Split (1)

train · 9.53k rows

prompt stringlengths 0 158	response stringlengths 14 40.2k
What is the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), and what do they believe?	Answer The Presbyterian Church in America, or PCA, is an [evangelical denomination](evangelical-church.html) in the Reformed, Calvinistic tradition. The Presbyterian Church in America is one of the conservative groups within Presbyterianism. Their headquarters are in Atlanta, Georgia, and the denomination has over 1,450 churches and missions in the U.S. and Canada. All [Presbyterian churches](Presbyterians.html), including the Presbyterian Church in America, have their roots in the 16th\-century [Protestant Reformation](Protestant-Reformation.html), specifically the work of [John Knox](John-Knox.html) in Scotland and [John Calvin](John-Calvin.html). The Presbyterian Church in America was organized in December 1973 when a group of conservative Presbyterians broke away from the Presbyterian Church in the United States (Southern). At issue was the [theological liberalism](liberal-Christian-theology.html) of the larger group—specifically, a denial of the deity of Jesus Christ and the inerrancy of the Bible. At that time, the new denomination was known as the National Presbyterian Church, but they changed the name in 1974 to the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA). In 1982, the Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod, joined the Presbyterian Church in America. Since its founding, the Presbyterian Church in America has sought to be “faithful to the Scriptures, true to the reformed faith, and obedient to the Great Commission” (“A Brief History of the Presbyterian Church in America,” <http://www.pcanet.org/history/>, accessed 9/13/16\). The Presbyterian Church in America is guided by the Bible, the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in America, the Westminster Confession of Faith, and the Book of Church Order. The church constitution is “subject to and subordinate to the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, the inerrant Word of God” (“What We Believe,” <http://www.pcanet.org/beliefs/>, accessed 9/13/16\). The Book of Church Order includes bylaws that detail the form of church government and other areas of church organization. Like other Presbyterian churches, the Presbyterian Church in America practices a representative form of church government: members elect presbyters (elders) who form regional presbyteries and participate in a General Assembly. The Presbyterian Church in America is an example of committed Christians practicing [ecclesiastical separation](Biblical-separation.html). When their parent denomination drifted into theological liberalism and persisted in its denial of biblical truth, faithful believers left and formed their own denomination. In so doing, they retained their connection to historic Presbyterianism, honored [Reformed theology](reformed-theology.html), contended for the faith (Jude 1:3\), and preserved their good conscience. Sometimes God’s people must “come out from them and be separate” (2 Corinthians 6:17\), and that is what the Presbyterian Church in America has done.
What is the difference between faith and hope?	Answer [Faith](definition-of-faith.html) and [hope](Bible-hope.html) are distinct yet related. That there is a difference between faith and hope is evident in 1 Corinthians 13:13, “Now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.” Two of the three greatest gifts are faith and hope, listed separately. That faith and hope are related concepts is seen in Hebrews 11:1, “Faith is confidence in what we hope for.” Faith is a complete trust or confidence in something. Faith involves [intellectual assent](intellectual-assent.html) to a set of facts and trust in those facts. For example, we have faith in Jesus Christ. This means we completely trust Jesus for our eternal destiny. We give intellectual assent to the facts of His substitutionary death and bodily resurrection, and we then trust in His death and resurrection for our salvation. Biblical hope is built on faith. Hope is the earnest anticipation that comes with believing something good. Hope is a confident expectation that naturally stems from faith. Hope is a peaceful assurance that something that hasn’t happened yet will indeed happen. Hope must involve something that is as yet unseen: “Hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what they already have?” (Romans 8:24\). Jesus’ return is our “blessed hope” (Titus 2:13\)—we can’t see Him yet, but we know He’s coming, and we anticipate that event with joy. Jesus said He is coming again (John 14:3\). By faith, we trust Jesus’ words, and that leads to hope that we will one day be with Him forever. Jesus was resurrected from the dead, “the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep” (1 Corinthians 15:20\). That is the basis for our faith. Then we have Jesus’ promise: “Because I live, you also will live” (John 14:19\). That is the basis of our hope. The relationship between faith and hope can be illustrated in the joy a child feels when his father tells him they are going to an amusement park tomorrow. The child believes that he will go to the amusement park, based on his father’s word—that is *faith. At the same time, that belief within the child kindles an irrepressible joy—that is hope*. The child’s natural trust in his father’s promise is the faith; the child’s squeals of delight and jumping in place are the expressions of the hope. Faith and hope are complementary. Faith is grounded in the reality of the past; hope is looking to the reality of the future. Without faith, there is no hope, and without hope there is no true faith. Christians are people of faith and hope. We have “the hope of eternal life, which God, who does not lie, promised before the beginning of time” (Titus 1:2\).
How can I spiritually survive a severe physical trauma?	Answer There is no question that severe physical traumas or injuries affect us spiritually. Part of being able to cope with a severe physical trauma spiritually is recognizing that fact. Dealing with a severe trauma will require a holistic approach; a person who is severely injured needs medical support, spiritual support, and emotional support. Depending on the trauma, there may be some PTSD as well. Our article on [“What does the Bible say about PTSD?”](Bible-PTSD.html) has some helpful advice for dealing with the emotional effects of a traumatic incident. There may also be other long\-term issues, such as continued care or lifestyle adjustments to compensate for lost abilities, to consider. Too, there may be financial and legal issues that need to be discussed. Meeting with appropriate professionals regarding these matters is important. Our article on [“How can a Christian cope while suffering with a degenerative disease?”](degenerative-disease.html) provides some practical advice for those who have experienced severe physical traumas. Now to the question at hand. How do we handle the spiritual side of physical trauma? Serious injuries can cause us to question God and His goodness. They can also cause us to learn to rely on Him. A severe trauma may make us feel distant from God, perhaps even angry with Him for allowing it to happen. Or it may make us feel thankful that the trauma wasn’t as bad as it could have been. Or it may make us realize how dependent we are on God. Or myriad other reactions. In short, physical traumas can cause us to reevaluate our view of God, self, and the world. How the trauma occurred and the physical recovery, or lack thereof, can play major roles in how we react. It is completely normal to have varied reactions over time—and even different reactions all at once. Perhaps the best thing we can do to spiritually survive in the midst of the physical and emotional turmoil is to turn to God. While it can be tempting to turn away from God or to try to put on a brave face before God, both are mistakes. It is only when we are honest with God and ourselves that He can truly bring heart healing. David and the other psalmists were not unfamiliar with hardship. They set an excellent example of bringing their hearts and requests to God. They were real with Him about their questions, their disappointments, and their hearts. They were also real with themselves about the character and nature of God. We must not bring our complaints to God without also recognizing who He is. We must deal in truth—with the stark reality of the fallen nature of this world, the depth of pain it brings us, and the distaste we have for our struggles, and with God’s faithfulness and goodness. He is capable to bring healing, but He may not. Either way, He is absolutely worthy of praise. We can bring our honest questions over this tension to God, all the while asking Him to help us trust Him fully no matter what. Whether prayer is something that comes easily or not, it is as we continue to pray that we come to trust God more and experience His power to help us endure. To survive spiritually, we need to persevere in prayer. Our prayers can be as honest as those in the Psalms—short, long, questioning, praising, petitioning, etc. The important thing is that we remain in honest communication with God (Romans 12:12; Hebrews 4:14–16; Philippians 4:6–7; Ephesians 6:18; 1 Thessalonians 5:17\). As we pray, we should also continually dig into God’s Word. We need to know to whom we pray, and it is primarily the Bible that reveals God’s nature to us. As we study the Scriptures, we learn to trust God more and to rely on Him as we work through our physical trauma. Bible study is a key habit for all Christians and no less important for those currently undergoing medical hardships. Similarly, all Christians are in need of fellowship with other believers. Particularly when we have experienced a physical trauma and are recovering or learning a new way of life due to the residual effects of injury, we need people to encourage us. Hebrews 10:24–25 talks about the importance of the church for encouragement. Paul’s many New Testament letters demonstrate the way we can come alongside one another in hardship, providing tangible help as well as prayer. When we have experienced a trauma, we need to let others know so that they can do the work of the body of Christ and help us in our need (Romans 12:13, 15; 1 Corinthians 12:26; Galatians 6:10; 1 John 3:17–18\). Paul is an excellent example of how a Christian can spiritually survive a severe physical trauma. In 2 Corinthians 11 we find out that he had been imprisoned, flogged, “exposed to death again and again” (verse 23\), shipwrecked, on the run, deprived of sleep, hungry, cold, and destitute of clothing. And on top of that, he had the spiritual burden of caring for the churches. Earlier in 2 Corinthians, Paul talks about being “hard pressed,” “perplexed,” “persecuted,” and “struck down” (see 2 Corinthians 4:7–12\). But he writes, “Therefore we do not lose heart. Though outwardly we are wasting away, yet inwardly we are being renewed day by day. For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all. So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal” (2 Corinthians 4:16–18\). Paul knew that this world is not our ultimate home (2 Corinthians 5:1–10\). He also knew that God has a plan and purpose for our lives here. Paul sought to have God’s perspective on his life, saying that “to live is Christ and to die is gain. If I am to go on living in the body, this will mean fruitful labor for me. . . . Convinced of this, I know that I will remain, and I will continue with all of you for your progress and joy in the faith” (Philippians 1:21–25\). Proper perspective was key to Paul’s ability to endure the many physical hardships he faced, and not only to endure but to live in service to Christ and experience contentment and joy (Philippians 4:12–13\). Paul found his strength in Christ. We can, too. Physical trauma is an intensely difficult aspect of living in a fallen world, both for those who experience it and those around them. But physical traumas need not defeat us. Our lives are lived in the body and meant to be lived for the Lord. Through the work of recovery, the adjustment to limitations and new normals, and whatever else a severe physical trauma may bring, our goal is to remain focused on God. So turn to Him. Be brutally honest with Him and yourself. Allow yourself some room to process. Seek out truth. And seek out others to walk with you. Paul’s words to the Philippians, written while he was imprisoned, are relevant here: “Rejoice in the Lord always. I will say it again: Rejoice! Let your gentleness be evident to all. The Lord is near. Do not be anxious about anything, but in every situation, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus. Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things” (Philippians 4:4–8\).
What is the significance of the twelve gates in Revelation 21?	Answer The twelve gates in Revelation 21 belong to the [New Jerusalem](new-jerusalem.html), which comes down from heaven to the new earth (verse 10\), shining with the glory of God (verse 11\). John describes the city: “It had a great, high wall with twelve gates, and with twelve angels at the gates. On the gates were written the names of the twelve tribes of Israel” (verse 12\). The gates are miraculous in their construction: “The twelve gates were twelve pearls, each gate made of a single pearl” (verse 21\). And the gates of the New Jerusalem will never be shut (verse 25\). In order to understand the significance of the twelve gates being inscribed with the names of the [twelve tribes](twelve-tribes-Israel.html), we must look to the beginning of the Old Testament, when God promised a new land and a great nation to Abraham, whose descendants would spread blessing upon all other nations (Genesis 12:1–3\). To Abraham’s grandson, Jacob, whom God later named “Israel” (Genesis 32:28\), twelve sons were born to establish the twelve tribes of Israel (Genesis 49\). Those twelve tribes escaped slavery in Egypt, inherited the Promised Land (Exodus 6:14; 24:4\), received the Law (Exodus 20\), and were chosen by God to be His covenant people (Exodus 19:5–6\). During the reign of David, out of all the territories of the tribes of Israel, God chose the city of Jerusalem in Judah as the place where God’s name would rest (2 Chronicles 12:13\). Revelation speaks of the New Jerusalem that has been prepared for the reign of the Lamb (Revelation 21:1–3\). This New Jerusalem sits on twelve foundations, representing the [twelve apostles](twelve-apostles-disciples-12.html) who would reign over the twelve tribes of Israel (verse 14; cf. Matthew 19:28 and Luke 22:30\). The gates of the city are symmetrically arranged: “There were three gates on the east, three on the north, three on the south and three on the west” (Revelation 21:13\). Each gate of the New Jerusalem bears the inscription of one of the tribes of Israel, and each gate is guarded by an angel (Revelation 21:12\). These angels are there to let in “only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life” (verse 27\). Many scholars see a link between the New Jerusalem, with its three gates per side, and the city of the millennial kingdom, seen by the prophet Ezekiel: “These will be the exits of the city: Beginning on the north side . . . the gates of the city will be named after the tribes of Israel. The three gates on the north side will be the gate of Reuben, the gate of Judah and the gate of Levi. On the east side . . . will be three gates: the gate of Joseph, the gate of Benjamin and the gate of Dan. On the south side . . . will be three gates: the gate of Simeon, the gate of Issachar and the gate of Zebulun. On the west side . . . will be three gates: the gate of Gad, the gate of Asher and the gate of Naphtali” (Ezekiel 48:30–34\). See also Numbers 2, where God specified that three tribes would encamp on each side of the [tent of meeting](tent-of-meeting.html) in the wilderness. So what are we to make of all this? Let’s break down the description of the gates in Revelation 21 for a more careful look: The gates of the New Jerusalem are inscribed with the names of the twelve tribes of Israel. Israel was chosen by God to be a light to all nations (Isaiah 49:5–7; Romans 9:23–25\), and God will never revoke Israel’s status as His [chosen people](Gods-chosen-people.html) (see Romans 11:29\). The New Jerusalem thus contains a tribute to the patriarchs of Israel. It also contains a tribute to the apostles (Revelation 21:14\), so both Old Testament and New Testament are represented in the city—the New Jerusalem is filled with the [elect of God](elect-of-God.html) from all eras. Romans 9 makes a distinction between physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and their spiritual descendants—i.e., those who exercise the same faith in God as the patriarchs did. Just as not all Gentiles come to the light of the world, some Jews choose to live in darkness: “Not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. . . . It is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring” (Romans 9:6–8; see also Romans 2:28–29 and John 8:39–47\). Those who have faith in Christ are accounted the spiritual seed of Abraham (Galatians 3:29\). It will be “true” Israel—those who have trusted in Jesus Christ—that will enter the gates of the Kingdom of Heaven. It is through the twelve gates of the New Jerusalem that the true tribal people—believers of Jewish descent as well as Gentiles who have been “[grafted in](grafted-Israel.html)” with God’s people (Romans 11:17–25\)—will enter the joy of the Lord (see Matthew 25:21\). Angels are at the gates of the New Jerusalem. As an angel was sent by God to [guard Eden](guard-east-Eden.html) after mankind’s fall (Genesis 3:24\), so God has angels guarding the new paradise. Nothing evil or impure will ever enter the New Jerusalem (Revelation 21:27\); the city is reserved for the redeemed of God. Each gate of the New Jerusalem is made of a single pearl. The richness and supernatural nature of the city is profound. As commentator Charles Ellicott points out, “The pearl was esteemed of the greatest value among the ancients; it is an appropriate emblem of the highest truth. . . . It is the only precious stone which the art and skill of man cannot improve” (Commentary for English Readers, entry for Revelation 21:21\). The imagery calls to mind Jesus’ [parable](parable-treasure-pearl.html) of the pearl of great price (Matthew 13:45–46\). This is the city that is worth more than anything this present world has to offer. Its builder and maker is God (Hebrews 11:10\). The gates of the New Jerusalem never close. There are eternal safety and peace in the New Jerusalem; there are no enemies to shut the gates against. Access to the heavenly kingdom on the new earth is free and unhindered, and “the glory and honor of the nations will be brought into it” (Revelation 21:26\). The gates face every direction of the compass, and their perpetual openness invites everyone to partake of the goodness of God’s grace (see Revelation 22:17\).
What is the Gospel of Nicodemus / Acts of Pilate?	Answer The Gospel of Nicodemus (also referred to as The Acts of Pilate) is a purported gospel from the days of the early church. Though the book is named after [Nicodemus](Nicodemus-in-the-Bible.html), the Pharisee who appears in the Gospel of John, it was not written by Nicodemus. The book is actually a conglomeration of several texts, probably collected slowly over time. Scholars date the completed Gospel of Nicodemus to sometime in the mid\-fourth century. The Gospel of Nicodemus contains two parts: the first, often called The Acts of Pilate, deals with Jesus’ passion; and the second deals with Jesus’ supposed descent into hell after His death. In part one the Roman governor hears various testimonies for and against Jesus before giving in to the demands of the Jewish leaders to have Jesus executed. After the resurrection, [Pilate](Pontius-Pilate.html) receives evidence that Jesus is alive again, despite the attempts of the Sanhedrin to cover it up. Part two of the Gospel of Nicodemus is an appendix to The Acts of Pilate and is narrated by two characters named Leucius and Karinus. These were supposedly two of the men who were raised from the dead by Jesus at His resurrection (see Matthew 27:52–53\). These two men, Leucius and Karinus, give a firsthand report of what happened in hell when Jesus descended and set the captives free. According to the Gospel of Nicodemus, when Leucius and Karinus finished giving their testimony to the Jewish authorities in Jerusalem, they vanished from this world. There’s absolutely no reason to think that the Gospel of Nicodemus is a genuine gospel. The book doesn’t date to before the fourth century, at least three hundred years after Jesus died and rose again. There are no references to the Gospel of Nicodemus by any major [early Christian writers](early-church-fathers.html) such as Irenaeus or Eusebius. Further, the book claims to record a number of events, such as the conversion of Pilate to Christianity, that are not corroborated in the Bible. There is no mention of men named Leucius and Karinus in the Bible. The Gospel of Nicodemus appears to have been written long after the Bible was completed, too late to have been written by Nicodemus, Pilate, or any other purported author. That said, the Gospel of Nicodemus was a well\-known text in the Middle Ages. Medieval ideas such as the Harrowing of Hell (the teaching that, between the Crucifixion and the Resurrection, [Jesus went to hell](did-Jesus-go-to-hell.html), broke down its gates, and delivered the righteous from captivity) are largely drawn from the Gospel of Nicodemus. So, while the book may be an interesting read for cultural or academic reasons, there’s no reason to take it seriously as theology or history. The Gospel of Nicodemus is [pseudepigraphal](pseudepigrapha.html) and not a “lost” book of the Bible.
What is a toledot?	Answer The Hebrew word toledot (also seen as toldot) is most often translated “generations.” Toledot is the story or genetic line that came from—generated from—a person or event. Genesis lists nine specific toledot: – Creation – Genesis 2:4 – Adam – Genesis 5:1 – Noah and his sons – Genesis 6:9; 10:1, 32 – Shem – Genesis 11:10 – Terah – 11:27 – Ishmael – Genesis 25:12\-13; 1 Chronicles 1:29 – Isaac – Genesis 25:19 – Esau – Genesis 36:1, 9 – Jacob – Genesis 37:2 Toledot can have slightly different meanings depending on the context. In Genesis 2:4, it’s used somewhat metaphorically as “heaven and earth” don’t literally procreate. Instead, the word refers to the events that came about with the advent of heaven and earth—namely, all of human history. In the other instances in Genesis, toledot identifies both the progeny of these men and the stories that ensued in their time—we might say the “era” in which they lived. The toledot or generations don’t necessarily end when the next begin; they’re more layered, each encompassing those that come after. In other places, the word is used more narrowly to mean a family line both from the direction of the patriarch down (Exodus 6:16; Numbers 1; 3:1; Ruth 4:18\) and from a contemporary figure back (1 Chronicles 7:2, 4, 9; 8:28; 9:9, 34; 26:31\). Moses wrote the book of Genesis while the Israelites were wandering in the desert. The stories gave the Israelites a place in history—an identity—which was important for a people coming out of four hundred years of slavery in a foreign country. Knowing the toledot they came from gave the Israelites context for what God was asking of them when they entered the [Promised Land](Israel-land.html) and linked later Israelites to the great men and the mighty deeds of long before. Most of all, the toledot showed them how God had worked in the past and how He was sure to work in the present.
How long is a generation in the Bible?	Answer The Bible uses the term generation in some different ways. Normally, the word generation refers to all the people living at the same time—i.e., the word in the Bible has the same definition that we are used to in modern usage when we speak of Generation X or the Millennial Generation. Normally, a generation is about thirty years; one generation raises the next. However, in some biblical contexts, a “generation” can refer to a longer age or a group of people spanning a longer period of time. In Genesis 2:4, “generations of the heavens and the earth” (ESV) seems to include all of human history—the era begun by the creation of the universe. In Exodus 1:6 the “generation” who dies refers to everyone who had been alive during the time that Joseph and his brothers lived. In Numbers 32:13, the “generation” is limited to Israelites—the group of them, twenty years old and older, at the time of their refusal to enter the [Promised Land](Israel-land.html). That one generation was doomed to wander in the wilderness until they all died, except for Joshua and Caleb. When the plural word generations occurs in the Bible, as in Isaiah 51:9 and Acts 14:16, it refers to an indefinite period of time—many successive generations. The original languages of the Bible used at least three different words that are translated “generation” in English. The Hebrew dor can refer to a normal, physical generation, as in Exodus 1:6\. But it can also be used metaphorically to identify people of a distinguishable type. For example, Psalm 78:8 says, “They should not be like their fathers, a stubborn and rebellious generation, a generation whose heart was not steadfast, whose spirit was not faithful to God” (ESV). Here the word dor is used twice to refer to a group of people through a long period of time who were characterized by rebellion and sin. The “generation” in Psalm 78:8 is not limited to a normal thirty\-year period but stretches back through the history of Israel to include all who were stubborn against God. The other Hebrew word we translate as “generation” is toledot. This doesn’t refer to the character of a group or an age but to how that age was generated. So the “generations of the heavens and the earth” in Genesis 2:4 refers to the time periods that started with creation and continued organically from that point. The “generations of Adam” in Genesis 5:1 means the civilization of people that began with him. The next “generation” is that of Noah, to include the flood and the civilizations that came after. Shem’s influence is marked as a “generation” as he was the father of the [Semites](Semites.html) (Genesis 11:10\). And Terah’s, because he left Ur with his son Abram (Genesis 11:27\). Later, Ishmael (Genesis 25:12\) and Isaac (Genesis 25:19\) were the source of new generations. In each case, the men either experienced or caused a significant event that changed the course of their family line. They generated a culture\-altering event. In the New Testament, the Greek genea is the source of generation. It is similar to both Hebrew words. Literally, it means “fathered, birthed, nativity,” referring to a genetic line. But it can be used as both the time frame characterized by a specific cultural attitude and the people in that culture. In Matthew 1:17, the generations are marked off by significant events and people—Abraham, David, Babylonian captivity—like the Hebrew toledot. But when Jesus calls the Pharisees and scribes a “wicked and perverse generation,” He is referring to the culture that they lived in and encouraged (Matthew 12:39; see also Matthew 17:17 and Acts 2:40\). So, when we read “generation” in the Bible, we have to consider the context. Usually, a generation in the Bible is roughly thirty years long or the people living during that time, the same as what we understand a generation to be in everyday talk. But there are times when generation is used poetically to refer to a class of people demarked by something other than age.
What does the Bible say about family planning?	Answer Family planning is the practice of regulating how many children are born into a family, including controlling the number of years between births, by means of artificial contraception, voluntary sterilization, treatment of involuntary infertility, Natural Family Planning (NFP), or other methods to either prevent or encourage pregnancy. Reasons for desiring this kind of control vary from family to family and can be influenced by many factors, such as career choices, relationship issues, financial state, physical disabilities, living situation, etc. Since modern [birth control](birth-control.html) and fertility options were not available during biblical times, the Bible is silent on the matter of using these methods to prevent or encourage pregnancy. Preventing pregnancy for family planning purposes, either temporarily or [permanently](permanent-birth-control.html), is a neutral act and not considered sinful. Exploring treatment options for [infertility](infertility.html) is likewise a neutral act and not sinful. However, the husband and wife should be in agreement on any decisions regarding any future children. While there is nothing wrong with a married couple planning for their family’s future, they must accept that God’s will cannot be thwarted. There is nothing in the Bible that states every married couple must have children, but God’s sovereignty will usurp a couple’s plans, no matter what precautions they take. Proverbs 16:9 says, “In their hearts humans plan their course, but the LORD establishes their steps.” If God’s will is to bring a child into a couple’s life, contraceptive efforts will not bar His way. If a couple has sex, with or without contraception, they must be prepared for the possibility of pregnancy. If a woman becomes pregnant unexpectedly or unwillingly, the pregnancy should be allowed to come to term. [Abortionor [Emergency Contraceptive Pills](morning-after-pill.html) (ECPs) are not an acceptable form of birth control because abortion and the morning\-after pill work post\-conception, resulting in the death of a living human being. God knows every person before his or her creation and lovingly forms the body within the womb (Jeremiah 1:5; Psalm 139:13–16\). Many options, including [adoption](adoption.html), are available for those who do not wish to keep the baby. Children are a gift from the Lord (Psalm 127:3–4\), but they bring with them great responsibility for parents. If a married couple decides that they are not ready for children yet or they wish to time pregnancies to space them a certain number of years apart, that is a decision they are free to make. Through prayer and discussion, a husband and wife may wisely plan their future and the future of any children God blesses them with (Proverbs 16:3; 21:5; James 1:5\).](abortion-Bible.html)
What is the meaning of 2 Chronicles 7:14?	Answer “If my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land” (2 Chronicles 7:14, ESV). The key to understanding any verse of Scripture is [context](context-Bible.html). There is the immediate context—the verses before and after it, as well as the larger context of Scripture—how the verse fits into the overall story. There is also the historical and cultural context—how the verse was understood by its original audience in light of their history and culture. Because context is so important, a verse whose meaning and application seem straightforward when quoted in isolation may mean something significantly different when it is taken in context. When approaching 2 Chronicles 7:14, one must first consider the immediate context. After Solomon dedicated the temple, the Lord appeared to him and gave him some warnings and reassurances. “The Lord appeared to him at night and said: ‘I have heard your prayer and have chosen this place for myself as a temple for sacrifices.’ When I shut up the heavens so that there is no rain, or command locusts to devour the land or send a plague among my people, if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land” (2 Chronicles 7:12–14\). The immediate context of 2 Chronicles 7:14 shows that the verse is tied up with Israel and the temple and the fact that from time to time God might send judgment upon the land in the form of drought, locusts, or pestilence. A few verses later God says this: “But if you turn away and forsake the decrees and commands I have given you and go off to serve other gods and worship them, then I will uproot Israel from my land, which I have given them, and will reject this temple I have consecrated for my Name. I will make it a byword and an object of ridicule among all peoples. This temple will become a heap of rubble. All who pass by will be appalled and say, ‘Why has the Lord done such a thing to this land and to this temple?’ People will answer, ‘Because they have forsaken the Lord, the God of their ancestors, who brought them out of Egypt, and have embraced other gods, worshiping and serving them—that is why he brought all this disaster on them’” (2 Chronicles 7:19–22\). No doubt Solomon would have recognized this warning as a reiteration of Deuteronomy 28\. God had entered into a [covenant](Mosaic-covenant.html) with Israel and promised to take care of them and cause them to prosper as long as they obeyed Him. He also promised to bring curses upon them if they failed to obey. Because of the covenant relationship, there was a direct correspondence between their obedience and their prosperity, and their disobedience and their hardship. Deuteronomy 28 spells out the blessings for obedience and the curses for disobedience. Again, divine blessing and divine punishment on Israel were conditional on their obedience or disobedience. We see this blessing and cursing under the Law play out in the [book of Judges](Book-of-Judges.html). Judges chapter 2 is often referred to as “The Cycle of the Judges.” Israel would fall into sin. God would send another nation to judge them. Israel would repent and call upon the Lord. The Lord would raise up a judge to deliver them. They would serve the Lord for a while and then fall back into sin again. And the cycle would continue. In 2 Chronicles 7, the Lord simply reminds Solomon of the previous agreement. If Israel obeys, they will be blessed. If they disobey, they will be judged. The judgment is meant to bring Israel to repentance, and God assures Solomon that, if they will be humble, pray, and repent, then God will deliver them from the judgment. In context, 2 Chronicles 7:14 is a promise to ancient Israel (and perhaps even modern\-day Israel) that, if they will repent and return to the Lord, He will rescue them. However, many Christians in the United States have taken this verse as a rallying cry for America. (Perhaps Christians in other countries have done so as well.) In this interpretation, Christians are the people who are called by God’s name. If Christians will humble themselves, pray, seek God’s face, and repent, then God will heal their land—often a moral and political healing is in view as well as economic healing. The question is whether or not this is a proper interpretation/application. The first problem that the modern\-day, “Westernized” interpretation encounters is that the United States does not have the same covenant relationship with God that ancient Israel enjoyed. The covenant with Israel was unique and exclusive. The terms that applied to Israel simply did not apply to any other nation, and it is improper for these terms to be co\-opted and applied to a different nation. Some might object that Christians are still called by God’s name and in some ways have inherited the covenant with Israel—and this may be true to some extent. Certainly, if a nation is in trouble, a prayerful and repentant response by Christians in that nation is always appropriate. However, there is another issue that is often overlooked. When ancient Israel repented and sought the Lord, they were doing so en masse. The nation as a whole repented. Obviously, not every single Israelite repented and prayed, but still it was national repentance. There was never any indication that a small minority of the nation (a righteous remnant) could repent and pray and that the fate of the entire nation would change. God promised deliverance when the entire nation repented. When 2 Chronicles 7:14 is applied to Christians in the U.S. or any other modern nation, it is usually with the understanding that the Christians in that nation—the true believers in Jesus Christ who have been born again by the Spirit of God—will comprise the righteous remnant. God never promised that if a righteous remnant repents and prays for their nation, that the nation will be saved. Perhaps if national repentance occurred, then God would spare a modern nation as He spared Nineveh at the preaching of Jonah (see Jonah 3\)—but that is a different issue. Having said that, it is never wrong to confess our sins and pray—in fact, it is our duty as believers to continuously confess and forsake our sins so that they will not hinder us (Hebrews 12:1\) and to pray for our nation and those in authority (1 Timothy 2:1–2\). It may be that God in His grace will bless our nation as a result—but there is no guarantee of national deliverance. Even if God did use our efforts to bring about national repentance and revival, there is no guarantee that the nation would be politically or economically saved. As believers, we are guaranteed personal salvation in Christ (Romans 8:1\), and we are also guaranteed that God will use us to accomplish His purposes, whatever they may be. It is our duty as believers to live holy lives, seek God, pray, and share the gospel knowing that all who believe will be saved, but the Bible does not guarantee the political, cultural, or economic salvation of our nation.
What is the antilegomena?	Answer The antilegomena is a collection of Bible texts that were subject to a high level of skepticism while the canon of Scripture was being established. The word antilegomena literally means “spoken against” and was applied to those writings that were accepted by the majority of the early church but had more detractors than other books. Writings that were clearly seen as non\-inspired or heretical were branded as such by the early church. Another group of writings, known as the homologumena, was recognized as inspired and enjoyed universal acceptance in the early church. The books classified as antilegomena were questioned in different ways and for different reasons than those that were rejected as non\-canonical. As the early church grew, it became important to distinguish between God’s Word and writings that were not God’s Word. In short, books were [recognized as canonical](canon-Bible.html) if they were written by an apostle or under and apostle’s direction, positively explained true Christian doctrine, made some claim or connection to inspiration, were accepted by the doctrinally loyal churches, and/or were suitable for public reading. Using that criteria, the twenty\-seven books of the modern New Testament quickly became accepted as the canon of Scripture. However, seven of those twenty\-seven books were subject to more debate than the others. Those seven were Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, and Revelation. Unlike the works that were rejected outright, these books contained no obvious disqualifiers. They did not present heresy, they were not clearly linked to a non\-orthodox church, and so forth. Rather, each fell short in the minds of some early Christians, according to the criteria given above. It must be emphasized that other categories of ancient writings, such as the [pseudepigrapha](pseudepigrapha.html) and [Apocrypha](apocrypha-deuterocanonical.html), were viewed in a completely different light as compared to the antilegomena. Even as the New Testament was being written, the church recognized the existence of false writings (2 Thessalonians 2:2\). This explains the abundance of caution the church used in officially recognizing works as inspired. The antilegomena were less readily accepted, not because they were flawed but because the early church was exceedingly careful in what it endorsed as inspired text. The [book of Hebrews](Book-of-Hebrews.html) was considered antilegomena because it is technically [anonymous](author-Hebrews.html). Other New Testament books either clearly state their author or can be traced directly to an apostle. The book of Hebrews does neither, although it matches all of the other criteria for the biblical canon. The [book of James](Book-of-James.html) has always been subject to controversy, mostly because of its complex discussion of the relationship between saving faith and good works. For this reason, some in the early church hesitated to accept it, and it was classified as one of the antilegomena. [Second Peter](Book-of-2-Peter.html) is easily the most heavily disputed book of the antilegomena. More than anything else, the differences in style between 1 Peter and 2 Peter led to debates over whether or not it was legitimate. Over time, mounting evidence won over the skeptics, and 2 Peter was acknowledged to be canonical. The letters of [2 John](Book-of-2-John.html) and [3 John](Book-of-3-John.html) do not identify their authors as clearly as other New Testament texts. In particular, they use the term elder rather than apostle, which led to some doubt concerning authorship. This wording was not uncommon for the apostles, however, and the short letters of John’s were never doubted to the same extent as 2 Peter. Jude is an interesting member of the antilegomena. Jude was questioned for making explicit references to non\-inspired works. Parts of the [book of Jude](Book-of-Jude.html) allude to stories told in the non\-canonical [The Assumption of Moses](Assumption-of-Moses.html) and the [Book of Enoch](book-of-Enoch.html). However, because Jude does not endorse those writings as Scripture (Jude merely uses them as examples to support his points), this controversy was eventually settled. [Revelation](Book-of-Revelation.html) has the distinction of being the most persistently questioned of the antilegomena. Though it was never questioned to the same degree as 2 Peter, critics continued to express doubts about it long after other books of the antilegomena had been widely accepted. Revelation’s biggest stumbling block was that its symbolism was open to such wide interpretation. A few early sects attempted to use the book to justify bizarre doctrines, which made Revelation guilty by association in the eyes of some early church members. Most books of the New Testament were accepted very soon after being written—the homologumena. Others—the antilegomena—were less readily accepted for various reasons. The extreme caution exercised by the early church led to these seven books being more heavily examined prior to their eventual acceptance into the canon of Scripture.
What did Jesus mean when He said, “Render to Caesar what is Caesar’s”?	Answer “Render to Caesar what is Caesar’s” is a well\-known quote that appears in Matthew 22:21 and is part of Jesus’ response to a joint attempt by the Herodians and Pharisees to make Jesus stumble in front of His own people. The [Herodians](Herodians.html) were a non\-religious Jewish party who supported the dynasty of Herod and the general policy of the Roman government. They perceived that Christ’s pure and spiritual teaching and influence were antagonistic to their interests. The [Pharisees](Sadducees-Pharisees.html), on the other hand, were members of an ancient Jewish sect who believed in the strict observance of oral traditions and the written Law of Moses. They didn’t believe that Christ was the Messiah, despite His many miracles during His earthly ministry. Although Herodians and Pharisees were at opposite ends of the political spectrum, their common hatred of Christ was enough for them to join forces to try to destroy Him. Here is the context of Jesus’ command to “render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s”: in Matthew 22 Jesus had just returned to Jerusalem for the final time and recently finished sharing several parables with the crowd. Jesus’ enemies saw an opportunity to put Jesus on the spot in front of His followers. In verse 17, they say to Jesus, “Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?” (ESV). It was a trick question, and they knew it. If Jesus answered, “No,” the Herodians would charge Him with treason against Rome. If He said, “Yes,” the Pharisees would accuse Him of disloyalty to the Jewish nation, and He would lose the support of the crowds. To pay taxes or not to pay taxes? The question was designed as a Catch\-22\. Jesus’ response is nothing short of brilliant: “But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, ‘Why put me to the test, you hypocrites? Show me the coin for the tax.’ And they brought him a denarius” (Matthew 22:18–19, ESV). The denarius was a coin used as the tax money at the time. It was made of silver and featured an image of the emperor with an inscription calling him “divine.” The Jews considered such images idolatry, forbidden by the second commandment. This was another reason why, if Jesus answered, “Yes,” He would be in trouble. His acceptance of the tax as “lawful” could have been seen as a rejection of the second commandment, thus casting doubt on His claim to be the Son of God. With the coin displayed in front of them, Jesus said, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” The Herodians and Pharisees, stating the obvious, said, “Caesar’s.” Then Jesus brought an end to their foolish tricks: “Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21, ESV). Upon hearing this, Jesus’ enemies marveled and went away (verse 22\). When Jesus said, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s,” He was drawing a sharp distinction between two kingdoms. There is a kingdom of this world, and Caesar holds power over it. But there is another kingdom, not of this world, and Jesus is King of that (John 18:36\). Christians are part of both kingdoms, at least temporarily. Under Caesar, we have certain obligations that involve material things. Under Christ, we have other obligations that involve things eternal. If Caesar demands money, give it to him—it’s only [mammon](what-is-mammon.html). But make sure you also give God what He demands. Caesar minted coins, as he had a right to do, and he demanded some coins in return, as was his right. After all, his image was stamped on what he had made. God has “minted” the human soul, and He has stamped His image on every one (Genesis 1:27\). So give Caesar his due—the temporary stuff of this world—but make sure to give God His due: “Offer yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer every part of yourself to him as an instrument of righteousness” (Romans 6:13\).
Who was Nicodemus in the Bible?	Answer All that we know of Nicodemus in the Bible is from the [Gospel of John](Gospel-of-John.html). In John 3:1, he is described as a Pharisee. The [Pharisees](Sadducees-Pharisees.html) were a group of Jews who were fastidious in keeping the letter of the Law and often opposed Jesus throughout His ministry. Jesus often strongly denounced them for their legalism (see Matthew 23\). Saul of Tarsus (who became the apostle Paul) was also a Pharisee (Philippians 3:5\). John 3:1 also describes Nicodemus as a leader of the Jews. According to John 7:50–51, Nicodemus was a member of the [Sanhedrin](Sanhedrin.html), which was the ruling body of the Jews. Each city could have a Sanhedrin, which functioned as the “lower courts.” Under Roman authority in the time of Christ, the Jewish nation was allowed a measure of self\-rule, and the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem was the final court of appeals for matters regarding Jewish law and religion. This was the body that ultimately condemned Jesus, yet they had to get [Pilate](Pontius-Pilate.html) to approve their sentence since the death penalty was beyond their jurisdiction under Roman law. It appears that Nicodemus was part of the Great Sanhedrin in Jerusalem. John reports that Nicodemus came to speak with Jesus at night. Many have speculated that Nicodemus was afraid or ashamed to visit Jesus in broad daylight, so he made a nighttime visit. This may very well be the case, but the text does not give a reason for the timing of the visit. A number of other reasons are also possible. Nicodemus questioned Jesus. As a member of the Jewish ruling council, it would have been his responsibility to find out about any teachers or other public figures who might lead the people astray. In their conversation, Jesus immediately confronts Nicodemus with the truth that he “must be [born again](born-again.html)” (John 3:3\). When Nicodemus seems incredulous, Jesus reprimands him (perhaps gently) that, since he is a leader of the Jews, he should already know this (John 3:10\). Jesus goes on to give a further explanation of the new birth, and it is in this context that we find John 3:16, which is one of the most well\-known and beloved verses in the Bible. The next time we encounter Nicodemus in the Bible, he is functioning in his official capacity as a member of the Sanhedrin as they consider what to do about Jesus. In John 7, some Pharisees and priests (presumably with authority to do so) sent some of the temple guard to arrest Jesus, but they return, unable to bring themselves to do it (see John 7:32–47\). The guards are upbraided by the Pharisees in authority, but Nicodemus presents the opinion that Jesus should not be dismissed or condemned until they have heard from Him personally: “Does our law judge a man without first giving him a hearing and learning what he does?” (John 7:51\). However, the rest of the Council rudely dismisses Nicodemus’s suggestion out of hand—they appear to have already made up their minds about Jesus. The final mention of Nicodemus in the Bible is in John 19 after Jesus’ crucifixion. We find Nicodemus assisting [Joseph of Arimathea](Joseph-of-Arimathea.html) in Jesus’ burial. Joseph is described in John as a rich man and in Mark 15:43 as a member of the Council. He is also described in John 19:38 as a disciple of Jesus, albeit a secret one because he was afraid of the Jews. Joseph asked Pilate for the body of Jesus. Nicodemus brought 75 pounds of spices for use in preparing the body for burial and then assisted Joseph in wrapping the body and placing it in the tomb. The sheer amount of burial spices would seem to indicate that Nicodemus was a rich man and that he had great respect for Jesus. The limited account in John’s Gospel leaves many questions about Nicodemus unanswered. Was he a true believer? What did he do after the resurrection? The Bible is silent on these questions, and there are no reliable extra\-biblical resources that give answers. It would appear that Nicodemus may have been similar to Joseph of Arimathea in that perhaps he, too, was a disciple of Jesus but had not yet mustered the courage to declare his faith openly. Perhaps Nicodemus’s final recorded act was his declaration of faith—although we are not told how public it was. His presentation in the Gospel of John is generally favorable, which suggests that his faith was indeed genuine.
Does the Bible say anything about the existence of black holes?	Answer Black holes, simply put, are not a subject the Bible has any reason to discuss. The Bible is meant to convey one primary topic above all others: how mankind can be reconciled with God. For that reason, many aspects of the universe are left unaddressed in Scripture. This does not mean the Bible contradicts those ideas. Nor does it mean that the Bible assumes something false about them. It only means those concepts are beside the point of the book. The owner’s manual for a car, for instance, will explain how to check the engine oil, but it might not discuss the history of Henry Ford. Black holes, according to modern theory, are interesting objects but ones that follow the same laws of physics as other bodies. All planets, stars, asteroids, and so forth exert gravity on their surroundings. The closer one gets to the object, the stronger that pull becomes, and the more difficult it is to move away. Overcoming the pull of earth’s gravity from ground level requires a tremendous amount of force. Although the pull of gravity is weaker the further a rocket moves from the planet, a spacecraft is still affected by Earth’s gravity even in orbit. When a spacecraft travels through space, it has to maintain a certain distance from objects, based on their gravitational pull. Objects with more mass have stronger gravitational fields. The closer two objects are, the more strongly gravity pulls them together. Unless the spacecraft’s rockets are very strong, there will be some distance at which the ship simply lacks the power to break free from a large body such as a star or planet. Once the spacecraft moves too close, the ship can circle or fall closer, but it can never move away without exerting a huge amount of thrust. The more powerful the ship’s rockets, the closer it can get—the more gravity it can resist. The defining feature of a black hole is simply that it is so massive—it has so much gravitational power—that objects within a certain distance require an infinite amount of energy to overcome its pull. A black hole’s gravity is so powerful that, once an object is close enough, there is no possible way of escaping its pull. This point of no return is called the “event horizon.” This is why these objects are called “black” holes: their matter is so densely packed that the gravitational pull draws everything, including light, back into itself. The event horizon is not the physical surface of the black hole but the distance at which nothing—no light, energy, or information—can be recovered. Contrary to what’s presented in science fiction, black holes are not portals to other universes, cosmic vacuum cleaners, or roaming intergalactic predators. Nothing in the Bible explicitly suggests or contradicts the idea of a black hole. The physical properties of black holes support the idea that the universe requires a level of [fine\-tuning](fine-tuning-argument.html) in order to support life. The Bible sometimes depicts disaster as falling inescapably into darkness—a concise description of what happens to matter approaching a black hole (see Ezekiel 28:8\). Ideas such as absolute blackness (Jude 1:13\), total destruction (2 Thessalonians 1:9\), and the annihilation of matter (2 Peter 3:10–12\) are set forth in Scripture. Coincidence is not the same as connection, however. The Bible does not present these ideas as relating in any meaningful way to the actual physical objects we call black holes. Ultimately, black holes are simply another fascinating aspect of God’s created universe. Physicists speculate on how black holes might influence the movement of galaxies or the balance of energy in the universe. The Bible, however, says nothing in particular about them, because such information is irrelevant to our eternal salvation or our spiritual growth.
What is the meaning of “here am I; send me” in Isaiah 6:8?	Answer Isaiah 6 describes how the prophet Isaiah, through a vision from the Lord, begins his ministry for God. In the vision, the Lord asks, ““Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?” (Isaiah 6:8a). Isaiah’s response was to volunteer for service: “Here am I; send me” (verse 8b, KJV). After a 52\-year reign of relative peace, [King Uzziah](King-Uzziah-in-the-Bible.html) of Judah died of leprosy in 739 BC (2 Chronicles 26:16–23\), the same year Isaiah began his prophetic ministry. In a vision Isaiah saw the Lord, “high and exalted, seated on a throne; and the train of his robe filled the temple” (Isaiah 6:1\). The Lord had a message to deliver to the nation of Judah, and He expresses His desire for a messenger in verse 8\. Isaiah’s exclamation “Here am I; send me” marked the very beginning of his ministry; the priest was now a prophet, and the Lord’s message for Judah eventually became the [book of Isaiah](Book-of-Isaiah.html). Before [Isaiah](life-Isaiah.html) could say, “Here am I; send me,” he had a problem that had to be addressed. Isaiah 6:5 describes how Isaiah was made aware of his own unworthiness: “Woe to me! . . . I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty.” Standing in the Lord’s presence, Isaiah is made painfully aware of his sin, and he is broken about it in the same way as were Job (Job 42:6\) and Peter (Luke 5:8\) when they were confronted with the presence of the Lord. God was preparing Isaiah for his cleansing and commission. After Isaiah acknowledges his sin, a [seraph](seraphim.html) takes a burning piece of coal from the altar, touches Isaiah’s lips with it, and says, “See, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away and your sin atoned for” (Isaiah 6:7\). Some details are important here: Isaiah could not remove his own guilt, the atonement is made possible by the altar—the place of sacrifice—and the purification is specifically applied to the point of Isaiah’s sin—his lips—making Isaiah acceptable as a minister of God’s words. It is only after Isaiah is cleansed of his sin that he says, “Here am I; send me.” Prior to that point, he saw himself as an unworthy messenger; once he was forgiven, he immediately desired to serve the Lord in whatever way possible. The Lord asks, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?”—He wants willing volunteers in His service—and a grateful and enthusiastic Isaiah doesn’t hesitate in taking the opportunity: “Here am I; send me.” And for the rest of his life, Isaiah serves the God who had forgiven and saved him.
What does Peter mean when he tells us to make our calling and election sure in 2 Peter 1:10?	Answer Second Peter 1:10–11 says, “Brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall: For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ” (KJV). The clear command is to “make your calling and election sure,” or, as the NIV puts it, “make every effort to confirm your calling and election.” A believer’s “calling” is God’s drawing him to salvation. Peter alludes to this calling earlier in the same chapter when he speaks of God “who called us by his own glory and goodness” (2 Peter 1:3\). A believer’s “[election](elect-of-God.html)” is God’s selection of him to be saved from before time began. The doctrine of election or [predestination](predestination.html) is taught elsewhere in the Bible, too (see Romans 8:29–30; Ephesians 1:5, 11; Colossians 3:12; 1 Thessalonians 1:4; and 2 Timothy 2:10\). God is the one who calls and elects, so the believer’s calling and election are already “sure” from God’s point of view; therefore, the command for believers to diligently make their calling and election sure must refer to the believers’ point of view. God wants us to have assurance of our salvation, and the best way to do that is to be pursuing godly virtues and actively growing in the Christian life. Second Peter 1:5–7 lists godly qualities that believers should add to their faith—goodness, knowledge, self\-control, perseverance, godliness, mutual affection, and love. Those qualities are the “these things” of verse 10, and the reader is urged thereby to “make your calling and election sure.” In doing “these things,” one will never stumble and is promised “a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom” (verse 11\). On the surface 2 Peter 1 seems to affirm that one’s salvation depends on having the qualities listed in verses 5–7\. On closer inspection, however, it becomes apparent that Peter is addressing those who already have “faith,” which he lists as the first (and foundational) quality. Also, Peter presumes that some of those who did not demonstrate these qualities had in fact been saved, for “whoever does not have them is nearsighted and blind, forgetting that they have been cleansed from their past sins” (2 Peter 1:9\). So, being cleansed from past sin does not automatically mean a person will grow in goodness, knowledge, etc., but, if he doesn’t “possess these qualities in increasing measure” (verse 8\), he is spiritually myopic and forgetful of God’s grace. Let’s examine the command to “make your calling and election sure” within the context of what Peter says before that: 1:3\. The readers’ “godly life” is somehow being threatened by their circumstances, and we know from Peter’s previous epistle that they have been suffering (1 Peter 1:6\); the apostle is therefore providing reassurance that they have all the resources they need to persevere within their knowledge of God (the One who called them). 1:4\. Peter adds that God’s “glory and goodness” entails “very great and precious promises” through which his readers “may participate in the divine nature, having escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.” God’s goal is to produce a holy people for Himself (see 1 Peter 1:15–16\). Believers should have the same goal to become that holy people. 1:5–7\. It is clear that Peter presumes that his readers have already exercised faith and that these qualities are to be added to their faith. These same virtues allow believers to participate in the divine nature (verse 4\) and thus distinguish themselves as a holy people. In his epistle, James explains how these qualities “add” to faith and enable one to become “a friend of God” (James 2:22–23\). 1:8\. Here is mentioned a fruitful “knowledge” of Christ (compare verse 3\) that will enable believers to display God’s character effectively. This comes through maintaining a close relationship with Christ—Jesus called it “[abiding](abide-in-Christ.html)” in Him (John 15\). 1:9\. When the qualities listed in verses 5–7 are not present in a believer, it betrays the fact that he’s forgotten his true identity in Christ. Believers have been “cleansed from . . . past sins,” and we must not forget it. By persisting in sin, believers are “blinded” to their new identity as a holy people for God (compare 1 Peter 4:1–6 and Romans 6:1–2\). 1:10\. In light of all that comes before, we should see the exhortation to “make your calling and election sure” as a call to “shore up” our righteous character as a holy people. The compound verb translated “to make sure” can mean either to “verify” (in the sense of assuring oneself of something that may not be true) or to “guarantee” or “protect” something that is already true. It is the latter meaning in view here: we are told to “shore up” our “calling and election” to be holy as God is holy by exhibiting the list of behaviors in verses 5–7, so we do not “fall” (compare 2 Peter 3:17\) into past sinful behavior (see 1 Peter 4:1–6\). 1:11\. Those who successfully display the qualities in verses 5–7 are the ones who are assured of their salvation and can go through this world confident that they will “receive a rich welcome” as friends of God and co\-heirs with Christ. In summary, to make one’s calling and election sure is to live out the Christian life in the power of the Holy Spirit. It is to do more than simply pay lip service to Christ. Those who profess salvation but never grow in their walk with God will suffer a lack of [assurance](assurance-salvation.html), always wondering if they are really saved or not. Those who grow ever more like Christ will be “sure” of their calling and election. They will know they have eternal life (see 1 John 5:13\); they will be living testimonies of the power of God to change lives.
What is the temple tax?	Answer The temple tax was required of Jewish males over age 20, and the money was used for the upkeep and maintenance of the temple. In Exodus 30:13–16, God told Moses to collect this tax at the time of the census taken in the wilderness. In 2 Kings 12:5–17 and Nehemiah 10:32–33, it seems the temple tax was paid annually, not just during a census. This half\-shekel tax wasn’t a large sum of money, but roughly equivalent to two days’ wages. According to the tractate Shekalim in the [Talmud](Talmud.html), the temple tax was collected during one of the these Jewish festivals: Passover, Pentecost, or Tabernacles. The temple tax is also mentioned in the New Testament in Matthew 17:24–27 when Peter was confronted by the religious leaders collecting the tax. The leaders asked Peter, “Doesn’t your teacher pay the temple tax?” The leaders may have been attempting to prove Jesus’ disloyalty to the temple or His violation of the Law. Peter affirmed that Jesus did pay the temple tax. When Peter came into the house where Jesus was, the Lord asked him, “From whom do the kings of the earth collect duty and taxes—from their own children or from others?” Peter replied that kings collect from others because their children are exempt. Jesus’ point was that, since the temple was His Father’s house, Jesus was exempt. Why should the Son of God pay a tax to His own Father? Even though Jesus, as the Son of God, and His disciples were exempt from paying the temple tax, they would pay the tax in order to not offend the Jewish leaders (Matthew 17:27\). Jesus then instructs Peter to throw out a fishing line, which would result in a catch. When Peter opened the fish’s mouth, he found a coin that happened to be the correct amount for the temple tax for him and Jesus. Jesus used the question about the temple tax to teach a lesson. Christians are free, but they must sometimes relinquish their rights in order to uphold their witness and not cause others to stumble. True freedom is not serving ourselves but others (see Galatians 5:13\).
What does it mean that faith, hope, and love remain (1 Corinthians 13:13)?	Answer First Corinthians 12 talks about spiritual gifts, which are distributed by the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:4\). Thus one Christian may receive one type of gift while another receives a different gift. Chapter 13 goes one step further and mentions the three gifts that are common for all Christians: [faith](Bible-faith.html), [hope](Bible-hope.html), and [love](Bible-love.html). Verse 13 says, “And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.” In stating that faith, hope, and love remain, Paul does something interesting and unexpected: he uses a singular verb for a compound (and therefore plural) subject. His statement in 1 Corinthians 13:13 could be literally rendered “faith, hope, and love remains.” Paul’s point is that, essentially, faith, hope, and love are united; what happens to one happens to all. And what happens is that they “remain.” The fact that faith, hope, and love remain must be understood in light of the broader context. Paul had just listed another set of three gifts that would not remain: “Where there are [prophecies](gift-of-prophecy.html), they will cease; where there are [tongues](gift-of-tongues.html), they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away” (1 Corinthians 13:8\). So, the passage contains a contrast: three gifts of the Spirit that will cease, and three gifts that will never end. Faith, hope, and love will always remain. The Corinthian church members were priding themselves on the fact that they could speak in tongues and demonstrate other attention\-getting gifts. Paul reminds them of “the most excellent way” (1 Corinthians 12:31\)—the way of love. The gifts that the Corinthians so desired were but temporary; faith, hope, and love, the foundational gifts, are permanent and therefore more to be desired. Faith, hope, and love are gifts in the present age, and they will still be gifts in the age to come. The NLT translates the promise this way: “Three things will last forever—faith, hope, and love.” It’s easy to see how love will last forever, since love is an essential part of God’s nature (1 John 4:16\). But what about [faith and hope](difference-faith-hope.html)? Those two gifts will likewise last forever. Faith in the Son of God will not cease in the eternal state; we will not stop trusting Jesus just because our faith has become sight. If anything, our trust in Him will grow greater. Similarly, our hope will not cease just because our [blessed hope](blessed-hope.html) has come. Our lives will continue in the eternal state, as will our expectation of other things in an infinite sequence of adventure. As commentator Alexander MacLaren explained, “That Future presents itself to us as the continual communication of an inexhaustible God to our progressively capacious and capable spirits. In that continual communication there is continual progress. Wherever there is progress there must be hope. And thus the fair form . . . will move before us through all the long avenues of an endless progress, and will ever and anon come back to tell us of the unseen glories that lie beyond the next turn, and to woo us further into the depths of heaven and the fulness of God” (MacLaren Expositions of Holy Scripture, 1 Corinthians). Faith, hope, and love are the three gifts that will be ours throughout all eternity. And [agape love](agape-love.html) is the ultimate gift. God in His goodness gives us the privilege of possessing these gifts today, and we look forward to having them remain with us forever.
Did Jesus mean we should literally pluck out our eyes in Matthew 5:29-30?	Answer In the [Sermon on the Mount](sermon-on-the-mount.html), Jesus says something that must certainly have seized His hearers’ attention: “If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell” (Matthew 5:29–30\). Jesus repeats the admonition in Matthew 18:8–9, except there He adds the need to dispense with a foot as well as a hand and an eye. The graphic word pictures of Matthew 5 and 18 still grab attention today, and they raise the question of how literally we should take Jesus’ commands in these passages. Does Jesus actually mean to say that we should pluck out our eyes or sever a hand if we are prone to sin? It may be of comfort to know that Jesus’ instructions in these particular verses are not meant to be taken literally. We need not mutilate our bodies as a punishment for our sin. Rather, Jesus means that we should be prepared to make exceptional sacrifices if we want to follow Him (see Matthew 16:24\). Jesus had just warned His audience against using their eyes for lustful purposes (Matthew 5:28\), so His prescribed remedy for lust—to pluck out an eye—makes sense, in a radical sort of way. But it is the radical nature of His statement that makes it so memorable. When Jesus advises us to pluck out a sinful eye or cut off an unruly hand, He is employing a figure of speech known as hyperbole. Hyperbole is an obvious exaggeration or an intentional overstatement. Examples of hyperbole in modern speech would include statements like “This bag of groceries weighs a ton,” “I’ve been waiting forever,” and “Everyone knows that.” The apostle Paul uses hyperbolic language in Galatians 4:15\. Hyperbole, like other figures of speech, is not meant to be taken literally. Jesus’ purpose in saying, hyperbolically, that sinners should pluck out their eyes or cut off their hands is to magnify in His hearers’ minds the heinous nature of sin. Sin is any action or thought that is contrary to the character of God. The result of sin is death, from which Jesus wants to preserve us (see Hebrews 2:9\). Jesus warns of [hell](hell-real-eternal.html) because He doesn’t want people to go there (Matthew 5:29–30\). [Sin](definition-sin.html) takes people to hell (see Revelation 21:8\), and that makes sin something to avoid at all costs. Jesus says that, whatever is causing you to sin, take drastic measures to get that thing out of your life. “It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. . . . It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell” (Matthew 18:8–9\). Nothing is worth missing heaven for. Nothing is worth going to hell for. Nothing. God takes sin seriously—seriously enough to sacrifice His only begotten Son to destroy it. We must take sin seriously as well. A lack of repentance is a crime punishable by eternal death. It is better to deny our flesh—to pluck out an eye or cut off a hand, as it were—than to risk sinning against God. God demands holiness (1 Peter 1:15\), but we naturally tend to pamper ourselves and excuse our sin. That is why we need Jesus’ shocking, radical hyperbole to wake us from our spiritual complacency.
What is pure and undefiled religion (James 1:27)?	Answer In James 1:27, the apostle James gives us insight into what pleases God: “Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit [orphans and widows](orphans-and-widows.html) in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world” (NASB). The word for “undefiled” is translated “faultless” in the NIV. When interpreting any verse in the Bible, including James 1:27, we should always look at its context to get an idea of what the verse means within the surrounding verses. In this case, we can look at what comes immediately before James 1:27 and get some idea of what is going on in this particular passage. Verse 26 says, “Those who consider themselves religious and yet do not keep a tight rein on their tongues deceive themselves, and their religion is worthless.” So, in these final two verses of James 1, we have a contrast between what makes religion “worthless” and what makes religion “acceptable” to God. Here it would be good to define the word religion. By “[religion](true-religion.html),” James means the external evidence of inward piety; that is, worship as expressed in ritual acts. In the “worthless” religion, it doesn’t seem to matter what rituals or pious acts the worshiper engages in—it is all negated by an out\-of\-control tongue. A man may go through all the external motions of Christianity, yet if he tells lies or speaks unkindly or gossips or slanders or profanes God’s name, then his religion is empty. Everyone around him will see it, but he himself remains self\-deceived. “By your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned” (Matthew 12:37\). The implied contrast in the “pure and undefiled” religion that pleases God is that the worshiper keeps his [tongue under control](taming-the-tongue.html). “Whoever of you loves life and desires to see many good days, keep your tongue from evil and your lips from telling lies” (Psalm 34:12–13\). But James goes beyond just tongue control and gives examples of the religious acts God is looking for. One is outward\-focused: “Look after orphans and widows in their distress.” The other is inward\-focused: “Keep oneself from being polluted by the world” (James 1:27\). Holy living, coupled with service to others, is the key. Or, as Jesus said, “Love the Lord your God” and “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Mark 12:30–31\). “Pure and undefiled religion” happens when believers take care of the less fortunate and strive for personal purity. The right kind of religious practice involves helping those who cannot help themselves (and who cannot pay you back). As Jesus taught, “When you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous” (Luke 14:13–14\). The right kind of religious practice also requires a personal commitment to growing in Christian virtue (see 2 Peter 1:5–8\). The apostle Paul also wrote about pure and undefiled religion, i.e., the actions of those who wish to please the Lord: “If a widow has children or grandchildren, these should learn first of all to put their religion into practice by caring for their own family and so repaying their parents and grandparents, for this is pleasing to God” (1 Timothy 5:4\). Taking care of one’s family is a proper religious practice. Looking after widows and orphans and keeping oneself “unspotted” from the world (KJV) are just two practical examples of what the Christian might do who desires to please God in his or her religion. James is not trying to create an exhaustive description of what religious practice must include. He is most likely highlighting some areas of concern among the believers to whom he was writing. But the result—pure and undefiled religion—is what believers of all eras should have as their goal.
What does it mean that God is able to keep us from falling (Jude 24)?	Answer The doxology of Jude 1:24–25 says, “To him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy—to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen.” What does it mean that God is able to keep us from falling (as the KJV terms it)? In understanding the meaning of any verse, context is key. [Jude](Book-of-Jude.html) is a letter written by Jude, a half\-brother of Jesus. The letter is written to fellow believers, whom Jude addresses as “friends” (Jude 1:3, 17, 20\). According to Jude 1:3, Jude had wanted to write about salvation, but he instead felt compelled to write about the need to contend for the faith. It seems there were false converts within the church who were “ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord” (Jude 1:4\). Jude goes on to explain some of what these false believers are doing and compares their actions to other historical rebellions. Jude warns that these people will not escape judgment. Jude then goes on to exhort the believers to continue in the faith. He says not to be surprised that there are “scoffers who will follow their ungodly desires” (Jude 1:18\) as it had been prophesied. Rather than be taken in by the deceptiveness of the [false teachers](false-teachers.html) among them, they should continue to grow in the faith: “But you, dear friends, by building yourselves up in your most holy faith and praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in God’s love as you wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to bring you to eternal life” (Jude 1:20–21\). After lambasting the ungodly who had “secretly slipped in” (Jude 1:4\), explaining the serious nature of God’s judgment, and imploring his readers to live godly lives, Jude ends his epistle with a doxology. Here is where he writes that God is able to keep us from falling. Though Jude tells his readers to “keep yourselves in God’s love” (Jude 1:21\), he also points out that it is God who keeps us. Our righteousness does not come from ourselves, but from God. We are to contend for the faith and persevere. But, ultimately, our security does not rest on us. We need not fear that we will fall away from God, for it is He who keeps us upright. We rely on His power, not our own. In Jude’s song of praise, “the only wise God our Saviour” (Jude 1:25, KJV) is credited with doing two things for us: He is able to keep us from falling (literally, He keeps us unfallen), and He is able to present us faultless “before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy” (verse 24, KJV). Amid all the pitfalls of this world, including the false teaching so rampant everywhere, our Savior is able to keep us from sin and error. The false teachers Jude condemns have stumbled into sinful lifestyles, but God is able to preserve His own. One day we will stand in His very presence fully sanctified and blameless (see Colossians 1:22\). Jude writes this as an encouragement. He warns believers to be steadfast and to live a holy life. And he reassures them that God is both willing and able to purify His children. True Christians will struggle with sin (1 John 1:8–9\). We will fail. But we can trust that our God is faithful and able to keep us in His grip and to present us blameless before Himself (John 10:28–30; Romans 7–8; Philippians 1:6\). Not only can He do this, but He does it with great joy. This is why we praise Him so greatly.
Who was Cyprian of Carthage?	Answer Cyprian of Carthage was a third\-century leader of the Christian church. He was one of the earliest, strongest proponents of the idea that only the church, particularly the bishops of the church, had the power to administer [sacraments](seven-Catholic-sacraments.html) and determine who was or was not worthy of those rituals. His debate over apostate Christians laid the groundwork for modern Catholicism’s stance on sacraments given by un\-approved ministers. At the same time, Cyprian rejected the idea of a single bishop—e.g., a Pope—having authority over other church leaders. When Roman persecution came to Carthage, a great number of self\-professed Christians compromised their witness in order to save their lives. Some obtained signed waivers proving they had sacrificed to Roman deities in order to avoid suffering at the hands of the government. When the persecution died down, many of these believers sought to re\-join the church. Some Christians, including those who had held fast to their faith and had been brutalized, welcomed them with open arms. Others insisted that these apostates be permanently excommunicated. Cyprian’s leadership struck something of a middle ground between these two extremes. Those who wanted to rejoin the church would need to show some kind of contrition or [penance](penance-Bible.html). Notably, Cyprian discouraged the attempts of apostates to obtain waivers from other Christians vouching for their sincerity. Cyprian’s objection was not over the idea that forgiveness required human approval; rather, he objected to the idea of [laypersons](clergy-and-laity.html) (non\-priests) having the authority to make such pronouncements. According to Cyprian, only penance administered by a bishop was valid. Cyprian’s definition of penance was severe, but his middle ground left the door open for reconciliation in a way that satisfied most Christians of his era. Some, however, rejected this approach strongly enough to break away and form their own sect: the [Novatians](Novatianism.html), named after Novatian, the Roman bishop who led the new faction. Cyprian’s approach to the Novatian Schism strongly influenced later Catholic interpretations of the role of the church and the priesthood. Contrary to what Cyprian espoused, Novatian insisted that any person who denied Christ under persecution could never be restored. In other words, those who followed Novatian considered apostasy a mortal sin: unforgivable and permanent. This attitude came hand\-in\-hand with a view that only those who were subject to a bishop of the general church—literally, the “catholic” (universal) church—could be saved. After Novatian’s teaching was declared a heresy, Cyprian ruled that sacraments such as baptism obtained under a Novatian bishop were invalid. In broad strokes, this means Cyprian agreed with the idea that only those receiving sacraments from officials in the “true” church were really saved. His disagreement was not over the role of sacraments but whether Novatian bishops were authorized to administer them. Cyprian endorsed the idea that only sacraments administered by a “legitimate” bishop held the power of salvation. However, during this same controversy, Cyprian rejected the idea of any one Christian bishop having special authority over the others. Stephen, the acting Bishop of Rome, claimed—for the first time—that, since his office descended from Peter, he was a higher authority than other Christian leaders. Using that reasoning, he attempted to coerce Cyprian to change his views on rebaptism. Cyprian refused both Stephen’s command and his reasoning, effectively rejecting the modern Catholic concept of [the papacy](pope-papacy.html). This disagreement was unresolved at Stephen’s death. From a historical and theological perspective, Cyprian has proved to be a controversial figure. His stance on the “[mother church](mother-church.html)” is often cited by Catholic theologians in support of their views. At the same time, his stance on the universal equality of all bishops—without any singular leader—is frequently referenced by those who oppose Catholic theology.
What is the Wycliffe Bible?	Answer [John Wycliffe](John-Wycliffe.html) (c.1329–1384\) was an Oxford professor and theologian who became concerned with the growing power, corruption, and wealth that he observed in the papacy and in the Roman Catholic Church. Wycliffe (also spelled Wyclif or Wiclif) began speaking and writing against the church’s errors, teaching that salvation was only available through the suffering of Christ, not the power of the church. As Wycliffe gained followers, Rome took notice and eventually pressured Oxford to remove him from his position. Wycliffe was convinced that the English people needed a Bible that they could understand in their own language. In 1380, he completed the first English translation of the New Testament, and two years later the entire Bible was completed. (Although Wycliffe sponsored the translation and was held responsible for it by the religious authorities, there is evidence that a number of translators worked with him.) Approximately 60 years before the invention of the printing press, the Wycliffe Bible was published and copied by hand. The first edition of the Wycliffe Bible was a word\-for\-word translation of the [Latin Vulgate](Latin-Vulgate.html) (the accepted Bible of the Catholic Church) into Middle English (the language of Chaucer). The translation followed the Latin so closely that the meaning in English was often obscured. Six years after the release of the entire Bible (and four years after Wycliffe’s death), a follower, John Purvey, published a revision that was much more readable in English. This Bible was the dominant English Bible until [William Tyndale’s](William-Tyndale.html) translation almost 150 years later. The Catholic Church condemned the Wycliffe Bible. Anyone caught reading it was subject to heavy fines. Some of Wycliffe’s supporters were burned at the stake with the Wycliffe Bible hung around their necks. However, the prohibition seems to have only made people more interested in reading the banned book. Not only did the English people become more interested in the Bible, but their desire for literacy also increased. At the Council of Constance (1414–1418\), [Jan Hus](Jan-Hus.html), one of Wycliffe’s followers, was condemned and burned at the stake. Wycliffe’s writings were also condemned, and his bones were dug up and burned, and then the ashes were scattered. Because of the impact of Wycliffe’s teaching and his translation of the Bible into the vernacular, he is often referred to as “the Morning Star of the [Reformation](Protestant-Reformation.html).” Today, the Wycliffe translation of the Bible is readily available online both in Middle and Modern English. Wycliffe Bible Translators, an organization dedicated to translating the Bible into the language of every people group on earth, continues the work that Wycliffe began almost 750 years ago.
What is the Qur’an?	Answer The Qur’an—often spelled as Quran or Koran—is the primary holy text of the [Islamic faith](Islam.html). According to Muslim beliefs, the words of the Qur’an were dictated to Muhammad, who relayed them orally to his followers. The term Qur’an literally means “the recitation.” This message was delivered by Muhammad approximately 600 years after the earthly ministry of Jesus. Islam considers the Qur’an to be the perfect, eternal, beautiful message of Allah and the only necessary proof of Muhammad’s status as a prophet. The words of the Qur’an were kept in purely oral form until after Muhammad’s death. At that time, the text was assembled into writing through the efforts of several early Islamic leaders. The Qur’an is shorter than the New Testament of the Bible, but, according to Islamic theology, it can only be truly understood when read in its original Arabic dialect. Islamic theology is based on both the Qur’an and various oral traditions collected over the centuries. Islam teaches that [Muhammad](who-was-Muhammad.html) was accosted by the angel Gabriel and told to memorize a certain message. For several years, Muhammad kept this message a family secret, sometimes wondering if he had been attacked by a demon. Once convinced otherwise, he began to preach according to these received words. Over the next twenty\-plus years, Muhammad gradually delivered more and more of the message. His followers memorized his words, maintaining an entirely oral record of the Qur’an. Only minor portions were inscribed on leaves, rocks, and bones. The central message of the Qur’an is that mankind has drifted from the truths that Allah presented to men like Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus. Per Muhammad, man has corrupted the words and message of Allah. This particular “recitation” is meant to be the final, authoritative statement from Allah to mankind. Man is called on to submit to Allah: the word Islam literally means “submission.” Muslims are also commanded by the Qur’an to follow Allah’s instructions and to employ various methods of “struggle” (jihad) to spread this submission worldwide. While the Judeo\-Christian Scriptures include a large amount of history as well as theology, the Qur’an is overwhelmingly theological. Most of the text is devoted to statements about the nature of Allah, creation, mankind’s obligations, and the afterlife. Recording the Qur’an: Abu Bakr and Uthman After Muhammad died, survival of his message was entirely reliant on the hafiz—men who had memorized the entire Qur’an—and qurra—men who had memorized large portions of the text and were adept at reciting it. These sources rapidly dwindled. The Islamic Empire’s rapid military expansion resulted in many hafiz and qurra being killed in battle. In response, Islamic leaders began the process of recording the Qur’an in written form. This involved the memory of the remaining hafiz, as well as collecting various written fragments. The result was a single manuscript, kept by the leader of Islam, Caliph Abu Bakr. However, as Islam continued to spread, variations within the Qur’an began to arise. This was due to continued oral memorization, alternate writings on leaves and bones, and differences of opinion between Muslims on what Muhammad had actually said. These disagreements were serious enough to spark violence. A succeeding caliph, Uthman, ordered all written copies of the Qur’an, including scraps, to be collected. These were given to a panel of scholars who were tasked with determining the “correct” words and pronunciations. Afterwards, Uthman sent a single copy of the written Qur’an to each of the major regions of the Empire, and ordered all prior copies—in all forms—to be destroyed. This entire process was completed within thirty years of Muhammad’s death. This stands in stark contrast to the history of the New Testament. The Qur’an was purposefully compiled—at least twice—after Muhammad’s death. Neither process produced a large number of physical copies. This process was entirely under the direction of the leaders of the Islamic Empire. After the second collection, all prior records were purposefully destroyed. In short, this means that the Qur’an we see today is the result of a tightly\-controlled process, under the direction of a very few people, very soon after it was first written down. There is no way to know if or to what extent this might have changed from the original. The New Testament, on the other hand, was [originally written](who-wrote-the-Bible.html) by various authors at various times and places. These words spread during a time when Christianity was functionally illegal. Texts were copied freely, independently, and often. This was done without any central control, and without any restrictions. The end result is what we see today: thousands and thousands of surviving manuscripts from an extremely broad geography. The advantage to this is that no one group, church, or government ever had the ability to control what those manuscripts said. Any copyist errors or changes stand out clearly. By the time the Roman Empire cared about the Bible—three hundred years later—manuscripts had been in circulation for centuries. At that point, it was impossible to replace the texts with some controlled version. In short, this means it is far more reasonable to assert that the current text of the Bible represents the original words of the authors than to make the same claim about the modern Qur’an representing the original words of Muhammad. *Structure of the Qur’an: Ayat* and Surat** The Qur’an is composed of 114 chapters, or surat. Each individual chapter, or surah, is typically given a name for easier identification, based on the content. Rather than being arranged chronologically, these chapters are ordered more or less from longest to shortest. Those with more verses, or more ayat, are generally the earlier chapters, while the shorter ones are placed at the end. As with the Bible, the length of any particular verse, or ayah, greatly varies. Not only are the Qur’an’s chapters presented in non\-chronological order, the topic under discussion from one verse to the next often varies wildly. All together, the text of the Qur’an is much shorter than that of the Bible. Depending on whether one is counting words or letters, the relative size may vary. By most estimates, the Qur’an is slightly more than half as long as the New Testament and less than one\-fourth the size of the Old Testament. The Qur’an can be divided into two major categories of content: Medinan and Meccan. These correspond to the two major phases of Muhammad’s ministry, the first in the city of [Mecca](Mecca-in-Islam.html) and the second in the city of Medina. The character of Islam, of Muhammad’s message, and the words of the Qur’an demonstrate a noticeable change when Muhammad left Mecca for Medina. In Mecca, Muhammad was a relatively powerless, persecuted figure. Meccan surat tend to emphasize coexistence, non\-coercion, peace, and so forth. These are the ayat most often cited by those claiming Islam to be a religion of peace. However, after moving to Medina, Muhammad became a powerful warlord. The later Medinan surat, from the end of Muhammad’s life and the early days of the Islamic Empire, are notably more aggressive. These form the bulk of verses cited by those who believe Islam endorses aggression and violence. Interestingly, Islam teaches a concept known as abrogation, or “replacement.” Under this concept, a surah or ayah that is given later is considered more authoritative than surat or ayat given earlier. In literal terms, the later statement replaces and overrides the former. Abrogation is often referenced in discussions on contradictions within the Qur’an, especially with regards to the difference in tone between the earlier Meccan and later Medinan texts. *Interpretation and Use of the Qur’an: [Hadith](hadith-in-Islam.html) and Tafsir*** The Qur’an does not occupy exactly the same place in Islamic religion as the Bible does in Christianity. There are strong parallels but also major differences. The Qur’an is believed by Muslims to be the eternal, perfect message of Allah, which is actually more a parallel to Jesus: the eternal, perfect message (Word) of God. Interpretation of the Qur’an is more complex than for other religious texts. Most Muslims cannot engage in deep study of the Arabic Qur’an, just as most Christians cannot engage in professional\-level studies of the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts of the Bible. The vast majority of Muslims worldwide do not speak the Arabic dialect in which the Qur’an is written. Christians have access to translations of the Bible. However, according to Islamic theology, the words of the Qur’an can be fully understood only in their original Arabic dialect. According to Muslims, the miracle of the Qur’an is in its supposedly perfect language and structure. “Translating” the Qur’an, then, is impossible according to Islam. Any change of the text, such as into another language, makes the end result an interpretation. This is frequently offered as reason why non\-Muslims fail to accept the miracle of the words of Allah. The short length and primarily oral nature of the early Qur’an encouraged the development of hadith, or oral traditions. Islamic scholars collected various comments made by those who knew Muhammad personally and that purport to be memories of Muhammad’s own remarks on the Qur’an and the correct application of Islam. These comments are generally from Muhammad’s wives, lieutenants, or close associates. Not all of these traditional tidbits are accepted by every Muslim. In fact, the differences between major schools of Islamic theology can be coarsely summarized by which hadith they accept or reject. Because of the language barrier, the chaotic nature of the text, and the existence of the hadith, the Qur’an is significantly more obscure than the Christian Bible. The average Muslim does not have access to all of the thousands and thousands of variant collections of oral traditions that form the hadith. However, it is reasonable to say that the Qur’an’s role in Islam cannot be properly understood without the hadith. In this respect, the Qur’an is only part of a Muslim’s religious texts, albeit the most important. As a result, most Muslims rely heavily on some form of interpretation\-commentary in order to understand and apply the Qur’an. These commentaries are called tafsir, which generally combine explanation of context with the opinion of various Islamic scholars. Competing Claims: The Qur’an and the Bible Islam has a complex relationship with the Bible, in no small part because of statements made in the Qur’an. In theory, Muslims believe that Allah (God) gave written revelations to men like Moses and David. This, for them, also includes Jesus, whom they refer to as Isa. In some places, the Qur’an seems to suggest that the books given to these earlier men ought to be studied. In other places, it seems to suggest that those words have been corrupted. It also claims Allah will not allow his words to be changed. In some places, the Qur’an suggests that Christians worship a trinity of God, Jesus, and Mary—a gross misunderstanding of Christian teachings. In short, the Bible stands as the strongest empirical evidence against the validity of the Qur’an. There are copies of the Bible, available in museums today, written centuries before the birth of Muhammad. The claim that the text of the Bible has changed cannot be sustained. And yet that text does not agree with the Qur’an or the Qur’an’s claims about it. While the Qur’an is held in high esteem by Muslims, it does not represent exactly the same position within the Islamic faith as the Bible does within Christianity. Its composition, character, and history are extremely different from those of the Bible. And, in the end, the validity of the Qur’an simply cannot survive a sustained comparison with the Christian Scriptures.
Should a Christian be a monk?	Answer Although monastic tradition has been partially inspired by biblical figures such as Elijah, John the Baptist, and even Jesus Himself (during His 40 days in the wilderness), [monasticism](Christian-asceticism-monasticism.html) is not a practice promoted or even mentioned in the Bible. Monks and nuns follow man\-made traditions that are not taught in the Word of God. The Pharisees prescribed many man\-made rules for others. In a way, the Mosaic Law had become salvation to the Pharisees, rather than a tool by which God shows us our need for a Savior (see Romans 3:20\). Jesus came to fulfill the Law (Matthew 5:17\); because no one can live up to God’s righteous standard, Christ’s atonement for sin and the indwelling of His Spirit is the only way sinners can come before God and be made righteous (Ephesians 2:8–10; 1 John 5:11–13\). Just as the Pharisees bypassed this truth with their many rules, so monasticism can dangerously sway toward a self\-righteousness rather than “a righteousness that is by faith” (Romans 9:30\). Centuries before the first Christian monks began to cloister themselves, Paul warned the church of Colossae concerning rules imposed by men: “Why, as though you still belonged to the world, do you submit to its rules: ‘Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!’? These rules . . . are based on merely human commands and teachings” (Colossians 2:20–22\). Paul opposed such religious traps in part because they were ineffective in producing true holiness: “Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom with their self\-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence” (verse 23\). One’s sanctification does not depend on following a monastic rule or any other code of human regulations. The call to follow Jesus is a call to die to our own will and submit to God’s will for our lives (Romans 6:1–8, 13; Colossians 2:20–3:3; Mark 12:28–34\). It is not, however, a call to asceticism. Christians are not forbidden from enjoying the things this world has to offer. Although Paul admonishes the wealthy to not put their hope in riches, he states that God “richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment” (1 Timothy 6:17\). Of course the Bible forbids sin, but placing further strictures on one’s behavior, except to accommodate a weaker brother (Romans 14:21\), goes beyond Scripture’s advice. One of the problems with a Christian becoming a monk or nun, apart from the extra\-biblical origin of the role, is that monasticism naturally divides Christians into two camps: those in “religious” vocations and those in “secular” vocations. Martin Luther, a former Augustinian monk (who married a former nun), wrote against the idea of a “super\-Christian” inherent in monasticism: “Monastic vows rest on the false assumption that there is a special calling, a vocation, to which superior Christians are invited to observe the counsels of perfection while ordinary Christians fulfil only the commands; but there simply is no special religious vocation since the call of God comes to each at the common tasks.” In other words, a married man working as a circus clown can be just as holy as a monk of the most austere variety. This is not to say that no good has come from monks or nuns who dedicated their lives to pious pursuits. Some, such as Brother Lawrence, have left profound writings that can be of aid in the Christian walk. Others have been forces of good in the fields of education and health care. And some, such as Gregor Mendel, have led scientific advances. One good question to ask might be “what is the purpose of becoming a monk?” Is the answer “to better or perfect myself”? The Bible is clear that the key to the Christian life is faith, not rule\-keeping: “Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard? Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh?” (Galatians 3:2–3\). Or perhaps the reason for becoming a monk is to escape the temptations of the world. The problem is that we are tempted internally, not just externally (James 1:14\). The Bible never advocates escape from the world; in fact, it tells us to engage the world (see 1 Corinthians 5:9–10\). Jesus was criticized for eating “with tax collectors and sinners” (Matthew 9:11\); obviously, He never cloistered Himself. Should a Christian submit himself to God’s will and obey His calling? Always, the answer to that is “Yes!” Should a Christian be a monk or a nun? Given the lack of biblical precedent, the requirements to adhere to man\-made rules, and the problems inherent in asceticism, we would say, “No.”
What is the meaning of “from glory to glory” in 2 Corinthians 3:18?	Answer “But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit” (2 Corinthians 3:18, NASB). With those few words—“from glory to glory”—Paul sums up our entire Christian life, from redemption and sanctification on earth, to our glorious eternal welcome into heaven. There is a great deal of content packed into those few words. It’s all so important that Paul labors at great length, from 2 Corinthians 2:14 through the end of chapter 5, to open his readers’ eyes to a great truth. Let’s see why that truth matters so much. The same Greek word for “glory” is used twice in the phrase from glory to glory, yet each usage refers to something different. The first “glory” is that of the [Old Covenant](old-covenant.html)—the Law of Moses—while the second is that of the [New Covenant](new-covenant.html), the gospel of Jesus Christ. Both have astonishing splendor. The Old Covenant was given to Moses directly from God, written by God’s own finger (Exodus 31:18\). That root of our Christian faith is glorious indeed; it’s the glory we’re coming “from.” Yet the New Covenant, the glory we’re going “to,” far surpasses that of the Old. The transformation is from the glory of the Law. Like the stone it was written on, the Law was inflexible and absolute, applying to all Israelites without much regard for individual circumstances (Hebrews 10:28\). Though holy, good, and righteous in itself (Romans 7:12\), the Law was, for us sinners, the letter that kills us (2 Corinthians 3:6\). The Law was an external force to control behavior. In addition, stone, despite its strength, is earthly and will eventually wear away. The Law was merely a temporary guardian (Galatians 3:23–25\) until something better came along. The transformation is to the glory of the New Covenant, which far surpasses the Old in every way. It forgives us of our sin and gives us sinners life (John 6:63\). It is written on believers’ hearts by the Holy Spirit (Jeremiah 31:33; 2 Corinthians 3:3\), so our obedience to God springs up from within us by God\-given desires rather than by threats of legal punishment. In place of a cold set of writings as a guide for pleasing God, we now have Father, Son and Holy Spirit making their home with us, fellowshipping in loving intimacy, teaching us everything we must know and do (John 14:23; 16:13\). That position in Christ is as permanent, eternal, and spiritual as God Himself, rather than temporary and earthly. Paul is intent on directing Christians to focus on the spiritual glory of the New Covenant rather than the physical glory of the Old, as many Jews in his day refused to do. He compared the two types of glory by recalling how Moses absorbed and reflected God’s glory for a time after being in his presence (2 Corinthians 3:7–11, 13; cf. Exodus 34:29–35\). Though Moses’ glow had a spiritual cause, there was nothing spiritual about the effect—any person, regardless of his relationship with God, could see the glow on Moses’ face, which he covered with a veil. Not so the glory of the New Covenant. That can be seen only with a believer’s spiritual eyes—what Paul is doing his best to open, so that we discern the gospel’s glory. So he writes, “For God, who said, ‘Let light shine out of darkness,’ made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of God’s glory displayed in the face of Christ” (2 Corinthians 4:6\). But, as we move from glory to glory, there’s something even more important about the glory of the New Covenant that Christians must understand: its supernatural power to transform us. And that brings us to God’s ultimate purpose and destination for every believer, to transform us into the image of His own beloved Son (2 Corinthians 3:18; Romans 8:28–30; Philippians 3:20–21\). Before he finishes with the topic of being transformed from glory to glory, Paul presents yet one more astonishing claim: “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!” (2 Corinthians 5:17\). This is the invitation the Lord makes to all Christians, to have our lives radically transformed here and now, by opening our eyes to see the glorious journey He is taking us on “from glory to glory.”
Why should I not have an abortion?	Answer The decision whether or not to have an abortion is painful, complicated, and difficult. If you are willing to listen, we’d like to present some reasons why you should not have an abortion. There are good reasons, spiritual, practical, emotional, and factual, why you should not have an abortion. If you are looking for help regarding abortion, please contact "Found \& Woven" ([www.foundandwoven.com](http://www.foundandwoven.com)) for free resources and counseling. An [abortion](abortion-Bible.html) is the deliberate termination of a human life while it is still in the womb. We know it is life because it grows and develops. We know it is human because basic biology teaches us that like produces like. God established this truth in the first chapter of Genesis when He commanded that all living things were to reproduce “after their kind” (Genesis 1:11, 24, 28\). Since the parents are human beings, the unborn life within the mother is also a human being. So abortion is the intentional extermination of that unborn human being. That is one good reason to not have an abortion. Every woman’s situation is different, and abortions are sought for many reasons. To arrive at a reasonable answer to why a woman should not have an abortion, she must ask herself the reverse of this question: Why should I have an abortion? Why should I terminate my child’s life while it is still in the womb? At this point, pro\-choice advocates often create a smokescreen by introducing the issues of rape and incest. While both rape and incest are horrible crimes and should be punished by law, the fact remains that the percentage of women seeking abortions for either of these reasons is extremely small. And this smokescreen does not address the fact that, regardless of how or why a child was conceived, he or she is as fully human as any other child. The circumstances of conception have nothing to do with the viability of the infant. If abortion is the willful murder of an innocent, growing fetus, then it is still murder even if the child was conceived through violence or incestuous relations. Murder of the innocent does not erase the devastation caused by evil. When we remove the smokescreen, the possible reasons for seeking abortion are down to two: personal preference or to save the life of the mother. Since even fewer cases exist where abortion is required to save the life of the mother, that argument gets far more press than it deserves. Modern medicine can do miraculous things in treating pregnant women without harming their babies, so this issue is nothing more than a red herring meant to distract from the real issue: personal preference. In recent years, the medical argument has been stretched to include the idea of “mental health of the mother,” which is a vague term that can include any feelings of fear or ambiguity the pregnancy may have evoked in a woman. This argument is merely an extension of the smokescreen and needs to be categorized as such. Some women are convinced that their lives and futures will be ruined to carry this child to term. However, crisis pregnancy centers partner with mothers throughout pregnancy and help them choose the best options for both mother and baby. These options can include aid if she keeps the baby or adoption assistance if she decides to go that route. Due to rampant sexual immorality in our world, unplanned pregnancies abound. When modern culture decided to separate sexuality from morality, the problems got worse. God never intended any such separation. He created sex for the marriage relationship and for children to be welcomed into that marriage, regardless of whether or not they were a surprise to the parents (Genesis 1:23–24; Psalm 127:3\). Scripture is clear that every human being has intrinsic value simply because every human being is a unique creation of God. There may be accidental parents, but there are no accidental children (Psalm 139\). A man and a woman can partner with God in the creation of a unique human being, but the man and woman are not the creators of that human being. As many infertile couples can attest, desire for children plus sexual activity does not necessarily produce a child. God says that life is in His hands. He takes strong issue with those who believe they have the right to murder innocent children. In fact, God brought harsh judgment upon nations who offered their babies to false gods (2 Chronicles 28:3; Jeremiah 19:5; Ezekiel 20:31\). Why do we imagine He is not equally outraged when we offer our babies to our gods of culture, money, fame, or convenience? So the final answer is that a woman should not have an abortion because it is the murder of an innocent human being. God’s command against murder precedes the Ten Commandments and the Law of Moses (Genesis 9:5–6\). This was a universal decree for all humanity. God is the only Giver of life, and only He can dictate when that life should end. Murder is the most arrogant sin a human being can commit because it requires the murderer to usurp God’s right to determine the lifespan of another person. Murder sets a human being in the place of God. In Genesis 9:5 God says, “For your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. . . . From each human being . . . I will demand an accounting for the life of another human being.” Those who willingly participate in an abortion must answer to the Creator of that life. However, abortion is not the unpardonable sin. When Jesus offered Himself on the cross in our place, abortion was among the sins He suffered for. He took murder, rape, incest, and abortion upon Himself and paid the price we owe God (2 Corinthians 5:21\). When we come to Jesus in faith, confessing our sin and turning away from it, God offers a full pardon. He considers His Son’s death and resurrection as sufficient payment for violating His commands. But He also does not take that payment lightly. Forgiveness does not offer us an excuse to continue heaping sin upon His Son’s shoulders (Romans 6:1–6\). Even when the sin of abortion has been washed away by the blood of Jesus, the effects remain. Women who have had abortions often suffer years of shame and regret. Some have fertility problems later on, caused by violating their bodies in the unnatural act of tearing a growing fetus from its mother’s womb. Many women who have had abortions live every day with the knowledge of what they have done and are haunted by thoughts such as, “He would be six years old today,” or “She would have graduated high school this year.” Those who naturally miscarry have some of those same thoughts, but they come without the guilt and regret abortion brings. Abortion can seem like a quick and easy solution to the problem of an unplanned pregnancy. But sin is never the best way. Never. Sin has eternal repercussions that it never advertises up front. Sin costs more than we want to pay and hurts more than we thought it would. You should not have an abortion because you and your baby deserve better than that. Seek God’s answers instead.
Who is the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople?	Answer The Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople is the spiritual leader and representative of the [Eastern Orthodox Church](Eastern-Orthodox-church.html) (also called the Orthodox Catholic Church). In this context, the word ecumenical means “universal” or “worldwide,” patriarch means “head of a church,” and Constantinople refers to what is now Istanbul, Turkey. This city was the capital of the Eastern Roman ([Byzantine](Byzantine-Period.html)) Empire from the 4th through the 11th centuries and the center of Eastern Christianity. There are about 300 million Orthodox Christians who look to the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople for guidance and spiritual care. The official title of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople is “His Most Divine All\-Holiness the Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome and Ecumenical Patriarch.” He is seen as the successor of [Andrew the apostle](Andrew-in-the-Bible.html), who visited areas along the northern part of the Black Sea. According to Orthodox tradition, Andrew reached Kiev on his missionary journeys. Later, Princess Olga of Kiev converted to Christianity, and eventually her grandson, Vladimir the Great, made Byzantine Rite Christianity the official religion in Kiev. This marked the birth of what became the Russian Orthodox Church, part of the Eastern Orthodox Church. There are thirteen self\-governing (autocephalous) churches within Eastern Orthodoxy: the British Orthodox Church, the [Serbian Orthodox Church](Serbian-Orthodox-Church.html), the Orthodox Church of Finland, the [Russian Orthodox Church](Russian-Orthodox-Church.html), the [Syrian Orthodox Church](Syriac-Orthodox-Church.html), the [Ukrainian Orthodox Church](Ukrainian-Orthodox-Church.html), the [Bulgarian Orthodox Church](Bulgarian-Orthodox-Church.html), the [Romanian Orthodox Church](Romanian-Orthodox-Church.html), the [Antiochian Orthodox Church](Antiochian-Orthodox-Church.html), the [Greek Orthodox Church](Greek-Orthodox-Church.html), the Church of Alexandria, the Church of Jerusalem, and the Orthodox Church in America. Each of these churches has its own head bishop. The Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople holds the honorary title and is the closest thing to a counterpart to the Pope in the Roman Catholic Church. However, the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople does not exercise the same authority as the Catholic Pope and has no power to interfere with the twelve other Orthodox communions. He is known as primus inter pares (“first among equals”). Eastern Orthodox churches maintain that Christ is the head of the church. In recent decades, the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople has used his position as the primary representative of Eastern Orthodoxy to meet with world leaders, host inter\-faith conferences with Muslims and Jews, and promote various causes including environmentalism, human rights, and religious freedom. The current Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, His All\-Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew I, received a Congressional Gold Medal from the United States in 1997\.
Who was Joab in the Bible?	Answer Joab was a son of Zeruiah, King David’s sister (1 Chronicles 2:13–17\) and was therefore one of David’s nephews. Joab’s brothers were two of David’s brave warriors, Abishai and Asahel. Joab was positioned as commander of David’s armies because of his victory over the Jebusites, resulting in the possession of the city of Jerusalem. It was through this victory that Jerusalem became “the city of David” (1 Chronicles 11:4–9\). Joab fought and won many battles for the king, but his personal lack of self\-control was problematic. In a war against the forces of Ish\-Bosheth, Joab’s brother Asahel was killed by [Abner](Abner-in-the-Bible.html), the commander of Ish\-Bosheth’s armies. Joab was furious and pursued Abner to kill him, but Abner escaped (2 Samuel 3:12–32\). Later, after Abner swore allegiance to David, Joab’s fuse blew, and his desire to avenge his brother’s blood drove him to deceive and murder Abner (verses 26–27\). This action deeply grieved David, but the king felt unable to bring justice against the mighty Joab (verse 39\). Instead, David pronounced a curse over Joab and his future descendants: “May his blood fall on the head of Joab and on his whole family! May Joab’s family never be without someone who has a running sore or leprosy or who leans on a crutch or who falls by the sword or who lacks food” (verse 29\). As the commander of David’s armies, Joab was provided many victories by God, but Joab caused much grief to the king and to Israel. His anger and perhaps the power of his position drove him to poor decisions at times. In addition to his murder of Abner, Joab killed his own cousin, [Amasa](Amasa-in-the-Bible.html)—and his betrayal was Judas\-style, accompanied by a kiss: “Joab said to Amasa, ‘How are you, my brother?’ Then Joab took Amasa by the beard with his right hand to kiss him. Amasa was not on his guard against the dagger in Joab’s hand, and Joab plunged it into his belly, and his intestines spilled out on the ground. Without being stabbed again, Amasa died” (2 Samuel 20:9–10\). Joab disobeyed King David’s command to spare [Absalom’s life](who-was-Absalom.html), himself striking Absalom with three javelins (2 Samuel 18\). David mourned the death of his son Absalom, a response that was sternly reprimanded by Joab (2 Samuel 19:1–8\). It was also Joab who, in accordance with David’s command, placed Uriah the Hittite at the front of the battle to be killed, so that David could feel justified in marrying [Uriah’s widow](David-and-Bathsheba.html) (2 Samuel 11\). Joab, for all his faults, was obviously a capable man of war and valiant on the battlefield. And he ought to be given credit for his loyalty to David for almost four decades. Joab also counseled David when David sinfully desired to take a census; if David had heeded Joab’s advice, he could have spared his nation the plague that befell Israel (2 Samuel 24\). When David was on his death bed, Joab conspired with [Adonijah](Adonijah-in-the-Bible.html) to install Adonijah as the next king, instead of Solomon (1 Kings 1\). This action, plus Joab’s other rash decisions, vengeful murders, and inability to take certain important orders, finally drove David over the edge. David commanded Solomon to ensure Joab’s execution, an act that was carried out by Benaniah as Joab was clinging to the [horns of the altar](horns-of-the-altar.html) in hopes of finding clemency (1 Kings 2:5–6, 28–34\).
What does it mean that the greatest of these is love?	Answer First Corinthians 13:13 says, “And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.” This comes just after Paul’s eloquent and famous description of what true love—[agape love](agape-love.html)—is. There are several ways in which love can be said to be the greatest. First Corinthians 13:13 lists love along with faith and hope as a gift that lasts forever. The lasting nature of faith, hope, and love make them greater than all other gifts of the Spirit, which are temporary; the gifts of prophecy, tongues, and knowledge are mentioned in 1 Corinthians 13:8 as coming to an end. Of the three “forever gifts,” love is the greatest. Love is greater than faith and hope in that both faith and hope depend on love for their existence. Without love, there can be no true [faith](Bible-faith.html); a loveless faith is nothing but an empty religious exercise. As Paul says, “If I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing” (1 Corinthians 13:2\). Without love, there can be no genuine [hope](Bible-hope.html); a loveless hope is an oxymoron, because we can’t truly hope for something that we do not love. Faith and hope are dead, sterile things if not accompanied by love. One of the reasons that love is the greatest gift is that it is essential to God’s nature. First John 4:8 tells us that God is love. The book of John and John’s three letters are replete with the theme of love. God gives us His love, and we reflect that love back to Him: “We love because he first loved us” (1 John 4:19\). Jesus said, “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. My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. . . . 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. This is my command: Love each other” (John 15:9–17\). Here we see that love is something that has always existed among the persons of the Trinity. Love has no beginning and does not end. And this is the love into which we are invited. Jesus desired for future believers to be part of His love as well: “I have made you known to them, and will continue to make you known in order that the love you have for me may be in them and that I myself may be in them” (John 17:26\). Jesus taught that the greatest two commandments both include love, the greatest gift: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments” (Matthew 22:37–40\). John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift. Love is core to God’s character and central to the Christian life. The law of Christ is to love God and love others. Love infuses all that God does and should infuse all that we do. “Love never fails ” (1 Corinthians 13:8\), and it will never cease. Because of this, love is greater than even [hope and faith](difference-faith-hope.html).
Who was King Jehu in the Bible?	Answer Before his reign as king, Jehu functioned as a commander in the army of Ahab (2 Kings 9:5, 25\) in the northern kingdom of Israel. Jehu was the son of Jehoshaphat, although he is more commonly mentioned as son of Nimshi, his grandfather, perhaps because Nimshi was more well\-known. Jehu’s name, meaning “Yahweh is he,” portrays well his future, God\-given task: to obliterate the house of Ahab along with the worship of Baal that pervaded Israel at the time. Jehu was a reformer of sorts who was used by God to clean up the mess that Ahab had made. Of [King Ahab](Ahab-and-Jezebel.html) it is recorded that he “did more evil in the eyes of the Lord than any of those before him” (1 Kings 16:30\). Marrying Jezebel, daughter of the king of the Sidonians, Ahab was seduced into her idolatrous worship of [Baal](who-Baal.html) and [Ashtoreth](who-Asherah.html). Although God was patient for a time with Ahab, his many sins eventually brought God’s judgment upon his family line (1 Kings 21:20–22\). This judgment first lands upon Ahab’s own head, as he is shot and killed in a battle against the Arameans (1 Kings 22:34–38\). God chose Jehu as one of three men who would enact His judgment upon Ahab’s family. God told the prophet [Elijah](life-Elijah.html), “Anoint Hazael king over Aram. Also, anoint Jehu son of Nimshi king over Israel, and anoint Elisha son of Shaphat from Abel Meholah to succeed you as prophet. Jehu will put to death any who escape the sword of Hazael, and Elisha will put to death any who escape the sword of Jehu” (1 Kings 19:15–17\). One way or another, Ahab’s dynasty would be destroyed. God also chose Jehu to be the king of Israel. After he was anointed king, Jehu immediately took steps to secure the throne. Knowing that Joram, son of Ahab, had recently gone to Jezreel to recover from wounds in a battle against the Arameans, Jehu ordered his men to seal the city so that no one could alert Joram of Jehu’s anointing (2 Kings 9:1–16\). Jehu made haste to Jezreel and killed two of Ahab’s progeny—Joram, king of northern Israel; and Ahaziah, king of Judah (2 Kings 9:14–29\). Jehu then proceeded to Jezebel’s palace in Jezreel, where the queen stood watching for him at her window. At Jehu’s command, eunuchs surrounding Jezebel threw her down from the window. Jezebel’s blood splattered over the pavement, and her body was eaten by dogs (2 Kings 9:30–37\). Jehu left no man standing who was in alliance with King Ahab, as God had commanded long before through Elijah. Entering the temple of Baal, Jehu slaughtered all the priests of Baal and destroyed the temple and its sacred stone, thus [eradicating Baal worship](Jehu-Baal-worship.html) in Israel (2 Kings 10:23–28\). The Lord blessed Jehu for his obedience, granting him a dynasty that would last to the fourth generation (2 Kings 10:30\). However, because Jehu continued to hold on to the idolatrous worship of King Jeroboam (2 Kings 10:29, 31; 12:26–30\), God began to reduce the size of Israel, gradually giving them over to the power of even Hazael of Syria (2 Kings 10:32–33\). Jehu reigned over Israel a total of twenty\-eight years and was succeeded by his son [Jehoahaz](King-Jehoahaz.html) (2 Kings 10:35–36\). Through Jehu we can learn that, although it is true that God blesses and grants success to those who seek to obey Him, God also can and will pull away His blessing from one who willfully chooses to live in sin. As Jesus says in Matthew 6:24, “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other.” We cannot serve God while continuing to hold on to false gods. As Joshua said, we must “choose for \[ourselves] this day whom \[we] will serve” (Joshua 24:15\). Where does your allegiance lie?
What are the different forms of church polity?	Answer Church polity ([church government](church-government.html)) refers to how a church’s leadership is structured. While there are many variations and nuances found within individual churches (and these are too numerous to list), essentially all are variations of one of the following: episcopal, presbyterian, and congregational. (The subject may be complicated by the fact that there are denominations known by each of these names.) Every church is either independent with no higher authority outside of that local church, or it is part of a larger group or denomination with leaders who exert control from outside the church. One type of church polity is episcopal. The word episcopal is from the Greek word episkopos, which is often translated in English as “bishop” or “overseer.” This form of church government functions with a single leader, often called a bishop. The Roman Catholic Church may be the most well\-known of the episcopal\-type churches. The Pope is also the Bishop of Rome. Below him are other bishops who are in turn responsible for other bishops down to the parish priest. The Anglican Church, Episcopal Church, and Greek Orthodox Church all have this form of government. One priest or bishop answers to another, who answers to another, until “at the top” there is one bishop (often called the archbishop) who has final authority. Many other churches have an episcopalian form of government, even though they may not officially recognize it. Some independent churches have one pastor who has ultimate authority in all decisions of the church (sometimes this is called the “strong pastor” form of government). Some multi\-site churches may have single pastor at each location but one “head pastor” who is the final authority over all of the sites. Some churches may claim to have presbyterian (elder) or congregational rule but, in reality, have a single bishop or strong pastor who has final authority. Another type of church polity is the presbyterian form. The word presbyterian is from the Greek word presbuteros, which is usually translated “elder.” In this form of government, authority rests not with a single individual but with the body of elders or presbyters. In denominational churches, the local board of elders answers to a higher board of elders, which is made up of select elders to represent each church. Ultimately, the final board of elders (sometimes called the general assembly) has authority on matters in that denomination. In independent or autonomous churches, final authority rests with the local board of elders. In some churches with elder rule, the elders are elected or ratified by the congregation. However, once the elders are ratified, the congregation does not have power to remove them or overturn their decisions. The third type of church polity is the congregational form. In congregational churches, the final authority rests with the congregation. This polity takes various forms. In some churches, there are almost no designated leaders (or, as some might say, except the Holy Spirit), and the congregation is involved in virtually every decision that has to be made—from the color of the carpet to the support of missionaries. In other churches, the congregation elects the primary office holders (pastor, elder, deacons) who will then make decisions, only consulting the congregation on major issues such as incurring debt to build a new building or calling a new pastor. However, in congregational churches, if a majority of the congregation objects to any of the decisions or believes that a leader should be removed from office, they have the authority to take action. Most churches with congregational rule are also independent, as they believe strongly that final authority resides with the local congregation. (For instance, Baptist churches may be part of a denomination—Southern, American, etc., but the “denomination” has no authority over the decisions of those local churches. The strongest action that could be taken by the denomination is that the individual church would no longer be received in fellowship; likewise, any individual church can withdraw at any time. In this case, the denomination is more of a voluntary, cooperative fellowship.) As already noted, there are variations and nuances too numerous to be covered here, and there will always be exceptions to what is stated above. Even denominations that have episcopalian or presbyterian forms of government often have to adjust their positions due to congregational pressure and popular opinion. There are evangelical, Bible\-believing churches that utilize each of the forms of church government mentioned above. The form of church government is not a major doctrinal issue. The most important issue is that those who are in leadership positions must submit to the authority of Christ and obediently follow His lead as revealed in Scripture (Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 5:2\). Christ is the [Head of the Church](head-of-the-church.html), and if any system, board, individual leader, or congregation begins to displace Christ and the Word with their own beliefs and desires, then that leadership is no longer legitimate.
What was the Enlightenment, and what impact did it have on Christianity?	Answer The Enlightenment is often referred to as the “Age of Reason” and developed in the early\-to\-mid\-17th century from three primary geographical hubs; France, Germany, and Great Britain (including Scotland). The Enlightenment was marked by changes in thought that contrasted sharply with the philosophies of preceding eras. Enlightenment thinkers cast off much of the religious, philosophical, and political ideals of previous generations and forged new ground. The Enlightenment is generally taken to begin with the ideas of [Descartes](Rene-Descartes.html) and culminate with the French Revolution in the late 18th century. The intellectual movement spans the better part of 150 years and had a profound impact on Western culture. In particular, the fields of philosophy, science, and politics were forever changed. Major Aspects of the Enlightenment: Philosophy One of the major philosophical developments of the Enlightenment was rationalism. René Descartes introduced rationalism into philosophical thought, starting with his system of methodical doubt. Descartes’ work encouraged other thinkers to question longstanding cultural assumptions, as well as their own presuppositions. The predominant theme of rationalism is that concepts and knowledge can be gained independently of sense experience—we can think our way to truth. By emphasizing the power of the mind over the senses, rationalism provided a framework for philosophers to push the limits of what can be known by human reason alone. Baruch Spinoza, a notable rationalist, posited what amounts to a type of scientific pantheism. In Spinoza’s view, there is only one kind of substance, and God and nature are therefore identical. Spinoza’s thought provided license for later developments that focused on the mechanization of the natural world. Other notable rationalist thinkers were Christian Wolff and G. W. Leibniz, who each made deep and lasting impacts in philosophy (Leibniz in calculus, as well). Partly in response to rationalism, and partly of its own accord, empiricism also developed during the Enlightenment. In contrast to [rationalism](rationalism-vs-empiricism.html), empiricism holds that knowledge begins with the senses. Francis Bacon planted the seed for empiricist thought that came to fruition in the physics of Isaac Newton. Since natural science begins with observation through the senses, the scientific revolution could not have occurred without an empiricist philosophical underpinning. The notions of observation and induction are part and parcel of empiricism. [John Locke](John-Locke.html) developed his famous analogy of tabula rasa (“blank slate”) to describe the mind as ideas come into it from the senses. Skepticism also developed during the Enlightenment. [David Hume](David-Hume.html) famously spread doubt about whether knowledge can be obtained at all—from the senses or from reason. Hume’s conclusions led down a road that results in, at best, only probabilistic reasoning to possible conclusions. Hume also presented a significant challenge to science with his critiques of causality and inductive reasoning. These skeptical arguments and causal notions have resonated in both philosophy and science to the present day. An important note about Enlightenment philosophical thought is the noticeable shift away from metaphysics and toward epistemology. Metaphysics, the study of what is ultimately real and/or supersensible, was supplanted by a focus on the process of knowing; i.e., what one knows was replaced by how one knows (if one can know anything at all). The scientific revolution, with its implicit focus on understanding the natural world, made it easier for Enlightenment thinkers to either move away from metaphysics (as it was traditionally understood) or to subsume it under a rationalist motif. It should also be noted that the philosophy of [Immanuel Kant](Immanuel-Kant.html) was developed in large part as a response to problems raised with Enlightenment philosophy. Major Aspects of the Enlightenment: Science The crowning scientific achievement of the Enlightenment was Isaac Newton’s seminal work Principia Mathematica (1687\). In this work, Newton sets the tone for a mechanistic understanding of the natural world by explaining a wide range of phenomena via mathematical formulas. Given that things previously thought to be unquantifiable or unpredictable in nature could, under Newton’s system, be understood in terms of a machine\-like entity. Nature, therefore, became a thing that man could inquire into, harness, and use for bettering his lot in life. And Newton, therefore, is known today as the father of modern science. The greatest scientific benefits of Newtonian mechanics would not be felt until after the Enlightenment, but the increasingly prevalent notion of nature as describable and predictable impacted other fields during the 18th century. Important advances were made in biology, chemistry, and medicine. Carl Linnaeus developed a formalized system of biological taxonomy that was important to biology and paleontology as those specialized studies emerged. The French Encyclopedists, such as Diderot and d’Alembert, played an important role in proselytizing on behalf of science. By emphasizing the work of Bacon and Newton in their publications, the Encyclopedists pushed forward an agenda of secular thought and open\-mindedness. Through the Encyclopédie, Enlightenment thought was brought to bear in a systematic way that helped it become easier to understand and utilize. Major Aspects of the Enlightenment: Politics The lasting political impact of the Enlightenment cannot be overstated. At least three major political revolutions occurred during this time period in Britain, America, and France. These revolutions manifested ideas centering on government by consent of the governed, social contract, freedom, and equality. In the mid\-17th century, philosopher Thomas Hobbes advanced the notion of the absolute power of government over the governed for the sake of avoiding barbarism. Hobbes also advanced ideas about social contract and the relation of the individual to the state that both Locke and Rousseau later took up. Locke was a tremendously important political philosopher during the Enlightenment. Many of his ideas and principles were studied and adopted by the founders of America and are evident in documents like the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Locke emphasized the natural freedom of human beings, the equality of all before God, natural law, and government by consent of the governed; and he justified the overthrow of government when it fails. Jean\-Jacques Rousseau was another prominent thinker from the Enlightenment era. Rousseau differed with Locke about the role of the individual in relation to the state, with Rousseau emphasizing the importance of the governed being involved in politics. The Enlightenment’s Impact on Religion Religion was an oft\-discussed topic of the Enlightenment. It is important to view this period in light of the Protestant Reformation that preceded it. The monolithic nature of the church had come to an end, and Enlightenment thinkers had already been freed, to a large degree, by the dialogue and writings that came out of the Reformation. It should be noted that many prominent thinkers of the Enlightenment were Christians, although some were unorthodox in their beliefs. Primary themes of Enlightenment thought on religion center on the notions of anti\-supernaturalism, deism, and, as it relates to Christianity, biblical criticism. Anti\-Supernaturalism Due to the emphasis on rationalism (seeking that which can be known a priori—before experience—by the mind alone) and empiricism (seeking that which can be known and verified by the senses and/or instrumentation), a great bulk of Enlightenment thought was skeptical of the supernatural. This would especially include the Bible’s record of miracles. The physical science of the day, with the new revelation of the world as a mechanism that obeys laws, threw serious doubt on claims that anything in nature could occur contrary to its regular operation. Spinoza famously critiqued the notion that nature can act against itself. Hume emphasized the idea that miracles are violations of the laws of nature. Because man could, by the power of reason, throw off the shackles of patristic institutions and think for himself to logical conclusions, it seemed to many in the Enlightenment that miracles or immaterial things (such as angels or demons) were simply relics of past superstition. This anti\-supernatural thought provided the groundwork for atheism to become more mainstream. If God is a supernatural/supersensible being, then it was possible that belief in Him was simply irrational tradition. Deism In contrast to theism (belief in a single, personal creator and sustainer of all there is), deism teaches that whatever supreme intelligence created and/or organized the cosmos does not intervene in creation. The analogy of a watchmaker is frequently used to describe deistic thinking. According to deism, God simply wound up the watch of the universe, stepped back, and let it run. Things like prayer, [special revelation](general-special-revelation.html), and a personal relationship with God are nonsensical. The natural law, derived from man’s study of nature through the sciences, is what governs morality and human conduct. Religious texts like the Christian Bible are perhaps helpful moral guides but not genuine revelation from God. Biblical Criticism Biblical criticism, the study of the biblical texts as ordinary historical literature, did not come to the forefront of academic work until the 19th century. However, without the anti\-supernatural foundation and skeptical thought of the Enlightenment, it is unlikely that biblical criticism would have had such a lasting cultural impact. The evaluation of any historical text is a valuable pursuit, but, ironically, biblical criticism began with Enlightenment assumptions; it started by assuming certain scientific, mechanistic, and naturalistic notions and looked at the Bible in that light. Starting with Hobbes and Spinoza, biblical criticism took on many facets, including textual, [source](source-criticism.html), [redaction](redaction-higher-criticism.html), canon, and [form criticism](form-criticism.html). But the entire study takes on a different context under the Enlightenment paradigm. The Bible is a book filled with accounts of miracles, so, once supernatural events are dismissed as impossible, the entire reading changes. If theism is a priori ruled out, then the credibility of what is recorded in the Bible is undermined from the outset. Speculation becomes much easier from this platform, and many theories, such as one denying the literal reality of Jesus of Nazareth, took shape. Through the years, the criticisms of the Bible put forward by Enlightenment philosophy have been strongly refuted by careful scholarship. Conclusion The Enlightenment is deserving of study for many reasons, not the least of which is to better understand how the thoughts of that period shaped ensuing years. Like any other epoch considered through the lens of history, there is much commendable and much lamentable about the Enlightenment. One should be careful to take the helpful notions and leave the genuine vestiges behind. Just as we are to test all prophecies and hold on to what is good (1 Thessalonians 5:21\), so we should put Enlightenment philosophies to the test and dispense with the false.
What does Jesus mean when He says, “Verily, verily” or “Truly, truly,” in the gospels?	Answer At various times in the gospels, Jesus introduces a statement using phrases such as “Verily, I say” or “Truly, I say this to you.” In the Gospel of John, Jesus frequently uses the phrase “Truly, truly” (ESV) or “Verily, verily” (KJV) or “Very truly” (NIV). These expressions all use the Greek word amēn, taken directly from the Hebrew word āˈmēn. This word has different implications depending on how and where it is used. Jesus’ application of the term is noticeably different from prior uses. In modern use, the word amen is typically used at the [end of a prayer](amen.html). It may also be spoken to show agreement with some statement or idea. This is slightly different from, but closely related to, the original use of the term as seen in the Old Testament. The Hebrew word āˈmēn literally means “so be it.” The term is an expression of complete and total agreement. In passages such as 1 Chronicles 16:36 or Deuteronomy 27:15–26, this is how the term is used. Placing the word amen at the end of a statement is a way of accepting, agreeing, or endorsing what came before. Jesus, however, was fond of saying, “Amen,” before making a statement or giving a message. When used in this way, the word amen has slightly different implications. Leading off with amen not only implies that what follows is true but also that the person making the statement has firsthand knowledge and authority about it. Saying, “Verily, verily,” before making a statement is a strong claim to truth, presented from an almost audacious attitude. Speaking on worldly or secular matters, saying, “Verily, verily,” would imply that what follows is that person’s own original idea. So, when Jesus leads off with the words verily, verily in verses such as Matthew 18:3, Mark 3:28, Luke 23:43, and John 8:51, He is not merely saying, “Believe me, this is true.” He is actually saying, “I know this is true firsthand.” Since many of these comments are on heavenly, spiritual, or godly issues, Jesus’ use of verily, verily is part of His consistent [claim of divinity](is-Jesus-God.html). Jesus is not merely aware of these truths: He is the One who originated them! The disciples and others listening to Jesus’ words would have understood His use of these phrases in exactly that way. So, when we read Jesus’ words and see statements beginning with “verily,” “truly,” or some variation, we should recall the deeper meaning. Those claims are not only Jesus’ opinion on the truth. Those are ideas about which He has intimate, personal, firsthand knowledge.
What does the Bible say about prayerlessness?	Answer [Prayer](what-is-prayer.html) is the lifeblood of a Christian’s walk with God. Prayer connects us to God, prayer is an active way to love and connect with others, and prayer makes room in the pray\-er’s heart for God’s correcting voice. The Bible says to “pray continually” (1 Thessalonians 5:17\), so anything other than a continual attitude of prayer and communion with God is sin. Anything that interrupts our connection to God or leads to self\-reliance is wrong. We could look at Adam and Eve’s actions in Genesis 3 as a type of prayerlessness. They eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and are too ashamed to speak with the Lord as He comes to meet them in the garden. They are disconnected from God in their sin; their communication with Him is interrupted. Adam and Eve’s “prayerlessness” was sin, and it was caused by sin. Can you imagine someone claiming to be your best friend and never talking to you? Whatever friendship was there would certainly be strained. Similarly, a relationship with God is impoverished and fatigued without communication. Prayerlessness is antithetical to a good relationship with God. God’s people will have a natural desire to communicate with their Lord. “In the morning, Lord, you hear my voice; in the morning I lay my requests before you and wait expectantly” (Psalm 5:3\). The biblical commands to pray are accompanied by wonderful promises: “The LORD is near to all who call on him, to all who call on him in truth” (Psalm 145:18\). Christ is our best example of prayerfulness. He Himself was a man of prayer (see Luke 3:21; 5:16; 9:18, 28; 11:1\), and He taught His followers to pray (Luke 11:2–4\). If the Son of Man saw a personal need to pray, how much more should we see the same need in ourselves? Prayerlessness ignores the gift of [intercession](intercessory-prayer.html) that God has given us. We are called to pray for our brothers and sisters in Christ (James 5:16\). Paul often solicited the prayers of God’s people on his behalf (Ephesians 6:19; Colossians 4:3; 1 Thessalonians 5:25\), and he was faithful to pray for them (Ephesians 1:16; Colossians 1:9\). The prophet Samuel saw prayers on behalf of the people of Israel as a necessary part of his ministry: “As for me, far be it from me that I should sin against the LORD by failing to pray for you” (1 Samuel 12:23\). According to Samuel, prayerlessness is a sin. Prayerlessness is defiance toward God’s command to love others. And we are not only to pray for people who are easy to pray for. “I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people” (1 Timothy 2:1\). Jesus tells us that we must also pray for those who persecute us (Matthew 5:44\). This is the message of Christ, to love and support everyone with prayer, even those who are hard to love. Prayer makes room for the correcting voice of God. Prayerlessness weakens our ability to hear Christ when He whispers words of correction or conviction to our spirits. Hebrews 12:2 reminds us that Christ is the “pioneer and perfecter of faith.” Without His Spirit living in our hearts, we would be on a rough road following our own judgments. As we pray for God’s will to be done “on earth as it is in heaven” (Matthew 6:10\), the contrariness of our own wills is revealed. Matthew 26:41 offers another admonition: “Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation.” Prayerlessness clouds our hearts to the temptations surrounding us and leads to further sin. We only become wise to the ways of our hearts through the Spirit’s illumination and direction. And it’s only in the Spirit’s power that our prayers are effective (see Romans 8:26–27\). Prayer is our lifeline and connection to God. Christ showed the opposite of prayerlessness in His walk on earth and modelled a prayer\-filled life.
What is the significance of Ezekiel’s temple?	Answer Ezekiel was born into the priestly line (Ezekiel 1:3\), but he served God as a prophet. In Ezekiel 40–48 Ezekiel sees a detailed vision of a grand and glorious temple. This lengthy vision has been the subject of much speculation and various interpretations through the years. Ezekiel began his prophetic ministry before Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed by Babylon in 586 BC. Prior to the destruction, many false prophets assured the people that God was with them and that nothing would happen to them (Ezekiel 13:8–16\). True prophets like Jeremiah and Ezekiel warned the people that God’s judgment was coming (Ezekiel 2:3–8\). In Ezekiel 8–11, the prophet sees the glory of God leaving the temple. Ezekiel was taken into exile to Babylon, probably in the second deportation of Jews, in 597 BC. In exile, he encouraged Israel that judgment would not last forever, but that God would restore Israel and once again live among them. In Ezekiel 37 he relates the vision of “[The Valley of Dry Bones](valley-dry-bones.html),” in which he describes the reunification and reanimation of a dead Israel. In chapters 38–39, Ezekiel predicts a battle with [Gog and Magog](Gog-Magog.html), in which Israel’s enemies are defeated. Then, in chapters 40–48, in the twenty\-fifth year of Israel’s captivity, Ezekiel describes an enormous new temple (chapters 40–42\). The glory of God returns (chapter 43\), [sacrifices are resumed](millennial-sacrifices.html) (chapters 44–46\), and the land is restored to the people of Israel (47–48\). The hearts of the people will have been changed (Ezekiel 36:26–27\), and even Gentiles have a place in the restored kingdom (Ezekiel 47:22\). The land will be ruled by a Davidic [Prince](prince-in-Ezekiel.html) (Ezekiel 44:3; see also 37:24–25; 34:23–24\). In his vision of the temple, Ezekiel is taken to Israel where he sees a mountain and a city. He is met by “a man whose appearance was like bronze; he was standing in the gateway with a linen cord and a measuring rod in his hand” (Ezekiel 40:3\). The man tells Ezekiel to pay careful attention to everything he sees and hears and to relate all the details to God’s people (verse 4\). The measuring of the layout of the temple complex fills the next three chapters of Ezekiel. The question is when and how will the vision of Ezekiel’s temple be fulfilled? Should we look for a literal fulfillment? Or is this vision symbolic of the future perfection of God’s presence among His people? Has it already been fulfilled? Or is the fulfillment still future? If Ezekiel’s temple is future, will it be fulfilled in the church age, the millennium, or in the eternal state? The answers to these questions will be determined, most likely, by the interpreter’s presuppositions regarding the literal or symbolic nature of prophecy and fulfillment. Arguing for a literal fulfillment of the prophecy of Ezekiel’s temple are the numerous details of Ezekiel’s vision and the specific dimensions of the temple. If the vision is to be literally fulfilled, then the fulfillment must be future, for nothing like what is described in Ezekiel 40–48 has taken place up to this point. The dimensions of Ezekiel’s temple are far larger than the temple in Jesus’ day, and that temple was a grand structure. Most who expect a literal fulfillment of Ezekiel’s temple expect it to be erected in the [millennial kingdom](millennium.html), a 1,000\-year reign of Christ upon the earth. During the millennium, glorified saints from the present age will live in contact with natural human beings who will still need to make a decision for Christ in order to be saved—and many will choose not to trust Him. The sacrificial system described in Ezekiel cannot be for the forgiveness of sins, for Christ has accomplished that once and for all (Hebrews 10:1–4, 11–14\). In this interpretive approach, the sacrifices are seen as memorials of Christ’s death or as rites for the ceremonial cleansing of the temple, but not as a means to forgive sins. In the figurative view of Ezekiel’s temple, the prophet’s vision simply reiterates that God will once again dwell with His people in a perfect relationship. This relationship is described in the language that the people of the day (and especially for Ezekiel as a priest) would have understood—a Jewish temple of magnificent proportions, with regular, perfect sacrifices, with the Messiah presiding, and with the glory of God visibly evident. In later visions to other prophets, God revealed more about how He would accomplish this with the Messiah Himself replacing the temple, the sacrifices, and the land. The presence of God through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit would be more immediately evident than ever before. The fulfillment of Ezekiel’s temple could thus be realized in the church age to some degree and, in the age to come, to perfection. Regardless of which approach is taken, the vision of Ezekiel’s temple says that God has not forsaken His people and that His relationship with them will be restored and elevated to a new, never\-before\-conceived glory and intimacy. Present circumstances should never cause one to doubt the promises of God.
Who was Claudia in the Bible?	Answer The only mention of Claudia in the Bible occurs in 2 Timothy 4:21\. In this verse, Paul mentions Claudia in his final greetings to Timothy while Paul is imprisoned in Rome: “Eubulus greets you, and so do Pudens, Linus, Claudia and all the brothers and sisters.” The only facts that we can know for certain come from the context of her name in 2 Timothy 4\. However, Claudia has intrigued biblical scholars, and many have sought to understand her brief role in Paul’s letter to Timothy. Not many facts can be gathered about Claudia from 2 Timothy 4\. We can deduce her geographic location and that she was a Christian woman, her heart was devoted to Paul, and she knew Timothy. Paul sends his letter from Rome, where he is awaiting trial under Emperor Nero. Because Paul mentions sending greetings from Claudia and other saints, we can assume that Claudia was in Rome with Paul at that time. We also know that Claudia was a Christian woman, close to her faith and fighting for Christ’s message, because of her relation to the other men whom Paul names. Eubulus, Pudens, and Linus, who became the first bishop of Rome after the apostles, are all mentioned with Claudia. Paul speaks of his isolation in verse 16, saying, “At my first defense, no one came to my support, but everyone deserted me.” It is apparent throughout the end of chapter 4 that Paul is disheartened by the loss of friends such as [Demas](Demas-in-the-Bible.html) (verse 10\); only [Luke](Luke-in-the-Bible.html) is with him (verse 11\). Paul does not mention many people by name, but, since Claudia is among those he names, we know that she remained devoted to Paul throughout his imprisonment. Timothy must have known Claudia as well, since she sends her greetings with the rest. Biblical scholars have more assumptions about Claudia’s life than they have facts. Everything beyond the biblical context is uncertain, but the speculations about Claudia include the idea that she was a noble\-born Roman, based on the fact that her name was only given to aristocratic women in Rome. This is a fascinating speculation, because it leads us to wonder what earthly riches she must have given up to respond to the gospel and follow Christ. Historians also have conjectured that Claudia was married to Pudens, also mentioned by Paul in 2 Timothy 4:21\. Other scholars believe that Claudia was Pilate’s wife (see Matthew 27:19\), but, again, this is conjecture. Regardless of her personal history or the identity of her spouse, Claudia must have been a remarkable woman, if she was close to Paul and was known for her loyalty to her Christian brothers.
What did Jesus mean when He told people, “Your faith has made you well”?	Answer The first recorded instance of Jesus saying, “Your faith has made you well” is found in Matthew 9:22 (ESV) where Jesus heals the woman with the issue of blood. The KJV translates Jesus’ words as “Thy faith hath made thee whole,” and the NIV says, “Your faith has healed you.” The same incident is also recorded in Mark 5:34, where Jesus says, “Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace, and be healed of your disease” (ESV). Jesus also says, “Your faith has made you well,” to a leper He had healed (Luke 17:19\) and a blind beggar (Luke 18:42\). Other times Jesus links faith and healing without using the exact words, “Your faith has made you well,” such as in Matthew 8:13 and 15:28\. The healing that these people experienced is expressed, in Greek, by a form of the word sozo, which means “to preserve, rescue, save from death, or keep alive.” Sometimes, sozo refers to spiritual salvation, which is also linked to a person’s [faith](Bible-faith.html). For example, when the penitent prostitute washed Jesus’ feet with her tears, He told her much the same thing: “Your faith has saved you” (Luke 7:50; for other examples, see Mark 10:52 and Luke 17:19\). When Jesus spoke of the faith of the woman with the issue of blood in Matthew 9, His healing was very likely more than physical; it was a spiritual healing as well, as she is told to “go in peace” (Mark 5:34\). When Jesus said to certain people, “Your faith has made you well,” He was saying that their faith (their confidence in Him) had been the means of their restoration. The power of Christ was what effected the cure, but His power was applied in connection with their faith. Just as the faith of some enabled them to receive healing, so healing was sometimes stymied by a lack of faith (see Matthew 13:58\). In the same way, salvation comes to a sinner through faith. Everyone who is saved must believe, but it is the power of Christ that saves, not the power of faith. Faith is only the instrument, not the power itself. In other words, the value of one’s faith does not come from the one who expresses it but from the object in which it rests (Mark 10:52; 11:22\). Ultimately, healing is not contingent upon the quality of one’s faith, but upon the Healer. It was through Christ that the woman in Matthew 9 was able to receive a bodily peace as well as a spiritual peace. We must recognize that Jesus did not indiscriminately heal all the people all of the time. For example, in the scene of the disabled man at the [pool of Bethesda](Pool-of-Bethesda.html) where multitudes gathered to be healed, Jesus chose only one man to heal (John 5:1–11\), and his is an interesting case. Jesus asked the man if he wanted to be made well. His answer was steeped in superstition: there was no one to carry him to the pool, and he wasn’t fast enough to get into the water at the right time. This confused and needy man was healed by God’s grace. He had no faith in Jesus; he didn’t even know it was Jesus who had healed him until later (John 5:12–13\). Another example of someone who was healed before faith is the man born blind in John 9\. He did not ask to be healed, but from many others, he was chosen to be healed—another example of God’s grace. In the case of the man born blind and in the case of the man at the pool, Jesus dealt with their physical problems separately from dealing with their spiritual need—the man in John 9 later comes to a full realization of who Jesus is and exercises faith in Him (verse 38\). Jesus’ healing of these men was not about their faith as much as it was about His will. Everyone whom Jesus willed to be healed was healed. Sometimes He healed those who expressed their faith in Him, and He made a point of emphasizing the condition of their heart: “Your faith has made you well.” Other times, in His great mercy, He healed those who had no faith and later drew them to Himself.
What is the Book of Adam and Eve?	Answer The Book of Adam and Eve, also called The Contradiction of Adam and Eve or The Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan, is supposedly a written history of what happened in the days of Adam and Eve after they were cast out of the Garden of Eden. The book is part of the extra\-biblical [pseudepigrapha](pseudepigrapha.html) and not part of the inspired Word of God. The Book of Adam and Eve is believed to be the work of an unknown Egyptian writer, who first wrote the story in Arabic; eventually, the book found its way farther south and was translated into Ethiopic. Pinning down the date of the original writing is difficult, but many believe the Book of Adam and Eve was written a few hundred years before the birth of Christ. The first English translation of the book appeared in the 19th century. There are two books that constitute the Book of Adam and Eve: Book I follows [Adam and Eve](Adam-and-Eve-questions.html) upon their exit from Eden and their subsequent temptations from Satan. According to the Book of Adam, Cain and Abel both had twin sisters. Cain fell in love with his own twin, Luluwa, but his parents wanted him to marry Abel’s twin, Aklia, and that’s why Cain murdered his brother. Book II of the Book of Adam and Eve relates the pre\-Flood history of Seth and Cain’s warring families. In summary, the two\-part Book of Adam and Eve is a fictional account of Adam and Eve after the fall. It is filled with fantastical stories, such as how the earth trembled when the blood of Abel touched it; and how Cain was unable to bury Abel because the grave kept spitting out the body (Book I, chapter LXXIX); and how Adam and Eve kept the body of Abel in their cave for seven years (Book II, chapter I). The Book of Adam and Eve also contains blatant contradictions of the Bible, claiming that both [Cain and Abel](Cain-and-Abel.html) brought sacrifices of blood and grain (Book I, chapters LXXVII and LXXVIII). Genesis 4:3–4 states that Cain brought a bloodless offering of “some of the fruits of the soil” and Abel brought “fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock.” There is really nothing in the Book of Adam and Eve that can be verified or corroborated. It is not a “lost” book of the Bible but was never part of Holy Scripture. The Bible is our authoritative, God\-inspired resource, not the Book of Adam and Eve or other works of fiction.
What is a mikvah?	Answer A mikvah in the Hebrew Bible is a gathering or collection of water. The word came to refer to a pool of water used for ceremonial cleansing. One who is impure or ceremonially unclean before immersion will be pure or ceremonially clean after immersion in a mikvah. A person would have to be ceremonially clean before entering the temple. Ceremonial cleansing is prescribed in the Bible on a number of occasions: women after childbirth or their monthly cycle and men after sexual discharge (Leviticus 15:19–30\) and after contact with a dead body (Numbers 19:18–19\). Clothing and utensils could also be cleansed by ritual immersion (Leviticus 11:32\). Later, ritual immersion—baptism—became part of a proselyte’s conversion to Judaism. Any natural body of water is considered a mikvah (Leviticus 11:36\). Today, mikvahs are also constructed in homes. A mikvah must be built into the home, below ground. It cannot be portable. A mikvah must have contact with natural water, so mikvahs constructed in modern homes will normally have one primary pool filled with tap water and used for immersion, and a secondary pool where rain water or water from some other natural source is collected. A hole between the two pools will allow the water to mix, thus rendering the primary pool fit for ceremonial cleansing. Today, Orthodox, Conservative, Reformed, and Reconstructionist Jews have different practices regarding the use of the mikvah, but the theme of spiritual purification and cleansing is common to all of them. Physical cleansing is not in view, as participants are supposed to be physically clean before entering the pool. The word mikvah is from the same root word as hope, and there is some word play between the two in Jeremiah 17:13: “O Lord, the hope of Israel, all who forsake You will be put to shame. Those who turn away on earth will be written down, because they have forsaken the fountain of living water, even the Lord.” (Here, mikvah is translated “hope,” and then described as a “fountain of living water,” which was the requirement for a mikvah—naturally flowing water.) The use of the mikvah, or ceremonial immersion, seems to provide the background for New Testament baptism. When [John](life-John-Baptist.html) was baptizing and preaching repentance, those who responded were admitting that they were “unclean.” This seems to be why John objected so strongly to baptizing Jesus (Matthew 3:13–14\) and why the Pharisees refused to be baptized (Matthew 3:7\). Likewise, [Christian baptism](Christian-baptism.html) would have been understood against this background. Those who responded in repentance and baptism were admitting that they were unacceptable to God and needed to be made clean (see Acts 2:37–38\). Being immersed in a mikvah was a powerful symbol that the Jews of Jesus’ time would have understood. Jesus’ words to [Nicodemus](Nicodemus-in-the-Bible.html), “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit” (John 3:5\), likely contain an allusion to the mikvah, which Nicodemus would have naturally apprehended. Jesus was saying that, in order to be right with God, a person must repent of sin (which is what the ritual cleansing in water signified) and undergo a spiritual transformation wrought by God Himself. Unlike ritual immersion in a mikvah, which is a repeated ritual in the Old Testament and by modern Jews, Christian baptism is a one\-time symbol of cleansing. In Christ, believers are made clean once for all, and a single baptism is the symbol for that.
What does the Bible say about hypochondria or being a hypochondriac?	Answer Hypochondria, also called illness anxiety disorder or health anxiety, is a condition characterized by a person worrying excessively that he is or may become seriously ill. Minor health symptoms are seen by the hypochondriac as signs of severe illness, and this often results in all\-consuming anxiety. For example, a headache may cause the person to worry about having a brain tumor, or a virus could cause a fear of cancer. Sometimes hypochondria gets more difficult during times of stress, and it can become debilitating. The Bible does not mention hypochondria directly, but it clearly teaches that Christians are not to [worry](Bible-worry.html). In Philippians 4:6, we are commanded, “Do not be anxious \[do not worry] about anything, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God.” In this verse, we learn that we should bring all of our needs and concerns to God in prayer rather than worry about them. Jesus assures us that our heavenly Father will take care of all our needs (Matthew 6:25–34\). Therefore, we have no need to worry about anything, including our health. The Bible encourages us to guard our hearts by not feeding our minds with that which will promote worry (Proverbs 4:23\). We are to guard our hearts—what we allow into them and what we allow them to dwell on. Thus, if you struggle with hypochondria, avoid health websites, TV shows, and so forth that preoccupy your mind with health symptoms. Avoid spending time with people who would encourage you down these paths of anxiety. Believers who have walked the journey through hypochondria have shared the value of [journaling](Christian-journaling.html). When a destructive worry comes to mind, they write their thoughts down immediately. Then they dismiss those thoughts from their minds. Journaling can also be a way to pay attention to what is going on in our hearts and submit our worries to God. In 1 Peter 5:7, we are instructed to “cast all your anxiety on \[God] because he cares for you.” God does not want us to carry around the weight of problems and burdens. God is concerned about everything that happens to us. No worry is too big or too small for His attention. When we give God our problems, including hypochondria, He promises to give us the peace that transcends all understanding (Philippians 4:7\). Pray for healing and for God to deliver you from hypochondria. If you continue to struggle with hypochondria, seek counseling, professional help, and/or therapy.
What is neonomianism?	Answer Neonomianism is a technical term often substituted with other phrases such as the new law or the law of grace. According to neonomianism, God’s ultimate moral obligations—the first law—are impossible for human beings to obey. Since these higher ideals cannot be followed, per neonomianism, God instituted a different law with a different set of obligations: the law of grace. This supposes that God is no longer judging on the basis of whether or not a person violates some moral precept but on whether or not he is expressing faith, submission, and repentance. There are several theological problems with neonomianism. A major concern is the idea that God would voluntarily lower His standard of righteousness to accommodate sinful humanity. Not only would this mean God had changed in His nature, but it would radically change the meaning of His gospel. According to the Bible, God’s forgiveness is needed because of our sin, not because we fail to sincerely follow Him. In fact, Scripture makes the point that certain kinds of sincerity, when aimed in the wrong direction, will lead a person to hell (Matthew 7:21–23\). Another issue with neonomianism is the concept of God changing His mind. According to Scripture, God never abolished the moral components of the Law, which are meant for all people and all times. Christ’s ministry [fulfilled the purpose](abolish-fulfill-law.html) of the ceremonial and civil laws (Matthew 5:17\), but God’s moral precepts are still real and still in force. We are granted forgiveness when we fail to meet those moral standards, if we are in Christ, but we are still held to the same expectations. God is not “lowering the bar”; He is substituting the righteousness of Christ for our unrighteousness (2 Corinthians 5:21\). Another way to see the problem with neonomianism is to consider its implications for works\-based salvation. Ultimately, neonomianism suggests that mankind can perfectly meet the legal standards of God—now, at least, since God no longer demands actual moral adherence but only good faith. Logically, this means that we “earn” our salvation by obeying this new law, rather than by obeying the old law. Old law or new, neonomianism suggests that our actions are what ultimately save us. The Bible says that believers can and will sin (1 John 1:9\). But it also says that we need forgiveness of those sins, obtained by grace through faith. And that this has nothing whatsoever to do with our own efforts (Romans 11:6; Ephesians 2:8–9; Titus 3:5\). The other issue with neonomianism is its connection to [antinomianism](antinomianism.html), the concept that there are, in effect, no moral obligations at all. More practically, antinomianism involves choosing to ignore certain moral precepts under the argument that Christ’s sacrifice paid the price for sin, so all a Christian needs is faith. This attitude leads to the kind of sinful arrogance the Scripture warns against (Romans 6:1, 15\). The gospel of Jesus Christ certainly has some “new” aspects to it, as compared to the original covenant with Israel. However, there is no sense in which God has abolished or eliminated His moral law, nor does He ignore sin simply because the sinner is saved. Neonomianism essentially takes a true idea—that we are no longer judged under the [Mosaic Law](learn-from-Mosaic-Law.html)—and stretches it far beyond what it is meant to imply.
What is the key to overcoming discouragement?	Answer The word discouragement comes from the root word courage. The prefix dis\- means “the opposite of.” So discouragement is the opposite of courage. When we are discouraged, we have lost the motivation to press forward. The mountain seems too steep, the valley too dark, or the battle too fierce, and we lose the courage to continue. In many places throughout Scripture, God commands His people to take courage (Psalm 27:14; 31:24; 2 Chronicles 32:7; Deuteronomy 31:6\). When God selected [Joshua](life-Joshua.html) to replace Moses as the leader of the Israelites, some of His first words to Joshua were “Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous. Do not be afraid; do not be discouraged, for the LORD your God will be with you wherever you go” (Joshua 1:9\). The Lord based this command upon His previous promise to Joshua in verse 6: “As I was with Moses, so I will be with you; I will never leave you nor forsake you.” The Lord knew Joshua was going to face some big battles, and He did not want His servant to become discouraged. The key to overcoming discouragement is to remember God’s promises and apply them. When we know the Lord, we can stand upon the promises He has given His people in His Word. Whether or not we see the fulfillment of those promises in this life, His promises still stand (Hebrews 11:13–16\). This knowledge kept the apostle Paul pressing forward, preaching the gospel, eventually ending up in a Roman jail where he lost his life. From prison, he wrote, “I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus” (Philippians 3:14\). He could press on through persecution, rejection, beatings, and discouragement because his eyes were on the ultimate prize: hearing the words “Well done!” from his Lord and Savior (see Matthew 25:23; Revelation 22:12\). We easily become discouraged when we seek reward or affirmation from those around us. If our service or obedience is based upon immediate gratification, we may be setting ourselves up for discouragement. Jesus does not always take the easy path, and He warned His followers to consider that before they started (Luke 14:25–33\). When we have already [counted the cost](count-the-cost.html) of discipleship, we have more strength to face the battles ahead. We are not so easily discouraged when things don’t go our way because we know the battle is the Lord’s (1 Samuel 17:47\). Discouragement can be a warning light suggesting to us that we have lost our primary focus. When we feel discouraged, it helps to get alone with the Lord and allow Him to examine our hearts and our motives (Psalm 139:23\). Often, it is pride, greed, or covetousness that is feeding our discouragement. A sense of entitlement can worm its way into our hearts and highlight the discrepancy between what we have and what we believe we are owed. When we recognize that attitude as sin, we can repent, humble ourselves, and let the Holy Spirit readjust our expectations. When we use discouragement as a reminder that our priorities have become skewed, the feeling of discouragement can become a refining tool to make us more like Jesus (see Romans 8:29\). The psalmist was no stranger to discouragement, and his response was to remember God and trust the promises of the Word: “Why, my soul, are you downcast? Why so disturbed within me? Put your hope in God, for I will yet praise him, my Savior and my God. My soul is downcast within me; therefore I will remember you” (Psalm 42:5–6\).
For whom did Jesus die?	Answer Exactly whom Jesus died for is a point of theological disagreement among evangelical Bible believers. Some Christians believe that Jesus died only for the elect; this is the doctrine of limited atonement, the L in Calvinism’s TULIP. Other Christians believe that Jesus died for everyone who has or ever will live; this is the doctrine of unlimited atonement, held by Arminians and most four\-point Calvinists, or [Amyraldians](Amyraldism.html). [Limited atonement](limited-atonement.html), sometimes called particular redemption, is based on the doctrine of election or predestination (Romans 8:30, 33; Titus 1:1\). Since only the elect of God will be saved, the reasoning goes, Jesus must have died only for them. Otherwise, Jesus’ death “failed” those who are not elect. If Jesus died for everyone, then hell will be full of people for whom Jesus died—was His atonement insufficient? If Jesus died only for the elect, then His atonement perfectly accomplished its goal. Every person for whom Jesus died will be in heaven. [Unlimited atonement](unlimited-atonement.html), on the other hand, says that Jesus died for everyone but that only those who respond in faith will reap the benefits of His sacrifice. In other words, Jesus’ death was sufficient for all, but only effectual for some (those who have faith). If Jesus did not die for everyone, the reasoning goes, then the offer of salvation is empty, because the non\-elect cannot be saved. The teaching of unlimited atonement is based on verses such as 1 John 2:2, “He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.” Precise theological thinking is a good thing. We are called to be students of the Word (2 Timothy 2:15\). But on this point, it seems that most people follow a theological system to get to their answer, rather than the clear Word of God. If it were not for theological systems (namely, [Calvinism](calvinism.html) and [Arminianism](arminianism.html)), the question of whom Jesus died for would probably never come up—but it has come up! One side says that, if Christ did not die for all, then there can be no genuine offer of salvation. The other side says that, if Christ died for some who will never be saved, then His death in some sense fails to accomplish its purpose. Either way, there seems to be an attack upon God’s character or Christ’s work—either God’s love is limited or Jesus’ power is limited. This presents an unnecessary dilemma and creates a tension where none need exist. We know that God’s love is infinite (Psalm 107:1\) and that Christ’s power is infinite (Colossians 1:16–17\). The dilemma is a false one of our own making. In short, the offer of salvation is universal—to all who will believe (Romans 10:11, 13\). We also know that, regardless of how broad Christ’s atonement is, it is limited in some respect—it is effective only for those who believe (John 3:18\). John 10 provides more insight into the issue of whom Jesus died for. In that passage we see that Christ died for His sheep (John 10:11, 15\). Also, all who are His sheep will come to Him (verses 4 and 27\), and they are kept secure in Christ (verses 28–30\). However, when we share the [gospel](what-is-the-gospel.html), we don’t try to “pre\-screen” the hearers of the message. We don’t delve into who are the elect or for whom Jesus may or may not have died. Those discussions would distract from the goal of evangelism. When presenting the gospel, we simply say, “Jesus died for your sin, and He rose again from the dead. His death is sufficient to pay for your sins if you will put your faith in Him.” This is a biblically accurate statement, and it avoids trying to get too specific. The preaching of the apostles in the New Testament doesn’t try to cut it more finely than that.
What is the Abyss?	Answer The word abyss simply means “a deep hole”—so deep that it seems bottomless or immeasurable. The word is often used in modern contexts to describe the sea. In the Bible and in Jewish theology, the Abyss is often a metaphorical reference to the place of evil spirits. Sometimes the Abyss is pictured as a deep or bottomless hole in the earth. This is the background for the New Testament usage. The King James Version usually translates the Greek term abyssou as “bottomless pit” (e.g., Revelation 9:2\). In Luke 8, Jesus cast the Legion of demons out of a man, “and they begged Jesus repeatedly not to order them to go into the Abyss” (verse 31\). The Abyss is obviously a place that the demons fear and try to avoid. In Revelation a number of times we see the Abyss as a place of confinement for evil spirits: Revelation 9:1–3, 11 — “The fifth angel sounded his trumpet, and I saw a star that had fallen from the sky to the earth. The star was given the key to the shaft of the Abyss. When he opened the Abyss, smoke rose from it like the smoke from a gigantic furnace. The sun and sky were darkened by the smoke from the Abyss. And out of the smoke locusts came down on the earth and were given power like that of scorpions of the earth. . . . They had as king over them the angel of the Abyss, whose name in Hebrew is Abaddon and in Greek is Apollyon (that is, Destroyer).” Revelation 11:7 — “Now when \[the two witnesses] have finished their testimony, the beast that comes up from the Abyss will attack them, and overpower and kill them.” Revelation 20:1–3 — “And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key to the Abyss and holding in his hand a great chain. He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended.” In all of these instances, the Abyss is a place for the containment of evil spirits. Many Bible scholars believe that this is the same place referred to in 2 Peter 2:4 as “hell,” where some evil spirits are “in chains of darkness to be held for judgment.” The word hell here is a translation of the Greek [tartarus](what-is-tartarus.html), which can be thought of as the “deepest pit” or the “lowest part of [Hades](sheol-hades-hell.html).” It is clear from Scripture that God has ultimate power over all evil spirits. Some of the demons have been consigned to the Abyss and held captive there, while others seem to be able to move more freely upon the earth. Ultimately, all evil spirits will be consigned to the lake of fire, along with all unbelievers (see Revelation 20:10–15\).
Who was Adam in the Bible?	Answer Adam was the first man to ever exist (Genesis 1:27; 1 Corinthians 15:45\). He was created by God as the first human being and placed in the Garden of Eden designed just for him (Genesis 2:8, 10\). Adam is the father of all mankind; every human being who has ever existed is a direct descendant of Adam, and it is through Adam that every human being has inherited a sinful nature (Romans 5:12\). God spoke everything else in the universe into existence (Genesis 1\). But on the sixth day God did something different. He got down in the dirt and formed Adam from the clay (the name Adam is related to adamah, the Hebrew word for “ground” or “soil”). God then breathed His own breath into the man’s nostrils, “and man became a living soul” (Genesis 2:7\). The breath of God is what separates human beings from the animal kingdom (Genesis 1:26–27\). Beginning with Adam, every human being created since then has an immortal spirit as God has. God created a being so like Him that the man could reason, reflect, intuit, and choose his own paths. The first woman, Eve, was made from one of Adam’s ribs (Genesis 2:21–22\). God placed them in His perfect world, with only one restriction: they were not to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (Genesis 2:16–17\). The option for Adam to disobey had to be present, because without that ability to choose, human beings would not be completely free. God created Adam and Eve as truly free beings, and He allowed them to make an entirely free choice. Genesis 3 details the account of Adam’s choice to sin. Both Adam and Eve disobeyed God’s command and ate of the tree which the Lord had forbidden (verse 6\). In that one act of disobedience, they brought sin and all of its consequences into God’s perfect world. Through Adam, sin entered the world, and with sin came death (Genesis 3:19, 21; Romans 5:12\). We know that Adam was an actual person, not an allegory, because he is referred to as a real person throughout the rest of the Bible (Genesis 5:1; Romans 5:12–17\). Luke, the great historian, traces the lineage of Jesus all the way back to this one man (Luke 3:38\). In addition to his being a real person, Adam is also the prototype for all human beings to come. Prophets, priests, and kings, born with a sin nature, were all children of the first Adam. Jesus, virgin\-born and sinless, is “the second Adam” (1 Corinthians 15:47\). The first Adam brought sin into the world; the second brought life (John 1:4\). Jesus, our second Adam, offers a new birth (John 3:3\) with a new nature and new life for whoever believes (2 Corinthians 5:17; John 3:16–18\). Adam lost paradise; Jesus will regain it.
Who was Porcius Festus?	Answer Porcius Festus was a Roman procurator, succeeding [Antonius Felix](Felix-in-the-Bible.html) somewhere between AD 55 and 60\. History describes him as fair and reasonable—much more so than Felix or Festus’ successor, Albinus. In the Bible Porcius Festus is known for sending Paul to Rome to stand trial under [Emperor Nero](who-was-Nero.html). The events leading to Paul’s meeting with Porcius Festus are filled with danger. In Acts 21, Paul returns from a [missionary journey](missionary-journeys-Paul.html). He visits James (Jesus’ brother), the leader of the church in Jerusalem, and pays the fee of men who had taken a Nazarite vow (Acts 21:17–26\). Less than a week later, Paul is spotted in the temple by devout Jews who condemned his work spreading the gospel. Because of a misunderstanding, they falsely accuse Paul of bringing a Gentile into the temple, and they have Paul arrested. Paul gives his defense to the Jews in Acts 22:1–21, but it’s not received well, and the mob turns ugly. The Roman tribune (commander above a centurion) protects Paul from the mob by hurrying him into the barracks and orders Paul to be flogged. Paul reveals he is a Roman citizen by birth (Acts 22:22–29\), which causes the tribune to call off the flogging. The tribune later allows Paul to give his testimony before the Jewish council, including the high priest, the Pharisees, and the Sadducees, who promptly get into a fight about whether Paul is actually guilty of anything. Tempers flare so high that the tribune again extricates Paul back to the army barracks (Acts 23:1–11\). The next day, Paul’s nephew warns the tribune that forty men have vowed to murder Paul, so the tribune sends Paul with two hundred soldiers as guards to Felix, the governor in Caesarea (Acts 22:12–22\). The tribune is still curious as to why the Jewish leaders want Paul dead, and he requests Felix uncover the truth. The high priest, some elders, and a hired spokesman arrive in Caesarea five days later to present their case before Felix, but the Jews from Asia are absent, and the governor delays a decision until the tribune can arrive—or until Paul offers a sufficient bribe. The bribe never comes, and Felix leaves Paul in custody for two years (Acts 24\). Festus succeeds Felix as governor, and Paul’s pending case is one of his first concerns. The Jewish leadership meet Festus in Jerusalem and ask that he bring Paul from Caesarea—their purpose was to ambush Paul and kill him on the way. Festus hasn’t even been to his new home yet, and he invites Paul’s accusers to go with him to Caesarea and get things squared away. Festus could see the charges against the apostle were specious but, wanting to have a good relationship with his new people, asks Paul to go to Jerusalem and stand trial. This would benefit Festus in two ways: he would get on the good side of the Jewish leadership, and he could move the venue of the trial so he wouldn’t have to deal with it. Paul politely tells Festus that, as Caesar’s representative, Festus needs to either make a fair decision or let him make his case before Caesar. After conferring with his advisers, Festus agrees to send Paul to Caesar (Acts 25:1—12\). Before Paul can leave for Rome, [King Herod Agrippa II](Herod-Agrippa-II.html) and his sister/lover Bernice come to visit Festus. The new governor isn’t as knowledgeable about the Jewish religion as Felix, whose wife was Jewish, had been. But, in his attempt to repair Rome’s relationship with the Jews, Porcius Festus still wants to understand why the Jews are trying to kill Paul. He also knows it’s absurd to send a man to trial in Rome with no official charges, so he asks [Agrippa](Herod-Agrippa-I.html) for advice (Acts 25:13–27\). Paul gives his testimony to King Agrippa. Unlike Felix, who wanted a bribe, or Festus, who doesn’t understand much of what’s going on, Agrippa immediately judges that Paul is completely innocent of any official wrongdoing. He tells Festus, “This man could have been set free if he had not appealed to Caesar” (Acts 26:32\). Despite Paul’s innocence and Festus’ lack of any real charge, Paul had appealed to Caesar, and Festus must send him. Once in Rome, Paul spends two years under house arrest, chained to a guard, but he is finally in the city where he had longed to be for years (Romans 15:23\). And while there he has the opportunity to write the epistles Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon. [Josephus](Flavius-Josephus.html) had favorable things to say about Porcius Festus. He recorded that at the time Festus took his position, Sicarii bandits were roaming the countryside, plundering and burning villages. They also mingled into crowds of worshipers and killed people with short, curved swords. Festus learned an imposter had gone to the Sicarii, promising them deliverance from their hardships. The imposter led the bandits to the wilderness where Festus’ forces killed the imposter and his followers. Paul’s case was not the only time Festus allowed Jews to appeal to Caesar. King Agrippa built a dining area in his palace that, because of the elevation, looked down onto the actions taking place in the temple. In response to this, and to the guard post that also overlooked the temple, the Jews built up the western wall of the temple’s inner court. Agrippa ordered the wall down, and Festus agreed, but then acquiesced to the Jews’ counterproposal that they be allowed to petition Nero about the matter. When the Jews returned with a ruling in their favor (all but the two who had been retained as hostages by Nero’s wife), Festus agreed to let the wall stand. In a way, Porcius Festus was to Paul what Pontius Pilate was to Jesus. He valued peace with the Jews more than justice and, despite determining his prisoner was innocent, sent him to judgment. In his quest for political control, Festus dismissed Paul’s situation as a “dispute . . . about their own religion” (Acts 25:19\). At one point when Paul was speaking before Agrippa, “Festus interrupted Paul’s defense. ‘You are out of your mind, Paul!’ he shouted. ‘Your great learning is driving you insane’” (Acts 26:24\). Festus was governor for only two or three years before he died. He was succeeded by Albinus.
Does the Bible say what is the proper age for marriage?	Answer The Bible does not specify any particular age requirement for a person to be married; rather, it speaks in general terms of marriage being for those who are “grown up” (see Ruth 1:12–13\). Both the language and culture of the Bible strongly support the idea that [puberty](Bible-puberty.html), at bare minimum, is a condition that must be met before becoming someone’s spouse. This fits with one of the historical [purposes of marriage](purpose-of-marriage.html)—conceiving and rearing children. Scriptural evidence indicates that those too young for childbearing are not candidates for marriage, though there is no explicit age given in the Bible. It is reasonable to look at the practices of ancient Judaism for cultural considerations on the proper age for marriage. According to tradition, boys were not considered “men,” and therefore not marriageable, until the age of 13\. Girls were not considered “women” until age 12\. These ages more or less correspond to the onset of puberty. While those ages might seem too young to us, they are not unusual ages for getting married, historically. It has only been within the last century or so that the average age of getting married has drifted into the late twenties and early thirties. It’s also important to recall that maturity—often used as a benchmark for allowing sexuality and marriage—is highly cultural. In modern Western countries, people are not generally expected to be self\-sufficient until they are nearly in their twenties, or even later. For most of human history, however, people were expected to “grow up” much sooner. The age of getting married was normally young, as everyone was expected to mature socially and emotionally more quickly than today. The Hebrew language also supports the idea that puberty is a requirement for a legitimate marriage. Ezekiel 16 contains a metaphor for God’s relationship to Israel. In this passage, God cares for Israel, pictured as an orphaned girl in various stages of development. The Lord first sees her birth, then watches her grow up: “You grew and developed and entered puberty. Your breasts had formed and your hair had grown. . . . Later I passed by, and when I looked at you and saw that you were old enough for love, I spread the corner of my garment over you” (verses 7–8\). In this illustration, it’s only after the girl arrives at physical maturity, sometime after (not during) puberty when she is “old enough to love,” that she is ready for marriage. Other translations say the girl “grew tall and came of age” (NET) and “grew up, matured, and became a young woman” (GWT). Hebrew, as English, uses different words for younger and older members of either sex. Naˈar refers to young men, while yeled refers to boys age 12 or younger. For females, naˈarah means “a marriageable woman,” while yaldah refers to a girl 11 or younger—too young for marriage. Once again, these words and definitions seem to enforce the idea that the onset of puberty is a requirement for marriage. Before that time, a boy or girl is not of an age to be married. The New Testament has even less to say about the age of getting married. Still, there are clues in New Testament Greek similar to those in Hebrew. For example, 1 Corinthians 7:36 uses the word hyperakmos in reference to a female. In this case, it’s a young woman who’s engaged to be married. Hyperakmos is translated as “past her youth” (NASB), past “the flower of her age” (KJV), or “past marriageable age” (CSB). The word literally means “ripe,” a common euphemism in many cultures for describing a woman’s capability for bearing children. Paul’s inclusion of the word definitely indicates that the marriageable age was sometime after puberty, when a woman is fully grown. But Scripture nowhere sets a definitive marriageable age: physical maturity is a must, but when a girl reaches maturity can vary. The 12\-year\-old in Mark 5:41–42 is still a “little girl” and obviously not ready for marriage. As with many other issues, the proper age for getting married has a cultural component that the Bible does not specifically override. What constitutes a proper marriage age can vary from culture to culture and still fall within the bounds of scripturally proper conduct. The bottom line is that pedophilia and child marriages are unacceptable. A person must be fully grown to be married; he or she must be physically mature enough for sexuality and child\-bearing. Beyond that, the Bible does not specify a minimum age for marriage.
Is Celebrate Recovery a biblically sound program?	Answer Celebrate Recovery (CR) is a national, Christ\-centered self\-help program hosted by local churches to help people struggling with addiction or other life\-controlling issues. The program began in Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California, and is now used in churches around the world. From their [website](http://www.celebraterecovery.com): “Celebrate Recovery is a biblical and balanced program that helps us overcome our hurts, hang\-ups, and habits. It is based on the actual words of Jesus rather than psychological theory. “25 years ago, Saddleback Church launched Celebrate Recovery with 43 people. It was designed as a program to help those struggling with hurts, habits and hang\-ups by showing them the loving power of Jesus Christ through a recovery process. Celebrate Recovery has helped more than 17,000 people at Saddleback, attracting over 70% of its members from outside the church. Eighty\-five percent of the people who go through the program stay with the church and nearly half serve as church volunteers. Celebrate Recovery is now in over 29,000 churches worldwide!” Celebrate Recovery, is a Christian alternative to [Alcoholics Anonymous (AA)](Alcoholics-Anonymous.html), Narcotics Anonymous (NA), or other secular 12\-step programs for overcoming addictions. Celebrate Recovery is based upon the premise that Jesus Christ is our “higher power” and that through faith in Him we can overcome anything. This transformation comes about during the process of working the twelve steps of recovery. Again, from the Celebrate Recovery website: CELEBRATE RECOVERY 12 STEPS AND BIBLICAL COMPARISONS 1\. We admitted we were powerless over our addictions and compulsive behaviors, that our lives had become unmanageable. I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. Romans 7:18 2\. We came to believe that a power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity. For it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose. Philippians 2:1 3\. We made a decision to turn our lives and our wills over to the care of God. Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual act of worship. Romans 12:1 4\. We made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves. Let us examine our ways and test them, and let us return to the Lord. Lamentations 3:40 5\. We admitted to God, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs. Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. James 5:16 6\. We were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character. Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will lift you up. James 4:10 7\. We humbly asked Him to remove all our shortcomings. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. 1 John 1:9 8\. We made a list of all persons we had harmed and became willing to make amends to them all. Do to others as you would have them do to you. Luke 6:31 9\. We made direct amends to such people whenever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others. Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift. Matthew 5:23–24 10\. We continue to take personal inventory and when we were wrong, promptly admitted it. So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don’t fall! 1 Corinthians 10:12 11\. We sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God, praying only for knowledge of His will for us, and power to carry that out. Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly. Colossians 3:16 12\. Having had a spiritual experience as the result of these steps, we try to carry this message to others and practice these principles in all our affairs. Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore them gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted. Galatians 6:1 Celebrate Recovery also teaches eight principles of recovery, based on the [Beatitudes](beatitudes.html) of Matthew 5:3–12\. Each one of the eight principles is linked to one or more of the twelve steps. As with any organization, Celebrate Recovery has strengths and weaknesses. One of its many strengths is the welcoming, affirming atmosphere offered anyone who attends. Many people who have struggled with socially unacceptable behaviors for years find the welcoming atmosphere a strong draw that keeps them coming back. Celebrate Recovery is often a court\-accepted rehabilitation program for those ordered to such by a judge. Because of this, many people have found Christ who would never have otherwise darkened a church doorway. One of Celebrate Recovery’s weaknesses concerns its advice that people should “love themselves” and “forgive God”—neither admonition is biblical. Another weakness is that the program is self\-led and self\-run, sometimes by people not long out of their own addictions. Many times, those catapulted to leadership positions are not ready for such assignments, and their public relapse can take others with them. Also, local leaders of Celebrate Recovery are often young Christians themselves and not spiritually or emotionally prepared for the overwhelming burden of pastoral care such a “flock” requires. And some pastors find that Celebrate Recovery becomes a parachurch entity carried on within the walls of a local church building without truly assimilating into the church body. First Timothy 5:22 warns church leaders, “Do not lay hands upon anyone too hastily and thereby share responsibility for the sins of others; keep yourself free from sin.” But despite its flaws, Celebrate Recovery has been a life\-saver and a life\-transformer for thousands of people. Its evangelical emphasis on the gospel and the Word of God has brought good results. Many people helped by Celebrate Recovery have gone on to serve the Lord with faithfulness and sobriety, and they owe their continued success to the skills and biblical foundation they received through Celebrate Recovery. When the local leaders keep themselves under the authority and guidance of the church who hosts them, Celebrate Recovery can be of great benefit to that church and the surrounding community.
Why doesn’t God save everyone?	Answer “If God loves us and wants us to spend eternity with Him, why doesn’t He just save everyone now?” This question and others like it often keep people from seeking God further, as they assume that this question is the mountain that cannot be scaled. But the question itself is based upon some faulty assumptions. When those assumptions are corrected, the question of why God doesn’t save everyone no longer carries the weight it once did. Any time we ask a question about God from our limited earthly perspective, we are working under a handicap. In essence, we are tiny dust specks looking up into the universe and demanding that it make sense to our finite minds. Often, when we ask, “Why doesn’t God just save everyone?” we start with the assumption that we are more compassionate than God is, and that puts us on the wrong track from the get\-go. God is perfect, and His ways are far beyond human comprehension (Isaiah 55:8–9\). When we accept that reality and align our thinking with His perspective, we position ourselves for greater understanding. Knowledge begins in heaven with God (Proverbs 9:10\). He is infinitely creative, and at some point, He created our universe (Genesis 1:1\). He spoke everything into existence (Genesis 1\) except man. When He created Adam, He got down in the dirt and formed his body from clay. Then He blew into the man’s nostrils, “and man became a living soul” (Genesis 2:7\). It was the image of God that separated mankind from all other living creatures. That “living soul” was immortal, meant to last forever. God had chosen to create a being so like Him that the man could reason, reflect, intuit, and have the ability to make decisions. Without that ability to choose, human beings would not bear God’s image (see Genesis 1:27\). God respects what He has created to such an extent that He will not allow even His overwhelming love to violate our will. Why doesn’t God just save everyone? Because He will not violate the will He has given us. One astounding facet of God’s human creation is that He made Himself emotionally vulnerable to us. He didn’t have to do that. The triune God has forever been the very definition of joy, love, and peace; He is complete in Himself with no needs or unmet desires. Untold millions of created beings worship and serve Him day and night (Daniel 7:10; Revelation 5:11; 7:11; Isaiah 6:1–3\). Yet He gives human beings the high privilege of bringing Him pleasure or sorrow. We can reflect His glory in ways unique to our design (Proverbs 16:7; Psalm 147:11; 149:4\). Or we can reject His love and His commands (Ezekiel 8:17; 33:11; 2 Kings 22:17\). God’s act of creating us can be compared to a husband and wife who are perfectly happy and content in themselves, but they decide to have a child. That decision brings with it the potential for exceeding joy and exceeding sorrow. They have chosen to alter their lives by creating a vulnerability that they did not have to create. As they love and care for that child, they long for the child to love them back. But they won’t force the love, because forced love is not love at all. Why doesn’t God just save everyone? Because our love for Him must be voluntary. God pours out His love and provision on this earth (Matthew 5:45\), desiring that His human creations acknowledge His truth and love Him back. He makes Himself known in thousands of ways (Psalm 19:1; 97:6; Romans 1:19–20\), working behind the scenes to bring us into a position to reach out to Him (Isaiah 46:10–11; Proverbs 16:33\). He provides, protects, and blesses, giving mankind numerous opportunities to look up and find Him (Jeremiah 29:13; Romans 2:4\). But He won’t force salvation on the unwilling. Why doesn’t God just save everyone? Because gifts must be willingly received. God has given His very best—His only begotten Son—to settle our sin debt (John 3:16–18; 2 Corinthians 5:21\). He does not take the rejection of that offer lightly. The Father who watched His own beloved Son be tortured to death for the benefit of an ungrateful mob refuses to degrade that sacrifice by deciding later that it was not truly necessary (see Acts 4:12; Isaiah 42:8\). Why doesn’t God just save everyone? Because salvation can only come through faith in Christ. “Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life” (1 John 5:12\). We err when we, from our earth\-bound perspective, magnify the love of God out of proportion to His justice, righteousness, and wrath toward sin (Romans 1:18; Isaiah 61:8\). Sin is serious, and the debt against our Creator must be paid (Colossians 2:14\). We can accept Jesus as our substitute (2 Corinthians 5:21\), or we can pay for sin ourselves in eternity (Matthew 25:46; Jude 1:7\). C. S. Lewis has famously stated, “There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, ‘Thy will be done,’ and those to whom God says, in the end, ‘Thy will be done.’ All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self\-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek, find. Those who knock, it is opened” (from The Great Divorce).
What are false apostles?	Answer False apostles are people who masquerade as Christian leaders, get other people to follow them, and then lead them astray. A true [apostle](what-is-an-apostle.html) is one who is “sent” by God as an ambassador of Jesus Christ with a divine message. A false apostle is a pretender who does not truly represent Christ and whose message is false. In 2 Corinthians 11, the apostle Paul addresses the problem of false apostles invading the Corinthian church. He describes the false apostles as “those who want an opportunity to be considered equal with us in the things they boast about” (verse 12\). The book of 2 Corinthians is one of Paul’s more “sarcastic” letters, as he contends with the church to recognize the error that had crept into their midst. He contrasts his selfless service with that of the “super\-apostles” (verse 5\) who were seducing the church with their smooth speech and apparent wisdom. These impostors were pretending to be true servants of Christ, but they did not know the Lord. They were deceivers, preying on gullible Christians in Corinth to profit themselves and boost their ego. Paul chides the church that they “even put up with anyone who enslaves you or exploits you or takes advantage of you or puts on airs or slaps you in the face” (verse 20\). He even compares these impostors to Satan himself, who also “masquerades as an angel of light” (verse 14\). Paul warned the Ephesian elders about false apostles as well: “I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them” (Acts 20:29\). They must have heeded his words, because in Revelation 2:2, Jesus commends the church at Ephesus for spotting the false apostles in their midst and rejecting them. False teachers and false apostles have been plentiful throughout the history of the church. They still infiltrate unsuspecting churches and have even led whole denominations into heresy and apostasy (see 1 Timothy 4:1–4\). Scripture gives us clear warning if we will pay attention. First John 4:1 says, “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.” The following are some ways we can identify false apostles: 1\. False apostles deny any or all truths about the identity and deity of Jesus Christ. In 1 John 4:3–4, John warns his readers against [Gnostic teaching](Christian-gnosticism.html); the test, he says, is Christological: “By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God.” There are many ways a spirit may deny that Jesus is the Christ. From demonic cults to denominations that have veered away from the gospel, evil spirits are always behind the slander of Jesus. Any teacher who attempts to take away from or add to Jesus’ finished work on the cross for our salvation is a false prophet (John 19:30; Acts 4:12\). 2\. False apostles are motivated by their greed, lust, or power. Second Timothy 3:1–8 describes such teachers in more detail: “But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self\-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God—having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people. “They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over gullible women, who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires, always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth. Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so also these teachers oppose the truth. They are men of depraved minds, who, as far as the faith is concerned, are rejected.” Jesus said that an identifying mark of a false apostle/prophet is sinful behavior: “By their fruit you will recognize them” (Matthew 7:16, 20; cf. Jude 1:4\). 3\. False apostles distort or deny the Bible as God’s infallible, inspired Word (2 Timothy 3:16\). In Galatians 1:8–9 Paul counters [legalism](Bible-Christian-legalism.html) with these strong words: “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be [accursed](definition-anathema.html)” (KJV). The inspired writings of the apostles are part of the Word of God, and no one has a right to change their message. 4\. False apostles refuse to make themselves subject to spiritual authorities, but consider themselves the final authority (Hebrews 13:7; 2 Corinthians 10:12\). They will often adopt lofty\-sounding titles for themselves, such as “Bishop,” “Apostle,” “Reverend,” or “Father.” This does not mean that every person carrying such titles is a false prophet, only that evil impostors love lofty titles and will self\-title to gain a hearing. False apostles can arise anywhere the Word of God does not reign supreme. From organized churches to home Bible studies, we must always be on guard against “new teachings” or “revelations” that are not subject to the “whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27\).
What does it mean that he who endures to the end will be saved (Matthew 24:13)?	Answer In Matthew 24:13 Jesus says, “He that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved” (KJV), or, as the NIV has it, “The one who stands firm to the end will be saved.” This verse is part of Jesus’ [Olivet Discourse](Olivet-discourse.html), an explanation to His disciples about things to come. Jesus told the Twelve that the temple would be destroyed (Matthew 24:2\), and, in response, they asked Him, “When will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?” (verse 3\). Their question had two parts and so required two answers. Jesus combined those answers into one long discourse about what was ahead before He returned. Some of those prophecies were fulfilled with the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70\. The remainder has yet to happen. This specific verse is best understood when read in context. Matthew 24:9–14 says, “Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me. At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved. And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.” From God’s viewpoint outside our timeframe, the “end times” began with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. In Acts 2:16–21, Peter describes this event as “the last days.” From that perspective, it makes sense that Jesus combined events in AD 70 with those yet to come. They are all “the last days.” He then warns that, as persecution increases, many who considered themselves His followers will reveal their true spiritual condition when they turn away from the faith. This had already happened during His ministry (John 6:66\) and would escalate until the end. True Christian faith would be tested by deception, [false prophets](false-teachers.html), and the increase of wickedness. Not only will there be some who turn away, but Jesus foretold that “the love of most will grow cold.” The implication is that those who “stand firm to the end” will be the minority (see Matthew 7:14\). Those who endure to the end are the opposite of those in the previous verse whose love grows cold. Jesus’ statement that he who endures to the end will be saved cannot be taken to mean that our salvation is somehow dependent on our personal ability to remain saved. Rather, it is a promise of [perseverance](perseverance-saints.html). Those who have the grace to endure to the end are the ones who are genuinely saved by grace. The various trials Jesus mentions will reveal our true colors. “Most will grow cold” and fall away from Christ, showing that they are professors only and not truly born again (Matthew 24:12\). But those who endure and stand firm in the faith, despite incitements to do otherwise, are showing that they are genuine children of God “who by God’s power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time” (1 Peter 1:5, ESV, emphasis added). We can dissect this passage even further to glean relevant truths. Those who endure to the end and are saved will stand firm through [persecution](Christian-persecution.html). Matthew 24:9 warns that Jesus’ followers would be “handed over to be persecuted and put to death.” From the time of the apostles until the present day, millions of Christians have been persecuted and put to death. We are seeing an escalation of that in more recent days with global terrorism, but martyrdom has always been common in most areas of the world. Verse 9 goes on to state that Christians will “be hated by all nations because of me.” As Islam and atheism increase in nations that once held to Judeo\-Christian values, we are seeing a greater fulfillment of this prophecy. Hatred can be expressed in many ways, one of which is the radical secularization of culture and governments that once honored time\-tested morality and faith. When a culture actively strips from its history and public life any vestiges of God’s involvement in its success, that nation is displaying hatred toward Jesus. Those who endure to the end and are saved will stand firm through ridicule and hatred. Matthew 24:10 says that when many turn away from the faith, they will “betray and hate each other.” With the proliferation of internet websites, blogs, and Facebook pages, we are seeing the polarization of opinions leading to angry diatribes and un\-Christlike dialogue. Everyone has an opinion about everything, and opinion, it seems, has become a god worth defending through anger. Even among professing “Christians,” the comments and editorializing have taken a decidedly downward turn. Issues not worth dividing over have become hot\-button topics that alienate brothers and sisters and, sadly, the unbelieving world. Issues that are worth dividing over have been swept under the rug in the name of “tolerance.” Anyone who does not bow to the god of tolerance becomes an object of ridicule and self\-righteous hatred. Those who endure to the end and are saved will stand firm through false teaching. Matthew 24:11 goes on to warn of “many false prophets” appearing and deceiving the masses. We tend to imagine a “false prophet” as a flamboyant type, easily spotted and easily rejected. However, if this were true, then many would not be deceived by them. Instead, the false prophets are men and women with outward displays of Christianity, charismatic charm, and a way with words. They weave their heresies with Scripture, just as Satan does (see Luke 4:1–10\), so that those who do not know God’s Word thoroughly are taken in by their great\-sounding teachings (2 Timothy 4:3–4\). We are already seeing this take place with the explosion in recent years of [hyper\-grace teaching](hyper-grace.html) and the [prosperity gospel](prosperity-gospel.html). Millions are being deceived, with Bibles in their laps, because the words of the false prophets are ego\-soothing, exciting, and more desirable than Scripture’s focus upon self\-sacrifice and surrender. Those who endure to the end and are saved will stand firm even in the midst of a rampantly sinful culture. Matthew 24:12 says that “because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold.” This is a cause\-and\-effect statement that we are seeing played out before our eyes. As culture redefines reality according to its lusts and depravity, those clinging to scriptural definitions of sin are being quickly outnumbered. As wickedness becomes more popular and socially acceptable, people without a solid biblical worldview are being swept up by its grandiose promises. They are “rethinking” and “reevaluating” the Bible’s relevance in our modern world. The definitions of gender, sexuality, and morality are being challenged, even within some segments of the church, causing those unschooled in truth to collapse beneath the weight of these “new insights.” It is no wonder that the flicker of love that may have been ignited by the Holy Spirit is squelched in favor of a new love and a new god created in the image of the culture. When Jesus says, “The one who endures to the end will be saved” (Matthew 24:13, ESV), He is speaking of those who are truly born again, whose lives are transformed by the power of the Holy Spirit. True followers of Jesus Christ will withstand the onslaught of wickedness, recognize and reject false teaching, and cling fast to the truth of God’s Word. They will overcome this world and be granted reward in the world to come (Revelation 3:21\). Those who have been [sealed by the Holy Spirit](Holy-Spirit-seal.html) until the day of redemption (Ephesians 1:13; 4:30; 2 Corinthians 1:22\) have His power working in them to enable them to stand firm (Romans 14:4; Jude 1:24–25\).
What is the meaning of “Everlasting Father” in Isaiah 9:6?	Answer “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace” (Isaiah 9:6, ESV). In context, this verse is proclaiming the redemption of Israel and the activities, titles, and blessings of the [Messiah](what-does-Messiah-mean.html) who is to rule the earth and usher in a reign of blessing and peace that will have no end. One of His titles is “Everlasting Father.” The Hebrew phrase translated “Everlasting Father” could be translated literally “Father of Eternity.” For this reason, some have suggested that the title means that this coming Messiah is also the creator of everything: He is the father of time and eternity, the “architect of the ages.” While we know this to be true from the New Testament (John 1:1–3, Colossians 1:16–17\), that is not the emphasis in Isaiah. In the Hebrew construction of the phrase, father is the primary noun, and everlasting (ESV, NIV, KJV) or eternal (NASB) is the term that describes His fatherhood. He is Father forever. The Hebrew word translated “everlasting” has the idea of “in perpetuity” or “without end.” Indeed, the next verse says of the Messiah, “Of the greatness of his government and peace there will be no end” (Isaiah 9:7\). The emphasis is forward looking, so “everlasting” is probably a better translation than “eternal,” which not only indicates “without end” but also “without beginning.” (Again, from the New Testament we may argue that the Messiah is without beginning, but that is not the emphasis of this term in Isaiah.) So, as the Everlasting Father, the Messiah will be a father, and His fatherhood will be without end. Some have objected that this designation as father seems to confuse the roles within the Trinity, calling “Father” the one who is really “the Son.” Some in the [Oneness movement](oneness-Jesus-only.html) use this verse as a proof text to show that Jesus really is the Father and that there is only a Unity, not a Trinity. In both cases, the interpreters are reading New Testament concerns back into the Old Testament. Neither Trinitarian nor anti\-Trinitarian concerns are being discussed in Isaiah 9:6\. Many rulers in ancient times were considered “father of the country.” Americans who read this term might immediately think of George Washington who is called “the father of his country.” It was Washington’s determination and leadership that led to victory in the Revolutionary War and his support of a strong national government that led (at least in part) to ratification of the U.S. Constitution. Without Washington, the United States might not exist today, or it might exist with a far different form of government. However, if some of the interpretations discussed so far are guilty of reading New Testament theological concerns into Isaiah in an anachronistic fashion, using George Washington as an interpretive clue to the meaning of the phrase is also anachronistic. The most appropriate analogy is far more universal. In ancient times, the “father of the nation” was viewed in much the same way as the father of a family. It was the father who was to protect and provide for his children. In the same way, this Child to be born will become a king who will be a father to the children of Israel—He will protect and provide for them. And His role as protector and provider will not be limited by aging or death. His role as father (protector and provider) will continue in perpetuity. Just how this will come about is not revealed in Isaiah’s prophecy. The full identity of the Messiah—that He is God in the flesh, the second Person of the Trinity who would protect and provide for His people by His death and resurrection on their behalf; and that Gentiles could also be grafted into the family of Israel—may be hinted at in Isaiah, but God’s people would have to wait almost 700 years to see the Messiah revealed in the “fullness of time” (see Galatians 4:4\).
What is wrong with the allegorical interpretation method?	Answer The allegorical (or spiritualizing) method of interpretation was prominent in the church for about 1,000 years until it was displaced during the [Reformation](Protestant-Reformation.html). The Reformers sought the “plain meaning” of Scripture. Allegorical interpretation looks for a deeper, spiritual meaning within the text. While not necessarily denying that the text has a literal meaning or that the historical incidents reported are true, allegorical interpreters will look for a deeper symbolic meaning. Some examples may be helpful: The [Song of Solomon](Song-of-Solomon.html) is often interpreted allegorically as referring to the love that Christ has for the church. In the Scofield Reference Bible, [C. I. Scofield](C-I-Scofield.html) interprets Genesis 1:16 allegorically. While not denying the plain meaning of the verse regarding creation, he finds a deeper spiritual (he calls it typological) meaning. The greater light/sun is Christ, and the lesser light/moon is the church, reflecting the light of Christ, and the stars are individual believers. In his Portraits of Christ in Genesis, M. R. DeHaan says that Adam is a type of Christ because Adam was put to sleep, his side was opened—he was wounded and his blood was shed—and from that wound his bride was taken. In the same way, Christ died, had His side pierced, and from that ordeal His Bride, the church, is produced. Just as Adam said that Eve was bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh (Genesis 2:23\), so the church is the body, flesh, and bone of Christ (see Ephesians 5:30\). Perhaps the most famous instance of allegorical interpretation is Origen’s explanation of the [Parable of the Good Samaritan](parable-Good-Samaritan.html) in Luke 10\. In the allegorical view, the man who is robbed is Adam, Jerusalem is paradise, and Jericho is the world. The priest is the Law, and the Levites are the Prophets. The Samaritan is Christ. The donkey is Christ’s physical body, which bears the burden of the wounded man (the wounds are his sins), and the inn is the Church. The Samaritan’s promise to return is a promise of the second coming of Christ. We need to recognize that allegory is a beautiful and legitimate literary device. John Bunyan’s The Pilgrim’s Progress was written as an allegory of the Christian life. In this story, almost every action and character is intended to have a deeper, spiritual meaning. To interpret Bunyan’s story literally would be to miss the point completely. Really, there is little difference between allegorical, typological, and symbolic interpretation. They all look for a deeper meaning behind what would seem to be a literal reading of the Bible’s text. However, these methods should not be set in opposition to “[literal interpretation](Bible-literal.html),” because every interpreter recognizes that some passages of the Bible are intended to be taken symbolically, typologically, or allegorically. For instance, Ecclesiastes 12:1–7 speaks of a dilapidated estate, but this is an allegory for the ravages of age and time upon the human body. All Christians would agree that the Old Testament sacrifices are symbolic for the greater sacrifice of Christ. When Jesus says, “I am the vine and you are the branches” (John 15:5\), no one expects to find leaves and clusters of grapes sprouting from their arms. Even those who insist on a literal interpretation of the book of Revelation still expect “the Beast” to be a man, not an animal (see Revelation 13:4\). To insist upon a literal reading for a passage of Scripture that was intended to be taken in a symbolic manner is to miss the meaning of the text. For instance, at the Last Supper Jesus says of the bread and wine, “This is my body. . . . This is my blood” (Luke 22:19–20\). Jesus’ hearers in the room were partaking of a Passover meal in which every item on the menu was interpreted symbolically. For them to suddenly think that Jesus was speaking literally regarding these two elements is completely foreign to the context. Metaphor is a recognized literary device in use today and in the time of Christ. Jesus could have just as easily said, “This represents my body and my blood,” but in the context of the Passover, such directness was not necessary. The problem with the allegorical method of interpretation is that it seeks to find an allegorical interpretation for every passage of Scripture, regardless of whether or not it is intended to be understood in that way. Interpreters who allegorize can be very creative, with no control based in the text itself. It becomes easy to read one’s own beliefs into the allegory and then think that they have scriptural support. There will always be some disagreement about whether certain texts are to be taken literally or figuratively and to what degree, as evidenced by disagreements over the [book of Revelation](Book-of-Revelation.html), even among those who have high regard for Scripture. For a text to be interpreted allegorically or figuratively, there needs to be justification in the text itself or something in the cultural background of the original readers that would have led them to understand the text symbolically. The goal of every interpreter who has a high view of Scripture is to discover the intended meaning of the text. If the intended meaning is simply the literal communication of a historical fact or the straightforward explanation of a theological truth, then that is the inspired meaning. If the intended meaning is allegorical/typological/symbolic/figurative, then the interpreter should find some justification for it in the text and in the culture of the original hearers/readers.
Who was Matthias in the Bible?	Answer Matthias, short for the name Mattathias, means “gift of Yahweh.” This meaning is fitting, for Matthias became one of [the Twelve](twelve-apostles-disciples-12.html), replacing Judas after that disciple’s betrayal of Jesus. We meet Matthias after Jesus had ascended back to heaven. About 120 disciples gathered in Jerusalem for fellowship and prayer, awaiting Jesus’ promise of His Holy Spirit (John 14:16–17; Luke 24:49; Acts 1:4–8\). Peter, knowing the Scriptures were to be fulfilled, proposed that another man be chosen to take Judas Iscariot’s place among the Twelve to maintain their number and their ministry. Peter based his suggestion on Psalm 109:8, “May another take his place of leadership,” and Psalm 69:25, “May their place be deserted; let there be no one to dwell in their tents” (cf. Acts 1:20–26\). Matthias and Joseph (also called Justus and Barsabbas) were selected as candidates for this particular ministry, as both met the qualifications laid out by Peter. Both Matthias and Joseph had been faithful followers of Jesus “the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us, beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us” (Acts 1:21–22\). The gospels do not mention these two disciples by name, but we know there were at least 72 other men, besides the Twelve, whom the Lord had commissioned for ministry (Luke 10:1\). The details of Matthias’s and Joseph’s faithfulness are hidden from our view. Yet Peter and the others were familiar with these men, and their constant, faithful discipleship made them stand out as worthy candidates to “become a witness with \[the apostles] of his resurrection” (Acts 1:22\). After praying together, the disciples [cast lots](casting-lots.html) to discern who the chosen man would be, and the lot fell to Matthias. Trusting that God’s hand was in these proceedings, the other apostles received Matthias as the replacement for Judas (Acts 1:24–26\). Nothing else is known of Matthias; he is not mentioned again in the Bible. Various traditions have developed to fill in the details of the future ministry of Matthias. One says that Matthias evangelized in Ethiopia, where he was martyred. Another says that Matthias traveled to Damascus and later died in Judea. A third tradition says that Matthias spent most of his time in Jerusalem, where he eventually died. It’s impossible for us to know the truth regarding Matthias’s later ministry, since the Bible does not give us any information about him after his selection to the Twelve.
Who was Obed in the Bible?	Answer The name Obed means “serving” or “worshiping,” and there are several men listed in the Bible named Obed. The most notable Obed in Scripture is the son of [Ruth and Boaz](Ruth-and-Boaz.html) (Ruth 4:17; Matthew 1:5\). Obed’s mother, Ruth, was a Moabitess who immigrated to Bethlehem with her mother\-in\-law, Naomi. Boaz was a landowner who became Ruth’s kinsman\-redeemer. Their son Obed is a significant part of biblical history because Obed’s son Jesse became the father of King David (Ruth 4:21–22\). Obed’s name is mentioned only in four genealogies, in Ruth, 1 Chronicles, Matthew, and Luke. We know nothing about the life of Obed other than his conception was directly ordained by the Lord: “The Lord enabled \[Ruth] to conceive, and she gave birth to a son” (Ruth 4:13\); he was cared for by his grandmother (verse 16\); Obed’s birth caused great joy in Bethlehem (verses 14–17\); and he became the grandfather of a king (verse 22\). For all the lack of personal information we have concerning Obed, he is a vital link in God’s plan to bring salvation to the world. When Naomi’s husband and two sons died, it looked like her husband’s family line had come to a dead end. But God choose a non\-Israelite, a bachelor farmer, and a series of “coincidences” to eventually bring David into the world. Jesus is often referred to by the messianic title “Son of David” (e.g., Matthew 9:27; 12:23\), and David is often titled “son of Jesse” (1 Chronicles 10:14; Psalm 72:20; Acts 13:22\). Since Jesse was the son of Obed, Obed’s name is forever linked with the promised Messiah of Israel (Matthew 1:1\). Other, lesser\-known Obeds in Scripture include the following: • [Obed\-edom](Obed-Edom.html), the Gittite (2 Samuel 6:10\). As David was bringing the [Ark of the Covenant](ark-of-the-covenant.html) from Kiriath Jearim to Jerusalem, a man named Uzzah was killed by God for touching the ark. The procession to Jerusalem stopped, and the ark was taken to the nearby house of Obed\-edom for safe\-keeping for three months. Obed\-edom treated the ark with reverence, and the Lord blessed his entire household (verse 11\). • Obed, a son of Ephlal (1 Chronicles 2:37–38\). • Obed, a Judaite. This Obed was the father of Azariah, one of the captains who helped Jehoiada conquer the wicked queen [Athaliah](Athaliah-in-the-Bible.html) (2 Chronicles 23:1\). • Obed, one of [David’s mighty men](mighty-men-David.html) (1 Chronicles 11:47\). • Obed, son of Shemaiah. This Obed is the grandson of Obed\-edom. He was also a [gatekeeper](gatekeepers-in-the-Bible.html) of the temple (1 Chronicles 26:7\) and a “capable” man with “the strength to do the work” (verse 8\).
What items should be included in a church constitution?	Answer There is nothing about church constitutions in the New Testament. The need for church constitutions arose due to legal issues. Churches may be incorporated, own property, hire staff, pay some kinds of taxes and be exempt from others, and run other ministries that may or may not be similarly tax exempt or have a different level of legal protection than the church itself. A constitution is a legal document that gives the church direction in ministry and protection from lawsuits. If the church clearly documents what it is, what it does, and why it does it, and then follows the plan consistently, it will have more legal protection as well as a unified focus. Since there is nothing in the New Testament about constitutions, what should be included is a matter of opinion and expediency. That said, here are the most common parts of a church constitution: Purpose Statement: This part of the church constitution should not only be biblically accurate but also legally astute. As long as the church acts consistently within its purpose, it will have less exposure to legal attacks. Doctrinal Statement: This important part of the church constitution should clearly and simply outline what the church believes about key [doctrines](what-is-doctrine.html), including the church’s teaching on God, Christ, the Holy Spirit, salvation, etc. Following modern legal advice, many churches also include statements on cultural hot topics such as gay marriage, divorce and remarriage, sexual harassment, etc. While it would be much simpler to say, “We believe the Bible,” clarification about what the church believes the Bible to teach is helpful because there can be much disagreement on key doctrines, even among people who say they simply believe what the Bible says. Membership Requirements: The church constitution should clearly define who is a member of the church and what rights and responsibilities come with [membership](church-membership.html). There should also be a statement about the process of church discipline (see Matthew 18:15–20\). In today’s legal climate, church members can sue churches over discipline issues. Leadership Roles: The church constitution should clearly define the roles of church leaders, how those leaders are chosen, and how they are removed, if necessary. The constitution should be clear about who has the final human authority for making decisions: the congregation, a board of elders, etc. Procedural/Legal Issues: With so many issues of church and state in flux today, the church has to be very careful about how it interacts with non\-members. If the church allows non\-members to rent its building for weddings, how will it respond when it gets a request for a homosexual wedding? If the church allows other organizations to use its facilities for meetings or community activities, can it deny usage by a group that is at cross purposes with the church? Will the church hire non\-members or even unbelievers for any positions? If so, what are the lifestyle requirements for those employees? What are the requirements for staff or volunteers working with children? There should be consistent, coherent positions that align with the church’s stated purpose. If a church rents its chapel for weddings simply to raise money, it will have a hard time justifying its decision to reject a gay couple. If the church rents its chapel as a way to help couples who belong to other churches of like faith, then the church has some justification for being selective. Provision for Amendments: As the church grows and times change, new challenges will arise that may need to be addressed in the church constitution. When that time comes, how will the constitution be changed? The constitution itself should detail a procedure for making amendments. Finally, the church constitution should be as brief and clear as possible. There is usually no need for a church to write a constitution from scratch. It would be advisable to study the constitutions of several churches that are of similar size, doctrinal distinctives, and focus. Perhaps adopting the constitution of another church, in whole or in part, might be the most prudent path to follow. It would also be advisable to consult an attorney who is knowledgeable in church law to make sure that there is nothing included or excluded that would leave the church open for a lawsuit. No legal document is foolproof, and churches must rely upon the Lord of the Church for ultimate protection, but it is wise to use all the tools available to minimize risk.
What is the whole counsel of God?	Answer The phrase the whole counsel of God is found in Acts 20:27\. In his farewell speech to the elders of the Ephesian church, Paul says, “Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all, for I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:26–27, ESV). Declaring the whole counsel of God is what made Paul “innocent” of anyone’s choice to turn away from the truth. Paul had fulfilled his ministry among the Ephesians. Paul spent several years in Ephesus prior to this speech. When he first arrived in Ephesus, Paul had found some disciples who had only heard of John the Baptist and did not yet know of the completed ministry of Jesus or the coming of the Holy Spirit. After bringing them up to speed by presenting Jesus to them, Paul baptized them “in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 19:4–5\). Paul then spent time teaching in the synagogue and, when he was opposed there, taught at the lecture hall, and “all the Jews and Greeks who lived in the province of Asia heard the word of the Lord” (Acts 19:10\). Verse 20 says, “The word of the Lord spread widely and grew in power.” Later, a group of merchants in Ephesus started a riot over the positive impact of the gospel in their city. After the riot ended, Paul said goodbye to the disciples in Ephesus before going to Macedonia. Several months later, on his way to Jerusalem, Paul called the Ephesian elders to Miletus to meet with him. It is here that Paul reminds the Ephesians that he had “not hesitated to proclaim . . . the whole will of God” (Acts 20:27\). Paul shared “the whole counsel of God” (ESV) or “the whole will of God” (NIV) or “the whole purpose of God” (NASB) in that he spoke the complete [gospel](what-is-the-gospel.html). He had given them the whole truth about God’s salvation. He also revealed to them the “mystery” of God (Ephesians 3:9\), which in the context of Ephesians 3 is God’s extending His plan of salvation to Gentiles as well as Jews. Despite the opposition Paul faced in Ephesus, he continued to share the good news in its entirety. He did not shrink back from his duty but proclaimed the whole counsel of God. He tells the Ephesian elders, “I served the Lord with great humility and with tears and in the midst of severe testing by the plots of my Jewish opponents. You know that I have not hesitated to preach anything that would be helpful to you but have taught you publicly and from house to house. I have declared to both Jews and Greeks that they must turn to God in repentance and have faith in our Lord Jesus” (Acts 20:19–21\). Paul shared everything that God had revealed with everyone who would listen—and even some who wouldn’t. Paul tells the Ephesian elders that, having given them the whole counsel of God, he is innocent if any of the Ephesians choose to turn away from Christ. Like the prophet Ezekiel, Paul had been a faithful watchman: “Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the people of Israel; so hear the word I speak and give them warning from me. When I say to a wicked person, ‘You will surely die,’ and you do not warn them or speak out to dissuade them from their evil ways in order to save their life, that wicked person will die for their sin, and I will hold you accountable for their blood. But if you do warn the wicked person and they do not turn from their wickedness or from their evil ways, they will die for their sin; but you will have saved yourself” (Ezekiel 3:17–19; cf. 33:1–9\). Paul emphasizes “the whole counsel of God” as a way to affirm the completion of his duties toward the Ephesians and to remind them of the truth. Paul warns, “I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. So be on your guard!” (Acts 20:29–31\). The whole counsel of God includes some things that are difficult to hear—the fact that we are dead in sin and deserving of God’s wrath (Ephesians 2:1–3\) and the fact that we cannot save ourselves through works (Ephesians 2:8–9\). The gospel is a call to repentance and faith. Believers will face persecution (John 16:33\) and likely be considered foolish. But none of these things can dissuade us. We should follow Paul’s example and also preach the whole counsel of God. All Scripture is inspired, and all of it is profitable (2 Timothy 3:16\). We must preach it in its entirety and allow the Holy Spirit to use [His sword](sword-of-the-Spirit.html) as He sees fit (Ephesians 6:17\). Paul did not share half\-truths or only parts of the gospel; rather, he shared all of what God has revealed. We must do the same.
Is it possible for a believer to unbelieve?	Answer The question of whether a believer can become an unbeliever usually arises in an attempt to explain puzzling situations involving people we know. Someone who at one time made a profession of faith denies the faith. By all outward appearances, he was a believer involved in church life and perhaps even in ministry. So what happened? Is this a case of a believer becoming an unbeliever? There are a number of prominent skeptics who started out as professing believers. Dan Barker, atheist and president of the Freedom from Religion Foundation, started out as a minister and Christian musician. Charles Templeton (now deceased) was an evangelist who at one time toured with [Billy Graham](Billy-Graham.html) but later became an outspoken agnostic. Bart Ehrman is a New York Times best\-selling author and well\-known skeptic who continually casts doubt upon the reliability of the New Testament. Ehrman describes himself as a former born\-again fundamentalist. He studied at Moody Bible Institute and graduated from Wheaton College. Aside from these high profile cases are the thousands, perhaps millions of people who have made professions of faith, often as children, but years later maintain no faith in Christ. Whether they call themselves atheistic, agnostic, or simply uninterested, they have left the faith. What are we to make of these people? Were they born\-again believers at one time, but now they are unbelievers? There are a number of possibilities that are often suggested. The first possibility is to affirm that these people were and still are saved, born again, made part of the Body of Christ, and indwelt and sealed by the Holy Spirit. Since God’s salvation is irreversible, once a person has been saved, he will always be saved regardless of any future state of unbelief or disobedience. It seems that parents often take comfort in this idea, for, even though a child may be walking far from the Lord, the parent holds on to a specific time and place where the child “accepted Christ.” The second possibility is to agree that these people were once true believers but that, when they stopped believing, they [lost their salvation](Christian-lose-salvation.html). All of God’s blessings have been reversed. The former believers have become unbelievers and unsaved. The third possibility is that, although these people may have given outward signs of having genuine faith, their subsequent choices and statements reveal that they were never true believers. No matter what they say, they were never born again and sealed by the Spirit. True believers may experience times of doubt, uncertainty, disobedience, and momentary unbelief, but they will never renounce their faith. This idea is known as the [perseverance of the saints](perseverance-saints.html)—all who are truly saved will persevere (continue) in their faith, kept by the power of God. We can only know if a “decision for Christ” was genuine by the fruit that it produced. This is the approach that is most supported by Scripture. Scripture and history are filled with examples of people who made an initial positive response to Christ only to fall away later. In the [parable of the sower and the seed](parable-sower.html), some of the seed sprung up quickly, only to wither away or be choked out by weeds. “As for what was sown on rocky ground, this is the one who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy, yet he has no root in himself, but endures for a while, and when tribulation or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately he falls away. As for what was sown among thorns, this is the one who hears the word, but the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word, and it proves unfruitful” (Matthew 13:20–22\). But the seed (the gospel) sown on good soil brings forth fruit for harvest. In the initial stages, it might be very difficult to tell which plants will make it or not. Time reveals the truth. In John 6, Jesus calls himself the Bread from Heaven and makes some statements that were very hard to understand. Verse 66 says, “After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him.” There were people who had identified themselves as followers of Jesus, but they turned back when Jesus said something they disliked. It was not that they lost salvation; they never had it to begin with, and this incident is what showed their true colors. Next in John 6, Jesus comments on Peter and Judas Iscariot. “Jesus said to the twelve, ‘Do you want to go away as well?’ Simon Peter answered him, ‘Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.’ Jesus answered them, ‘Did I not choose you, the twelve? And yet one of you is a devil.’ He spoke of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was going to betray him” (verses 67–70\). At the time Jesus spoke those words, Peter and Judas looked very much alike—both were disciples. On the night that Jesus was arrested, Peter and Judas looked very much alike—both denied the Lord. A few days later, however, they showed themselves to be very different. Judas, overcome with remorse, did not seek repentance and forgiveness but committed suicide (Matthew 27:5\). Peter was filled with shame and wept (Matthew 26:75\). Three days later Peter is still with the disciples and becomes an apostle of the Risen Lord. Neither Judas nor Peter lost his salvation. Judas’ true nature was that of an unbeliever. He liked Jesus well enough and dabbled with faith for a while, but he never really believed—we might say he only pretended to be a believer. Judas was the treasurer for the disciples, and John 12:6 tells us that he was dipping into the money for himself. Peter, on the other hand, for a short period of time, “pretended” to be an unbeliever, but over the course of time his true, redeemed nature showed itself. First John directly addresses the issue of professing believers who seem to become unbelievers. Some false teachers, who had appeared to be true believers at one time, were troubling the church. First John 2:19 explains, “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.” Although those who departed the faith had appeared to be genuine, John makes it clear that they had never actually been “of us”; one of the marks of a believer is that he “continues with us.” People may be able to “fake it” for a while, but they cannot sustain the part forever. The truth will eventually outlast their fakery. First John 3:9 says, “No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him; and he cannot keep on sinning, because he has been born of God.” A genuine believer is kept from falling into continuous sin because he has been born of God—God keeps him safe. A true believer may fall into disobedience and struggle with doubt, but a true believer will never renounce Christ. A person who has renounced Christ by his words or deeds has not lost salvation; rather, he is demonstrating that he never had genuine faith. This is one reason why [church discipline](church-discipline.html) is so important. In Matthew 18, Jesus outlines the steps. If a person in the church sins, he should be confronted and given the chance to repent. Once all the steps in the process have been followed and there is still no repentance, then the unrepentant sinner is to be put out of the church and treated as an unbeliever (verses 15–17\). This process is designed to get the sinner off the fence. Either he will see the error of his ways and be brought to his senses, or he will decide that the church and the Christian life are not that important and walk away—either way, church discipline forces a person’s true nature to come out. A genuine believer can never become an unbeliever because he or she has been born again by the Spirit of God. It is not one’s faith that keeps one safe but the power of God that enables continual faith.
Who was Ulrich Zwingli?	Answer Ulrich (or Huldrych) Zwingli was the founder of reformed Protestantism in Switzerland. Along with Martin Luther and [John Calvin](John-Calvin.html), Zwingli was a leading figure in the [Protestant Reformation](Protestant-Reformation.html). The ministry of Ulrich Zwingli is an amazing parallel to that of Martin Luther, who was born just two months before Zwingli. Ulrich Zwingli was born on January 1, 1484, in Wildhaus, a small village forty miles from Zurich, Switzerland. His father was able to provide Ulrich with an excellent education that included bachelor’s and master’s degrees from the University of Basel. Like Luther, Zwingli was ordained to the priesthood in the Roman Catholic Church. He bought a pastorate (a common practice prior to the Reformation) at Glarus, his boyhood church. There he busied himself with preaching, teaching, and pastoring. But his love was also for private study of Greek, the writings of the Church Fathers, and the ancient classics. He began reading the humanist writings of [Desiderius Erasmus](Desiderius-Erasmus.html) and was impressed with his scholarship and piety. This led to a correspondence with Erasmus that was to greatly influence Zwingli. At about the time that Luther in Germany published his [Ninety\-five Theses](95-theses.html), Zwingli, who had never heard of Luther, began to preach a gospel\-based message similar to that of Luther. Zwingli began attacking some of the abuses of the Catholic Church of Switzerland, especially the sale of [indulgences](plenary-indulgences.html). Like Luther, Zwingli at first sought to reform the church from within. In December 1518, Zwingli was installed as “people’s priest” at the Great Cathedral in Zurich. There he broke tradition by departing from the church’s schedule for sermons; instead, Zwingli began to preach through whole books of the New Testament, based on his own study of Greek. In 1522, some of Zwingli’s parishioners ate meat during Lent, and Zwingli supported them. To Zwingli, eating meat was a matter of Christian liberty, no matter what restrictions the church had placed on it (see Romans 14:1–4\). About that same time, Zwingli published Sixty\-seven Theses, in which he rejected many key Catholic doctrines. In 1524, the city of Zurich removed all religious images from its churches. That same year, Zwingli married, further separating himself from Catholic rules. By 1525, the Protestant Reformation took firm root in Switzerland. On April 14, 1525, Zurich leaders officially abolished the Mass, and the Bible was read and preached in the language of the people. Zwingli saw to it that the communion service was open to congregation and clergy alike. Venerating Mary, selling indulgences, and praying for the dead were no longer practiced. Luther and Zwingli finally met each other at the [Marburg Colloquy](Marburg-Colloquy.html) in October 1529\. They and the other Reformers present agreed in principle on fourteen of the fifteen issues at hand. The one topic that Luther and Zwingli differed on was communion. Both men rejected the Roman Catholic teaching of [transubstantiation](transubstantiation.html), the belief that the elements change into the actual body and blood of Christ when blessed by the priest during Mass. Luther held to [consubstantiation](consubstantiation.html), the belief that Christ is mystically present in the elements of communion. Zwingli’s position, that the Lord’s Supper is mainly a symbolic memorial of Christ’s death, was more biblical. In 1529, Ulrich Zwingli and his colleague Leo Juda finished work on the first edition of the Zürich Bible, also called the Zwingli Bible or the Froschauer Bible, after the name of the publisher, Christof Froschauer. The Zürich Bible was the world’s first Bible in the language of Swiss German. In 1531 Catholics attacked the city of Zurich, and the Protestants went to battle against them. Ulrich Zwingli joined Zurich’s army as a field chaplain. He was severely wounded on the battlefield, and when enemy soldiers found him, they killed him and proceeded to cut up his body, burn the pieces, and mix his ashes with dung. Zwingli’s influence in the Reformation cannot be overstated. He stands as one of the greats of the movement that began in Europe and remains today. Protestants throughout the world owe a great deal to Ulrich Zwingli.
What is the doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture?	Answer The word perspicuity means “clarity.” To say that something is perspicacious is to say that it is clear. The doctrine of the perspicuity (clarity) of Scripture is one of the basic tenets of Protestant evangelicalism regarding the Bible, along with the doctrines of the [inspiration](Bible-inspired.html), [inerrancy](Biblical-inerrancy.html), and [sufficiency](sufficiency-of-Scripture.html) of Scripture. In short, the doctrine of perspicuity means that the central message of the Bible is clear and understandable and that the Bible itself can be properly interpreted in a normal, literal sense. The [Westminster Confession of Faith](Westminster-Confession-of-Faith.html) explains what Protestants believe about the perspicuity of Scripture: “All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all. Yet, those things that are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or another, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them” (1\.7\). The doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture was a main belief of the [Reformers](Protestant-Reformation.html). Martin Luther taught against the Roman Catholic claim that the Bible is imperspicuous, that is, too obscure and difficult for the common people to understand. The Bible, the priests and bishops taught, was unclear, and the people should not be trusted to interpret or even read it for themselves. On the contrary, the Reformers encouraged lay Christians to study and interpret God’s Word on their own. The Reformers believed that the Bible proclaimed itself to be inherently clear and that God is able to communicate His message to all men, even the unlettered. A main tenet of the Reformation is that Scripture is clear enough for the simplest person to live by. Because of their belief in the perspicuity of Scripture, men like [John Wycliffe](John-Wycliffe.html), [William Tyndale](William-Tyndale.html), [Martin Luther](Martin-Luther.html), [Myles Coverdale](Coverdale-Bible.html), [Thomas Matthew](Matthew-Bible.html), and Pierre Olivétan went to great lengths to translate the Bible into the vernacular. The Bible itself proclaims its own perspicuity. Deuteronomy 6:6–7 exhorts parents to teach the Scriptures to their children, indicating that they can be understood by children. The New Testament confirms this when the apostle Paul encourages Timothy to continue in the things he has known of the Holy Scriptures from childhood (2 Timothy 3:14–15a). Psalm 19:7 declares that the “testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple” (ESV). Surely, the simple cannot be made wise by something they are unable to understand. Psalm 119:130 further explains that God’s Word “gives understanding to the simple,” meaning that it is not necessary to be highly educated to comprehend its truths. The Bible’s meaning is clear to all. The doctrine of perspicuity means the Bible is clear in its essential matters and able to expose to man that which is comprehensible to him about God—His nature, His character, His dealings with mankind in the past, and His plans for the future. The Bible is clear in all that is necessary for man to know in regard to his sinful state, his need for salvation, and the means of attaining that salvation, faith in Christ (Romans 3:22\). The doctrine of perspicuity does not mean that every passage of Scripture is equally clear as to its precise meaning. Certainly, there are passages that can be obscure to modern readers due to historical or cultural references. And some of the theology is difficult; Peter said that Scripture contains “some things that are hard to understand” (2 Peter 3:16\). The perspicuity of the Word of God does not eliminate the need for interpretation, explanation, and exposition of the Bible by diligent scholars. Finite man can never fully comprehend the infinite. “‘For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,’ declares the Lord. ‘As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts’” (Isaiah 55:8–9\). Impeded by the sin nature, our ability to completely understand all of Scripture won’t be perfected in this life. But one day, the understanding of all mysteries will be complete: “For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known” (1 Corinthians 13:12\). Nor does the doctrine of perspicuity mean that all the meaning of Scripture is fully comprehensible to sinful man. First Corinthians 2:14 says that the things of the Spirit are foolish to the man without the Spirit, and he cannot understand them. It is not that an unsaved person cannot understand what the words of Scripture are saying. Rather, he cannot have a spiritual understanding. The Word is understandable to an unsaved person on an external level. He comprehends the words, the syntax, and the sentence structure. Scripture is clear on that level, but, sadly, its spiritual meaning is either insignificant to him, or, worse, it is incredible. The doctrine of perspicuity must be coupled with the doctrine of illumination; the Holy Spirit must illumine the mind of the reader or hearer of Scripture if he is to grasp its spiritual significance. There are dangers inherent in denying the perspicuity of the Word of God. If we believe the Bible is unclear about the doctrine of salvation, for example, then we will see ourselves as unaccountable to the gospel and live as we please. Worse, if Christ is the only means of escaping an eternity in hell, but God has obscured that message, then He would indeed be cruel and capricious. But God is neither cruel nor capricious. He is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33\). He has spoken, and He has spoken clearly. His plan of salvation is clear to all because He desires mankind to be saved (Matthew 28:19–20\). Denying the perspicuity of the Word of God would also allow us to ignore the commands to read, study, meditate upon Scripture and apply it to our lives. If the Word is unclear, then there would be no need to teach it in our homes or churches, as we are exhorted to do. Another danger inherent in dismissing the Bible as unclear is that it absolves man of the responsibility to live within its precepts. If “Thou shalt not kill” (Exodus 20:13, KJV) can be called into question because it’s “unclear,” then what’s to stop us from sanctioning murder? If the Bible is not perspicacious, then everyone should be allowed to do what is right in his own eyes. God has commanded us to handle Scripture accurately (2 Timothy 2:15\); those who promote misconceptions about the word of truth or who discount it due to a supposed lack of clarity will be “ashamed.” Finally, if the Word of God is not perspicacious, then translating it from the original languages and disseminating it throughout the world would be pointless. If the words and meanings are unclear, translators could re\-invent, distort, or ignore its precepts and commands, rendering Scripture null and void. The Word of God is clear. Its meaning is comprehensible even to children and the simple. It gives light to our paths (Psalm 119:105\). It is perfect, true, right, and sure (Psalm 19:8–9\). By the perspicacious teachings of Scripture, we are given guidance, and “in keeping them there is great reward” (Psalm 19:11\).
What is the significance of the Roman Empire in biblical history?	Answer The Roman Empire was the human political entity that God used to prepare the world for the birth of the Messiah and for the spread of the gospel. At the end of the Old Testament, Israel had returned from exile, Jerusalem had been rebuilt, and the temple had been reconstructed and was functioning again. The world power was the [Median (or Medo\-Persian) Empire](Medo-Persian-empire.html). In the 400 years between the testaments, the [Greek Empire](Greek-empire.html) rose to prominence under Alexander and then splintered upon his death. Israel was persecuted by the Seleucids, one of the splinter kingdoms of the Greek Empire based in Syria. The Seleucid ruler, [Antiochus IV Epiphanes](Antiochus-Epiphanes.html) (“manifest god”) was especially brutal. He enforced Hellenization of the Jews and profaned the temple. His actions led to the Maccabean revolt in which Israel expelled the Greeks and gained their independence. During the time of revolt, the Maccabees were supported by the up\-and\-coming Romans (1 Maccabees 8; 15:15–24\). As the power of Rome grew, it became an empire and swallowed up Israel. The Jews were allowed to maintain their religious practices as long as they did not make trouble for Rome. Rome placed a series of puppet kings (the [Herod family](Herods.html)) and military governors (e.g., [Pilate](Pontius-Pilate.html), Felix, [Festus](Porcius-Festus.html)) over various provinces of Israel. Although Scripture prophesied centuries before that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2\), Mary and Joseph were firmly established in Nazareth of Galilee (Luke 1:26\). The Roman Empire moved them to the city where Christ was to be born. A decree of the Roman Emperor [Augustus](Augustus-Caesar.html) (Octavian) mandated that all should return to their home for registration so “So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child” (Luke 2:4–5\). God used the decree of a pagan emperor to move Mary and Joseph into the place that had been prophesied. Certainly, Mary and Joseph could have chosen to go to Bethlehem on their own in order to fulfill the prophecy; however, the Roman emperor’s decree that set everything in motion demonstrated that Mary and Joseph did not manipulate events to “set up their son” as a potential Messiah. One of the priorities of the Roman Empire (perhaps the main priority) was peace, which it accomplished with an iron hand. The [Pax Romana](Pax-Romana.html) (“peace of Rome”) guaranteed that people could live and travel within the Roman Empire in relative safety. Roads were constructed that made travel much easier, and a common language broke down communication barriers among various ethnic groups and provided something of a common culture. The apostle Paul traveled all over the Roman Empire on Roman roads and shared the gospel with diverse groups of Gentiles in the common Greek language. (The common trade language of the Roman Empire was Greek and was not replaced with Latin for several centuries.) Paul’s Roman citizenship allowed him to move about the empire more freely and provided him with an additional measure of protection (see Acts 22:22–29\). Not only Paul, but many Christians spread out all over the Roman Empire, taking the gospel with them. It is commonly accepted that Rome was the primary persecutor of the church in the first century, but an examination of the evidence in the New Testament does not bear this out. Widespread persecution by the Romans did not occur until the time of [Nero](who-was-Nero.html) (the late 60s) and later emperors. The observable pattern in the New Testament is that Rome cared very little about Christians and only took action against them at the instigation of the Jewish authorities (see Acts 22:30\). Rome often attempted to placate the Jewish authorities to keep the peace. The Roman governor Pilate wanted to release Jesus, but the Jewish authorities demanded His execution (Matthew 27:15–23\). Likewise, Paul was most often opposed by his own countrymen who either took things into their own hands, stirred up the pagan populace, or appealed to the Roman authorities for help. This happened at Thessalonica (Acts 17:1–9\) and at Corinth (Acts 18:12–17\). The one time when Paul was arrested by the Roman authorities, he used his status as a Roman citizen to gain an apology upon his release (Acts 16:35–40\). When Paul was spotted in the Jerusalem temple, it was his countrymen who attacked him and the Roman authorities who arrested/rescued him (Acts 21:27–36\). The Roman governor saved Paul from a plot by the Jews to kill him (Acts 23\). Both Felix and Festus, Roman governors, are presented as being sympathetic to Paul but unwilling to release him because it would anger the Jewish leadership (Acts 24–26\.) Ultimately, Paul appealed to Caesar, for he knew he could not get a fair trial in Jerusalem. In the final analysis, the Roman governor Festus and the Roman puppet king Agrippa agreed: “This man is doing nothing to deserve death or imprisonment” (Acts 26:31\). The Roman authorities demanded absolute allegiance to Rome first and foremost. Because of the Jews’ longstanding “tradition” of monotheism, they were exempted from offering sacrifices to the emperor. Initially, Christians were considered members of a sect of Judaism and were given the same exemption. However, Jews began to more forcefully distance themselves from Christians, and Rome started to take a harder look at Christians. By the second century, Christians were persecuted as enemies of the state because of their refusal to honor the emperor as a deity. However, this persecution is not evident within the pages of the New Testament. In AD 70, the Roman general Titus (son of Emperor Vespasian) laid waste to Jerusalem and destroyed the temple in fulfillment of Jesus’ pronouncement in Luke 21:6\. Three Roman emperors are mentioned by name in the New Testament. Augustus, already mentioned above in connection with the census that moved Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem for Jesus’ birth. Tiberius, who was emperor when John the Baptist started his public ministry (Luke 3:1\). And Claudius is mentioned as the emperor who expelled all Jews from Rome (Acts 18:1\). The Roman historian Seutonius is his work The Lives of the Twelve Caesars says that the expulsion was the result of Jewish disputes over someone called Chrestus. Many scholars believe that this may be a reference to Christ. Most Roman authorities were uninterested and uninformed with the particulars of Jewish disputes (see Acts 25:18–20\), so it is understandable that they might get the name wrong. Within a few years, the Jews had returned to Rome. In summary, the Roman Empire had a tremendous impact in the circumstances regarding Jesus’ birth and crucifixion, and unintentionally provided the necessary infrastructure to allow the apostles to spread the gospel throughout the Mediterranean world.
Was Joseph the same person as Imhotep in Egyptian history?	Answer Imhotep is a famous and somewhat mysterious figure from Egyptian history. Imhotep is often credited with major advances in architecture and medicine. Although common\-born, he rose to become the primary adviser to the Pharaoh and was later deified by the Egyptian people. Legend associates Imhotep with saving Egypt from a seven\-year famine. Looking at these and other details, casual observers might wonder if the Imhotep of Egyptian history is the same person as [Joseph](life-Joseph.html) from the book of Genesis. While there is nothing to explicitly connect these two figures, there are a few interesting parallels. According to Egyptologists, the Pharaoh Djoser employed an adviser named Imhotep, who designed his pyramid. Prior to that time, Pharaohs were buried in low, rectangular structures called mastaba. Imhotep’s design used a creative combination of stone and architecture to create a “step pyramid.” This building was significantly larger, more durable, and more beautiful than the tombs that preceded it. Djoser was so impressed with the result that he allowed Imhotep’s name to be inscribed within the tomb—something incredibly rare in Egyptian history. Secondary evidence also suggests that Imhotep was an accomplished physician. There are reasons to believe he wrote the original text of the Edwin Smith Papyrus, an ancient text on diagnosing and treating different medical conditions. Mythology of later centuries considered Imhotep a god or demigod of medicine. Legend also connects Imhotep to Egypt’s rescue from a seven\-year famine. Inscriptions, carved many centuries later during the reign of Ptolemy, credit Imhotep with ending a long drought connected to the lack of flooding of the Nile River. Imhotep’s deliverance of Egypt involved his receiving a dream from one of the Egyptian gods and counseling the Pharaoh on the best way to make amends with the offended deity. Of course, pop culture is more interested in entertainment than historical accuracy, so the name “Imhotep” has been borrowed for movies, books, games, and other works of fiction for decades. Reading the Bible, one can see many parallels to Imhotep in Joseph, described in Genesis chapters 37 through 41\. Joseph comes to Egypt as a common man—actually a slave—and rises to become the right\-hand man of the Pharaoh. His counsel, which partly involves interpreting dreams, saves Egypt from a seven\-year\-long famine. Joseph is heralded for his wisdom and success above and beyond what would have been expected of anyone lacking royal blood in that era. However, beyond the superficial similarities, Imhotep and Joseph are extremely difficult to reconcile as the same person. First and foremost, Imhotep and Djoser lived somewhere around the 27th century BC. Scholars differ about exactly when the Exodus might have occurred, but most of the estimates fall somewhere between the 20th and 13th centuries BC. Any time within those dates would require much longer than the [400 years](400-years-Egypt.html) that Israel was in Egypt (Exodus 12:40; Acts 7:6; Galatians 3:17\). While history describes Imhotep as a deeply religious man, his devotion was not to the God of Israel, but to Ptah, one of many Egyptian deities. The Bible does not mention Joseph’s involvement in architecture, particularly not of a tomb for the Pharaoh, though this does not necessarily mean he had no such duties. The connection between Imhotep and Joseph, in terms of the seven\-year famine, might be stronger. However, according to the Bible, Joseph interprets the Pharaoh’s dream, not his own. Imhotep cured the drought by improving the worship of a particular Egyptian deity; Joseph simply used his God\-given talents to prepare the people for a long famine. Even more critically, the earliest mention of Imhotep in this regard is a stone carving from the reign of Ptolemy, made somewhere after the 4th century BC. In other words, while Imhotep (presumably) lived several hundred years before Joseph and nearly a millennia before Moses, he is not credited with ending a famine until nearly a millennia after Moses. In short, it’s likely that folklorists adapted Joseph’s story in order to credit Imhotep with shepherding Egypt through a famine. Politics of the time make this even more likely, as the inscription mentioning Imhotep, Djoser, and the famine partly establishes a claim for certain territories in the region. All in all, the figures of Imhotep and Joseph bear some interesting similarities. While the sum total of evidence strongly suggests they were not the same person, the way in which their stories intertwine provides an interesting background of support for certain parts of the Bible.
What does “what God has joined together, let no one separate” mean?	Answer The command “what God has joined together, let no one separate” refers to marriage and divorce. It is from Jesus’ teaching on marriage and divorce found in Mark 10:1–12 and Matthew 19:1–12\. On one occasion, the Pharisees asked Jesus if it is legitimate for a man to divorce his wife. Jesus in essence answers, “No”: “Haven’t you read . . . that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate” (Matthew 19:4–6; cf. Genesis 1:27; 2:24\). Jesus’ point is that a married couple is something that “God has joined together.” Marriage is not of human origin—it originated with God and is part of the way that God designed the human race to live. In saying “let no one separate” a marriage, Jesus taught that divorce is not God’s plan. Once a couple is married, they have been joined together by God Himself, and the union is meant to be for life. This principle holds true despite the faith (or lack thereof) of the couple. When two atheists marry, they have been joined together by God, whether they recognize it or not. If God has joined them together, then no human being has the right to break that union. Later, after Jesus says, “What God has joined together, let no one separate,” the Pharisees point out that Moses allowed divorce. Jesus agrees, but also points out that the allowance was made due to “hardness of heart” (Matthew 19:8, NASB), reiterating that divorce was never God’s original plan. Jesus’ command against separating what God has joined implies that it is possible for a marriage union to be broken and for the one flesh to be separated by divorce. There is debate among Christians about whether [divorce is ever justified](grounds-for-divorce.html). Many (perhaps most) would allow for divorce in the case of unrepentant unfaithfulness on the part of one spouse (based on Matthew 19:9\) or desertion of a believing spouse by an unbelieving spouse who no longer wants to be married to a believer (see 1 Corinthians 7:15\). In these cases the marriage bond has been broken by unfaithfulness or desertion—a severing of something that God has joined together—and it is a tragic occurrence. Even if the above exceptions are allowed, our culture and, too often, even the church seem to regard divorce as something far less serious than it is. If marriage were simply a human convention similar to a business partnership or club membership, then people would be free to enter and exit at will. Divorce is not simply two people deciding to part company; it is one or perhaps both of the marriage partners deciding that they will act decisively to end something that God intended to be permanent. That is a serious thing!
Why is God described as God Most High?	Answer God Most High, or sometimes LORD Most High, are terms used throughout the Bible to describe the LORD, Creator of heaven and earth. Psalm 57:2 says, “I cry out to God Most High, to God who fulfills his purpose for me.” The Hebrew words most often translated “God Most High” are [Elohim](meaning-of-Elohim.html) (or El) Elyown, which literally means “the most God” (Genesis 14:22; Psalm 78:35\). In the title LORD Most High, the Hebrew words are Elohim Yahweh. We describe objects of exaltation as being “higher” than we are: higher in rank, in title, in beauty, in position, or in intelligence. Even authority is referred to in terms of height, from top\-level management down to the common worker. Height conveys the idea of superiority in power, strength, and authority. So God Most High or LORD Most High means that there is no god, idol, or created being that should be worshiped or exalted above Yahweh, the LORD, because He is superior in every way. Daniel 4:2 says, “It has seemed good to me to show the signs and wonders that the Most High God has done for me.” This time the term Most High God is translated from the Hebrew words Yahweh Illay, which mean “the highest LORD.” In other places, the Hebrew word al or el is used alone to mean “God Most High,” a meaning made clear in context. In New Testament Greek, the words Theou hypsistou (Luke 8:28; Hebrews 7:1\) are translated “Most High God.” The clear implication in all the terms used to describe God is that He is the highest possible object of our worship. Man\-made gods cannot compete with Him on any level and therefore should not be worshiped (Deuteronomy 27:13; Revelation 9:20\). When God first revealed the name by which He would be called, He told Moses that He was “I AM that I AM” (Exodus 3:14\), from which we get the name Yahweh, sometimes translated “[Jehovah](Jehovah.html).” God’s self\-description means that the Lord is incomparable and self\-sufficient. He simply IS. He is not similar to anything or anyone. In 1 Samuel 5:1–8, the Lord shows in an unmistakable manner that He is God Most High. After the [Philistines](Philistines.html) had captured the Ark of the Lord, they set it beside their idol, Dagon, in his temple. The next day, Dagon had fallen over, in essence bowing before the Lord Most High. The Philistines set their idol back up, and, the next day, it had fallen again, this time breaking off its head and hands. The Lord Most High was proving to the world that no god can stand beside or above Him. Amazingly, God Most High invites us to know Him. The first step to knowing God Most High is to recognize that He exists (Hebrews 11:6\). The next step is to acknowledge His position in relation to everything else (Isaiah 46:9–11; Exodus 20:3\). We cannot know Him while trying to place Him alongside other gods in our lives. And then we must choose to love and obey Him as Lord over our personal lives (Genesis 5:24; Isaiah 46:9; 2 Chronicles 14:2\). We do this by recognizing Jesus Christ as God Most High who came in the flesh to take the punishment we deserve (John 14:6; 20:28; 2 Corinthians 5:21\). Although Yahweh exists as God Most High whether we acknowledge Him or not, we can enjoy Him as God Most High in our own lives when we willingly seek Him (Jeremiah 29:13\).
What is the treasury of merit?	Answer In [Roman Catholicism](Roman-Catholicism.html), the treasury of merit is the super\-abundant store of righteousness and good works belonging to Christ, the Virgin Mary, and the saints. The treasury of merit is filled with the merit of Christ and Mary (who were sinless), and the saints, who had more than enough merit to enter heaven themselves—they had earned more spiritual rewards than they needed. This merit is now available to others to “supplement” their own meritorious works. According to Rome, just a drop of Christ’s blood would contain enough merit to save the whole world, so the excess blood Christ shed on the cross was stored in a treasury of merit in heaven. Of course, the Bible says nothing about the number of drops of blood Christ shed or how many were sufficient for salvation. The emphasis in the Bible is not on the physical volume of Jesus’ blood but on the act of sacrifice. Jesus’ blood was spilled to fulfill the Old Testament requirement for blood sacrifices so that such sacrifices were no longer necessary (Leviticus 17:11; Hebrews 9:11–18\). Catholic doctrine teaches that not only is the excess of Christ’s meritorious work stored in the treasury of merit, but also the righteous works of Mary and other saints. Mary, Catholicism maintains, was sinless, and she gained far more merit than what she needed for entrance into heaven, and so her “extra” merit was added to the treasury. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “This treasury includes as well the prayers and good works of the Blessed Virgin Mary. They are truly immense, unfathomable, and even pristine in their value before God. In the treasury, too, are the prayers and good works of all the saints, all those who have followed in the footsteps of Christ the Lord and by his grace have made their lives holy and carried out the mission in the unity of the Mystical Body.” The philosophy behind the treasury of merit is entirely unbiblical. In fact, the idea is the very opposite of the teachings of Christ and the apostles. To begin with, the Catholic view that people can get into heaven if they do sufficient good things essentially eliminates the need of a Savior. If some people have much more merit than they actually need to get into heaven, then it follows that it is meritorious works, and not grace, that are the basis of salvation. But Ephesians 2:8–9 states, “It is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast.” No one enters heaven on the basis of his own merit. The Bible clearly teaches that “a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified” (Galatians 2:16\). See also Romans 3:20–27\. Furthermore, the idea that Mary was sinless and her good works could thus be transferred to others denies clear scriptural teaching. Paul was emphatic on this subject: “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23\). He did not say “all have sinned except Mary.” He said “all”; everyone, each person, is a sinner. He also said, “There is no one righteous, not even one” (Romans 3:10; cf. Psalm 14:3\). The “no one” includes Mary. Mary herself acknowledged this truth, i.e., that all have sinned and are in need of a Savior. She declared, “My spirit rejoices in God my Savior” (Luke 1:47, emphasis added). Not only did Mary not have sufficient merit to get others into heaven, she didn’t have enough merit to get herself into heaven! That is why she rejoiced in her “Savior.” Perhaps most egregious of all, Roman Catholicism teaches that the treasury of merit is placed under the charge of the Pope, who alone possesses the power to dispense merit at his discretion through what are called “[indulgences](plenary-indulgences.html).” He can take merit from the treasury of merit and apply it to those who can then get closer to heaven than they could with their own merits. Historically, the Roman Church allowed people to buy this merit by, for example, donating money for important church projects. Buying indulgences from the treasury of merit could also be applied to those in Purgatory in order to shorten their time there. It was the selling of indulgences that angered Martin Luther and others. Thus, the concept of a treasury of merit was part of what brought about the [Protestant Reformation](Protestant-Reformation.html).
Should a Christian have a bachelor/bachelorette party?	Answer One tradition common in Western culture is to throw a bachelor party (for a groom) or a bachelorette party (for a bride) the night before the wedding. Usually hosted by the best man or the maid of honor, bachelor/bachelorette parties are a chance for close friends to have one last get\-together before the “single” status changes to “married.” The idea of a girls\-only or guys\-only event to celebrate a marriage is neither good nor bad in itself. It is what occurs at the parties that determines whether a Christian should host or attend a bachelor or bachelorette party. Traditional bachelor parties are often excuses to indulge in [immorality](sexual-immorality.html) and [drunkenness](is-getting-drunk-a-sin.html). Strippers, prostitutes, and beer\-chugging contests are the norm in many circles. Unfortunately, many times the drunken groom ends up sleeping with another girl the night before his own wedding and shows up for the ceremony hung over. Clearly, this kind of party is unacceptable for a Christian to either host or attend (1 Peter 4:3\). Bachelorette parties are little better when the friends of the bride provide their own forms of [debauchery](debauchery.html): male strippers, drinking contests, and foul, sexual conversation (see Ephesians 5:4; Colossians 3:8\). Any bride or groom who desires to keep a pure heart and honor the future spouse would not enjoy this kind of party. However, bachelor parties and bachelorette parties do not have to be nights of degradation. Many Christian brides and grooms enjoy fun evenings with their friends and parties the night before the wedding. They plan activities, schedule movies, and have guys\-only and girls\-only events that don’t devalue the next day’s celebration. Christian brides and grooms see no need to indulge in sin simply because they are getting married. In fact, they see this last get\-together with their single friends as a way to celebrate the years of friendship. They may watch old videos of their times together or schedule some of the things they used to do together as a way of bidding farewell to an era. They often spend time praying for each other and the new family about to be formed. Some soon\-to\-be brides and grooms even invite parents and grandparents to be part of this unique celebratory evening, taking the opportunity to gain last\-minute advice from the wise (Proverbs 13:20\). Whether a Christian should have a bachelor or bachelorette party depends entirely upon the types of friends and activities such parties will include. A Christian who wants to avoid the traditional evening of debauchery needs to make that stipulation clear to the party planners. The maid of honor or best man needs to be someone who can be trusted to heed the wishes of the friend who entrusted him or her with such an honor. A bachelor party or bachelorette party does not have to belong to Satan. Christians have come up with many creative ways to redeem the tradition and add even more joy to the celebration of marriage.
Should a Christian take ED medications such as Viagra and Cialis?	Answer The surest way to add controversy to any issue is to connect it with [sex](is-sex-a-sin.html), and this makes discussions of erectile dysfunction medicines like Viagra and Cialis more difficult than they need to be. Opinions on these drugs are not merely affected by views of pharmacy but also attitudes toward sex and sexuality. In particular, there is a greater tendency to assume “sin” with respect to matters of sex than with other medical questions. However, given that sex is something God not only created but encouraged (see Genesis 1:28\), there is no explicit biblical reason why a married couple cannot use such medications. God designed Eve specifically for Adam: spiritually, emotionally, and biologically (Genesis 2:18\). This design included the ability to reproduce, which requires sex (Genesis 1:28\). Simply put, the suggestion that sex is inherently sinful is not only incorrect, it blatantly contradicts the Bible. In the context of a [marriage](marriage-constitutes.html) between one man and one woman, sex is actually encouraged (Song of Solomon 5:1\). God intends for married men and women to enjoy each other’s sexuality, only abstaining for spiritually mature reasons and on mutual agreement (1 Corinthians 7:3–5\). That context makes all the difference in how we view erectile dysfunction medications (ED meds) such as Viagra or Cialis. Persons with diabetes take insulin to restore a normal function that their bodies are failing to maintain. Persons with cancer take chemotherapy drugs to combat an abnormal function of their body’s cells. In both cases, the goal is to restore the “healthy” function of the body. Used as intended, ED medications serve the same purpose. They aid a person in restoring a function their body was specifically designed to fulfill. This does not mean all uses of ED meds are acceptable, any more than it would be for other drugs. Many medicines meant for healthcare, such as [painkillers](pain-medication.html), are abused for recreation. Others, such as steroids, are sometimes taken by someone seeking physical abilities beyond what their “natural” bodies were ever intended to do. One can rightly condemn the use of ED meds for inappropriate purposes without declaring them off\-limits for their intended use. Likewise, not all discussions of medications such as Viagra and Cialis are appropriate. Christians are right to be uneasy about the commercialization of sexuality, as many advertisements for ED medications demonstrate. And the presentation of such content in times and places where younger children may be watching is a separate but concerning issue. The same points can be made about sex itself, of course. There has always been—and always will be—abuse of our God\-given sexuality. However, the fact that some people choose promiscuity, exploitation, or [immorality](sexual-immorality.html) does not obligate everyone else to forego the correct use of sex. Nor does the fact that sex is presented in lurid ways in popular culture mean there is a problem with sex; rather, there is a problem with our attitude toward it. On the contrary, these concerns mean that celebrating and honoring the value of legitimate sex is all the more important. Christians who consider using Viagra, Cialis, or other ED medications can do so without any particular prohibitions from Scripture. Obviously, this applies only to using such substances as intended by a doctor and for the purposes of marital sex. But those who choose to abuse these drugs for adultery or bingeing, or who obtain them illegally, are sinning. Part of God’s design of our bodies is to enjoy sex, and husbands and wives become “one flesh” as a result (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:5–6\). Using medicines to restore a bodily function that God intended is perfectly acceptable.
What is Augustinianism?	Answer Augustinianism is the system of theology based on the teachings of [Augustine](Saint-Augustine.html) (AD 354–430\), also known as St. Augustine or Augustine of Hippo (in northern Africa), one of the Nicene church fathers. He is revered as the “Doctor of the Church” according to Roman Catholicism. Augustine is also considered by evangelical Protestants to have correctly understood and taught the biblical doctrines of the depravity of man and the sovereignty of God’s grace in salvation. It is those two doctrines—total depravity and divine sovereignty—that people usually have in mind when they refer to “Augustinianism.” Sometimes, the term Augustinianism is used as a synonym for Calvinism. Protestant Reformers such as Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, and [John Calvin](John-Calvin.html) found much to their liking in Augustinianism, because they found it to be biblical. Like Calvinism, Augustinianism holds that, due to the Fall, mankind is unable to avoid sinning. His nature has been overrun by sin to the extent that man does not truly have freedom of the will; rather, he is in bondage to sin. Only an act of God can release him. This corresponds to the Calvinist doctrine of total depravity and accords with Jesus’ words in John 6:44, “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.” Augustinianism also teaches that no one can be saved apart from God’s grace. In fact, grace is necessary for the performance of any righteous act, including the exercise of faith. Without that saving grace, no sinner can ever make a decision for Christ. In agreement with the I of Calvinism’s [TULIP](doctrines-of-grace.html), Augustinianism teaches that grace is irresistible and effectual. That is, every recipient of God’s grace will come to faith in Christ. As Jesus said, “This is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me” (John 6:39\). Furthermore, according to Augustinianism, saving grace is given to those whom God has predestined before “the foundation of the world” (Ephesians 1:4–5\). This predestination, again in sync with Calvinism, is not rooted in God’s foreknowledge or omniscience. In other words, God did not “look down through history” to see the choice a sinner will make and elect him based on that knowledge. In Augustinianism, the choice is completely God’s. Augustinianism was at odds with [Pelagianism](Pelagianism.html), which denied original sin and taught that man was completely free to choose either good or evil for himself, apart from grace. Pelagius was a British monk who lived at the same time as Augustine, and his doctrines were condemned as heretical at the [Councils of Carthage](Council-of-Carthage.html) in AD 407 and 416 and by the [Third Ecumenical Council of Ephesus](Council-of-Ephesus.html) in AD 431\. Augustinianism was then recognized as an expression of Christian orthodoxy in the Western church and much later became a major influence in the doctrine of the Reformers.
Who was Michal in the Bible?	Answer Michal was the younger daughter of [King Saul](life-Saul.html) and is first mentioned in 1 Samuel 14:49\. Michal is important in biblical history because she fell in love with [David](life-David.html), even though her older sister, Merab, had been promised to David as a wife as a prize for killing Saul’s enemies (1 Samuel 18:17\). However, when the time came for Merab to be given to David in marriage, Saul double\-crossed him and gave her to another man (1 Samuel 18:19\). Seeing that his younger daughter, Michal, [loved David](David-and-Michal.html), Saul considered her a way to ensnare the future king, of whom he was insanely jealous. So Saul agreed to give her to David as a prize for another attack against the Philistines (1 Samuel 18:24–25, 27\). Saul hoped that David would be killed in the attack. David, however, succeeded in defeating the [Philistines](Philistines.html), and Michal was given to him as a wife. Michal’s father’s jealousy of his rival escalated, and Saul tried to kill David. Michal helped her new husband escape when King Saul’s men came to kill him (1 Samuel 19:7–11\). For reasons we are not told, Saul later gave Michal to another man, Palti son of Laish, while David was running for his life. Years later, when Saul was dead and David was preparing to step into his rightful position as king, he ordered that Michal be taken from Palti and brought back to him. David had other wives and children by this time, and there is no indication that he asked Michal’s input on this decision. She was forcibly returned to him, while her husband Palti followed after them, crying (2 Samuel 3:14–16\). This act seems to have destroyed whatever love Michal had once felt for David, because the next time we see her, she is caustically critical of David when he dances before the Lord (2 Samuel 6:16, 20\). Rather than address the source of her bitterness, which was most likely his heartless act of taking her away from her husband, David defends himself and puts down her father. Because of her sarcastic and dishonoring attitude, Michal never had any children (verse 23\). It can be gathered from this that either she and David did not share intimacy or the Lord closed her womb due to her verbal attack against His anointed servant. We can learn from Michal’s sad story what happens in a marriage when offenses go on for years, unaddressed. Michal’s youthful infatuation with Israel’s hero turned to bitterness when he treated her like property, tore her away from a loving husband, and apparently never made it right. Even someone like David, [a man after God’s own heart](man-after-God-heart.html) (Acts 13:22\), could also be selfish and cause pain in someone he should have loved. Although David was used greatly by God, he was also a sinful human being who made tragic mistakes. God placed stories like Michal’s in the Bible to remind us that heroes are also human and bitterness can destroy even a queen.
What is the Zohar?	Answer The Zohar is a commentary on the Hebrew Scriptures and the primary source of the beliefs of [Kabbalah](Kabbalah.html), a mystical form of Judaism. According to Kabbalah, this text was written in the 2nd century AD by Shimon bar Yochai. Supposedly, bar Yochai was inspired by visions from the angel Gabriel to record secret, powerful knowledge about interpreting the Torah. Unlike other Jewish commentaries on the Torah, known as the [Mishnah or Midrash](Mishnah-midrash.html), the Zohar is heavily mystical and borders on an occult\- or witchcraft\-based approach to spirituality. Kabbalists believe that Jewish leadership during the Roman era considered such knowledge to be too powerful for the common man, and so they suppressed it. According to the Zohar, God’s message in the Torah is meant to be understood at four levels: literal, allegorical, Rabbinic, and secretive. In other words, the more powerful and truthful purpose of the Torah is only accessible to those with special knowledge and insight, per Kabbalah. This places the Zohar and Kabbalah firmly in the sphere of [Gnosticism](gnostic-definition.html) and mysticism. The text of the Zohar was unknown until first published in the 13th century by Moses de León. De León claimed the writings to be traditions passed down from Shimon bar Yochai many centuries before. However, most modern scholars, Jewish and otherwise, believe that de León himself actually composed the Zohar’s content. De León’s publication came from a place and era when [Gnostic concepts were in fashion](Catharism.html). Also, no mention is made of the Zohar or its contents in any midrash known prior to de León’s publication of the Zohar. Mainstream Christianity considers the Zohar and Kabbalah to be false teachings in the same vein as other Gnostic and mystical cults. The same is true of all major sects of mainstream Judaism, although some Jewish scholars see the Zohar as useful for gaining insight into Jewish thinking, and some use the Zohar to provide additional opinions on the meaning of the Torah.
Is it a sin to watch pornography with my spouse?	Answer With the prevalence of the internet and the lowering of society’s moral standards, pornography is becoming an ever\-present reality for many people. Even Christian couples sometimes wonder if pornography can have a redeeming factor if it is viewed with a spouse as part of their private relationship. Some couples feel the need to make their sexual relationship more exciting and believe that watching pornography together increases their enjoyment of their own sexual relationship. Pornography appeals to the lust of the eyes and the lust of the flesh. We know that lust is condemned in Scripture (Job 31:1; Matthew 5:28\), but if the sexual relationship is limited to a husband and wife, is watching pornography with a spouse wrong? Yes, viewing pornography is a sin for many reasons, even when viewed with one’s spouse. First of all, visual pornography takes a sacred, intimate union and makes it a spectator sport. By definition, pornography involves at least two unmarried people engaging in illicit sexual behavior in front of a camera. God designed this intimacy for a husband and wife only (Matthew 19:5; Ephesians 5:31\). Sexual acts are, by nature, private. Those who harden their hearts to such a degree that they can commit such private acts in front of spectators are abusing God’s design. And those who enjoy watching pornography are participating in that abuse. Romans 1:32 can apply here, as it describes the downward moral spiral of those who oppose God: “Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.” Another negative aspect of watching pornography with a spouse is that to do so invites strangers into your bedroom. It creates a virtual threesome; while you may never think of participating in a ménage à trois in the flesh, you are doing so in your minds. Watching pornography with your spouse is a form of virtual adultery. It’s as if one is saying, “My spouse is not sexy enough, so I have invited a sexier stranger to help things along.” The spouses may be touching each other’s bodies, but they are visually touching the bodies of adulterous strangers. Nothing about that is in any way pleasing to the Lord. Jesus said, “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God” (Matthew 5:8\). There is no way to let your heart feast upon vile, pornographic images and remain pure enough to see God. The third and most obvious reason that watching pornography is always wrong, whether with a spouse or alone, is that the motivation to do so is lust (Colossians 3:5; Matthew 5:28\). Lust is an overwhelming desire for something God has forbidden (Proverbs 6:25\). If seeing the nakedness of other people is required to desire sex with one’s spouse, then that is lust. Watching pornography is giving Satan permission to infiltrate our thinking, damage our hearts, and call “dirty” what God calls “very good” (Genesis 1:26–31\). God’s parameters for sex are for our safety and well\-being. They are there to guard our families and our own hearts. God expects us to exercise self\-control in all areas of life, including sexuality (Proverbs 25:28; 1 Corinthians 7:9\). When we allow lust, sexuality, or any desire to control us, we have handed over the lordship of our lives to something other than Jesus. The desire to watch pornography is a clear sign that priorities have gone awry. Sexual excitement has become more important than spiritual intimacy, emotional connection, or honoring each other. Often, one spouse pushes the idea of viewing porn on the other, who agrees simply to keep the peace. But this is a violation of God’s command to submit to one another out of reverence for Christ (Ephesians 5:21\). Christ would never ask someone to enjoy and participate in the very sin He died to forgive (Ephesians 5:22\). Love “does not rejoice in iniquity” (1 Corinthians 13:6\). There are healthier ways in which to reconnect with a spouse than to invite sin into the relationship. Watching pornography alone or with anyone else, including a spouse, is sin. First Thessalonians 4:3–7 is as relevant today as it was when it was written, and we can apply its truth to the concept of watching pornography with a spouse: “It is God’s will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; that each of you should learn to control your own body in a way that is holy and honorable, not in passionate lust like the pagans, who do not know God; and that in this matter no one should wrong or take advantage of a brother or sister. The Lord will punish all those who commit such sins, as we told you and warned you before. For God did not call us to be impure, but to live a holy life.” God calls us to holiness, and pornography is unholy; therefore, it is never God’s desire for us to be involved with pornography for any reason.
Who are the super-apostles Paul mentions in 2 Corinthians 11:5?	Answer The “super\-apostles” were false teachers who appeared to be superior to Paul in their manner and authority. Paul calls them “super” in a facetious manner. As Paul went throughout the Roman Empire preaching the gospel, others would come behind him and try to steal away the new converts. Often they would claim that the gospel that Paul preached was inadequate in some way and needed to be supplemented. In his letter to the Galatians, Paul warns against those who sought to add circumcision to the gospel and, in that context, he issues the following [anathema](definition-anathema.html): “I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:6–9\). In Corinth, it seems that the people who came after Paul were attacking his person as a way to cast doubt upon his teaching. We do not have any texts from these mudslingers firsthand, but from the defense that Paul gives we can discern the types of things they were saying about him. The reason Paul chose to defend himself was not to retain his personal honor but so that nothing would detract from the gospel that he preached. First Corinthians is a forceful letter with some strong rebukes for the Corinthian church. In 1 Corinthians 16:5–9, Paul tells the Corinthians that he plans to visit them in person. Apparently, he was delayed. He explains that he delayed coming because he did not want to have a confrontation with them, presumably giving them more time to correct the issues he addressed in 1 Corinthians (see 2 Corinthians 1:23; 2:1–11; and 7:5–9\). Even though Paul was an apostle, he did not want to have to deal with them in an authoritarian way (2 Corinthians 1:24\). Some of the opposing “super\-apostles” were apparently saying that Paul was weak and unreliable, and that was the reason he delayed his visit. In 2 Corinthians 4, Paul explains why his ministry does not seem very successful. First, there is a spiritual war, and unbelievers simply cannot understand the gospel that he preaches on their own (verses 1–6\). Also, Paul lacks all signs of outward success and blessing. He is afflicted, perplexed, persecuted, and struck down (verses 8–9\). But he explains that this is only his outward condition. Spiritually he is not crushed, driven to despair, forsaken, or destroyed. In fact, a state of weakness is common for gospel ministry, so that the glory will go to God, not to the human worker—Paul is simply an “earthen vessel” containing an incredibly valuable treasure (verse 7\). Paul does not lose heart because he knows that, when this life is over, something incredibly greater awaits him (verses 16–18\). The “super\-apostles” seem to see glory for themselves and enjoy popularity. In 2 Corinthians 7, Paul says that he does not boast in his own ministry or accomplishments. He boasts in the response of the Corinthians and in their repentance that came about as a result of his first letter. In chapters 8–9, he also says he has boasts about their generosity and hopes that his boasts will not have been empty. He encourages the church to give generously to an offering for impoverished believers in other areas. He attempts to persuade them to give without demanding that they give. Again, Paul chooses not to act in an authoritarian way. In contrast, the “super\-apostles” have no problem exercising authoritarian control. In 2 Corinthians 10, Paul addresses those who say he is so meek and humble in person, while his letters are bold and fiery (verse 10\). That is, some were saying that Paul’s bark is worse than his bite. Paul defends his practice of being meek and humble in person. If anyone boasts, he should boast in the Lord (verse 17\). If one boasts of himself, it means nothing. The real issue is what the Lord thinks of a person (verse 18\). The implication is that, in contrast to Paul, the “super\-apostles” were bold and boastful. So, much of 2 Corinthians highlights Paul’s humility and lack of what many in the world might think of as success. In chapter 9, he contrasts this approach with that of the “super\-apostles.” In verse 6, Paul indicates that he is not a skilled orator. In the rest of the chapter he highlights some of his sufferings and even admits to having to sneak out of a city by night to avoid capture. He also notes in verse 7 that he preached the gospel to them free of charge. Paul took no money from the Corinthians for his own support or enrichment. But the “super\-apostles” exerted authority and took money for their support. Based on Paul’s defense of his ministry, it seems that the “super\-apostles” (2 Corinthians 11:5; 12:11\) are false teachers claiming to be superior to Paul. Paul names them “super\-apostles” in facetious irony. Compared to them, Paul looks like a very meager apostle. It is as if Paul is saying, “If I am an apostle, then they must be ‘super\-apostles’—look at how much more powerful and successful they are than I am!” Paul is humble, timid, physically persecuted, self\-supporting, unskilled, and physically ailing. The super\-apostles were just the opposite—bold, talented, respected, healthy—and more than willing to take money from the Corinthians. They were not afraid to deal with the Corinthians in an authoritarian manner: “You bear it if someone makes slaves of you, or devours you, or takes advantage of you, or puts on airs, or strikes you in the face” (2 Corinthians 11:21\). Paul calls the other teachers “super\-apostles” because, from all outward appearances, they are the successful ones, while he is the failure. But Paul goes on to explain. He may not be a skilled speaker, but he preaches the gospel of Christ. He may be unsuccessful by all outward/worldly measurements, but he did perform the signs of a true [apostle](what-is-an-apostle.html) among them (2 Corinthians 12:12\). It is not because he is weak that he does not abuse them or take their money; it is because he loves them (verse 14\). He is motivated by love for them and love for the Lord. Paul’s meekness is similar to the example of Jesus and the way He instructed His followers: “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their superiors exercise authority over them. It shall not be this way among you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first among you must be your slave” (Matthew 20:25–27\). A self\-serving, boastful dictator may appear to be a “super\-leader.” We have seen these types gain places of leadership in the world. However, they are only “super” based on worldly, outward appearances. To be truly great, they must serve the way Jesus did. To be true “super–apostles,” they would need to follow the example of Paul, who was following the example of Jesus. Even today, it is tempting to judge ministers as successful (or not) based on prosperity, popularity, oratory, and their ability to command respect and a following. This may make them “super\-ministers” by the standards of the world but not necessarily by God’s standards.
Why didn’t Jesus marry?	Answer Since Jesus was the [ideal and model man](Jesus-Son-of-Man.html), it is easy to wonder why He did not marry and father children during His earthly life. As a hard\-working and skilled carpenter, a man with a magnetically good character and winsome personality, and with His years of fame and miracle\-working, it is likely that more than one woman gave Him opportunity to marry. No Scripture directly answers the question of why Jesus [never married](was-Jesus-married.html). Several possibilities have been suggested to explain Jesus’ singleness: 1\. Jesus did not marry because He had limited time on earth. His strenuous travel and demanding work load would have prevented Him from rightly fulfilling the roles of husband and father. And a wife would have been a distraction to Jesus’ primary mission. A married Jesus would have had to place His wife’s needs above those of the world He came to rescue (see 1 Corinthians 7:32–35\). 2\. For three years, Jesus lived as a homeless healer\-teacher (Luke 9:58\). He would not have asked any woman to share such a life. While He now waits for His marriage to His betrothed [Bride, the Church](bride-of-Christ.html), He is preparing for her a heavenly home (John 14:2–3\), readying for her a perfect and eternal place of protection. 3\. Jesus knew that He had come to die (Isaiah 52:13–53:12; 1 Peter 1:19–20; Luke 18:31–33\). If He married, He certainly would leave a widow, probably with small children to rear alone. He was incapable of deliberately causing such unnecessary pain. 4\. If Jesus had married, His widow most likely would have been glamorized, idolized, deified, and likely physically endangered because of her relationship with Jesus. 5\. Another reason that Jesus didn’t marry is likely that He did not wish to produce a blood successor or generate debate over who that successor would be or whether or not His successor should also be considered the “Son of God.” Jesus’ purpose was not to establish an earthly kingdom or a dynasty (see John 18:36\). 6\. Jesus did not marry because of His uniqueness. In his History of the Christian Church, Philip Schaff writes, “Jesus’ poverty and celibacy have nothing to do with asceticism, but represent, on the one hand the condescension of His redeeming love, and on the other His ideal uniqueness and His absolutely peculiar relation to the whole church, which alone is fit or worthy to be His bride. No single daughter of Eve could have been an equal partner of the Savior of mankind, or the representative head of the new creation” (Vol. III, p. 68\). Schaff goes on to explain, “While Jesus was fully human, and therefore fully capable of perfectly fulfilling all aspects of marriage, He also was fully divine. Therefore, no one with only a human nature could be a suitable mate for Him.” 7\. Jesus did not marry because He was not on earth to choose one woman above all others. He came to rescue and restore all who would receive Him. For Jesus to form a marital relationship with one woman would inevitably have confused generations to come about the meaning of His relationship with His spiritual Bride, the Church, to whom He was already betrothed (Ephesians 5:25–27; Revelation 19:7–10; 21:9; 22:17; 2 Corinthians 11:2\). Jesus reserved Himself for His true, eternal Bride. If He had picked one woman to elevate above all others, He would have contradicted and undermined His ministry to all. 8\. In human marriage, husband and wife become “one flesh” (Genesis 2:24\). If the divine Jesus, who knew no sin, married a sinful woman (“for all have sinned,” Romans 3:23\), His relationship to His wife would have raised some confusing uncertainties. If Jesus had become “one flesh” with a sinner, would that connection have tainted Him with sin? If they had had children, what kind of nature would these children have had? As physical children of the Son of God, what kind of relationships would they have had to God the Father? These ideas reinforce the New Testament’s descriptions of Jesus as the ideal Man, the only purely righteous and good One who clearly and consistently pointed to eternity. Jesus did not marry because human marriage was not necessary to His mission of saving the world. Although marriage is a picture of Christ’s relationship with the church (Ephesians 5:31–32\), it is only a temporary state in light of eternity. Those who by God’s grace through faith are included in that Bride of Christ have every reason to anticipate with eagerness Jesus’ coming to receive them into greater glory and joy than they ever have known on earth.
Is it wrong for a Christian to have a sexual fantasy?	Answer A fantasy is an act or event created in the imagination; in most cases the imagined act is impossible or improbable. A sexual fantasy creates a sexual act or event in the imagination. Depending upon the nature of the fantasy and the imagined players in it, a sexual fantasy can be a sin. Any imagined scenario that is inappropriate for moral, ethical, or spiritual reasons is sinful. Imagination is a gift from God, and fantasy is part of the human psyche. We fantasize often without even realizing it. Fantasies can range from imagining that we hit all green lights on the way to work and arrived early, to conjuring up vile and physically impossible acts. Fantasies are usually spawned from our personal reality and are attempts to create a reality we prefer rather than the one that exists. Some people become so wrapped up in their fantasy life that they disconnect from reality and real relationships. Some internet options allow people to create virtual characters and live vicariously through those characters. Sexual fantasy is often a part of that virtual reality and allows people to simulate sexual acts without actually being physically present. Proverbs 23:7 says that whatever we think in our hearts, that is who we are. Many would argue, “But I’m not actually doing anything wrong.” However, the Bible speaks a lot about our thoughts and is clear that even our fantasies are to be brought into submission to God’s will. Jesus said, “But the things that come out of a person’s mouth come from the heart, and these defile them. For out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander” (Matthew 15:19\). He also said that even looking upon someone with lust is as the sin of adultery (Matthew 5:28\). If the sexual fantasy consists of actions or words that are not in line with God’s will for us, then it is sin. Sexual fantasies about our marriage partners may not be sin, if we are morally free to act upon those fantasies. But if we are imagining engaging in sexual acts with someone to whom we are not married, it is [lust](what-is-lust.html). And lust is sin. We cannot always control the [thoughts](intrusive-thoughts.html) that shoot through our minds. We are exposed to sexual stimuli continually, and it can be difficult to process these stimuli in God\-honoring ways. Ephesians 6:16 talks about the “fiery darts of the wicked one.” Our minds are Satan’s target for those darts, and sexual fantasies are one of the fiery darts that, left unchallenged, can lead us into sin. James 1:13–15 shows us the progression of sin, beginning with an “evil desire.” When evil desires arise in our hearts, we have a choice about what we do with them. We can entertain them, allowing them to erupt into full\-blown fantasies, or we can “take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:5\). As Christians, we have the power of the Holy Spirit working in our lives to enable us to squelch the beginning of an ungodly fantasy. When we realize we are daydreaming about something that God has said is off\-limits, we can quickly arrest that thought, confess it to Jesus, and ask His forgiveness (1 John 1:9\). At a later time, it may be helpful to scrutinize the kind of fantasy that seems to dominate your thoughts. Fantasies often reveal unmet needs that God wants to supply in healthy ways. Likewise, sexual fantasies can showcase a wounded place in our spirits that God needs to heal. If the fantasies persist and are disturbing, seeking godly counsel can help uncover the root of the heart wound producing them. When in doubt about a sexual fantasy or any other consuming thought, we can always apply the Philippians 4:8 test to see if it is pleasing to God. He wants to be Lord of every part of us, including our fantasies.
Who were the Horites in the Bible?	Answer The Horites were an ancient people group who had some dealings with Abraham’s family and the [Edomites](Edomites.html). The little we know of the Horites comes completely from Scripture. The Horites are first mentioned in Genesis 14:6\. They were defeated by the alliance of kings that also defeated the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah and took Lot and his family captive. The Horites are mentioned as living in Mt. Seir at that time. The Horites are next mentioned in Genesis 36 where Esau’s descendants are listed. Esau settled in the hill country of Seir, which was also the territory of the descendants of Seir the Horite. It would make sense that, if Seir was the leader of the clan, he would name the mountain area where he and his clan settled as Mt. Seir. The descendants of Seir are given in some detail in verses 20–30, and they are noted as Horite chieftains. Deuteronomy 2:12 tells us that Esau’s descendants displaced and destroyed the Horites. Deuteronomy 2:22 tells us that the Lord destroyed the Horites so that Esau’s descendants could inhabit their territory, also called Edom. Beyond this, there is no more information about the Horites. They are last mentioned in Deuteronomy 2, except for 1 Chronicles 1, which simply reiterates the information found in the Pentateuch. While Genesis does provide some detailed information about the descendants of Seir the Horite, we know very little about the larger group of Horites or even if there was a larger group. The etymology of the term Horite may have to do with those who dwell in a “cave” or “hole.” It is possible that the Horites were cave\-dwellers or that Seir himself was a cave\-dweller so that the name “Seir the Horite” simply means “Seir the cave dweller.” If this is true, then Seir may have been the first of the line, and, as his family/clan grew, the description eventually took the force of a proper noun—much the same way that last names developed in English usage during the Middle Ages. The fact that the Horites are mentioned in Scripture with no introduction or explanation would indicate that the original hearers/readers of Genesis were familiar with them and the location of Mt. Seir. There are many things in Scripture that we wonder about because we are separated by so many years. For the original audience, the accounts of the Horites would have been rather recent history and required no further explanation.
What does the Bible say about fatigue?	Answer Fatigue is extreme exhaustion, usually resulting from mental or physical exertion or illness. We all experience fatigue at times; it is part of life. God created our bodies to store enough energy to get us through the day. But we then need to rest in order to recharge. This cycle of work and sleep is necessary to function at our best. When this cycle is interrupted or out of balance, fatigue results. Several people in the Bible experienced fatigue at different times and for different reasons, and we can learn from them. 1\. David’s men. First Samuel 30 tells of a time in [David’s life](life-David.html) when the Philistines had captured the wives and children of all his men. The men were so overwhelmed with grief that they “wept aloud until they had no more strength to weep” (verse 4\). Then six hundred of them pursued the captors. After a while, two hundred of them “were too exhausted to cross the valley” (verse 10\). We can imagine why. They had experienced emotional shock and sorrow, followed by physical exertion in pursuit of their enemies. They finally wore out. One cause of fatigue is the combination of emotional intensity and physical exertion. The depletion of emotional and physical strength can lead to illness if we don’t rest both our bodies and our minds. David’s response to the fatigue of his men was to allow them to rest but still include them in the celebration of success. He did not see their fatigue as a sign of weakness or cowardice but as a true condition that prevented them from keeping up with the troops. He honored their contribution of staying behind with the supplies, recognizing that, in their weakened state, it was the best they had to offer (1 Samuel 30:21–24\). 2\. Esau. Genesis 25:29 says, “Once when Jacob was cooking stew, Esau came in from the field, and he was exhausted.” The familiar story of [Esau giving up his birthright](Jacob-and-Esau.html) can also teach us something about fatigue. Esau had been out hunting and probably without food for a couple of days. The combination of physical exhaustion and extreme hunger can create mind\-altering fatigue. Our bodies cannot function as they should, and our minds are clouded by the desperate need for food and rest. Esau’s colossal mistake was that he chose to make a life\-altering decision while he was mentally and physically depleted. When we are fatigued, we need to be aware of our own limitations and not press forward with major decisions that we later regret. Part of living wisely is recognizing our human weaknesses and compensating for them so that they do not control us. Deferring decisions until we have regained our strength is a wise practice in dealing with fatigue. 3\. Epaphroditus. In Philippians 2:25–30, Paul commends his friend [Epaphroditus](Epaphroditus-in-the-Bible.html) to the Philippian church, commenting that this man had worked himself into exhaustion for the cause of Christ. We are not told what type of illness Epaphroditus had or why his work wore him out, but we can draw some likely conclusions. Anyone who has labored in ministry can understand Epaphroditus’ condition. In fact, God may have included the mention of Epaphroditus as a warning of what can happen when we don’t balance work and rest. The needs in ministry are so great that God’s servants can easily become consumed by them, to the neglect of their own health and needs. Satan sidles alongside a laboring servant and suggests that to slack off any would be selfish. Our enemy points to the unfinished work and hints that we alone can get it done. This attitude has sometimes been called the “Messiah complex,” for good reason. Those in ministry begin to feel that no one else has the passion and calling that they have, and, if they don’t do everything, nothing will be done right. Epaphroditus is a lesson for those who serve the Lord that the work is not ours; it is God’s (1 Corinthians 3:7\). He wants us to do our best but “remembers that we are but dust” (Psalm 103:14\). Sometimes giving our lives for the cause of Christ is easier than maintaining our lives for His cause. Wisdom reminds us to pace ourselves, admit when we cannot take on any more, and acknowledge the fact that rest is an important part of staying in ministry for the duration. Fatigue will hit all of us at times, which is one reason the Bible speaks so much about resting in the Lord (Deuteronomy 5:13–14; Matthew 11:28–29; Psalm 37:7\). In our busy world, rest does not always come easily. We often have to teach ourselves to rest in body, mind, and spirit. Learning to rest our souls keeps us healthy and keeps fatigue out of our lives.
What does the Bible say about misanthropy?	Answer Misanthropy is a general dislike of other people. Misanthropy can range from passive indifference to active hatred for the entire race of human beings. Although rare in its most extreme form, most of us cherished a milder strain of misanthropy before we knew Jesus. Hatred of others is part of our fallen, selfish sin natures. But when the Holy Spirit moves into a repentant heart, misanthropy has to go. Jesus changes misanthropes into those who love others. Misanthropy is the opposite of [love](loving-others.html), and love is commanded of us more often than anything else. From Leviticus 19:18 to John 13:24, the Bible commands us to love God (Deuteronomy 6:5\), love each other (Galatians 5:14\), and love our enemies (Luke 6:27\). It is impossible to obey those commands and remain misanthropic. Since God does not command us to do that which we have no power to do, then both love and misanthropy are choices we make. We often excuse misanthropy in ourselves because of negative or painful experiences in the past. Racial prejudice, socio\-economic bias, and even misplaced religious zeal can all contribute to misanthropy. The media outlets we entertain can also harden our hearts to our fellow human beings. If we immerse ourselves in the sensational, fear\-inducing, or hateful speech of some radio shows, TV broadcasts, and podcasts, we begin to see the whole world as a dark, ugly place. Hatred of Muslims, Jews, Hindus or other religious groups can masquerade as godly fervor, when in truth we are playing right into the hands of our enemy, Satan, who inspires hatred. How does a misanthrope change? Romans 5:5 says that “God’s love has been poured out into our hearts through the Holy Spirit, who has been given to us.” When we give our lives to Jesus, He sets about cleaning us up. One facet of our old sin nature that has to be replaced is our attitude toward human beings, who are created in God’s image (James 3:9–10\). To love God is to love people He loves. First John 4:20 leaves no room for misanthropy: “Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen.” One truth we may notice about ourselves is that this love for others does not come naturally. That’s why love has to be commanded. So the first step in changing a misanthropic attitude is to recognize it as sin. When we agree with God about our sin and confess it, He not only forgives us (1 John 1:9\) but empowers us to overcome it (Romans 6:1–4\). We can then study the meaning of love and model the ways that Jesus demonstrated it. First Corinthians 13:4–8 gives us God’s perspective on love. Jesus’ example of humble service shows us how to put it into practice (Matthew 14:14; Mark 6:34\). We see that His love always had action attached to it. Love is not passive; it actively works for the betterment of someone else. When Jesus had compassion, He did something. To follow His example, we must find ways to serve people selflessly. It doesn’t matter whether we feel loving or not, because obedience is not a feeling; it is an action. Misanthropy is the height of self\-centered thinking. It is built upon the flawed idea that we alone are worthy of God’s love and forgiveness, but no one else is. Misanthropy assumes that our opinion about other people is accurate and that we are correct in judging them all unworthy. Misanthropy is in direct contrast to John 3:16, which tells us that God looked at the same group of people and did something to save them. He chose to save us because, whether we want to admit it or not, we are all in that group that is unworthy (Romans 3:10\). When we allow God’s love to permeate the hardness of our hearts, misanthropy no longer rules.
Does the vine and branches passage in John 15 mean that salvation can be lost?	Answer In John 15 Jesus uses the relationship of branches to the vine to illustrate our relationship to Him: “I am the [true vine](true-vine.html), and my Father is the vinedresser. Every branch in me that does not bear fruit he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit. . . . If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned” (verses 1–2, 6\). Many take the verses about the fruitless branches being taken away and burned as a proof\-text that salvation can be lost. The teaching is that a person who was at one time in Christ might later cease to “abide in Christ” and become good for nothing; that person is then cut off and burned up. Now, if the parable of the vine and the branches were the only passage that addressed the issue of [eternal security](eternal-security.html), then we might have good reason to fear that salvation could be lost. However, this is not the only passage in Scripture that addresses security and assurance, nor is it the only passage in John where these issues are addressed. There are several passages in John where the security of the believer is clearly assured (John 3:16–17; 6:35–40; 10:27–29\). This is an issue that we find throughout the Bible. There are passages that speak of the security of the believer in very explicit terms and others that would make one wonder if salvation cannot be lost after all. It is always best to interpret more obscure passages in light of clearer passages. Since John 15 is in the form of an allegory, it is best to let the clearer passages inform our understanding. The background of Jesus’ words in John 15 is most likely the Old Testament imagery where Israel is called a vine or vineyard—although one that did not produce the expected fruit (see Isaiah 5:1–7\). Jesus replaces Israel with Himself as the “true vine.” Unlike Israel, Jesus will not fail to produce fruit in all the branches that are connected to Him. The point of Jesus’ metaphor is that He will succeed where Israel failed. The disciples simply need to be connected to Him. According to John 15, it is unthinkable that any branch who is connected to Christ will fail to produce fruit. Yet, according to the illustration, some branches “in Him” will not produce fruit and be taken away. There seems to be a contradiction within the illustration itself that would warn us not to press the details too far. The apparent problem is the same with all of the other passages in Scripture that warn Christians about falling away. If a true Christian cannot lose salvation, why warn about falling away? The best explanation is that these warnings are directed toward professing Christians who appear, at least outwardly, to be connected to the Vine. They are branches in the vicinity of the Vine, but there is a disconnect. Judas Iscariot is a good example of a false professor. The parable of the seed and the soils (Matthew 13\) presents young plants that seem to start out well but then wither away. The book of Hebrews, with its many [warning passages](warning-passages.html), seems to be directed at those who have made an initial positive response to Jesus but are considering turning back. They are like the children of Israel who left in the exodus with Moses but then refused to enter the Promised Land (Hebrews 3:16–19\). They started out on the journey but didn’t complete it. Based on outward appearances at any given moment, it may be difficult to tell genuine believers (connected in vital unity with the True Vine) from those who have merely attached themselves to some of the trappings of Christianity. However, time will tell the difference, because the genuine believer attached to the True Vine will bear fruit. A false professor appears to be attached but does not bear fruit, and it’s the lack of fruit that shows a branch is not receiving the fruit\-bearing energy that comes from attachment to the Vine. Regardless of how attached this branch may appear to be on the surface, it is lacking the one absolute evidence of attachment—fruit! That “branch” should not console himself with false notions that he is attached, because his lack of fruit bears condemning evidence against him. In this case, the branch was never really attached in the first place. The metaphor (or allegory) of the vine and the branches can only be pressed so far.
What is chivalry?	Answer The English word chivalry comes from the Old French word chevalerie, which originated in medieval times and pertained to the code of conduct required for knights. Chivalry is usually thought of as courteous behavior, especially men’s courtesy toward women. In days gone by, chivalry was expected in polite society. But, with cultural norms shifting, it can be difficult to know whether chivalry is still expected or whether it is gone with the wind. Good manners are always appropriate for both men and women. Ephesians 5:21 tells the church to “submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.” So, biblical chivalry starts with a humble spirit and a willingness to put the needs of others before one’s own needs (Romans 12:3; Philippians 2:3\). And, while God created men and women equal in value, spirit, and intelligence, He also placed within the male heart a desire to guard and protect the women in his care. God created men and women differently in function and perspective so that we would [complement](complementarianism.html), not compete with one another. Part of a man’s innate bent toward protecting and valuing the beauty of a woman is reflected through chivalrous acts. By deferring to the women in his company—holding doors, helping with coats, rising when she enters—a man is fulfilling that God\-instilled part of him that needs to honor female beauty. First Peter 3:7 alludes to the innate difference between men and woman, instructing husbands to treat their wives with consideration as a “weaker vessel” and a joint\-heir to the things of Christ. We might say that husbands are to practice chivalry toward their wives. The term [weaker vessel](weaker-vessel.html) does not mean “inferior person,” as Peter immediately follows the term with the concept of spiritual equality. It this instance, “weaker” is better understood as “delicate without being frail,” much as an antique, highly valued Chinese vase is delicate but not frail. When changing the oil in your car, you would not use such a vase to catch the used oil because the vase is of such high quality. You might pour the used motor oil into an old tin can, which is stronger but not of high quality. True biblical chivalry builds upon the concept found in 1 Peter 3:7 and expresses itself in dozens of ways by showing honor and deference to women. Chivalry is a way of demonstrating respect for God’s design, not the character of the woman in question. Many women do not conduct themselves in ways that invite chivalry, but that does not excuse rudeness on the man’s part. God’s instruction to women is that they strive for a “gentle and quiet spirit” (1 Peter 3:4\). A woman who conducts herself with such kindness and class finds that men often respond to her with acts of chivalry. Chivalry is a choice men should make. A godly man treats women with respect because he recognizes they are created in the image of God and therefore inherently worthy of courtesy.
How can I maintain a good attitude when I am hormonal?	Answer Hormones are natural substances produced in the body that regulate and influence the way that body grows and develops. At certain times in a person’s life, extra hormones are produced to facilitate growth spurts, such as during adolescence. At other times, hormone levels decrease, such as during and after [menopause](Christian-menopause.html). Maintaining a good [attitude](Bible-attitude.html) when struggling with hormones has been difficult for everyone at some point in our lives. Hormones, like any of our body’s natural substances, can affect us in both positive and negative ways. One negative aspect of a hormone imbalance is irritability and overly sensitive emotions. This imbalance is often considered to be a female problem, but men and boys are also affected by hormonal imbalances that may manifest as aggression or anger. Rather than simply excuse improper behavior, we should seek wisdom from God on the matter. What does God expect us to do when hormones are raging? The Bible makes no allowances for physical conditions contributing to poor behavior. Commands are commands, whether we feel like obeying them or not. We are responsible for our actions, not our feelings. So an important step in maintaining a good attitude is to accept the responsibility for our actions, even when we suspect hormones play a role in how we feel. Admitting to God and to ourselves that we feel out of control can go a long way toward gaining control. Such honesty is also good practice in learning how to die to our flesh (Romans 6:6; 2 Corinthians 5:17\). Choosing to do right while struggling with overpowering feelings can actually help us grow spiritually and develop self\-control, which benefits us in every way. In extreme cases of struggling with hormones, a visit to the doctor may be in order. Sometimes there are other factors at play that could signal a more serious problem. If a person recognizes that periodic hormone imbalances are creating tension and hurt feelings within the family or workplace, it may be time to restructure schedules to minimize personal interactions. When the cycle is at its worst point, it is better to stay away from people than risk hurting feelings and damaging relationships. The one struggling with hormones can warn those in close contact and apologize in advance, assuring them that normalcy will soon return. By warning those close to us, we are taking the responsibility for our own actions, rather than picking fights and blaming others. Human beings are excuse factories, and, unfortunately, advances in medical knowledge have given us a storehouse full of biological ones. We can blame drunkenness on “disease,” adultery on an “addiction,” and hatefulness or aggression on “hormones.” God never accepts our excuses, so we shouldn’t, either. Sometimes obedience to Him is easy, and sometimes it is not, but our responsibility remains the same. Confessing our bad attitudes as sin (1 John 1:9\), finding forgiveness (Micah 7:18\), and asking for God’s strength to overcome (Romans 8:37\) are always the right responses when struggling with hormones.
Who was Zechariah in the Bible?	Answer There are a few prominent men in the Bible named Zechariah (alternate spelling Zacharias or Zachariah). One was an Old Testament prophet who prophesied in the days of Haggai and who wrote the book of [Zechariah](prophet-Zechariah.html) (Ezra 5:1; Zechariah 1:1\). This prophet is also mentioned by Jesus as having been murdered by the rebellious and disobedient Jews of his day (Matthew 23:35\). Another prominent Zechariah was a king of the northern kingdom of Israel (2 Kings 15:8\). [King Zechariah](King-Zechariah.html) was a wicked man, the last of Jehu’s doomed dynasty, and he was assassinated after only six months on the throne. And, finally, there is the priest Zechariah, the father of [John the Baptist](life-John-Baptist.html) (Luke 1:5\). It will be this Zechariah discussed in this article. Zechariah is actually the first person mentioned in connection with the Christmas story. The book of Luke records that Zechariah and his wife, [Elizabeth](Elizabeth-in-the-Bible.html), were righteous, God\-honoring people who had no children and were well past childbearing years (Luke 1:6–7\). Zechariah, as part of his priestly duties in the temple, was chosen to enter the Holy Place to [burn incense](altar-of-incense.html) before the Lord (verse 8\). While he was ministering in the temple to the Lord, the angel Gabriel appeared to him and told him that he and Elizabeth had been chosen by God to have a son who would be the forerunner of the Messiah (verse 17\). They were to consecrate their son as a servant of God and were to name him John. Although this was great news, Zechariah did not initially believe the angel. He objected that this could not be possible, since he and his wife were too old (Luke 1:18\). Because of Zechariah’s unbelief, Gabriel told him that he would be rendered mute until the baby was born (verse 20\). Zechariah was immediately unable to speak, and, when he came out of the temple, he had to communicate with hand gestures. The people gathered outside the temple praying understood that he had seen a vision of some kind (verse 22\). Zechariah went home, and it happened just as the angel had said. Elizabeth became pregnant (verse 24\). The next time Zechariah is mentioned is after the birth of his son. At the child’s circumcision, Elizabeth’s family and friends wanted to name the baby after Zechariah, but Elizabeth insisted that his name should be John (Luke 1:59–60\). When they consulted Zechariah, he asked for a writing tablet and “to everyone’s astonishment he wrote, ‘His name is John’” (verse 63\). Immediately, Zechariah was able to speak and began at once to praise the Lord. Luke 1:67–79 records the prophetic words that Zechariah proclaimed, which may have been in the form of a song. His words indicate the change of heart and the faith that had grown during his nine months of muteness. From Zechariah we learn that, when we faithfully follow the Lord and continue to lift up our prayers to Him, He hears us and answers according to His will for our lives (Luke 1:13; 18:1; 1 John 5:14–15\). There is nothing too hard for the Lord. God’s plan may look very different from what we think we want, but His way is always the best. Zechariah may have thought he only wanted a son; God gave him a prophet whose name is forever linked with the story of Jesus Christ.
What is the biblical solution to the problem of evil?	Answer Broadly stated, the “problem of evil” is the seeming contradiction between an all\-powerful, all\-loving God and the human experience of suffering and evil in the world. Critics claim that the existence of evil is proof that the [omnipotent](God-omnipotent.html), [omnibenevolent](God-omnibenevolent.html) God of the Bible cannot exist. Since “[bad things happen to good people](bad-things-good-people.html),” critics say, God is either nonexistent or less good or less powerful than Scripture suggests. Despite what some critics think, the so\-called “problem of evil” is not something the Bible leaves unaddressed. Scripture not only refers to the problem of evil, but it offers several solutions to it. By looking at the Bible’s honest questioning of evil, God’s response to evil, and the scriptural solution to evil, one can address this problem using almost nothing other than God’s Word. Of course, this question ties into theology and philosophy as well. There are multiple ways of coming to possible solutions, and none is entirely complete all by itself. According to the Bible, the experience of evil is something God understands and acknowledges. God’s willingness to grant us the freedom of making our own choices also allows for the possibility of moral evil. Moral evil leads to physical evil. Even so, God has always acted to soften the blows that evil and suffering land on humanity. He also provided the one and only means to make all wrongs right. One day, God’s plan to defeat and destroy evil will be fully complete. Scripture acknowledges the “problem of evil” Many of the Bible’s 66 individual books openly express what we would now term the “problem of evil.” In some cases, these expressions are all but a direct accusation against God, in response to the suffering the writers had seen or experienced. The entire [book of Job](Book-of-Job.html), for example, is a discussion of the reasons why mankind experiences suffering even when we don’t seem to deserve it. In addition, Scripture offers many other notable passages that clearly reflect the problem of evil: Habakkuk 1:2–4, “How long, Lord, must I call for help, but you do not listen? Or cry out to you, ‘Violence!’ but you do not save? Why do you make me look at injustice? Why do you tolerate wrongdoing? Destruction and violence are before me; there is strife, and conflict abounds. Therefore the law is paralyzed, and justice never prevails. The wicked hem in the righteous, so that justice is perverted.” Ecclesiastes 4:1–3, “Again I looked and saw all the oppression that was taking place under the sun: I saw the tears of the oppressed—and they have no comforter; power was on the side of their oppressors—and they have no comforter. And I declared that the dead, who had already died, are happier than the living, who are still alive. But better than both is the one who has never been born, who has not seen the evil that is done under the sun.” Psalm 10:1, “Why, Lord, do you stand far off? Why do you hide yourself in times of trouble?” Psalm 22:1–2, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, so far from my cries of anguish? My God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer, by night, but I find no rest.” Psalm 83:1–2, “O God, do not remain silent; do not turn a deaf ear, do not stand aloof, O God. See how your enemies growl, how your foes rear their heads.” John 16:2–4, “They will put you out of the synagogue; in fact, the time is coming when anyone who kills you will think they are offering a service to God. They will do such things because they have not known the Father or me. I have told you this, so that when their time comes you will remember that I warned you about them.” Romans 8:36, “As it is written: ‘For your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered.’“ Revelation 6:9–10, “When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God and the testimony they had maintained. They called out in a loud voice, ‘How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge the inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?’” These passages show a personal, deep awareness of the reality of evil. Scripture does not present evil as an abstraction or a remote idea. The real human beings who recorded the words of the Bible were painfully aware of the existence of evil and suffering. And they were willing to express their feelings to God, especially when they felt He wasn’t acting according to their expectations. Notably, however, these same authors also recognize and trust the goodness of God to make these wrongs right, someday. Scripture frames the “problem of evil” The Bible makes it clear that evil is something God neither intended nor created. Rather, moral evil is a necessary possibility. If we are truly free, then we are free to choose something other than God’s will—that is, we can choose moral evil. Scripture points out that there are consequences for defying the will of God—personal, communal, physical, and spiritual. Genesis 1:31, “God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.” Genesis 2:16–17, “And the Lord God commanded the man, ‘You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.’“ Genesis 3:17–19, “To Adam he said, ‘Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’ cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.” Proverbs 14:34, “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin condemns any people.” Proverbs 19:3, “A person’s own folly leads to their ruin, yet their heart rages against the Lord.” Matthew 5:3–11, “Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted. Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth. Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled. . . . Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.” John 9:1–3, “As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, ‘Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?’ ‘Neither this man nor his parents sinned,’ said Jesus, ‘but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him.’” Romans 1:18–28, “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. . . . Just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done.” Romans 3:23, “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” Romans 5:12, “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned.” Hebrews 2:2–3, “For since the message spoken through angels was binding, and every violation and disobedience received its just punishment, how shall we escape if we ignore so great a salvation?” Taken together, Scripture shows us that physical evils—sickness, famine, war, and death—are the result of moral evil. And moral evil is something human beings are all responsible for, on a personal and a communal level. We suffer because of our own sins at times. Other times, we suffer because of the sins of others. In some situations, we suffer from simple cause\-and\-effect. And we sometimes suffer for a special purpose, in order to bring hope or help—or a warning—to others (see 2 Corinthians 1:4\). The Bible “frames” the problem of evil by keeping it in the proper context. “Evil” is meaningless without something to compare it to. For comparison, we have the original creation of God, called “very good” (Genesis 1:31\). We have the standard of goodness in God Himself. And we have an explanation for the various causes of evil and suffering. Likewise, we see that this physical world is not all there is. Nor is this mortal life all we have been made for. We can experience physical struggles such as “mourning” and “persecution” (Matthew 5:4, 11\) while looking to a greater, more permanent state of being “blessed.” Of course, clearly framing what evil is and why we experience it is not the same as resolving the problem of evil. However, even the framing of evil in the context of Christian theology shows that our experience of evil and suffering is not incompatible with God’s existence. Amplifying this proof is how the Bible goes beyond accurately describing evil to revealing God’s action to remedy it. Scripture opposes the “problem of evil” Scripture shows that God did not create evil and does not promote it; rather, it describes God’s actions in combatting it. God limits the impact of evil, warns us of the dangers of evil, acts to stop the spread of evil, gives us an escape from evil, and will eventually defeat evil forever. Genesis 3:21, “The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them.” Genesis 4:10–15, “The Lord said, ‘What have you done? Listen! Your brother’s blood cries out to me from the ground. Now you are under a curse and driven from the ground, which opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand. When you work the ground, it will no longer yield its crops for you. You will be a restless wanderer on the earth.’ Cain said to the Lord, ‘My punishment is more than I can bear. Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.’ But the Lord said to him, ‘Not so; anyone who kills Cain will suffer vengeance seven times over.’” Genesis 6:5–8, “The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. So the Lord said, ‘I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.’ But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.” Genesis 7:1–4, “The Lord then said to Noah, ‘Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation. . . . Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made.’” Deuteronomy 9:5, “It is not because of your righteousness or your integrity that you are going in to take possession of their land; but on account of the wickedness of these nations, the Lord your God will drive them out before you, to accomplish what he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.” Deuteronomy 30:15–18, “See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction. For I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in obedience to him, and to keep his commands, decrees and laws; then you will live and increase, and the Lord your God will bless you in the land you are entering to possess. But if your heart turns away and you are not obedient, and if you are drawn away to bow down to other gods and worship them, I declare to you this day that you will certainly be destroyed. You will not live long in the land you are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess.” Jonah 3:6–10, “When Jonah’s warning reached the king of Nineveh, he rose from his throne, took off his royal robes, covered himself with sackcloth and sat down in the dust. This is the proclamation he issued in Nineveh: ‘By the decree of the king and his nobles: Do not let people or animals, herds or flocks, taste anything; do not let them eat or drink. But let people and animals be covered with sackcloth. Let everyone call urgently on God. Let them give up their evil ways and their violence. Who knows? God may yet relent and with compassion turn from his fierce anger so that we will not perish.’ When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he relented and did not bring on them the destruction he had threatened.” Matthew 10:28, “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” Matthew 23:37, “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing.” 1 Corinthians 6:9–11, “Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” Colossians 1:13, “For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves.” 2 Thessalonians 2:7, “For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way.” 2 Peter 2:9, “The Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials and to hold the unrighteous for punishment on the day of judgment.” Revelation 19:11, “I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and wages war.” Revelation 20:11–15, “Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. . . . I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. . . . The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. . . . Each person was judged according to what they had done. Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.” Revelation 21:1–5, “Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. . . . I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, ‘Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.’ He who was seated on the throne said, ‘I am making everything new!’ Then he said, ‘Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.’” The Bible explains that God has acted to limit the impact of evil. He has given us clear instructions to avoid being evil. God has also made spiritual power available for those who want to be freed from the power of evil. And, from the very beginning, God set in motion a plan to make all wrongs right and end our experience of evil and suffering (see Genesis 3:15\). Scripture resolves the “problem of evil” The existence of evil is often presented as an enormous problem for those who believe in God, mostly because of various false dichotomies. God must, it is assumed, disallow all evil or He is evil Himself. God must immediately punish all evildoers and never trouble those who are innocent, or He is assumed not to be omnipotent. In reality, these assumptions miss the actual means by which Scripture resolves the problem of evil. As we’ve seen, the Bible acknowledges evil, correctly frames it, and shows how God opposes it. Most importantly, though, Scripture explains how the existence of the Christian God defeats the problem of evil. Matthew 16:21, “From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.” Mark 10:45, “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” Luke 22:19–20, “And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.’ In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.’” John 14:6, “Jesus answered, ‘I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.’” John 19:16–18, “Finally Pilate handed him over to them to be crucified. So the soldiers took charge of Jesus. Carrying his own cross, he went out to the place of the Skull (which in Aramaic is called Golgotha). There they crucified him, and with him two others—one on each side and Jesus in the middle.” John 19:30, “Jesus said, ‘It is finished.’ With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.” John 20:19–20, “On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jewish leaders, Jesus came and stood among them and said, ‘Peace be with you!’ After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord.” John 20:30–31, “Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.” 2 Corinthians 5:1, “For we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands.” Hebrews 4:15, “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin.” 1 John 3:1, “See what great love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God!” Colossians 1:21–22, “Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. But now he has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation.” Rather than creating us as amoral robots or dooming mankind for our sin or condoning our sin by leaving it unresolved, God chose the one and only way to settle the problem. He created us with the freedom to choose our actions, and then extended forgiveness to us. Forgiveness is the Christian answer to the problem of evil. Forgiveness is different from condemnation—it releases the condemned from punishment. Forgiveness is also different from excusing evil—it acknowledges that there is wrong to be made right. The basis of our forgiveness, the cross, is the intersection of God’s perfect moral character, [love](God-is-love.html), and omnipotence. Since He chose to take our penalty upon Himself, all suffering and evil can be overcome. According to the Bible, the evil we experience in this life has already been defeated, and everyone has access to that victory. John 3:16–21, “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.” John 16:33, “I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.” Taken as a whole, as it is intended, the Bible describes evil as something God allowed, but never condoned, for the sake of our free will. All through history, God has taken steps to limit the influence of evil. And, most importantly, God Himself took the consequences of our sin, so every person can have access to forgiveness and salvation. As a result, all sin, evil, and suffering will someday be completely ended. Beyond the philosophical or theological aspects of this issue, Scripture in and of itself goes a long way to neutralizing the power of the “problem of evil.”
Who was Justin Martyr?	Answer Justin (approximately AD 100–165\) was a Christian teacher, writer, and ultimately a martyr. He was a native of Samaria who moved to Ephesus to study philosophy in his search for truth. Justin was impressed with the character of Christians who were martyred for their faith. One day while walking and thinking, he met an old man who challenged his thinking and shared the gospel with him. Justin became a believer. Justin viewed Christianity through the lens of philosophy. He saw Christianity as philosophy corrected and perfected—the true philosophy. He moved to Rome where he became a teacher and writer. As was the custom of the day, and since public preaching had become dangerous, Justin held private lectures for those who were interested in learning of the faith. He is known today for his writings. There are three writings that are attributed to him, although many scholars doubt the authenticity of one of them (Second Apologies). Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho is a discussion with a Jew regarding the superiority of Christ and Christianity. Trypho presents objections, and Justin answers them. (Some identify Trypho as a historical rabbi, and others believe that Trypho is a fictional character and that Justin simply used the dialogue as a literary device.) Trypho objects that Christians worship a man. Justin demonstrates that the Jewish Scriptures speak of Christ. Justin defends the Incarnation and presents the idea that the Church is True People of God and that the Old Covenant is passing away. In his Dialogue Justin gives us valuable insight into the way early Christians interpreted the Old Testament. Justin Martyr’s First Apologies (or simply Apologies) is addressed to the Roman Emperor Antonius Pius. It presents Christian truth within the context of current Greek thought. Justin emphasizes that Jesus is the logos incarnate (see John 1:1\), since logos was a commonly understood Greek philosophical concept. Justin believed that any person who lived in accordance with the logos was a Christian whether that person knew it or not. Socrates was thus a “Christian” before Christ, in much the same way that Abraham was. Apologies was provoked by persecution of Christians and attempted to clear away popular misconceptions about Christianity. From Justin Martyr’s writings we get early descriptions of Christian worship services and the Eucharist. We see that the Jewish trappings of Christianity were falling away. We also see that Justin opposed the early heresies of [Gnosticism](Christian-gnosticism.html), [Docetism](Docetism.html), and [Marcionism](marcionism.html). In 165, Justin and some of his followers were arrested for their faith. In answer to threats of death, Justin is reported to have said, “If we are punished for the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ, we hope to be saved.” He was beheaded under the reign of Emperor [Marcus Aurelius](Marcus-Aurelius.html), son of Antonius Pius, and he later became known as Justin Martyr.
What does the Bible say about being mean-spirited?	Answer A mean\-spirited person is one whose natural impulse is to cause harm or trouble for others. We are all mean\-spirited at times, but this article will focus upon those whose personalities are characterized the majority of the time by hateful, rude, or spiteful behavior. The fictional curmudgeon Ebenezer Scrooge, prior to his Christmas transformation, is a good example of a mean\-spirited person in A Christmas Carol. Mean\-spiritedness is part of our fallen sinful nature (Romans 3:10, 23; 8:5\). We are born selfish with a desire to gratify ourselves at any expense. Depending upon the effectiveness of our early training, we may learn more socially acceptable ways of interacting with others, but we can still behave in hateful, mean\-spirited ways due to the inability to control our own evil tendencies (Romans 7:14–20\). Mean\-spirited people are not pleasant to be around, so we learn to curb some of those selfish impulses in order to be more popular. However, there are some who don’t care what anyone thinks, and they keep their mean\-spirited actions on public display. The Bible has a lot to say about being mean\-spirited and the fact that it dominates the lives of many who reject God. Jesus offers a makeover for us when we give our lives to Him. Second Corinthians 5:17 says, “Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a [new creature](new-creation.html): old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.” One of those “old things” that are passed away is our mean\-spirited nature. Jesus spent much of His earthly ministry talking about a new way of conducting ourselves. Matthew 5 includes a list of character traits that God finds desirable in us. Verses 5–12 are known as [the Beatitudes](beatitudes.html), and they highlight the behaviors that should characterize followers of Christ. [Christlike living](Christ-like.html) is in direct opposition to a mean spirit. To highlight some differences: • Our mean spirit wants to get revenge; Jesus says to forgive (Matthew 6:14–15\). • Our mean spirit wants to exalt itself; Jesus says to seek humility (Matthew 23:12\). • Our mean spirit wants to be first; Jesus says we are blessed if we choose to be last (Mark 9:35\). • Our mean spirit wants to fight; Jesus says, “Blessed are the peacemakers” (Matthew 5:9\). • Our mean spirit wants to gossip; the Bible says to guard our mouths (Proverbs 13:3\). • Our mean spirit is rude; Jesus says our speech should be gracious (Colossians 4:6\). A mean\-spirited person is living opposite of what the Bible teaches. Often, the reason a person remains mean\-spirited is because he does not know how to live otherwise. It may feel natural to be rude and hostile if one was raised in a rude and hostile environment. But to meet Jesus is to enter a new world, one in which it is impossible to live without His Holy Spirit (Galatians 2:20\). When we allow the Holy Spirit free rein in our lives, He can transform even the most mean\-spirited person into a [Spirit\-filled](Spirit-filled.html) disciple.
Who was Martin Luther?	Answer Martin Luther is well known for his [95 Theses](95-theses.html), a document listing various oppressive and unbiblical practices of the Roman Catholic Church, and as the father of the [Protestant Reformation](Protestant-Reformation.html). Luther posted his Theses on the door of the church at Wittenberg on October 31, 1517, now known as Reformation Day. Martin Luther was of German origin, born in Eisleben in 1483\. At the age of 13, Luther began attending a school run by the Brethren of the Common Life where he became interested in monastic life. However, Luther’s father was a businessman and wanted his son to become a lawyer, so he withdrew Martin from the school. Luther later attended the premier university in Germany at the time—the University of Erfurt—where he studied the usual curriculum and obtained a master’s degree. Shortly after he graduated, Luther was caught in a thunderstorm and nearly struck by lightning. He took this as a sign from God and vowed to become a monk should he survive the storm. Thus, in July 1505 Luther moved into an Augustinian monastery. While in the monastery, Luther continued his studies both at Erfurt and at a university in Wittenberg. In 1510–1511 he served in Rome as a representative for the German Augustinian monasteries, but upon his return he finished his studies and obtained a doctorate degree in 1512\. Luther then became a biblical studies professor. In the 16th century, theologians and scholars across Europe were starting to question the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. During the same time, translations of texts such as the Bible and the writings of early Christians became more widely available. It was in this context that Luther came to adopt two of Augustine’s beliefs: that the Bible, not the church, was ultimately authoritative; and that salvation is by God’s grace alone, not by good works. On his visit to Rome, Luther was troubled by the extravagance and corruption of the Pope and clergy. He began specifically to question the sale of [indulgences](plenary-indulgences.html), purported to absolve sinners. Believing the sale of indulgences to be corrupt, Luther posted his 95 Theses (also called the “Disputation on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences”) to invite scholarly debate on the subject. The 95 Theses were fairly quickly disseminated throughout Germany and made it all the way to Rome. In 1518 Catholic officials called Martin Luther to Augsburg to defend his position before an assembly. After three days, no agreement was reached. In November 1518 the Pope spoke against Luther’s writing as contradictory to Catholic teachings. After several papal commissions, which found his work to be either heretical or at least scandalous and offensive, Pope Leo X issued a decree in July 1520 calling Luther’s ideas heretical. Luther was given 120 days to recant; he refused and was thus excommunicated from the Catholic Church in January 1521\. In May 1521 the Roman Emperor Charles V ordered that Luther’s writings be burned. Luther hid in Eisenach, Germany, and worked on his German translation of the New Testament, a project that he completed in four months and published in September 1522\. [Luther’s translation of the entire Bible](Luther-Bible.html) was released in 1534\. In Wittenberg, meanwhile, the reform sparked by Martin Luther’s writings had become more political rather than simply theological. In 1525 Luther married Katharina von Bora, a former nun; the couple had six children. Luther continued to write profusely the rest of his life. Some of his important works include Of the Liberty of a Christian Man (1520\), On the Bondage of the Will (1525\), the Great Catechism and the Small Catechism (1529\), Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (1535\), and several hymns, including “A Mighty Fortress Is Our God.” Later in life Luther seemed to become more stubborn in his views and could be quite acerbic at times. His meeting with Swiss Reformer [Ulrich Zwingli](Ulrich-Zwingli.html) in 1529 only emphasized the sharp disagreement the two men had over the nature of the Eucharist. Unfortunately, Luther said some shameful things [in criticism of the Jews](Martin-Luther-anti-semitic.html), including one particularly harsh tract published in 1543\. Luther died in February 1546\. Martin Luther is an influential figure in church history, and [Lutheranism](Lutherans.html) still thrives today. Luther certainly was not flawless, but his emphasis on the authority of the Bible and on salvation by grace through faith has proved foundational to Protestantism. Luther recognized that only God’s grace, not good works, could save him (Ephesians 2:8–9\). His courage and commitment to the Word literally changed the course of history.
Who was Saint Irenaeus of Lyons?	Answer Irenaeus (AD 130–202\) was the bishop of Lugdunum in Gaul (modern Lyons, France), a stalwart opponent of heresy, and an influential witness concerning the development of the biblical canon. Little is known about the life of Irenaeus. We know that he was from Smyrna in Asia Minor and a student there of [Polycarp](Polycarp.html) (who was a disciple of the apostle John). Irenaeus moved to Rome and studied under Justin Martyr. Sometime prior to AD 177 Irenaeus moved Lyons. In 177, Roman Emperor [Marcus Aurelius](Marcus-Aurelius.html) ordered a violent persecution of Christians in France, but Irenaeus escaped it because at the time he was on a journey to Rome, apparently carrying a letter to the church at Rome. Irenaeus returned to France after the persecution had subsided, and he was made bishop of Lyons in 178, replacing the previous bishop, who had died or been killed in the persecution. The significance of Irenaeus is found in his writings. There are fragments of many works, but two major works survive intact: Against Heresies and Proof of Apostolic Preaching. Against Heresies (or The Detection and Refutation of What Is Falsely Called Knowledge, also known as Against All Heresies) is a treatise against [Marcionism](marcionism.html) and [Gnosticism](Christian-gnosticism.html), and especially [Valentinianism](Valentinus-Valentinianism.html), a particular form of Gnosticism that was popular in Lyons. In this treatise, Irenaeus seeks to protect his flock from heresy and to convert those who hold the Gnostic error. Until the discovery of the Nag Hammadi library in 1945, most of what was known of Gnosticism was from Irenaeus. Irenaeus is often used to support the Roman Catholic idea of [apostolic succession](apostolic-succession.html) because he said that all the bishops can trace their succession back to the apostles. However, this statement needs to be understood in context. The Gnostics held that they were privy to secret information that had been passed down from Jesus. Irenaeus makes the case that all the orthodox bishops can trace their teaching back to the apostles, who got their teaching from Jesus. The bishops in the churches are the safeguards of the truth, which can be traced in an unbroken line back to the apostles. The line of teachers was not difficult to trace, since it had been little over 100 years since the death of the apostles. Irenaeus himself could easily trace his message to the apostle John, whose student Polycarp was Irenaeus’ teacher. The link between Irenaeus’ contemporaries and the apostles is a far cry from the more modern idea of apostolic succession. Irenaeus may be best known for his theory of recapitulation. Recapitulation emphasizes the true humanity of Christ, who undoes the work of Adam and fulfills all that God intended for mankind. (Gnostics denied the true humanity of Christ and taught that the human body was evil.) Unfortunately, Irenaeus’ emphasis on Jesus’ human nature inherited from Mary may be seen as the basis for the later elevation of Mary as co\-redemptrix, yet that was not at all what Irenaeus had in mind. Against Heresies also speaks against Marcion, who taught that the God of the Old Testament was different from the God of the New Testament and who rejected the Old Testament. Irenaeus’ critique of Gnosticism was largely dependent upon the Old Testament, so he addressed the Marcion heresy as well. In Against Heresies, Irenaeus also quotes from every New Testament book except 3 John, so it is an important document to show the ancient church’s acceptance of New Testament Scripture. However, Against Heresies also refers to [The Shepherd of Hermas](Shepherd-of-Hermas.html) as “Scripture” and treats the book of 1 Clement as authoritative. Still, in Irenaeus we can see that the canon was beginning to coalesce. Irenaeus’ The Proof of Apostolic Preaching (or The Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching) is a summary of Christian preaching with an emphasis on the fact the Christ fulfills Old Testament prophecy. Ireneaus was an influential thinker, and there is evidence that his writings were widespread in the churches around the Roman Empire during his lifetime or shortly after his death. Irenaeus died around 202\. Some sources indicate that he was martyred, but we do not have enough evidence to determine the actual events surrounding his death. St. Irenaeus has been canonized by the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches.
What is dogma?	Answer Dogma is defined as “a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted.” In Christianity, dogma is the body of biblical doctrines proclaimed by and accepted by Christians. The dogma of the Christian religion is that which is preached from the pulpit, taught by Christian leaders, and believed by followers of Christ. To be orthodox, Christian dogma must align with the teaching of the Word of God. The three most basic dogmas of the Christian faith, those which all Christians are taught and must believe, are what separate Christianity from all other religions. The three are [the deity of Christ](deity-of-Christ.html) (John 1:1, 14\), His substitutionary death and resurrection (2 Corinthians 5:21\), and salvation from sin by grace through faith alone (Ephesians 2:8–9\). All other religions reject Christ’s deity and teach that salvation is achieved and/or retained by some form of human works. There are many other Christian dogmas, including the doctrines of the Trinity; the inspiration, inerrancy, and sufficiency of Scripture; the virgin birth; the indwelling of the Holy Spirit; and others. But the three doctrines mentioned above are the [core doctrines](essentials-Christian-faith.html) of the faith, for upon them rests the eternal destiny of every human being. We may differ on the role of the Holy Spirit or misunderstand the Trinity, but denying the nature of Christ and His sacrifice for sin rejects the only hope we have for eternal life (Acts 4:12\). To be “dogmatic,” that is, to have a strong set of beliefs about faith and doctrine, is often frowned upon in today’s pluralistic culture. Yet believers in Christ are commanded to be dogmatic: “Brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings \[the dogma] we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thessalonians 2:15\). Being dogmatic about Christianity is seen by many as divisive, unloving, and closed\-minded. Let’s examine those charges in light of the undeniable dogmas of the faith. Is Christian dogma divisive? Definitely. It divides truth from error, sound doctrine from heresy, and spiritual reality from wishful thinking. Dogma also recognizes and accepts as true the divisions that exist in the many opposites of Scripture: light and darkness, good and evil, law and grace, faith and works, sheep and goats, wisdom and folly, life and death. Christian dogma is also divisive in that it separates those who accept by faith Christianity’s basic tenets from those who deny them. As Christians, we are not to be divisive in our attitudes toward others, but we must cling to truth. Clinging to truth requires rejecting falsehood. “Test everything; hold fast what is good” (1Thessalonians 5:21, ESV). Is Christian dogma unloving? Far from it. In fact, it is the epitome of love. It begins with God, who so loved the world that He sent His Son to provide salvation from sin (John 3:16\). Christian dogma is based on the love of Christ, who died on the cross out of love for His people (John 15:13\). Furthermore, it manifests itself in the love of Christians for God (Mark 12:30\) and for one another, as commanded by Jesus (John 13:34\). To clearly proclaim Christian dogma is the most loving thing we can do because it shares with others the only means of escaping an eternity in hell. Are those who believe in Christian dogma closed\-minded? Dogmatic Christians are often called closed\-minded or narrow\-minded. But Christianity, by its very nature, is a closed and narrow faith (see Matthew 7:13–14\). Jesus declared Himself to be the only Way, Truth, and Life and that no one comes to God except by Him (John 14:6\). This statement eliminates all other faiths and religions from consideration. Dogma is important; it does make a difference what we believe. The key to being dogmatic without being abrasive is, first of all, to carefully choose which dogmas are [worth debating](Christian-debating.html) and which ones are not, and, second, to always speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15\). “In the essentials, unity; in the non\-essentials, diversity; in all things, charity.”
What does the Bible say about intuition?	Answer “I had a feeling that was going to happen.” We’ve all said that at some point about an event or a person. Intuition is the feeling that causes us to know certain things without fully understanding how or why. We experience strong inner leanings toward or away from people, situations, or future decisions that we cannot explain, and many times, in the experience of the wise, those leanings prove to be correct. Intuition is a gift from God, and, when we learn how to develop and strengthen it, intuition can help us steer clear of disastrous decisions and relationships. To be created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27\) means that we have been designed on a different scale than the plant or animal kingdoms. We have a spirit. We can discern right and wrong. We have a conscience that bothers us when we choose wrongly. And we have intuitive suspicions about things we know very little about. Some people are naturally more intuitive than others, but we can all develop this gift to some extent by simply tuning in to it. A woman meeting a man for the first time may have an intuitive feeling that he is dishonest and lustful, even though nothing in their exchange gave that away. When she acts upon that intuition and it is proved correct, she can strengthen it by intentionally tuning in to it more often and heeding its warnings. A man may be prepared for a business merger, but intuition tells him there is more to the story, so he puts it on hold only to learn he was right. And he is very thankful he paid attention to his intuition. However, one’s feelings can be wrong, and not all inner leanings should be heeded. Proverbs 16:25 says, “There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death.” A life not surrendered to the lordship of Jesus is easy prey for Satan’s suggestions. What may feel like intuition can just as easily be one of the enemy’s “fiery arrows” (Ephesians 6:16\). Because of our sin natures, we are prone to error and poor judgment. If relying only upon our own powers of discernment, we can be led astray. Judges 21:25 describes such a time in Israel’s history: “In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (ESV). When everyone does what seems right to them, society crumbles into anarchy. Our viewpoints are skewed, selfish, and influenced by evil suggestion when they not subject to the wisdom of God. The Bible speaks often about seeking [wisdom](wisdom-knowledge.html) as the chief ambition, and, when we do, our intuition can be a safeguard against tragic mistakes (Proverbs 2:3–5; 4:7; Ecclesiastes 7:12; Psalm 111:10\). For a Christian, intuition can be greatly enhanced by the Holy Spirit. He is the fountain of wisdom and understanding. Those who “walk in the Spirit” (Galatians 5:16, 25\) have the privilege of God’s own perspective on many life decisions as He guides us through His Word. We can fine\-tune this ability to hear God by spending time in His Word, in worship, and in [meditation](Christian-meditation.html). A. W. Tozer, in his classic work The Pursuit of God, writes, “Why do some persons ‘find’ God in a way that others do not? . . . The one vital quality that they all had in common was spiritual receptivity. Something in them was open to heaven, something which urged them Godward.” This spiritual receptivity is the quality that can influence intuition to such an extent that we can walk blamelessly before God (Philippians 2:15; 1 Thessalonians 3:13; Job 1:1\). David “sat before the Lord” (2 Samuel 7:18\), enjoying His presence and quieting his spirit. Our spirits hear God when we quiet our minds enough to meditate on His Word. As we seek God’s guidance and pray for direction, He says to trust that we have the wisdom we’ve asked for (James 1:5\). Heeding our God\-given intuition, we move forward in the way that seems wisest, trusting that the Lord is directing our steps (Psalm 37:23\). When intuition is rooted in God’s Word, surrendered to the control of the Holy Spirit, and aligned with God’s wisdom, it can protect us from errors and help keep our feet on the straight path (Proverbs 4:26; 15:21; Isaiah 26:7\).
Who was Benedict of Nursia?	Answer Very little is known about the life of Benedict of Nursia, who lived approximately 480–547, and most of what is known comes from a biography written by [Gregory the Great](Gregory-the-Great.html). Gregory made the Rule of St. Benedict widely known, and Benedict is today considered the father of Western [monasticism](Christian-asceticism-monasticism.html). With the passage of time, the persecution that was common in the early years of Christianity gave rise to tolerance and then official recognition by the Roman Emperor. This led to a great increase of people who joined churches and claimed to be Christians—whether or not they had truly come to saving faith in Christ or even understood what it was all about. The influx of so many unconverted Romans into the church was accompanied by a general lowering of standards for behavior. Many Christians were saddened by this and sought to live alone or form smaller, separate communities where they could live out what they felt to be their genuine faith. This move to separate was the beginning of monasticism—a withdrawal from society in an attempt to practice Christianity untainted by the world with its temptations and contaminations. Benedict studied law and rhetoric in Rome, but, as he observed the immorality in the city among people who claimed to be Christians, he decided to withdraw from society and live by himself. On two occasions, Benedict became the head (abbot) of a monastery, but both times it ended badly, with his being forced to leave. Benedict went on to establish a monastery in Monte Cassino in central Italy around AD 520 and served there the rest of his life. It was here that he developed his rule for governing the lives of monks, which became the standard for European monasteries and is still followed in large part today. The rule emphasizes submission to the abbot as the spiritual authority, worship and prayer, service, and work. Benedictine monks always stress the importance of work: to St. Benedict, work or physical labor was necessary for the well\-being of a man and essential for a Christian. Benedictine monks are often called “black monks” because they wear black habits.
What is the highway of holiness (Isaiah 35:8)?	Answer The specific phrase highway of holiness is found only once in Scripture, in Isaiah 35\. In this chapter, God promises that, in the future, the land of Israel will be blessed with fertility and “the desert shall rejoice and blossom as the rose” (verse 2\). Isaiah’s prophecy of the [messianic kingdom](millennium.html) also encourages the weak and fearful to be strong, for God will come with vengeance to save the long\-oppressed people of Israel (verses 3–4\). There will be gladness and shouts of joy when the new, restored Zion will see God’s glory, experience His presence, and be guided and protected by Him. At the time the kingdom is established, “a highway will be there; it will be called the Way of Holiness” (Isaiah 35:8\). The highway of holiness does not need to be a literal highway; the point of the prophecy is that God will remove all obstacles and “smooth the way” for His people, enabling them to access the blessings of the kingdom. Some point to the fulfillment of this prophecy as the Jews’ return from captivity in Babylon and Persia. But the language of Isaiah 35 gives it a broader context, including physical healing and environmental blessings (verses 5–7\). The highway of holiness could also be seen to refer to the Way that is Christ (see John 14:6\), the way of sovereign grace that redeems us from sin. The highway of holiness has three important characteristics. The first is found in Isaiah 35:8: “It will be for those who walk on that Way. The unclean will not journey on it; wicked fools will not go about on it.” The highway of holiness is a place of holiness. It is reserved for those who are righteous in God’s sight. No one entering the kingdom will be foolish or sinful. Christ alone provides the way of holiness, having exchanged His perfect righteousness for our sin (2 Corinthians 5:21\). His righteousness is imputed to us, enabling us to be holy, even as He is holy. The highway is reserved for His people alone. Second, the highway of holiness is a place of safety, reserved for the redeemed of the Lord. “No lion will be there, nor any ravenous beast; they will not be found there. But only the redeemed will walk there, and those the Lord has rescued will return” (Isaiah 35:9–10\). This is indicative of the safety and security God’s people will experience on the highway. No wicked persons, symbolized by lions and ravenous beasts, will be allowed on the highway. The redeemed of the Lord will walk there in peace and safety. Third, the highway of holiness will be a place of joy: “They will enter Zion with singing; everlasting joy will crown their heads. Gladness and joy will overtake them, and sorrow and sighing will flee away” (Isaiah 35:10\). Just as the ransomed captives would return joyfully from Babylon, all the redeemed of the Lord will enter the [millennial kingdom](dispensation-of-Millennial-Kingdom.html) rejoicing. Isaiah’s mention of a “highway” occurs again in Isaiah 40:3, referring to the first advent of the Messiah: “A voice of one calling: ‘In the wilderness prepare the way for the Lord; make straight in the desert a highway for our God.’” This prophecy was fulfilled by [John the Baptist](life-John-Baptist.html) (see Matthew 3:3\).
Who are Oholah and Oholibah in the Bible?	Answer Oholah and Oholibah (or Aholah and Aholibah) are symbolic names for the kingdom of Israel (the ten tribes in the north) and the kingdom of Judah (the two tribes in the south). Oholah and Oholibah appear in the [book of Ezekiel](Book-of-Ezekiel.html), chapter 23\. This chapter describes the spiritual infidelity of Israel and Judah, picturing them as two sisters. Ezekiel refers to Oholah and Oholibah and identifies them as Samaria (the capital of Israel) and Jerusalem (the capital of Judah) in Ezekiel 23:4\. The sisters are “daughters of the same mother” (verse 2\) because Israel and Judah were originally one nation, Israel. The meanings of two names have special significance. Oholah means “her own tent or tabernacle”—Samaria had a separate worship\-place apart from the temple in Jerusalem. Oholibah means “my tabernacle is in her”—this represents Jerusalem, where God did establish worship. Both Oholah and Oholibah engaged in prostitution ([spiritual infidelity](spiritual-adultery.html)) in Egypt in their youth (Ezekiel 23:3\). The older sister, Oholah, later played the harlot with the [Assyrians](Assyrians.html) (verses 5–8\). That is, Samaria and Israel had sought fulfillment and security by aligning themselves with idolatrous Assyria. The punishment of Oholah fit her crime: “Therefore I delivered her into the hands of her lovers, the Assyrians, for whom she lusted. They stripped her naked, took away her sons and daughters and killed her with the sword” (verses 9–10\). [Israel was conquered](Israel-conquered-by-Assyria.html) and her people deported to Assyria in 722 BC (2 Kings 17\). The Assyrians were the instruments God used to inflict His judgments upon Israel. In Ezekiel 23:11–21, Ezekiel portrays the younger sister, Oholibah, as even more corrupt and promiscuous than Oholah. Rather than learning from her sister’s mistakes, Oholibah craved after the Babylonian idols and then the Chaldean lifestyle, committing spiritual prostitution with the [Babylonians](Babylonian-empire.html). Because of Jerusalem’s and Judah’s idolatries God alienated Himself from them and allowed them, too, to be taken into captivity: “I will turn you over to them for punishment, and they will punish you according to their standards. I will direct my jealous anger against you, and they will deal with you in fury” (verses 24–25\). Oholibah had learned nothing from her sister’s sad story, and [Judah finally fell to Babylon](Judah-conquered-by-Babylon.html) in 586 BC. The rest of Ezekiel 23 outlines the details of the two nations’ spiritual infidelity and the punishment they received from God. “\[Your enemies] will deal with you in hatred and take away everything you have worked for. They will leave you stark naked, and the shame of your prostitution will be exposed. Your lewdness and promiscuity have brought this on you, because you lusted after the nations and defiled yourself with their idols” (verses 29–30\). Among the detestable practices committed by Oholah and Oholibah were sacrificing their children to idols and profaning the sanctuary of God (verses 37–38\). The lesson of the sad story of Oholah and Oholibah is that God is a jealous God who punishes those who turn their backs on Him and chase after idols. Though God is patient and long\-suffering, eventually His judgment falls on the unfaithful. We reap what we sow (Galatians 6:7\). “This is what the Sovereign Lord says: Since you have forgotten me and turned your back on me, you must bear the consequences of your lewdness and prostitution” (Ezekiel 23:35\).
Who were the Cappadocian Fathers?	Answer The Cappadocian Fathers were three important fourth\-century theologians born in Cappadocia, now modern Turkey. The three were responsible for precisely defining the doctrine of the [Trinity](Trinity-Bible.html) and clarifying the errors of [semi\-Arianism](Semi-Arianism.html). The Cappadocian Fathers are [Basil the Great](Basil-of-Caesarea.html) (330–379\), bishop of Caesarea; Basil’s younger brother [Gregory of Nyssa](Gregory-of-Nyssa.html) (c. 332–395\), bishop of Nyssa; and their friend [Gregory of Nazianzus](Gregory-of-Nazianzus.html) (329–389\), who became Patriarch of Constantinople. The region of [Cappadocia](Cappadocia-in-the-Bible.html) was the site of several missions by the apostle Paul. The first of the Cappadocian Fathers, Basil, was a somewhat sickly child raised in a Christian family; he received an excellent education in Caesarea, Antioch, Constantinople, and Athens. He returned to Caesarea where, after some personal tragedies, he adopted an [ascetic lifestyle](Christian-asceticism-monasticism.html) and founded a monastery where he encouraged other monks to dedicate themselves to work, prayer, Bible\-reading, and good works. Eventually, Basil joined with the bishop of Caesarea in his struggle against Arianism, a heresy that denies the deity of Christ. When the bishop died, Basil was selected as the new bishop. Another of the Cappadocian Fathers was Gregory of Nyssa, Basil’s younger brother, who was also drawn to the monastic life, desiring to avoid controversy and live a quiet, contemplative life. Learned in philosophy, medicine, and rhetoric, Gregory’s writing leaned toward [Christian mysticism](Christian-mysticism.html). In 372, Basil appointed Gregory bishop of the small town of Nyssa, but Gregory proved a poor administrator, having no desire for church politics and little interest in financial affairs. This gave rise to a charge of misappropriation of funds and his dismissal from his post and banishment by the Emperor Valens. He was recalled by the Emperor Gratian in 378\. The third Cappadocian Father was Gregory of Nazianzus. Like Basil and his brother, Gregory was born into a devout Christian family. He met Basil during their student days and later joined him in adopting the monastic life. Like Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus preferred the quiet, contemplative life to the conflicts and controversies of church affairs. Appointed to several ecclesiastical posts, always against his will and inclination, he eventually became the preacher of a small church in Constantinople in 379, the year of Basil’s death. Gregory’s gift was oration. In Constantinople he delivered five speeches so powerful that they turned the tide of theological thought in that area from Arianism to orthodoxy. The Cappadocian Fathers are best known for their stand against [Arianism](arianism.html), which asserted that Jesus was created by God and that He is separate from, and not equal to, the Father. This view effectively eliminates the doctrine of the Trinity. The Semi\-Arians taught that Jesus was a created being and is of “like substance” to the Father, although not divine. The [Council of Nicea](council-of-Nicea.html) had ruled against Arianism in 325, and [Athanasius](Athanasius.html) had continued to stoutly defend the deity of Christ after that. Using philosophical and scriptural arguments, the Cappadocian Fathers continued Athanasius’ work and, through brilliant writing and eloquent oration, supported the orthodox view of the Triune Godhead, one God in three Persons. They insisted on theological terminology that showed the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to be three Persons with one substance. Partly through the work of the Cappadocian Fathers, Arianism was finally defeated at the [Council of Constantinople](Council-of-Constantinople.html) in 381\. All three of the Cappadocian Fathers are considered saints by both the Eastern and Western churches.
Who was Hippolytus of Rome?	Answer Hippolytus (c. 160–236\) was a prolific writer and one of the most significant theologians of the third century. He is known today for promoting orthodox Christology amid the confusion and bad doctrine in the church at Rome. Hippolytus was a presbyter (elder) in the church at Rome while Zephyrinus and Callistus served as the bishops. Both bishops supported some form of [modalism](Modalistic-Monarchianism.html), which viewed the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as simply three “modes” or manifestations of the same Person, and saw those with a more Trinitarian understanding as believing in separate gods. Modalism is also known as Modalistic Monarchianism, Sabellianism (after Sabellius, one of its strongest proponents), and [Patripassianism](Patripassianism.html) (“father\-suffering”), since it taught that it was God the Father who was born as the Son and died on the cross and raised Himself from the dead. Hippolytus, in contrast, understood Jesus as a fully divine but distinct Person from the Father. For these doctrinal differences, as well as the bishops’ relaxing of moral standards, Hippolytus bitterly opposed both bishops as well as Callistus’ successors, Urban and Pontianus. For a while, Hippolytus was elected as a rival bishop of the Roman church. Ultimately, both Hippolytus and Pontianus were exiled to Sardinia under Emperor Maximus Thorax, and a new Roman bishop was installed, ending the schismatic controversy. It is possible that Hippolytus died working in the mines, although, much later, a number of more exciting legends about his life and death became popular. Hippolytus is known for his writings against heresy as well as for the important information he preserves about baptismal practices, Eucharistic services, and the ordination of ministers. He is also known for taking a hard line about the high behavioral and moral standards required of church members. His high standards were not always shared by the above\-mentioned bishops of Rome, which also contributed to the schism. In what has been called Hippolytus’ most important work, Refutation of All Heresies (or the Philosophumena), Hippolytus attempted to demonstrate that all Christian heresies spring from reliance upon pagan philosophy. Many of his writings, translated into English, are readily available online, including Commentary on the Prophet Daniel, Commentary on the Song of Songs, and On Christ and the Antichrist, an eschatological work.
Who was Jeduthun in the Bible?	Answer The name Jeduthun means “lauder” or “praising.” It was an apt name for the Levite named Jeduthun we read about in the Bible, because he was one of David’s chief musicians (1 Chronicles 16:41–42; 2 Chronicles 35:15; Psalm 39:1\). The other choir directors mentioned in the Psalms and 1 Chronicles were [Asaph](who-was-Asaph.html) and [Heman](Heman-the-Ezrahite.html). Several psalms were designated for each of these three directors, which may indicate that each specialized in a different kind of music. Psalms 39, 62, and 77 are assigned to Jeduthun, indicating that his choir or musicians were to lead the congregation on those songs. Many scholars consider Jeduthun to be identical to the Ethan mentioned in 1 Chronicles 15:17\. First Chronicles 25:3 tells us that Jeduthun’s sons, [Gedaliah](Gedaliah-in-the-Bible.html), Zeri, Jeshaiah, Shimei, Hashabiah, and Mattithiah, also joined him in playing the harp, cymbals, and lyre. Second Chronicles 35:15 also calls Jeduthun the “king’s seer,” which implies that he not only led music for [David](life-David.html), but he also prophesied God’s words to him. The study of men like Jeduthun, Asaph, and Heman reminds us that God takes music seriously. He has gifted certain people with musical talent and passion and expects them to invest those gifts in His service. With Jeduthun, the gifts of music and prophecy were closely intertwined, and God used Him in both areas. God still combines music and [prophecy](gift-of-prophecy.html) when we worship. He can speak to us through music, through the [Psalms](Book-of-Psalms.html), and through giving us a “new song” to sing to Him (Psalm 144:9; Isaiah 43:10\). He draws, convicts, and inspires us when we offer up musical worship and praise. Whether a psalm was to be led by Asaph, Heman, or Jeduthun, we can still enjoy the beauty and power of those songs and gain insights from the men who wrote and directed them.
Is a gospel crusade a biblical method of evangelism?	Answer A gospel crusade is a concentrated effort to evangelize a city or region. Prior to the preaching the groundwork is laid: a large venue is rented, whole communities are invited, musicians and counselors are lined up, and churches are asked to pray. When the big day arrives, a high\-profile evangelist preaches a public message or a series of messages on salvation and gives an invitation to respond. Evangelists who have used the gospel crusade method of evangelism to speak to millions include [George Whitefield](George-Whitefield.html), [Charles Finney](Charles-Finney.html), [D. L. Moody](D-L-Moody.html), [Billy Sunday](Billy-Sunday.html), and [Billy Graham](Billy-Graham.html). Gospel crusades have been in existence since the second chapter of Acts and since then have exploded in number and popularity. Some crusades claim to present the [gospel](what-is-the-gospel.html); some of them don’t. Some crusades may be labeled “gospel,” but are in fact focused on physical healing, inspirational messages, or prosperity. For the purposes of this article, we will define a gospel crusade as a scheduled event designed to attract a large number of people for the purposes of presenting God’s plan of salvation through Jesus Christ. We will also assume for the purposes of this article that the true biblical gospel is indeed preached at the crusades we will consider. The first “crusade” of sorts is found in Acts 2:14–41, after the Holy Spirit had come upon the disciples. Peter immediately began speaking to the thousands gathered at [Pentecost](day-Pentecost.html), explaining the phenomenon they were seeing and hearing. These formerly terrified followers of Jesus were suddenly speaking boldly in other languages so that travelers from many nations could hear the gospel in their own tongues. Three thousand new converts were added to the kingdom that day. Clearly, this gospel crusade was a biblical method of evangelism. The next verse (Acts 2:42\) shows us why this gospel crusade was so effective. There was follow\-up, and the new believers “devoted themselves to the apostles teaching, to fellowship, and to prayer.” Those new converts were immediately welcomed into the [church at Jerusalem](church-at-Jerusalem.html) where they were instructed about how to be disciples of Christ (see Matthew 28:19–20\). One weakness of the crusade method of evangelism is the lack of follow\-up. Of the thousands who flock to the front to “give their lives to Jesus,” how many continue in the faith? Although many reputable evangelists such as Billy and Franklin Graham strive to connect new believers with local churches, the numbers don’t support the claim that most of those responding to an altar call were truly born again. Jesus said, “If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples” (John 8:31\). The implication is that those who do not continue in His word never were His disciples to begin with. There are many acceptable methods of presenting the gospel, and none should be discounted if the truth is proclaimed. A gospel crusade is only one way, but often we think of it as the best way. We may subconsciously excuse our lack of personal evangelism by assuming that unbelievers will be exposed to a gospel crusade through TV or in person and hear the truth that way. There may be instances when an unbeliever is so hardened against the gospel that he or she has been resistant to personal evangelism but is drawn to a gospel crusade through the celebrity status of the speaker or musicians. However, as followers of Christ carrying His mandate of winning the lost, we should never assume that the message is somehow reaching those who need it without our participation. God uses many avenues to reach those He came to save, including gospel crusades. As His followers, we should be actively involved in helping Him through every means possible. When we support gospel crusades through our time, finances, and participation and, at the same time, seek to draw people to Jesus through our personal witness, we can be confident that we are obeying Jesus’ last words to us and helping Him [make disciples of all nations](great-commission.html).
What is the Augsburg Confession?	Answer The Augsburg Confession (Confessio Augustana in Latin) is one of the most important documents to come out of the [Protestant Reformation](Protestant-Reformation.html). It is also the foremost confession of faith for the [Lutheran Church](Lutherans.html). Written by [Philipp Melanchthon](Philip-Melanchthon.html), a German Reformer and successor to [Martin Luther](Martin-Luther.html), the Confession was presented to Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, at the Diet of Augsburg on June 25, 1530\. Desiring to restore political and religious unity in the German Free Territories, Charles V had called upon the princes of the territories to explain their religious convictions. The Augsburg Confession was the explanation of Martin Luther’s convictions. The first publication of the Apology of the Augsburg Confession appeared in 1531\. Nine years later, Melanchthon wrote a revised edition, the Augsburg Confession Variata, signed by French theologian John Calvin. Today, some Lutheran churches claim adherence to the “Unaltered Augsburg Confession” of 1530, as opposed to the Variata. The Augsburg Confession consists of the twenty\-eight articles of faith of the Lutheran Church. It is one of the documents in the Lutheran Book of Concord, which also includes the Apology and the Schmalkalden Articles, Martin Luther’s summary of Lutheran doctrine. The Confession lists several abuses practiced by the Roman Catholic Church and makes scriptural arguments for their correction. The Augsburg Confession’s first twenty\-one articles outline what the Reformers believed were the most important teachings in Lutheranism, based on the Bible. Articles III and IV delineate the doctrines of the deity of Christ and justification by [faith alone](salvation-faith-alone.html), not of works. The last seven articles identify some of the wrongs and abuses of the Roman Catholic Church and provide arguments for needed reforms. Foremost among these spiritual abuses was the teaching that various works are needed for salvation, such as confession, attendance at Mass, fasting, and the observance of special days. The Augsburg Confession remains one of the most influential documents to come out of the Reformation. Its tenets are as well\-defined and biblically sound today as they were nearly 500 years ago.
What does it mean that God is the God of all comfort (2 Corinthians 1:3)?	Answer “Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our troubles, so that we can comfort those in any trouble with the comfort we ourselves receive from God” (2 Corinthians 1:3–4\). The idea of “comfort” implies at least two parties: one who gives the comfort and one who receives it. It also implies a need—one that Scripture speaks of exclusively for humans. Animals have no capacity to receive spiritual comfort. The holy angels have no need for comfort. Satan and his demons are eternally beyond it (Matthew 25:41; Revelation 12:9, 12; 20:10\). Only humans—higher than the animals, lower than the angels, and composed of body, soul, and spirit—were created with the capacity to receive and give comfort, and we live in a world where we need it. Bound in time like animals, yet with a sense of our own eternity like angels (Ecclesiastes 3:11\), we humans suffer distress in a unique “three\-dimensional” way—past, present and future. We remember previous distresses and are filled with grief or regrets (Genesis 37:35; Matthew 26:75\). We face each day’s troubles and worry (Matthew 6:25–32\). We reflect on these things and dread what may come next (verse 34\). And beyond these worldly matters is that most distressing sensation of all, the guilt for having deeply, inexcusably offended our good and righteous Creator and Judge (James 2:10–11; Revelation 6:16\). Believers in Christ have a comfort from God that includes a true freedom from guilt. For Christians, our righteous Judge is also our loving Savior (John 3:16–17\)—a sharp contrast with the terrifying assortment of distant, cruel, or unappeasable deities of the ancient world into which Paul brought the good news of free, complete and irrevocable forgiveness, reconciliation, and adoption (Romans 3:23–25; 2 Corinthians 5:11–21; 1 John 3:1–2\). In 2 Corinthians 1:3, God is called the “Father of compassion” and the “God of all comfort.” In His mercy and love, God is eager to provide comfort to His children in any and all circumstances. Whatever the trial we face, our Heavenly Father knows the situation and offers comfort as needed. The fact that He is the God of all comfort teaches that all comfort ultimately comes from Him. He is our source of peace and happiness and blessing. The [comfort](Bible-comfort.html) we Christians receive flows through us to others “so that we can comfort those in any trouble with the comfort we ourselves receive from God” (2 Corinthians 1:4\). Like grace, comfort is an active, powerful gift to be not merely received but actively shared with others, supernaturally multiplied to advance God’s kingdom (Matthew 25:14–30\). And so the Bible commends those who are simply with people in trouble, such as those who are sick or in prison, whether or not we can change their circumstances (Matthew 25:36–40\). In bringing comfort to those in trouble, we glorify God by giving a glimpse of how He comforts those who are in distress. All three Persons of the Trinity participate in comforting us just by being with us. That is enough. The Father is always with us, as He was with Moses (Exodus 3:12\) and the nation of Israel (Deuteronomy 31:6–8\). So, too, are the Son (Matthew 28:20; John 14:18\) and the Spirit (John 14:16–17\). Hence, Paul confidently ends his letter to the Corinthians with the beautiful blessing: “May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all” (2 Corinthians 13:14\). The Spirit—the [Parakletos](paraclete-Holy-Spirit.html), rendered “Comforter,” “Counselor,” or “Helper” in different translations—is how Jesus keeps His promise to always be with us as the God of all comfort. One meaning of the Greek root word para is “close beside.” All three Persons of the Trinity live with and in believers (John 14:17, 22\)—very close indeed! As a result, no past, present, or future distress can separate us from God and His love for us in Christ (Romans 8:35\). We are not only comforted in our troubles, but we are “more than conquerors” in them (verses 30–39\). When we turn our worries into prayers, “the God of peace will be with \[us]” (Philippians 4:6–9\). In the end, when we finally leave the temporary troubles of this life and enter the permanent joy of the next, our Heavenly Father will forever comfort each one of us, wiping away every tear (Isaiah 25:8; Revelation 21:4\), welcoming us into a world where comfort is no longer needed because there is “no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away” (Revelation 21:4\). We will enjoy the God of all comfort forever.
Who was Clement of Alexandria?	Answer According to the 4th\-century bishop Epiphanius, Titus Flavius Clemens was born into a pagan family in Athens. Clemens is today called Clement of Alexandria (c. AD 155–c. 220\)—his city of residence is added to distinguish him from the earlier [Clement of Rome](Clement-of-Rome.html). As a seeker of truth, Clement traveled through Greece, Italy, Syria, Palestine, and finally to Alexandria, Egypt. Alexandria was a melting pot of all sorts of religious and philosophical ideas. There he encountered the teacher of the Alexandria Catechetical School, Pantaenus, who presented him with the Christian message; Clement became a believer. In time, Clement would succeed Pantaenus as head of the school in Alexandria. Clement’s approach was tailored to reach the educated intelligentsia and those steeped in Greek culture. He believed that, just as the Mosaic Law provided background to prepare Jews to come to Christ, so pagan philosophy provided the background that could prepare the pagan for faith in Christ. He presented Christianity as a new philosophy in terminology that would appeal to Gnostics. At a time when [Gnostic](gnostic-definition.html) teaching was becoming ever more popular, Clement taught that faith was the basis of true knowledge (or gnosis). It was during his time at the school (190–202\) that Clement did most of his writing. He wrote Exhortations (often called Exhortations to Greeks, Exhortations to the Heathen, or Exhortations to Gentiles) using extensive philosophical quotations and sophisticated argumentation to show pagan unbelievers that Christianity was reasonable. In his work to Christians, Instructor, he covered many areas of Christian behavior as taught by the Instructor (the Logos) and stressed moderation. In Miscellanies Clement explains that one must sift through a lot of beliefs to come to the truth. Christianity, according to Clement of Alexandria, is complete in itself—the true gnosis—but philosophy is a useful tool to arrive at the truth. One sermon, many letters, and fragments of a few other works of Clement survive. The sermon, Who Is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved?, is significant in that it addresses a problem that Christians did not have to often face in the early years of the church—what is the responsibility of rich Christians? Clement of Alexandria teaches that being rich is not a problem if one is not greedy. This has been the dominant Christian attitude toward wealth since then. In about 202, Clement fled Alexandria to escape the persecution of Roman Emperor Septimus Severus and later died in Asia Minor. Clement’s influence has been debated, but, according to tradition he was a teacher of [Origen](Origen-of-Alexandria.html), who later became a theologian of major influence in the Eastern Church.
What does the Bible say about donating blood/blood donations?	Answer The Bible says nothing directly about donating blood or having a blood transfusion because such medical procedures were not possible in the days when the Bible was written. However, we can apply other principles from God’s Word about blood and life and draw wise conclusions about what God thinks about donating blood. We learn, beginning in Genesis 9:4, that God considers blood a physical representation of life. He commanded Noah [not to eat meat that still had the lifeblood in it](eating-drinking-blood.html). That prohibition was echoed again in Deuteronomy 12:23–24 when God gave the Law to Israel. In Genesis 9:5–6, God said, “And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man. Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.” In this passage, God set the stage for our understanding of the value of human life and blood, a truth that would one day be demonstrated when He gave His own life for us (Hebrews 10:22; 1 John 1:7\). Some religions, such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses, wrongly believe that the Bible prohibits blood transfusions, citing many of the above Scriptures as their supposed evidence. However, it is clear that these Scriptures are all in reference to eating blood, not donating it so that someone else can live. Those religions put unscriptural emphasis on the blood itself, rather than the spirit behind the prohibition against consuming blood. From JW.org: “The Bible commands that we not ingest blood. So we should not accept whole blood or its primary components in any form, whether offered as food or as a transfusion.” That’s quite a jump, from “eating” to “transfusing,” and one not supported by Scripture. Contrary to the claims of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and other such religions, there is nothing in the Bible that prohibits the practice of donating or receiving donated blood. Donating blood is actually a picture of what Jesus did for us when He shed His blood so that we might live. When we give blood, we are offering a part of our lives to save the life of someone else. It is one way we obey the second greatest commandment, which is to love others as we love ourselves (Mark 12:31\). Jesus said, “Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends” (John 15:13\). If we are called to lay down our lives for others, we can surely give some of our blood to help save them.
Is Donald Trump the Antichrist?	Answer It is common for people to seek to demonize those with whom they disagree politically. Calling a person the Antichrist is essentially declaring him/her to be Satan incarnate. Some on the far right were, and still are, convinced that former President [Barack Obama](Barack-Obama-antichrist.html) was or is the Antichrist. Some who hold to far left political views were convinced that President George Bush was the Antichrist. Those who disagreed with the political views of President Donald Trump threw the Antichrist label at him as well. This political demonization is ridiculous, as the biblical indicators of [who is the Antichrist](antichrist.html) have nothing to do with conservative or progressive politics. Second, Christians in the United States tend to forget that the end times revolve around the nation of Israel, not the United States. The Bible nowhere explicitly prophesies the existence of the [United States](united-states-Bible.html). While the United States may have a role in the end times or be somehow associated with the Antichrist, the uniquely evil, end\-times world leader, it is also possible that the United States will not even exist in the end times. The “Americanization” of Bible prophecy is unwarranted. Distractions and misinformation aside, we still have the question—is it possible that Donald Trump is the Antichrist? There are a few things that argue against Donald Trump’s being the Antichrist. Bible prophecy experts still debate the ethnicity of the Antichrist. Some believe that the Antichrist will be of Jewish descent, as he would have to be a Jew in order for Jews to consider him the Messiah. Others believe that the Antichrist will come from a revived Roman Empire (the ten horns of the beast in Revelation 17:3\), most likely associated with modern\-day Europe. Donald Trump is not European (unless you consider the USA part of Europe in terms of biblical prophecy) and not ethnically or religiously Jewish. Also, Donald Trump claims to have faith in Jesus Christ as his Savior. While anyone can make such claims, it seems unlikely that the Antichrist would even pretend to be a follower of Jesus Christ. There are a few characteristics the Bible ascribes to the Antichrist that are similar to traits possessed by Donald Trump. Donald Trump is undeniably a charismatic, intelligent, and determined individual. Often, thousands of people attend events when Trump speaks. Donald Trump has the ability to inspire millions of people. The Antichrist, who will be the leader of a one\-world governmental system in the end times, would also have to possess charisma, intelligence, and determination. It will take such a person to deceive the entire world in the end times (2 Thessalonians 2:11\). Probably the most important factor in identifying the Antichrist is a relationship with the nation of Israel. The Bible teaches that the Antichrist will forge a 7\-year peace covenant with Israel but then break the covenant after 3\.5 years (Daniel 9:27\). The Antichrist will then essentially attempt a second Holocaust, the annihilation of the nation of Israel and Jews around the world. Donald Trump has stated his strong support for the nation of Israel. Trump claims that he will come to Israel’s defense should it be attacked. Interestingly, Trump has described negotiating peace between Israel and the Palestinians as the “[ultimate deal](http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Trump-Israeli-Palestinian-peace-would-be-ultimate-deal-472404).” It is possible that some form of agreement between Israel and the Palestinians will be part of the end\-times’ 7\-year peace covenant. So, is Donald Trump the Antichrist? While Trump does possess some traits that are similar to the Bible’s description of the Antichrist, the same could be said of many world leaders. Further, there are serious questions regarding whether it is possible that the Antichrist could be a non\-Jewish / non\-Semitic person. In our evaluation, it is highly unlikely that Donald Trump is the Antichrist. Ultimately, though, the answer to the question has to be “wait and see.” Insert any other name into that question, and the answer remains the same. Second Thessalonians 2:3 states that the Antichrist, “the man of lawlessness,” will be revealed when “the rebellion occurs”—it will be abundantly clear who he is when the time comes. Rather than speculating about various scenarios and demonizing people with whom we disagree, our responsibility is to be wise and discerning, based on what the Bible says about the Antichrist (2 Thessalonians 2:3–4; Revelation 13:1–4\).

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.