prompt
stringlengths 0
158
| response
stringlengths 14
40.2k
|
|---|---|
Does the Bible require the death penalty for homosexuality?
|
Answer
After the June 2016 terrorist attack by an Islamic extremist against a gay night club in Orlando, Florida, some have claimed that Christians are just as guilty as the terrorist because, after all, the Bible pronounces the death penalty against homosexuals. It is true that in Leviticus 20:13 the Bible says, “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.” So, does the Bible require us today to put homosexuals to death?
It is crucial to understand that Jesus fulfilled the Law (Matthew 5:17–18\). Romans 10:4 says that Christ is the end of the Law. Ephesians 2:15 says that Jesus set aside the Law with its commands and regulations. Galatians 3:25 says, now that faith has come, we are no longer under the guardianship of the Law. The civil and ceremonial aspects of the Old Testament Law were for an earlier time. The Law’s [purpose](Mosaic-Law.html) was completed with the perfect and complete sacrifice of Jesus Christ. So, no, the Bible does not command that homosexuals should be put to death in this day and age.
Also important to understand is that the civil laws within the Mosaic Law were meant for Israel under a theocracy. God’s chosen people, living in the Promised Land, following God as their King, were to adhere to a system of civil laws with divinely prescribed punishments. The priests taught the laws, the rulers enforced the laws, and the judges meted out punishments as necessary. The rule of Leviticus 20:13, “They are to be put to death,” was given to duly appointed government officials, not to ordinary citizens or [vigilantes](Christian-vigilante.html). The civil laws of the Old Testament were never intended to apply to other cultures or other times. There’s a reason why the nightclub attacker was not Jewish or Christian. Jews and Christians understand the intent and limits of the Old Covenant Law. By contrast, the Koran does not qualify its command to kill homosexuals, and many Muslims see that command as enforceable today.
Another consideration is that the Old Testament Law did not allow for vigilantism. One of the reasons for the [cities of refuge](cities-of-refuge.html) was to protect those accused of murder until they could receive a fair trial. The Mosaic Law said that only civil government was allowed to implement capital punishment, and that only after a fair trial with at least two witnesses (Deuteronomy 17:6\). So, even during the time the Old Testament Law was in effect, the mass murder of homosexuals by a vigilante was not what the Law prescribed.
So, the Bible no longer requires the death penalty for homosexuality. But the question still arises as to why the death penalty was required in the Old Testament Law in the first place. The answer is this: all sin is an affront to a holy God. God hates all sin. And while God only required a civilly administered death penalty for some sins, all sins are ultimately worthy of death (Romans 6:23\) and eternal separation from God. The Bible describes homosexuality as an [abomination](abomination.html), an immoral perversion of God’s created order. The purity of God’s people in the Promised Land was vitally important, as was the continuance of bloodlines (one of which would lead to the Messiah). That is why God demanded the death penalty for those who engaged in homosexual intercourse.
Homosexuality is still immoral and unnatural. But we are no longer under the ancient Jewish system of governance. In terms of obtaining forgiveness from God through faith in Jesus Christ, homosexuality is no greater sin than any other. Through Christ, any sin can be forgiven. Salvation is available to everyone by faith (John 3:16\). And when that salvation is received, the indwelling Holy Spirit will provide the means to overcome sin through a new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17\).
|
What is the Antiochian Orthodox Church?
|
Answer
The Antiochian Orthodox Church, more formally called the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and All the East, is a self\-governing church within [Eastern Orthodoxy](Eastern-Orthodox-church.html). The Antiochian Orthodox Church is different from the Syriac Orthodox Church (also called the Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and All the East), which is part of Oriental Orthodoxy.
Being independent, the Antiochian Orthodox Church has its own patriarch (religious overseer) and patriarchate (ecclesiastical jurisdiction). The Antiochian Orthodox Church is headquartered in Damascus, Syria, although its former base was in Antioch. Dioceses outside of Syria are located in Australia, Brazil, Iran, Lebanon, Turkey, the U.S., and elsewhere (the U.S. archdiocese is self\-ruled). According to the World Council of Churches, the Antiochian Orthodox Church has 4\.3 million members worldwide.
The Antiochian Orthodox Church traces its beginnings to Acts 11:26: “The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.” The Antiochian Orthodox Church claims that the apostle Peter founded their church in AD 34 and that Paul joined Peter soon thereafter in [Antioch](Antioch-in-the-Bible.html). The Antiochian Orthodox Church also points to Acts 6:5, which mentions “Nicolas from Antioch” as one of the first seven deacons, as an indicator of the importance of the Antioch church in the first century. The Antiochian Orthodox Church claims an unbroken line of apostolically appointed bishops from Peter’s time to now.
The doctrine and practice of the Antiochian Orthodox Church line up with those of other churches within Eastern Orthodoxy. The Antiochian Orthodox Church follows the Byzantine liturgy, although a Western or Latin Rite movement exists within the church. The Antiochian Orthodox Church observes seven sacraments, venerates [icons](religious-iconography.html), prays to Mary, the “[Mother of God](Mary-mother-God-theotokos.html),” and other saints, offers prayers for the dead, and teaches a salvation based on works (such as keeping the sacraments). These teachings are opposed to biblical doctrine. Biblical prayer is to be directed to God alone, and the Bible teaches that salvation is by grace through faith, apart from human works (Ephesians 2:8–9\). The Orthodox doctrine of salvation is “another” gospel that places the emphasis on our works rather than Christ’s (see Galatians 1:6–9\).
|
What is halakhah?
|
Answer
In Hebrew, *halakhah* means “the path that one walks,” and the writings that comprise *halakhah* refer to just that. The *halakhah* includes the laws (*mitzvah*) found in the [Torah](what-is-the-Torah.html) (*mitzvoth dˈoraita*), rabbinical law (*mitzvoth dˈrabbanan*), and revered tradition (*minhag*). In Judaism these writings provide the path for one to walk.
The most sacred of the *halakhah* are the [613 commandments](613-commandments.html) from the Torah (the first five books of the Bible). They include the Ten Commandments as well as the ceremonial and civil laws. The rabbinical *halakhah* include laws created by past rabbis to prevent people from breaking a law from the Torah; for example, some of the rabbinical laws provide specifics on what is and is not allowed to be done on the Sabbath. Rabbinical *halakhah* also includes rules governing the celebration of extra\-biblical holidays such as Chanukkah. *Minhagim* are long\-held customs whose source was expediency and not theology. *Minhagim* include the liturgies that have become customary in the various communities of Jews.
Although Judaism says all the laws should be followed, there is a hierarchy. Laws from the Torah take precedence over rabbinical laws and customs. Laws from the Torah are to be followed strictly, whereas rabbinical law can allow for more leniency. And a *minhag*, although part of the *halakhah*, varies depending on sect, geography, and time period.
The purpose of *halakhah* is to include worship of and obedience to God in everyday actions. It is part of the way Jews are set apart. Unfortunately, it’s not completely biblical. God gave the Torah, but the rest of the *halakhah* is man\-made. Although Jewish custom says He also gave Moses the [oral law](mishnah-midrash.html) to expound on the written Torah, there’s no indication in the Bible that this is so. Then to add interpretations and clarifications—not to mention extra\-scriptural customs—it’s exactly what Jesus was talking about when He lamented the heavy yoke of the Pharisees (Matthew 23:3–5\). Jesus never broke the Law of God, but He often violated man\-made rules, and that was one reason the Pharisees despised Him so (see Mark 7:5–13\).
Jews today generally view the *halakhah* as a guideline, but most don’t try to follow it religiously. Christians, of course, are [not under the Jewish Law](not-under-the-law.html), and we have no responsibility to the wider *halakhah*.
|
Why did God choose me?
|
Answer
In John 15:16 Jesus says, “You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit—fruit that will last—and so that whatever you ask in my name the Father will give you.” Ephesians 1:4 says, “He chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight.” First Peter 2:9 says, “You are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.” It is undeniable that God has chosen those who are believers in Jesus. But why? Is there something special about me that led God to choose me? The short answer is, no, God did not choose us because of anything inherent in ourselves. He chose us out of His love and mercy, and for His glory.
Ephesians 1 goes on to say, “In love he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will—to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves” (verses 5–6\). We see that God’s choosing of us is linked to His love. God’s choice is something that gives Him pleasure and brings Him praise. God’s choosing of us highlights His gracious character, not our merit. As we know from Ephesians 2:8–9, we are not saved because of our good works but solely because of God’s grace. We are all sinners who fail to measure up to God’s glory (Romans 3:23\). Apart from Jesus all deserve death (Romans 6:23\). But in Jesus we can have life. It is not because of who we are that God chooses us but because of who He is. As 1 Peter 2:9 indicates, the proper response to being chosen by God is to declare God’s praise and give Him worship.
God also chose us so that we could join in His work in the world. Ephesians 2:10 says God has prepared good works in advance for us to do. Jesus spoke of His followers’ bearing fruit that would last. Ephesians 1:4 links election to being holy and blameless in God’s sight. God chose us because He has a purpose in mind for our lives.
The Old Testament focuses on Israel as [God’s chosen people](Gods-chosen-people.html) (Deuteronomy 7:6\). In Deuteronomy 7:7–9 Moses tells the children of Israel why God chose them: “The Lord did not set his affection on you and choose you because you were more numerous than other peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples. But it was because the Lord loved you and kept the oath he swore to your ancestors that he brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the land of slavery, from the power of Pharaoh king of Egypt. Know therefore that the Lord your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commandments.” Once again, we see that God’s choice is not based on the merit of a particular person or nation, but solely on His love and faithfulness.
Just as God chose Israel out of love and not because of something impressive about the nation, God chooses us out of love. As 1 John 3:1 says, “See what great love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God!” Why did God choose me? Because of His great love, His lavish love.
The doctrine of [predestination](predestination.html) is difficult to grasp. We naturally tend to think that those who are predestined are chosen because of some merit of their own. After all, that is how we tend to choose. We remember picking teams for P.E.—everyone chooses the tallest, fastest, most athletic, most popular, etc., to be on their team. But God is not like that. His criterion for choosing is not based on us. “Consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world . . . God chose what is weak in the world . . . God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not . . . so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. And because of him you are in Christ Jesus” (1 Corinthians 1:26–30, ESV).
Why did God choose me? He chose you to demonstrate His character. He chose you that you may know Him and love Him. He chose you because He is love (1 John 4:8\), He is gracious, He is merciful, and He has a glorious plan for you.
|
Who resurrected Jesus?
|
Answer
In Acts 2:24, Peter says that “God raised \[Jesus] from the dead.” So that’s the basic answer. God resurrected Jesus. As we read more Scripture, that basic answer becomes more nuanced.
The Bible indicates that all three Persons of [the Trinity](Trinity-Bible.html) were involved in Jesus’ resurrection. Galatians 1:1 says that the Father raised Jesus from the dead. First Peter 3:18 says that the Spirit raised Jesus from the dead (see also Romans 1:4, and note that Romans 8:11 clearly says that God will resurrect believers “through His Spirit”). And in John 2:19 Jesus predicts that He will raise Himself from the dead (see also John 10:18\). So, when we answer the question of who resurrected Jesus, we can say God did. And by that we can mean it was the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
It may seem puzzling how Jesus could be said to raise Himself. How can a dead man have any say in his own resurrection? The answer is that Jesus was more than a man who died; He was the eternal Son of God incarnate. Wicked men could kill His body, but they could not change His eternal nature or diminish His divine power. In John 10:17–18 Jesus says something that no mere mortal could ever say: “I lay down my life—only to 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 authority to take it up again.” No one else in the history of the world has ever had the authority both to lay down his life *and* to raise it up again.
Furthermore, Jesus said, “I am the resurrection and the life” (John 11:25\). He claimed to be the resurrection Himself; He has absolute authority over life and death (Revelation 1:18\). Jesus is God. He could say He would raise up His body on the third day because He, being God, has power over death.
Who resurrected Jesus from the dead? God did, and by that we mean all three Persons of the Trinity were involved. All three Persons of the Trinity participated in creation (1 Corinthians 8:6; Genesis 1:1–2\). All three are involved in salvation (John 3:6, 16\). And all three are responsible for the [resurrection of Christ](resurrection-Christ-important.html) Jesus.
|
What is Cru (Campus Crusade for Christ or CCCI), and what are their beliefs?
|
Answer
Cru is a non\-profit, evangelical Christian organization committed to the Great Commission and “winning people to faith in Jesus Christ, building them in their faith and sending them to win and build others” (from their website). Cru’s primary goal is to help the body of Christ to do evangelism and discipleship through various creative approaches.
Cru was originally called Campus Crusade for Christ International (CCCI) in the United States. In 2011 they changed the name to Cru in an effort to disassociate from the negative connotations of the historical [Crusades](Christian-crusades.html), which were military conquests by European Catholics intended to reclaim the Holy Land from Muslims in the 11th to 13th centuries. The new name, Cru, better suits their focus as well, since they reach out beyond college campuses.
Founded in 1951 by [Bill and Vonette Bright](Bill-Bright.html) as a ministry for university students at UCLA in California, Cru seeks to create strategies and structure so that everyone everywhere knows at least one person who truly follows Jesus. Over the last several decades, Cru has expanded its ministry to adult professionals, athletes, and high school students, in addition to reaching college students. Cru has 2,400 campus ministries reaching out to students, partnerships with over 2,000 local churches to help the homeless, and athletic outreaches in 85 nations.
Cru is also responsible for The Jesus Film Project, a global media outreach begun in 1979\. The Jesus Film is a full\-length feature film based on the Gospel of Luke. The movie was filmed at 202 locations in Israel, incorporating a cast of more than 5,000\. This film has become the most\-translated motion picture in history—more than 1,400 languages—and it has been shown in virtually every country. To date, The Jesus Film Project has exposed 6\.5 billion people to the gospel, with 230 million of those indicating a decision for Christ.
According to Cru.org, “The sole basis of our beliefs is the Bible, God’s infallible written Word, the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments. We believe that it was uniquely, verbally and fully inspired by the Holy Spirit and that it was written without error (inerrant) in the original manuscripts. It is the supreme and final authority in all matters on which it speaks.” \[Source: [Cru’s Statement of Faith](https://www.cru.org/about/statement-of-faith.html)]
Cru’s world headquarters is in Orlando, Florida. The organization publishes a number of books, booklets, digital media, and other materials for ministry use and have developed apps to help the average person spread the gospel through social media. [*The Four Spiritual Laws*](four-spiritual-laws.html), a booklet by Cru founder Bill Bright, has been distributed over one hundred million times since 1952\. Learn more about Cru at [Cru.org](https://www.cru.org/about).
|
What is the Ukrainian Orthodox Church?
|
Answer
There are three groups in Ukraine that use the name “Ukrainian Orthodox Church,” but only one is officially recognized by [Eastern Orthodoxy](Eastern-Orthodox-church.html). That one is called the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, and it is under the umbrella of the Russian Orthodox Church. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) is considered a self\-governing entity within that patriarchate and enjoys a broad autonomy. According to a 2015 study by the Democratic Initiatives Fund, over 67 percent of Ukraine’s 43 million population consider themselves Orthodox Christians, with about 21 percent belonging to the Moscow Patriarchate; according to Ukraine’s State Department on Religions and Nationalities, there are over 18,000 Orthodox parishes in Ukraine as of the beginning of 2016\.
The Ukrainian Orthodox Church traces its presence in Ukraine to the missionary activity of the apostle Andrew. According to the UOC, Andrew was traveling down the Dnieper River when he prophesied that a great city would be built upon a certain site—the city of Kiev is now situated there. In the 10th century, Orthodox churches and monasteries were built in Ukraine under the auspices of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Oversight was later moved to Moscow, and that began a long and rocky history between the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and the Russian Orthodox Church. Things were further complicated when the Communists who took over Russia began executing Orthodox clergy in both Russia and Ukraine.
In the first half of the 20th century, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the United States of America was formed when two separate groups of Ukrainian Orthodox faithful merged. Meanwhile, back in Ukraine, tensions with Russia—specifically, the fight over Crimea—continue to strain ecclesiastical ties. There is a movement in Ukraine to unite the various factions of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and seek to have it declared completely independent of the Russian Orthodox Church.
The doctrine and practice of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church follow those of other churches within Eastern Orthodoxy. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church observes seven sacraments; venerates icons; prays to Mary, the “[Mother of God](Mary-mother-God-theotokos.html),” and other saints; prays for the dead; and teaches a grace\-plus\-works road to salvation. The Bible is clear that salvation is all of grace, apart from human works (Romans 11:6\), and that means Orthodox soteriology is “another” gospel to be avoided (see Galatians 1:6–9\).
|
What does the Bible say about cryonics or cryogenics?
|
Answer
Cryonics, or cryogenics, is the process of storing human bodies at ultra\-low temperatures in an effort to preserve them for long periods of time. Cryogenics’ supposed goal is to keep the body intact until medical science progresses enough to cure whatever disease had afflicted the body and restore the person to full health. The cost of cryogenic freezing is astronomical—far more than major organ transplants—because of the expense of keeping the stored body sufficiently cold for a long time.
Cooling a body using cryogenics without destroying it is difficult. Legally, the process of cryonics may not be performed until the subject is clinically dead—i.e., the heart and brain have ceased functioning. The reason for this regulation is that, by current medical standards, the process of cryogenic preservation renders a body permanently incapable of sustaining life. Cryogenic freezing would kill a living person.
Cryonics\-based businesses such as the Alcor Life Extension Foundation have gone to great lengths to placate those who object to cryogenics on moral grounds. Pro\-cryogenics groups often point to resurrections in the Bible and scriptural instances where life is chosen over death, even when death would send a person to heaven. Some distinguish between “clinical death” and “absolute death.” Also, cryogenics advocates may downplay the idea that persons undergoing cryonics are seeking immortality.
The arguments for cryogenics have some level of scriptural and factual support. Life, as a gift from God, is to be treasured and protected (Exodus 20:13; Deuteronomy 30:19\). Medicine has advanced enough that some persons who would have been abandoned as dead two hundred years ago can be healed today. There are legitimate theological questions about the precise instant that a person becomes “really dead” as opposed to just “clinically dead.”
At the same time, most arguments in favor of cryonics don’t pass the “smell test,” and for good reason. The hope of bodily restoration through cryonics seems to be a distraction from the hope of ultimate restoration with God. Analogies to the miracles of Jesus miss the point of what miracles are all about. Certainly, there is nothing wrong with seeking advancements in medical technology. However, a miracle and a medical advance are two different things. Just because God has done something does not mean man can expect to duplicate His results through future technology.
The costs associated with cryogenics are significant. Given that reversing cryogenic suspension is totally unproved—in fact, impossible by modern standards—the extravagant cost raises questions about financial priorities. Death must come to each of us, so the tremendous expense of cryogenics seems inappropriate in light of the many other financial needs of humanity.
Cryogenics cannot promise restoration. No one knows if science will ever allow a cryogenically frozen body to be restored to life. While there’s nothing wrong with attempting long\-odds cures, cryonics represents a different level of unlikelihood. As far as modern medical science is concerned, cryonics renders the body incapable of supporting life. No technology, current or on the horizon, can unfreeze a body without destroying it. Successful thawing from cryopreservation remains science fiction.
In other words, cryonics is the longest of long shots, and support for cryogenics is rooted in blind faith. The Bible defines physical death as the moment when the soul leaves the body (James 2:26; 2 Corinthians 5:8\). In essence, those who support cryonics must believe that the only requirement for human life is a functioning body—the existence or location of the soul is of no account. According to this belief, once the body is thawed, repaired, and “jump\-started,” the subject will be just as alive as he was prior to the freezing.
Much of the motivation behind cryonics, overtly or not, is a desire for immortality. Cryogenics supporters are not merely seeking relief from fatal injuries or diseases. By and large, they’re trying to replace God’s eternity with man’s eternity. Cryonics tempts man with the idea that science is our ultimate healer and [eternal life](what-is-eternal-life.html) can be found in cryogenic storage. The Bible teaches that immortality is found only in God and that perpetual physical existence in a fallen world is not God’s plan for anyone.
Nothing about the process of cryogenics is indisputably unbiblical, per se. It is not wrong to freeze a human body after death. Some of the basic assumptions behind cryonics, however, are at odds with fundamental Christian beliefs. In the end, cryogenic storage of humans is most likely a distracting waste of time, emotion, and money.
|
What is the Oriental Orthodox Church?
|
Answer
The Oriental Orthodox Church is a family of six self\-governing church bodies in the East. The Oriental Orthodox Church includes the [Syriac Orthodox Church](Syriac-Orthodox-Church.html), the [Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria (Egypt)](Coptic-Christianity.html), the [Ethiopian Orthodox Church](Ethiopian-Orthodox-Church.html), the Eritrean Orthodox Church, the [Armenian Apostolic Church](Armenian-Orthodox-Church.html), and the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church (also called the Indian Orthodox Church). Each of these churches is autonomous while maintaining communion with each other.
Each self\-governing church in Oriental Orthodoxy has as its highest office a patriarchate. The patriarch of the Coptic Orthodox Church in Alexandria is known as the Pope; however, the title carries no special authority over the other patriarchs. The Coptic patriarch is a “first among equals” and chairs the general council of Oriental Orthodox churches.
Most of the 60 million members of the Oriental Orthodox Church live in Ethiopia, Egypt, Eritrea, Armenia, India, Syria, and Lebanon. Oriental Orthodox churches also exist in North America, Australia, Europe, and other parts of the world.
The Oriental Orthodox Church is separate from the [Eastern Orthodox Church](Eastern-Orthodox-church.html). Eastern Orthodoxy separated from Roman Catholicism at the [Great Schism](great-schism.html) in AD 1054\. But the Oriental Orthodox Church had become a separate branch of Christianity much earlier than that, in AD 451\.
The Oriental Orthodox Church differs from other churches in that the Oriental Church recognizes only the first three ecumenical councils ([Nicea](council-of-Nicea.html), [Constantinople](Council-of-Constantinople.html), and [Ephesus](Council-of-Ephesus.html)), rejecting the other four of the ecumenical church councils. The point of doctrine that led to the formation of the Oriental Orthodox Church was this part of the creed of the [Council of Chalcedon](council-of-Chalcedon.html): “Christ . . . Only\-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son.” Most Christians accepted the council’s statement that Christ has two natures (human and divine) within one Person. Church leaders who rejected this teaching broke away to form the Oriental Orthodox Church. A distinguishing mark of Oriental Orthodoxy is their emphasis on the one nature of Christ, although they reject [Eutychian monophysitism](monophysitism.html). The Oriental Orthodox Church prefers the label non\-Chalcedonian or miaphysite over monophysite.
Politics also played a role in the formation of the Oriental Orthodox Church. Pro\-Chalcedonian Emperor Justinian I attempted to replace all church bishops with pro\-Chalcedonian clergy. The groups that would eventually form the Oriental Orthodox Church refused to cooperate with Justinian’s move. In recent years, the Oriental Orthodox and the Eastern Orthodox churches have dialogued to discuss whether the split between the two groups was really one of theology or mere terminology.
Unfortunately, the Oriental Orthodox Church holds to some false doctrine. They observe seven [sacraments](ordinances-sacraments.html), and they teach these sacraments are the means by which believers receive grace. Four of the sacraments (baptism, confirmation, Eucharist, and confession) are required for salvation, according to the Oriental Orthodox Church. Teaching that religious works are a means to receive grace amounts to a works\-based salvation, in violation of the Bible’s teaching that salvation is all of grace, apart from human works (Romans 11:6\). God forgives the debt of sin freely, for the sake of Christ (Luke 7:41–42; Romans 3:24\). The Oriental Orthodox requirement of keeping the sacraments is “another” gospel and not the true gospel (see Galatians 1:6–9\).
|
What are Khazar Jews / Khazars?
|
Answer
The Khazars of the Middle Ages have been the subject of many theories linking them in some way to the Jews and to biblical prophecy. Many of the theories involving the origin of Khazar Jews and their hypothetical diaspora are conspiratorial and promoted by radical groups to advance racist ideas.
What we know about the Khazars is this: the Khazars were of Turkish and Mongol descent and in medieval times lived in the western part of the Turkish Empire. In the late sixth century AD, the various tribes of the Khazars united and gained independence from the Turks. The Khazar Khanate (the area ruled by the Khazars) remained sovereign for about the next three hundred years. What makes the Khazars unique in European history is the conversion of their King Bulan to a form of Judaism, along with the Khazar ruling class, about AD 740\. A Khazar Jew could be either an ethnic Khazar (of Turkish or Mongol blood) who became a proselyte to Judaism or an ethnic Jew who lived in Khazaria.
By the second half of the 8th century, the Khazar Empire had reached the peak of its power. The borders of Khazaria extended from the northern shore of the Black Sea (including Crimea) and the Dnieper River in the west, to the Aral Sea in the east. The Khazars were hemmed in by the Caucasus Mts. to the south and by the Rus and Bulgars to the north. The realm of the Khazars covered parts of modern\-day Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan. The capital of Khazaria was Itil, located near the mouth of the Volga River. The Khazar Empire was important in world history for keeping Arab invaders south of the Caucasus and thus preventing Islam from spreading further north into Europe. As Charles Martel kept the Muslims at bay in Western Europe, the Khazars repelled them from Eastern Europe.
The origin of the Khazars is shrouded in mystery, and some people have come up with their own ideas to account for the existence of Khazaria. One theory is that the Khazars are actually Jews—the ten “[lost tribes](lost-tribes-Israel.html) ” of Israel somehow found their way to Eastern Europe, and that explains their later “conversion” to Rabbinic Judaism.
Another theory says just the opposite: the Khazars are Turks with no Jewish blood at all. After Khazaria fell, the Khazar converts to Judaism supposedly emigrated to Poland, Germany, and other parts of Europe where they maintained a nominal Jewish identity and became known as Jews. According to the theory, the [Ashkenazi Jews](Ashkenazi-Jews.html) have been wrongly identified as Semitic, when they are in reality Turkish. This theory is often propounded by those who themselves claim to be “true Jews,” such as those in the [British Israelism](British-Israelism.html) camp, resulting in demands for Jews in Israel to give up their land (as Turks, they have no right to the land) and excusing anti\-Semitism (which cannot truly exist, since the Khazar Jews are false Jews).
Neither of these theories has any basis in reality. No credible historical or genetic evidence exists to substantiate the theory that the Khazars were biological Hebrews or that modern Jews did not descend from Abraham. Another theory—that the influx of “Khazar Jews” into Israel in 1948 fulfilled the biblical prophecy of [Gog and Magog](Gog-Magog.html) (see Ezekiel 38–39\)—sees the Israeli fight for independence as the Khazar seizure of the land of Israel from the Muslims. That theory is equally baseless.
The whole history of the Khazar Jews might never be known. But here is a likely scenario: some ethnic Jews lived in Khazaria (and many other places) during the Middle Ages. In or near 740, a Khazarian king converted to Judaism, for personal, practical, or political reasons, and he brought some of his subjects with him. When the power of Khazaria diminished and the empire fell, many Jews—both ethnic and proselytes—left that area and, settling in Jewish communities elsewhere, merged with the local population. Such intermarriage between ethnic Jews and Gentile proselytes does not mean that Jews of Khazaric background are any less Jewish than other Ashkenazi. The Bible records several instances of Gentiles being brought into Jewish culture: [Rahab](life-Rahab.html) and [Ruth](life-Ruth.html) being clear examples (see Matthew 1:5\).
|
What is the Christian flag, and what does it symbolize?
|
Answer
The Christian flag has a white field with a blue canton (a rectangular area in the upper left corner). Inside the canton is a red Latin cross. The Christian flag is designed to be universal, representing all of Christianity without regard to denomination. The Christian flag is often displayed in [Protestant churches](what-is-a-Protestant.html) and Christian schools in North America, Latin America, and Africa.
The origin of the Christian flag can be traced to a Rally Day meeting at Brighton Chapel in Coney Island on September 26, 1897\. When the scheduled speaker did not show up, Sunday School Superintendent Charles Overton stepped in to give an impromptu lesson. Since there was an American flag close to the podium, Overton discussed patriotic symbolism. As he spoke, he had an idea: why should there not also be a Christian flag with spiritual symbolism? Overton designed the flag on the spot, giving his audience a verbal picture of what such a Christian flag might look like. A few years later, Overton enlisted the aid of Ralph Diffendorfer, secretary to the Methodist Young People’s Missionary Movement, to actually produce a flag based on Overton’s idea.
We can interpret the colors and symbols of the Christian flag as follows: the field is white, representing peace, purity, and holiness. The blue canton is emblematic of loyalty and truth (and possibly of heaven or the waters of baptism). The cross in the center of the blue canton is, of course, a symbol of Christ and His work of salvation; the cross is red, typical of Christ’s shed blood. Taken together, the symbols of the Christian flag portray the basics of the faith: Jesus Christ, the Holy One, died on the cross to grant us salvation, and we serve Him in fidelity and holiness, as He is faithful to us.
A salute to the Christian flag may be accompanied by a pledge:
“I pledge allegiance to the Christian flag and to the Savior for whose kingdom it stands, one Savior, crucified, risen, and coming again with life and liberty for all who believe.”
Some use a [theologically liberal](liberal-Christian-theology.html) version of the pledge, which plays down the gospel element and emphasizes ecumenism:
“I pledge allegiance to the Christian flag and to the Savior for whose kingdom it stands, one brotherhood, uniting all mankind, in service and love.”
Others use an affirmation of loyalty to the Christian flag:
“I affirm my loyalty to the Christian flag and to our Savior whose cross it bears, one spiritual fellowship under that cross, uniting us in service and love.”
And still others pledge their allegiance specifically to the cross on the Christian flag:
“I pledge allegiance to the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the faith for which it stands, one Savior, eternal, with mercy and grace for all.”
Famous hymn writer [Fanny Crosby](Fanny-Crosby.html) wrote a song in 1903 eulogizing the Christian flag and what it means. Here are the lyrics to “The Christian Flag! Behold It”:
The Christian Flag! behold it,
And hail it with a song,
And let the voice of millions
The joyful strain prolong,
To every clime and nation,
We send it forth today;
God speed its glorious mission,
With earnest hearts we pray.
The Christian Flag! unfurl it,
That all the world may see
The bloodstained cross of Jesus,
Who died to make us free.
The Christian Flag! unfurl it,
And o’er and o’er again,
Oh! may it bear the message,
Good will and peace to men.
The Christian Flag! God bless it!
Now throw it to the breeze,
And may it wave triumphant
O’er land and distant seas,
Till all the wide creation
Upon its folds shall gaze,
And all the world united,
Our loving Savior praise.
There is nothing sinful about displaying a Christian flag or reciting a pledge to it. Given that the Christian flag and its pledge are designed to honor the Lord Jesus, having the flag in a church or school can be a wonderful reminder of Christ and our commitment to Him. The Christian flag’s emphasis on the cross is biblical, since God, through Christ, worked “to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross” (Colossians 1:20\).
At the same time, the Bible nowhere advises us to make Christian flags or gives us wording for a pledge. Since the Christian flag is a manmade design, displaying it or pledging allegiance to it is a matter of conscience and not required of any Christian.
|
Was Hitler a Christian?
|
Answer
Unfortunately, the provocative claim that Adolf Hitler was a Christian keeps making its rounds. The claim, which is really an accusation leveled at all Christians, is fueled entirely by those with an axe to grind against religion in general and Christianity in particular. Objective historical evidence and common sense both indicate that Hitler was not, in any reasonable sense, a Christian.
Adolph Hitler’s family was Catholic, but all available sources indicate that Hitler was uninterested in Catholicism as a child. Once away from his mother’s care, Hitler never again participated in the rites of the Catholic Church. As an adult, Hitler frequently derided religion and those who practiced it. Christianity in particular, with its emphasis on love and peace, was something Hitler despised. In fact, Hitler was more attracted to Islam’s militant expansionism than to the “weakness” of Christianity. Albert Speer, Hitler’s Minister of Armaments and War Production, wrote that Hitler told him, “The Mohammedan religion . . . would have been much more compatible to us \[Germans] than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?” (Speer, Albert. *Inside the Third Reich* (New York: Avon, 1971, p. 734\).
U.S. intelligence information obtained during and after WWII shows that Hitler would have preferred to purge Germany of Christianity before the war, but he felt the church was a necessary evil. The Nazi\-led German Christian group took control of the German Evangelical Church in 1933 and demanded conformity to Hitler’s political and ideological agenda. In response to Hitler’s takeover of the national church, about one third of the clergy formed the [Confessing Church](Confessing-Church.html) in 1934\. The Confessing Church started with the goal of reforming the German Christians and bringing the church back to the basics of the gospel, but members of the Confessing Church soon realized that Hitler’s National Socialist Party was deeply anti\-Christian. The suppression of the Confessing Church and the direct persecution of its members are clear examples of Hitler’s stance on faith. Hitler was not a Christian; rather, he viewed the national church as a means of reinforcing his policies.
Hitler was strongly influenced by the anti\-Christian philosopher [Friedrich Nietzsche](Friedrich-Nietzsche.html). This influence shows in Hitler’s private remarks on religion, as related by surviving associates. Hitler described Christianity as an “absurdity,” “an invention of sick brains,” and so forth. It’s interesting to note that Hitler spoke of religion using many of the same terms as modern\-day [misotheists](misotheism-misotheist.html); yet some of these modern voices attempt to peg Hitler as a Christian.
Beyond any reasonable doubt, Hitler wasn’t any kind of “Christian” at all. A person who hates what Christianity represents, who persecutes the faithful in the church, and who espouses principles totally contrary to Christ’s teachings is clearly not a Christian. Had we no information about Hitler’s personal beliefs, we could still say that Hitler’s acts—such as murdering millions of people—cannot be blamed on Christianity. Hitler was no follower of Christ.
Those who claim Hitler was a Christian are, for the most part, attempting to disparage religion. The primary tactic in such cases is to claim that Hitler never renounced his Catholic faith and that he often made positive references to God, religion, and the church. It is true that, in public speeches and official press releases, Hitler often seemed friendly to Christianity. But we must remember that Hitler was a politician—not just a politician but a propagandist willing to sink to any level of immorality to gain power. To argue meaningfully that Hitler was a Christian, we’d have to begin by assuming that a politician bent on genocide wasn’t being dishonest or manipulative in his campaign speeches.
Hitler considered religion a necessary evil and a tool to be manipulated until after he won the war. He was not a classic atheist as were various Communist dictators, but he was not a Christian. There is no rational reason to connect Hitler to Christianity.
|
Is the account of Jesus taken from the story of Serapis Christus?
|
Answer
Some people claim that the accounts of Jesus as recorded in the New Testament are simply [recycled myths](Jesus-myth.html) borrowed from pagan folklore, such as the myth of Serapis (or Sarapis), whom some label Serapis Christus. Other mythological characters sometimes associated with the story of Christ include Osiris, [Dionysus](Jesus-Dionysus.html), Adonis, Attis, and Mithras. The allegation is that the myths of Serapis Christus et al. follow essentially the same story as the New Testament’s narrative of Jesus Christ, “proving” the New Testament writers borrowed qualities from pre\-existing deities and applied them to Christ—or “proving” that Jesus never existed. Bible\-believing Christians reject such claims.
The origin of Serapis worship is rooted in political expediency. Ptolemy I Soter, one of the generals who took over the Greek Empire after Alexander’s death, ruled Egypt from 323 BC to 282 BC. Wanting to unite the Egyptian and Greek segments of the populace under his rule, Ptolemy created a new deity that combined elements of Egyptian and Greek culture. He started with Osiris, the Egyptian god of the underworld, and added the worship of Apis, the sacred Egyptian bull. Ptolemy then Hellenized the appearance of his new Osiris\-Apis god—the Greeks wanted their gods to look like people, without animal heads. The result was Serapis, a god with long hair and a full beard who was the god of the afterlife, healing, and fertility. The cult of the composite god Serapis was never that popular in Egypt itself, but it later spread to other parts of the Roman Empire, where Serapis was also known as the patron god of sailors, the sun god, and even a replacement for Zeus, the chief god.
Those who attempt to manufacture a link between Serapis worship and Christianity base their claims on these assertions:
– *Serapis looks like Jesus.* Of course, no one knows what Jesus looked like, but the fact that Jesus probably had a beard (see Isaiah 50:6\), combined with the fact that images of Serapis show him with a beard, is enough for some to confuse the two. Using this logic, we could say that King Henry VIII was simply an invention of people retelling the myth of the Norse god Odin—since both Henry and Odin have beards.
– *Serapis healed like Jesus.* The Bible records many instances of Jesus’ healing ministry (e.g., Luke 5:17–26\), and these miracles were witnessed by scores of people. There is nothing mythological about eyewitness accounts.
– *Serapis was an immortal god of the underworld, just like Jesus.* To be more exact, Serapis was supposedly a god (Osiris) whose incarnation after death was a bull (Apis), according to the convoluted blending of Ptolemaic and Egyptian mythology. Jesus died for the sins of humanity (something Osiris never did) and was raised (as Himself, not as life\-force within a bull) for our justification (Romans 4:25\). “Seasonal resurrections” that correspond to the crop cycle have nothing to do with the sacrificial death, resurrection, and ascension of the Lord Jesus. In fact, the Osiris myth does not really contain a resurrection at all: Osiris never comes back to life but simply continues an existence in the underworld. Nothing in all of ancient literature parallels the Bible’s record of the resurrection of Christ.
– *Serapis was called “the Good Shepherd,” and so is Jesus.* The problem is, no ancient literature exists in which Serapis is ever called “Good Shepherd.”
– *Serapis was also called Christus or Chrestus, which corresponds to Jesus’ title of “*Christ*.”* Given the wide acceptance of the Serapis cult in the Greek and Roman world, it should not be surprising that the cultists would call their god the “chosen one.” But we should note that the term [*Christ*](what-does-Christ-mean.html) (or the Hebrew form, *Mashiach*) predates the origin of Serapis by hundreds of years (see Daniel 9:25 and Isaiah 61:1\).
– *The Emperor Hadrian wrote that worshipers of Serapis called themselves Christians.* The letter identifying Christians with Serapis\-worshipers was supposedly written in AD 134, but the document from which the letter comes, the *Historia Augusta* has been shown to be a forgery dating to AD 395\. Hadrian did not write the letter, and the whole argument is a sham.
No, the account of Jesus was not borrowed from the story of Serapis. Nor did the Gospel writers borrow from the myths of Mithras, Attis, or others. Jesus was a [real, historical person](did-Jesus-exist.html), and the four Gospels relate factual information about what He said and did.
Just because an event bears some similarities to a prior, fictional account does not mean that the later event never occurred. Fourteen years before the *Titanic* sank, novelist Morgan Robertson wrote of a massive ocean liner called the *Titan* that sank in the North Atlantic after striking an iceberg—in the novel, the *Titan* did not have enough lifeboats on board for all of the passengers. The fictional *Titan* and the real *Titanic* also had similar sizes, speeds, and propulsion systems. That’s a far more extensive agreement than any pagan “source material” has with the real Jesus. Yet no one can reasonably argue that what we know about the *Titanic* is just an adaptation of Robertson’s book. Eyewitness accounts and good evidence prevent us from claiming that the *Titanic* is mythical, even if there was a similar fictional story already in circulation when the *Titanic* sank. Connections between Jesus and mythical characters from His time period are far less direct. We can be confident that the biblical Jesus wasn’t cobbled together from prior pagan beliefs. The historical and archaeological evidence against such theories is strong.
|
What is the authority of the believer?
|
Answer
The authority of the believer rests on the believer’s mandate to serve the Lord. When we are in God’s will, we can move with confidence that we are doing what is right and that the Holy Spirit’s power is at work within and through us. Some ministries emphasize the authority of the believer to an unhealthy and unbiblical extent. It’s better to remember the meekness to which we are called (Titus 3:1–2; James 3:13\). Even Paul, who as an [apostle](what-is-an-apostle.html) had genuine authority over the church, did not always exert his authority: “Although in Christ I could be bold and order you to do what you ought to do, yet I prefer to appeal to you on the basis of love” (Philemon 1:8–9\).
Before we start enumerating the things that fall under the authority of the believer, we must acknowledge that, first and foremost, the believer is *under* authority. “God \[is] the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords” (1 Timothy 6:15\). And our Lord Jesus reminds us, “You also, when you have done everything you were told to do, should say, ‘We are unworthy servants; we have only done our duty’” (Luke 17:10\). The believer’s life is one of total dependence on God, as modeled by the Son of Man (see Luke 22:42 and John 5:30\).
God has appointed lesser authorities in this world to rule under Him. Parents have authority over their children (Ephesians 6:1\). Husbands have authority over their wives (Ephesians 5:22–24\). Kings have authority over their subjects (Romans 13:1–7\). The apostles had authority over the church (Acts 4:34–35; Philemon 1:3\).
Some people use the [Great Commission](great-commission.html) to teach the authority of the believer: “Jesus came to them and said, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you’” (Matthew 28:18–20\). But the authority in the passage clearly belongs to Jesus. He claims “all authority” and then tells those who fall under His authority what to do. Based on the Great Commission, the only “authority” believers possess is the authority to go into all the world, the authority to make disciples, the authority to baptize in the name of the Triune God, and the authority to teach Jesus’ commands. In the exercise of this authority, the believer is simply obeying orders.
Besides the authority to share [the gospel](what-is-the-gospel.html), the authority of the believer includes the right to be called a child of God (John 1:12\) and the authority to “approach God’s throne of grace with confidence” (Hebrews 4:16\). In all things, we remember that Christ is the Lord. “Let the one who boasts boast in the Lord” (2 Corinthians 10:17\).
Some Christians get mixed up about the authority of the believer because they take verses out of context. Matthew 10:1, for example, says, “Jesus called his twelve disciples to him and gave them authority to drive out impure spirits and to heal every disease and sickness.” Some people claim authority over demons and sickness based on this verse, overlooking the fact that Jesus was speaking to a particular group of people (“his twelve disciples”) for a particular time of ministry. Others assert they possess apostolic gifts, claiming for themselves the same authority as Peter or Paul. Some people claim authority for the believer based on Old Testament promises to Joshua (Joshua 1:3\), Gideon (Judges 6:23\), or Israel (Deuteronomy 8:18; Malachi 3:10\)—again, taking verses out of context. Other believers claim authority based on Mark 16:17–18, even though that portion of Mark’s gospel is a late addition and not original.
Paul exhorted Titus to teach the Scripture boldly, with authority (Titus 2:15\). As believers serve each other and the Lord, they should do so with confidence and the authority that comes with knowing they are doing God’s work: “If anyone speaks, they should do so as one who speaks the very words of God. If anyone serves, they should do so with the strength God provides, so that in all things God may be praised through Jesus Christ. To him be the glory and the power for ever and ever. Amen” (1 Peter 4:11\).
The authority of the believer comes from God and from God’s Word. As we are God’s ambassadors, we can speak with His authority as we share His Word, appealing to the world on behalf of Christ (2 Corinthians 5:20\). We wield the [sword of the Spirit](sword-of-the-Spirit.html), a mighty weapon forged by God for our use (Ephesians 6:17\).
|
What does the Bible say about healthcare?
|
Answer
The Bible does not address healthcare directly and of course says nothing about socialized medicine or other political issues related to modern healthcare. But the Bible is definitely [pro\-health](Bible-health.html) and encourages us to take care of our bodies. Our bodies are creations of God and, for the believer, temples of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:19–20\). Luke, who wrote over half of the New Testament, was a healthcare professional (Colossians 4:14\), and Paul once advised medical treatment (1 Timothy 5:23\). Seeking the physical wellbeing of others (and of oneself) is good and proper.
Approaches to healthcare vary, and believers have freedom regarding the healthcare options they pursue. Some people have their healthcare plans covered by their employer. Others choose to visit [holistic doctors](holistic-medicine.html) not covered by insurance. Some people focus only on catastrophic care, making sure that major medical expenses do not lead to bankruptcy. Many Christians choose to participate in care cooperatives or medical cost\-sharing programs where money is pooled and then given out when a need arises in one of the members. All of these are valid options for healthcare. The goal is to keep the body fit, as much as possible, in order to better serve and glorify the Lord.
The Bible mentions various medical treatments, all of which are what we today would consider holistic. People applied bandages to wounds (Isaiah 1:6\), used oil and wine as topical agents (James 5:14; Luke 10:34\), and used wine for stomach ailments (1 Timothy 5:23\). This doesn’t mean that modern surgery or [pharmaceuticals](Christian-prescription-drugs.html) are unbiblical, only that, when the Bible was written, those treatments had not yet been invented. There is no reason to believe that we shouldn’t use whatever methods are at our disposal to improve or correct our health. Neither is there any biblical mandate against participating in healthcare insurance plans.
It is wise to plan for the future (Proverbs 6:6–8\). “The prudent see danger and take refuge, but the simple keep going and pay the penalty” (Proverbs 27:12\). This wisdom can be applied to healthcare. Preventative healthy habits such as eating and sleeping well, drinking enough water, and doing regular exercise will steadily improve any person’s health and give him the strength to do whatever God has given him to do, be it caring for a child, writing a book, or running a company. But if we lack wisdom and let our bodies fall into disrepair, we risk sudden sickness or injury that can quickly take us out of commission.
Every believer, no matter his or her energy level, has a purpose in God’s kingdom. Healthcare is about caring for your body, your mind, and your emotions—the whole person—so you can reach your maximum ability, whatever that is. We are all different. Some are stronger and some are weaker, but all have a function. “For the body does not consist of one member but of many” (1 Corinthians 12:14\).
Taking care of health is biblical and important, for God created us as body, soul, and spirit. We must not ignore the body’s health. Healthcare, in whatever form it takes, is biblical and important, as well. Christians should be involved with preventative healthcare and make plans to deal with injuries and illnesses before they occur.
|
What is a Rotary club?
|
Answer
A Rotary club is a group of local businessmen and professionals who form part of Rotary International, a community service organization founded in Chicago in 1905\. Members of a Rotary club are called Rotarians. The purpose of a local Rotary club is to connect people who then work together to solve community problems, provide humanitarian aid, and promote goodwill and peace. Rotary clubs exist all around the world, and Rotary International has over 1\.2 million members. Their motto is “Service Above Self.”
Rotarians believe that “one profits most who serves best,” and they are committed to creating inroads with people so that opportunities to serve will arise from those connections. The Rotarian philosophy is that mutual service is the best way to create thriving businesses and societies. A Rotary club is also committed to ethical practices in business and holds high ideals for personal behavior. Rotary clubs ask four questions—the Four\-way Test—to be applied to thoughts, speech, or actions: “Is it the truth?” “Is it fair to all concerned?” “Will it build goodwill and better friendships?” “Will it be beneficial to all concerned?” If the answer is yes to all four questions, the action, speech, or thought is considered ethical.
Rotary International is involved with several global projects, notably a drive to eradicate polio worldwide. Locally, a Rotary club may spearhead many more projects, including donating school supplies to the local public school, hosting foreign exchange students, or renovating a city park. Members of Rotary clubs are expected to attend club meetings every week, pay annual dues, and participate in activities and projects.
The Rotary club is a modern invention, and the Bible does not mention such civic\-minded service groups. The Four\-way Test for ethical business practices proposed by Rotarians is certainly in line with biblical principles. The Proverbs 31 wife is an ethical businesswoman who provides for her household and is kind to the poor and the less fortunate (Proverbs 31:20, 23–24\).
The motto of “Service Above Self” recalls biblical principles such as the [Golden Rule](Golden-Rule.html): “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets” (Matthew 7:12\) and Jesus’ lesson that “the greatest among you shall be your servant. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted” (Matthew 23:11–12\). But the Rotarian motto itself and the statement “One profits most who serves best” are not found in the Bible.
Can a Christian be a Rotarian? There is nothing inherently sinful about belonging to a Rotary club, and there is obviously much good that can come from community service. A Christian considering joining a Rotary club should carefully weigh the amount of time and money required of Rotary against his or her commitment to the local church. Rotary should not be allowed to impinge upon one’s responsibilities to the body of Christ. Also, a Christian should research exactly what the required Rotary dues are used for. In the past, Rotary International has been criticized for its associations with [Planned Parenthood](Planned-Parenthood.html) and other population\-control or pro\-abortion groups.
An important difference between Christian service and Rotary service is the motivation. Christians perform [good works](good-works-salvation.html) in loving obedience to the Lord who saved them, knowing they were appointed to acts of service (Ephesians 2:10\). Unbelievers may perform good works for any number of reasons, including “to be seen by others” (Matthew 23:5, ESV) or to be afforded more honor in some way. Pride is subtle, and it can make us feel that we have no need for God. Serving others is good, but if it creates pride in the heart, it is detrimental to one’s spiritual health (see Romans 4:1–8\). Community service done in pride or self\-love is ultimately worthless: “If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing” (1 Corinthians 13:3\).
|
What is the doctrine of preterition?
|
Answer
The Reformed doctrine of preterition says that God elects some people to salvation and leaves the rest of humanity in their fallen condition. The word *preterition* means “passing over” and, in the context of theology, “omission from God’s elect.” The word implies that God chose to “pass over” some people and save others. The [Westminster Confession of Faith](Westminster-Confession-of-Faith.html) teaches preterition: “The rest of mankind \[not the elect] God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extendeth or withholdeth mercy, as He pleaseth, for the glory of His Sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice” (Chapter III — Article VII).
Quite simply, preterition says that some people are not chosen for salvation. Preterition is the flip side of [predestination](predestination.html). The doctrine of predestination emphasizes the positive aspect of election—some are chosen for heaven. The doctrine of preterition emphasizes the negative aspect of the same doctrine—some are not chosen. It is a logical doctrine. Since not everyone goes to heaven, there must be some who are not elected. Those who are not elected for salvation must perforce be “passed over” in the choosing. If preterition were false, then everyone would be in heaven and no one would be in hell.
It is important to differentiate preterition from [double predestination](double-predestination.html). Double predestination teaches that God proactively elects some to heaven and proactively elects some to hell—it is a *balanced* predestination in that God is as equally active in choosing people for hell as He is in choosing people for heaven. The problem is that double predestination is not taught in Scripture. The Bible nowhere says that God “elects” people to go to hell; the only election mentioned in the Bible is that which sends people to heaven. Preterition, in contrast, teaches that God actively elects some to heaven and passively allows others to remain in their sin—it is an *unbalanced* predestination in that God is active toward some and inactive toward others. The doctrine of preterition is careful not to go beyond what the Bible teaches about predestination.
The doctrine of preterition seeks to preserve God’s justice while upholding His sovereignty in election. Since mankind chose to rebel in Eden (and continues to choose to sin), their condemnation is perfectly just. Everyone “stands condemned already” (John 3:18\). God cannot be accused of injustice simply because He “passes by” a condemned person and leaves him to the punishment he deserves any more than a governor who “passes by” the last\-minute appeal of a death\-row inmate and declines to commute the just sentence.
The Bible is clear that God elects or chooses the saved (John 6:37; Romans 9:10–13; Titus 1:1\). The dispute over election centers on the basis for it: is election based on God’s foreknowledge of who will respond to the gospel, or is it based solely on God’s sovereign extension of mercy? The relationship between [God’s sovereignty and man’s free will](free-will-sovereign.html) has been debated ad infinitum for centuries. The fact is that the Bible teaches God’s sovereignty, wisdom, and mercy in salvation (John 15:16\); and it also teaches man’s responsibility to repent and believe (Mark 1:15\). We should ultimately be okay with not fully understanding every nuance of God’s work, in the knowledge that His thoughts and ways are infinitely higher than ours (Isaiah 55:8–9\).
The doctrine of preterition teaches that election is one\-sided. God extended mercy to some whom He chose (Romans 9:18\), leaving others to their fate. Meanwhile, the gospel is to be extended to all people (Matthew 28:1 –20\). Those who believe in Christ are saved, and those who refuse God’s merciful offer are not (Romans 3:10–11, 20–24\). Reconciling God’s proactivity in salvation with the need for human faith is something that finite human minds will continue to struggle with.
|
Who were the Cushites?
|
Answer
Cushites were people from the land of [Cush](Cush-in-the-Bible.html)/Kush (or “Cushan” in Habakkuk 3:7\). Cush, the place, was named after Cush, the man, the oldest son of Ham (Genesis 10:6\). Ham was one of the three sons of Noah to survive the global [flood](Noah-flood.html). Cush was the father of Nimrod the hunter (Genesis 10:8–9\). Much later, Moses married a descendant of Cush (Numbers 12:1\).
The land of Cush is associated in Scripture with several areas in the ancient world, but its most common link is to the land of Ethiopia south of Egypt. Some English translations of the Bible simply put “Ethiopia” where the Hebrew reads “Cush” (see the KJV, NASB, and NET versions of Psalm 68:31, for example). In his *Antiquities of the Jews*, Josephus corroborates the association between Ethiopians and Cushites: “For of the four sons of Ham, time has not at all hurt the name of Cush; for the Ethiopians, over whom he reigned, are even at this day, both by themselves and by all men in Asia, called Cushites” (6\.2\). In ancient times, Cush covered a much broader territory than modern Ethiopia does. The “land of Cush” mentioned in Genesis 2:13 is most likely a different place than the Cush of later history.
There is also a biblical connection between the Cushites and the Midianites. Numbers 12:1 says that Moses had married a Cushite wife. We know that Zipporah was a Midianite (Exodus 2:16; Numbers 10:29\). So, if Zipporah is the same wife as mentioned in Numbers 12:1, then Cushan and Midian could be the same people. Habakkuk 3:7 implies the same connection: “I saw the tents of Cushan in distress, / the dwellings of Midian in anguish.” In the [parallel structure](synonymous-parallelism.html) of the Hebrew poetry, Cushan and Midian are placed as synonyms.
The word *Cush* itself means “black,” and, historically, the people of Cush have been dark\-skinned. The prophet Jeremiah alludes to the Cushites’ skin color when he rhetorically asks, “Can the Cushite change his skin?” (Jeremiah 13:23, HCSB). The Ethiopian people have a tradition that after the flood Ham traveled up the Nile River to the Atbara plain. From there, he could see the Ethiopian tableland. Ham’s family settled there and also in the nearby lowland. This tradition, supported by the biblical account, makes the Cushites among the most ancient people\-groups in existence.
In an oracle against Cush, the prophet Isaiah describes the Cushites as “a people tall and smooth\-skinned . . . a people feared far and wide, an aggressive nation of strange speech, whose land is divided by rivers” (Isaiah 18:2\). Isaiah prophesies that Cush will receive God’s judgment (verse 6\) and the inhabitants of Cush will be among those who bring gifts to the Lord during the millennium (verse 7\). Ezekiel 30:4 also predicts a time of judgment for Cush, and Psalm 68:31 predicts a time when Cush “will quickly stretch out her hands to God” (NASB).
In the time of Isaiah, the [Assyrians](Assyrians.html) went on the march, bent on conquest. Judah, fearing the might of Assyria, was tempted to enter an alliance with Cush and Egypt, but God through Isaiah warned the Jews against such an alignment. The prophet predicted that King Sargon II of Assyria would conquer Egypt and Cush, showing the foolishness of trusting in other nations for help: “The king of Assyria will lead away stripped and barefoot the Egyptian captives and Cushite exiles, young and old, with buttocks bared—to Egypt’s shame. Those who trusted in Cush and boasted in Egypt will be dismayed and put to shame” (Isaiah 20:4–5\). Instead of relying on the Cushites to save them, God wanted Judah to rely on Him. Trust in God is never misplaced, and God miraculously saved Jerusalem from the Assyrians in Isaiah 37\.
|
What is a Biblicist? What is Biblicism?
|
Answer
The term *Biblicism* is sometimes cast as an aspersion against those who interpret the Bible literally or who hold to the doctrine of [*sola scriptura*](sola-scriptura.html). A Biblicist, as commonly defined, is someone who uses the Bible—and only the Bible—for his authority and source of knowledge, blindly holding to the Bible to guide him through every situation and inform him on every issue. Those leveling the charge of Biblicism often deny the doctrines of scriptural inerrancy or inspiration or at least seek to diminish the authority of Scripture. Sometimes Biblicists are accused of [bibliolatry](bibliolatry.html) or “Bible worship.”
According to caricatures painted by those with a low view of Scripture, a Biblicist 1\) sees no value in information derived outside of the Bible, ignoring [general revelation](general-special-revelation.html); 2\) believes that the Bible is meant to be a science textbook or a philosophy, political, or economics text; 3\) rejects the ancient confessions and creeds of the church in favor of constructing a personal belief system; and 4\) ignores the historical, cultural [context](context-Bible.html) of Scripture. In short, according to critics, Biblicism leads people to an intellectually shallow, naïve view of life and a misuse of Scripture.
Those who hold to biblical authority and interpret the Bible literally have always been ridiculed by those who do not. While Biblicism may be taken too far, its critics don’t go far enough in giving Scripture its due.
A proper view of Scripture is that the Bible *is* the ultimate authority. “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16\). This verse lends support to Biblicism. Since the Bible is “God\-breathed,” it is in fact authoritative, infallible, and internally consistent. It must be allowed to have the final word on everything. How could Scripture be profitable for “training in righteousness” if it cannot be trusted as absolutely true and consistent?
Objections to Biblicism are often accompanied by charges that Biblicists want to use the Bible as a universal textbook. In reality, very few people want such a thing. A proper view of Scripture recognizes the purpose and intent of the Bible but also recognizes that principles from the Bible can be applied to an unlimited range of subjects. For example, the Bible is not a soccer text; reading the Bible will not improve one’s corner kick. But the Bible’s instructions on self\-control, integrity, hard work, humility, and perseverance can certainly be applied to one’s performance on the soccer field. The Bible can guide a soccer player in becoming a better person, on and off the field.
Biblicism does not automatically reject the creeds and confessions of the ancient church. Rather, Biblicism tests the creeds, whatever their origin, against God’s Word, the Bible. This is what the [Reformation](Protestant-Reformation.html) was all about. If not for the Reformers’ insistence on *sola scriptura*, we would still be buying indulgences and kowtowing to the pope.
Biblicism does not ignore context. To the contrary, a [literal hermeneutic](Biblical-hermeneutics.html) involves considerations of a passage’s historical, cultural, and literary framework. Any interpretation must agree with the context of the Bible as a whole, since the Bible—the authoritative Word of God—is its own best commentary.
Some critics of Biblicism complain about [interpretive pluralism](interpretations-Christian.html)—the tendency of different groups of believers to interpret Scripture differently. This, according to some, disproves Biblicism. It’s true that various groups have latched on to various interpretations of the same passage, but that can be attributed to human fallibility, cultural influences, and a myriad of other factors. It is not necessary to shift blame onto the interpretive framework. A violin teacher, using the Suzuki method, will get different results from her students. Does that mean the Suzuki method is flawed?
Furthermore, critics of Biblicism fail to offer a viable alternative to the literal interpretation of Scripture. If we let go of literalism, how should we approach the Bible? Some critics of Biblicism argue that we should shift our focus onto Jesus, the Word, and see Scripture as a secondary, supportive text to what Jesus Christ taught and said and did. There is nothing wrong with focusing on Christ as our example for life, but there isn’t any real reason to relegate Scripture to “secondary” status.
We all agree that some passages of Scripture are difficult to interpret. Sometimes we can’t wrap our heads around the Bible. But it does not then follow that it is impossible to take the Bible literally or at face value. Biblicism is not bibliolatry; it is an acknowledgement that God has spoken, that He has spoken to us through His Word, and that we can understand what He has said (1 Corinthians 2:12–13\).
|
Who were the Kohathites, Gershonites, and Merarites?
|
Answer
The Kohathites, Gershonites, and Merarites were three clans of the [Levite tribe](tribe-of-Levi.html) in Israel (Numbers 26:57\). Each clan was comprised of descendants of the man from whom the clan received its name. Kohath was the father of the Kohathites, Gershon the father of the Gershonites, and Merari the father of the Merarites. Kohath, Gershon, and Merari were the three sons of Levi and grandsons of Jacob (Genesis 46:11\). Moses, Aaron, and Miriam were Kohathites (1 Chronicles 6:2–3\).
The Levites filled the [priestly roles](Levitical-priesthood.html) in Israel and bore the responsibility of caring for the tabernacle. The Kohathites, Gershonites, and Merarites had specific roles within the Levite culture. The Kohathites, for example, had charge of caring for the objects associated with the sanctuary: “This is the service of the sons of Kohath in the tent of meeting: the most holy things” (Numbers 4:4–14\). The Ark of the Covenant, the Table of Showbread, and other holy items were the responsibility of the Kohathites (Numbers 10:21; 1 Chronicles 9:32\). The Gershonites took care of the decorations in the sanctuary—curtains, ropes, and coverings (Numbers 4:24–26\). The Merarites had the task of maintaining and carrying from place to place the pillars, bases, frames, pegs, and cords that created the structure of the tent of meeting. Since the Israelites were often on the move, the tent of meeting often had to be taken up and moved. Each clan had its responsibility to the sanctuary of God.
The sanctuary objects that the Kohathites transported were to be carried on their shoulders with poles made for that purpose (Numbers 7:9; cf. Exodus 25:26–28\). The Gershonites and Merarites, however, were given ox carts to help with the transport of their items; the Gershonites received two carts and four oxen, and the Merarites received four carts and eight oxen (Numbers 7:6–8\).
As Levites, the Kohathites, Gershonites, and Merarites did not receive a specific territory in the Promised Land. Rather, they were given cities and pasturelands from among the territories of the other tribes by the command of the Lord (Joshua 21:2\). The Kohathites received thirteen cities from the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and Simeon and ten cities from Ephraim, Manasseh, and Dan. The Gershonites received thirteen cities from Isaachar, Asher, Naphtali, and Manasseh. The Merarites got twelve cities from Reuben, Gad, and Zebulun. The distribution of the cities was decided by the drawing of lots (Joshua 21:1–8\), and six of the Levites’ cities were designated as [cities of refuge](cities-of-refuge.html).
|
Is “eat, drink, and be merry” a biblical concept?
|
Answer
The phrase *eat, drink, and be merry* or *eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die* has been used for centuries throughout literature. Usually this phrase is understood as “enjoy life as much as possible because we won’t live forever.” While the phrase’s wording is an amalgamation of several verses in the Bible (including Isaiah 22:13, Ecclesiastes 8:15, 1 Corinthians 15:32, and Luke 12:19\), the underlying principle is quite opposite from biblical teaching.
In Isaiah 22, the prophet warns the people of Jerusalem that their hypocritical nature will be their downfall. When the Lord had called for weeping and mourning over impending invasion, instead the people said flippantly, “Let us eat and drink . . . for tomorrow we die” (verse 13\). God’s response to their disobedience was to proclaim, “Till your dying day this sin will not be atoned for” (verse 14\).
Some suppose that Ecclesiastes 8 supports the concept of “eat, drink, and be merry.” Verse 15 says, “I commend the enjoyment of life, because there is nothing better for a person under the sun than to eat and drink and be glad.” Is Solomon, the author, advocating a hedonistic lifestyle here? No, it’s important to keep the verse in context. Just a few sentences earlier, Solomon had promoted righteousness and warned against wickedness: “I know that it will go better with those who fear God, who are reverent before him. Yet because the wicked do not fear God, it will not go well with them” (verses 12–13\). So, reverence of God is better than pursuing sin. Then, in verse 14, Solomon notices that *in this world* the righteous are often mistreated and punished as if they were wicked. This is a “vanity” (ESV), and Solomon’s response is basically to say, “We should be thankful for our lot in life, whatever it is. We should eat our food, drink our wine, and be happy.” In no way does this verse promote gluttony, drunkenness, or the party life. Rather, Solomon is advocating the same principle Paul lays down in 1 Timothy 6:8: “If we have food and clothing, we will be content with that.”
Jesus shares the parable of the rich fool in Luke 12:13–21, wherein a successful man has more crops than he knows what to do with. The man decides to tear down his barns and build larger ones, telling himself, “Soul, you have ample goods laid up for many years; relax, eat, drink, be merry” (verse 19, ESV). The rich fool seems to be quoting Ecclesiastes 8:15, but he twists it into a cover for his recklessly blithe attitude. God disapproves of the rich man’s shortsightedness, and the man dies that very night, leaving all his riches behind. Jesus explains that the one who lays up treasure for himself is not rich in God’s eyes (verse 20–21; also see Matthew 6:19–21\.)
In 1 Corinthians 15, the apostle Paul addresses those who do not believe in the [resurrection of the dead](resurrection-first-second.html) when Christ returns (verse 12\). Paul rebukes them, since, if there is no life after death, they may as well live according to “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die” (verse 32\). At its root, the philosophy of “eat, drink, and be merry” is an expression of hopelessness. If this world is all there is, “we are of all people most to be pitied” (verse 19\). Paul has harsh words for those who deny the raising of the dead: “Wake up from your drunken stupor, as is right, and do not go on sinning. For some have no knowledge of God. I say this to your shame” (verse 34, ESV).
To “eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die”—to live life for pleasure’s sake alone—goes against the biblical mindset to “count yourselves [dead to sin](dead-to-sin.html) but alive to God in Christ Jesus” (Romans 6:11\). The Lord has called believers to live a holy life (1 Peter 1:16\), but we cannot be holy without His help and guidance from the Holy Spirit. A godly life requires a choice to follow God’s will and leave our old, pleasure\-seeking ways behind (Romans 12:1–2\).
The concept of enjoying earthly life as much as possible because there’s nothing after death is unbiblical. The Bible is clear that there is an eternal spiritual existence after corporeal death, and that existence includes judgment for all (Hebrews 9:27\). Those who have been made righteous by faith in Christ will experience eternal life in heaven, but those who reject Christ as Savior will be sent to eternal punishment in hell (Matthew 25:46\).
While it may be unbiblical to live for pleasure, living a life of joy for the Lord is certainly biblical. Jesus teaches that abiding in Him and obeying Him will bring us joy in life: “As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. If you keep my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commands and remain in his love. I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete” (John 15:9–11\).
|
I overcame _______ sin. How can I avoid a relapse?
|
Answer
[Temptations](overcome-temptation.html) batter us from every side. No human being gets through this life unscarred by sin. Even with our best efforts, we often relapse into the very sins from which we were rescued. We learn quickly that we can’t save ourselves, make ourselves right with God, or even overcome [besetting sins](besetting-sins.html) on our own. That’s why we need Jesus (1 Corinthians 15:57; Romans 8:37\).
Before we answer the question “how can I avoid a relapse?” we must reconsider the statement that precedes it: “I overcame \_\_\_\_\_\_ sin.” If you overcame a sin by your own strength, then that same strength will keep you from a relapse. However, if the power of Jesus delivered you from that sin, then it will be His strength that holds you in victory. Jude 1:24 says, “Now to him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you blameless before the presence of his glory with great joy . . .” (ESV). Notice it is the power of God that keeps us from stumbling. It is the blood of Jesus that presents us blameless before God. So this would be a more accurate statement: “Jesus gave me victory over \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_. How can I avoid a relapse?”
The root of the word *relapse* is *lapse*. A lapse is a temporary failure of concentration, memory, or judgment. Using this definition, we “lapse” into sin when we stop being vigilant. We become lazy, distracted, or forgetful of just how bad the [consequences](consequences-of-sin.html) of that sin were. When we relapse into an old sin, it is because we have stopped feeding our spirits with the things that will keep us close to Jesus. We have begun to take for granted the gifts of freedom and forgiveness, which is the first move away from them.
Psalm 119:9–11 addresses the issue of relapsing into sin: “How can a young person stay on the path of purity? By living according to your word. I seek you with all my heart; do not let me stray from your commands. I have hidden your word in my heart that I might not sin against you.”
There are several golden keys in this passage that, if heeded, will keep sin strongholds far from us. In order to avoid a relapse into sin previously overcome, we must first have a desire for purity. If we still consider certain sins exciting or classy, our heads may be telling us not to go there, but the pull of our hearts will win. We must be honest with ourselves about our own desires and bring them in line with God’s desires for us (Psalm 37:4\). When we begin with a desire for purity, we’ve made the decision to recognize and turn away from fleshly invitations.
Second, to avoid a relapse into sin we must dive into the Word of God and stay there. Psalm 119:10 says, “I seek you with all my heart.” God is not interested in riding to the rescue of a compromised, half\-committed Christian who needs to repent (Revelation 2:15–16\). Our spiritual connection to the Lord is as vital to our lives as insulin is to a diabetic. Someone with a lung disorder does not fear forgetting his oxygen tank. It has become crucial to his existence. Likewise, when we consider fellowship with God as crucial to our existence, we don’t make excuses for neglecting it. When we [seek Him](seeking-God.html) with all our hearts, He is eager to be found (Deuteronomy 4:29; Jeremiah 29:13; 1 Chronicles 22:19\). We seek Him by studying His Word. Learning what pleases and displeases God helps us to know God Himself.
Third, to avoid a relapse into sin we must continually ask God to keep us from stumbling (Luke 18:1\). His power is available to everyone who calls upon His name through His Son (Psalm 145:18; Romans 10:12\). By continuing in a state of surrender and supplication, we keep ourselves in a posture of obedience. Very few sincere saints leave their knees to march toward sin. When we have been in the presence of a holy God, we are able to see sin for what it is: a vile trap that caused Jesus’ suffering (see Isaiah 6:5\).
Fourth, to avoid a relapse into sin it is not enough to merely read God’s Word; we must memorize and mediate on it day and night (Joshua 1:8; Psalm 1:1–2\). It is when God’s thoughts and words become part of the fabric of our souls that they give us power. Then, when temptation knocks, truth answers the door. The amount of truth that has been read, memorized, meditated, and personalized will often determine the amount of wisdom that responds when [the flesh](the-flesh.html) calls. God’s Word is living and active (Hebrews 4:12\). It will illuminate life’s questions and give us confidence about God’s answers (Psalm 119:105\). For example, if someone has wronged you and lied about you, your flesh wants to tell him off and cut him out of your life. But as you pray and seek God, His words that are hidden in your heart come floating into your spirit: “Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you” (Luke 6:27–28\).
Fifth, to avoid a relapse into sin never give your flesh more credit than it deserves. This is often the biggest mistake we make in staying on the right path. We assume that we are stronger in our flesh than we really are. So we allow ourselves to be caught in compromising situations and then act surprised when our flesh could not resist. Romans 13:14 says, “Put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires” (ESV). We “make provision” when we set ourselves up for failure, with only our weak, sinful flesh between us and the sin. A young couple romantically involved, lying alone in the dark “watching a movie” is making provision for the flesh. A recovering alcoholic going out to the casino with old party friends is making provision for his flesh. A struggling porn addict who keeps that one device away from his accountability partners, assuring himself that he can handle it, is also making provision for his flesh. God has called us out of this world to be citizens of another realm (Philippians 1:27\). When we say “no” to what everyone else is saying “yes” to, we are living as trustworthy ambassadors of our Father’s kingdom (2 Corinthians 5:20\).
And last, to avoid a relapse into sin it helps to make a list of all that sin has cost you. Such a list may include names of loved ones, educational goals never reached, money wasted, and lasting scars caused by chasing sin. Remember why you desired to overcome that sin. Where had it led that you did not intend to go? Keep the list handy and add to it as God reveals more of what sin cost you and His Son. When feeling weak, re\-read the list. Let yourself remember the pain, the despair, and the trap into which you had fallen. Then thank God for each item on the list and the ways He has healed you from the wounds.
God has made us “[more than conquerors](more-than-conquerors.html)” through Him who loved us (Romans 8:37\). But relapses will occur when we grow cold to God’s Word or choose to walk in the flesh instead of the Spirit. God expects His children to “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\). When we cling tightly to our [Good Shepherd](Good-Shepherd.html), no lion—and no sin—can ever defeat us (John 10:10–11\).
|
I overcame _______ sin. How can I avoid a relapse?
|
Answer
[Temptations](overcome-temptation.html) batter us from every side. No human being gets through this life unscarred by sin. Even with our best efforts, we often relapse into the very sins from which we were rescued. We learn quickly that we can’t save ourselves, make ourselves right with God, or even overcome [besetting sins](besetting-sins.html) on our own. That’s why we need Jesus (1 Corinthians 15:57; Romans 8:37\).
Before we answer the question “how can I avoid a relapse?” we must reconsider the statement that precedes it: “I overcame \_\_\_\_\_\_ sin.” If you overcame a sin by your own strength, then that same strength will keep you from a relapse. However, if the power of Jesus delivered you from that sin, then it will be His strength that holds you in victory. Jude 1:24 says, “Now to him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you blameless before the presence of his glory with great joy . . .” (ESV). Notice it is the power of God that keeps us from stumbling. It is the blood of Jesus that presents us blameless before God. So this would be a more accurate statement: “Jesus gave me victory over \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_. How can I avoid a relapse?”
The root of the word *relapse* is *lapse*. A lapse is a temporary failure of concentration, memory, or judgment. Using this definition, we “lapse” into sin when we stop being vigilant. We become lazy, distracted, or forgetful of just how bad the [consequences](consequences-of-sin.html) of that sin were. When we relapse into an old sin, it is because we have stopped feeding our spirits with the things that will keep us close to Jesus. We have begun to take for granted the gifts of freedom and forgiveness, which is the first move away from them.
Psalm 119:9–11 addresses the issue of relapsing into sin: “How can a young person stay on the path of purity? By living according to your word. I seek you with all my heart; do not let me stray from your commands. I have hidden your word in my heart that I might not sin against you.”
There are several golden keys in this passage that, if heeded, will keep sin strongholds far from us. In order to avoid a relapse into sin previously overcome, we must first have a desire for purity. If we still consider certain sins exciting or classy, our heads may be telling us not to go there, but the pull of our hearts will win. We must be honest with ourselves about our own desires and bring them in line with God’s desires for us (Psalm 37:4\). When we begin with a desire for purity, we’ve made the decision to recognize and turn away from fleshly invitations.
Second, to avoid a relapse into sin we must dive into the Word of God and stay there. Psalm 119:10 says, “I seek you with all my heart.” God is not interested in riding to the rescue of a compromised, half\-committed Christian who needs to repent (Revelation 2:15–16\). Our spiritual connection to the Lord is as vital to our lives as insulin is to a diabetic. Someone with a lung disorder does not fear forgetting his oxygen tank. It has become crucial to his existence. Likewise, when we consider fellowship with God as crucial to our existence, we don’t make excuses for neglecting it. When we [seek Him](seeking-God.html) with all our hearts, He is eager to be found (Deuteronomy 4:29; Jeremiah 29:13; 1 Chronicles 22:19\). We seek Him by studying His Word. Learning what pleases and displeases God helps us to know God Himself.
Third, to avoid a relapse into sin we must continually ask God to keep us from stumbling (Luke 18:1\). His power is available to everyone who calls upon His name through His Son (Psalm 145:18; Romans 10:12\). By continuing in a state of surrender and supplication, we keep ourselves in a posture of obedience. Very few sincere saints leave their knees to march toward sin. When we have been in the presence of a holy God, we are able to see sin for what it is: a vile trap that caused Jesus’ suffering (see Isaiah 6:5\).
Fourth, to avoid a relapse into sin it is not enough to merely read God’s Word; we must memorize and mediate on it day and night (Joshua 1:8; Psalm 1:1–2\). It is when God’s thoughts and words become part of the fabric of our souls that they give us power. Then, when temptation knocks, truth answers the door. The amount of truth that has been read, memorized, meditated, and personalized will often determine the amount of wisdom that responds when [the flesh](the-flesh.html) calls. God’s Word is living and active (Hebrews 4:12\). It will illuminate life’s questions and give us confidence about God’s answers (Psalm 119:105\). For example, if someone has wronged you and lied about you, your flesh wants to tell him off and cut him out of your life. But as you pray and seek God, His words that are hidden in your heart come floating into your spirit: “Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you” (Luke 6:27–28\).
Fifth, to avoid a relapse into sin never give your flesh more credit than it deserves. This is often the biggest mistake we make in staying on the right path. We assume that we are stronger in our flesh than we really are. So we allow ourselves to be caught in compromising situations and then act surprised when our flesh could not resist. Romans 13:14 says, “Put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires” (ESV). We “make provision” when we set ourselves up for failure, with only our weak, sinful flesh between us and the sin. A young couple romantically involved, lying alone in the dark “watching a movie” is making provision for the flesh. A recovering alcoholic going out to the casino with old party friends is making provision for his flesh. A struggling porn addict who keeps that one device away from his accountability partners, assuring himself that he can handle it, is also making provision for his flesh. God has called us out of this world to be citizens of another realm (Philippians 1:27\). When we say “no” to what everyone else is saying “yes” to, we are living as trustworthy ambassadors of our Father’s kingdom (2 Corinthians 5:20\).
And last, to avoid a relapse into sin it helps to make a list of all that sin has cost you. Such a list may include names of loved ones, educational goals never reached, money wasted, and lasting scars caused by chasing sin. Remember why you desired to overcome that sin. Where had it led that you did not intend to go? Keep the list handy and add to it as God reveals more of what sin cost you and His Son. When feeling weak, re\-read the list. Let yourself remember the pain, the despair, and the trap into which you had fallen. Then thank God for each item on the list and the ways He has healed you from the wounds.
God has made us “[more than conquerors](more-than-conquerors.html)” through Him who loved us (Romans 8:37\). But relapses will occur when we grow cold to God’s Word or choose to walk in the flesh instead of the Spirit. God expects His children to “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\). When we cling tightly to our [Good Shepherd](Good-Shepherd.html), no lion—and no sin—can ever defeat us (John 10:10–11\).
|
What is Occam’s Razor?
|
Answer
Occam’s Razor (or Ockham’s Razor), named after 14th\-century logician and Franciscan friar [William of Ockham](William-of-Ockham.html), is one of the most misunderstood and misused concepts in philosophy. Occam’s Razor can be stated this way: “Plurality ought never be posited without necessity.” This is really just a fancy way of saying, “Simpler is usually better.” In practice, the razor means that, if there are two plausible explanations for the same event, whichever is less complex or involves fewer assumptions is generally the one to be preferred. Isaac Newton worded the razor like this: “We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.” Occam’s concept is called a “razor” because it can “shave away” unlikely theories.
Occam’s Razor works well as a general guideline. Human beings are fallible, so the fewer assumptions we make, the less likely we are to be in error. Nature tends to follow the path of least resistance, and that reasonably applies to things like probability. The more complex a system (or explanation) is, the more opportunities exist for it to fail. For all of these reasons, Occam’s Razor is a sensible way to pick between options that are otherwise equally likely.
In practice, however, Occam’s Razor is frequently misunderstood and misapplied. This happens routinely in discussions of religion when skeptics attempt to use the razor to declare belief in God illogical. Just as a physical razor is meant to shave away hair but can be misused to cut flesh, so too can Occam’s Razor be misapplied. This generally happens in one of two ways: treating the razor like a “law” and mishandling the concept of “necessity.”
First of all, Occam’s Razor is a philosophical guideline, not an actual rule of logic. It fits into the same category as rules\-of\-thumb, proverbs, and other generalities. For instance, it’s reasonable to say “ten\-year\-olds are usually shorter than adults.” This is generally true, so if you know nothing about a particular person other than the fact that he is ten years old, it would be practical to assume he’s shorter than the typical adult. However, you can’t state in absolute terms that he *must* be shorter than a typical adult. A rule of thumb is not an absolute. Occam’s Razor is the same: the simplest explanation is not *necessarily* the correct one.
The second problem with the popular use of Occam’s Razor is the mangling of the term *necessity*. Many appeals to Occam’s Razor simply assume that “simpler is better,” meaning whichever answer has the fewest words, parts, or premises is correct by default. However, one cannot remove a “necessary” component and call the result a superior answer. Simply because a sentence is made simpler in terms of grammar does not mean it’s actually a better explanation. “Joe moved the 1,000\-pound safe” is not a superior explanation to “Joe, Jim, James, John, and Jerry moved the 1,000\-pound safe together,” simply because the first one is “simpler.” At times, attempts to simplify fail because they remove required information.
In discussions of religion, these two errors are how Occam’s Razor is most frequently abused. Atheists, for example, will frequently claim that a universe without God is “simpler” and therefore more logical. However, rather than accounting for things like [specified complexity](irreducible-complexity.html) as deliberate arrangements, they must resort to luck and happenstance. “It was an accident” is not a valid counter to the concept of necessity. Rocks and mud can be randomly thrown around by a landslide, but that doesn’t mean an earthquake is the best possible explanation for a straight, smooth stone wall.
At times, non\-believers will attempt to say that God is not necessary, since evolution and probability can explain things more simply without Him. Therefore, per their interpretation of Occam’s Razor, it is more rational to deny God than to believe in Him. Philosopher and physicist Ernst Mach, for example, suggested modifying Occam’s Razor to rule out the supernatural: “Scientists must use the simplest means of arriving at their results and exclude everything not perceived by the senses.” Of course, saying that God is not “necessary” simply hinges on an abuse of *necessity*. As in the example of the 1,000\-pound safe or the stone wall, there comes a point when the assumptions required to make things “simpler” strain credulity. Given all that has to be assumed about probability, [abiogenesis](abiogenesis-definition-theory.html), and so forth, God can hardly be called “unnecessary.”
Regardless of any particular merit in the use of Occam’s Razor in discussions of religion, logic dictates that such concerns are ultimately irrelevant. Occam’s Razor is not a “law.” Many times our experience proves the opposite, that “truth is stranger than fiction.” Sometimes the “simplest” explanation, whatever that means to a particular person, is not actually the correct explanation.
Occam’s Razor is an excellent guideline, but in and of itself it tells us nothing about whether any particular idea is actually true or false. As applied to religion and spirituality, especially by skeptics and other non\-believers, Occam’s Razor is often accompanied by faulty logic and sloppy handling of evidence. The razor represents no threat to Christianity and is, in fact, far more useful against proposed alternatives than it is against biblical beliefs.
|
What is Hegelianism?
|
Answer
Hegelianism is a school of philosophy based on the ideas of G. W. F. Hegel, a German philosopher who lived in the early 1800s. A Hegelian believes and follows Hegel’s views. Hegel attempted to use pure logic—that is, rational abstract thought without empirical content—to explain being. This abstract method can make Hegelianism difficult to grasp. However, there are some solid concepts in Hegel’s doctrine that give a basic idea of what he taught and how Hegelianism compares to biblical truth.
Hegel thought that every concept and thing goes through a process of development and that, in order to fully understand something, we must see its full expression through this development. First, there is a state of being, then its opposite, and finally a higher form of that original state of being. Imagine a free man who becomes a slave and then many years later gains his freedom again. His first state is “being” free. Then, the opposite: slavery. Last, he becomes a free man, and the understanding of his freedom is much greater than it would have been had he never experienced slavery. In that example, Hegelianism focuses on the development of the individual through the process of enslavement and liberation. The process helps us fully understand the individual; in fact, Hegel believed that the process of “becoming” is a higher expression of reality than the simple act of “being.” This contradicts Aristotle’s philosophy that being is higher than becoming, because that which is becoming has yet to attain perfection.
Perfection is not something that human beings can attain, so perhaps Hegelianism is closer to the truth when we are speaking exclusively of human reality vs. divine reality. Human beings live to strive and move forward; we improve and gain higher understanding through our experiences. But God is already perfect and complete in Himself; therefore, when describing God’s reality, perhaps Aristotelian philosophy (that being is a higher form of existence) is closer to the truth. Being, in the context of God’s infinite and perfect Being, is indeed higher than becoming. In theology, the word [*aseity*](aseity-of-God.html) describes God’s self\-existence. God does not need to change or to become anything, because He is already complete (Number 23:19; Exodus 3:14; John 1:1, 3; 5:26\). But, for man, “becoming” is the better state of existence. A man should not stay as he is; ideally, he should learn, grow, and change and he moves closer to the Perfect (Hebrews 10:10, 14\).
Hegelianism is a highly politically charged philosophical system. Some Hegelian schools have used Hegel’s ideas to promote radical ideas; others have used the same philosophy to promote reactionary ideas. Setting aside the practical or political outcomes of Hegelianism, Hegel’s doctrine is simply a way to understand mortal and temporal reality by observing the process of development that seems to affect all aspects of mortal and temporal life.
|
What is the biblical account of Shem, Ham, and Japheth?
|
Answer
[Shem](Shem-in-the-Bible.html), [Ham](Ham-in-the-Bible.html), and [Japheth](Japheth-in-the-Bible.html) were the three [sons of Noah](sons-of-Noah.html) who along with their wives were carried in the ark during the great flood. Their descendants went on to re\-populate the world (Genesis 10:1\). Noah fathered Shem, Ham, and Japheth after he was 500 years old (Genesis 5:32\). If Noah had any other children, they are not mentioned in the biblical account. Only Shem, Ham, and Japheth are mentioned.
The Israelites came from the line of Shem; in fact, the word *Semite* comes from the name of Shem. Other descendants of Shem include the [Assyrians](Assyrians.html), [Chaldeans](Chaldeans.html), Elamites, [Arameans](who-Arameans.html), [Moabites](Moabites.html), [Ammonites](Ammonites.html), and [Edomites](Edomites.html). Japheth’s line produced the [Persians](Medo-Persian-empire.html), Romans, Scythians, and Macedonians. Ham’s line produced the [Canaanites](Canaanites.html), the [Babylonians](Babylonian-empire.html), the Phoenicians, the [Cushites](Cushites.html), and the Egyptians. Each of the races and people\-groups that exist today can trace their lineage back to one of these three brothers.
There is only one biblical story recorded that concerns Shem, Ham, and Japheth. After the flood waters receded, Noah was “a man of the soil” and grew a vineyard (Genesis 9:20\). One day, after drinking too much wine, Noah passed out in his tent and lay there naked and exposed. Ham “saw his father naked and told his two brothers outside” (Genesis 9:22\). Some have suggested that Ham—or possibly his son Canaan—performed an inappropriate sexual act on his drunken father, but that is nothing more than speculation. Whatever the extent of Ham’s sin, Shem and Japheth refused to join him in dishonoring their father; instead, they walked into the tent backward without looking at Noah and lay a blanket over him to cover him (Genesis 9:23\). When Noah woke up and found out what Ham had done, he [cursed Ham’s child, Canaan](curse-Ham-Canaan.html), saying, “Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers” (Genesis 9:25\). Noah then blessed his other two sons and reiterated Canaan’s servitude to both Shem and Japheth (verses 26–27\).
Noah’s curse on Canaan was not an empty threat. In fact, it could be seen as a prophecy of events to unfold in the lives of the Canaanites. In Genesis 10, the descendants of Canaan are listed. They include the Sidonians, the Hittites, the Jebusites, the Amorites, and the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 10:15–19\). Noah’s curse/prophecy came true during the time of Joshua. The Canaanites, descendants of Ham and Canaan, were conquered by the Israelites, descendants of Shem. True to God’s Word, some of the Canaanites became slaves (Joshua 9:27; 17:12–13\).It’s important to note that Noah’s three sons were blessed (Genesis 9:1\) and, out of Ham’s descendants, only the line of Canaan was cursed (Genesis 9:25\). The historical record supports the fact of Noah’s curse on Canaan and is powerful evidence of the accuracy of Scripture.
|
Who were the Rechabites in the Bible?
|
Answer
The Rechabites (also Recabite, Rekabite) were a [nomadic](what-is-a-nomad.html) people group known for their strict rules to abstain from wine, from building houses, from sowing seed, and from planting vineyards (Jeremiah 35:6–7\). The Rechabites were faithful to abide by these rules through the generations, all the way from the time of Jehu (2 Kings 10:15\) to the time of Jeremiah (Jeremiah 35:8–10\)—over 200 years.
The Rechabites were descendants of Rechab (or Recab or Rekab), a [Kenite](Kenites.html) and thus related to the [Midianites](Midianites.html) and Moses’ family by marriage (see Judges 1:16\). According to Jeremiah 35:6, the Rechabites’ strict rules were put in place by a son (or descendant) of Rechab named Jehonadab (or Jonadab). This is the same Jehonadab who helped Jehu rid Israel of Baal\-worship after the time of Ahab (2 Kings 10:15–27\). Scholars have differing opinions as to why Jehonadab implemented the rules, but many believe he sought to preserve the primitive lifestyle of his nomadic forebears.
God used the faithfulness of the Rechabites to teach an important lesson to His people. The Lord told Jeremiah, “Go to the Rekabite family and invite them to come to one of the side rooms of the house of the LORD and give them wine to drink” (Jeremiah 35:2\). The prophet gathered the Rechabites into the house of the LORD and set bowls of wine in front of them (verses 3–5\). The Rechabites firmly declined the wine and explained the command of their forefather (verse 6\). They remained faithful to their family tradition.
God then told Jeremiah to go and tell the people of Judah to learn a lesson from the Rechabites’ faithful obedience to Jehonadab (Jeremiah 35:12–14\). God contrasted the obedience of the Rechabites to the disobedience of His own people. Again and again God had sent His prophets to tell the Israelites to turn from their wicked ways, but the people had not heeded God’s Word. “The descendants of Jehonadab son of Rekab have carried out the command their forefather gave them, but these people have not obeyed me” (verse 16\).
As a result of the Israelites’ historic disobedience, God promised to bring disaster upon the nation (Jeremiah 35:17\). But God commended the family of the Rechabites and gave them a promise: “Jehonadab son of Rekab will never fail to have a descendant to serve me” (verse 19\).
There is much to learn from this family. The Rechabites stood firm against assimilating into the culture of the time. They were commended by God for their [faithfulness](Bible-faithfulness.html) and obedience to their father. The Rechabites are an example of steadfastness. God desires His people to live in obedience and steadfastness to Him.
|
What is the purpose of there being rewards in heaven?
|
Answer
The Bible mentions rewards in [heaven](is-Heaven-real.html) multiple times (Matthew 5:12; Luke 6:23, 35; 1 Corinthians 3:14; 9:18\). But why are rewards necessary? Won’t being in heaven with God be enough? Experiencing Him, His glory, and the joys of heaven will be so wonderful, it’s hard to understand why extra rewards would be needed. Also, since our faith rests in Christ’s righteousness instead of our own (Romans 3:21–26\), it seems strange that our works would merit reward.
God will give rewards in heaven at the [bema](judgment-seat-Christ.html), or the judgment seat of Christ, based on our faithfulness in service to Him (2 Corinthians 5:10\). The rewards will show the reality of our sonship (Galatians 4:7\) and the justice of God (Hebrews 6:10\). God will give rewards in heaven in order to fulfill the law of [sowing and reaping](sowing-and-reaping.html) (Galatians 6:7–9\) and make good on His promise that our labor in the Lord is not in vain (1 Corinthians 15:58\).
One reason for the rewards in heaven is the fact that Jesus shares His reward with us. Paul said, “I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me” (Galatians 2:20\). Our lives are “hidden” with Christ, who is seated at the right hand of God (Colossians 3:1–4\). We die with Him and we live with Him and we share in His joy (Romans 6:8; Matthew 25:21\). In heaven we will dwell with Him (John 14:1–3\). Our lives are inextricably linked with Christ’s. The reward He receives is shared with all of us: “If we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and [co\-heirs with Christ](co-heirs-with-Christ.html), if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory” (Romans 8:17\).
Our rewards in heaven depend on the goodness and power of God. Through Christ’s resurrection we gain an inheritance in heaven; on earth our faith is tested and results in praise and glory and honor when Christ is revealed (1 Peter 1:3–9\). The things we do in this life are only permanent (that is, carried with us into heaven) if they are built on the foundation, which is Christ (1 Corinthians 3:11–15\).
The rewards we gain in heaven are not like the rewards we earn here on earth. We tend to think in material terms—mansions, jewels, etc. But these things are only representations of the true rewards we will gain in heaven. A child who wins a spelling bee treasures the trophy he receives not for the sake of the trophy itself but for what that trophy means. Likewise, any rewards or honor we gain in heaven will be precious to us because they carry the weight and meaning of our relationship with God—and because they remind us of what He did through us on earth.
In this way, rewards in heaven glorify God and provide us with joy, peace, and wonder as we consider God’s work in us and through us. The closer we were to God during this life, the more centered on Him and aware of Him, the more dependent on Him, the more desperate for His mercy, the more there will be to celebrate. We are like characters in a story who suffer doubt, loss, and fear, wondering if we will ever really have our heart’s desire. When the happy ending comes and desire is fulfilled, there comes a completion. The story would not be satisfying without that completion. Rewards in heaven are the completion of our earthly story, and those rewards will be eternally satisfying (Psalm 16:11\).
|
What is the difference between Christianity and Islam?
|
Answer
While some similarities exist between [Islam](Islam.html) and Christianity (they are both monotheistic religions, for example), their differences are clear\-cut, significant, and irreconcilable. For this article, we will survey four key areas: the founders of the two religions, the contrasting views of God, the sacred literature, and the means of salvation. We will see that Islam differs from Christianity in each of those four areas.
*Islam and Christianity: Founders of the Religions*
Islam was founded by an Arab merchant named Muhammed about AD 622\. Muhammed claimed to have received a revelation from an angel of God, and, although he initially feared his revelation had come from Satan, Muhammed later claimed to be the last and greatest of all of God’s prophets. Muhammed had fifteen wives (although he limited other men to four wives apiece) and sanctioned the beating of wives (Sura 4:34\). Muhammed was well known for spreading his new religion by force. He commanded, “Fight and slay the Pagans wherever you find them” (Sura 9:5\), and he specified the proper way to execute an unbeliever was to cut his throat (Sura 47:4\). Muhammed led raids against caravans to plunder their goods, broke oaths, ordered the murder of those who mocked him, and wiped out the last Jewish tribe in Medina—he killed all the men and enslaved the women and children. Interestingly, Muhammed acknowledged his own need to seek God’s forgiveness on occasion (Sura 40:55\).
In stark contrast to the moral depravity of Muhammed, Jesus Christ was above reproach in every way (2 Corinthians 5:21\). Jesus never married, He defended and honored women (John 8:1–11\), and His law was “love one another” (John 13:34\). Accordingly, Jesus never assassinated anyone, never beat a woman, never enslaved a child, never broke a promise, and never plundered a caravan. On the cross, when Jesus was mocked by those nearby, His response was, “Father, forgive them” (Luke 23:34\).
*Islam and Christianity: Views of God*
Islam teaches that [Allah](who-is-Allah.html), or God, is the sovereign Creator and Ruler of all that is. Muslims emphasize God’s absolute unity, which will admit of no division, and God’s will. In fact, the will of God is more basic to who He is than His love or mercy. God could choose not to be merciful, and He can choose not to love; thus, Allah’s mercy and love are not intrinsic to His nature but are choices He makes. More important than loving God—or even knowing Him—is submitting to His will. The word *Islam* means “submission.” According to Islam, God cannot be considered a “father” and He has no son. Allah does not love sinners (Surah 3:140\).
Similar to Islam, Christianity teaches that God is the sovereign Creator and Ruler of all that is—but that is about where the similarity ends. Christians believe in one God who exists in three eternal, co\-equal Persons (Father, Son, and Spirit) who share the same indivisible essence. According to Christianity, God loves because His very nature is love (1 John 4:8\)—not just because He happens to choose to love. God’s essence includes the attribute of mercy, so divine displays of mercy are more than choices God makes; they are extensions of His character. God is knowable and desires a relationship with us based on love (Mark 12:30\). Obeying God is important, but obedience without a relationship based on love is worthless (1 Corinthians 13:3\). According to Christianity, God the Father has an eternal relationship with God the Son. God does love sinners (Romans 5:8\).
*Islam and Christianity: Sacred Literature*
Islam holds that the Torah (the first five books of the Old Testament), the Psalms, and the Gospels were given by God—with this caveat: Jews and Christians have [corrupted God’s Word](http://www.blogos.org/theologyapologetics/quran-affirms-bible-2.php) and therefore Bibles cannot be fully trusted. Muslims believe that God’s final Word, the Qur’an, was miraculously given to Muhammed over a period of twenty\-three years. The Qur’an, which is perfect and holy, is divided into 114 chapters called *suras*. In addition to the Qur’an, the Muslims have the Hadith, a collection of Muhammed’s sayings, opinions, and actions as reported by those close to him.
Biblical Christianity holds that the Old and New Testaments of the Bible are God’s inspired Word and the only authoritative rule of faith and practice. The Bible warns against adding to God’s Word (Revelation 22:18\); Christians reject the Qur’an as an attempted addition to God’s Word and as a document that contradicts the Bible in many ways.
*Islam and Christianity: Means of Salvation*
Islam teaches a works\-based salvation and in this way is similar to other man\-made religions. A Muslim must keep the [five pillars of Islam](five-pillars-Islam.html): he must confess the *shahadah* (“there is no God but Allah, and Muhammed is his prophet”); he must kneel in prayer toward Mecca five times a day; he must fast during the daylight hours one month of the year (Ramadan); he must give money to the poor; and he must make a pilgrimage to Mecca sometime in his lifetime. Islam teaches that the day of judgment will involve a person’s good and bad deeds being weighed in a balance—so the standard for judgment is one’s own actions (Surah 7:8\-9; 21:47\). The Qur’an forbids anyone from bearing another’s burden of sin (Surah 17:15; 35:18\) and pointedly denies the death of Jesus (or Isa) on the cross (Surah 3:55; 4:157–158\). If you will be saved, you must save yourself.
Christianity teaches a grace\-based salvation. A person is saved by the grace (the undeserved blessing) of God, through faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (Ephesians 2:8–9; Romans 10:9–10\). The standard for judgment is absolute perfection—the righteousness of Christ. No one can measure up to perfection (Romans 3:23\), but God in His grace and mercy has given His Son as the substitute for our sin: “When you were dead in your sins . . . God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross” (Colossians 1:13–14\). We cannot save ourselves, so we turn to Christ, our sinless Savior and the author and finisher of our faith (Hebrews 12:2\).
Islam and Christianity, having different beliefs on essential doctrines such as God, Jesus, Scripture, and salvation, are irreconcilable. Both religions cannot be true. We believe that Jesus Christ, as presented in the Bible, is the true Son of God and Savior of mankind. “Grace and truth came through Jesus Christ” (John 1:17\).
|
What does it mean that God is the Rock of salvation?
|
Answer
The statement “God is the Rock of my salvation” occurs several times in the Old Testament (Deuteronomy 32:15; 2 Samuel 22:47; Psalm 89:26; 95:1\). In each case, the expression evokes vivid imagery and a sense of security. God is a trustworthy, rock\-solid Savior.
High cliffs and crags abound in biblical lands, and the Israelites often found themselves hiding in caves and mountain crevices from the enemy (see 1 Samuel 13:6\). Considering the many battles fought in Israel, rocky areas were also ideal locations for strong, protective city fortresses. Thus, the phrase *Rock of my salvation* undoubtedly resonated deeply with God’s people.
The psalms are thick with declarations similar to “God is the Rock of my salvation,” and for good reason. Caves and rocky crevices were often David’s refuge when running from Saul, who sought to kill him (see 1 Samuel 24:3\), yet David’s language reveals where he truly placed his hope—not in mountains or great city fortresses, but in God, Creator of heaven and earth (Psalm 121:1–3\). David declares, “Truly he is my rock and my salvation; he is my fortress, I will not be shaken. My salvation and my honor depend on God: he is my mighty rock, my refuge” (Psalm 62:6–7\). David knew that, ultimately, it was up to the God of the cosmos to hide him from danger, material objects being the avenue by which He chose to provide such protection.
During the Old Testament period, specific knowledge about the [Messiah](what-does-Messiah-mean.html) had not yet been realized, so saying, “God is the Rock of my salvation,” was not an overt reference to salvation through Christ’s blood. So what might the idea that God is the Rock of salvation have meant in an Old Testament context? The *Zondervan Illustrated Bible Dictionary* explains, “In the OT, salvation refers both to everyday, regular types of deliverance—as from enemies, disease, and danger . . . and to those major deliverances that are specifically interpreted as being a definite part of God’s unique and special involvement in human history as well as special revelations of his character and will” (entry for “Salvation,” definition 1, p. 1272\). [Salvation’s emphasis](Christian-doctrine-salvation.html) in the New Testament is predominantly spiritual, but in the Old Testament salvation speaks much more about liberation within the physical realm. For instance, when Hannah prays in triumph, “I rejoice in your salvation. . . . There is no rock like our God” (1 Sam. 2:1–2, ESV), she rejoices over God’s deliverance from her barrenness as well as His granting that her husband’s name would continue on to many generations.
The meaning of *God is the Rock of my salvation* enlarges as the biblical narrative progresses. Isaiah 28:16 prophesies, “See, I lay a stone in Zion, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone for a sure foundation; the one who relies on it will never be stricken with panic” (cf. Psalm 118:21–23; Zechariah 10:4\). The God who had delivered His people throughout history gradually provided more vivid glimpses, through His prophets, of just how far His salvation would reach. Isaiah’s prophecy clearly points to the hope of the Messiah, yet the truth that God, the Rock of salvation, would become flesh in Jesus Christ was not yet revealed.
In the New Testament as Jesus begins His ministry, His disciples and others still do not understand that He is the climactic saving act of the God of the Israelites. But after Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection, all doubt is removed (John 20:26–29\). The spiritual Rock they had always worshiped had now become physical. On the day of Pentecost, the disciples’ bold preaching demonstrates their certainty that Jesus truly was this same Rock. Peter preaches, “Jesus is ‘the stone you builders rejected, which has become the cornerstone’” (Acts 4:11; see also 1 Peter 2:4–8\). The canvas had now been filled with color, the painting now containing details that were once just faint ideas.
Its meaning greatly enlarged, *Rock of salvation* now resonates even more deeply in our hearts, as it relates not only to God’s deliverance within the physical realm but also to the ultimate spiritual deliverance He provides His people through Jesus Christ. Jesus is the Rock of our salvation, a sure and eternal refuge, the foundation on which rests the hope of heaven. “The one who trusts in him will never be put to shame” (1 Peter 2:6\).
|
Who was Jesse in the Bible?
|
Answer
Jesse in the Bible is father of [David](life-David.html) and thus an important part of the lineage of Christ, the [Son of David](Jesus-son-of-David.html) (Matthew 22:42\). We don’t know much about Jesse as a person; most of the Bible’s references to Jesse come in the context of his relation to his famous son David.
In order to understand the rich history surrounding the name of Jesse, one might begin by tracing his lineage back to [Abraham](life-Abraham.html). God chose Abraham and promised that through his seed all the nations of the world would be blessed (Genesis 22:16–18\). Jumping forward several generations, we are introduced to [Boaz](Ruth-and-Boaz.html), a wealthy and God\-fearing resident of Bethlehem. Boaz demonstrates God’s redemptive character by wedding himself to Ruth the Moabitess, who forsook her ungodly heritage (see Numbers 25:1–5\) and clung to the God of Israel (Ruth 1:16\).
The book of Ruth is an incredible story of God’s salvific nature. By faith Ruth is welcomed into the fellowship of God’s covenant people, Israel. After her marriage to Boaz, Ruth gives birth to [Obed](Obed-in-the-Bible.html) (Ruth 4:13\), and the Bethlehemite women rejoice in the blessing of God over her family (verses 14–15\). Boaz and Ruth’s son Obed later begets Jesse, who becomes the father of David (verse 22\), God’s choice for king for Israel (1 Samuel 16:1\). Thus Ruth was granted a place of honor as the great\-grandmother of David, who was a [type](typology-Biblical.html) of and faithful predecessor to the Christ\-King
Jesse takes the stage with his eight sons in 1 Samuel 16–17\. The prophet Samuel invites Jesse and his family to a sacrificial feast, but Jesse only brings his seven oldest sons, including Eliab, Abinadab, and Shammah; all seven were rejected by God as king (1 Samuel 16:6–10\). Jesse had chosen to leave David, his youngest son, to tend the sheep. However, it is this lowly shepherd boy whom, to the probable surprise of both Jesse and Samuel, God directs Samuel to anoint as the chosen king (1 Samuel 16:11–13\). Although it is David’s kingship that typifies and anticipates the reign of the Christ\-King, Jesse’s name still receives mention in a couple prophecies of the Messiah.
In Isaiah, Jesse is mentioned as the stump from which a Branch (Christ) would come forth to be a banner for all peoples; to this banner all nations would rally (Isaiah 11:1–3, 10; cf. Jeremiah 23:5\). Furthermore, Micah 5:2 identifies Bethlehem—the little town of Jesse—as the source of the King of all kings. The Branch from the [root of Jesse](root-of-Jesse.html) would eventually spring forth and bear everlasting fruit.
The New Testament begins with these words: “This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah the son of David, the son of Abraham” (Matthew 1:1\). From God’s promise to Abraham and all the way to God’s promised Messiah, our vision of God’s universal program of salvation expands as new narratives bring fuller color and understanding. Jesus’ genealogy in Matthew references not only Israelites but also Gentiles, including Rahab, the God\-fearing mother of Boaz and former prostitute from Jericho (Joshua 2:1–21\), and Ruth the Moabitess, grandmother of Jesse. From this mixed (Jew and Gentile) clan, Christ came to be the banner not just for the people of Israel but for peoples of all nations (Romans 15:7–13\). Jesus was not the beginning of a message of salvation for all but the climactic expression and extension of the salvation God had already extended to all who believe.
Who is Jesse? Although a relatively minor character in the biblical drama, Jesse shares in a rich lineage essential to God’s plan of redemption for all nations. May Jesse’s name be to you a symbol of a grander narrative, a blessed lineage, a beacon of hope for all who choose to call upon the name of the Lord, young and old, Jew and Gentile, slave and free.
|
Who were the Ephrathites?
|
Answer
The Ephrathites were people from Ephrath (or Ephrathah), which the Bible tells us was associated with Bethlehem south of Jerusalem. The word *Ephrath* in Hebrew means “fruitful,” and *Bethlehem* means “house of bread.” Most scholars believe that Ephrath and Bethlehem are actually two names for the same place—a view supported by Genesis 35:19 and Ruth 4:11\. Most likely, Ephrath was the ancient name for the Canaanite city, and Bethlehem was the Jewish label. Other cities were likewise renamed after the conquest of Canaan, such as Luz (renamed Bethel, Joshua 18:13\) and Jebus (renamed Jerusalem, 1 Chronicles 11:4\).
Ephrath is mentioned in conjunction with the death of Rachel, a wife of Jacob and the mother of Joseph. While Rachel was pregnant, Jacob and Rachel began to travel from Bethel to Ephrath, or Bethlehem. On the way, Rachel went into labor, and she “had great difficulty” (Genesis 35:16\). Then, to Jacob’s lasting sorrow, Rachel died giving birth to Benjamin. Jacob buried her “on the way to Ephrath (that is, Bethlehem)” (Genesis 35:19; cf. 48:7\).
Ephrathites are mentioned twice more in Scripture. The sons of Naomi, Mahlon and Kilion, were “Ephrathites from Bethlehem, Judah” (Ruth 1:2\). After Mahlon and Kilion died in Moab, their mother returned to Bethlehem along with Ruth, Mahlon’s widow (verses 6–22\). Thus [Ruth the Moabitess](life-Ruth.html) became an Ephrathite. Another Ephrathite was Jesse, the father of King David, who was “from Bethlehem in Judah” (1 Samuel 17:12\). Some translations also list Zuph, an ancestor of Samuel, as an Ephrathite in 1 Samuel 1:1, but other translations have that he was an Ephraimite.
Whenever Ephrathites are mentioned in Scripture, they are associated with the city of Bethlehem in Judah. The most famous mention of the area of Ephrathah is the prophecy of Micah 5:2: “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.” The Messiah would be born among the Ephrathites in Bethlehem. Jesus Christ, born in Bethlehem, fulfills this prophecy (see Luke 2:4–7\).
|
Is mimetic theory biblical?
|
Answer
Mimetic theory is an attempt to explain humanity’s tendency toward violence and the social mechanisms we use to preserve society. Mimetic theory was developed by René Girard through his studies in multiple disciplines, including mythology, anthropology, and history. Mimetic theory, as presented by Girard, could be classified as a philosophical approach to Christian theology. His claim is that the gospel represents the ultimate expression of both the problems and solutions to mimetic theory in humanity. Whether or not mimetic theory is fully compatible with the Bible is greatly subject to opinion.
According to mimetic theory, humans only learn by mimicking others. Hence, the term *mimetic*, derived from the Greek word *mimesis*, meaning “imitation.” This mimicry includes not only behavior but also desires. Consider that a core technique of advertising is claiming that other people desire a product: *everyone* wants this, so you should, too. This technique inspires an inherent desire for that product in the audience. The problem, according to mimetic theory, is that desires prompted by mimicry are often competitive. People are capable of coveting something that only some, not all, can have. This could be true of sexual partners, power, money, or virtually any other object of desire. The result of competitive desires is violence and other social ills.
To alleviate conflict, according to Girard’s mimetic theory, humanity has developed certain mechanisms such as scapegoating and taboos. Under scapegoating, society blames unfulfilled desires on a single victim who may or may not actually be guilty of causing the problem. The harm done to the scapegoat satisfies culture’s urge for violence in response to frustrated desires. Using taboos, certain forms of competition are presented as off\-limits to reduce conflicting desires and their resultant violence. Examples of taboos include societal mores that prohibit incest and parricide (killing one’s relatives).
Of course, mimetic theory is far more nuanced than the above summary. There are many different interpretations of how these ideas play out in history and culture. Some philosophers support Girard’s claims; others doubt them. The same is true of theologians, who variously accept or reject applications of mimetic theory to Christianity.
Interestingly, among the common criticisms of Girard’s mimetic theory is that he is “too friendly” to the Judeo\-Christian worldview. That is, Girard presents the message of Jesus as the resolution to the problems of scapegoating and violence. He distinguishes Christian stories from ancient myths, especially in that only the New Testament Gospels claim both absolute innocence and absolute willingness on the part of the scapegoat (Christ). In its defense of the weak, renunciation of revenge, and empathy with victims (rather than scapegoaters), the biblical narrative is unique in human history.
There are elements of mimetic theory compatible with Scripture. Jesus said that the goal of [teaching](Bible-teaching.html) is to produce imitators: “Everyone who is fully trained will be like their teacher” (Luke 6:40\). Imitation of Christ is an overt part of our calling as believers (John 13:12–15; Ephesians 5:2\), even as Christ emulates God the Father (John 5:7; 14:11; 15:9–11\). Paul promoted beneficial mimicry, too: “Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ” (1 Corinthians 11:1\). According to mimetic theory, one danger of mimicry is that the student and teacher can become rivals as the student approaches or even surpasses the master’s skill. In the Christian context, this is impossible—we never live up to the standard of Christ (Romans 5:8; 1 John 1:8\); plus, Christ would never be inclined to fear or resent us (Revelation 19:7\).
Similarly, the transforming of our desires is central to our progressive sanctification (Romans 7:18; 12:2; Ephesians 4:22\). The sacrificial system of the Old Testament, as well as the crucifixion of Christ, can be seen as divine scapegoating, where blame was transferred from a group to an individual (Exodus 29:36; 1 Corinthians 5:7; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 9:23\). In fact, Leviticus 16 contains instructions for an actual [scapegoat](Azazel-scapegoat.html) that bore the sins of the people away from the camp on the Day of Atonement. These biblical teachings are certainly compatible with mimetic theory, at least in broad strokes.
Girard, though a Roman Catholic, developed his mimetic theory prior to an intensive study of the Bible. That is, mimetic theory is not inspired by Scripture but something that Girard felt the Bible confirmed. Strictly speaking, this makes mimetic theory “extra\-biblical”—it’s an idea not explicitly described, supported, or condemned by God’s Word.
In short, mimetic theory is much like other philosophical attempts to define what it means to be human and how to correct our flaws. While it is far friendlier to Christianity than some other systems of philosophy, mimetic theory is not an inherently biblical view. That’s not to say it blatantly contradicts the Bible, either. At the end of the day, it’s important to gauge any application of mimetic theory on the basis of whether it agrees with Scripture, and not gauge Scripture by any man\-made theory.
|
What are the oracles of God?
|
Answer
There are several places in the Bible that mention the oracles of God. In the New Testament, the term *oracles of God* refers to the Word of God; in the Old Testament, it sometimes refers to a part of the temple. Not all English translations contain the phrase *oracles of God*, so it depends on what version one is reading from.
The New Testament Greek phrase sometimes translated “oracles of God” is *logion Theou* (*logion* being the plural form of [*logos*](what-is-the-Logos.html)). “Words of God” is a good translation. The KJV, ESV, NASB, and some other versions put “oracles of God.” This is a fine translation, too, as long as we define *oracle* properly.
In modern usage the word *oracle* often refers to a person, specifically a priest or medium through whom gods or spirits speak. An oracle can also be the place where the priest or medium receives divine messages. But an older definition of *oracle*, and the one used by some Bible translators, is “a message from God.” The “oracles of God” in the New Testament are the messages or words of God. In Acts 7:38, Stephen speaks of how Moses received “living oracles to give to us” (ESV)—a reference to the life\-giving nature of God’s Word.
Romans 3:2 mentions the oracles of God in the ESV: “To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God.” Paul highlights the fact that the Jews who received, copied, and preserved the [Tanakh](Jewish-Bible.html) had been entrusted with the very Word of God. This was an advantage to the Jews because it meant the gospel would be preached to them first and then to the Gentiles. Of course, this advantage was only applicable to those who believed the gospel, as Paul states in the verses that follow. Truly the good news, as Paul continues, is that both Jews and Gentiles now have access to righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ (Romans 3:21–22\).
Hebrews 5:12 also speaks of the oracles of God in the NASB: “You have need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God.” Again, the “oracles of God” here are the words of God. The writer of Hebrews says his readers should have moved beyond the basic principles of God’s Word and on to “meatier” subjects; instead, they are like babies who are not ready for solid food (verses 13–14\).
First Peter 4:11 mentions the oracles of God in the KJV: “If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God.” In this context Peter instructs us to be extremely careful with the gifts we receive from God (verse 10\). Our words should be chosen wisely and spoken as if we are speaking the very words (oracles) of God. When we quote Scripture and expound on its meaning, we actually *are* speaking the oracles of God. Peter states the goal of our use of words: “So that in all things God may be praised through Jesus Christ. To him be the glory and the power for ever and ever. Amen” (verse 11\).
In 2 Samuel 16:23, the “oracle of God” (KJV) that gave [Ahithophel](Ahithophel-in-the-Bible.html) wisdom means “the Word of God” or, more specifically, “a divine utterance delivered to man.” Elsewhere in the Old Testament, the “oracle of God” refers to the place where God dwelt—the [Most Holy Place](Holy-of-Holies.html) in the temple that contained the [Ark of the Covenant](ark-of-the-covenant.html)—and thus the place where inquiry could be made about God’s wisdom, will, and word (see 1 Kings 6:5 and 19 in the KJV).
|
What is Atenism?
|
Answer
Frequently in the history of the church, skeptics have put forward arguments to say that Christianity is a mosaic of [other religions](Bible-myths-legends.html) and therefore has no validity. Time and again these attacks have been refuted. One such attack on Christianity, Judaism, and the Bible is to say that Moses borrowed the idea of one God from Atenism and that Yahweh is simply Aten repackaged.
Atenism was the worship of the Egyptian god Aten (or Aton), the representation of the sun god. Aten is pictured in hieroglyphics as the disk of the sun extending blessings to the denizens of earth. Pharaoh Amenhotep IV, who lived in the 14th century BC, promoted Atenism in an attempt to consolidate Egyptian polytheism to the worship of only one god. Amenhotep called himself Akhenaten (meaning “Beneficial to Aten” or “Servant of Aten”). The pharaoh gave orders to obliterate pictures and names of other gods in Egypt, and for this reason is sometimes considered the world’s first monotheist. But Atenism is better described as monolatry or [henotheism](henotheism.html), the worship of one god among others. Atenism did not last long after the death of the cult’s founder; after Akhenaten was gone, the Egyptians went back to their previous collection of gods and eventually labeled Akhenaten as “the Heretic King.”
Did the religion of Atenism have anything to do with Judaism? The way this question is answered largely depends on whether or not one believes that the Bible is true. If the Bible is true, the answer is simply, “No, Judaism (and Christianity) did not borrow from Atenism.” The Bible, if true, is an accurate account of who God is and how He interacts with mankind. Any similarities between the biblical description of God and descriptions found in other religions are either coincidence or suggest that other religions borrowed from the Bible. If the Bible is not true, then it doesn’t much matter if it borrowed from Atenism or not. If one is unsure whether the Bible is true, it is worth investigating the similarities between Atenism and ancient Judaism.
According to the theory of some skeptics, the Hebrew people were potentially residents of Egypt during Akhenaten’s reign. The Hebrews liked many aspects of Atenism and therefore incorporated Atenism into their own religious systems upon leaving Egypt. According to the theory, the monotheism of Judaism (and later, Christianity) was copied from Atenism. Moses stole the idea from Akhenaten.
There are however several problems with this theory. First is the issue of chronology. The Hebrews were [in Egypt](400-years-Egypt.html) from roughly 1800 to 1400 BC, and Akhenaten did not reign until the mid\-1300s BC. The children of Israel left Egypt before Akhenaten ascended the throne and so could not have borrowed anything from Atenism. To definitively say there was religious borrowing, one would have to definitively prove Moses and Akhenaten were contemporaries. This has not yet been done.
Second, the similarities between ancient Judaism and Atenism are extremely few—namely, one. The only similarity between Atenism and Judaism is that they are both monotheistic in a time when polytheism was nearly ubiquitous. There are major differences between the two religions. Aten seems to have no ethical preferences and certainly no established law like the God of Judaism. In Exodus 19:6, the God of the Jews declares that He will make all of His people priests who are to represent Him to the world. In contrast, King Akhenaten declared himself to be the sole mediator between Aten and humanity.
Some have proposed similarities between the Egyptian royal Yuya and the Joseph of Genesis. Others have tried to relate Akhenaten to Moses in some way, saying that Moses actually *was* Akhenaten. These theories have gained little ground with scholars. For one thing, Yuya was buried in the Valley of the Kings in Thebes, and Joseph’s body was taken to Canaan for burial (Joshua 24:32\). For another, Moses was not Egyptian, as the biblical record of his family lineage clearly states.
To summarize, there is no solid basis, historically or theologically, to claim that Judaism or Christianity in any way borrowed from Atenism.
|
What is seed faith?
|
Answer
Promoters of the false “[prosperity gospel](prosperity-gospel.html)” and [Word of Faith](Word-Faith.html) movement often like to talk about “seeding,” “seed faith offerings,” and “hundred\-fold returns.” A seed faith offering is money given in faith that God will multiply it and return it to the giver. The more money you give—and the more faith you have—the more money you get in return. Prosperity preachers often solicit gifts to their ministries by promising such in\-kind returns: “Send me $10 and trust God to give you back $1,000\.” They give their appeals for money a spiritual gloss with statements such as “God wants to bless you with a miracle” and “Jesus is bigger than your debt.” And they will misuse verses such as Mark 4:8, “Still other seed fell on good soil. It came up, grew and produced a crop, some multiplying thirty, some sixty, some a hundred times.” It’s good to remember the “seed” in this verse is the Word of God (Mark 4:14\), not money.
The late Oral Roberts was highly influential in spreading the concept of seed faith offerings, and he taught people to expect a miracle when they sow a “seed” from their “need.” He wrote, “To realize your potential, to overcome life’s problems, to see your life become fruitful, multiply and provide abundance (i.e., health, prosperity, spiritual renewal, in the family or oneself), you should decide to follow the divine law of the sower and the harvest. Sow the seed of His promise in the ground of your need” (from “Principles of the Seed”). In the July 1980 edition of *Abundant Life*, Roberts wrote, “Solve your money needs with money seeds” (page 4\).
Richard Roberts, Oral’s son, says on his website, “Give God something to work with. No matter how little you think you have, sow it in joy and faith, knowing in your heart that you are sowing seed so you may reap miracles. Then start expecting all kinds of miracles!” In May 2016, Roberts’ newsletter appealed for monetary gifts with this statement: “Sow a special $100 seed. . . . If you will plant this seed out of your need and go into a holy agreement with me, then TOGETHER you and I will EXPECT A MIGHTY MIRACLE FROM GOD” (from his website, emphasis in the original).
According to Oral Roberts, the way to take advantage of the law of sowing and reaping is three\-fold: 1\) look to God as your source, 2\) give first so that it may be given to you, and 3\) expect a miracle. As a “proof text” for the second step, seed\-faith teachers like to use Luke 6:38, “Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.” The misuse of this verse starts with its application to material gain—Jesus was speaking of forgiveness in Luke 6:37, not money. Also, there’s a difference between “Give, *and*” and “Give *so that*.” Seed\-faith teachers advocate a selfish [motive](Bible-motives.html) for giving—give *so that* you can get—and they state as much. The Bible teaches that we give for the sake of benefiting others and to glorify the Lord, not in order to enrich ourselves.
Teachers of seed faith offering also like Matthew 17:20, “Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.” Of course, this verse says nothing about getting money or making seed faith offerings.
Another passage misused by seed\-faith preachers is Mark 10:29–30, “Truly I tell you . . . no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age: homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields.” Seed\-faith teachers latch on to the promise of a “hundred times as much,” but they only apply it to “homes” and “fields”—that is, material wealth. They ignore the rest of the list. Are we to suppose that Jesus promised His followers a hundred *literal* mothers or that we should expect a hundred times more blood relatives than we have now? Or was Jesus speaking of an increased *spiritual* family? Since the mothers and fathers and brothers and sisters are spiritual, then perhaps the homes and fields are spiritual, as well.
The promoters of the doctrine of seed faith offerings ignore several important details in Scripture. Consider, for example, 2 Corinthians 9:10–12, “He who supplies seed to the sower and bread for food will also supply and increase your store of seed and will enlarge the harvest of your righteousness. You will be enriched in every way so that you can be generous on every occasion, and through us your generosity will result in thanksgiving to God. This service that you perform is not only supplying the needs of the Lord’s people but is also overflowing in many expressions of thanks to God.” This passage says God supplies the seed for sowing; that is, He supplies the resources for us to generously give away. And, when we give, God will supply more resources so the giving continues. Note, however, the reaping is not monetary gain but “the harvest of your righteousness.” Also, it is thanksgivings to God that overflow, not our bank accounts. The seed sown in this passage does not result in miracles or in personal wealth.
The promoters of seed faith offerings also ignore the fact that the apostles were not wealthy men. The apostles certainly gave to others: “I will very gladly spend for you everything I have and expend myself as well” (2 Corinthians 12:15\). Based on the doctrine of seed faith offerings, Paul should have been a rich man. Yet, “to this very hour we go hungry and thirsty, we are in rags, we are brutally treated, we are homeless. We work hard with our own hands” (1 Corinthians 4:10–11\). The apostles were materially poor, yet they were spiritually blessed by the Lord.
God loves a [cheerful giver](cheerful-giver.html) (2 Corinthians 9:7\), but we must not assume that His favor will be shown in financial returns. Nor should we appropriate promises given to Old Testament Israel for ourselves. Our motive for giving should not be to get money in return. Our goal should be godliness with contentment (see 1 Timothy 6:6–10\). We should pray, “Lord, help me learn to be [content](Bible-contentment.html) with what I have, even if I am hungry or in need” (see Philippians 4:11–13\).
The seed faith teaching amounts to little more than a get\-rich\-quick scheme that preys upon the desperate and hurting among God’s people. Peter warned the church about such chicanery: “Through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you” (2 Peter 2:3, KJV).
|
What does it mean that “the Lord said to my Lord”?
|
Answer
In Psalm 110:1, David says, “The LORD says to my Lord: ‘Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool’” (ESV). In Matthew 22:44, Jesus quotes this verse in a discussion with the Pharisees in order to prove that the Messiah is more than David’s son; He is David’s Lord.
The clause *the LORD says to my Lord* contains two different Hebrew words for “lord” in the original. The first word is [*Yahweh*](YHWH-tetragrammaton.html), the Hebrew covenant name for God. The second is *adoni*, meaning “lord” or “master.” So, in Psalm 110:1, David writes this: “Yahweh says to my Adoni. . . .” To better understand Jesus’ use of Psalm 110:1, we’ll look at the identity of each “Lord” separately.
The first “Lord” in “the LORD says to my Lord” is the eternal God of the universe, the Great I AM who revealed Himself to Moses in Exodus 3\. This self\-existent, omnipotent God speaks in Psalm 110 to someone else who is also David’s “Lord.”
The second “Lord” in “the LORD says to my Lord” is the Messiah, or the Christ. Psalm 110 describes this second “Lord” as follows:
● He sits at God’s right hand (verse 1\)
● He will triumph over all His enemies and rule over them (verses 1–2\)
● He will lead a glorious procession of troops (verse 3\)
● He will be “a priest forever, in the order of [Melchizedek](Melchizedek-priesthood.html)” (verse 4\)
● He will have divine power to crush kings, judge nations, and slay the wicked (verses 5–6\)
● He will find refreshment and be exalted (verse 7\)
In Matthew 22:44, Jesus unmistakably identifies the second “Lord” of Psalm 110:1 as the Messiah, and the Pharisees all agree that, yes, David was speaking of the Messiah. When David wrote, “The LORD says to my Lord,” he distinctly said that the Messiah (or the Christ) was his lord and master—his *Adoni*.
A common title for the Messiah in Jesus’ day was “[Son of David](Jesus-son-of-David.html),” based on the fact that the Messiah would be the descendant of David who would inherit the throne and fulfill the [Davidic Covenant](Davidic-covenant.html) (see 2 Samuel 7\). Jesus capitalizes on the Jewish use of the title “Son of David” to drive home His point in Matthew 22\. “While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, ‘What do you think about the Messiah? Whose son is he?’ ‘The son of David,’ they replied. He said to them, ‘How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him “Lord”? For he says, “‘The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.”’” If then David calls him “Lord,” how can he be his son?’” (Matthew 22:41–45\).
Jesus’ reasoning is this: “Son of David” is your title for the Messiah, yet David himself calls Him “Lord.” The Messiah, then, must be much more than just a son—a physical descendant—of David. According to Psalm 110:1, this “Son of David” was alive during David’s time and was greater than David. All of this information is contained in the statement that “the LORD says to my Lord.” Jesus is David’s Lord; He is the Christ, the Jewish Messiah, and Psalm 110 is a promise of Jesus’ victory at His second coming.
Another important point that Jesus makes in Matthew 22 is that David wrote the psalm under the guidance of the Holy Spirit; David was “speaking by the Spirit,” Jesus says (verse 43\). Clearly, Jesus taught the [inspiration of Scripture](Bible-inspired.html). When David wrote, “The LORD says to my Lord,” he was recording exactly what God wanted him to write.
|
What is realized eschatology?
|
Answer
Realized eschatology is a theory holding that the prophetic passages in the New Testament do not refer to the future; rather, they refer to the ministry of Jesus and His lasting “legacy” in the church. According to realized eschatology, all the Bible’s prophecies about the kingdom were fulfilled during Jesus’ lifetime. When Jesus said, “The time has come. . . . The kingdom of God has come near” (Mark 1:15\), He meant that we should understand the kingdom as a present, experiential reality rather than a distant, future event. Realized eschatology was introduced by [liberal theologian](liberal-Christian-theology.html) C. H. Dodd in his 1935 book, *The Parables of the Kingdom* and popularized through his later writings.
Realized eschatology says that the “future” events prophesied in the Bible are not future at all anymore; they were all fulfilled by Jesus or they are being fulfilled in the church. The Bible says the Messiah would come—and He did, when Jesus was born in Bethlehem. The Bible says that God will judge the sins of the world—and He did, when Jesus died on the cross. The Bible says the dead will rise—and they did, when Jesus raised Lazarus and others from the grave. What about the Bible’s prophecies of the second coming, rule, and glorification of Jesus? Realized eschatology has that covered, too—all of that was fulfilled in Jesus’ resurrection and ascension. The eschatology has been realized.
According to realized eschatology, the study of [eschatology](Eschatology.html) does not involve the end of the world but the world’s “rebirth” as Jesus set the standard and His followers continue to live out His timeless principles. Proponents of realized eschatology do not look forward to a rapture, a second coming, or a worldwide judgment. Instead, they try to focus on what Jesus said and did; everything else is irrelevant.
In some ways, realized eschatology is related to [full preterism](preterist.html), the teaching that the end\-times prophecies in the Bible have all been fulfilled; and to “[Kingdom Now](kingdom-now.html)” theology, which says that we are already living in the kingdom of God and can tap into the promises associated with the kingdom any time we want.
The fact that realized eschatology was formulated by a liberal theologian—and continues to be a pet doctrine in liberal circles—should be enough to cause us caution. But more important than that is comparing the doctrine of realized eschatology to what the Bible says and what we know to be true of world events. Of course, there are some aspects of eschatology that have been “realized” or fulfilled. But not everything. Jesus Himself spoke of “this age, and . . . the age to come” (Luke 18:30\), giving His disciples hope of a future age different from the current one. When Jesus ascended into heaven, the angels told the disciples, “This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven” (Acts 1:11\). The angels’ words clearly point to a yet\-future event in eschatology, giving the disciples something to look forward to (see Titus 2:13\).
When Jesus said, “The kingdom of God has come near” (Mark 1:15\), He was not saying that He was at that time fulfilling all the prophecies. Instead, Jesus was pointing to the proofs that He was the Messiah. Whenever Jesus spoke and acted in the power of God, the kingdom was in a sense “present”; every time Jesus healed a lame person or cast out a demon, heaven was touching earth. Jesus was giving a foretaste of the wonderful things to come in the kingdom of God. Immanuel had indeed come to ransom captive Israel.
There were some promises associated with Jesus’ coming that did not take place at His first advent. The Lord Himself confirms this in Luke 4\. When Jesus stands to read from Isaiah in the synagogue of Nazareth, He claims to be the fulfillment of several [messianic prophecies](messianic-prophecies.html): He proclaims good news to the poor, offers freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, sets the oppressed free, and pronounces the year of the Lord’s favor (Luke 4:18–19; cf. Isaiah 61:1–2\). But then Jesus stops reading mid\-sentence and hands the scroll back to the attendant. “Today,” Jesus says, “this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing” (Luke 4:21\). Jesus had not read the whole of that Scripture. There were other parts of Isaiah’s eschatology that were *not* realized on that day, namely, “the day of vengeance of our God” (Isaiah 61:2\). Something more had been promised, something that Jesus left to be fulfilled on another day. In other words, Jesus taught an “unrealized” eschatology.
There are many things prophesied in the Bible that have not yet occurred. We await their fulfillment in the secure hope that God is faithful and cannot lie. Trying to construe biblical prophecy as non\-literal, which is what realized eschatology must do, goes against the principles of good [biblical interpretation](Biblical-hermeneutics.html).
|
What is the meaning of shigionoth in Habakkuk?
|
Answer
The plural word *shigionoth* and its singular form, *shiggaion*, each appear in the Bible once. Habakkuk 3:1 mentions *shigionoth*, and the title of Psalm 7 mentions the *shiggaion*. Since no one really knows what the *shigionoth* or *shiggaion* is, the translators left the words untranslated, giving transliterations instead. The prophet Habakkuk introduces his closing song this way: “A prayer of Habakkuk the prophet. On *shigionoth*.” The ESV says, “According to *Shigionoth*,” instead of “*On shigionoth*.” The title of Psalm 7 says, “A *shiggaion* of David, which he sang to the LORD concerning Cush, a Benjamite.”
The whole [book of Habakkuk](Book-of-Habakkuk.html) is poetry, but the final chapter comprises a unique song—actually, a prayer set to music, according to Habakkuk 3:1\. The *shigionoth* mentioned in Habakkuk 3:1 could be a reference to the content of the poem, the accompanying instrument, or to the song’s meter, its musical setting, or its tone. Most commentators think the word *shigionoth* carried the idea of “strong emotion,” “erratic wandering,” or “wild tumult.” Thus, the song was composed as a dithyramb (a vehement, impassioned poem).
Comparing Habakkuk 3 with Psalm 7, we find similar themes. Both songs paint a picture of dire trouble. Habakkuk 3 speaks of earthquakes, crumbling mountains, pestilence, floods, arrows, spears, and calamity; Psalm 7 describes vicious lions, trampled lives, rage, swords, flaming arrows, and violence. Both songs end with praise to the Lord for His deliverance from the surrounding trouble. And both songs mention the *shiggaion* or *shigionoth*.
David classifies his song as a *shiggaion*. Habakkuk says that his song should be sung in the manner of the *shigionoth*. As best we can tell, the tumultuous poetry of Habakkuk 3 and Psalm 7 was to be accompanied by music that fit the theme. “On shigionoth” probably meant “with impassioned triumph,” “with rapidity,” or “with abrupt changes of tune.”
|
What is a michtam in the Bible?
|
Answer
No one is precisely sure what a *michtam* (or *miktam*) was, and that’s why the Hebrew word remains as a transliteration in our English Bibles. Translators didn’t know how to translate *michtam*, so they spelled it phonetically and called it good enough.
Psalm 16 is titled “A *miktam* of David.” The other psalms that are called “*michtams*” are Psalms 56–60\. All six of these are psalms of David. In Isaiah 38:9, King Hezekiah’s song is introduced with these words: “A writing of Hezekiah king of Judah after his illness and recovery.” The Hebrew word for “writing” here is *miktab*, which many scholars believe is related to *michtam*.
A possibly related word to *michtam* is the Hebrew *katham*, which means “an engraving.” If the underlying meaning of *michtam* is “engraving,” then the songs labeled as “*michtams*” could have been considered of enough value to be stamped or engraved upon tablets for long\-term preservation. Some scholars see the word *michtam* as meaning “golden,” a definition that would similarly assign great value to a song so labeled. A *michtam* could be “a psalm as precious as stamped gold”; if so, today’s top\-selling songs that are “certified gold” could be considered “*michtams*” of a sort.
The link between a *michtam* and golden worth is speculative, however. Other scholars think the word *michtam* is simply a [technical term](Psalms-musical-terms.html) to guide the singer or to denote the tune to be played. In the end, we don’t know. Like the words *maskil*, *selah*, and *shigionoth*, *michtam* remains somewhat of a mystery in the Hebrew song book.
|
What is Esoteric Christianity?
|
Answer
*Esoteric* means “requiring special knowledge to understand; designed for only a select few.” Esoteric Christianity, then, would be a version of “Christianity” that can only be understood or practiced by those who have been properly initiated in secret knowledge. Esoteric Christianity teaches that Christianity is a mystery religion and that only a small minority of people ever achieve the enlightenment necessary to crack the arcane teachings of the Bible and truly know God.
Esotericism has more in common with [Gnosticism](Christian-gnosticism.html), [Theosophy](theosophy.html), and [Rosicrucianism](Rosicrucianism.html) than genuine biblical Christianity. Esoteric Christianity operates from the false premise that only a small group of people have access to the inner workings of the Christian faith. This is rather preposterous considering that the gospel of Christianity has and is spreading to even the remotest parts of the earth (Acts 1:8\).
Esoteric Christianity views “salvation” as a stepping stone to greater truths. The Christian should not be satisfied with just being “saved” but with being “enlightened” and reaching “spiritual liberation.” Esoteric Christianity promotes introspection with the goal of attaining the knowledge of Self. Repentance, to an Esoteric Christian, is the “turning in” of one’s thoughts toward oneself and away from the world. Esoteric Christianity also embraces such falsehoods as [astral projection](out-of-body-experience.html) and [reincarnation](reincarnation.html). Promoters of Esoteric Christianity contrast themselves with those they call “Exoteric Christians”; the difference is that esotericists focus on inner religion and exotericists focus on outer religion.
Esoteric Christianity is [ecumenical](ecumenism-ecumenical.html), having a desire to unite with esotericists of other faiths to establish a universal religion. The universal brotherhood of mankind will be realized, according to Esoteric Christianity, when people develop their minds and wills to the extent that “the Christ Within” is born in every individual. The teaching of Esoteric Christianity that everyone possesses divinity is blatant humanism.
Esoteric Christianity uses select verses from the Gospels for some of its teachings, but it also draws from the [Apocrypha](apocrypha-deuterocanonical.html) and various apocalyptic texts. Esoteric Christianity uses Jesus’ words in Matthew 13:11 and John 16:12 to make the point that divine wisdom was hidden from some and revealed to others. Undoubtedly, Jesus kept those who willfully rejected Him “in the dark”—that was one purpose of the [parables](what-is-a-parable.html) (Matthew 13:10–13\)—but the Bible’s basic command is to believe, not to chase hidden knowledge, mystical enlightenment, or self\-actualization.
The Scriptures do speak of the church, comprised of both Jews and Gentiles, as a “mystery,” but it’s a mystery that has been fully revealed by God through the preaching of the apostles. A “mystery” in the New Testament is not an esoteric bit of information restricted from all but a few Christians; it is something that was in times past hidden but is now revealed to everyone. Paul wrote, “Of this church I was made a minister according to the stewardship from God bestowed on me for your benefit, that I might fully carry out the preaching of the word of God, that is, the mystery which has been hidden from the past ages and generations; but has now been manifested to His saints, to whom God willed to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory” (Colossians 1:25–27, NASB). See also Ephesians 3:3–11\. That the Gentiles would be fellow heirs with Christ within [His Body](body-of-Christ.html) was indeed an amazing revelation to the early Jewish apostles and disciples of Jesus.
Are there doctrines in the Bible that unsaved people cannot understand? Yes, “the person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit” (1 Corinthians 2:14\). “But,” Paul goes on to say, “we have the mind of Christ” (verse 16\). One’s level of spiritual understanding depends on the presence of the indwelling Holy Spirit. We must grow in Christ (1 Corinthians 2:1–2\) and increase in knowledge (2 Peter 3:18\), but not, as Esoteric Christianity teaches, to attain special “premium membership” status. Jesus’ invitation is broad, not limited to a select few: “Whoever comes to me I will never drive away” (John 6:37\). The Word of God is our guide (Psalm 119:105\), not human wisdom.
|
How could Jesus say, “Your sins are forgiven,” before He died on the cross?
|
Answer
We know that God forgives sins on the basis of Jesus’ shed blood on the cross (Ephesians 1:7; 1 John 1:7\). Yet, before He went to the cross, Jesus told two people that their sins were forgiven. This fact puzzles some people. How could Jesus forgive sin before the sacrifice was even made? After all, Hebrews 9:22 says, “Without the shedding of blood there is no [forgiveness](what-is-forgiveness.html).”
Let’s identify the two people to whom Jesus said, “Your sins are forgiven,” before He died on [the cross](meaning-of-the-cross.html). The first is the paralyzed man who was brought to Jesus by friends and lowered through a roof to be healed. “When Jesus saw their faith, he said, ‘Friend, your sins are forgiven’” (Luke 5:20\). The second person is the sinful woman who came to Jesus while He ate at Simon the Pharisee’s house. Seeing her reverence, the Lord contrasted her love with Simon’s lack of love. “Then Jesus said to her, ‘Your sins are forgiven’” (Luke 7:48\). In both cases, Jesus’ words caused quite a stir among the hearers (Luke 5:21; 7:49\).
When Jesus said, “Your sins are forgiven”—even before He died on the cross—He was not speaking empty words. He had the power to forgive sin, just like He had the power to heal paralysis. In fact, Jesus used the physical healing to confirm His authority to dispense spiritual healing: “‘I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.’ So he said to the paralyzed man, ‘I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home.’ Immediately he stood up in front of them, took what he had been lying on and went home praising God” (Luke 5:24–25\).
Turning to the Old Testament, we find other people whose sins were forgiven before Jesus died on the cross. David prayed for forgiveness (Psalm 51:2\) and received it. “Blessed is the one whose transgressions are forgiven” (Psalm 32:1\). As he touched Isaiah with a coal from the altar, an angel declared the prophet’s forgiveness: “Your guilt is taken away and your sin atoned for” (Isaiah 6:7\). The atonement provided by the animal sacrifices resulted in forgiveness (Leviticus 4:20, 26, 31, 35\).
The principle found all through the Bible is that forgiveness is God’s business. “With you there is forgiveness, that you may be feared” (Psalm 130:4, ESV). “You, Lord, are good, and ready to forgive” (Psalm 86:5, NASB). “To the Lord our God belong mercy and forgiveness” (Daniel 9:9, ESV). When Jesus displayed His power to forgive sins, He clearly showed that He was the Son of God wielding God’s authority in this world. “Who can forgive sins but God alone?” (Luke 5:21\). No one; Jesus is [God Incarnate](incarnation-of-Christ.html).
Forgiveness of sin in every dispensation has always been based on Jesus’ death on the cross (see Hebrews 9:15\). In the Old Testament, sins were forgiven on the basis of Jesus’ death on the cross, of which the animal sacrifices were but a foreshadowing. During the life of Christ, sins were forgiven on the basis of His yet\-future death on the cross—the benefits of that sacrifice were granted to those who had faith in Jesus. Now, by faith, we look back on the death and resurrection of Christ and receive God’s forgiveness. The good news is as Paul preached, “My friends, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you” (Acts 13:38\). When we trust Christ, the word to us is the same as that spoken to the forgiven woman in Simon’s house: “Your faith has saved you; go in peace” (Luke 7:50\).
|
What was the Old Covenant?
|
Answer
The Old Covenant was a conditional or bilateral agreement that God made with the Israelites. The Old Covenant was in effect during the [dispensation of the Law](dispensation-of-Law.html). It is “old” in comparison to the New Covenant, promised by Jeremiah the prophet (Jeremiah 31:31, 33\) and made effective by the death of the Lord Jesus (Luke 22:20\). In the Old Covenant, the Israelites were required to obey God and keep [the Law](Mosaic-Law.html), and in return He protected and blessed them (Deuteronomy 30:15–18; 1 Samuel 12:14–15\). In the New Covenant, things change and God becomes the proactive and unconditional source of salvation and blessing. In the New Covenant, “God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8\).
The author of Hebrews details some of the differences between the Old Covenant and the New. The Old Covenant required repeated, daily [sacrifices of animals](animal-sacrifices.html) as a reminder of the people’s sin. But “it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins” (Hebrews 10:4\). Under the New Covenant, “we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (verse 10\), ending the need for animal sacrifices. “Where \[sins and lawless acts] have been forgiven, sacrifice for sin is no longer necessary” (verse 18\).
Under the Old Covenant, only the high priest could enter the Most Holy Place where God’s presence dwelt—and that only once a year. But under the [New Covenant](new-covenant.html), Jesus is our High Priest (Hebrews 10:21\), “we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus” (verse 19\), and we can “draw near to God with a sincere heart and with the full assurance that faith brings” (verse 22\).
The Old Covenant was a set of “external regulations applying until the time of the new order” (Hebrews 9:10\). Upon Jesus’ death and resurrection, the external regulations gave way to an internal change of heart (see Galatians 6:15\). The Old Covenant was fulfilled in Christ (Matthew 5:17\). “The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves” (Hebrews 10:1\). “The reality . . . is found in Christ” (Colossians 2:17\). The New Covenant involves a superior ministry (of Christ), is “established on better promises,” and is, in fact, “superior to the old \[covenant]” (Hebrews 8:6\).
Even while the Old Covenant stood, God had planned the New Covenant. The two work together to show people their need for God and then to fulfill that need. The Old Covenant required people to please God, but no one can measure up to perfection, and the Old Covenant resulted in a string of failures. “Through the law we become conscious of our sin” (Romans 3:20\). The Old Covenant established our guilt before God and our need for a Savior. The Old Covenant was never intended to save us; in fact, “the old written covenant ends in death; but under the new covenant, the Spirit gives life” (2 Corinthians 3:6, NLT).
In the Old Covenant, God also established that the way to atone for sin is through the shedding of blood (Hebrews 9:22\). That is why during the [Last Supper](Last-Supper.html) on the night of His arrest, Jesus passed the cup to the disciples and told them, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you” (Luke 22:20\). When Jesus was crucified, His blood provided for the forgiveness of the sins of the whole world—the basis of the New Covenant. “By calling this covenant ‘new,’ he has made the first one obsolete” (Hebrews 8:13\). Salvation is now a free gift for any who will believe in Christ and trust that His blood takes away their guilt before God (John 3:16–17\).
One purpose of the Old Covenant was to make it absolutely clear that no man is righteous before God and that no one can save himself (Romans 3:10–11, 20\). Before the New Covenant came, we were “held in custody under the law” (Galatians 3:23\). God’s people were stuck in the Old Covenant, relying on a sacrificial system that looked forward to the coming of Christ and justification by faith (verse 24\). “But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son . . . born under the law to redeem those under the law” (Galatians 4:4–5\). When the Son of God died on the cross, God “canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross” (Colossians 2:14\).
The ultimate purpose of the Old Covenant was to point people to Christ: “The law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian” (Galatians 3:24–25\). One truth that must not be missed is that *we are no longer [under the Old Covenant](not-under-the-law.html)*. Many false teachers today call on people to keep the Law, or at least part of it, as a means to be made right with God. Christians must stand firm in the grace that God has given us and reject such legalism. “In Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith” (verse 26\).
|
What is a bridegroom?
|
Answer
A bridegroom is a man just married or just about to be married. A bridegroom is the male version of a bride, a woman who is just married or just about to be married. The word *bridegroom* comes from the Old English *brydguma*, which was a combination of *bryd* (“bride”) and *guma* (“man”). The word *bridegroom* appears in the Bible in both Testaments and carries the same meaning: the husband of the bride.
The word *bridegroom* is used often in the Bible as a metaphor for God, specifically for Jesus Christ. The church is likened to a bride with Christ as her bridegroom. When Jesus was with His disciples, He answered a question about fasting with an analogy involving a bridegroom: “How can the guests of the bridegroom fast while he is with them? They cannot, so long as they have him with them. But the time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them, and on that day they will fast” (Mark 2:19–20\). Jesus is the bridegroom, and His disciples are the wedding guests. [John the Baptist](life-John-Baptist.html) presented himself as the “friend who attends the bridegroom,” which is the person we would today call the “best man” (John 3:29\). John said, “The bride belongs to the bridegroom,” and by this he referred to Jesus and the church, His spiritual bride, who stands by His side and invites people in, saying, “‘Come!’ Let the one who is thirsty come; and let the one who wishes take the free gift of the water of life” (Revelation 22:17\).
This church—the [Bride of Christ](bride-of-Christ.html)—is not one specific local church or denomination but the entire body of believers throughout the ages. All who have trusted the Lord and received salvation by grace through faith are collectively His Bride. This analogy exists in several New Testament passages. Paul gives believers instructions about marriage, saying, “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” (Ephesians 5:25\). Paul also refers to the church as a virgin waiting for her bridegroom (2 Corinthians 11:2\) and uses the relationship between Christ and the church as an example of the importance of wives’ submission to their husbands (Ephesians 5:24\).
The [New Jerusalem](new-jerusalem.html) is also referred to “as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband” in Revelation 21:2, another passage that alludes to Christ as a bridegroom (verse 9\).
|
Who was Jairus in the Bible?
|
Answer
Jairus in the Bible was the father of a 12\-year\-old girl whom Jesus raised from the dead. Jairus was a ruler in the synagogue of Capernaum (Mark 5:22\), so he was a well\-known religious leader. Jairus came to Jesus, pleading with Him to come lay His hands on his only daughter, who was near death. He humbled himself before Jesus, falling down at His feet (Luke 8:41\). Jairus expressed faith in Jesus’ ability to heal his child, and Jesus began to follow him home (Mark 5:23–24\). The story of Jairus is recorded in the Bible in Mark 5:22–41 and Luke 8:41–56\.
As Jesus walked with Jairus, they had to press through a large crowd. In the Bible the description is that “the crowds almost crushed him” (Luke 8:42\). It is likely that the crowd slowed Jesus’ progress considerably, and this must have been frustrating for Jairus—time was of the essence, since his daughter was at the point of death. In the midst of the crowd, a [woman who had been bleeding](woman-issue-blood.html) for twelve years came up behind Jesus and touched the hem of his robe, saying to herself, “If I just touch his clothes, I will be healed” (Mark 5:28\). Her flow of blood dried up immediately. Jesus felt that power had gone out from Him, and He turned to ask who had touched His clothing. The woman came to Him, trembling in fear, and, falling before Him, told Him the truth (verse 33\). Jesus said, “Daughter, your faith has healed you. Go in peace and be freed from your suffering” (verse 34\).
As Jesus was speaking to the woman, some people from the house of Jairus arrived and told Jairus that his daughter was dead and there was no need to trouble Jesus anymore (Mark 5:35\). Jesus overheard the news and gave Jairus two commands and a promise: “Don’t be afraid; just believe, and she will be healed” (Luke 8:50\). Together, they continued toward the house of Jairus. When they got there, the mourners were wailing and weeping, but Jesus asked them, “Why all this commotion and wailing? The child is not dead but asleep” (Mark 5:39\). The mourners turned into scoffers, laughing and making fun of Jesus (verse 40\). Undeterred, Jesus went into the house, taking with Him Jairus and his wife, along with Peter, James, and John (Luke 8:51\).
Jesus entered the room where Jairus’ daughter lay. He took the dead girl by the hand and said, “[*Talitha koum*](talitha-cumi.html),” which means, “Little girl, I say to you, arise” (Mark 5:41\). Immediately, the girl’s spirit returned (Luke 8:55\), and she got up and began walking around (Mark 5:41\). Everyone was “completely astonished” (verse 41\); literally, they were “removed from a standing position” or, as we might say, they were “floored” or “thrown for a loop.” Jesus then commanded Jairus to give his daughter something to eat but [not to tell anyone](do-not-tell.html) about the miracle (Luke 8:55–56\).
It is interesting to note that the daughter of Jairus was twelve years old—the same number of years as the woman in the crowd had suffered from her infirmity. Also, Jesus calls the woman He healed “Daughter” (Luke 8:48\)—the only time He calls an individual that—amid the many references to Jairus’ daughter in the same narrative. The story of Jairus in the Bible is really a miracle within a miracle, with two “daughters” and two stretches of a dozen years.
When Jesus stopped on His way to Jairus’ house to speak to the woman in the crowd, He allowed time to pass. Jesus was not worried about Jairus’ daughter dying. He knew all along that He would heal her, even if that meant raising her from the dead. In a beautiful act of mercy, Jesus stops to care for the woman in the crowd who had reached out to Him in faith. Jairus undoubtedly felt the urgency of his situation, and he probably chafed at what he saw as a delay. His daughter was lying at death’s door, and Jesus was taking His time. Jairus learned that God’s timing and purpose are not like ours. Sometimes He requires [patience](Bible-patience.html) from us, sometimes He waits longer than we think is rational, and sometimes He allows temporary loss in order to show us the eternal abundance of His blessing (see Ecclesiastes 3:11; 2 Corinthians 4:17\).
Jairus was a leader in the synagogue, and the bleeding woman in the crowd was likely an outcast because of her ailment (see Leviticus 15:25–27\). But Jesus graciously met their respective needs and responded to their faith with equal love, power, and willingness to heal. He “shows no partiality to princes and does not favor the rich over the poor, for they are all the work of his hands” (Job 34:19\).
|
What does it mean that the love of many will grow cold (Matthew 24:12)?
|
Answer
Jesus predicted that the love of many would grow cold as part of His answer to the disciples’ question, “What will be the sign of your coming, and of the end of the age?” In Matthew 24, in the [Olivet Discourse](Olivet-discourse.html), Jesus describes the end of the age that will precede His [second coming](second-coming-Jesus-Christ.html). He says that there will be false Christs (verse 5\), wars (verse 6\), and strife and natural disasters (verse 7\).
Jesus also warned of the persecution of believers, some of whom would prove to be false disciples who would turn on one another (Matthew 24:9–10\). “And,” Jesus said, “because lawlessness will be increased, the love of many will grow cold” (verse 12, ESV). Whether it is because of the deluding influence of the false teachers or the persecution or the fear of death, the zeal of many false professors will diminish. Their love toward God and toward the church will “grow cold.” True Christians, even those whose faith is weak, will persevere to the end (verse 13\). Theirs is the true love, which is the fruit of the Holy Spirit (Galatians 5:22\), and it [cannot fail](love-never-fails.html) (1 Corinthians 13:7\). True love cannot become cold because it is sustained by Christ who is able to keep us from falling (Jude 1:24\).
For those without the Spirit, however, what love they do have will become colder and colder in the last days. Paul expands this idea in 2 Timothy 3:1–4 when he describes the last days. The love those people have is not a warm, living love for God and His truth and His people. Rather, it is the love of self and the love of money (verse 2\). Paul describes those whose love for God, Christ, and the saints is only in pretense, not in reality. They do all they do in a religious way from self\-love and to selfish ends. Their aim is to gain glory and applause from men or to use religion to gain something for themselves. They do nothing for the glory of God, the honor of Christ, or the good of others.
How can we be sure that the love we have for Christ will never grow cold? We begin by examining ourselves to be sure we are truly in the faith (2 Corinthians 13:5\). If we truly belong to Christ, we can be confident that we possess the love from the Spirit that never grows cold. Then we should make every effort to increase our love:, “This is my prayer: that your love may abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight, so that you may be able to discern what is best and may be pure and blameless for the day of Christ, filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ—to the glory and praise of God” (Philippians 1:9–11\).
|
What is Yazidism, and what do Yazidis believe?
|
Answer
Yazidism is the religion of a Kurdish people\-group that lives primarily in Iraq. Some Yazidis also live in Armenia, Turkey, Iran, Georgia, and Syria. The Kurds are usually identified as an Iranian ethnic group descended from the Medes. Not all Kurds are Yazidis, but all Yazidis are Kurdish. The Yazidi live in tight\-knit communities, and marriage outside the religion is not allowed. The Yazidi follow a strict caste system within their culture. The Yazidi are also called Yezidi, Daasin, or Ezidi.
Yazidis are monotheistic, and they believe in a creator God whom they call Yasdan. Similarity to Christianity ends with monotheism. According to Yazidism, after creation the world was placed in the care of seven angels. Their chief is a being called “the Peacock Angel,” a rather capricious ruler who causes both bad and good things to happen to people. The Yazidis have a myth about the Peacock Angel falling from God’s favor and then eventually being redeemed after his tears of repentance quenched the fires of the hell to which he had been sent for punishment. This tale correlates in some ways to a story in the Sufi religion. The figure Iblis, the Sufi version of Satan, is sometimes equated with the Yazidi Peacock Angel. Because of this connection, Yazidis are thought of as devil worshipers by other regional religions, and this is one reason for the persecution of Yazidis by Sunni Muslims, including ISIS.
Yazidism is a syncretic religion that has been described as a mixture of [Islam](Islam.html), [Zoroastrianism](Zoroastrianism.html), and [Mithraism](Mithraism.html). Although Yazidi theology is based on oral tradition, passed on through hymns, they do have two holy books: the *Mishefa Reş*, or the Black Book; and the *Kitêba Cilwe*, or the Book of Revelation. The Yazidi pray to the Peacock Angel several times a day, facing east. Yazidi children are baptized at birth. Once a year, the Yazidi make a pilgrimage to the tomb of Sheikh Adi ibn Musafir, a key figure in their religion, in the city of Lalish, Iraq.
The Yazidi accept no converts; in order to be a Yazidi, one must be born a Yazidi. Yazidis believe that they descended from Adam alone (without help from Eve) but that the rest of humanity came from the union of Adam and Eve. Yazidism teaches the [transmigration of souls](transmigration-of-souls.html), the idea that, upon death, souls pass on to different bodies. Through this chain of death and rebirth, people are gradually purified.
Yazidism differs from Christianity in almost every way, from the creation story onward. Yazidism is related to the religions of ancient Assyrians, Babylonians, and Chaldeans, three groups mentioned many times in the Old Testament. In fact, the Chaldeans are mentioned first in Genesis 11, and Abram was born into that group of people (Genesis 11:27–28\). Abram left the Chaldeans to start afresh in Canaan. He received a call from God to break off from his tribe and travel to a land that God had promised to him (Genesis 12:1–7\). In obedience prompted by faith, Abram became Abraham, the father of the Israelites (Hebrews 11:8–12\).
|
Who was Alexander the coppersmith in the Bible?
|
Answer
Alexander the coppersmith in the Bible was a man who did significant harm to Paul’s ministry (2 Timothy 4:14\). The word *coppersmith* is translated from the Greek word *chalkeus*, which means “brazier” or “a worker of metals.” The NIV translates it as “metalworker”; the ESV, KJV, and NASB have it as “coppersmith.” Some scholars believe this Alexander the coppersmith to be the same Alexander mentioned in two other places in Scripture (Acts 19:33 and 1 Timothy 1:20\), although we cannot be sure, since *Alexander* was a common name.
The first possible mention of Alexander the coppersmith occurs in the book of Acts. During his travels through Asia, Paul encountered some Greeks who were opposed to his preaching because it was damaging their business. [Demetrius](Demetrius-in-the-Bible.html) was a silversmith in Ephesus who made the silver shrines of Artemis, and he in turn gave business to many other workmen in the area. As the church in Ephesus grew, sales of the idolatrous shrines fell. Demetrius got the guild of tradesmen together and stirred them up: “You know, my friends, that we receive a good income from this business. And you see and hear how this fellow Paul has convinced and led astray large numbers of people here in Ephesus and in practically the whole province of Asia. He says that gods made by human hands are no gods at all. There is danger not only that our trade will lose its good name, but also that the temple of the great goddess Artemis will be discredited; and the goddess herself, who is worshiped throughout the province of Asia and the world, will be robbed of her divine majesty” (Acts 19:25–27\). During the ensuing riot, Alexander was pushed forward to make a statement to the crowd. Since he was a Jew, however, the mob refused to listen to him (verse 34\). It is possible that this Alexander was Alexander the coppersmith and that, being associated with the church and being a metalworker himself, he was chosen to try to make peace in Ephesus.
Another possible mention of Alexander the coppersmith is in 1 Timothy 1:20, as Paul writes to [Timothy](life-Timothy.html) in Ephesus. Paul says that Alexander rejected his faith and conscience (verse 19\) and that [Alexander and another man named Hymenaeus](Hymenaeus-and-Alexander.html) had been “handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme” (verse 20\). Alexander, who had obviously professed faith in Christ at one point, had “shipwrecked” his faith; that is, he veered off course, away from good teaching, and drifted into the dangerous rocks of false teaching. He had refused to follow the dictates of his conscience; he was walking according to the flesh and not the Spirit (see Romans 8:5–9\), claiming the name of Christ while behaving like an unbeliever. As a result, Paul had pronounced an apostolic curse upon Alexander, allowing Satan to destroy or harm the man so that his soul might still be saved (see 1 Corinthians 5:5\).
In Paul’s second and last letter to Timothy, we find the only direct mention of Alexander the coppersmith. Paul says, “Alexander the coppersmith did me great harm; the Lord will repay him according to this deeds” (2 Timothy 4:14, ESV). Paul does not mention any details about the harm Alexander did, only that it was “great.” Notably, Paul did not seek [personal revenge](revenge-vengeance.html); instead, he wisely turned the matter over to the justice of God (see Proverbs 20:22; Hebrews 10:30\).
Is Alexander the coppersmith, mentioned in 2 Timothy, the same Alexander whom Paul mentioned in 1 Timothy? Or is Paul’s specifying of one Alexander as “the coppersmith” meant to refer to a different person? No one can be certain. If it is the same Alexander, and if he is also linked to Acts 19, then his history would be something like this: Alexander was an influential Jewish metalworker in Ephesus. When the missionaries came to town, Alexander the coppersmith got to know them and was seemingly open to the gospel. When the unrest broke out over the Artemis sales, Alexander was chosen as a natural liaison between the silversmiths and the target of their ire. Later, Alexander showed his true colors in the church, and it became apparent that he and Hymenaeus were living for themselves, not for Christ. Paul warned Timothy, who was pastoring in Ephesus, about the situation. Later still, imprisoned in Rome, Paul rues the fact that Alexander the coppersmith had continued to damage the cause of Christ and had become a personal enemy. Possibly Alexander had used his influence and financial standing to prejudice the Roman authorities against Paul. Whatever the case, “the Lord will repay him for what he has done” (2 Timothy 4:14\).
|
What does it mean to rebuke the devourer in Malachi 3:11?
|
Answer
The phrase *rebuke the devourer* is found in the [book of Malachi](Book-of-Malachi.html), the last book of the Old Testament. “I will rebuke the devourer for your sakes, and he shall not destroy the fruits of your ground; neither shall your vine cast her fruit before the time in the field, saith the LORD of hosts” (KJV). In this verse Malachi records a wonderful promise of God to the nation of Israel.
The Hebrew word translated “devourer” means “eater” and refers to the locust or caterpillar or any such creature that devours crops. The NIV translates Malachi 3:11 as “I will prevent pests from devouring your crops.” The “devourer” could also refer to plant diseases—really, anything that would destroy Israel’s crops: the NLT says, “Your crops will be abundant, for I will guard them from insects and disease.” Swarms of locusts were common in the Middle East in those days and could destroy virtually all the produce of an entire country. The devastation brought by locusts could be horrific. When God said He would “rebuke the devourer,” He promised that He would protect Israel from such disasters.
Like all promises under the [Mosaic Law](learn-from-Mosaic-Law.html), the promise of God to rebuke the devourer was conditional. If the Israelites would cease robbing God and give their whole tithe (Malachi 3:9–10\), as required by the Law (Leviticus 27:30\), then God would keep the locusts away from them and bless them with such abundance of healthy crops that theirs would be known as a “delightful land” (Malachi 3:12\).
Chapter 1 of Malachi is an indictment against Israel for despising and dishonoring God by offering impure sacrifices (Malachi 1:6–14\). In Chapter 2, God indicts the priests for corrupting the Law (Malachi 2:8\), for dealing unfairly with the people (Malachi 2:9–11\), and for divorcing their wives (Malachi 2:14–16\). After rebuking them for their sin, God goes on to predict the coming of their Messiah who will purify them so that their offerings are acceptable to Him (Malachi 3:1–4\).
It is in this context that God makes the promise to rebuke the devourer on behalf of the people of Israel. If they would repent and return to Him, He would pour out blessings upon them. If they would bring into the storehouse the grain offerings that are rightly His, He would open the heavens and pour out blessings upon them for their obedience. Their crops would produce so abundantly that there would scarcely be room enough to store them (Malachi 3:10\).
Some have tried to equate God’s rebuking of the devourer with Christians’ rebuking of the devil. But this is a misinterpretation and takes the verse out of context. The “devourer” is not Satan; it is the locust. The church is not Israel; we are not under the Old Testament Law; we are not promised material blessings; and [tithing](Malachi-tithing.html) is not required of us. Of course, we do have a spiritual enemy. [Satan](Satan-power.html) prowls around seeking whom he may devour (1 Peter 5:8\), but even if Malachi 3:11 were referring to Satan, which it is not, the verse is clear that it is God who does the rebuking (cf. Zechariah 3:2 and Jude 1:9\). The Bible does not give Christians the authority to rebuke the devil or to speak to him at all. We are told to resist him and he will flee from us (James 4:7\).
|
Why did Jesus refer to the Pharisees as a “child of hell” in Matthew 23:15?
|
Answer
“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are” (Matthew 23:15\). This is one of the “[seven woes](seven-woes.html)” pronounced by the Lord against the Pharisees and the teachers of the Law. To understand why Jesus would refer to a convert of the Pharisees as a “child of hell” (literally, “son of [Gehenna](Gehenna.html)”), we have to look at the context of Jesus’ words. Jesus is instructing His followers about the religious hypocrites who are themselves “children of hell.”
Jesus begins His condemnation of the religious leaders of the day in Matthew 22 with a [parable](what-is-a-parable.html). The story of the [wedding feast](parable-wedding-feast.html) (Matthew 22:1–15\) condemns the leaders’ self\-righteousness and their refusal to accept God’s provision for their salvation. Because their hearts were still hard, they responded by trying to entrap Jesus with questions about taxes (verses 16–22\), the resurrection (verses 23–33\), and the Law (verses 34–40\). Jesus avoided their traps and indicted them for knowing neither the Scriptures nor the power of God (verse 29\). Then He turned the tables on them, asking them a question they couldn’t answer about the Messiah (verses 41–46\). Once He had silenced them, He used the occasion to teach His disciples the truth about the teachers of the Law in chapter 23\.
To be a child of hell is to be deserving of hell, that is, to be awfully wicked. In Matthew 23, Jesus explains that the Pharisees and Sadducees displayed their wickedness in many ways. They did not practice what they preached (verse 3\). They burdened the people with religious rituals and ceremonies of their own invention and made no effort to help them to bear them (verse 4\). All their religious rituals were done in a public manner in order to receive the praise and glory from others (verses 5–7\). For all these sins and more, Jesus pronounces “woes” upon them for their guilt and the punishment that would surely await them.
The Pharisees and their converts were children of hell primarily because they rejected God’s provision for their salvation, attempting to justify themselves through their own righteous deeds. In so doing, they “shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces” (Matthew 23:13\). Jesus said that, when they made a Gentile convert, they made him double the child of hell that they were—the former pagan became twice the hypocrite that they were, twice as confirmed in wickedness. By opposing Jesus, the leaders tried to convince people that He was an impostor. Many were ready to embrace Him as the Messiah and were about to enter into the kingdom of heaven, but the hypocrites prevented it. Jesus says they had “taken away the key of knowledge” (Luke 11:52\), meaning they had taken away the right interpretation of the ancient prophecies respecting the Messiah. In that way they prevented the people from receiving Jesus as their promised Redeemer.
Just as the [Pharisees and Sadducees](Sadducees-Pharisees.html) became children of hell by rejecting Jesus as their only Savior, so do millions today. All who remain in their sins are deserving of hell because God demands justice, and wickedness must be paid for (Romans 6:23\). If we reject Christ’s payment for our sins, we must pay for them ourselves, thus rendering ourselves children of hell.
|
What does the Bible say about feeding the hungry?
|
Answer
The Bible says we are to care for the poor, which involves feeding the hungry. God is pictured as feeding the hungry. “He has filled the hungry with good things,” Mary sings (Luke 1:53\). “He upholds the cause of the oppressed and gives food to the hungry,” the psalmist sings (Psalm 146:7\). If we are to be godly people, then, we must also seek to feed the hungry.
God told the nation of Israel that feeding the hungry was an important part of true religion: “Spend yourselves in behalf of the hungry and satisfy the needs of the oppressed” (Isaiah 58:10\). John the Baptist told the Jews who came to him, “Anyone who has two shirts should share with the one who has none, and anyone who has food should do the same” (Luke 3:11\).
The early church made a point of distributing food every day to the needy widows in the church (Acts 6:1\). In fact, overseeing the food distribution was the task of the very first [deacons](deacons-church.html). Stephen and the other deacons had the job of feeding the hungry in the church. In 1 Timothy 5 Paul details the requirements a widow must meet in order to receive help from the church. A widow’s family bears the primary responsibility to care for her daily needs; godly, older widows without a family become the responsibility of the church.
James has some things to say about feeding the hungry in his practical epistle. “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world” (James 1:27\). Part of looking after the [orphans and widows](orphans-and-widows.html) “in their distress” surely includes making sure they have food to eat. James later makes the point that our words have to be supported by action: “Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,’ but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it?” (James 2:15–16\).
We have a constant opportunity to feed the hungry in our needy world (see Mark 14:7\), and we should do what we can to relieve the suffering of others. The New Testament consistently directs us to focus our resources on fellow believers. “As we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers” (Galatians 6:10\). Our church family is the priority; we must feed the hungry in our midst.
The only miracle repeated in all four Gospels is the [feeding of 5,000](feeding-the-5000.html)—an example of Jesus feeding the hungry. John 6 records Jesus’ teaching of salvation the day after He performed the miracle. The people had been hungry, so He had fed them; however, Jesus teaches that humanity’s greater need is for spiritual food. He explains in verse 27, “Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you.” The crowd then asked Him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?” (verse 28\). Jesus brought the conversation back to faith: “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent” (verse 29\). He then declared Himself to be the [Bread of Life](bread-of-life.html) (verse 35\). He pointed the crowd to Himself, saying that physical food will only satisfy temporarily, but salvation through Him is forever.
Should we be feeding the hungry? Yes, “as it is written, ‘He has distributed freely, he has given to the poor; his righteousness endures forever’” (2 Corinthians 9:9; cf. Psalm 112:9\). Jesus said that it is more blessed to give than to receive (Acts 20:35\). We should give people what they need, and as we meet the physical needs we must not ignore the spiritual need for the [gospel](what-is-the-gospel.html). “Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God” (Matthew 4:4; cf. Deuteronomy 8:3\).
|
What is “the Way” in the Bible?
|
Answer
“The Way” is mentioned several times in the book of Acts (Acts 9:2; 19:9, 23; 22:4; 24:14, 22\) in connection with early followers of Christ. It was to take prisoner men and women who “belonged to the Way” (Acts 9:2; 22:4\) that [Saul of Tarsus](Saul-of-Tarsus.html) went to Damascus. After [Saul was converted](Damascus-Road.html), he became a missionary and went by the name of Paul. In Ephesus, Paul met some in the synagogue who “became obstinate; they refused to believe and publicly maligned the Way” (Acts 19:9\). Paul left the synagogue and continued to preach the gospel where it would be heard rather than remain with those who denigrated the Way.
During his trial before Felix, Paul said, “I admit that I worship the God of our ancestors as a follower of the Way, which they call a sect” (Acts 24:14\). We are also told that Felix knew about the Way (verse 22\). It seems that the Romans considered the Way to be a sect of Judaism rather than a separate religion.
Presumably, the early followers of Christ referred to themselves as followers of the Way because of Jesus’ statement in John 14:6 that He is “the way and the truth and the life.” Luke says that [Aquila and Priscilla](Priscilla-and-Aquila.html) explained to Apollos “the way of God” more fully (Acts 18:26\). Peter refers to Christianity as “the way of truth” (2 Peter 2:2\). And the writer of Hebrews says that Jesus’ broken body is the “new and living way” for us to enter the Most Holy Place (Hebrews 10:19–20\).
Today there are various Bibles that include *The Way* in their titles. There is also a book by Josemaria Escriva, founder of the Catholic [Opus Dei](opus-dei.html), titled *The Way*. Additionally, there is a cult called The Way or The Way International. For more information on this cult, please refer to our article [“What is the Way International?”](The-Way-International.html).
|
What is Russell’s teapot?
|
Answer
British mathematician, philosopher, and [atheist](atheism.html) Bertrand Russell proposed his teapot analogy as a way of explaining where the burden of proof lies, particularly in debates about religion. Russell’s teapot is also known as the celestial teapot or the cosmic teapot.
In the teapot analogy, Russell asks to us to imagine a man claiming that there is a teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars. The teapot is too small for us to see, and, since we can’t journey out into space (Russell wrote this in the 1950s), there’s no way to show that the teapot isn’t actually there. “Ah,” says Russell’s hypothetical man, “since you can’t prove the teapot isn’t there, you must assume that it is there.”
Of course, it’s patently ridiculous to claim that that we must believe in a teapot orbiting the sun simply because we have no means to prove it isn’t there. The burden of proof, Russell argues, is on the person claiming the teapot is there, since the default assumption is that no such teapot exists; the person claiming the existence of the teapot needs to provide positive evidence for us to believe his claim. He can’t just insist that we accept his belief as the default position.
Using the teapot analogy, Russell claimed that many religious people act as though belief in God should be the default assumption and that the burden of proof is on the atheist to prove that God does not exist. Russell rejected theism and claimed that atheism should be the natural starting point for reasoning out the [existence of God](argument-existence-God.html), since God cannot be empirically verified (i.e., we cannot observe or touch God).
Russell’s teapot analogy says that, since we can’t prove God’s existence through observation, we should assume God doesn’t exist until given reason to believe otherwise. In other words, the burden of proof is on the religious (Christians, specifically) to prove that [God exists](Does-God-exist.html), not on atheists to prove God does not exist.
The basic thrust of Russell’s teapot argument is correct: it’s impossible to prove a negative. That is to say, it’s impossible to prove that some object or phenomenon does not exist anywhere in the universe at any given point, as you’d need to have complete knowledge of every point in time and space to know so. That said, we can give reasons for believing something doesn’t exist. We have no reason to think matter would randomly arrange itself into a teapot. We know of no missions to space in which humans could have placed a teapot in orbit. Thus, if someone claims there is a teapot in orbit, we agree with Russell that the burden of proof is on that person to give us reasons to believe such a teapot exists.
Where Russell’s teapot argument stumbles is in its assumption that atheism is the appropriate starting point for human reasoning about God. Historically, the vast majority of humanity has believed that there is a god (or gods), even if they did not believe in the Christian God specifically. The fact that God exists is one imprinted on the nature of reality (Romans 1:2\). Belief in the divine is the place human rationality naturally takes us. Thus, the burden of proof is on the atheist to explain why we should deny the natural, logical leanings of our minds and hearts and why we should accept atheism as the truth.
|
What is the Lausanne Covenant?
|
Answer
The Lausanne Covenant is the product of a gathering of Christian leaders in Lausanne, Switzerland, in July 1974, to discuss issues related to missions. Participants from 150 nations gathered to hear from [Billy Graham](Billy-Graham.html), [John Stott](John-Stott.html), [Francis Schaeffer](Francis-Schaeffer.html), Ralph Winter, Carl Henry, and others at the first International Congress on World Evangelization. The purpose of congress was “to re\-frame Christian mission in a world of political, economic, intellectual, and religious upheaval” (from the official [website](https://www.lausanne.org/)). The Lausanne Covenant has exerted a broad influence on [missions](Christian-missions.html) and [evangelicalism](evangelicalism.html).
Since its founding in 1974, the Lausanne Movement has held global conferences in 1989 and 2010, as well as many regional meetings and youth gatherings. The purpose of the Lausanne Movement is to further the global Christian mission. Their vision is “the gospel for every person, an evangelical church for every people, Christ\-like leaders for every church, and kingdom impact in every sphere of society” (from their website). The Lausanne Covenant, the foundational statement of the Lausanne Movement, details the motive, basis, nature, and urgency of world evangelism. For this reason the Lausanne Covenant is often viewed as an encapsulation of the beliefs of modern evangelicalism. Other documents to emerge from the Lausanne Movement include the Manilla Manifesto (1989\) and the Cape Town Commitment (2010\).
The Lausanne Covenant, written primarily by John Stott, has included and prioritized many essential teachings on evangelism. It is a “covenant” in that it binds the signatories in a promise to God and to fellow believers. The Lausanne Covenant lays out fifteen specific categories of belief: the purpose of God, the authority and power of the Bible, the uniqueness and universality of Christ, the nature of evangelism, Christian social responsibility, the church and evangelism, cooperation in evangelism, churches in evangelistic partnership, the urgency of the evangelistic task, evangelism and culture, education and leadership, spiritual conflict, freedom and persecution, the power of the Holy Spirit, and the return of Christ. The resulting doctrinal covenants are biblical and well thought out. They are orthodox and help define the Christian mission given by Christ to fulfill the church’s purpose. The Lausanne Covenant affirms that only through faith in Jesus Christ may a person be saved. It affirms social responsibility to help the oppressed yet states that social efforts cannot substitute for the preaching of the gospel to every person.
The Lausanne Movement emphasizes the need to [contextualize](contextualization.html) the gospel. The faithful evangelical church should tenaciously fulfill the mandate of evangelism (Matthew 28:18–20\). It should simultaneously be flexible in adapting its methods to various cultures. The apostle Paul changed his approach—not his message—to various cities and regions he visited on his missionary journeys. “I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some” (1 Corinthians 9:22\).
At times, the church has struggled to maintain a balance between pure evangelism and social action. Some people viewed the presentation of the gospel as all that was necessary, ignoring physical needs; others focused on the “[social gospel](social-gospel.html),” striving to feed and clothe the populace but failing to mention the need for Christ. The Lausanne Covenant presents evangelism and social action as necessary and contingent upon each other: “We affirm that evangelism and socio\-political involvement are both part of our Christian duty. . . . The salvation we claim should be transforming us in the totality of our personal and social responsibilities. Faith without works is dead” (The Lausanne Covenant, part 5\).
The Lausanne Covenant is a call back to the [Great Commission](great-commission.html), offering a conservation of critical biblical values. In a time when church attendance is in decline, many are looking for other ways to fulfill the mandate of the church. This document, among others, sets an anchor to what the church’s biblical function is. In its evangelism, the church should address cultural change, be relevant, and remain true to the gospel.
The gospel is the power of God unto salvation (see Romans 1:16\). In that the Lausanne Covenant stresses the importance of the gospel, challenges believers to cooperate in sharing the gospel, and acknowledges the need for every person to be [born again](born-again.html) through faith in Christ, it is a good and helpful document. Like any doctrinal statement, of course, the Lausanne Covenant is man\-made and only reflects imperfectly what God has perfectly encapsulated in Scripture.
|
What are the implications of God being infinite, unlimited, and unmeasurable?
|
Answer
In his *Systematic Theology*, Louis Berkhof explains the infinity of God this way: “The infinity of God is that perfection of God by which He is free from all limitations. . . . He is in no way limited by the universe, by this time\-space world, or confined to the universe” (GLH Publishing, 2017\). God is infinite in all of His attributes: He is infinite in holiness, love, wisdom, etc. That is, God is free from any and all limitations to His love—He is perfect in His love. God cannot be contained or hemmed in (Isaiah 66:1\).
By saying [God is “infinite,”](infinite-God.html) we usually mean that He is unlimited and unmeasurable. *Unmeasurable*, strictly speaking, could describe properties of other entities besides God. But it’s not a meaningful comparison to God. What can or cannot be measured is subject to the limitations of the measurer. From the perspective of a ten\-year\-old, the number of protein links in his own DNA is unmeasurable. That doesn’t mean his DNA is infinite; nor does it mean some other person or thing couldn’t quantify it.
Taking *unmeasurable* to mean “logically impossible to measure,” then it is synonymous with *infinite*, but, even defined that way, it’s not terribly relevant when it comes to God. My intellect may be “unmeasurable” from the perspective of an amoeba, but that’s not exactly high praise among other people. The same applies, more or less, to the idea of something being “unlimited.” Logic places boundaries on all things, but that’s not really a “limitation,” so this really comes down to the same concept of being “infinite.”
According to logic, there has to be a single “First Cause.” Rather than making something like God impossible, logic makes Him necessary. The point being that God is not “part of reality”; He *is* reality. That has to be understood in a careful context, however. C. S. Lewis once joked that pantheism—the idea that “all is God”—is not really wrong, just outdated. When there was no creation, there was only God. Now that God has created, some things exist which are not God, but He is still the ultimate source and foundation of their existence.
Another helpful point is that infinity, as regarding God, is not a property a being can have in some attributes, but not others. One is either entirely infinite, or he is not infinite at all. Consider, for example, divine attributes like [omnipotence](God-omnipotent.html), [omniscience](God-omniscient.html), and [omnipresence](God-omnipresent.html). It’s not possible for a being to be “omnipotent” unless that being is also “omniscient.” How can one have the power to do all things if they don’t also know all things? How can a being be omniscient and not be omnipresent—to know all things happening in reality, but not know some things in that same reality?
Authors who create comic book superheroes run into the problem of “selective infinity” all the time. If you’re strong enough to lift a building, you have to be durable enough to support a building. If you’re fast enough to outrun a bullet, you have to be able to think fast enough to not smash into walls. Those attributes can’t exist independently of each other. On a larger scale, this is how “infinity” works with God. To have any one infinite attribute means, by necessity, *all* of your attributes must be infinite.
The point is that we break God’s attributes into chunks like omnipotence, omniscience, eternality, and so forth, only because that makes it easier for finite humans to talk about Him. In reality, all of God’s attributes come down to the same basic source: He is the one and only ultimate and necessary being. He is literally the source of everything else. God expresses this idea in His own words, calling Himself “I AM” (Exodus 3:14\). He simply *is*.
From that perspective, it is impossible for there to be other infinite or unlimited beings. Everything that exists apart from the only necessary being is the result of God’s creative work. Logically, every created thing must be different from God. So, it is not possible for beings to be truly “infinite” in the same sense as God, since they cannot literally *be* God.
We also need to note that God *is* a “being,” and describes Himself that way (Genesis 1:26–27\). He is [immanent](immanence-of-God.html) and [transcendent](God-transcendent.html), but He is also [personal](is-God-a-person.html). This partly explains why our reality can operate as it does. You can’t get something in an effect that was not present in the cause. In God, we see communication, unity, and relationship in the Trinity. Without those properties in the First Cause, we’d never see them in the creation.
|
What does it mean to use vain repetitions in prayer?
|
Answer
Jesus said in the [Sermon on the Mount](sermon-on-the-mount.html), “When ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking” (Matthew 6:7, KJV). The word *vain* means “empty” or “useless”; so Jesus is warning us that repeating worthless phrases in our prayers will not help them be heard by God. Our Heavenly Father is not concerned with word count, flowery expressions, or mantras; He desires “truth in the inward being” (Psalm 51:6, ESV).
“Use not vain repetitions” is the King James translation of Matthew 6:7\. Other translations say, “Do not use meaningless repetition” (NASB), “Do not heap up empty phrases” (ESV), or “Do not keep on babbling” (NIV). As Jesus points out, the use of repetitious words or formulaic phrases is a “heathen” or “pagan” practice and should not be part of Christian prayer. Our prayers should be more like the short, simple prayer of [Elijah on Mt. Carmel](Elijah-prophets-Baal.html) and less like the prolonged, repetitious prayers of the prophets of Baal (see 1 Kings 18:25–39\).
When we are [praying](what-is-prayer.html), we are talking with God and worshiping Him. It is like a conversation, from the heart. Many religions—including some branches of Christianity—have rote prayers that they advise repeating over and over again. Some churches even go so far as to require their members to recite a certain prayer a specific number of times in order to be absolved of sin. This is a throwback to paganism and superstition; such formulaic prayers are “vain repetitions” that have no place in the church. Jesus has already atoned for our sins once and for all (Hebrews 10:10\), and we can approach the throne of grace boldly on the merit of Christ’s sacrifice (Hebrews 4:15–16\), not because of our “many words” (Matthew 6:7\).
It’s easy to be caught up in vain repetitions, repeating the same words in our prayers instead of thinking about our words or letting them come from the heart. We should be focused on God in prayer and honor Him in our hearts. In Isaiah 29:13, God says, “These people come near to me with their mouth and honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.”
Jesus’ warning against vain repetitions means we should avoid vain or meaningless words and repetition in our prayers. Repeating things fills up time, but it does not prove our devotion or better our chances of God’s hearing us. We should teach our children at an early age to pray in a natural, conversational manner, with reverence for the One they are addressing.
Being persistent in prayer is not the same as using vain repetitions. There is nothing wrong with praying for the same thing more than once (see 2 Corinthians 12:8\). After all, Jesus taught us that we should “always pray and not give up” (Luke 18:1\). But it’s understood that our prayers are from the heart, spontaneous, and honoring to God, not the repeating of words written by someone else.
The Bible teaches us to pray in faith (James 1:6\), in direct address to God (Matthew 6:9\), and in Jesus’ name (John 14:13\). We should offer our prayers with reverence and humility (Luke 18:13\), with perseverance (Luke 18:1\), and in submission to God’s will (Matthew 6:10\). The Bible teaches us to avoid prayers that are hypocritical, designed to be heard only by men (Matthew 6:5\), or rely on vain repetitions (Matthew 6:7\).
|
What is a denomination?
|
Answer
In a religious context, the word *denomination* is often defined as “a recognized autonomous branch of the Christian church.” One denomination will include many local churches that are usually spread over a broad geographical region.
At GotQuestions.org, we have many articles about denominations that you may find helpful:
[What are the most common denominations of Christianity?](denominations-of-Christianity.html)
[What is a non\-denominational church? What do non\-denominational churches believe?](non-denominational-church.html)
[Why are there so many Christian denominations?](denominations-Christian.html)
[What are the mainline denominations?](mainline-denominations.html)
[What does it mean for a church or organization to be interdenominational?](interdenominational.html)
There are many good denominations, and each denomination has good and bad local churches. When [looking for a church](looking-church.html), study the individual church’s statement of faith and ask about the church’s practices rather than blindly keeping loyal to a particular denomination. Selecting a church should not be based solely on denomination. It is better to pick a church based on the quality and accuracy of the Bible teaching and how well the church is fulfilling the Great Commission, regardless of the denomination.
The Bible nowhere mandates we have denominations, but there is nothing inherently wrong with them. Sometimes denominations are simply a way to distinguish a particular group of like\-minded churches. Denominational labels are useful for the quick identification of groups of Christians. Being familiar with the doctrinal distinctives of the various denominations allows one to gain a general overview of the churches in a particular town.
Are there too many denominations? Probably. Sometimes, new denominations form because of valid disagreements over essential theology or vital church practice, and truth must separate itself from falsehood. Other times, new denominations form over minor matters that are better resolved in a spirit of love and humility. “Live in peace with each other” (1 Thessalonians 5:13\).
The Body of Christ is interdenominational. We may choose labels for ourselves and others—and such labels have their place—but Jesus never assigned denominational tags. The Body of Christ is made up of “everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord” (Acts 2:21\), and the gospel of salvation by grace through faith unites believers, despite our denominational differences.
|
What is Tisha B'Av?
|
Answer
Tisha B'Av is a Jewish fast day commemorating several tragedies the Jewish people have endured, including the destruction of the [first](Solomon-first-temple.html) and [second temples](Zerubbabel-second-temple.html). Av is the fifth month of the Jewish calendar, and *Tisha B'Av* means “the Ninth of Av.” The day falls in July or August of the Gregorian calendar. Since the first two temples were destroyed on the same calendar day (Av 9\), tradition has assigned a gloom to this day—some see it as a day cursed by God because of Israel’s national sins.
Tisha B'Av is the final, climactic day of a 21\-day period of increasing mourning called the Three Weeks. The Three Weeks is also called *Bein HaMetzarim*, or “between the straits,” because Lamentations 1:3 says, “Judah is gone into captivity because of affliction, and because of great servitude: she dwelleth among the heathen, she findeth no rest: all her persecutors overtook her *between the straits*” (KJV, emphasis added).
The mourning period leading up to Tisha B'Av begins in the previous month, Tammuz 17, a day that commemorates the first breach of Jerusalem’s walls by the Babylonians before they destroyed the first temple. During the Three Weeks, observant Jews refrain from holding public celebrations. No weddings are scheduled during the three weeks leading up to Tisha B'Av. The focus is on mourning and repentance. The final nine days, starting with Av 1, require increased austerity: no wearing of new clothes, no eating of pleasurable foods, and no bathing beyond what is essential.
On the day of Tisha B'Av itself, Jews keep a total fast, sit on the floor, recite prayers of mourning, and read the book of Lamentations. An exception is made when Av 9 falls on the Sabbath—in that case, the fasting and mourning are observed on Av 10\.
Over the years the meaning of Tisha B'Av has broadened into a remembrance of Jewish tragedies throughout history, but it remains primarily focused on the destruction of the two temples.
Following Tisha B'Av, the fast is broken, but some of the other restrictions associated with mourning continue until Av 10\. Then begin the Seven Weeks of Comfort, which continue through the rest of Av and the month of Elul. During this period the focus in the synagogues turns to the glorious future God has promised Israel.
The observance of Tisha B'Av is not commanded in the Bible. Like [Purim](Feast-of-Purim.html), Tisha B'Av is a traditional observance based on non\-canonical Jewish writings and oral tradition. It’s possible that a Tisha B'Av observance is alluded to in the book of Zechariah. The men of Bethel sent a delegation to the prophets in Jerusalem asking, “Should I mourn and fast in the fifth month, as I have done for so many years?” (Zechariah 7:3\). The fifth month is, of course, Av; the “fast” mentioned could have been observed on Av 9\. God’s response to the people’s question is key: “When you fasted and mourned in the fifth and seventh months for the past seventy years, was it really for me that you fasted?” (verse 5\). As with any religious observance, God is more concerned with one’s motivation and the condition of the heart than He is with the ritual itself.
|
How does the fact that human beings possess some Neanderthal DNA impact creationism?
|
Answer
According to scientific studies, some of the DNA in modern humans actually came from Neanderthals. This finding is sometimes held up as evidence to disprove the idea of creationism. Despite such suggestions, there is no reason to view the DNA link as evidence against creation or God or the Bible. Rather, the same evidence serves as a useful counter to many of the attacks made on the Bible and its account of our origins.
First of all, the fact that various living things share a basic structure—[DNA](DNA-Creator.html)—does not necessarily suggest evolution or atheism. It’s just as much evidence of common design. There are a wide variety of car engines, made of different sizes and for different purposes. However, most automobile engines feature the same fundamental parts—which makes sense, since they’re generally the most effective means to accomplish the purpose they’re intended for. Mere similarity of DNA, in and of itself, can’t be used to prove that there is no designed difference between two creatures.
The topic of Neanderthal DNA is just as complex within the scientific community, at least in any sense that’s meaningful to Christianity. In short, the lines between different species can be blurred. This is a problem for certain aspects of biology. Natural selection usually defines itself in terms of populations that no longer breed with each other.
However, part of the scientific controversy over Neanderthals is the extent to which they mated with “modern” *Homo sapiens*. Recent studies made headlines specifically because they claimed to have identified segments of Neanderthal\-sourced DNA in the human genome. The problem is that, if Neanderthals are so similar to modern man that we could have had children together, why consider them a separate species? Why not think of them as another ethnic group within the human family?
This is where a look at humanity starts to get ugly. As recently as the age of men like Charles Darwin, humans of certain races were considered subhuman. It was not uncommon, in the 19th century, for scientists to claim that people of African descent were genetically closer to gorillas than they were to white men—[Darwin](Darwinism-definition.html) wrote as much in *The Descent of Man*. Are we doing the same to Neanderthals—assuming that they were inferior, stupid, or subhuman when they were not?
The variations in Neanderthal traits seem to fall within the range of possible modern human biology. Re\-creations of Neanderthals using muscle and skin approximations always invite comparisons to living celebrities. In other words, the difference between Neanderthals and modern humans seems to be much less than that between various breeds of dogs—yet all dogs are the exact same species, regardless of breed.
Of course, there is more to the scientific differences between modern humans and Neanderthals than the shape of bones. The point is merely that the compatibility and similarity between Neanderthals and modern humans are far stronger than the differences. Drawing lines between the two in a way that makes Neanderthals inhuman creates problems for biology and modern science. Treating Neanderthals as just another race of humans creates problems for non\-theistic philosophy.
Whether or not there are Neanderthal components in modern human DNA is, ultimately, irrelevant to the Bible’s message on creation.
|
What is a Mezuzah?
|
Answer
A Mezuzah is a small piece of parchment containing Scripture that is kept in a small case or tube attached to the doorpost of a Jewish home. The word *Mezuzah*, which literally means “doorpost,” can also refer to the glass, wood, or metal case in which the parchment is stored. Observant Jews consider the Mezuzah to be a holy object and honor it as such.
On one side of the Mezuzah are written specified Hebrew verses from the Torah: Deuteronomy 6:4–9 and 11:13–21\. These verses comprise the Jewish prayer called [*Shema Yisroel*](what-is-the-Shema.html), which begins with the words “Hear, O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One.” Deuteronomy 6:9 contains the basis for the practice of hanging the Mezuzah: “Write \[these commands] on the [doorframes](laws-of-God.html) of your houses and on your gates.” The writing on a kosher Mezuzah is always done by a *sofer*, a trained Jewish scribe, using a special quill and indelible black ink.
On the other side of the Mezuzah is written one of the [Hebrew names for God](names-of-God.html), *Shaddai*. This name, in this context, also serves as an acrostic for a Hebrew phrase meaning “Guardian of the doorways of Israel.” When the Mezuzah is rolled up, left to right, and placed in the Mezuzah case, the scroll is positioned so that God’s name *Shaddai* can be read through an opening in the case. Some [Ashkenazi Jews](Ashkenazi-Jews.html) will also write a phrase containing the name *Adonai* in coded form on the back of the Mezuzah.
The Mezuzah is more than a decoration; it’s a declaration that the residents of a home are Jewish and a constant reminder to those who live there of their faith. The Mezuzah is also seen as a symbol of God’s protective blessing and watchful guardianship over the house and its residents.
The Mezuzah is affixed to the right side of the doorpost (as one enters the home or room). A special recited blessing accompanies the placement of the first Mezuzah in a home. Many Jews will touch their fingers to their lips when they enter or exit a door and then touch the Mezuzah, thus “kissing” the Mezuzah and the Word of God it contains.
Although hanging a Mezuzah is a Jewish custom, some Christians display the Mezuzah on their doorpost and use it as a testimony of their love for God’s Word and as a conversation starter to share the gospel of Jesus Christ. Biblically, there is nothing wrong with hanging a Mezuzah in one’s home. Posting a Mezuzah can serve to remind a Christian family to love God, teach the Scriptures to their children, and praise the Messiah Jesus for His atoning blood.
Whether or not we display a Mezuzah, we should never look upon it as a good luck charm, a pathway to holiness, a demon repellant, or a source of power in itself. Much more important than screwing Scripture to the doorpost is internalizing God’s Word, as Moses taught, “These commandments that I give you today are to be on your hearts” (Deuteronomy 6:6\). Having Scripture in a Mezuzah case, on a wall plaque, or in a tattoo does no good if we are not living by its precepts.
|
What is the Cepher Bible?
|
Answer
The Cepher, sometime referred to as the “Cepher Bible,” is a non\-scholarly work that claims to restore many “missing” books, phrases, and chapters to the Bible. The book is officially titled *Eth Cepher*, from the Hebrew words for “divinity” and “book.” The publishers claim that they do not call their work a “Bible”; however, they refer to the material incessantly as “biblical” in every other aspect. For all intents and purposes, the Cepher is a custom translation/compilation of the Bible. Save calling it a “Bible” directly, that’s exactly how the Cepher is marketed.
The Cepher can be fairly described as non\-scholarly based on [information from its own publishers](http://www.cepher.net/who-were-the-translators-of-the-cepher.aspx). This work was not produced by qualified scholars or through an actual process of translation. First, the authors added books that they deemed “missing” from the orthodox Bible, contradicting the opinions of most biblical scholars. Then the words of the text were “transliterated” and cross\-referenced with a [concordance](Bible-concordance.html). The end product is whatever the editor thought the text should say. This type of bias is essentially what publishers of the Cepher accuse other versions of, though the Cepher’s authors have less academic background than those they claim are getting it wrong.
Despite not directly calling the Cepher a “Bible,” the authors have included a significant amount of material, sometimes interspersed with the biblical text, that Bible scholars have long rejected as non\-canonical. Reading the Cepher, one encounters a mix of inspired and non\-inspired material.
Though the Cepher is a relatively new publication, it seems to have strong connections to the [Hebrew Roots movement](Hebrew-roots.html). This, in and of itself, is a cause for concern.
In short, neither the contributors, the content, nor the completed work of *Eth Cepher* give any reason to consider it a reliable source of information.
|
Who is the Qoheleth in Ecclesiastes?
|
Answer
*Qoheleth*, a Hebrew word meaning “preacher,” “teacher,” or “a collector of sayings,” appears in the first verse of the [book of Ecclesiastes](Book-of-Ecclesiastes.html). In fact, the literal Hebrew title of this book is “The Words of *Qoheleth*, the Son of David, King in Jerusalem,” which is often shortened to simply “*Qoheleth*.” The Preacher (or Teacher) is also mentioned in Ecclesiastes 1:12; 7:27; and 12:8–11\.
The book of Ecclesiastes does not give specific information about who this *Qoheleth* is. However, evidence from the text of Ecclesiastes, as well as from the rest of the Bible, leads most scholars to conclude that Solomon is the [Preacher](Preacher-Ecclesiastes.html) and author.
One reason the *Qoheleth* is identified as Solomon is that at one time [Solomon](life-Solomon.html) was the king of Israel, and Ecclesiastes 1:1 identifies the Preacher as “king in Jerusalem.” Also in agreement with Ecclesiastes 1:1, Solomon was a “son of David.” While the term *son of* can sometimes refer to a descendant other than a son, Solomon was actually the direct “son” of David, so the first verse of Ecclesiastes applies to him more literally than it would to almost any other person.
Most of the information useful in identifying the *Qoheleth* of Ecclesiastes comes from the end of the book. Ecclesiastes 12:9 says that the *Qoheleth* “pondered and searched out and set in order many proverbs.” This corresponds to the Bible’s descriptions of Solomon as a writer of proverbs (1 Kings 4:32; Proverbs 1:1\). The description of the *Qoheleth* as “wise” also matches other passages regarding Solomon (1 Kings 4:29\).
Ecclesiastes 12:9 also describes the *Qoheleth* as imparting knowledge to people; this harmonizes with the biblical view of Solomon (1 Kings 4:33–34\). Ecclesiastes 1:16–17 further makes this point.
The general content of Ecclesiastes also connects with the idea of Solomon’s being the *Qoheleth*. Solomon was blessed with profound wisdom, wealth, and power (2 Chronicles 1:11–13\). The writer of Ecclesiastes certainly experienced wealth and power (Ecclesiastes 2:6–7\).
Unfortunately, it seems that, for a period in his life, Solomon chose to use his wisdom in a less\-than\-God\-honoring way. He married an outrageous number of women and had concubines in addition to those (1 Kings 11:1–3\). Interestingly, virtually every other king of Israel is associated with some prophet, but not Solomon. Even these facts dovetail with the idea that Solomon is the *Qoheleth* of Ecclesiastes, a book written by a man who had tried everything under the sun and found it all to be vanity (Ecclesiastes 1:2\). Ecclesiastes is the story of a man who sought happiness everywhere but in God and came to the conclusion that God is ultimately all that matters (Ecclesiastes 12:13–14\). This certainly agrees with the Bible’s depiction of Solomon, at least in terms of his wisdom, wealth, and spiritual knowledge.
Since the book of Ecclesiastes is technically anonymous, there remains some doubt as to the identity of the *Qoheleth*. One primary reason some scholars question the claim that Solomon is the *Qoheleth* is that other Old Testament passages detail Solomon’s spiritual fall (1 Kings 11:4–8\) but don’t refer to a personal re\-awakening. Of course, what’s described in Ecclesiastes comes across as highly personal and private. The book details the lessons and regrets of a man near the end of his life. Solomon might well have penned these words close to his own death. The struggles he experienced near the end of his reign might have triggered conviction, as well (1 Kings 11:9–12\).
All in all, there seems to be no solid evidence against Solomon’s identity as the *Qoheleth*, and a fair amount of circumstantial evidence supporting it. The most common conclusion, therefore, is that the Preacher of Ecclesiastes is Solomon, the son of David.
|
How should Christians view statues of Jesus?
|
Answer
Large statues of Jesus, such as *Cristo Redentor* ("Christ the Redeemer") in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, or the Christ of the Ozarks in Eureka Springs, Arkansas, are famous worldwide. Questions about the appropriateness of such statues are related to questions about images and icons in general. Is it okay to have images of Jesus of any size?
Different people can view the same statue of Jesus and have widely divergent interpretations of its meaning. For example, some Brazilians consider the 125\-foot statue of Jesus overlooking Rio to be a tribute to Catholicism. Others consider it a generic cultural icon, a symbol of welcome, a counter to the advance of secularism, or simply a piece of pop art.
Historically, Christians have espoused a variety of viewpoints about statues of Jesus Christ. In the earliest days of the church, images of Christ (or other Persons of the Trinity) were avoided, but through most of church history Christians have been fine with such depictions. A Christian can possibly have any of a number of views on statues of Jesus. We cannot give a definitive answer, just a few things to consider.
God forbade the use of [images](graven-image.html) in His worship in the Old Testament (Exodus 20:4–5\). Whatever one’s view on large statues of Jesus, worshiping or praying to such a statue is sinful. God is transcendent; that is, He is “other than” His Creation. This means any image we might make would be an inadequate portrayal. The divine cannot be properly represented with the human imagination.
In the particular case of Jesus, we are told that He is the image of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15\). Instead of God being at a mysterious distance from us, as He mostly was in the Old Testament, we can now point to the man, Jesus, and say, “This is God. This is what God looks like, and how He acts, and how He meets with His people.” As Jesus told Philip, “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9\). Through Jesus, God has entered into creation and has an objective, definite appearance (John 1:14\).
Does this mean we can or should make images of Jesus? One obvious problem is that we don’t actually know what Jesus looked like. The Bible gives no [physical description](Jesus-look-like.html) of the Lord. The mild, peaceful\-looking man we see commonly in Western portrayals of Christ is just an invented idea of what Jesus might have looked like. Since the Bible gives no specific details about Jesus’ appearance, any image or likeness is merely a guess.
The most important consideration on the issue of large statues of Jesus is whether or not we’re using them as idols. Using an image as an object of worship—or to focus one’s worship—is wrong. The Bible does not give us permission to worship God through graven images, even under the New Covenant.
A statue might help us to remember the things Christ has done for us. A large enough statue can serve to make a statement on behalf of a whole community that Christ is preeminent or that Jesus is worthy of public honor. In the case of the *Cristo Redentor* standing over Rio, it’s fully possible to assume it’s meant as a work of art and not an object of worship.
|
Can backmasking hidden in a song be spiritually dangerous?
|
Answer
Backmasking, or backward masking, is an audio technique in which a voice message or series of sounds is recorded backward onto an audio track intended to be played forward. Backmasking is a conscious process done by an individual with the intention of reversing pieces of the audio. Backmasking is different from phonetic reversal, in which a reversed word happens to sound like another word.
While backmasking entered its experimental phase in the 1950s, the technique was popularized on the Beatles’ 1966 album *Revolver*, which included backward instrumentation. Since that time, many other artists have utilized backmasking for aesthetic, comedic, or satiric effects. “Clean” radio edits often employ backmasking to censor profanity or offensive phrases in explicit songs. Playing audio tracks backward was a relatively simple matter in the era of vinyl LPs and magnetic audio tape. In the digital age, the ability to play audio tracks backward has become difficult without the use of special equipment or software, and interest in discovering hidden messages in songs has declined.
Backmasking has been a controversial issue among Christians, especially in the 1970s and 1980s, when various Christian groups claimed that satanic messages were being inserted in [secular music](secular-music.html) via backmasking. Most musicians deny the use of backmasking to promote Satanism. However, the fact is that backmasking has been used by some bands to deliberately insert messages into their music. Whether or not those messages pose a threat to listeners is up for debate.
Opponents of backmasking allege that hidden messages have a subliminal effect on the listener as the subconscious attempts to decipher the backward sounds. There are two problems with this argument. First, subliminal messages only succeed if the recipient is already considering or planning to do what is being suggested. Further, studies have shown that auditory subliminal messages have little to no effect on the listener.
Second, the human brain is predisposed to search for patterns, a psychological phenomenon called pareidolia. Pareidolia is the perception of a familiar pattern, such as language, where no pattern actually exists. We have all experienced this phenomenon, whether it is finding an animal in the clouds, seeing a man in the moon, or hearing a hidden message in a song played backward or at a higher or lower speed than normal. When an audio track is played forward or backward, the listener’s mind will try to make sense of what is being heard. Thus, a person could perceive words that were not intentionally inserted.
Some claims of backmasking in songs, where the artist has denied the use of backmasking, could be a simple case of pareidolia; if a person is looking for certain words in the reverse audio of a song, he will probably find them. In other cases backmasking has definitely been used, and the musicians have admitted it. Ultimately, a Christian’s life will not be affected by backmasking in songs unless he or she searches for it and allows the hidden message to fester in the mind.
While backmasking need not be a major worry, we should still be aware of what kinds of music we allow to occupy our minds. The Bible teaches that whatever the mind dwells upon will sooner or later come out in a person’s words and actions (Philippians 4:8; Colossians 3:2, 5\). Second Corinthians 10:5 says we should “take captive every thought and make it obedient to Christ.” More important than finding out if a song has backmasking is considering the *lyrics* of songs and how the music affects us personally. If anything leads us down a path that does not [glorify God](glorify-God.html), that thing should be avoided.
|
What is the repose of the soul?
|
Answer
The phrase *repose of the soul* is used in [Catholicism](Roman-Catholicism.html) to refer to the eternal rest a person experiences once he or she enters heaven to be with God. A traditional blessing offered by Catholic priests over a dying person contains these words: “When, therefore, your soul shall depart from your body, may the resplendent multitude of the angels meet you: may the court of the apostles receive you: may the triumphant army of glorious martyrs come out to welcome you: may the splendid company of confessors clad in their white robes encompass you: may the choir of joyful virgins receive you: and may you meet with a blessed repose in the bosom of the patriarchs.”
Roman Catholics pray for the departed that their souls would find repose. [Prayers for the dead](praying-for-the-dead.html) are based on the Catholic teaching that most people do not go directly to heaven or hell but to [purgatory](purgatory.html), where they must suffer for their unforgiven sins. When a person is “purged” or purified of all his sins, he is allowed to enter heaven, where he finds repose of the soul. Prayers for a deceased loved one to know the repose of the soul are offered commonly at Sunday Masses, at the vigil for the deceased, and at the funeral Mass.
The term *repose of the soul*, taken at face value, does reflect biblical truth. The word *repose* means “to lie or be at rest” or “to be peacefully calm or still.” It is true heaven is a place of repose—Lazarus was “comforted” in paradise (Luke 16:25\). Where Catholic doctrine goes astray is in teaching that repose of the soul must be merited after death. The Bible teaches that Jesus has already paid for our sins and there remains no condemnation for those in Christ (Romans 8:1\). According to Scripture, we are saved by grace and are secure in our position in Christ: “Because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus” (Ephesians 2:4–6\).
A true Christian—someone who trusts in Christ alone for salvation—already has repose of the soul; he is at peace with God *before* he gets to heaven, before the death of the body. Jesus said, “Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. . . . Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid” (John 14:27\). In Romans 5:1 we are promised that, “since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.”
The Catholic teaching of purgatory and prayer for the dead is not biblical. Repose of the soul, the product of saving faith in Christ, is something to be sought on this side of death. Once a person is dead, there is no more that can be done for that soul. Either that deceased person is in eternal judgment or experiencing eternal life with the Lord. Our prayers or actions will not change the situation of a person once he or she dies.
|
What is the second heaven?
|
Answer
The second heaven is not called such in Scripture; rather, the existence of the second heaven is inferred from the fact that the Bible speaks of a “third heaven,” and, if there is a third heaven, there must be a first heaven and second heaven, too. The idea that more than one type of “heaven” exists is confirmed in Hebrews 7:26, which says that Jesus, our High Priest, is “exalted above the heavens”; in other words, Jesus is in a heaven beyond other heavens.
The third heaven is mentioned in 2 Corinthians 12:2\. Paul says, “I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know—God knows.” In verse 4, Paul equates the third heaven with “paradise,” the realm where God dwells. If the third heaven is God’s dwelling place, then we could consider the second heaven to be “outer space,” the realm of the stars and planets; and the first heaven to be earth’s atmosphere, the realm of the birds and clouds.
The term *heaven* is used in Scripture to refer to all three realms. Psalm 104:12 speaks of “the birds of the heavens” (ESV)—this would be the first heaven, the atmosphere of Earth. In Isaiah 13:10 we find “the stars of heaven and their constellations”—a reference to the second heaven, outer space. And Revelation 11:19 describes the opening of “God’s temple in heaven”—the third heaven, or God’s dwelling place.
Some [Charismatic groups](Charismatic-movement.html) use the term *second heaven* in reference to Satan’s domain and anything that comes from there. They take biblical descriptions of Satan being “the ruler of the kingdom of the air” (Ephesians 2:2\) and [demons](do-demons-exist.html) being “the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms” (Ephesians 6:12\) and develop a theology of [spiritual warfare](spiritual-warfare.html). According to these groups, “second heaven revelations” are false visions coming from Satan in an attempt to deceive God’s prophets on earth. Prophets must learn to distinguish between “second heaven revelations” (from the devil) and “third heaven revelations” (from God). These same groups also sometimes teach a hierarchy of demonic power, with the first\-heaven (earth\-bound) demons being of lesser authority and power than the second\-heaven demons.
Categorizing demons into first\-heaven and second\-heaven types goes beyond what the Bible says. Again, the Bible does not include the term *second heaven* anywhere. Those who look for prophecies or new revelations from God set themselves up for deception. God has spoken, and the Bible’s canon is closed. We do not need a “new word” from God; we need to obey His “old word.”
|
What is the American Baptist Church?
|
Answer
The American Baptist Churches USA (ABCUSA) is a [Baptist](Baptists.html) denomination with over 5,200 local congregations and 1\.3 million members in the U.S. and Puerto Rico. As Baptist congregations, American Baptist churches emphasize salvation through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, believers’ baptism by immersion, the priesthood of all believers, the importance of the local church, and the need for missions. The American Baptist Churches USA is a member of the National Council of Churches and the [World Council of Churches](World-Council-of-Churches-WCC.html).
The American Baptist Church traces its history in the U.S. to the founding of the first Baptist church in America by Roger Williams in Rhode Island in 1638\. Through the years various Baptist associations were formed in the Colonies and the States to advance the cause of education and missions. In 1814 the Triennial Convention, a national Baptist body, was formed and later named the American Baptist Foreign Mission Society. Slavery became an issue in the church in the years leading up to the American Civil War. In 1845 the American Baptist Foreign Mission Society ruled it would no longer appoint missionaries who were slaveholders. That same year the American Baptist Home Mission Society divided into separate northern and southern conventions. The group of churches in the South became the Southern Baptist Convention. In 1907 the Northern Baptist Convention was organized, and in 1950 their name was changed to the American Baptist Convention. The name changed again in 1972 to American Baptist Churches USA.
Individual American Baptist churches are autonomous and practice congregational rule. A general council, overseeing thirty\-four regional groups in the U.S., sets policy for the national organization, although its rulings are not binding on individual churches. The American Baptist Churches USA claims to be today’s “most racially inclusive Protestant body” (from their official [website](http://www.abc-usa.org/)). The publishing arm of the American Baptist Church is Judson Press, and the denomination operates ten seminaries throughout the U.S.
The American Baptist Churches USA places a strong emphasis on [social justice](social-justice.html) and community involvement. The denomination’s mission statement says, “Our commitment to Jesus propels us to nurture authentic relationships with one another; build healthy churches; transform our communities, our nations and our world; engage every member in hands\-on ministry; and speak the prophetic word in love. Our vision for mission energizes a multitude of servant ministries of . . . social justice, healing, peacemaking, economic development and education. Empowered by the Holy Spirit, we work together in mutual submission, humility, love, and giving that the gospel might be preached and lived in all the world” (from their website). Various ministries of the American Baptist Church provide “adult education classes, teen recreation, housing rehabilitation, health services, community organizing, employment training, family counseling, crisis intervention and much more” (*Ibid*.).
Doctrine and practice within individual American Baptist churches can vary widely; some are more evangelical, some are more Charismatic, some ordain [women clergy](women-pastors.html), and some ordain homosexual clergy or perform homosexual weddings. The issue of [homosexuality](homosexuality-Bible.html) within the church has led some American Baptist churches to leave the denomination recently. The ABCUSA takes no official position on [abortion](abortion-Bible.html), leaving the issue up to personal choice. The American Baptist Churches USA is also known for practicing [open communion](communion-open-closed.html) and open membership and promoting ecumenical and interfaith cooperation.
On paper, the American Baptist Churches USA espouses orthodox doctrine and upholds the need for Christians to share the gospel with all the world. In practice, it’s a mixed bag. Anyone [seeking a church](looking-church.html) should thoroughly vet that church before getting involved, especially if other churches within the same denomination actively promote unbiblical practices.
|
I am an atheist. Why should I consider becoming a Christian?
|
Answer
If you consider yourself an atheist with a sincere interest in truth, there are several things about Christianity we feel are critical to understand. Also, please note that, as a Christian ministry, we have no reason to defend other religious beliefs; so this article deals solely with the biblical Christian faith.
**Truth matters, regardless of beliefs.**
Integrity is a most important point. You as an individual should be able to explain *why* you accept or reject some particular view of the world. And your explanation should reflect the actual beliefs in question. This requirement applies universally, even if you prefer to define your atheism as merely “a lack of belief.” We mention this because distortions of religious belief tend to drown out the real thing. It’s common to hear descriptions of Christianity that are profoundly divergent from what Christians actually believe.
In other words, you can’t honestly say you’ve considered the message of Christianity unless you actually know what that message is. Dismissing the existence of George Washington on the basis that stories about him throwing a silver dollar across the Potomac are myths isn’t good reasoning. We cannot allow a caricature to crowd out actual facts and then make a judgment based on the caricature.
We are not suggesting that all atheists are uninformed. On the contrary, we acknowledge that many atheists can articulate the Christian position accurately. However, in our experience, many more self\-professed atheists, when asked to give an explanation of Christianity, present a cartoonish view. If we are belaboring this point, it’s only because misrepresentations of Christianity are so often a key component of atheists’ arguments.
**Christianity rejects “blind faith.”**
Many atheists struggle with the idea of “blind faith,” but the claim that Christians are called to “blind faith” is simply untrue. There is no place in the Bible where human beings are told, “Believe this, just because.” This misunderstanding is due to a mistaken definition of *faith*. The Bible’s view of faith is best described as “trust.” This is certainly different from “proof,” but faith is never presented as belief without evidence or against all evidence. In fact, the Bible consistently points to historical events as the basis for our faith (Numbers 14:11; John 14:11\).
Consider that “absolute proof” is actually rare in human experience. There are virtually no circumstances where anyone has the ability to prove—mathematically, logically, infallibly—anything before he acts. Does this mean we cannot act? No, but it does mean we are constantly acting when we have *good reasons* but not *absolute proof*. That, in a nutshell, is the “faith” that the Bible calls for. Rather than calling us to place faith—trust—in the world or other people, Christianity calls on us to place faith—reasonable trust—in God and His message to us.
As an atheist, you exhibit “faith” of this kind every day. The difference is in the object of that faith, not in the substance. You exhibit faith—reasoned trust—every time you sit on a chair without first checking it for stability. You exhibit faith every time you ride in a car without performing an exhaustive inspection. You act on faith whenever you eat food cooked by other people or take medicines provided by a doctor. You cannot have absolute proof that any of these things are reliable, each and every time. But you can have good reasons to trust in them.
Ultimately, you place the same “faith” in your view of the world, atheism. We ask you to consider the fact that, no matter what you believe—or do not believe—you cannot claim to have “proof.” Not in an absolute sense. The reality of human experience is that we cannot know everything. We have no choice but to act in trust—faith—based on what we have good reason to believe, even if we can’t prove it. Christianity is not an escape from reason or a freefall into blind faith. In fact, it’s exactly the opposite: a truth that draws even unwilling converts on the strength of evidence.
**Christianity is uniquely tied to reason and evidence.**
The Bible is unique in its approach to reason and evidence. Even Jesus Christ appealed to evidence when He was challenged. In John 5, Jesus acknowledges that others won’t—or can’t—believe what He says on blind faith. So He offers three lines of evidence as reasons to trust Him: human testimony, observations, and written records (John 5:30–47\). The earliest believers constantly referred to facts and evidence as support for their message (1 Corinthians 15:13–14; 2 Peter 1:16; Luke 1:1–4\).
God doesn’t ask us to follow Him blindly (1 Thessalonians 5:21\) or ignorantly (Acts 17:11\) or without doubts (Jude 1:22\). Rather, Christianity offers reasons to believe: evidence in nature (Psalm 19:1\), in science (Genesis 1:1\), in logic (Isaiah 1:18\), in history (Luke 1:1–4\), and in human experience (Romans 1:20–21; 1 Peter 5:1\). Our website has a large amount of material on each of these [areas of evidence](questions_worldview.html).
Modern atheists frequently point to “science” as a catch\-all counter to religion. It should be noted that, without a Christian worldview, what we call “modern science” would be impossible. It wasn’t until a culture approached the universe from a Christian perspective that the modern scientific method was born. Science as we know it assumes that the universe is rule\-bound, repeatable, knowable, and subject to human manipulation—all of which are uniquely theistic (particularly Judeo\-Christian) concepts. Atheism, like modern science, can co\-opt those tenets, but they all flow from a theistic worldview.
Also, it bears mentioning that interpretation is not always the same as fact. This is as true in religion as in science. Rejecting or disproving one particular facet of a belief system doesn’t necessarily mean the entire idea is wrong. It might only be that particular idea that is in error. Non\-fundamental doctrines, such as the age of the earth, are ultimately secondary to the core message of Christianity. The so\-called war between science and religion is truly a myth.
**Christianity has the support of experience.**
It’s important, at least for the sake of argument, to consider what happens when people actually apply a particular philosophy in the real world. Naturally, no two people have exactly the same understanding of how to live out a specific idea. And people often do things completely contradictory to their stated beliefs. Yet it’s possible to look at world history and see which ideas seem to work and which do not.
Beliefs have consequences. Atheism, like most worldviews, has no particular reason to consider human beings valuable, equal, or meaningful. Just as modern science owes its existence to theism, so too do the concepts of morality, democracy, and human rights. The positive impact of Christianity is clearly seen in history and in current events. The ideas of equality, self\-governance, social welfare, and so forth are all rooted in Christian heritage. Even today, cultures with a Christian background are overwhelmingly ahead of non\-Christian cultures in the various moral issues most atheists find meaningful.
Popular culture frequently takes the position that Christianity is a philosophy of abuse. Consider the claim that “religion causes war.” According to secular scholars such as Charles Phillips, Gordon Martel, and Alan Axelrod, religious motivations only factor into about 6 or 7 percent of all the wars in human history. Remove Islam from consideration, and that number drops by more than half. In truth, Christianity’s emphasis on compassion and peace has done far more to prevent and soften violence than it has to inspire it.
If you’re an atheist who rejects Christianity on the grounds that it’s anti\-science, blind faith, or abusive, please reconsider the evidence. Those accusations are based on false narratives and caricatures. Comedians and celebrities can repeat them *ad nauseam*, but that doesn’t make them true.
**Atheism means Christianity is worth consideration.**
If the practical effects of a belief system matter in a culture, then they also matter in one’s personal life. Atheists of all stripes throughout history have pointed out a major problem with atheistic thinking: nihilism. Belief in pure naturalism or the complete lack of any deity has logical implications.
Force of logic leads atheists to reject objective morality, meaning, purpose, and so forth. This is a dominant struggle in atheistic philosophy: how to stave off nihilism or cope with its implications. This is the reason atheism, more than any other worldview, has lent itself as justification of the atrocities of dictators.
Ironically, this means that atheism itself presents good reasons to at least consider the Christian worldview. Why? If there is no meaning, purpose, or ultimate plan, then we might as well choose the worldview that leads to the best results: one that provides intellectual satisfaction, personal fulfillment, meaning, order, and morality.
The best possible option—the one that leads to the best results—is Christianity. Not that this makes Christianity true by default or that anyone can convince himself against his own will. But it’s at least a reason to take the claims of the Bible seriously. And, of course, Christianity deserves better than a shallow, meme\-driven, or cartoonish approach. Atheist pundits have sometimes spoken of acting “as if” there is meaning when they “know” there is none. In that context, it’s hardly unreasonable to nominate the Bible as a reasonable option for voluntary belief.
**Christianity offers hope and meaning.**
As you’ve seen, our view of Christianity is in no sense driven by “wishful thinking.” We firmly believe that reason, logic, and evidence are important aspects of a vibrant faith. At the same time, we acknowledge that intellect and reason are not the complete picture of human experience.
Every person has his own reasons for his beliefs or lack thereof. Often, these reasons are more emotionally driven than we’d like to admit. The [message of the gospel](what-is-the-gospel.html) is not one human beings instinctively prefer. But, once a person truly understands the biblical Christian worldview, the caricatures and myths fall away, and what’s left is compelling and powerful.
To you, the atheist, we’d respectfully like to summarize that biblical message as follows:
God loves you so much that He made a way to be forgiven for every sin, so you can spend eternity with Him. The Bible says that each person needs to be saved (Romans 3:23\), each person can be saved (Romans 1:16\), and God wants each person to be saved (2 Peter 3:9\).
What separates us from God is sin. No matter how good we think we are, we are all guilty of sin (1 John 1:10\). Since God is absolutely perfect, everyone deserves to be separated from Him forever (Romans 5:16\). No amount of effort, good deeds, money, talent, or achievement is enough to take away this guilt (Isaiah 64:6\). Fortunately, God doesn’t want us to be separated from Him, so He made a way to fix what’s broken (John 3:16–17\).
That one and only way is through faith in Jesus Christ (John 14:6\). God Himself came to earth as a human, living a perfect and sinless life (Hebrews 4:15\). He willingly died as a sacrifice to pay the debt for our sins (2 Corinthians 5:21\). According to the Scriptures, anyone can be “saved”—forgiven by God and guaranteed heaven—through faith in Jesus Christ (Romans 10:13\). This isn’t a call for blind, ignorant belief (Acts 17:11; 1 John 4:1\). It’s an invitation from God to submission and trust (James 4:7\). It’s a choice to let go of everything else in order to rely entirely on God.
**Christianity still has more to offer.**
We fully understand that no single article, answer, or conversation can completely cover every possible detail. There are thousands of legitimate questions and concerns related to the Christian faith. We respect all people, including atheists, who are willing to seek truth in depth.
Even if you don’t think that Christianity is true, we sincerely hope you’ll continue to learn more about it. You have nothing to lose. At the worst, you’ll have a more accurate understanding. At best, you’ll come to realize what so many other skeptics have: that Jesus is, in fact, the truth.
Have you made a decision for Christ because of what you have read here? If so, please click on the “I have accepted Christ today” button below.
|
What does it mean to be God-centered?
|
Answer
Everyone’s life has a center. Our center is the hub around which all [decisions](Bible-decision-making.html) revolve. For some, survival is the hub from morning until night. For others, the acquisition of wealth or material goods drives daily choices. In many Western cultures, the center of life is pleasure\-seeking, gained through entertainment and sexual deviations of every sort. But a God\-centered life is one that revolves around the character of God. Decisions are made from within that center, based upon that which pleases or displeases God.
A God\-centered person has found that the pursuit of God is life’s highest calling (see Jeremiah 29:13\). Earthly enticements lose much of their attraction for someone who has been in the presence of the Lord God Almighty (Isaiah 6:1–5; Hosea 12:5\). Attitudes, desires, and relationships are altered by that encounter, and the Word of God becomes a lifeline. A God\-centered life is marked by the fruit of the Holy Spirit (Galatians 5:22\). These are not personality traits that we can “work on”; they are called “[fruit of the Spirit](fruit-of-the-Holy-Spirit.html)” because, as a fruit tree naturally produces fruit, a life that is fully surrendered to God naturally produces godly qualities.
God\-centered people are not self\-centered. God\-centered people pay less attention to the applause of this world, because their motivation is the anticipation of hearing the words “Well done!” when this life is over (see Matthew 25:21, 23\). Their focus is on becoming more like Jesus rather than acquiring fame and fortune for themselves. A. W. Tozer wrote that “the goal of every Christian should be to live in a state of unbroken worship,” and the God\-centered (or Christ\-centered) person finds this a delightful goal.
A fine but distinct line exists between being God\-centered and being religion\-centered. Many religion\-centered people think that their lives revolve around God, when, in truth, they are enslaved to a religious system. Many false religions, and even some Christian denominations, focus so much on strict performance standards that the relationship with God Himself is pushed into the background. Neither being church\-centered nor being activity\-centered can substitute for being God\-centered. Another distinction must be made concerning the identity of one’s God. Many religions have created their own gods, and people may center their lives on those gods, but such false religious systems lead to very different ends from biblical Christianity. For the purposes of this article, “God\-centered” refers to the one true God revealed in the Bible and manifested in the person of Jesus Christ (John 10:30; 14:9\).
In order to differentiate between a God\-centered and a religion\-centered life, it helps to know the difference between the two. If you believe yourself to be [born again](born-again.html) according to Scripture, then consider these questions:
Do I live with the vague, uneasy feeling that God is continually displeased with me?
Do I often find myself exhausted and defeated in trying to live a Christian life?
Do I secretly judge others who are not as actively engaged as I am in church or charity work?
Do I believe there to be a clear distinction between the sacred and the secular as it pertains to daily life?
Do I consider religious\-looking activities a means by which I can gain God’s favor?
If my religious activity slackens, what is my motivation to resume it—guilt? fear? or a desire for more of God?
If guilt or fear is the motivator for any Christian\-based activity, you may have a religion\-centered life. A truly God\-centered life feels off balance when prayer or personal Bible study is lacking. For a God\-centered person, the motivation to return to those practices stems from desire, not guilt, similar to how a man who has fasted all day by evening hungers for food. A religion\-centered life draws clear lines between the sacred and the secular, considering only religiously tainted activities as having any spiritual worth. God draws no such lines and encourages us to glorify Him in the mundane chores of daily living (1 Corinthians 10:31; Colossians 3:23\).
We move from earthly centered to God\-centered by having a real encounter with the Holy Spirit, who transforms and renews our minds (Romans 12:2\). When we realize that nothing else matters and we are willing to let go of whatever is necessary to have more of Him, we are on the way to living in joyful abandon to the things of God.
|
Why is a multitude of counselors valuable (Proverbs 15:22)?
|
Answer
Proverbs 15:22 says, “Without counsel purposes are disappointed: but in the multitude of counselors they are established” (KJV). Proverbs 11:14 and 24:6 also mention the value of a “multitude of counselors” or having “many advisers.” The general principle is that there is [wisdom](wisdom-knowledge.html) in seeking a wide range of advice from others instead of relying solely on one’s own knowledge or [intuition](Bible-intuition.html). Considering other points of view and drawing on the experience of others is good.
Of course, twenty foolish advisers are no better than one, so the kind of counselors one seeks makes all the difference in the outcome. The Bible gives examples of people who listened to the wrong type of counsel and reaped disastrous results (Genesis 3:17; 16:2; Joshua 9:14; 1 Chronicles 10: 13–14; 2 Chronicles 22:4\). A multitude of counselors won’t help if those counselors are fools.
Human beings are fallible. No one gets it right 100 percent of the time. The wisest and most godly among us are still subject to human error. We set ourselves up for disappointment and often disaster when we build our lives or ministries based upon the counsel of just one person. It is good to surround ourselves with trusted advisers—a multitude of counselors—realizing that even wise people can see many things differently.
Having a multitude of counselors is valuable because hearing varied viewpoints gives us a healthier foundation upon which to form opinions. We make the soundest [decisions](Bible-decision-making.html) when we have fully investigated the issue from many angles, sought the Lord’s wisdom (James 1:5\), and moved forward in faith (2 Corinthians 5:7\).
|
What is the meaning of shibboleth in the Bible?
|
Answer
A word occurring only once in the Bible (in Judges 12:6\), *shibboleth* literally means “ear of corn” or “river.” However, it is not the literal meaning of *shibboleth* that marks its significance but its clever use by the tribe of Gilead to distinguish between enemy and ally.
During the time of the judges, there was a mighty warrior from [Gilead](land-of-Gilead.html) named [Jephthah](who-was-Jephthah.html) who had been banished by his half\-brothers because his mother was a prostitute. However, when the king of the Ammonites began to war against Gilead, the elders of Gilead approached Jephthah, begging that he might become their commander (Judges 11:1–3\). Jephthah accepted the call and, filled with the Spirit of the Lord, led a great victory against the Ammonites (verses 29–32\). This victory was won without the help of the Ephraimites, who had refused to help Gilead (Judges 12:2\).
The use of the word *shibboleth* figures into Jephthah’s story this way: the tribes of Israel were divided by the Jordan River—some located on the west and some on the east. The eastern tribes, including Jephthah’s, had adopted certain pronunciations and practices of foreign nations, distinguishing themselves from their brothers in the west. The word *shibboleth* was an example. Those in Gilead pronounced it “*shibboleth*,” but those in Ephraim, west of Jordan, pronounced it “*sibboleth*.” The dialect was different.
After Jephthah’s great victory against the Ammonites, the men of Ephraim crossed the river to fight against their brothers from Gilead. The Ephraimites’ stated reason for fighting was that they were enraged they had not been included in the battle (Judges 12:1\), although it is more likely they just wanted part of the spoil.
In the ensuing fight, Jephthah’s men captured the fords of the Jordan leading back to Ephraim, but many Ephraimites still tried to cross over, hoping their Gileadite brothers would not be able to distinguish friend from foe. However, the men of Gilead knew the people of the west could not pronounce the *sh* sound, as they had not mixed with foreigners as their brothers from the east had. So the Gileadite soldiers asked each man who tried to cross over the fords to say, “*Shibboleth*.” Every man who was from Ephraim would respond, “*Sibboleth*,” therein revealing his identity. With the help of this clever tactic, Jephthah’s men caught forty\-two thousand men and put them to death that day (Judges 12:2–6\).
*Shibboleth* is one of many words that the English\-speaking world has borrowed from the Bible. In modern contexts, a shibboleth is any identifying word, manner of speaking, or behavior that shows someone to be part of a particular group. A person’s reference to gasoline as “petrol” is a shibboleth pointing to British influence. The word *shibboleth* can also refer to an old, oft\-repeated idea that is widely believed but of questionable veracity; for example, a trite saying such as “great minds think alike” could be considered a shibboleth.
|
Who was Achan in the Bible?
|
Answer
First Chronicles 2:7 refers to Achan as “the troubler of Israel, who broke faith in the matter of the devoted thing” (ESV). In the days of Joshua, when the Reubenites, Gadites, and half\-tribe of Manasseh built their own altar east of the Jordan River, the other tribes used the story of Achan as a warning: “Do not rebel against the Lord or against us by building an altar for yourselves, other than the altar of the Lord our God. When Achan son of Zerah was unfaithful in regard to the [devoted things](devoted-to-destruction.html), did not wrath come on the whole community of Israel? He was not the only one who died for his sin” (Joshua 22:19b–20\). So who was this “troubler” named Achan, and what did he do?
The story of Achan is found in Joshua 7\. God had delivered Jericho into the Israelites’ hands, as recorded in Joshua 6\. The Israelites had been instructed to destroy everything in the city, with the exception of [Rahab](life-Rahab.html) and her family, as well as the city’s gold, silver, bronze, and iron. The metals were to go into the tabernacle treasury; they were “sacred to the Lord” (Joshua 6:19\) or “devoted” to Him. Jericho was to be totally destroyed, and the Israelites were to take no plunder for themselves.
Shortly after their success at Jericho, the Israelites moved on to attack the city of [Ai](Ai-in-the-Bible.html). The spies Joshua sent to Ai thought the city would be easy to overtake—much easier than Jericho—and they suggested Joshua only send two or three thousand troops. Much to their shock, the Israelites were chased out of Ai, and thirty\-six of them were killed. Joshua tore his clothes and bemoaned their attempts at conquering Canaan. He told God, “The Canaanites and the other people of the country will hear about this and they will surround us and wipe out our name from the earth. What then will you do for your own great name?” (Joshua 7:9\). God responded by telling Joshua that some Israelites had sinned by taking devoted things. The people were to consecrate themselves, and then the following morning the perpetrator would be identified by lot (see Proverbs 16:33\).
When morning came, each tribe presented itself. The tribe of Judah was chosen [by lot](casting-lots.html), then the clan of the Zerahites, then the family of Zimri, then Achan. “Then Joshua said to Achan, ‘My son, give glory to the Lord, the God of Israel, and honor him. Tell me what you have done; do not hide it from me’” (Joshua 7:19\). Achan confessed his sin, admitting that in Jericho he saw a robe, two hundred shekels of silver, and a fifity\-shekel bar of gold that he “coveted,” took, and hid in a hole he had dug within his tent. Messengers from Joshua confirmed the plunder was found in Achan’s tent, and they brought it before the assembly. The Israelites then stoned Achan, his children, and his livestock and burned the bodies; they also burned Achan’s tent, the plunder he had taken, and “all that he had” in the [Valley of Achor](valley-of-Achor.html) (i.e., the “Valley of Trouble”), Joshua 7:25–26\. The pile of stones was left there as a reminder of Achan’s sin and the high cost of not obeying the Lord.
After Achan was [judged](sin-of-Achan.html), God told Joshua, “Do not be afraid; do not be discouraged. Take the whole army with you, and go up and attack Ai. For I have delivered into your hands the king of Ai, his people, his city and his land” (Joshua 8:1\). The Israelites laid an ambush and soundly defeated Ai, killing all of its inhabitants. This time, the Israelites were allowed to take the plunder for themselves. Only Jericho, the first city in Canaan, had been wholly devoted to the Lord (see Deuteronomy 18:4\).
The story of Achan is a stark reminder of the penalty of sin, which is death (Romans 6:23a). We also see two truths illustrated plainly: first, that sin is never an isolated event—our sin always has a [ripple effect](private-sin.html) that touches others. Achan’s sin led to the deaths of thirty\-six of his fellow soldiers and defeat for the whole army. Second, we can always be sure that our sins will find us out (Numbers 32:23\). Hiding the evidence in our tents will not conceal it from God.
Achan’s sin was grave. He took what was God’s. The Israelites had been specifically warned about the consequences of not doing as God instructed. Joshua told them, “Keep away from the devoted things, so that you will not bring about your own destruction by taking any of them. Otherwise you will make the camp of Israel liable to destruction and bring trouble on it” (Joshua 6:18\). Achan’s sin was a clear and willful violation of a direct order, and he did bring trouble on the entire camp of Israel. Also, Achan was given time to repent on his own; he could have come forward at any time, yet chose to wait through the casting of lots. Rather than admit his guilt and perhaps call on the mercy of God or at least demonstrate reverence for Him, Achan attempted to hide. “Whoever conceals their sins does not prosper, but the one who confesses and renounces them finds mercy” (Proverbs 28:13\).
The precious metals Achan took were meant to be given to the tabernacle; they were God’s possession. So Achan not only disobeyed a direct order, but he stole from God Himself and then covered it up. The story of [Ananias and Sapphira](Ananias-and-Sapphira.html) in Acts 5 is a similar warning against lying to God. As to why Achan’s entire family was destroyed along with him, that is a bit difficult to understand. Most likely, they were complicit in the sin—they would surely have known about the hole dug in their tent and what was hidden there. Or perhaps their execution was a demonstration of just how pure the Israelites were called to be.
In the story of Achan we see just how deceptive sin can be. In the midst of a miraculous victory, Achan was enticed by a robe, some silver, and some gold—certainly none of that compares with the power of God he had just witnessed. Yet we know our own hearts can be just as easily swayed. James 1:14–15 says, “Each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full\-grown, gives birth to death.” Another aspect of sin’s deception is that it promises a benefit that it just can’t deliver. The stolen items did Achan absolutely no good; he couldn’t spend the money, and he couldn’t wear the clothes. What seemed of great worth to him was actually worthless, buried in a hole in the ground while guilt festered in his heart.
In Joshua 7:21, as Achan finally confesses his sin, he relates the process that led to his destruction: “I saw . . . I coveted . . . and took.” This is the same process that leads to many sins today. Achan was deceived by sin’s lies, but we don’t have to be. “Don’t be deceived, my dear brothers and sisters. Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows. He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all he created” (James 1:16–18\). Real blessing comes from God, not through the pleasures of sin.
Throughout the Bible we find that mercy accompanies judgment, even in the story of Achan. God was merciful in limiting the destruction caused by Achan’s sin. He also quickly restored the nation of Israel after the sin was dealt with. In Joshua 8 we see Israel defeat Ai and renew their covenant with God. God forgives, and He desires to be in relationship with His people. Even when we do not understand His commands, we can trust His character. He is the unchanging One and the Giver of good things. Achan’s story is both one of warning and one of hope.
|
What is Jansenism, and is it biblical?
|
Answer
Jansenism was a system of doctrine that began with the writings of Cornelius Jansen, a Catholic theologian in France in the 17th century. Jansenism was basically an attempt to reform [Catholicism](Roman-Catholicism.html) by bringing in some [Calvinistic](calvinism.html) doctrines such as the depravity of man, predestination, irresistible grace, and limited atonement. Jansenists also rejected the infallibility of the Catholic Church and spoke against the authority of the pope.
Jansen’s core ideas were published posthumously in 1640 and carried on by his followers for some time after his death. The famous mathematician and philosopher [Blaise Pascal](Blaise-Pascal.html) defended many of the theological and philosophical positions of Jansenism. The Jansenist view relied heavily on the teachings of Augustine of Hippo, particularly Augustine’s views on original sin and the grace of God.
Jansenists were concerned that [Counter\-Reformation](Counter-Reformation.html) Catholic teachings were going overboard in their response to [Reformers](Protestant-Reformation.html) like John Calvin. Calvin and others held that original sin had left man in a totally depraved moral state such that man can do nothing to bring about his own salvation. The Counter\-Reformers emphasized man’s ability to freely accept or refuse God’s grace (through the sacraments). Jansen believed that, in countering the Reformers, the Roman Catholic Church was slipping into the ancient heresy of [Pelagianism](Pelagianism.html), which taught that human beings are essentially good and that the will of man is not tainted or bound by original sin.
Jansenism agreed with several points of Reformed theology, namely the state of man before and after the fall, the extent of Christ’s atonement, and a narrow view of human free will. For these reasons, Jansenists were destined to be at odds with Catholic teaching, and they clashed especially with the newly organized [Jesuits](Jesuits-Society-of-Jesus.html). Many saw Jansenism as a political threat, and the movement thus faced opposition from French royalty as well as Catholic clergy. A series of papal decrees from 1653 through 1713 condemned Jansenism as heretical. After 1730 Jansenism as a movement waned in influence except in some areas in Italy and in Holland—where a Jansenist church still exists today.
The central points of Jansenism seem to fall within the general bounds of evangelical and Protestant orthodoxy, although there is widespread disagreement among evangelicals about the relationship between [human free will and divine sovereignty](is-God-sovereign.html). While Jansenism is in some ways comparable to Protestantism, it remained a reform effort within the Catholic Church. For all its disagreements with the Catholic hierarchy, Jansenism continued to promote strict observance of the sacraments, justification by works, and faithfulness to Rome.
In the final analysis, Jansenism was “Calvinism lite,” a compromise between Catholicism and Protestantism. Christians must “test everything \[and] hold fast what is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21, ESV). It follows that any teaching of man must be checked against Scripture for accuracy. The Bereans (Acts 17:10–12\) provide a great example, as they “examined the Scriptures every day” to see if what the apostle Paul said was true concerning Christ. There may be some good biblical notions within Jansenism, but there are also ideas that should be quickly discarded.
|
What does the Bible say about a contentious or quarrelsome woman?
|
Answer
Have you ever worked closely with an argumentative person? His or her words and actions spread like poison, casting a negative atmosphere over everyone around. So, Proverbs warns, is the effect of a quarrelsome woman over the home. She is a constant frustration, like a leaky roof that does not stop dripping (Proverbs 19:13; cf. 25:15\). In fact, it is better to live in the desert or on the corner of a roof than to share a home with a woman of such character (Proverbs 21:9, 19; 25:24\). Perhaps these statements seem a bit harsh, but when we think about the effect contentious or cantankerous people have over those around them, we can better understand why Proverbs would speak so strongly against a quarrelsome wife.
Much of what the Bible has to say about the contentious or quarrelsome woman comes from the book of Proverbs. Written by King Solomon, this book contains multiple warnings about such a woman—and no wonder, as Solomon took for himself [many ungodly wives](Solomon-wives-concubines.html) who no doubt were the inspiration behind many of his proverbs. However, Proverbs is not the only book that speaks on this topic, nor is quarrelsomeness strictly a female issue.
On more than one occasion, Paul felt the need to admonish the church not to get caught up in quarrels over various things, as that would be unprofitable (2 Timothy 2:14, 23; Titus 3:9\). As the church faced opposition from false teachers and others attempting to stir up strife within the body of Christ, they needed to be reminded not to give in to the temptation of engaging in arguments. This is the way of fools and only adds fuel to the fire of contention (Proverbs 20:3; 26:20–21\). In the closing of one of his epistles, Paul speaks directly to two women who were in contention: “I plead with Euodia and I plead with Syntyche to be of the same mind in the Lord” (Philippians 4:2\).
Whether we live or work with a person characterized by a contentious spirit, how might we live in such a way that God’s righteousness permeates the darkness spread by that person or persons?
First, if we are to call others to lives of peace, we ourselves must be striving to be people of peace (1 Timothy 3:2–4; 2 Timothy 2:24; 1 Corinthians 1:10–11\), Jesus being our ultimate example (Matthew 12:18–20\). James exhorts us, “My dear brothers and sisters, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry, because human anger does not produce the righteousness that God desires” (James 1:19–20\). Furthermore, we must resist the temptation to add fuel to the fire by putting up our defenses and becoming argumentative ourselves. “A gentle answer turns away wrath” (Proverbs 15:1\).
If the quarrelsome woman is a sister in Christ, we must approach her with the goal of loving correction, using Scripture to exhort her toward godly living. As Paul appeals to the believers in Philippi who knew [Euodia and Syntyche](Euodia-and-Syntyche.html), “Yes, and I ask you, my true companion, help these women” (Philippians 4:3; see also Leviticus 19:17; Matthew 18:15–17; Galatians 6:1\). If the contentious person is not a believer, we can still talk with him about the effect he is having and encourage him in a positive direction—this can even open an opportunity for us to share our faith.
Scripture makes it clear that quarrelling is a sign not of godliness, but of worldliness (1 Corinthians 3:3; James 4:1\). Believers must make no room for contentiousness in their lives, taking care not to yoke themselves to those characterized by such an attitude—whether male or female—as it results only in ruin. If one is married to a quarrelsome spouse, God will provide the grace to lead by example and encourage him or her in what is right, seeking God’s glory and the good of all involved (Matthew 5:43–48; Proverbs 25:21–22; 1 Peter 3:1–2; 1 Corinthians 12:7–16\).
|
What is the Lexham English Bible (LEB)?
|
Answer
The *Lexham English Bible* (LEB) was published by Logos Bible Software in 2012\. It is solely electronic and available for free as part of the Logos software package, as a translation option on BibleGateway.com, or as a download in TXT, XML, EPUB, and other formats.
**Lexham English Bible – Translation Method**
The basis of the text of the Lexham English Bible is the *Lexham Hebrew\-English Interlinear Old Testament* and the *Lexham Greek\-English Interlinear New Testament*. The LEB uses the “formal equivalence” method of translation, resulting in a quite literal rendering. Reviewers have gauged the Lexham English Bible as slightly more literal than the [New American Standard](New-American-Standard-Bible-NASB.html). The publishers of the LEB have strived to be as transparent as possible in the translation process, providing interlinear versions that keep the Greek and Hebrew words in their original order as well as provide root words and define each word contextually and noncontextually. In this way, the whole process of translation can be observed. To make the literal text more readable, the LEB uses italics to identify English words that are inferred but not included in the original text and brackets for idiomatic expressions that are difficult to translate literally. The interlinear texts themselves were taken from the *Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia* (primarily taken from the [Masoretic Text](Masoretic-Text.html)) and *The Greek New Testament (SBL Edition)* and the *[Nestle\-Aland 27th Edition of the Greek New Testament](Nestle-Aland-Greek-New-Testament.html)*. These source texts were supplemented with *The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament* and *A Greek\-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature*.
**Lexham English Bible – Pros and Cons**
Probably the greatest strength of the Lexham English Bible is its literal rendering of the original text. The translators of the LEB have taken seriously their responsibility to relate to English readers what God has said. The availability of interlinear texts and the ease of seeing the process of translation is a great feature, especially for those interested in scholarly study of the text. The fact that the LEB is free to download is also a plus. As with other literal translations, the word\-for\-word emphasis makes the LEB a little clunky in spots. However, the LEB is designed to be used in conjunction with a reader’s favorite version. More than a supplemental study tool, the Lexham English Bible is a solid translation in itself.
**Lexham English Bible – Sample Verses**
John 1:1, 14 – “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. And the Word became flesh and took up residence among us, and we saw his glory, glory as of the one and only from the Father, full of grace and truth.”
John 3:16 – “For in this way God loved the world, so that he gave his one and only Son, in order that everyone who believes in him will not perish, but will have eternal life.”
John 8:58 – “Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly I say to you, before Abraham was, I am!’”
Ephesians 2:8–9 – “For by grace you are saved through faith, and this *is* not from yourselves, *it is* the gift of God; *it is* not from works, so that no one can boast.”
Titus 2:13 – “. . . looking forward to the blessed hope and the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ . . .”
|
What is the Coverdale Bible?
|
Answer
The Coverdale Bible, named after its compiler, Myles Coverdale, was published on October 4, 1535, in Europe. It was the first English translation of the Bible to be printed (not handwritten), containing the entireties of the Old and New Testaments.
Leading up to the Coverdale Bible were other pioneers of biblical literature. [John Wycliffe](John-Wycliffe.html) in the 14th century produced a handwritten English Bible—the first\-ever English translation of Scripture. The next century, Johannes [Gutenberg](Gutenberg-Bible.html) invented the printing press and promptly printed a Latin Bible on it. Martin Luther translated the Bible into German in 1522, and William Tyndale published the New Testament in English in 1525–26\. Tyndale’s translation was based on Erasmus’s Greek text (Wycliffe had translated from the Latin Vulgate). Myles Coverdale used the New Testament of the [Tyndale Bible](Tyndale-Bible.html) for the Coverdale Bible and finished Tyndale’s work on the Old Testament and the [Apocrypha](apocrypha-deuterocanonical.html) (published as an appendix to the Old Testament). Rather than translating from the Hebrew text, Coverdale used Luther’s German translation, Ulrich Zwingli’s Zürich Bible, and the [Latin Vulgate](Latin-Vulgate.html) as the basis for his Old Testament translation.
The Coverdale Bible was remarkably accurate despite significant parts of it being translations of translations rather than translations of the original Hebrew. Coverdale was the first translator to include chapter summaries in his Bible. The second edition of the Coverdale Bible was printed in 1537 in England under license from King Henry VIII. In 1539 Coverdale was hired by the king to assist Thomas, Lord Cromwell produce the Great Bible, authorized for public use in Anglican churches.
In 1553 the Catholic Mary Tudor ([Bloody Mary](Bloody-Mary.html)) ascended the throne of England and began persecuting the Protestants in her realm. Myles Coverdale and other Reformers fled to Geneva, Switzerland, where they began work on the Geneva Bible in 1557\. This popular translation was the first Bible to include chapter and verse numbers. Myles Coverdale helped write the study notes for the Geneva Bible, although he died before the edition was published.
The Coverdale Bible continued to be published through over twenty editions, even after the appearance of the [Matthew Bible](Matthew-Bible.html) (published by John Rogers using a pseudonym) in 1537\. Besides his work on the Coverdale Bible, the [Great Bible](Great-Bible.html), and the Geneva Bible, Myles Coverdale also helped publish a dual\-language New Testament (in English and Latin) and an illustrated New Testament. Until 1979, the Psalter in the Episcopal Church’s *Book of Common Prayer* was essentially Coverdale’s translation of the Psalms. Myles Coverdale’s commitment to the Word of God has impacted millions of people, and his legacy of scholarship has literally changed history.
|
What is the Matthew Bible?
|
Answer
The Matthew Bible, also known as Matthew’s Bible and Matthew’s Version, was an early compilation of English translations of the books of the Bible. It was first published in 1537 by an Englishman named John Rogers, who used the name Thomas Matthew in an attempt to protect his identity and conceal William Tyndale’s involvement in the project. At that time, it was illegal in England to translate the Bible into English.
The complete New Testament and much of the Old Testament of the Matthew Bible was from the [Tyndale Bible](Tyndale-Bible.html), the translation work [William Tyndale](William-Tyndale.html) was able to complete before his martyrdom. The rest of the Old Testament and most of the [Apocrypha](apocrypha-deuterocanonical.html) were the work of Myles Coverdale. Thomas Matthew (John Rogers) himself translated the [Prayer of Manasseh](Prayer-of-Manasseh.html). Because the Matthew Bible relied so heavily on Tyndale’s version, the Matthew Bible is often called the Matthew\-Tyndale Bible.
John Rogers added some study helps to the Matthew Bible to aid readers who, in those days, were largely unfamiliar with the Bible. One such aid was a “Table of Principal Matters,” a summary of basic Bible doctrines based upon a 1535 edition of the Bible in French produced by Reformer Pierre Olivétan. The Matthew Bible underwent a second printing in 1549\. This second edition is sometimes called the Becke Edition, named after Edmund Becke, the man who supervised the printing; a final edition of the Matthew Bible was printed in 1551\.
Published two years after the Coverdale Bible, the Matthew Bible was the second complete translation of the Bible to be printed in English. Other Bible versions that preceded the Matthew Bible were those by Wycliffe (handwritten), Tyndale (the New Testament only), Luther (in German), and Zwingli (in German). Thankfully, two years after the publication of the Matthew Bible, King Henry VIII authorized the translation of the [Great Bible](Great-Bible.html), which was very similar to the Matthew Bible. In fact, until the Great Bible was completed, King Henry VIII allowed the Matthew Bible to be used.
In 1553, Mary Tudor became the queen of England. She was a Catholic and determined to return England to [Catholicism](Roman-Catholicism.html). Queen Mary had John Rogers arrested and imprisoned in Newgate Prison. On February 4, 1555, Rogers was led out of prison and past his wife and children (including their infant child whom Rogers had never seen) on his way to the stake. According to *Foxe’s Book of Martyrs*, Rogers recited Psalm 51 on his way to his death, “all the people wonderfully rejoicing at his constancy; with great praises and thanks to God for the same. And there in the presence of Mr. Rochester, comptroller of the queen’s household, Sir Richard Southwell, both the sheriffs, and a great number of people, he was burnt to ashes, washing his hands in the flame as he was burning.” Thus the compiler of the Matthew Bible became the first of many martyrs killed by Mary I, who later became known as “[Bloody Mary](Bloody-Mary.html).”
|
What is the Great Bible?
|
Answer
The Great Bible, also known as the Cromwell Bible, the Whitchurch’s Bible, and the Chained Bible, was published in England in 1539\. The Great Bible was the first authorized translation of the Bible into English—up till then, it had been illegal to print or distribute English Bibles in England. King Henry VIII authorized the creation of the Great Bible so there would be a Bible that could be read aloud in the vernacular during church services in England. Overseeing the production of the Great Bible were Thomas, Lord Cromwell, secretary to the king; and Myles Coverdale, who had previously published the Coverdale Bible. By the end of 1541, seven editions of the Great Bible had been printed. Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury, wrote the preface to the second edition.
Much of the Great Bible is identical to the [Tyndale Bible](Tyndale-Bible.html), the work of [William Tyndale](William-Tyndale.html). The parts of the Old Testament that Tyndale was unable to complete before his martyrdom were translated by Myles Coverdale. The Great Bible was also similar in content to the [Matthew Bible](Matthew-Bible.html), published by John Rogers in 1537\. The Great Bible, as the first authorized translation of the Bible into English, had a strong influence on subsequent English translations of the Bible, including the [Bishops’ Bible](Bishops-Bible.html) and the [King James Version](King-James-Version-KJV.html).
The Great Bible was called “great” due to its large size—it was over fourteen inches tall. The Great Bible was intended to be a pulpit Bible and was often chained to something in the church to prevent its removal, hence the “Chained Bible” moniker. The printer was Edward Whitchurch, so the Great Bible also goes by the name “Whitchurch’s Bible.”
The Great Bible was only allowed to be kept in churches. It could not be taken home for personal study. The Great Bible was an important bridge: it was the first legal English translation of the Bible in England—a great step forward in religious freedom. But it was confined to the church building. The Reformers’ dream of putting the Word of God in every person’s hand was still yet to be realized.
|
Who was Rizpah in the Bible?
|
Answer
Rizpah was a [concubine](concubine-concubines.html) of King Saul’s who played a minor role in two events in David’s rise to power. Although David was anointed by Samuel to succeed Saul as king of Israel when David was quite young, David was content to wait for God’s timing to actually become king. In fact, he executed Saul’s supposed killer (2 Samuel 1:1–16\) and did not kill Saul’s remaining male heirs, defying the standard custom in many cultures. David paid particular respect for Mephibosheth, Jonathan’s crippled son (2 Samuel 9\).
Rizpah’s part in the first event concerning [David](life-David.html) is very small. In 2 Samuel 3, Saul had died and David is king over the southern half of the kingdom, but Saul’s son [Ish\-Bosheth](David-and-Ish-bosheth.html) has garnered support in the northern half. [Abner](Abner-in-the-Bible.html), Saul’s cousin and general, had been a rising star in Saul’s court and now champions Ish\-Bosheth as king. Possibly out of paranoia, Ish\-Bosheth accuses Abner of sleeping with Rizpah, essentially charging him with trying to take Saul’s throne for himself. Abner is incensed to the point that he immediately switches his allegiance and swears to support God’s oath to “transfer the kingdom from the house of Saul and establish David’s throne over Israel and Judah from Dan to Beersheba” (2 Samuel 3:10\). Abner gathers support for David, including from Saul’s own tribe of Benjamin, and visits David to declare his loyalty. David lets Abner leave in peace, but [Joab](Abner-and-Joab.html), David’s second\-in\-command, secretly calls Abner back and murders him (verses 26–27\). David asserts his innocence in the matter and even takes part in the funeral procession for Abner. Shortly thereafter, Ish\-Bosheth is murdered, too. David, who did not want to take the throne through intrigue against Saul’s house, has Ish\-Bosheth’s assassins executed (2 Samuel 4\).
While there is speculation that Abner did indeed sleep with Rizpah and that Rizpah was willing to transfer her own loyalties to the stronger leader, the Bible doesn’t say. All we know is that Abner denied being involved with Rizpah.
Rizpah had two sons by [Saul](life-Saul.html), both of whom were spared when David came into power. Years later, when David held the northern part of the kingdom as well as the southern, Israel was struck by a famine that lasted three years (2 Samuel 21:1–14\). David, recognizing that the famine may be a divine judgment against the nation, asks God if this is so. God affirms that the famine is punishment for Saul’s massacre of the [Gibeonites](Gibeonites.html), who had been protected by a treaty since the Israelites first invaded the Promised Land (Joshua 9:1–27\). The breach of contract was serious enough that God sent the famine in response. David approaches the Gibeonites to ask how Israel can make restitution, and they demand the lives of seven of Saul’s descendants.
David complies with the Gibeonites’ demand, taking the remaining seven sons and grandsons of Saul (except for Jonathan’s son [Mephibosheth](Mephibosheth.html)) and giving them to the Gibeonites. After the executions, Rizpah stood guard over the bodies of her sons and the five others, sleeping on a rock on a bed of sackcloth and chasing away birds and wild animals. Rizpah did this “from the beginning of the harvest till the rain poured down from the heavens” (2 Samuel 21:10\). For a body to be exposed to the elements and eaten by wild animals after death was a sign of dishonor and possibly even a curse. Rizpah’s self\-sacrificing devotion reminds David that he had neglected the bodies of Saul and Jonathan, which were held at Jabesh Gilead. David took Saul’s and Jonathan’s bones along with the remains of the seven who were executed by the Gibeonites and buried them properly in Saul’s family tomb. In response, God lifted the famine.
There is controversy over the deaths of Rizpah’s sons and the others who were killed by the Gibeonites. Some scholars believe David manipulated the event to get rid of his rival’s heirs without looking like a cruel usurper. Others believe that their deaths were God’s intention as part of judgment on Saul’s house. Another theory is that these men of Saul’s family had been personally involved in the Gibeonite massacre, and their deaths were God’s judicial punishment for their crimes.
So Rizpah played a role in two different stories of how David strived to take the crown God had promised without disrespecting (or destroying) the family of his predecessor. Her devotion to Saul’s sons and grandsons also served to remind David that he had a duty to his former king and, as long as Saul and his descendants were not properly buried, his succession was not complete.
|
Who was Jedidiah in the Bible?
|
Answer
The only mention of the name Jedidiah in the Bible is found in 2 Samuel 12:25\. King Solomon, second son of [David and Bathsheba](David-and-Bathsheba.html), was given the name Jedidiah by God. After Solomon was born, God sent a message through the [prophet Nathan](Nathan-in-the-Bible.html) that his name was to be Jedidiah (Hebrew for “Beloved of the Lord”). Scripture says that God named him Jedidiah “because the Lord loved him” (2 Samuel 12:25\). The names Jedidiah and David are related in that the name David means “[beloved](beloved-in-the-Bible.html).”
Although Israel’s third king is generally referenced in the Bible as [Solomon](life-Solomon.html), it is unknown which name was used during his reign. Some scholars believe that the name Solomon (“Peaceable”) was given by his father David to be a throne name in anticipation of his future reign of peace over Jerusalem; others believe that Jedidiah was the throne name. It is possible that the Lord first gave the name Solomon (1 Chronicles 22:8–10\) but then gave him the additional name Jedidiah as a sign of His love.
Solomon (Jedidiah) reigned over Israel after his father David and was on the throne c. 970–930 BC. This was despite the efforts of Solomon’s half\-brother [Adonijah](Solomon-Adonijah-Abishag.html) to take the throne during David’s final days. At the beginning of his reign, Solomon/Jedidiah was asked by the Lord what he desired, and Solomon’s response reveals a soft heart. The king asks not for great honor or wealth but for [wisdom](Solomon-wisdom.html) to govern God’s people well and for discernment between right and wrong. Because of this response, the Lord not only granted Solomon wisdom far beyond that of other kings, but He also blessed him with wealth, honor, and other pleasures (1 Kings 3:4–15; 4:29–31\). Even the [Queen of Sheba](Queen-of-Sheba.html) traveled well over 1,000 miles to see the glory and wisdom of Jedidiah, the Beloved of the Lord (1 Kings 10:1\).
Many things in the life of King Jedidiah/Solomon point to the fact that he was indeed beloved of the Lord. Under the rule of Jedidiah/Solomon, Israel enjoyed a time of great peace and prosperity (1 Kings 4:25\). Solomon built the temple of the Lord, a task that God had reserved specifically for him (2 Samuel 7:13; 1 Chronicles 17:12; 22:6–11\). Under his reign the kingdom was extended to its largest geographical capacity with victories over the Philistines, Moabites, Ammonites, and Edomites. Jedidiah/Solomon was by no means a perfect king; in fact, he strayed into idolatry (1 Kings 11:4\), which makes God’s blessing and steadfast love even more remarkable.
Students of Scripture have noticed parallels between Jedidiah/Solomon and Jesus Christ. The Father’s words about Jesus, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased” (Matthew 3:17\), correspond to the name Jedidiah. The Lord’s title Prince of Peace evokes thoughts of the name Solomon, the “peaceable” king. The blessing of Psalm 72, written of Solomon, could also be applied to Jesus: “May his name endure forever; may it continue as long as the sun. Then all nations will be blessed through him, and they will call him blessed” (verse 17\). One day, Jesus Christ will sit on David’s throne (Isaiah 9:7\), and the world will see justice, peace, riches, love, and blessing like never before. King Jedidiah in all his glory was but a murky foreshadowing of the [reign of the Messiah](millennium.html), the “greater than Solomon” (Matthew 12:42\).
|
Is Sunday the Christian Sabbath?
|
Answer
Observing a Sabbath day of rest/non\-work was a command in the [Old Covenant](old-covenant.html) law (Exodus 20:8; 31:12–18\). Christians are [not under the law](not-under-the-law.html) but have traditionally set aside [Sunday as a day of worship](worship-on-Sunday.html) and rest in remembrance of the fact that Jesus was resurrected on a Sunday. Some view Sunday as the Christian Sabbath, essentially transferring the Old Covenant laws about not working from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday to Sundays. Even in an increasingly secular culture, many businesses are still closed on Sundays. Is this biblical?
It is important to understand that the [New Covenant](new-covenant.html) nowhere commands worship or restricts work on Sundays. Biblically speaking, Sunday is not the Christian Sabbath. The New Testament describes Christians worshiping on Sundays (Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2\), but this is [descriptive rather than prescriptive](descriptive-vs-prescriptive.html). Christians are *described* as worshiping on Sundays, but Sunday worship is nowhere *prescribed* or commanded. Nowhere in the New Testament are Christians even described as setting aside Sunday as a Sabbath day.
The Sabbath day was an important aspect of the covenant between God and Israel. Exodus 31:17 states, “It \[the Sabbath day] is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.” Prior to God giving the nation of Israel the [Mosaic Law](Mosaic-Law.html), God nowhere required Sabbath observance. After Jesus’ death on the cross perfectly [fulfilled the Law](abolish-fulfill-law.html), God nowhere requires Sabbath observance. Biblically speaking, Christians are not commanded to observe a Sabbath day on Saturday or Sunday or any other day of the week.
At the same time, following the creation pattern of six days of work followed by a [day of rest](Sabbath-day-rest.html) is a good thing. Further, setting aside a day of the week to focus on worship is undeniably biblical (Hebrews 10:25\), although we are to worship God every day, not just one day per week. And, ultimately, [Jesus is our Sabbath](Jesus-Sabbath.html) rest (Hebrews 4\).
In conclusion, no, Sunday is not the Christian Sabbath. There is no biblically commanded Christian Sabbath. But it is perfectly acceptable to set aside Sunday as a day for worship in light of Christ’s resurrection occurring on a Sunday. Also, making Sunday a day of rest to coincide with its being a day of worship seems a logical and, more importantly, biblically sound thing to do.
|
What does the Bible say about cowardice or being a coward?
|
Answer
At first glance, it would seem the Bible has very little to say about cowardice. Some translations do not even contain the word, while in others it is found only once in Revelation 21:8, in which the coward is condemned to [hellfire](lake-of-fire.html) along with murderers and sorcerers. Other translations use the word *fearful* in place of the word *cowardly*, but could it be that these words are synonymous? If so, what does that mean for us, who have all been fearful at one time or another? Are we “the cowardly” of which Revelation 21:8 speaks?
In the Greek, the word translated “cowardly” in Revelation 21:8 implies fearfulness and timidity. The dictionary also defines *coward* as someone who lacks the [courage](Bible-courage.html) to do difficult, dangerous, or unpleasant things. A coward consciously shies away from unpleasant situations, doing whatever he can to save his own skin—enslaving himself to fear. Cowardice is sometimes linked to a guilty conscience: “The wicked flee though no one pursues, but the righteous are as bold as a lion” (Proverbs 28:1\). Scripture has much to say about being a slave to fear and contains stories of some godly people who gave in to fear.
[Peter](life-Peter.html) is a good example of someone who once showed cowardice or enslavement to fear. Peter’s three\-fold denial of Jesus to save his own life revealed a fear that was still surrendered to men rather than to God (Luke 22:54–62\). Later, during the time of the early church, Peter once decided to refrain from eating with the Gentiles out of fear for the “circumcision party”—the [Judaizers](Judaizers.html) (Galatians 2:11–13\). His fear of being criticized by his Jewish brothers kept him from obeying God, who had commanded him to accept the Gentiles into the community of believers, freely eating and drinking with them (Acts 11:1–17\). Despite Peter’s cowardice on occasion, Jesus loved him and continued to call him a disciple (Luke 22:31–32; John 21:15–22\). With Jesus’ forgiveness and the gift of His sanctifying Spirit, Peter learned to live a life of great faith and boldness despite facing persecution (1 Peter 4:12–19; John 21:17–19\).
[Joshua](life-Joshua.html) was the man who led Israel in the conquest of Canaan; given the many battles he faced and won, no one would ever call him a coward. Yet Joshua must have struggled with fear, for the Lord tells him over and over to “be not afraid,” “be of good courage,” etc. (Joshua 1:9, 18; 8:1\). It was an encouragement against cowardice that Joshua passed along to the Israelites (Joshua 10:25\).
There are numerous places in Scripture where God tells His people to “be strong and courageous. Do not be afraid or terrified . . . for the Lord your God goes with you; he will never leave you nor forsake you” (Deuteronomy 31:6\). This is a command, not a suggestion. How could God expect us not to be afraid? It is because He promises to strengthen us and be with us. His power and presence are ours (2 Timothy 1:7; Psalm 37:27–28; Matthew 28:18–20\). Perhaps at times we play the coward, enslaving ourselves to fear just because we do not take God’s Word seriously; we do not believe He is actually with us or will strengthen us. While it is natural to experience [fear](Bible-fear.html), we are commanded not to let fear control us; instead, we are to cry out to the God of peace, who has promised to be with us and will help us in time of need (Philippians 4:5b–9; Isaiah 51:12\).
Jesus is our best example of facing fear without letting it control or keep Him from obeying God (Luke 22:42–44\). If we are God’s children by faith in Christ, we do not have to fear the condemnation mentioned in Revelation 21:8 (see Romans 8:1\). However, the statement that cowards will be consigned to the lake of fire reminds us that fearful living is not the mark of a disciple of Christ. We must come to God with our fears, asking Him to work His perfect peace within us (Philippians 4:6–7; Psalm 145:18\). He wants us to ask, and He will not let us down (Matthew 7:7–10; Isaiah 41:10; 2 Timothy 4:17; Psalm 18:32–34\).
|
What is prophetic ministry?
|
Answer
Prophetic ministry, as understood by [Charismatic groups](Charismatic-movement.html) today, is any ministry that relies on the gift of prophecy and new revelation from God to guide the church to maturity. Those involved in prophetic ministry sometimes refer to it as a [five\-fold ministry](five-fold-ministry.html) and believe that the offices of apostle and prophet are being restored to the modern\-day church.
We see prophetic ministry often in the Old Testament, as God raised up prophets to encourage and rebuke the nation of Israel in times of trouble or rebellion. During King David’s reign (2 Samuel), the prophet Nathan, among others, spoke the word of the Lord to David, giving him guidance and direction as well as confronting him concerning his sin with Bathsheba. Of course, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hosea, Amos, Micah, Zechariah, etc., also had a prophetic ministry—they were prophets, after all. The calling of a prophet was to speak for God. A prophet would teach, give guidance, counsel, or rebuke as necessary.
In the New Testament, we find others who had a prophetic ministry. Certain people were gifted as prophets to give guidance, direction, counsel, etc., to God’s people. The [gift of prophecy](gift-of-prophecy.html) is specifically mentioned in 1 Corinthians 12:10 and Ephesians 4:11\. Please note that this gift was given for the building up of the church (Ephesians 4:12\). Thus, prophets were to speak the Word of God to the church so that believers would know the mind of the Lord and how the church should function.
We believe that true prophetic ministry today is simply the preaching of the Bible accurately and clearly. The gift of prophecy today is the “speaking forth” of the written Word, not the relaying of new information from heaven. The purpose of the sign gifts in the early church was to provide direction until the New Testament was completed and to validate the ministry of the apostles. Once the Bible was completed and the apostles died, the miraculous gifts [ceased](cessationism.html) being of use in the church. We can see this in the New Testament in that the early books such as 1 Corinthians and Ephesians mention the miraculous gifts, whereas the later books such as 1 and 2 Timothy don’t mention them. The completed Bible is sufficient for us to follow the Lord faithfully. Second Peter 1:3 and 2 Timothy 3:16–17 are clear on this. Additional words from the Lord are unnecessary.
There are many Christians today who claim to be involved in prophetic ministry, who believe that prophecy is ongoing, and who present themselves as conduits of new revelation from heaven. Churches who believe in prophetic ministry typically attempt to interpret dreams, predict the future, and speak in tongues—although the New Testament gift of tongues (the supernatural ability to speak in unlearned foreign languages for the purpose of sharing the gospel) is not the type of tongues being practiced today.
The bottom line on prophetic ministry is that the Bible is complete. Scripture even warns against adding to the Word of God (Revelation 22:18\). The Bible is all we need to live a life of godliness. Thus, prophecy, in the sense of a “new” word from God, is no longer needed.
|
Who were the Moors?
|
Answer
When the Roman Empire ruled northern Africa, they referred to the native people in the same way as the ancient Greeks had: as “Barbarians.” This word eventually evolved into the term *Berbers*, used mostly for the African people living near the Mediterranean Sea. But another Latin (Roman) term for these people was *Mauri*. During the centuries leading up to the first [Crusade](Christian-crusades.html), these [Islamic](Islam.html) people conquered what are now Spain and Portugal. The Europeans referred to the Muslim invaders using derivatives of their Latin name, which in English worked out to the term *Moors*.
Even early on, the term *Moors* carried an imprecise meaning. It was mostly applied to the Muslim conquerors of southwestern Europe. However, none of the Greek, Roman, or European titles for this people group were very specific. The term *Moors* was not, and is not, used by any particular group in reference to itself. The two distinguishing characteristics of the Moors, from a Medieval European perspective, were Islamic religion and African ethnicity. As a result, the term *Moors* quickly became a European catch\-all for both Muslims and Africans. The era of the Crusades, in particular, gave the term *Moors* a negative connotation.
This puts the term *Moors* in a category with other generic ethnic and racial terms. As history shows, most such terms are gradually abandoned in polite conversation and are eventually considered offensive. Even terms that carry no particular malice can, over time, be set aside for the same reason. A relevant example of this is the term *Negro*, which was used by U.S. civil rights leaders of the 1960s but is no longer considered an appropriate label. A more current example is the term *Oriental*, which is experiencing a similar decline in acceptance.
Historically, the Moors were a group of Muslims from northern Africa who invaded Europe. Even at the time of the Crusades, the term *Moors* was generic and not used by the Africans themselves. In modern European use, the term *Moor* or *Moorish* is almost always used as slang, an insult, or in reference to something other than a people group. In ancient contexts, a Moor was a Muslim of African descent.
|
What did Jesus mean when He said, “He who has ears to hear”?
|
Answer
In the Gospels, Jesus speaks of those who have “ears to hear” at the end of a difficult saying or parable (e.g., Matthew 11:15; Mark 4:9, 23\). Who is “he who has ears to hear”? Better yet, who is “he who has ears”? Ears are a feature shared by all of humanity—to not have ears would be an unnatural occurrence. Therefore, when Jesus addresses those who have ears, He refers to all who have been given His words—no matter their age, ethnicity, language, or status.
But there is a difference between having ears and having “ears to hear.” Jesus’ [parable of the sower and the seed](parable-sower.html) contrasts types of hearers: those who let the Word of God pass straight through their ears and those who truly listen and seek understanding (Mark 4:13–20\). Some hear the Word, yet they do not allow it to take root because the seduction of worldly pleasures and comfort overcomes them. Others end up rejecting the Word because of persecution or trials. Others hear the Word and open themselves to understand and accept it so that it transforms them. Those who have “ears to hear” allow the Word to bear fruit to the glory of God. It is up to the hearer to decide whether to take the Word seriously and pursue understanding; only a few are willing—the rest have ears, but they do not have “ears to hear” (Matthew 7:13–14, 24–27\).
Whenever Jesus says, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear,” He is calling for people to pay careful heed. It’s another way of saying, “Listen up! Pay close attention!” Speaking in parables was one way in which Jesus sought to gain the attention of the crowds —people love stories, and the [parables](what-is-a-parable.html) depicted events and characters with which they could readily relate. But unless they were willing to tune out other distractions and come to Jesus to understand the meaning of His preaching, His words would be only empty stories. They needed more than ears, however keen they were; they needed ears to hear.
When asked by His disciples why He was speaking to the crowds in parables, Jesus refers to Isaiah 6, which speaks of people who have eyes and ears, yet who have hardened their hearts and chosen to ignore the Word of the Lord (Matthew 13:10–15; cf. Isaiah 6:8–10\). Part of the judgment on those who refuse to believe is that they will eventually lose their opportunity to believe: “Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them” (Matthew 13:12; cf. Romans 1:18–32\).
A similar phrase is found in Revelation in each of the seven letters to the churches: “Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches” (Revelation 2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22\). And in Revelation 13:9, immediately following a description of the [Antichrist](what-is-the-antichrist.html), we read, “Whoever has ears, let them hear.” The readers of Revelation are called upon to pay close attention and seek God’s wisdom concerning what’s written.
Who is “he who has ears”? The simple answer: all people who have been or are being given the words of God. Like the parables’ original audience, we must also “Listen up! Pay close attention!” Jesus’ simple request is that we use our God\-given faculties (eyes to see, ears to hear) to tune in to His words (John 10:27 –28; Mark 4:24; Revelation 3:20\). “For whatever is hidden is meant to be disclosed, and whatever is concealed is meant to be brought out into the open” (Mark 4:22\). Seeking God’s truth takes energy and focus; it takes a willingness to be challenged and changed. While the way of God’s truth is not the most convenient or fun path to take, we can be assured that it is the best one (John 1:4; 10:9; 14:6\). And so He bids us, “Come” (Matthew 11:28 –30\).
*Come, all you who are thirsty, come to the waters; and you who have no money, come, buy and eat! Come, buy wine and milk without money and without cost. Why spend money on what is not bread, and your labor on what does not satisfy? Listen, listen to me, and eat what is good, and you will delight in the richest of fare. Give ear and come to me; listen, that you may live. I will make an everlasting covenant with you, my faithful love promised to David.* (Isaiah 55:1–3\)
|
What is the Passion Translation of the Bible?
|
Answer
The most important problem with The Passion Translation of the Bible (TPT) is actually found in its name—specifically, the term *translation*. In truth, The Passion Translation is a re\-worded and re\-written Bible, apparently intended to support a particular strain of theology. If the same material was marketed as a “commentary” or as a “study guide,” it would still be concerning. As it is, The Passion Translation cannot honestly be called a translation or even a paraphrase. The TPT goes well beyond the idea of “translation” and reimagines the Bible as one human author thinks it ought to be written.
The Passion Translation is primarily the work of a single author, Brian Simmons. Simmons has a long track record as a passionate and successful missionary and evangelist. However, any translation completed by a single person raises questions of accountability. Such efforts are far more prone to personal preferences. As it turns out, The Passion Translation of the Bible not only reflects Simmons’ [New Apostolic Reformation (NAR)](New-Apostolic-Reformation.html) theology, but it appears to be deliberately written in order to promote it.
The FAQ section of The Passion Translation website makes several concerning remarks about the translation process:
*“… the meaning of a passage took priority over the form of the original words. Sometimes in order to communicate the correct intended meaning, words needed to be changed.”*
*“The Passion Translation is more in favor of prioritizing God’s original message over the words’ literal meaning.”*
In other words, The Passion Translation of the Bible is not about finding corresponding words in different languages or presenting original words in a new language. The above comments imply that the Bible does not mean what it says, and so it needs to be changed to say what it should say. This is not an unfair assessment on our part, as passages in The Passion Translation of the Bible show extreme tampering with the text.
For example, on its own website, The Passion Translation quotes Luke 1:37\. Here is that verse in several mainstream versions:
Luke 1:37 ESV: *“For nothing will be impossible with God.”*
Luke 1:37 NIV: *“For no word from God will ever fail.”*
Luke 1:37 NASB: *“For nothing will be impossible with God.”*
Luke 1:37 KJV: *“For with God nothing shall be impossible.”*
This same verse, in The Passion Translation, looks like this:
*“No promise of God is empty of power, for with God there is no such thing as impossibility.”*
Clearly, there is an idea being added to the original words of the Scripture. Other verses show even more drastic, NAR\-friendly additions:
Mark 1:15 ESV: *“and saying, ‘The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.’”*
Mark 1:15 NIV: *“‘The time has come,’ he said. ‘The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!’”*
Mark 1:15 KJV: *“And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.”*
Mark 1:15 TPT: *“At last the fulfillment of the age has come! It is time for the realm of God’s kingdom to be experienced in fullness! Turn your lives back to God and put your trust in the hope\-filled gospel!”*
On The Passion Translation of the Bible website, the publisher offers a comparison between the NIV and TPT translations of Galatians 2:15–21\. The additions in The Passion Translation are justified with the claim that this translation “enhances \[the Bible’s] meaning by going beyond a literal translation to magnifying God’s original message”:
**From the NIV:**
*We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.
But if, in our endeavor to be justified in Christ, we too were found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not! For if I rebuild what I tore down, I prove myself to be a transgressor. For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.*
**From TPT:**
*Although we’re Jews by birth and not non\-Jewish “sinners,” we know full well that we don’t receive God’s perfect righteousness as a reward for keeping the law, but by the faith of Jesus the Messiah! His faithfulness, not ours, has saved us, and we have received God’s perfect righteousness. Now we know that God accepts no one by the keeping of religious laws, but by the gift of grace!
If we are those who desire to be saved from our sins through our union with Christ, does that mean Christ promotes our sins if we still acknowledge that we are sinners? How absurd! For if I start over and reconstruct the old religious system that I have torn down with the message of grace, I will appear to be one who turns his back on the truth.
It was when I tried to obey the law that I was condemned with a curse, because I’m not able to fulfill every single detail of it. But because Christ lives in me, I’ve now died to the law’s dominion over me so that I can live for God in heaven’s freedom!
My old identity has been crucified with Christ and no longer lives; for the nails of his cross crucified me with him. And now the essence of this new life is no longer mine, for Christ lives his life through me—we live in union as one! My new life is empowered by the faith of the Son of God who loves me so much that he gave himself for me, and dispenses his life into mine!
So that is why I don’t view God’s grace as something minor or peripheral. For if keeping the law could release God’s righteousness to us, the Anointed One would have died for nothing.*
Note that the third paragraph—beginning with “It was when…”—is not “translated” from anything. It’s not a re\-wording or re\-interpretation. It’s entirely the product of the author’s own thought process. This criticism has nothing to do with the particular point being made in the extra material. Right or wrong, correct or incorrect, that paragraph is not part of the actual Word of God. Yet it is placed within the rest of the passage.
The Passion Translation of the Bible is not, therefore a “translation” of the Bible at all. It’s a rewrite of the Bible. Referring to it as a “translation” and calling it a good choice for a primary study Bible, as the author does, is deceptive.
Other points in The Passion Translation show a similar bias. In many cases, wording that affects doctrine is added without any support from the text whatsoever. For example, two phrases are added to in 1 Timothy 2:11–12: “Let the women **who are new converts** be willing to learn with all submission to their leaders and not speak out of turn. I don’t advocate that the **newly converted** women be the teachers in the church, assuming authority over the men, but to live in peace“ (emphasis added). The phrases *who are new converts* and *newly converted* are found nowhere in the Greek, but they do happen to correspond with Simmons’ own belief in [egalitiarianism](egalitarianism.html).
Referring to their treatment of Galatians 2, the publishers of TPT claim *“this section from Paul’s letter in the TPT Bible reads as if he wrote it to contemporary English readers!”* In truth, their version of this text reads as if it was written by a modern man looking to reword the Bible according to his own doctrinal preferences. Modernizing language in an effort to translate is not the same thing as “correcting” Scripture by making it say what someone thinks it should have said.
Brian Simmons may have approached this effort with good intentions, but his methods, his wording, and the marketing are spiritually dangerous. The Passion Translation of the Bible is not a “translation” to be trusted.
|
Did Moses see God?
|
Answer
In Exodus 33:20, God tells [Moses](life-Moses.html), “You cannot see my face, for no one can see me and live.” However, earlier, in Exodus 33:11, we read, “Thus the Lord used to speak to Moses [face to face](God-Moses-face-to-face.html), as a man speaks to his friend.” So, did Moses see God, and if so, how did he live? Also, how does this agree with John 1:18, which says, “No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son”?
In Exodus 33:18, Moses asks God, “Please show me your [glory](glory-of-God.html).” God responds, “‘I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the Lord, in your presence. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. But,’ he said, ‘you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.’ Then the Lord said, ‘There is a place near me where you may stand on a rock. When my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed by. Then I will remove my hand and you will see my back; but my face must not be seen’” (Exodus 33:19–23\). So, clearly, Moses never truly or fully saw God.
What, then, does Exodus 33:11 mean by saying God and Moses spoke “face to face”? Since [God is spirit](God-is-spirit.html) (John 4:24\), He does not truly have a “face.” Exodus 33:11 is simply saying that God and Moses had a close relationship. They were in harmony with each other, just as close friends are. God and Moses were not literally face to face, but their relationship and communication was very much like two people who spoke to one another as close friends would.
While God can appear in human form (or in other physical form) if He wants to, He is, in His essence, not a physical being. Many people in the Bible witnessed [theophanies](theophany-Christophany.html), or appearances of God. No one, though, other than Jesus Christ (John 1:18\), has seen God in all of His glory. Even the [seraphim](seraphim.html) in heaven cover their eyes as they worship God (Isaiah 6:1–4\).
|
Did Jesus baptize?
|
Answer
The Bible does not record anyone being baptized by Jesus. There are a couple of verses that *seem* to indicate that Jesus baptized people, but when we compare Scripture with Scripture, we conclude that Jesus did not personally baptize anyone.
Opening the possibility that Jesus did baptize is Matthew 3:14, where John the Baptist says to Jesus, “I need to be baptized by you.” Taken by itself, John’s statement could imply that Jesus was in the habit of baptizing people in water. But the context suggests otherwise: previously, John had said, “I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me comes one who is more powerful than I. . . . He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire” (Matthew 3:11\). John distinguished his baptism ([with water](water-baptism.html)) from the Lord’s baptism ([with the Holy Spirit](Spirit-baptism.html)). When John spoke of his need to be baptized by Jesus, he was most naturally referring to his need for the Holy Spirit.
Two verses in John 3 seem to say that Jesus did indeed baptize: John 3:22 says that “Jesus and his disciples went out into the Judean countryside, where he spent some time with them, and baptized.” And in John 3:26 Jesus’ actions are reported to John: “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.”
But in the next chapter John clarifies what was happening: “Now Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that he was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John—although in fact *it was not Jesus who baptized*, but his disciples” (John 4:1–2, emphasis added). So, Jesus was “baptizing” in that the disciples were doing so by His direction and under His authority. John, after a couple of mentions of Jesus’ work of baptism, explains that Jesus was not *personally* baptizing anyone.
As Jesus had oversight of His disciples’ work of baptism, He could rightly be said to be baptizing. In common language, we often describe work accomplished through a subordinate as one’s own work. Thus, the manager of a lawn mowing service can be said to mow thirty lawns a week, although he himself mows none of them—his employees do the actual mowing. And a king can be said to invade another country, although the king himself never leaves his palace.
Is it possible that Jesus baptized people on other occasions not recorded in Scripture? Yes, the possibility exists. But, based on John 4:1–2, it seems unlikely. A plausible explanation for why Jesus did not baptize anyone is that Jesus did not want anyone thinking himself superior to other believers based on who had baptized him. Someone baptized by Jesus would be tempted to broadcast the fact and feel a little smug around those who were only baptized by, say, [Thomas](Thomas-in-the-Bible.html) or [Thaddaeus](Thaddeus-in-the-Bible.html). Such proud sectarianism is human nature (see 1 Corinthians 1:12–15\). In declining to baptize anyone, Jesus prevented unnecessary divisions.
|
How should parents who are divorcing/separating deal with child custody issues?
|
Answer
No matter what the reason for divorce, be it [biblical](grounds-for-divorce.html) or otherwise, the hardships, heartache, and repercussions of a married couple separating are exponentially more complicated when child custody matters are a factor. While the Bible is clear that God hates divorce (Malachi 2:16\), God still recognizes that divorces may occur since marriages involve two sinful human beings. He even laid down laws in order to protect the rights of divorcées (Deuteronomy 24:1–4\). However, the Bible provides no clear law on how to deal with the issue of children trapped between divorcing parents. This is likely because, as Jesus says in Matthew 19:8, divorce was never meant to be.
The divorce process will be fraught with many negative emotions—anger, betrayal, bitterness, a desire for revenge, and a host of damaging judgments upon oneself and the spouse. But when the couple has children and custody arrangements to consider, parents must set aside their negativity toward one another and put their children’s needs first. The Bible says that children are God’s gifts and He cares about how they are raised (Psalm 127:3; 34:11; Proverbs 23:13–14\). Even after a couple divorces and are no longer married, they are still the parents of their children and must treat parenthood, the care of God’s gifts, with the highest possible respect and priority.
In the United States, child custody laws differ, but, generally speaking, the courts will grant custody based on the best interests of the children involved. The judge will take into account several factors including the children’s ages; parental preferences; willingness to support and further a relationship with the other parent; ability to provide a safe, stable, and loving living environment; the children’s school locations; and perhaps the children’s wishes if they are old enough to communicate their requests. The judge will also take into consideration any confirmed evidence (or false allegations) of domestic violence, abuse, or neglect by either parent.
Two types of child custody may be granted during a divorce—legal and physical—and both can be either sole or joint. The legal custodian is given authority to make vital decisions about raising the children, such as deciding what schools they attend, what extracurricular activities they participate in, and their religious upbringing. The physical custodian is the one with whom the children will live.
When choosing who is responsible for which decisions and scheduling parenting time or visitation rights, set aside personal bias and think of what’s best for the children. If physical or emotional abuse is not an issue, the other parent will still have legal rights to reasonable access to the children post\-divorce. Divorced parents must encourage their kids’ relationship with the other parent no matter how much they might harbor personal hurt from the divorce. Spending quality time with both parents will ultimately benefit the children’s emotional stability and ability to cope with the loss and grief they are experiencing.
Reconciliation and forgiveness should mark a Christian’s life (Luke 11:4; Ephesians 4:32\), even in the case of divorce. Do not pit children against the other parent or instill anger within them (Ephesians 6:4\). While a divorced couple may need to work through their own emotional tumults, they must still exhibit godly behavior for the sake of their children and their own faith (Deuteronomy 6:6–7\). When children see their divorced parents treating one another in a godly manner, they have an opportunity to experience God’s peace through hard times (Hebrews 12:14\).
Divorce is a strenuous and cruel life challenge and is never a part of God’s original plan. When children are caught in the middle, the agony will undoubtedly multiply. Yet Christian parents are called to persevere through these trials (James 1:12\); God can make beauty from ashes (Isaiah 61:3\). Divorced parents would do well to pray regularly for their children, for their children’s relationship with the other parent, and for their own personal healing (Philippians 1:6; 2 Thessalonians 3:3; 3 John 1:4\).
*“Blessed is the one who perseveres under trial because, having stood the test, that person will receive the crown of life that the Lord has promised to those who love him.”* (James 1:12\)
|
What is the Invisible Pink Unicorn argument?
|
Answer
The Invisible Pink Unicorn argument states that since the existence of an invisible pink unicorn cannot be disproven, it is just as valid to believe in an invisible pink unicorn as it is to believe in God. This argument is offered by atheists in an attempt to show that belief in God is both self\-contradictory and irrational. Supposedly, the fact that the Invisible Pink Unicorn is defined in conflicting and unfalsifiable terms means that God, whom the atheist is targeting, is no more believable than the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Just as [Flying Spaghetti Monsterism](flying-spaghetti-monsterism.html) isn’t actually a meaningful argument against religious belief, Christianity in particular, the Invisible Pink Unicorn is an attempt to avoid discussion by mocking a superficial shadow of faith.
For instance, the contradiction of the unicorn’s being both “invisible” and “pink” is meant to satirize the supposedly paradoxical attributes of God. But this criticism is contrary to established history. Theologians have spent considerable time demonstrating the logical consistency of God. But, of course, that kind of in\-depth thinking is precisely what the Invisible Pink Unicorn argument is meant to avoid. Like internet memes or ridicule, the Invisible Pink Unicorn argument is meant to short\-circuit understanding by appealing to a shallow, caricatured version of what’s being criticized.
The biggest weakness in the Invisible Pink Unicorn argument is that it presumes that belief in God is *entirely* grounded in the claim that God cannot be disproved. Since the unicorn cannot be disproved by any means, so the argument goes, there is just as much reason to believe in it as there is to believe in God. Again, this argument is an example of an incomplete understanding of Christian theology, missing as it does a major philosophical and historical aspect of Christian thought: the idea that there are *positive reasons* suggesting [the existence of God](argument-existence-God.html).
The Invisible Pink Unicorn argument is wrong to associate faith with an inability to disprove something. Major historical cases for the existence of God, such as the [cosmological](cosmological-argument.html), [teleological](teleological-argument.html), and [ontological arguments](ontological-argument.html), don’t make claims based on an inability to *disprove*. Rather, they claim to provide positive, logical evidence of a deity. And they are supported and inspired by actual observations. Belief in Judeo\-Christianity, especially, is bolstered by positive evidence. According to the Bible, general human experience (Romans 1:18–22\), science and nature (Psalm 19:1\), eyewitness testimony (2 Peter 1:16\), written Scripture (John 5:39\), correspondence (Acts 17:11\), and objective evidence (Luke 1:1–4\) all combine to point to the existence of a particular deity: the God of the Bible.
No atheist is expected, let alone obligated, to accept any of that reasoning, of course. If the Invisible Pink Unicorn is a pointless and powerless attack on the Christian God—and it is—such a fact does not mean that God exists by default. However, there is a profound difference between informed dissent and ignorant caricature. The Invisible Pink Unicorn, as a thought exercise, is just a modern version of [Russell’s teapot](Russells-teapot.html). As such, it only demonstrates the weakness of any proposition that has no defense other than being unfalsifiable.
Christianity, the Bible, and the Christian God, however, are based on far more than being unfalsifiable. Positive evidence and a cumulative case have always been part of the Judeo\-Christian tradition. Those who attempt to use the Invisible Pink Unicorn against the concept of God are not making an intelligent argument; they are being fallacious and deceptive.
|
What is the Presbyterian Church (USA), and what do they believe?
|
Answer
The Presbyterian Church (USA), or PC(USA), is a [mainline denomination](mainline-denominations.html) based in Louisville, Kentucky. With about 2 million members, the Presbyterian Church (USA) is one of the largest denominations in the U.S. The Presbyterian Church (USA) is the result of a 1983 merger of two theologically liberal churches: the Presbyterian Church in the United States and the United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America. The Presbyterian Church (USA) is distinct from the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) and the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC), and it’s important not to confuse the denominations, since they represent very different views of Scripture, morality, and politics.
All [Presbyterian churches](Presbyterians.html), including the Presbyterian Church (USA), have their roots in the [Protestant Reformation](Protestant-Reformation.html) of the 16th century, specifically the work of [John Knox](John-Knox.html) in Scotland, who studied under [Calvin](John-Calvin.html). The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) looks to two books for guidance: the Bible and the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA). The constitution is comprised of the *Book of Order* and the *Book of Confessions*.
In the early 20th century, Presbyterians drafted the Six Great Ends of the Church. These appear in the *Book of Order* (F\-1\.0304\):
1\) The proclamation of the gospel for the salvation of humankind
2\) The shelter, nurture, and spiritual fellowship of the children of God
3\) The maintenance of divine worship
4\) The preservation of the truth
5\) The promotion of social righteousness
6\) The exhibition of the Kingdom of Heaven to the world
Like other Presbyterian churches, the Presbyterian Church (USA) is governed by sessions, presbyteries, and synods. Local congregations elect a board called the session comprised of members who serve three\-year terms. A non\-voting senior minister moderates the session. Congregations also elect presbyters who form a presbytery to oversee regional groups of local churches. Presbyteries are then governed by synods, and all the synods together form the General Assembly. The publishing arm of the Presbyterian Church (USA) is Westminster John Knox Press. The denomination is also associated with over 50 schools and universities.
Unfortunately, the Presbyterian Church (USA) has slipped from the firm theological foundation of John Knox. According to its own study, only 48 percent of Presbyterian Church (USA) elders claimed to have any type of conversion experience; 45 percent of pastors disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement “only followers of Jesus Christ can be saved” (another 19 percent were unsure); and 45 percent of “specialized clergy” self\-described as “liberal” or “very liberal” (*Religious and Demographic Profile of Presbyterians 2005: Findings from the Initial Survey of the 2006–2008*, published by the Presbyterian Panel, a ministry of the General Assembly Council, Presbyterian Church (USA), [www.pcusa.org/research/panel](http://www.pcusa.org/research/panel), accessed 9/1/2016\).
In addition to the watering down of the [gospel](what-is-the-gospel.html), the Presbyterian Church (USA) is now an open advocate of homosexuality and [gay marriage](gay-marriage.html). In 2011 the general assembly began allowing the ordination of homosexual clergy. In 2014, they changed the definition of marriage in the *Book of Order* from the union of “a man and a woman” to “two people.” In 2015 the denomination conducted a joint ordination of a “married” lesbian couple.
The Presbyterian Church (USA) is committed to [ecumenism](ecumenism-ecumenical.html): at the June 2016 General Assembly in Portland, Oregon, a Muslim offered a prayer to Allah during the opening plenary session. The Presbyterian Church (USA) also takes a liberal stand on [abortion](abortion-Bible.html), stating that “the considered decision of a woman to terminate a pregnancy can be a morally acceptable, though certainly not the only or required, decision” (from “What We Believe: Abortion Issues,” [www.presbyterianmission.org/blog/abortion\-issues\-2/](http://www.presbyterianmission.org/blog/abortion-issues-2/), accessed 9/1/2016\).
Recently, the Presbyterian Church (USA) has seen a decline in membership as hundreds of its churches have left the denomination in protest over the theological and social liberalism overrunning the church. According to the Presbyterian Lay Committee, from 2005 through 2014, the Presbyterian Church (USA) has lost about 700,000 members ([www.layman.org/pcusa\-continues\-membership\-decline\-92433\-members\-gone\-in\-2014/](http://www.layman.org/pcusa-continues-membership-decline-92433-members-gone-in-2014/), accessed 9/1/2016\).
The world may applaud the Presbyterian Church (USA) for its diversity, progressivism, and open\-mindedness. But Christians would do well to remember that we are not here to be applauded by the world. We’re here to be salt and light (Matthew 5:13–16\) and “to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people” (Jude 1:3\).
|
Who are the Maronites?
|
Answer
The Maronites, also known as the Maronite Church, are a unique religious group mostly found in the Middle East. While the Maronites profess belief in the same fundamental theology as [Roman Catholicism](Roman-Catholicism.html) and submit leadership decisions to the pope, they otherwise operate as an independent denomination. This makes the Maronites one of several churches *sui juris*, independent congregations under the umbrella of Catholicism and loyal to the pope. This means that Maronites, according to Roman Catholicism, are part of the “true church,” and so their rites and [sacraments](ordinances-sacraments.html) are valid.
The Maronites trace their founding to the 5th century when a monk named Maron founded a monastery in modern\-day Lebanon. In response to persecution, his followers retreated into the mountains and lost most contact with the rest of the Christian church. It wasn’t until several centuries later that communication was restored between the Maronites and Rome.
The Maronite Church has retained a much stronger flavor of Judaism than other Catholic denominations. Their liturgical language is Aramaic, though many congregations have used Arabic due to cultural needs. Maronite churches are patterned after ancient Jewish synagogues. The flow of Maronite services follows a pattern markedly different from that of a Roman Catholic Mass.
A notable difference between Roman Catholic and Maronite practice regards [celibacy](celibacy-priests.html). Maronites do not require their priests to remain unmarried. In practice, Maronite priests serving in areas mostly served by celibate priesthoods usually maintain celibacy, too. However, not all do, and Maronite priests in the Middle East generally do not shun marriage.
|
Is democracy a Christian form of government?
|
Answer
Every election cycle raises the question of religion and its role in [government](Bible-government.html). This leads many to wonder about the relationship between Christianity and democracy. Is democracy a Christian form of government? Is democracy religiously neutral? Or is it contradictory to the Bible? There is a difference between whether or not ideas can coexist and whether or not they are inseparable.
In short, democracy and Christianity are *compatible*. Obviously, this means that these are not contradictory ideas. In fact, it has been argued that democracy functions most effectively in a Christian culture. At the same time, democracy is not *necessarily* a Christian form of government. There is no necessary aspect of democracy that *absolutely requires* a Christian worldview. Christianity itself does not mandate democracy or any other form of earthly government.
Democracy can be a Christian form of government, and it is probably best supported by a Christian culture, but it is not the only valid form of Christian government, and democracy can exist apart from a Christian worldview.
Politics and religion share overlapping interests. Every law is based on some moral principle. “Politics” in general is a discussion about how much control, freedom, and power individual people should have and to what extent they should be forced to act alike. This is an important detail: religion and politics partially overlap, but they are not the same thing. Just as some senses overlap, such as smell and taste or hearing and touch, politics and religion inevitably cross paths. But they are not the same. A notable exception would be a religion such as Islam, which explicitly erases any distinction between earthly government and religious belief.
Despite what some modern atheists think, the principle of separation of church and state does not mean that religious reasoning has no place in politics. A person’s spiritual stance not only *can* influence his politics—it *will*. Scrubbing public policy of religious factors is simply state\-enforced atheism. That, of course, is not functionally any different from a theocracy, where rule is given only to those with a particular view of metaphysics.
Separation of church and state is really meant to keep those two institutions from exerting formal control over each other. In the United States, in particular, the original intent of the First Amendment had more to do with preventing the government from interfering with churches than keeping religious ideas out of government.
As noted, the Bible does not prescribe any particular form of government, democracy or otherwise. The system given to the Jewish people in the Old Testament was intended solely for the nation of Israel. Christians are called on to cooperate with the basic concept of government (Romans 13:1–7\), regardless of what form it takes. At the same time, we are instructed to obey God instead of man when human laws conflict with the Bible (Acts 5:29\). This doesn’t necessarily mean armed revolution, but it does maintain the idea that Christianity considers human government and personal spirituality as two distinct categories.
Democracy and Christianity share several fundamental assumptions that make them natural partners. The 18th\-century origin of what we now call “modern democracy” was a nominally Christian culture. So one would expect its political assumptions to echo religious tenets.
A prominent example of Christianity’s influence on U.S. politics is the Declaration of Independence. This document was meant to justify Colonial rebellion against the king of England. As such, it makes reference to ideas such as objective truth, a “Creator,” human equality, intrinsic value, and personal responsibility. All of these, in fact, are found in a single sentence from the Declaration:
*“We hold these truths to be self\-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”*
Such a statement, in and of itself, is fundamentally at odds with virtually all worldviews other than theism. [Atheism](atheism.html) rejects a Creator and has no means by which to claim either “inalienable rights” or intrinsic value. [Hinduism’s](hinduism.html) caste system and karma refute human equality. The idea of self\-evident truth contradicts all forms of [relativism](moral-relativism.html). The basic idea of government independent of overt religious control is foreign to [Islam](Islam.html).
The point is not to claim that the United States or other democracies are explicitly and irrevocably Christian. Nor that it’s impossible, in practice, for persons of non\-Christian worldviews to participate as citizens in a democracy. However, an examination of Christian theology and political democracy shows many commonalities. This is not true of most other worldviews, and, in fact, most religious systems directly conflict with various aspects of democracy.
History bears this out, proving the logical relationship between a culture’s religious beliefs and its political stance. In practice, the “gold standard” for freedom and human rights are nations with a Christian heritage. And, when forces *opposed* to democracy seek control, one of their first targets is the Christian faith.
Christianity also helps to bolster democracy’s greatest weakness: a dependence on the moral fiber of the culture. Unlike dictatorships or monarchies, where a single person’s moral compass directs the nation’s laws and policies, a democracy goes where the culture goes. That’s good, by and large. It especially means one evil person has a hard time wreaking national havoc. Yet it also means that, as the culture drifts away from good moral principles, it has no defense against “capsizing,” so to speak. A nation that uses democratic power for selfish or irresponsible purposes will cannibalize its own freedom.
As U.S. Founding Father Benjamin Franklin said, “Man will ultimately be governed by God or by tyrants.” When a culture abuses its democratic power, the result is chaos and ruin. Either a democracy, guided by self\-control and morality, keeps itself in check, or it crashes. When the crash happens, control falls to a non\-democratic system, either willingly or by force. Cultures that drift from Christianity tend to drift from “true” democracy into other, democracy\-flavored political schemes and, eventually, into subjection to tyranny.
This decline away from democracy makes sense from a logical standpoint. Modern democracy grew out of a culture steeped in a Judeo\-Christian worldview. It stands to reason that, the further a culture moves from that worldview, the less compatible that culture is with that form of government.
Democracy, in its various forms, presumes that the people, as a whole, are worthy of making choices for themselves. It assumes that the people are willing and able to make morally sensible decisions and will abide by those decisions in a spirit of mutual respect. Democracy presumes the value of human beings and a definition of right and wrong that supersedes the laws of the land. Christianity teaches the same basic principles, making it the most natural cultural fit for democracy.
Other worldviews can cooperate with democracy; however, they don’t have the same fundamental connection as Christianity. Democracy is a *naturally* Christian form of government, but it is not a *necessarily* Christian political scheme.
|
How did the apostle John die?
|
Answer
We know that the [apostle John](life-John-Apostle.html) was exiled for his faith late in life (Revelation 1:9\). The Bible does not give us details on how the apostle John died, but tradition gives us a few theories.
The most plausible theory of John’s death states that John was arrested in Ephesus and faced martyrdom when his enemies threw him in a huge basin of boiling oil. However, according to the tradition, John was miraculously delivered from death. The authorities then sentenced John to slave labor in the mines of [Patmos](Patmos-in-the-Bible.html). On this island in the southern part of the Aegean Sea, John had a vision of Jesus Christ and wrote the prophetic book of Revelation. The apostle John was later freed, possibly due to old age, and he returned to what is now Turkey. He died as an old man sometime after AD 98, the only apostle to die peacefully.
Another theory concerning John’s death is associated with a second\-century bishop named [Papias of Hierapolis](Papias-of-Hierapolis.html). According to one commentary on Papias’s writings, John was killed by a group of Jewish men. However, many historians believe Papias was misquoted or misread and doubt the credibility of this theory.
There is also a legend that says John did not die but rather ascended straight to heaven like [Enoch](Enoch-in-the-Bible.html) and [Elijah](life-Elijah.html). There is no biblical evidence to lend validity to this story.
Ultimately, it is not essential to know how the apostle John died. What is important is the fact that he was not ashamed of Christ (see Luke 9:26\) and was willing to die for his faith. A man will not die for something he knows to be a lie. John knew the truth that Jesus had been resurrected, and he was willing to die rather than to renounce his faith in his Savior.
|
Who was Sihon, king of the Amorites?
|
Answer
Sihon was a king of the [Amorites](Amorites.html), a pagan nation located east of the Jordan River near the Promised Land during the time of Moses. The city from which Sihon, king of the Amorites, ruled was called Heshbon. This city and its king were so famous that people wrote songs about them (Numbers 21:27–30\). King Sihon was an enemy of the Israelites.
Sihon had conquered the king of Moab and had taken his land (Numbers 21:26\). Later, when the Israelites asked to pass peacefully through Sihon’s land, he refused them passage and came out to fight them (verse 23\). But Israel under Moses’ leadership fought back, defeated Sihon, and took all the land he had taken from the Moabite king, “from the Arnon to the Jabbok” (verse 24\), two boundary rivers.
Later, the Israelites were opposed by the nation of Bashan, and God encouraged Moses to be unafraid of [Og, the king of Bashan](Og-king-of-Bashan.html), by reminding him of the defeat of Sihon, king of the Amorites. “The Lord said to Moses, ‘Do not fear \[Og], for I have given him into your hand, and all his people, and his land. And you shall do to him as you did to Sihon, king of the Amorites, who lived at Hesbon’” (Numbers 21:34\). God fulfilled this promise and gave Moses and the Israelites victory over Bashan. Moses listed their victories over Sihon, king of the Amorites, and Og, king of Bashan, among the many blessings and protections of God (Deuteronomy 29:7\). The land [east of the Jordan](east-of-Jordan.html) taken from Sihon, king of the Amorites, was given to the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half\-tribe of Manasseh (verse 8\).
Sihon, king of the Amorites, was a mighty king, and his army was strong and terrible. It is likely that the Israelites were, humanly speaking, not strong enough to defeat Sihon’s forces. The Israelites won because the Lord was with them. Their victory over Sihon is referenced again in the book of Joshua, when Rahab of Jericho tells the spies that her people had heard of the Israelites’ victory over Sihon and were therefore afraid to come against them in battle. Rahab says, “I know that the Lord has given you the land, and that the fear of you has fallen upon us. . . . For we have heard how the Lord dried up the water of the Red Sea . . . and what you did to the two kings of the Amorites who were beyond the Jordan, to Sihon and Og, whom you devoted to destruction. And as soon as we heard it, our hearts melted, and there was no spirit left in any man because of you, for the Lord your God, he is God in the heavens above and on the earth beneath” (Joshua 2:9–11\).
Israel’s miraculous victory over Sihon and the Amorites is heralded in the Psalms as well. Psalm 135:10–12 says, “He struck down many nations and killed mighty kings—Sihon king of the Amorites . . .—and he gave their land as an inheritance, an inheritance to his people Israel.” Psalm 136:17–19 gives praise “to him who struck down great kings . . . and killed mighty kings—. . . Sihon king of the Amorites. His love endures forever.”
No king, no army, no political system was enough to destroy God’s people because God was their Protector, and the same is true for those who trust in Him today. It is His power that protects, saves, and keeps us (Romans 1:16\). “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 8:35, 38–39\). Let Sihon do his worst; God’s people will [overcome](Bible-overcomer.html).
|
How many Israelites left Egypt in the exodus?
|
Answer
The number of Israelites who came up from Egypt and eventually entered the Promised Land is a matter of some debate. Since the Bible records two censuses of the people (one in Numbers 1 and the other in Numbers 26\), it would seem that the matter would be settled, but there are several reasons why questions persist.
The two most common views on the population of the children of Israel are that they numbered over 2 million people or only about 30,000\. That’s quite a difference. Notably, no doctrinal or theological points rely on the precise population of Israel at the time of the [exodus](evidence-of-the-Exodus.html). Whether God freed 2 million or 30,000 from Egypt, Scripture is clear He did so miraculously (Exodus 6:6; Acts 7:35–36\). Whether Israel’s fighting force was more than half a million or several thousand, their conquest of Canaan is credited entirely to God’s intervention (Deuteronomy 9:4–5\). It would be just as hard to feed 30,000 people in the barren Sinai territory as it would 2 million (Nehemiah 9:20–21\).
According to Genesis 46:27, Joseph and his family numbered 70 people when they moved to Egypt. The book of Exodus describes their descent into slavery and miraculous rescue after some 430 years. Scripture indicates Israel grew rapidly during their time in Egypt (Exodus 1:7\). That growth was fast enough to make Egyptian leaders nervous (Exodus 1:8–10\). By the time Moses returned to Pharaoh’s court, the Israelites’ value as slaves was such that Pharaoh refused to release them despite plagues sent by God (Exodus 6:6–7\).
Shortly after leaving Egypt (Numbers 1:17–46\), while Israel was at [Sinai](mount-Sinai.html), God commanded a census. As typically translated into English, the post\-exodus Israelite army numbered well over 600,000 men. This figure implies a total Israelite population of about 2\.4 million, a staggering figure for that era. Enormous enough, in fact, to engender debate.
Compared to other civilizations at the time, such numbers would have made Israel a true superpower. Ancient historians suggested Egypt’s population was between 3 and 4 million. Egyptian domination over Israel is hard to explain if the enslaved people nearly outnumbered their masters and could field an army rivaling that of any on earth. The infamous Persian army of Xerxes likely had around 200,000 actual soldiers, while Israel’s hated enemy, the warlike Assyrians (Genesis 10:11; Jonah 1:1–3\), likely had between 100,000 and 150,000 troops.
A nation boasting more than a half\-million fighting men would have been all but invincible. Even if only one tenth of those were war\-ready, that would still represent an intimidating army. The traditional numbering raises two problematic points:
**Problem: Scripture and tradition suggest a “large” Israel**
Exodus 12:37, Numbers 1:46, and Numbers 2:32 all describe Israel’s population of men, not including women and children. Numbers 1:21–43 gives an account from each tribe, using Hebrew words, not symbols, to represent quantities. Adding these up, one arrives at the figure given in Numbers 1:46\. This phrasing is traditionally interpreted to mean just over 600,000 adult men, implying a total population about four times that size, or 2\.4 million.
**Problem: Scripture and history suggest a “small” Israel**
Apart from the common interpretations of Exodus 12:37 and Numbers 1, the Bible is remarkably consistent in portraying Israel as relatively small, rather than as a large force that others would fear.
Deuteronomy has multiple references to Israel’s being “smaller” than the societies of Canaan (Deuteronomy 9:1–2\). Each of the seven individual Canaanite realms was “more numerous and mightier than” Israel (Deuteronomy 7:1\). Only Moab expresses fear over Israel’s size (Numbers 22:3\). Israel’s success is to be credited to God’s intervention, not their military might (Deuteronomy 7:7\). In fact, God reassures Israel not to be afraid (Numbers 13:28\) of these other, “greater” nations (Deuteronomy 7:17\).
When Israel conducted their census of the Levites and the firstborn from the rest of the tribes (Numbers 3:39, 46\), the number of firstborn males is recorded as just over twenty thousand. Using the traditional interpretation of 600,000 adult males implies that firstborns made up only 1 out of every 30 men. If that were the case, the average Israelite family would have about 60 children, boys and girls combined. This reckoning seems unreasonable.
God specifically noted that the conquest of Canaan would take time (Exodus 23:30\). This was to avoid eliminating too many people too quickly, resulting in the land becoming desolate and overrun by animals (Exodus 23:29; Deuteronomy 7:22\). An army of 600,000 could have easily conquered that territory in a year—but a nation of more than 2 million would easily fill the territory taken in conquest. The prospect of a smaller nation sweeping ahead faster than they could control the territory makes more sense of God’s concern.
Trying to reconcile these points leads to several possibilities. Of these, only the first two seem consistent with a high view of Scripture:
**Option One: Large Israel; Literalism**
As traditionally interpreted, the population of Israel would have been strikingly large for that era. That does not mean it is impossible. God’s miraculous provision could feed millions just as well as thousands. Israel’s tentative approach in Canaan might have been pure cowardice (Numbers 13:30–32\), and God’s reference to them as “least” might have meant they were inexperienced and naïve after centuries of slavery.
The idea of a people group growing from 70 to more than 2 million in 430 years is not implausible. It would require a population growth rate of 2\.6 percent. This is extraordinarily high but not too far beyond the 2\.2 percent growth rate seen worldwide in the middle of the twentieth century. Biblical references to Israel’s increase and Egypt’s corresponding fear may reflect that level of explosive growth.
This “traditional” view comes with the primary concerns noted above. It would suggest that secular historical understanding of the sizes of other nations and their military forces is drastically wrong. Or that Israel’s massive size somehow went unnoticed in the rest of the world specifically because they were weak and ineffective.
**Option Two: Small Israel; Misinterpretation of the Hebrew**
The common Hebrew term *‘elep* is typically translated “thousand” (Exodus 18:21\), such as in the first chapter of Numbers. The counts given in this chapter are composed of words, not numerals. Numbers 1:21, for instance, records the men of Reuben’s tribe as *sis’sāh vav arbā’im ‘elep vav hamēs mē’owt*. The traditional, literal translation is “six and forty thousand and five hundred,” usually rendered as “46,500\.”
However, two words in this phrase are subject to variations: *‘elep* and *vav*. The term *‘elep* (or *‘eleph*) is used elsewhere in Scripture as a reference to groups, not a literal number, including descriptions of Israel during and after the exodus. It is applied to tribes (Numbers 10:4\), clans (Joshua 22:14; Judges 6:15; Micah 5:1\), families (Joshua 22:21\), and divisions (Numbers 1:16\).
Further, the connecting word *vav* can mean “and,” but it can also mean “or,” depending on context. Exodus 21:15 and Exodus 21:17, for instance, use *vav* to say that certain sins are committed against one’s father “or” mother.
If *‘elep* is a reference to groups of some sort (not numerical thousands), and the second *vav* in the phrase is understood to mean “or,” then Numbers 1:21 would be translated “six and forty clans, or five hundred.” The tribe of Reuben, then, would have had 500 fighting men from 46 family groups.
Numbers 1:46 gives the final tally: “The total number was 603,550\.” If we assume a scribal error in the copying of this verse, however, the total would be “598 families with 5,550 men.” This number would be in keeping with the lower census numbers: the total population of Israelites would be about 22,200, and the average family would have had 8 or 9 children (rather than 60\).
Such a scribal or typographical error is entirely plausible. While the Hebrew language itself represents numbers using words, ancient people often used a type of shorthand, employing lines or dots similar to modern\-day tally marks. Those would have been relatively easy to misread, and most potential scribal errors in Old Testament manuscripts involve exactly that level of discrepancy (2 Samuel 10:18; 1 Chronicles 19:18; 1 Kings 4:26; 2 Chronicles 9:25; 36:9; 2 Kings 24:8\).
This second solution cleanly resolves some primary problems:
• It more easily correlates Israel’s size with Scripture’s description of their relationship to other nations, with a total troop count of around 5,500\.
• It more easily aligns with the historical understanding of the size of contemporary cultures, bringing the total population to around 30,000\.
• It results in a more reasonable ratio of firstborn to non\-firstborn as recorded in the census, with an average family size of about 8 children.
However, this option is not without its own difficulties:
• It requires a copyist’s error in Numbers 1:46; otherwise, the total numbers do not correspond.
• Some scholars insist the Hebrew grammar of the passage requires *‘elep* to mean a literal “thousand.”
• The smaller census numbers are difficult to reconcile with the number of those killed in three plagues: at various times, 14,700 (Numbers 16:49\), 24,000 (Numbers 25:9\) and 23,000 (1 Corinthians 10:8\) perished. If the total in the census is taken to imply a nation of 30,000, then how do we account for over 50,000 deaths? \[In answer, it’s fair to assume that the 3,000 killed in the incident of the [golden calf](golden-calf.html) died *before* the first census was taken. Then, during the time of wilderness wandering, the population increased, only to be reduced again by the other plagues—the second census of Numbers 26, in fact, takes place *after* the plague that killed 24,000\. Also, when they left Egypt, the Israelites were accompanied by a “mixed multitude” (Exodus 12:38, ESV). These foreigners were not included in any census, but the death tolls for the plagues could well have included those who died from among that group.]
**Option Three: Unknown Size; Alternate Numeric Base**
Another possibility is that Moses was not using a base 10 numeric system. Especially in the ancient world, cultures might count by other quantities, such as 60, rather than by 10\. This changes the meaning of recorded numbers. As a modern parallel:
• Writing *100* in decimal, or base 10, means “one hundred,” as in the number of yards on an American football field.
• Writing *100* in base 2, or binary, means “four,” as in the number of gospels.
• Writing *100* in hexadecimal, a base 16 system, means “two hundred, fifty\-six,” as in the total number of squares on four chess boards.
This solution creates more problems than it cures:
• It raises major questions about the meaning of other numeric figures in Moses’ writings.
• Depending on the “correct” base, the numbers might be even more extreme. The figure *603,550* in the Babylonian base 60 would be more than 4\.6 billion in base 10 numbers, several times the entire world’s population in that era.
Another possibility is that extremely large numbers were assumed by readers to be divided by some standard ratio, such as 6 or 60\. That would reduce the apparent size of Israel, but it would also make the addition of the numbers meaningless.
**Option Four: Unknown Size; Anachronism**
A few scholars have suggested that the figures given in Numbers chapter 1 are, in fact, the population of those tribes around the time of Solomon. Hebrews 7:9–10 indicates that Levi took part in Abraham’s encounter with Melchizedek (Genesis 14:17–20\), since Levi was “in the body” of his ancestor. Paul implies that all humanity was present when Adam sinned (Romans 5:12\). So some suggest that, in a similar way, the census figures in Numbers reflect what those populations would become later on, when they settled in Canaan.
The primary drawback of this option is that it requires an author of Numbers other than [Moses](life-Moses.html), something not supported by the rest of Scripture.
**Option Five: Unknown Size; Exaggeration**
Another explanation is that records of Moses’ era often included deliberate exaggerations. This is known as hyperbole in modern writing. Egyptian record\-keepers, for instance, sometimes indicated that a particular Pharaoh had ruled for thousands and thousands of years—knowing that such numbers were not to be taken literally by the readers.
Under this explanation, Moses’ record of Israel’s numbers is merely meant to reflect a significant, but unspecified, population. While this would partly diffuse concerns, it also brings other numbers into question. Why would exaggeration be used in one passage but not in other places in the Old Testament?
**Conclusion**
Scripture does not place any theological significance on the exact number of people who participated in the exodus. The intent of the Old Testament is to record the history of God’s intervention on Israel’s behalf and their response, good and bad. The fact that the Bible gives little space, other than a few verses, to the numbers of people implies that those numbers are not crucial in and of themselves. That there is confusion about what those numbers are has more to do with our lack of understanding than some subtle point being made by God.
Both the “large Israel” and “small Israel” interpretations—options one and two, above—have supporters and detractors. Both have strengths and weaknesses. They cannot both be true, but either one would be compatible with a view of Scripture as inerrant and inspired.
|
Who was Andrew in the Bible?
|
Answer
Andrew in the Bible was a disciple of Jesus. Andrew was [Simon Peter’s](life-Peter.html) brother, and they were called to follow Jesus at the same time (Matthew 4:18\). The Bible names Andrew as one of the twelve apostles (Matthew 10:2\). Like Peter, Andrew was a fisherman by trade; they made their living on the [Sea of Galilee](Sea-of-Galilee.html). Peter and Andrew were from the city of Bethsaida (John 1:44\) on the northwest coast of Galilee (John 12:21\).
The call of Andrew in the Bible is a memorable story. Andrew and John were originally disciples of [John the Baptist](life-John-Baptist.html). They were present when John the Baptist pointed out Jesus as the [Lamb of God](Jesus-Lamb-of-God.html) (John 1:35–36\), and they followed after Jesus (verse 37\). Jesus noticed Andrew and John following and invited them to come spend the day with Him (verses 38–39\). After spending the time with Jesus, Andrew became convinced that Jesus was the Messiah, and he took action: “Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, was one of the two who heard what John had said and who had followed Jesus. The first thing Andrew did was to find his brother Simon and tell him, ‘We have found the Messiah’ (that is, the Christ). And he brought him to Jesus” (verses 40–42\). Thus Andrew was one of Jesus’ first two followers and the first to bring another person to Him.
Later, Jesus was walking by the Sea of Galilee when He came across Andrew and Peter, busy casting nets into the lake in search of fish. Jesus called to them: “Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men” (Matthew 4:19\). The Bible says that Andrew and Peter “immediately” followed Jesus, leaving their nets behind (verse 20\). Andrew and Peter already knew who Jesus was, based on their contact with Him in John 1, and now when He officially calls them to be disciples, they respond.
In leaving behind the family business, Andrew sets a good example for all who would follow Christ; we are all called to “seek first his kingdom and his righteousness” (Matthew 6:33\), and we should not let anything get in the way of following Jesus’ call. When Jesus told Andrew and Peter they would be “fishers of men,” He promised that He would use them to save men’s souls. And that’s exactly what the apostles did.
There is at least one instance in Andrew’s life, recorded in the Bible, where he was a “[fisher of men](fishers-of-men.html).” Some Greeks approached Philip, one of Andrew’s fellow disciples, wanting to see Jesus (John 12:20–21\). Philip told Andrew what the Greeks wanted, and together Andrew and Philip brought the matter to Jesus (verse 22\). In bringing Greeks to Jesus, Andrew had faith that Jesus’ intention was to save all men, and he was right: Jesus responded by referencing His crucifixion, saying, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified” (John 12:23\). His death and resurrection would be the way by which all men, from all races and creeds and families, would be saved. These are the “fish of every kind” from Jesus’ [parable of the dragnet](parable-dragnet.html) (Matthew 13:47–50\), and Andrew was one of the first to be involved in an evangelical effort that extended beyond the Jewish people. The incident with the curious Greeks anticipated the day when God would reveal to Peter, Andrew’s brother, that all people are welcome to come to Jesus (Acts 10:1–48\).
|
What is the significance of Judas betraying Jesus with a kiss?
|
Answer
[Judas Iscariot](Judas-Iscariot.html) was one of the original [twelve disciples](twelve-apostles-disciples-12.html) who followed and were taught by Jesus. Being in Jesus’ “inner circle,” Judas had a closer relationship to Jesus than most people during His ministry. Judas betrayed the Lord to the Jewish authorities. The pre\-arranged signal was that the person Judas kissed was to be arrested and taken away (Mark 14:44\). In this way the Son of Man was betrayed with a kiss (Luke 22:48\).
In the culture of first\-century Israel, a [kiss](holy-kiss.html) was not always a romantic expression of love; rather, a kiss on the cheek was a common greeting, a sign of deep respect, honor, and brotherly love (see Luke 7:45; Romans 16:16; 1 Corinthians 16:20; 2 Corinthians 13:12; 1 Thessalonians 5:26; 1 Peter 5:14\). For a student who had great respect for his teacher, a kiss fell well within the healthy expression of honor.
What really stands out in the mode of Judas’s betrayal is that Judas used such an intimate expression of love and respect to betray Jesus. Judas’s actions were hypocritical in the extreme—his actions said, “I respect and honor you,” at the exact time he was betraying Jesus to be murdered. Judas’s actions illustrate Proverbs 27:6, “Wounds from a friend can be trusted, but an enemy multiplies kisses.” Often, foes disguise themselves as friends. Evil often wears a mask to conceal its true purpose.
In Luke 22:3, we see that Satan entered into Judas before Judas went to see the chief priests and set things up to betray Jesus. Satan possessed Judas in hopes of using him to destroy Jesus’ ministry and get Him out of the way, and Satan used a kiss—a sign of affection—to unleash a surge of hatred. However, there is nothing the Evil One does that God doesn’t know about or have complete control over. God allowed Satan to possess Judas and use him to betray Jesus in such a deceptive and hypocritical way in order to bring about our redemption. The betrayal itself was prophesied hundreds of years before its fulfillment (Psalm 41:9\).
When Jesus was betrayed by a kiss, He identified with the troubles of David, who wrote, “If an enemy were insulting me, I could endure it; if a foe were rising against me, I could hide. But it is you, a man like myself, my companion, my close friend, with whom I once enjoyed sweet fellowship at the house of God, as we walked about among the worshipers” (Psalm 55:12–14\). Job’s emotional pain also foreshadowed Jesus’ sorrow: “Those I love have turned against me” (Job 19:19\).
Once Judas gave the kiss, the deed was done. Jesus was betrayed into the government’s hands to be crucified. Judas was “seized with remorse” (Matthew 27:3\) over what he’d done. He gave the money back to the temple authorities and hanged himself out of guilt (verse 5\).
|
Do Jews believe in hell?
|
Answer
There is no one thought among Jewish people about any topic, including heaven and hell. Some Jews believe in hell; most don’t. Most Jews have been more influenced by Eastern mysticism and liberal secularism than by the tenets of Judaism. The concept of heaven and hell is not only denied by the secular and intellectual worlds, it is mocked. Another reason most Jewish people don’t believe in hell is that Christianity teaches the doctrine of hell. Anything identified as Christian thought is often rejected outright as not Jewish.
Belief in the eventual resurrection of the dead is a fundamental belief of traditional [Judaism](Judaism.html). A belief in resurrection distinguished the Pharisees (Rabbinical Judaism) from the Sadducees (see Acts 23:8\). Divine reward and punishment are so basic to Judaism that they are taught in Maimonides’s Thirteen Principles of Judaism. Denying hell is a vivid example of the extent to which modern Jews have been influenced by secularism.
So what a “Jewish person” believes about heaven or hell, known as *Olam Ha\-Ba* (“the World to Come”), depends on what he believes about God. Secular Jews, like secular Gentiles, usually believe that they just go into the ground and life is over. Jews with mystical leanings believe in reincarnation and others in resurrection.
Traditional Judaism teaches that after death our bodies go to the grave but our souls go before God to be judged. God, as He states in Scripture, is the only one who knows our motives as well as our works—God sees the heart, whereas man looks at the outside (1 Samuel 16:7\). Facing the only true Judge, we are assigned a place in heaven according to a merit system based on God’s accounting of all our actions and motives. Traditional Jewish thought is that only the very righteous go directly to heaven; all others must be cleansed of residual sin.
According to traditional Judaism, sins that were not cleansed prior to death are removed after death in a place called Sheol or Gehinnom (also spelled *Gehinom* and *Gehenna*). The name of the place is taken from a valley (*Gei Hinnom*) just south of Jerusalem, once used for child sacrifice by the pagan nations of Canaan (2 Kings 23:10\). Some Jews view Gehinnom as a place of torture and punishment, fire and brimstone. Others imagine it less harshly, as a place where one reviews the actions of his or her life and repents for past misdeeds. “Hell” in Judaism is a place where the soul is cleansed or refined (see Zechariah 13:9\). The exceedingly righteous and those who repent before they die can avoid being “cleansed” in hell. This doctrine bears some similarity to the Catholic teaching of [Purgatory](purgatory.html).
Contrary to the Christian view of eternal damnation in [Hades or hell](sheol-hades-hell.html), the “punishment” of Sheol is temporary. Judaism bases its doctrine of a temporary hell on Psalm 16:10, 1 Samuel 2:6, and Jonah 2:3\. According to rabbinic teachings, the soul’s sentence in Gehinnom is usually limited to a twelve\-month period of purgation before the soul takes its place in *Olam Ha\-Ba* (*Mishnah Eduyot* 2:9, *Shabbat* 33a). This twelve\-month limit is reflected in the year\-long mourning cycle and the recitation of the *kaddish*, the memorial prayer for the dead. Second Temple Judaism believed that, until the Messiah came, it was not possible for the faithful to enter heaven. They remained in Sheol, waiting.
In the Jewish view of hell, the pain the soul experiences is not physical; rather, it is psychological anguish—the shame and disgrace one feels upon reviewing one’s personal history of life in a body and seeing how many opportunities to serve God were wasted. Almost everyone, including non\-Jewish people, can merit a portion in the World to Come. But some will not be given a chance of heaven: “Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt” (Daniel 12:2\). The “everlasting contempt,” in the Jewish view, is reserved for completely evil, unredeemable people such as King Ahab, the men of Sodom, and Adolf Hitler.
Just as all Christians do not agree on eschatology, all Jewish people do not agree on the afterlife. What the Bible clearly teaches is that sin demands a price to be paid by someone, there is an afterlife, and, in Christ, both Jews and Gentiles can have a place in *Olam Ha\-Ba*, the World to Come.
|
Who was King Ahab in the Bible?
|
Answer
Ahab was one in a line of increasingly evil kings in Israel’s history, starting with the reign of Jeroboam. King Ahab “did more evil in the eyes of the LORD than any of those before him” (1 Kings 16:30\). Among the events chronicled in Ahab’s life that led to his downfall was his marriage to an evil woman named [Jezebel](life-Jezebel.html) who had a particular hatred for God’s people (1 Kings 18:4\). Because of his marriage to a pagan woman, Ahab devoted himself to the worship of the false gods [Baal](who-Baal.html) and [Asherah](who-Asherah.html) in Israel (1 Kings 16:31–33\).
The evil of King Ahab was countered by the [prophet Elijah](life-Elijah.html) who warned Ahab of coming judgment if he did not obey the Lord. Ahab blamed Elijah for bringing trouble on Israel (1 Kings 18:17\), but it was Ahab’s promotion of idolatry that was the true cause of the three\-and\-a\-half\-year famine (verse 18\). In a dramatic [confrontation](Elijah-prophets-Baal.html) between Elijah and Ahab’s false prophets, God proved to Israel that He, not Baal, was the true God (1 Kings 18:16–39\). All of Ahab’s men of Baal were killed that day (verse 40\).
King Ahab also disobeyed the Lord’s direct command to destroy [Ben\-Hadad](Ben-Hadad-in-the-Bible.html), the king of Aram. God set it up so that Ahab would lead Israel to victory, but Ahab made a treaty with the king he was supposed to kill (1 Kings 20\). “Therefore,” God told Ahab through an unnamed prophet, “it is your life for his life, your people for his people” (verse 42\).
The event that sealed Ahab’s doom was his murder of an innocent man (1 Kings 21\). Ahab coveted a vineyard belonging to a man named [Naboth](Naboth-in-the-Bible.html). The king offered to buy the vineyard, but Naboth refused, because the Law forbade him to sell it (1 Kings 21:2–3; cf. Leviticus 25:23\). While Ahab sulked about it in his palace, his wife arranged Naboth’s murder. Once the vineyard’s owner was out of the way, King Ahab took the vineyard for himself. Elijah came to Ahab and told him the Lord would deal with him by cutting off all his descendants. Also, Ahab himself would suffer an ignoble fate: “In the place where dogs licked up Naboth’s blood, dogs will lick up your blood—yes, yours!” (1 Kings 21:19\). Upon hearing this, Ahab “[tore his clothes](tear-clothes-Bible.html), put on sackcloth and fasted. He lay in sackcloth and went around meekly” (verse 27\). In response to Ahab’s repentance, God mercifully postponed the destruction of Ahab’s dynasty until after Ahab was dead (verse 29\).
The prophesied judgment against Ahab came true exactly as Elijah predicted. God used Ahab’s own false prophets to entice him into going to the battle at Ramoth\-Gilead, where he was hit by a “random” arrow and slowly bled to death in his chariot. Later, “they washed the chariot at a pool in Samaria (where the prostitutes bathed), and the dogs licked up his blood, as the word of the Lord had declared” (1 Kings 22:38\). After Ahab’s death, [Jehu](Jehu-Baal-worship.html) killed Jezebel (2 Kings 9\) and all of Ahab’s descendants (2 Kings 10\).
King Ahab was justly judged by God because he disobeyed the Lord’s direct commands, he abused his responsibility as Israel’s king, and he led God’s people right into idolatry. In the end, “there was never anyone like Ahab, who sold himself to do evil in the eyes of the Lord, urged on by Jezebel his wife. He behaved in the vilest manner by going after idols” (1 Kings 21:25–26\).
|
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.