutting back the influence of the pope and the Church of Rome in England. In 1532 Thomas Cranmer was promoted to Archbishop of Canterbury. The following year he declared Henry’s marriage to Catherine of Aragon invalid, and Anne Boleyn was crowned queen in May 1533\. Pope Clement responded by excommunicating King Henry. In 1534 came the Act of Supremacy, which recognized the king as the only supreme head of the Church of England (called Anglicana Ecclesia). Cranmer then navigated a theological middle path between two emerging Protestant traditions, [Calvinism](calvinism.html) and [Lutheranism](Lutherans.html). Under the reign of Henry’s son, Edward VI (1547–1553\), the Church of England became more explicitly Protestant, eradicating statues and stained glass in churches and allowing the clergy to marry. Then Edward’s half\-sister Mary Tudor came to the throne, and she restored papal supremacy in England. She abandoned the title of Supreme Head of the Church, reintroduced Roman Catholic bishops, and started to reintroduce monastic orders. Mary was also responsible for the deaths of some 300 Protestants, including Cranmer, Hugh Latimer, and Nicholas Ridley, as detailed in Foxe’s Book of Martyrs. Due to her persecution of Protestants, Queen Mary I of England became known as [Bloody Mary](Bloody-Mary.html). During the reign of Mary’s half\-sister Elizabeth Tudor (1558–1603\), a secure Church of England was established, and its doctrines were laid down in the Thirty\-nine Articles of 1563\. The final result was a compromise between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. According to the Church of England, the roots of the Church of England go back to the third century AD when [Tertullian](Tertullian.html) and [Origen](Origen-of-Alexandria.html) mention the existence of a British church. What eventually became known as the Church of England (or the English Church) embraced the Roman tradition of [Augustine](Saint-Augustine.html) and his successors, the remnants of the old Romano\-British church, and the Celtic tradition from Scotland, associated with St. Aidan and St. Cuthbert. One result of the Synod of Whitby in AD 664 had been an English Church led by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Archbishop of York. Until the Reformation and the time of Henry VIII, the Church of England acknowledged the authority of the pope. Under the rule of Queen Elizabeth I, the Thirty\-nine Articles of Faith formed the basis for the Church of England, also known as the [Anglican Church](Anglicans.html). The pope’s excommunication of Queen Elizabeth in 1570 destroyed any hope of reconciliation between Rome and England. After many years of theological adjustments, starting with those of Thomas Cranmer, the Church of England now considers itself to be “Catholic and Reformed,” a “middle way” between Reformed Protestantism and Roman Catholicism. The Westminster Confession of Faith, drawn up in 1649, is the standard of doctrine for the Church of England and the Church of Scotland and is also influential within Presbyterian churches throughout the world. The term Anglicanism was used in the 19th century to collectively refer to the Church of England, the Scottish Episcopal Church, and Anglican congregations in the United States, Canada, Africa, Australasia, and the Pacific. All those churches use the Book of Common Prayer in their services. The Anglican Communion—the churches around the world that look to the Church of England’s Archbishop of Canterbury as their spiritual leader—has an estimated membership of 80 million and is the third largest Christian communion, after the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church.
I am engaged to an unbeliever. What should I do?	Answer There is no doubt that you are in a difficult and painful situation. Your question shows that you have not deafened your ears against God and His good will for you. Your concerns are the result of hearing God’s warning whispers of danger ahead. The Spirit is leading you into righteousness. As God’s child, you have a responsibility to do what is right, regardless of how difficult it may be. Concentrate on what God has said in His Word, and trust Him to lead you in making your next decisions on the basis of His life principles and commands. Ceasing to [cohabit](living-in-sin.html) with your fiancé or fiancée is the first step. Putting the marriage on hold is the next. The Bible says that believers should only marry other believers (2 Corinthians 6:14; see also 1 Corinthians 7:39—this verse specifically applies to widows, but the principle of “he must belong to the Lord” is present). So, your engagement to an unbeliever is problematic. As for your living arrangements, which you are convicted about, it is good to listen to your conscience. Romans 14:23 says, “If you have doubts about whether or not you should \[do] something, you are sinning if you go ahead and do it. For you are not following your convictions. If you do anything you believe is not right, you are sinning” (NLT). You don’t feel right about it for a reason. God’s Word is clear on the matter of pre\-marital sex: “It is God’s will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality” (1 Thessalonians 4:3\). Your Christian testimony is at risk. Sexual sin is something God tells us to be very careful about: “Among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people” (Ephesians 5:3\). Living together before marriage definitely “hints” at immorality. God does not want you to live in a state of sin, guilty feelings, or doubt. To have His full peace, follow Him fully. While your happiness, fulfillment, and usefulness to God are important, something else is even more important, and it should be your primary consideration: the exaltation of God’s name and the true reflection of His likeness in you. These are the main reasons that He gave you repenting faith to receive Jesus Christ as your Savior and Lord. See 1 Corinthians 10:31–32 and Romans 8:28–30\. As a born\-again child of God, you have a strong desire to do what is right and please the Lord in every way. The path to holiness is difficult and calls for radical change (see Matthew 5:29–30\). But in the power of the Holy Spirit you can do it. Will you trust God enough to do what He says? Do you trust that He really knows what is best for you? Do you believe God has your best interests at heart? Satan is a deceiver. He would like to trick you into believing that, once you make a poor decision, you are forced to make another, or that the only way to relieve the problems of one bad decision is to make a worse one. But God provides grace to renounce the past, to gain freedom from Satan’s deceptions, to take back the ground given to Satan, and to be restored to the Savior’s fellowship. Read James 4:1–10, focusing on verses 7–8\. You can trust the Lord to lead you in the right way. His way is better than anything this world has to offer (Psalm 84:10\).
I recently came to faith in Christ and am living with an unbeliever. What should I do?	Answer There is no easy answer to your predicament. Most likely, you should separate, clearly explaining to your partner that you have been disobedient to God in living together before marriage, and that to continue to [cohabit](living-in-sin.html) constitutes continued, willful fornication. Scripture is clear that sexual immorality is a sin and that our bodies are designed to glorify the Lord: “You were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies” (1 Corinthians 6:20\). God did not save you in order for you to continue in sin (Romans 6:1–4\). You could marry, obviating the concerns of immorality, but, if you do, you form an [unequal yoke](unequally-yoked.html) that God forbids (2 Corinthians 6:14\). Now that Christ has entered your life, your primary love is for Him (Luke 14:26\). And loving the Lord goes hand in hand with obeying the Lord (John 14:15\). The biblical principles presented so far are straightforward; however, there may be other considerations that complicate the issue. For example, are there children involved? Also, in the state where you live, what are the laws concerning [common law marriage](common-law-marriage.html)? It could be that you are already legally married, depending on the details of the marriage law in your locale. If you did exchange informal vows not in the presence of an officiant, then one possibility is to solemnize the marriage to which you are already committed. If your unbelieving marriage partner does not wish to ratify the relationship with an official license, then the principle of 1 Corinthians 7:15 might apply. In addition to praying about this issue and searching the Scriptures, it is imperative to find a godly counselor—a pastor or someone who truly understands the Bible and who has a lot of life experience—with whom you can share all the details of your situation. As you follow the precepts of Scripture, pray for boldness and grace. The way to go will be made clear. Believe that God really knows what is best for you. Trust that He has your best interests at heart.
What is the difference between miracles and magic?	Answer Magic and miracles might mean the same thing to some people, but there is actually a vast difference between the two terms. It is proper to say that Jesus worked miracles, but it would be wrong to attribute His works to magic. Basically, magic and miracles differ in their source: [magic](magic-illusion-Bible.html) has either a human or demonic source, but [miracles](miracles-literal.html) are a supernatural work of God. There are two different kinds of “magic,” and it is good to distinguish between the two. Entertainers who use sleight\-of\-hand and illusions in their performance are often called “magicians,” but they are actually illusionists, which is what most of them prefer to be called. An illusionist’s audience does not consider what they see to be “real” magic; they understand it is a trick, and they delight in the fact they cannot figure out how the trick is done. The other kind of magic is what some might call “real” magic; it draws on occult, demonic power. The Bible speaks of “lying wonders” in 2 Thessalonians 2:9\. The Antichrist’s coming “will be in accordance with how Satan works. He will use all sorts of displays of power through signs and wonders that serve the lie.” This type of magic, sometimes spelled magick to distinguish it from sleight\-of\-hand, is associated with divination, conjuring, and sorcery and is condemned in Scripture (see Deuteronomy 18:10–12\). Of course, the Antichrist will claim that his power comes from God, but that is a lie, too (see Revelation 13:2\). A major difference between magic and miracles is that magic draws upon power that is not directly from God, and miracles are the result of God’s power intervening in the world. Magic is an attempt to circumvent God in the acquisition of knowledge or power. The city of Ephesus was a battleground between magic and miracles. The pagan population of Ephesus was steeped in idolatry and involved in magic, but then Paul brought the gospel to that city, and with the gospel came true power through the apostle: “God did extraordinary miracles through Paul” (Acts 19:11\). Seeing what Paul did, some exorcists (the [seven sons of Sceva](seven-sons-of-Sceva.html)) attempted to duplicate his miracles, but they failed miserably and publicly (verses 13–16\). When a large number of Ephesians were saved through the preaching of Paul and Silas, the new believers destroyed their books of witchcraft: “A number of those who had practiced magic arts brought their books together and burned them in the sight of all. And they counted the value of them and found it came to fifty thousand pieces of silver” (Acts 19:19, ESV). So, in Ephesus, there was a clear contrast between the miracles of God and the magic of the devil, which is sorcery. Another difference between magic and miracles is that magic does not glorify God, but miracles do (see Mark 2:12\). A good example of a magician’s self\-promotion is found in Samaria. “A man named [Simon](Simon-the-Sorcerer.html) had practiced sorcery in the city and amazed all the people of Samaria. He boasted that he was someone great, and all the people, both high and low, gave him their attention and exclaimed, ‘This man is rightly called the Great Power of God.’ They followed him because he had amazed them for a long time with his sorcery” (Acts 8:9–11\). Note that Simon was boastful about his “power” and went by a blasphemous title. Simon had the ability to amaze the crowds with his magic, but it was not the power of God. Simon’s performances were all about himself and enriching his own life. Later, Simon the magician sees a true miracle performed by Peter and John, and he offers to buy from them the “secret” to their trick (verses 18–19\). Peter immediately rebukes Simon; in Simon’s sinful heart, he had equated the power of the Holy Spirit with his own sorcery (verses 20–23\). Another difference between magic and miracles is that magic involves manipulation and opposition to the truth but miracles reveal the truth. The magician attempts to manipulate people for personal gain. The worker of miracles simply showcases the power and glory of God. The city of Paphos on the island of Cyprus was another battleground between the miraculous and the magical. As Paul and Barnabas (and Mark) were preaching in that city, they were opposed by “a Jewish sorcerer and false prophet named [Bar\-Jesus](Bar-Jesus-in-the-Bible.html), who was an attendant of the proconsul, Sergius Paulus” (Acts 13:6–7\). This sorcerer, also called Elymas, had wormed his way into the political establishment of Cyprus. When the proconsul began to listen to the missionaries’ message, Elymas “tried to turn the proconsul from the faith” (verse 8\). Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, confronted Elymas head\-on: “You are a child of the devil and an enemy of everything that is right! You are full of all kinds of deceit and trickery. Will you never stop perverting the right ways of the Lord?” (verse 10\). Paul then performed a miracle—striking Elymas blind—showing that the miracle\-working power of God is greater than the magic of the devil (verse 11\). The result was that the proconsul believed the gospel and was saved (verse 12\). Another good comparison of miracles and magic is found in the book of Exodus. The workers of magic in Egypt are called “sorcerers” and “magicians” (Exodus 7:11, 22\); however, Moses and Aaron are never identified by those terms. The works that God did through Moses were true miracles, whereas the tricks of [Pharaoh’s magicians](Jannes-and-Jambres.html) were meant to deceive and harden the king’s heart. Early in the story, there is a showdown in Pharaoh’s court: “Aaron threw his staff down in front of Pharaoh and his officials, and it became a snake. Pharaoh then summoned wise men and sorcerers, and the Egyptian magicians also did the same things by their secret arts: Each one threw down his staff and it became a snake. But Aaron’s staff swallowed up their staffs” (Exodus 7:10–12\). The fact that the Egyptian snakes were eaten by Aaron’s snake shows that the power of God is greater than whatever power the pagan magicians were tapping in to. Later, these same Egyptian sorcerers duplicated the changing of water into blood (Exodus 7:22\) and the mass production of frogs (Exodus 8:7\). However, the sorcerers were powerless to mimic the other plagues. When it came to the gnats, the magicians’ abilities fell short. As they reported to Pharaoh, “This is the finger of God” (Exodus 8:19\). Miracles and magic sometimes look the same, but their goals are different. Magic and illusion distract the eye from reality, while miracles draw the eye to reality. Miracles reveal; magic hides. Miracles are an expression of creative power; magic uses what already exists. Miracles are a gift; magic is a studied skill. Miracles do not glorify men; magic seeks to be noticed and bring glory to the magician. Jesus was not a magician. He was the Son of God, known for His many miracles (John 7:31\). Jesus told His enemies, “Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father” (John 10:37–38\). Jesus’ miracles (or “signs,” as John called them) are proof of who He is.
What is Tartarus?	Answer In ancient Greek mythology, Tartarus was a horrible pit of torment in the afterlife. It was lower than even Hades, the place of the dead. According to the Greeks, Tartarus was populated by ferocious monsters and the worst of criminals. The Greek word Tartarus appears only once in the entire New Testament. Second Peter 2:4 says, “God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to \[Tartarus], putting them in chains of darkness to be held for judgment.” Most English versions translate tartarus as “hell” or “lowest hell.” The word Tartarus can be defined as “the deepest abyss of [Hades](sheol-hades-hell.html).” Another place in Scripture that mentions sinning angels is Genesis 6:1–4 where “the [sons of God](sons-of-God.html)” took control of human women and their progeny. According to Jude 1:6, some angels “abandoned their proper dwelling” in the heavens. For this crime, God cast them into Tartarus where they are held “in pits of gloom” (AMP) for a later judgment. It seems that Tartarus was what the demons feared in Luke 8:31\. Peter’s mention of Tartarus is in the context of condemning [false teachers](false-teachers.html). Those who secretly introduce heresy into the church will suffer a fate similar to that of the angels who sinned—they will end up in Tartarus. The Lord does not tolerate those who lead His children astray (Matthew 18:6\).
How to fast—what does the Bible say?	Answer The New Testament nowhere commands followers of Jesus Christ to [fast](fasting-Christian.html). In fact, even in the Old Testament, the Jews were only commanded to fast on one day out of the year, the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 23:27, 29, 32\). Any religious leader who commands a fast or restricts certain foods is doing so without biblical warrant. However, Jesus sometimes fasted (Matthew 4:2\), and He assumed that His followers would also fast on occasion (Matthew 6:16–18; Mark 2:20\). So, if fasting is something that Christians do, what is the proper way to fast? What does the Bible say about how to fast? The Bible mentions different [types of fasting](types-of-fasting.html). There is limiting yourself to a certain type of food (Daniel 1:8–14\). There is fasting from food entirely (Daniel 10:2–3\). There is fasting from food and water (Luke 4:2; Acts 9:9\). There is also “fasting” from a certain activity, such as a husband and wife abstaining from sex for a predetermined period (Exodus 19:15; 1 Corinthians 7:5\). With the different types of fasting in mind, how to fast depends greatly on what type of fasting you are doing. Always ask God for wisdom (James 1:5\) in regards to how and for how long He wants you to fast. Setting a time frame seems to be the biblical approach (Esther 4:16\). Also, fasting should have a clear purpose. People in the Bible fasted and prayed because they wanted something specific to happen. They either wanted God to change them, to change their circumstances, or to reveal something to them. Ultimately, fasting is far more about focus than food. Fasting is taking your focus off of the things of this world in order to focus more on the things of God. Fasting can thus be a means of growing closer to God. A note of caution concerning fasting: those with medical conditions, especially conditions involving dietary restrictions (diabetes, for example), should consult a doctor before fasting. Remember, there is no biblical command that followers of Jesus Christ must fast. Therefore, it is not wrong to take a medical condition into account when determining how to fast. Also, it is good to examine your motives for fasting. Fasting is not about manipulating God. Fasting will not cause God to do something that is outside of His will. Fasting is about changing yourself to be in agreement with God’s plan and to be prepared to carry out your role in His plan. When you are deciding how to fast, it is crucially important to remember what fasting is all about—changing yourself, not changing God.
Is it possible for a person to be saved/forgiven after taking the mark of the beast?	Answer The [mark of the beast](mark-beast.html) is a mark that will be placed on a person’s forehead or right hand in the end times as a sign of allegiance to the Antichrist (Revelation 13:15–18\). Further, no one will be allowed to engage in commerce without the mark (Revelation 13:17\). It appears that some form of worship of the Antichrist is associated with receiving the mark (Revelation 14:9; 16:2\), and those who refuse to worship the image of the beast will be killed (Revelation 13:15\). The question then arises as to whether a person who has received the mark of the beast can be forgiven. The answer to this question seems to be “no.” Revelation 14:10–11, describing the fate of someone who takes the mark of the beast, declares, “He also will drink the wine of God’s wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name.” The eternal destiny of those who take the mark of the beast is the lake of fire. Why is taking the mark of the beast a damnable sin against God? Why would God condemn a person to hell for taking the mark of the beast? It would appear that taking the mark of the beast will be a blasphemous act of willful defiance against God. Receiving the mark of the beast is essentially worshiping Satan. Those who take the mark have made the choice to serve Satan rather than obey God and receive Christ as Savior. When people make that decision during the tribulation, God will grant their request to be eternally separated from Him.
Why are the numbers in Ezra so different from those in Nehemiah?	Answer Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7 offer nearly identical lists of the people who returned to Jerusalem from Persia with Zerubbabel to [rebuild the temple](Zerubbabel-second-temple.html). Adding up the numbers listed in Ezra gives a sum of 29,818 men (Ezra 2:1–58\). Nehemiah’s sum is 31,089 men (Nehemiah 7:5–61\). The discrepancy between the two lists is 1,271 people. First, we should acknowledge that both books agree on the total number of Israel’s congregation: 42,360, plus singers and servants, which would bring the total to about 50,000 people (Ezra 2:64; Nehemiah 7:66\). It is in the details of the two lists of exiles that the differences begin to show up. Second, we should remember that the books of Ezra and Nehemiah were originally one book and were most likely written by one author, Ezra, who used Nehemiah’s records to compile the account now known as the book of Nehemiah. It is impossible that Ezra, a scribe by trade, didn’t know some of the numbers were different. Third, we should remember that the events of Nehemiah and Ezra occurred up to ninety\-three years apart. Thirty\-three family units are mentioned in both Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7, with the number of persons from each family specified. Both [Ezra](Book-of-Ezra.html) and [Nehemiah](Book-of-Nehemiah.html) include people not mentioned in the other account: Ezra lists 494 people not listed in Nehemiah, and Nehemiah has 1,765 that Ezra does not account for. Adding Nehemiah’s “extras” to Ezra’s list, we arrive at 31,583, the same total obtained by adding Ezra’s “extras” to Nehemiah’s list. Still, 31,583 is almost 11,000 short of the grand total that both Ezra and Nehemiah give (42,360\). Two potential explanations exist that could help account for the differences in these lists. First, the lists may have originally been the same, but textual variations could have arisen in the copying of these lists. The change in a single pen stroke in Hebrew can change a number from tens to hundreds. Though this explanation is possible, it is unlikely to have resulted in this many variations. A second, more likely explanation considers the circumstances in which the lists were created. Ezra’s list was compiled by Zerubbabel while the exiles were still in Babylon and before they made their trip to Jerusalem. Nehemiah’s list was compiled almost a century later, in Jerusalem, after the walls had been rebuilt. The differences in time and location could have resulted in the different numbers for each family. The larger list, found in Nehemiah, may be due in part to the increase in the size of families who moved into Jerusalem to rebuild the wall—people had children since Zerubbabel’s departure from Babylon. In addition, Nehemiah may have included people who settled in nearby regions and not just Jerusalem proper. The people whom Ezra lists and Nehemiah omits may have died between the recordings of the two lists. An additional consideration is related to the age of the men counted. It could be that Nehemiah’s record counted all males, and Ezra only listed men 20 years old and older (as was common). We still have the difference between the grand total (42,360 men) listed in Ezra 2:64 and Nehemiah 7:66 with the adjusted sum of both lists when reconciled (31,583 men). How do we account for the missing 10,777? The most likely explanation is that Ezra and Nehemiah gave family\-by\-family details for Judah and Benjamin only. The whole congregation numbered 42,360, but, of that total, 10,777 were from other tribes or clans. We know that servants and singers were counted separately, so it would make sense that the smaller tribes were counted separately, too. In summary, here is what we surmise: Ezra recorded the families of Judah and Benjamin who had left Babylon in 538 BC under Zerubbabel’s leadership. That total was 29,818 men. Later, in 445 BC, Nehemiah brought another group of exiles back to Jerusalem. By that time (93 years after Zerubbabel), the numbers in Jerusalem had grown to 31,089 men. The difference in the two lists can be attributed to the death and birth of members in each family. When all the tribes of Israel were included in the count, the congregation numbered 42,360, plus servants and singers.
What is the gospel of the kingdom?	Answer The phrase gospel of the kingdom and references to [“the kingdom of God” and “the kingdom of heaven”](kingdom-heaven-God.html) are used repeatedly in connection with the Lord Jesus and His work on earth. The word gospel simply means “good news,” and the term translated “kingdom” is the Greek word basileia, which means “the realm in which a sovereign king rules.” Throughout the New Testament, the word kingdom consistently refers to the rule of Christ in the hearts of believers, since, for the time being, Christ’s kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36\). When Jesus began His three\-year earthly ministry, He preached that “the kingdom of God is near” (Luke 10:9; cf. Matthew 4:17\). Mark 1:14–15 gives a concise description of Jesus’ primary focus during His time on earth: “Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God, and saying, ‘The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.’” When asked to define His kingdom, Jesus explained it this way: “The kingdom of God is not coming in ways that can be observed. . . . The kingdom of God is [in the midst of you](kingdom-of-God-within-you.html)” (Luke 17:20–21\). Romans 14:17 says that the kingdom of God is a matter “of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.” The gospel of the kingdom is the good\-news message of repentance, redemption, and restoration offered by God to all who will receive Christ. Those who accept this offer become part of His eternal kingdom (John 1:12\). Those who choose to remain in their sin cannot be a part of this kingdom (1 Corinthians 6:9–10; Galatians 5:19–21\). Although grace makes this offer available to anyone who will receive it, Jesus warned that it would be very difficult to enter His kingdom and few would do so (Matthew 7:14\). The gospel of the kingdom is the news that there is freedom from our slavery to sin if we will repent and turn to God (Romans 6:18–19\). Our Redeemer has come, but it is difficult to enter God’s kingdom, not because God requires impossible standards for us, but because we do not want to repent and change. We tend to love the darkness more than the Light (John 3:19\). Many would rather cling to their old sinful identities than allow Jesus to create them anew (2 Corinthians 5:17\). Those who receive the gospel of the kingdom become citizens of heaven and are freed from bondage to this world (Galatians 4:3–9\). Second Corinthians 5:20 refers to God’s children as “ambassadors” for our heavenly Father. Just as an earthly foreign ambassador retains his national identity when representing his country in another, the spiritual ambassadors of God’s kingdom owe their allegiance to God even as they reside in this world. We must follow our heavenly Father’s code of conduct while sojourners on earth. We need not conform to this world’s habits, values, and lifestyle, because this is not our home (Romans 12:1–2; 1 John 2:15–17\). Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36\). So, although we must live here until God calls us home, we are not to live for ourselves or according to this world’s value system. Those who have been bought by the blood of Jesus have been given the right to live according to God’s value system. Citizens of the kingdom of God live here on assignment from our Father the King. Living with a kingdom mindset empowers us to make wiser decisions as we invest our lives in furthering the gospel of the kingdom. God's children have the promise of ruling and reigning with Christ in His future kingdom on earth. The song of praise sung by the twenty\-four elders in heaven one day will include these lines: “You were slain, and with your blood you purchased for God persons from every tribe and language and people and nation. You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign on the earth” (Revelation 5:9–10\).
What is the Lord’s day?	Answer The Lord’s day (as distinguished from the [day of the Lord](day-of-the-Lord.html)) is Sunday. The term Lord’s day is used only once in Scripture. Revelation 1:10 says, “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet.” Since the apostle John does not elaborate on the meaning of “Lord’s day,” we can assume that his target audience, first\-century Christians, were already familiar with the expression. Some have assumed that the Lord’s day is the New Testament equivalent of the [Sabbath](Saturday-Sunday.html). The Sabbath day was instituted by God for the nation of Israel to commemorate His deliverance of them from Egypt (Deuteronomy 5:15\). Sabbath began Friday at sunset and ended Saturday at sunset and was to be a day of complete rest from all labor, symbolic of the Creator’s resting on the seventh day (Genesis 2:2–3; Exodus 20:11; 23:12\). The Sabbath was a special sign to the Israelites that they had been set apart as followers of the most High God. Their keeping of the Sabbath would help distinguish them from the nations around them. However, nowhere in Scripture is the Sabbath ever referred to as the Lord’s day. The term Sabbath was still in use within the Jewish community in New Testament times and is referred to as such by Jesus and the apostles (Matthew 12:5; John 7:23; Colossians 2:16\). Sunday was the day that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, an act that forever separated Christianity from any other religion (John 20:1\). Since that time, believers have gathered on the first day of the week to celebrate His victory over sin and death (Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2\). Even though the Sabbath day was designated by God as a holy day, Jesus demonstrated that He was Lord over the Sabbath (Matthew 12:8\). Jesus stated that He had come not to abolish but to fulfill the whole Law. Rule\-keeping could not justify anyone; only through Jesus could sinful humanity be declared righteous (Romans 3:28\). Paul echoes this truth in Colossians 2:16–17 when he writes, “Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.” The Lord’s day is typically thought of as Sunday, but it is not a direct counterpart to the Jewish Sabbath—in other words, Sunday is not the “Christian Sabbath.” Although we should set aside a day for rest and honoring the Lord who died and rose for us, we are not under the Law (Romans 6:14–15\). As born\-again followers of Jesus, we are free to worship Him on any day that our conscience determines. Romans 14 gives clear explanation of how Christians are to navigate those subtle gray areas of discipleship. Verses 4 and 5 say, “One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord. Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and whoever abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God.” Some [Messianic Jews](Messianic-Judaism.html) want to continue regarding the Sabbath day as holy because of their Jewish heritage. Some Gentile Christians join their Jewish brothers and sisters in keeping the Sabbath as a way to honor God. Worshiping God on the Sabbath is acceptable—again, the day of the week is not the most important issue—but the heart motivation behind that choice is crucial. If legalism or law\-keeping motivates the choice to observe the Sabbath, then that choice is not made from a right heart condition (Galatians 5:4\). When our hearts are pure before the Lord, we are free to worship Him on Saturday (the Sabbath) or Sunday (the Lord’s day). God is equally pleased with both. Jesus warned against [legalism](Bible-Christian-legalism.html) when He quoted Isaiah the prophet: “These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules” (Matthew 15:8–9; cf. Isaiah 29:13\). God is not interested in our keeping of rituals, rules, or requirements. He wants hearts that are on fire with His love and grace on the Sabbath, on the Lord’s day, and on every other day (Hebrews 12:28–29; Psalm 51:15–17\).
What does the Bible say about pansexuality / omnisexuality?	Answer Pansexuality and omnisexuality are closely related. Pansexuality is sexual attraction to people with no recognition of gender. Omnisexuality is sexual attraction to people with recognition of gender. Practically speaking, there is no difference between the two. Both pansexuals and omnisexuals are sexually attracted to heterosexual men and women, homosexual men and women, [bisexual](bisexual-bisexuality.html) men and women, transgendered men and women, gender\-fluid men and women, etc., etc. The difference is that a pansexual claims to not see gender at all while an omnisexual sees gender but doesn’t care. The unofficial slogan of both seems to be “hearts not parts.” The Bible does not specifically mention pansexuality or omnisexuality. But, since pansexuality and omnisexuality sometimes involve sex with the same gender, the biblical condemnations of [homosexuality](homosexuality-Bible.html) would apply equally to those who practice pansexuality or omnisexuality (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Romans 1:26–27; 1 Corinthians 6:9\). The only form of sexual activity the Bible supports is heterosexuality within the confines of marriage (Acts 15:20; 1 Corinthians 6:13; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 5:3; Colossians 3:5\). The recent trend to ignore gender or even deny it entirely is absolutely unbiblical. God created man and woman and designed them to complement each other, not just physically and sexually but also emotionally and spiritually (Genesis 2\). To deny male\-female distinctions and embrace alternative forms of sexuality, such as pansexuality and omnisexuality, is to deny reality and, more importantly, to reject God as Creator and Designer. Simply put, to engage in pansexuality or omnisexuality is sin.
What is Catharism?	Answer Catharism is the term used to describe a set of quasi\-Christian beliefs held by a group of medieval ascetics known as the Cathars (or Cathari), which means “pure ones.” According to Catharism, everything physical was created by the evil god of the Old Testament, and everything spiritual was created by the good god of the New Testament. The Cathars believed that human beings are really angels trapped in corrupted matter, forced to [reincarnate](reincarnation.html) until finally released by a ritual of purification. One of the tenets of Catharism, which began in the 12th century, was a rejection of marriage. Cathars forbade marriage for a couple of reasons. First, they believed that humans were simply angelic beings imprisoned in flesh—and angels are genderless. Also, the Cathari believed that procreation was an evil act, since it prolonged the suffering and evil of the physical world. Cathars were also [vegetarian](Jesus-Christian-vegetarian.html) and [pacifistic](Jesus-pacifist.html). Catharism taught that salvation required a ritual known as a consolamentum. This was vaguely similar to baptism, with the addition of speaking in tongues and fasting. A Cathar typically observed the consolamentum as late in life as possible, since he believed any pleasure taken in the world after the ritual would corrupt his spirit and prevent him from ascending to heaven. Many Cathars undertook the consolamentum on their deathbeds, then voluntarily starved themselves to death in order to guarantee purity in the afterlife. Theologically, Catharism was [dualistic](dualism.html); biblically, Catharism is completely false, although the Cathars claimed to be Christians. Scripture says that the same God who created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1\) is the One who came in human form for our salvation (Acts 3:13\). Unlike Catharism, the Bible says that each person is born and dies only once (Hebrews 9:27\), has a human soul (Genesis 2:7\), and is saved by grace through faith in Christ (Ephesians 2:8–9\). No ritual can save us (Titus 3:5\), nor are all worldly things inherently evil (Genesis 1:31\). In modern times, Catharism might be seen as a quirky or even progressive religious group. But in medieval Europe the Cathars were considered radical and profoundly dangerous to the stability of a fragile society. Those who denied the authority of the government to wage war and who refused to procreate were seen as anarchists threatening the culture. Catharism also rejected the Catholic sacraments and almost all other religious traditions. Unsurprisingly, Catharism was heavily persecuted by the Catholic Church; they were the particular targets of at least one minor Crusade and parts of the Inquisition. Catharism died out in the 14th century.
If angels and demons can’t die, what is the point of their engaging in battle?	Answer Popular fiction, such as the novel This Present Darkness by Frank Peretti, often features lurid descriptions of spiritual battles in which [demons](do-demons-exist.html) are dispatched by sword\-wielding [angels](do-angels-exist.html) with a slash, a flash, and a puff of smoke. The implication is that the demons “die” somehow when sliced in half by angelic blades. It should go without saying that our theology should be based on what the Bible says, not contemporary novels. The Bible teaches the reality of spiritual battle (Jude 1:9\). But the Bible also says that, after the final judgment, demons will be consigned forever to the lake of fire (Matthew 25:41; Revelation 20:10\). Since demons (and angels) do not “die” or suffer physical wounds, what is the point of doing spiritual battle? First, we need to remember that not all battles are “to the death.” The point of angels battling demons is not to kill them but to thwart their plans and further God’s plans. In the Bible, we see that angels do battle with demons in order to deliver divine messages to people (Daniel 10:13\) and remove Satan’s hordes from heavenly places (Revelation 12:7–8\). Demons can be withstood (James 4:7\), tortured by God (Luke 8:28\), lose what they possess (Mark 9:25–26\), be sent to another place (Matthew 8:32\), and be removed to the Abyss (Luke 8:31\). Second, there will be a time when Satan and his demons will experience what the Bible calls “the [second death](second-death.html),” which is the lake of fire (Revelation 21:8\). We look forward to that day because the demons’ main objective in battle is to counter God’s will in the lives of people everywhere—believers and non\-believers alike (1 Peter 5:8\). We have many examples in the Bible that God has sent His angels to warn, guide, and protect God’s children. One of the best examples of these roles in Scripture is through the story of Christmas. God used angels to inform Zechariah that he would have a son named John (Luke 1:8–20\), to tell Mary that she would bear the Messiah (Luke 1:26–38\), to declare Christ’s birth to others (Luke 2:8–13\), and to warn Joseph to protect his family from King Herod’s wrath (Matthew 2:13\). God has not seen fit to imprison all demons just yet, but He promises that in the last days they will be thrown, along with Satan, into the lake of fire. There is no escape from this fate, and all demonic spirits will be tormented in eternal isolation from God and His children (Revelation 20:10\). The reality of spiritual warfare affects every believer. It is of utmost importance to recognize this warfare that is taking place and be prepared for it. God has given us all that is necessary to stand firm against the devil’s schemes and has commanded us to put on the [full spiritual armor](full-armor-of-God.html) (Ephesians 6:10–18\).
Is it possible to marry the wrong person?	Answer There are a few different ways to look at this question. To say that we married the “wrong” person might imply that there is a sole “right” person we are meant to marry. If we marry the “wrong” person, then we may fear we have messed up God’s plan for our lives. We might also be tempted to “correct” our error in ways that do not honor God. We can certainly make wrong choices in marriage and disobey God’s guidance in whom we decide to marry. However, taking the sovereignty of God into account, we cannot marry the “wrong” person. God has a plan for our lives and is able to redeem our wrong choices and ultimately work them together for good (Romans 8:28\). Once we are married, we are expected to do everything we can to make that marriage honoring to the Lord. Whether a particular marriage partner is the “wrong” choice or not, the marriage is a [covenantal relationship](covenant-marriage.html). God is able to transform even the worst of marriages into a relationship that brings Him glory. Biblically, a Christian should be looking to marry another believer who shares a similar commitment to following the Lord Jesus. Marriage to an unbeliever is not an option for the believer (2 Corinthians 6:14\). So, if a Christian marries a non\-Christian, he or she has indeed married the wrong person by violating God’s will. There are other ways to marry the wrong person. For example, marrying someone who is abusive, immature, selfish, or codependent is going to result in problems. Marrying someone who has untreated addictions or is living in unrepentant sin is likewise an unwise choice. What are some reasons that people marry the wrong person? Some step into toxic situations in the mistaken belief that the power of their love alone will change the other person into someone who is not abusive, immature, selfish, or codependent. Some are blinded by the initial attraction to a mate and don’t realize the problems in their relationship. Others are manipulated by someone who seems to be one thing prior to marriage and then suddenly changes course. Other cases involve couples who simply aren’t ready for marriage. They underestimate the sacrifice required to live with another person. No doubt the reasons in each case of marrying the wrong person vary and are unique to the couple. Culture also plays a role in influencing people to marry the wrong person. Many societies have portrayed marriage as a temporary arrangement that can be adapted or forsaken at will. Since exiting a marriage is not a big deal in some cultures, neither is entering it. All too many people say their vows without a real commitment to their spouse or to God. In many places in the world, a fantasy is promoted that marriage should meet all our needs—the emphasis being on meeting one’s own needs, not the needs of one’s spouse. Conventional wisdom says that, when a couple’s marriage is tested or when one spouse feels unmet needs, they should just get a divorce—and laws in many places make divorce quite easy. Rather than work out their problems, many struggling couples conclude they don’t love each other anymore and end the marriage. Once a person realizes that he or she has married the wrong person, what then? First, if a believer has willfully disobeyed God’s instructions in 2 Corinthians 6:14, confession of sin to God is necessary. Then the forgiven sinner should strive to make the best of the situation and bring healing to the relationship (see 1 Corinthians 7:12–14; Ephesians 5:21–33\). If the situation presents a danger to either spouse or to the children involved, then separation is in order. Seeking godly counsel from a pastor or marriage counselor is important, too. While the Bible allows for [divorce in specific circumstances](grounds-for-divorce.html), divorce should never be the first option. With God nothing is impossible (Luke 1:37\), and He can bring beauty out of ashes (Isaiah 61:3\). A Christian who made a wrong choice in choosing a marriage partner may find that God desires to turn a bad marriage into a good one (see 1 Peter 3:1–2\). The power of God can transform the “wrong” person into the “right” one. How can a person prevent getting married to the wrong person? Benjamin Franklin’s oft\-quoted quip, “Keep your eyes wide open before marriage, half shut afterwards,” is good advice (Poor Richard’s Almanac, June 1738\), but even more helpful is to seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness (Matthew 6:33\). Some people seek first a spouse, and righteousness falls by the wayside. The single person should concentrate on becoming the individual God wants him or her to be and commit to dating only those who are also strong, growing Christians. To avoid mistakes, it’s necessary to heed the Word (Luke 11:28\), seek godly counsel, pray for wisdom (James 1:5\), and be honest with God and others.
What is the end times timeline?	Answer Got Questions Ministries takes a [pretribulational](pretribulationism.html) approach to [eschatology](Eschatology.html). From that perspective, here is the order of end\-times events that the Bible reveals: 1\. The rapture of the church. Christ comes in the clouds to “snatch away” all those who trust in Him (1 Corinthians 15:52\). At this same time, the “dead in Christ” will be resurrected and taken to heaven, too. From our perspective today, this is the next event in the eschatological timeline. The [rapture](rapture-of-the-church.html) is imminent; no other biblical prophecy needs to be fulfilled before the rapture happens. 2\. The rise of the Antichrist. After the church is taken out of the way (2 Thessalonians 2:7–8\), a satanically empowered man will gain worldwide control with promises of peace (Revelation 13:1; Daniel 9:27\). He will be aided by another man, called the false prophet, who heads up a religious system that requires worship of the [Antichrist](what-is-the-antichrist.html) (Revelation 19:20\). 3\. The tribulation. A period of seven years in which God’s judgment is poured out on sinful humanity (Revelation 6–16\). The Antichrist’s rise to power is associated with this time period. During the [tribulation](tribulation.html) on earth, the Church will be in heaven. It is thought that at this time the Judgment Seat of Christ and the Marriage Supper of the Lamb will occur in heaven (2 Corinthians 5:10; Revelation 19:6–10\). 4\. The Battle of Gog and Magog. In the first part of the tribulation, a great [army from the north](Gog-Magog.html), in alliance with several other countries from the Middle East and Africa, attacks Israel and is defeated by God’s supernatural intervention (Ezekiel 38–39\). (Some commentators place this battle just before the start of the tribulation.) 5\. The abomination of desolation. At the midway point of the seven\-year tribulation, the Antichrist breaks his covenant with Israel and shows his true colors. The Jews are scattered, and many of them turn to the Lord, realizing that Jesus is their Savior. A great persecution breaks out against all those who believe in Christ (Daniel 12:11; Mark 13:14; Revelation 12:17\). 6\. The Battle of Armageddon. At the end of the tribulation, Jesus returns with the armies of heaven (Mark 14:62\). He saves Jerusalem from annihilation and defeats the armies of the nations fighting under the banner of the Antichrist (Revelation 19:11–21\). The Antichrist and the false prophet are captured and thrown alive into the lake of fire (Revelation 19:20\). 7\. The judgment of the nations. Christ will judge the survivors of the tribulation, separating the righteous from the wicked as “sheep” and “goats” (Matthew 25:31–46\). (It is thought that at this time the Old Testament saints will be raised from the dead.) The righteous will enter the Millennial Kingdom; the wicked will be cast into hell. 8\. The binding of Satan. Satan will be bound and held in a bottomless pit for the next 1,000 years (Revelation 20:1–3\). 9\. The Millennial Kingdom. Jesus Himself will rule the world, and Jerusalem will be the capital. This will be a 1,000\-year period of peace and prosperity on earth (Revelation 20; Isaiah 60–62\). Memorial sacrifices will be offered in a [rebuilt temple](end-times-temple.html) in Jerusalem (Ezekiel 40–48\). 10\. The last battle. At the end of the 1,000 years, Satan will be released from his prison for a short time. He will deceive the nations once again, and there will be a rebellion against the Lord that will be quickly defeated (Revelation 20:7–10\). Satan will be cast into the lake of fire, never to reappear. 11\. The Great White Throne Judgment. All those in hell will be brought forth, and all the wicked from all eras of history will be resurrected to stand before God in a [final judgment](great-white-throne-judgment.html) (Revelation 20:11–15\). The verdicts are read, and all of sinful humanity is cast into the lake of fire. 12\. The new creation. God completely remakes the heavens and the earth. It is at this time that God wipes away all tears and there will be no more pain, death, or sorrow. The [New Jerusalem](new-jerusalem.html) descends from heaven, and the children of God will enjoy eternity with Him (Revelation 21–22\). Other views of eschatology, such as [midtribulationism](midtribulationism.html), [amillennialism](amillennialism.html), and [partial preterism](partial-preterism.html), will have different timelines of the end times, of course.
What does the Bible say about lawlessness?	Answer To be lawless is to be contrary to the law or to act without regard to the law. Laws are necessary in a sinful world (1 Timothy 1:9\), and those who choose to act lawlessly further sin in the world. The word for “lawlessness” in the Bible is often translated “iniquity.” According to the Bible, the root of all lawlessness is rebellion. First John 3:4 defines sin as lawlessness: “Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.” To commit sin is to be lawless; that is, the sinner breaks God’s law. In this way, lawlessness is a rejection of God. Satan, who models the ultimate rejection of God, will one day empower the [Antichrist](what-is-the-antichrist.html), called “the lawless one,” whose rise to power “will be in accordance with how Satan works” (2 Thessalonians 2:9\). Lawlessness is contrasted with righteousness in verses such as Romans 6:19, 2 Corinthians 6:14, and Hebrews 1:9\. The righteous, who have the nature of Jesus Christ, hate the deeds of lawlessness. Lot, a godly man living in Sodom, “was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard” (2 Peter 2:8\). The psalmist said, “I abhor the assembly of evildoers and refuse to sit with the wicked” (Psalm 26:5\). Christians are to be law\-abiding (1 Peter 4:15\). When a society ignores the law, lawlessness is the result, and chaos ensues. The time of the judges after Joshua’s death was marked by upheaval, oppression, and general disorder. The biblical historian puts his finger on the reason for the tumult: “In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as they saw fit” (Judges 21:25\). The riot in Ephesus is a good example of lawlessness in action (Acts 19\). The rioters were confused and unsure even of why they were rioting (verse 32\); in their lawlessness, they were ignoring proper legal channels (verse 39\) and, of course, breaking the law (verse 40\). God has a purpose for establishing [human government](Bible-government.html): “to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right” (1 Peter 2:14\). Rulers are God’s appointees to maintain order and promote righteousness in a civil society. “Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves” (Romans 13:2\). In other words, lawlessness is condemned in Scripture. The Bible connects man’s lawlessness and rebellion against God with his need for God’s forgiveness. In Romans 4:7, Paul (quoting Psalm 32:1\) says, “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered” (ESV). God’s righteousness is imputed to us at salvation, and God forgives us of our lawlessness: “Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more” (Hebrews 10:17, quoting Jeremiah 31:34\). Christ died on the cross “to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works” (Titus 2:14, ESV). Our lawless deeds resulted in Christ’s death, but God’s grace overcomes our lawless hearts. In the judgment many will stand before Christ claiming a connection with Him that exists only in their own minds. They will rehearse their good deeds done in His name, only to hear Jesus declare them to be “workers of lawlessness” whom Christ never knew (Matthew 7:23, ESV). At that time, those who practice lawlessness will be cast “into the blazing furnace,” while those who are covered by the righteousness of Christ “will shine like the sun” (Matthew 13:41–43\). Christ will have the ultimate victory and will eliminate lawlessness forever.
What is holy yoga?	Answer Holy yoga or Christian yoga is a movement that combines [yoga](Christian-yoga.html) with Christian practice, attempting to adapt the spiritual content of yoga to a Christian worldview. Yoga has been practiced for decades in some Catholic, Episcopal, and mainline Protestant churches; in more recent years, “holy yoga” has made inroads into some evangelical churches. In the Eastern world, yoga is an overtly spiritual practice connected to the worship of the Hindu gods. In the West, yoga is usually presented as a physical exercise or means to manage stress. The goal of yoga in [Hinduism](hinduism.html) is to acquire deep knowledge of the Self and to unite the Self with the impersonal, all\-pervading Brahman. Holy yoga tweaks that goal so that it sounds more “Christian”; the goal of holy yoga is to acquire deep knowledge of the Self in Christ. During holy yoga sessions, Christian music is played in the background, and the chanting of names of Hindu deities is changed to the chanting of Bible verses. All of this is an attempt to use yoga as a Christian worship experience to deepen one’s faith in God. The origins of yoga are undoubtedly pagan. The question becomes, can yoga be transformed into something of spiritual value to Christians? Can secular (or pagan) yoga be turned into holy yoga? Here are some considerations: Yoga’s focus on Self is inherently unbiblical. The Bible never tells us to focus on ourselves; rather, we are to die to self and follow Christ (Matthew 16:24\). Our focus is to be on our Savior, “the pioneer and perfecter of faith” (Hebrews 12:2\). We concentrate on the Creator of heaven and earth, not on His creation. The intrinsic philosophy of yoga is that we have everything we need within ourselves—and that we ourselves are god. This is also unbiblical. Such a philosophy cannot really be “Christianized.” God is [transcendent](God-transcendent.html); He exists outside of ourselves, and we are told to seek Him (Zephaniah 2:3\). Connection with God does not come through yogic meditation, concentration, or the disassociation of one’s senses from one’s Self. Scripture tells us that Jesus is the only way to “connect” with God (John 14:6\), and the Word of God itself is sufficient to guide us through life (2 Timothy 3:16–17\). Reading the Bible and praying may sound mundane to some, but those are the means God has given us to know Him better. Holy yoga comes close to being a form of [Christian mysticism](Christian-mysticism.html) that exalts experience over traditional Bible study and prayer. Holy yoga advances the notion that breath control and the position of the body are somehow related to spiritual and mental health. There is absolutely nothing in the Bible to suggest such a relation. In fact, the Bible says that we can be “wasting away” outwardly, yet “renewed day by day” inwardly (2 Corinthians 4:16; cf. 12:7–10\). We can control our minds and grow spiritually even if the condition of our bodies is far from ideal. Yogis often speak of an “emotional body” or a “spiritual body,” but those concepts are foreign to Scripture. The soul is not a “body.” Teachers of holy yoga promote the practice of meditation as understood in [New Age](new-age-movement.html) and Eastern mysticism. Yogic methods such as visualization, controlled breathing, and chanting are recommended to help practitioners clear the mind, calm the body, and connect with God. In holy yoga, the image visualized might be a candle, a cross, or a picture of Jesus; the problem is, such visualization is not taught in Scripture and is exactly the method used in [transcendental meditation](transcendental-meditation.html) and other mind\-altering New Age techniques. Also, Scripture warns against the empty repetition of words (Matthew 6:7\), and clearing our minds is not a biblical command. Brooke Boon, a prominent promoter of holy yoga, wrote, “Yoga can be thought of as a philosophy. It’s the idea that by bringing a union of focus between mind and body, while simultaneously making the mind and body stronger and more flexible, we become more authentic people, able to hear God and experience Him in previously impossible ways” (Holy Yoga: Exercise for the Christian Body and Soul, New York: Faith Words, 2007, p. 8–9; quoted by Elliot Miller in “The Yoga Boom: A Call for Christian Discernment,” Christian Research Journal, volume 31, number 02, 2008\). Examine carefully what Boon says: if holy yoga allows Christians to “hear God and experience Him in previously impossible ways,” then why is the Bible silent about yoga? Why didn’t Jesus teach yoga? To “become more authentic people” and truly hear God, do we really need to borrow a technique from Hinduism? Yoga, with its roots in Hinduism, is a spiritually dangerous practice. Simply changing the intent of the practice does not negate its inherent theological problems. Holy yoga’s reliance on pagan notions of man’s nature, its linking of physicality with spirituality, and its support of [contemplative prayer](contemplative-prayer.html) are all reasons to avoid the practice.
What is Donatism?	Answer Donatism was a heretical sect of Christianity that challenged the established church in the fourth century, as Catholicism was on the rise. Donatism, which began in North Africa, taught that Christians were called to [asceticism](Christian-asceticism-monasticism.html) and personal purity and that holiness was proved in one’s faithfulness in enduring persecution. Those whose faith wavered under threat of death were impure and not worthy of being members of the church. The Donatists considered theirs as the only true church and refused to acknowledge ordinances administered in other churches. The background of Donatism involves the Roman [persecution](Christian-persecution.html) of the church. In AD 303 Emperor Diocletian mounted a severe persecution against all Christians. All churches and Christian Scriptures were to be destroyed. During the persecution, many Christians betrayed other Christians to the Romans or handed over their copies of the Bible. These traitors became known as “traditores,” or Christians who turned in other Christians to the government. In the minds of many Christians, the sin of betrayal was a mark of evil character that could not be overcome. In AD 311 Caecilian was consecrated as bishop of Carthage. One of the three bishops involved in the ceremony was Felix of Aptunga, who had earlier handed over copies of the Bible to the Romans to be destroyed. Thus, Bishop Felix was a traditor. A group of about seventy other bishops considered Bishop Felix to be unfit for office because of his betrayal—and, since Felix was unfit, the consecration of Bishop Caecilian was null and void. The bishops in opposition to Felix formed a synod and refused to acknowledge Bishop Caecilian as a valid church official. The debate over Caecilian expanded to include the validity of the sacraments administered by Felix and other traditores. How could someone who had betrayed the Word of God be holding Christian office? The low moral character of the officiant was seen as annulling the grace supposedly received through the [sacraments](seven-Catholic-sacraments.html) he dispensed. After Caecilian died, the bishopric of Carthage went to Aelius Donatus the Great. The term Donatism comes from his name. Bishop Donatus continued to advance the idea that any traditor who administered a sacrament polluted the sacrament to such an extent that it was no longer a conveyor of grace. Not only was a traditor to be excommunicated, but also all those who held fellowship with a traditor. The church was to be made of “saints,” not sinners. The Donatists began to re\-baptize Christians who had been baptized in other churches; in so doing, they separated themselves from all other churches and basically upheld themselves as the only authoritative church body. The Donatist issue was raised at several church councils, including the Council of Nicea. In every council, the Donatist position was rejected. Donatism, however, continued its influence until [Augustine of Hippo](Saint-Augustine.html) wrote a series of books, letters, and sermons that refuted the Donatist movement and argued that the effect of a sacrament is independent of the moral character of the minister. Donatism eventually died out in the fifth century. The main problem with Donatism is that no person is pure in the sight of God (Romans 3:23\). If absolute holiness is required to serve God, then we are all unfit. Also, Donatism’s view of sin was too narrow. The Donatists demanded rectitude of the priests and bishops and other church leaders according to their own definition of rectitude—namely, an embrace of asceticism and unwavering fortitude under persecution. But, as Jesus taught, moral uprightness involves much more than external conformity to a church standard (Matthew 5–7\).
What is retribution theology?	Answer Retribution theology is basically the idea that you get what you deserve. God sees to it that the good people get good things in life, and the bad people get bad things. God punishes people in this world in direct response to their actions. Retribution theology says, for example, if you get cancer, it’s a sign that God is punishing you for something bad you’ve done. If your business prospers, it’s a sign that God is pleased with you. Retribution theology is thus an overly simplistic interpretation of life events that makes assumptions about God’s intentions. The Bible certainly teaches the concept of sowing and reaping (Galatians 6:7\). God will take vengeance on evildoers some day (Micah 5:15; Matthew 3:7\), and He promises a final judgment (Isaiah 1:24; Revelation 20:11–15\). So, there will be retribution. But the final judgment is yet future. Retribution theology is concerned with rewards and punishments here and now. Retribution theology is countered in Scripture. The fact is that not all good people are rewarded with good things in this life ([Job](life-Job.html) and [Paul](life-Paul.html) are notable examples). And not all wicked people receive punishment immediately; otherwise, we wouldn’t have questions like “How long, LORD, will the wicked, how long will the wicked be jubilant?” in Psalm 94:3 (cf. Psalm 73:2–16\). [King Ahab](Ahab-and-Jezebel.html) was one of the wickedest kings ever to defame a throne, yet he reigned twenty\-two years in Samaria (1 Kings 16:29\). Twenty\-two years of luxury for the evil king, while the righteous in Israel were being persecuted; there weren’t many believers in retribution theology in Ahab’s day. When [Job’s friends](Jobs-friends.html) came to speak to Job in his misery, they brought with them their retribution theology. Eliphaz sets the stage early on: “Consider now: Who, being innocent, has ever perished? Where were the upright ever destroyed? As I have observed, those who plow evil and those who sow trouble reap it. At the breath of God they perish; at the blast of his anger they are no more” (Job 4:7–9\). In other words, Eliphaz simplistically concluded that the innocent are protected in this world and the wicked perish. Bildad and Zophar echo the same sentiments, accusing Job of wrongdoing, as evidenced by his plight (Job 8:6; 20:27–29\). But all three of Job’s friends were wrong about Job and wrong about God (Job 42:7\). When Jesus’ disciples saw a man born blind, they asked, “Who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” (John 9:2\). Such a question shows an underlying belief in retribution theology—either the man or his parents were being punished for some wrongdoing. Jesus’ answer quashes that notion: “Neither this man nor his parents sinned” (verse 3\). God had purposes in the man’s blindness other than punishing sin. Jesus once referenced a local tragedy to make a point about repentance: “Those eighteen who died when the [tower in Siloam](tower-of-Siloam.html) fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish” (Luke 13:4–5\). In calling all men to repent, Jesus also countered retribution theology—those who died in Siloam were not killed because of any special sin they had committed; the tower’s fall was not God’s retribution. Some people see retribution theology taught in the [book of Proverbs](Book-of-Proverbs.html). Many proverbs seem to promise good things for the righteous and bad things for the wicked. For example, “The LORD’s curse is on the house of the wicked, but he blesses the home of the righteous” (Proverbs 3:33\). Also, “Before a downfall the heart is haughty, but humility comes before honor” (Proverbs 18:12\), and “The righteous eat to their hearts’ content, but the stomach of the wicked goes hungry” (Proverbs 13:25\). We must remember something about the nature of proverbs: namely, proverbs are not promises; rather, they are general truths about life. Generally speaking, making wise choices in life brings better results than making foolish choices. Living godly usually has practical, temporal benefits in addition to the eternal benefits. There may be exceptions to the rule, such as when a godly man is thrown into a den of lions (Daniel 6:16\) or lowered into a mud pit (Jeremiah 38:6\). Others look to the blessings and cursings attached to the [Mosaic Law](Mosaic-Law.html) for proof of retribution theology: “I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in obedience to him, and to keep his commands, decrees and laws; then you will live and increase, and the Lord your God will bless you in the land you are entering to possess. But if your heart turns away and you are not obedient, and if you are drawn away to bow down to other gods and worship them, I declare to you this day that you will certainly be destroyed. You will not live long in the land you are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess” (Deuteronomy 30:16–18\). It’s true that, under Israel’s theocracy, God promised retribution upon the disobedient. Sometimes that retribution fell quickly (Numbers 11:33\), and sometimes not so quickly (Psalm 35:17\). But God’s treatment of Israel under the [dispensation of the Law](dispensation-of-Law.html) cannot be the basis of our theology in the [dispensation of grace](dispensation-of-Grace.html). When the ship carrying Paul was shipwrecked on the island of Malta, the apostle gathered sticks to help build a fire on the shore. As he threw some sticks into the flames, a viper came out and bit his hand. Immediately, the islanders assumed they knew why: “They said to each other, ‘This man must be a murderer; for though he escaped from the sea, the goddess Justice has not allowed him to live’” (Acts 28:4\). The islanders believed in retribution theology, but they were wrong about Paul. When Jesus was hanging on the cross between two criminals, the passersby assumed Jesus was getting what He deserved: “We considered him punished by God, stricken by him, and afflicted” (Isaiah 53:4\). That’s the kind of assumption common in retribution theology, but, in Jesus’ case, it was wrong again. One day, God will judge the world in righteousness and perfect justice. Retribution is coming (Revelation 22:12\). Until that day, we are careful not to assume God’s blessing or judgment on individuals based on their external circumstances. We trust the Judge of all the earth to always do what’s right (Genesis 18:25\).
Will we have free will in heaven?	Answer The fact that Adam and Eve had a choice to make in the Garden of Eden shows beyond all doubt that mankind was created with a free will. The first couple chose to sin, and that choice has plunged the entire world into spiritual darkness leading to our need of salvation. Through it all, mankind has retained his free will, and we will retain free will in heaven. Is it possible that people in heaven can exercise their free will to [sin again](heaven-sin.html) and get kicked out of heaven? No, it is not possible. To back up a bit, we need an acceptable definition of free will. We have free will, but not in the way most people think. Our freedom consists in the fact that we are free to choose according to our desires. As long as we have a minimum of two available options, we must make a choice, and we will always do so according to our strongest desire. But, in the case of a fallen sinner, he or she is not at liberty to choose according to righteousness. This is what Jesus means when He says that the one who sins “is a slave to sin” (John 8:34\). This is not the language of “free will” as people typically think of it. The unregenerate person has a sinful nature; he is not just inclined to sin but driven by sinful impulses. It is perhaps helpful to say, “We are free to choose what we want but not free to want what we ought.” This greatly limits our “freedom” because the list of things we want (as sinners) coincides with whatever pleases our sinful impulses. Our choices are for things that will ultimately destroy us (Proverbs 14:12\). As Paul says, “Oh, what a miserable person I am! Who will free me from this life that is dominated by sin and death?” (Romans 7:24, NLT). When we are saved, we are liberated from our natural [bondage to sin](slave-to-sin.html). The Holy Spirit sovereignly regenerates us and in grace gives us the ability to want what we ought to want, namely, forgiveness, salvation, and the lordship of Christ. When we trust in Jesus for salvation, we begin a moral progression, a journey toward holiness in which we put to death daily the sinful impulses that reside within us and strive toward godliness. In heaven we will be completely devoid of sin; our only desires will be for the things of God—things that bless us, fulfill us, and give us life. This is true liberty (see Romans 8:21\). We will retain our free will in heaven, but our will is sanctified there. The [sin nature](sin-nature.html) will be gone. In heaven we are completely conformed to the image of Christ (Romans 8:28–30\). Our [sanctification](sanctification.html) will be finished; we will not even want to sin. Also, in heaven there is no temptation to lure us and no devil to deceive us. Unlike Adam and Eve, we will face no test; our moral state will be secure. No one will get kicked out of heaven. Just as our Lord Jesus has a truly free will yet is without sin, so will we retain a free will yet be without sin. We will be like Him (1 John 3:2\). Before salvation, our free will on earth is limited by our inability to choose what is right. After salvation, our free will struggles between choosing what is right and what is wrong. In heaven our free will is limited by our inability to choose what is wrong. In our glorified state, we will exercise our free will to choose what is true, noble, right, pure, lovely, and admirable (see Philippians 4:8\).
What is negative theology?	Answer Negative theology, also called [apophatic theology](apophatic-theology.html), is a way of looking at God using negation. It is the study of what God is not rather than what He is. Negative theology asserts that the [transcendent](God-transcendent.html) God is essentially unknowable. He is too complex and abstract a being for humans to understand, and words will always fall short of truly describing Him. Therefore, we are unable to make positive statements about Him. For example, rather than say, “God is good,” negative theology would say, “There is no evil in God,” and leave it at that. Negative theology attempts to come to a knowledge of God indirectly, by removing those things that God is not. Negative or apophatic theology is the counterpart of positive or cataphatic theology, which deals in positive descriptions of God’s nature. Apophasis is also sometimes used to describe things in the natural world. For example, darkness is not, in itself, a thing—darkness is best described as a lack of light (light being a real, substantial, measurable thing). In theology, negation is helpful, too. Augustine is credited with first saying that evil is “a lack”; that is, evil is the negation of good. Similarly, hatred and apathy are not creations of God; they are an absence of love, which is part of God’s nature (1 John 4:8\). When made to stand on its own, negative theology makes little sense. Negative theology has its place, but only as a balance to positive theology. Positive descriptions of God fill the Bible. God is good (Psalm 135:3\), merciful (Psalm 116:5\), and righteous (Psalm 11:7\). Jesus referred to Himself as “the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6\), and John called Him the life which was the light of men (John 1:4\). Jesus is the embodiment of wisdom, the Word, the One by which everything came to be, and without Him nothing would exist (John 1:1–3\). Negative theology is an interesting philosophy, but, as a way of discovering the truth about God, it fails. A reading of the Bible, which is God’s Word, immediately shows that God is interested in revealing Himself to man. Jesus was called “the exact representation” of God’s being (Hebrews 1:3\). A living, breathing, human being, who cried and loved children and ate food and shed blood (John 11:35; Luke 19:41; Matthew 19:14; John 21:12; Luke 22:44\). This is not a picture of an abstract or unknowable God who can only be described indirectly. The apostle John’s message was based on tangible evidence: “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim” (1 John 1:1\). Yes, words have limitations, but God has chosen words to communicate to us about Himself. The Bible is written communication. And, yes, we are limited in our ability to grasp everything about God. There are many things that make us struggle and many things we must accept by faith (Hebrews 11:6\). Some things about God are mysterious, but not everything. The Bible contains more than negative theology; it makes many positive statements about God. Along with the Bible, God has given us His Holy Spirit in order to “make a home” with those that love Him (John 14:23\). We can know God through the fellowship of His Spirit and through His Word. “‘Who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?’ But we have the mind of Christ” (1 Corinthians 2:16\).
What is the Liberal Catholic Church?	Answer The Liberal Catholic Church, or LCC, began in Britain in the early 1900s. The Liberal Catholic Church is not a liberal offshoot of [Roman Catholicism](Roman-Catholicism.html). Rather, its background is Independent Catholicism. Independent Catholic churches identify with Roman Catholicism in some practices and beliefs, but they are not approved by the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, or the Anglican Church. It is truly independent of these. It nonetheless retains much of the outward practice of Catholicism, including sacraments, liturgy, and holy ordination. Liberal Catholics are essentially [Theosophists](theosophy.html), which means they seek wisdom and mystical enlightenment from a multitude of sources. The Liberal Catholic Church believes that all religions are unified under the same spiritual wisdom—all religions are from God and contain the same basic truths—but each expresses that wisdom differently. In other words, the Liberal Catholic Church takes an unbiblical view of Christ, who proclaimed Himself to be the truth and the life and the only way to the Father. He did not say He was one truth among many truths; instead, He called Himself “the truth” (John 14:6\).There is salvation only in Christ (Acts 4:12\). The Liberal Catholic Church says that there are many paths by which a person can find God’s wisdom. This is a perversion of the [gospel](what-is-the-gospel.html). By claiming there is no “right” path to God, the Liberal Catholic Church confuses people and cuts them off from their only hope of true salvation, and they do so in the name of Christ. This is abominable. As Paul said, “If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!” (Galatians 1:9\). The Liberal Catholic Church follows the Roman Catholic doctrine of a works\-based salvation; grace, according to the LCC, comes through the receiving of the sacraments. Like Roman Catholicism, the Liberal Catholic Church also teaches the false doctrine of transubstantiation—the actual body and blood of the Lord Jesus are present in the Eucharist. Unlike Roman Catholicism, the LCC approves of the ordination of women to the priesthood (in violation of 1 Timothy 2:11–12\) and the ordination of practicing gays and lesbians (ignoring 1 Timothy 1:10 and 1 Corinthians 6:9\). Any religious organization that so blatantly ignores God’s Word cannot truly be called Christian at all and should be avoided (1 Corinthians 5:1–11\).
What are the bodily discharges mentioned in Leviticus 15, and why did they make a person unclean?	Answer Leviticus 15 contains rules for the Israelites under the [Mosaic Law](Levitical-Law.html) concerning various bodily discharges. The end of the chapter sums up: “These are the regulations for a man with a discharge, for anyone made unclean by an emission of semen, for a woman in her monthly period, for a man or a woman with a discharge, and for a man who has sexual relations with a woman who is ceremonially unclean” (Leviticus 15:32–33\). The four bodily discharges mentioned in Leviticus 15 all rendered a person ceremonially unclean and required a cleansing. The discharges are as follows: 1\) A running discharge from a man (Leviticus 15:2–15\); based on the context, we assume the discharge flows from a man’s sexual organs, although the text speaks only in general terms of “an unusual bodily discharge” (Leviticus 15:2\). 2\) An emission of semen, whether involuntary (Leviticus 15:16–17\) or occurring during sexual intercourse (Leviticus 15:18\). 3\) The monthly period of a woman (Leviticus 15:19–24\). 4\) An issue of blood from a woman unrelated to menstruation (Leviticus 15:25–30\). These conditions fall into two groups: two of the discharges are the result of some type of disease or malfunction of the body, and the other two are natural, the result of normal bodily function, with no hint of pathology. In every case, cleansing a person after one of these bodily discharges required washing clothes and bathing. But, if the discharge was related to a malady or a chronic condition, the affected person had additional steps to take: he or she had to wait seven days after the end of the discharge and on the eighth day “take two doves or two young pigeons and bring them to the priest at the entrance to the tent of meeting. The priest is to sacrifice one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement . . . before the LORD” (Leviticus 15:29–30\). Normal bodily discharges, such as happens when a married couple has sex, did not require a sacrifice and did not require a seven\-day wait; for a normal discharge, the uncleanness only lasted one day. Some of the rules concerning bodily discharges obviously helped promote personal hygiene and prevent the spread of disease. But in Leviticus 15:31 God gives a higher purpose: to “keep the Israelites separate from things that make them unclean, so they will not die in their uncleanness for defiling my dwelling place, which is among them.” The [tabernacle](tabernacle-of-Moses.html) was a sacred place—the place where the people would meet with God—and the Israelites were to approach God with the utmost veneration and respect. The rules in Leviticus 15 remind the people that they are flesh and [God is spirit](God-is-spirit.html); that they carry a personal pollution even when they do not sin outright; that they are privileged to be set apart by God and invited to His tabernacle; and that what happens in secret is seen by God. The laws concerning bodily discharges did not concern morality any more than those concerning diseases of the skin (Leviticus 13\) and childbirth (Leviticus 12\). There’s nothing immoral about a [husband and wife having sex](sex-in-marriage.html) or a woman having a period. The laws in Leviticus 15 governed [ceremonial](ceremonial-law.html) purity, not moral purity. Of course, if a person spurned the rules and approached the tabernacle unwashed, at that point it became a moral issue, as then it was a matter of [disobedience](obedience-to-God.html) to God’s direct command. Christians are not under the Law of Moses (Romans 6:14\) and are not bound by the law’s strict requirements concerning bodily discharges. However, the principles contained in Leviticus 15 are still valid: we reverence God; we remember that we are flesh and God is spirit and must be worshiped in spirit and in truth (John 4:24\); we are unrighteous in and of ourselves and need God’s cleansing (1 Corinthians 6:11\); we are privileged to be set apart by God and made part of His church (1 Peter 2:9\); and God sees what happens in secret (Psalm 139:12\).
Is the book of Job a true story or a parable/allegory?	Answer The [book of Job](Book-of-Job.html) is one of the world’s oldest, most influential, and most powerfully written works of literature. Because it is very old and the book does not identify the author, there is no way to be entirely sure who wrote Job or exactly when it was written. Some theorize that the story of Job was recorded by Samuel, Moses, or an even earlier Hebrew author. The setting for the story itself is ancient, making no reference to the priesthood or temple sacrifices. The book is also written mostly in poetic form. As a result, some wonder if the book of Job is, in fact, a parable or allegory. Jesus often told [parables](what-is-a-parable.html), and in such stories the characters and situations are not assumed to be actual, but simply a means to make a point. Could the book of Job be non\-literal, too? In the case of Job, there are several good reasons to interpret the book as historical rather than allegorical. These include the way in which Job is introduced, references to Job in the [book of Ezekiel](Book-of-Ezekiel.html), and references to Job in the [book of James](Book-of-James.html). In the first chapter of the book of Job, Job is introduced as a man from a specific location: the country of [Uz](land-of-Uz.html). The book also goes into great detail about Job’s finances and family. While it is possible that these might simply be vivid details of a parable, such particulars were not common in ancient allegorical literature. The general way that Job, the man, is described suggests that this was a real person. The Old Testament consistently refers to Job as though he were a real, historical person. In Ezekiel 14:14 and 20, God mentions Noah, Daniel, and Job as examples of righteousness. The context of this statement would not make sense if Job were merely a literary figure. The assumption of this text is that Job was as real as Noah and Daniel. The New Testament makes a similar reference to Job. In James 5:11 Job is mentioned as an example of spiritual endurance. Every other figure mentioned in the book of James is an actual, historical person, including Abraham, Rahab, and Elijah. As with Ezekiel’s reference to Job, James’ allusion makes the most sense if Job is an actual person whom we are to emulate. All in all, there is more evidence suggesting Job to be an account of history than a parable or allegory. Based on current information, we can’t say for sure when it was written or by whom. However, both internal and external evidence seem to suggest that Job is meant to be read as fact, not fiction.
What is the Shepherding Movement?	Answer The Shepherding Movement is a controversial method of church leadership that grew out of the [Charismatic movement](Charismatic-movement.html) in the 1970s. It is also called the “Discipleship Movement” and is related to [heavy shepherding](heavy-shepherding.html). The Shepherding Movement, which began as “Christian Growth Ministries” in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, reached its peak in the 1980s, but its impact has since lessened. The Shepherding Movement has received well\-deserved criticism for its cult\-like manipulation and [intimidation](Bible-intimidation.html) tactics and its emphasis on the non\-biblical idea of a “[spiritual covering](spiritual-covering.html).” The basic idea of the Shepherding Movement is one of submission to authority. The Shepherding Movement called for five leaders at the top of a global leadership pyramid. These men were responsible for one another’s spiritual health and keeping each other on track by “covenant relationships” and mutual accountability. Beneath each of those five “shepherds” were five other people, responsible for one another but submitted to the authority of their shepherd. And so on, down the line. Each of these groups of five was called a “submission,” and their devotion to their shepherds was absolute. No major decisions were made without first consulting with one’s shepherd—marriage and career choices included. The Shepherding Movement set up an alternate structure for the church that does not exist in Scripture. By creating a hierarchy of submission and authority, the five original “shepherds” promoted a legalistic paradigm in which the Holy Spirit was hindered and believers suffered spiritual abuse under authoritarian supervisors. [Christ is the head of the church](head-of-the-church.html), and all the parts of the body are to look to Him for guidance, provision, and protection (Ephesians 5:23\). The Shepherding Movement put roadblocks between Christ and His church, creating an unnecessary and harmful chain of command. People in the movement had to choose between the authority of their shepherd and the authority of the Great Shepherd. Many of the original leaders of the Shepherding Movement or Discipleship Movement have admitted that the movement was a mistake and have disassociated themselves with it. But how much damage was done? The church must be wary of those who would take advantage of them. As Paul warned the Ephesians, “Savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. So be on your guard!” (Acts 20:29–31\).
Is the Catholic Church the mother church?	Answer The [Roman Catholic Church](Roman-Catholicism.html) claims to have originated with Christ and the apostles and is therefore the oldest church and “mother” or head of all other churches, especially those in the Protestant tradition. Sometimes Roman Catholics refer to their church as the “Holy Mother Church” or, in Latin, “Sancta Mater Ecclesia.” In fact, Catholics pinpoint the [Diocese](diocese-archdiocese.html) of Rome, specifically the Basilica of the Savior or St. John Lateran, as the official “mother church.” Protestants and others are seen as children who have “strayed” from their mother and are admonished to return “home” to Catholicism. The term Holy Mother Church refers to the Roman Catholic Church in many places in literature. Cervantes’ Don Quixote (Chapter XXVII), Scott’s Ivanhoe (Chapter II), Twain’s A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court (Chapter XXV), and Shakespeare’s King John (Act III, Scene 1\) all contain instances of the Catholic Church being called the “mother church.” In order to be the “mother church,” Roman Catholicism must be the original form of Christianity. And that’s exactly what Catholics teach concerning their history. One of the dogmas of the Roman Church is that Jesus appointed Peter as His vicar (representative) over the church (Matthew 16:17–19\). This teaching presumes that the “rock” Jesus said He would build His church on was Peter and that Peter was the [first pope](Peter-first-pope.html). There is another, slightly different sense in which Catholics use the term mother church. It is a term of endearment, as faithful Catholics view their church as an entity that nurtures, cares for, and guides the family of God in all things. They give honor to their ecclesiastical “mother” as children give honor to their real mothers (Ephesians 6:2\). Just as Catholics see Mary as the [Theotókos](Mary-mother-God-theotokos.html) or “God\-bearer,” so they see their “mother church” as today’s “God\-bearer”—the means by which God is brought into the world. There are historical and theological problems with calling the Roman Catholic Church the “mother church.” Historically, Catholicism has its [origins](origin-Catholic-church.html) in the time of Emperor Constantine in the fourth century. The bishop of Rome did not begin calling himself the “pope” until Siricius did it late in the fourth century. Theologically, there is no biblical evidence for apostolic succession or that Peter was the “prince of apostles”; in fact, there is no clear biblical case to be made that Peter even visited Rome, and he certainly never claimed authority over the other apostles. Biblically speaking, the true “mother church” is the church that is described in the book of Acts and the New Testament epistles. In the biblical mother church, you will find no mention of priests, [cardinals](Catholic-cardinal.html), or [popes](pope-papacy.html). Nowhere will you find [Mary being adored or saints being venerated](worship-saints-Mary.html). In the biblical descriptions of the true mother church, there are no [infants being baptized](infant-baptism.html) or elements of the Lord’s Supper being [transformed into the body and blood of Jesus](transubstantiation.html). So, very clearly no, the Catholic Church is not the mother church.
What is vivification?	Answer To vivify is to give life to something or someone. The term vivification implies adding life, quality, or energy to something. The word is not frequently mentioned outside of theology. It was used by John Calvin in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, and his meaning is the one most commonly used today. This “vivification” is the strengthening and empowerment of the Holy Spirit to live a righteous and godly life. It is the God\-led growth of a Christian’s spiritual and moral character. Calvin referred to both a positive (additive) and negative (subtractive) side of sanctification. To be sanctified means to be “set apart” by God. One effect of sanctification is vivification. The other is what Calvin referred to as “[mortification](mortification.html),” in which a person becomes aware of his sin and the judgment of God. This awareness produces a holy fear, sorrow, and anguish. It is these emotions that compel a person to hate sin and seek God’s forgiveness (2 Corinthians 7:10\). In common usage, the word mortification refers to extreme embarrassment or the dying off of biological tissue. In a spiritual, theological sense, mortification means “the putting to death of old, sinful desires”; it is the spiritual pain and suffering experienced by a person who comes to recognize his sinfulness and is driven to seek God more completely. As the Holy Spirit vivifies the spirit, He mortifies the [flesh](the-flesh.html). There is significant biblical support for the ideas of vivification and mortification. Regarding mortification, the Bible speaks of dying to sin (Romans 6:2–10; Colossians 3:5\). Regarding vivification, Scripture describes being reborn in Christ (1 Corinthians 6:11\) and the Holy Spirit’s giving us strength to follow God’s will (1 Corinthians 12:11\). Scripture says that God’s Spirit empowers us (Ephesians 3:16\). This is vivification. According to Calvin, both vivification and mortification are permanent influences in the life of a Christian. Scripture says the struggle against sin (Romans 7:15–25\) and an increase in holiness (2 Peter 3:18; Hebrews 6:1\) are natural in the life of a believer. Our effort to “mortify the deeds of the body” (Romans 8:13, KJV) and “take up \[our] cross” (Luke 9:23\) is a daily task. Through it all we remember that “the Spirit gives life” (John 6:63\).
What is evangelical theology?	Answer Theology is a field of study in which man tries to explain what God has revealed. The specific focus of theology varies, depending on the intended scope of the field of study (angelology has a narrower scope than general theology) and on the religious predilection of the theologian (Catholic theology will differ from Protestant theology). One variety of theology is evangelical theology, a study of God’s revelation from an evangelical perspective. Evangelicalism is a popular movement within Protestantism that emphasizes being born again and having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. The word evangelical comes from the Greek word translated “gospel” or “good news.” Evangelical theology is intended to describe evangelicals’ entire theological approach to the Christian faith. Evangelical theology has several basic tenets: First, evangelical theology is committed to a high view of Scripture. This is in line with the Reformation principle of [sola scriptura](sola-scriptura.html), i.e., the Bible is the sole authority for faith and practice in the Christian’s life (2 Timothy 3:16\). Evangelical Biblicism ignores any traditional or oral authority that may exist in some churches and submits only to Scripture’s commands. Furthermore, [evangelical hermeneutics](Biblical-hermeneutics.html) generally relies on a literal interpretation of the Bible. That is to say evangelicals believe the Bible should be interpreted literally, historically, grammatically, and contextually. Second, evangelical theology is largely based on an individual approach to the Christian faith. Evangelicals place strong emphasis on individual conversion and accountability in the faith. According to evangelical theology, each person is responsible for making his or her own decision to submit to the Lord Jesus Christ in salvation. Conversion takes place when a person is [born again](born-again.html) as a new creation under the power of the gospel for salvation (John 1:12; 3:3; Romans 1:16\). The new birth occurs individually rather than corporately. In other words, belonging to an evangelical church doesn’t save a person; each person much exercise personal faith in Jesus. A third distinctive of evangelical theology is an emphasis on missionary work. True to their name, evangelicals promote the gospel and have been responsible for many, many missionaries going around the world to share the good news of Jesus. Evangelicals also seek to influence culture and law, taking seriously Jesus’ command to be [salt and light](salt-and-light.html) in the world (Matthew 5:13–16\). The fourth important distinctive of evangelical theology is its focus on the [essence of the gospel](gospel-message.html): the death and resurrection of Jesus (1 Corinthians 15:3–7\). That the sin of the world was nailed to the cross with Jesus is of the utmost importance in evangelical theology. As a result, evangelical Christians tend to set high moral and ethical standards and live separated lives. In short, evangelical theology focuses on the gospel, God’s good news for the world in Jesus Christ. Evangelicals believe the Bible is the sufficient, [inspired](Bible-inspired.html), authoritative Word of God and that the foundational message of the Word is God’s gracious provision of salvation through His only begotten Son.
What did Jesus mean when He described His followers as the salt of the earth?	Answer Jesus described His followers as the [salt](salt-and-light.html) of the earth in Matthew 5 as part of His [Sermon on the Mount](sermon-on-the-mount.html): “You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot” (verse 13\). There were two purposes for salt in the first century—preserving food and enhancing flavor. Both of those purposes may apply here, or Jesus may have been speaking in a more general sense. By using this salt metaphor, Jesus may have meant that His disciples are called to be “preservatives” in the world, slowing down the advancement of moral and spiritual decay. Psalm 14:3 says, “All have turned away, all have become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one.” Believers are to preserve truth and goodness in a fallen world. Salt was also used as a flavor enhancer. Jesus may have been instructing His disciples to “enhance” the flavor of life in this world—enriching its goodness and making God’s work stand out from the normal way of doing things. “But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked” (Luke 6:35\). As believers behave in ways that reflect God’s nature, they accentuate the difference that Jesus makes in one’s life. Since Jesus’ exact meaning is not specified, perhaps He was not pointing to one specific application, but to salt in a general sense of value and usefulness. In those days, salt was a [valuable commodity](salt-covenant.html) (the word salary comes from an ancient word meaning “salt\-money”). Perhaps Jesus was telling His disciples how important their ministry would be. Of course, the value of salt lies in its effect on its surroundings. Salt makes an impact. After telling His disciples that they are the salt of the earth, Jesus goes on to say, “But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.” Can salt become less salty? Strictly speaking, no. Sodium chloride is a stable compound and can’t become less of itself. What was Jesus saying then? There are several possibilities: 1\) Jesus may have been referring to the “salt” that was collected from the Dead Sea by evaporation. The substance resembled pure salt, but it wasn’t effective for preservation or for seasoning. 2\) Jesus could have been referring to the rock formations in which people would store their meat. Once the salt leached out of the rocks, the rocks were no longer effective to preserve the meat. 3\) Others have speculated that Jesus was referring to the salt blocks that bakers used in their ovens. Eventually the heat would make these salt blocks useless. 4\) Yet others think Jesus was referring to a saying of the time: “Can salt lose its saltiness?” It’s a rhetorical question because salt can’t become less salty. True disciples of Jesus cannot lose their saltiness. They are new creations and completely changed. Someone who is an imposter cannot become salty again. The imposters are to be “thrown out and trampled underfoot” because they have no effectiveness. How does Jesus’ statement about the salt of the earth apply to us today? Matthew 5:13 tells us that we are valuable in our role as disciples of Christ. God uses us to impact the people around us. Whether we are slowing down the moral decay or enhancing the spiritual “flavor” of the world, God has created us to be a positive impact. As followers of Christ, we are called to be different and to live righteous lives.
What does it mean to do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit (Philippians 2:3)?	Answer Philippians 2:3–4 says, “Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others.” Paul goes on to instruct the Philippians to have the same mindset as Jesus when relating to others, and he details just how humble Jesus was. What does it mean to do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit? First, let’s define a few terms. Selfish ambition can be understood as “motivation to elevate oneself or to put one’s own interests before another’s.” It is a self\-above\-others approach. The Greek term here carries with it a connotation of contentiousness. In fact, the King James Bible translates the word as “[strife](Bible-strife.html).” Vain conceit means “excessive pride” or “self\-esteem that has no foundation in reality”; vain conceit is an elevated and incorrect sense of self. Therefore, doing nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit means not letting our actions be motivated by [selfishness](Bible-selfishness.html), [pride](pride-Bible.html), or one\-upmanship. We can learn how to avoid acting out of selfish ambition or vain conceit by looking at the contrasting words in the same context. The opposite of being selfish and vain is to “in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others” (Philippians 2:3–4, ESV). We must learn to be others\-focused, not self\-focused. If we’re putting others first, we won’t be conceited or proud or overly ambitious. It’s hard to be self\-important when we’re considering others as more important. In Philippians 2:1–2 Paul writes, “Therefore if you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any common sharing in the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion, then make my joy complete by being like\-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and of one mind.” It is through understanding our salvation that we can live in [unity](church-unity.html) with other believers and love them in Christ. The basis of our being like\-minded and free of strife is four\-fold: 1\) we are united with Christ, 2\) we are comforted with God’s love, 3\) we have the same Spirit, and 4\) we have been given tender compassion for others. When we truly see how much Christ has done for us and understand the fullness of His love, pride and selfishness melt away. Those who know the love of Christ do not wrangle for position within the family of God; rather, they recognize the purpose of the body of Christ and live it out. They are willing to take a lower place in order to serve others (1 Peter 4:10\). They engage in Christian fellowship with a focus on loving God and others (Mark 12:30–31\). Philippians 2:3b–4 instructs believers to value others above themselves and look out for their interests. We do not elevate ourselves above others but willingly sacrifice in order to love them. When all believers act this way, we are of one mind and everyone is cared for. Paul gives similar instructions to the Galatians, counseling them to carry each other’s burdens (Galatians 6:2\) and to do good to all, especially fellow believers (Galatians 6:10\). Jesus was the epitome of servanthood. Shortly after washing His disciples’ feet, something usually done by the lowliest of servants, Jesus said, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another” (John 13:34–35\). Jesus’ love was self\-sacrificial. He acted for the best of others rather than for His own glory (see Matthew 20:28\). In Philippians 2:5–11 Paul details Jesus’ example of humility. Jesus was “in very nature God, \[yet] did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage” (Philippians 2:5\). Rather, the Son of God became human. More than that, He humbled himself to the lowliest position and died a shameful criminal’s death in our place. How can we who follow such a Lord act in pride? When we consider what Christ did for us, we learn not to be so self\-absorbed. Jesus promised that, as we seek to glorify God, our needs will be met (Matthew 6:25–34\), so we can focus more on meeting the needs of others. When we understand the incredible sacrifice, grace, and mercy of God on our behalf, we realize that we have no use for pride. When we recognize God’s abundant grace, provision, and love, we understand that we have no need for selfishness. We need not focus solely on our own interests because we rest in our Savior. We have been adopted into an eternal family, and we can learn to love that family as the Father loves us. Rather than be motivated by selfishness or pride, we can be of one mind with fellow believers and put their interests before our own.
What does the Bible say about daughters?	Answer Instead of referring to children as “children,” the Bible often refers to them as “sons and daughters.” In the Old Testament genealogies, daughters are mentioned infrequently compared to sons, because the family line, with its blessings and cursings, was carried on through the male. But in most other places, sons and daughters are mentioned together when children are referenced. A common metaphorical phrase in the Old Testament is [daughters of Zion](daughter-of-Zion.html) or daughters of Jerusalem, which refers to Israel in general and the loving, patient relationship God has with His chosen people (e.g., 2 Kings 19:21; Isaiah 62:11\). Jesus uses the same phrase in Luke 23:28\. Daughter in the context of the metaphor daughter of Jerusalem implies that God is a loving Father to His people. Women in many cultures (and certainly in ancient Jewish culture) were considered the guardians of family life and the home. Isaiah paints a poignant picture of how women and families are affected during a time of destruction or judgment: “Like fluttering birds pushed from the nest, so are the women of Moab at the fords of the Arnon” (Isaiah 16:2\). Since women are the source of a people’s continuance and the key to fertility, a specific reference to the daughters of a society suffering judgment carries a connotation of loss of life and heightens the feeling of danger. In the New Testament, the daughters of Philip had the gift of prophecy (Acts 21:9\). On the [Day of Pentecost](day-Pentecost.html), the Spirit was poured out on all believers, a fulfillment of the prophecy of Joel 2:28–32: “Your sons and daughters will prophesy. . . . Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy” (Acts 2:17–18\). Both men and women are vessels for the ministry of the Holy Spirit. The word daughters, like the word sons, is sometimes used figuratively in Scripture to refer to people with a spiritual attribute or character quality modeled after someone else. For example, wives who submit to their husbands are called Sarah’s “daughters” in 1 Peter 3:6, because they are following the godly example of [Sarah](life-Sarah.html), who obeyed her husband, Abraham. The Lord wants us, both men and women, to approach Him as our Father. Just as loving daughters respect and honor their earthly fathers with pure conduct and joyful, thankful hearts, so God’s spiritual daughters honor Him. God’s daughters, along with their brothers, are God’s temple and His home (Matthew 23:8; Mark 3:32–33; John 14:23\).
How can Jesus be God, when Numbers 23:19 says that God is not a man or a son of man?	Answer Some claim that the Old Testament proves that Jesus cannot be God because of Numbers 23:19a, which says, “God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent” (KJV). The reasoning is that, if God is not a man, then the Christian claim that Jesus, a man, is God is false. Just as troublesome is the fact that Jesus repeatedly calls Himself the “Son of Man” in the gospels (e.g., Mark 14:21\). The Old Testament does indeed teach that God is not a human being, not only in Numbers 23:19 but also in 1 Samuel 15:29 and Hosea 11:9\. However, the New Testament shows us that Jesus made claims to be God—and at the same time He calls Himself the “[Son of Man](Jesus-Son-of-Man.html),” a title that proclaims His humanity. With all this being true, how can we prove that Jesus is God? Jesus claimed to be both the Son of God and the Son of Man. There are no tricks here. He said that [He is God](is-Jesus-God.html), and He said that He is (at the same time) human. No one had ever said such a thing before. It was strange then, and it is strange now—strange enough for a new term, the [hypostatic union](hypostatic-union.html). No one will ever fully understand the union of Christ’s divine and human natures, no matter how much we talk about it, define it, or typify it. Therefore, “proof” cannot be obtained. We either believe Jesus, or we do not. It is critical to understand at this point that the Bible is true in detail and in toto—both the Old and New Testaments. So, when Jesus began teaching new things, the old things did not become untrue; they became unveiled. Remember what He said about the Law: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them” (Matthew 5:17\). All of Jesus’ new revelations work exactly the same way. The old knowledge was shadowy, and, as the Light of the world, Jesus dispelled the shadows (see Colossians 2:16–17\). This process is not destructive of the old knowledge—it is instructive, as Philip’s encounter with the Ethiopian shows (Acts 8:30–35\). We must also consider what the Old Testament is really saying about God when it says He is not a human being. The point being made in Numbers 23:19, 1 Samuel 15:29, and Hosea 11:9 is that God does not lie. He is not fickle. His emotions do not change His eternal purposes. This is unlike fallen humanity, who cannot see the big picture, who often breaks promises, and whose feelings often cloud discernment. In other words, the statements that God is not a man are contrasting one aspect of God’s nature with a corresponding part of man’s. Saying, “God is not a man,” has nothing to do with whether or not God can ever exist [in the flesh](God-in-the-flesh.html). The Old Testament references to God being unlike man do not apply to Jesus’ particular type of humanity. All they are telling us is that God is not a man as we think of men. It’s a contrast, not a restriction. There is nothing that logically prevents God from becoming a man in a whole new way—in fact, redemption requires this, and [redemption](redemption.html) was God’s plan from before the foundation of the world (Revelation 13:8\). Thus, it can be said that God knew He would become a man before Numbers 23:19 was even penned! If we consider the Old Testament in isolation (which is the Jewish perspective), we shall not likely “prove” that Jesus Christ was man, God, Messiah, and Savior—although the indicators are all there (see Isaiah 53, for example). Christians see the foreshadowing of the God\-man in the Old Testament because the New Testament revelation helps interpret the Old Testament references (e.g., Matthew 2:15; cf. Hosea 11:1\). This brings up an important fact regarding biblical interpretation: God reveals His truth progressively, over time. He has unfolded His purposes sequentially and as needed over the millennia. For example, Adam and Eve in their innocence had no need to know about redemption, but after they sinned, then the time was appropriate, and God laid it out for them in Genesis 3:15\. That bit of revelation was given at a point in time, but its full meaning did not become clear until after Christ came in the flesh—and as the authors of the New Testament were writing under inspiration. We understand now that Genesis 3:15 points directly to Jesus’ atoning death—and this revelation is necessary for us today. But that information was not necessary for Adam and Eve. Their pre\-fall ignorance, couched as it was in innocence, was appropriate for them. In like manner God revealed His will progressively to His people in the Old Testament Scriptures, and those people were responsible to behave in obedience according to where they were on revelation’s timeline. Today, Christians are responsible for all of God’s Word, because we live in a time when it is complete. Additionally, believers have the indwelling Holy Spirit, so there are no excuses for not acknowledging Jesus Christ as God. Since revelation is progressive, a person’s response to God depends on where he is on the timeline. An Old Testament Jew would have no concept of the God\-man, although clues (such as Psalm 110:1\) were present. But John the Baptist’s prophecies, followed by Jesus’ miracles, were further revelation. In fact, Jesus’ miracles were signs to prove who He is: “Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God” (John 20:30–31\). People today still need to respond in faith to Jesus’ miracles. Those who do not are spiritually blind. To summarize, God’s statements that He is not a man and Jesus’ statements that He is the Son of God coexist as true; they are not in conflict. Revelation is progressive, and Old Testament concepts are more fully developed in the New Testament. Finally, God always had it in mind that the Son would become flesh and dwell among men, so God never “changed His mind” about becoming a man.
What does it mean to be co-heirs/joint-heirs with Christ?	Answer In Romans 8:17 Paul says, “Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co\-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.” According to this verse, we share in the sufferings of Christ now and will share in the glory of Christ later as His “co\-heirs” or “joint\-heirs.” The term [heirs](heir-Bible.html) of God emphasizes our relationship to God the Father. As His children, we have “an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade . . . kept in heaven” (1 Peter 1:4\). The Greek term translated “heirs” in Romans 8:17 refers to “those who receive their allotted possession by right of sonship.” In other words, because God has made us His children (see John 1:12\), we have full rights to receive His inheritance. We are His beneficiaries (see Matthew 25:34; Galatians 3:29; Colossians 1:12; 3:24\). Jesus, the only begotten Son of God, is the natural “heir” of the Father. “God said to him, ‘You are my Son; today I have become your Father’” (Hebrews 5:5; cf. Psalm 2:7\). Christ’s inheritance is the whole universe, all that is in existence: Hebrews 1:2 says that the Son has been “appointed heir of all things.” Being a co\-heir with Christ means that we, as God’s adopted [children](child-of-God.html), will share in the inheritance of Jesus. What belongs to Jesus will also belong to us. Christ gives us His glory (John 17:22\), His riches (2 Corinthians 8:9\), and all things (Hebrews 1:2\). We are as welcome in God’s family as Jesus is; we are “accepted in the Beloved” (Ephesians 1:6, NKJV). All that belongs to Jesus Christ will belong to us, the co\-heirs, as well. “You are no longer a slave, but God’s child; and since you are his child, God has made you also an heir” (Galatians 4:7\). Think of all that means. Everything that God owns belongs to us as well because we belong to Him. Our eternal inheritance as co\-heirs with Christ is the result of the amazing grace of God. The musical play Annie contains a wonderful illustration of becoming an heir of God. When Annie moves from the orphanage to the Warbucks Mansion, it’s an incredible change for her. She leaves behind a spiteful, alcoholic caretaker and enters a relationship with a caring father. She goes from having no possessions to having a fortune at her disposal. The hard\-knock life is overcome by the brightness of a sunny tomorrow. Seen from a Christian perspective, Annie pictures what being a co\-heir with Christ means. “We share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory” (Romans 8:17\). Ephesians 2:13 says, “In Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ.” God took us, poor orphans in this world, and made us a part of His family through faith in Jesus Christ. He has showered us with blessings and promised us an eternal inheritance, based on the worthiness of Christ Himself.
What was/is the importance of the gates of Jerusalem?	Answer The gates of ancient cities were important as a means of providing access to the city while maintaining security. The Bible speaks of the gates of [Jerusalem](city-of-Jerusalem.html) many times in many different contexts. As the city walls are built, destroyed, and moved and the gates are bricked up, restored, or renamed, it can be difficult to figure out what gate the text is talking about. To add to the confusion, some of the gates mentioned appear to be not in the outer wall but in the wall providing access to the king’s palace. Pre\-Exilic Gates The wall around Jerusalem before the Babylonian exile was probably close to the one that Nehemiah rebuilt. It roughly encompassed the Temple Mount to the north and trailed to the south to include the Pool of Siloam. It’s especially difficult to determine where the pre\-exilic gates were in relation to modern Jerusalem. Corner Gate: Location uncertain, although apparently on the northwest corner of the wall. It was destroyed by King Jehoash of Israel (2 Kings 14:13; 2 Chronicles 25:23\) and later rebuilt by King Uzziah (2 Chronicles 26:9\). Jeremiah 31:38 says the Corner Gate will be rebuilt, and Zechariah 14:10 mentions it during a prophecy about the Day of the Lord. Ephraim Gate: On the north wall, toward Ephraim. Second Kings 14:13 and 2 Chronicles 25:23 say it was near the Corner Gate. The Ephraim Gate isn’t mentioned in Nehemiah’s tour of the walls in Nehemiah 3, but it is mentioned during the Feast of Booths (Nehemiah 8:16\) and the dedication of the wall (Nehemiah 12:39\). The latter passage puts it in series with the Old Gate, the Fish Gate, and the Sheep Gate. Foundation Gate: This gate is mentioned during the coronation of [King Joash](King-Joash.html) (2 Chronicles 23:5\) The parallel passage of 2 Kings 11:6 calls it the Sur Gate. Jeremiah called it the Middle Gate and said it was where the Babylonian officials came and waited for [King Zedekiah](King-Zedekiah.html) to declare defeat (Jeremiah 39:3\). The Foundation Gate is apparently an interior gate in or leading to the king’s residence. It’s unclear if it is the same as the Horse Gate in 2 Kings 11:16\. Benjamin Gate: Probably the same location as the later Muster Gate or possibly the Sheep Gate. Jeremiah was put into stocks at the Benjamin Gate after Pashhur the priest beat him (Jeremiah 20:2\). New Gate: Jeremiah was put before an inquiry at “the entrance of the New Gate of the LORD’s house,” which was apparently in the courtyard of the temple (Jeremiah 26:10; 36:10\). Nehemiah’s Gates While [Nehemiah](life-Nehemiah.html) served King Artaxerxes in Persia, he heard of the ruined state of Jerusalem. He was given authorization and supplies to go there and restore the walls and the gates. When Nehemiah arrived, he made a detailed inspection of the walls and gates (Nehemiah 2:11–16\) and organized the people to start the rebuilding effort (Nehemiah 2:17–3:32\). When the wall was rebuilt, it probably encompassed the same area as before, except it may have excluded the king’s gardens in the southeast. Starting from the east corner of the north wall, Nehemiah went counterclockwise: Sheep Gate (AKA Benjamin Gate?): North central, just north of the Temple Mount. Near where the sheep market was for the temple sacrifices. The priests rebuilt and dedicated it (Nehemiah 3:1\). Possibly the entrance from the road to Jericho. It may be the same Sheep Gate of John 5:2 near the Pool of Bethesda, but that identification is unclear. Fish Gate (AKA Ephraim Gate): Northwest, just northwest of the temple. The main entrance for fish mongers from the Mediterranean Sea and the Sea of Galilee. The Fish Gate was one of Jerusalem’s main entrances. King Manasseh had built it after God sent the Assyrians to capture him and teach him humility (2 Chronicles 33:14\). Nehemiah had the sons of Hassenaah rebuild it (Nehemiah 3:3\). Zephaniah prophesied that a cry will come from the Fish Gate on the Day of the Lord (Zephaniah 1:10\). Old Gate (AKA Gate of Yeshanah/Jeshanah, which means “of the old” or possibly “the gate of the new quarter”): The location of this gate is uncertain. Nehemiah 3:6 suggests it is near the northwest corner of the wall, west of the Fish Gate. Valley Gate: West central, south of the present wall of Old City. The gate that Nehemiah used when he did his inspection of the walls (Nehemiah 2:13, 15\). Dung Gate (AKA Potsherd Gate?): Very southern tip, facing southwest. There was a walled section around the Pool of Shelah (or Siloam, John 9:6–7\), then the Dung Gate (Nehemiah 3:13–14\) exited out to a garbage dump in the Hinnom Valley where, in the days of King Manasseh, child sacrifices took place (2 Chronicles 33:6\). One of two great choirs went to the Dung Gate during the dedication of the wall (Nehemiah 12:31\). Fountain Gate: Southern tip, facing east. The east gate that led out from the Pool of Shelah to the king’s gardens and the stairs that went down the eastern slope (Nehemiah 3:15; 12:37\). Water Gate: Facing east, south of the current Old City walls (Nehemiah 3:26\). It is near the start of the tunneled waterway that was fed by a spring—possibly En\-Rogel (Joshua 15:7; 18:16\) or Gihon (2 Chronicles 32:30; 33:14\). The eastern wall on the south end apparently was abandoned and a new wall built farther west, turning the southern section into more of a tail. The new wall excluded the tomb of David and most of the water tunnel that fed the Pool of Shelah by the Dung Gate. But the narrow confines included the upper house of the king, the home of the high priest, and the ascent to the armory. After the wall was built, Ezra read the people the Law from a square by the Water Gate (Nehemiah 8:1\). Horse Gate: East side, just east of the royal palace and southeast of the Temple Mount. Near where the priests had their homes (Nehemiah 3:28\). Not the same “horse gate” of 2 Kings 11:16 and 2 Chronicles 23:15; that gate was between the palace and the temple and was the site where [Queen Athaliah](Athaliah-in-the-Bible.html) was killed. East Gate (AKA Golden Gate or Temple Gate): Just north of the Horse Gate, it led to the temple. Around 600 BC, Ezekiel prophesied that a [“gate facing east”](eastern-gate-Jerusalem.html) would be sealed (Ezekiel 44:1–3\), but this is not the same East Gate mentioned by Nehemiah. Muster Gate (AKA Inspection Gate; Benjamin Gate?): Between the East Gate and the northeast corner of the wall. Possibly the same as the Benjamin Gate (Jeremiah 20:2\) where Jeremiah was imprisoned in stocks. New Testament Gates The wall around Jerusalem during the time of the New Testament was probably the biggest that ever existed. Because of that, these gates are even more difficult to locate. Essene Gate: The Essene Gate was on the wall that existed in Jesus’ time, south and a bit west of the present\-day Zion Gate. Appropriately enough, it was the gate through the wall that led to the Essene section of the city. This south wall was mentioned by Josephus but was destroyed by the Romans in AD 70 and never rebuilt. Beautiful Gate (AKA Nicanor Gate): An entrance to the temple courtyard built by Herod the Great of polished bronze. The place where Peter and John healed a lame man (Acts 3:10\). Note, this is not a gate in the city walls. East Gate (AKA Beautiful Gate or Golden Gate): Jesus apparently entered this gate on Palm Sunday before He drove out the merchants in the temple courtyard (Matthew 21:12–17\). Jerusalem Old City The walls around Jerusalem have been torn down, built up, and moved many times. In AD 70, they were destroyed by the Romans, and in 1033 by an earthquake. The walls as we see them today were built in the 1500s. Viewed from above, they look like a rough parallelogram sloping from northeast to southwest. These are the gates around Old City Jerusalem now: [East Gate](http://www.bible-history.com/jerusalem/eastern-gate-1.jpg): In AD 1530 Ottoman Turks walled up the East Gate because of a Jewish tradition that states the Messiah will pass through the Eastern Gate when He comes to rule. The walling\-up of the East Gate was a Muslim attempt to keep out the Jewish Messiah. [Lion’s Gate](http://www.biblewalks.com/Photos29/LionsGate1.jpg) (AKA St. Stephen’s Gate): The deacon Stephen was supposedly killed in the Kidron Valley, below. In the 16th century, the Turkish sultan dreamed he was being attacked by lions. An interpreter told him they represented the lions that guarded the thrones of David and Solomon and the dream meant that, if he treated Jerusalem with respect, he would be blessed. The sultan went to Jerusalem and saw the walls were in ruins. So he rebuilt the wall, including this gate—which appears to be guarded by relief carvings of leopards, not lions. [Herod’s Gate](http://www.jerusalemexperience.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Herods-Gate.jpg) (AKA Flowers Gate): Near the east corner of the north wall. Right outside the gate is a cemetery. No one wanted to live in an area known for a cemetery, so they changed the Arabic for “cemetery”—Sahirah—to Zahirah, which means “flowers.” Although it’s also known as “Herod’s Gate,” there was no gate there when Herod the Great was king, although Herod Antipas had a home nearby. [Damascus Gate](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/Jerusalem_Damascus_Gate_by_night.JPG): The center of the north wall. The busiest gate on weekends as shoppers come into Jerusalem. [New Gate](http://allaboutjerusalem.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/big-image-gallery/ifa_upload/new_gate_jerusalem.jpg): The northwest corner of the Old City. The current New Gate was made in 1887 when Christians demanded the Turkish sultan give them direct access to their quarter of the city. [Jaffa Gate](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/Jaffa_Gate_and_Tower_of_David.jpg): The center of the western wall, near where Herod’s palace was. Currently, one of the main gates into Jerusalem. [Zion Gate](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3a/Jerusalem_Ziongate_BW_4.JPG): Near the west corner of the southern wall. Connects King David’s tomb and the Upper Room to the Jewish Quarter of the Old City. [Tanners Gate](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/Old_Jerusalem_Tanner%27s_Gate.jpg): Although Tanners Gate dates to medieval times, it was only reopened during the 1990s to alleviate pedestrian traffic that came through the newer Dung Gate to get to the Wailing Wall. [Dung Gate](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d6/Old_Jerusalem_Dung_Gate_2.JPG): Apparently not the original Dung Gate; this is farther north, as the “tail” of Nehemiah’s Jerusalem was cut off. New Jerusalem Gates Tribal Gates: Ezekiel 48:30–35 and Revelation 21:9–27 describe the [New Jerusalem](new-jerusalem.html). The heavenly city will have three gates on each side—one gate for each of the tribes of Israel. While the walls are built and decorated with jewels, each gate will be made of a single pearl, and each will be guarded by an angel.
What is palingenesis?	Answer The term palingenesis has two common uses relevant to the Bible. One usage relates to evolutionary biology; the other is a theological term. Both usages are connected to the word’s Greek roots. The combination of the terms genesis, meaning “origin” or “birth”; and palin, meaning “again,” defines the term palingenesis as “a rebirth, new beginning, or repetition.” At one point in history, the term palingenesis was used in biology as part of the theory of [evolution](creation-evolution.html). Also known as recapitulation or embryological parallelism, the theory of palingenesis taught that embryos passed through their prior evolutionary stages prior to birth. In other words, a developing fetus would look like the animals it had evolved from, in order, as it grew. A human fetus, according to palingenesis, progressed through the stages of fish, amphibian, reptile, bird, and mammal before arriving at a fully formed human being. A major driver behind the popularity of palingenesis or recapitulation theory was the work of Ernst Haeckel. He produced drawings of various creatures in their embryonic form. The problem was that he deliberately over\-emphasized the similarities between different animals. As a result, many biology students were taught palingenesis using a visual representation of embryos that was itself misleading. Recapitulation theory eventually fell out of favor and is no longer considered a valid theory by the general scientific community. Unfortunately, in no small part due to widespread use of Haeckel’s drawings, it is a lingering myth. In the spiritual or cultural sense, palingenesis refers to a rebirth or renewal. The term is very broad, so it can be applied to both [resurrection](resurrection-first-second.html) within Christianity or [reincarnation](reincarnation.html) in faiths such as Hinduism. At times, the term is also used in reference to a personal or cultural revival. Any restarting, re\-forming, or re\-invention of a once\-lost or dead practice could also be considered a type of palingenesis. From a political standpoint, palingenesis refers to the idea of a culture rising from the ashes of history, making this a popular concept with revolutionaries and dictators. The most direct biblical references to palingenesis are in passages such as John 3, where Jesus indicates that only those who are “[born again](born-again.html)” can see heaven. First Peter 1:3 says, “In \[God’s] great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (see also verse 23\). The theme of renewal, a core aspect of palingenesis, is also found in verses like Titus 3:5, which speaks of regeneration and renewal. The same idea is found in 1 Corinthians 6:11 and Revelation 7:14\.
What does it mean to bind the strong man?	Answer The phrase bind the strong man (or strongman) is a reference to a passage in the book of Mark, where Jesus is responding to some Jewish scribes who were accusing Him of being possessed by [Beelzebul](who-Beelzebub.html). Their argument was that “by the prince of demons he is driving out demons” (Mark 3:22\). In other words, the reason the demons listened to Jesus was that they were in league with Him and recognized Him as their commanding officer, so to speak. Jesus refuted their blasphemous argument with plain logic: “How can Satan cast out Satan?” (Mark 3:23\) and then gave them a parable. First, Jesus spoke of the principle of a [divided kingdom](house-divided-cannot-stand.html), which cannot stand (verses 24–26\). Then He told them, “No one can enter a strong man’s house without first tying him up. Then he can plunder the strong man’s house” (Mark 3:27\). Jesus refers to Satan as the “strong man” and to Himself as the One who enters the house and plunders the place. Of course, before Satan allows his domain to be “plundered,” he must be incapacitated. Jesus was not in league with Satan, as the scribes suggested, but had come to the earth, to what is essentially Satan’s “house” (1 John 5:19\), in order to bind Satan and plunder his “goods,” which are the souls of men (John 17:15; Luke 4:18; Ephesians 4:8\). A parallel passage says this: “When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are safe. But when someone stronger attacks and overpowers him, he takes away the armor in which the man trusted and divides up his plunder” (Luke 11:21–22\). Satan is strong, and he holds possessions that he guards jealously. But Jesus is the One who was and is stronger than the strong man. He is the only One who can bind the strong man and rescue us from his clutches (see John 12:31\). Some Christians, usually in the [Charismatic](Charismatic-movement.html) or Pentecostal movements, apply Jesus’ parable to the spiritual warfare that believers must wage. They teach that Christians are the ones who must “bind the strong man” in their lives or in their cities and then win the victory in Jesus’ name. Some Charismatic preachers even name the “strong men” and attempt to identify the cities or geographical areas over which they hold power. Such doctrines go far beyond what Jesus said. The Lord’s parable was simply to impress upon the scribes that He was not in league with Satan. Never does Jesus instruct us to “bind the strong man” or tell us how to do it. We do not have warrant to interpret the parable as a spiritual reality over geographical regions.
What does it mean that all things work together for good (Romans 8:28)?	Answer When a Christian utters the phrase all things work together for good, he or she is referring to a portion of one of the most quoted, claimed verses in the New Testament, Romans 8:28: “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.” Or, as the KJV translates it, “And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.” God works all things together for good—both His good and our good. As God is glorified, His people benefit. In Romans 8, Paul contrasts a life lived in selfish pursuits (the flesh) and one lived in league with, or in accordance with, God (the Spirit). He impresses upon readers that our sovereign God is all\-knowing, all\-wise, and all\-powerful. Those who love God can trust His goodness, His power, and His will to work out all things for our good. We journey together with Him. The promise that God works all things together for good does not mean that all things, taken by themselves, are good. Some things and events are decidedly bad. But God is able to work them together for good. He sees the big picture; He has a master plan. Neither does the promise that God works all things together for good mean we will acquire all that we want or desire. Romans 8:28 is about God’s goodness and our confidence that His plan will work out as He sees fit. Since His plan is always good, Christians can take confidence that, no matter our circumstances or environments, God is active and will conclude things according to His good and wise design. With this knowledge we can learn to be content (see Philippians 4:11\). The fact that God works all things together for good means God’s plan will not be thwarted. In fact, we are part of His plan, having been “called according to his purpose” (Romans 8:28\). When we trust God and His way, we can be sure that He is active and powerful on our behalf (see Ephesians 3:20\). God knows the future, and His desires will be accomplished. “I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say, ‘My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please’” (Isaiah 46:10\). Even when things seem chaotic and out of control, God is still in charge. We sometimes worry about what’s happening to us because we do not know what is best for us. But God does. The principle of God working all things together for good is well illustrated in the Old Testament account of [Joseph’s life](life-Joseph.html). Early in Joseph’s life, Joseph’s jealous brothers sold him into slavery. In Egypt, Joseph rises to a position of responsibility. Then, he is unjustly imprisoned and forgotten about by his friends. God gifts him the ability to interpret dreams, and through that ability Joseph is once again raised to a place of honor and power. When drought forces Joseph’s brothers to seek food elsewhere, they travel to Egypt and encounter Joseph, who eventually saves them from starvation and grants them a livelihood in his new land. Throughout his life, Joseph trusted God no matter his good or bad circumstances. Joseph experienced plenty of bad things: kidnapping, slavery, false accusations, wrongful imprisonment, rejection, and famine. But in the end God brought things to a wonderful, life\-affirming conclusion. God blessed Joseph’s entire family through those painful circumstances and through Joseph’s faith. (You can read about Joseph’s life beginning in Genesis 37\.) [Paul’s life](life-Paul.html) is another testament to how God works all things together for good. Paul suffered shipwrecks, beatings, imprisonment, murder attempts, temporary blindness, and more—all within God’s plan to spread the gospel (see Acts 9:16 and 2 Corinthians 11:24–27\). Through it all, God was steadfastly working to bring about good and glorious results. After promising that God works all things together for our good, Romans 8 concludes with the wonderful fact that God trumps everything that comes against Him and those who belong to Him. The Christian is assured that nothing can ever separate us from God’s love: “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? . . . No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 8:35–39\). God’s love is everlasting, and His wisdom is infinite. It doesn’t matter who or what attempts to thwart God’s plan; no one and nothing can. God will work all things together for the good of those who love Him. Our decision to align our will with God’s and to always trust Him will be rewarded.
What was the Counter-Reformation?	Answer The Counter\-Reformation was Roman Catholicism’s response to the [Protestant Reformation](Protestant-Reformation.html). In the late 15th and early 16th centuries, Christians began to openly criticize the Roman Catholic Church for teaching things contrary to the Bible. The Reformers objected to the veneration (worship) of Mary, the selling of indulgences, the insistence that rituals and sacraments were necessary for salvation, and so forth. As the Reformation took hold culturally and theologically, Catholicism responded with its own efforts. Some of these were intended to change the Catholic Church itself, but most were designed to resist the claims of the Reformers. Collectively, these Catholic efforts became known as the Counter\-Reformation. In truth, the Counter\-Reformation wasn’t really much of a “reformation” of [Catholicism](Roman-Catholicism.html), at least not from a theological perspective. It was truly a “counter to the Reformation”; that is, it was primarily concerned with refuting and silencing Protestant disagreements. Much of the Counter\-Reformation was driven by politics. In Spain, for example, kings and queens were more than happy to apply Catholic resources toward stamping out dissenters—in their case, mostly Protestants. Deportation, excommunication, and execution were common tools used in the Counter\-Reformation. Two lasting effects came out of the Counter\-Reformation: the [Jesuit Order](Jesuits-Society-of-Jesus.html) (the Society of Jesus) and the [Council of Trent](Council-of-Trent.html). The Jesuits are a [religious order](religious-order.html) formed specifically to counter Protestantism. Their tactics during the Counter\-Reformation involved intellectual and theological arguments, although they also used less spiritual methods of accomplishing their goals. The [Inquisition](inquisitions.html) was a product of Jesuit influence. The Jesuits also produced an Index of Prohibited Books: texts Catholics were officially forbidden to read. The Jesuits’ influence on Catholic philosophy and theology was significant. The Council of Trent was, in theory, an attempt to change those aspects of Catholicism that Protestants were justified in complaining about. Unfortunately, the council itself came far too late. By the time the council convened, the Reformation had been in full swing for nearly a quarter\-century. By that time, the church was well and truly split. The Council of Trent did positively address some complaints of the Reformers. The sale of indulgences was stopped, the roles of priests were more carefully defined, and the use of sacred artifacts—[relics](Christian-relics.html)—was greatly reduced. Certain aspects of music and liturgy and other practical issues were discussed as well. However, on the most critical issues, the Council of Trent, like the rest of the Counter\-Reformation, was mostly a doubling\-down on entrenched Catholic theology. This council, and the other Counter\-Reformers, doggedly defended transubstantiation, upheld the necessity of sacraments for salvation, rejected [sola fide](sola-fide.html), and claimed outright that Catholic tradition was as equally authoritative as the Bible. In addition, the council members determined that the [Latin Vulgate](Latin-Vulgate.html) was the one and only acceptable Bible for church use. And they insisted that, since politics was instituted by God, all political leaders were subject to papal authority. Even though some aspects of the Counter\-Reformation were aimed at repairing broken parts of Catholicism, the primary effect was to stabilize and reinforce Catholic errors. It would be fair to say that the Counter\-Reformation, especially the founding of the Jesuits and the results of the Council of Trent, slammed the door shut on any possible reconciliation with Protestantism or the Reformers.
Is religious iconography considered idolatry?	Answer Broadly speaking, religious iconography is the artistic depiction of religious figures, often using symbolism. In Christianity, iconography features subjects such as Christ, Mary, or the saints. An icon is an image, usually painted on wood, that is to be venerated as a sacred object. Icons can also be engravings, mosaics, or embroideries. Although people who use icons in their worship would deny that they are practicing idolatry, it is difficult to see how “venerating” an object as “sacred” is different from idolatry. Although Catholics also venerate religious images, iconography is most often associated with the [Eastern or Orthodox Church](Eastern-Orthodox-church.html), which teaches that the use of icons during prayer helps the worshiper know God, be united with the holy saints, and develop the fruit of the Spirit. When an Orthodox Christian enters his church, he lights a candle, makes the sign of the cross, and then kisses the icons of Christ, the [Theotokos](Mary-mother-God-theotokos.html) (Mary), and the saints. The church sanctuary will contain many other “Holy Icons,” as they’re called. Orthodox Christians are to have icons at home, too, and the place where the icons are kept is where family prayers are offered. Icons are seen as an illustration of the Incarnation of Christ, who left His spiritual abode to dwell in a material world. The devout also believe that an icon is a window into heaven, and their veneration passes straight to heaven, where it is received by the person depicted in the icon. Some claim that icons have facilitated miracles. John Calvin and the other Protestant Reformers were [iconoclasts](iconoclasm.html); that is, they demanded the removal of icons from churches and homes. According to the Reformers, the veneration of icons and other religious artifacts was idolatry, and they were right. Any kissing of, bowing down before, or praying toward an icon is certainly idolatrous. Members of the Orthodox Church insist that they are not worshiping the paint and wood, but they admit that they give veneration, adoration, and reverence to the saints and Mary depicted in the icons. They pray to men and women; they ascribe to the icons a spiritual power that it does not possess. This is unbiblical. There is nothing wrong with producing or enjoying religious art, per se. Viewing a painting of a biblical scene in an art gallery and admiring the artist’s technique cannot be considered idolatry. Having a picture of Jesus or of angels in one’s home may not be idolatry, either. Iconography can be studied as an art form, and icons can be viewed as fascinating examples of historical religious art. But using icons to aid one’s worship or viewing them as a “window to heaven” is definitely idolatry. The Bible strictly forbids idolatry (Leviticus 26:1; Deuteronomy 5:9\). God alone deserves to be bowed down to and worshiped. Icons are not intercessors before the throne of grace, and neither are the saints they represent. People in heaven do not have the power to hear our prayers or grant our requests. Only Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit can intercede for us before the Father (Romans 8:26–27, 34\). We should stay as far away as we can from anything that could possibly lead to [idolatry](idolatry-definition.html).
How does the sovereignty of God impact my everyday life?	Answer The sovereignty of God refers to the fact that God is in complete control of the universe. A belief in God’s sovereignty is distinct from [fatalism](fatalism.html), which denies human free will. Humans are able to make genuine choices that have real consequences. God does not directly cause everything to happen, yet He does allow all that happens to happen. And, ultimately, God’s will is going to be accomplished. At first blush these statements may seem unimportant to one’s daily life and better suited for an esoteric theological discussion. However, the sovereignty of God is quite practical and has a significant impact on our daily lives. The [sovereignty of God](is-God-sovereign.html) impacts everyday life in that it removes all cause for worry. We can trust that what the Bible claims about God’s character is backed up by His ability. Not only does God love us, but He has the ability to care for us. Those who are part of the family of God can claim the promise in Romans 8:28, “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.” We can rest in the fact that our God is actually able to work all things for our good, even when we cannot readily see how that may happen. The sovereignty of God impacts everyday life in that we can trust God’s [sanctifying work](sanctification.html) in us. Many times Christians feel that maturing in the faith is completely up to them, as if God saves us and then expects us to do the rest. Christians do play a role in their own maturity. We are certainly called to obedience, and what we do matters. However, in recognizing that God is sovereign, we also trust Him to bring us to maturity (see Galatians 3:3 and Philippians 1:6\). Looking to Romans 8 again, we read, “For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. What, then, shall we say in response to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all—how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. Who then is the one who condemns? No one. Christ Jesus who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us” (Romans 8:29–34\). Our salvation has been God’s sovereign plan from eternity past. Rather than focus on our own performance, we can rest in the character of God and focus instead on actually getting to know Him. The sovereignty of God also affects how we make decisions. We recognize that God is in control, so we need not be paralyzed by [decision\-making](Bible-decision-making.html). If we make the wrong decision, all is not lost. We can trust in God’s faithfulness and His ability to set us back on the right course. On a related note, we can and should make decisions. God’s sovereign control does not mean that we sit idly by and allow life to happen. It means that we can go bravely into life, trusting that our loving Father sees the larger picture and is faithfully working everything for His glory. That God is sovereign impacts our sense of identity. When we understand how powerful God is and how much He loves us, we can know we are secure in Him. As the objects of God’s sovereign love, we allow God to define us and give us our worth rather than look to the changing ideals of the world to do so. When we understand that God is in complete control, we are freed to live our lives. We need not fear ultimate failure or final destruction (Romans 8:1\). We need not fear worthlessness. We can be confident that God will have His way and that it will be good. We can trust that the One who says He loves us is fully able to act on that love in all ways. We can trust that, even when the world seems completely out of control, God is in control. We know He has the big picture covered, so we can trust Him with our daily details.
What is spiritual mapping?	Answer Spiritual mapping is a relatively new technique to try to identify where demons are at work and then attack them. Spiritual mapping assumes the existence of “[territorial spirits](territorial-spirits.html),” the concept of certain demons ruling over certain geographical areas. Once a territorial spirit has been identified, its territory is mapped out, and then the spirit is engaged in battle. For example, some Christians attempt to do battle with the “spirit of greed” that rules over a casino\-rich city or the “spirit of lust” that holds power over a city’s red\-light district. Some promoters of spiritual mapping identify three levels of [warfare](spiritual-warfare.html): “ground\-level” warfare, which involves casting demons out of individuals; “occult\-level” warfare, which tackles more organized spiritual wickedness; and “strategic\-level” warfare, which directly battles the “territorial spirits” over a broader geographical area. Territorial spirits are thought to answer directly to Satan and are responsible for coordinating all demonic activities within their purview. Sometimes, these high\-level territorial spirits are called the “strongman” of an area, and the goal of spiritual mappers is to “[bind the strong man](bind-the-strongman.html).” The Bible does not teach anything about spiritual mapping. Anyone who teaches the necessity of spiritual mapping is doing so without biblical warrant. The Bible never instructs Christians to seek out demons to engage them in battle, and it never categorizes demons as spirits “of lust” or “of greed,” etc. The idea of “binding the strong man” comes from a misapplication of Jesus’ parable in Mark 3:27 (according to the parable, Jesus is the One who does the “binding,” not us). Spiritual mapping is usually practiced among those who are involved in “[apostolic ministry](New-Apostolic-Reformation.html)” and who claim that apostolic gifts and roles are being restored to the church today. Scripture is clear, however, that the apostles’ role was to lay the foundation of the church (Ephesians 2:19–20\), and foundations only need to be laid once. There are no apostles today. Spiritual mapping is also associated with [dominion theology](dominion-theology.html) or Christian reconstructionism, which seeks to usher in the fullness of God’s kingdom worldwide. Christians are told to resist the devil and he will flee (James 4:7\) and to stand firm against the schemes of the devil by using the armor of God (Ephesians 6:10–18\). Our weapons of warfare are the Word of God and prayer (Ephesians 6:17–18\). The battle belongs to the Lord (Proverbs 21:31\), and He has already defeated Satan and the evil rulers of this world (John 12:31\). The Body of Christ is secure, and we need not fear demons. Neither do we need to name them, talk to them, or map them.
What was olive oil a symbol of in the Bible?	Answer In the Bible olive oil is mentioned several times as the oil used for lighting lamps (Leviticus 24:2; Exodus 27:20\). Olive oil was also used for anointing oil (Exodus 30:23–25\) and as part of the grain offerings (Leviticus 2:1–10\). Kings were anointed with olive oil as a sign that they were chosen by God to rule (1 Samuel 16:1\). As an important ingredient in the recipe for anointing oil, olive oil was used to [sanctify](sanctified.html) priests (Exodus 29:7\), the tabernacle, and all its furnishings (Exodus 40:9\). Olive oil was also used in cooking. Olive trees grew in Israel (Deuteronomy 8:7–8\), and the people in that region used the oil from pressed olives as people in other cultures might have used butter or animal fats. Olive oil was an important part of Jewish culture because of its many uses. Because of its centrality to much of Jewish life, olive oil was sometimes used as a symbol of richness, joy, and health (Jeremiah 31:12; Hebrews 1:9\). Times of judgment were described as a season when “the olive oil fails” (Joel 1:10\). Olive oil can also be seen as a symbol of the Holy Spirit (or possibly of faith) in Jesus’ [parable of the ten virgins](parable-ten-virgins.html) (Matthew 25:1–13\). The five wise virgins in the wedding party had made sure they had olive oil for their lamps as they waited for the bridegroom to come. The five foolish virgins did not think ahead and had brought no oil. As the bridegroom drew near, the five foolish virgins begged the wise ones for some of their oil. But the wise virgins could not spare any. While the foolish virgins were out buying more oil, the bridegroom came, and their chance to join the wedding celebration was gone forever. Jesus gave the point of the parable: “Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour” (Matthew 25:13\). At the end of the age, when Jesus comes back, some will be ready for His arrival (illustrated by the wise virgins who had olive oil); others will not be ready (symbolized by the foolish virgins who had no oil). Considering the olive oil as a symbol of the Holy Spirit (or of faith), we could say that only those who have the Spirit (or faith in Christ) are truly ready for Jesus’ second coming. Not every reference to olive oil in the Bible is symbolic, of course. But there are passages in which olive oil can be a picture of the [Holy Spirit](who-Holy-Spirit.html), the One who sanctifies us, fills us, readies us to see Christ, and brings us light, joy, and spiritual health.
When did _______ live?	Answer This article is meant to be a quick reference for those looking for a chronological list of Bible characters. Because the Bible does not give exact dates, all the years listed here are approximate. Also, please note that we’ve based the pre\-flood dates on the young\-earth creationist model. Before the [Flood](Noah-flood.html) Adam (4000 BC – 3070 BC) Seth (3870 BC – 2958 BC) Noah (2943 BC – 1993 BC) From the [Noahic Covenant](Noahic-covenant.html) to the Sojourn in Egypt Abraham (2241 BC – 2066 BC) Isaac (2141 BC – 1961 BC) Jacob (2081 BC – 1934 BC) Joseph (2004 BC – 1894 BC) From the Exodus to the [Babylonian Captivity](Babylonian-captivity-exile.html) Moses (1526 BC – 1406 BC) Joshua (1495 BC – 1385 BC) Samuel (1105 BC – 1030 BC) Saul (1072 BC – 1010 BC) David (1041 BC – 971 BC) Solomon (1011 BC – 931 BC) Isaiah (769 BC – 686 BC) Jeremiah (646 BC – 561 BC) Daniel (620 BC – 535 BC) From the Return from Exile to the Prophet Malachi Ezra (500 BC – 444 BC) Nehemiah (485 BC – 420 BC) Malachi (460 BC – 400 BC) From the [Baptism of Christ](Jesus-baptized.html) to the Revelation of John John the Baptist (5 BC – AD 27\) Jesus (5 BC – AD 33\) Paul (AD 5 – AD 67\) John the Apostle (AD 5 – AD 95\)
When the Bible refers to men, mankind, brothers, etc., does it include women?	Answer The Bible is by no means [gender\-neutral](gender-inclusive-Bible-translation.html). It presents from beginning to end a thoroughly masculine perspective, and it often leaves it to the reader to decide what application to females or what inclusion of females is implied. Sometimes, a reference to men or brothers should be understood to include women; other times, men just means “men.” The context will provide the clues. Determining whether the word man or brothers includes women comes down to rightly translating the passage and then properly interpreting its meaning. Good [hermeneutics](Biblical-hermeneutics.html) leads to accurate interpretations and the ability to know when a passage about “men” is exclusive (referring to strictly males) or inclusive (referring to both genders). Some words are masculine in form, and it is clear from the context that they should be understood as referring to males only. For example, in Acts 7:2, when Stephen addresses his audience as “brothers and fathers,” he is not using those terms generically. The [Sanhedrin](Sanhedrin.html) body to whom he spoke was comprised of men, with no women. Other words, although masculine in form, can be used as generic terms for both sexes. For example, man and sons are sometimes used to refer to “mankind” and “children” in general. In Ephesians 4:8 we read, “When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men” (ESV). Men here is a reference to all mankind—the Lord did not limit the spiritual gifts to the male population in the church. In Mathew 13:38, Jesus speaks of “the sons of the kingdom” and “the sons of the evil one” (ESV). The word sons is masculine, of course, yet in this context it simply means “people” or “offspring.” These examples demonstrate an important point about language. Most words in any language do not have a single, all\-encompassing meaning, but context plays a part in determining definition. Sometimes, the translation of a text makes subtle changes in gender\-related words. For example, the King James Version of John 1:12 says, “As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God.” However, the English word sons, a masculine word, replaces a neuter word in the Greek; a better translation is “children of God,” which is how the King James 2000 has it. A related question is why does the Bible use only masculine generic terms? Why can children be referred to as “sons,” but they are never called (generically) “daughters”? It is apparent that, in the culture of the biblical writers, it was standard practice to use the generic masculine. It was just how people thought and how they talked. For centuries in modern English, we also used the generic masculine—he was an acceptable substitute for he or she when referring to an unknown person. In contemporary language, people in the West have grown sensitive to gender\-specific language: calling a firefighter a “fireman” is frowned upon as sexist, even if he is obviously male. English students are taught to say “he or she” or, more commonly, “they” (even when referring to a single individual), since the plural is gender\-neutral. Many Bible translations in recent years have adopted a more gender\-neutral wording. For example, 1 Thessalonians 4:1 is translated as “brothers and sisters, we instructed you how to live in order to please God” (NIV), even though the word for “sisters” is not in the Greek text. The translators added “and sisters” in the interest of gender neutrality. Does the insertion of and sisters result in a less exact rendering of the Greek text? Yes, it does. But, since Paul was obviously writing to the entire church (which included sisters in Christ), the inclusion of and sisters does no damage to the intent of this particular passage. God’s Word is not distorted by such a modification. Using more generic words such as people, parents, and descendants instead of man, father, and sons may help eliminate confusion, avoid misunderstandings, and avert unnecessary offense in modern times.
How does the fact that there are gay/homosexual animals impact the idea that homosexuality is a sin?	Answer Simply put, the fact that there are animals that exhibit what we might call homosexual behavior does not change the fact that [homosexuality](homosexuality-Bible.html) is a sin for human beings. Some animals eat their young, but that doesn’t mean it is okay for humans to be cannibals. Dogs eat their own vomit (Proverbs 26:11\), but that is definitely not good behavior for us to emulate. Some insects devour their partners after mating. We cannot use animal behavior as a basis for morality or to justify our chosen actions. It is true that “homosexual” behavior has been observed in many species in the animal kingdom. The reasons for such behavior are still being researched, but theories include the need for social dominance, displays of aggression, and avoidance of conflict. Other instances of “homosexuality” in animals can be attributed to their being misled by scent or suffering some physical abnormality. In any case, it is rare to find an animal that displays long\-term homosexual behavior. Homosexual behavior in animals is considered anomalous in any species. (See Shlemon , Alan, "Does Homosexual Behavior in Animals Mean It's Natural for Humans?" pub. 3/8/2012, www.str.org/w/does\-homosexual\-behavior\-in\-animals\-mean\-it\-s\-natural\-for\-humans\-, accessed 7/28/2021\.) “Homosexuality” among animals in nature is not a lifestyle choice. Animals do not operate within any moral context and [do not “sin.”](do-animals-sin.html) However, human beings are not the same as animals. Men and women were made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27\). All other creatures of creation were not. Animals are not accountable to God for their actions. Men and women are. Because animals were not made in the image of God, we cannot look at them as examples of how to live our lives. The Bible is clear that homosexuality is a sin (1 Corinthians 6:9–10\). Animals are not going to be condemned by God because of their actions. But sinful humans will be (Romans 3:23; John 1:8\). Animals do not have a conscience or an innate knowledge of right and wrong. Humans do. Animals do not have the ability to make moral choices, for they function primarily on a survival instinct. The fact that some people appeal to the animal kingdom in order to justify their iniquity is telling. Such appeals deride humanity and dishonor God, who has made us [in His image and likeness](image-of-God.html). Animal behavior does not change the Word we have been given or the nature of God who defines good and evil.
Why is praying for others important?	Answer Praying for others—and this applies to [prayer](types-of-prayer.html) in general—is an easy thing to question. Why should we pray if God already has our best interests at heart? He is wiser than we are, by a long shot. Why does He need us to pray? Wouldn’t it be better to just trust Him to do what’s best? It’s true that God is wiser than we are (1 Corinthians 1:25\) and that we should trust Him (Proverbs 3:5–6\). And it’s for those very reasons that we need to pray, because praying for ourselves and praying for others is something God commands us to do. Praying for others is recommended as a source of healing (James 5:16\) along with confession. James tells us that “the prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working.” Now, does this mean that only the prayers of good people are heard? No, the word righteous in the Bible refers to those who have faith and are covered by Jesus’ righteousness (Romans 5:1; 3:21–22; 4:2–3\). Jesus told us to pray [in His name](pray-Jesus-name.html) (John 14:13–14\). If you do something “in the name of” someone else, it means you do it according to his wishes. Therefore, knowing God and understanding Him is an integral part of prayer. Now we begin to see why praying for others is important. Prayer is not about getting everything we want or keeping others safe, healthy, and problem\-free at all times. Prayer is a powerful way in which we get to know our Savior, and it also brings believers together. Effective prayer for others will bring us closer to God, because effective prayer is based on a knowledge of His will (1 John 5:14\). It will also bring us closer to others, as we learn more about them and focus on their needs. For most of us, praying for others tends to run along these lines: Lord, provide my friend with a job, a car that runs, good health, and safety. If we really know someone well, we might pray for his or her marriage or other relationships. There is nothing wrong with praying for these things; in fact, the Bible encourages us to pray for everything and, doing so, quell our anxieties (Philippians 4:6\). It is right to pray for health and for good things to happen (3 John 1:2\). However, most of the prayers recorded in the Bible are of another type. When Jesus was praying for others, He prayed for their faith (Luke 22:32\), He prayed against temptation in their lives (Luke 22:40\), He prayed for their unity (John 17:11\), and He prayed for their sanctification (John 17:17\). Paul prayed for the salvation of the lost (Romans 10:1\); he prayed that the brothers would stay on the right path (2 Corinthians 13:7\); he prayed that believers would be strengthened by the Spirit, rooted and grounded in love, able to comprehend God’s love, and filled with the fullness of God (Ephesians 3:14–19\). These are all prayers for spiritual blessings; they are all “in Jesus’ name” and according to the Father’s will—prayers that are guaranteed to find a “yes” in Christ (2 Corinthians 1:20\). Praying for others is important because it fulfills a New Testament command. We are to pray for all people (1 Timothy 2:1\). We are to pray for government leaders (1 Timothy 2:2\). We are to pray for the unsaved (1 Timothy 2:4\). We are to pray for fellow Christians (Ephesians 6:18\). We are to pray for ministers of the gospel (Ephesians 6:19–20\). We are to pray for the persecuted church (Hebrews 13:3\). Praying for others gets our focus off of ourselves and onto the needs around us. As we “carry each other’s burdens,” we “will fulfill the law of Christ” (Galatians 6:2\). Begin praying for others today and help to build up the body of Christ.
What does the Bible say about saving for retirement?	Answer The Bible does not specifically mention saving for retirement, per se, and it doesn’t mention 401(k) plans, IRAs, or the like. However, the Bible does speak of saving money, and it gives us clear principles to guide us in whether Christians should save for retirement. The issues of [retirement](retirement-Christian.html) and [investment in stocks](Christian-stock-market.html) have been addressed in separate articles. This article will focus primarily on the issue of whether Christians should save money for perceived future needs, such as when no longer generating income. The Bible speaks positively about providing for oneself financially through work. In 2 Thessalonians 3, Paul gives a warning against idleness. He reminds the Thessalonians of how he and his companions worked to provide for themselves while serving the church, despite the fact that they had a right to receive monetary support from the church. In verse 10 Paul says the rule is that “the one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.” It seems, then, that we are responsible to provide financially for ourselves when possible. The question becomes whether we should save money during our working years in order to provide for ourselves during our retirement years, when we are unable to generate income. The book of Proverbs has many admonitions that promote saving money and other resources. Proverbs 21:20 says, “The wise store up choice food and olive oil, but fools gulp theirs down.” Proverbs 6:6–8 uses an insect as an illustration of the need to save: “Go to the ant, you sluggard; consider its ways and be wise! It has no commander, no overseer or ruler, yet it stores its provisions in summer and gathers its food at harvest.” Recognizing a future need and making provisions for it today is a biblically wise thing to do. Financial stewardship now, including saving for retirement, can enable us to better serve others later. We see Joseph exemplify the wisdom of saving in Genesis 41 when he stored provisions for the prophesied famine to come. We could even say that God’s command to the Israelites to gather enough manna on the sixth day to provide for both Friday and Saturday is a form of saving for a future need (see Exodus 16\). Of course, “some of the people went out on the seventh day to gather it, but they found none” (verse 27\). In their failure to plan ahead and save, they went hungry. On the other side, we have passages like Matthew 6:25–34 in which Jesus encourages us not to be worried for tomorrow or to seek after the things of the world. Later, Jesus tells the parable of the rich fool, who had such an abundance of crops that he planned to build a larger barn to store up provisions for himself so that he could “say to \[himself], ‘You have plenty of grain laid up for many years. Take life easy; eat, drink and be merry’” (Luke 12:19\). “But God said to him, ‘You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?’” (verse 20\). Jesus concludes with this application: “This is how it will be with whoever stores up things for themselves but is not rich toward God” (verse 21\). The issue in both passages seems to be one of heart. Jesus is not speaking against saving now for needs in the future. What He is talking about is where our hearts should be focused. We are to value the things that God values, trust in His provision instead of our own wealth, and also live wisely. Christians are wise to examine their current spending patterns and their perceived future financial needs. When considering how to save for retirement, it is good to pray over the matter, search the Scriptures on the appropriate use of money, and meet with a financial adviser. Saving is wise, and trusting God is wise. As we save for retirement, we recognize that the goal is not a selfish enjoyment of a lavish life after years of work. The goal is not even self\-sufficiency, since our dependence is always on God. The goal is to exercise godly wisdom in providing for our needs in future years and having enough to continue giving to others. Our trust is not in government programs or 401(k)s or individual retirement accounts. Our hearts are set on things above, where our true treasure is. Ultimately, our money belongs to God and is directed for His purposes.
What are tarot cards?	Answer Tarot cards are associated with [divination](Bible-divination.html)—unlocking the secrets of the future by occult, supernatural means. Divination is strictly prohibited in the Bible. Tarot cards come in a deck of 78 individual cards. They were developed about 600 years ago for gaming. However, some mystics, psychics, and occultists began to use the cards for divination, and today the cards and the ability to “read” them are seen as elements of fortune\-telling. To receive a tarot reading is to attempt to find out things about one’s life or future through the [occult](occult.html). Usually, the practice of reading tarot cards starts with the questioner cutting the pack of cards or sometimes just touching it. The psychic or card reader then deals out some cards, face down, into a pattern, called a “spread,” on the table. As the cards are overturned, the psychic or reader constructs a narrative based on the cards’ meanings and their position on the table. Obviously, reading tarot cards places a heavy emphasis on fate, “hidden knowledge,” and [superstition](superstitions.html). God warned His people, the Israelites, against divination when they were on the verge of entering the Promised Land. He lists divination among such evils as child sacrifice and casting spells in Deuteronomy 18:9–12\. Leviticus 19:26 puts is succinctly: “Do not practice divination or seek omens.” Tarot card reading definitely falls within the scope of this prohibition. In some cases, tarot card reading can be guided by demons. In Acts 16, Paul meets a fortune teller, a slave, who earned her masters a lot of money by fortune\-telling (verse 16\). The Bible attributes her ability to having a demonic spirit, which Paul was able to cast out of her by the name of Jesus Christ (verse 18\). The Bible does not mention the tools the slave girl used to tell the future, but, whether tea leaves or dice or lots or cards of some type, the items used in that context brought honor to demonic spirits. The spiritual dimension of our world is real, and it is not to be taken lightly. The Bible tells us that Satan seeks to destroy us. “Be alert and of sober mind. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour” (1 Peter 5:8\). Lions are not to be toyed with. Solomon, the wisest person ever, offered this wisdom about knowing the future in Ecclesiastes 7:14: “When times are good, be happy; but when times are bad, consider this: God has made the one as well as the other. Therefore, no one can discover anything about their future.” And in Ecclesiastes 8:7 he writes this: “Since no one knows the future, who can tell someone else what is to come?” Only God holds the future, and only He truly knows what will happen (Isaiah 46:10\). If you desire to have peace about your future, turn to the Lord Jesus Christ. The future is bright for those who know Him (Romans 8:17\).
Does the Bible say anything about making a second marriage a success?	Answer Only two people in the Bible are specifically said to have remarried after the death of a spouse: Abraham to Keturah (Genesis 25:1\) and Ruth to Boaz (Ruth 4:13\). In neither case does the Bible describe the quality of the second marriage. The Bible nowhere depicts a person getting remarried after a divorce. But, whether a second marriage follows a [divorce](divorced-remarry.html) or the [death of a spouse](remarriage-death.html), there are biblical principles that apply to making a second marriage a success. Whether it is a first, second, or third marriage, husbands are to sacrificially love their wives (Ephesians 5:25\) and wives are to graciously submit to their husbands (Ephesians 5:22\). A husband and his wife are to view the marriage as permanent and inseparable aside from death (Matthew 19:6\). Husbands and wives are to love one another, forgive one another, and seek to respect and understand one another (Ephesians 5:33; 1 Peter 3:7\). Second marriages often result in [blended families](blended-families.html), and that itself can produce a lot of stress. The [leave and cleave](leave-and-cleave.html) principle is crucially important. The marriage is to take priority over all other familial relationships, as only in marriage are two people [one flesh](one-flesh-marriage.html). The conflicts that often arise within a blended family must be dealt with in unity. It is very important that husbands and wives in second marriages do not compare their new spouses with their prior spouses. Doing so leads to nothing but bitterness, jealousy, and unrealistic expectations. A new spouse is not the same person as the prior spouse and should not be expected to be. Whether the prior marriage was amazing or terrible, the emotions and pains should not be transferred to the second marriage. Above all, the key to making a second marriage a success is to commit the marriage to God and rely on Him for the grace and strength that are needed. A marriage is intended to illustrate Christ and the church (Ephesians 5:29–32\). Only through Christ can a marriage be all that God intends it to be. Also, in any marriage, when difficulties arise, couples should seek wise counsel from a pastor and/or Christian counselor (Proverbs 15:22\). Understanding what God says about marriage and submitting the marriage to Him is the key to make any marriage a success.

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.