prompt
stringlengths 0
158
| response
stringlengths 14
40.2k
|
|---|---|
Was Joseph married before Mary?
|
Answer
The suggestion that [Joseph](Joseph-the-father-of-Jesus.html) was married previous to being mentioned in Scripture as Mary’s betrothed is completely fictional (Luke 1:26–27\). There is no scriptural evidence, or even a subtle suggestion, that Joseph was married to anyone but Mary. We do not know the age of Joseph, and it is possible that he was considerably older than Mary was. Such an arrangement was common in those days. At the same time, it is just as likely that Joseph was only a few years older than Mary. Joseph’s age is irrelevant since it is not given in the Bible and has nothing to do with whether or not he was a widower.
The idea that Mary was Joseph’s second wife originated with Catholic tradition in an effort to explain the existence of Jesus’ “brothers and sisters” (Matthew 13:55\). Some of [Jesus’ siblings](Jesus-siblings.html) are even named in the Bible: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas. Catholic tradition has long asserted that these individuals might actually be cousins of Jesus or children of Joseph from an earlier marriage. Catholics, with the help of some [pseudepigraphical books](pseudepigrapha.html), have constructed an entirely fictional account of Joseph, saying he was an older man who had been married and had many other children before courting Mary. This theory is crucial to Catholic theology in order to substantiate their doctrine that Mary [remained a virgin](perpetual-virginity-Mary.html), even after giving birth to Jesus.
It is true that Mary was a virgin when the [angel Gabriel](angel-Gabriel.html) appeared to her to announce that God had chosen her to be the mother of the Messiah (Luke 1:34–35\). And the Bible is clear that she was still a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus (Matthew 1:25\). But Joseph had taken Mary to be his wife (Matthew 1:20\), and there is no suggestion that her role as Joseph’s wife was in any way different from the role of any other wife. Matthew 1:25 says, “But he did not consummate their marriage *until* she gave birth to a son” (emphasis added). The word *until* speaks of a change to the first action. The implication is that the consummation of the marriage occurred after the birth of Mary’s son. The meaning is similar to that of this sentence: “Bobby could not access his trust fund until he turned 25\.” *Until* means there was a time when the first action (having no access) changed to something else (access). The structure of Matthew 1:25 clearly suggests that consummation did, in fact, occur after the birth.
If other children had been present before Joseph’s marriage to Mary, it is likely they would have been mentioned in one of the gospel accounts of the birth of Christ, especially Luke’s very detailed description of the trip to Bethlehem (Luke 2:1–20\) and Matthew’s report of the subsequent flight to Egypt (Matthew 2:13–15\). In verse 13 Matthew records the angel telling Joseph, “Get up, . . . take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him.” Joseph is to take two people, Mary and Jesus, not a larger brood from a previous marriage.
Then in Matthew 2:20–21, the angel again tells Joseph, “‘Get up, take the child and his mother and go to the land of Israel, for those who were trying to take the child’s life are dead.’ So he got up, took the child and his mother and went to the land of Israel.” Again, only Mary and the Christ Child are mentioned. There are no older children, which would imply that Jesus’ subsequent brothers and sisters were all younger and came along as the natural result of Mary and Joseph’s normal marital relations.
It is often tempting to try to make Scripture say something it does not say in order to create a theology we like. But we should remember a basic principle of scriptural interpretation: “Whenever possible, let Scripture interpret Scripture.” We get into trouble when we try to make God’s Word fit our preconceived ideas or a doctrine we find comforting. The notion of Joseph’s previous marriage is such an idea and has no foundation in God’s Word.
|
Who was Xerxes in the Bible?
|
Answer
The name Xerxes does not appear in the Hebrew text of Scripture. However, it does appear throughout the [book of Esther](Book-of-Esther.html) in the NIV and NASB. In the Hebrew text, the king’s name is Ahasuerus (preserved in the KJV and ESV). Nothing is known of a king named Ahasuerus from secular sources, and the names of all the Persian kings from this time period are known. Most commentators equate Esther’s king with Xerxes I (485–465 BC), son of Darius I, the fourth emperor of the Achaemenid Empire—thus the translation in some modern versions. (There is some evidence to show that the Hebrew name Ahasuerus can be easily derived from the Persian name.) The Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament) uses the name Artaxerxes, which further complicates the issue, for there were two [Persian](Medo-Persian-empire.html) rulers by that name: [Artaxerxes I](Artaxerxes-in-the-Bible.html) (465–424 BC) and Artaxerxes II (404–359 BC).
The details on the life of Xerxes found in the book of Esther are not corroborated by any secular sources. While there are many detractors who simply view Esther as fiction, for those who accept the historicity of the book of Esther, Xerxes I is the most likely candidate to fill the role of Ahasuerus. What we know of the character of Xerxes I fits with what we see in the book of Esther. Xerxes had a summer palace in Susa. He was known for his drinking, lavish banquets, harsh temper, and sexual appetite. Esther mentions a foiled plot against his life, and we know from secular history that, later, in 465, Xerxes was assassinated by the head of his bodyguard.
The most likely scenario is that the episode of Xerxes’ life involving Esther took place after Xerxes’ disastrous invasion of Greece in 480 BC. Xerxes’ forces paid a heavy toll at the pass of Thermopylae at the hands of the fabled 300 Spartans and were defeated at Salamis. Returning home, Xerxes turned to domestic affairs.
King Ahasuerus (Xerxes) plays a prominent role in the book of Esther. In chapter 1 he gives a great banquet for his nobles and, after several days of eating and drinking, orders that [Queen Vashti](Vashti-in-the-Bible.html) appear at the banquet so the men there might see her great beauty. Vashti refuses to attend, so the king deposes her.
In Esther 2 Xerxes begins to regret his decision to oust the queen, and he decides to find a new queen. The queen of Persia was not simply the wife of the king. The queenship was an honorary/political position. The king was a polygamist with many wives and concubines in his harem, but the queen was a special wife occupying a favored position. A call is sent out throughout the kingdom for all beautiful virgins to be gathered into the harem so that the king could choose a new queen from among them. As a member of the harem, a woman would technically be the property of the king—either a wife or a concubine. Each of the women would spend a night with the king. After their night together, each woman would be moved to the “other side” of the harem and would never see the king again, unless he called for her. When he found the “right one,” Xerxes would name her queen, although she would not be his exclusive wife or sexual partner. A woman whom Xerxes never called again would live her life in the harem as a pampered prisoner with no possibility for a real marriage or family of her own.
A Jewess named [Esther](life-Esther.html), who was raised by her cousin [Mordecai](Mordecai-in-the-Bible.html), was one of the women rounded up for Xerxes. She was eventually named queen, but she kept her nationality a secret. Mordecai is anxious for Esther and loiters day after day near the harem quarters to monitor how she is doing. In so doing, he overhears a plot to kill the king. He reports it to Esther, who reports it to the king, and the plot is foiled.
In Esther 3 one of Xerxes’ chief advisers, Haman, is angered that Mordecai will not bow down to him, so he hatches a plot to kill not only Mordecai but all of the Jews. Haman convinces King Xerxes to authorize the extermination; however, it appears that the king does not know the identity of the people that Haman plans to wipe out—only that they are enemies of the state. He trusts Haman to handle the details. In chapter 4 Mordecai informs Esther of the danger the Jews are in and convinces her to intercede with the king. The problem Esther faces is that Xerxes has not called for her for some time and, if she approaches him without being summoned, she risks death. At this point, neither the king nor Haman knows Esther’s nationality or her relationship to Mordecai. Mordecai encourages Esther to take the risk, saying that perhaps she has been made queen “for such a time as this” (Esther 4:14\).
In Esther 5 the queen approaches Xerxes, and he extends his scepter to her, signifying that he welcomes her into his presence. Instead of explaining her predicament, however, Esther invites the king and Haman to a private banquet. At the banquet Esther again puts off addressing the issue; instead, she asks the king and Haman to come to another banquet the next day, which they agree to do. Haman is so overjoyed and emboldened by the special attention he’s receiving from the queen that he decides to have Mordecai hanged in advance of the general slaughter of the Jews.
In Esther 6 the king cannot sleep, so he has the royal annals read to him. When the account of the foiled plot against his life is recounted, Xerxes asks if Mordecai has ever been honored for saving him. When he finds that Mordecai has never been rewarded, Xerxes decides to remedy the oversight. At that moment, Haman enters, and the king asks him, “What should be done to the man whom the king delights to honor?” (Esther 6:5\). Haman thinks the king is referring to him, so he proposes a lavish public display: “For the man whom the king delights to honor, let royal robes be brought, which the king has worn, and the horse that the king has ridden, and on whose head a royal crown is set. And let the robes and the horse be handed over to one of the king’s most noble officials. Let them dress the man whom the king delights to honor, and let them lead him on the horse through the square of the city, proclaiming before him: ‘Thus shall it be done to the man whom the king delights to honor.’” The king thinks it is a splendid idea to be carried out immediately and tells Haman, “Hurry; take the robes and the horse, as you have said, and do so to Mordecai the Jew, who sits at the king’s gate. Leave out nothing that you have mentioned” (verses 7–9\). So, in what some would call a strange “twist of fate,” Haman has to publicly honor Mordecai. After his humiliation, Haman hurriedly prepares for the banquet with Esther and the king, as Haman’s family laments that certainly fate is against him now.
In Esther 7, at the second banquet, Xerxes asks Esther, “What is your wish, Queen Esther? It shall be granted you. And what is your request? Even to the half of my kingdom, it shall be fulfilled” (Esther 7:2\). Esther begs for the life of herself and her people. The king is enraged and asks who would dare plot such a thing. Esther answers, “A foe and enemy! This wicked Haman!” (verse 6\). The king rushes from the room in a rage, and Haman throws himself upon the couch where Esther is reclining to plead for his life. At that moment, the king returns and misinterprets Haman’s actions: “Will he even assault the queen in my presence, in my own house?” (verse 8\). Haman is whisked away and hanged on the very gallows he had prepared for Mordecai.
In Esther 8 the house of Haman is given to Esther, and his position in the court is given to Mordecai. Even though Haman is out of the way, the plot to kill all the Jews is still afoot. It appears that the king’s edict called for citizens of Persia to kill Jews on a certain day and confiscate their property. The edict, which could not be rescinded, is modified to allow the Jews to defend themselves, and in chapter 9 they are able to withstand the attack, and many of their enemies are killed.
[God is not mentioned](Book-Esther-God.html) in the book of Esther, but He is conspicuous by His absence. In Esther we do not see any miracles or divine intervention. However, we do see an abundance of [providence](divine-providence.html), which is God’s control and provision through “natural” means. It is clear that the writer of the book intends us to see God’s unseen hand behind every detail and ironic twist of “fate.” Although Xerxes is the king, he is not ultimately in charge. The king of Persia is little more than a bit player in God’s all\-encompassing drama. The story of Xerxes is an excellent example of Proverbs 21:1: “The king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the Lord; he turns it wherever he will.”
|
Does the Bible say anything about insomnia?
|
Answer
Insomnia is the habitual inability to fall asleep or to stay asleep. Insomnia affects most people from time to time, but for others it is a way of life. Biological, psychological, and situational factors can all play a part in whether or not we have trouble falling asleep. The Bible often equates insomnia with worry (Daniel 2:1\), anxiety, or sin (Proverbs 4:14–16\). The insomnia itself is not the sin, but the reasons for it may be.
The Bible says that having an overabundance of things can lead to a lack of sleep: “The sleep of a laborer is sweet, whether they eat little or much, but as for the rich, their abundance permits them no sleep” (Ecclesiastes 5:12\). The more we have, the more we worry about keeping it. What we obsess over all day tends to follow us to bed. It can be hard to let go of the day’s stresses and questions long enough to get to sleep. When that becomes our normal routine, we say that we suffer from insomnia.
The Bible does not address insomnia directly but gives answers for some of the factors that can cause it. When we identify what is causing insomnia, we can then apply God’s solutions.
1\. [Worry](Bible-worry.html) is one major cause of insomnia. *How can I pay those bills? Where are we gonna go? What are we gonna do? What will happen . . . ?* We lie in bed trying to sleep, but worry pelts our brains and refuses to let it relax. The later it gets, the more we think we have to solve every problem by morning.
Applying Scripture to our worried souls can help alleviate the worry that is preventing sleep. Matthew 6:25–34 is Jesus’ instruction to us about worry. He reminds us that our heavenly Father already knows what we need and will provide it for us (verse 32\). Luke 12:4–7 puts worry into perspective when Jesus reminds us that we should not worry about temporary earthly things but instead focus our concern on eternity.
2\. [Anxiety](Bible-anxiety.html) is another factor that causes insomnia. Anxiety is a generalized feeling of nervousness about whatever lies ahead. It is usually accompanied by a sense of dread and helplessness but differs from worry in that it is not necessarily focused on a specific issue. Anxiety is like an uneasy fog that settles upon anything at hand, whereas worry is an intense focus upon a seemingly insurmountable problem. Both can prevent sleep and create a perpetual state of insomnia.
Philippians 4:6 is the usual go\-to verse for those struggling with anxiety: “Do not be anxious about anything, but in every situation, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God.” The Greek word translated “anxious” in this verse actually means “to be distracted.” Anxiety is a mental distraction that makes it difficult to focus for any length of time upon anything, including sleep. Philippians 4:7 then tells us the result of obeying verse 6: “And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.” When we lay our anxiety at the feet of Jesus and let go, He promises peace beyond that which we could manufacture ourselves.
3\. Sin in its various forms can also prevent sleep. Psalm 36:4 describes those with wickedness in their hearts: “Even on their beds they plot evil; they commit themselves to a sinful course and do not reject what is wrong.” Malicious planning and its eventual counterpart, guilt, can make the heart so heavy that sleep flees from us. Even what we consider “lesser sins” can take on more realistic dimensions when our minds are quiet and still. We can become more aware of how God sees our sin when there are no external stimuli to distract us. When we have a guilty conscience, it is hard to relax enough to enjoy the feeling of falling asleep. Fear joins the guilt until nighttime becomes a dreaded torture.
Proverbs 6:1–5 tells us what to do about one kind of wrong decision. If we have co\-signed a bad loan for someone or made a hasty pledge, we should go immediately to try to free ourselves. We are not even to sleep until we have undone the foolish contract we entered. Righting the wrongs we have committed is the best way to cure insomnia caused by our own sin. God promises to forgive and cleanse those who belong to Him and confess their sin (1 John 1:9\). A [clear conscience](clear-conscience.html) is the best sleep formula.
Insomnia, like many other physical or mental impairments, is part of living in imperfect bodies within a fallen world. One way we can redeem nights of insomnia is to follow the counsel of David in Psalm 119:148: “My eyes stay open through the watches of the night, that I may meditate on your promises.” Praying, worshiping, and [meditating on Scripture](Christian-meditation.html) are good ways to make the most of those nights when we can’t sleep. If it is Satan preventing restful sleep, he won’t appreciate that method of handling the insomnia and may withdraw his attack. When our conscience is clear and we’ve entrusted our cares to the Lord, then by faith we can trust that whatever sleep we get will be sufficient for the day ahead.
|
Who was Catherine of Siena?
|
Answer
Catherine Benincasa was born in Siena, Italy, on the Day of [Annunciation](the-Annunciation.html) in 1347\. Catherine was the youngest or second\-youngest of over 20 children (exact numbers vary depending on the source) and survived a twin who died shortly after birth. Her father was a wool dyer and housed extended family in an estate that [stands to this day](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:House_Catherine_Siena_Apr_2008.jpg). As a child, Catherine loved spending time alone with God in prayer and teaching other children. When she was six, she had her first purported vision of Christ while walking with her brother to a married sister’s house. At the age of seven, she secretly dedicated her life to God. When she was twelve, in obedience to her mother, she briefly spent time dressing to attract a husband but quickly reverted to a plainer style, cut off her hair, and vowed to never marry. Her punishment was to do the menial tasks around the house, which she accomplished with such joy that her father relented.
Catherine of Siena lived an [ascetic life](Christian-asceticism-monasticism.html) even while surrounded by family. Her room was a small cell where she spent much time praying, fasting, and scourging herself. Eventually, her family allowed her to join the Dominican order as a tertiary—a layperson who resolves to live according to Dominican values in the secular world. This allowed her to take on the discipline of a Dominican while remaining at home. Catherine ate and slept very little and only left home to visit the nearby church. Her alleged visions, both of Christ’s encouragement and demonic attacks, increased. After three years speaking only to her confessor, she claimed to have had a vision of Christ, Mary, and the angels. In the vision, Mary took Catherine’s hand, and Jesus put a ring on her finger in a spiritual marriage ceremony. Jesus then told Catherine that her years of training were over and she was to go into the world and serve others.
Catherine of Siena’s service to the public was remarkable. She started by nursing patients with the vilest diseases. Her dedication and cheerful demeanor attracted a group of monks, priests, artists, and one sister\-in\-law who joined her in the work. Catherine claimed to be able to read the thoughts of her associates and know their temptations even when separated from her. In her work of helping the sick and visiting prisoners, many miracles were claimed, which eventually brought Catherine to the attention of church leaders who used her negotiating skills to resolve arguments throughout Italy. Arbitrating personal grievances quickly led her into politics. Catherine encouraged Pope Gregory XI to crusade against the Turks, acted as his representative to the rebellious Florentines, and convinced him to return to Rome from [Avignon](Avignon-Papacy.html). During the early days of the [Great Schism](great-schism.html) that followed Gregory’s death, Pope Urban VI was so taken with Catherine’s written admonishments that he brought her to Rome to advise him personally. Catherine spent her last years there, working on behalf of the poor and sick and writing letters on behalf of the Pope, culminating with his reconciliation with the Roman Republic.
Catherine of Siena died at the age of 33, most likely due to her extreme asceticism. She left behind *The Dialogue of St. Catherine* and four hundred letters, many of which were written in a trance. Catherine was canonized as a saint by the [Roman Catholic Church](Roman-Catholicism.html) in 1461 and was later declared one of the patron saints of Italy. Her feast day is April 30\.
Catherine of Siena’s joy in service is certainly commendable, as is her willingness to help those in direst need. However, Catherine’s asceticism, [mysticism](Christian-mysticism.html), and Catholicism are problematic. In one of her many personal visions, she claimed Jesus gave her a “wedding ring” (made either of jewel\-encrusted metal or of His foreskin), but only she could see it. Sometime later, she said she received the [stigmata](stigmata.html)—again only she could see the wounds she bore. She also claimed to have drunk Christ’s blood straight from His side. It’s hard to say where the visions came from. Was she hallucinating from [starvation](http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/20531059) (she sometimes survived only on a daily Eucharist) and [lack of sleep](http://pms.sagepub.com/content/68/3/787.short)? Was she the victim of demonic deception? Did she suffer from mental illness? God has never told anyone to fast so much that they died of malnutrition. The Lord has nothing to do with a desire to flagellate oneself. And there is nothing in the Bible that supports the Catholic idea of women “marrying” Jesus in the context of their dedication to Him.
When considering Catherine of Siena or any other inspiring leader, we must always compare his or her teachings to the Bible (1 Thessalonians 5:21\). Truth does not come from dream\-like conversations with the apostles, beating oneself with a whip, or wearing invisible rings. Truth is the Word of God (John 17:17\). It is objective, not subjective. It is found in the Bible, not in personal experience. [Discernment in all things](Bible-discernment.html) is key.
|
Who was Methuselah in the Bible?
|
Answer
Genesis 5 tells us about Methuselah, who was the son of righteous [Enoch](Enoch-in-the-Bible.html). Enoch is one of only two people in Scripture who did not die but were transported miraculously into heaven (Genesis 5:24\). The other, Elijah, was taken up to God in a whirlwind (2 Kings 2:11\). When Enoch was 65, he became the father of Methuselah, who lived to be the oldest person on record in human history, at 969 years old.
Methuselah had a son named [Lamech](Lamech-in-the-Bible.html) who became the father of Noah (Genesis 5:26–29\). It is interesting to note that both Lamech and Methuselah were alive when Noah was building the ark, but they both died before the flood. Some have suggested that Noah’s grandfather Methuselah died the week before the flood, citing the fact that God told Noah and his family to enter the ark seven days before the rains came (Genesis 7:1, 10\). It has been speculated that this seven days was a period of mourning for Methuselah, as was common in humanity’s early history (see Genesis 50:4; 2 Samuel 11:27\).
While we cannot know this for sure, Scripture does seem to say that, when the flood came, no righteous people were left on the earth except for Noah and his family (Genesis 7:1\). Because Methuselah was raised by righteous Enoch, and Methuselah’s grandson Noah also walked with God, it seems likely that Methuselah himself was also a godly man. Lamech, too, may have obeyed God and even helped his son build the ark. This family line from Enoch to Noah, descended from Adam’s son [Seth](Seth-in-the-Bible.html), appears to have been God\-honoring and the only ones through whom God could work His plan to save the world.
Whether Lamech and Methuselah helped to build the ark, we don’t know. But we do know that there is much more to the lives of the people we read about than the Bible tells us. They were real people with real relationships and real struggles just as we have. There is also much more to the story of [Noah building the ark](Noahs-ark-questions.html) than we are told. He worked for many years to build it, and it is doubtful that he worked alone. Was Noah preaching truth to the neighbors who helped him (see 2 Peter 2:5\)? Did his father Lamech and grandfather Methuselah help?
Methuselah would have known about God’s coming judgment and the reason for the ark, yet he is not mentioned by God as a possible occupant of the ark. He must have also known that he would die before the flood came. He must have understood that the Lord knows the ones who are His and delivers them from His judgment (Malachi 3:16–18\). We may not live to be 969 like Methuselah, but, if we belong to God, we can have Methuselah’s peace concerning God’s coming wrath upon the world.
|
Is it a sin to have a sexual dream?
|
Answer
Dreams are fascinating adventures of the mind that occur while we sleep. In the Bible, dreams had great significance and were sometimes used by God to reveal truth to people (Genesis 40:8; Daniel 7:1; Matthew 2:19\). The Bible refers to [dreams and visions](dreams-visions-Bible.html) interchangeably, and often the people themselves were not sure if they were living in reality or in a dream (see Acts 12:9\). However, most dreams are not God\-inspired and can even involve sin and horrors of all kinds. Is it wrong to dream about sinning? Is it sin to dream about sexual things?
Sleep experts can give us physical details about our brains when we dream, but there is no reliable consensus on why we dream the way we do or what triggers certain subjects. Dreams are the brain’s way of processing data and events, but it often does so in random and ridiculous ways. Like balls in a bingo cage, scenes, people, colors, and emotions bounce together to form detailed stories that make little sense upon awakening. Some of those stories involve sexual acts that the dreamer would never indulge in while awake. Those kinds of dreams can bring feelings of guilt and shame, even though no action was taken.
While it is true that we tend to dream more about those things that occupy our waking minds, this is not an absolute fact. Anyone who has ever dreamed of doing something they find morally repulsive understands this. Someone who dreams about watching her third\-grade teacher play tennis with a raccoon does not need to be admitted to a psychiatric unit. It was just a strange dream. Likewise, a man who is striving to live purely but dreams about having sex with a string of women, none of whom are his wife, does not need to repent. Neither does a woman who has sexual dreams need to repent for the actions taken in those dreams. It was just a strange dream.
However, if those sexual dreams were products of lustful daytime thoughts, then repentance may be in order. If sexual dreams become enjoyable and sought after, then it is time to revisit Jesus’ words on [lust](what-is-lust.html) (Matthew 5:28\). Upon awakening, if we feel badly about what we were dreaming, it is always appropriate to ask God’s forgiveness and request that God would purify our thoughts. Praying Psalm 19:14 upon arising can erase feelings of guilt and also readjust our thinking so that we don’t continue to dwell on sexually sinful thoughts and images.
Dreams can also reflect unmet needs and longings, or even past experiences, so, if a pattern emerges, it can be a sign that there is an area we need to address with the Lord. If the dreams persist, it might be helpful to talk with a Christian counselor as well. We aren’t hiding anything from God; He knows about the dreams (Psalm 139:2; 1 Chronicles 29:17\). So being honest about our needs and desires and asking Him to meet them in righteous ways can turn even sexual dreams into avenues of spiritual growth and surrender.
|
What does the Bible say about daydreaming?
|
Answer
Daydreaming is a way of spending time by imagining situations or events the way we wish them to be. Some people get so caught up in their daydreams that they reject reality in favor of living in a fantasy world. The Bible mentions daydreaming a few times, but never in a positive light. Daydreaming is usually coupled with laziness or other useless pursuits (Ecclesiastes 5:7\). However, daydreaming is not to be confused with actual [dreams or visions](dreams-visions-Bible.html) in which God has at times revealed truth to people (Genesis 31:11; Acts 2:17\).
Daydreaming (also sometimes called “woolgathering”) can be a pleasant pastime and also a way to plan and evaluate the wisdom of future decisions. We all enjoy times of imagining success or fantasizing about the “if only’s” or “what if’s.” But when daydreaming is an excuse for lust or secret sin, it is always wrong (James 1:14; Mark 7:21\). When daydreams replace responsibilities or reality, they are foolish. Isaiah 56:10 condemns the worthless activities of Israel’s leaders during Isaiah’s time: “Israel’s watchmen are blind, they all lack knowledge; they are all mute dogs, they cannot bark; they lie around and dream, they love to sleep.” In this rebuke, God points out that those who should have remained alert and sensitive to danger were, instead, indulging in daydreams and wasting time. We often make the same mistake.
Daydreaming can be a way of escaping from present circumstances rather than addressing and changing them. A boy who daydreams about becoming an NFL star instead of studying for real success is wasting his time and potential. A minimum\-wage worker who spends her free time daydreaming about having a better job instead of actually working toward getting a better job is sacrificing her future on the altar of fantasy. When we daydream in order to plan our next steps, daydreaming can be productive. But when we indulge in daydreams *instead* of taking action, daydreaming is destructive.
|
Should Christians go on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem?
|
Answer
A pilgrimage is a journey made to a place considered sacred as an act of religious devotion. Muslims are required, if at all possible, to make a pilgrimage to Mecca, [Muhammed’s](who-was-Muhammad.html) birthplace. This pilgrimage is part of their religious duty as Muslims and a way of helping insure paradise for themselves. Christianity makes no such requirements. In fact, any act performed for the purposes of insuring eternal life for ourselves is wrong—including making a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. Titus 3:5 says, “He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit.”
Many Christians dream of going to Israel to see the places we read about in Scripture. Visiting Bethlehem, the temple ruins, and the empty tomb can be spiritually impacting. Given the relative ease of modern transportation, such a trip is an attainable goal for many, and thousands of people make the trip to the Holy Land every year. However, some consider their trip to Jerusalem a “pilgrimage,” on par with a Muslim’s trip to Mecca. When we view a visit to Jerusalem that way, we are entering dangerous spiritual territory. When we add to or take away *anything* from the finished work of Christ in purchasing our salvation, we are guilty of perverting the gospel (Romans 3:20; Galatians 2:16; Titus 3:5\). A pilgrimage to Jerusalem will not change one thing about our standing with God (Ephesians 2:8–9\).
We should consider several factors when deciding whether or not to make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem:
1\. Finances. Depending upon where a person lives in the world, the trip itself can be quite costly. Travel expenses, lodging, food, souvenirs, guides, and side excursions add up to quite a bill. If a pilgrimage to Jerusalem would require going into debt or spending money that is needed elsewhere, then such a trip is not a wise decision. Before planning a trip to Jerusalem, a wise Christian should consult the Lord about whether this is the way He wants the money spent. Could that money be better used to help others know Him?
2\. Motive. People have different reasons for desiring to go to Israel. Unfortunately, many who consider themselves Christians see a pilgrimage to Jerusalem as a way of growing closer to God, rather than by following His instructions to repent, be baptized, and live holy lives (Matthew 4:17; Acts 2:38; 1 Peter 1:15\). If the reason for the trip is to better understand Scripture or to delight in seeing and touching the very places where Jesus and the patriarchs walked, then it can be a good experience. But if the purpose is to obtain grace or earn a better standing with God, then priorities need to be adjusted before such a trip can be productive.
3\. Spiritual significance of [relics](Christian-relics.html). Human beings have a tendency toward idol worship. Unfortunately, many who consider themselves Christians can create idols out of relics thought to be a part of Christian history. Near hysteria occurs when a fragment of Peter’s boat, the skull of a saint, or some such object is supposedly discovered, and millions flock to it for a glimpse or a touch. Deeming physical objects to possess spiritual power is superstitious and wrong. If we are prone to such idolatry, even for things or places presumed to be connected with Jesus, a pilgrimage to Jerusalem could be little more than an extended episode of idol worship. Trinkets, rocks, or pieces of wood purported to be part of the cross are often snapped up and given their own shrines where people pay obeisance to them. Certain religions tend to do this more than others, but we can all be prone to idolizing items rather than reserving all our worship for the invisible God. Those who touch objects or visit ruins as a means of growing closer to God may need to reexamine their understanding of salvation before making a pilgrimage to Jerusalem (see 2 Corinthians 13:5\).
For reasons unknown to us, God chose the tiny nation of Israel through which to bring salvation to the world. Jerusalem is mentioned throughout Scripture as a place near to the heart of God and a city that plays a big part in His future earthly kingdom (Revelation 3:12; 21:2–3\). Those who love Jesus and love His Word naturally have an interest in Israel and especially Jerusalem, so a desire to visit those places is understandable. If the trip is financially wise, the reasons are sound, and idolatry is not an issue, then planning a trip to Jerusalem can be an exciting adventure. But it need never be considered a religious pilgrimage.
|
Who was Eusebius of Caesarea?
|
Answer
Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 260–c. 340\) is known as the “father of church history.” He was the first to write a “comprehensive” history of the early church. Eusebius of Caesarea is to be distinguished from his contemporary Eusebius of Nicomedia.
Eusebius of [Caesarea](Caesarea-in-the-Bible.html) was born in Palestine, and little if anything is known of his early life and conversion. In Palestine, Eusebius came under the influence of Pamphilus, who was a student of [Origen](Origen-of-Alexandria.html). Pamphilus had amassed a large library of Origen’s writings, copies of Scripture, and commentaries—truly one of the great ancient Christian libraries. It seems that Eusebius fled the persecution of Christians in Palestine and eventually made his way to Egypt where he witnessed Christian martyrdom firsthand. He was also imprisoned for a short time. In 313 or 314, Eusebius was made bishop of Caesarea in his native Palestine.
The theology of Eusebius is problematic. He was somewhat sympathetic to the Arian position, while not fully embracing it himself. He was present at the [Council of Nicaea](council-of-Nicea.html) and signed the Nicene Creed (perhaps being pressured to do so by Emperor Constantine), but he was never in full support of it as later writings made clear. Eusebius felt that the condemnation of Arius was too strong.
Eusebius of Caesarea wrote several major works. In *Preparation for the Gospel* (15 books), he refutes paganism, using extensive quotes from pagan authors. In *Demonstration of the Gospel* (20 books), he examines how Christ fulfilled Old Testament prophecies. In his most famous and perhaps most important work, *Ecclesiastical History* (10 books), Eusebius provides a history of the church from apostolic times through the death of Constantine.
*Ecclesiastical History* is important for a number of reasons. It uses extensive quotations from primary sources that would be lost to us otherwise. It records the succession of bishops and teachers in major sees from apostolic times. It highlights the battles against heresy and the internal struggle to understand and formulate a biblical doctrine of the Trinity. It gives details on persecutions and martyrdoms. It preserves traditions about the New Testament writers and gives details regarding the [canon](canon-of-Scripture.html). By the time of Eusebius, most of the current New Testament was accepted as canonical. James, Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Revelation were the only books not fully accepted. Finally, Eusebius provides an account of the conversion of Constantine, the details of which he received from Constantine himself, the two having become close friends.
Eusebius seems to have taken his historical sources at face value and is not considered a critical historian. He also seems to have been somewhat blinded in admiration for [Constantine](Constantine-the-Great.html). However, this appreciation for a Christian emperor may be understandable coming from one who had personally witnessed persecution and martyrdom. With the Edict of Constantine, it truly seemed that a new world was at hand and that the church was going to triumph in the secular realm.
|
What is the horn of salvation?
|
Answer
The horn of salvation is mentioned several times in the Bible, but what does this expression mean? What does salvation have to do with a horn?
In the Old Testament, the word *horn* signifies many things. Of course, one usage of *horn* was to refer to a pointed bony structure growing out of an animal’s head (Genesis 22:13\). Animal horns, used for fighting, protection, and securing dominance, became symbols of strength, power, and victory. Often, Scripture’s mention of a “horn” is as a literary symbol representing potency and power.
For example, in Daniel 7:7 and 24, the ten horns of Daniel’s fourth beast represent ten kings. In Psalm 75:10, God says, “I will cut off the horns of all the wicked, but the horns of the righteous will be lifted up.” In other words, the righteous will prevail, no matter how strong the wicked seem to be. In Jeremiah 48:25, “Moab’s horn is cut off” means that the strength of Moab is gone. The four horns in Zechariah 1:18–19 represent the powerful nations that attacked and scattered Israel.
Animal horns were also used as receptacles for oil (1 Samuel 16:1\) or as a shofar trumpet (Joshua 6:5\). The prayer in Psalm 92:10 contains both a reference to oil and a figurative use of *horn*: “You have exalted my horn like that of a wild ox; fine oils have been poured on me.”
In 1 Samuel 2:1 Hannah prays, “In the Lord, my horn is lifted high,” indicating the strength that will come from her having a child. In Luke 1:69 Zechariah praises God that “He has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David.” In this case, the “horn of salvation” is a reference to Jesus Christ, the powerful deliverer and king who was soon to be born.
Another significant instance of the word *horn* in the Old Testament is in reference to the protrusion at each corner of the altar (Exodus 27:2\). In worship, the [horns of the altar](horns-of-the-altar.html) were dabbed with blood to purify them and make atonement for sin (Leviticus 8:15; 4:6\). The horns of the altar speak of the power of God’s salvation. That part of the altar also became a place of refuge and sanctuary for a fugitive (1 Kings 1:50\).
We often see the horn in Scripture as a symbol of salvation. Psalm 18:2 says, “The LORD is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer, my God, my rock, in whom I take refuge, my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold.” In the New Testament, Jesus is the horn of salvation (Luke 1:68–69\). Thus, a title applied to Yahweh is also applied to Jesus; they are both called “the horn of salvation.” The very name *Jesus* means “The Lord Is Salvation.” The salvation Jesus offers is strong, triumphant, and powerful. Just like the horns on the altar offered refuge and atonement, Jesus offers clemency and cleansing through His death on the cross. However strong our spiritual foe, the horn of our salvation is stronger still.
|
What does it mean that Jesus is the King of the Jews?
|
Answer
Jesus is referred to as the King of the Jews two times in His earthly life: at His birth by the wise men (Matthew 2:2\) and at His trial and subsequent crucifixion (Mark 15:2\). All four gospels record the words “King of the Jews” as part of [Pilate’s](Pontius-Pilate.html) instructions to the angry mob (Matthew 27:37; Mark 15:9; Luke 23:38; John 19:3\) and Pilate’s direct address to Jesus (Matthew 27:11; Mark 15:2; Luke 23:3; John 18:33\). It is interesting that only non\-Jews used this specific title to describe Jesus, underscoring the truth of John 1:11, which says, “He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him.”
The title King of the Jews had both messianic and political implications. Kings in Israel were anointed with oil as a sign of God’s choosing (see 1 Kings 1:39\), and the meaning of [*Messiah*](what-does-Messiah-mean.html) is “Anointed One.” As the Son of David, the Messiah was chosen by God to fulfill the [Davidic Covenant](Davidic-covenant.html) and rule on the throne in Jerusalem. When the magi came to Jerusalem seeking the King of the Jews, they most likely had in mind a future political leader, much to King Herod’s chagrin. But the Jews in Jerusalem, hearing the magi’s question, would have thought of the long\-awaited Messiah.
In Mark 15:32 some mockingly call Jesus the “King of Israel” and associate the title with “Christ” (“Messiah”). What they meant as jeering scorn—what kind of king would be hanging on a cross?—was, ironically, the exact truth. Jesus was the King of Israel, and He was on the cross to save them from their sins.
The sign that Pilate posted over Jesus on the cross identified the “criminal” in three languages: “Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews” (John 19:19\). The Jewish leaders objected to the application of a Messianic title to Jesus: “Do not write ‘The King of the Jews,’ but that this man claimed to be king of the Jews” (verse 21\). For reasons he kept to himself, Pilate refused to alter the sign (verse 22\), which was another ironic statement of truth.
During the trial of Jesus, Pilate had asked Him, “Are you the king of the Jews?” (Mark 15:2\). Jesus answered, “It is as you say” (NASB). Later, Jesus expanded on the idea of His being a king: “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place” (John 18:36\). The King of the Jews was rejected by Israel, but there is a broader spiritual kingdom that He still ruled.
After the conversation about Jesus’ kingship, Pilate turns to the crowd and asks, “Do you want me to release ‘the king of the Jews’?” (John 18:39\). In no uncertain terms, the crowd shouts their answer: “No, not him! Give us [Barabbas](Barabbas-in-the-Bible.html)!” (verse 40\). Pilate then allows the soldiers to give Jesus a beating, during which they clothe Jesus as a king, mock Him with cries of “Hail, king of the Jews!” and repeatedly slap Him in the face (John 19:3\). After the mockery, Pilate again presents Jesus to the crowd as the King of the Jews: “Here is your king,” he says (verse 14\). In response they shout, “‘Take him away! Take him away! Crucify him!’ ‘Shall I crucify your king?’ Pilate asked. ‘We have no king but Caesar,’ the chief priests answered” (verse 15\). Their choice had been made, and Jesus, their true king, was led away to be crucified (verse 16\).
Some people during Jesus’ ministry recognized Jesus as the King of the Jews. As Jesus neared Jerusalem the final time, the crowd with Him “thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once” (Luke 19:11\). In other words, they believed Jesus was the King of the Jews, and they were ready to help Him set up the earthly kingdom. Jesus told a [parable](parable-ten-minas.html) indicating that the kingdom would be delayed (verses 12–27\), but the crowd’s enthusiasm did not wane. As He [entered Jerusalem](triumphal-entry.html), Jesus was greeted with shouts of welcome for the King of the Jews: “Blessed is the king who comes in the name of the Lord! Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!” (verse 38\).
God’s people had been expecting a deliverer since God first promised one in Genesis 3:15\. God Himself unified the Hebrews under Moses and told them that, as long as they followed and obeyed Him, He would bless and guide them (Deuteronomy 11:8–9; 27:9–10\). But the children of Israel rejected the Lord as their leader and demanded an earthly king (1 Samuel 8:7, 19\). God gave them what they wanted and appointed Saul as the first king over Israel (1 Samuel 9:17\). When Saul disobeyed the Lord, he was then rejected by God, and his sons were not allowed to succeed him on the throne (1 Samuel 15:9–11, 23, 28\). Instead, God chose David to be the next king of the Jews (1 Samuel 16:1\). God promised David that his name would be forever associated with the throne of Israel (2 Samuel 7:12–16\). Through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, David penned the prophetic Psalm 22, which gave Israel hints about what their future Messiah and Deliverer would endure. But, in their desperation for an earthly king and an earthly kingdom, most of the Jews disregarded those prophetic words as well as the ones in Isaiah 53\. When Jesus came, He fulfilled those prophecies. Importantly, He was from the royal line of David (Matthew 1:1; John 7:42\) and could rightly take the title King of the Jews, but because Jesus was not what they wanted, “his own people did not receive him” (John 1:11, ESV).
A king is a supreme ruler. When the Jews clamored for a king in Samuel’s day, they were rejecting God as their Supreme Ruler (1 Samuel 8:7\). Because of their hard hearts, He allowed them temporary kings. But this led to bondage and their destruction as a nation, highlighting the reality that what they wanted was not what they needed. The kingdom was divided after King Solomon’s rule, and both parts of the divided kingdom eventually fell to foreign enemies. Jerusalem was destroyed at least twice, once by the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings 25:8–10\) and again by the Romans under Titus in AD 70\. The Jews who [rejected their true King](Jews-reject-Jesus.html) were scattered among the nations for centuries until 1948\.
Isaiah 11 announced that one day a “shoot from the stem of Jesse” (verse 1\) would come and set the world to rights. The Jews have long interpreted such prophecies as foretelling an earthly king for Israel. We understand [Jesus to be that King](is-Jesus-the-Messiah.html); however, God had bigger plans than just an earthly kingdom. He never resigned Himself to Israel’s rejection of His kingship, but rather used their rejection of Him as an opportunity to demonstrate His love for the whole world (John 3:16\). The Son of God took on human flesh, came in the form of a servant, and showed His people what a real Deliverer was like (Philippians 2:5–11; Mark 10:44\).
Because this King of the Jews did not fit the ideas they had cherished for thousands of years, the Jews again rejected the One they needed. Many Jews are still waiting for the wrong kind of king. Revelation 19:16 describes the day when Jesus will return to rule over the earth. At that time, the ancient prophecies of an earthly kingdom of God will be fulfilled, and no one will doubt that Jesus is the [King of kings and the Lord of lords](King-of-kings-Lord-of-lords.html). Every nation, tribe, and tongue will bow to the King of the Jews (1 Timothy 6:14–16; Romans 14:11; Philippians 2:10; Revelation 5:9\).
|
Why is Gideon referred to as Jerubbaal?
|
Answer
[Gideon](life-Gideon.html) earned the title Jerubbaal (or Jerub\-Baal) after he destroyed his family’s altar of Baal. “Because Gideon broke down Baal’s altar, they gave him the name Jerub\-Baal that day, saying, ‘Let Baal contend with him’” (Judges 6:32\). The name Jerubbaal means “Baal will contend” and is a combination of two Hebrew words: the first is *riyb* or *rub*, which means literally “to grapple” and holds the figurative meaning “to wrangle” or “to hold a controversy.” The second is the proper noun *Baal*, the name of the Phoenician god that Gideon picked a fight with.
In Gideon’s day, Israel was rife with idolatry, and the Lord “gave them into the hands of [Midianites](Midianites.html)” for seven years (Judges 6:1\). When Israel cried out to God for help (verse 6\), He sent a prophet who reminded the Israelites of God’s past deliverance and God’s commands against honoring false gods (verse 10\). Israel had disobeyed, and [Baal](who-Baal.html) and [Asherah](who-Asherah.html) worship was rampant. It was time for Gideon to become Jerubbaal.
To create His Jerubbaal, God sent the [Angel of the Lord](angel-of-the-Lord.html) to Gideon, the son of Joash the Abiezrite. The angel sat under a tree watching Gideon thresh wheat in the winepress to keep it hidden from the Midianite raiders. The angel said to Gideon, “The Lord is with you, mighty warrior” (Judges 6:12\). Gideon’s reply showed a weak faith: “If the Lord is with us, why has all this happened to us? Where are all his wonders that our ancestors told us about when they said, ‘Did not the Lord bring us up out of Egypt?’ But now the Lord has abandoned us and given us into the hand of Midian” (verse 13\). The Lord then commissioned Gideon to “save Israel out of Midian’s hand” (verse 14\). The angel confirmed God’s Word with a miracle (verses 20–22\) and gave Gideon a promise: “I will be with you” (verse 16\).
That night, after his meeting with the Lord, Gideon was ready to transform into Jerubbaal. Following God’s specific instructions (Judges 6:25–26\), Gideon and ten of his servants tore down Baal’s altar on his family’s property and cut down the [Asherah pole](Asherah-pole.html) next to it. Gideon then built a proper altar to God, laid the wood of the Asherah image on top, and sacrificed a bull to the Lord. “But because he was afraid of his family and the townspeople, he did it at night” (Judges 6:27\).
The next morning, the men of the town discovered that Gideon had torn down the altar to Baal, and they were incensed that someone had disrespected their god. The men came to Joash, Gideon’s father, and said, “Bring out your son. He must die, because he has broken down Baal’s altar and cut down the Asherah pole beside it” (Judges 6:30\). Defending his son, Joash replied to the mob, “Are you going to plead Baal’s cause? Are you trying to save him? . . . If Baal really is a god, he can defend himself when someone breaks down his altar” (verse 31\). The logic was irrefutable. If Baal was really a god, then Baal could save himself. If Gideon should be punished, then let the god he destroyed punish him personally. After that, Gideon was called Jerubbaal, or “Let Baal contend with him” because Gideon had broken down the altar of Baal (verse 32\).
Gideon not only contended with Baal but also with the Midianites. God was true to His promise, and Gideon won a decisive victory over the enemy. Later, Gideon is still being called Jerubbaal (Judges 7:1; 8:29; 9:1\). Scripture uses the names Gideon and Jerubbaal interchangeably in those passages. Baal never did exact vengeance upon Jerubbaal; rather, God poured out His blessing on Gideon.
|
What is the meaning of homoousious?
|
Answer
*Homoousious* (literally, “same substance”) is a term that became very important in church history and was at the center of a controversy in the early fourth century leading up the [Council of Nicea](council-of-Nicea.html).
*Homoousious* is a compound Greek word. The word *homo* simply means “same.” Most people would recognize this from the word *homosexual*. The term *same sex* is often used in place of *homosexual* as in “same\-sex marriage.” *Heterosexual* starts with the Greek word *hetero*, which means “different.”
*Ousious* is the Greek word for “substance or being.” It refers to the essential nature of something—what it really is. *Homoousious* would be “of the same substance.” *Heteroousious* would be “of a different substance.” There is one more word that is important in this context: *homoiousious*. The extra *i* in *homoiousious* changes the meaning to “of a similar substance.”
So, in Greek, in the early fourth century, if two things were described as *homoousious*, it would mean that they were exactly the same kind of thing. If they were described as *heteroousious*, it would mean that they were different kinds of things. And if they were described as *homoiousious*, it would mean that they were similar—neither was exactly like the other, but not so different as to be described as *hetero*.
It was in the early fourth century that a man named Arius began teaching that Jesus was *homoiousious* with the Father—of a “similar substance.” According to [Arianism](arianism.html), Jesus was “divine” but not in exactly the same way the Father was divine. He did not teach that Jesus was *heteroousious*, which would have indicated that Jesus was simply human or radically different from the Father in some other way; rather, he taught that Jesus was “similar” to the Father. In response, a bishop named [Athanasius](Athanasius.html) insisted that Jesus was *homoousious* with the Father—of the “same substance”—the same kind of being. In other words, Jesus is divine in the same way as the Father is.
The issue was settled at the Council of Nicaea. The bishops of the church discussed and debated the issue and finally decided by overwhelming majority that *homoousious* (“same substance”) best encapsulates the teaching of the New Testament on the nature of Jesus. The Nicene Creed was the result of this meeting and reads in part, “We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father.” That last phrase *of one being* is a translation of the Greek word *homoousious*. The word *homoousious* is not found in Scripture, but the Council felt this was the best word to describe orthodox biblical teaching concerning Christ.
We find the teaching that the Father and the Son are *homoousious* in John 1:1, Philippians 2:6, and Colossians 2:9\. More importantly, the concept of *homoousious* explains the entire sweep of the New Testament teaching about the Person and nature of Jesus Christ. Jesus is fully God in the same way that the Father is God—they are of the same divine nature.
|
Is Yeshua Hamashiach the proper Hebrew name/title for Jesus Christ?
|
Answer
*Yeshua Hamashiach* means “[Jesus the Messiah](is-Jesus-the-Messiah.html).” The name *Jesus* is the Greek form of the Hebrew name *Yeshua*, which is the shortened form of the name *Yehoshua*. From this Hebrew word we also get the name *Joshua* (Joshua 5:15\) or *Hoshea* (Numbers 13:8; Deuteronomy 32:44\). The name means “salvation” and is found more than often throughout the Old Testament. This is the name from which we get the Greek word *Iesous*, prounounced “yay\-sus,” or as we say it, “Jesus.”
According to Messianic Jewish scholar Dr. Michael Brown, “The original Hebrew\-Aramaic name of Jesus is yeshuˈa, which is short for yehōshuˈa (Joshua), just as Mike is short for Michael. The name yeshuˈa occurs 27 times in the Hebrew Scriptures, primarily referring to the high priest after the Babylonian exile, called both yehōshuˈa (see, e.g., Zechariah 3:3\) and, more frequently, yeshuˈa (see, e.g., Ezra 3:2\). So, Yeshua’s name was not unusual; in fact, as many as five different men had that name in the Old Testament. And this is how that name came to be ‘Jesus’ in English” (Brown, Michael L. “What Is the Original Hebrew Name for Jesus? And Is It True That the Name Jesus Is Really a Pagan Corruption of the Name Zeus?” Ask Dr. Brown. Jan 3, 2013\. Web. Dec 27, 2016\).
The Hebrew term *Mashiach* (or *[Messiah](what-does-Messiah-mean.html)* in English; *Cristos*, or *Christ*, in Greek) means “anointed one” and referred to a person who was set apart to serve Yahweh. In the Old Testament, God’s *mashiachs* were anointed with oil to symbolize the presence and authority of the Holy Spirit (Leviticus 4:3; 1 Samuel 12:14; 2 Samuel 19:21\). God had promised Israel an ultimate *Mashiach*, or Messiah, and gave over 300 prophecies about this Anointed One so that they would recognize Him when He came (Isaiah 53:1; Psalm 22:27; 10:1–4; Daniel 9:25; 7:13\). Jesus fulfilled every one of them, thus deserving the title *Yeshua Hamaschiach* for the Jewish people.
However, Jesus came into the world to offer salvation and forgiveness to everyone who calls upon His name (John 3:16–18; Acts 2:21\). Surrounding His throne for all eternity will be people from “every nation, tribe, and tongue” (Revelation 7:9\). God is not offended by our languages or our differences. Throughout the Bible, Yahweh even identified Himself by different names as He dealt with people in different ways (Exodus 3:14; Isaiah 48:12; Revelation 1:8\). Jesus called Himself the “Son of Man” (Matthew 26:24; Luke 22:22\), and others called Him “Teacher” (Matthew 8:19\) and “Rabbi” (John 1:49\). He never corrected anyone’s pronunciation or use of a messianic title, as long as the person came to Him in faith.
So the name we use for the Son of God, when we come to Him in faith, appears to be unimportant to Him. He hears our hearts, anyway, regardless of the words our mouths are speaking (Luke 9:47\). In the words of Dr. Brown, “Do not be ashamed to use the name JESUS! That is the proper way to say his name in English—just as Michael is the correct English way to say the Hebrew name mi\-kha\-el and Moses is the correct English way to say the Hebrew name mo\-sheh. Pray in Jesus’ name, worship in Jesus’ name, and witness in Jesus’ name. And for those who want to relate to our Messiah’s Jewishness, then refer to him by His original name Yeshua—not Yahshua and not Yahushua—remembering that the power of the name is not in its pronunciation but in the person to whom it refers, our Lord and Redeemer and King” (ibid.).
|
Who was John Chrysostom?
|
Answer
John Chrysostom (c. AD 347–407\) was an Eastern church father and archbishop of Constantinople. He was born in Syrian Antioch and named John; he was known as Chrysostomos (“golden\-mouthed”) because of his excellent speaking ability. His mother, Anthusa, was widowed at the age of twenty and refused to remarry in order to devote herself to her son’s education. John studied the Greek classics and rhetoric. For a time, John Chrysostom practiced law, but, after his baptism in 368, he became a monk.
After his mother’s death, John Chrysostom practiced a severely [ascetic](Christian-asceticism-monasticism.html) life. During this time, he spent two years living in a cave on a mountain near Antioch where he dedicated himself to memorizing the entire Bible. Finally, ill health forced him to abandon the hermit lifestyle. John Chrysostom was ordained in 386 and preached some of his best sermons in Antioch until 398 when, much against his will (he was actually kidnapped and taken by force to Constantinople), he was made the patriarch (archbishop) of Constantinople by a government official. Rather than fighting the kidnapping and appointment, John submitted to it, seeing it as the providence of God.
As archbishop of Constantinople, John Chrysostom attempted to reform the moral climate of the capital city but met strong opposition from within and without the church. On the secular side, the Empress Eudoxia called for John’s removal because of his attacks on sin in high places. On the ecclesiastical side, local clergy and the bishop of Alexandria also took issue with Chrysostom’s high standards. Together, they led the movement to have John Chrysostom deposed in 403\. The people of Constantinople wanted Chrysostom back and rioted in his support; the Emperor Arcadius, frightened by the public response, had John reinstated the next day.
But John Chrysostom did not compromise his standards. He bravely continued to use his “golden mouth” to preach against sin, and the proud and vengeful Eudoxia was angered once again. Specifically, Chrysostom preached against vain and ostentatious modes of dress and against Eudoxia’s act of placing a silver statuette of herself near the church of Saint Sophia, where he preached. The Empress had John banished in 404 on charges of treason. John Chrysostom died in exile in 407\. His remains were brought back to Constantinople in 438 and buried in the Church of the Apostles.
More than 600 of John’s homilies and sermons still exist today. John was particularly adept at homilies, designed to apply the Scriptures to the challenges of living the Christian life. Most are expositions of Paul’s epistles, emphasizing the practical application of their meaning to the people of his day. Chrysostom loved Paul, calling him the “vessel of election” and the “trumpet of heaven.” True to his own moral compass, John Chrysostom preached that there must be no separation of morals from religion, that the cross and ethics must go hand in hand. His homilies railed against the sins of abortion, prostitution, gluttony, and swearing and against popular entertainments of the day, especially the theatre, horseracing, and the revelries surrounding the celebrations of holidays.
Among John’s favorite themes was care for the poor and needy, a duty he found lacking in the wealthy classes. He frequently exhorted the rich to lay aside their materialistic habits and rebuked them for caring more about their possessions than about their fellow creatures (see Matthew 5:42 and 1 Timothy 6:17–19\). In one especially blistering homily, John shamed the selfish rich by asking, “Do you pay such honor to your excrements as to receive them into a silver chamber\-pot when another man made in the image of God is perishing in the cold?”
Because of his rhetorical skills, John Chrysostom is still hailed as one of the greatest pulpit orators the church has ever known. He is considered a saint by the [Eastern Orthodox](Eastern-Orthodox-church.html), [Roman Catholic](Roman-Catholicism.html), [Coptic](Coptic-Christianity.html), and [Anglican](Anglicans.html) churches. Catholics have given him the title “Doctor of the Church,” and the Orthodox Church honors him as one of the Three Holy Hierarchs.
|
Should Israel be building settlements in the occupied territories?
|
Answer
In December 2016 the Security Council of the United Nations passed a resolution that condemns Israel for its building of settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank. However, the resolution was nothing but a formal statement of what most nations in the world already believed about the settlements. The United Nations has passed similar resolutions against Israel as far back as 1979\. The difference is that these resolutions did not carry the authority of the Security Council. Prior to 2016, the United States had always vetoed any Security Council resolutions against Israel. Israel and its relationship to its neighbors and the West Bank (and Gaza) is a complicated issue. Here is a brief history:
Israel became a sovereign nation in 1948 when the United Nations officially recognized its existence. Immediately, Israel’s neighbors attacked the new nation, seeking to destroy it before it could be established. This conflict became known as the Arab\-Israeli War of 1948, and Israel defeated the armies of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq. After fighting ended, the nation of Israel stayed within the borders designated for it by the United Nations in 1948\. Nineteen years later, in 1967, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Iraq attacked again, with additional help from other Arab nations. In what became known as the [Six\-Day War](Six-Day-War.html), Israel again defeated the attackers. After this conflict, however, Israel seized control of the West Bank and East Jerusalem (from Jordan), the Sinai Peninsula and Gaza (from Egypt), and the Golan Heights (from Syria). Ever since, Israel’s occupation of those territories has been a matter of international debate. Israel gave the Sinai Peninsula back to Egypt in 1979 as part of the Egypt\-Israel. In 1994, Israel turned local control of the cities of Gaza and Jericho to the Palestinian Authority. In 2005, Israel withdrew all settlements from the Gaza Strip as well as four settlements in the West Bank. The following year, the terrorist group Hamas took political control of the Gaza Strip and has militantly opposed the State of Israel ever since. In October 2023, Hamas conducted the deadliest terror attack on Israel since Israel gained its independence.
Israel has been building settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank since 1972, although the building of settlements has been greatly expanded in recent years. The Palestinians in the West Bank have protested loudly, claiming those lands belong to them. However, Israel was attacked by its neighboring countries at the behest of the Palestinians. There is a universally understood concept that, if you attack a nation and lose, there are consequences. The attacks on Israel in 1948 and 1967, the countless intifadas, the acts of terrorism, the kidnappings, etc., have all been unprovoked. Israel has never been the military aggressor against its neighbors. When a nation seizes territory from the nations that attacked it, the action is normally seen as a justifiable way for that nation to solidify its defense. In any situation not involving Israel, there would be universal recognition of the nation’s right to control the seized territories.
For some reason, when the situation involves Israel, the international community has always been on the side of the Palestinians and Israel’s Arab neighbors. Why is this? Latent and overt anti\-Semitism? The tremendous influence of the Arab nations due to their control of the oil market? Compassion for the Palestinians? It is likely a combination of those and other factors. But none of those factors change the history. Israel suffered an unprovoked attack and occupied those territories in order to better defend itself from future attacks.
Biblically speaking, Israel has every right to possess, occupy, and build homes in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, Gaza, and far more. All of those territories are well within the borders of the land that God promised to the nation of Israel. [Israel currently possesses a fraction of the land](Israel-land.html) the Word of God declares belongs to it (see Genesis 15:18 and Joshua 1:4\). Unless the Palestinians are descendants of the tribes of Israel (which is possible), they have absolutely no biblical claim to live on those lands. Whatever the case, they have no biblical basis for preventing the nation of Israel from occupying and building homes in those territories.
GotQuestions.org is decidedly and unashamedly pro\-Israel. We do not claim Israel is entirely guiltless in the conflict with the Palestinians. However, whatever crimes Israel has committed are outweighed by the terrorism, crimes, and military attacks perpetuated against it by the Palestinians and its Arab neighbors. The failure or refusal of the United Nations to recognize this is amazing and distressing. There is no adequate explanation for the sheer blindness of the United Nations toward the reality of the Israel\-Palestinian conflict other than satanic deception.
|
Are there different religions within the Christian faith?
|
Answer
With all the various denominations, schisms, associations, divisions, and sects within the Christian faith, some conclude that there are actually different Christian religions. That is not an accurate assessment. There is only one Christian religion. The different branches of the Christian faith are not separate religions, but rather distinct interpretations of what the Christian religion is supposed to be.
For example, [Eastern Orthodoxy](Eastern-Orthodox-church.html), [Roman Catholicism](Roman-Catholicism.html), and [Protestantism](Protestantism.html) are very different in their beliefs and practices. At the same time, they all claim to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ; therefore, all three of them are commonly considered part of Christendom. Further, despite all of the differences, they actually agree on many important issues, such as the [Trinity](Trinity-Bible.html) and the [deity of Christ](deity-of-Christ.html). While the differences in teaching and practice are important, they do not mean one is Christian and the others are not. Orthodoxy, Catholicism, and Protestantism cannot all be correct interpretations of Christianity, but all three can be considered branches of the Christian religion.
Within Protestantism, there are hundreds of different denominations and associations of churches. These are not different Christian religions, either, but different segments of the Protestant branch of Christianity. While there are important differences among the Protestant denominations, the similarities outweigh the differences. Protestant churches agree on the core doctrines of the Christian faith and the [five *solas*](five-solas.html), with their disagreements being over non\-essential matters.
The most difficult aspect of this question is whether the “Christian” cults, such as the [Mormons](Mormons.html) and the [Jehovah’s Witnesses](Jehovahs-Witnesses.html), should be considered different religions. These groups and many others are [defined as cults](cult-definition.html) since they deny one or more of the core doctrines of the Christian religion. At the same time, these groups claim to be Christian and do follow some of the teachings of Jesus Christ. Are their teachings on the person of Christ and the means of salvation biblically accurate? Definitely not. Does this put them outside of the Christian religion? That depends on how *religion* is defined.
If a religion is defined as the worship of a God or gods, then the question becomes whether a sect that denies the Trinity is worshiping the same God as Christians do. Are they worshiping an entirely different, non\-triune god, or do they simply have a different interpretation of the nature of the God of Christianity? If a sect agrees with Christians that the mediator between God and humanity is Jesus Christ but has a different understanding of the nature of that mediator and how the mediation is accomplished, do they truly believe in the same mediator? If the answer is no, then we must begin to question whether Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism should be considered Christian, considering they have a different view than Protestantism of how Christ’s mediation is accomplished.
Perhaps all of this is getting needlessly complicated. Ultimately, the answer to the question, “Are there different religions within the Christian faith?” depends on how you define the word *religion*. Whether Orthodoxy, Catholicism, Protestantism, and all the other Christian sects and cults should all be considered part of the Christian religion is not really the issue. The true issue is whether a particular division of Christianity is following the core truths of historic biblical Christianity, i.e., the Trinity, the true deity and [true humanity](humanity-of-Jesus.html) of Jesus Christ, and salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. Ultimately, true Christianity is more than a religion; it is a [relationship](Christianity-religion-relationship.html) with God the Father, made possible through Jesus Christ, and [sealed by the Holy Spirit](Spirit-today.html).
|
Does the Bible say anything about how to deal with puberty?
|
Answer
Puberty is the season of life when children begin to physically and psychologically develop into adults capable of reproduction. The average age for the onset of puberty is 11 for girls, and 12 for boys. In modern Western culture, puberty is also known as “adolescence” or the “teen years,” and pubescent youth have formed their own subculture, targeted as a lucrative market by the media and advertisers. Because of Western culture’s celebration of youth and teenagers, an adolescent mentality may extend into the 20’s or 30’s, as the responsibilities and burdens of true adulthood look less appealing than the carefree days of childhood. Therefore, the puberty that produces a mature body may not simultaneously produce a mature spirit.
In Bible times puberty was seen as the beginning of adulthood. First Corinthians 13:11 is the clearest statement about the distinction between childhood and adulthood: “When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways.” Puberty was designed to be the season between childish ways and adult ways. It involves more than the body’s development. Puberty is the time when thinking abilities deepen, wisdom should be gained, and skills mastered that will help the new adult be successful in life. While young people in puberty cannot control how quickly their bodies may change and develop, they can take responsibility for their own spiritual and emotional maturity.
Much of the book of Proverbs was written by a father to his son on the brink of manhood (see Proverbs 3:1–4; 4:1–13; 5:1; 7:1\). This father was handing down wisdom and instruction that his son now had the ability to understand and utilize. In ancient Jewish culture, childhood ended when adulthood began. Young women learned from their mothers and grandmothers the skills needed for keeping a home and rearing children. Young men worked with their fathers and brothers as soon as they were able and generally followed the trade of their fathers, unless they were accepted into rabbinic school.
Luke 2:41–52 gives us a glimpse into Jesus’ early life during puberty. He was allowed to go to the temple in Jerusalem for Passover at the age of twelve. On their trip home, His parents realized Jesus was not among the group that had traveled together. Anxious, Joseph and Mary retraced their steps and three days later found Him in the temple courts discussing theology with the rabbis. At the age of twelve, Jesus was capable of holding serious discussions with His teachers.
The hormone surges that spark physical maturation can also upset brain chemistry and emotional stability, leading to conflicts and often rebellion against authority. It is common for an adult body to house a childish brain, and the two are not compatible. The teen years are well\-known for their volatility, poor judgments, and, unfortunately, tragic, lifelong mistakes. A young person beginning puberty is wise to recognize that the frustration of the next few years is temporary. Rather than demand rights he or she may not be ready to handle, a wise young person will use the puberty years to listen to those who have more life experience (Proverbs 1:8\), develop self\-control (Proverbs 16:32\), and strive to grow spiritually as the body grows physically (2 Peter 3:18\). When parents and children work together, puberty can be an exciting time of expectation for all God has in store for the future (Jeremiah 29:11\).
|
What is the rule of faith?
|
Answer
The phrase *rule of faith* does not appear in the Bible. It was first used in a statement by the early church writer [Tertullian](Tertullian.html) in his *On Prescription Against Heretics*. The rule of faith is the set of standards that define a religion. Biblical Christianity holds the Bible to be its [only rule of faith](sole-authority-faith-practice.html). The rule of faith may be different for different groups. In some cases, the standards are similar. In others, what may seem similar actually presents a vast and significant distinction.
Rules of faith in most religions rely on something other than or in addition to the Word of God, thereby denying the sufficiency of Scripture. Since the earliest days of Christianity, this heresy has survived and flourished. The rule of faith among the [Gnostics](Christian-gnosticism.html) of the first century was based on the Scriptures plus a mystical knowledge gained only by those who had achieved a higher plane of enlightenment. In direct contradiction to the Word of God, the Gnostics taught that salvation comes not by grace alone through faith alone (Ephesians 2:8–9\) but by divine knowledge or some inner light possessed only by those of elevated spirituality.
Evangelical Protestants hold to the Bible alone as their rule of faith. This reflects their belief in the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture, which declares that the Bible alone is adequate to guide the Christian in all matters of faith and practice. According to 2 Timothy 3:16–17, the Scriptures are profitable to make the believer “thoroughly equipped for every good work.” If we are thoroughly equipped by the Word of God, nothing more is needed. There are no degrees of “thoroughness.” To say we need something more than the Bible as a rule of faith is to say we are made “partially thoroughly” equipped by the Bible and need something more to make us “completely and thoroughly” equipped.
Roman Catholicism adds to the Bible and expands the rule of faith. Catholics look to both “written books and unwritten traditions,” thereby adding to the Bible the declarations of popes and bishops, papal bulls, and various councils. Catholics believe the Bible is God’s Word, but it is incomplete without the addition of these writings of men. Mormonism’s rule of faith adds *The Book of Mormon*, *Doctrine and Covenants*, and *The Pearl of Great Price* to the Bible as equally inspired writings. This puts the opinions, views, and interpretations of men on a par with the Word of God.
Among Wesleyans, what is known as the “Quadrilateral” is the rule of faith: the Bible, tradition, reason, and experience. This, too, denies the sufficiency of Scripture. While Wesley himself may have not intended that the four rules of the Quadrilateral be seen as equal, by adding three sources of authority to the Scriptures, he opened the door for misinterpretation and misunderstanding. One can justify a belief in just about anything if that belief is based on tradition, reason, and/or experience. Jesus expressly forbade equating tradition with Scripture as part of the rule of faith, accusing the Pharisees of nullifying the Word of God for the sake of their traditions (Mark 7:6–13\). Once the Word of God is rejected as the only rule of faith and practice, the door to heresy is opened and the genie is not easily put back into the bottle.
While it may be argued that the writers of the gospels and the epistles were offering their views and interpretations as they wrote, this is not the same as the declarations of the popes and bishops of Catholicism or of men like Joseph Smith. The New Testament writers were moved supernaturally by the Holy Spirit, who is the ultimate Author of Scripture. The biblical writers “spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21\).
The Bible itself asserts that believers are indwelt by the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:19\), who teaches, interprets, brings truths to mind (John 14:26\), and guides us into all truth (John 16:13\). For evangelical Christians, the Word of God and its Author are the true rule of faith. This is not to say that preachers and teachers are unnecessary. But the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture is a cornerstone of the evangelical rule of faith.
|
What was the Diet of Worms?
|
Answer
Throughout the Middle Ages in the Holy Roman Empire, a “diet” was an assembly of governmental and/or religious leaders called together to settle a political or religious matter. The Diet of Worms was held in 1521 in Worms (pronounced “Vermz”), Germany, to discuss the teachings of [Martin Luther](Martin-Luther.html). In 1517, Martin Luther had posted the [95 Theses](95-theses.html) on the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany. This was essentially the start of the [Protestant Reformation](Protestant-Reformation.html). Between the posting of the 95 Theses and the Diet of Worms, four years later, the Protestant Reformation became a significant movement.
In 1520, Pope Leo X issued a papal bull against Martin Luther, declaring him to be a heretic. As a result, Emperor Charles V called the Diet of Worms as a court of inquisition and ordered Luther to appear and either affirm or renounce his teachings. Johann Eck, who was representing the Emperor, asked Martin Luther if he was ready to recant his heresies. After a one\-day recess, Martin Luther responded, “Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason (for I do not trust either in the pope or in councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. May God help me. Amen.”
As a result of Luther’s refusal to recant, the Diet of Worms issued the Edict of Worms that labeled Luther a heretic and banned the reading of his writings. The edict made Luther an outlaw, and the understanding of the Diet of Worms was that Luther would soon be arrested, punished, and likely executed. However, before he could be arrested, Luther was spirited away by Prince Frederick III of Saxony and hidden in Wartburg Castle. There Luther continued his writing and began his translation of the Bible into German.
In the time Martin Luther was secluded in the castle at Wartburg, the [Lutheran Church](Lutherans.html) became increasingly popular in Germany. So, even when Luther left the safety of the castle, the Edict of Worms was never enforced against him, and he was never arrested. Luther’s declaration that he would not recant unless he was “convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures” is a good summary of what the Protestant Reformation was all about and serves as a good example of the place the Bible should occupy in our lives.
|
What is a metanarrative?
|
Answer
A metanarrative (also called grand narrative) is an overarching story or storyline that gives context, meaning, and purpose to all of life. A metanarrative is the “big picture” or all\-encompassing theme that unites all smaller themes and individual stories. In building a house, there are many workers doing many individual jobs—plumbing, sheet rock, electrical work, roofing, etc.—but all of those contractors are working toward the same thing—completing a house. The blueprint is the “big picture,” the metanarrative that gives meaning to each contractor’s work. The plumber isn’t fitting pipes to nowhere; he is involved in a larger scheme.
The concept of a metanarrative is similar to a worldview—something that gives meaning to life and the individual events that take place in life. Marxism, Freudianism, Free Market Capitalism, and Enlightenment Emancipation would be examples of metanarratives in that every event in life and history is seen through one of these lenses. Religious worldviews are also metanarratives. Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, and Christianity all offer metanarratives to explain various events in history and the contemporary world. A metanarrative has the power to explain and purports to be true for all of life.
The term *metanarrative* was brought into prominence by Jean\-François Lyotard in his 1979 book *The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge*. In this book, the author characterizes the postmodern condition as that of increasing skepticism of all metanarratives. Indeed, postmoderns generally do not accept any overarching story that gives meaning to all of life. Instead, they focus on small, individual narratives that give meaning to their own lives. A metanarrative speaks of absolute, universal truth. An individual narrative speaks of what is “true for me” and “gives meaning to my life.” Postmodern thinking rejects metanarratives because it rejects universal truth. Postmoderns view a single narrative giving meaning to all lives as an impossibility.
The problem with [postmodernism](postmodernism-dangers.html) is that it quickly becomes another metanarrative. The “truth” that there is no absolute truth is the metanarrative that gives meaning to the postmodern thinker. Relativism, ironically, becomes the one assured absolute.
The Bible clearly teaches the existence of metanarrative. Paul writes, “\[God] made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, to be put into effect when the times reach their fulfillment—to bring unity to all things in heaven and on earth under Christ” (Ephesians 1:9–10\). This passage speaks of a divine will, a purpose, a timetable, a fulfillment, and a unity. The [Incarnation of Christ](incarnation-of-Christ.html) occurred “when the set time had fully come” (Galatians 4:4\), again suggesting an overarching plan, a metanarrative. The entire book of Hebrews traces themes begun in the Old Testament to their fulfillment in Christ.
The earthly ministry of Christ was part of a plan that extended all the way back to the [protoevangelium](protoevangelium.html) in Genesis 3:15\. Jesus’ first sermon contained this declaration: “The time has come. . . . The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!” (Mark 1:15\). The Lord’s reference to an anticipated time that had finally arrived is another reference to metanarrative. The prophecies of the Bible all indicate the existence of a metanarrative (see Matthew 2:15, 23; 26:56; Luke 22:37; John 19:28, 36\). History unfolds like acts in a play. The lights come up and down on various scenes, and different characters tread the stage, but there is one plot always moving toward the final curtain.
In the Bible, we have the metanarrative or grand narrative that gives meaning to our lives. We are told that we were created in God’s image and were meant to live in fellowship with Him and with each other. We have sinned and broken that fellowship, but God in His grace has provided a way that we can be saved, forgiven, and restored. Jesus is God born into the human race for the express purpose of dying for us, to pay the penalty for our sins. After His death on the cross, Jesus rose again from the dead. All who trust Him for salvation will be forgiven and made new. Jesus will return to earth one day to gather His followers unto Himself. In the meantime, we are to share this good news with everyone in the world, as it applies to everyone and is true for everyone. Those who have come to know Christ recognize that this grand narrative—this overarching story of redemption—gives meaning and purpose to the world, to history, to all of life, and to each individual.
|
Who was Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz?
|
Answer
Maher\-Shalal\-Hash\-Baz was a son of the [prophet Isaiah](life-Isaiah.html). The son’s name is a mouthful, but it’s also full of meaning. Maher\-Shalal\-Hash\-Baz is mentioned in this passage: “The Lord said to me, ‘Take a large scroll and write on it with an ordinary pen: Maher\-Shalal\-Hash\-Baz.’ So I called in Uriah the priest and Zechariah son of Jeberekiah as reliable witnesses for me. Then I went to the prophetess, and she conceived and gave birth to a son. And the Lord said to me, ‘Name him Maher\-Shalal\-Hash\-Baz. For before the boy knows how to say “My father” or “My mother,” the wealth of Damascus and the plunder of Samaria will be carried off by the king of Assyria’” (Isaiah 8:1–4\).
Scripture records the names of two sons of the prophet Isaiah. Both names were symbolic, containing messages from God to Judah’s [king Ahaz](King-Ahaz.html) and to us today (see Romans 15:4\). Maher\-Shalal\-Hash\-Baz can be translated “Speed the spoil and hasten the booty.”
Isaiah began his ministry in Judah in 740 BC, the end of the long, relatively prosperous reign of King Uzziah (Isaiah 6:1\). The years that immediately followed were the most turbulent in the history of the divided kingdom of Judah and Israel. Assyrian king Tiglath\-Pileser III (745–727 BC) was conquering much of the Middle East, including the nations surrounding Israel. The [Assyrian Empire](Assyrians.html) stretched well over 1,500 miles, from the Persian Gulf to deep into Egypt. Assyrian military strategy combined huge numbers of troops, advanced siege technology, shocking savagery, and mass deportation to terrify and subdue conquered peoples.
About 735 or 734 BC, the kings of Syria (Damascus) and Israel (Samaria) asked Judah’s King Ahaz to ally with them against Assyria. When Ahaz refused, the two kings attacked Judah, launching the Syro\-Ephraimite War (Ephraim was the dominant tribe of the northern kingdom of Israel and therefore identified with that kingdom). The two kings quickly overran much of Judah, inflicting great slaughter (2 Chronicles 28:5–8\), then besieged Jerusalem (2 Kings 16:5\).
Ahaz and all Judah were terrified (Isaiah 7:2\). But rather than trusting in the Lord as Isaiah counseled, the apostate Ahaz sought protection through an alliance with Assyria. He sent the silver and gold from the temple and his own royal treasury, offering Judah as another vassal state of the growing empire (2 Kings 16:7–8\).
It was during this national crisis that Isaiah’s second son was born as prophesied as a sign to Ahaz and Judah. Before the boy was conceived God had Isaiah draw up a legal document with the four words of his future son’s name, Maher\-Shalal\-Hash\-Baz (Isaiah 8:1–2\). The name literally means “Speed\-spoil\-hasten\-plunder” or “Swift to the spoil, quick to the plunder.” God’s message to Ahaz was that both of Judah’s enemies would be defeated and plundered. Judah would be saved. The document containing the name Maher\-Shalal\-Hash\-Baz symbolized a property deed transferring the wealth of Damascus and Israel to the king of Assyria.
Maher\-Shalal\-Hash\-Baz, Isaiah’s future son, named with the same four words of the document, revealed the time frame of Israel’s and Syria’s defeat: sometime between the conception of Maher\-Shalal\-Hash\-Baz to “before the boy knows how to say ‘My father’ or ‘My mother’” (Isaiah 8:3–4\). That is, Judah would be saved before Maher\-Shalal\-Hash\-Baz reached age 2, a total of less than three years, counting the child’s time in the womb.
The prophecy was fulfilled in 732 BC when both Syria and Israel were conquered by Assyria. A decade later Assyria removed Israel’s wealth and many of her people, obliterating their national identity. Those Israelites who remained in the land intermarried with a variety of foreign occupiers sent by their conquerors (2 Kings 17:24\), eventually giving rise to the despised race of [Samaritans](Samaritans.html) (see John 4:9; 8:48\).
At first, it seemed that King Ahaz’s plan to ally with Assyria was a great success for Judah. But the terrible unintended consequences of solving his problems his own way rather than God’s soon followed, as Isaiah had prophesied (Isaiah 7:17–25\). Judah became a vassal state from which Assyria demanded heavy annual tribute—completely unnecessary, because God had already intended to use Assyria to save Judah without Ahaz asking for their help (Isaiah 8:4\). Within thirty years, this “ally” would lay waste to Judah and place its mighty siege engines before the walls of Jerusalem (Isaiah 36\).
The message of Maher\-Shalal\-Hash\-Baz to stubborn King Ahaz also contains lessons for us today:
1\) No matter how powerful and terrifying your enemies, do not fear them; rather, trust in God, who is in complete control (Romans 8:28; Psalm 33:10–11\). God is our strength and defense (Exodus 15:2; Judges 7:2; Isaiah 12:2\). When Assyria later attacked Jerusalem in 701 BC, godly [King Hezekiah](life-Hezekiah.html), terrified as he was, accepted Isaiah’s prophecy and turned to God for help. Jerusalem was miraculously delivered (Isaiah 37\).
2\) Do not be surprised at the instruments God uses to execute His will. He may use the wicked to carry out His good plans (Genesis 50:20; 2 Chronicles 36:15–17\).
3\) Being used as an instrument of God is no guarantee of His future blessings for the wicked, whether for individuals (1 Kings 14:7–11\) or empires (Isaiah 10:12; Jeremiah 50:18\). Assyria’s wickedness would be punished (Isaiah 10:15–17\), a prophecy fulfilled in the death of 185,000 soldiers attacking Jerusalem (Isaiah 37:36\) and the total destruction of the Assyrian Empire (Isaiah 13:1–14:27\).
4\) As Maher\-Shalal\-Hash\-Baz’s name was written into a legal contract before he was even conceived, God wrote the plan for our entire lives before we were conceived (Psalm 139:16; Jeremiah 1:5\), even before the beginning of time (Romans 8:29–30; Ephesians 1:4–5; 2 Timothy 1:9\).
Believing these powerful truths and acting on them in faith channels the power of God Almighty to make a difference not only in our own lives, but possibly in our communities, our nation, and the whole world (Matthew 17:20; John 14:12\).
|
What is the Bulgarian Orthodox Church?
|
Answer
The Bulgarian Orthodox Church is an autocephalous (self\-governing) church within [Eastern Orthodoxy](Eastern-Orthodox-church.html). Being independent, the Bulgarian Orthodox Church has its own patriarchate (ecclesiastical jurisdiction). The Bulgarian Orthodox Church is headquartered in Sofia, Bulgaria, and the head of the church is the Metropolitan of Sofia, Patriarch of All Bulgaria.
The majority of Bulgarians (85 percent) would claim that they belong to the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, although less than 20 percent of Bulgarians attend church regularly. Other Bulgarian Orthodox dioceses are established in Western Europe, Canada, Australia, and the United States. The Bulgarian Orthodox Church has between 6 and 8 million members worldwide.
The Bulgarian Orthodox Church, along with other Eastern Orthodox churches, traces its roots back to the missionary efforts of the apostle Andrew. Tsar Boris I organized the church in Bulgaria in 864\. The church was recognized as autocephalous in 870 and became a patriarchate in 927\. After an invasion by the Turks in 1393, however, the Bulgarian Orthodox Church ceased to function as a self\-governing body. The Bulgarian church reorganized five centuries later, in 1870, but was not officially recognized by the [Patriarch of Constantinople](Ecumenical-Patriarch-of-Constantinople.html) until 1945\. During the communist era, the Soviets subjected the Bulgarian Orthodox Church to strict state control. Currently, the Republic of Bulgaria enjoys freedom of religion, although the national constitution declares Orthodoxy to be Bulgaria’s “historical religion.”
The Bulgarian Orthodox Church has always resisted ecumenical calls to unite with other religious groups. In April 2016 the Holy Synod (the governing body of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church) issued a statement condemning all churches outside of Orthodoxy: “Besides the Holy Orthodox Church there are no other churches, but only heresies and schisms, and to call these ‘churches’ is theologically, dogmatically and canonically completely wrong” (“Bulgarian Orthodox Church: Besides the Orthodox Church ‘There Are No Other Churches, Only Heresies and Schisms.’” *The Sofia Globe*. May 5, 2016\. Web. Dec. 28, 2016\).
The doctrine and practice of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church follow the standard teachings of Eastern Orthodoxy. The Bulgarian Orthodox Church observes seven sacraments; venerates [icons](religious-iconography.html); prays to Mary, the “[Mother of God](Mary-mother-God-theotokos.html),” and other saints; prays for the dead; and teaches a works\-based salvation. These teachings, unfortunately, contradict biblical doctrine. Jesus taught us to pray to God the Father (Luke 11:2\), and the Bible says that salvation is all of grace, apart from human works (Romans 4:5\). The Orthodox view of salvation is a “different” gospel to be avoided (see Galatians 1:6–9\).
|
What is divine impassibility?
|
Answer
The idea of divine impassibility is that God does not feel pain nor does He have emotions. Divine impassibility is a difficult concept because it often means different things to different people. For this reason, some think that the term is best left unused or replaced with something else. *Impassibility* comes from the root word for *passion*, which may mean “strong emotion” or “suffering.” Most people who speak of divine impassibility have something of both aspects in mind.
The concept of divine impassibility springs out of the unchangeable nature of God—His [immutability](immutability-God.html). The thought is that God does not feel pain and sorrow, He does not change His mind, and He does not have emotions. If God could change, it is said, that would implicate His perfection. If He changed, even to express emotion, then either He would be improving (which would indicate that He is less than perfect now) or worsening (which would leave Him less than perfect after the change). According to those who hold to divine impassibility, the passages of Scripture that indicate God feels passion or pain are simply anthropomorphisms. However, taken to the logical conclusion, God’s absolute immutability would seem to preclude any action at all on His part. He would be a static being—a statue.
On the other end of the spectrum are [Open Theists](open-theism.html), who take the biblical words about God’s emotions quite literally. They see God as reacting to the choices of human beings with genuine emotion, disappointment, or even surprise. Open Theists would say that God does not know what human beings will do, so when He finds out, He has a genuine reaction. What proponents of divine impassibility see as [anthropomorphism](anthropomorphism.html), Open Theists see as straightforward statement of fact. God was sorry that He made mankind, so He decided to wipe them from the face of the earth (Genesis 6:7\). According to Open Theists, when God found out how sinful mankind had become, He regretted His earlier action and made a course correction. We reject Open Theism in that it diminishes God’s perfection.
Scripture seems to chart a middle ground between Open Theism and divine impassibility. God has emotions but is not bound by them in the way that human beings are. God’s emotions are more than just anthropomorphic. God may grieve, but He is never “crippled with grief.” God may be angry, but He does not “lose His temper.” God may be disappointed by our choices, but these choices do not catch Him by surprise. God’s basic character does not change, but He can interact with changeable human beings and respond to our choices in time and space, even though He exists outside those dimensions. Although His nature and character remain the same, the way He responds to us may differ according to the situation. He always responds in ways that are consistent with His other attributes.
Ultimately, in Christ, God did experience pain and suffering. And perhaps in Christ we can understand immutability in a way that will allow us to see a perfect, unchangeable God who still experiences pain and emotions. Hebrews 13:8 says, “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever,” yet we know that Jesus changed—He grew, He acted, He had emotions, He died, He rose, and He felt anger, compassion, and hunger—yet His changes never indicated that He was anything less than perfect to begin with.
|
What were the religious wars / wars of religion?
|
Answer
The religious wars were a series of military conflicts in Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries. While the wars of religion often began as conflicts between Catholics and Protestants, there were political, economic, civil, and national reasons behind the wars as well. The European religious wars were brutal, with the combined death toll ranging from 5\.5 million to 18\.5 million. Some areas of Europe had more than 30 percent of their population wiped out.
The wars of religion were a series of separate but related conflicts. The primary wars were the German Peasants’ War, the Eighty Years’ War, the French Wars of Religion, and the Thirty Years’ War.
The German Peasants’ War (1524–1525\) was primarily an uprising of German peasants of the [Anabaptist](Anabaptists.html) persuasion. The peasants protested against the extreme abuses of Germany’s feudal system and sought to establish a theocracy in which Christian ideals and the commonwealth of goods would be the governing rules. The peasant rebellion was crushed by Germany’s rulers. Between 100,000 and 200,000 people were killed.
The Eighty Years’ War (1568–1648\), also known as the Dutch War of Independence, was primarily a conflict between the Netherlands, which was largely Protestant, and Spain, which was largely Catholic. The Dutch had grown exceedingly frustrated with the political rule of the Spanish Habsburgs, and the enforcement of Roman Catholicism did not sit well with a populace with many [Lutheran](Lutherans.html), Anabaptist, and [Reformed](Reformed-church.html) elements. The Eighty Years’ War was ended by the Peace of Münster in 1648, but by then between 200,000 and 2 million people had been killed.
The French Wars of Religion, also known as the Huguenot Wars, were a series of massacres and battles between Roman Catholics and Reformed Protestants (known as Huguenots) in France from 1562 to 1629\. The French Wars of Religion were especially brutal, with both Catholics and Protestants committing horrible atrocities and betrayals with numerous broken treaties and assassinations. The conflicts were mostly ended at the Edict of Nantes in 1598 but not concluded until the Peace of Alais in 1629\. Between 2 and 4 million people were killed in the French Wars of Religion.
The Thirty Years’ War (1618–1648\) was one of the deadliest conflicts in the history of Europe. It occurred almost entirely in Germany. It began due to Holy Roman Emperor Ferdinand II attempting to force Roman Catholicism as the exclusive religion of the territory he controlled. The Protestants, who had been enjoying relative freedom of religion, revolted and took up arms against the [Holy Roman Empire](Holy-Roman-Empire.html). Sweden, Spain, and France joined the conflict, supporting the side that best fit their political goals. The Thirty Years’ War ended with the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, but not before between 3 and 12 million people were killed in the warfare and its aftermath (disease and famine).
Atheists often point to the religious wars as an example of how [religion is almost always the cause of war](religion-war.html). But the wars of religion in Europe were due to far more than religious differences. Cultural, ethnic, and political issues likely would have eventually caused these wars even if religion was not involved. With that said, it cannot be denied that both Catholics and Protestants did some truly atrocious things to each other in that time period. Religion, though, cannot be blamed when its adherents do things that are diametrically opposed to its core teachings. Just like the “Christian” [Crusades](Christian-crusades.html) were absolutely in contradiction to the teachings of the Christian faith, so were the wars of religion in direct violation of the teachings of Scripture and Christian values.
|
Who was Jan Hus (John Huss)?
|
Answer
Jan Hus (1369–1415\) was a Roman Catholic priest in Bohemia (located in modern\-day Czech Republic) who became a pre\-[Protestant Reformation](Protestant-Reformation.html) reformer of the church. Hus (also spelled *Huss*) earned a doctorate degree and became the preacher at the Bethlehem Chapel in Prague. The more he studied the Bible, the more he noticed a sharp divergence between what the Bible teaches and what the Roman Catholic Church practiced. Reading the writings of [John Wycliffe](John-Wycliffe.html) further influenced Jan Hus in an anti\-Catholic direction.
Bucking church directives, Jan Hus began to preach his sermons at Bethlehem Chapel in the Czech language instead of Latin. He also began teaching against [Roman Catholic](Roman-Catholicism.html) abuses at the University of Prague. These actions led to a conflict with Hus and his followers on one side and the Roman Catholic Church and [Holy Roman Empire](Holy-Roman-Empire.html) on the other. No significant consequences befell Hus, however, due to the fact that the Bohemian king supported him.
The conflict between Hus and the Roman Catholic Church greatly intensified when antipope John XXIII authorized the selling of [indulgences](plenary-indulgences.html) to raise money for a military conflict against a rival pope claimant. Hus began preaching against the papacy itself, emphasizing the authority of the Bible and the fact that Christ alone is the head of the church. Due to political pressure from Rome, the king of Bohemia could no longer protect Hus, and Hus was officially excommunicated.
In 1412, Jan Hus was commanded by Holy Roman Emperor Sigismund to come to Constance, Germany, and appear before the [Council of Constance](Council-of-Constance.html). Hus was guaranteed safe passage, but, when he arrived, he was arrested and imprisoned. A mock trial occurred, and, when Hus refused to recant his teachings, he was burned at the stake as a heretic. It is said that his last words were, “Lord Jesus, I endure this cruel death for you. I ask you to have mercy on my enemies.”
The followers of Jan Hus, known as Hussites, continued, expanded, and intensified the rebellion against the Roman Catholic Church. The popes pronounced a series of crusades against the Hussites, which became known as the Hussite Wars. Each of the four crusades between 1419 and 1434 met with defeat at the hands of the Hussites. Within 100 years, nearly 90 percent of Bohemians were Hussite Christians.
The writings of Jan Hus against the selling of indulgences influenced [Martin Luther](Martin-Luther.html) and other early Protestant Reformers. It is incorrect to refer to Jan Hus as a Protestant, however, as he held to many Roman Catholic beliefs despite his strong opposition to papal authority and the selling of indulgences. Jan Hus set a tremendous example of refusing to submit to any authority that violates the teaching of Scripture. In that example, he is to be remembered and followed.
|
What was the Kingdom of Jerusalem?
|
Answer
The Kingdom of Jerusalem was a crusader state that lasted from AD 1099 to 1291\.
In the time of Christ Jerusalem was under the control of the [Roman Empire](Roman-empire.html). This control continued until the 7th century. With the conversion of Constantine (early 4th century), Christianity became a legal religion and eventually the state religion. [Emperor Constantine](Constantine-the-Great.html) built churches and shrines in Jerusalem and Palestine to commemorate holy sites. Jerusalem became a destination for Christian pilgrimages.
In the early 7th century, the Roman Empire lost control of Jerusalem. The city passed to Persian and then Arab\-Muslim control. Islam also considered Jerusalem to be a holy site and built shrines and mosques there to commemorate events in their history. The [Dome of the Rock](Dome-of-the-Rock.html) is the most noteworthy shrine, built directly on the temple mount. Under Arab rule, Jerusalem prospered, and tolerance was extended to Christians at first. However, this tolerance began to wane over time.
In the early 11th century, a ruler of the Fatimid Dynasty ordered the destruction of all churches in Jerusalem. This outraged Christians throughout Europe and led to the First Crusade (1095–1099\), ordered by Roman Catholic Pope Urban II. A [crusade](Christian-crusades.html) was a military expedition with spiritual significance. The First Crusade started as an expedition to help the Byzantine Emperor repel the Turkish Muslim invaders, but soon the focus became the recapture and liberation of Jerusalem. In 1099, the Crusader army laid siege to and captured Jerusalem, slaughtering many of the Muslim and Jewish inhabitants.
The captured territory was organized into crusader states—small territories or outposts governed by Western Europeans. The Kingdom of Jerusalem was one of these crusader states. Christian settlers immigrated to repopulate and rebuild Jerusalem, and Christian pilgrimages to Jerusalem resumed. This arrangement lasted until 1187 when the city and several other crusader states were captured by the Kurdish Muslim Saladin; fortunately, his official policy was one of tolerance to all religions. Although Jerusalem itself was in Muslim hands, the Kingdom of Jerusalem still existed as the small city of Acre on the coast.
This Muslim domination led to the Third Crusade, which was an attempt to drive Muslims from the Holy Land and reassert Christian/European control. The Crusaders were unable to recapture the city but negotiated a treaty with Saladin to allow pilgrimages. Fighting between various Muslim groups was common, and the city changed hands numerous times. Although the city did pass into Christian hands briefly about 50 years later, Acre was the last remaining vestige of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. It fell to the Muslims in 1291\.
Jerusalem and Palestine remained in Muslim control until the 20th century when the United Nations partitioned Palestine, creating a Jewish state—modern Israel—after World War II.
|
What is the concept of a secret rapture?
|
Answer
The secret rapture—usually just called the [rapture of the church](rapture-of-the-church.html)—is the idea that Christ will come to take believers out of the world before His return with them at the second coming. The secret rapture is “secret” in that no one will see Jesus coming except believers; this is in contrast to the second coming of Christ after the tribulation, when “every eye will see him” (Revelation 1:7\). There is considerable disagreement among Christians regarding the timing of the secret rapture. Some believe in the [pre\-tribulation rapture](pretribulationism.html), which occurs before the beginning of the [seven\-year tribulation](tribulation.html). Others hold to a [mid\-tribulation rapture](midtribulationism.html), and still others to a [post\-tribulation](posttribulationism.html) timing.
*Secret rapture* is a term frequently used as a pejorative by those who deny the idea that the rapture of the church is separate from the second coming of Christ. Those who believe the rapture and the second coming are one and the same event often use the term *secret rapture* in derision and refer to those who believe in the rapture as “rapturists.”
“One\-coming believers” who deny the rapture put themselves in conflict with the Bible and biblical scholarship, as well as the majority of the [evangelical world](evangelicalism.html). Among the arguments they pose are that the word *rapture* doesn’t appear in the Bible. While it is true that the English word *rapture* doesn’t appear, the concept of the rapture of the church is certainly present.
First Thessalonians 4:16–17 (the definitive passage on the rapture of the church) says that the Lord will descend from heaven and the dead in Christ will rise first; then we who are alive and remain will be “caught up.” The word *rapture* is derived from *rapio* (“to catch up or snatch away”), a form of which is found in the Latin Vulgate Bible. To say the rapture won’t happen because the word isn’t found in Scripture is a specious argument. The phrase [*second coming*](second-coming-Jesus-Christ.html) isn’t found in the Bible, either, but the reality of it certainly is.
Whatever we believe about the existence and/or timing of the rapture, there are two realities all Christians must keep in mind. First, no difference of opinion among Christians justifies unkindness or hostility toward those who hold different views. Jesus commands us to love one another, just as He loved us. He also said that by our love for one another all people would know that we are His disciples (John 13:34–35\). Wrangling and name\-calling over issues such as the timing of the rapture does not exhibit Christ’s love.
Second, the most important aspect of eschatology is not a secret rapture but the absolute certainty of the return of Jesus Christ to the world in the last days (Acts 1:11; Revelation 19:11–16\). The timing of that event doesn’t alter the fact that those who belong to Him will enjoy eternal life and those who do not will experience everlasting condemnation (John 3:18\). Faith in Christ as the only Savior from sin will distinguish the saved from the unsaved, regardless of our views on the rapture.
|
Who was Gregory the Great?
|
Answer
Gregorius Anicius, the man who would eventually become known as Gregory the Great, lived from AD 540 to 604\. He served as the bishop of Rome from 590 to 604\. In the [Roman Catholic Church](Roman-Catholicism.html), he is known as Pope Gregory I. In the [Orthodox Church](Eastern-Orthodox-church.html), he is known as Saint Gregory the Dialogist. In the writings of [John Calvin](John-Calvin.html), he is said to have been the “last good pope.”
Before he became the bishop of Rome, Gregory was a key administrator of the city of Rome. Gregory eventually retired from politics and became a monk, dedicating his life to solitude, contemplation, prayer, and studying the Bible. He was called out of [monasticism](Christian-asceticism-monasticism.html) by Pope Benedict and sent to Constantinople to be the pope’s representative before the Byzantine emperor. Later, Gregory returned to Rome and became a close adviser to Pope Pelagius. When Pelagius died, Gregory was appointed to the papacy and accepted the role reluctantly.
Gregory was given the title “the Great” for many reasons. By that time, the popes had become the political leaders of the city of Rome. Gregory successfully navigated the city of Rome through famines and plagues, devoted significant resources to helping the poor, and negotiated peace with the invading Lombards. Gregory was a prolific writer, most known for the works *Pastoral Care*, *Homilies*, and *Dialogues*. He was passionate about missions, being the first pope to send a significant missionary outreach outside of Italy, to Britain, in 596\. While the claim is questionable, it is said that Gregory was the originator of the Gregorian chant.
Alongside [Jerome](Saint-Jerome.html), [Ambrose](Ambrose-of-Milan.html), and [Augustine](Saint-Augustine.html), Gregory is considered one of the four great [doctors](doctors-of-the-church.html) of the Roman Catholic Church. Gregory the Great was the first pope to use the description *Servus Servorum Dei* (“servant of the servants of God”), and, for the most part, that is how he lived and ruled. However, he was a pope, and he vigorously argued for Roman supremacy/primacy. He significantly increased the influence of Rome over the rest of Christendom, something that had disastrous consequences in the medieval era. Sadly, the vast majority of popes who succeeded Gregory have been decidedly not great.
|
Who were the 70 (or 72) disciples in Luke 10?
|
Answer
Luke 10 is the only place where we find the account of Jesus sending a specific 70 (or 72\) disciples to prepare the way before Him. The discrepancies in the number (70 or 72\) come from differences found in approximately half of the ancient scrolls used in translation. The texts are nearly evenly divided between the numbers, and scholars do not agree on whether the number should be 70 or 72, although such a minor issue is no cause for debate. Since the number *70* is repeated other places in Scripture (Exodus 24:1; Numbers 11:16; Jeremiah 29:10\), it may be more likely that the actual number of disciples was 70, with the *2* being a copyist’s error. Whether there were 70 or 72 disciples sent out by Jesus is irrelevant. What is important are the instructions Jesus gave them and the power that came upon them to perform miracles and cast out demons (Luke 10:17\).
After appointing the 70 (or 72\) disciples, Jesus spoke of the great need for evangelism (Luke 10:1–2\). He then commissioned the 70, giving them these instructions:
1\) Go (Luke 10:3\). This is foundational. The 70 were to divide into pairs and visit all the places where Jesus was about to go.
2\) Be wary (Luke 10:3\). The 70 were like lambs among wolves, surrounded by danger.
3\) Live by faith (Luke 10:4\). The 70 were to carry no extra provisions. They carried the message of Jesus and didn’t need to be burdened down with material things.
4\) Be focused (Luke 10:4\). The 70 were to greet no one along the road and not allow themselves to be sidetracked from the more important mission of evangelism.
5\) Extend your blessing (Luke 10:5–6\). Whoever housed the 70 were to be blessed, using the common greeting of the day, “Peace to this house.”
6\) Be content (Luke 10:7\). The 70 were told not to seek better accommodations; they were to stay in the home that first received them.
7\) Receive your due (Luke 10:7\). The laborer is worthy of his wages (cf. 1 Timothy 5:17–18\). Doing evangelistic work is indeed work and is worthy of compensation.
8\) Be flexible (Luke 10:7–8\). The 70 were to eat whatever their hosts served; as God’s servants, they were not to be finicky.
9\) Heal the sick (Luke 10:9\). Jesus gave the 70 disciples specific authority to heal diseases and illness. It was as if the Great Physician had 70 interns making house calls. When the 70 returned to Jesus, they jubilantly recounted how they were able not only to heal diseases but to cast out demons as well (verse 17\).
10\) Proclaim the kingdom (Luke 10:9\). The message of the 70 disciples was simple: “The kingdom of God has come near to you.” This was a clear\-cut call to faith in the King who would soon visit each village.
Jesus then told the 70 (or 72\) disciples that they might expect rejection in some villages (Luke 10:10\), and He told them how to respond: publicly wipe the dust of that town from their feet (Luke 10:11; cf. 9:5\), proclaim the kingdom one more time, and warn them of coming judgment (Luke 10:12\).
A similar commissioning had occurred with Jesus’ twelve apostles as the Lord sent them out to cure diseases and cast out demons (Matthew 10:1–42; Luke 9:1–6\). The main difference is that Jesus had told [the Twelve](twelve-apostles-disciples-12.html) that they were to preach in Galilee, avoiding Gentile areas and Samaria, but the 70 (or 72\) were given no such restriction.
The identities of the 70 disciples are never given in Scripture, and the group is never mentioned again, even during the time of the early church in Acts. It seems their ministry was specific to preparing Jesus’ path to Jerusalem. Various individuals have been suggested as possibly being part of the 70—the unnamed exorcist in Luke 9:49, for example. Two of them may have been Barsabbas (known as Justus) and Matthias (Acts 1:23\), since they were chosen by the apostles as possible replacements for Judas (Acts 1:15–18\). One of the requirements for apostleship was that the candidate had to “have been with us 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. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection” (Acts 1:21–22\). We can also speculate that the 70 were part of the 120 gathered in the upper room on [Pentecost](day-Pentecost.html) when the Holy Spirit was first poured out (Acts 1:15\).
Since God did not consider it important for us to know the names of the 70 (or 72\) disciples He charged with the important task of preparing the way for Jesus, we don’t need to consider it important, either. What Jesus called attention to was not the power He gave them but the fact that their names were written in heaven (Luke 10:20\). Similarly, while we may get excited about visible miracles and demonstrations of supernatural power, the greatest miracle of all is the fact that unworthy sinners can become righteous children of God (Romans 5:8; 2 Corinthians 5:21; John 1:12\). When our focus moves to ourselves and how God is using us, we are headed in the wrong direction. It is a good reminder that, since their names are unimportant, ours are, too. It is the name of Jesus Christ alone who deserves all attention and glory (1 Corinthians 1:28–29; Philippians 2:9–11\). It is enough that our names are written in the Lamb’s book of life.
|
What is entire sanctification?
|
Answer
Entire sanctification, also known as Christian perfectionism or sometimes [sinless perfection](sinless-perfection.html), is the teaching that a Christian can reach such a state of holiness that he or she ceases to sin *in this life*.
The words [*sanctification*](sanctification.html), *sanctify*, *saint*, *holy*, and *consecrate* all come from the same root and all have to do with being “set apart.” God is holy in that He is set apart from every other thing and especially set apart from any sin. When applied to creatures, sanctification has two senses. The first refers to the formal declaration that something has been set apart for God. For instance, the various pieces of equipment used in the tabernacle and temple were consecrated—set apart for specific use by God. Likewise, the priests were consecrated for service to God. When people come to faith in Christ, they are sanctified—they are formally designated as belonging to God. They are a holy people (1 Peter 2:9\). Even the Corinthian church, which had members participating in all sorts of ungodly behavior, could be referred to as a group of “saints” (1 Corinthians 1:2\) because they were children of God through faith in Christ. This is often called “[positional sanctification](positional-sanctification.html).”
There is a second sense in which sanctification applies to believers. When they initially come to faith and are set apart for God, their actions may not be much different from their actions before. They have been formally (positionally) sanctified, but now they need to be *practically* sanctified—that is, they need to start living in a way that is set apart to God; they need to practice holiness. As believers grow in their relationship with the Lord, their behavior should change to be more conformed to what God desires—they will become more and more sanctified. This is often called “[progressive sanctification](progressive-sanctification.html).”
Using these two senses of the word *sanctified*, it is fitting to say that all believers are [sanctified](sanctified.html), but they also need to increasingly be more sanctified. They are holy, but they need to increase in holiness. They are saints, but they need to live like saints. The question regarding entire sanctification is, can any believer become fully sanctified in the practical sense? Can a believer reach a point in this life where he is so in fellowship with God and so in tune with the Holy Spirit that he no longer commits sin?
Those who hold to the doctrine of entire sanctification believe that it is indeed possible for Christians to be so sanctified in their behavior that they no longer sin. According to the concept of entire sanctification, it is possible not to sin, and some believers actually fulfill this possibility in their daily lives. Entire sanctification is then presented as an ideal that is attainable for any believer. The command to “be holy” in Matthew 5:48 is just one verse that is used as proof of this possibility. Why would God command us to do something that is impossible for us to do? Perhaps 1 John 3:6 is the most powerful proof\-text: “No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has seen Him or knows Him.”
Those who deny the possibility of entire sanctification agree that holiness is the goal and should be the desire of every believer, but that it simply cannot be attained here on earth—sin is simply too pervasive. Interpreting 1 John 3:6, they would point out that the verb *sins* is in the present tense and indicates an ongoing, habitual pattern of unrepentant sin. They would also point out that the epistle of 1 John also speaks of Jesus being the Advocate for sinning believers and that, if we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves (1 John 2:1; 1:8\).
In the final analysis, there is nothing in Scripture that teaches that believers will become perfect in this life. Entire sanctification will take place when we reach heaven, but not until. The expectation is that believers on earth will continue to sin and need to be cleansed (1 John 1:9\). It is realistic to expect that Christians will not live in conscious sinful rebellion against God, but sin is too pervasive to ever escape its contaminations in this life. The goal is that, even though sin is present, it should not dominate us. “Count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. Do not offer any part of yourself to sin as an instrument of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer every part of yourself to him as an instrument of righteousness. For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace” (Romans 6:11–14\). At any given moment, a believer may be cooperating with the Holy Spirit’s leading rather than actively rebelling against it, but, even in our best moments, we have not reached sinless perfection.
The commands of God and the demands of Scripture upon our lives are encompassing; it strains credulity for any believer to claim that he is living in perfect obedience to all that God has said. Jesus said that the greatest commandment is “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind” (Matthew 22:37\) and that the second is similar: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22:38\). It is one thing for a believer to say that there is no known area of rebellion against God in his or her life, but it is quite another to say that he or she loves God wholly and perfectly. It is one thing to say that a believer does not harbor any hatred for his neighbor, but quite another to assert that the believer loves his neighbors the way he loves himself. First Thessalonians 5:17 commands believers to “pray without ceasing.” A believer may have a robust prayer life, but can any believer in all honesty claim to fully obey this command? Most believers find that, when they are convicted of one area of sin and repent of it, they will then become aware of another area that they may not have been aware of before. If a Christian has come to the place where he simply cannot identify any areas of sinfulness in his own life, he should not assume he has attained entire sanctification. Rather, he would be well advised to ask his spouse or other close friends or relatives for their perspective. He might be surprised at how blinded he has become to areas of sinfulness in his own life that are readily evident to others.
|
Are there beheadings recorded in the Bible?
|
Answer
There are many beheadings recorded in the Bible. Beheading was a common manner of execution in ancient cultures. Beheading one’s enemy was a way to announce a complete victory over him. Displaying the severed head of an enemy left no doubt in anyone’s mind that this enemy was no longer a threat.
In the New Testament, the most prominent account of a beheading is that of John the Baptist by order of the tetrarch Herod Antipas (Matthew 14:10\). John had publicly rebuked Herod for his immorality (Herod had taken his brother’s wife, [Herodias](Herodias-in-the-Bible.html)—who also happened to be Herod’s step\-niece). John’s rebuke so enraged Herodias that she tricked her husband into giving her the head of [John the Baptist](life-John-Baptist.html) on a platter (Matthew 14:8\). Although Herod did not want John killed, Herodias elicited the promise in front of Herod’s guests, so he did as she asked so as not to lose face (Mark 6:17–29\). A few years later, James the brother of John was beheaded by [Herod Agrippa I](Herod-Agrippa-I.html) in an effort to curb the explosive growth of Christianity (Acts 12:2\).
The most famous Old Testament beheading is found in 1 Samuel 17 when [David defeated Goliath](David-and-Goliath.html). As the giant Goliath threatened the Israelite army day after day, young David came against him with a slingshot and the power of the Lord (1 Samuel 17:45\). The first stone connected with Goliath’s head, and the giant fell. David then ran to him, drew out the giant’s own sword, and cut off his head (verse 51\).
At another time, however, King David was grieved when his men thought they were pleasing him by killing and beheading [Ish\-bosheth](David-and-Ish-bosheth.html), one of King Saul’s remaining sons (2 Samuel 4:7–8\). The assassins brought the head of Ish\-bosheth to David, expecting a reward. Instead of commending them, David was outraged that they had killed an innocent man in his own house. Rather than display Ish\-bosheth’s head and reward his killers, David buried the head and had the men executed. David did not behead them but had their hands and feet cut off and displayed as a warning to anyone who would murder innocent men for political gain (2 Samuel 4:12\).
Second Kings 10 tells us of a mass beheading that took place when God removed wicked King Ahab from the throne and instructed that all his sons and followers also be executed. God, through the [prophet Elisha](life-Elisha.html), anointed Jehu as the next king and commanded him to rid Israel of all remnants of Ahab’s evil reign, including all worshipers of Baal (2 Kings 9:1–10\). [Jehu obeyed](Jehu-Baal-worship.html); he first slaughtered the king’s seventy sons, beheading them and piling their heads at the city gate of Samaria (2 Kings 10:7–8\). Jehu then called a fake festival for all Baal worshipers in the land in order to gather them in one place (verses 18–19\). When the idolaters had all arrived and packed the building, Jehu ordered his men to kill them all with the “edge of the sword,” which may or may not imply beheading (verse 25\).
Other beheadings in the Bible include the Egyptian baker, beheaded by Pharaoh (Genesis 40:20\); [King Saul](life-Saul.html), beheaded by the Philistines (1 Samuel 31:8–10\); and Sheba, beheaded by the people of Abel Beth Maakah (2 Samuel 20:21–22\). Abishai threatens to behead [Shimei](Shimei-in-the-Bible.html), but David forbids him (2 Samuel 16:9–10\). Ashpenaz, the chief Babylonian court official, fears beheading by [King Nebuchadnezzar](Nebuchadnezzar.html) (Daniel 1:10\). Of special interest is the “beheading” of the Philistine god Dagon. The Philistines had stolen the [Ark of the Covenant](ark-of-the-covenant.html) and placed it in their temple of Dagon, “but the following morning when they rose, there was Dagon, fallen on his face on the ground before the ark of the Lord! His head and hands had been broken off and were lying on the threshold; only his body remained” (1 Samuel 5:4\). The Lord God of Israel, in cutting off Dagon’s head, plainly showed His victory over all false gods.
Beheadings are nothing new, and, according to Revelation 20:4, beheadings will continue and increase until Jesus comes again. The martyrs of the end times’ tribulation will be beheaded because they refuse to take the mark of the beast or deny Jesus as Lord. We see this type of [martyrdom](Christian-martyrs.html) already occurring around the world with the proliferation of evil religious zeal that sets itself against the truth. As it was in Bible times, beheading is often used as a means to terrorize potential enemies and silence opposition. But truth will not be silenced (Luke 19:40\). We must remember that, even when our enemies flaunt their evil and brandish the heads of martyrs, Jesus told us not to fear, for He has “overcome the world” (John 16:33\).
|
Who was Damaris in the Bible?
|
Answer
A woman named Damaris is mentioned only once in the Bible, and we know hardly anything about her. Damaris, whose name means “calf” or “heifer,” was likely a prominent woman in Athens, Greece, in the first century. She is one of a small group of people who responded in faith to the gospel.
Luke, the author of the book of Acts, records that Paul was in Athens, daily preaching the gospel in the public square (Acts 17:16\) as he awaited the arrival of Silas and Timothy (verse 15\). Some Greek philosophers heard what they considered Paul’s “strange ideas” and brought him to [Mars Hill](Mars-Hill.html), an important meeting place in the city (verses 19–20\). Addressing his audience of Athenian thinkers, Paul appealed to their obvious religious interest by remarking upon their numerous idolatrous shrines. He especially called their attention to an altar dedicated to an “unknown God” (verse 23\) and proclaimed Jesus Christ as the God they were missing. When Paul proclaimed Jesus’ resurrection from the dead, however, many of the philosophers became dismissive of him (verse 32\), and his sermon was cut short.
Acts 17:34 says, “Some of the people became followers of Paul and believed. Among them was Dionysius, a member of the Areopagus, also a woman named Damaris, and a number of others.” We are not told whether Damaris was present on Mars Hill or if she heard Paul elsewhere in Athens. What we are told is that God worked a miracle in her heart, and she responded in faith to Paul’s gospel message. The fact that Damaris is mentioned by name may indicate that she was prominent in Athens or that she was somehow known to Luke’s original readers in the early church. Some commentators assert that Damaris was the wife of Dionysius, mentioned in the same verse, but that is pure conjecture.
It seems that the church at Athens never flourished as did many of the churches Paul planted. He wrote epistles to Corinth and Thessalonica and other cities with churches, but he never wrote an epistle to the Athenians. Also, Paul only visited Athens once, on his second [missionary journey](missionary-journeys-Paul.html), and never again, as far as we know. Athens was not fertile ground for the spread of the gospel, and very few Athenians believed. Damaris was one of the few. The mention of Damaris by name may have been a way of honoring one of the small group of Athenian believers. Whatever reason Luke had for recording Damaris’s name is lost to us today but was most likely significant to the first readers of his account.
|
Is the Catholic Church a separate religion or a division of Christianity?
|
Answer
The [Roman Catholic Church](Roman-Catholicism.html) considers itself the only “true” church and traces its beginnings to Jesus and the apostles. It maintains that all other denominations or branches of Christianity are aberrant and have fallen away from the true teachings of the “[mother church](mother-church.html)” and therefore from Christianity. But is this true? Our website contains many articles related to Catholicism, its [origins](origin-Catholic-church.html), and [practices](seven-Catholic-sacraments.html). So this article will deal specifically with whether or not the Catholic Church is, in fact, Christian or a separate religion altogether.
Christianity, considered as a major world religion, has [several branches](branches-of-Christianity.html): Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Protestantism. Defined this way, Catholicism is one division of Christianity. But true biblical Christianity is not a religion in the sense that one “joins” it by becoming a member of an organization. Jesus simplified what it means to be a Christian when He told Nicodemus that one must be “born again” (John 3:3\). That new birth is an individual experience between God and a repentant heart and is not dependent in any way upon a priest’s blessing, baptism, or any other outward action we take. Ephesians 2:8–9 is clear that salvation is by grace through faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ as full payment for our sin. When we enter into that saving relationship with God, we become “new creatures” (2 Corinthians 5:17\). Our new nature is not a slave to sin as we once were (John 8:34; Romans 6:16\). This new nature produces righteous living, not in order to become saved, but because we have been saved (1 John 3:7–10\).
In the Catholic Church, many [extra\-biblical practices](Catholic-Biblical.html) have been added that create a different religion out of Christianity. While those who consider themselves Catholic can also be truly born again, one does not inherit eternal life by being a good Catholic (Titus 3:5–7\). One can be a Christian *in spite of* being Catholic, just as one can be a Christian *in spite of* church attendance of any kind. However, Catholic teaching has gone far awry from strict adherence to the Bible, adding human ideas and “teaching as doctrines the commandments of men” (Mark 7:7\). The Pharisees of Jesus’ day had done the same thing with God’s Law, and it appears that Catholic tradition follows more closely in the footsteps of the Pharisees than those of the apostles.
One of the most blatant examples of the Catholic Church becoming a separate religion is in their extreme overemphasis on the importance of Mary, practically treating her a fourth member of the Trinity. Scripture tells us very little about the woman chosen to bear the Son of God (see Luke 1: 26–56; 2:16–52\), yet Catholic doctrine has recreated Mary and given her an exalted place that the Bible never implies. Pope Leo XIII wrote, “By the will of God, Mary is the intermediary through whom is distributed unto us this immense treasure of mercies gathered by God, for mercy and truth were created by Jesus Christ. Thus as no man goeth to the Father but by the Son, so no man goeth to Christ but by His Mother” (Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII, On the Rosary, *Octobri mense*, September 22, 1891\).
Jesus never said any such thing about coming to Him through Mary. Instead, Jesus said, “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest” (Matthew 11:28\). Jesus declared that no one comes to the heavenly Father except through Him (John 14:6\). Every bit of Jesus’ communication was related to His oneness with the heavenly Father, not His earthly mother (Matthew 11:27; Luke 10:22; John 7:28–29\). His only references to His mother actually relegated her to the level of everyone else (Mark 3:32–34\) and also assured that she would be taken care of after His ascension to His Father (John 19:27\). That’s it. Nothing about venerating Mary or praying through her. If Pope Leo’s words were accurate, wouldn’t Jesus have told us so?
Pope John Paul II added to the heretical [deification of Mary](worship-saints-Mary.html). Quoting Pope Pius XII, he said, “Preserved free from all guilt of original sin, the Immaculate Virgin was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory upon the completion of her earthly sojourn. She was exalted by the Lord as Queen of the Universe” (Encyclical of Pope John Paul II, On the Blessed Virgin Mary in the Life of the Pilgrim Church, *Redemptoris Mater*, March 25, 1987; cf. Pope Pius XII, Apostolic Constitution *Munificentissimus Deus*, November 1, 1950\). The Bible does, in fact, refer to the “queen of the heavens,” but it is in rebuke of the idolatrous Israelites for offering sacrifices to other gods (Jeremiah 7:18\). The teaching that Mary is the Queen of the Universe is idolatry, although the Roman Catholic Church does not want to see it that way. At the very least, the statement of Pope Pius and Pope John Paul is complete fabrication and a departure from true biblical Christianity.
Another strong departure from orthodox Christianity is the Catholic insistence that an earthly priest is necessary as an intermediary between us and God. According to the *The Canons and Decrees of the [Council of Trent](Council-of-Trent.html): Canons Concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of Penance*, “If anyone denies that sacramental confession was instituted by divine law or is necessary to salvation; or says that the manner of confessing secretly to a priest alone . . . is at variance with the institution and command of Christ and is a human contrivance, let him be anathema” (Canon VI). The official Catholic teaching, then, is that people who do not confess their sins to a human priest cannot be saved and are, in fact, cursed for eternity. This doctrine contradicts 1 Timothy 2:5, which could not be clearer in renouncing the Catholic doctrines of Mary and the priesthood: “There is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus.”
While there are sincere Catholics who love the Lord and do not worship Mary or the pope, the doctrines themselves suggest a separate, works\-based religion rather than a simple denomination within Christianity. This departure from truth is nothing new. When Paul and Barnabas were in Antioch, “certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: ‘Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved’” (Acts 15:1\). These false teachers had mixed grace with works and were creating an aberrant faith that was leading many astray. The Catholic Church has done the same by creating a religion filled with laws, sacraments, and the undue adulation of other human beings—things God never sanctioned. None of us have the right to add to or take away from the revealed Word of God or the sacrifice of Christ Jesus on our behalf, and to do so creates a false religion.
|
Can angels die?
|
Answer
We have many more questions about angels and [demons](do-demons-exist.html) than we have answers. Many times we have to make guesses and assumptions based on a few biblical facts. Frank Peretti’s popular novel *This Present Darkness* had angelic beings crossing swords and demons disappearing in puffs of red smoke when they were slashed in two. It made for a fun read, but there was more imagination than biblical precision in Peretti’s pages.
Angels are essentially [spiritual beings](spiritual-beings.html) without bodies. Hebrews 1:14 calls them ministering spirits. When they appear to people, they normally are seen with bodies. Sometimes they appear as ordinary men (Hebrews 13:2\) or incredibly glorious men (Daniel 10:16\) and sometimes as fantastic creatures (Isaiah 6:2; Ezekiel 1:4–14\). However, since angels do not have bodies, these forms are only manifestations in material/visible form. They do not represent what the angel actually “looks like” because a spirit is essentially invisible, at least to the physical eye. Angels sometimes appear with [wings](angels-wings.html) in Scripture and are often depicted with wings in art, but physical wings are used to move physical bodies through physical air, and again, angels are spirit beings.
Since angels do not have physical bodies, they cannot be hurt in the sense of suffering physical harm in the same way a human being with a body could be hurt. Likewise, angels cannot die in that sense, either. Physical death is something that humans experience when their bodies cease working and their spirits depart from their bodies. Since angels do not have physical bodies, they cannot experience physical death.
It is possible that angels do encounter some perils in the spiritual world, perils that are beyond our normal experience or comprehension. An angel was sent with an answer to Daniel’s prayer but was detained by “the Prince of Persia” (a [fallen angel/demon](fallen-angels.html)) and prevented from coming to Daniel for 21 days (Daniel 10:12–13\). How was the angel detained? We are not told. Even though they are spirits, angels are not omnipresent, so they do have some kind of localized existence that apparently can be contained. When angels “fight” with demons, do they get injured by each other? Perhaps, but we are simply not told what this type of fighting entails. When we are in battle with spiritual forces, we do not use physical weapons but the armor of God detailed in Ephesians 6:10–18\.
If demons are fallen angels, then we know that angels can suffer. When Jesus cast demons out, they sometimes feared that Jesus was going to torture or torment them (see Matthew 8:29; Luke 8:28\). Legion begged Jesus not to send them into the [Abyss](what-is-the-abyss.html), a holding place for fallen angels/demons (Luke 8:21\). If they feared going there, they must be able to suffer in some way. At the final judgment, all of the fallen angels will be cast into the [lake of fire](lake-of-fire.html) (Matthew 25:41\), which is the “second death” (Revelation 20:14\). There, fallen angels will experience spiritual death, which is defined as separation from God. How can a spiritual being be tormented by flames of fire? We don’t know. As spiritual beings who were meant to enjoy fellowship with God, isolation from God will result in the worst kind of torture.
As mentioned at the beginning of this article, we have many more questions than answers. As beings bound by time and space, we have difficulty imagining the experience of spiritual beings.
|
Should Bible translations use gender-inclusive language?
|
Answer
In the last century, more [English Bible translations](Bible-versions.html) were introduced than at any other time in history. Some of those Bible translations have strived for gender\-inclusive language that changes the original meaning of God’s [inspired](Bible-inspired.html) Word (see 2 Peter 1:21; 2 Timothy 3:16\). Making a document “gender\-inclusive” can be as simple as changing a few references to “every man” to the more neutral “everyone.” But gender inclusivity can also involve the blurring of gender lines that were never intended to be blurred. Not all languages have such difficulties, but English has no gender\-neutral singular pronoun that means both “he” and “she,” so translators have usually defaulted to the “generic masculine,” using the pronoun *he* or *him*, even when the context applies to everyone. In recent years, some have objected to the use of the generic masculine, declaring it gender discrimination.
New archaeological finds and the discoveries of earlier manuscripts have given Bible translators better tools and broader understanding with which to determine elusive meanings of terms no longer in active use. However, accuracy is not always the motivator in creating a new translation of the Bible. Some cults, such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses, have created their own versions of the Bible to support their agenda and ideas. The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World Translation omits words and adds others in ways that twist passages just enough to change their meaning. This type of Bible translation is not a translation at all but a perversion of God’s holy Word. God has harsh words for people who say, “Thus says the Lord,” when He did not say that (Deuteronomy 4:2;18:20; Jeremiah 23:16; Ezekiel 13:1–7\).
Likewise, political correctness and gender inclusion have invaded the world of Bible translation and often pervert God’s intended message. But gender\-inclusive language is not always wrong. When the intent of the translation team is to retain the original meaning as much as possible, it is right to use words such as *everyone* instead of the outdated *every man*, because the meaning does not change. For example, Colossians 1:28 in the New American Standard Bible says this: “We proclaim Him, admonishing every man and teaching **every man** with all wisdom, so that we may present **every man** complete in Christ” (emphases added). Paul is clearly speaking about “every human being,” not males only. So most modern translations word the verse this way: “He is the one we proclaim, admonishing and teaching **everyone** with all wisdom, so that we may present **everyone** fully mature in Christ” (NIV, emphases added). This gender\-inclusive language does not detract from the original message of Scripture, but rather enhances our understanding of what Paul is saying.
Another way modern translations preserve gender\-inclusive language is by using plural pronouns instead of the singular, even when the antecedent is singular. For example, Leviticus 24:15 says, “If anyone curses **his** God, then **he** will bear **his** sin” (NASB, emphases added). The masculine pronouns *he* and *his* are used in the NASB for two reasons: because they are literal translations of masculine words in the original Hebrew and because *anyone* is singular and normally takes singular pronouns (which in English are gender\-specific). The NIV gets around the gender specificity by changing the personal pronoun to its plural form: “Anyone who curses **their** God will be held responsible” (emphasis added). Again, this form of gender\-inclusive language is justified—except perhaps to grammar purists—because the meaning of the passage has not changed. The law in Leviticus did not just apply to men but to men and women.
Other instances of gender\-inclusive language involve the addition of words to ensure that women have an “equal showing.” For example, the Holman Christian Standard Bible follows the original Greek in 1 Thessalonians 4:10, “We encourage you, **brothers**.” The NIV adds a phrase not found in the original in order to be more gender\-inclusive: “We urge you, **brothers and sisters**.” Since Paul was writing to the whole church, which included men and women, adding “sisters” to “brothers” does not really change the meaning of the verse. A similar example is the changing of the masculine *sons* to the gender\-inclusive *sons and daughters* in Hebrews 2:10\.
Other examples of gender\-inclusive language are more problematic, however. If the original intent of a verse was to limit the meaning to a masculine idea, it is an error to change that perspective to suit modern sensitivities. For example, some gender\-inclusive versions replace references to God’s being a “[Father](God-male-female.html)” to us with statements that He is our “Parent.” This is wrong, as it fundamentally changes our perspective on the relationship. The masculine wording was God’s choice in explaining Himself to us, and we have no right to alter that.
When Bible translators use a formal equivalence approach, they will keep the masculine wording of the original languages. Bible translators who lean toward [dynamic equivalence](dynamic-equivalence.html) will be more likely to apply gender\-inclusive language. One goal of any good translation is to present the Scriptures as closely as possible to their original meaning. When the use of gender\-inclusive language does not in any way alter the original intent of the author, it may be acceptable. But if changes made in the name of gender\-inclusion change the intent or broaden the meaning outside the inspired boundaries, it is sin. [Political correctness](political-correctness.html) should not be allowed to tamper with the Word of God.
|
What was the Avignon Papacy / Babylonian Captivity of the Church?
|
Answer
The Avignon Papacy was the time period in which the Roman Catholic pope resided in Avignon, France, instead of in Rome, from approximately 1309 to 1377\. The Avignon Papacy is sometimes referred to as the Babylonian Captivity of the Church because it lasted nearly 70 years, which was the length of the [Babylonian captivity](Babylonian-captivity-exile.html) of the Jews in the Bible (Jeremiah 29:10\).
There was significant conflict between King Philip IV of France and Pope Boniface VIII. When the pope who succeeded Boniface VIII, Benedict XI, died after an exceedingly short reign, there was an extremely contentious [papal conclave](papal-conclave.html) that eventually decided on Clement V, from France, as the next pope. Clement decided to remain in France and established a new papal residence in Avignon, France, in 1309\. The next six popes who succeeded him, all French, kept the papal enclave in Avignon.
In 1376, Pope Gregory XI decided to move the papacy back to Rome due to the steadily increasing amount of power the French monarchy had developed over the papacy in its time in Avignon. However, when Gregory XI died, his successor, Urban VI, was rejected by much of Christendom. This resulted in a new line of popes in Avignon in opposition to the popes in Rome. In what became known as the Western Schism, some clergy supported the Avignon popes, and others supported the Roman popes.
The Western Schism gave rise to the [conciliar movement](conciliar-conciliarism.html) (conciliarism), in which ecumenical church councils claimed authority over the papacy. At the Council of Pisa in 1410, a new pope, Alexander V, was elected and ruled for ten months before being replaced by John XXIII. So, for a time, there were three claimants to the papacy: one in Rome, one in Avignon, and one in Pisa. At the [Council of Constance](Council-of-Constance.html) in 1417, John XXIII was deposed, Gregory XII of Rome was forced to resign, the Avignon popes were declared to be “antipopes,” and Pope Martin V was elected as the new pope in Rome. These decisions were accepted by the vast majority of Christendom, and so the Western Schism was ended, although there were various men claiming to be the pope in France until 1437\.
Biblically speaking, there is no office of [pope](pope-papacy.html). Jesus is the [head of the church](head-of-the-church.html), and the Holy Spirit is the “[vicar of Christ.](vicar-of-Christ.html)” The entire mess of the Avignon Papacy / Babylonian Captivity of the Church could have been avoided if the church simply followed what the Bible says about [church government](church-government.html). One man being the supreme authority over the church is definitely not what the Bible teaches.
|
Are any of the various worship styles unbiblical?
|
Answer
Before we can decide whether certain worship styles are unbiblical, we need to define *worship*. [*Worship*](true-worship.html) is usually defined as “the act of showing reverence and adoration for a deity by honoring that deity with religious rites.” But worship can go even deeper than that. *Worship* can be more accurately defined as “the art of losing oneself in the adoration of another.” By this definition, many acts of worship have nothing to do with God or even a presumed deity. People worship rock stars, athletes, and other celebrities. They lose themselves in the adoration of wealth, fame, and power. So there are many worship styles and practices that are idolatrous and therefore unbiblical.
Throughout the Bible, people express godly worship in a variety of ways, from building altars and offering [burnt sacrifices](burnt-offering.html) to praying and singing. The worship of God or gods was often equated with regular service. In fact, God used the phrase “worship and serve” when He referred to a people’s allegiance to Him or to an idol (Deuteronomy 5:9; 11:16; Jeremiah 25:6; Luke 4:8\). For the Israelites, worshiping God meant obeying His commands. True godly worship is a lifestyle connected to service, not a single act confined to a building, event, or action.
Many people today equate worship with [going to church](church-attendance.html). Corporate worship does occur when the Body of Christ gathers, but is not necessarily the case every time. We know from Acts 2:42–47 that those in the early church “devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.” So those four elements need to be present to have well\-rounded worship service. But, because tradition and cultures vary, worship services across the globe can look very different. Some practices, if not closely monitored, can take the focus off of God and onto the worship itself, making those worship styles unbiblical. Some of those practices are listed below:
1\. *Music*. Some Christians equate worship with the musical portion of the church service. While music is a vital part of expressing our hearts to God (Psalm 96:1;149:1; Exodus 15:1; Ephesians 5:19\), the music itself can become the object of our worship. When sensational music is the sum total of the worship experience, we must ask, “What exactly is being worshiped?” When musical style and performance become more important than seeking or glorifying God, music has become a negative. We are no longer worshiping God, but worshiping the experience. If the beat, lyrics, arrangement, or performer takes center stage during a time dedicated to worship, then Jesus is not the one being exalted—our soulish satisfaction has become the star.
2\. *Personal freedom*. In some churches, freedom of expression can become an unbiblical worship style. When those in attendance are more focused upon their own outward manifestations of “worship,” such as running around the room, screaming, or wild flailing of limbs, the corporate gathering has shifted from the worship of God to a contest between uninhibited attendees. Scripture never endorses chaos as part of a corporate gathering. In fact, Paul chastises the Corinthians for allowing their services to get out of control (1 Corinthians 14:26–33\). Instead, he reminds the church that everything, including personal freedom of worship, must be done “decently and in order” (1 Corinthians 14:40\).
3\. *Lack of joy*. On the opposite end of the spectrum, many churches have adopted an unbiblical worship style by creating a dull, somber atmosphere, devoid of any emotion. Many in attendance believe they have done their duty to God by enduring an hour of dry orthodoxy once a week, but where were their hearts? They may call this worship, but it is far from it. Jesus rebuked this kind of joyless legalism when He quoted the prophet Isaiah: “These people worship me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me” (Matthew 15:8; cf. Isaiah 29:13\). Going through the motions of honoring God while secretly wishing the time away is not worship at all. He takes no pleasure in our joyless offerings (2 Corinthians 9:7\).
4\. *Tradition*. Man\-made tradition has been the bane of true worship since before Jesus walked the earth. He rebuked it then, and He rebukes it now (Mark 7:7–8; Colossians 2:8\). What we sometimes call “worship” is nothing more than a feel\-good exercise filled with comfortable practices handed down to us from our parents and grandparents. Many people consider themselves part of a certain religious group simply because that is how they were raised. They never think to question the unbiblical traditions, rites, or exercises this church adheres to because the practices are so familiar. Many times these extra\-biblical practices actually contradict scriptural truths but are excused because “that’s the way we’ve always done it.”
Any worship style can be unbiblical if it is not coming from the heart. The Samaritan woman asked Jesus a technicality about worship, and His answer is one we must all follow. He said, “God is spirit, and those who worship him must [worship in spirit and truth](worship-spirit-truth.html)” (John 4:24\). When we are exalting the truth of Scripture, when we are personally losing ourselves in the [adoration](adoration-in-the-Bible.html) of God, we can engage in true worship whether in a crowded cathedral or alone in the desert. When our lives are dedicated to honoring God in all we do, we are living a lifestyle of worship.
|
What is the purpose of the Bible?
|
Answer
The Bible is great literature and the all\-time number\-one best\-seller. It contains history, entertaining stories, poetry, philosophy, and personal letters. But, more than that, the Bible is God’s Word. If we have to speak of a single purpose of the Bible, it would be to reveal God to us. There are many things that we could never know about God unless He told them to us. The Bible is God’s self\-revelation to humanity. The Bible also tells us who we are. It tells us of our sin and of God’s plan of salvation in Jesus Christ.
Second Timothy 3:15–17 may be one of the most comprehensive purpose statements found in the Bible. The apostle Paul writes to his young assistant Timothy, “From infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is [God\-breathed](Bible-inspired.html) and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” Some of the Bible is spoken directly by God Himself, and other parts are spoken by men whom He guided—but all of it is His Word, and all of it is beneficial and authoritative. Scripture shows us the way of salvation. Furthermore, it will teach us, rebuke us when we are wrong, and train us how to do right so that we may be ready to do God’s work.
Here are a few other verses from the Bible that speak of its own purpose in our lives:
Following it will keep us from sin: “How can a young person stay on the path of purity? By living according to your word” (Psalm 119:9\).
It gives us spiritual guidance: “Your word is a lamp for my feet, a light on my path” (Psalm 119:105\).
Some of the Bible was written specifically to give us an accurate account of Jesus so that we might believe on Him and have eternal life: “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” (John 20:30–31\).
It assures the believer of his salvation: “I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life” (1 John 5:13\).
David delights in the Word of God and its purpose in his life:
“The law of the Lord is perfect,
refreshing the soul.
The statutes of the Lord are trustworthy,
making wise the simple.
The precepts of the Lord are right,
giving joy to the heart.
The commands of the Lord are radiant,
giving light to the eyes.
The fear of the Lord is pure,
enduring forever.
The decrees of the Lord are firm,
and all of them are righteous.
They are more precious than gold,
than much pure gold;
they are sweeter than honey,
than honey from the honeycomb.
By them your servant is warned;
in keeping them there is great reward” (Psalm 19:7–11\).
When [Jesus was tempted](Jesus-temptations.html) by Satan to turn stones into bread, He responded, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God’” (Matthew 4:4\). Not only does Jesus profess that the Word of God is more important than physical food, but He also refutes Satan’s temptation by quoting from God’s Word. One of the Bible’s purposes, then, is to provide all\-important spiritual sustenance and help us defeat temptation.
The Bible can help us see ourselves in perspective and cut through the distractions of pop culture that would lead us away from God. “The word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double\-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart” (Hebrews 4:12\).
It is not human cleverness or will\-power that will change lives. God accomplishes His purposes when His Word (the Bible) is faithfully proclaimed. He will take care of the result:
“As the rain and the snow
come down from heaven,
and do not return to it
without watering the earth
and making it bud and flourish,
so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater,
so is my word that goes out from my mouth:
It will not return to me empty,
but will accomplish what I desire
and achieve the purpose for which I sent it” (Isaiah 55:10–11\).
The Bible is not just a list of wise sayings that can be pulled out as if from a [fortune cookie](fortune-cookies.html). Although we can benefit from all of the Bible, not all of it is written directly to us. The Bible is a unified work and must be carefully read and studied in [context](context-Bible.html).
Christians who want to please God in their lives need to have a regular spiritual diet of God’s Word. Those who are not believers but who may be interested or even skeptical should read the Bible for themselves and see what it is all about.
|
What does it mean that Jesus rose “again”?
|
Answer
In a few Bible verses, such as 2 Corinthians 5:15 and 1 Thessalonians 4:14 (depending on the translation), and many of the popular and ancient creeds, such as the [Apostles’ Creed](apostles-creed.html) and the [Nicene Creed](Nicene-creed.html), the phrase *rose again* is used in reference to Jesus’ resurrection. As a result, *rose again* has become commonly used terminology when referring to the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This can be confusing, since *again* often means “an additional time” or “once more.” Jesus “rising again” sounds like Jesus rose from the dead more than once.
While *again* can mean “an additional time” or refer to a further instance of an event, it can also mean “anew” or “afresh.” *Again* can also be defined as “in return” or “to a previous place or condition.” For example, in *The Merchant of Venice*, Portia speaks of one who “swore he would pay him again when he was able” (I:ii). In describing a business transaction, Portia uses the word *again* to mean “in return.” Similarly, when used in reference to the resurrection of Jesus, *rose again* does not mean “arose a second time.” Rather, it means Jesus rose anew. He returned to life. He came back to His previous condition. Jesus was alive before; then for a while He was dead; now He is back.
Similarly, the English word *resurrect* comes from the Latin word *resurrexit*. Notice the prefix *re\-* in both the English and Latin words. Normally, when the prefix *re\-* is attached to a word, it means the action is occurring an additional time, i.e., repeated. But, just like the word *again*, the prefix *re\-* can also mean “anew” or “back.” When we say that Jesus was “resurrected,” we do not mean that Jesus was “surrected” a second time. We mean that Jesus returned to life. He has life anew. What is being repeated is not the act of coming back to life but the state of being alive.
Saying, “Jesus rose again,” is simply a way of referring to the resurrection of Jesus. Any confusion over the word *again* should be dispelled by the knowledge that words often have multiple definitions. The key point is this: “Jesus rose again” does not mean Jesus rose from the dead more than once. Rather, it means Jesus returned to life. Jesus was, for a time, dead but now is alive again.
|
Why did Moses have to wear a veil?
|
Answer
When God began to give the Law to Israel, He did so accompanied by an overwhelming atmospheric display of thunder and lightning, smoke and fire, and the sound of a trumpet on the top of Mt. Sinai. This was to warn the people that He is holy and should not be approached. Anyone who tried to come up the mountain would be killed. (See Exodus 19 and Hebrews 12:18–19\.)
When God delivers the [Ten Commandments](Ten-Commandments.html), the people are so frightened that they are afraid to have God speak. They ask that [Moses](life-Moses.html) deliver the Law instead (Exodus 20:18–21\). So Moses approaches God and receives the Law in Exodus 21–23\. He delivers it to the people who are called to affirm their willingness to obey in chapter 24\.
In Exodus 25–31 Moses goes up to the mountain and receives the plans for the tabernacle and the tablets of stone on which God had engraved the Ten Commandments. Upon his return to the Israelite camp, Moses finds the Israelites worshiping the [golden calf](golden-calf.html) in violation of the Law they had just agreed to keep. In anger Moses smashes the stone tablets to bits and proceeds to address this sin in the camp (chapter 32\.)
After the sin had been dealt with, God invites Moses to come back up the mountain to receive the Law again, engraved on new tablets of stone. Moses goes up the mountain alone and [meets with God](did-Moses-see-God.html). There he begs for pardon for the nation. God forgives and renews the covenant with Israel and once again provides a summary form of the Law, the Ten Commandments (see Exodus 34:1–27\). Moses spends 40 days and nights with God on the mountain, and during that time he did not eat or drink (verse 28\). It seems that the glory of God sustained him.
After spending this extended amount of time with God, Moses comes down the mountain, and his face is shining with the glory of God (Exodus 34:29\). We don’t know exactly what this would have looked like, but it was frightening to his brother, [Aaron](life-Aaron.html), the high priest; and to all the rest of the people. Because everyone was afraid to come near Moses (verse 31\), he wore a veil over his face to shroud the glory (verses 33–35\). We are not told how long this lasted, but presumably the glory began to fade when Moses was no longer regularly going into the presence of God. How long Moses wore the veil is unknown, but the veil is not mentioned during the remaining years of his leadership—roughly 38 years.
The story of Moses’ veil as recorded in the Old Testament is pretty straightforward. But Paul’s mention of the veil in the New Testament has caused some to take a second look at the reason Moses chose to wear a veil. Second Corinthians 3:13 says, “We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to prevent the Israelites from seeing the end of what was passing away.” This makes it sound as if Moses put the veil over his face to prevent the Israelites from seeing that the glory was beginning to fade. If this verse is read *in isolation*, it would indeed seem to imply that Moses’ veil was designed to make people think his face was still shining, even when it wasn’t; however, such an interpretation simply highlights the danger of reading verses in isolation. When 2 Corinthians 3:13 is read in the context of Paul’s total argument, we find that it says nothing about Moses’ motive for veiling his face.
In 2 Corinthians 3, Paul is contrasting the glories of the Old and New Covenants, and he concludes that the New Covenant is far more glorious.
• The [Old Covenant](old-covenant.html) was written on tablets of stone; the [New Covenant](new-covenant.html) is written on the heart (verse 3\).
• The Old Covenant is the letter of the Law, while the New Covenant is of the Spirit. The letter kills but the Spirit gives life (verse 6\).
• The Old Covenant brings condemnation; the New Covenant brings righteousness (verse 9\).
• The Old Covenant had a glory that faded; the New Covenant has a glory that remains and in fact so far surpasses it that the Old Covenant appears to have no glory by comparison (verses 10–11\).
Second Corinthians 3:12–13 gives another contrast. Ministers of the New Covenant are unlike Moses. New Covenant ministers proclaim the *unfading* glory in a bold manner, while Moses wore a veil to shield Israel from a *fading* glory. Paul is not giving us new insight into what Moses was doing. There is no new information in 2 Corinthians 3 concerning the events in Exodus 34\. The main point is that the Old Covenant glory was temporary; the shining of Moses’ face was destined to fade, just as the Law he proclaimed. The emphasis is that the veil prevented the Israelites from seeing a temporary glory, not that they were prevented from noticing that the glory was gradually fading, much less that Moses had some personal (perhaps prideful) reason for hiding the fact that it was fading. This paraphrase may help: Unlike Moses, who wore a veil to conceal the temporary glory of the Old Covenant, we boldly proclaim the permanent glory of the New Covenant.
Paul goes on to say that, just as Moses gave Israel the Law with a veil over his face, even today, when the Law is read, a veil descends over the hearts of unbelieving Israelites. Then and now, Israel’s vision is obscured, and they are hard of heart. The “veil” prevents them from seeing the true glory of God. The veil is only taken away when they turn to Christ (2 Corinthians 3:14–16\).
Paul ends his illustration of Moses’ veil by making something of a comparison to Moses. Moses beheld the glory of God, and his face reflected God’s glory; so New Testament believers behold the glory of God and are transformed into that glory (2 Corinthians 3:18\).
Moses wore a veil for the reason stated in Exodus 34—his shining face frightened the Israelites. Paul uses that historical incident to contrast the ministries of the Old and New Covenants.
|
Who was Demetrius in the Bible?
|
Answer
There are two men named Demetrius in the Bible: 1\) a rabble\-rousing silversmith in Acts 19:23–41, and 2\) a Christian of good repute in 3 John 1:12\.
The Demetrius whom John mentions in 3 John is likely the man who delivered the epistle to [Gaius](Gaius-in-the-Bible.html), the recipient. John says that Demetrius is well\-known for his commitment to the truth and has well\-deserved praise from all who know him.
This rest of this article will concentrate on the more prominent Demetrius, found in Acts. This Demetrius was a silversmith who made his livelihood from making silver shrines of Ephesus’ famous temple of Diana ([Artemis](who-Artemis.html)). These small shrines were sold to tourists who were told they could take the shrine anywhere in the world and worship Artemis just like they would in her temple in Ephesus. These silver shrines are thought to have been a cupped enclosure with a small female figure inside.
[Paul](life-Paul.html) spent years in Ephesus (Acts 19:10\), and his ministry began impacting people for Christ. God performed extraordinary miracles through Paul (Acts 19:11\). As the gospel began changing lives, the followers of Artemis noticed.
Demetrius noticed, too. Sales of his idolatrous shrines were falling off. He became concerned that Paul’s teaching would put an end to his business. If people began worshiping the true God, they would no longer want his idols of Artemis. Demetrius gathered the tradesmen of Ephesus and said, “You know, my friends, that we receive a good income from this business \[selling Artemis shrines]. And you see and hear how this fellow Paul has convinced and led astray large numbers of people here in Ephesus and in practically the whole province of Asia. He says that gods made by human hands are no gods at all. There is danger not only that our trade will lose its good name, but also that the temple of the great goddess Artemis will be discredited; and the goddess herself, who is worshiped throughout the province of Asia and the world, will be robbed of her divine majesty” (Acts 19:25–27\). While Demetrius claimed his motivation for opposing Paul was to defend the “majesty” of Artemis, his true motivation seems to have been less altruistic. We can speculate that his real motivation was his profit margin.
Demetrius and the other craftsmen took to the streets, stirring up a crowd of Artemis\-worshipers and starting a riot. Paul’s companions [Gaius](Gaius-in-the-Bible.html) and [Aristarchus](Aristarchus-in-the-Bible.html) were captured by the crowd and taken to the theater in Ephesus (Acts 19:29\). The frenzied mob shouted chants of praise to Artemis in the theater for two hours straight (verse 34\). Finally, the city clerk gained an audience and reminded Demetrius that the proper place for him to air his grievances was in court. He then told the mob they were breaking Roman law by disturbing the peace. The rioters dispersed after that (verse 41\).
After the commotion caused by Demetrius, Paul left Ephesus for Macedonia (Acts 20:1\). The Bible does not mention Demetrius again, although the [Alexander](Alexander-the-coppersmith.html) mentioned in Acts 19:33 is thought by some to be the coppersmith Paul mentions in 2 Timothy 4:14\.
|
What does the Bible say about boredom?
|
Answer
Boredom is the emotional or physical state one experiences due to lack of mental stimulation, activities to do, or interest in one’s surroundings. Life is not an action movie, thus we all will suffer times of feeling listlessness and ennui. Proverbs 19:15 speaks of how “slothfulness” can lead to unpleasant circumstances. Experiencing boredom is not a sin, but attitudes and choices that lead to or arise from boredom may be harmful to a Christian’s faith.
Christians must strive to live with passion—not apathy—and overcome boredom with positive productivity. If we are bored because we are lazy, then there’s a problem. Proverbs 6:6–11 provides a harsh admonition against [laziness](laziness-Bible.html): “Go to the ant, you sluggard; consider its ways and be wise! It has no commander, no overseer or ruler, yet it stores its provisions in summer and gathers its food at harvest. How long will you lie there, you sluggard? When will you get up from your sleep? A little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to rest—and poverty will come on you like a bandit and scarcity like an armed man.”
Satan loves idle hands, for lassitude leads to lack of motivation, which prevents Christians from pursuing God’s will. First Timothy 5:13 speaks of how idleness may also lead to sinful activities. With no distinct aim or goal in a fallen world, entertaining depravity becomes an enticing alternative to boredom. Yet 2 Corinthians 5:17 tells us that “if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.” Christians can choose not to sin and live in a God\-honoring manner. Boredom and indifference need not direct our future.
Colossians 3:23–24 says, “Whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward. You are serving the Lord Christ.” Believers glorify God by living their lives to the fullest, exhibiting a “quiet” testimony by living as Christ would (Matthew 5:16\). The apostle Paul staved off boredom with hard work in order to help the weak and supply the needs of the ministry (Acts 20:34–35\). In Athens, when Paul had some “down time” while waiting for Timothy and Silas, he never got bored—he preached to whoever would listen (Acts 17:16–17\).
Combating boredom can be a challenge sometimes, though with a small amount of effort a list of more productive activities is likely to emerge: clean your living space, read a book, spend time with a friend or family member, memorize some Scripture, pray. If you find yourself with nothing to do, emulate Jesus’ example by exploring ways to serve others. “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45\). Even taking a coffee or tea break with a friend can be an encouraging gift of love.
Make the most of your time on earth, for life is but a vapor (James 4:14\). Redeem the time (Ephesians 5:16\). Do not allow the enemy to take a foothold through boredom. “Be alert and of sober mind. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour” (1 Peter 5:8\). We can choose to use our time wisely for God and not allow boredom or sin to stifle our ability to follow God’s will (Romans 12:2\).
|
What is the Magnificat?
|
Answer
The Magnificat is Mary’s prayer/poem/hymn of praise found in Luke 1:46–55\.
Luke 1 records many of the events preliminary to the birth of Jesus, leading up to the famous passage in Luke 2\. The Magnificat is part of this introductory section of Luke.
Luke 1:5–24 foretells the coming of [John the Baptist](life-John-Baptist.html), who is to prepare the way for the Messiah. An angel appears to the priest [Zechariah](Zechariah-in-the-Bible.html) while he is performing his duties in the temple and tells him that he will have a son whom he is to name John. This is shocking news, since Zechariah and his wife, Elizabeth, are childless. Elizabeth had been barren and is well past child\-bearing years. Elizabeth also happens to be the cousin of Mary.
In Luke 1:26–38 an angel appears to Mary and explains that, even though she is a [virgin](virgin-birth.html), she is to give birth to the Messiah. While Mary expresses great faith, no doubt she also had a lot of questions and some uncertainty, as this was something completely different from anything that had ever happened to any other human being. Perhaps she wondered how her parents and Joseph, her fiancé, would respond. (We know from Matthew 1 that this was an issue!) So, perhaps wanting to talk to someone outside of her immediate family circle, Mary decided to visit her cousin Elizabeth in the Judean hill country.
Luke 1:39–45 records the meeting of Mary and [Elizabeth](Elizabeth-in-the-Bible.html). Elizabeth, who is about 6 months pregnant at this time, is filled with the Holy Spirit and reports that, the moment she heard Mary’s voice, her unborn baby (John) leaped in her womb. Elizabeth then goes on to bless Mary.
In Luke 1:46–55 Mary responds to Elizabeth’s blessing with what is now commonly called the Magnificat. Some Bibles will label this passage the “Song of Mary,” although the Bible does not report that she sang it. (The Magnificat is poetic and is now sung at various services during the Advent/Christmas season, especially in churches with a liturgical tradition.) The first line of Mary’s response is translated variously:
• NASB: My soul exalts the Lord
• NIV: My soul glorifies the Lord
• KJV: My soul doth magnify the Lord
• ESV: My soul magnifies the Lord
The Latin translation of Mary’s response begins with the word *magnificat*, which simply means “magnify” (or “exalt,” “glorify,” etc.). The Magnificat is a poem of praise to God, praising Him for His blessing to Mary and His faithfulness to Israel. The Magnificat also highlights a series of reversals in which the proud are humbled and the humble are exalted—not the least being a poor young girl who will be the mother of the Messiah.
Here is the text of the Magnificat, as found in the English Standard Version:
My soul magnifies the Lord,
and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
for he has looked on the humble estate of his servant.
For behold, from now on all generations will call me blessed;
for he who is mighty has done great things for me,
and holy is his name.
And his mercy is for those who fear him
from generation to generation.
He has shown strength with his arm;
he has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts;
he has brought down the mighty from their thrones
and exalted those of humble estate;
he has filled the hungry with good things,
and the rich he has sent away empty.
He has helped his servant Israel,
in remembrance of his mercy,
as he spoke to our fathers,
to Abraham and to his offspring forever.
Commentators have pointed out that the Magnificat is full of quotations of and allusions to passages in the Old Testament. Many of the truths Mary expresses find a counterpart in [Hannah’s](Hannah-and-Samuel.html) prayer in 1 Samuel 2:1–10\. The Magnificat also foreshadows many themes that are addressed later in the [book of Luke](Gospel-of-Luke.html) and in the ministry of Jesus.
|
Who was King Joash in the Bible?
|
Answer
There are two kings with the name Joash (or Jehoash) in the Bible: one a king of Judah (reigned 835–796 BC) and the other a king of Israel (reigned 798–782 BC).
The story of King Joash of Judah starts with that of [King Jehu](King-Jehu.html) of Israel. Anointed king of Israel by Elisha, Jehu was tasked with destroying [King Ahab’s](King-Ahab.html) descendants and wiping out Baal worship in the land (2 Kings 9\). First Kings 21:25–26 gives the reason for the judgment: “There was never anyone like Ahab, who sold himself to do evil in the eyes of the Lord, urged on by Jezebel his wife. He behaved in the vilest manner by going after idols, like the Amorites the Lord drove out before Israel.” God had told Ahab, through Elijah, “I am going to bring disaster on you. I will wipe out your descendants and cut off from Ahab every last male in Israel—slave or free, . . . because you have aroused my anger and have caused Israel to sin” (1 Kings 21:21–22\). Ahab responded to the prophecy with mourning and in humility, so God relented, saying that He would not bring the disaster in Ahab’s time but during his son’s reign. Jehu was God’s instrument to fulfill the prophecy.
After Jehu was anointed king over Israel, he set out against Joram, a son of Ahab and the current king of Israel. [Ahaziah](King-Ahaziah.html) (different from the other son of Ahab who initially succeeded him) was king of Judah at the time and was with Joram. Judah’s Ahaziah, however, “followed the ways of the house of Ahab and did evil in the eyes of the Lord, as the house of Ahab had done, for he was related by marriage to Ahab’s family” (2 Kings 8:27\). Jehu killed both Ahaziah and Joram; executed Ahab’s wife, Jezebel; killed Ahab’s descendants; and “wiped out Baal from Israel” (2 Kings 10:28, ESV). Unfortunately, Jehu himself did not walk in the ways of God, but, since he had been faithful to God’s call to rid Israel of [Baal worship](who-Baal.html), God promised that four generations of his line would be king of Israel (2 Kings 10:30\).
King Joash of Judah first comes on the scene when [Athaliah](Athaliah-in-the-Bible.html), the mother of King Ahaziah, whom Jehu had killed, took charge of Judah. Athaliah killed all of the royal family she could find in Judah in order to secure the throne for herself. However, Athaliah missed one of her grandsons—the infant Joash. The evil queen’s sister rescued young Joash and his nurse, and the child was hidden for six years in the temple while Athaliah reigned in Judah (2 Kings 11:1–3\). In the seventh year, the priest [Jehoiada](Jehoiada-in-the-Bible.html) revealed Joash to the captains of the guards. The priest made an agreement with them to provide protection to the temple and the rightful king, and Jehoiada brought Joash out into public and anointed him as king (2 Kings 11:4–12\). The people of Judah rejoiced over Joash’s appointment. Upon hearing the noise of the ceremony, Queen Athaliah rushed to the temple, crying, "Treason! Treason!” By Jehoiada’s command, Athaliah was captured by the guards, removed from the temple, and put to death (2 Kings 11:13–16\). “Jehoiada then made a covenant between the Lord and the king and people that they would be the Lord’s people. He also made a covenant between the king and the people” (2 Kings 11:17\). The people tore down the temple of Baal, [watchmen](watchmen-in-the-Bible.html) were set over the Lord’s temple, and, at the age of seven, Joash took the throne (2 Kings 11:18–21\).
Second Kings 12:1–3 says that Joash “reigned in Jerusalem forty years. . . . Joash did what was right in the eyes of the Lord all the years Jehoiada the priest instructed him.” Second Kings 12 goes on to describe various financial dealings of Joash. King Joash’s main achievement was making repairs to the temple (2 Kings 12:4–16\). He also used a monetary gift to dissuade King Hazael of Aram (Syria) from attacking Jerusalem (2 Kings 12:17–18\).
The tragedy of King Joash of Judah is that, after his mentor and guardian, Jehoiada, died, he began listening to wicked advisers. Joash revived Baal and [Asherah worship](Asherah-pole.html) in Judah (2 Chronicles 24:17–19\). God sent prophets to warn Joash, but he did not listen to them. Finally, the prophet Zechariah, son of the priest Jehoiada, brought God’s word to Joash, but the king callously ordered the son of his old friend to be stoned to death (verses 19–22\). Joash’s reign did not end peacefully: “His officials conspired against him and assassinated him at Beth Millo, on the road down to Silla” (2 Kings 12:20\). Joash’s son [Amaziah](King-Amaziah.html) took over the throne, and Amaziah “did what was right in the eyes of the Lord,” but, the Bible notes, he was more like his father Joash than his ancestor David (2 Kings 14:3–4\). Interestingly, Amaziah interacted with the other King Joash in the Bible.
King Joash of Israel began his reign in the thirty\-seventh year of the reign of King Joash of Judah, so there was some overlap. King Amaziah started ruling Judah in the second year of King Joash of Israel. Amaziah of Judah battled against the Edomites and then challenged Joash of Israel to battle (2 Kings 14:7–8\). Joash refused, essentially telling Amaziah he was needlessly stirring up trouble (2 Kings 14:9–10\). Amaziah did not heed the warning, and Joash of Israel defeated Judah in battle. Second Chronicles 25:20 says that Judah’s defeat was “because they sought the gods of Edom.”
Second Kings records another of Joash of Israel’s military victories. When Joash’s father, [Jehoahaz](King-Jehoahaz.html), was reigning, King Hazael of Aram (the same king that Joash of Judah had kept from attacking Jerusalem) oppressed Israel (2 Kings 13:22\). “But the Lord was gracious to them and had compassion and showed concern for them because of his covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. To this day he has been unwilling to destroy them or banish them from his presence” (2 Kings 13:23\). When the [prophet Elisha](life-Elisha.html) was sick and near to death, King Joash of Israel visited the prophet, apparently disconcerted over the military situation in Israel (2 Kings 13:14\). Elisha instructed Joash to shoot arrows out of the open window. The prophet then proclaimed, “The Lord’s arrow of victory, the arrow of victory over Aram! . . . You will completely destroy the Arameans at Aphek” (2 Kings 13:17\). Elisha next instructed Joash to strike the ground with the arrows. Joash did so but stopped after three strikes. “The man of God was angry with him and said, ‘You should have struck the ground five or six times; then you would have defeated Aram and completely destroyed it. But now you will defeat it only three times’” (2 Kings 13:19\). When Hazael died and his son, [Ben\-hadad](Ben-Hadad-in-the-Bible.html), took over, Joash did defeat him three times. Israel was able to recover cities that previously had been taken from them (2 Kings 13:24–25\).
King Joash of Israel ruled for sixteen years and “did evil in the eyes of the Lord and did not turn away from any of the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat, which he had caused Israel to commit; he continued in them” (2 Kings 13:11\). After he died, Joash of Israel was succeeded by his son Jeroboam II (2 Kings 14:16\).
|
What biblical principles should be applied to a Christian marriage ceremony?
|
Answer
Biblical principles can be applied to every area of life, including a Christian marriage ceremony. However, there is a difference between preparing for a marriage ceremony and preparing for marriage. Many people put far more effort and thought into the marriage ceremony than they do into the future marriage, and the divorce statistics reveal this sad truth. But, when Christians marry, every part of the ceremony and the resulting marriage can be guided by biblical principles. When those principles are honored and obeyed, not only is the ceremony meaningful, but the marriage is built upon a solid foundation.
Marriage ceremonies vary greatly from culture to culture. Christian marriage ceremonies can differ in style, length, expense, and elements and still be God\-honoring. The elements a couple chooses to include in the ceremony are not of great significance. What matters more are the hearts of the bride and groom and their willingness to keep God at the center of their lives and family. As indicators of that commitment, Christian marriage ceremonies often include the following:
1\) A brief, biblical sermon by the pastor performing the ceremony
2\) An exchange of vows and rings between bride and groom
3\) A prayer for the couple
4\) Some type of symbolic act representing the union of two individuals. This may be the lighting of a unity candle, combining two colors of sand into a keepsake vase, or any other creative way the couple can express their oneness.
A Christian marriage ceremony may even incorporate an invitation for guests to respond to a salvation message.
The biblical principle that is most important in a Christian marriage ceremony is an understanding of what marriage is and how God views it. Our world treats marriage as one option among many for establishing a household, to be sustained only as long as both parties want it. Marriage has become as disposable as plastic\-ware and is being bypassed many times in favor of [non\-married cohabitation](live-together.html). But cohabitation is sin according to Scripture and not to be considered an option for Christians (see Hebrews 13:4\). An understanding of the purpose of marriage will help couples choose to honor God in their relationship and will also influence the ceremonies they design.
Marriage was God’s idea, and He established its [definition](definition-of-marriage.html) and parameters. In the Garden of Eden, God created one woman (Eve) for one man (Adam), saying, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him” (Genesis 2:18\). He told them to “be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1:22\), a command that can only be obeyed in a union of two different genders. Jesus reinforced this truth in the New Testament when He reminded those who questioned the permanence of marriage that “at the beginning of creation God made them male and female. 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” (Mark 10:6–9\).
Several principles about marriage are clear from Scripture:
1\. Marriage as God designed it is between one man and one woman for life (Genesis 2:18, 22\).
2\. Marriage is the combining of two distinct individuals into a new entity, a new family (Genesis 2:23–24\).
3\. Marriage is witnessed by God Himself as He makes two people one (Malachi 2:13–15\).
4\. [Divorce](God-hates-divorce.html) was not an option in God’s original design (Matthew 19:7–10\).
5\. Marriage is a small glimpse of Christ’s intimate, loving relationship with [His bride, the church](bride-of-Christ.html) (Ephesians 5:31–32\).
When Christian couples keep these principles in mind, the ceremonies they design can be beautiful, meaningful, and God\-honoring without going to great expense. The extravagance of the marriage ceremony has nothing to do with the strength of the resulting marriage. But, when biblical principles are applied to a Christian marriage ceremony, those principles follow the couple throughout their lives and provide a strong and lasting foundation for life.
|
Why does the Bible allow slave owners to beat their slaves?
|
Answer
Exodus 21:20–21 says, “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.” Why did the [Mosaic Law](Mosaic-Law.html) allow for slave owners to beat their slaves? The obvious answer is that, in the social structure of ancient Israel, physical punishment was considered the appropriate response for acts of disobedience and rebellion. The text does not specifically say that the corporal punishment has to be for some form of disobedience; however, based on the larger Old Testament context, it is safe to assume that slave masters were not allowed *carte blanche* authority to do whatever they wanted to their slaves. In Exodus 21, slave owners are limited in what they can do: if the master goes too far and the slave dies, the master will be punished. If the Old Testament Law is followed consistently, then the punishment for the slave owner might even include the death penalty for murder. Of course, if a master beats his slave and the slave is unable to work for some time, the master has punished himself by losing the work he might have received from the slave. The implication here is that it is in the master’s best interest not to be too severe.
Exodus 21:20–21 is certainly troubling to people with modern sensitivities. Modern people in the free world have come to view autonomous personal freedom as the highest form of good and anything that curtails personal freedom as the ultimate evil. People may be tempted to read a passage like Exodus 21:20–21 and charge God with moral evil. Such charges need to be challenged, for slavery is not the only area where modern sensitivities and biblical guidelines clash—abortion and homosexuality are two other flashpoints. The danger on this issue is that most Christians would agree that slavery is morally reprehensible.
There are two distinct approaches in formulating an answer to why [the Bible allows for slavery](Bible-slavery.html), and the outcome will be determined by what a person accepts as the authority. The first approach goes something like this:
*Slavery is morally reprehensible in all situations.
The Bible allows slavery.
Therefore the Bible is an unreliable moral guide.*
In this case, current moral sensitivities are the authority, and the Bible is measured against those sensibilities.
The second goes something like this:
*The Bible is a reliable moral guide.
The Bible allows slavery.
Therefore slavery cannot be morally reprehensible in all situations.*
In this case, the Bible is the final authority, and modern thinking about right and wrong has to be adjusted to accommodate what we find in the Bible.
Slavery has been a fact of human existence for almost as long as the human race has been in existence. Physical punishment to enforce compliance has been part of slavery for just as long. Corporal punishment has also been used in situations other than slavery. For example, physical chastisements were commonly employed as punishment for crimes committed and for the enforcing of discipline in the military. We are not so far removed from the time when brutal physical punishment was administered and accepted by almost everyone as legitimate. In the British Navy, flogging for disobedience or insubordination was common until the mid\-19th century, and caning was used until the mid\-20th century. In some places, such as Singapore, caning is still an official form of punishment for certain crimes.
The Bible does not forbid slavery, nor does it demand that every slave owner who wants to please God must immediately emancipate his slaves. Instead, the Bible at every turn calls for a treatment of slaves that would have been more humane than any found in the culture at large. The very idea that a master could be punished in any way for killing a slave would have been scandalous at the time Moses gave the Law. The culture at large made no attempt to grant slaves any rights. Slaves in Egypt or Moab, for example, were afforded no such protection.
Earlier in the same chapter, kidnapping for the purpose of slavery is condemned and the death penalty enjoined: “Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper’s possession” (Exodus 21:16\). (Ironically, the death penalty is another area where modern people assume their moral sensitivity is superior to God’s!) Furthermore, we must not make the mistake of equating slavery in ancient Israel with antebellum slavery in the United States. If the biblical dictates regarding slavery, including the regulations found in Exodus 21:16, 20–21, had been enforced in Western nations in the 1800s, then slavery in the United States would have been very different.
The regulations regarding slaves in Exodus 21, far from being inhumane, would have been far more humane and protective of the slave in Israel than in any of the surrounding nations.
|
Is the paleo diet biblical?
|
Answer
The Paleolithic (or paleo) diet is so named for the Paleolithic era and the presumed eating habits of those who lived during that time. Paleo diets are also called Stone Age diets, hunter\-gatherer diets, and caveman diets. The paleo diet was designed along the idea that the healthiest way to live is to eat only those foods we assume were eaten during the Paleolithic, or “caveman,” era: fish, meat, eggs, nuts, leafy greens, etc. Any food groups associated with farming or processing, such as sugars, breads, alcohol, and dairy products, are excluded from the paleo diet.
The paleo diet emerged in the 1970s from the work of gastroenterologist Walter Voegtlin and was viewed as a way of improving health. Voegtlin’s ideas were further developed and promoted by Stanley Boyd Eaton and Melvin Konner and brought into current popularity by the 2002 book *The Paleo Diet* by Loren Cordain. Other dietary experts disagree with the supposed health benefits of the paleo diet. Among the naysayers is Michael Pollan, author of a number of best\-selling books on food and agriculture, including *Cooked: A Natural History of Transformation*. He says of the proponents of the Paleolithic diet, “They’re assuming that the options available to our caveman ancestors are still there.” But, “unless you’re willing to hunt your food, they’re not.” Whether the paleo diet is healthy or not, our question concerns how biblical the paleo diet is.
There is nothing in Scripture that commands New Testament Christians to eat any certain way. In fact, it was dietary restrictions that kept Jewish believers from initially accepting Gentile Christians into their fellowship. So God gave specific instructions to Peter through a vision, recorded in Acts 10:9–16\. In this vision, the Lord presented all types of [forbidden animals](animals-clean-unclean.html) to Peter and commanded him to “kill and eat” (Acts 10:13\). Although this vision was intended to teach Peter that the gospel message was open to all people (Acts 10:34–35\), it also removed the dietary restrictions that God had placed on Israel through the Mosaic Law (Leviticus 11; Deuteronomy 14:1–21\).
Paul adds clarity to this idea in Romans 14\. He discusses in detail the ongoing argument in the church about what foods were considered acceptable. He makes it clear that “one person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them” (verses 2–3\). Then in verse 14 Paul says, “I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean.”
So the idea that one diet is more biblical than another is a fallacy. There are dietary programs, such as the Daniel Plan, named after biblical characters, but that does not mean those diets are ordained by God. In talking about [worry](Bible-worry.html), Jesus makes a point about our often unbalanced focus upon food and drink: “Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothes?” (Matthew 6:25\). As easy as it is to obsess over temporary material things, our main focus needs to be on eternal spiritual things. Fads such as the paleo diet tend to distract us from the eternal perspective that is so important to the heart of God.
As Christians, our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 3:16; 6:19; 2 Corinthians 6:16\). We should take care of them so that they serve God’s purposes effectively (1 Corinthians 9:27\). But chasing after fad diets in some mistaken attempt to make ourselves holier is [chasing the wind](chasing-the-wind.html). We are to control our bodies (Romans 12:1–2\), our appetites (Proverbs 23:2\), and our thoughts (2 Corinthians 10:5\). We should let nothing but the Holy Spirit direct our life decisions (Ephesians 5:18\). If God directs one of His children to follow the paleo diet, he or she can do so with a clear conscience. But we should never assume that we are somehow closer to God by the kinds of foods we eat or don’t eat. As Jesus stated, “It’s not what goes into your body that defiles you; you are defiled by what comes from your heart” (Mark 7:15, NLT).
|
What happened to Mary?
|
Answer
[Mary](virgin-Mary.html), the mother of the Lord Jesus Christ, is one of the most famous women who have ever lived. Although her name is easily recognized, little is actually known about the woman herself, her upbringing, or her life after her Son, Jesus, returned to His heavenly Father (John 16:28; Acts 1:9–11\). So what did happen to Mary after the gospel accounts?
What we know for sure is that Mary was an unmarried virgin girl when God sent the angel Gabriel to give her a message (Luke 1:26–27\). She was engaged to a man named Joseph, but they had not had sexual relations (Luke 1:34; Matthew 1:18, 25\). She became pregnant as a [virgin](virgin-birth.html) through the power of the Holy Spirit, so that the Child she carried had no earthly father (Matthew 1:20; Luke 1:35\). An angel also visited Joseph and told him to go ahead and take Mary as his wife, so they married and Joseph became known as the father of Jesus, even though he was not (Matthew 1:21–24; 13:55\). The rest of the Christmas story found in Luke 2 gives us glimpses of Mary as she gives birth to the Savior (verse 6\), is visited by the shepherds (verse 16\), and is eventually found by the wise men from the East (Matthew 2:7–12\).
After Jesus’ birth, as they were commanded to do under Jewish law (Exodus 13:2; Leviticus 12:6–8\), Mary and Joseph brought baby Jesus to the temple to present Him to the Lord and offer the proper sacrifice. They met two prophets there who immediately recognized the Promised One of Israel. An aged woman, [Anna](Anna-the-prophetess.html), blessed the Child, and elderly Simon prophesied over Him, giving Mary a glimpse of the sorrow that would one day pierce her heart when her Son would suffer for the sins of the world (Luke 2:34–35\).
The next time we see Mary is in Luke 2:41–52, when Jesus was twelve years old and attending Passover at the temple for the first time, as was Jewish custom. Jesus, becoming aware of His true identity, spent His time in the temple with the priests and teachers, amazing them with His wisdom. Mary and Joseph started home without Him, thinking He was with others in their caravan. They went a day’s journey before they realized He was not with them. They returned to Jerusalem and spent another three days searching for Him. Mary expressed a normal mother’s frustration when they found Him and scolded Him a bit for scaring them that way (verse 48\).
Mary is not mentioned again until the beginning of Jesus’ three\-year ministry. He had been invited to a wedding in the Galilean town of Cana (John 2:1–10\). When the host ran out of wine, it was Mary who came to Jesus and told Him about it. Jesus then quietly performed His first miracle, turning about 150 gallons of water into fine wine (verses 6–10\). After the wedding Jesus went with “his mother and his brothers and his disciples to Capernaum to stay for a few days” (verse 12\). The fact that only Mary is mentioned, not [Joseph](Joseph-Jesus.html), seems to indicate that her husband had died at some point during Jesus’ growing\-up years.
Despite the miraculous events surrounding His birth, Mary still did not fully grasp her firstborn Son’s true purpose. Matthew 12:46–48, the next mention of Mary after the wedding in Cana, recounts an incident when she and Jesus’ brothers summoned Him as He was preaching. His response to their interruption indicates that He understood that even those closest to Him did not yet understand or believe in Him as Israel’s Messiah. In John 7:2–5, Jesus’ brothers tried again to dissuade Him from what God had sent Him to do. This may also indicate that Mary continued to be confused about His role in coming to earth.
We see Mary again at the crucifixion in John 19:25–27\. She watched her holy Son be tortured and crucified. From the cross Jesus turned to His disciple [John](life-John-Apostle.html) and asked him to take care of His mother from then on. So we know that John took Mary into his own home. Jesus’ choice of John to care for Mary may have been due to the fact that Jesus knew His own brothers were not yet believers and He wanted His mother to be with someone who believed in Him.
Acts 1:14 finds Mary among the disciples in the upper room after Jesus’ ascension into heaven. She was among the one hundred twenty (Acts 1:15\) who were baptized in the Holy Spirit in Jerusalem on the [day of Pentecost](day-Pentecost.html) (Acts 2:1–4\). It may have been only after her Son’s resurrection that Mary truly believed, as did some of her other children (Galatians 1:19\). Her presence at Pentecost is the Bible’s last reference to Mary.
Since Scripture is silent about what happened to Mary after Pentecost, we have only tradition and legend to tell us what became of her. Many scholars speculate that Mary lived out her years in John’s home, either in Jerusalem or in Ephesus. Some have suggested that, since it is believed that John oversaw many of the churches in Asia Minor, Mary moved to Ephesus with him and was part of the Ephesian church where young Timothy pastored (1 Timothy 1:3\), but we cannot know for certain. What we do know is that, although Mary was chosen by God for a unique assignment, she had to receive salvation by faith in her Son just as we all do (Romans 3:23; Ephesians 2:8–9; Acts 4:12\). Mary is now in heaven with all the believers who have died in Christ, not because she gave birth to Jesus but because she trusted in His shed blood as payment for her sin (1 Thessalonians 5:9–10; 2 Timothy 2:11\).
|
What does the Bible say about a person who is in a coma?
|
Answer
When a person is “in a coma,” the brain of that person is in a state of deep unconsciousness for a prolonged or indefinite period. The Bible says nothing specific about a person who is in a coma, because the medical intervention required to sustain life in a coma was not yet available when the books of the Bible were written. While a coma often precedes death, stories abound of comatose people who suddenly woke up. What should be the biblical response to a comatose person?
In most hospitals, medical staff treat comatose patients as though they were aware of their surroundings. Studies have shown that often a person’s hearing is still functioning, even while the person is in a deep state of unconsciousness. So nurses and others often speak directly to comatose patients or refer to them as though they understood the conversation. Since we are not sure whether comatose patients can hear what’s being said, it is wise to behave as though they can. Some families of comatose patients keep music playing softly in the room, discuss upcoming events as though the patient was going to participate with them, and refuse to allow negative prognoses or opinions to be voiced within hearing distance of the patient. Whether or not the comatose person can hear, treating the patient this way reminds those in attendance that this is still a person worthy of respect.
In recent years, several highly publicized legal battles have been fought over comatose patients. Families have sued for the right to either keep their loved one alive or to withdraw [life\-prolonging interventions](playing-God.html) and allow the person to die a natural death. These are sticky situations, and each needs to be treated individually with compassion and wisdom (James 1:5\). Questions about when life ends and “death with dignity” are made more complicated by our modern medical abilities. In Bible times, if a person became comatose, there were no feeding tubes, life\-support machinery, or IV’s to sustain earthly life longer than perhaps it should be sustained. Death usually followed within a few hours or days.
While no specific passages of Scripture speak about the state of being in a coma, we do know that, since only God can give life, we must leave the decision to Him about when that life ends (see Deuteronomy 32:39; 1 Samuel 2:6\). Murder is always wrong because it places us in God’s role of pronouncing personal judgment on another human being (Genesis 9:5–6; Exodus 20:13\). The personal choice to end an innocent life is always condemned by God (Exodus 23:7; Jeremiah 22:3; Revelation 22:15\). Hastening the death of a comatose patient may fall into this category.
So\-called “[mercy killings](mercy-killing.html)” are hard to justify in this age of pain\-reliving drugs and techniques, since the wonders of modern medicine provide many ways to minimize pain. When a person is comatose, of course, we cannot know for certain whether he or she is in pain or simply trapped inside a body that won’t respond. As caregivers and decision\-makers, we should opt for making the comatose person as comfortable as possible. Death comes at the “appointed” time (Hebrews 9:27\). This calls for wisdom, but allowing life to run its course, providing palliative care, and permitting a person to die in God’s own time is not wrong. As advanced as modern medicine has become, we still cannot know everything that is going on inside the body of a comatose person. Therefore, all decisions concerning a person in a coma should be made with the goal of doing the least harm while trusting God to bring good from it (Romans 8:28; Exodus 4:11; John 9:3\).
|
What is spikenard in the Bible?
|
Answer
Spikenard was an expensive perfume mentioned in the [Song of Solomon](Song-of-Solomon.html) (1:12; 4:13–14\) and in the gospels’ accounts of women anointing Jesus (Mark 14:3; John 12:3\). The word *spikenard* is found in the King James Version; other translations simply say “pure nard.”
Spikenard had a strong, distinctive aroma, similar to an essential oil, that clings to skin and hair and continues to give off its heady perfume. It was also thought to have medicinal properties. According to Eastman’s Bible Dictionary, spikenard “is the root of an Indian plant, the Nardostachys jatamansi, of the family of Valeriance, growing on the Himalaya mountains. It is distinguished by its having many hairy spikes shooting out from one root.” The ointment prepared from the root was highly valued. Spikenard symbolized the very best in ancient cultures the way that “Tiffany diamond” or the “gold standard” does to us.
Spikenard had a unique fragrance, and the presence of its aroma was an indication that the very best had been offered. In the Song of Solomon, spikenard is mentioned in reference to the love between bride and groom. In Song of Solomon 1:12, the bride says, “While the king was at his table, my perfume spread its fragrance.” Those words imply that, despite all other fragrances in the room, only his bride’s would matter to the groom. The presence of spikenard represented their passion for each other and their desire to have only the best define their love.
When [Mary of Bethany](life-Mary-Bethany.html) broke her [alabaster jar](alabaster-box.html) of spikenard (John 12:3\) and bathed the feet of Jesus with the oil, she, too, wanted only the best to define her love for Him. It has been speculated that this jar may have been Mary’s dowry or her inheritance. In other words, this jar of spikenard ointment may have been all she had of value, and she poured it out on Him. Her extravagant gift is a picture of the kind of offering expected of each of us. Only the best was worthy of her Lord, and she was willing to give everything as an act of worship. The same should be true of us (see Numbers 18:29\).
When Judas rebuked Mary for wasting such a precious ointment (John 12:4–5\), Jesus silenced him: “Leave her alone. . . . It was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial” (John 12:7\). Only Jesus truly understood what He was saying. He knew that in a few days He would be arrested, tried, and crucified. It may well have been that, as He felt the whip lacerate His flesh, as He felt the nails pierce His hands and feet, He could also inhale the fragrance of that gift of spikenard and remember why He was doing this. Mary’s gift may have strengthened and encouraged Him, even throughout His horrific ordeal, as its strong scent still clung to His skin. Mary had not known it at the time she offered her valuable gift, but she was the first to anoint the Son of God as He became no longer simply their teacher but the ultimate sacrifice for the sins of the world (John 1:29; 2 Corinthians 5:12\).
|
How should a Christian respond to chain letters?
|
Answer
A chain letter is a form of correspondence in which the recipient is urged to forward the letter to a number of others on promise of reward or misfortune for breaking the chain. Chain letters have been around for nearly a century. The oldest known example comes from 1935—the “Prosperity Club” or “Send\-a\-Dime” letters. The recipients were to tape a dime to a dozen letters, including the sender of the original, and mail them. They would then supposedly receive a windfall of dimes in the mail as others followed suit.
With stamped mail rapidly becoming antiquated, chain letters through the postal system are not as prevalent as they once were. However, their first cousins have shown up on the internet through email and [social media](social-networking.html). Chain letters may appear in private messages, Facebook posts, tweets, or group emails. Many of them have a Christian slant, and believers may wonder, how should Christians respond to these chain messages?
The foundation for most chain letters is [superstition](superstitions.html). Social media is swamped with memes and little stories designed to elicit emotion, most ending with a challenge to “re\-post if you love Jesus” or some such instruction. Some go further by promising “ten blessings in the next ten days” or “God will reward you” for sharing the post. Others are not so gracious and imply a lack of spiritual devotion in anyone who fails to forward it, type “Amen” in the comment box, or validate it in some other way. Unfortunately, thousands of otherwise solid, sincere people fall for these silly threats on a daily basis, which causes one to wonder why. Do some Christians truly believe God is typing these things and crossing His fingers in hopes we will all forward them? Do people believe they are “standing up for Jesus” by sitting behind a computer screen or an iphone and hitting “post”?
One danger in this type of Christian chain message is that it greatly trivializes the power and majesty of the Lord and makes Christians appear weak\-minded and superstitious. Many of the fluffy, Christian\-sounding sentiments expressed through these chain messages are not even scripturally accurate and are nothing more than wishful thinking or [prosperity teaching](prosperity-gospel.html). The ones that do include Scripture often take it out of context and apply it to anyone who happens to read the post. For example, Isaiah 54:17 (“no weapon forged against you will prevail . . .”) has become wildly popular, although it is truncated and taken completely out of context. Even unbelievers can post this on Facebook and get a hundred “likes” for their spirituality. But this is a blatant perversion of God’s promise to His people. This verse does not apply to everyone who happens to read a meme. God is promising vindication and protection for Jerusalem. But chain letters and chain messages rarely convey that truth.
There are different types of chain letters that elicit different responses:
1\. The Hoax: Hoaxes float through cyberspace like dust particles, clouding the internet with lies. No one knows who starts these things, but millions of social media users leap at the possibilities they appear to offer. The hoax is often in the form of an official\-looking letter, supposedly signed by a recognizable icon, which lends it legitimacy. For example, “Bill Gates has announced that he will be giving away $1,000 to the first fifty people who forward this email.” The unsuspecting don’t bother to validate this claim but propagate it on the outside chance that, perhaps, it might be true.
2\. The Dare: Daring chain letters have a warning tone, implying negative consequences for not obeying their instructions. The warning may hint that you are “disappointing Jesus” by not forwarding, but some of the more aggressive ones escalate to the promise of “death and destruction within ten days.” Certain chain letters may qualify as fraud, and the instigators can face legal penalties for pushing pyramid schemes or lottery chances.
3\. The Heart\-breaker: Social media is awash with tender, emotional stories, usually involving a sick child or brave animal and always including a pitiful picture to tug at the heartstrings. It is rarely possible to validate the claims made by such chain messages, but, when people’s emotions are stirred, they tend to act before checking anyway. Pleas for money, get\-well cards, or services can classify these heart\-breaker stories as scams if they elicit gifts from the recipients.
Jesus warned His disciples to be as “wise as serpents and as gentle as doves” (Matthew 10:16\). A proper response to any claim that seems too good to be true is to do some checking before participating. Fact\-checking does not imply a hard heart or a lack of faith. In fact, Christians who are careful about what they believe are emulating the Bereans who heard Paul’s “too good to be true” gospel message and “examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true” (Acts 17:11\).
If we ask ourselves a few simple questions first, we can make wiser decisions before passing on that chain letter:
1\. Is it true? The question is not “Do I wish it was true?” If you cannot personally vouch for the accuracy of something you are about to send or re\-post, then don’t re\-post. You don’t want to be part of spreading a lie.
2\. Is it coercion? Coercion is a form of lying, and God hates any form of it (Proverbs 12:22; 13:5; Revelation 21:8\). When we coerce people to do something, we are manipulating their decisions through force or threats. To imply that someone “does not love Jesus” because he or she does not comply with the demand of an anonymous meme is wrong.
3\. Is it superstition? Many times, the power behind chain letters is a superstitious fear that, if the chain is broken or the recipient does not obey its demands, something bad will happen. This superstition also promises supernatural blessing for obeying its instructions, as though God were selling cheap lottery tickets by mail or social media. Superstition is a form of [witchcraft](Bible-witchcraft.html), as it attributes to inanimate objects or to the “Universe” a power and respect that belong to God alone (Micah 3:7; 5:12; Deuteronomy 18:10\). Superstitious chain letters prey on the spiritually immature and uneducated. They also propagate a false view of God and His real blessings.
4\. Is it a substitute for true spiritual devotion? In this day of digital connection, it has become easy to hide behind our devices, toss some Bible verses or cheery sayings into the public arena, and feel satisfied that we have “witnessed for Christ.” But what are our posts accomplishing? How many people have been led to repentance and salvation by a chain letter claiming to offer God’s blessings for passing it on? How many souls have been won to Christ from a meme with a drawing of Jesus and the challenge “I’m a believer in Jesus. If you’re not ashamed of Him, then re\-post. I’ll bet only one in a thousand will”? Being obnoxious about our faith is rarely effective, and chain messages are one way we can offend rather than draw the world to faith in Christ.
Discerning Christians will think twice before hitting “post,” “share,” or “send” on chain messages that cannot pass the tests above. Living as “lights in the world” (Matthew 5:14; Philippians 2:15\) requires much more than being a willing link in a chain of superstition. When we pass on a message because it speaks truth and encouragement to our hearts, we are sharing our faith. But when we do it for superstitious reasons or because some anonymous meme\-maker dared us to, we may be only hiding that light under a basket (Matthew 5:15\).
|
What is the law of retribution?
|
Answer
The law of retribution, also called the law of retaliation or [*lex talionis*](eye-for-an-eye.html), was part of the Old Testament Law given to Israel through Moses. Retribution was one of the cornerstones of Israel’s penal code. The punishment was supposed to mirror the crime. The principle of *lex talionis* is clearly stated in Leviticus 24:19–21: “Anyone who injures their neighbor is to be injured in the same manner: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. The one who has inflicted the injury must suffer the same injury. Whoever kills an animal must make restitution, but whoever kills a human being is to be put to death.” Monetary damages are to be paid for killing an animal belonging to someone else, but, if a person is murdered, then the murderer must forfeit his life in return. Exodus 21:23–25 and Deuteronomy 19:16–21 echo the same stipulations.
In ancient Israel, part of the law’s enforcement fell to the family of the murder victim. According to Numbers 35:16–21, in some cases the “[avenger of blood](avenger-of-blood.html)” (normally a close family member of the deceased) would be charged with carrying out the death sentence, possibly even tracking down the murderer if the murderer had fled. There was no police force in ancient Israel, so kinship posses were called upon to enforce the law. It is important to keep in mind that this system of retaliation operated within the legal system as it existed. The law of retribution was not a simple pretext for [revenge](revenge-vengeance.html), although it is easy to see how it could descend to that level. “Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, and life for life” was the penal code and was never intended to justify a personal code of revenge or vigilantism. In fact, the Law warned against personal hatred: “Do not hate a fellow Israelite in your heart. Rebuke your neighbor frankly so you will not share in their guilt. Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord” (Leviticus 19:17–18\).
In the New Testament, Christians in the Roman Empire lived under a different penal code. In Romans 12:17–13:4, Paul warns believers that they must not take the law into their own hands, but he also maintains that the government has the right and responsibility to enforce penalties, including the death penalty, for criminal acts. In that passage, quoted below, you will notice how Paul moves from personal vendettas to governmental enforcement of justice. Because the switch happens at a chapter break, many readers may not realize the connection. (Remember, the [chapter and verse divisions](divided-Bible-chapters-verses.html) are not inspired. They were added later to help facilitate easy study and reference, but sometimes a chapter break can obscure the connection with the previous chapter.)
*Do not repay anyone evil for evil.
Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.
Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord.
On the contrary: If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.
Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.*
It is easy to see how, in ancient Israel, personal revenge and penalties administered under “due process” might be somewhat mingled. That’s one of the reasons God chose the [cities of refuge](cities-of-refuge.html) in Joshua 20:7–8\. In New Testament times, Paul tells believers that they cannot take personal revenge. They must love and even serve their enemies, allowing God to retaliate in His time as He sees fit. Divine retribution may come through some “act of God” in this life (or certainly in the next), but it is also possible that the government functioning in its God\-given role will be the agent God uses to bring about justice. It may be morally right for a government to execute a murderer, but it would be morally wrong for a family member of the victim to ambush the murderer and kill him, even if he had already been convicted and sentenced to death in court. The personal response is to offer love and forgiveness while the governmental response is to enforce justice.
In Matthew 5:38–48 (during the Sermon on the Mount), Jesus rejects the “eye for an eye” principle as applied to personal ethics. As is clear from the explanation He gives, He is not rejecting or even commenting upon penalties administered by the government after “due process.” He is rejecting a personal code of revenge that would “do unto others as they have done unto me.” Rather than enforce the law of retribution in personal matters, Jesus requires individuals to love their enemies, “go the extra mile,” and “turn the other cheek.” In Matthew 7:12 He says, “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you.” This code of conduct leaves no place for personal revenge or even resentment.
In summary, the law of retribution or the law of retaliation may be a legitimate guide for criminal penalties administered by governmental authorities, but it is not to be used as the basis for personal revenge. Personal revenge puts the avenger in the place of God as Judge and Executioner making the avenger a usurper of divine authority.
|
Why does the Bible speak against braided hair?
|
Answer
Twice in the Bible, braided hair is seemingly spurned. First, Peter instructs, “Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear” (1 Peter 3:3–4\). Second, the apostle Paul tells his co\-missionary Timothy to convey to his church members “that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self\-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire” (1 Timothy 2:9\). At first glance, these verses (only partially quoted here) appear to admonish against specific hair and clothing styles, but, when taken in context, they instead refer to bigger topics: [humility](Bible-humility.html) and [modesty](dress-modestly.html).
In first\-century Roman culture, women would customarily braid or twist their hair high onto their heads, often decorating their locks with jewels, gold adornments, and more to garner attention. The ornate displays indeed drew a public response, but the apostles’ point is that to flaunt one’s beauty for selfish adoration is not in line with the humility of Christ. Jesus says in Matthew 23:12, “Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.”
First Peter 3:3–5 speaks of true beauty: “Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as elaborate hairstyles and the wearing of gold jewelry or fine clothes. Rather, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight.” There is a contrast set up here between outward, fleeting beauty and inward, lasting beauty. God sees the heart, and a beautiful woman has a “gentle and quiet spirit,” whether or not her hair is plaited into fancy braids. It’s not that braided hair is sinful, but it is more worthwhile to develop godly character than to coiffure the hair.
First Timothy 2:9–10 refers to modesty, a highly debated topic in Christian culture: “I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.” Again we have a contrast, this time between flashy externals and less\-noticeable deeds. The best attire for a Christian woman is “good deeds,” whether or not she has the braided hair, jeweled adornments, and chic clothing of the day. Scripture does not teach it is a sin to groom oneself to feel more attractive, but it *is* sinful to do so with the prideful intention of turning heads, and the good works are always more important than the hairdo.
Both passages referring to braided hair utilize a literary technique common in the Bible—the comparison and substitution of an undesirable (sinful) thing for a better (godly) thing. For example, Jesus states in John 6:27, “Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you.” Is Jesus saying that a person should not work for physical food? Of course not. Second Thessalonians 3:10 tells us, “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.” Jesus is simply comparing spiritual food to physical food, emphasizing that spiritual food must be given a higher priority. To value physical health over spiritual health would be detrimental.
Christians should strive to maintain a godly perspective on how they present themselves to the world, demonstrating God’s glory with their bodies (1 Corinthians 6:19–20\) and caring about the spiritual state of their brothers and sisters in Christ (Romans 15:1–2\). Rather than focusing on outward appearances, an inward focus on developing Christlike behavior is more profitable. Christians must “make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; and to knowledge, self\-control; and to self\-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; and to godliness, mutual affection; and to mutual affection, love. For if you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 1:5–8\).
|
Who was Keturah in the Bible?
|
Answer
Keturah was [Abraham’s](life-Abraham.html) second wife, following the death of [Sarah](life-Sarah.html), his first wife (Genesis 23:2; 25:1\). We know little about Keturah, other than her name and the names of the [sons](Abraham-sons.html) she bore to Abraham (Genesis 25:2; 1 Chronicles 1:32–33\).
There has been some debate as to whether Keturah was Abraham’s wife or his [concubine](concubine-concubines.html), since she is described as each in different places in Scripture. Genesis 25:1 says that Keturah was his wife; 1 Chronicles 1:32 calls her his concubine. Genesis 25:6 also implies that Keturah was a concubine. A concubine was a woman who willingly entered into an exclusive relationship with a man for the purposes of meeting his sexual needs or providing children for him ([Hagar](Sarah-Hagar.html) was considered a concubine of Abraham’s). The woman was often a slave or a single female without male protectors. A concubine did not have equal status as a wife, but, unlike a prostitute, she was provided for and considered the sole property of the man. Because Keturah was in a monogamous relationship with Abraham, she could properly be considered his “wife,” although she had a lesser rank than Sarah had enjoyed.
It could also be that Keturah had begun her relationship with Abraham as a concubine and was then promoted to official “wife status” after the death of Sarah. This would explain the differing biblical descriptions of her role. However, Keturah, the concubine\-become\-wife, is never referred to in Scripture with the same respect and honor that is given to Sarah as Abraham’s wife (1 Peter 3:6\).
Keturah’s sons were Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak, and Shuah (Genesis 25:2\). The descendants of Midian (the [Midianites](Midianites.html)) later become a big part of Israel’s history; in fact, Moses married a Midianite (Exodus 2:15–21\). All Keturah’s sons received “gifts” from Abraham (Genesis 25:6\), but none shared in the inheritance of Isaac (verse 5\). Keturah’s sons became the fathers of Arabian tribes living east of Israel.
|
What does the Bible say about clothing?
|
Answer
Clothing has played a major role in the history of God’s interactions with humanity and is featured prominently from Genesis (3:7\) to Revelation (22:14\). Outward attire sometimes symbolizes inward realities, and in the Bible clothing often has spiritual significance.
The first mention of clothing is in the Garden of Eden. When Adam and Eve sinned, their eyes were opened (Genesis 3:6–7\), which means they had a new awareness that they were naked. The accompanying shame propelled them to fashion the very first clothing—they sewed fig leaves together to try to cover their bodies. So, even from the beginning, clothing has symbolized the need to cover our sin and shame. God, in His mercy, killed an animal and made garments for Adam and Eve from the skin of the animal (Genesis 3:21\). This act of God serves as a picture of our inability to effectively atone for our own sin. The fact that an animal had to die—blood had to be shed—in order to cover Adam and Eve’s shame is a foreshadowing of the later sacrifice of Christ. Our inability to cover our own sin necessitated God’s Son coming to earth to do for us what we cannot do for ourselves (Philippians 2:6–8; Titus 3:5\).
Throughout human history, clothing styles and colors have been indicators of a person’s status, wealth, position, and gender. The Bible contains many examples of clothing used to communicate different things. Royal robes were worn by kings to distinguish them from commoners (2 Chronicles 18:9; Esther 6:8; 1 Kings 22:30\). [Sackcloth](sackcloth-and-ashes.html), a coarse material that was uncomfortable to wear, was worn during times of grief and mourning to symbolize the inner pain someone felt at the loss of a loved one (Joel 1:8\), to show repentance (Jonah 3:5\), or to mourn a political tragedy (Joel 1:13; 2 Kings 19:1\). Prostitutes had a certain manner of dress and could be recognized by their clothing (Genesis 38:14–15; Proverbs 7:10\). Leather belts were a sign of poverty or asceticism; Elijah and John the Baptist both wore leather belts (2 Kings 1:8; Mark 1:6\). Men and women were commanded in the Mosaic Law to wear only [gender\-appropriate](cross-dressing-transvestism.html) clothing (Deuteronomy 22:5\), because wearing the clothing of the opposite sex conveyed rebellion against God’s design.
Throughout the Bible, white clothing symbolizes purity. At the [Transfiguration](transfiguration.html), Jesus’ clothing “became as white as the light” (Matthew 17:2\). In the book of Revelation, Jesus describes the attire of those who had been found worthy to rule with Him in His eternal kingdom—the clothing is white (Revelation 3:18; 4:4; 6:11; 7:9\). Jesus is usually seen wearing white in prophetic visions (Daniel 7:9; Mark 9:2\). And angels are often described as wearing white robes (Matthew 28:3; John 20:12\).
Clothing is one of the basic necessities of life (1 Timothy 6:8\). Jesus taught His followers, those who seek first His kingdom, not to worry about having clothes to wear because the One who clothes the grass of the field will also clothe His children (Matthew 6:28–33\). The universal standard for clothing is [modesty](dress-modestly.html): “I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with . . . expensive clothes, but with good deeds” (1 Timothy 2:9–10\). Much more valuable than pricey outfits and famous name brands are the good works that flow from a life committed to the Lord.
Clothing has been a major part of human history and began as a response to mankind’s sin. Clothing is good because of our need to keep our bodies covered, both for protection and for modesty. God pronounced judgments upon those who “uncovered the nakedness” of others improperly (Exodus 20:26; Leviticus 18:6; Isaiah 47:3\). In Scripture, nakedness is almost always associated with sexual sin and/or shame. Not only are our eternal robes significant, but God considers our earthly attire significant as well.
|
What is The Pilgrim’s Progress by John Bunyan?
|
Answer
*The Pilgrim’s Progress* (full title, *The Pilgrim’s Progress from This World to That Which Is to Come, Delivered Under the Similitude of a Dream*) was written by [John Bunyan](John-Bunyan.html) (1628–1688\) and since its publication has encouraged countless believers in their walk with God.
From a purely literary viewpoint, *The Pilgrim’s Progress* is without a doubt the greatest allegory ever written. Critics have called it “a hybrid of religious allegory, the early novel, the moral dialogue, the romance, the folk story, the picaresque novel, the epic, the dream\-vision, and the fairy tale” (Lynn Veach Sadler, *John Bunyan*, Twayne Publishers, 1979\). The world over, *The Pilgrim’s Progress* is one of the most widely read books in history and has been translated into over 200 languages.
The publication of *The Pilgrim’s Progress* represented a pivotal event in the history of literature. The lengthy prose allegory was unique in its time, and it helped lead to the creation of an entirely new genre, the novel. Three formulaic elements of the novel are present in Bunyan’s masterpiece: 1\) One main character (the protagonist), whose exploits are followed throughout; 2\) A secondary character who assists the protagonist; and 3\) A journey with a beginning, middle, and end. The novel is the most popular form of literature today, and all novels contain those three elements from *The Pilgrim’s Progress*.
But there is much more to *The Pilgrim’s Progress* than literary excellence. The book presents an unforgettable and universal picture of the Christian life, from the time of the soul’s first awakening to the truth of the gospel to the entrance into heaven. Readers find that, no matter where they are in the Christian journey, they will see themselves in *The Pilgrim’s Progress*. Repeated readings reveal additional treasures. [Charles Spurgeon](Charles-Haddon-Spurgeon.html) loved the book and quoted it often: “Next to the Bible, the book I value most is John Bunyan’s *Pilgrim’s Progress*. I believe I have read it through at least a hundred times. It is a volume of which I never seem to tire; and the secret of its freshness is that it is so largely compiled from the Scriptures” (from the preface of *Pictures from Pilgrim’s Progress: A Commentary on Portions of John Bunyan’s Immortal Allegory*).
John Bunyan was a Reformed Baptist and [Puritan](Puritans-Puritanism.html) who lived in Bedford, England. He was a tinker by trade and part of the working poor. Three years after his conversion in 1653, Bunyan began to preach at the Bedford Meeting House. The problem was that Bunyan was not a state\-sanctioned preacher—he had no government license to preach, and he refused to follow the king’s requirement to use the [Book of Common Prayer](Book-of-Common-Prayer.html) in his services. Bunyan was jailed in 1660, and it was in jail that he began writing *The Pilgrim’s Progress*. All total, Bunyan spent more than 12 years in jail. He published *The Pilgrim’s Progress* in 1678 and followed it with Part Two in 1684\. John Bunyan wrote over 30 books, including *Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners*, an autobiography; *The Life and Death of Mr. Badman*; and *The Holy War*; as well as many tracts and sermons. Bunyan died in 1688\.
As an allegory, the characters and events in *The Pilgrim’s Progress* are symbolic of spiritual truths. Part One tells the story of Christian, a man living in the City of Destruction and bearing a great burden, symbolic of conviction of sin. He knows he must escape the City of Destruction, but he knows not where to go until he meets Evangelist, who points him in the right direction. As Christian comes to the cross, the burden falls off his back on its own accord, rolls down a hill, and disappears into a tomb. Three Shining Ones give Christian gifts to aid him on his journey to the Celestial City. Along the way, Christian visits many places (e.g., the Interpreter’s House, the Palace Beautiful, the Delectable Mountains, the Valley of Humiliation); he meets many people (e.g., Faithful, Hopeful, Mr. Worldly Wise\-man, Obstinate, Atheist, Money\-love, By\-ends, Mistrust, Formalist, Sloth, Discretion, Charity, Lord Hate\-good, Talkative, Ignorance); and he encounters many dangers (e.g., the Slough of Despond, Vanity Fair, the Hill Difficulty, the Valley of the Shadow of Death, Apollyon, the Giant Despair, the Flatterer, the Enchanted Ground). Christian experiences times of mortal danger, refreshment, and blessing. At the end of his journey, he crosses a River, symbolic of physical death, and is welcomed into the Celestial City with great fanfare.
Part Two of *The Pilgrim’s Progress* follows the story of Christian’s wife, Christiana, and their four sons as they, too, leave the City of Destruction and set out on pilgrimage to reach the Celestial City. A few characters from Part One return, but there are many new characters introduced: Mercy, Great\-heart, Feeble\-mind, Much\-afraid, Sagacity, Reliever, Mrs. Bat’s\-eyes, Mr. Brisk, Giant Maul, Giant Slaygood, Mr. Skill, Honest, Contrite, Self\-will, Valiant\-for\-truth, Heedless, Tell\-truth, etc. Faithfully following the promises of God, Christiana also arrives safely at the Celestial City.
Throughout both Part One and Part Two of *The Pilgrim’s Progress*, Bunyan presents profound truths and illustrates them in memorable ways. The journey from the certainty of eternal destruction to a condition of spiritual blessedness is one that all believers can relate to. The characters Christian meets are easily identifiable both as social types and spiritual and psychological realities. The book is also full of songs (see Ephesians 5:19\) and poetry, including eleven poems of celebration, five of warning, and one elegy.
Most notably, *The Pilgrim’s Progress* is replete with Scripture. It quotes and alludes to the Bible through and through. No doubt this infusion with Scripture is the reason *The Pilgrim’s Progress* has so much staying power and has impacted millions of believers in the past 300 years. The very concept of a Christian as a “pilgrim” or sojourner in this world comes from 1 Peter 2:11 (KJV). Spurgeon comments on Bunyan’s knowledge and use of the Bible: “Read anything of \[Bunyan’s], and you will see that it is almost like the reading the Bible itself. He had read it till his very soul was saturated with Scripture; and, though his writings are charmingly full of poetry, yet he cannot give us his *Pilgrim’s Progress*—that sweetest of all prose poems—without continually making us feel and say, ‘Why, this man is a living Bible!’ Prick him anywhere—his blood is Bibline, the very essence of the Bible flows from him. He cannot speak without quoting a text, for his very soul is full of the Word of God. I commend his example to you, beloved” (“Charles Spurgeon as a Literary Man” in *The Autobiography of Charles H. Spurgeon, Compiled from His Letters, Diaries, and Records by His Wife and Private Secretary*, vol. 4, 1878–1892, Curtis \& Jennings, 1900, p. 268\).
Most world\-class literary masterpieces are produced by the literary elite, that is, well\-educated “men of letters” of high social standing and some influence. In such elite company, *The Pilgrim’s Progress* stands out. No one from Bunyan’s social status (uneducated, working\-class poor) has ever written a book the caliber of *The Pilgrim’s Progress*. The hand of God has been upon this book, and Bunyan’s masterpiece continues to bless millions more pilgrims in their journey.
|
Is it biblical to refer to God as God the mother?
|
Answer
The first thing to recognize is that God does not have a body and therefore does not have gender in the technical sense. At the same time, God is consistently referred to as our heavenly [Father](Father-God.html) in Scripture, never as a heavenly Mother.
There are a few places in Scripture where God describes Himself in motherly terms in that He does some of the things that a mother might do, like comfort or feed her children (see Hosea 11:3–4; Deuteronomy 32:18; Isaiah 42:14; 49:15; 66:13\). There are about a dozen more verses where God speaks of gathering His children under His wings, as in Psalm 91:4: “He will cover you with his feathers, and under his wings you will find refuge; his faithfulness will be your shield and rampart.” Covering with feathers, it is said, is something a mother bird normally does. However, in Psalm 91 masculine pronouns are clearly used. Some cite Deuteronomy 32:11–12 as comparing God’s actions with those of a mother eagle: “Like an eagle that stirs up its nest and hovers over its young, that spreads its wings to catch them, and carries them aloft.” Notice, however, that the text does not refer to a *mother* eagle, and eagles are one species of bird where the father will also sit on the nest. Even if it is granted that God does some things that a mother commonly does, He is still Father—just as a human father may do some things that a mother normally does but is still the father, not the mother.
If God does not have literal gender, why does it matter if He is called Father or Mother? In brief, because *God the Father* is a biblical term (e.g., 1 Thessalonians 1:1\), and *God the Mother* is not. The idea of “God as mother” usually comes to the fore when discussing issues of [gender equality](gender-equality-inequality.html) and gender roles as defined in the Bible. The Bible teaches that men and women have different yet [complementary roles](complementarianism.html). Both men and women are made in God’s image (Genesis 1:28\) and are equal before God, both in sin and salvation. However, God, for His own purposes, has designated men to be leaders in the home and church; and He holds men responsible for how they exercise their authority. Since God is the Ultimate Leader, His position is best conveyed in masculine terms such as *Father* and *King* (rather than *Mother* and *Queen*). God the Father and God the Son are both masculine titles, and the Holy Spirit is consistently referred to with masculine pronouns. God has revealed Himself as male, and He is referred to by male pronouns throughout the Bible. To call God “Mother” is unbiblical.
There are evangelical Christians who reject the idea of gender roles and male headship. They would suggest that the society in which Scripture was written was patriarchal, and, while that worldview is reflected in the Bible’s use of language, it does not carry divine endorsement. However, evangelicals who believe this would not normally go as far as to call God “Mother.” Usually, those who promote using the title God the Mother are solidly outside the evangelical camp and view the Bible as a human work, written by men and simply reinforcing the long\-standing (and self\-serving) patriarchal systems in which they lived.
It is reported that a well\-known Bible translator was approached by someone who felt that the translation he was working on should use feminine pronouns to refer to God. The translator asked if feminine pronouns should be used to refer to the devil as well: “Resist the devil and she will flee from you.” That rejoinder was not well\-received.
Unfortunately, in our society many mothers do reflect the loving, caring, and providing nature of God better than fathers who have often failed to live up to their God\-given responsibilities. Many people would testify that they have trouble with the concept of God as Father because they associate Him with their absent or abusive human fathers. The solution is to get to know God the Father as He really is, not to substitute Him with God the Mother.
|
Is there a mother god?
|
Answer
Outside of Christianity, female deities are quite common. Almost every pagan religion has a goddess of some kind. Some people attempt to shoehorn the concept of a mother god into Christianity, as well, despite the fact that the Bible in no way supports the idea of a female counterpart to God the Father.
Some point to [Asherah](who-Asherah.html) as an example of a mother god that was accepted by the ancient Israelites. Not only was Asherah a goddess, they say, but she was the consort of Yahweh. Such a view is a simplistic recasting of Baal\-worship, based on an assumption that the Israelites built their Yahweh\-focused religion from the raw materials of Baal\-worship. In Canaanite mythology, Asherah was the consort of Baal, but the Mosaic Law unequivocally forbade the worship of Asherah (Deuteronomy 16:21\). Israel’s forays into Asherah\-worship were viewed as rebellion and judged as sin (see 1 Kings 15:13; 2 Chronicles 15:13\).
Some look to [Sophia](sophia-goddess-wisdom.html) as a mother god because Wisdom is personified as a woman in Proverbs 8\. In verses 27–31, Wisdom speaks in a way that seems to indicate she is companion to the God of creation. However, the book of Proverbs is poetic and highly symbolic. Wisdom is clearly a personification, not an actual person. “Sophia” is not an actual person, much less a female companion or counterpart to God the Father.
Similarly, the World Mission Society Church of God, by conflating Galatians 4:26 with some concepts about the New Jerusalem, teach that God has a bride, the [heavenly mother](heavenly-mother.html). In the New Testament, the church as a redeemed group is called the bride of Christ, but we are not a mother god.
Some view Mary as the Queen of Heaven and almost deify her. However, those who do so do not get their views from the Bible. Mary herself puts to rest any notion that she is a mother god, recognizing in Luke 1:47 that God is her Savior. Mary was a mortal human being, a sinner in need of salvation just like every other human being.
In addition to the above attempts to find a “mother goddess” in Scripture are many pagan religions that are rife with female deities. Jeremiah 7:18 and 44:17–25 mention worship of the “[Queen of Heaven](Queen-of-Heaven.html),” a pagan deity. Jeremiah was not endorsing pagan theology; rather, he condemned the observance of rituals associated with the Queen of Heaven, referring to her by her common title.
Another goddess that is gaining in popularity as people become more environmentally conscious is Gaia (or Gaea), the goddess of the earth. Gaia is simply a remnant of Greek mythology who in some cases has been conflated with the evolutionary concept of [Mother Earth](mother-nature.html). In Greek mythology Gaia may have been considered an actual person, but the more modern evolutionary concept views her as a personification of the substance from which we and the universe all sprang.
Some who promote the idea of a mother god allege a contradiction in Scripture: in some places the Bible says there is only one God, yet in other places it speaks about other gods. Paul puts it in perspective in 1 Corinthians 8:4–6, “We know that ‘An idol is nothing at all in the world’ and that ‘There is no God but one.’ For even if there are so\-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many ‘gods’ and many ‘lords’), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.” God is the One True God, but there are many other “gods,” that is, many other things that people worship. Many of these so\-called gods are female deities.
Regardless of the gender assigned to any deity, God has made it clear that He is the only True God, Creator of Heaven and Earth. “There is none besides me. I am the LORD, and there is no other” (Isaiah 45:6\). There is no mother god.
|
Who was King Asa in the Bible?
|
Answer
Asa was a descendant of David and the third king of the southern kingdom of Judah. He ruled for forty\-one years (1 Kings 15:10\) and “did what was good and right in the eyes of the Lord his God” (2 Chronicles 14:2\). The biblical account of Asa’s reign is detailed in 1 Kings 15 and 2 Chronicles 14–16\.
Asa became king of Judah in the twentieth year of [Jeroboam](Jeroboam-in-the-Bible.html) of Israel’s reign (Jeroboam was the first king of the northern kingdom of Israel after the kingdom divided). Asa’s father, [Abijah](King-Abijah.html), had done much evil in God’s sight and only ruled for three years. Asa’s grandfather, [Rehoboam](Rehoboam-and-Jeroboam.html), had also done evil in God’s sight. But King Asa instituted reform; he removed the male shrine prostitutes, cut down [Asherah poles](Asherah-pole.html), and even deposed his grandmother from her position as queen mother because of her involvement with Asherah worship (1 Kings 15:12–13; 2 Chronicles 14:3, 16\). Asa also commanded his people to follow the Lord (2 Chronicles 14:4\). First Kings 15:14 says, “Although he did not remove the high places, Asa’s heart was fully committed to the Lord all his life” (see also 2 Chronicles 15:17\).
Judah was at peace with surrounding nations for ten years during Asa’s reign (2 Chronicles 14:1\). Second Chronicles 15 describes a time when Azariah, a prophet, told Asa that, if he sought the Lord, God would be with him. This encouraged Asa to remove idols and to repair the altar at the Lord’s temple. He assembled the people together to sacrifice to the Lord: “They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their ancestors, with all their heart and soul. All who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, were to be put to death, whether small or great, man or woman. They took an oath to the Lord with loud acclamation, with shouting and with trumpets and horns. All Judah rejoiced about the oath because they had sworn it wholeheartedly. They sought God eagerly, and he was found by them. So the Lord gave them rest on every side” (2 Chronicles 15:12–15\).
Asa built up the fortified cities, and Judah enjoyed a time of prosperity (2 Chronicles 14:6–7\). When Zerah the Cushite marched out to make war against Judah, Asa called on God for aid. “The Lord struck down the Cushites before Asa and Judah. The Cushites fled, and Asa and his army pursued them as far as Gerar. Such a great number of Cushites fell that they could not recover; they were crushed before the Lord and his forces. The men of Judah carried off a large amount of plunder” (2 Chronicles 14:12–13\).
Unfortunately, in the thirty\-fifth year of Asa’s reign, he made some mistakes. When [King Baasha](King-Baasha.html) of Israel fortified Ramah so as to isolate the territory of Judah, Asa made a treaty with [Ben\-Hadad](Ben-Hadad-in-the-Bible.html), king of Aram. The treaty was effective in stopping Israel, and the Judahites took supplies from Ramah and built up Geba and Mizpah, but the treaty with Aram was not pleasing to God (see 1 Kings 15:16–22; 2 Chronicles 16:1–10\). Hanani, the seer, visited Asa and reminded him of the way God had conquered the Cushites. He chastised Asa for relying on Ben\-Hadad instead of God. Rather than repent of his sin, however, Asa became angry; at the same time he began to oppress some of his people (2 Chronicles 16:10\). For the remainder of Asa’s reign, his kingdom was at war.
In the thirty\-ninth year of Asa’s reign, he got a severe foot disease, but he looked only to the physicians for help and not God (2 Chronicles 16:12\). In the forty\-first year of his reign, Asa died and was buried with great honor.
Despite a less\-than\-ideal end to his reign, Asa is considered a godly and good king. His son, [Jehoshaphat](King-Jehoshaphat.html), succeeded him and ruled for twenty\-five years. Jehoshaphat was also a godly ruler, following in his father’s footsteps and seeking the Lord, yet he also made foolish alliances with those who did not follow the Lord (2 Chronicles 19:1–3; 20:31–33, 20:35–21:1\). The life of King Asa is an example to all of us of how easy it is to drift away from the Lord. Asa began his reign with a strong commitment to God, but as years went by his dedication faltered, bringing unnecessary trouble.
|
What is the Reformed Church in America (RCA)?
|
Answer
The Reformed Church in America or RCA is one of the so\-called [mainline](mainline-denominations.html) Protestant denominations. Until the mid\-19th century, the Reformed Church in America was part of the Dutch Reformed Church. Disagreement over issues such as slavery and the use of English during church services led to the American congregations becoming functionally independent of the European churches.
As a nominally Protestant Christian church, the Reformed Church in America holds to reasonably biblical views on most fundamental topics, such as the Trinity and salvation. On some doctrinal issues, such as [infant baptism](infant-baptism.html), we would categorize their view as incorrect but not as critical as more eternal issues. Not long ago, the RCA moved to force all of its individual churches to open ordination to [women](women-pastors.html), contrary to the biblical standard.
Beyond bare doctrine, the Reformed Church in America also takes some troubling stances. There is a noticeably left\-leaning political slant in the church’s positions on several issues on which it offers opinions. These include topics such as gun control, fair trade, and immigration. While none of these topics are inappropriate to discuss, it is easier to find RCA statements on those topics than details on the Bible, salvation, or other more fundamental Christian concepts.
Related to this concern, the Reformed Church in America is also closely associated with denominations that are clearly in defiance of the Bible, including the Presbyterian Church (USA), the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and the United Church of Christ, which have all but abandoned Christian doctrine in favor of modern, politically liberal preferences. For example, these groups embrace homosexuality and ordain both women and homosexuals as ministers. Yet the RCA is in “full communion” with these other denominations. This means the RCA recognizes their sacraments and ordinations. For all intents and purposes, the Reformed Church in America labels these other groups as doctrinally valid.
This association with heretical churches is a problem for the Reformed Church in America for two reasons. First, it represents a dangerous lack of spiritual judgment. Groups that take blatantly anti\-scriptural stances should not be embraced as being in “full communion.”
Second, it does not bode well for the future of the RCA’s theology. Going back to the issue of homosexuality, the RCA technically considers it a sin. And yet RCA leaders seem to be constantly debating, “assessing,” and considering the subject. The RCA seems reluctant to adhere to the biblical, historic view of marriage. Given its open association with denominations that reject the biblical view of sexuality, the Reformed Church in America is poised to change their view.
Strictly speaking, those who hold to the doctrines taught by the Reformed Church in America are following a biblical model of salvation. And, for the most part, their stance on moral issues comes from a scripturally accurate view. However, the RCA leans heavily toward a modern, liberal approach to religion and is drifting from the biblical view of sexuality.
|
What was the Merovingian Dynasty?
|
Answer
The Merovingian Dynasty was a Frankish line of kings who ruled in Western Europe from AD 476 to 752\. By the end of the 5th century, the Western Roman Empire and the influence of Greco\-Roman culture were in decline. The Roman Empire had lost its hold on most of Western Europe. From the capital in Constantinople (modern Istanbul), the Eastern Roman Empire was focused on defending against Arab/Islamic invaders from the East. Out from under the thumb of Rome, and with less pressing threats from invaders, Western Europe began to come into its own politically, and Christianity in Western Europe began to develop as well.
At this time and for several centuries to follow, Gaul was the largest and most important state in Western Europe. It encompassed modern France and Luxembourg as well as significant portions of Switzerland, northern and central Italy, Germany, and the Netherlands. Gaul fell to the Franks, a Germanic tribe, in 486\. The Merovingian Dynasty, named for the Frankish King Merovech, continued to expand their kingdom. In 496, Merovech’s grandson, King Clovis I, was baptized as a Christian. (His wife was Catholic, and she had been trying to convert him. Before an important battle that he feared he might lose, Clovis asked the aid of his wife’s God. After victory in battle, he “converted.”)
Clovis’s conversion had significant historical impact but seems to have had very little personal impact. Clovis and his forces were still quite willing to use treachery and brutality to defeat any opposition. As a Catholic convert, Clovis was loyal to the Nicene Creed. Although Arianism had been popular among Germanic peoples, Clovis led his people to accept the orthodox understanding of the Person of Christ and also used this theological disagreement as motivation (or pretext?) to expel the Arian Visigoths from Southern France.
As loyal Catholics, the Merovingian rulers were allied with the Pope and became promoters of Catholic Christianity. Although the Merovingians were harsh and even barbaric in their rule, their alliance with and promotion of [Roman Catholicism](Roman-Catholicism.html) resulted in at least a nominal acceptance of orthodox Christianity throughout Western Europe and even led to the spread of Christianity to England.
The harsh practices of the Merovingian Dynasty in the 6th and 7th centuries were detrimental to the Church. The Merovingians viewed the Church as a tool to be used for their own purposes. They regularly appointed laymen as bishops and sold church offices. [Pope Gregory](Gregory-the-Great.html) tried to institute reforms, but these were resisted. Finally, in 752 Pope Zachary deposed King Chideric III, ending the Merovingian Dynasty. Pope Stephen II (Zachary’s successor) crowned Pepin the Short king of Gaul. Pepin was the first king of the new [Carolingian Dynasty](Carolingian-dynasty.html).
When considering the impact of the Merovingian Dynasty, it might be easy to slip into cynicism. This is one instance in which orthodox Christianity (at least orthodox in respect to the Nicene Creed) was spread by ungodly political and military means. However, we must remember that God can use any event and any ruler—even those who have no genuine allegiance to Him—to accomplish His ultimate goal without divine approval of the means (see Isaiah 10:5–19\). What the Merovingian kings did with sinful motives God used to spread (at least a nominal) orthodox Christianity throughout Western Europe and prepared the way for the gospel to be proclaimed in England. Just as [Joseph](life-Joseph.html) pointed out to his brothers who sold him into slavery that what they meant for evil God used for good (see Genesis 50:20\), the progeny of English Christianity can be thankful for the influence of the Merovingian Dynasty while acknowledging that many of the means used to spread Christianity were counter to the spirit of it.
In the 1982 book *Holy Blood, Holy Grail* and the 2003 book *The Da Vinci Code*, the authors concoct a myth that the Merovingian kings were actually physical descendants of Jesus Christ through a relationship with Mary Magdalene. This is a baseless hoax. While the Merovingian kings claimed divine support for their dynasty, there is no historical record of them claiming to be of the bloodline of Jesus Christ. Further, there is absolutely no biblical or historical evidence of [Jesus being married](was-Jesus-married.html) or having children.
|
What does the Bible say about enchantment?
|
Answer
In modern usage, the word *enchantment* can refer to the feeling of being attracted by something interesting, pretty, or exciting. But in the Bible *enchantment* usually refers the practice of the magic arts. Enchantment, as a part of [witchcraft](Bible-witchcraft.html) and sorcery, was clearly forbidden in God’s Law (Leviticus 19:26; 2 Kings 21:6\). An enchanter was one who cast spells or put “curses” on someone. Some English translations use the words *diviner*, *magician*, *fortune\-teller*, *necromancer*, or *astrologer* to identify someone who practiced enchantment.
Only two sources of power exist in the universe: those that originate with God, and those that God has allowed Satan to control (Job 1:12\). Since time began, God has commanded us to listen and obey Him alone (Genesis 2:16–17\). Although He gives us the freedom to choose our master, God has always had strong words for human beings who dabble in Satan’s territory (Deuteronomy 18:14; Isaiah 2:6; Revelation 9:21\). He will not tolerate our idolatry or our fascination with enchantment (Exodus 22:18\).
It is also interesting to note that the Greek word [*pharmakeia*](pharmakeia-in-the-Bible.html), translated in Galatians 5:20 as “witchcraft” or “sorcery,” is also a word that implies the use of magic potions and mind\-altering substances as part of a sorcerer’s enchantment. From this Greek word we get the English word *pharmacy*, associated with the manufacture and dispensing of drugs. This word is used again in Revelation 18:23 by an angel executing God’s judgments upon Babylon, in part because of her refusal to repent from her “magic spell”—*pharmakeia*—or enchantments of every sort.
With this deeper understanding of all that enchantment encompasses, the Bible’s prohibition of it becomes even more relevant for our day. Our world’s out\-of\-control abuse of mind\-altering substances has its roots in satanic enchantment. The very demons of hell thrive in environments where drugs, witchcraft, necromancy, and psychics are celebrated (2 Corinthians 11:14; 1 Chronicles 10:13; Leviticus 20:27; Acts 13:6–11\). What our sinful flesh finds enchanting, God knows will destroy us. So He prohibits involvement with sorcery and enchantment on any level.
For a Christian, the prohibition against enchantment goes one step further. Ephesians 5:18 warns us that we cannot be controlled by both [alcohol](sin-alcohol.html) and the Holy Spirit. Alcoholic liquor, which is often dubbed “spirits,” controls us in a way that only God’s Spirit should control us. When we transfer ownership of our lives to Jesus (Luke 9:23\), the Holy Spirit comes to live inside our hearts (Acts 2:38\). He comes with the intention of transforming us into the image of Christ by directing our lives through our voluntary surrender and obedience to His Word (Romans 8:29; Galatians 5:16\). This transformation cannot happen when we choose to be controlled by something other than Him. When we seek enchantments, through drugs, alcohol, horoscopes, fortune\-telling, or any number of other satanic controls, we forfeit the fruit that God desires to produce in our lives (Galatians 5:22; John 15:1–4\).
The only “enchantment” believers seek is found in the presence of God Himself. Paul uses the Greek word *huperbolé*, which means “surpassing excellence,” to put into words the experience of intimate fellowship with Jesus (2 Corinthians 4:7, 17; 12:7\). In Philippians 3:8, Paul describes His “enchantment” with Jesus this way: “I consider everything a loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord.” David was similarly enthralled: “I say to the Lord, ‘You are my Lord; apart from you I have no good thing.’ . . . You make known to me the path of life; you will fill me with joy in your presence, with eternal pleasures at your right hand” (Psalm 16:2, 11\). To be caught up in the Holy Spirit, enraptured in the worship of Almighty God, is the highest form of enchantment and the only form we should ever pursue.
|
What was the Carolingian Dynasty?
|
Answer
The Carolingian Dynasty ruled the Franks, a Germanic tribe, in Western Europe for about 200 years, from AD 751 to 987\. Unlike modern nations in which an election or a sudden *coup d'état* marks clear boundaries between rulers or administrations, during the Middle Ages it often took years (even two or three generations) for one family or dynasty to decline and another to come to the fore. While the end of one dynasty is ruling by title, the beginnings of another might have been ruling in actuality. The Carolingian Dynasty takes its name from the personal name Charles, since many of the kings in the dynasty bore that name, most notably [Charlemagne](Charlemagne.html).
The Franks had been the major power in Gaul since the 6th century, ruled by the [Merovingians](Merovingian-dynasty.html). Over time, as Merovingian power diminished, wealthy and influential local leaders emerged. By the beginning of the 8th century, the Merovingians were rulers in name only. Pepin (the first member of the Carolingian Dynasty) emerged as the “virtual ruler” even though there was still a Merovingian king on the throne. Pepin’s son, Charles Martel, defeated an Arab invasion at Tours, France, in 732, further consolidating the power of the family. In 751 Charles’ son Pepin the Short was crowned king of the Franks by the Pope, officially ending the Merovingian Dynasty. Pepin the Short, with the Pope’s approval, confined the remaining Merovingian rivals to a monastery.
On Christmas Day in 800, Pepin the Short’s son Charles (who would become known as Charles the Great or Charlemagne) was crowned Emperor of the Roman Empire by Pope Leo III, thus cementing the tie between the papacy and the Carolingian Dynasty. Under Charlemagne peace and political unity blanketed a great deal of Western Europe and provided an opportunity for the church to flourish.
Prior to Charlemagne, the Carolingian rulers demonstrated no real piety and often saw the church as simply a means of promoting Frankish interests. Perhaps for this reason, they did support missionary work and church reforms. While it is most likely that Charlemagne saw Christianity as a way to further his own power as well, he also demonstrated a genuine concern for the advance and development of Christianity. He convened numerous synods to help settle theological and church disputes. By accepting his crown from the Pope, he acknowledged and enhanced the Pope’s authority, and that event gave rise to the [Holy Roman Empire](Holy-Roman-Empire.html). Charlemagne conducted two successful campaigns against the Lombards and then returned some of the conquered territory in Northern Italy to the Pope. He also supported the Pope financially, with the stated expectation that the Pope would support him with prayers and otherwise allow him to rule as he saw fit.
Charlemagne divided his land into dioceses and increased the number of bishops. He insisted that the bishops have authority in the churches, not the local wealthy land owners and sponsors. Although he was barely literate, he sought to improve the education of the clergy by bringing in scholars from around the world. He increased the number of archbishops and built churches. He sought to enforce the sanctity of marriage (though he had not been faithful to his own wife!).
Charlemagne strengthened the Carolingian Dynasty when he conquered Saxon territory in Northern Europe and demanded that those he conquered be baptized. He encouraged missionary work among them and moved some of them to the Rhineland so that they would be surrounded by Christians who would aid in their assimilation. Eventually, the Saxons did become largely Christian. Treatment of non\-Christians by the Carolingians was not nearly as brutal as it had been under the Merovingians.
In summary, under Charlemagne the church in Western Europe flourished, and Christianity spread to people who had not been exposed to it before. Power began to shift from the Eastern Roman Empire to Western Europe and then to the Pope. This shift would dominate world affairs for more than a thousand years to come.
Charlemagne’s son Louis the Pious ruled with his father and then became sole Emperor after Charlemagne’s death in 814\. Louis was not as energetic as his father and was more interested in the ascetic lifestyle. Upon his death, the realm was divided among his three sons. Internal strife resulted, and the decline of the Carolingian Dynasty followed. With that decline, the power of the Pope over the Holy Roman Empire increased. The bishops in Western Europe increasingly looked to the Pope for protection from the archbishops who had been strengthened but also held in check by Carolingian rulers. By the end of the 9th century, there was a power vacuum in Western Europe with Scandinavian invaders threatening. It is interesting to note that the Scandinavians resisted conversion to Christianity because they saw it as submission to Carolingian power. With the Carolingians weakened, this barrier was removed, and by 950 Scandinavia had been thoroughly Christianized.
It is impossible to know just how many people (if any) came to a genuine faith in Christ due to the efforts of the Carolingian Dynasty. Certainly Charlemagne’s use of force to spread Christianity is deplorable to modern Christians. Nevertheless, his efforts did bring Christianity into new territories and helped shift the balance of power to the West. In His providence God used Western dominance to help spread the truth of the gospel to the ends of the earth.
|
What does the Bible say about egotism / egoism?
|
Answer
Egotism is an excessive focus or occupation with oneself driven by an inflated sense of self\-importance. Egoism is a preoccupation with oneself yet may be without the inflated self\-importance. Egoism also refers to the belief that self\-interest is the motivation for and/or the valid end of all action. The human tendency toward being an egotist/egoist is no surprise from a biblical perspective. It is also something the Bible speaks against, and God soundly dealt with egotists such as King Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 4\).
At the root of egotism is self. Egotism is ultimately driven by [pride](pride-Bible.html) and thinking oneself worthy of the utmost attention or capable of complete self\-sufficiency. At times, an egoist may be motivated by past hurt. Betrayal, abuse, or abandonment may cause a person to believe he must always look out for himself—because no one else will. Rather than trust others, someone who has been hurt may isolate herself and believe she can only trust herself. Though not pride as we would generally conceive of it, this is still an unbiblical stance that raises self to the status of a god.
Philippians 2:1–11 is one passage that speaks to egotism. Verses 3–4 say, “Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others.” We are to look to the interests of others based on the example of Jesus Christ, who, though He is God, humbled Himself to live a human life and die a humiliating death in our stead. In both the Old and New Testaments, followers of God are called to humility; we are not to have an over\-inflated sense of self\-importance. Humility is not self\-debasement or a lack of confidence. Being humble does not mean that we neglect our own needs or uphold no [boundaries](boundaries-biblical.html). Rather, humility is having an accurate estimation of oneself wherein we think of ourselves less often. We are not preoccupied with ourselves; rather, we see and care about the needs of others. We are willing to sacrifice our own preferences for the benefit of others.
Christians understand that serving self is not the highest goal. To those who are egotistical due primarily to pride, the Bible reminds us that all have fallen short of God’s glory (Romans 3:23\). We are each sinners, enslaved to sin, dead in guilt, and in need of a Savior (John 8:34; Romans 6:15–23; Ephesians 2:1–5\). On our own, we are nothing and only deserving of hell (John 3:16–18\). In truth, there is no justification for pride. But, in Christ, we are made new (2 Corinthians 5:17\). We become children of God (John 1:12; 1 Peter 2:9–10\). God is the one who validates our existence and gives meaning to our lives. Egotism ultimately leaves people empty. As with all sin, egotism promises a reward it is incapable of delivering (James 1:14–17; Galatians 6:8\). It is only in God that we find true life (John 10:10\).
The truth of who God is and His gift of salvation resolve the fear\-based motivation for egoism. First Peter 5:5–7 says, “All of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, because, ‘God opposes the proud but shows favor to the humble.’ Humble yourselves, therefore, under God’s mighty hand, that he may lift you up in due time. Cast all your anxiety on him because he cares for you.” In Matthew 6:25–34 Jesus says not to worry but to instead seek God’s kingdom first and trust Him for our needs. We can see how God cares for sparrows and the grass of the field, and we trust that we are of much more worth to Him. We don’t need to look out for ourselves as number one because God is looking out for us. He alone is fully capable to meet all of our needs, and we can trust that He will.
God alone is to be worshiped. He is of utmost importance. We can never take His place—either by thinking of ourselves so highly that we believe we deserve to be the center of all attention, or by remaining in a wounded condition that causes us to distrust everyone. Egotism is a natural human tendency. But it is one born of sin that only results in disappointment. Rejecting egotism, Christians are called to entrust themselves to God. Out of the love He lavishes on us, we are to love others (John 13:34–35\). We are called to put others above ourselves, care for other people, and attend to their needs. Ultimately, we are to surrender our lives completely to God, worshiping Him alone, loving Him with all of our being, and loving others with His love (Matthew 22:37–40; Galatians 6:2–10\). It is in giving of ourselves, not in putting ourselves first, that we actually find life (Matthew 16:24–25\).
|
Is there any spiritual significance to birthstones?
|
Answer
Birthstones, also known as “birthday stones,” are an array of specific minerals traditionally associated with the 12\-month Gregorian calendar. Diverse legends and myths surround the perceived spirituality of birthstones, ranging from healing powers to physically therapeutic effects to granting the bearer good luck. Per these stories, wearing a gemstone on one’s person will heighten these effects, especially if the birthstone matches the wearer’s birth month. Believers in the power of birthstones view the most effective scenario as owning all twelve birthstones and switching them out monthly.
According to the American Gem Society, these are the gems associated with each month, along with their purported “powers”:
• January \- Garnet (happiness, health, wealth)
• February \- Amethyst (peace, courage, stability)
• March \- Aquamarine, Bloodstone (preservation of health)
• April \- Diamond (love, prosperity)
• May \- Emerald (mental health, passion)
• June \- Pearl (purity), Alexandrite (intuition), Moonstone (good fortune)
• July \- Ruby (love, success)
• August \- Peridot (prosperity), Sardonyx (confidence), Spinel (energy)
• September \- Sapphire (wisdom)
• October \- Tourmaline (happiness), Opal (inspiration)
• November \- Topaz, Citrine (calm, good fortune)
• December \- Tanzanite (psychic powers), Zircon (virtue), Turquoise (love, success)
Birthstone month attributions and their symbolism vary greatly among different cultures. Indeed, even gemstone power attributes are much broader across cultures than what has been noted above. Throughout the centuries, various entities have attempted to standardize birthstones, furthering the use of and belief in birthstones.
While the Bible does not mention birthstones, their widely accepted origin story has roots in biblical history. Exodus 28 contains instructions for making the sacred, priestly garments. Exodus 28:15–30 describes Aaron’s high priestly breastplate, upon which 12 stones were used to represent the [12 tribes of Israel](twelve-tribes-Israel.html). A first\-century Jewish historian made a connection between these 12 stones, the 12 months of the year, and the 12 signs of the [Zodiac](astrology-Bible.html)—although no such connection exists in the Bible. Tastes and customs regarding symbolism have changed over time, and modern birthstone lists have no reference to Exodus 28’s description of priestly garments.
Wearing a birthstone is not sinful; an object, in and of itself, cannot be sinful. To wear a birthstone for fun or fashion is not sinful. We sin in our hearts and minds when we choose to reject God or God’s will. The [superstitious](superstitions.html) belief that a birthstone or any other object has spiritual powers is akin to idolatry. Believers know that wearing a gemstone of any kind will not change the circumstances of their lives. The Bible teaches that all things are under God’s sovereign control, unaffected by people’s plans or the natural world, including the created objects within it. The Lord either causes or allows all things in keeping with His divine plan (Acts 4:28; Ephesians 1:10\). Birthstones have no spiritual power. To believe that a gemstone might circumvent God’s will is to reject His sovereignty.
|
Does the Bible say anything that would apply to paying child support?
|
Answer
The Bible is clear that God [hates divorce](divorce-remarriage.html) (Malachi 2:16\) and that, if possible, a husband and wife should seek reconciliation and forgiveness before making the decision to end their marriage (Luke 11:4; Ephesians 4:32\). However, God acknowledges that divorce will occur because we are sinful human beings (Matthew 19:8\). The Bible does not mention the practice of paying child support, but it does address the importance of caring for one’s family, especially children.
The book of Psalms speaks of how children are to be treasured: “Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward” (Psalm 127:3, ESV). “As a father has compassion on his children, so the LORD has compassion on those who fear him” (Psalm 103:13\). Proverbs 13:22 says good parents make sure their family is cared for after they die: “A good man leaves an inheritance for their children’s children.” Jesus was adamant in teaching that children should have a high priority in our lives (Matthew 19:13–15\).
In regards to monetary provision in the form of child support, we can glean some principles from 1 Timothy 5, which addresses how the church should care for widows and the elderly. “Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8\). While “paying child support” in the modern sense is not a direct command of the Bible, providing for one’s family is clearly a godly imperative and God\-honoring practice.
Christians are also called to obey the laws of the land (Romans 13:1–7\). If a court judge enforces a divorce agreement in which one parent must pay child support, including spousal support (alimony), to the other parent, then that parent must do so in compliance with the law. Regardless of emotions, real or perceived debts, or other personal circumstances, the parent ordered to pay child support must agree to do so for the benefit of their children. Colossians 3:18–25 details how a Christian household ought to function, ending with this: “Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for their wrongs, and there is no favoritism” (verse 25\). If one or both parents feel they have been hurt, they must allow God to handle the dispensing of justice. A parent’s first priority should be the care of his or her children, not achieving revenge or otherwise satisfying oneself.
Divorce is never a part of God’s original plan, but involved parties can still honor Him by caring for their children post\-divorce through child support payments, quality time, and respecting the other parent. With God, Christian parents can persevere through these trials (James 1:12\). Divorced parents would do well to pray regularly for their children, for their children’s relationship with the other parent, and for their own personal healing (Philippians 1:6; 2 Thessalonians 3:3; 3 John 1:4\).
|
How many prophets are in the Bible?
|
Answer
A [prophet in the Bible](prophet-Bible.html) was someone who revealed God’s messages to others. Some, like Moses, heard directly from God and passed on the words through writing or speech. Some, like Joseph and Daniel, interpreted the dreams and/or visions of others. The messages could be prophecies of the future, messages for the listener, or warnings for others. The life of a godly prophet was never an easy one (see Acts 7:52\). Here is a list of prophets found in the Bible:
**Prophets in the Old Testament**
• Noah: [Noah](life-Noah.html) was a prophet in that God spoke to him about the future and he possibly preached judgment against others. Genesis 7:1–4; 8:16–17, 21–22; and 9:1–16 record times when God spoke to Noah directly. Hebrews 11:7 is sometimes interpreted to mean that God told Noah to preach against the evil people he lived near, but the words “by his faith he condemned the world” can also mean that Noah’s faith was an example of how they should have acted and proof that faith was possible.
• Abraham: God spoke to [Abraham](life-Abraham.html) several times. Many of their conversations were filled with instruction, but God also gave Abraham glimpses of the future. In fact, in their first meeting, God started by telling Abram to leave his country and travel to a new place (Genesis 12:1\) and then went straight into a blessing that doubled as a prophecy of the future (Genesis 12:2–3\).
• Jacob: In Genesis 28:10–22, [Jacob](life-Jacob.html) had his dream of the stairway to heaven and a reiteration of God’s promise to his father Abraham. In Genesis 49, Jacob gave an accurate prophecy of the future of his sons’ descendants.
• Joseph: In our first introduction to [Joseph](life-Joseph.html), in Genesis 37:3–11, he related two dreams he’d had—prophecies that he would one day rule over his brothers and parents. His dreams incensed his brothers so much they sold him into slavery, which eventually led him to such a high political position they had to come to him for food, thus fulfilling his dream. Before Joseph reached that position, however, he interpreted the dreams of Pharaoh’s cupbearer and baker (Genesis 40\) and then Pharaoh’s own dream (Genesis 41:1–40\).
• Moses: Much of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy are filled with God’s messages to and through [Moses](life-Moses.html). They begin in Exodus 3 when God called Moses from the burning bush to return to Egypt to speak judgment against the Pharaoh and rescue the Israelites. Moses’ prophecies include both rebuke against the Israelites and predictions of the future. God spoke more to Moses than anyone else in the Bible.
• Aaron: When Moses complained that he wasn’t a good public speaker, God made his brother, [Aaron](life-Aaron.html), his mouthpiece. In Exodus 7:1–7, Aaron began his career as God’s prophet, rebuking and giving warnings to others.
• Miriam: In Exodus 15:20 Moses’ sister, [Miriam](Miriam-in-the-Bible.html), is identified as a prophet. We don’t know specifically what message God gave her, apart from the song she sings in verse 21\. In Numbers 12, however, we find neither her nor Aaron’s judgment was always informed by God’s guidance.
• The seventy elders of Israel: Although God had provided the Israelites with manna and water, they demanded meat, as well. God promised to oblige. In preparation, Moses ordered seventy elders to the tent of meeting, and the Holy Spirit temporarily endowed them with the ability to prophesy (Numbers 11:25\).
• [Eldad and Medad](Eldad-and-Medad.html): Eldad and Medad were two of the seventy elders, but for an unknown reason they stayed in the camp and did not go to the tent of meeting. The Holy Spirit found them, anyway, and they prophesied for a short time (Numbers 11:26\).
• Balaam: [Balaam](Balaam-in-the-Bible.html) has the distinction of being a true prophet who was also an evil man. The king of Moab tried to bribe him to curse Israel. Balaam tried, but his fear of God, his integrity as a prophet, and his stubborn donkey overcame his greed (Numbers 22–24\). The sin of Balaam is warned against in Jude 1:11\.
• Elihu: Job’s less\-than\-supportive three friends are well known, but mid\-way through their counsel, [Elihu](Elihu-Job.html) arrived. His long message (Job 32–35\) condemned the other three friends, confronted Job about his lack of trust in God, and reminded them all that God is just.
• Joshua: When Moses died, [Joshua](life-Joshua.html) took command of the Israelites’ campaign into the Promised Land. In Joshua 1:1–9, God gave him encouragement for the hard task ahead and a promise of success. He also gave Joshua a warning to obey the law God had given Moses.
• Deborah: [Deborah](life-Deborah.html) is the only recorded female judge of Israel, and Judges 4:4 indicates she was a prophetess, as well. In Judges 4:6–7, Deborah either passed on God’s message to the military commander Barak or enforced it; in Judges 4:9, she related a prophecy of future events.
• Gideon: [Gideon](life-Gideon.html) was one of the Bible’s least willing prophets. Throughout Judges 6–8, God led Gideon to take a small army and destroy the oppressive Midianites and Amalekites. It’s unclear if Gideon was the prophet who relayed God’s promise in Judges 6:8–10\.
• Samuel: [Samuel](life-Samuel.html) received his first message from God in 1 Samuel 3:4 when he was a small boy. He spent his life as God’s messenger; two of his most significant acts were anointing Saul (1 Samuel 9\) and David (1 Samuel 1:13\) to be king. Samuel’s words of God’s wisdom to Saul went mostly unheeded, and Samuel even returned from the grave to announce God’s punishment for Saul’s disobedience (1 Samuel 28:15–19\).
• A procession of prophets: Shortly after Saul’s anointing as king, he met with seventy prophets and joined them (1 Samuel 10:10\).
• King Saul: Samuel gave [Saul](life-Saul.html) specific instructions right after Samuel anointed him to be king. In the process of heeding Samuel’s directions, Saul met with a group of prophets and prophesied with them (1 Samuel 10:10\).
• Gad: While being chased by Saul, David and a group of followers hid in a stronghold. Gad the prophet sent him a word from God as to what he was to do next (1 Samuel 22:5\).
• Nathan: [Nathan](Nathan-in-the-Bible.html) seems to have been David’s primary link to God’s words. In 2 Samuel 7:4–17, Nathan told David that Solomon would build the temple. In 2 Samuel 12:1–15, Nathan rebuked David for committing adultery with Bathsheba and killing her husband.
• David: In the time of the kings, God tended to speak to the king through prophets, rather than directly as He had with Abraham, Moses, Joshua, Deborah, and Gideon. [David](life-David.html) must have received some kind of message from God, however, as so many of his psalms prophesy the coming of Jesus (Psalm 8; 22; 110\).
• Asaph: [Asaph](who-was-Asaph.html) was one of the worship leaders appointed by King David. He was a Levite and a prolific writer—many of the psalms were written either by him or by the guild he inspired. His songs were sung along with David’s at the time of Hezekiah (2 Chronicles 29:30\).
• Tabernacle musicians: First Chronicles 25:1–7 lists the musicians whom David commissioned to perform before the tabernacle and identifies them as prophets. They include Heman, the grandson of Samuel; Jeduthun; and Asaph, as well as their sons.
• Writers of the Psalms: Many of the psalms besides those directly identified as having been written by David refer to the coming Christ, including Psalms 2, 18, 89 (by Ethan the Ezrahite), 132, and [many others](Psalms-Jesus-Christ.html).
• King Solomon: In 1 Kings 3, God asked [Solomon](life-Solomon.html) in a dream if there was anything Solomon would like from Him. Solomon chose wisdom.
• Agur: [Agur](Agur-Proverbs.html), the son of Jekeh, is cited as the author of Proverbs 30\. Nothing else is known about him.
• [Ahijah](Ahijah-in-the-Bible.html): Unfortunately, Solomon didn’t always use his wisdom. He married too many women and was drawn into worshiping their gods. In 1 Kings 11:29–39, Ahijah told Jeroboam that he would take command of ten of the tribes of Israel after Solomon died. Several years later, Ahijah told Jeroboam’s wife that, because of Jeroboam’s sin against God, not only would their son die, but Jeroboam’s entire line would be cut off (1 Kings 14:1–18\).
• Iddo: Iddo the prophet is mentioned several times, and at least one passage suggests he at one point had his own book, but not much is recorded in the Bible about him. Iddo predicted the rise of Jeroboam (2 Chronicles 9:29\) and wrote a record of Rehoboam (2 Chronicles 12:15\) and Abijah (2 Chronicles 13:17\).
• Shemaiah: After the ten northern tribes followed Jeroboam, Solomon’s son Rehoboam prepared the southern tribes for battle. God sent Shemaiah to tell them to return home (1 Kings 12:22\).
• A man of God from Judah: God sent this unnamed prophet to Bethel to confront the sin of King Jeroboam (1 Kings 13:1–10\). God told this prophet not to eat or drink on his journey and to return home to Judah a different way than he had gone. While speaking to the king, the prophet performed a sign to authenticate his words: the altar used by Jeroboam split in two, and the ashes spilled out. When the king tried to arrest the man of God, the king’s hand withered; when the man of God prayed for the king, the king’s hand was healed.
• An old prophet in Bethel: This unnamed prophet intercepted the man of God on his way home to Judah and deceived him into dining at his house (1 Kings 13:11–32\). In this way, the old prophet caused the man of God from Judah to disobey the Lord's command. The result was that the man of God from Judah was mauled to death by a lion in the way. The old prophet buried the man of God and instructed his sons to bury him beside the man of God some day.
• Azariah: Several Azariahs are mentioned in the Bible, including a long\-lived king of Judah (2 Kings 15\), but only one is specifically called a prophet. He gave God’s warning to King Asa, encouraging him to rid the nation of Judah of idols (2 Chronicles 15:1–7\).
• Hanani: Although King Asa trusted God, he also bribed the king of Syria to break his pact with King Baasha of Israel. Hanani told Asa that God would have destroyed Syria’s king for him if he’d followed the Lord. Asa responded by putting Hanani in stocks in prison and taking out his anger on some of his people (2 Chronicles 16:7–10\).
• Jehu: The prophet Jehu lived in the time of King Baasha and was Hanani’s son. Jehu announced God’s judgment against Baasha, saying that, because of his sin, the dogs and birds would eat his family’s bodies (1 Kings 16:1–7\).
• Elijah: [Elijah](life-Elijah.html) was probably the most significant prophet who didn’t write his own book. He proclaimed God’s word in the northern kingdom of Israel at the time of the evil King Ahab. It was he who ensured a widow was always supplied with oil and flour (1 Kings 17:8–16\), raised that same widow's son from the dead (1 Kings 17:17–24\), who had a showdown with the priests of Baal on Mount Carmel (1 Kings 18:17–40\), and who was strengthened by God’s still voice in his fatigue and depression (2 Kings 2:1–11\). At the end of his life, a chariot of fire took him to heaven, and his mantle fell to Elisha as his successor (2 Kings 2:1–12\).
• Unnamed Prophet: When the northern kingdom of Israel was threatened by Syria, this prophet assured King Ahab that Israel would triumph with God’s help. Ahab did triumph—twice. But he let Ben\-hadad, the king of Syria, live. Another, or perhaps the same, prophet disguised himself as a wounded soldier and prophesied against Ahab for not killing Ben\-hadad (1 Kings 20\).
• [Micaiah](Micaiah-in-the-Bible.html): For some reason, the good king of Judah, [Jehoshaphat](King-Jehoshaphat.html), got along fairly well with the evil king of Israel, Ahab. Ahab invited Jehoshaphat to battle with him against Ramoth\-Gilead, and Jehoshaphat agreed—but not before finding a prophet to ask God’s guidance. Ahab had four hundred false prophets who told them God was with them, but Jehoshaphat insisted on a prophet who actually heard from God. Ahab knew of one, but was reluctant to call him, since he never had anything good to say. Micaiah revealed that God had sent a lying spirit to the four hundred prophets in order to lure Ahab to his death. Ahab went to battle anyway and was struck and killed by a random arrow (1 Kings 22:13–28\).
• Jahaziel: When threatened by the Moabites and Ammonites, King Jehoshaphat took the unusual step of fasting and calling all Judah to seek help from God. God answered through Jahaziel who prophesied that Judah would destroy its enemies and even gave counsel on how to accomplish the rout (2 Chronicles 20:1–23\).
• Eliezer: The usually wise Jehoshaphat joined the evil King Ahaziah of Israel to build some ships. Eliezer confronted Jehoshaphat, saying that, because he had joined with Ahaziah, God would destroy what he had made. The ships were wrecked before they could reach their destination (2 Chronicles 20:35–37\).
• Unknown prophets: Various prophets lived during the time of Elijah and Elisha, belonging to the school of prophets. Nothing is known about these prophets except some lived in Bethel (2 Kings 2:3\) and some in Jericho (2 Kings 2:5\), and they all annoyed Elisha by reminding him that Elijah’s departure was imminent.
• Elisha: [Elisha](life-Elisha.html) was Elijah’s successor and the second\-most important prophet without a book. He spent seven or eight years as Elijah’s apprentice before Elijah was taken to heaven. He then helped wipe out organized Baal worship (2 Kings 10:28\), brought a widow’s son back to life (2 Kings 4:18–37\), and cured Naaman’s leprosy (2 Kings 5\). His power and authority through God was so great that, when a dead man was thrown into Elisha’s grave, the man sprang back to life (2 Kings 13:2–21\).
• Zechariah the priest: When King Joash was a baby, he was hidden from his patricidal grandmother, [Athaliah](Athaliah-in-the-Bible.html), and raised by the priest Jehoiada until the priests could arrange for the queen’s death. Joash began as a very good king but like many others grew to rely on himself too much. Upon Jehoiada’s death, Joash was quickly led to idol worship. When Jehoiada’s son Zechariah confronted Joash and the people, the king ordered him to be stoned (2 Chronicles 24:20–22\).
• Jonah: [Jonah](life-Jonah.html) is best known for the book that bears his name and his great reluctance to go to Nineveh. But he also served as a prophet in Israel in the time of Jeroboam II. Although the king was as evil as any other, God did not yet want Israel to be destroyed. He sent Jonah to Jeroboam and led him to restore a border against their enemies (2 Kings 14:23–27\).
• Joel: After Judah’s crops were obliterated by a swarm of locusts, Joel compared the devastation to what God would do if the people didn’t return to Him. Joel also predicted the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost (Joel 2:28; cf. Acts 2:16–21\).
• Amos: Amos was a Judean shepherd who was tasked with prophesying against Israel. His warnings were ignored, and Israel was taken into captivity by Assyria some time later.
• Hosea: God often asked a great deal of His prophets, and Hosea was a prime example. In order to illustrate the unfaithfulness of the northern kingdom of Israel, God had Hosea marry a prostitute who remained unfaithful after they married. To show how God longed to forgive His people, He told Hosea to take Gomer back. In addition to the message to Israel of God’s faithfulness, Hosea includes a prophecy that Gentiles would one day follow God (Hosea 2:23\).
• Isaiah: [Isaiah](life-Isaiah.html) holds the record for being the prophet who is most quoted in the New Testament. He was an adviser to King Hezekiah of Judah but also had to walk barefoot and naked for three years as a portent against Egypt and Cush. His book contains prophecies of Jesus and John the Baptist, and Jesus used Isaiah 61:1–2 to begin His ministry in Nazareth. It’s possible that Isaiah was also a priest (Isaiah 6:4\).
• Micah: Micah served as a prophet during the reigns of Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah of Judah. His message mixed condemnation of sin with the promise of the coming Messiah. His book contains the only mention of Bethlehem as the place of the Messiah’s birth.
• Oded: Although the kings of Judah were generally better than the kings of Israel, there were still some who worshiped idols and even sacrificed their children. When Ahaz did so, God brought the Syrians to punish them. The Syrians killed at least 120,000 and took 200,000 captive. The prophet Oded, on God’s orders, stopped them, telling the invaders they had gone far enough and they should set the captives free and return the spoils, which they did (2 Chronicles 28:1–15\).
• Zephaniah: Zephaniah was yet another prophet who warned Judah about their impending doom. He condemned their idolatry in their actions and in their hearts. But he also relayed God’s promise that a remnant would return.
• Nahum: One hundred and fifty years after Jonah, Nineveh was out of second chances. Nahum promised that Assyria’s days were numbered and that Judah would be delivered from their threat.
• Huldah: Huldah was one of a handful of women identified as a prophetess in the Bible. When the priest Hilkiah found the Book of the Law in the temple and took it to King Josiah, the king turned to Huldah to find out what they should do. She affirmed that Judah’s rejection of God meant the nation would be destroyed, but because of Josiah’s penitence it would not be in his time (2 Kings 22:8–20\).
• Jeremiah: [Jeremiah](life-Jeremiah.html) was one of the last prophets of the Kingdom of Judah and watched helplessly as it was picked apart by the Babylonians. Known as “[the weeping prophet](weeping-prophet.html)” because of how his words from God affected him, Jeremiah also gave the people a word of hope that they would return from captivity in 70 years. His counsel to submit to God’s judgment was ignored, and he was eventually taken to Egypt with the remnant of the royal family (2 Kings 25:26\). Jeremiah also wrote the [book of Lamentations](Book-of-Lamentations.html), a lament for the fall of Jerusalem.
• Uriah: Jeremiah was not completely alone in his thankless job. Uriah also prophesied against the evil in Judah. He was hunted down and killed by King Jehoiakim (Jeremiah 26:20–23\).
• Habakkuk: Habakkuk covered a lot of ground in such a short book. He prophesied Assyria’s fall, the Babylonian exile, and the future victory of the Persians. His prophecies were revealed in the context of a conversation with God, wherein Habakkuk asked God questions, and God responded.
• Obadiah: Like Jonah, the prophet Obadiah had a message for a nation other than Israel or Judah. He prophesied against Edom, the descendants of Jacob’s brother, Esau. Edom effectively disappeared after their removal from Petra in the fifth century BC.
• Daniel: [Daniel](life-Daniel.html) was one of the first Jews to be taken into exile in Babylon. As part of the royal household, Daniel was trained to be an official in Babylon. Nebuchadnezzar got more than he bargained for, however, when he discovered Daniel was not only intelligent, but he could also interpret dreams. Daniel served several generations of leaders including Belshazzar, who saw the writing on the wall, and Darius, who was horrified to discover he’d been tricked into sending Daniel to the lions’ den. In the visions and angelic encounters of Daniel 7–12, Daniel revealed more about the end times than any other book besides Revelation.
• Ezekiel: [Ezekiel’s](life-Ezekiel.html) book of prophecy appears somewhat psychedelic, with its strange visions. Ezekiel was a priest exiled to Babylon in the second wave of deportations and relayed God’s judgment to the rebellious people. He also made several prophesies about the future, including the coming of Jesus, the New Jerusalem (Ezekiel 48:30–35\), and the millennial kingdom (Ezekiel 44\). Ezekiel was one of the few prophets who eagerly spread God’s message no matter what resistance he encountered—although that may have been because God told him if he didn’t prophesy he would be held accountable for the souls of those he didn’t warn (Ezekiel 33\).
• Haggai: Haggai worked with Zechariah and Zerubbabel to get the Jews who had returned from exile back on track. Specifically, he called the people to seriously consider their priorities and get the temple rebuilt.
• Zechariah the prophet: The son of Berechiah, along with the prophet Haggai, encouraged the Jews to finish the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem after the Babylonian Captivity. In a series of eight related visions, Zechariah received a broad\-ranging message of God’s plan for the Israelites. Along the way, he spoke quite a bit about the Messiah and the fact that people from all over the world would follow Him.
• Malachi: He was the last prophet to prophecy in Israel until an angel visited Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist. As such, Malachi’s message was a call to obedience and a promise of the coming Messiah. Following Malachi’s oracle were 400 years of divine silence.
**Prophets in the New Testament**
• Zechariah, father of John the Baptist: [Zechariah](Zechariah-in-the-Bible.html) was a priest and was chosen to burn incense in the temple. While inside, an angel appeared and told him that his elderly wife would become pregnant with a son. They were to name him John, and he would turn the hearts of the people back to God (Luke 1:8–23\). Zechariah also prophesied after John’s birth (Luke 1:67–79\).
• Mary: Mary, an engaged virgin, was told by Gabriel that she would become pregnant with the Messiah (Luke 1:26–28\). Her prophecy is found in Luke 1:46–55\.
• Joseph: Joseph received a message from an angel that Mary was pregnant with the Messiah (Matthew 1:20\).
• Elizabeth: While Mary was pregnant with Jesus, she visited her cousin [Elizabeth](Elizabeth-in-the-Bible.html), who was pregnant with John the Baptist. When they met, Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit and proclaimed that Mary’s child was the Messiah (Luke 1:41–45\).
• Simeon: Simeon, a righteous old man, had been promised by God that he would see the Messiah before he died. When Joseph and Mary came to the temple with the baby Jesus, Simeon immediately knew who He was and warned Mary that she would suffer (Luke 2:22–35\).
• Anna: [Anna](Anna-the-prophetess.html) was an elderly prophetess who spent her days worshiping at the temple. She, too, knew that the baby Jesus was the long\-awaited Messiah (Luke 2:36–38\).
• John the Baptist: The Holy Spirit lay mightily on [John](life-John-Baptist.html), and the prophet spent his life exhorting people to confess their sins, turn to God, and follow Jesus (John 1:19–28\).
• Philip: [Philip](Philip-in-the-Bible.html) the evangelist was an early believer with a mission. An angel told Philip to go to a deserted place where he found an Ethiopian court official riding in his chariot. Philip witnessed to him, and the official accepted Christ and was baptized (Acts 8:26–40\).
• Paul: [Paul](life-Paul.html) was a prophet both in the prophetic, convicting words he wrote in his letters and in his prophecies of the end times. His letters to the Thessalonians, in particular, give information on the rapture (1 Thessalonians 4:13–18\), the coming judgment (2 Thessalonians 1:5–12\), and the Antichrist (2 Thessalonians 2:1–11\).
• Peter: [Peter](life-Peter.html) had the advantage of spending a great amount of time with Jesus during His three\-year ministry, but he also heard from heaven after the ascension. After King Herod killed James, the brother of John, he imprisoned Peter. An angel came to Peter, spoke to him, and helped him escape (Acts 12:6–12\). In 2 Peter 3, the apostle and prophet foretells events associated with the Day of the Lord.
• Barnabas, Lucius of Cyrene, Manahen, and Simeon Niger: These four men are identified as prophets in Acts 13:1\.
• Judas Barsabbas and Silas: Judas and Silas are identified as prophets in Acts 15:30–33\.
• Philip’s four daughters: These women are labeled as prophets in Acts 21:7–8\.
• Agabus: [Agabus](Agabus-in-the-Bible.html), a prophet in the early church, had the unenviable task of predicting Paul’s future imprisonment (Acts 21:10–11\).
• John: [John the apostle](life-John-Apostle.html), the brother of James, is perhaps the most famous prophet in the New Testament. His book Revelation is filled with admonishment for churches and prophecies about the end times.
• Two Witnesses: The last prophets promised to us are the [two witnesses](two-witnesses.html), who will appear during the tribulation. They will perform signs and prophesy in Jerusalem for 1,260 days, be assassinated, and then return to life (Revelation 11:3–12\).
**False prophets**
• Zedekiah: Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah seems to have been the leader of the four hundred false prophets who encouraged Ahab and Jehoshaphat to war against Ramoth\-gilead. It turned out they all had a [lying spirit](lying-spirit.html) sent by God for the purpose of luring Ahab to his death (1 Kings 22:1–12\).
• Hananiah: The years leading up to the Babylonian Captivity were scary times for unbelieving Jews, and it didn’t help that Jeremiah kept telling them to submit to the Babylonians and trust God to return them from exile. Prophets like Hananiah publicly contradicted Jeremiah’s prophecies and denied that God was angry with His people (Jeremiah 28\).
• Ahab and Zedekiah: In his letter to the Babylonian exiles, Jeremiah encouraged them with their promised return to Judah and foretold great hardships for those who stayed in Jerusalem. He particularly rebuked Ahab, son of Kolaiah, and Zedekiah, son of Maaseiah, who falsely prophesied in God’s name (Jeremiah 29:15–23\).
• Shemaiaha and Noadiah: Although Artaxerxes had told the returned exiles in Jerusalem they could rebuild the city wall, their neighbors opposed their efforts and threatened them. Nehemiah arrived from Babylon with supplies and the drive to get the wall finished. Shemaiah tried to trick Nehemiah into hiding in the temple. It’s unclear what Noadiah and the other prophets did, but Nehemiah trusted God and was not caught in their traps (Nehemiah 6:9–14\).
• Simon the magician: [Simon](Simon-the-Sorcerer.html) had been a magician in Samaria when the gospel arrived. Simon made a profession of accepting Christ, but he also wanted a share in the apostles’ power. After being rebuked by Peter, he asked the apostles to pray for him (Acts 8:9–24\).
• Elymas (a.k.a. Bar\-Jesus): Barnabas and Paul met the Jewish false prophet Elymas on Cyprus. Elymas tried to distract the proconsul from Paul and Barnabas’s message, but Paul cursed him with blindness and the proconsul believed (Acts 13:4–12\).
• The fortune\-telling girl: Paul and Silas were staying with Lydia in Philippi when they were met by a slave girl who was possessed with a spirit of divination. The young slave girl followed them for several days, announcing who they were. Paul grew weary of her unwanted prophecies and finally told the spirit to leave her. It did, and the girl’s owners had Paul and Silas thrown into prison for ruining their fortune\-telling business (Acts 16:16–24\).
• Jezebel: In Jesus’ rebuke of the church in Thyatira, He condemned their acceptance of “that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess” and who was leading God’s people into sexual immorality and idolatry (Revelation 2:20–23\).
• The False Prophet: Just as many of the kings of Judah and Israel had particular prophets who gave them God’s guidance, so the Antichrist in the end times will have a [false prophet](false-prophet.html). His job will be to entice the world to worship the Antichrist, and he’ll be able to perform extensive miracles to lead the world astray (Revelation 13:11–15; 16:13; 19:20; 20:10\).
|
What is Manichaeism?
|
Answer
Manichaeism (also known as Manichaeanism and Manicheanism) is an ancient religion that arose several centuries after Christ. The faith was a purposeful blend of [Zoroastrianism](Zoroastrianism.html) and Christianity, borrowing concepts and terminology from both. Manicheans believed that the universe was dominated by [two competing forces of good and evil](dualism.html), represented by light and darkness, respectively. While the religion of Manichaeism did not survive very long, historically speaking, its reputation has endured. The term *Manichean* is used today mostly to criticize a viewpoint for being too black\-and\-white, or overly simplified.
Manichaeism arose in Persia in the middle of the 3rd century. Like other early heresies, such as [Gnosticism](gnostic-definition.html), it taught that the physical world was inherently evil and that salvation is obtained primarily through knowledge. The founder of Manichaeism is known only as Mani, which is actually a title meaning something like “King of Light” or “Shining One.” His teachings particularly criticized Christianity. Mani took specific issue with the Bible for suggesting that some truths in the universe might not be easily understood by human beings.
This criticism is somewhat ironic, since Manichaeism is one of the most complex and convoluted faiths in history. The faith is an intricate story of the battle between two competing forces, one of goodness and light, the other of evil and darkness. This includes at least three distinct “creations,” all based on the details of these cosmic battles. Mani’s intent was to create a universal religion, combining many of the basic ideas of Zoroastrianism with the terminology of Christianity. To that end, Mani often claimed to be the reincarnation of religious figures such as [Jesus](who-is-Jesus.html) or [Buddha](Gautama-Buddha.html).
Manichaeism has far more in common with faiths such as Zoroastrianism than with Christian theology. Other than certain words and phrases, there is little connection between the Bible and the teachings of Mani. As a result, Manichaeism was much more successful in the East. As [paganism](pagan-paganism.html) faded out, it was replaced mostly by Christianity in the West. Manichaeism, briefly, was the primary competitor to the Christian gospel. This was a relatively short era, however, and, within a few centuries, Manichaeism was practically extinct.
Manichaeism’s legacy comes in two primary ways: historical and rhetorical. Some of the earliest Christian theological works were composed specifically to point out errors and heresies in Manichaeism. In fact, one of the first major Christian apologists, [Augustine](Saint-Augustine.html), was a convert from Manichaeism. Prior to committing to Christ, Augustine was part of Manichaeism as a “hearer,” or someone who participated without making any overt vows toward the faith.
In modern times, *Manichaeism* is mostly used as a derogatory term. When some particular viewpoint is being criticized for ignoring shades of gray or for taking a strong “us\-versus\-them” mentality, it is often referred to as “Manichaean” or as “Neo\-Manichaeism.” This word is often applied to sects that have borrowed ideas from Mani and his teachings, particularly in early Christian history. As used today, though, the term typically has little to do with religion and much more to do with politics and philosophy.
|
What is rape culture?
|
Answer
The term *rape culture* refers to an environment in which the prevailing social attitudes normalize or trivialize [sexual assault](sexual-assault.html) and [abuse](sexual-abuse.html). History is replete with evidences that human civilizations as a whole have been dominated by a rape culture. [Rape](Bible-rape.html) is still sometimes the means by which conquering armies or terror organizations display their victories. Whether the victim is male or female, rape has the power to demean and degrade a person in a way that other forms of abuse do not. Rape violates that very sacred part of human sexuality that was designed by God to be a private love offering to a spouse (Mark 10:7–8\). The act of rape strips a victim of dignity and self\-worth, leaving soul wounds that linger long after the body heals. What God intends for good, Satan intends for evil, and when Satan twists and perverts God’s greatest gifts, the devastation is overwhelming.
In recent years the term *rape culture* has been applied to what some see as increasing incidents of sexual assault, followed by apathetic responses from law enforcement and society as a whole. While both rapists and victims can be male or female, the use of the term *rape culture* usually focuses on the problem of a male perpetrator forcing a female into a sexual act against her will. In a rape culture, the value of a woman and her purity are seen as commodities to be obtained by any man who can take them, with little fear of repercussions. In some nations today, rape culture is considered acceptable, and any woman claiming to be raped is viewed as the villain. The rape victim is often executed or imprisoned for “enticing” a man. That kind of society is clearly a “rape culture.”
Is the rape culture being promoted in the United States? Most people claim outrage at instances of rape, yet the penalties for a rape conviction do not seem to be harsh enough to keep it from happening. The headlines shout so many stories of otherwise upstanding young men raping women and girls that even those who are horrified at the idea can become desensitized to it. Complicating the matter are false charges filed by women against innocent men; such false allegations jar the sensitivities and plant a seed of doubt the next time a rape is reported.
As with most instances of human degradation, the beginnings of a rape culture can be traced to mankind’s rejection of God. Romans 1:18–32 outlines the downward spiral we take when humanity shakes their fist at God and defines their own moral code according to their lusts. Verses 21–22 highlight the problem from which all sins emerge: “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. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools.” Even two thousand years ago when Romans was written, people were denying the real God and worshiping a god of their own making. The reality of God’s existence was and is undeniable, but, rather than bow to Him, mankind “reinvents” Him.
We see the Romans 1 downward spiral happening in our culture today. The word *God* is socially acceptable in nearly every sphere because it has come to mean whatever we want it to mean. However, the name of Jesus is considered divisive and intolerant (1 Corinthians 1:18\). Words like *repentance*, *sin*, and *surrender* are rarely heard—or even preached. The consequence of such self\-worship is a society that has a thin veneer of religiosity but no moral foundation. As in Old Testament days, everyone does what is right in their own eyes (Judges 17:6; cf. Proverbs 21:2\). When every person decides for himself what is acceptable, chaos, anarchy, and unrestrained evil result. Modern civilizations, including the United States, are quickly sliding into that abyss.
The rejection of God also blinds us to the value of human life. This devaluing is seen in the “abortion culture” so loudly defended in the public arena. When human life is reduced to a commodity, individuals become little more than objects we can use or discard according to our personal needs. When a man with that mindset sees a vulnerable woman he can use for sexual gratification, his top priority is pleasing himself. His second priority may be avoiding consequences. If he can achieve penalty\-free self\-gratification, he takes what he can get. His conscience has long since been seared, and he can violate, abuse, and rape without moral qualms (Romans 1:24\). Not all men with that mindset will rape women, because they have chosen different priorities. But the motivation is the same: *I am my own god and I should have whatever I want if I can have it without negative consequences*.
Another factor that can contribute to a rape culture is the overt sexuality that saturates our world. From various media outlets, the internet, and in our conversations, modern culture is awash in sexuality. Sex has become a god, and worshipers are unabashed at singing its praises. Anything goes if it occurs between consenting adults. That type of loose boundary has no signposts that warn of danger, and those who worship sex often find themselves ensnared in a prison they never intended. What God designed to be a part of married life has become the king of all life, often reducing its subjects to beggars and slaves.
[Pornography](pornography-Bible.html) is another contributor to the rape culture. It is nearly unavoidable, and it works its own power in desensitizing and dehumanizing sexuality. Pornography creates appetites that cannot be met through healthy married expression. Its victims find themselves with insatiable desires that increasingly demoralize them until they find themselves in the headlines as one of those “otherwise upstanding young men” who has done the unthinkable. Ironically, many people who decry the rape culture also decry the regulation of sexually explicit material. Even prime time television now displays the kinds of vulgarities that only a few years ago would have been created public outrage. The appetite for sexual degradation affects every part of life and helps create a culture that portrays women, children, and the innocent as sexual objects.
Another factor in the discussion of rape culture is the sexually immoral lifestyle of the average American. It is easy to self\-righteously denounce the existence of a rape culture, but it’s not so easy to acknowledge one’s contribution to it. A contradictory message is sent by society: “I should be free to flaunt my sexuality in any way I choose and have sex any time I want, but everyone else must respond to my provocation in the way I choose in whatever moment I choose.” Sometimes the same people who demand the right to debase themselves publicly are outraged when others respond in deplorable ways. It is not difficult to see how rape becomes more common in a society in which sex is a casual encounter.
A rape culture will prevail any time people defy God’s moral standards and create their own. Some important questions should be asked in ascertaining a society’s descent into a rape culture:
– If a civilization insists upon celebrating sexual perversions of every sort, is it capable of maintaining a morally safe culture?
– Can a culture that openly flaunts its “rights” to be sexually immoral manufacture respect for any sexual boundaries?
– Can a society that denies the very existence of a Creator simultaneously view human beings as intrinsically valuable and worthy of respect?
– If every person is indeed his or her own god, then is rape really wrong? Who decides the morality of any action?
Galatians 6:7 warns us what happens when we remove the authority of God from our values, our goals, and our laws: “Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows.” And a society reaps what it sows as well. Rape culture is not propagated by a godly, Christian people. It is not ignored by those who hold fast to biblical standards. A rape culture is allowed to take root and grow when the people who claim to hate it are actually some of those who help to nourish it.
|
Who was Anselm of Canterbury?
|
Answer
Anselm of Canterbury was a monk, theologian, and archbishop of the 11th century. His work laid the foundation of an approach to theology known as [Scholasticism](Scholasticism.html). Anselm is best remembered today for his writings, such as *Proslogion* (*Discourse*) and *Cur Deus Homo* (*Why Did God Become Man?*), and for what is now known as the ontological argument for the existence of God. Because of his influence and contributions, Anslem is considered one of history’s greatest Christian philosophers, along with men like [Augustine](Saint-Augustine.html) and [Thomas Aquinas](Saint-Thomas-Aquinas.html).
As Anselm was growing up in Lombardy (a region of northern Italy), his father intended for him to go into politics, but even as a child Anselm was far more interested in studying and privacy. In fact, when Anselm joined a monastery, he specifically chose one where he assumed he could be ignored by the rest of the world. As it turned out, this did not happen, because his phenomenal intellect brought him a great deal of attention. Anselm eventually became the Archbishop of Canterbury, though he strongly resisted taking on the position.
In fact, many of Anselm’s struggles revolved around his inability—or unwillingness—to play the political games of his time. A small number of scholars believe this was actually a clever illusion on his part. However, most believe he truly had no interest or aptitude for intrigues and politics. Consistency and integrity were paramount to Anselm, both in his scholarly work and in his practical living. He was known to avoid arguments and conflict, though he was enthusiastic about teaching and discussion.
Highlights of Anselm’s contributions to theology and philosophy involve four major aspects: his writings, his approach to faith and reason, his theology of atonement, and his signature argument for the existence of God.
Works such as *Proslogion* and *Cur Deus Homo* are considered landmark theological and philosophical works. Anselm’s other writings are studied even today, as they provide important insights into the development of Christian theology during the Middle Ages.
In his books, Anselm displays his approach to the relationship between faith and reason. According to Anselm, faith is required for understanding. To him, any knowledge gained without faith is unreliable. However, Anselm also held that reason is indispensable in understanding faith. This view is often summarized as “[faith seeking understanding](faith-seeking-understanding.html).” Anselm was one of the earliest theologians to rely almost exclusively on logic and reason in his defense of Christian beliefs.
This approach led to a philosophical system known as Scholasticism. This method of study emphasizes reason, dialogue, research, close attention to the intended meaning of words, and constructive criticism. Anselm’s students continued in this tradition, and Thomas Aquinas, often labeled the greatest Christian philosopher, was a Scholastic.
Anselm’s most direct contribution to theology was his interpretation of the atonement. Many of Anselm’s predecessors had characterized Christ’s sacrifice as a ransom paid to Satan, who was holding man hostage. Anselm countered that the only party wronged by human sin was an infinitely holy God, so only an infinite sacrifice could satisfy that debt. Therefore, Jesus Christ had to willingly sacrifice Himself, as the sinless God\-man, in order to fulfill our debt. This view is known as the satisfaction theory of the atonement. Several centuries later, Reformed theologians would rely on a modified version of this concept, known as [substitutionary atonement](substitutionary-atonement.html).
Among the commonly debated arguments for the existence of God is the [ontological argument](ontological-argument.html). This concept was actually known as “Anselm’s Argument” until the 1700s, having been explained in his *Proslogion*. In short, Anselm claimed that God was the single greatest thing imaginable. Since existing is “greater” than not existing, Anslem concluded that, if we can conceive of one thing greater than all others, by definition that thing must exist. That single “greatest” thing, per Anslem, is God.
The ontological argument is especially interesting for its unique place in debates. Proponents admit that it’s not particularly convincing, since it seems to give a circular definition for terms like *greater* and *existing*. For those not inclined to believe in God, Anselm’s logic is rarely seen as powerfully compelling. At the same time, even the argument’s detractors admit it’s extremely hard to say exactly where, if, or how the argument is logically invalid. As a result, while not considered among the more useful proofs of God’s existence, the ontological argument is certainly one of the most famous, long\-lived, and commonly discussed.
By far, Anselm’s most important contribution to Christian thinking was his emphasis on reason, dialogue, and understanding. His scholastic approach to faith laid the foundation for a great deal of theology, as well as proving that the Christian faith is not only compatible with reason, but it can only be fully understood through a rational framework.
Anselm died in 1109\. The Roman Catholic Church has made Anselm a saint, although there is some question as to exactly when he was canonized. His feast day is April 21\. Pope Clement XI declared Anselm a Doctor of the Church in 1720\.
|
How should Christian parents respond to having a child with Down syndrome?
|
Answer
If a test administered during the first trimester of pregnancy reveals that an unborn baby has Down syndrome (or any other [birth defect](birth-defects.html) or disability), there are essentially two responses that the parent(s) will be confronted with. The first is to view the baby as intrinsically valuable and an individual to be cherished, nurtured, and protected. The second is to do something of a cost\-benefits analysis to determine if the “quality of life” that the child can reasonably be expected to enjoy will outweigh the hardships that the child and the parents will face. If the perceived hardships outweigh the benefits, the parent(s) sometimes make the decision to end the pregnancy through abortion. The first approach is endorsed by Scripture, because every unborn child (as well as every person regardless of age, race, gender, and mental or physical abilities) is valuable because he or she is made in the image of God (Genesis 1:28\).
Down syndrome is so named after Dr. John Langdon Down, the doctor who first published a paper describing the condition in 1862\. Dr. Down described it as “Mongolian idiocy,” for the typical physical appearance reminded Dr. Down of people from Mongolia. Later, the World Health Organization designated the condition as Down’s syndrome, and now it is referred to as Down syndrome (DS). The term *idiocy* did not carry the derogatory connotation it does today. At the time it was an accepted medical term that was eventually replaced by *mental retardation*, which today is also considered derogatory. The current accepted medical term is *intellectual disability*. At a time when evolutionary thinking was becoming popular, Dr. Down theorized that the condition was a regression to an earlier stage of evolutionary development.
We now know that Down syndrome is caused by an extra chromosome (chromosome 21\). Normally, each parent contributes half of the genetic material found in each of the 23 chromosomes found in every cell of the body. In the case of Down syndrome, one parent contributes more than the normal one\-half. The extra genetic material changes the way the baby’s brain and body form. Those who have Down syndrome are normally recognizable by their appearance. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [website](https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/birthdefects/downsyndrome.html), 1 in 700 babies, or about 6,000 babies per year, are born with Down syndrome in the United States.
Unlike Dr. Down, who viewed those with Down syndrome as having regressed on an evolutionary scale, Christians with a biblical worldview will recognize those with Down syndrome as valuable human beings, created in the image of God. Although, in many instances, those with DS will have diminished physical and mental abilities, their intrinsic worth is not based on their abilities—just as the value of any human being is not based on abilities.
Christian parents who have a child with Down syndrome need to realize that their child is a gift from God, and there are no accidents with Him. Although all diseases, genetic defects, and “syndromes” are the result of sin generally, there is no warrant for thinking that a child with Down syndrome is punishment for the parent’s sin in any specific instance. The disciples speculated about whose sin was to blame for a man born blind, but Jesus corrects their thinking: “Neither this man nor his parents sinned, . . . but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him” (John 9:3\). If God has entrusted Christian parents with a child who has any kind of disability, those parents can be assured that God has a purpose for them to bring glory to Him by their loving response—and God will provide the grace necessary to provide the proper response!
When Moses objected that he was not fit to lead Israel because of his inabilities, God responded, “Who gave human beings their mouths? Who makes them deaf or mute? Who gives them sight or makes them blind? Is it not I, the LORD?” (Exodus 4:11\). It would fit the spirit of the passage to include any person with a disability, including Down syndrome—the Lord is the Creator of those with DS. The Lord has a plan and purpose for disability. There are no accidents with God.
Children with Down syndrome can grow up to be highly functioning adults. One mother whose second son was born with Down syndrome stresses that she was burdened by preconceived notions and prejudices and was unaware of what her son could actually achieve (see Carlene K. Mattson, “My Very Special Son” in *Focus on the Family Magazine*, April 1993\). People with Down syndrome can learn to read, hold jobs, and even get married, although they may need additional support. Like all other children, children with DS will need love and discipline and training in the Lord. Parents who find out that they will have a baby with Down syndrome will most likely need extra help and support, as well. Help is available through a variety of government programs and support groups in the United States, and hopefully relatives and the church family are also available to assist. A mother or couple who feel that they simply cannot provide what is necessary to raise a child with special needs should never consider [aborting](abortion-Bible.html) the baby. There are many Christian couples who are happy to adopt children with special needs and give them loving, stable homes.
|
Does the Bible say anything about teleportation?
|
Answer
Teleportation is the act of instantly moving from one location to another without physically traveling the distance in between. It is definitely theoretical, although there have been some recent scientific advances in teleporting energy (not matter). But, for now, teleportation is science fiction. The transporter in *Star Trek* and the mutant Nightcrawler in the *X\-Men* comics and movies are some of the more popular examples of teleportation in science fiction.
The Bible does not mention teleportation, per se, but it does give at least two examples of miraculous transportation. In John chapter 6:16–21, when Jesus got into the boat after He [walked on the water](walking-on-water.html), “immediately the boat reached the shore where they were heading” (verse 21\). This is not necessarily an example of teleportation. The word translated “immediately” does not have to mean “instantly.” It could just mean “very quickly.” Whatever the case, after Jesus got into the boat, it either was teleported to the shore or was in some other way brought to shore very rapidly. Either way, this amazing miracle is often overlooked.
In Acts 8:26–40, Philip led an [Ethiopian eunuch](Ethiopian-eunuch.html) to faith in Christ. After the eunuch was baptized, “the Spirit of the Lord suddenly took Philip away, and the eunuch did not see him again, but went on his way rejoicing. Philip, however, appeared at Azotus” (verses 39–40\). Again, while this not necessarily an example of teleportation, it is definitely an instance of miraculous transportation. The Spirit miraculously transported Philip from a wilderness between Jerusalem and Gaza (verse 26\) to a city about thirty miles away (verse 40\). Whether this miraculous transportation occurred instantly or took some time, the passage does not say.
God is [omnipotent](God-omnipotent.html) and [omnipresent](God-omnipresent.html). Teleportation would, therefore, definitely be within His ability. Whether the two examples above are genuine biblical occurrences of teleportation is unclear. What they do demonstrate is that God is able to supersede the laws of travel and significantly expedite the process. If God desired to teleport someone or something, He could do so. Whether humans will ever be able to invent a device to teleport someone or something remains to be seen.
|
Do the narratives of Jesus’ birth contradict each other?
|
Answer
Only two of the gospels give an account of the happenings surrounding Jesus’ birth. Matthew 1–2 gives information about Joseph and includes the story of the magi from the East. Luke 1–2 does not mention the magi but focuses on Mary and various others (Elizabeth, Zacharias, the shepherds, Simeon, and Anna) who praised God for the [Incarnation](incarnation-of-Christ.html).
Various people have claimed that the books of [Matthew](Gospel-of-Matthew.html) and [Luke](Gospel-of-Luke.html) contradict each other and that the narratives of Jesus’ birth are in opposition. The claim is specious, and the details provided by Matthew and Luke are easily reconciled into a comprehensive whole.
First, here are the details that Matthew and Luke unquestionably agree on:
Jesus was born of a virgin (Matthew 1:18, 23, 25; Luke 1:27\).
[Mary](virgin-Mary.html) and Joseph lived in Nazareth, a town in Galilee (Matthew 2:23; Luke 1:26; 2:4\).
Jesus was born in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:1; Luke 2:4–7\).
After Jesus’ birth, Mary and Joseph returned to Nazareth (Matthew 2:23; Luke 2:39\).
Second, here are the details that are unique to each writer:
The [magi](three-wise-men.html) visit Jesus (Matthew 2:1–12\).
Joseph and Mary flee to Egypt to escape Herod’s cruelty (Matthew 2:13–18\).
A group of shepherds visit Jesus in the manger (Luke 2:8–20\).
Joseph and Mary make a trip to the temple in Jerusalem in fulfillment of the Law (Luke 2:22–39\).
Those who claim to see a contradiction in the narratives of Christ’s birth usually point to Luke 2:39, which says, “When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth,” and Matthew 2:21–23, which says that Joseph and his family went to Nazareth on their return from Egypt. According to the critics, Luke, who says nothing about the flight to Egypt, indicates that Jesus was taken to Nazareth directly from the temple; and Matthew, who does not mention the temple observances, says that Jesus was taken to Nazareth directly from Egypt.
It’s important to acknowledge that silence does not equal denial. Luke’s omission in his narrative of the flight to Egypt cannot be construed as evidence that it never happened. Luke never says that Joseph and Mary did *not* go to Egypt; he simply doesn’t comment on the event. Matthew never mentions the shepherds of the nativity—are we to assume because of Matthew’s omission that no shepherds came? Also important is the fact that neither Matthew nor Luke claim that he is penning an exhaustive account of every detail surrounding the birth of Christ.
The question then is, does Luke’s narrative allow for enough time for a trip to Egypt? Between the circumcision of Jesus and the trip to the temple was 32 days—about a month. Trying to fit a trip to Egypt and back in that time frame is problematic. A better way to reconcile Matthew’s and Luke’s narratives is to place the flight to Egypt *after* Jesus’ appearance in the temple. This assumes that Joseph and Mary remained in Bethlehem after Jesus’ birth and that they had a place to stay—the “house” of Matthew 2:11\.
Luke 2:39 says, “When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth.” Note that Luke does not say that they *immediately* returned to Galilee, and there is no reason to insert that word into the verse. (One could just as easily insert the word *eventually*.) The fact is that Luke doesn’t specify how much time elapsed. He simply says that, after their visit to the temple, Joseph and Mary settled in Nazareth. It could have been days later. It could have been months. If we place the flight to Egypt in the middle of Luke 2:39, we have a workable chronology:
1\) After visiting the temple, Joseph and Mary return to Bethlehem. (In the month since Jesus’ birth, Joseph had probably sought temporary work there, and that work had become more permanent, perhaps. It’s also quite possible that Joseph was planning to resettle his new family in Bethlehem, thinking it would be good for the Son of David to be reared in the City of David).
2\) Simeon and Anna begin spreading the news that they have seen the Messiah in Jerusalem (Luke 2:25–38\).
3\) Sometime later, the magi arrive at Jerusalem and confirm the news on the street that the Messiah has been born (Matthew 2:1–2\). Herod sends the magi on to Bethlehem, where they find young Jesus (Matthew 2:3–11\).
4\) The magi return home a different way, and Joseph is warned in a dream to flee to Egypt (Matthew 2:12–13\).
5\) After a while, Herod figures out that the magi have disregarded his wishes, and he orders the slaughter of all males two years old and younger near Bethlehem (Matthew 2:16\). The “two\-year” computation indicates that Jesus could have already been that old.
6\) Herod dies in 4 BC.
7\) Joseph brings his family back from Egypt (Matthew 2:19–21\). Out of fear of Herod’s son, Joseph changes his plan to settle in Bethlehem and instead moves back to Galilee (Matthew 2:22–23\).
There is nothing in the above chronology that contradicts either Matthew or Luke. The only way to find a contradiction between Matthew 2:21–23 and Luke 2:39 is to make assumptions based on a preconceived bias against the veracity of Scripture.
Some critics find another supposed contradiction in the genealogies associated with the narratives of Jesus’ birth. Matthew 1:16 says that Joseph’s father was Jacob; Luke 3:23 says that Joseph’s father was Heli. There are several theories, but the best answer to this seeming discrepancy is that Luke is recording Mary’s genealogy and Matthew is recording Joseph’s. There was no Koine Greek word with the exclusive meaning of “son\-in\-law,” and so Joseph is called the “son of Heli” due to his marriage to Heli’s daughter, Mary. Joseph was a “son” by marriage.
The gospels were written by four different men to four unique audiences, so it is natural that they would include different details concerning the life of Christ. But their writing was superintended by the Holy Spirit, who guaranteed that what each wrote was the absolute truth. There are differences, but they can all be [harmonized](harmony-Gospels.html). The narratives of Jesus’ birth found in Matthew and Luke are not contradictory but complementary.
|
What does it mean to mount up with wings like eagles?
|
Answer
The phrase *mount up with wings like eagles* can be found at the end of Isaiah 40, in verse 31, “But they who wait for the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings like eagles; they shall run and not be weary; they shall walk and not faint” (ESV).
During Isaiah’s lifetime, the dispirited nation of Israel suffered a period of great distress politically as oppressive [Assyrian powers](Assyrians.html) invaded and conquered their lands. Isaiah chapters 40–48 contain promises of redemption and deliverance from the suffering. That section of the book starts with the words “Comfort, comfort my people, says your God” (Isaiah 40:1\). Israel had nearly given up hope, thinking God had abandoned them, yet Isaiah drives his point home in Isaiah 40:27–31, “Why do you say, O Jacob, and speak, O Israel, ‘My way is hidden from the Lord, and my right is disregarded by my God’? Have you not known? Have you not heard? The Lord is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He does not faint or grow weary; his understanding is unsearchable. He gives power to the faint, and to him who has no might he increases strength. Even youths shall faint and be weary, and young men shall fall exhausted; but they who wait for the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings like eagles; they shall run and not be weary; they shall walk and not faint” (ESV).
Ancient Hebrew culture revered eagles as mighty warriors that also cared fiercely for their young. Eagles carry their eaglets to safety, away from the threat of predators. Eagles are also known for their strength and courage in dangerous, turbulent weather, soaring above storm clouds and to safety. *Eagles’ wings* was a figure of speech commonly used to attribute these fine characteristics to a person. The Lord references eagles’ wings in Exodus 19:1–6, which is a recollection of how God delivered Israel from the Egyptians. In this passage, the Lord gives Moses a message for His people: “You yourselves have seen what I did to Egypt, and how I carried you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself. Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession” (verses 4–5\).
The prophet Isaiah uses *wings like eagles* in the same way, attributing the great characteristics of eagles to those who remain faithful to God and look forward to their heavenly reward. The phrase *mount up* is a translation of the Hebrew word *ˈalah*, which means “to go up, ascend, to go up over a boundary.” Isaiah is communicating the promise that God will provide renewed strength and courage to overcome obstacles, if Israel would only have patience and trust in the Lord’s sovereign timing.
Upon reading Isaiah’s words, perhaps Israel recalled what God had said to them long ago as they fled Egypt, about how the Lord had delivered them “on eagles’ wings” with His great strength and power. Isaiah tells them that they, too, could have access to such deliverance. If they remained faithful to God, they would soar.
Christians today can apply the principle of Isaiah 40:31 by trusting in God’s sovereignty and waiting faithfully for Him. “We do not lose heart. Though outwardly we are wasting away, yet inwardly we are being renewed day by day” (2 Corinthians 4:16\). God in His grace will provide power, strength, and courage to the weary, weak, and downtrodden when they are willing to be patient and wait on Him. God will cause us to mount up on eagles’ wings.
|
How are magicians / illusionists able to levitate / perform levitation tricks?
|
Answer
Some, after witnessing instances of apparent levitation, are convinced the [magicians/illusionists](magic-illusion-Bible.html) are somehow supernaturally/demonically empowered. This is highly likely not the case. The vast majority of a magician’s levitation tricks rely on variations of a few themes. As in all magic tricks, misdirection and confusion are crucial to the illusion of levitation. Also, illusionists may use wires, hidden support beams, specialized lighting, or body angles to obscure what is happening. It’s also common for magic shows to use a plant—an assistant pretending to be an audience member—to help sell the illusion. Modern technology goes a long way to aiding the success of magic tricks. Cameras, modern lighting, steel cables, and computer\-controlled devices have enabled more elaborate deceptions.
The core attraction of stage magic is the audience’s assumption that what they see is staged, but they can’t figure out *how*. Effects produced by illusionists are small enough in scale that an observer has every reason to believe they are just tricks. What magicians do in front of skeptical eyes is never grand enough to suggest that the event is truly miraculous. This is mentioned in the magic\-focused film *The Prestige*. In that story, a character develops a device seemingly capable of the impossible and is told by his producer to modify his trick, purely to allow the audience some way to doubt it is “true magick.”
The requirement in stage magic that viewers willingly suspend their disbelief places magic tricks in a completely different category from [biblical miracles](difference-miracles-magic.html). Despite common claims of skeptics, the miracles described in the Bible are not the sort one could pull off with trickery and sleight\-of\-hand. Jesus was not drawing playing cards or restoring a cut rope. Nor was He floating an inch off the ground to impress people or draw a crowd. Instead, He performed acts of great import that were impossible to fake: He raised men from the dead (John 11:17, 44\), gave sight to those who were born blind (John 9:1–7\), and cured incurable diseases (Luke 5:12–13\).
Low\-grade levitations are almost always grounded in clever body angles. Magicians who seem to levitate a few inches from the pavement might do so by lifting themselves on one toe, while the observers stand at an angle where they can’t see the illusionist’s far foot. Suggestion, anticipation, clever acting, and misdirection then help the viewers interpret what they see as the magician floating in the air.
In other cases, magicians use wires or beams for levitation tricks. Support systems can be hidden under clothes or boards and molded in an S\-shape to make them less visible. Wires are a common aid in levitating smaller objects such as cards or cigarettes. A thin wire with a bright light behind it is nearly invisible to the human eye. Even at very close distances, hair\-thin wires are virtually invisible. Combining the use of wires with visual distractions, it’s not hard to create the optical illusion of floating or flying.
There are also times when the levitation event is simply staged. Viewers with a clear, unobstructed view of what is happening are, almost always, part of the deception. This technique is used in live stage shows where an employee pretending to be an audience member has a role to play in the trick. It is also heavily used in filmed tricks; the shocked reactions of the plant are simply an act.
|
Why are Christians so mean?
|
Answer
Before we can answer the question about why Christians are so mean, we need to biblically define *Christian* and clarify the word *mean*. In Western culture, the word [*Christian*](what-is-a-Christian.html) has come to signify anyone who likes Christmas and does not identify as belonging to any other religion. But the Bible defines being a Christian quite differently (Romans 8:14; 1 John 3:7–10\). For the purposes of this article, we will define a Christian as someone who has accepted the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ as the sufficient payment for his sin and has transferred ownership of his life to Him (Titus 3:5; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Romans 10:9–10\). For a more in\-depth explanation of what it means to be a Christian, please see [this article](become-a-Christian.html).
Christians—those who trust and follow Christ as Lord—should not be mean (purposefully offensive, selfish, or malicious). Yet the charge that Christians are “mean” continues to be leveled. In many cases, the charge is a response to behavior committed by nominal Christians who have never been born again; that is, much of the public activity that leaves the impression that Christians are “mean” comes from those who are not really Christians. Nothing is harsher or more arrogant than self\-righteous, man\-made religion. It was true in Jesus’ day, and it is still true (Luke 18:9–14\).
The world is flooded with voices and opinions, many of them professing to speak for Christianity. At the same time, many of them are crude, foul, abusive, and hateful, which is everything Jesus was not (Matthew 11:29\). The comments section below any social media post is filled with half\-truths and angry diatribes spewed by arrogant people claiming to represent “truth.” In contrast to the spirit of many of these comments, Colossians 4:6 clearly tells believers how to conduct themselves in discussion: “Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.”
Another factor to consider in whether or not Christians are “mean” is the source of the accusations. When we trace this statement to its origins, we often discover that the ones doing the labeling are actually mislabeling. Today, it’s considered “mean” to refuse to bow down to the religion of the day, which in Western culture is known as Tolerance. This religion’s creed demands total acceptance of anything someone else chooses to do. The worshipers of Tolerance demand “inclusion” in any and everything they choose, even when such inclusion is not practical or possible. When Christians gently point out that God has given definite instructions to His human creations and that life works best when we adhere to those instructions, they are instantly labeled as “unloving,” “phobic,” or “mean.” In recent days, Christians who disagree with the current redefinition of morality and reality are marginalized in the media and the public square. Tolerance is quite intolerant of anything that it considers intolerant. But adherents don’t seem to catch the irony.
So the meaning of *mean* needs a closer evaluation. If the accusation that Christians are mean is coming from those who have set themselves against God and His right to define truth, we need to recognize that those same people also consider God to be “mean” because His standards will not bend to their sensitivities. Refusing to ordain an unrepentant homosexual is not “mean”; it is scriptural (1 Timothy 1:9–11; 1 Corinthians 6:9–10; Jude 1:7\). Calling abortion “murder of the innocent” is not “mean”; it is true (Ezekiel 23:37; Psalm 106:38; 139:13–16\). Standing for the truth that gender is defined by God and cannot be redefined by man is not “mean”; it is reality (Genesis 1:27\).
The behavior of some who call themselves Christians is dreadful, but we must remember that becoming a Christian does not result in instant maturity. When a baby is born, it spends a lot of time dirtying diapers, crying, throwing fits, and making messes. As that baby grows, he develops manners and social skills and matures into a civilized human being. The same is true of those who have been born again (John 3:3\). Many enter the kingdom of God as uncivilized, evil people. They receive a new heart and the Holy Spirit at salvation, but His work in them takes time. Newborn Christians, like babies, may spend a lot of time causing trouble, making mistakes, and sometimes acting “mean.” But God’s desire for all His children is that we conform to the image of Christ (Romans 8:29\). He is patient as we grow and wants us to be patient with each other as He continues His ongoing work in us (Ephesians 4:2; Colossians 3:13\).
|
How should Christians view refugees?
|
Answer
One of the things that have marked the 21st century so far is the global refugee crisis caused by warfare, genocide, and oppression in various places around the world. Some estimates place the number of displaced people at close to 60 million globally. Syria has endured a civil war since 2011, displacing nearly 14 million people from their homes; nearly 5 million Syrians have fled to other countries. The United States admitted almost 85,000 refugees from all over the world in 2016\. With the refugees come opportunities, risks, and debates over what the Christian response to refugees should be.
First, all Christians should be able to agree that the issues surrounding the refugee crisis are more complex than the rhetoric on social media would have us believe. There are Christians who, in the name of compassion, believe we should open all borders and take in all refugees, no matter what. There are other Christians who, in this era of terrorism, believe we should close all borders and refuse most refugees. For one group to malign the other as “un\-Christian” or “unloving” or “racist” is wrong. To insist that one’s own view on refugees is the only possible view for a Christian to have is neither helpful nor realistic. It’s not as simple as “love vs. hate” or “compassion vs. security.” There are nuances to consider. There may, in fact, be more than one Christian view on the matter of refugees.
Second, still laying the groundwork for considering the refugee crisis, we should acknowledge that forming personal convictions concerning refugees is a separate matter from setting governmental policy. Christians have many shared priorities, but the practical outworking of those priorities can vary from person to person. A government, even when informed by Christian principles, has different priorities. Governments must be concerned with *national* security, even if Christians give no thought to *personal* security. An individual Christian may be willing to risk everything in order to assist refugees, but that same Christian cannot demand that his neighbors share that risk. We must strike a balance between our (God\-given) *personal* responsibility to show compassion and the (God\-given) *state* responsibility to protect its citizens.
It’s good to look to Scripture for some examples of displaced people. Jacob and his family could be considered refugees in Egypt, fleeing the famine in Canaan (Genesis 46:1–4\). When Moab faced destruction at the hands of the Assyrians, the Moabites pleaded for Israel to take in their refugees (Isaiah 16:3\). Edom was condemned, in part, for refusing to help Jewish refugees (Obadiah 1:14\). Psalm 146:9 says, “The Lord watches over the foreigner.” [Ruth](life-Ruth.html), who was more of an immigrant than a refugee, was welcomed in Judah, but note, in her words to Naomi, her willingness to assimilate into Jewish culture: “Your people will be my people and your God my God” (Ruth 1:16\).
The Old Testament Law contained this instruction pertaining to refugees and immigrants in Israel: “Do not oppress a foreigner; you yourselves know how it feels to be foreigners, because you were foreigners in Egypt” (Exodus 23:9\). This principle is reiterated in Leviticus 19:33, “When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them.”
The New Testament does not give any specific command concerning *nations* admitting refugees. The New Testament was not written to be a civic handbook or legal charter. What we do find in the New Testament are specific commands concerning *individual* treatment of others. Jesus said the greatest commandment, right after the command to love God, is “[Love your neighbor as yourself](love-neighbor-yourself.html)” (Mark 12:31\). And in one of the end times’ judgments, Jesus will commend those who helped the hungry, the thirsty, and the stranger (Matthew 25:35\). So, without a doubt, Christians have a mandate to show compassion to the needy.
The Christian response to refugees must include love. And it’s worth pointing out that biblical love always includes risk. It’s impossible to love someone the way Christ loves us and not face a certain amount of risk. And that factor—risk—is what necessitates that Christian compassion be tempered with caution when implementing national policy. Any nation that brings in refugees opens itself to the possibility that terrorists have infiltrated the ranks of displaced internationals. The Paris attacks in November 2015 and the San Bernardino shooting in December 2015 are grim reminders of the deception employed by terrorists to gain entrance into a country.
So, a Christian forming a biblical response to the refugee crisis will do several things:
1\) Commit to administering care and compassion to refugees. Christians should welcome refugees into their homes and churches as a way to show God’s love and share the gospel. Standing before the throne of the Lamb one day will be those “from every nation, tribe, people and language” (Revelation 7:9\).
2\) Pray for our nation’s leaders. Governing authorities have a divine responsibility to “bring punishment on the wrongdoer” (Romans 13:4\) and to ensure “that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness” (1 Timothy 2:2\). Pray that our leaders would have the wisdom of a [Daniel](life-Daniel.html) or a [Joseph](life-Joseph.html).
3\) Support ministries that assist refugees. Many Christian ministries exist to help refugees in relocation, job training, language skills, and cultural adjustment.
4\) Promote government policies that are effective in screening refugees to prevent those with evil intent from entering. We must show compassion to those in need; at the same time, we must show compassion to our fellow citizens and not place them at undue risk.
5\) Pray for the refugees, their families, and their troubled homelands. “Be exalted, O God, above the highest heavens! May your glory shine over all the earth” (Psalm 57:5\).
6\) Research the best ways to help the displaced. From “safe zones” abroad to Christian ministries at home, there are many options that deserve serious consideration.
Jesus told us to go into all the world and preach the gospel (Matthew 28:18– 20\). With the surge of refugees, the mission field is coming to us, and many of those who come are from nations closed to traditional missions. Wouldn’t it be just like God to turn a bad situation into something good and full of glory?
|
Who was King Jehoiakim in the Bible?
|
Answer
Jehoiakim (named Eliakim at birth, 2 Chronicles 36:4\) was one of the last kings of Judah before the Babylonian Captivity. Jehoiakim was a son of good King Josiah (Jeremiah 26:1\) of Judah. His mother’s name was Zebidah (2 Kings 23:36\). Jehoiakim’s father, [King Josiah](Josiah-in-the-Bible.html), had returned Judah to the Lord by tearing down idol shrines and restoring obedience to God’s Law (2 Kings 23:19–25\). After Josiah’s death, his son [Jehoahaz](King-Jehoahaz.html) was chosen king by the people. But, as often happened in those days, Jehoahaz did not follow in the footsteps of his father but “did evil in the sight of the Lord” (2 Kings 23:32\). Jehoahaz only reigned three months before he was taken into captivity by the king of Egypt, who replaced Jehoahaz with his brother Eliakim (2 Kings 23:26; 2 Chronicles 36:5\). The Egyptian king renamed the 25\-year\-old Eliakim “Jehoiakim.”
Jehoiakim also did evil in the Lord’s sight (2 Kings 23:37\). Because of the ongoing, unrepentant sin of the nation of Judah, God sent invading armies to capture and enslave them. Jehoiakim was taken captive by [King Nebuchadnezzar](Nebuchadnezzar.html), who put him in chains and carted him off to Babylon (2 Kings 24:1; 2 Chronicles 36:6;). It was at this time that Daniel and his three friends were also taken to Babylon (Daniel 1:1–2\). Jehoiakim was later returned to Jerusalem, although he had to act as Nebuchadnezzar’s servant for three years and pay tribute to him.
During the time King Jehoiakim reigned as a vassal of Babylon, the [prophet Jeremiah](life-Jeremiah.html) preached in Jerusalem. God’s message was that the Babylonian invasion was God’s punishment for Judah’s sin and that the Hebrews should repent. Jehoiakim called for Jeremiah’s scroll to be read in his court. But, as every three or four columns of the scroll were read, “the king cut them off with a scribe’s knife and threw them into the firepot, until the entire scroll was burned in the fire. The king and all his attendants who heard all these words showed no fear, nor did they tear their clothes” (Jeremiah 36:23–24\). Rather than heed God’s warning, Jehoiakim hardened his heart and tried to destroy God’s Word (see Jeremiah 25:1–4\). Earlier, Jehoiakim had murdered the godly prophet Uriah (Jeremiah 26:20–23\).
Jehoiakim reigned eleven years (2 Kings 23:36; 2 Chronicles 36:5\). Jeremiah rewrote the scroll that Jehoiakim had burned, and God pronounced judgment on the king: “Therefore this is what the LORD says about Jehoiakim king of Judah: He will have no one to sit on the throne of David; his body will be thrown out and exposed to the heat by day and the frost by night” (Jeremiah 36:30\). “He will be buried like a dead donkey—dragged out of Jerusalem and dumped outside the gates!” (Jeremiah 22:19, NLT). This prophecy was fulfilled when, in the eleventh year of Jehoiakim’s reign, he stopped paying tribute to Babylon. Nebuchadnezzar responded by besieging Jerusalem. According to Josephus, Jehoiakim was killed during the siege, and his body was thrown over the city wall.
After Jehoiakim’s ignoble death, his son [Jehoiachin](King-Jehoiachin.html) succeeded him as the new king in Judah. Jehoiachin reigned only three months and ten days (2 Chronicles 36:9\) before he, too, was taken to Babylon while the foreign king appointed his successor (2 Chronicles 36:10\). This appointment of kings by the people or by invading armies was a far cry from the holy anointing of God’s chosen ones by His prophets in days gone by. The removal of God from Judah’s political process was another indication of just how far the Jewish people had fallen away from their God.
From King Jehoiakim’s life, we can learn that godly parentage does not necessarily guarantee godly children. Many times in Israel’s and Judah’s history, the Bible records that the children of good kings and prophets “did evil in the sight of the Lord” (2 Kings 21:1–2; 1 Samuel 8:3\) and did not follow the paths of their fathers. God holds each individual responsible for his or her obedience to His direction (Deuteronomy 24:16\). King Jehoiakim’s willful rejection of God’s Word and his subsequent fate are a perfect illustration of the folly of disobedience. “Whoever remains stiff\-necked after many rebukes will suddenly be destroyed—without remedy” (Proverbs 29:1\).
|
Is being gay a sin?
|
Answer
In order to answer the question “Is being gay a sin?” we need to challenge some assumptions upon which the question is based. Within the past fifty years, the term *gay*, as applied to [homosexuality](homosexuality-Bible.html), has exploded into mainstream culture, and we are told that “being gay” is as much outside one’s control as “being short” or having blonde hair. So the question is worded in a loaded way and impossible to adequately answer in that form. We need to break this question up and deal with each piece separately. Rather than ask, “Is being gay a sin?” we need to ask, “Is it sinful to have same\-sex attractions?” And, “Is it sinful to engage in homosexual activities because of those attractions?”
Concerning first question, “Is it sinful to have [same\-sex attractions](same-sex-attraction.html)?” the answer is complicated. First, we should probably distinguish between (actively) sinning and (passively) being tempted:
[Being tempted](temptation-sin.html) is not a sin. Jesus was tempted, but He never sinned (Matthew 4:1; Hebrews 4:15\). Eve was tempted in the garden, and the forbidden fruit definitely appealed to her, but it seems that she did not actually sin until she took the fruit and ate it (Genesis 3:6–7\). A struggle with temptation may lead to sin, but the temptation itself is not a sin.
The problem with same\-sex attraction, or the feeling of “being gay,” is that it is an attraction to something God has forbidden, and any desire for something sinful ultimately has its roots in sin. Our natures have been so infected with sin that what is evil often looks good to us. Sin causes us to see the world and our own actions through a warped perspective. Our thoughts, desires, and dispositions are all affected. Scripture says we are sinners by nature (Romans 5:12\). So, same\-sex attraction, per se, is not always an active, willful sin, but it springs from the [sinful nature](sin-nature.html). Same\-sex attraction is always, on some level, an expression of the flesh, or the fallen nature.
Sinful human beings living in a sinful world (Romans 3:23\) are pelted with curiosities, interests, and opportunities that would lead us further from God. Our world is filled with forbidden fruits, including the enticement to “be gay.” A happily married man can be suddenly smitten with attraction for his new associate and wrestle with those feelings every day. A sober alcoholic can struggle with the ongoing desire to drink, even years after he becomes clean. Those desires do not represent an active choice to sin, although they stem from the sinful nature. They are part of being a fallen creature living in a fallen world.
Some people, who admit to having thoughts of “being gay,” are, for a variety of reasons, not romantically attracted to members of the opposite sex. Instead, they yearn for intimacy with someone of their own gender. The causes for this same\-sex attraction, humanly speaking, are varied and under discussion, but the fact remains that this temptation is real. Many who struggle with same\-sex attraction report suffering through years of wishing things were different. People may not always be able to control how or what they feel, but they *can* control what they do with those feelings (1 Peter 1:5–8\). And we all have the responsibility to resist temptation (Ephesians 6:13\). We must all be transformed by the renewing of our minds (Romans 12:2\) and “take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:5\).
The second part of this question, “is it sinful to engage in homosexual activities because of same\-sex attractions?” has a more straightforward answer. Being drawn toward a morally forbidden relationship is not an active sin; it is a temptation. Sin occurs when we dwell upon the wrong thoughts, the temptation spawns, or when we yield to the temptation. Feeling a same\-sex attraction is not an active, willful sin, but yielding to that proclivity and engaging in homosexual relations is.
Our culture assures homosexuals that they were born gay and that confused sexuality is to be celebrated, not overcome. Thus we have an entire generation of children and teens who never knew a time when homosexuality was rightly considered abnormal. In elementary and middle schools, it is now fashionable to call oneself “gay” or “bi” or use any number of other faddish sexual labels without any real understanding of their meaning—or of the moral and eternal implications.
We are all sinners, born with a nature that wants only to please itself. The sinful desires within us vary from person to person, but the root is the same (Romans 3:11\). When we realize how broken we are and that we cannot have fellowship with a holy God in such a deplorable condition, we gratefully accept the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross for us (2 Corinthians 5:21\). He paid the price that we owed to God for our treason against our Creator. He also paid the penalty for the sin of homosexuality, just as He did for pride, rape, adultery, and theft. Those sins, and a thousand more, are what keep us from God and sentence us to an eternity without Him. We cannot continue to define ourselves by the very sins that crucified Jesus, while also assuming that we are right with God. First Corinthians 6:9–10 lists many of the sins that the Corinthians once practiced (homosexuality is on the list). But verse 11 reminds them, “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.” In other words, some of the Corinthians, before they were saved, lived gay lifestyles; but no sin is too great for the cleansing power of Jesus. Once cleansed, we are no longer defined by sin.
Homosexual behavior won’t damn a person any more quickly than pride or greed or adultery. Without Christ, we are lost, whether gay, straight, or asexual. But, when we surrender our lives to the lordship of Jesus, He gives us a new nature (2 Corinthians 5:17\). He destroys the power that sin once held over us (Romans 6:1–7\). The old nature that once dictated our actions has been conquered in a born\-again child of God (John 3:3\). Temptation still rages. Weaknesses still torment. But the power of the Holy Spirit helps us to resist Satan and overcome the sins that once held us captive (Colossians 2:14; James 4:7\). We can choose new life in Jesus or the old life of sin. But we cannot have both (Matthew 6:24\).
|
Who was Semiramis?
|
Answer
*Semiramis* is the English transliteration of the Greek translation of the name of a famous queen of [Assyria](Assyrians.html) who, for a time, had sole reign. Much is written about the woman Semiramis, but little is substantiated. She was beautiful beyond compare and a fine military strategist, and she left her mark on several construction projects. Other than that, there seem to be three completely different ideas of who Semiramis was.
One theory is that Semiramis was the wife of Ninus, the founder of Nineveh. Some say the words [*Shinar*](land-of-Shinar.html), and thus *Sumeria*, come from Semiramis’s original name, *Sammur\-amat*, or “gift of the sea.” (Legend has it she was the daughter of the fish goddess who abandoned her to be raised by doves.) The story of how Semiramis met her husband varies, as well. Some say she appeared out of the sea foam as his ships approached. Others say she was a madam that he knew professionally. Yet another story is that she helped him take the capital of Assyria, and he fell in love with her and stole her from her husband. At any account, she eventually killed her husband and reigned as sole queen for 42 years until her son, Ninyas, betrayed her to take the throne for himself.
Semiramis was well\-known for her building projects and military exploits. She built the city of Babylon, including the walls and castles, and possibly the hanging gardens. It’s possible she had a hand in building up the banks along the Euphrates, and the name of the ancient Armenian city Shamiramagerd means “created by Semiramis.” After her husband’s death, it’s said she conquered much of Asia, Libya, and Ethiopia and was wounded in battle against the king of India.
The Scottish minister and writer Alexander Hislop added to Semiramis’s mythology in his 1853 book *The Two Babylons*. Hislop claimed that Semiramis was married to Nimrod (see Genesis 10:9–11\). The Bible describes Nimrod as “the first on earth to be a mighty man” (Genesis 10:8\); some take “mighty man” to be a reference to one of [Nephilim](Nephilim.html). Nimrod established or conquered Babel, Erech, Accad, and Calneh in the land of Shinar, then went to Assyria and built several more cities, including Nineveh. According to Hislop, Semiramis’s greatest accomplishment was aiding her husband in replacing the worship of God with a polytheistic system based on the stars. She became associated with Ishtar/Astarte/Ashtoreth: the original [Queen of Heaven](Queen-of-Heaven.html) (see Jeremiah 44:15–19\). Her son (fathered by Nimrod, another man, or the rays of the sun sent down by the deceased Nimrod) joined her in creating the world’s first mother/son cult. The Semiramis/son pair inspired Isis and Osiris in Egypt, Venus and Adonis in Greece, and Ushas and Vishnu in Hinduism. Hislop also claimed that the Catholic Church adapted mother/son worship into their [veneration of Mary](Mariology.html). The identity of the son in the myth is unclear; possibilities include Damu (related to the Tammuz mentioned in Ezekiel 8:14\), Horus, and Gilgamesh.
A more respected story has Shammuramat living 1,300 hundred years later, in the early 800s BC. She was the wife of Shamshi\-Adad V and mother of the Assyrian king Adad\-Niriari III. In this tale, Semiramis only reigned for four years as her young son’s regent, and her military conquests and construction projects were much more modest but still significant for a woman at that time.
There are many other claims. Some say Semiramis is the foundation behind the Christmas tree, Easter, and the Statue of Liberty. Others say she was the original whore of Babylon. The truth is, we don’t know who she was. Like all mythology of the time, the stories have gone through thousands of years of changes and adaptations. It’s possible that because of her we have polytheism, the mother/son cult, and a long tradition of goddesses of love. But it’s also possible that her only lasting monument is that she shares her name with a luxury hotel in Cairo.
|
What is cultural Marxism?
|
Answer
*Cultural Marxism* can be a controversial term—some assert there’s no such thing, and others use the term as a catch\-all for anything they see as undermining society. In short, cultural Marxism is a revolutionary leftist idea that traditional culture is the source of oppression in the modern world. Cultural Marxism is often linked to an insistence upon [political correctness](political-correctness.html), multiculturalism, and perpetual attacks on the foundations of culture: the nuclear family, marriage, patriotism, traditional morality, law and order, etc. Cultural Marxists are assumed to be committed to establishing economic [Marxism](Marxism-Christian.html), in which case their cultural attacks are a necessary preparation for their ultimate goal.
After World War I, some Marxist philosophers felt the need to modify their political strategy. Karl Marx generally saw culture as a secondary concern. His successors realized that culture was, in fact, critical to social change. When a society is willing to criticize its institutions, it is ready to make changes. The result of these ideas was the Frankfurt School, a generic term for Marxist philosophy focused on social criticism and bottom\-up change. In particular, the Frankfurt School rejected the idea of [absolute truth](absolute-truth.html) and promoted aggressive criticism of all aspects of life and society. Some early observers referred to this new approach as *cultural Marxism* to distinguish it from the earlier, classical forms of Marxism. More orthodox Marxists do not see cultural Marxism as Marxist at all.
The philosophy of cultural Marxism endures today, although the term itself is rarely used by those who subscribe to the Frankfurt School of thought. In actual practice, *cultural Marxism* is often used as a derogatory term for various left\-leaning, progressive, or liberal practices. Unfortunately, various [conspiracy theorists](conspiracy-theories.html) and anti\-Semitic groups also use the term *cultural Marxism* to promote their belief in the Illuminati or to blame the Jews for society’s ills. Such misuses of the term do not negate the existence of an intellectual movement to destabilize society from within.
Beyond question, there is a purposeful effort in parts of Western culture to reject traditional values and aggressively replace them with more (supposedly) progressive ideals. This often results in an extreme imbalance in criticism and cultural sensitivity. For instance, derogatory attitudes toward men, whites, Christians, fathers, heterosexuals, and so forth are often celebrated or encouraged. Equally critical comments directed at women, minorities, Muslims, mothers, homosexuals, and so forth are readily condemned as “hateful.” Whether or not cultural Marxism is behind this imbalance, many people do seem purposefully prejudiced against certain points of view.
For Christians, dealing with cultural Marxism involves a spiritual dimension. It is undeniable that, in the West, Christian values are under attack. However, the root cause of these attacks is not wholly political or racial or social. It is spiritual. To the extent that traditional Western culture reflects biblical truth, attacks on that culture are anti\-God. As an example, for centuries Western culture promoted chastity before marriage as an ideal; modern culture downplays chastity and glorifies immorality. Cultural Marxism at work? Possibly. Satan working in tandem with humanity’s [sin nature](sin-nature.html)? Assuredly (see James 1:14\).
There are certainly reasons for Christians to resist political correctness, relativism, unfair attitudes toward Christianity, acceptance of [immoral behavior](sexual-immorality.html), and so forth. We can and should work diligently to stand against those problems. We are lights in the world (Matthew 5:14\). Our best strategy is not necessarily to rail against cultural Marxism, especially given the controversies surrounding that term. Rather, we must recognize the roots of these problems and deal with them accordingly. It is a spiritual battle fought in the minds and hearts of individuals (Ephesians 6:12\).
|
Who was John Knox?
|
Answer
John Knox (c. 1514–1572\) was the Scottish Reformer who founded the Presbyterian Church and laid the theological groundwork for the American Revolution.
John Knox was born in Scotland and appears to have attended the University of St. Andrews. He may have been ordained a priest in the Roman Catholic Church. Whatever the details of his early life, by 1544 Knox was working as a private tutor. During that time, he met the Reformer George Wishart and became hostile toward the [Roman Mass](Holy-Eucharist.html). Viewing the Mass as a form of idolatry, Knox became fully invested in the Scottish reform movement.
By 1547, Knox was preaching at St. Andrews. When the French (who were Catholic allies of Scotland) attacked a Scottish castle to quell a Protestant uprising there, Knox was captured and then spent nineteen months as a slave in France. After his release, Knox returned to Scotland and began his attacks upon the Catholic Mass, writing his tract *A Vindication That the Mass Is Idolatry*. His work in Scotland was put on hold, however, when the Catholic Mary Tudor ascended to the English throne. Her coronation and reign as “[Bloody Mary](Bloody-Mary.html)” drove Knox from England, sending him to Europe where he travelled to Geneva and met [John Calvin](John-Calvin.html), who further instructed him in Reformed theology. Knox eventually left Geneva to pastor the English refugee church in Frankfurt, Germany.
Knox returned to Scotland in 1555, only to be driven out by persecution the next year. Returning to Geneva, Knox accepted a call to pastor the English church there. During this time, Knox offered his best\-known contribution to the Reformation. Until Knox, and for some time afterward, the Reformers believed that a Christian must always live in submission to secular authorities. From Romans 13, they reasoned the King (or Queen) was established by God and, therefore, must be obeyed. Even wicked monarchs were to be obeyed, insofar as their commands didn’t violate Scripture. For Knox, this unquestioning obedience was unacceptable.
His experience and witness to persecution along with his view of idolatry led Knox to disagree with the prevailing view of subjugation to the throne. Focusing upon the Old Testament, Knox came to a different conclusion. Central to Knox’s position were the prophets and their insistence upon purifying the nation of Israel from idolatry. For Knox, the implications were obvious: just as Christians could not obey wicked laws, they should not submit to wicked rulers. In his mind the Catholic Mass was idolatry, and, therefore, the Catholic was an idolater. Any Catholic monarch—such as Queen Mary I—was, therefore, an idolatrous and wicked ruler. Christians should not submit to such rulers but oppose them.
Returning to Scotland in 1559, Knox led the Reforming party of Scotland. He continued to promote reformation and raised troops to assist in that goal. Over the last thirteen years of his life, Knox passionately fought for reform in Scotland and opposed the Catholic Church and Catholic rulers. Despite Knox’s hard work, his goal was not realized until after his death in 1572\.
Knox is remembered as a firebrand Reformer who was either loved or hated. But his greatest legacy may not have been the Scottish Reformation. By arguing for rebellion, violent if necessary, against wicked rulers, Knox laid a foundation upon which others would build. His thinking about the relationship between God, the Sovereign, and the Subject, though extreme for his day, was key to what became the [American Revolution](American-Revolution-Romans-13.html). Without John Knox and his influence upon later men such as Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry, it is possible the American Revolution would never have occurred. Oxford historian Jonathan Clark noted that a principled right to revolt, as described in the American Declaration of Independence, is built upon the foundation of three men: [Theodore Beza](Theodore-Beza.html), John Ponet, and John Knox.
|
What happened on Paul’s first missionary journey?
|
Answer
The apostle Paul went on three pioneering [missionary journeys](missionary-journeys-Paul.html), followed by a trip to Rome. His first missionary journey, most likely in the years AD 47 through 48, started in Syria and took him to [Cyprus](Cyprus-in-the-Bible.html) and Asia Minor.
After Paul witnessed the stoning of Stephen (Acts 7:58\), was confronted and converted by Jesus (Acts 9\), and visited Jerusalem (Acts 9:26–30\), the church leadership tucked him safely away in his home town of Tarsus on the southeastern coast of modern Turkey. Meanwhile, the persecution in Jerusalem grew, and believers fled to Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Syrian Antioch, which wasn’t too far from Tarsus (Acts 11:19–30\). The dispersed Christians brought the gospel with them, and when the leaders in Jerusalem learned how quickly the church was growing, they sent Barnabas to Antioch to verify what was happening.
Barnabas confirmed that the gospel was spreading and that the church in Syrian Antioch was indeed a work of God (Acts 11:23\). Barnabas then went to Tarsus to collect Paul, whom he had earlier mentored in Jerusalem. Paul returned to Antioch with Barnabas to provide leadership for the fledgling church. After about a year, the prophet [Agabus](Agabus-in-the-Bible.html) foretold a great famine. The believers in Antioch raised support for the church in Judea and sent it to Jerusalem with Barnabas and Paul (Acts 11:19–30\). After delivering the gift, Barnabas and Paul traveled back to Antioch with John Mark, Barnabas’s cousin (verse 25\). While the church in Antioch was worshiping and fasting, the Holy Spirit called Paul and Barnabas to a special work in spreading the gospel (Acts 13:2\). After more fasting and prayer, the church laid their hands on [Paul and Barnabas](Paul-and-Barnabas.html) and sent them off with John Mark (verse 3\). Thus began the first missionary journey, led by the Holy Spirit (verse 4\).
[Paul](life-Paul.html), [Barnabas](life-Barnabas.html), and [John Mark](John-Mark-in-the-Bible.html) walked to Seleucia on the coast, then sailed southwest to Salamis on the island of Cyprus, where Barnabas was from. They preached in the synagogue there and traveled the whole island, apparently without seeing much fruit, until they arrived at the city of Paphos in the southwest. The island’s Roman proconsul, Sergius Paulus, summoned the missionaries to listen to their message. Unfortunately, the proconsul’s associate, [Bar\-Jesus](Bar-Jesus-in-the-Bible.html) (aka Elymas), was a magician and Jewish false prophet who contradicted the gospel message and tried to keep Sergius Paulus from converting. Empowered by the Holy Spirit, Paul made Bar\-Jesus go blind, and Sergius Paulus believed in Christ (Acts 13:4–12\).
Paul, Barnabas, and John\-Mark sailed from Paphos to Perga in the region of Pamphylia in south\-central Asia Minor. For reasons the Bible does not detail, John Mark left the other two missionaries and returned to Jerusalem (Acts 13:13\). It doesn’t seem Paul and Barnabas spent much time in Perga but headed north to Pisidian Antioch and preached in the synagogue on the Sabbath. In his sermon, Paul, a credentialed Pharisee, gave a synopsis of the Israelites’ exile in Egypt, the judges, Kings Saul and David, and John the Baptist. He showed the Jews in Antioch how only Jesus, who died and rose again, fulfilled the Jewish prophecies. Many believed, and they asked Paul and Barnabas to return the next Sabbath. The next week, almost the entire city showed up, but the Jewish leadership was jealous of the crowds and tried to silence their message with abusive language. Paul and Barnabas pointed out that the Jews had had their chance and had rejected Jesus, so Jesus’ message was going to be brought to the Gentiles. The gospel spread through the whole region, but, eventually, despite the new converts’ enthusiasm, the Jews in Pisidian Antioch stirred up persecution of the missionaries, and Paul and Barnabas traveled east to Iconium in Galatia (Acts 13:14–52\).
Paul and Barnabas stayed quite a while in the city of Iconium, preaching boldly and performing miracles. Many Jews and Greeks believed, but many didn’t. The missionaries caught word that the unbelieving Jews, Gentiles, and city leadership were planning on stoning them, so they fled to the nearby cities of [Lystra](Lystra-in-the-Bible.html) and Derbe in Lycia (Acts 14:1–7\).
While Paul was preaching at the gates of Lystra, he noticed a lame man listening intently. He healed the man, and the crowd declared that Barnabas must be Zeus and Paul Hermes, as Hermes was the messenger and chief spokesman of the gods. The priests of the temple of Zeus joined the crowds and attempted to offer sacrifices to Paul and Barnabas—sacrifices that were barely prevented by Paul and Barnabas’s insistence that they were just men. As a counterpoint, the unbelieving Jews from Antioch and Iconium arrived at Lystra and stirred up the crowds against the gospel. The resulting mob stoned Paul and dragged him out of the city. When the disciples gathered around his lifeless body, Paul stood up, completely well, and went back into the city (Acts 14:8–20\).
The next day, Paul and Barnabas went east to Derbe, situated across the mountain range from Tarsus, and made many disciples. It was in the region of Lystra and Derbe that young Timothy heard the gospel from Paul and was saved. From Derbe, Paul and Barnabas backtracked through Asia Minor, visiting Lystra, Iconium, and Pisidian Antioch and strengthening the young churches and appointing elders (Acts 14:21–23\).
Paul and Barnabas returned to the seaport city of Perga to preach, and then they hopped over to Attalia, a few miles west, and preached there, as well (Acts 14:24–26\). They then sailed back to Syrian Antioch. “On arriving there, they gathered the church together and reported all that God had done through them and how he had opened a door of faith to the Gentiles” (verse 27\).
On his [second missionary journey](Paul-second-missionary-journey.html), Paul travelled through Derbe, Lystra, Iconium, and Pisidian Antioch again on his way to Troas. He visited the cities again on his [third missionary journey](Paul-third-missionary-journey.html) on his way to Ephesus. Sometime between Paul’s first and second missionary journeys (and after the Jerusalem Council), Paul wrote the epistle of Galatians to these cities of southern Galatia.
|
What is a mandala in Hinduism?
|
Answer
*Mandala* is the Sanskrit word for “circle.” The term *mandala* was introduced into the [Buddhist](buddhism.html) and [Hindu](hinduism.html) religions as an aid to meditation. A mandala is a vaguely circular shape with repeating patterns. Some mandalas include a square with four “gates” within the circle. Each gate has a center point in the form of a *T*. To a Buddhist or Hindu, a mandala represents a cosmos within the universe. It is considered a sacred art form with spiritual significance. In Western culture mandalas are often found in diagrams, charts, or geometric designs. Mandalas are recently popular art forms used in adult coloring books. They are intricate and beautiful once color is added. But should such religious symbols be accepted by Christians as art forms or coloring pages?
In Hinduism, mandalas have both religious and political significance. Their intricate designs can symbolize various forms of power in government, as well as spiritual focus and unity. A mandala can represent a governmental system and can be used as almost a map of a particular political infrastructure. In religion, the mandala itself is not seen as having supernatural powers as an idol might. It is merely a tool used by Hindus to aid them in focusing, “[centering](centering-prayer.html),” and meditating. Many traditional mandalas include depictions of a lotus flower, which is sacred in Hinduism and some other false religions. The intricate designs found within a mandala have significance for devout Hindus, but that significance is usually lost to the general public. Because Hinduism is such a loosely defined religion, mandalas have no strict definition or usage, either.
The question arises as to whether Christians should shun mandalas because of their significance in false religion. Some people believe the mandala’s association with paganism requires Christians to avoid them the way they would a carved idol. Since an idol is a representative of godless religion and thought to have supernatural powers, it should not be enjoyed in any way by followers of Jesus. Other people are completely unaware of the mandala’s religious ties and simply enjoy the beauty and intricacies of the designs. And some Christians land in the middle of these two views: they are aware of the Buddhist and Hindu origins of mandalas but see no problem with enjoying them as coloring projects or in other artistic avenues. Since there is no religious significance attached to a Christian’s use of the mandala, is the picture wrong in itself?
The answer to whether or not a mandala is wrong has to do with one’s conscience and motivation. Paul addresses some similar issues in great detail in Romans 14\. In his day, the question was whether or not Christians should celebrate the Sabbath or eat [food offered to idols](food-sacrificed-idols.html). People in the church were taking sides and creating division. Each faction hoped that the apostle would side with them and tell the others how wrong they were. Instead, Paul wrote, “One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them” (Romans 14:2–3\). He went on to say, “One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind” (verse 5\).
His conclusion was that “whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who does not condemn himself by what he approves. But whoever has doubts is condemned if they eat, because their eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin” (Romans 14:22–23\). Paul stressed the importance of having a clear conscience in matters that were not clearly sinful.
When we apply that principle to mandalas, our stance should be, “What would God have me do? Does my conscience bother me when I enjoy a mandala?” If we can’t color, paint, or enjoy mandalas without thinking of Hindu religious practices, then it is wrong for us. But just because one person’s conscience condemns him does not mean the consciences of others are so condemned. On the other hand, if we are hosting a former Hindu who equates mandalas with false religion, then it may be offensive for us to display our mandala collection. Doing so could cause a brother to stumble (1 Corinthians 8:13\). Our highest priority must always be unity, purity, and doing everything for the glory of God (1 Corinthians 10:31\).
Here is an example of a mandala:
|
What were the quail mentioned in the Bible?
|
Answer
A quail is a small, brown\-feathered bird that resembles a partridge. Quail are known for their delicious meat and are often hunted as game birds for that reason. Quail are mentioned in Exodus 16:13, Numbers 11:3 and 32, and again in Psalm 105:40 in reference to God’s provision for the children of Israel when God brought them out of Egyptian slavery (Leviticus 25:38; Deuteronomy 6:12\). The people following Moses had complained that they were sick of eating manna every day and longed for meat, such as they had back in Egypt (Numbers 11:4–6; 21:5\). God heard their grumbling and gave them quail to eat (Exodus 16:11\).
Although the Lord gave the Israelites quail, He was displeased with their [grumbling](Bible-complaining.html) and their ungrateful words against Him. He told Moses to tell them, “The Lord heard you when you wailed, ‘If only we had meat to eat! We were better off in Egypt!’ Now the Lord will give you meat, and you will eat it. You will not eat it for just one day, or two days, or five, ten or twenty days, but for a whole month—until it comes out of your nostrils and you loathe it—because you have rejected the Lord, who is among you, and have wailed before him, saying, ‘Why did we ever leave Egypt?’” (Numbers 11:18–20\).
So God sent quail in the evenings for the people to gather in the wilderness. The Bible says that “a wind went out from the Lord and drove quail in from the sea” (Numbers 11:31\) and that the birds were plentiful: two cubits (approximately 3 feet) deep all around the camp. Scholars interpret this to mean that the quail flew about three feet off the ground, which made them easy to catch and kill. The quail came in such great numbers that each person was able to capture about ten homers, or eight bushels (Numbers 11:32\).
We have no reason to believe that these quail were any different from the quail (*Coturnix dactylisonans*) that are still common in the Mediterranean region. It may well have been that they were on their spring migration northward and were exhausted from their flight, making it easy for the Israelites to capture them. Quail are known to migrate at night, which is the time God specified that they would arrive (Numbers 11:32\). A large number of quail was caught by each person as the migrating flock continued to fly in from over the sea all night long, exhausted and easily taken. The people then “spread them out all around the camp” (verse 32\), which probably refers to the Egyptian practice of drying the meat in preparation for eating it.
Despite the fact that God gave the people what they wanted, He was angry over their rebellion and grumbling and sent a severe plague among the people (Numbers 11:33\). The plague may have been a disease carried by the quail as a lesson to His people that often what they think they want is not good for them. When God rises up in anger against our sin, it is so that we learn to trust and obey Him. The Israelites named the place Kibroth Hattaavah (“The Grave of Lust”) to remind them of what happened when in their greed they had grumbled against the Lord (Numbers 11:34\).
The Israelites had already been given [manna](what-was-manna.html) and were therefore well supplied with food. But they demanded meat in addition to the manna, and their insistence on having more than they needed displeased God. “If we have food and clothing, we will be content with that” (1 Timothy 6:8\). The Israelites failed to learn contentment, and they paid a high price. First Corinthians 10:11 says, “These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the culmination of the ages has come.” God holds us to an even stricter accountability since we now have the written record of His wrath and judgment upon human rebellion. We have His written Word (Romans 15:4\), the testimony of all those who have gone before us (Hebrews 12:1\), and His Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 3:16\) to keep us from making similar mistakes and suffering a similar fate.
|
Does God hate me?
|
Answer
The short answer to the question of “does God hate me?” is “no.” If you are a human being, then you have been designed by your Creator to reflect His own image (Genesis 1:27\). God loves what He created, and He especially loves human beings because we are the most like Him. So why do some people assume God hates them?
There are three key reasons that cause some people to believe that their Creator hates them:
1\. *Sin.* The first and most obvious problem is the fact that God is perfect and we are not (Romans 3:23\). Our sin mars the image of God so that His goodness and likeness cannot be readily seen in us. Since the [fall](fall-affect-humanity.html) in the Garden of Eden, human beings are predisposed to want to be our own gods (Genesis 3:1–6\). We don’t want a Supreme Ruler to tell us what to do. That rebellion against our Creator is the essence of sin. Sin is a matter of the heart. It may manifest itself in obvious ways, such as murder. Or it may manifest in more socially acceptable ways, such as ambition, lust, or greed. But in the heart sin is sin, and it puts distance between us and God.
If God hated us because of our sin, He would have wiped out Adam and Eve when they disobeyed Him. But, because God had already created them with an eternal spirit such as He has, He wanted them to be with Him forever. So God entered their world and did for them what they could not do for themselves—He covered their sin (Genesis 3:21\). He’s still doing that. When He took on human flesh and entered our world as Jesus Christ, He was demonstrating how much He loves us (John 3:16–18; Philippians 2:5–11\). Jesus shed His own blood to cover our sin so that “whosoever believes in Him will not perish” (John 3:16, 36\). This believing means that we acknowledge His right to rule over us. We voluntarily relinquish our insistence upon being our own gods and call Him Lord of our lives (Romans 10:8–10\). God then adopts us as His own beloved children (Romans 8:15; Ephesians 1:5; 1 John 3:1\). As His children, we have the freedom to come to Him anytime (Hebrews 4:16\), find forgiveness when we mess up (1 John 1:9\), and live in joyful anticipation of an eternal life in heaven with Him (1 John 5:13\).
2\. *Flawed understanding of God.* Another reason people develop the idea that God hates them is that they have formed a twisted idea of who He is. The world is drowning in twisted ideas. Every manmade religion has its own definition of an almighty Being or supreme force, most of which is human invention. Those who have been raised in such a religious climate can find it difficult to shed the false teachings about God and embrace truth. Even some Christian denominations start with the God of the Bible but emphasize certain traits to the exclusion of others and present a warped view of God’s nature. Some people have been taught that He is angry with them, that they can never please Him, or that He has favorites and they’re not it. This kind of erroneous teaching can set them up for a lifetime of believing that there is no way God would ever want to draw near to them.
This false theology contradicts the true teachings of God’s Word. James 4:7–10 gives us a snapshot of what it takes to be accepted into God’s presence: “Submit yourselves, then, to God. [Resist the devil](resist-the-devil.html), and he will flee from you. Come near to God and he will come near to you. Wash your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double\-minded. Grieve, mourn and wail. Change your laughter to mourning and your joy to gloom. Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will lift you up.”
This passage lists several action words that reveal a God who longs for us to know Him. We are told to do these things:
• submit to God,
• resist Satan,
• draw near to God,
• cleanse our lives of evil actions,
• let Jesus purify our hearts,
• and humble ourselves before God.
We cannot draw near to God if we won’t submit to Him. We submit to Him by obeying His Word and resisting Satan’s traps, lies, and temptations. When we recognize and avoid the traps of the devil, we can cleanse our lives of the actions that followed those lies. Once we recognize our sin, we ask Jesus to forgive and purify us. Of course, none of this is possible unless we are willing to humble ourselves before the Lord.
3\. *Pride.* The lack of humility is another reason people decide God hates them. When they ask, “Does God hate me,” what they often mean is, “Will God accept me and this pet sin of mine that I do not intend to change?” The clear answer from Scripture is “no.” When we define ourselves by a certain sin, that means we are unwilling to allow Jesus to give us His identity (Romans 8:29\). Repentance is part of salvation, and we cannot accept the new nature He provides (2 Corinthians 5:17\) if we will not let go of the old one (Luke 9:23\). Pride insists that God must do it our way—and when He refuses to bend for us, we decide He hates us. But He refuses to bend for us because He loves us (John 3:16–18\). If His way is the right way, then the only loving thing He can do is to insist that we do things His way. To allow anything less is not loving at all.
[Pride](pride-Bible.html) was the first sin (Isaiah 14:12–14\) and the sin that corrupted humanity (Genesis 3:5–6; 1 John 2:15–16\). Pride will go along with God on some things but insists on having the final vote. When we exalt ourselves as God’s judge and jury, we are living in pride. When we pass judgment on His Word rather than allowing it to judge us, we are walking in pride (Psalm 119:105\). Pride convinces us that God’s unchanging standard is proof that He hates us. So, many times, people who declare that God hates them are defining themselves by a sin and demanding that God accept that sin. He will accept people, but they must cast off pride and confess their sin, agreeing with Him about the sin they are defending (John 6:37; 1 Corinthians 6:9–11\).
God does not hate anyone, in the sense of withholding blessings unfairly. However, those who, by their life choices, set themselves against Him cannot expect His blessing and protection (1 Samuel 2:30; Malachi 2:2\). Those who choose rebellion against God’s plan for their lives will experience the consequences of their choices (Matthew 7:13–14; 25:41; John 3:36\). They will spend an eternity recognizing the rightness of their punishment for rejecting the sacrifice God’s Son made on their behalf (Luke 16:19–31; Hebrews 10:29\). The good news is that we never have to experience God’s righteous wrath upon our sin if we accept Jesus as our substitute (Romans 1:18; 2 Corinthians 5:21\). He took our punishment so that God’s love, not His wrath, could define our lives. If we reject all His attempts to bring us to Himself, He rejects us in the end and allows us to suffer the consequences (Psalm 119:118\). As Hebrews 10:31 says, “It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.”
|
What is Bible Study Fellowship?
|
Answer
Bible Study Fellowship (BSF International) is an in\-depth, structured, interdenominational Bible study program. Their mission, stated on their [website](https://www.bsfinternational.org), is to provide “global, in\-depth classes producing passionate commitment to Christ, His Word and His church.” The courses are 30 weeks long and guide the participants through an in\-depth study on a book of the Bible. Their statement of faith is readily available for review [here](https://www.bsfinternational.org/about/statement-of-faith).
Bible Study Fellowship has a four\-step approach to Bible study: 1\) Students are encouraged to answer daily lesson questions from Scripture. 2\) Attendees meet to discuss their insights in a discussion group. 3\) They listen to teaching that explains what was studied. 4\) Participants can gain additional insight by reading lesson notes that further elaborate on the Scripture.
There is no cost to join Bible Study Fellowship—either for the class or the materials. The program is highly organized and uses an [expository method](expository-preaching.html) of Bible study. BSF also offers children and youth programs.
Bible Study Fellowship began in San Bernadino, California, in 1959\. Audrey Wetherell Johnson, a missionary to China, was speaking at a church when five women asked her to lead them in a Bible study. Johnson agreed to teach them, but with one condition: “I will not spoon\-feed you.” Johnson’s class quickly outgrew the home and moved into a church. New BSF classes began springing up through southern California, and eventually the ministry began reaching people internationally as well. Over 50 years later, BSF serves more than 1,100 classes on six continents.
As with any Bible study program or ministry, we encourage all participants to compare the teaching of Bible Study Fellowship to what the Bible says (see Acts 17:10–15\).
|
Are men and women equal in God’s eyes?
|
Answer
Yes, men and women are equal in God’s eyes in that both men and women are created in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:27\). Men and women are also equally sinners in need of grace and salvation. Redeemed men and women are equally forgiven, equally indwelt by the Holy Spirit, equally invited before the throne of grace, and equally heirs of God (Galatians 3:28\).
In Genesis 2:18 the Lord says, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” After God creates the woman from Adam’s rib (Genesis 2:21–22\), Adam proclaims, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man” (Genesis 2:23\). We then read the first description of marriage: “That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh” (Genesis 2:24\). Everything about this passage points to the fact that men and women are equal in God’s eyes. The woman was “suitable” for (not inferior to) the man, she was created from him, and she becomes “[one flesh](one-flesh-marriage.html)” with him in marriage.
Nowhere does Scripture imply that women are unequal to men in God’s eyes or that they should have less significance than men. Men and women have different roles in the home and in the church, but different roles do not indicate differing worth. A screwdriver has a different role in the carpenter’s shop than a hammer, but that doesn’t mean one tool is more valuable than the other. The roles of men and women are divinely designed to be [complementary](complementarianism.html).
People who believe men and women are not equal in God’s eyes often have a misunderstanding of God’s Word. First Peter 3:7 says, “Husbands . . . be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.” Some readers latch on to the word *weaker* and get offended. But what does it mean that the wife is the “[weaker partner](weaker-vessel.html)”? It has nothing to do with her mental or spiritual capabilities. It simply refers to the fact that a woman has a different physical makeup from a man. Men are naturally stronger, and, from the beginning of time, men have been the primary providers and protectors of their families. We find an allusion to this in God’s curse on Adam: “Through painful toil you will eat food from \[the ground] all the days of your life” (Genesis 3:17\). God’s curse on Eve explains the age\-old [battle of the sexes](desire-husband-rule.html): “Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you” (verse 16\), or, as the NLT has it, “You will desire to control your husband, but he will rule over you.” The harmonious relationship between the man and woman was broken by sin, and God predicted a new dynamic would emerge. But, even in Eve’s curse, there is no hint of her inferiority or inequality.
People who take umbrage with Peter’s mention of a woman’s physical weakness completely miss the rest of 1 Peter 3:7, which clearly says that the husband and wife are spiritually equal. They are “heirs” of the “gift of life” together. A wife should be treated with “respect,” and a husband who fails to honor his wife will find that his prayers are “hindered.” The Amplified Bible renders the verse this way: “You husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way \[with great gentleness and tact, and with an intelligent regard for the marriage relationship], as with someone physically weaker, since she is a woman. Show her honor and respect as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your prayers will not be hindered or ineffective.”
Another passage that some people can get confused about is 1 Timothy 2:11–15, “A woman should learn [in quietness](women-silent-church.html) and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety” (cf. 1 Corinthians 14:34\). In the church, women are not to exercise spiritual authority over men; that much is clear. The reasons for God’s directive for the church are also clear: the order of creation and the deception of Eve. [Men, not women, are to be pastors](women-pastors.html); this difference in role, however, has no bearing on a woman’s intrinsic worth before God. A quarterback may call the plays on a football field, but that doesn’t make him any more valuable as a person than a tight end.
Those who focus on what *women* cannot do in 1 Timothy 2 often overlook what *men* cannot do in the same passage. Men will never experience the blessing of a life forming inside of them. Women are the only ones who can bear children (verse 15\). The fact is, men and women have different, God\-given roles, and those roles should be celebrated and assumed with thanksgiving.
Just because God has given men the spiritual leadership roles in the church doesn’t mean men are superior or that they have a special standing with God. It does mean that men bear a greater responsibility for the condition of the church and the family. Concerning the marriage relationship, 1 Corinthians 11:3 says, “The head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” Men will answer to God for how they lead their families and the church.
Are women and men equal? In some ways, yes, and, in some ways, no. Spiritually, men and women are absolutely equal. Physically, they are obviously not equal. God has chosen distinct roles for both men and women that they may complement each other in a way that most glorifies Himself. Women may be fragile in some regards, but so are many things that are most precious to us. Men and women should work together, each fulfilling their respective, distinct roles, for the common goal of glorifying God.
|
What is Community Bible Study?
|
Answer
Community Bible Study is a program that provides in\-depth [Bible studies](group-Bible-study.html) that take participants verse\-by\-verse through whole books of the Bible. There is emphasis on application of the Bible in the participant’s personal life. Community Bible Study welcomes people from all backgrounds and levels of Bible knowledge.
Community Bible Study began in the Bethesda, Maryland, in 1975 at Fourth Presbyterian Church. Over the years, the program has expanded to hundreds of other geographical areas and is used internationally as well.
The program has denominational respect, meaning Community Bible Study concentrates on the essentials of the faith, not denominational differences. People from various churches are a part of the program who come together to study God’s Word. The program seeks to develop leadership skills in their attendees, enabling them to serve more effectively in their individual churches.
Children are also encouraged to study God’s Word through the Community Bible Study student program. Community Bible Study provides a safe environment for babies, toddlers, children, and youth. Children usually study the same passages as the adults so that families can discuss the Bible together.
As with any Bible study program or ministry, we encourage all participants to compare the teaching of Community Bible Study to what the Bible says (see Acts 17:10–15\). More information regarding Community Bible Study can be found on their [website](http://www.communitybiblestudy.org/).
|
Who was Hagar in the Bible?
|
Answer
Hagar was an Egyptian girl who was a slave to Abram’s (Abraham’s) wife, Sarah. We find most of the information about Hagar in Genesis 16\. After God had appeared to [Abram](life-Abraham.html) and promised him a homeland and a heritage (Genesis 12:1–4\), ten years went by, and he and [Sarah](life-Sarah.html) still had no baby (Genesis 16:1\). In her impatience, Sarah took matters into her own hands and gave her maid to her husband, saying, “Go sleep with my slave; perhaps I can build a family through her” (verses 2–3\). So Abram did as she said, and Hagar became pregnant.
Despite the fact that this adulterous situation was of her own doing, Sarah became jealous when the younger, fertile slave girl began to flaunt her expanding waistline (Genesis 16:4\). In anger, Sarah started treating Hagar harshly, causing Hagar to run away into the desert (verses 5–6\). The angel of the Lord found her there and comforted her, telling her to return to her mistress and giving her a prophecy concerning her son: “You shall name him Ishmael, for the LORD has heard of your misery. He will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone’s hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers” (verses 11–12\). This was Hagar’s first encounter with Abram’s God, and she called Him “the God who sees me” (verse 13\).
Later, Hagar bore a son to Abram and named him [Ishmael](Ishmael-in-the-Bible.html), as the Lord had told her to (Genesis 16:15\). Hagar’s story resumes fourteen years later when [Isaac](life-Isaac.html) was born to Abraham and Sarah (Genesis 21\). Shortly after Isaac was weaned, Sarah saw Ishmael taunting him and took the matter to Abraham: “Get rid of that slave woman and her son, for that woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with my son Isaac” (Genesis 21:10\). Although it grieved Abraham to do so, he gave Hagar and Ishmael some provisions and [sent them away](Abraham-Ishmael.html), and Ishmael and his mother wandered in the desert (verse 14\).
When Hagar’s food and water ran out, she did not know what to do. She put Ishmael under a bush for shade and then went a few paces away so she would not have to watch him die (Genesis 21:16\). As Hagar wept, the Lord called to her from heaven with words of comfort (verse 17\); God then gave her a promise: “Lift the boy up and take him by the hand, for I will make him into a great nation” (verse 18\). The Bible says that God “opened her eyes and she saw a well of water” that she had not seen in her distress (verse 19\). God rescued Hagar and gave her hope and direction. God was with Ishmael as he grew up in the desert (verse 20\).
Abraham’s sin with Hagar has resulted in centuries of sorrow and bloodshed, as the descendants of Isaac (the Jews) and Ishmael (the Arabs) have been mortal enemies since Bible days. Mohammed, the father of [Islam](Islam.html), is said to have been from the line of Ishmael, which is one reason Muslims claim a right to the Promised Land, Israel. Hagar is a revered woman in Islam since Ishmael is the father of the Arabic people. The Qur’anic version of the Genesis account twists the story to make Hagar the heroine of the story and her son, Ishmael, the child of promise instead of Isaac.
The apostle Paul uses the story of [Hagar and Sarah](Sarah-Hagar.html) to teach a spiritual truth concerning our salvation. In Galatians 4, Hagar represents the Old Covenant, based on the Law (given at Sinai in Arabia) and human works. Sarah represents the New Covenant, based on grace and the saving work of God. In Paul’s analogy, believers in Christ are like the child born of Sarah—we are free, products of the Spirit. Those who try to earn their salvation by their own works are like the child born of Hagar—they are slaves, products of the flesh. “Therefore, brothers and sisters, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman” (Galatians 4:31\). Paul counsels believers to “get rid of the slave woman” (verse 30\)—that is, cease trying to earn salvation, because the inheritance of the children of promise can never be shared with those who live under the dictates of the flesh.
The story of Hagar is full of God’s goodness, and we can learn from the way God worked in Hagar’s life. She was a nobody, a foreign slave girl. Yet the Lord of Heaven saw her in her distress, provided for her need, and blessed her son because he was the child of Abraham. Hagar gave us the term *El Roi*, which means “the God who sees.” And her story reminds us that, no matter who we are or where we are, the Lord God sees us and cares about us. He will comfort and provide for anyone who turns to Him, and He always keeps His promises.
|
What does it mean that Jesus is the answer?
|
Answer
“Jesus is the answer” is a popular slogan. Missing is the question. Jesus is the answer to what? What are people trying to convey when they claim that Jesus is the answer?
**Jesus is the answer to our broken relationship with God.** When God created Adam and Eve, they enjoyed perfect fellowship with Him. But Adam sinned by disobeying God, thereby bringing death into the world (Genesis 3:8–19; Romans 5:12; 6:23; 1 Corinthians 15:21–22\). A significant part of that death is [spiritual death](spiritual-death.html). Humanity’s relationship with God is broken. God provided a covering for Adam and Eve (Genesis 3:21\) and promised a Redeemer who would defeat Satan and reconcile God and man (Genesis 3:15\). The Old Testament narrative gradually reveals God’s plan to save people. The New Testament shows us that Jesus is the promised Redeemer. Jesus atoned for our sin and restores the possibility of relationship with God.
Jesus said, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6 ). Jesus is the answer—the only answer—to our broken relationship with God. Apart from Him there is no salvation (Acts 4:12; 1 Timothy 2:5–6\). The biblical term for God’s act of making peace with sinful humanity is [*reconciliation*](reconciliation.html) (see 2 Corinthians 5:18\). Romans 5:10 reminds us that, in Christ, God’s enemies were made His friends and given life: “If, while we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!”
Jesus is the answer to the problem of our estrangement from God. It is Jesus who makes it possible for our sins to be [forgiven](got-forgiveness.html) and for us to be children of God (John 1:12–13\). It is Jesus who mends our relationship with God so that we can fellowship with Him during our lifetimes as well as eventually live with Him for eternity.
**Jesus is the answer to our guilty consciences.** Even after we are saved, we still sin and experience the temporal consequences of sin. Sin keeps us from fellowshipping with God fully. But we have God’s promise: “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9\). Jesus is the One who “washes our feet” of daily impurities, even after we have been “fully bathed” (see John 13:10\). Jesus is the reason we can receive forgiveness and be purified. He is the answer to our sin problem both now and for eternity.
**Jesus is the answer to our broken relationships with each other.** When Adam and Eve sinned, not only did they break their relationship with God, but they also damaged their relationship with each other (see Genesis 3:12, 16\). Humans have been struggling in relationship to one another ever since (see Genesis 4:8\). This relational breakdown manifests in various ways, including the walls we erect between races. In the New Testament era, there was a major division between Gentiles and Jews. Jesus is the answer to all types of disharmony: “For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups \[Jew and Gentile] one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility. . . . His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace, and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. He came and preached peace to you \[Gentiles] who were far away and peace to those \[Jews] who were near. For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit” (Ephesians 2:14–18; cf. Galatians 3:26–29\).
Jesus instructed His followers to love one another humbly and sacrificially (John 13:34–35\). Jesus prayed for unity among His followers (John 17\), a unity embraced by the early church (Acts 8 and 10\). Because we have received forgiveness in Jesus, we can forgive others. Jesus is the answer for our relational turmoil.
**Jesus is the answer to a meaningless existence.** The writer of [Ecclesiastes](Book-of-Ecclesiastes.html) bewails the meaninglessness of worldly pursuits apart from God. When we are spiritually dead, life is ultimately empty. Nothing in this world will fully satisfy the deepest longings of our hearts (see Psalm 73:25\). But, in Jesus, we have purpose. He said, “The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full” (John 10:10\). The Christian life is a fruitful life. We are invited to be part of God’s work in the world, tasked with sharing the gospel and making disciples (Matthew 28:18–20\). We can do nothing apart from Jesus, but in Him we bear much fruit (John 15:5\).
**Jesus is the answer to our worries and doubts.** Life involves hardship, and with hardship come worries, fears, and doubts. Jesus told His followers, “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” (John 16:33\). Jesus reminded us of God’s love and care (Matthew 6:24–33\). Jesus also gave us the Holy Spirit to live with us forever (John 14:15–21; 16:7–15\). Jesus is the reason we are not alone. Jesus is the answer to our fears and heartaches. He is able to sympathize with us because He has lived a human life in this broken world (Hebrews 4:15–16\). Jesus gives us peace and equips us to endure, and even rejoice in, the hardships of this life (James 1:2–5\).
**Jesus is the answer to the problems of the world.** Experience tells us that the world is broken and in need of repair—sometimes its brokenness is rather obvious. Jesus is the answer. He has a plan to fix this broken world: “The government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the greatness of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David’s throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the LORD Almighty will accomplish this” (Isaiah 9:6–7\). World peace has proved an elusive goal in our war\-torn world, but one day Jesus will set all things right, and the [Prince of Peace](Prince-of-Peace.html) will rule in true justice, ushering in a time of blessing and bounty the world has never seen (Isaiah 11\). Revelation 21 predicts a new heaven and new earth: “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” (Revelation 21:3–5\).
A day is coming when the world’s problems will be solved; everything will be made new, and peace will reign. This is because of Jesus. We eagerly await [His return](second-coming-Jesus-Christ.html), trusting that “the Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9\).
No matter what our individual needs, Jesus is the answer for our lives today, and He promises a better future to come.
|
Should Christian women use tampons?
|
Answer
A tampon is a feminine hygiene product used to stop the menstrual flow during a woman’s monthly cycle. A tampon is a plug of soft, absorbent material inserted into the vagina to absorb blood before it leaves the body, thereby helping a woman stay cleaner during her period. There has been some concern as to whether virgins should use tampons and whether inserting a tampon into a virgin’s body can break the hymen, destroying the evidence of her [virginity](Bible-virginity.html). Every woman’s body is different, and the hymen can be broken in many ways through accidents, playing rough sports, or medical exams. Although tampon use can result in a torn hymen, there is no proof that tampons routinely break the hymen.
However, even if a virgin’s hymen is broken by a tampon, she is still a virgin and is not, in any way, sexually impure. The presence of an intact hymen is not the only proof of a woman’s purity. Purity is a matter of the heart (see Matthew 5:8\). If a Christian woman can wear tampons without guilt, then there is no reason why she should refrain. However, if it is a matter of conscience, or if she wants to save any exploration of her body for her wedding night, then it is fine to abstain from using them.
For a married woman, her hymen has already been broken, so that aspect of the decision is no longer a factor. For women who have already had sex outside of marriage but have since committed themselves to purity until their wedding day, the use of tampons may be symbolic to her of her [immorality](sexual-immorality.html), and for that reason she may choose to keep that part of her body off\-limits, even to herself. But for young girls and virgins, tampons introduce the idea of inserting something into the vagina, and many women feel uncomfortable with the concept. That is perfectly understandable, and a girl or woman should not feel embarrassed or ashamed if she chooses not to use tampons.
Romans 14 instructs us in how to deal with controversial and doubtful subjects. Verse 5 says that each person “should be fully convinced in their own mind.” When a woman has committed herself to Christ, she can make confident decisions about her body because her heart is set to please Him. She can even ask the Lord if it is permissible to try tampons and then move ahead with whatever she believes is pleasing to Him. But if something about the whole concept bothers her conscience, she doesn’t need to pray about it. God has already given her His answer.
God’s answer concerning tampons for one woman may not be His answer for her friend or sister or cousin. So, as in all disputable matters, through prayer and seeking the Lord, we should be fully convinced in our own minds about what God would have us do, and we also should be careful not to judge others who see it differently. Romans 14:4 warns us that, in extra\-biblical issues such as this, where there is no clear instruction from God’s Word, we should allow others the same freedom that God allows us: to seek Him, obey Him, and be fully convinced that we are in the center of His will.
|
What is the Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN)?
|
Answer
The Trinity Broadcasting Network, or TBN, was started by an [Assemblies of God](Assemblies-of-God.html) minister, Paul Crouch, with his wife, Jan, in 1973\. The couple began buying air time on a local TV station and was eventually able to buy a low\-power TV station in the Los Angeles area in 1974\. They produced some of their own programming and sold air time to other Christian ministries. In 1977 the station was renamed KTBN. Over time, they expanded their broadcast hours, the programming began to be carried via satellite and local cable, and the network came into its own.
Today, according to TBN’s website, the Trinity Broadcasting Network is the largest and most watched “faith network” on the planet. From the website: “TBN has grown into a family of over thirty twenty\-four\-hour global networks reaching every inhabited continent with entertaining, inspirational, and life\-changing programming for every family member and demographic.”
The stated purpose of the Trinity Broadcasting Network is “To use every available means to reach as many individuals and families as possible with the life\-changing Gospel of Jesus Christ.” This would indeed seem to be a laudable goal. However, one will search in vain to find any statement of faith or clear presentation of just what the life\-changing message is. The website does include a gospel presentation that quotes Romans 10:9–10 and offers the following:
“If you will read this simple prayer below, and you mean it from your heart, we believe you will be saved!
“Heavenly Father, in the Name of Jesus, I come before You.
I know I’m a sinner. Lord, I repent of my sins.
I ask Jesus to come into my heart and be Lord of my life.
I believe in my heart, and I confess with my mouth
Jesus is the Son of You, the Living God,
And that You raised Him from the dead.
And This very moment, I make Him Lord of my life.
All that I am…and all that I ever will be.
I believe this moment right now, that I am saved and I am born again.
I am a child of the Almighty God. Thank You, Jesus. Amen
“If you prayed this prayer, then we welcome you to the family of God!”
While the above statement is good as far as it goes, it leaves many things unexplained and seems to reduce becoming a Christian to repeating a prayer, which leads to the next problem. It appears that anyone who claims to be a Christian or who uses the name of Jesus is welcome on TBN. While the Trinity Broadcasting Network provides some programming from mainstream evangelicals, there is also programming from [Charismatics](Charismatic-movement.html), [faith healers](faith-healers.html), self\-proclaimed [prophets](prophets-today.html), and [prosperity preachers](prosperity-gospel.html) like [Joel Osteen](Joel-Osteen.html), Kenneth Copeland, Benny Hinn, Joyce Meyer, T. D. Jakes (who, ironically, denies the Trinity), and Creflo Dollar. Some of the programming is original with TBN, and some of it is simply purchased by ministries who want to get access to TBN’s viewers—much the same way many ministries purchase air time on a variety of stations. From TBN’s original programming, it would be accurate to describe the network as brazenly promoting the heretical prosperity theology, [seed faith offerings](seed-faith.html), and the [Word of Faith Movement](Word-Faith.html).
A well\-known apologist once said the most dangerous place for a Christian is a Christian bookstore because most Christian bookstores will sell anything that claims to be Christian, leaving the buyer to sort out the good from the bad. The same is true of TBN. There is some beneficial programming on TBN, but extreme discernment is required. One must sift through a lot of heresy, bad theology, greed, superstition, and just plain foolishness to get to anything biblical. Because it is billed as “Christian” fare, the unsuspecting or undiscerning viewer may be misled into simply trusting everything featured on TBN and may be enticed to support the network financially. The Trinity Broadcasting receives millions of dollars in donations every year. In giving to TBN, supporters are enabling one of the largest broadcasters of heresy in the world today.
|
Is Jesus dead?
|
Answer
Many world leaders have left their marks on the pages of history. Religious gurus have helped shape culture and thought. But regardless of what they taught, accomplished, or believed, they all have one thing in common—they are all dead. There was a point at which each mystic, emperor, and philosopher came into being and another point at which they exited this world. We can visit their grave sites or memorials, and beneath the ground their corpses or bone fragments are still there. Every leader, prophet, or king has died or will die, and, once they die, that’s it. They face the judgment of God just like every other human being (Hebrews 9:27; 2 Corinthians 5:10\)—with one exception. Jesus Christ, the One upon whom the entire world’s dating system is based, is not dead.
Because He was not just a mere man, Jesus did not come into existence at a specific point in time. He has always existed as the Son of God (John 1:1–5; 8:58\). He chose to leave heaven and enter this world in the form of a human baby (Luke 1:35; Philippians 2:5–8\). And, although His mother was human, His Father was God. Jesus Christ was fully God and fully man living this earthly life so that He could become the intermediary between sinful mankind and a holy Creator (1 Timothy 2:5\). He suffered as we do, yet He never sinned (Hebrews 4:15\). He always did what pleased His Father (John 8:29; 14:31\). And when the time came, He offered Himself as the final sacrifice for our sins (John 10:18; 2 Corinthians 5:21\).
Jesus was arrested and put on trial because He [claimed to be God](is-Jesus-God.html) (John 5:18; 10:33\). They crucified Him as it had been prophesied in Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53 (Luke 22:37\). As He hung on the cross, Jesus became every sin that humanity has invented (2 Corinthians 5:21; 1 John 2:2\). He paid in full the price we owe God so that we could be considered righteous and forgiven. When He cried out, “It is finished!” (John 19:30\), He was not referring to His earthly life, because He had already told His followers that God would raise Him from the dead in three days (Mark 9:31; 10:33–34\). He meant that the plan to redeem fallen man, which He and the Father had known from the beginning, had now been completed (1 Peter 1:18–20; Acts 2:23; Ephesians 1:4\). Jesus [really did die](swoon-theory.html) physically and stayed dead for the better part of three days.
Jesus was buried in a borrowed tomb, because He would not be needing it for long (Matthew 27:59–60\). The tomb was secured by Roman officials with a seal and a heavy boulder, making it nearly impossible to open. Then guards were assigned to keep watch for fear the disciples would try to steal the body and pretend He had risen as He had promised (Matthew 27:62–66\). Everyone was familiar with Jesus’ prediction, even though no one understood exactly what it meant (Mark 9:31–32\). The guards were an extra precaution requested by the Jewish religious leaders in an effort to silence forever the new teachings Jesus of Nazareth had introduced into their culture. They figured that, once the Leader was dead and gone, the fervor of His followers would die down and things could go back to the way they had been.
Things would have settled down if Jesus had stayed in the tomb. If Jesus had not risen from the dead, He would have been no different from any other zealous reformer. In fact, Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 15:14 that, “if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.” Then in verses 17–19 he writes, “And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.”
But Jesus did not stay dead. On the third day, just as He had said, He walked out of that tomb (Matthew 28:2–10; Mark 16:4–7; Luke 24:1–8; John 20:1–8, 19\). An angel knocked the guards out, kicked the stone out of the way, and sat on it, waiting for Jesus’ friends to show up (Matthew 28:2; John 20:1, 11–12\). For the next forty days, Jesus appeared to over five hundred people (1 Corinthians 15:3–7\), demonstrating that He was indeed fully, physically alive (Luke 24:36–42\). He then ascended back into heaven in the sight of His disciples (Luke 24:51; Acts 1:9–11\).
Jesus is very much alive and is now seated at the right hand of the Father (Hebrews 1:3\). He “ever lives” to make intercession for His people (Hebrews 7:25\) and has promised that He will come again (John 14:3; Revelation 22:2\). He endured separation from God (Matthew 27:46\) so that we don’t have to and conquered death so that we can, too (1 Corinthians 15:55\). He has set Himself apart from every other religious leader because there is no grave with His name on it. There is no tomb with a body in it. Only the Son of God could die for the sins of the world and then rise from the dead. Because of His [resurrection](was-Jesus-resurrected.html), all who place their trust in Him can have hope of a similar resurrection. Jesus is not dead, and because He lives, we can live in eternity with Him (John 3:16–18; 14:19\).
|
Who was Jonathan Edwards?
|
Answer
Jonathan Edwards (1703–1758\) was a pastor and theologian, thought by many to be the greatest theological mind that the New World has ever produced. His preaching, which helped spark the [First Great Awakening](First-Second-Great-Awakening.html), emphasized man’s sin, God’s judgment, God’s sovereignty, the necessity of personal conversion, and justification by faith.
Edwards was born in East Windsor, Connecticut. From a very early age, he was thinking deeply about theological doctrine. At the age of 13, Edwards entered Yale and graduated at the head of his class at the age of 17\. He was licensed to preach at the age of 20\. In 1727, he was ordained in the [Congregational Church](congregationalism.html) and began serving in Northampton, Massachusetts, with his grandfather and great revival preacher, Solomon Stoddard. About two years later, Stoddard died, and Edwards assumed full leadership of the church.
Edwards was grieved at the spiritual condition of the church and the community. Many made outward assent to the faith and partook in the life of the church, but they gave no evidence of genuine conversion. The people of Northampton were generally complacent about spiritual things. Church discipline had become lax, and there had been very little screening for church membership.
Edwards began to preach against this spiritual lethargy. His first sermon series in Northampton was on justification by faith alone, for he feared that many had come to rely upon their own goodness for salvation. By most accounts, Edwards was not an impressive orator. He normally read his sermons with very little animation, with his face close to the manuscript as he had poor eyesight (and also, it is reported, poor penmanship). But his sincerity and the content of the messages were used by God to bring about spiritual awakening. Under Edwards’ influence, the revival known as the Great Awakening took place. Edwards penned a history of the local effects of the revival in his 1736 essay *A Faithful Narrative of the Surprising Work of God*.
On July 8, 1741, Edwards preached his most famous sermon, “[Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God](sinners-in-the-hands-of-an-angry-God.html).” It is reported that during the message people were overcome with conviction, and members of the congregation were shrieking, groaning, and trembling with holy fear.
In spite of his tremendous spiritual results, Jonathan Edwards was discharged from his church in 1750 when he attempted to limit communion to those who gave some evidence of conversion. He relocated to a small church in Stockbridge Massachusetts, where he served as pastor and as a missionary to the Hausatonnoc Indians. In 1758 Edwards became the president of the College of New Jersey (which would become Princeton University), but he died from complications of a smallpox inoculation about a month later.
Edwards’ influence lives on through his sermons and other writings, both theological and historical (many are still readily available both online and in print). He was keenly interested in the way the Spirit moved to bring about spiritual awakening, and he carefully recorded and analyzed religious activity in his area. He made every effort to determine where God was genuinely moving and where the religious fervor was the result of emotionalism. He was also a staunch defender of [Calvinism](doctrines-of-grace.html) and the doctrines of the [Reformation](Protestant-Reformation.html). Historian Philip Schaff has called him the “American Calvin.”
|
What is the Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God sermon?
|
Answer
*Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God* is a sermon that was preached by [Jonathan Edwards](Jonathan-Edwards.html) on a few (likely three) occasions, but most famously on July 8, 1741, in Enfield, Connecticut. That day, God used *Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God* to produce powerful conviction and repentance among those who heard it, with many people coming to faith in Christ. It is the most famous sermon of the first [Great Awakening](First-Second-Great-Awakening.html) and one of the most famous sermons in Christian history.
*Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God* uses Deuteronomy 32:35 as its starting point, particularly the clause “their foot shall slide in due time.” The message of the sermon can be summarized: “It is only the mercy of God the keeps people from falling into hell, and God is free to withdraw that mercy at any moment.” In *Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God*, Jonathan Edwards used vivid illustrations of hell and the perilousness of life in order to force people to consider the reality of their eternal destiny and to invoke a decision to receive Jesus Christ as Savior.
*Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God* is definitely a “[hellfire and brimstone](hellfire-preaching.html)” sermon. Many question this method of evangelism. The idea of scaring a person into trusting in Christ is offensive to some. However, hell truly is a horrible place (Revelation 20:10\-15\). And many people do not understand the urgency of their need of salvation (2 Corinthians 6:2\). There is a time and a place for a sermon such as *Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God*. It, and sermons like it, played a crucial role in the first Great Awakening.
The complete text of *Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God* can be found below:
**SINNERS IN THE HANDS OF AN ANGRY GOD**
*Their foot shall slide in due time.* (Deuteronomy 32:35\)
In this verse is threatened the vengeance of God on the wicked unbelieving Israelites, who were God’s visible people, and who lived under the means of grace; but who, notwithstanding all God’s wonderful works towards them, remained (as verse 28\) void of counsel, having no understanding in them. Under all the cultivations of heaven, they brought forth bitter and poisonous fruit; as in the two verses next preceding the text. The expression I have chosen for my text, Their foot shall slide in due time, seems to imply the following doings, relating to the punishment and destruction to which these wicked Israelites were exposed.
1\. That they were always exposed to destruction; as one that stands or walks in slippery places is always exposed to fall. This is implied in the manner of their destruction coming upon them, being represented by their foot sliding. The same is expressed, Psalm 73:18, “Surely thou didst set them in slippery places; thou casted them down into destruction.”
2\. It implies, that they were always exposed to sudden unexpected destruction. As he that walks in slippery places is every moment liable to fall, he cannot foresee one moment whether he shall stand or fall the next; and when he does fall, he falls at once without warning: Which is also expressed in Psalm 73:18\-19, “Surely thou didst set them in slippery places; thou casted them down into destruction: How are they brought into desolation as in a moment!”
3\. Another thing implied is, that they are liable to fall of themselves, without being thrown down by the hand of another; as he that stands or walks on slippery ground needs nothing but his own weight to throw him down.
4\. That the reason why they are not fallen already, and do not fall now, is only that God’s appointed time is not come. For it is said, that when that due time, or appointed time comes, their foot shall slide. Then they shall be left to fall, as they are inclined by their own weight. God will not hold them up in these slippery places any longer, but will let them go; and then at that very instant, they shall fall into destruction; as he that stands on such slippery declining ground, on the edge of a pit, he cannot stand alone, when he is let go he immediately falls and is lost.
The observation from the words that I would now insist upon is this. “There is nothing that keeps wicked men at any one moment out of hell, but the mere pleasure of God.” By the mere pleasure of God, I mean his sovereign pleasure, his arbitrary will, restrained by no obligation, hindered by no manner of difficulty, any more than if nothing else but God’s mere will had in the least degree, or in any respect whatsoever, any hand in the preservation of wicked men one moment. The truth of this observation may appear by the following considerations.
1\. There is no want of power in God to cast wicked men into hell at any moment. Men’s hands cannot be strong when God rises up. The strongest have no power to resist him, nor can any deliver out of his hands.—He is not only able to cast wicked men into hell, but he can most easily do it. Sometimes an earthly prince meets with a great deal of difficulty to subdue a rebel, who has found means to fortify himself, and has made himself strong by the numbers of his followers. But it is not so with God. There is no fortress that is any defense from the power of God. Though hand join in hand, and vast multitudes of God’s enemies combine and associate themselves, they are easily broken in pieces. They are as great heaps of light chaff before the whirlwind; or large quantities of dry stubble before devouring flames. We find it easy to tread on and crush a worm that we see crawling on the earth; so it is easy for us to cut or singe a slender thread that any thing hangs by: thus easy is it for God, when he pleases, to cast his enemies down to hell. What are we, that we should think to stand before him, at whose rebuke the earth trembles, and before whom the rocks are thrown down?
2\. They deserve to be cast into hell; so that divine justice never stands in the way, it makes no objection against God’s using his power at any moment to destroy them. Yea, on the contrary, justice calls aloud for an infinite punishment of their sins. Divine justice says of the tree that brings forth such grapes of Sodom, “Cut it down, why cumbereth it the ground?” Luke 13:7, The sword of divine justice is every moment brandished over their heads, and it is nothing but the hand of arbitrary mercy, and God’s mere will, that holds it back.
3\. They are already under a sentence of condemnation to hell. They do not only justly deserve to be cast down thither, but the sentence of the law of God, that eternal and immutable rule of righteousness that God has fixed between him and mankind, is gone out against them, and stands against them; so that they are bound over already to hell. John 3:18, “He that believeth not is condemned already.” So that every unconverted man properly belongs to hell; that is his place; from thence he is, John 8:23, “Ye are from beneath.” And thither be is bound; it is the place that justice, and God’s word, and the sentence of his unchangeable law assign to him.
4\. They are now the objects of that very same anger and wrath of God, that is expressed in the torments of hell. And the reason why they do not go down to hell at each moment, is not because God, in whose power they are, is not then very angry with them; as he is with many miserable creatures now tormented in hell, who there feel and bear the fierceness of his wrath. Yea, God is a great deal more angry with great numbers that are now on earth: yea, doubtless, with many that are now in this congregation, who it may be are at ease, than he is with many of those who are now in the flames of hell.
So that it is not because God is unmindful of their wickedness, and does not resent it, that he does not let loose his hand and cut them off. God is not altogether such an one as themselves, though they may imagine him to be so. The wrath of God burns against them, their damnation does not slumber; the pit is prepared, the fire is made ready, the furnace is now hot, ready to receive them; the flames do now rage and glow. The glittering sword is whet, and held over them, and the pit hath opened its mouth under them.
5\. The devil stands ready to fall upon them, and seize them as his own, at what moment God shall permit him. They belong to him; he has their souls in his possession, and under his dominion. The scripture represents them as his goods, Luke 6:12, The devils watch them; they are ever by them at their right hand; they stand waiting for them, like greedy hungry lions that see their prey, and expect to have it, but are for the present kept back. If God should withdraw his hand, by which they are restrained, they would in one moment fly upon their poor souls. The old serpent is gaping for them; hell opens its mouth wide to receive them; and if God should permit it, they would be hastily swallowed up and lost.
6\. There are in the souls of wicked men those hellish principles reigning, that would presently kindle and flame out into hell fire, if it were not for God’s restraints. There is laid in the very nature of carnal men, a foundation for the torments of hell. There are those corrupt principles, in reigning power in them, and in full possession of them, that are seeds of hell fire. These principles are active and powerful, exceeding violent in their nature, and if it were not for the restraining hand of God upon them, they would soon break out, they would flame out after the same manner as the same corruptions, the same enmity does in the hearts of damned souls, and would beget the same torments as they do in them. The souls of the wicked are in scripture compared to the troubled sea, Isaiah 57:20, For the present, God restrains their wickedness by his mighty power, as he does the raging waves of the troubled sea, saying, “Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further;” but if God should withdraw that restraining power, it would soon carry all before it. Sin is the ruin and misery of the soul; it is destructive in its nature; and if God should leave it without restraint, there would need nothing else to make the soul perfectly miserable. The corruption of the heart of man is immoderate and boundless in its fury; and while wicked men live here, it is like fire pent up by God’s restraints, whereas if it were let loose, it would set on fire the course of nature; and as the heart is now a sink of sin, so if sin was not restrained, it would immediately turn the soul into a fiery oven, or a furnace of fire and brimstone.
7\. It is no security to wicked men for one moment, that there are no visible means of death at hand. It is no security to a natural man, that he is now in health, and that he does not see which way he should now immediately go out of the world by any accident, and that there is no visible danger in any respect in his circumstances. The manifold and continual experience of the world in all ages, shows this is no evidence, that a man is not on the very brink of eternity, and that the next step will not be into another world. The unseen, unthought\-of ways and means of persons going suddenly out of the world are innumerable and inconceivable. Unconverted men walk over the pit of hell on a rotten covering, and there are innumerable places in this covering so weak that they will not bear their weight, and these places are not seen. The arrows of death fly unseen at noon\-day; the sharpest sight cannot discern them. God has so many different unsearchable ways of taking wicked men out of the world and sending them to hell, that there is nothing to make it appear, that God had need to be at the expense of a miracle, or go out of the ordinary course of his providence, to destroy any wicked man, at any moment. All the means that there are of sinners going out of the world, are so in God’s hands, and so universally and absolutely subject to his power and determination, that it does not depend at all the less on the mere will of God, whether sinners shall at any moment go to hell, than if means were never made use of, or at all concerned in the case.
8\. Natural men’s prudence and care to preserve their own lives, or the care of others to preserve them, do not secure them a moment. To this, divine providence and universal experience do also bear testimony. There is this clear evidence that men’s own wisdom is no security to them from death; that if it were otherwise we should see some difference between the wise and politic men of the world, and others, with regard to their liableness to early and unexpected death: but how is it in fact? Ecclesiastes 2:16, “How dieth the wise man? even as the fool.”
9\. All wicked men’s pains and contrivance which they use to escape hell, while they continue to reject Christ, and so remain wicked men, do not secure them from hell one moment. Almost every natural man that hears of hell, flatters himself that he shall escape it; he depends upon himself for his own security; he flatters himself in what he has done, in what he is now doing, or what he intends to do. Every one lays out matters in his own mind how he shall avoid damnation, and flatters himself that he contrives well for himself, and that his schemes will not fail. They hear indeed that there are but few saved, and that the greater part of men that have died heretofore are gone to hell; but each one imagines that he lays out matters better for his own escape than others have done. He does not intend to come to that place of torment; he says within himself, that he intends to take effectual care, and to order matters so for himself as not to fail.
But the foolish children of men miserably delude themselves in their own schemes, and in confidence in their own strength and wisdom; they trust to nothing but a shadow. The greater part of those who heretofore have lived under the same means of grace, and are now dead, are undoubtedly gone to hell; and it was not because they were not as wise as those who are now alive: it was not because they did not lay out matters as well for themselves to secure their own escape. If we could speak with them, and inquire of them, one by one, whether they expected, when alive, and when they used to hear about hell ever to be the subjects of that misery: we doubtless, should hear one and another reply, “No, I never intended to come here: I had laid out matters otherwise in my mind; I thought I should contrive well for myself: I thought my scheme good. I intended to take effectual care; but it came upon me unexpected; I did not look for it at that time, and in that manner; it came as a thief: Death outwitted me: God’s wrath was too quick for me. Oh, my cursed foolishness! I was flattering myself, and pleasing myself with vain dreams of what I would do hereafter; and when I was saying, Peace and safety, then suddenly destruction came upon me.
10\. God has laid himself under no obligation, by any promise to keep any natural man out of hell one moment. God certainly has made no promises either of eternal life, or of any deliverance or preservation from eternal death, but what are contained in the covenant of grace, the promises that are given in Christ, in whom all the promises are yea and amen. But surely they have no interest in the promises of the covenant of grace who are not the children of the covenant, who do not believe in any of the promises, and have no interest in the Mediator of the covenant.
So that, whatever some have imagined and pretended about promises made to natural men’s earnest seeking and knocking, it is plain and manifest, that whatever pains a natural man takes in religion, whatever prayers he makes, till he believes in Christ, God is under no manner of obligation to keep him a moment from eternal destruction.
So that, thus it is that natural men are held in the hand of God, over the pit of hell; they have deserved the fiery pit, and are already sentenced to it; and God is dreadfully provoked, his anger is as great towards them as to those that are actually suffering the executions of the fierceness of his wrath in hell, and they have done nothing in the least to appease or abate that anger, neither is God in the least bound by any promise to hold them up one moment; the devil is waiting for them, hell is gaping for them, the flames gather and flash about them, and would fain lay hold on them, and swallow them up; the fire pent up in their own hearts is struggling to break out: and they have no interest in any Mediator, there are no means within reach that can be any security to them. In short, they have no refuge, nothing to take hold of, all that preserves them every moment is the mere arbitrary will, and uncovenanted, unobliged forbearance of an incensed God.
APPLICATION
The use of this awful subject may be for awakening unconverted persons in this congregation. This that you have heard is the case of every one of you that are out of Christ.—That world of misery, that lake of burning brimstone, is extended abroad under you. There is the dreadful pit of the glowing flames of the wrath of God; there is hell’s wide gaping mouth open; and you have nothing to stand upon, nor any thing to take hold of, there is nothing between you and hell but the air; it is only the power and mere pleasure of God that holds you up.
You probably are not sensible of this; you find you are kept out of hell, but do not see the hand of God in it; but look at other things, as the good state of your bodily constitution, your care of your own life, and the means you use for your own preservation. But indeed these things are nothing; if God should withdraw his band, they would avail no more to keep you from falling, than the thin air to hold up a person that is suspended in it.
Your wickedness makes you as it were heavy as lead, and to tend downwards with great weight and pressure towards hell; and if God should let you go, you would immediately sink and swiftly descend and plunge into the bottomless gulf, and your healthy constitution, and your own care and prudence, and best contrivance, and all your righteousness, would have no more influence to uphold you and keep you out of hell, than a spider’s web would have to stop a falling rock. Were it not for the sovereign pleasure of God, the earth would not bear you one moment; for you are a burden to it; the creation groans with you; the creature is made subject to the bondage of your corruption, not willingly; the sun does not willingly shine upon you to give you light to serve sin and Satan; the earth does not willingly yield her increase to satisfy your lusts; nor is it willingly a stage for your wickedness to be acted upon; the air does not willingly serve you for breath to maintain the flame of life in your vitals, while you spend your life in the service of God’s enemies. God’s creatures are good, and were made for men to serve God with, and do not willingly subserve to any other purpose, and groan when they are abused to purposes so directly contrary to their nature and end. And the world would spew you out, were it not for the sovereign hand of him who hath subjected it in hope. There are black clouds of God’s wrath now hanging directly over your heads, full of the dreadful storm, and big with thunder; and were it not for the restraining hand of God, it would immediately burst forth upon you. The sovereign pleasure of God, for the present, stays his rough wind; otherwise it would come with fury, and your destruction would come like a whirlwind, and you would be like the chaff of the summer threshing floor.
The wrath of God is like great waters that are dammed for the present; they increase more and more, and rise higher and higher, till an outlet is given; and the longer the stream is stopped, the more rapid and mighty is its course, when once it is let loose. It is true, that judgment against your evil works has not been executed hitherto; the floods of God’s vengeance have been withheld; but your guilt in the mean time is constantly increasing, and you are every day treasuring up more wrath; the waters are constantly rising, and waxing more and more mighty; and there is nothing but the mere pleasure of God, that holds the waters back, that are unwilling to be stopped, and press hard to go forward. If God should only withdraw his hand from the flood\-gate, it would immediately fly open, and the fiery floods of the fierceness and wrath of God, would rush forth with inconceivable fury, and would come upon you with omnipotent power; and if your strength were ten thousand times greater than it is, yea, ten thousand times greater than the strength of the stoutest, sturdiest devil in hell, it would be nothing to withstand or endure it.
The bow of God’s wrath is bent, and the arrow made ready on the string, and justice bends the arrow at your heart, and strains the bow, and it is nothing but the mere pleasure of God, and that of an angry God, without any promise or obligation at all, that keeps the arrow one moment from being made drunk with your blood. Thus all you that never passed under a great change of heart,
by the mighty power of the Spirit of God upon your souls; all you that were never born again, and made new creatures, and raised from being dead in sin, to a state of new, and before altogether unexperienced light and life, are in the hands of an angry God. However you may have reformed your life in many things, and may have had religious affections, and may keep up a form of religion in your families and closets, and in the house of God, it is nothing but his mere pleasure that keeps you from being this moment swallowed up in everlasting destruction. However unconvinced you may now be of the truth of what you hear, by and by you will be fully convinced of it. Those that are gone from being in the like circumstances with you, see that it was so with them; for destruction came suddenly upon most of them; when they expected nothing of it, and while they were saying, Peace and safety: now they see, that those things on which they depended for peace and safety, were nothing but thin air and empty shadows.
The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much as one holds a spider, or some loathsome insect over the fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked: his wrath towards you burns like fire; he looks upon you as worthy of nothing else, but to be cast into the fire; he is of purer eyes than to bear to have you in his sight; you are ten thousand times more abominable in his eyes, than the most hateful venomous serpent is in ours. You have offended him infinitely more than ever a stubborn rebel did his prince; and yet it is nothing but his hand that holds you from falling into the fire every moment. It is to be ascribed to nothing else, that you did not go to hell the last night; that you was suffered to awake again in this world, after you closed your eyes to sleep. And there is no other reason to be given, why you have not dropped into hell since you arose in the morning, but that God’s hand has held you up. There is no other reason to be given why you have not gone to hell, since you have sat here in the house of God, provoking his pure eyes by your sinful wicked manner of attending his solemn worship. Yea, there is nothing else that is to be given as a reason why you do not this very moment drop down into hell.
O sinner! Consider the fearful danger you are in: it is a great furnace of wrath, a wide and bottomless pit, full of the fire of wrath, that you are held over in the hand of that God, whose wrath is provoked and incensed as much against you, as against many of the damned in hell. You hang by a slender thread, with the flames of divine wrath flashing about it, and ready every moment to singe it, and burn it asunder; and you have no interest in any Mediator, and nothing to lay hold of to save yourself, nothing to keep off the flames of wrath, nothing of your own, nothing that you ever have done, nothing that you can do, to induce God to spare you one moment. And consider here more particularly
1\. Whose wrath it is: it is the wrath of the infinite God. If it were only the wrath of man, though it were of the most potent prince, it would be comparatively little to be regarded. The wrath of kings is very much dreaded, especially of absolute monarchs, who have the possessions and lives of their subjects wholly in their power, to be disposed of at their mere will. Proverbs 20:2, “The fear of a king is as the roaring of a lion: Whoso provoketh him to anger, sinneth against his own soul.” The subject that very much enrages an arbitrary prince, is liable to suffer the most extreme torments that human art can invent, or human power can inflict. But the greatest earthly potentates in their greatest majesty and strength, and when clothed in their greatest terrors, are but feeble, despicable worms of the dust, in comparison of the great and almighty Creator and King of heaven and earth. It is but little that they can do, when most enraged, and when they have exerted the utmost of their fury. All the kings of the earth, before God, are as grasshoppers; they are nothing, and less than nothing: both their love and their hatred is to be despised. The wrath of the great King of kings, is as much more terrible than theirs, as his majesty is greater. Luke 12:4\-5, “And I say unto you, my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that, have no more that they can do. But I will forewarn you whom you shall fear: fear him, which after he hath killed, hath power to cast into hell: yea, I say unto you, Fear him.”
2\. It is the fierceness of his wrath that you are exposed to. We often read of the fury of God; as in Isaiah 59:18, “According to their deeds, accordingly he will repay fury to his adversaries.” So Isaiah 66:15\. “For behold, the Lord will come with fire, and with his chariots like a whirlwind, to render his anger with fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire.” And in many other places. So, Revelation 24:15, we read of “the wine press of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.” The words are exceeding terrible. If it had only been said, “the wrath of God,” the words would have implied that which is infinitely dreadful: but it is “the fierceness and wrath of God.” The fury of God! the fierceness of Jehovah! Oh, how dreadful must that be! Who can utter or conceive what such expressions carry in them! But it is also “the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.” As though there would be a very great manifestation of his almighty power in what the fierceness of his wrath should inflict, as though omnipotence should be as it were enraged, and exerted, as men are wont to exert their strength in the fierceness of their wrath. Oh! then, what will be the consequence! What will become of the poor worms that shall suffer it! Whose hands can be strong? And whose heart can endure? To what a dreadful, inexpressible, inconceivable depth of misery must the poor creature be sunk who shall be the subject of this!
Consider this, you that are here present, that yet remain in an unregenerate state. That God will execute the fierceness of his anger, implies, that he will inflict wrath without any pity. When God beholds the ineffable extremity of your case, and sees your torment to be so vastly disproportioned to your strength, and sees how your poor soul is crushed, and sinks down, as it were, into an infinite gloom; he will have no compassion upon you, he will not forbear the executions of his wrath, or in the least lighten his hand; there shall be no moderation or mercy, nor will God then at all stay his rough wind; he will have no regard to your welfare, nor be at all careful lest you should suffer too much in any other sense, than only that you shall not suffer beyond what strict justice requires. Nothing shall be withheld, because it is so hard for you to bear. Ezekiel 8:18, “Therefore will I also deal in fury: mine eye shall not spare, neither will I have pity; and though they cry in mine ears with a loud voice, yet I will not hear them.” Now God stands ready to pity you; this is a day of mercy; you may cry now with some encouragement of obtaining mercy. But when once the day of mercy is past, your most lamentable and dolorous cries and shrieks will be in vain; you will be wholly lost and thrown away of God, as to any regard to your welfare. God will have no other use to put you to, but to suffer misery; you shall be continued in being to no other end; for you will be a vessel of wrath fitted to destruction; and there will be no other use of this vessel, but to be filled full of wrath. God will be so far from pitying you when you cry to him, that it is said he will only “laugh and mock,” Proverbs 1:25\-26\.
How awful are those words, Isaiah 63:3, which are the words of the great God. “I will tread them in mine anger, and will trample them in my fury, and their blood shall be sprinkled upon my garments, and I will stain all my raiment.” It is perhaps impossible to conceive of words that carry in them greater manifestations of these three things, vis. contempt, and hatred, and fierceness of indignation. If you cry to God to pity you, he will be so far from pitying you in your doleful case, or showing you the least regard or favor, that instead of that, he will only tread you under foot. And though he will know that you cannot bear the weight of omnipotence treading upon you, yet he will not regard that, but he will crush you under his feet without mercy; he will crush out your blood, and make it fly, and it shall be sprinkled on his garments, so as to stain all his raiment. He will not only hate you, but he will have you, in the utmost contempt: no place shall be thought fit for you, but under his feet to be trodden down as the mire of the streets.
3\. The misery you are exposed to is that which God will inflict to that end, that he might show what that wrath of Jehovah is. God hath had it on his heart to show to angels and men, both how excellent his love is, and also how terrible his wrath is. Sometimes earthly kings have a mind to show how terrible their wrath is, by the extreme punishments they would execute on those that would provoke them. Nebuchadnezzar, that mighty and haughty monarch of the Chaldean empire, was willing to show his wrath when enraged with Shadrach, Meshech, and Abednego; and accordingly gave orders that the burning fiery furnace should be heated seven times hotter than it was before; doubtless, it was raised to the utmost degree of fierceness that human art could raise it. But the great God is also willing to show his wrath, and magnify his awful majesty and mighty power in the extreme sufferings of his enemies. Romans 9:22, “What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endure with much long\-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction?” And seeing this is his design, and what he has determined, even to show how terrible the unrestrained wrath, the fury and fierceness of Jehovah is, he will do it to effect. There will be something accomplished and brought to pass that will be dreadful with a witness. When the great and angry God hath risen up and executed his awful vengeance on the poor sinner, and the wretch is actually suffering the infinite weight and power of his indignation, then will God call upon the whole universe to behold that awful majesty and mighty power that is to be seen in it. Isaiah 33:12\-14, “And the people shall be as the burnings of lime, as thorns cut up shall they be burnt in the fire. Hear ye that are far off, what I have done; and ye that are near, acknowledge my might. The sinners in Zion are afraid; fearfulness hath surprised the hypocrites.”
Thus it will be with you that are in an unconverted state, if you continue in it; the infinite might, and majesty, and terribleness of the omnipotent God shall be magnified upon you, in the ineffable strength of your torments. You shall be tormented in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb; and when you shall be in this state of suffering, the glorious inhabitants of heaven shall go forth and look on the awful spectacle, that they may see what the wrath and fierceness of the Almighty is; and when they have seen it, they will fall down and adore that great power and majesty. Isaiah 66:23\-24, “And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord. And they shall go forth and look upon the carcasses of the men that have transgressed against me; for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched, and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.”
4\. It is everlasting wrath. It would be dreadful to suffer this fierceness and wrath of Almighty God one moment; but you must suffer it to all eternity. There will be no end to this exquisite horrible misery. When you look forward, you shall see a long for ever, a boundless duration before you, which will swallow up your thoughts, and amaze your soul; and you will absolutely despair of ever having any deliverance, any end, any mitigation, any rest at all. You will know certainly that you must wear out long ages, millions of millions of ages, in wrestling and conflicting with this almighty merciless vengeance; and then when you have so done, when so many ages have actually been spent by you in this manner, you will know that all is but a point to what remains. So that your punishment will indeed be infinite. Oh, who can express what the state of a soul in such circumstances is! All that we can possibly say about it, gives but a very feeble, faint representation of it; it is inexpressible and inconceivable: For “who knows the power of God’s anger?”
How dreadful is the state of those that are daily and hourly in the danger of this great wrath and infinite misery! But this is the dismal case of every soul in this congregation that has not been born again, however moral and strict, sober and religious, they may otherwise be. Oh that you would consider it, whether you be young or old! There is reason to think, that there are many in this congregation now hearing this discourse, that will actually be the subjects of this very misery to all eternity. We know not who they are, or in what seats they sit, or what thoughts they now have. It may be they are now at ease, and hear all these things without much disturbance, and are now flattering themselves that they are not the persons, promising themselves that they shall escape. If we knew that there was one person, and but one, in the whole congregation, that was to be the subject of this misery, what an awful thing would it be to think of! If we knew who it was, what an awful sight would it be to see such a person! How might all the rest of the congregation lift up a lamentable and bitter cry over him! But, alas! instead of one, how many is it likely will remember this discourse in hell? And it would be a wonder, if some that are now present should not be in hell in a very short time, even before this year is out. And it would be no wonder if some persons, that now sit here, in some seats of this meeting\-house, in health, quiet and secure, should be there before to\-morrow morning. Those of you that finally continue in a natural condition, that shall keep out of hell longest will be there in a little time! your damnation does not slumber; it will come swiftly, and, in all probability, very suddenly upon many of you. You have reason to wonder that you are not already in hell. It is doubtless the case of some whom you have seen and known, that never deserved hell more than you, and that heretofore appeared as likely to have been now alive as you. Their case is past all hope; they are crying in extreme misery and perfect despair; but here you are in the land of the living and in the house of God, and have an opportunity to obtain salvation. What would not those poor damned hopeless souls give for one day’s opportunity such as you now enjoy!
And now you have an extraordinary opportunity, a day wherein Christ has thrown the door of mercy wide open, and stands in calling and crying with a loud voice to poor sinners; a day wherein many are flocking to him, and pressing into the kingdom of God. Many are daily coming from the east, west, north and south; many that were very lately in the same miserable condition that you are in, are now in a happy state, with their hearts filled with love to him who has loved them, and washed them from their sins in his own blood, and rejoicing in hope of the glory of God. How awful is it to be left behind at such a day! To see so many others feasting, while you are pining and perishing! To see so many rejoicing and singing for joy of heart, while you have cause to mourn for sorrow of heart, and howl for vexation of spirit. How can you rest one moment in such a condition? Are not your souls as precious as the souls of the people at Suffield (a town in the area), where they are flocking from day to day to Christ?
Are there not many here who have lived long in the world, and are not to this day born again? and so are aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and have done nothing ever since they have lived, but treasure up wrath against the day of wrath? Oh, sirs, your case, in an especial manner, is extremely dangerous. Your guilt and hardness of heart is extremely great. Do you not see how generally persons of your years are passed over and left, in the present remarkable and wonderful dispensation of God’s mercy? You had need to consider yourselves, and awake thoroughly out of sleep. You cannot bear the fierceness and wrath of the infinite God.—And you, young men, and young women, will you neglect this precious season which you now enjoy, when so many others of your age are renouncing all youthful vanities, and flocking to Christ? You especially have now an extraordinary opportunity; but if you neglect it, it will soon be with you as with those persons who spent all the precious days of youth in sin, and are now come to such a dreadful pass in blindness and hardness. And you, children, who are unconverted, do not you know that you are going down to hell, to bear the dreadful wrath of that God, who is now angry with you every day and every night? Will you be content to be the children of the devil, when so many other children in the land are converted, and are become the holy and happy children of the King of kings?
And let every one that is yet out of Christ, and hanging over the pit of hell, whether they be old men and women, or middle aged, or young people, or little children, now harken to the loud calls of God’s word and providence. This [acceptable year of the Lord](acceptable-year-of-the-Lord.html), a day of such great favors to some, will doubtless be a day of as remarkable vengeance to others. Men’s hearts harden, and their guilt increases apace at such a day as this, if they neglect their souls; and never was there so great danger of such persons being given up to hardness of heart and blindness of mind. God seems now to be hastily gathering in his elect in all parts of the land; and probably the greater part of adult persons that ever shall be saved, will be brought in now in a little time, and that it will be as it was on the great out\-pouring of the Spirit upon the Jews in the apostles’ days; the election will obtain, and the rest will be blinded. If this should be the case with you, you will eternally curse this day, and will curse the day that ever you was born, to see such a season of the pouring out of God’s Spirit, and will wish that you had died and gone to hell before you had seen it. Now undoubtedly it is, as it was in the days of John the Baptist, the axe is in an extraordinary manner laid at the root of the trees, that every tree which brings not forth good fruit, may be hewn down and cast into the fire.
|
What is the Universal Life Church?
|
Answer
The Universal Life Church (ULC) is an online, non\-denominational organization that offers [ordination](ordination.html) so that individuals can operate as clergy, primarily for the purpose of officiating at weddings. The Universal Life Church espouses no traditional form of doctrine; rather, it promotes the mantra “we are all children of the same universe.”
Ordination with the Universal Life Church is as easy as filling out one’s name, state, and e\-mail address online. A minister’s packet with ordination credentials from the ULC costs $29\.99\. The pack includes the following:
• Ordination credential (minister’s license)
• 1 ULC wallet license
• 1 black clergy badge
• 1 parking hanger
• 1 minister window cling
• 1 press pass/parking placard
• 1 ULC bumper sticker with symbols
• 1 minister bumper sticker
The Universal Life Church website emphasizes that receiving an online ordination is usually for officiating weddings for family and friends, but it also mentions that officiating at weddings can be quite lucrative. The officiants can easily make $500 per ceremony, and those who are really successful can make as much as $2,000 a week. The Universal Life Church is open to people of all faiths as long as they agree to the following: 1\) do only that which is right and 2\) all should be free to worship as they see fit.
By signing up through the Universal Life Church website, anyone 13 or older can become ordained in the Universal Life Church. Ordination is free, but, once ordained, the newly minted minister may need a variety of resources such as “Ministry in a Box,” which “includes everything an ordained minister will need to perform all of the functions of ministry that they could every \[*sic*] possibly be asked to perform” (this resource is available for $140 as of 2/13/17\). The Universal Life Church makes available minster’s apparel and identification cards. One can get certificates designating the holder as a [Jedi Knight](Jedi-religion-Jediism.html) or a god or goddess of [Wicca](Wicca.html). Blank certificates are also available that can be filled in with any religious title. Books on paganism, Wicca, Hinduism, Islam, [Kabbalah](Kabbalah.html), and even atheism are available for purchase. Except for the Jefferson Bible, which contains the life and morals of Jesus minus the miracles and divine claims, Bibles are not sold on the Universal Life Church website. However, the KJV is offered as a free download.
The Universal Life Church website claims that they have 20 million ordained ministers worldwide. Some of their more notable “ministers” are Conan O’Brien, Stephen Colbert, Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, Lady Gaga, Richard Branson, and Paul McCartney.
Beyond the things already mentioned, the Universal Life Church “tenets of faith” are problematic. If we set aside for a moment all of the crucial issues that are not addressed in their statement (sin, salvation, God, and Christ, just to name a few), we still have the problem of how to know what is “right” (tenet \#1\). Without some universal standard, there will be great disagreement on the wrong that is to be avoided. Bible\-believing Christians will say that [homosexual marriage](gay-marriage.html) violates God’s law and the natural order that God ordained. However, the Universal Life Church has issued the following “Ecclesiastical Proclamation”: “All persons with love for one another have a religious and constitutional right under the 1st Amendment of the United States, to the Sacrament of Marriage. Such is invoked under natural, primal, and religious law. Given this understanding, we hold that it is a denial of religious rights by the United States government to restrain our ministers from their constitutional right to perform the ritual of the Sacrament of Marriage to consenting adults, regardless of sexual design.” (This statement was released before the 2015 Supreme Court ruling on same\-sex marriage.) According to the Universal Life Church, to deny marriage to same\-sex couples would be wrong. By definition a Universal Life Church “minister” must be willing to perform same\-sex marriage or be in violation of the first tenet—which then seems to be in conflict with the second tenet, which would allow everyone to worship as they see fit.
The Universal Life Church essentially gives legal cover for anyone to operate as a minister in whatever way he or she sees fit. Of course, true calling and gifting for ministry comes from God. Ordination is supposed to be the recognition by church leaders that, based on the evidence of one’s life and ministry, one has indeed been called and gifted to minister. The ULC provides an honorary ordination in much the same way that other organizations provide honorary doctorates or allow degrees to be purchased with little or no actual academic work. The Universal Life Church makes a mockery of true ordination.
The work of ministry is not to be taken lightly. Hebrews 13:17 says, “Have confidence in your leaders and submit to their authority, because they keep watch over you as those who must give an account.” While this verse is directed to “church members,” it does emphasize that those who lead the church will have to give an account to God.
Here is the Universal Life Church logo:
|
What does the Bible say about infatuation?
|
Answer
Infatuation is an intense feeling of attraction for someone or something. Often mistaken for [love](agape-love.html), infatuation can feel like the real thing but usually lasts only a short time. Infatuation is emotional and highly self\-centered. When we are infatuated, we have that “over the moon” euphoria that makes everything seem happier. However, infatuation cares little about the needs or long\-term best interests of its object; it only wants the feeling to continue. Infatuation can lead to long\-term love but by itself is not enough to sustain a relationship. Does the Bible say anything about infatuation?
The book of Judges gives us an example of a Bible character who experienced infatuation. [Samson](life-Samson.html) had been chosen before birth to lead God’s people. But, like many in whom God has placed great potential, Samson got full of himself. He thought he should have whatever he wanted, and when he became infatuated with a girl who was not on the approved list, he demanded that his father get her for him (Judges 14:1–2\). This was infatuation, not love; the Bible says, “He . . . saw a young Philistine woman,” and immediately wanted to marry her. He did not know this woman. He had not taken time to court her, introduce her to family and friends, or seek God’s approval. He simply saw her, and infatuation took over. During the course of his pursuit of this woman, he openly defied God’s command against touching dead things (verses 8–9; cf. Numbers 6:1–8\) and consorting with the Philistines, God’s enemies (Deuteronomy 7:3\). But infatuation doesn’t play by the rules.
Another tragic example of ungodly infatuation is found in the story of David’s family. King David’s son [Amnon](Amnon-and-Tamar.html) became infatuated with his beautiful half\-sister, Tamar (2 Samuel 13:1–2\). Amnon almost made himself sick with longing for her and found a way to lure her into his bedroom under false pretenses (verses 5–6\). When Tamar came, thinking she was to prepare food for her sick brother, he raped her (verse 14\). The next verse gives us a lot of insight into the difference between infatuation and love. Verse 15 says that “Amnon hated her with intense hatred. In fact, he hated her more than he had loved her.” True love does not behave that way. It was never love that Amnon felt; it was infatuation fueled by sexual lust.
When we compare infatuation with love, we begin to see the differences:
– Infatuation is driven by emotion; love is driven by commitment.
– Infatuation cannot wait to be satisfied; love waits for God’s timing.
– Infatuation cares mostly about self\-satisfaction; love cares mostly about the other person’s best interest.
– Infatuation spawns a host of other sins, such as lust, discontent, and covetousness; love spawns a host of godly qualities such as peace, joy, faithfulness, kindness, and self\-control (Galatians 5:22\).
– Infatuation demands; love gives.
– Infatuation acts foolishly, not caring about anything except its object; love keeps a level head.
– Infatuation can end rather abruptly; love never fails (1 Corinthians 13:8\).
Spiritually, people can become infatuated with the gospel. Jesus talked about this kind of “convert” in His [parable](parable-sower.html) about the four types of soil (Luke 8:4–8, 11–15\). Many people flocked to hear Jesus. They loved the free food, the miracles, and the kind words. They were infatuated with this radical new rabbi from Nazareth. But Jesus knew they didn’t really love Him; they only loved what He could do for them (John 2:25; Matthew 10:37–39; Luke 9:57–62\). That’s infatuation. Today, some think they want to become Christians because of the rush of adrenaline they felt during a worship song or because they are desperate to get rid of guilt. But they have no root (Mark 4:17\), they are unwilling to take up their cross (Luke 9:23\), and they don’t last long.
Although infatuation is an exhilarating feeling, we must be careful not to base decisions affecting our future upon its fleeting nature. Many people marry because they are infatuated, only to later discover they don’t really know the person they committed their lives to. Infatuation is a spark that can ignite true love and commitment, but, unless that spark is fueled with solid conversation, quality time, and a healthy dose of realism, it never becomes a flame. Infatuation can introduce us to true love, but it can never be an adequate substitute.
|
What does it mean that Jesus took our place?
|
Answer
On the cross, Jesus took the punishment we deserved for our sin. He did not deserve to die, but He willingly took our place and experienced death for us. Jesus’ death was a substitution, “the righteous for the unrighteous” (1 Peter 3:18\), the innocent for the guilty, the perfect for the corrupt.
The doctrine of the [substitutionary atonement](substitutionary-atonement.html) teaches that Christ suffered vicariously, being substituted for the sinner, and that His sufferings were expiatory (that is, His sufferings made amends). On the cross, Jesus took our place in several ways:
Jesus took our place in that He was made sin for us. “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him” (2 Corinthians 5:21, NASB). As Jesus was hanging on the cross, suspended between earth and heaven, the sins of the world were placed on Him (1 Peter 2:24\). The perfect Son of Man carried our guilt.
Jesus took our place in that He experienced physical death—not just any death, but the death of a lawbreaker. Everyone dies, but there is a difference between dying a “natural” death and being executed for one’s crimes. Sin is the violation of God’s law (1 John 3:4\), and “the soul who sins shall die” (Ezekiel 18:4, ESV). Since we have all sinned, we all deserve death (Romans 3:23; 6:23\). Jesus releases us from that penalty. Although He had committed no crime (see Luke 23:15\), Jesus was executed as a criminal; in fact, it is *because* He was sinless that His death avails to us. He had no personal sin to pay for, so His death pays for ours. Our legal debt has been paid in full—[*tetelestai*](it-is-finished.html) (John 19:30\). As the old gospel song says, “He paid a debt He did not owe; I owed a debt I could not pay.”
So, Jesus took our place judicially, bearing the penalty of sin and dying in our place. “When you were dead in your sins . . . , God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross” (Colossians 2:13–14\). In other words, God nailed all the accusations against us to the cross. God will never see believers in Christ as deserving the death penalty because our crimes have already been punished in the physical body of Jesus (see Romans 8:1\).
God’s Law says, “You are guilty of sin against a holy God. Justice demands your life.” Jesus answers, “Take My life instead.” The fact that Jesus took our place shows God’s great love: “Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends” (John 15:13\).
But the penalty for sin extends beyond physical death to include a spiritual separation from God. Again, in this matter, Jesus took our place. Part of Christ’s agony on the cross was a feeling of separation from the Father. After three hours of supernatural darkness in the land, Jesus cried out, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Mark 15:34\). Because of Jesus’ sacrifice on our behalf, we need never experience that sense of abandonment (Hebrews 13:5\). We can never fathom, at least in this life, how much God the Son suffered in taking our place.
We know Jesus’ suffering was intense. In the days leading up to the crucifixion, Jesus expressed distress about what was coming (John 12:27\). But those who tried to dissuade Him from going to the cross were sharply rebuked—the offer to avoid the ordeal was a temptation from Satan himself (Matthew 16:21–23\), and Jesus had not come to take the easy way out. On the night of His arrest, Jesus was “overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death” (Matthew 26:38\). Even with having an angel to strengthen Him, Jesus actually sweated blood (Luke 22:43–44\).
In order for us to be saved, Jesus had to take our place and die for sin. He had to lay down His life as a sacrifice, because “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness” (Hebrews 9:22\). His sacrifice was perfect in holiness, in worth, and in power to save. After His resurrection, Jesus showed His scars to the apostles (John 20:26–27\). As long as our salvation lasts (forever), the marks of our Savior’s suffering will be visible (Revelation 5:6\)—an eternal reminder that He took our place.
“Surely he took up our pain
and bore our suffering. . . .
He was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
and by his wounds we are healed. . . .
The Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all”
(Isaiah 53:4–6\).
|
Subsets and Splits
Top Long Responses
Returns the prompts and responses where the response length falls within a specified range, ordered by decreasing length, which provides basic insight into the distribution of response lengths.