prompt
stringlengths 0
158
| response
stringlengths 14
40.2k
|
|---|---|
What is Reformed epistemology apologetics?
|
Answer
In theology, the term [*Reformed*](reformed-theology.html) implies a connection to the [Protestant Reformation](Protestant-Reformation.html), especially the work of [John Calvin](John-Calvin.html). In philosophy, [epistemology](epistemology.html) is the study of how we know things. Both ideas are connected to the field of Reformed epistemology, which applies core principles espoused by John Calvin to our assessment of religious or spiritual truths. This approach is not identical to presuppositional apologetics, but the two are closely related. The most notable contributors to discussions on this theory are Alvin Plantinga, Nicholas Wolterstorff, and William Alston.
A cornerstone of Reformed epistemology is the claim that belief in God is “properly basic.” Being “properly basic” means something is reasonable, necessary, and ultimately needs no prior proof. It can be assumed from the start and to some extent is even required for other thoughts to make sense. This implies that the existence of God is an assumption at the same logical level as that of our own existence, the validity of logic, and so forth.
The idea that God’s existence is properly basic is related to Calvin’s concept of the *sensus divinitatis*: the claim that all people have some innate perception of God. So far as Reformed epistemology is concerned, belief in God is considered justified—acceptable or reasonable—without resort to any particular argument or evidence.
As one can imagine, this is a controversial claim, with debates on the subject occurring both within and across religious perspectives. A common criticism of this stance is that it amounts to [fideism](fideism.html): a choice to believe “just because, no matter what.” However, Reformed epistemology qualifies acceptance of even properly basic beliefs as needing to be defended against reasonable objections or questions.
A primary application of Reformed epistemology apologetics is the suggestion that justified knowledge comes from human intellectual abilities that are functioning according to their intended design. This, of course, implies there is some intended design, which is derived from a theistic God.
Reformed epistemology differs from [presuppositional thinking](presuppositional-apologetics.html) in subtle ways. Typical presuppositionalism interprets the [*sensus divinitatis*](sensus-divinitatis.html) as a literal “awareness” of God: that all people intrinsically *know* God exists. Reformed epistemology sees the *sensus divinitatis* more as a tendency or capacity than as a point of cognitive awareness. Presuppositional apologetics embraces the idea that all logical arguments are eventually circular; therefore, there can be no real “common ground” between the believer and non\-believer. Reformed epistemology takes a less strident view of that divide. Likewise, presuppositional views imply that rational discussion is ultimately impossible without theistic assumptions, another area in which Reformed epistemology takes a less\-firm stance.
There are also differences between Reformed epistemology and schemes such as [foundationalism](coherentism-foundationalism.html). Rather than suggesting that cornerstone beliefs need to be “highly certain,” even “self\-evident,” as in classic foundationalism, Reformed epistemology allows for more flexibility, and is therefore an example of [reliabilism](reliabilism.html). Given that it accepts beliefs as justified, even if there is no explicit evidence, Reformed epistemology is opposed to exclusively [evidentialist](evidential-apologetics.html) views of justification or apologetics.
|
What is metaphysical naturalism?
|
Answer
Metaphysical naturalism is the claim that nothing exists but the natural world. There are substantial variations in naturalist views, but all agree there is no such thing as intervention from a supernatural source, no possibility of miracles, and no intelligence or purpose beyond that of the universe itself. For most who hold this view, metaphysical naturalism is identical to materialism, the belief that matter and energy are ultimately all that exist.
Metaphysical naturalism is fundamentally different from methodological naturalism, a general\-purpose approach to explaining observations. Methodological naturalism, as the name implies, is a technique—a method—used in research and assessment, especially science. For example, seeking to explain why water expands when it freezes, researchers look for a physical mechanism. There’s an assumption that mundane things are usually explained by natural mechanisms, and exploration generally supports that idea.
Contrary to what some naturalists claim, methodological naturalism’s usefulness in most practical situations does not prove metaphysical naturalism. In philosophy, metaphysics is the category of describing the actual nature of the universe. A metaphysical claim is a suggestion about how things “really are.” Metaphysical naturalism would consider the assertion “nothing exists but matter and energy” to be a statement of absolute reality. Attempting to make this conclusion based on the common use of methodological naturalism is irrational.
As a parallel, consider a man in a one\-person submarine at the bottom of the ocean. He falls asleep, then awakes to find words in his journal that he does not remember writing. The most “natural” explanation is that either forgot about writing them or is having a breakdown. The suggestion that someone sneaked into his submarine, thousands of feet underwater, seems impossible to square with what he knows. Therefore, it makes sense to assume a more “natural” explanation, at least until more evidence surfaces. That is the essence of methodological naturalism. Pursuing that line of thought, the man in the submarine would try to piece together information to see when or how he might have written something and not remembered.
However, if the words in the journal were written in red pen, and all the man has on board the submarine are pencils, that’s a different story. If searching the tiny sub produces no red pens, then the “unnatural” idea that someone stole in from the outside is not entirely off the table. The absence of red pens doesn’t absolutely prove an interloper, but, sooner or later, mounting evidence might leave that as the only logical option. Continuing to look for a more “natural” explanation, while also realizing that further investigation might imply an intruder, still accords with methodological naturalism.
On the other hand, if the man absolutely rejects the possibility of a visitor and forces all evidence to be explained in conformity to that axiom, he’s taking the path of metaphysical naturalism. In that case, the man in the submarine is starting from a conclusion—*there is no possible way anyone else could get in here*—and interpreting his observations accordingly. That would be particularly irrational if he found evidence incompatible with his “natural” assumption, such as someone else’s wedding ring lying on the floor. The more evidence he sees that some other person has been in his submarine, the less reasonable it would be to simply keep stating, “Well, that can’t happen, so this evidence has to mean something else” (see Proverbs 18:17\).
The key to unlocking methodological naturalism from metaphysical naturalism is summed up in a quote from the fictional detective Sherlock Holmes:
“*When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth*” (Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, “The Adventure of the Blanched Soldier,” 1926\).
When exploring topics such as the [origin of life](abiogenesis-definition-theory.html) or of the [universe](kalam-cosmological-argument.html) itself, natural explanations eventually fall short. In those instances, it’s perfectly rational to propose something [beyond the natural](supernaturalism.html) as an explanation.
The Bible obviously contradicts the idea of metaphysical naturalism (Psalm 14:1\), but it supports methodological naturalism. Contrary to what popular culture might think, Scripture does not propose that [miracles](miracles-Bible.html) are frequent occurrences. Rather, it indicates God has overtly intervened in history only on rare occasions and only to demonstrate or prove some divine message. The idea that God mostly allows creation to operate according to consistent rules (methodological) does not mean He cannot or will not intervene (metaphysical). In point of fact, the belief that the universe runs according to consistent, reliable rules—allowing for methodological naturalism—was a uniquely Judeo\-Christian concept that drove the development of the scientific method.
|
What is reliabilism?
|
Answer
Reliabilism is a sub\-category of [epistemological justification](epistemology.html), the philosophical examination of whether a belief is sufficiently reasonable to hold. This form of justification is entirely separate from the idea of [justification](justification.html) with respect to salvation. According to reliabilism, beliefs are only reasonable if they are derived through some known\-to\-be\-truth\-generating process. This property is independent of the opinion of the thinker, making reliabilism a form of epistemological externalism, as opposed to internalism.
The simplest way to understand reliabilism would be through its polar opposite, random guessing. Guesses may result in correct answers, but they are not reasonable or reliable ways to arrive at belief. According to reliabilism, this concept applies at all levels of belief. Either one is using some process known to result in truth, or the beliefs are not rational conclusions: they are essentially guesses, and therefore unreasonable. While the Bible encourages clear thinking and avoidance of self\-deception (1 John 4:1; Proverbs 14:12\), minute philosophical categories such as reliabilism are neither inherently biblical nor unbiblical.
Consider other examples where the idea of reliabilism seems to apply:
• It’s reasonable to determine the total cost of a shopping trip by adding things up with a calculator, and unreasonable to guess or approximate the amount.
• Choosing which person to charge with a crime after interviewing witnesses and connecting evidence would be “justified,” whereas going with one’s gut feeling would not. Given ten suspects, a person might well guess the one who actually committed the crime, but that doesn’t mean such a process is the right way to do things.
• An experienced auto mechanic listens to an engine and diagnoses a particular problem; that’s a justified belief. The layman who knows nothing about cars but haphazardly suggests the same diagnosis might be correct, but only by accident—it does not mean it was a good idea to let him assess the car.
In the study of knowledge, or epistemology, distinction is made between whether something is true, whether it is believed, and whether it is justifiable to believe in it. Epistemological justification is an examination of the confidence one can have in expressing belief. The more justified a belief is, the more reasonable and confidently one can express belief that the idea is true. Reliabilism implies that, for a belief to be justified, it must come from a source that is “reliable,” which in this case means something known to be truth\-determining.
Reliabilism is a subset of externalism, which is the opposite of epistemological internalism. According to internalism, beliefs are justified if the one who believes is aware of the reasons for the belief and of his own perspective, and has no reason to think either is flawed. Externalism, on the other hand, implies that justification is determined independently of the thinker’s thought process. Reliabilism, then, is a specific form of externalism, attempting to provide a definition for what makes something external a legitimate justification for belief.
As with other externalist views, reliabilism presents some problems. For instance, it can become circular: if *reliable* means “leads to truth,” its related concept of *justified* is logically identical to *true*. Also, reliabilism could consider a person justified in believing something even if that person thinks his thought process is flawed. Neither is philosophically wrong, per se, but it defeats the purpose of considering justification as its own category. This is closely related to the differences between [internalism and externalism](internalism-externalism.html): according to externalism, a person has no ultimate way to know if his own thought process is reliable.
Other major concerns about reliabilism are the danger of an infinite regress and [solipsism](solipsism.html). One could claim some process is reliable, then ask, “But did I use a reliable process to determine it was reliable?” And then repeat that, over and over, for each “level” of examination. On reliabilism itself there would be no way to anchor any claim of reliability or unreliability. Likewise, reliabilism can lead to solipsism, where one is inclined to doubt whether any experience or sense is true—since one’s own perception does not lead to justification under that idea.
On the other hand, reliabilism presents some valuable perspectives, or at least raises worthwhile questions. A person might think he is using a rational process and fully believe his reasons are good, and yet be wrong—should we be willing to label that person’s belief justified? Not all approaches to truth are equally robust; some strategies work better than others. When we are aware of those differences, it would make sense to rely on those which are more proven.
Scripture does not require us to take any particular stance on reliabilism. Nor is there a clear expression for or against it in the Bible—as in philosophy, it’s an open question subject to debate and reasonable disagreement.
|
What is the acceptable year of the Lord?
|
Answer
The “acceptable year of the Lord” (Isaiah 61:2, NKJV), or the “favorable year of the LORD” (NASB) or the “year of the LORD’s favor” (NIV), is not a literal year, but rather a space of time that is characterized by God’s grace, redemption, and deliverance. In Isaiah, the acceptable year of the Lord refers to God’s restoration of His people from [Babylonian captivity](Babylonian-captivity-exile.html), possibly with the intention of likening it to the [year of Jubilee](Jubilee.html), when liberty was proclaimed throughout all the land (see Leviticus 25\).
Here is the passage in Isaiah that mentions the acceptable year of the Lord:
“The Spirit of the Lord God is upon Me,
Because the Lord has anointed Me
To preach good tidings to the poor;
He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted,
To proclaim liberty to the captives,
And the opening of the prison to those who are bound;
To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord,
And the day of vengeance of our God;
To comfort all who mourn,
To console those who mourn in Zion,
To give them beauty for ashes,
The oil of joy for mourning,
The garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness;
That they may be called trees of righteousness,
The planting of the Lord, that He may be glorified” (Isaiah 61:1–3, NKJV).
This blessed proclamation is followed by a promise that the Jews will rebuild their ruined cities after the desolation Babylon had inflicted (verse 4\).
Note that the “acceptable year of the Lord” is also the “day of vengeance of our God” (Isaiah 61:2\). God’s rescue of His people is always accompanied by a judgment on His enemies, as [Pharaoh](Pharaoh-of-the-Exodus.html), [Sennacherib](Sennacherib-in-the-Bible.html), [Sisera](Sisera-in-the-Bible.html), and many others can attest.
The acceptable year of the Lord is also mentioned in Isaiah 49:8, as God the Father speaks to the [Messiah](what-does-Messiah-mean.html), His Servant: “Thus says the LORD: ‘In an acceptable time I have heard You, And in the day of salvation I have helped You; I will preserve You and give You As a covenant to the people, To restore the earth, To cause them to inherit the desolate heritages’” (NKJV). Here, the coming of the Messiah is called “a time of favor” (ESV) or “a favorable time” (NASB) due to the salvation and freedom He brings (verse 9\). Indeed, when the angels heralded Jesus’ birth, they spoke of “good news that will cause great joy for all the people” (Luke 2:10\) and of God’s favor: “On earth peace to those on whom his favor rests” (verse 14\).
When Jesus first spoke in the synagogue in His native Nazareth, He was handed the book of Isaiah, “and when He had opened the book, He found the place where it was written: ‘The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me,
Because He has anointed Me
To preach the gospel to the poor;
He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted,
To proclaim liberty to the captives
And recovery of sight to the blind,
To set at liberty those who are oppressed;
To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.’
Then He closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all who were in the synagogue were fixed on Him” (Luke 4:17–20, NKJV).
After reading from Isaiah 61, Jesus made a startling statement: “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing” (Luke 4:21\). Jesus, anointed by the Spirit of the Lord (see Luke 3:21–22\), is the One to preach the gospel, heal the brokenhearted, proclaim liberty, heal the blind, free the oppressed, and proclaim the “acceptable year of the Lord.” In short, Jesus proclaimed Himself to be the long\-awaited Messiah of Israel.
The coming of Jesus Christ into the world ushered in the “acceptable year of the Lord.” The time of God’s grace, redemption, and deliverance is now at hand, and all are invited to come to Christ in repentance and, by faith, receive the gift of eternal life. “Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners” (1 Timothy 1:15\). We must “seek the LORD while he may be found; call on him while he is near” (Isaiah 55:6\). We live in the [age of grace](Age-of-Grace.html), the acceptable year of the Lord, but those who reject Him will know the “day of vengeance”: “Whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son” (John 3:18\).
|
What does it mean that Christ was despised and rejected of men (Isaiah 53:3)?
|
Answer
The fourth [Servant Song](Servant-Songs.html) in Isaiah prophesied that Jesus, as the [suffering Servant](suffering-servant-Isaiah-53.html) of the Lord, would be scorned: “He was despised and rejected by mankind, a man of suffering, and familiar with pain. Like one from whom people hide their faces he was despised, and we held him in low esteem” (Isaiah 53:3\).
Jesus was despised in His time for several reasons. To begin with, He was from [Galilee](Galilee-in-the-Bible.html), an area of Israel often disrespected (see John 7:41, 52\), and from the town of Nazareth, about which Israelites would ask, “Can anything good come from there?” (John 1:46\). He was from a family of meager means (see Luke 2:22–24\).
Jesus was despised in that He was hated by the [Pharisees](Pharisees.html), [Sadducees](Sadducees.html), and others in the Jewish ruling class. Even though Jesus continually showed Himself to be the Messiah, the Pharisees and Sadducees refused to believe in Him (John 12:37–43\), and they actively opposed Him. They even tried to kill or arrest Jesus multiple times during His earthly ministry (Matthew 12:14; 21:46; 26:3–4; John 8:59; 10:30–31\). As John said, “He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him” (John 1:10–11\). Jesus, the Light, came into the world, but “everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed” (John 3:20\).
The Jews who despised Jesus eventually got the Romans involved, trumping up charges against Him and demanding He be subjected to a painful, torturous death (Matthew 27:22–25\). The callous Romans despised Jesus as a common criminal, mocking, battering, spitting on, and flogging Him (Matthew 27:27–30; John 19:1\). Their mockery included dressing Christ in a purple robe, placing a crown of thorns on His head, and making a satirical show of giving Him honor (John 19:2–3\).
Jesus is the [Cornerstone](Jesus-Christ-cornerstone.html) of the work God is doing in the world, but to those who did not believe, he was “the stone the builders rejected” (1 Peter 2:7; cf. Psalm 118:22 and Matthew 21:42\). Israel rejected Jesus as their Messiah because He did not fit their preconceived ideas of a warrior king who would deliver them from political oppression. When Pilate offered to release Jesus after the flogging, the people rejected Jesus and shouted their acceptance of a criminal: “No, not him! Give us Barabbas!” (John 18:40\).
The “rejection” of Christ was not limited to those who did not believe in Him. At times, Jesus had large followings, but most of them eventually turned away (John 6:66\). Many others would not publicly announce their belief in Jesus and were thus secret disciples (John 3:1–2; 12:42–43;19:38\). He was betrayed by one of His closest associates (Luke 22:21; Psalm 41:9\). Even at the end, when Jesus was being arrested, His disciples all forsook Him and fled for their lives (Mark 14:27, 50; cf. Zechariah 13:7; Psalm 38:10\).
Many people today still reject Jesus as their Savior and turn down His offer of eternal life (John 3:16\). There are people who continue to despise the name of Jesus and seek to discredit what He has done. But in the very rejection He endured, Jesus provided salvation to those who believe, and we seek to follow in His steps (Luke 9:23; 1 Peter 2:21\). Our Lord “suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood. Let us, then, go to him outside the camp, bearing the disgrace he bore” (Hebrews 13:12–13\).
|
What is the significance of the anchor in the Bible?
|
Answer
Anchors are nautical devices that provide stability to ships during harsh storms, protecting them from being tossed around at sea. Throughout history, anchors have served as a much\-needed device for sailors. In the Bible, an anchor is used as a symbol of our [hope](Bible-hope.html) in Jesus that gives us stability and steadfastness in life. In ancient days, the anchor was used in artwork and engravings as a symbol of Christianity. Anchors appear in the Roman [catacombs](Christian-catacombs.html) on the tombs of Christians, showing the Christians’ steadfast hope in eternal life.
The word *anchor* is mentioned only in the New Testament. It refers to a literal anchor in some passages but is used as a metaphor in others. Anchors are mentioned in the account of Paul’s voyage to Rome during a severe storm and subsequent shipwreck (Act 27:13, 17, 29–30, 40\). Jesus and His disciples are also said to have anchored their boat in Gennesaret (Mark 6:53\).
The Bible uses an anchor figuratively to depict the hope we have as the anchor of our soul: “Because God wanted to make the unchanging nature of his purpose very clear to the heirs of what was promised, he confirmed it with an oath. God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope set before us may be greatly encouraged. We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, firm and secure. It enters the inner sanctuary behind the curtain, where our forerunner, Jesus, has entered on our behalf. He has become a high priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek” (Hebrews 6:17–20\). According to the Bible Knowledge Commentary, sailors would often carry the anchor in a smaller boat away from the ship to where it could be dropped (Victor, 1983, p. 797\), and this is a good image of Jesus, our forerunner, who has entered heaven and made our hope secure. Instead of an anchor that reaches down into the sea, the Christian’s anchor reaches up into heaven where Jesus continually intercedes for us (Hebrews 6:20; Romans 8:34\). We are anchored to the Holy of Holies.
According to Hebrews 6:19, the anchor of our souls is our hope of God’s [inheritance in Christ](inheritance-in-Christ.html). Unlike the feelings\-based, doubt\-infused definition of *hope* common in our world, the Christian’s hope is “a strong and trustworthy anchor” (NLT). Our hope is “firm and secure” because it is based on Jesus and the promises of God. Our hope anchors us during the stormy seasons of life. We have been given an anchor for the soul, a lasting hope “both sure and unshakable” (BLB). All else is fleeting and changing, but Jesus remains the same (Hebrews 13:8\).
When the storms of life flood the Christian with fear, worry, or doubt, he or she can hold onto God’s promises and find stability in the salvation Jesus has provided. No matter what happens, God’s promises remain. He does not want His children to be set adrift; He wants them to be fixed in a secure place. Just as an anchor grounds a ship to protect it from going adrift at sea, so also does our hope in Jesus keep us grounded and secure during the difficult, uncertain, and often painful tempests of life.
|
What was the temperance movement?
|
Answer
Temperance, in general, is moderation or self\-control. The temperance movement, or the prohibition movement, in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries promoted abstinence from alcohol. The temperance movement helped to bring about the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1919, ushering in the era of Prohibition. Although the amendment was repealed in 1933, the success of the temperance movement displayed the amount of influence that churches and Christian groups had at that time.
The temperance movement grew out of the [Second Great Awakening](First-Second-Great-Awakening.html), which increased Christian interest in using politics to reform society. Many Christians saw alcoholism as a problem that led to disease, poverty, and domestic violence. Christians supported their views of temperance and teetotalism with Bible passages that condemn drunkenness (Proverbs 20:1; 23:20, 29–30; Ephesians 5:18; Galatians 5:19–21\).
Although men were involved in temperance societies, the majority of those in support of temperance were women, many of whom were wives and mothers whose lives had been upended by the alcohol abuse of the men in their lives. A leading organization in the temperance movement was the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union (WCTU), which is still active today. Many notable women were involved in or associated with the temperance movement, including suffragists Susan B. Anthony and Frances Willard, and hymnwriter [Fanny Crosby](Fanny-Crosby.html). Generally, women supported their cause in peaceful ways, but there were others who took more forceful measures, such as Carrie A. Nation, who was famous for entering bars, denouncing alcohol, and smashing the bar fixtures with a hatchet. Other societies taking part in the temperance movement included the American Temperance Society, founded by Presbyterian ministers; the Anti\-Saloon League, which was supported by multiple Protestant denominations; and the Daughters of Temperance. Members of such societies pledged themselves not to use, buy, or sell alcoholic beverages; to advocate temperance in their communities; and to work to strengthen prohibition laws.
The temperance movement was not limited to the United States or to Christians, but churches were key supporters. Whether Christians today choose teetotalism or [use alcohol in moderation](sin-alcohol.html), they can appreciate the efforts of Christians in years gone by to coalesce around a moral issue and bring about widespread social reform.
|
What is a church community group?
|
Answer
Church community groups are also called life groups or small groups. A church community group consists of a handful of people who attend the same local church. They meet together at different times during the week for Bible study, service projects, and/or fellowship. As churches grow larger, often with multiple services or multiple locations, community groups keep people connected with one another. As church structure evolves to stay relevant with the culture, church community groups have for the most part replaced the older concepts of [Sunday school](Sunday-School.html) or [Wednesday night prayer meetings](Wednesday-night-service.html). The goal of most biblically faithful churches is to create community groups that foster discipleship, prayer, connection, and accountability. The number of participants in each church community group is usually limited so that deep and long\-lasting relationships are cultivated and maintained.
The model for church community groups is found in the book of Acts when believers met together in homes to eat, fellowship, and take communion (Acts 2:41–42, 46\). They would read the apostles’ letters, discuss them, pray, and challenge each other to keep the faith (Acts 20:7–8\). A church community group that functions correctly is a little church within a church. There is usually a leader who facilitates the meeting and keeps everyone informed of time changes and upcoming events. He or she also stays connected to the local church leadership and is accountable for the needs and spiritual growth of the members of the community group.
Despite the praiseworthy goals of church community groups, there are some things to watch out for. In our increasingly noncommittal world, community group leaders are often frustrated at the ever\-fluctuating attendance at meetings. A community group is only as healthy as its membership. When a leader has prepared a meal, a home, and a lesson during the workweek, it can be discouraging when no one shows up. Some community groups have become so popular with members that they left the local church to become a “church” unto themselves. These situations rarely turn out well because they have taken themselves out from under the spiritual authority God gave [pastors](pastor-office.html) and elders (Acts 14:23; 1 Thessalonians 5:12\). Oversight by the church leaders is vital to prevent false teaching in the community group and to keep everyone focused on the goal.
It is within church community groups that the “one anothers” of Scripture take place. When the Bible tells Christians to bear one another’s burdens (Galatians 6:2\), pray for one another (James 5:16\), accept one another (Romans 15:7\), and forgive one another (Colossians 3:13\), it implies that we are in close relationship with other Christians. Clearly, in a church of several thousand, the pastor cannot visit every sick person or take a meal to every new mother. And regardless of how friendly or outgoing a member may be, he or she cannot personally know an entire crowd seen only for an hour on Sunday morning. So the pastor and staff rely on the community group leaders to take care of the members of their groups.
A community group functions best when it is merely an extension of the larger church body. When each group is studying the same things, there is cohesion rather than division. When leaders are held to a clearly stated standard of morality and personal discipleship, the group tends to follow suit. [Megachurches](mega-church.html) understand the void felt when large Sunday morning gatherings seem like a sea of strangers, and they are often vigorous in creating church community groups that keep members connected and in relationship with each other. It is the job of teaching pastors to communicate to the congregation the importance of community groups, even stressing regular attendance as a part of [church membership](church-membership.html).
In many ways, the first\-century church was a series of community groups. They all studied the same Scriptures (Acts 17:11\), read the same letters from the apostles (Colossians 4:16; 1 Thessalonians 5:27\), and adhered to the same standards for public worship (1 Corinthians 11–14\). They met in homes throughout the week (Acts 2:46\) and established close, personal relationships with each other (Romans 12:10; 1 Peter 2:17\). When modern church community groups strive for the same unity (Ephesians 4:3; Psalm 133:1\), they are fulfilling the expectations Jesus has for His church (Matthew 16:18\).
|
What does it mean that God cannot be tempted (James 1:13)?
|
Answer
James 1:13 says, “When tempted, no one should say, ‘God is tempting me.’ For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone.” James then goes on to explain where the temptation to sin actually comes from: “Each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed” (verse 14\).
Earlier in this passage, James explains to believers the purpose for “trials of many kinds” and “the testing of your faith” (James 1:2–3\). Trials are an inevitable part of living in a sin\-cursed world (John 16:33\), and we should welcome tests because they produce perseverance (James 1:3\), which can make us “mature and complete, not lacking anything” (verse 4\).
The way we respond to trials determines their effect upon us. “Blessed is the one who perseveres under trial because, having stood the test, that person will receive the crown of life that the Lord has promised to those who love him” (James 1:12\). James is not saying that remaining steadfast under trials will result in the crown of life; rather, he is assuring those who have received the crown of life through faith in Christ that they will not be so overwhelmed by trials that they blame God for tempting them to sin. God, who cannot be tempted, tempts no one.
If the trial we face involves an inducement to sin, James says that we should not regard the inducement to sin as coming from God. God does not will anyone to sin, and He does not tempt us to sin. The [trial](trials-tribulations.html), not the sin, is His aim. Trials are designed to refine us as gold is refined by fire: “In all this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while you may have had to suffer grief in all kinds of trials. These have come so that the proven genuineness of your faith—of greater worth than gold, which perishes even though refined by fire—may result in praise, glory and honor when Jesus Christ is revealed” (1 Peter 1:6–7\).
Unlike human beings, God cannot be tempted to sin because everything about God is the exact opposite of sin. Human beings are born with a [sin nature](sin-nature.html) inherited from Adam, and that nature is part of what entices us and drags us away from what is good. God has no sin nature; His nature is holy and righteous. He cannot sin or even be tempted to sin. The enticements that cause us to sin have no effect on God.
There is absolutely nothing in God’s nature that would make Him tend to do wrong, and there can be absolutely nothing offered to Him that would cause Him to do wrong. Internally and externally, God is immune to temptation. It follows, then, that God would not tempt any person to sin and thus make Himself the author of sin. The Holy One will not justify sin or excuse it, and He will not prompt it.
Because of this truth about God—that He cannot be tempted to sin—we can have confidence that the universe is in good hands. God cannot be persuaded, bribed, or in any way swayed from His perfect purpose and plan. He does not vacillate. No matter what, He remains Perfection.
|
What is the false cause fallacy?
|
Answer
A false cause fallacy occurs when someone incorrectly assumes a causal relationship between two things; the name of the fallacy is fairly literal. Any time someone thinks, “A causes B,” without a sufficient reason to believe that B is truly caused by A, it’s an example of the false cause fallacy.
Specific versions of false cause fallacies include the *post hoc, ergo propter hoc* error, which literally means “after this, therefore because of this.” The false idea here is that, just because two things are consecutive, the first one must have caused the second. The baseball player who hits a home run while wearing mismatched socks should not assume the different socks caused his power surge. Many superstitions outside of baseball are based in this specific error, from knocking on wood to crossing one’s fingers.
Inflated causality, related to *post hoc*, is another type of false cause fallacy. This variation relies on over\-simplification. It takes an event—one that contributes to a result—and attempts to make it the sole cause. For example, saying that Martin Luther’s posting of the [95 Theses](95-theses.html) caused the Protestant Reformation relies on inflated causality. Luther’s action was certainly a catalyst for and benefit to the movement, but the cause of the Reformation is much more complex than that.
Another example of a false cause fallacy is *cum hoc, ergo propter hoc*, or “with this, therefore because of this.” In this case, the mistake is to assume that, when two events often happen together, one causes the other. But the rooster crowing at the crack of dawn does not cause the sun to rise. And advertising that points out that people who use a certain product tend to be healthy does not necessarily mean that the product *causes* the good health.
An important feature of any false cause fallacy is a perceived connection between two events. In most cases, people are reacting to what *appears to be* a connection, even if it’s entirely artificial. In some instances, there truly is a connection between the events, but not an “A causes B” relationship. When there’s not even a tenuous link between two events, people rarely assume a connection.
These statements are all examples of false cause fallacies:
“John started going to church more often, then won the lottery; therefore, God is rewarding his faithfulness.”
“Talking to cashiers at fast food restaurants causes obesity (the more often I talk to fast food cashiers, the heavier I get).”
“Football games are won based on which team has more enthusiastic fans (every time our football team scores, I hear people cheering, so the cheering is what leads to points).”
“Bleeding makes your skin break (every time I bleed, there’s a split in my skin).”
Some skeptics of the Bible fall into the false cause fallacy when they say that the story of Jesus is simply a [pagan mythology retold](Jesus-myth.html). They point to the stories of Osiris, Adonis, and Mithra and allege that the gospel narratives simply copycat the old myths. However, even if myths from the pre\-Christian era resemble the life of Christ (and they don’t), it wouldn’t mean they caused the New Testament writers to invent a false Jesus. Making such a claim is akin to saying the nursery rhyme “Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star” caused the invention of the Hubble Space Telescope.
Committing a false cause fallacy, a person might cite a pagan mystery religion with a dying and rising god and conclude, on that basis, the life of Jesus was invented or His resurrection never took place. But similarity doesn’t prove dependence—besides, the pagan religions aren’t all that similar to the story of Christ. The evidence for Jesus’ life and resurrection must be judged on its own merit and not simply dismissed out of hand.
|
What does it mean that “God gave them over” in Romans 1:24–28?
|
Answer
Paul, writing “to all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be his holy people” (Romans 1:7\), says that his purpose is to preach the gospel, for in it “the righteousness of God is revealed—a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: ‘The righteous will live by faith’” (verse 17\). He goes on to compare the righteous saints with the unrighteous Gentiles, upon whom the wrath of God is being revealed from heaven. He lists the works of the unrighteous who have incurred [God’s wrath](wrath-of-God.html) and then says that “God gave them over” to three things:
• “God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them” (verse 24, NASB).
• “God gave them over to degrading passions” (verse 26, NASB).
• “God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper” (verse 28, NASB).
Of the most popular English versions in use today, only the New International Version and New American Standard Bible use the phrase *God gave them over*. Most modern Bible versions say, “God gave them up” (e.g., ESV, NKJV). The Greek word translated “gave over” or “gave up” means “surrendered, yielded up, entrusted, or transmitted.” In this context, it refers to the act of God completely abandoning the unrighteous. As the wicked deserted God, God in turn deserted them, no longer giving them divine direction or restraint, but allowing them to corrupt themselves as they wished. Because they would not honor Him, He let them do what they pleased to dishonor themselves. Being given over or yielded up to one’s sinful desires is a judgment from God.
*Who was it that God gave over?* The ungodly and unrighteous: “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness” (Romans 1:18\). These are the godless and wicked, those who reject the truths that God makes plain to them about Himself. They know God exists, and they are “without excuse” in their active suppression of the truth (verse 20\). They do not acknowledge or honor God, nor are they grateful to Him. Their thinking becomes futile; they cannot reason, and their hearts become dark, lacking the light of God (verse 21\). They claim to be wise but are actually fools (verse 22\). They worship the creature rather than God the Creator (verse 23\).
*What was it God gave them over to?* Paul specifies three things to which God surrendered the wicked: 1\) “To sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another” (verse 24\). Giving their hearts’ sinful desires free rein, the wicked degraded themselves in sexual immorality. 2\) “To shameful lusts” (verse 26\). Both men and women abandoned the natural sexual functions and committed [homosexual acts](homosexuality-Bible.html). 3\) “To a depraved mind” (verse 28\). The result is that “they do what ought not to be done.” The depraved mind without the light of God will naturally run to evil and, unless divinely checked, will work out the full extent of its depravity.
*Why did God give them over?* “God gave them over” to these things because of a choice they made to reject the [knowledge of God in creation](heavens-declare-glory-God.html); to refuse to draw obvious conclusions from the evidence all around them of God’s existence and attributes; to decline to give God thanks; and to exchange “the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles” (Romans 1:23\). All through history foolish men have attempted to bring God down to their level, portraying Him in various images and worshiping created things rather than the Creator. It’s a direct violation of the first two of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:1–5\). Their minds rejected the proof they had of the divine nature, so, as a just punishment, God abandoned them to minds incapable of grasping the truth (Romans 1:19–20\).
*What’s the result of God’s having given them over?* “They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God\-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them” (Romans 1:29–32\). In the outworking of the depravity of the human heart, the contrast between light and darkness become more apparent: “This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil” (John 3:19\). As the Gentiles refused to keep God in their knowledge, they committed crimes against reason and against their own welfare, and God gave them over.
The sad fact is that sometimes God gives us what we want. God allowed the Israelites who rebelled to reap the natural consequences of their choice: “But my people would not listen to me; Israel would not submit to me. So I gave them over to their stubborn hearts to follow their own devices” (Psalm 81:11–12\). In Romans 1, Paul shows how the wicked made a choice to reject God, and that choice set them on a downward spiral of increasing darkness and decreasing hope. As the godless run farther and farther from God, God intervenes less and less. The Spirit’s restraint of sin is a blessing, and if that restraint is removed, all wickedness follows.
|
What impact did Domitian have on Christian history?
|
Answer
Domitian (Oct. 24, AD 51—Sept. 18, AD 96\), was Roman Emperor from AD 81—96\. He was the third and last member of the Flavian dynasty. His father, Vespasian, was a Roman general who was besieging Jerusalem in 68 when [Nero](who-was-Nero.html) died and the empire was thrown into chaos. He “assumed the purple” in 69 and brought stability to the empire. His son Titus finished the work of destroying Jerusalem in AD 70 and, upon the death of his father in 79, ascended to the throne. When Titus died in 81, his younger brother Domitian became Emperor. (It is suspected that he may have helped to hasten his brother’s demise so that he could assume the throne.)
Domitian was not as well\-liked or well\-received by the aristocracy as his father and brother had been. This seems to have been due, in part, to his cruel and ostentatious behavior, which many found offensive. His name is generally associated with the persecution of Christians.
The earliest records of persecution by Domitian are found in [Eusebius’s](Eusebius-of-Caesarea.html) church history. Eusebius references earlier writers who mention Domitian’s dislike of or antagonism toward Christians without giving a lot of details other than that some Christians were banished. The early evidence for intense persecution seems scant, but Eusebius, either relying upon evidence that he did not cite or simply being carried away with the narrative that he wanted to develop, goes on to say that Domitian stirred up persecution of Christians and issued edicts against them. Based on Eusebius’s record, later Christian historians seem to assume that Domitian was a cruel persecutor of Christians. From the available evidence, it is difficult to tell how much he was involved in persecution and how much impact he really had upon Christianity. According to at least one reading of Irenaeus, John was banished to the [Island of Patmos](Patmos-in-the-Bible.html) by Domitian, at which time he received the visions in Revelation. Although this interpretation of Irenaeus is disputed, if Domitian was responsible for John’s exile, then that is perhaps his biggest impact on Christianity—but, of course, John could have received his visions anywhere.
Some people and their actions are well\-known and well\-documented in historical sources. Others have less documentation, and the vast majority of human beings who have ever lived simply cannot be documented at all—they are lost to history. However, they and their deeds are not lost to God. First Timothy 5:24 says, “The sins of some are obvious, reaching the place of judgment ahead of them; the sins of others trail behind them.”
|
What is the significance of Joppa in the Bible?
|
Answer
Joppa, one of the oldest cities in the world, is mentioned several times in both Old and New Testaments. Joppa is known today as [Jaffa](Jaffa-in-the-Bible.html) and was most likely part of the land allotment given to the tribe of Dan, although it doesn’t seem the Danites ever took possession of it (Joshua 19:40–48\). Located between 30 and 40 miles northwest of Jerusalem, Joppa perches on a high cliff overlooking the Mediterranean Sea and served as the primary port city for Jerusalem. Its low ledge of rocks hangs out over the sea and forms a small harbor.
It was through Joppa that the timber for [Solomon’s temple](Solomon-first-temple.html) arrived from the forests of Lebanon (2 Chronicles 2:8–9, 16\). Joppa was also the port through which timber came for the rebuilding of God’s temple, authorized by [King Cyrus of Persia](Cyrus-Bible.html) and overseen by Ezra and Zerubbabel (see Ezra 3:7\). The cedar trees were harvested in Lebanon and the trunks lashed together in large rafts that were then floated south to the port of Joppa.
Joppa is the city to which [Jonah fled](Jonah-Tarshish-Nineveh.html) after the Lord told him to go to Nineveh (Jonah 1:1–3\). He went to Joppa, a harbor city, where he knew he could find a ship sailing in the opposite direction. In Joppa, Jonah boarded a ship to Tarshish, but the Lord had other plans for him and eventually got him to Nineveh where he belonged.
In the New Testament, Joppa is notable as the home of [Simon the tanner](Simon-the-tanner.html). Simon the tanner housed [Peter](life-Peter.html) while Peter ministered to believers in Joppa (Acts 9:32–43\). Most likely, Simon the tanner chose to work in the seaport of Joppa to more easily receive the pelts coming in and to ship the finished product out. His house was “by the sea” (Acts 10:6\), probably at some distance from the rest of the community, to allow the offensive smells related to his work to dissipate. It was on Simon’s rooftop that Peter had his vision of unclean animals being lowered from the sky in something like a sheet. Joppa was also the home of Tabitha, also called Dorcas, whom Peter raised from the dead (Acts 9:36–43\). When the [Roman centurion Cornelius](Cornelius-in-the-Bible.html) sent a delegation to find Peter, they found him in Joppa.
|
What does it mean that Paul went to the third heaven?
|
Answer
[Paul](life-Paul.html) describes a time when he was caught up to the third heaven (2 Corinthians 12:2–4\). He mentions himself in the third person: “I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know—God knows. And I know that this man—whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows—was caught up to paradise and heard inexpressible things, things that no one is permitted to tell.”
The word *heavens* can be used to refer to different realms. *Heavens* can refer to the sky and the earth’s atmosphere, making it the “first heaven” (Deuteronomy 11:11; Psalm 104:12; Isaiah 55:10\). It can also refer to outer space, where the stars and planets are—the “second heaven” (Psalm 8:3; Isaiah 13:10\). And it can refer to God’s dwelling place, which is beyond the other “heavens,” a place known as the “third heaven” (Psalm 33:13–14; Isaiah 66:1; Matthew 6:9; Hebrews 7:26; Revelation 11:19\). When Paul says that he went to the third heaven, he means that he went to the place where God dwells.
Interestingly, Paul uses the phrase *caught up* to refer to how he was transported to heaven; it’s the same Greek word used in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 to refer to the [rapture of the church](rapture-of-the-church.html). Following his list of “boasts” in 2 Corinthians 11:22–33, Paul further verifies his apostolic office by including his “visions and revelations from the Lord” (2 Corinthians 12:1\). The apostle is unsure whether he was physically in the body or apart from the body when he experienced heaven (2 Corinthians 12:2–3\). While there, he heard and saw things that he couldn’t describe and was forbidden to relate (verse 4\). Some believe this event occurred during Paul’s first missionary journey, when he was stoned and left for dead in Lystra, but we can’t be sure. The privilege of seeing heaven no doubt gave Paul courage to face his later trials and suffering (2 Corinthians 4:17\).
Christians today may have not seen the third heaven as Paul did, we can be just as confident of our future in heaven because we are in Christ. The Bible does not tell us everything we might like to know about heaven, but we know that it will be a wonderful place where we will dwell with Christ (John 14:3\). Paul knew that being with Christ is far better than anything he could experience on earth (Philippians 1:21–23\). Until the day we eternally enter God’s presence, we can state with confidence along with the apostle Paul, “For we live by faith, not by sight. We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord” (2 Corinthians 5:7–8\).
|
What is QAnon, and how should Christians view it?
|
Answer
In some ways, QAnon is unique among modern [conspiracy theories](conspiracy-theories.html). In other aspects, it’s similar to belief in the [Illuminati](illuminati-conspiracy.html) and has some parallels to the [anti\-vaccination](Christian-vaccinations.html) movement. What started out as a few anonymous posts on the internet rapidly became a widespread phenomenon. QAnon’s heavy political themes make it attractive to conservative\-minded people—but, as with many such ideas, not everyone using QAnon\-related terms necessarily supports all the tenets of the theory. In fact, many aren’t even aware of all that is involved in QAnon.
QAnon started on one of the internet’s most infamous sources of trolling: the website 4chan. Several years ago, someone on that site claimed to be an ultra\-high\-level government official with clearance status “Q,” which allows access to top\-secret information. This anonymous poster suggested the existence of a Satanic child\-sex ring with connections to the Democratic Party and Hollywood, and with whom President Donald Trump is engaged in a behind\-the\-scenes political and legal battle. Supposedly, this battle will eventually culminate in an event called “The Storm,” when massive numbers of arrests and public revelations will occur.
Other details about QAnon are typical of conspiracy theories and false prophets. Predictions about specific events made by Q have proved untrue. Some claims are the same type of shifty, easily manipulated “prophecies” made by telephone psychics and horoscopes.
QAnon thrives on angst over issues that have real\-world meaning: politically left\-leaning officials and celebrities seem to be held to a completely different standard of conduct than those who are conservative, news sources frequently display the same bias and hypocrisy, and human trafficking is a crime that rarely receives the level of attention as other social issues. All these important issues are logs in the QAnon fire. The difficulty is that the QAnon conspiracy theory alleges an implausible level of interconnectedness, coordination, and control wielded by the world’s elites.
Concepts like QAnon oversimplify and condense multiple issues into a single, cartoonish idea, which then takes on a life of its own. Followers of Christ can and should be ready to address the real\-world problems highlighted by QAnon. However, we should not succumb to conspiracy theories and quasi\-religious political ideas. There is too much of QAnon that is irrational, nonfactual, and unfair to be taken seriously (see Acts 17:11; 1 Timothy 4:7; 2 Timothy 4:4; Proverbs 12:17; 18:17\).
|
Is it true that the biblical condemnations of homosexuality are actually referring to pedophilia?
|
Answer
There are some supporters of the homosexual movement who are interested in finding biblical justification for [homosexuality](homosexuality-Bible.html). One tactic used to try to justify homosexuality is to claim that the Bible doesn't actually condemn homosexuality and that passages often interpreted as critical of homosexuality are in truth denouncing [pedophilia](pedophilia.html). The claim is not supported by a careful reading of the Bible.
One passage usually cited in the argument that the Bible's references to homosexuality actually refer to pedophilia is Leviticus 18:22: "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable." The specific claim, made by some apologists for homosexual behavior, is that the word translated "man" should be translated "boy." The "detestable" act, then, is having sexual relations with a boy, not with an adult male.
The Hebrew word in question is *zakar*. Strong's defines this word as "male, man, the gender of a species that is not female, with no focus on the age or stage in life." In other words, the focus of the word is the gender (male), irrespective of age. *Zakar* refers to any male, young or old. To choose the definition of "boy" instead of "man" or "male" reveals an interpretive bias. There's nothing in the context that would demand limiting the word to refer to a youth. The clear meaning of Leviticus 18:22 is that God forbids sexual relations with those of one's own gender—the age of the participants has no bearing on the command—and that's the way the verse has always been understood.
Another passage cited in regards to this issue is Leviticus 20:13: "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." Again, some claim that the word translated "man" in the phrase *with a man* is more correctly translated "boy," making the "detestable" thing pedophilia.
In Leviticus 20:13, there are two different Hebrew words translated "man." The first is *ish*, the most common Hebrew word for "man"; and the second is *zakar*, which emphasizes the specific idea of gender (male, as opposed to female). We could put it this way: "If a man (*ish*) has sex with another male (*zakar*). . . ." As in the case of Leviticus 18:22, there is nothing in the context that would narrow the meaning of *zakar* to "underage male."
Reading the whole of Leviticus 20:13, we do have good reason for insisting that *zakar* is rightly translated "man," as in "an adult male." Here is the verse in the CSB translation: "If a man sleeps with a man as with a woman, *they have both* committed a detestable act. *They* must be put to death; *their* death is *their* own fault" (emphasis added). Note that the detestable act is committed by "both" men. Both are equally guilty, and the punishment for both is the same. This is clearly not a case of an adult preying upon a child; these are two consenting adults (both of whom are males) who are having sex with each other.
A careful reading of the entire Bible shows unity on the issue of homosexuality (along with other sexual sins, like adultery). It is wrong. See 1 Corinthians 6:9–10 and Romans 1:22–26; in neither passage can the practice of homosexuality be referring to pedophilia. To keep everything in perspective, we are no longer under the [Mosaic Law](Mosaic-Law.html). Sin is still sin, but Christ has died for sinners, and for the one who confesses his sin and turns to Christ, redemption is promised. "Some of you were once like that. But you were cleansed; you were made holy; you were made right with God by calling on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God" (1 Corinthians 6:11, NLT).
|
Who was John Newton?
|
Answer
John Newton (1725—1807\) was a Christian, abolitionist, and hymn writer best known for his song “Amazing Grace.” He was born in east London. At the age of 10, young John Newton began working with his father on ships and attended many voyages with his father. Although he also worked in the navy and on merchant ships, Newton did a great deal of work on slave ships that contributed to the English [slave trade](human-trafficking.html).
Not only did he import slaves to England, but Newton was also a staunch and outspoken atheist. Often, he would attempt to persuade others from their faith in God. He was well\-known by his crew members as a man given to blasphemy, gambling, and alcohol.
During one of Newton’s voyages, a terrifying storm at sea occurred that made Newton fear and pray to God for his life. He realized the sinful state of his being and later marked that event as the point he began to understand he needed salvation. Newton’s frightening encounter at sea was not the moment of his conversion, but he did accept the gospel later, once he fully understood the grace of Jesus. Just as Christ provided salvation to the hardened Saul (Acts 9:1–19; 1 Timothy 1:13\), He also saved John Newton.
After his salvation, Newton developed sympathy for the slaves he was transporting to England. He rejected slavery altogether in following years and became an abolitionist. Because of his experience on slave ships, he was able to reliably describe the mistreatment of slaves. John Newton’s work for the abolition of slavery in England, propelled by his faith, greatly influenced others, including Parliament member [William Wilberforce](William-Wilberforce.html). Wilberforce worked tirelessly to end slavery in the British Empire, and in 1787 Newton wrote *Thoughts upon the African Slave Trade* to aid Wilberforce’s cause. John Newton lived to see the passing of the Slave Trade Act of 1807, which made slave trading illegal. Slavery was finally abolished in most parts of the empire in 1833\.
Soon after his salvation, John Newton applied to be a minister in the Church of England but was not allowed to fill the position for six years. He was ordained in 1764 as the curate of the church at Olney in Buckinghamshire, where he began writing hymns for his weekly prayer meetings. Newton’s collaboration with poet William Cowper produced a famous collection known as *Olney Hymns* in 1779\. Included were many well\-known hymns such as “Amazing Grace,” “Glorious Things of Thee Are Spoken,” and “How Sweet the Name of Jesus Sounds.” These hymns have impacted Christian worship since Newton’s time.
John Newton’s life vividly illustrates that the “lost” can be “found” by Jesus (see Luke 15:24\). Like the apostle Paul, who described himself as the “worst of sinners” (1 Timothy 1:16\), Newton, the former slaver, received the [abundant grace](saved-by-grace.html) of Jesus (verses 14–15\). The story of John Newton proves that anyone can be saved by Jesus and radically changed for His glory. A quote attributed to Newton gives his testimony in summary: “Though I am not what I ought to be, nor what I wish to be, nor what I hope to be, I can truly say, I am not what I once was, a slave to sin and Satan; and I can heartily join with the apostle and acknowledge, By the grace of God I am what I am.”
|
What were the Jim Crow laws?
|
Answer
While no one can pinpoint for certain the origin of the term *Jim Crow*—some say it came from the name of a character in minstrel shows from the early 1800s—it’s used today to describe state and local laws that segregated blacks and whites after Reconstruction following the Civil War. Jim Crow laws were in effect from about 1877 to the 1950s. While Jim Crow laws were most common in the Southern states of the former Confederacy, racial segregation was observed throughout much the nation. For example, [interracial marriage](interracial-marriage.html) was outlawed in at least 30 states, twice the number of the states in the Confederacy.
Jim Crow laws varied from state to state, but all had the same end—the separation of the races. Separate accommodations were required for blacks and whites in schools, restaurants, theaters, hotels, passenger trains, and even in prisons, sports teams, federal agencies and the U.S. military.
The three so\-called “Reconstruction Amendments” to the Constitution—the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth—ended slavery, enshrined equal protection for all citizens including native\-born blacks, and outlawed poll taxes and literacy tests for the right to vote. These Amendments were attempts to prevent [racial discrimination](racism-Bible.html), but all failed to stop the Jim Crow laws. In fact, some Jim Crow laws were actually upheld by the Supreme Court. In the lawsuit *Plessy v. Ferguson*, an attempt was made to overrule Louisiana’s law requiring separate passenger cars for blacks and whites. Plessy lost in every lower court, and then the Supreme Court upheld the lower court decisions, making “separate but equal” the law of the land. (Ironically, plaintiff Plessy was 7/8 white and only 1/8 black, yet he was legally banned from whites\-only coaches.)
Among the greatest outrages of the Jim Crow era were laws preventing blacks and poor whites from voting—both groups tended to support Republicans in the South. Democratic politicians in state governments found ways around the Constitution, passing laws that again survived Supreme Court challenges (e.g., *Williams v. Mississippi*, 1898\).
The United States began throwing off the stigma of legalized racial segregation through a series of federal laws and lawsuits that overturned the notion of “separate but equal” (e.g., *Brown v. Board of Education*, 1954\). In 1964, the federal government called out the National Guard to ensure black students could enter the University of Alabama, over the wishes of Alabama’s then\-Governor George Wallace, who was famously blocking the doorway. The federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 finally put an end to Jim Crow laws, and nationwide public sentiment finally turned overwhelmingly against racial discrimination and segregation.
There is only one race, and that is the human race. God does not show partiality or favoritism (Deuteronomy 10:17; Acts 10:34; Romans 2:11; Ephesians 6:9\), and neither should we. If we treat a group of people with contempt, deny their rights, or relegate them to second\-class citizenship, we are mistreating those created in God’s image. Racial segregation is wrong, even if it is enshrined by law.
|
What does it mean that something is extrabiblical?
|
Answer
*Extrabiblical* is a term that means “outside the Bible” or “beyond the Bible.” Any literature that is not contained within the biblical canon is considered extrabiblical. *Noncanonical* is a similar term describing extrabiblical books “outside of” the canon of Scripture.
Extrabiblical sources have varying degrees of reliability. The Bible is authoritative, but any idea, principle, or doctrine that comes from an extrabiblical source is not. The Bible’s historical narratives are inerrant and therefore utterly reliable; extrabiblical histories may be very accurate but, being noncanonical, may contain errors.
It’s good to keep in mind the distinction between *biblical* and *extrabiblical*. If someone says, “God wants you to love your neighbor as yourself,” we can do a quick check with the Bible and see the statement is thoroughly biblical (Mark 12:33; James 2:8\). We are obligated to love our neighbors. But if someone says, “God wants you to wear red on Fridays,” we can search the Bible cover to cover and never find support for that claim. We are free to wear red on Fridays, but we are also free to ignore the rule. It goes beyond what the Bible instructs.
We sometimes encounter ideas that may or may not be true, but are not explicitly found in the Bible: the idea of the three wise men, for example, is extrabiblical (the Bible never says how many magi traveled to see Jesus in Matthew 1\). The concept of [seven deadly sins](seven-deadly-sins.html) is likewise extrabiblical; it comes from Catholic tradition, not from Scripture. Bromides such as *moderation in all things*, *cleanliness is next to godliness*, and *God helps those who help themselves* may contain a grain of truth but are still extrabiblical.
The designation *extrabiblical* generally refers to background or source material that is not part of the biblical canon of Christianity as a whole. But *extrabiblical* can also describe writings that are outside of the authoritative canon of a specific Christian tradition or group. For instance, Protestant churches identify the Deuterocanonical books as extrabiblical, even though some other Christian traditions accept them as authoritative.
Different types of writings are described as extrabiblical. Early texts, like those of historians [Flavius Josephus](Flavius-Josephus.html) and [Eusebius of Caesarea](Eusebius-of-Caesarea.html), are extrabiblical: they provide cultural insight as well as historical and contextual background to parts of Scripture, but the secular histories themselves are not inspired.
The noncanonical gospels, also known as the Apocryphal Gospels, are absent from the New Testament canon as well as all other ancient Bibles. Many of these gospels are pseudonymous, meaning they were deliberately written under a false name. Examples include the Gospel of Andrew, the Gospel of Bartholomew, and the Gospel of Barnabas. Many of the noncanonical gospels, while mentioned in historical texts, are lost to us today. Those that still exist may be useful in a historical or contextual sense, but they are extrabiblical—and in many cases heretical—and were never widely accepted as authoritative in the early church.
Another example of extrabiblical literature is the [pseudepigrapha](pseudepigrapha.html), a group of ancient texts written in the latter part of the Old Testament period, primarily between 200 BC and AD 200\. These works are also pseudonymous in nature. While they can be useful for background studies, they are considered noncanonical or extrabiblical by almost all Christian groups.
The Deuterocanonical books comprise the Old Testament Apocrypha, often called simply “[the Apocrypha](apocrypha-deuterocanonical.html).” Unlike the pseudepigrapha, these books are included in the Old Testament of ancient Greek and Latin Bibles, but not in the [Masoretic Text](Masoretic-Text.html) of the Hebrew Bible. The Old Testament apocryphal books were written primarily between the time of the undisputed Old Testament books and the New Testament. They include 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, the Letter of Jeremiah, Prayer of Manasseh, 1 Maccabees, and 2 Maccabees, along with additions to the books of Esther and Daniel. The Apocrypha, being extrabiblical, includes several extrabiblical doctrines such as praying for the dead, petitioning “saints” in heaven for their prayers, worshiping angels, and almsgiving to atone for sins.
|
What is the significance of burning Bibles?
|
Answer
One way to show contempt for something is to publicly burn the symbol associated with that thing. For example, burning a nation’s flag (the symbol of the country) is a statement of disrespect and contempt for that nation. Burning a person in effigy is an act of contempt for the person represented. And burning Bibles is a statement of contempt for God, for the church, or for religious authority.
During the 2020 riots in Portland, Oregon, groups of protesters burned stacks of Bibles (in addition to American flags). While there was no official spokesman to interpret the meaning of this gesture, it was obviously meant as a protest against traditional American values. Burning Bibles is not a subtle act. It loudly proclaims a rejection of God, spiritual truth, and the church in general.
The first recorded account of someone burning God’s Word is in Jeremiah 36:23–25, when the tyrant [King Jehoiakim](King-Jehoiakim.html) sliced up Jeremiah’s scroll and threw the strips into the fire: “Whenever Jehudi had read three or four columns of the scroll, 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. Even though Elnathan, Delaiah and Gemariah urged the king not to burn the scroll, he would not listen to them.”
What can we learn from this biblical example as to how we should respond to the burning of Bibles?
First, like Elnathan, Delaiah, and Gemariah, we should urge the protestors not to do it. Burning a Bible is not only an expression of contempt for Christianity, but it is also against the Holy Spirit, the ultimate author of God’s Word. We can point out to the protesters that they’re desecrating something sacred.
Second, after respectfully confronting or speaking out against the physical destruction of God’s Word, trust the Lord to hold the Bible\-burners accountable. The Lord did not mince words with King Jehoiakim about the earthly discipline that was coming upon him. Because of his contempt for that which is holy, Jehoiakim and his nation would face severe judgment (Jeremiah 36:30–31\).
Finally, we can use demonstrations like these to build bridges for the gospel. We can ask those who sympathize with the protestors to talk about their concerns. If the issue behind the burning of the Bible is the abuse of religious power, we can agree with them that using the Bible to justify immoral behaviors should not be tolerated.
Given the abundance of physical and digital copies of the Bible in the world today, no protester’s bonfire is going to put the existence of God’s Word in peril. However, after confronting the profanity of such an action, we can use the opportunity to address possible emotional wounds—and perhaps create a space in the mind of a Bible\-burner in which the Holy Spirit can heal and do a mighty work.
|
What is the importance of Gilgal in the Bible?
|
Answer
There are at least two locations named Gilgal in the Bible. There was a Gilgal just west of the Jordan River near Jericho (Joshua 5:9, 13\) and one nearer Bethel (2 Kings 2:1–2\). Some scholars believe there was a third place named Gilgal near [Mount Gerizim](mount-Gerizim.html) and [Mount Ebal](mount-Ebal.html) (Deuteronomy 11:29–30\). The meaning of the name *Gilgal* is “rolling.”
Gilgal is not mentioned in the New Testament, but the Old Testament depicts it as follows:
*Gilgal was a place of memorial.* Gilgal is significant in the Bible as serving as a place of memorial for the Israelites, to remind them of what God had done. After miraculously [crossing the Jordan River](Jordan-crossing.html) into the Promised Land, the Israelites set up twelve stones taken from the river, representing the twelve tribes, to serve as a reminder to the children of Israel (Joshua 4:19–20\). The stones at Gilgal would remind the Israelites and their descendants of the power of God and how He had dried up the Jordan River so they could walk through it, just as He had done to the Red Sea (Joshua 4:21–24\). The stones at Gilgal would serve a teaching purpose to the younger generation, so that they too could remember what the Lord had done for them (Joshua 4:21–22\).
*Gilgal was a place of consecration and change.* It was at Gilgal that the Israelites were [circumcised](circumcision.html) and celebrated their first [Passover](what-is-Passover.html) in the Promised Land (Joshua 5:7–8, 10\). The children of those who had wandered in the desert had not yet been circumcised, and it was time for them to take the sign of the covenant and be set apart as God’s people. This time of circumcision is what gave Gilgal its name, for the Lord said He had “rolled away the reproach of Egypt from you” (Joshua 5:9\). The “reproach” was the Israelites’ uncircumcised condition; the “rolling away” of that reproach set them apart, once and for all, from the Egyptian people and way of life. After the Israelites celebrated the Passover and began to eat the produce of their new land, the manna that the Lord had provided the Israelites during their years of wandering stopped. This also happened while they were camped at Gilgal (Joshua 5:11–12\).
*A place of worship.* Years later, Gilgal was still a place of worship to offer sacrifices to the Lord, and it was the place where [Saul](life-Saul.html) was publicly crowned the first king of Israel (1 Samuel 10:8; 11:15\). Unfortunately, as the Israelites slipped into idolatry, Gilgal became connected with the worship of false gods (Hosea 4:15; Amos 4:4\).
*A place of judgment.* It was at Gilgal that [Samuel](life-Samuel.html) rebuked Saul and prophesied of his loss of the kingdom (1 Samuel 13:13–14\). Saul had been instructed to stay at Gilgal and wait for Samuel before offering sacrifices to the Lord there (1 Samuel 10:8; 13:8\). Rather than obey, Saul took the matter in his own hands and sacrificed to the Lord at Gilgal (1 Samuel 13:9–12\). When Samuel arrived, he announced judgment on Saul for his disobedience, stating that Saul’s kingdom and position would not endure (1 Samuel 13:14\).
*A place of prophets.* Gilgal was one of three cities where Samuel regularly held court as the judge of Israel (1 Samuel 7:16\). It seems that [Elijah and Elisha](Elijah-and-Elisha.html) spent some time at a place called Gilgal before Elijah’s departure to heaven (2 Kings 2:1–2\). This is most likely not the same Gilgal as where Joshua had camped; rather, it is a place nearer Bethel in central Canaan. Sometime after Elijah was gone, Elisha returned to Gilgal where many other prophets resided (2 Kings 4:38\). There, he found that Gilgal was in the midst of a famine and so made sure the prophets were fed. He also miraculously fed around a hundred other residents (2 Kings 4:38–44\).
Gilgal was a significant place in that it reminded the Israelites of their heritage, served as a place of worship, and was visited by kings and prophets.
|
What is a spiritual body?
|
Answer
Believers will be physically resurrected one day, just as Christ was, and we will spend eternity in an actual body. That is one of the main points of 1 Corinthians 15\. In that chapter, Paul writes of a spiritual body: “So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body” (1 Corinthians 15:42\&ndahs44\). The “spiritual body” here is contrasted with the “natural body.”
Jesus was raised [in a physical body](bodily-resurrection-Jesus.html), with “flesh and bones” (Luke 24:39\). We will be raised like He was (Romans 6:5\). The Lord, in His power, “will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body” (Philippians 3:21\). These passages alone prove the bodily resurrection of the saints.
A difficulty comes in what Paul meant by a “spiritual” body in 1 Corinthians 15:44\. The term *spiritual body* seems to be an oxymoron. A basic point to be made, based on the term, is that the resurrection body cannot be wholly spiritual; otherwise, it could not be a “body.” It is a human body, but there is something different about it, as Paul explains in context.
Taking in the whole of 1 Corinthians 15, we have the following descriptions of the body we have now versus the future resurrected body:
earthly vs. heavenly (verse 40\)
perishable vs. imperishable (verse 42\)
dishonorable vs. glorified (verse 43\)
subject to weakness vs. raised in power (verse 43\)
natural vs. spiritual (verse 44\)
bearing Adam’s image vs. bearing Christ’s image (verse 49\)
mortal vs. immortal (verse 53\)
All the way through the text, the word *body* is used.
Earlier in the chapter, Paul lays the foundation for his discussion of the spiritual body: “Not all flesh is the same: People have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another” (1 Corinthians 15:39\).
Note the illustration of differing kinds of flesh:
• fish have a body perfectly suited for their life in the water
• birds have a body perfectly suited for flying through the air
• animals have a body perfectly suited for their needs in the animal kingdom
• people have a body perfectly suited for life on this earthly plane
So, here’s Paul’s point: after the resurrection, we will have a body perfectly suited for life in heaven (that is, on the [New Earth](new-heavens-earth.html) in eternity, Revelation 21:1\). The “spiritual body” will be made of flesh (like Jesus’ body is), but a different kind of flesh than what we have now.
The passage continues: “There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor” (1 Corinthians 15:40–41\). So, we can also say that the resurrection body—the spiritual body—will have a different “splendor” than our earthly, natural body.
The spiritual body is suited to eternal life. It is not subject to decay or death; it will not be inconvenienced by any of the physical functions necessary for life here and now. The spiritual body will be a real body, but in a different mode of being. It will be an upgrade: at the resurrection, our bodies will go from Version 1\.0 to Version 2\.0\. Better yet, to extend Paul’s illustration in 1 Corinthians 15:39, our bodies *now* are the “seed”; our bodies *then* will be the blossom. Just as a poppy is more glorious than the seed from which it came, the spiritual body will be more glorious than the physical body that died.
The human body, in its present form, has various wants and weaknesses. In this fleshly body as we know it now, we cannot enter or enjoy the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 15:50\). That will change at the resurrection. We will be transformed (verse 51\). Right now, “the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak” (Matthew 26:41\). For the believer, after the resurrection, the spirit and the flesh will both be equally willing (and capable) of serving God.
The Bible teaches that all people will be resurrected, “some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt” (Daniel 12:2\). So, all will have a spiritual body, but there will be two different destinies. The difference is faith in Christ (John 3:36; 1 John 5:12\). You will be resurrected someday, and you will receive a spiritual body. The question is, where will you spend eternity?
|
Who was Fanny J. Crosby?
|
Answer
Born on March 24, 1820, in New York, Frances (Fanny) Jane Crosby was a teacher, poet, lyricist, and hymn writer. She is best remembered today as the author of about 9,000 Christian hymns.
In her infancy, Fanny became ill and was seen by an unqualified doctor who gave her a faulty treatment that ended up blinding her for life. Although her blindness could have been a source of bitterness, Fanny refused self\-pity and chose to focus on the Lord. In response to expressions of regret over her blindness, Fanny said, “If at birth I had been able to make one petition, it would have been that I was born blind. Because when I get to heaven, the first face that shall ever gladden my sight will be that of my Savior” (quoted at www.christianitytoday.com/history/people/poets/fanny\-crosby.html, accessed 8/26/20\).
Mainly raised by her Christian grandmother, young Fanny Crosby began learning entire chapters of the Bible. Over time, this led to the memorization of entire books of Scripture, including the gospels and Proverbs. At the age of 15, Fanny began attending the New York Institution for the Blind. During her studies and later during her teaching years as part of the faculty at the school, she began to cultivate her ability for writing poetry, which she had begun at an early age. She began submitting some of her poems to newspapers, and the *New York Herald* published her poem eulogizing President William Henry Harrison. By the time she was 23, Crosby was speaking before Congress and meeting Presidents. In 1844 she published her first book of poetry, *The Blind Girl and Other Poems*, and six years later she began writing popular songs. She had a [conversion experience](faith-conversion.html) at the age of 31 and joined the Old John Street Methodist Church, the first Methodist church in America. In 1858 she married Alexander Van Alstyne, Jr., another blind teacher at the school where Crosby taught. When she was 44 years old, she began writing hymns.
Crosby’s [hymns](what-are-hymns.html) had a wide impact and were published in several different denominational hymnals. She wrote so many hymns that she sometimes used a pen name so that her name was not the prominent one in hymnals. [D. L. Moody](D-L-Moody.html) and song leader and composer Ira Sankey made use of Crosby’s hymns during their evangelism crusades, and they credited her work as a part of their success.
Typically, Crosby would compose the hymns in her mind and have someone write them down. Because of her strong memorization skills, she could compose and remember many hymns at the same time. Her husband regularly assisted in transcribing her hymns and setting them to music. Crosby longed for her hymns to bring people into a relationship with Christ, and she set a personal goal of reaching a million people for Christ through the songs she wrote.
A lesser\-known aspect of the life of Fanny Crosby is her participation in rescue and mission work. She also helped to care for those who were affected by the cholera epidemic of 1849, even at the risk of her own life. Crosby was also an advocate for the [temperance movement](temperance-movement.html) and a member of the Christian Women’s Temperance Union, headed by fellow Christian Frances Willard.
Some of Fanny Crosby’s most popular hymns are “Blessed Assurance,” “Safe in the Arms of Jesus,” “Rescue the Perishing,” “Savior, More Than Life to Me,” “Pass Me Not, O Gentle Savior,” and “Jesus, Keep Me Near the Cross.” Crosby died on February 11, 1915, at the age of 94\.
|
Should a Christian join a labor union?
|
Answer
A labor union is an organization of workers intended to advance its members’ interests in matters affecting their wages, benefits, and working conditions. Labor unions are neither good nor bad, per se; they are merely tools that can be utilized for good or evil purposes. The Bible does not address labor unions, but it gives some useful guidance, including principles governing work and dealing with authority in our lives.
Unions can be a good thing for workers at a bad company that forces bad policies or rules on its workers. Some companies have abused their employees, and unions have stood up for the helpless and given them a voice. Historically, unions have worked to raise wages and improve benefits, especially for workers in the bottom and middle of the wage scale. And a labor union can help a person get days off for religious reasons. Still, joining a labor union should be a matter of prayer and seeking wise counsel.
The following are some biblical principles as they relate to labor unions:
*Labor unions and the principle of [work](Bible-work.html).* God is a worker, and He designed us to be workers: “The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it” (Genesis 2:15\). “Six days you shall labor and do all your work” (Exodus 20:9\). “Lazy hands make for poverty, but diligent hands bring wealth” (Proverbs 10:4\). We are to work “wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people” (Ephesians 6:7\). Insofar as labor unions promote work and have helped to bring about better working conditions for employees, they are a good thing.
*Labor unions and the principle of [submission](Bible-submissive.html).* The concept of submission to authority is a difficult one for most of us. We chafe under the idea of someone telling us what to do. Many of us don’t trust leaders and sometimes have good reasons for not trusting them. We may also believe that, if we submit to someone, it somehow means we are of less value or importance than they.
Jesus modeled submission. Even though He was God, He submitted to His earthly parents (Luke 2:51\). Even though He was coequal with the Father, He submitted His human will to that of the Father, even to the point of dying on the cross for our sins (Matthew 26:39; Philippians 2:8\).
In addition, we have specific instructions from God about submitting to the human authority that He has established. Our submission to these authorities is not based on their deserving our submission or earning it. Our submission to them is based on our love and submission to God. We submit to these authorities because they are established by God:
1\. Submitting to government (Romans 13:1–7\)
2\. Wives submitting to their husbands (Ephesians 5\)
3\. Submission to bosses (1 Peter 2:18–19\)
The principle is that we should submit to the authorities over us unless we have a biblical reason not to do so. In the United States, we have the freedom to leave a job if we can no longer submit to our authority with a clear conscience.
In Matthew 20:1–15, Jesus used employment as an illustration of the kingdom of heaven. The focus is a landowner’s hiring practices. In that passage, there is no “collective bargaining” mentioned, and the group of employees did not have the right to tell the employer what to do. In verse 15, the employer asks a pointed question to those who complained about his policies: “Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money?” In Jesus’ story, the employees had the right to whatever was promised in a mutually agreed\-upon contract, but they had no further rights to the employer’s time, money, or property.
*Labor unions and the principle of [contentment](Bible-contentment.html).* John the Baptist, in Luke 3:14, counseled soldiers to be content with their wages. One of the primary roles of labor unions is to continually campaign for higher wages for their members, and this can promote discontent.
Paul tells us the secret to contentment: “I have learned to be content whatever the circumstances. I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want. I can do all this through him who gives me strength” (Philippians 4:11–13\). The secret to his contentment was Christ in him. Christ strengthened him and sustained him in all the circumstances of life.
Paul told believers to work for their masters as if they were working for the Lord: “Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters, since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving” (Colossians 3:22–24\). Paul repeated the same command to the church at Ephesus, along with the promise of an inheritance of heavenly glory (Ephesians 6:5–8\).
*Labor unions and the principle of [kindness](fruit-Holy-Spirit-kindness.html).* In a sinful world there will always be abuses, but the question is, How does God expect us to handle abuses? Christians are to be willing to suffer indignity at the hands of masters and not retaliate. In the fear of God, we submit to our bosses—“not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh” (1 Peter 2:18\). It’s one thing for a labor union to work against unethical and criminal behavior on the part of the management, but it is another thing to instill contempt for employers and maintain an adversarial stance against authority.
A Christian who understands that working for an employer is like working for the Lord will view some union tactics with grave concern. Labor unions typically use the threat of boycotts, strikes, and work slowdowns as leverage for their demands, which some consider a violation of the Bible’s teaching against extortion (Luke 3:14\). We are to “slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and always to be gentle toward everyone” (Titus 3:2\). Being polite and considerate is always commendable. “A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger” (Proverbs 15:1\).
*Labor unions and the principle of [conscience](clear-conscience.html).* Most unions do not take a biblical worldview. Often, union dues are funneled to ungodly causes such as abortion rights. Christian members of labor unions who object to the use of their money to fund causes that go against their sincere religious beliefs can write a letter to the union declaring their stand and asking that their portion of the dues be used for some other purpose.
*Labor unions and the principle of [equal yoking](unequally-yoked.html).* Scripture says, “Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?” (2 Corinthians 6:14\). This applies to marriage, primarily, but it can also guide our choices in other personal relationships, in business, and in the matter of labor unions.
For those considering joining a labor union, here are some important questions to ask: Am I praying for my employer and the owners of the company? By being a part of a particular union, am I able to serve the Lord and bring Him glory? What is the agenda and purpose of the labor union? Does the union operate fairly and in the best interests for both the workers and the company? Will the dues I pay go toward causes I disagree with?
In the end, whether a Christian should join a labor union is a matter of conscience and sensitivity to the leading of the Lord. If you are convinced God wants you to join the union, then join it. It is a personal decision, not something another believer can place on you. Realize that, if you join a union, you are obligating yourself to function under their rules. Pray and seek the Lord for His guidance in the matter. “Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways submit to him, and he will make your paths straight” (Proverbs 3:5–6\).
|
Who was Philip P. Bliss?
|
Answer
Philip P. Bliss (1838—1876\) was an American [hymnist](what-are-hymns.html), composer, gospel singer, evangelist, and teacher. He was a contemporary to [D. L. Moody](D-L-Moody.html), Ira Sankey, and [Fanny Crosby](Fanny-Crosby.html).
Born on July 9, 1838, in a mountainous region of Pennsylvania, Philip Bliss was raised by his parents who instilled in him a love for Scripture and music. From an early age, Philip was interested in music and singing, an interest that increased when he happened to hear a woman playing a piano. At the age of 11, young Philip left home and began working in logging camps and other trades in which he apprenticed. He placed his faith in Jesus Christ at the age of 12\.
Later, Philip Bliss worked on obtaining his teaching credentials and began a job as a teacher. Because of his love for music and singing, he transitioned to teaching music and even received voice training through the help of a friend. Soon after this, Bliss started composing music, and his compositions were received with great admiration. Bliss married his wife, Lucy, on June 1, 1859\. During an encounter with D. L. Moody, Bliss was encouraged to join Moody’s evangelistic crusades and use his rich baritone voice to sing gospel music full\-time. Bliss turned down the offer because he felt that the Lord was calling him to full\-time evangelism, but he continued to write hymns.
Philip Bliss is best remembered for his many hymns. Most notable among these are “Wonderful Words of Life,” “Jesus Loves Even Me,” “Dare to Be a Daniel,” “Let the Lower Lights be Burning,” “I Will Sing of My Redeemer,” and “Hallelujah, What a Savior.” He also set the lyrics of “It Is Well with My Soul” to music, which was written by his friend Horatio Spafford. This song was based on Spafford’s struggle after losing all his daughters in a shipwreck.
Bliss displayed a good knowledge of Scripture in his hymns, reflecting his time in God’s Word. Before writing “Jesus Loves Even Me,” Bliss had been contemplating Romans 5:5, which states, “This hope will not disappoint us, because God’s love has been poured out in our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us” (CSB). Another well\-known hymn, “Man of Sorrows,” reflects several biblical truths, including the description of Jesus as “a man of sorrows” (Isaiah 53:3, ESV) and “the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29, NLT).
Philip Bliss’s life ended tragically. As Bliss and his wife were traveling by train on December 29, 1876, a bridge collapsed over the Ashtabula River in Ohio, causing the passenger cars to plunge sixty feet. In the crash, the wreckage of the train caught fire. Bliss, who had escaped the wreck unharmed, went back for his wife who was trapped in the wreckage. He stayed by her side, trying to free her as the fire spread and eventually consumed them. Amazingly, Philip Bliss’s luggage made it safely to the intended destination where unfinished hymns were found safe and intact.
In his short life, Philip Bliss made an impact for Christ through his hymns and gospel singing. Demonstrating a strong faith in Christ and a desire to make Him known, Bliss’s story serves as an inspiration for those who choose to use their talents and gifts for God’s glory (see 1 Corinthians 10:31\). The hymns he penned will continue to encourage Christians to “sing praises to God our King” (Psalm 47:6, CEV).
|
Who was Isaac Watts?
|
Answer
Isaac Watts (1674—1748\) was a famous hymn writer, minister, and logician. His parents were Nonconformists, meaning they had separated from the [Anglican Church](Anglicans.html) of England. Watts’ father was frequently imprisoned for his beliefs. At an early age, Isaac Watts proved his intelligence. He knew five languages by the time he was 13 years old, and he was adept at writing poetry. After attending a Nonconformist college, he tutored for a while before becoming the pastor of the Mark Lane Independent Chapel in London from 1698 to 1712\.
Isaac Watts wrote many books on theological topics and books on reason and logic, including *Logic, Or the Right Use of Reason in the Enquiry After Truth*, used for many years as a standard text at Oxford University. Watts is best known for his hymns, including “When I Survey the Wondrous Cross,” based on Galatians 6:14 and called “the greatest hymn in the English language” by poet and critic Matthew Arnold. Some of Watts’ hymns were paraphrases of the biblical psalms, such as “Joy to the World,” based on Psalm 98; “Jesus Shall Reign,” a paraphrase of Psalm 72; and “O God, Our Help in Ages Past,” from Psalm 90\. His other hymns include “At the Cross,” “Alas! and Did My Savior Bleed,” and “We’re Marching to Zion.” Watts also created a children’s hymnal, *Divine and Moral Songs for Children*, in 1715\.
The trailblazing hymns of Isaac Watts were popular in England, but they were not without controversy. In that day, churches usually sang metrical verses based on the book of Psalms, and some rejected Watts’ hymns as being of human composition and not divinely inspired. His hymns caught on in America during the [Great Awakening](First-Second-Great-Awakening.html), as [George Whitfield](George-Whitefield.html) and [Jonathan Edwards](Jonathan-Edwards.html) utilized Watts’ hymns in their ministries.
Isaac Watts wrote between 600 and 750 [hymns](what-are-hymns.html), and many are still used across Protestant denominations today. Later in life, Watts suffered from health problems, and some of his theological positions caused confusion. Some of his theological treatises contained unorthodox views of the personhood of Christ and the Holy Spirit. For instance, in his work *The Glory of Christ as the God\-Man*, Watts argued that Jesus’ human soul pre\-existed before His incarnation (p. 153\). Jonathan Edwards wrote a detailed refutation of Watts’ teaching (*The “Miscellanies”*, entries 1153–1360\), although he continued to use Watt’s hymns in his church.
Christians have enjoyed Isaac Watts’ hymns in worship since they were written, and those hymns continue to point people to Christ and increase faith. Watts himself comments on the importance of singing in worship: “While we sing the praises of God in His church, we are employed in that part of worship which of all others is the nearest akin to heaven” (from *Hymns and Spiritual Songs*).
|
What is clairsentience?
|
Answer
Clairsentience is the perception of what is not normally perceptible. Clairsentience is to have “clear feeling,” just as [clairvoyance](Bible-clairvoyance.html) is to have “clear seeing.” It is a person’s ability to acquire psychic knowledge by means of a feeling or sensation. A person who claims to be clairsentient will claim to feel “vibrations” or “energies” emanating from certain objects, persons, or locales. He or she will claim to sense the difference between “good vibrations” and “negative vibes.”
Such psychic powers may be real, or they may be a clever con game. Most of the time, there is no spiritual significance to be found in [goosebumps](goosebumps-significance.html); feeling a “chill” does not mean one has psychic ability. At the same time, it’s possible that someone attuned to such uncanny feelings is being granted power from the evil one. Satan has a certain amount of power, but he is kept on a short leash (see Job 1:6–12; Luke 22:31\). Those who experiment with the dark world of witchcraft or who pursue psychic powers are walking away from God’s source of power and entering the realm of demonic counterfeits.
God strongly condemned [fortune\-tellers](psychics-Christian.html), diviners, magicians, astrologers, and any who practiced witchcraft (Exodus 22:18; Deuteronomy 18:10; Leviticus 19:31\). The messages delivered through such means were unreliable: “For idols speak deceit and diviners see illusions; they tell false dreams and offer empty comfort. Therefore the people wander like sheep, oppressed for lack of a shepherd” (Zechariah 10:2\). Any attempt to divine information through telepathic power, clairsentience, or ESP is to open oneself to a power that opposes God.
Clairsentience is not the same as Christian discernment. God gives wisdom to those who ask (James 1:5\), and spiritual insight comes with being filled with the Spirit. But it has nothing to do with tingling sensations, sensing the presence of angels, or using feelings to validate truth. It is, rather, “the knowledge of his will through all the wisdom and understanding that the Spirit gives” (Colossians 1:9\).
Satan may indeed manifest through vibrations, voices, noises, or other useless actions designed to thrill the gullible and lead them astray. Such experiences are akin to the “lying signs” mentioned in 2 Thessalonians 2:9\. Clairsentience and psychic vibrations are not from God and are spiritually dangerous to those who desire such “gifts.”
Clairsentience and all its cousins are largely figments of people’s imaginations. Yet there are some who have allowed Satan to have such control of their minds that they appear to “feel” the unseen. The Bible warns us to stay away from things associated with clairsentience, clairvoyance, and [ESP](extrasensory-perception-ESP.html). Persons claiming to have any type of extrasensory perception or who call themselves clairsentients are involved in either a hoax or a trap, and it’s likely they themselves are being deceived.
|
When did Job live?
|
Answer
Job is legendary for his exemplary response to great suffering. We know little about the dates and settings pertaining to Job, but many scholars believe the book of Job is one of the oldest in the Bible. That does not mean that Job himself lived before anyone else in the Bible—he most certainly came after Adam! But there are hints that Job lived in a truly ancient time: Job offered [sacrifices](animal-sacrifices.html) himself for his family, instead of relying on a priest (Job 1:5; 42:7–8\), and his wealth was measured in livestock, not gold (Job 1:3\). It is likely that Job lived sometime between the flood and the time of Moses. Many scholars place Job in the patriarchal period, around the same time that Abraham lived (Genesis 11:28–29\).
It seems clear that Job lived prior to the giving of the law, since the [book of Job](Book-of-Job.html) makes no mention of a tabernacle or temple, priests, or the law given to Israel. If Job’s life indeed pre\-dated the law, he may have lived sometime around 2200 BC, making him a contemporary of Abraham, Lot, and Isaac. Another clue that places Job in the time prior to Moses is the fact that Job gave his daughters “an inheritance among their brothers” (Job 42:15\). Under the Mosaic Law, a father passed his inheritance to sons only, unless he had no sons (Numbers 27:1–11; 36:1–13\). A righteous man such as Job would have followed that law in obedience to God; in Job’s case, the law had not yet been given.
The longevity of Job is another clue that he lived around the time of the patriarchs. At that time, it was common for people to live a couple of centuries. Lifespans gradually decreased, until, by the time of the judges, lifespans were typically under a hundred years old. By adding up the years implied by the following facts, Job probably lived to be over 200 years old:
• He lived to marry and become “one of the greatest of all the men in the east (Job 1:3\).
• He lived long enough to have sired ten children (Job 1:2\).
• His children were old enough to have their own homes (Job 1:4, 13\).
• After his tragic loss of everything, he lived long enough to father ten more children and amass even greater wealth (Job 42:10–13\).
• He lived an additional 140 years after “all these things,” seeing his children and grandchildren to four generations (Job 42:16–17\).
The [Alexandrian Septuagint](septuagint.html) contains an addition to Job 42:16 stating that Job died at the age of 240\.
|
What is confession of sin?
|
Answer
Confession of sin is the admission of what we did and the agreement with God that our actions or words were wrong. In a court of law, a person who confesses to a crime is agreeing that he or she did in fact violate a societal standard. When we confess our sins, we are admitting that we violated God’s law. We admit that we chose to do, say, or think something opposed to God’s will, and we stand guilty before Him.
Related to confession is [repentance](repentance-change-mind-turn-sin.html). Whereas confession involves admitting what we did was wrong, repentance involves a desire to change course. We not only acknowledge our sin but take steps to overcome and forsake it. Confession without repentance is only words. Most people will confess to a sin when caught red\-handed, but they may have no intention of changing. Their show of remorse is due to the consequences of their actions, not the sin of the actions. John the Baptist preached repentance in preparing the way for the Messiah: “Bear fruit in keeping with repentance” (Matthew 3:8\). In other words, John counselled his hearers to not merely confess their sins but demonstrate by their actions that they had truly repented of them.
The Bible presents two avenues for the confession of sins. First, we are to confess our sins to God. First John 1:9 says that “if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” Second, we are to confess our sins to other believers. James 5:16 says, “Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed.” When we have wronged someone, it is appropriate to confess our wrongdoing to that person and seek forgiveness.
Several factors can hinder or prevent our confession of sins. One is [pride](pride-Bible.html). We don’t like to admit we were wrong. Pride rushes in to justify, explain, or blame\-shift instead of confessing and being forgiven (Proverbs 16:18\). God resists a prideful person (James 4:6; 1 Peter 5:5\). Confession of sin does little good when it is coerced or insincere because it is not true agreement with God but a temporary effort to appease a guilty conscience or pacify someone else.
Another factor that hinders the confession of sin is ignorance. In our modern age, people are growing more biblically illiterate, and hearts are growing cold toward the things of God. The neglect of Scripture means that many, including [professing Christians](profession-of-faith.html), are woefully ignorant of God’s moral standards. Some indulge their sinful desires with little remorse, preferring to remain in the dark rather than have to confess and forsake their sin. Their attitude is “ignorance is bliss,” and they may even resist learning more about God’s Word for fear it will make them feel guilty about their lifestyles. God holds us accountable for all He has entrusted to us, so ignorance is no excuse for not confessing our sin to God and being forgiven.
When we confess our sins to someone we have wronged, that confession should be accompanied by an appeal for [forgiveness](Bible-forgiveness.html). While we cannot force someone to forgive us, we should always make that option available to them so that they can live free of bitterness toward us. The Bible is filled with commands to forgive each other (Ephesians 4:32; Colossians 3:13; Matthew 6:14\). Jesus even gave us a step\-by\-step tutorial in confession and restoration within the church (Matthew 18:15–17\). There are other times when our sin was not against a specific person, but we can confess it anyway to Christian brothers and sisters as a way of becoming accountable for change (James 5:16\).
An old adage says, “Confession is good for the soul.” This is true. God wants us to live with a clear conscience and a pure heart (Matthew 5:8; Psalm 24:4\). This is only possible when we regularly confess and forsake our sins, keeping the model of Jesus ever before us (1 Corinthians 4:16; 11:1\). He never had to confess His sins because He never committed any (Hebrews 4:15\). But no one else can truthfully say that, so we need to learn how to confess our sins regularly both to God and to other people so that we can live free of guilt and shame (Colossians 2:14\).
|
What is the significance of the city of Nineveh in the Bible?
|
Answer
Nineveh is notable in the Bible as the capital city of [Assyria](Assyrians.html), a longtime enemy of Israel. Located in what is now modern Iraq, Nineveh is mentioned in Scripture as a place that turned away from sin through a warning by God, but which was later destroyed.
The first mention of Nineveh is in the [Table of Nations](table-of-nations.html), which describes the many cities Nimrod built in Assyria including “Nineveh, Rehoboth Ir, Calah and Resen, which is between Nineveh and Calah—which is the great city” (Genesis 10:11–12\). Nineveh was known for its great wealth, power, and prestige. The Assyrians were notorious for their cruelty and idolatry (Nahum 3:19\). Their capital, Nineveh, contained many temples, including one to Ishtar, the Assyrian goddess that some scholars believe was the namesake of Nineveh.
In 2 Kings 19:36 and Isaiah 37:37, Nineveh is depicted as the center of the Assyrian Empire and home to [King Sennacherib](Sennacherib-in-the-Bible.html). Sennacherib led a successful campaign against many nations, but he failed to take Jerusalem due to the Lord’s intervention. He returned to Nineveh and was later killed in the temple of the Assyrian god Nisrok (2 Kings 19:35–37\).
Nineveh is well\-known as the place where the [prophet Jonah](life-Jonah.html) was sent by God to preach (Jonah 1:2\). Jonah was reluctant to go, probably because of the Assyrians’ great wickedness, and he tried to run from the Lord’s command. God intercepted Jonah and sent him to the Ninevites by making a great fish swallow him (Jonah 1:3, 17\). In Nineveh, Jonah proclaimed the coming judgment on that city (Jonah 2:10; 3:1–4\). Instead of rejecting the Lord’s warning, the Ninevites humbled themselves and repented of their sin, from the king on down. The whole city fasted, put on sackcloth, and sat in ashes—they even dressed their animals in sackcloth (Jonah 3:5–9\). Seeing that the city of Nineveh repented of their wickedness, “God relented concerning the judgment he had threatened them with and he did not destroy them” (Jonah 3:10, NET).
Jesus mentioned the Ninevites and their repentance, contrasting that response to the unbelief of the Pharisees and teachers of the law (Matthew 12:39–41\). Rejecting Christ has no excuse: “The people of Nineveh will also stand up against this generation on judgment day and condemn it, for they repented of their sins at the preaching of Jonah. Now someone greater than Jonah is here—but you refuse to repent” (Luke 11:32, NLT). Being far greater than the prophet Jonah, Jesus had shown Himself to be the Messiah, but the Jewish people still refused to believe in Him or repent of their sin (Matthew 12:22–24\). The Ninevites had responded to God’s message delivered by a lesser man (Jonah 3:5\), and here was God’s message delivered by the Son of God Himself.
Although Nineveh escaped destruction during the time of Jonah, a later generation still had to face a reckoning. The prophet Nahum prophesied of the destruction of the city because of the people’s evilness. [Nahum’s predictions](Book-of-Nahum.html) for Nineveh’s destruction came to pass when the Babylonians, Medes, and Scythians sacked the city in 612 BC. Nineveh’s walls had been breached by flood waters, allowing their attackers to enter the city. The city’s ruin was ultimately a product of God’s divine wrath (Nahum 1:8–10\). The Lord declared judgment on the city because of Nineveh’s wickedness: “Woe to the city of blood, full of lies, full of plunder, never without victims!” (Nahum 3:1\).
God’s judgment on Nineveh and the nation of Assyria as a whole was holy and just, given their cruelty, bloodshed, and idolatry (Nahum 1:2–3\). The Ninevites during Jonah’s time, who believed God’s message and repented, will forever be remembered as a people who turned their hearts toward the Lord and believed despite their overall lack of knowledge about Him (Jonah 4:10–11\). The Ninevites who were spared judgment should be a motivation for all people to seek God’s mercy and choose the path of humility and repentance.
|
What is the Nunc Dimittis?
|
Answer
The Nunc Dimittis is traditionally seen as a song and derives its name from the [Latin Vulgate’s](Latin-Vulgate.html) opening words of Simeon’s speech when he saw Jesus. In English, the Latin phrase means “now you dismiss,” taken from Luke 2:29\.
[Simeon](Simeon-in-the-Bible.html) was a follower of God who waited and longed for Israel’s rescue (Luke 2:25\). A “righteous and devout” man, Simeon had been told by the Holy Spirit that he would live to see the Messiah (verses 25–26\). When Mary and Joseph took the infant Jesus to the temple for the purification ritual required for every firstborn male, the Holy Spirit led Simeon there to fulfill His promise (verses 22–23, 27\). Simeon was able to see Jesus Christ and hold the baby Messiah while praising God (verse 28\).
Simeon’s entire proclamation of praise is found in Luke 2:29–32:
“Sovereign Lord, as you have promised,
you may now dismiss your servant in peace.
For my eyes have seen your salvation,
which you have prepared in the sight of all nations:
a light for revelation to the Gentiles,
and the glory of your people Israel.”
Like [Mary’s Magnificat](Magnificat.html), Simon’s Nunc Dimittis is sometimes called a song or [canticle](what-is-a-canticle.html), although Simeon is not described as singing when he speaks his words of praise. In gratitude, he speaks of Jesus being the source of salvation, a light to the Gentiles, and a source of glory for Israel (Luke 2:30–32\). After praising God, Simeon blessed Joseph and Mary, and he told Mary that “this child is destined to cause the falling and rising of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be spoken against, so that the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed. And a sword will pierce your own soul too” (verses 34–35\).
The Nunc Dimittis contains allusions to other passages of Scripture. Luke 2:30–31, which speaks of seeing God’s salvation, can be compared to Isaiah 52:10, which states, “The LORD has bared his holy arm before the eyes of all the nations, and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God” (ESV). Simeon’s praise of Jesus as a light to the Gentiles in Luke 2:32 seems to allude to a portion of Isaiah 49:6, which reads, “I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that my salvation may reach to the ends of the earth.” The prediction of Jesus being a light to the world is a major theme throughout [Luke’s gospel](Gospel-of-Luke.html), pointing to the fact that the salvation Jesus provides is for all people.
Many Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Anglican churches sing the Nunc Dimittis during Evening Prayer or Night Prayer services as part of their liturgy. Lutherans typically recite or sing the Nunc Dimittis after receiving the Lord’s Supper. Although there is nothing wrong with using Scripture in worship and song (Ephesians 5:19\), one must be careful of hearing, reading, and singing the words by rote or in mindless repetition. The person who hears, reads, and sings the Nunc Dimittis should be mindful of the words of Simeon’s poem of praise and meditate on their meaning.
Recognizing God’s faithfulness, the Messiah’s advent, and Jesus’ redemptive purpose for all people are important elements in the Nunc Dimittis. Offering up praise to the Lord for the salvation He has provided, just as Simeon did, is something all Christians can do wholeheartedly.
|
What is the finger of God?
|
Answer
The phrase *the finger of God* is found four times in the Bible, three times in the Old Testament and once in the New. It is synonymous with the supernatural power of God as it directly impacts events in this world. The first reference to the finger of God is found in Exodus. Moses had just unleashed the third [plague](ten-plagues-Egypt.html) on Egypt in an effort to force Pharaoh to free the Israelites who had been held captive for four hundred years. The Lord instructed Moses to tell Aaron to stretch out his staff and “strike the dust of the earth, so that it may become gnats in all the land of Egypt” (Exodus 8:16\). After Pharaoh’s magicians tried and failed to replicate the miracle, they said to Pharaoh, “This is the finger of God” (Exodus 8:19\).
The second reference to the finger of God also occurs in Exodus, where the phrase is used about the tablets of stone given to Moses. These tablets contained the covenant law, “inscribed by the finger of God” (Exodus 31:18\). Moses relates an account of the same incident in Deuteronomy 9:10\. It is not to be supposed that God literally touched the tablets, since God is spirit and has no “fingers”; rather, the phrase *the finger of God* is an [anthropomorphism](anthropomorphism.html) indicating that God directly caused the commandments to be engraved upon the stone. The 1956 movie *The Ten Commandments* depicts the writing as coming from a finger of fire, which is probably as good a rendering of the actual act as any. However God accomplished it, the letters were devised and formed by Him, the writing was His, and the engraving on the stones was done by His own power.
The New Testament reference to the finger of God is from Jesus Himself. After freeing a blind and mute man from a [demon](demon-possession.html), Jesus said to His critics, “If I drive out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you” (Luke 11:20\). In a parallel passage, the phrase is *the Spirit of God* rather than *the finger of God* (Matthew 12:28\). In both accounts, the meaning is that Jesus performed miracles by the overt power of God, the same power that caused the gnats to swarm and the writing to appear on the tablets of stone.
The finger of God is a reference to God’s unlimited power as He intervenes directly in the affairs of men. The working of the finger of God is unmistakable. No device of man can compete with that power, as even the heathen magicians came to recognize in Moses’ day.
|
What does it mean that “He has made everything beautiful in its time” (Ecclesiastes 3:11)?
|
Answer
“Timing is everything.” This is a maxim that comedians, campaign managers, and marketing directors live by. It indicates that there’s always an ideal time to introduce an idea or perform an action, in order to maximize an intended effect.
In many areas, when one’s timing is off, the likelihood of success is diminished.
“God’s perfect timing” is an aspect of divine sovereignty. In God’s perfect timing, He only acts when it is optimal for what He wants to accomplish in His kingdom. In His [omniscience](God-omniscient.html), the Lord sees everything that is going on in the world in any given moment of time—which involves trillions of details that only the Spirit of God can fully grasp.
In the [book of Ecclesiastes](Book-of-Ecclesiastes.html), King Solomon says, “He \[God] has made everything beautiful in its time” (Ecclesiastes 3:11\). What does this mean, especially in regard to God’s perfect timing?
The declaration that God has made everything beautiful in its time is preceded by one of the most famous passages in Scripture:
“There is a time for everything,
and a season for every activity under the heavens:
[a time to be born and a time to die](time-to-be-born-and-time-to-die.html),
a time to plant and a time to uproot,
a time to kill and a time to heal,
a time to tear down and a time to build,
a time to weep and a time to laugh,
a time to mourn and a time to dance,
a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them,
a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing,
a time to search and a time to give up,
a time to keep and a time to throw away,
a time to tear and a time to mend,
a time to be silent and a time to speak,
a time to love and a time to hate,
a time for war and a time for peace” (Ecclesiastes 3:1–8\).
In 1965, the folk rock band The Byrds recorded a song, “Turn! Turn! Turn!” that used a portion of this passage and helped contribute to its recognition in pop culture.
Solomon follows his catalog of human experience with the statement that God, in His [sovereignty](God-is-sovereign.html), has made everything beautiful in its time. That is, He optimizes the outcome of all things, both what He has made and the products of mankind’s activity—even the more challenging aspects of human suffering. He does this in a way that is not only glorifying to Him but healing to those who look to Him for peace, purpose, and salvation. In the words of commentator Joseph Benson, God will work all things out “so that, all things considered, it could not have been better” (*Commentary on the Old and New Testaments*).
There are a multitude of scriptural passages that indicate the perfection and beauty of God’s timing:
“When the set time was fully come, God sent His son” (Galatians 4:4\). Jesus introduced his ministry with the words, “The time has come” (Mark 1:15\). And we have the promise that “God causes everything to work together for the good of those who love God and are called according to his purpose for them” (Romans 8:28, NLT; see also Genesis 21:2; Isaiah 46:10; 60:22; Habakkuk 2:3; Matthew 24:36; 26:18; John 7:6; 2 Corinthians 6:2; Ephesians 1:10; 1 Thessalonians 5:1; 1 Peter 5:6–7; 2 Peter 3:8; Revelation 1:1\).
From a human perspective, God’s timing often does not seem perfect, and it’s hard to see how the events of the world can ever be made “beautiful.” Consider the disappointed reactions of Mary and Martha when Jesus arrived four days after their brother died—after He deliberately delayed His arrival (John 11:1–44\).
We are admonished repeatedly in the Bible to “wait on the Lord” (e.g., Psalm 27:14; Hebrews 6:15\). Peter tells us to not forget that “with the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness” (2 Peter 3:8\). If we are patient and wait on the Lord, we will eventually see the beauty of God’s handiwork—all in His perfect timing.
|
What is the Christian Methodist Episcopal Church?
|
Answer
The Christian Methodist Episcopal (CME) Church is a Methodist church with episcopal leadership started by former slaves in 1870 in Jackson, Tennessee. The word *episcopal* refers to the church’s bishop\-led form of governance. The [Episcopal Church](Episcopalians.html) is the American iteration of the Anglican Church or Church of England. When John Wesley started [Methodism](United-Methodist-Church.html), he was an Anglican minister, and Methodism was a movement within that church. In the American Colonies, the church was officially known as the Methodist Episcopal Church. After the Revolutionary War, the ties to England were weakened, and neither the Episcopal Church in the United States nor the Methodist Church answers to the Archbishop of Canterbury any more. In the centuries since, each church has developed distinctive doctrines and practices that have taken them far from their historical roots.
Prior to the Civil War, the Methodist Episcopal Church in the South was pro\-slavery. After the Civil War, the church leadership decided that something must be done for the benefit of the “colored” membership. (The word *colored* is used in an historically accurate way on the CME official website, and *CME* originally stood for “Colored Methodist Episcopal” but was changed to “Christian Methodist Episcopal” in 1954\.) Those members decided that they would like to separate into their own organization/denomination. The ME Church took the necessary steps to facilitate this, and in May 1870, 41 former slaves were elected to organize an independent church.
Today “the CME Church is organized into eleven Episcopal Districts, nine in the Continental United States and two on the continent of Africa. Each Episcopal District consists of geographical Regions presided over by a bishop elected by the General Conference. Several connectional departments under the authority of a General Secretary carry out the ministries of the church, such as Christian Education, discipleship, evangelism, and missions. Its theological school is Phillips School of Theology, which is a part of the Interdenominational Theological Center, located in Atlanta, Georgia. The CME Church sponsors four liberal arts colleges: Lane College, Jackson, Tennessee; Paine College, Augusta, Georgia; Miles College, Birmingham, Alabama and Texas College, Tyler, Texas. The Connectional Headquarters and publishing operations of the CME Church are located in Memphis, Tennessee” (<https://thecmechurch.org/history>, accessed 9/13/20\). The CME Church currently has over 12 million members and is becoming increasingly multicultural and ethnically diverse.
The mission and vision of the church is also summarized on the official website ([https://thecmechurch.org/mission\-beliefs](https://thecmechurch.org/mission-beliefs), accessed 9/13/20\):
“Mission Statement: The mission of the Christian Methodist Episcopal Church is to be disciples of Jesus the Christ by serving individuals, communities and the world as the representative, loving presence of God and as witnesses to God’s salvation and grace.
“Vision Statement: The vision of the Christian Methodist Episcopal Church is to be a transforming church for Jesus the Christ within a changing world.”
The articles of faith are thoroughly [evangelical](evangelical-theology.html) regarding issues of the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the Scriptures and salvation by grace through faith. The CME Church allows for the ordination of women and for women to serve as lead pastors of churches. The CME Church has also explored unification with the two other historically black Methodist Episcopal Churches (AME and AMEZ). Currently, all three are in full fellowship with each other and with the United Methodist Church, which is not evangelical in doctrine or practice.
As with any denomination, the “flavor” and particular practices of individual churches may vary widely from each other and from the stated beliefs of the larger denomination.
|
Does regeneration come before faith?
|
Answer
Regeneration is the act of God by which a spiritually dead person becomes spiritually alive. [Regeneration](regeneration-Bible.html) is the “[born again](new-birth.html)” experience mentioned in John 3:3\. The question is when regeneration occurs. Is regeneration a result *of* salvation or does regeneration result *in* salvation?
At first glance, this issue might seem to be inconsequential. But it is actually one of the key disagreements in the [Calvinism vs. Arminianism](Calvinism-vs-Arminianism.html) debate. For a Calvinist, if God does not first regenerate people before they trust in Christ as Savior, that faith is something people produced on their own, making salvation dependent on them instead of on God. For an Arminian, if God must regenerate people in order for them to believe, there is no genuine free will, and the call to believe is pointless.
For the Calvinist, Ephesians 2:1 is key: “And you were dead in your trespasses and sins.” Without Christ, people are spiritually dead. Dead people cannot do anything. A spiritually dead person can no more do anything to remedy that situation than a physically dead person can climb out of a grave. Therefore, God must regenerate people, making them spiritually alive, before they can trust in Christ as Savior (John 3:8\).
For the Arminian, all of the biblical calls to believe in Christ as Savior are key (e.g., John 3:16; Acts 16:31\). If people are unable to believe without God first regenerating them, the biblical calls to believe are pointless. God does not command people to do what they are incapable of doing. Calling people to believe in Christ when they are incapable of doing so on their own, and then judging them for their lack of faith, would be unfair and unjust. Further, if God must regenerate people in order for them to have faith, essentially “installing” faith in people, God would essentially be forcing people into salvation.
So, does regeneration come before faith? John 6:44 says, “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.” Second Corinthians 4:4 declares, “The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.” It is undeniable that God must do something to enable people to believe. At the very least, God must [draw people to Christ](drawn-salvation.html) and open their eyes.
The question still remains, however, must God regenerate people, i.e., save them, *before* they can believe? Is it possible that God could enable people to believe without regenerating them? Could God draw people, unblind their eyes, soften their hearts, and open their minds, making it possible for them to believe, without actually regenerating them? For the Arminian, the answer is yes, and this “spiritual awakening” is known as [prevenient grace](prevenient-grace.html).
Again, for the Calvinist, Ephesians 2:1 is the deciding factor. It is impossible to draw, unblind, soften, or open the minds of dead people. God must make people alive, regenerate them, before they can believe. Arminians believe that Calvinists are taking the analogy between physically dead people and spiritually dead people too far. They claim that being spiritually dead only means that people cannot come to Christ on their own and that being spiritually dead is not 100 percent analogous to being a corpse.
This issue has been fiercely debated for hundreds of years. This article is not going to settle it. It is absolutely biblically clear that God must do a work in people before they can believe. The extent of that work is debatable. Calvinists perhaps overestimate what God must do before people can believe. Arminians perhaps underestimate what it means to be spiritually dead.
The key point is that God must do a miraculous work in people’s lives before they are able to believe in Christ unto salvation. As a result, all the glory belongs to God (Romans 11:36\). On this, Calvinists and Arminians agree, even if they don’t think they do.
|
What is instrumentalism in philosophy?
|
Answer
Instrumentalism is the philosophical claim that the importance of beliefs is their usefulness—their role as *instruments*—and not in whether the subject of the belief literally exists. Under this concept, the main value of any action or perspective is its practical effects, not any transcendent or universal ideal.
Various forms of instrumentalism imply that “truth” applies to beliefs only marginally, if at all. Instrumentalism usually categorizes beliefs alongside abstractions such as “the number nineteen” or “a typical apple,” which refer to some semblance of reality, even if they don’t have a literal material presence. Some “hard” instrumentalists imply that beliefs are entirely unreal. Anything that is not directly observable, according to instrumentalism, is of dubious reality.
To some extent, philosophical instrumentalism is the suggestion that “[the ends justify the means](ends-justify-means.html)”; not in a moral or ethical sense, but pragmatically. This suggests that the main value of any belief what it drives a person to do. The “truth” of such a belief, in that sense, is irrelevant, and all that matters on a small scale is that belief “A” leads to result or action “B.”
Another application of instrumentalism suggests that scientific theories or theoretical models are meaningful insofar as they generate accurate predictions or consistently explain observations. Under this view, whether a theory such as evolution by natural selection is “literally true” is irrelevant to whether evolution by natural selection is a reliable model for scientific study.
Scripture does not speak of instrumentalism itself. However, Jesus criticized the Pharisees for pursuing traditional rituals for their own sake (Mark 7:8\). The book of Hebrews points out that the ultimate purpose of certain Mosaic laws was to imply a higher meaning (Hebrews 8:5\). And, of course, the Bible in no way supports the suggestion that ends are sufficient to justify means. On the other hand, Jesus frequently taught that God’s laws were not meant to be followed with mindless literalism (Matthew 12:1–8\), which parallels the instrumentalist view that practical outcomes are part of how behaviors are assessed. Overall, Scripture at least contradicts the more strident forms of instrumentalism.
|
What is the argument from reason?
|
Answer
The argument from reason is an attempt to demonstrate that belief in [naturalism](naturalism.html) is unjustified; that is, it is a belief that cannot be trusted. This is done by showing that belief in naturalism is contradictory to confidence in human reason. This is an important point, as atheists often attempt to frame their worldview as “more reasonable” than one that holds to transcendent ideas. A general statement of the argument from reason would be as follows:
*Either “reason” is merely an illusion of physics—in which case there is no justification for relying on it to produce truthful beliefs—or “reason” is something more than physical—in which case naturalism is false. If human reason is driven by mindless particle interactions, it does not necessarily correspond to truth. If we believe reason corresponds to truth, we cannot also believe reason is determined purely by physical means.*
An even more concise phrasing would be “the existence of reason itself argues against naturalism.”
As with any discussion of philosophical ideas, specific definitions matter. In this case, *reason* is the ability of a mind to infer and conclude in a logical way. As it applies to the argument from reason, *reason* refers to the use of the intellect to come to real, true conclusions. *Naturalism* is the belief that everything is reducible to physical components; it is the view that reality is nothing more than matter and energy.
Philosophy also draws a distinction between the questions “how do we know truth?” and “what is reality?” These fields are known, respectively, as epistemology and metaphysics. The argument from reason is an epistemological claim: it narrowly examines how we know and how much we trust an idea.
Because reason is an inextricable part of our understanding, the argument from reason heavily implies a metaphysical claim, as well. If “reason” is objectively valid—if reason is “real”—then naturalism would have to be “unreal.” If reason does not exist, why did humanity come to see it as we do: as a non\-material, but *real* thing? If there were no such thing as light, we’d never know we were living in darkness; in fact, such an idea would be pointless to consider. Yet we distinguish between reason and irrationality.
The argument from reason is really a series of arguments, in different forms, voiced by both believers and non\-believers. Thinkers such as Victor Reppert, [C. S. Lewis](C-S-Lewis.html), [G. K. Chesterton](G-K-Chesterton.html), and Thomas Nagel have been associated with these claims. Each argument has its own strengths and weaknesses, but they all share a common theme. To suggest that literally everything about the universe is effectively random is to suggest that one’s own thoughts and conclusions are equally unreliable. One does not have to start from—or even conclude with—a biblical worldview to appreciate the logical force of this idea.
An especially famous version of the argument from reason was popularized by Alvin Plantinga: the evolutionary argument against naturalism (EAAN). Plantinga notes that evolution is driven by survival of the “fittest,” yet beliefs more “fit” for survival are not necessarily the same as those that are “true.” Therefore, if evolution is true, belief in naturalism is unjustified. In other words, at the very least, belief in naturalism logically contradicts itself, thanks to evolution.
To visualize the evolutionary argument against naturalism, consider an extreme example: a man develops the overwhelming desire to be eaten by an invisible bear. This drives him to seek out locations where he sees no bears. That belief is contrary to survival—not to mention bizarre—but more importantly, it’s factually wrong. His reasoning did not lead to truth, since there are no invisible bears. And yet, that bizarre, false reasoning makes the man more “fit” for survival since it encourages him to stay away from the bears he can see; that is, ones that exist.
This demonstrates how “that which is good for survival” is not identical to “that which is true.” It is entirely possible for human reasoning to be farcically wrong and still provide “advantageous” results from a survival or evolutionary perspective. If human reason is entirely the result of purposeless, survival\-driven evolution, then “useful” reasoning and “truthful” reasoning are distinct categories. That implies all products of human reason are untrustworthy, including belief in naturalism and evolution.
This comes back to the core assertion of the argument from reason: one can believe in naturalism or trust in reason, but one cannot do both. The conflict might seem petty when applied to practical matters, but the more esoteric the idea is—as would be the case with concepts like naturalism—the less confident one could be in the truth\-correspondence of human reason.
The most common attempt to refute arguments from reason uses the concept of emergence. This is the claim that certain concepts develop out of—they “emerge from”—the combined interaction of less complex things. Of course, in a naturalistic worldview, *emergent* is synonymous with *very complicated*. Either the entire process ultimately rests on simple physics, or it doesn’t. If the process doesn’t boil down to matter and energy, then it’s not naturalistic. Another frequent error is to claim that debunking a single version of the argument from reason somehow proves naturalism. This is, ironically, irrational, since demonstrating that a conclusion was arrived at illogically does not, itself, mean the conclusion is false.
As with most such ideas, the argument from reason has limitations. Its purpose is to suggest an irreconcilable contradiction between the statements “I believe naturalism is true” and “I trust in human reason.” In and of itself, these arguments say nothing about the existence of any particular deity. Nor do they suggest much about the nature of God or the Bible. That said, the argument from reason is a useful tool that demonstrates how those who reject God—as do naturalists—are ultimately dealing in illogic and stubbornness (Romans 1:18–25; Jude 1:10\).
|
What does it mean that the love of Christ compels us (2 Corinthians 5:14)?
|
Answer
Second Corinthians 5:14 says, “For Christ's love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died.” In this verse, Paul speaks of his motivation for ministry.
There are as many different types of [motivations](Bible-motivation.html) as there are personalities. And of course, the intensity of those motivations can range from mild to obsessive. A young teen might babysit on the weekends because she’s motivated to save up for a new phone. The leader of a free country might be willing to sacrifice the lives of thousands of soldiers in order to protect the lives and liberties of those in his realm.
Without the right motivation, very little progress can be made in anything.
Jesus spoke of the importance of motivation when contrasting the hireling and the shepherd. The hireling will take care of the animals because he wants to get paid. But as soon as he sees danger (that is, when wolves appear), he abandons the sheep to protect himself. The shepherd, on the other hand, not only takes care of his flock, but he’s willing to put his life on the line to keep them safe (John 10:7–18\).
When the [apostle Paul](life-Paul.html) wrote, “The love of Christ compels us,” he was describing the powerful, Spirit\-filled motivation that drives followers of Christ to share the gospel in ways that persuade people to commit their lives to Jesus.
When Paul explained this motivation to the Corinthians, he wanted them to not be ashamed of either him or the message of reconciliation that brings life to those who embrace it (2 Corinthians 5:11–15\). Paul understood the futility of life without Christ and the empty pursuit of righteousness through self\-effort.
Even though the people to whom he preached were often hostile to him, and even called him crazy, the love of Christ compelled him to keep putting the message of hope in front of them. Paul knew that his detractors were starving for a sense of meaning, purpose, and significance in the world—much like we see today.
The love of Christ compelled Paul to share the [gospel](what-is-the-gospel.html). The phrase *the love of Christ* could be interpreted in two ways: Christ’s love for people, or the apostles’ love for Christ. Either provides motivation to take the gospel to distant lands in the face of opposition. The great love of Christ was such that “Christ died for all” people (2 Corinthians 5:14, NLT). Paul’s love for Christ was such that he was willing to die to self (see Galatians 2:20\).
This testimony of Paul’s encourages us to ask ourselves, “What motivates us to share the good news of Jesus with others?” Are we driven by a genuine love and affection for Christ, by a clear view of Christ’s love for the lost, or merely by a sense of duty? What motivates us will make all the difference.
When we possess this compelling, Spirit\-driven motivation of Christ’s love, we are zealous in seeing the lost reconciled with God. We go to the lost, rather than letting them come to us. We are willing to make ourselves “a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible” (1 Corinthians 9:19\); we “become all things to all people so that by all possible means \[we] might save some” (verse 22\).
The love of Christ compels us to love the lost enough to share the good news of salvation with them.
|
What is a Jewish rabbi?
|
Answer
A Jewish rabbi, in the most basic of terms, is a teacher. In the time of Christ, rabbis were respected teachers of the law and religion. Modern Jewish rabbis are specifically teachers of [Judaism](Judaism.html), the [Torah](what-is-the-Torah.html), and the extrabiblical [Talmud](Talmud.html).
The title *rabbi* or *rabboni* came into use among the Pharisees, and it means “teacher” or “master.” Jesus was called a rabbi by many people, including a few Pharisees (Mark 10:51; Luke 19:39; John 4:31\). When [Nicodemus](Nicodemus-in-the-Bible.html), a Pharisee, visited Jesus at night, he said, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him” (John 3:2\). Although the Pharisees themselves assumed the title of *rabbi*, they proved to be blind to spiritual truths, such as Nicodemus’ confusion over the need to be born again (John 3:1–4, 9\). Jesus’ question to Nicodemus applied to the Pharisees then and to modern Jewish rabbis today: “You are Israel’s teacher, . . . and do you not understand these things?” (John 3:10\). Despite being called a rabbi, Jesus actually denounced the use of the title, stating “’Don’t let anyone call you ‘Rabbi,’ for you have only one teacher, and all of you are equal as brothers and sisters” (Matthew 23:8, NLT).
The term *rabbi* continued among the [Pharisees’](Pharisees.html) successors, the Orthodox and Conservative Jews. Today, many rabbis are graduates of rabbinical schools and are seen as masters in the Law and Talmud. The duties of a Jewish rabbi somewhat resemble a Christian pastor’s, such as in the act of giving sermons, serving over a group of people, and being the main teacher of the assembly. Other duties of a rabbi include presiding over Jewish weddings and events, providing instruction in the Torah and Talmud, officiating the ordination of other rabbis, engaging in acts of charity, supervising religious rituals, and providing counseling.
Although most denominations of Judaism limit the role of rabbi to men, Reform Judaism recognizes the ordination of women rabbis. Orthodox and Conservative Jews generally reject the ordination of women rabbis because they believe that the Torah and Talmud present men as the sole occupants of this privileged position of Judaism.
Many modern Jewish rabbis earnestly seek to follow God and to faithfully teach others to do the same. Although they are dedicated to Judaism, modern Jewish rabbis have fallen in the same trap as the first\-century Pharisees did. The Pharisees believed that upholding the Law was of sole importance in attempting to please God (Matthew 23:23–26\). What the Pharisees and modern Jewish rabbis fail to understand is that following the Law will not make a person righteousness (Galatians 3:11\). The Law was never intended to make anyone righteous before God, but to reveal man’s sinfulness (Romans 3:20\). Only the perfect sacrifice of the sinless Son of God can provide salvation and present a person as righteous before God (2 Corinthians 5:21\).
Jesus was a rabbi, but He was also so much more. Jesus revealed Himself to be God the Son, and only by trusting in His death and resurrection can anyone have a relationship with God (John 8:58; Colossians 1:19–20\). Modern Jewish rabbis should follow the example of Nicodemus and seek out the truth about Jesus (John 3:1–21\). Instead of following human traditions, they need to seek out the One who will set them free (Mark 7:6–7; John 8:36\).
|
What is the significance of Ephesus in the Bible?
|
Answer
Ephesus was the capital city of a Roman province in Asia. Ephesus was a significant center of trade, located near a harbor at the mouth of the Cayster River in western Asia Minor. The city lay in a long, fertile valley. Major roads connected Ephesus to all the other significant cities in Asia Minor.
Ephesus was known for its amphitheater, the largest in the world, designed to hold up to 50,000 spectators. Ephesus was also the location of the great temple of [Artemis](who-Artemis.html), or Diana, built in 550 BC. This temple, one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World, was “425 ft. long and 220 ft. wide; each of its 127 pillars which supported the roof of its colonnade was 60 ft. high” (*International Standard Bible Encyclopedia*). Much Ephesian industry was related to this temple. Craftsmen sold shrines and household images of the goddess that worshipers could take with them on long journeys. The Ephesians were proud of their religious heritage and its accompanying legends (Acts 19:35\).
Ephesus is mentioned often in Scripture. Paul journeyed to Ephesus during his [third missionary trip](Paul-third-missionary-journey.html) and stayed there for two years so that “all the Jews and Greeks who lived in the province of Asia heard the word of the Lord” (Acts 19:10\). Ephesus was a prime site for evangelizing the whole province, due to the city’s accessibility and prominence in the region. It was in Ephesus that Paul and his companions were taken into the massive amphitheater where for two hours the mob shouted, “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians” (Acts 19:23–41\). Despite the strong objections to the gospel, many Ephesians came to faith in Christ through the faithful ministry of Paul and his companions. A church began there, and a few years later, Paul wrote to them a letter that we now call the [book of Ephesians](Book-of-Ephesians.html). Four hundred years later, Ephesus was the site of a major church meeting known as the [Council of Ephesus](Council-of-Ephesus.html).
Ephesus was the setting for many New Testament events:
• God did extraordinary miracles through Paul, such that even handkerchiefs and aprons touched by him healed sickness and cast out demons (Acts 19:11\).
• Paul wrote the epistle of 1 Corinthians.
• The [seven sons of Sceva](seven-sons-of-Sceva.html), Jewish exorcists, attempted to imitate Paul’s power and were attacked by demons because the demons did not recognize their spiritual authority (Acts 19:13–16\).
• Many new believers “who had practiced magic arts brought their books and burned them in front of everyone” (Acts 19:19, BSB). The total value of the sorcery books they destroyed was 50,000 silver pieces.
• [Priscilla and Aquilla](Priscilla-and-Aquila.html) discipled Apollos (Acts 18:24–26\).
• [Timothy](life-Timothy.html) had his first pastorate (1 Timothy 1:3\).
• It’s thought that the apostle John and Jesus’ mother, Mary, lived in Ephesus after Jesus returned to heaven (see John 19:26–27\).
• Paul may have faced wild beasts in the amphitheater (1 Corinthians 15:32\).
• Jesus directed to Ephesus one of His seven letters in the book of Revelation (Revelation 2:1–7\).
Jesus’ letter to the [church at Ephesus](church-in-Ephesus.html) contains Jesus’ famous rebuke: “You have left your first love” (Revelation 2:4\). The believers at Ephesus, struggling beneath the weight of a godless and immoral culture, had maintained the letter of the law but had lost the Spirit of the law (see Romans 2:29\). Jesus commended them for their hard work, perseverance, rejection of false teaching, and hatred of sin. But He was grieved that they had become routine in their service for Him rather than serve Him with the passion they once had. Their actions were there, but their hearts were not.
Jesus’ words to the believers in Ephesus should challenge all servants of the Lord. It is easy to get caught up in the busyness of ministry, church work, or volunteering and not realize our passion for the Lord has cooled. We are no longer propelled into service by love, but by some other selfish or worldly motivation. We may think God doesn’t mind, as long as we are outwardly obeying, but He does mind. It hurts Him, and it violates the greatest commandment: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength” (Mark 12:30\).
Jesus gave the church at Ephesus time to repent, and He gives us time as well. Every moment we resist His call to humble ourselves and return to our first love is one more moment that we forfeit the love, joy, and peace He offers (1 Peter 5:6; Galatians 5:22–23\). Jesus was so concerned about the church at Ephesus that He dictated a letter through the apostle John (Revelation 1:1–2\). And He is so concerned about the church of today that He made certain that letter was preserved for us (Revelation 1:3; 22:18–19\).
|
Is it possible to be so heavenly minded that you are of no earthly good?
|
Answer
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr., is attributed with the quote “Some people are so heavenly minded that they are of no earthly good.” The same sentiment found its way into a song by Johnny Cash: “You’re shinin’ your light, and shine it you should, / But you’re so heavenly minded you’re no earthly good” (“No Earthly Good,” from *The Rambler*, 1977\). The criticism that some Christians are “so heavenly minded that they are of no earthly good” is a catchy turn of phrase, but is it warranted?
The accusation that some Christians are too heavenly focused and therefore not paying enough attention to earthly matters is based on a false premise, namely, that love of God makes one less capable or less concerned with the practical affairs of the world. Being “heavenly minded” does not result in isolating oneself from the world, ignoring contemporary issues, or declining to be involved. Just the opposite: being heavenly minded results in attempting to please God, who has given us work to do in this world.
Committed, heavenly minded Christians have always tackled the social, environmental, and political problems of the day. Some of the most impactful people in history have been Christians whose faith moved them to action. As [C. S. Lewis](C-S-Lewis.html) states in *Mere Christianity*, “If you read history you will find that the Christians who did most for the present world were just those who thought most of the next” (HarperCollins, 2001, p. 134\).
Devoted Christians such as [John Newton](John-Newton.html) and [William Wilberforce](William-Wilberforce.html) worked tirelessly to abolish the slave trade in England. Christians such as missionary [Amy Carmichael](Amy-Carmichael.html), philanthropist [George Mueller](George-Mueller.html), and journalist Robert Raikes rescued children in peril, founded orphanages, and established schools. History is full of Christians who positively impacted the world. Their motivation was not simply the need for social reform; rather, they were compelled to do what they did by their strong faith in Jesus and their heavenly focus. It is the very fact that Christians are “heavenly minded” that causes them to help others while spreading the life\-changing truth of the gospel.
The Bible insists that Christians be focused on heavenly things: “So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal” (2 Corinthians 4:18\). When Christians have their eyes set on Christ, they gain an eternal perspective, and they are of great “earthly good” as their faith impacts their lives and the lives of others (Colossians 3:2; Hebrews 12:1–3\).
Scripture teaches that [good deeds](good-works-salvation.html) naturally follow when a person places faith in Jesus Christ (James 2:18\). Christians serve the Lord and positively impact the world because of their hope of eternity with Him (1 Corinthians 15:58\). True religion involves helping orphans and widows in their distress (James 1:27\), doing to others as we would have them do to us (Luke 6:31\), giving to those in need (Proverbs 19:17; Acts 20:35\), dealing honestly in business (Leviticus 19:11\), treating animals humanely (Proverbs 14:21\), and proclaiming freedom to those who are enslaved by sin (Ephesians 1:7\). A truly heavenly minded Christian is one who lives out his or her faith in service to the Savior and who wants to act justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with God (Micah 6:8\).
It is the earthly minded who accomplish nothing of eternal value. People who are earthly minded are of the world and seek after its desires, which are not from God (1 John 2:15\). Being earthly minded is short\-sighted: “The world and its desires pass away, but whoever does the will of God lives forever” (1 John 2:17\). It is those who are focused on serving Christ and bringing Him glory who will make a lasting impact on earth and for eternity (see Matthew 6:19–21\).
|
Who are the Natsarim?
|
Answer
The Natsarim (Hebrew for “Nazarenes”) are a religious sect that mixes biblical truth with the Torah, the Jewish festivals, and the philosophies of men. They are part of the [Hebrew Roots movement](Hebrew-roots.html). The Natsarim claim to follow the Jesus defined in the four gospels, and they refer to Him as *Yeshua HaMashiach* (“Jesus the Messiah”).
The Natsarim trace the etymology of their name to the Hebrew word for “watchmen” or (by inserting different vowels) “branches” (i.e., the branches of the [True Vine](true-vine.html) in John 15:5\). They claim to be the first followers of Jesus, rejected by the Jewish leaders of the first century *and* by the early church. The Natsarim see themselves as having two divine purposes, which will be fully realized just before the second coming of Christ.
The Natsarim’s first purpose is to protect the name [*Yeshua HaMashiach*](Yeshua-Hamashiach.html). They teach that there is salvation found in only one name (Acts 4:12\), and that name is *Yeshua HaMashiach*—not *Jesus*. The Messiah must be addressed as *Yeshua HaMashiach*. To call upon any other name (such as *Jesus*) is to participate in a false religion.
The Natsarim see their second purpose as protecting the [Torah](what-is-the-Torah.html), the five books of Moses in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. The Natsarim keep the Sabbath and the other commandments of the Mosaic Law and claim to be the watchmen, the guardians of righteousness. They reason that, if Yeshua HaMashiach kept the law, then so should His followers.
As the “original” followers of Christ, the Natsarim view themselves as the true disciples of *Yeshua HaMashiach*. All others who claim the name of Christ are imposters. The many denominations of Christianity are tainted with paganism; they live in willful sin, according to the Natsarim, and will be condemned unless they repent and follow The Way of the Natsarim (see Acts 9:2\). They refuse to call themselves “Christians,” teaching that the word [*Christian*](meaning-of-Christian.html) means “cretin.”
In summary, the Natsarim are a self\-proclaimed non\-Christian group who believe in Jesus but not according to the Christian view. They insist on using Hebrew terms and law\-keeping, and they view themselves as the only “watchmen” of righteousness. The Natsarim can sound very much like Christians when talking about their faith, but their hearts are focused on the Torah and the practices of the Jewish faith. They fail to recognize that “Christ is the end of the law, to bring righteousness to everyone who believes” (Romans 10:4\) and that genuine Christians have a new heart and a new spirit, empowered to obey the law of Christ (Galatians 6:2\) and to uphold the two greatest commandments, which summarize the entire law (Matthew 22:36–40\).
|
What does it mean that there is no peace for the wicked?
|
Answer
Isaiah 48:22 says, “There is no peace . . . for the wicked.” The statement is repeated in Isaiah 57:21\. In both cases, the declaration follows the Lord’s denouncements of evil nations and wicked practices. Isaiah 57:20 explains further: “The wicked are like the tossing sea, which cannot rest, whose waves cast up mire and mud.” The assertion that the wicked have no peace seems to goes against our observation that many ungodly people seem to lead lives of ease and pleasure. At least externally, the wicked often appear to have a measure of peace (Psalm 73:3–12\). So what does God mean when He declares that there is no peace for the wicked?
Jesus told His disciples, “[Peace](Bible-peace.html) I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid” (John 14:27\). Jesus was clarifying the difference between worldly peace and godly peace. Favorable circumstances can provide an illusion of peace as long as all is well. But the peace the world gives is external and subject to rapid change. The Wall Street crash of the 1920s instantly eliminated the peace of investors. Tsunamis, hurricanes, earthquakes, and tornadoes disrupt the external peace of millions. When our peace is dependent on our circumstances, it is fragile and fleeting.
Those who possess only external peace must exhaust themselves continually to maintain it. Their efforts to maintain personal peace often require them to impinge upon the peace of others, which results in wickedness. Burglaries, addictions, adulteries, fits of temper, and a host of other evils are attempts to procure a measure of peace for the ones committing the sins. As long as we believe we are responsible for creating our own peace, we can justify the means we use to obtain it. We will attempt to justify adultery: “I had to leave my wife for this other woman because I couldn’t be happy without her.” We will attempt to justify riots: “I am angry at the injustices in society so I can loot and pillage businesses in order to obtain the peace I deserve.”
When God said that there is no peace for the wicked, He meant that abiding peace is only possible when we are in right relationship with Him. Within every human heart is the knowledge of eternity (Ecclesiastes 3:11\). Before we know God, there is a restless longing that we cannot define. We have moments when deep questions surface: Why am I here? Does life have meaning? Is there more out there that I am missing? Our souls find no real peace apart from God.
The beautiful, the powerful, and the rich have the same questions. Money, fame, and power can only provide a temporary peace. What happens when that peace begins to ebb? Those who have rejected God do not know the peace that accompanies the forgiveness of sins, so they attempt to prolong the beauty, gain more power, or increase their riches. They invent false gods, find distractions, or pursue philanthropies in hopes of finding peace.
It feels good to do good, and people have been trying to earn God’s favor with good deeds since time began. [Cain](Cain-in-the-Bible.html) may have been the first wicked person to offer sacrifices out of duty (Genesis 4:3–5\). He saw the external activity of offering a sacrifice as a means by which he could obtain peace. But it did not come. [King Saul](life-Saul.html) also tried to use sacrifice as a means to ensure ongoing peace from God, but the Lord was angry at his blatant disobedience (1 Samuel 13:8–14\). Likewise, many people today think that church attendance, tithing, or any number of other Christian\-looking activities will guarantee the peace they seek, but they are disappointed. They worship God with their lips, but their hearts are far from Him (Isaiah 29:13; Matthew 15:8\).
We were all enemies of God at one time, wicked people who had no way of ensuring peace on our own (Ephesians 2:1–3\). But God sent Jesus, the Prince of Peace (Isaiah 9:6\), to reconcile the world to Himself. Those who trust in Him find that Jesus indeed came “to guide our feet into the path of peace” (Luke 1:79\).
The peace of God guards the hearts and minds of His children, and it is a peace that “transcends all understanding” (Philippians 4:7\). Jesus’ method of granting us peace is the opposite of the ways we would naturally choose. Conventional wisdom says that clinging to our lives and our selfish desires is the way to find peace. Jesus said that we must deny ourselves, take up our crosses daily, and follow Him (Luke 9:23\). Peace will escape the wicked as long as they insist on their own way. But when the wicked repent and surrender their lives to the lordship of Jesus, even they will find lasting peace (Ephesians 2:13–15\).
|
What does it mean that a little child shall lead them in Isaiah 11:6?
|
Answer
Isaiah 11 is centered on the theme of Israel’s restoration and includes a description of the Messiah, the righteous kingdom He will establish, and the remnant who inhabit it. After describing the Messiah (verses 1–5\), Isaiah begins to elaborate on the ideal conditions of the kingdom He will set up: “The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the young goat, and the calf and the lion and the fattened calf together; and a little child shall lead them” (Isaiah 11:6, ESV).
In the utopian environment of the Messiah’s future realm, all dangers of the animal kingdom will cease. Isaiah couples each animal with its natural prey. The lamb will be safe from the threat of the wolf, the goat will be unharmed by the leopard, and the fatted calf will not fear the menace of the lion. Under the perfect dominion of the [Prince of Peace](Prince-of-Peace.html), the state of the world will be so tame that even the most ferocious wild beasts will submit to the leading of a little child.
Human superiority over animals will continue in Messiah’s [millennial kingdom](dispensation-of-Millennial-Kingdom.html) but be amplified. Even small children—who would ordinarily be preyed upon by wild beasts—will not only be safe from these predatory creatures but will have control over them. This serene relationship between predator and prey is used often in prophetic Scripture to portray the state of life under the Prince of Peace: “‘The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox, and dust will be the serpent’s food. They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain,’ says the LORD” (Isaiah 65:25\).
Ezekiel describes the harmony and safety of a restored creation in similar terms: “I will make a covenant of peace with them and rid the land of savage beasts so that they may live in the wilderness and sleep in the forests in safety” (Ezekiel 34:25; see also Hosea 2:18\). The apostle Paul seems to echo this future expectation: “For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time” (Romans 8:19–22\). In the restored kingdom, all creation will be at peace because the curse will be lifted.
When Isaiah said, “A little child shall lead them,” he meant that even a small boy or girl would be safe to lead former predators and prey together as if they were domesticated animals, like a dog on a leash or horse on a lead. Under Messiah’s restored kingdom, peace and security will reign over all creation, even in the wild animal kingdom, and nothing will be able to disturb or threaten that tranquility.
|
What does it mean that “the last enemy to be destroyed is death” (1 Corinthians 15:26)?
|
Answer
In his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul emphasizes the future resurrection of believers from the dead. There were some who denied the reality of the future resurrection, and Paul defends the truth to the believers in Corinth who had been deceived by that false teaching. Paul explains that the resurrection of believers in Christ is assured because Jesus Christ Himself [rose from the dead](resurrection-Christ-important.html) (1 Corinthians 15:13\).
Paul then looks forward to the [second coming of Christ](second-coming-Jesus-Christ.html), when He will return with the resurrected saints and at which time He will destroy “all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death” (1 Corinthians 15:24–26\).
The enemies of God that will be destroyed include Satan, who by his deceit and lies ruined Adam and Eve and all humanity after them. All human beings inherit the sin nature from Adam (Romans 5:12\), and all must live in bondage to sin unless delivered by Christ from their sinful state. Satan destroyed the innocence of Adam and Eve when he tempted them to rebel against God. But Jesus, who has redeemed the elect, will have the final victory over Satan and his demons when they are destroyed forever (Revelation 20:1–10\).
Another enemy to be destroyed is sin, which all human beings are guilty of committing. On the cross, Jesus saved His people from the punishment and the power of sin. Believers need no longer fear God’s wrath against their sin because Jesus took the punishment sinners deserve. He also delivered believers from the power of sin, granting us the ability to resist sin through the power of the Holy Spirit who dwells within and whose power is greater than the power of sin. One day, sin will be completely destroyed, and believers will no longer live in the presence of sin. The apostle John describes the [New Jerusalem](new-jerusalem.html), which will come down from heaven and be entirely free from sin: “Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life” (Revelation 21:27\).
First Corinthians 15:26 says that the last enemy to be destroyed is death. Death will be the last of all, because it is the “wages of sin” (Romans 6:23\) and must continue to exist until sin has come to an end. Death was the last of the enemies to come, and it will be the last to be destroyed. How will this happen? Those who are in Christ will be raised to eternal life in the presence of God and will die no more. Even unbelievers will live eternally in the lake of fire, and there will be no more physical death for them (Mark 9:48\). Physical death is the last enemy to be destroyed, both for the righteous and the wicked.
The defeat of death by the God of life proves the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead. Death can only be destroyed by the resurrection of both the wicked and the righteous, who will die no more. If there is no resurrection, then death will still rule and people will be subject to it. The fact that death will be destroyed assures us of the resurrection. “When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: ‘Death has been swallowed up in victory’” (1 Corinthians 15:54; cf. Isaiah 25:8\).
|
Who was William Wilberforce?
|
Answer
William Wilberforce (1759—1833\) was a Christian philanthropist, politician, and abolitionist in England. He is most famous for his leading role in abolishing the slave trade in Britain.
Born to Anglican parents in Hull, England, Wilberforce grew up privileged and wealthy. He lived with an aunt and uncle for a period after his father’s death in 1768, at which time Wilberforce was exposed to evangelical views. Being taken to hear the sermons of [John Newton](John-Newton.html) as a young boy undoubtedly influenced his later faith in Jesus. In college, William Wilberforce lost his religious interest and began to engage in self\-pleasing behavior, including drinking and gambling.
At the age of 21, Wilberforce became a member of Parliament and started his political career. Around this time, clergyman Isaac Milner accompanied Wilberforce to France, and they discussed religious matters. Milner invited Wilberforce to study the New Testament with him, and in the course of study Wilberforce developed great sorrow over the condition of his soul. Soon after this, Wilberforce placed his faith in Jesus Christ for salvation. Wilberforce experienced a radical change in his life: he stopped drinking and playing cards and seriously considered a life as a minister.
In talking to his friend John Newton, Wilberforce was dissuaded from removing himself from politics, since a Christian presence would be valuable in Parliament. At Newton’s urging, Wilberforce devoted himself to the abolition of slavery and what he called “manner reform,” as recorded in a journal entry from 1787: “God Almighty has set before me two great objects, the suppression of the slave trade and the reformation of manners” (quoted at https://christianhistoryinstitute.org/study/module/wilberforce, accessed 9/16/2020\). His strong belief that all people were made in the image of God compelled him to fight against the British slave trade (see Genesis 1:27\).
Wilberforce married Barbara Ann Spooner in 1797, and they raised their children in the faith. The family engaged in prayer, Bible reading, and devotions. Sundays were set aside in the Wilberforce household as a special time to spend with the Lord.
While working fervently for the abolition of slavery in Britain, Wilberforce also started the Society for the Reformation of Manners based on his conviction that Christians should work at reforming culture. The purpose of the society was to influence piety and goodness among the leaders of Britain. Wilberforce was wealthy, as were the other members of Parliament, but sought to live a life in service to others due to his love for Christ. Not only did he persevere in fighting to end slavery, but he also founded a Bible society, regularly gave to charity, started a society ministering to the poor, founded a group focused on preventing animal cruelty, wrote tracts about the evils of slavery, and published a work on theology.
Wilberforce experienced repeated legislative defeats in his quest to end slavery, but he finally saw success. The Slave Trade Act was enacted in 1807 and the Slavery Abolition Act in 1833, just three days before Wilberforce died.
Although many people attempt to keep their “private” Christian faith separate from their “public” life, William Wilberforce did not see these distinctions. His personal faith in Jesus and his commitment to the standards of the Bible greatly influenced his career as a member of Parliament. The scriptural admonition of James 2:14–17 was clearly demonstrated in William Wilberforce’s faith, which moved him to fight the good fight against slavery and injustice in Britain.
|
What is the epistle to the Laodiceans mentioned in Colossians 4:16?
|
Answer
In Colossians 4:16, Paul mentions a letter from Laodicea that the believers were to read: “After this letter has been read to you, see that it is also read in the church of the Laodiceans and that you in turn read the letter from Laodicea.” This is an important verse because it shows that, from the very beginning, the apostles’ epistles were to be read publicly in the churches and were considered profitable for all (cf. 1 Thessalonians 5:27\). There is some conjecture, however, as to what exactly the letter to (or from) the Laodiceans was.
We know there was a church in Laodicea, a wealthy, industrious city in the province of Phrygia in the Lycos Valley, approximately 9 miles from Colossae, in a region now known as Denizli, Turkey. Scholars over the years have offered their opinions on what the “letter to the Laodiceans” actually was. The truth is, we do not know. However, we will look at a few possibilities and weigh their merits:
1\. The letter to the Laodiceans was a letter written by Paul in Laodicea and intended for the Colossian church. This idea can be immediately debunked by Colossians 2:1, where Paul states that the Laodiceans had never personally seen him. Therefore, any letter originating in Laodicea was not written by him.
2\. The letter to the Laodiceans was a letter from the church itself and not penned by Paul. Although the wording, “letter from Laodicea,” sounds as though it could mean the letter originated there, no evidence exists to suggest anyone resided in Laodicea who could have penned such an authoritative letter. Since Paul himself had never visited that church, it is unlikely that any leader of the Laodicean church could write a letter that Paul equated with his own.
3\. The letter to the Laodiceans is a noncanonical letter written by Paul that has since been lost to history. This is possible; however, first\-century historians make no mention of such an “epistle to Laodicea” among extrabiblical writings. In all likelihood, no such letter by Paul existed.
4\. The letter to the Laodiceans was actually what we call Paul’s [letter to the Ephesians](Book-of-Ephesians.html). At the time Paul wrote to Colossae, the epistle of Ephesians was circulating through the churches and was then in Laodicea. This theory has the most merit, since the [letter to the Colossians](Book-of-Colossians.html) and the letter to the Ephesians have great similarity and are clearly Paul’s work. It is likely that a copy of the letter in question was carried by Paul’s assistant, Tychicus (Colossians 4:7\), from Ephesus to the Laodiceans and that they had orders to send it on to the Colossians after they had read it.
Within a few years, the church at Laodicea would receive [another letter](church-in-Laodicea.html), a rebuke from Jesus Himself through the apostle John. The Laodiceans had grown lukewarm in their devotion to Christ and were in danger of receiving strong discipline (Revelation 3:14–22\). The letter in the book of Revelation was written long after Paul wrote the book of Colossians, so this cannot be the letter mentioned in Colossians 4:16\.
|
What does it mean to be called by God?
|
Answer
The Bible often mentions people being called by God for a specific ministry or service. Paul was called by God: “Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God” (Romans 1:1; cf. 1 Corinthians 1:1\). The Old Testament priests were called by God to their special work (Hebrews 5:4; cf. Exodus 28:1\). To be called by God is to be chosen by God for certain purposes. When a person is aware of that call and surrenders to it, he or she starts living out God’s purpose for him or her (see Jeremiah 1:4–5; Isaiah 49:1; Galatians 1:15\).
God called the entire nation of Israel to be “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exodus 19:6\). The church, redeemed by the blood of Jesus, is similarly called: “You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign on the earth” (Revelation 5:10\). God’s calling of Israel was to showcase God’s salvation to the pagan world. But because Israel rejected that call and followed idols, they never flourished in the way God wanted to prosper them. His call now is to all those redeemed by the blood of Jesus to showcase to our world God’s mercy, grace, and salvation (Hebrews 12:14; Matthew 5:16\).
God is far more involved with His universe than some would like to think. Isaiah 46:9–11 is the cornerstone passage that removes all doubt about [God’s sovereignty](God-is-sovereign.html). Even though He has given humankind the freedom to make choices, His choices have already been made (Exodus 33:19; Romans 9:10–18\). “God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable” (Romans 11:29\).
We are called by God to salvation. In fact, the Greek word translated “church” in the New Testament means “a called\-out assembly.” The call to salvation involves conforming us “to the image of his Son.” His election and call to salvation are part of an eternal plan for us that guarantees our inheritance in heaven: “And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified” (Romans 8:29–30\).
After salvation, we are further called to grow in Christian virtue and serve God by good works; in fact, it is this maturation process that confirms our calling by God (2 Peter 1:5–10\). God gives us [spiritual gifts](spiritual-gifts-survey.html) to aid us in our call to service. The Holy Spirit distributes the gifts as He sees fit and then calls us into a field of service that utilizes those gifts (1 Corinthians 12:1–11\). For example, a young man may begin to have a burden for a particular foreign nation and its people. That burden was placed there by the Lord as part of His calling. The young man then begins to study that nation and enrolls in a missions\-focused school. Once on the mission field, he is willing to suffer hardships and separation from family and friends because the call of God is his greatest motivation. Paul wrote, “I am compelled to preach. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel” (1 Corinthians 9:16\). God had placed a call on Paul’s life from the moment he was converted (Acts 9:15–16\). That call became his motivating force.
Jonah was called by God but refused to surrender to that call; instead, he ran the other way (Jonah 1:1–3\). The Lord pursued His disobedient servant until Jonah submitted himself to the call. Knowing of Jonah’s disobedience beforehand, God had already prepared a great fish to swallow him and spit him out when he was humbled enough to repent (Jonah 1:17—2:1\). After Jonah was back on dry land, the word of the Lord came to him again with the same call, giving him another chance to obey. This time, Jonah did. God is patient with His children, working with us until we see things aright.
Every Christian has a calling on his or her life. We were designed before the foundation of the world to be His workmanship, glorifying Him as we bring forth the fruit He desires (Ephesians 1:4–5; 2:10\). God’s specific call to service usually begins with a burden for a particular need that relates to the kingdom of God. Some are called to the political arena or to end human trafficking. Others are called to be pastors, teachers, worship leaders, Bible translators, or to a host of other avenues that honor the Lord. Each one utilizes the gifts the Spirit has given.
We discover our call to a specific area of service by walking closely with the Lord, practicing obedience, and offering ourselves as living sacrifices (Romans 12:1–2; Colossians 1:10\). As we develop sensitivity to His voice, we move forward with what we know. When our hearts are set to obey the Lord, He confirms His call in a variety of ways: godly counsel, natural gifting, fruitful results, Scripture, and a sense of “rightness” that does not conflict with any of the other confirmations.
For example, a young nursery worker may read about babies languishing in Romanian orphanages. She loves small children, and what she learns pricks her heart as nothing else has. She pursues more information and educates herself as the burden grows stronger. She begins to pray for direction. Is she supposed to do something about this? She discusses her burden with her pastor and her spiritual mentor. She asks her Bible study group to pray with her about the matter. She contacts a Christian organization that operates orphanages in Europe and learns they have an opening for a worker. This seems to be a confirmation, but she continues to ask the Lord for wisdom (James 1:5\). Then a distant aunt, unsolicited, sends her a sum of money, which happens to be the exact amount needed for airfare. With all these avenues confirming her decision, she feels confident moving forward into the call of God for her life. The orphans are helped, and God is glorified.
In following the call of God, we must be sure to obey His instructions in Scripture. When we are faithful to the call to obedience, He can call us to more specific areas (see Luke 16:10\).
|
What is the significance of Cush in the Bible?
|
Answer
The land of Cush refers to a land south of Israel and is translated as “Ethiopia” in some Bible versions. Cush derives its name from Cush, a son of Ham, son of Noah (Genesis 10:7\). The country of Cush is mentioned throughout the Old Testament, and Cushites regularly interacted with Israelites.
Cush is first mentioned in Genesis: “The name of the second river \[flowing out of Eden] is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush” (Genesis 2:13\). Although some believe that, in this passage, *Cush* could be a reference to Mesopotamia, other biblical scholars believe that it is more consistent to identify it as a general term for the African lands south of Egypt. The King James Version and Contemporary English Version translate the name of the land as “Ethiopia” in Genesis 2:13\.
Cush is depicted as a powerful nation in the Bible. While [Sennacherib](Sennacherib-in-the-Bible.html) was laying siege to Jerusalem, he felt threatened by Tirhakah, king of Cush, who had been marching to meet the Assyrians in battle, which is why Sennacherib attempted to discourage the Israelites (2 Kings 19:9–10; Isaiah 37:9\). Later, Judah’s [King Asa](King-Asa.html) and his army marched out to fight Zerah the Cushite, who is described as having “marched out against them with an army of thousands upon thousands and three hundred chariots, and came as far as Mareshah” (2 Chronicles 14:9\). Asa entrusted the battle to the Lord, and by the strength of God the Cushites were defeated (2 Chronicles 14:10–14\). Isaiah also mentions Cush, describing it as a “powerful and oppressive nation” (Isaiah 18:1–2, NASB). Not only did Cush possess military might, but it was also a land of wealth known for its precious stones. Job mentions the topaz of Cush as being very valuable (Job 28:19\).
The Lord pronounced judgment upon Cush in the prophecies of Isaiah and Ezekiel. Since the Egyptians were related to the Cushites, according to the lineage of Ham, Cush is usually mentioned alongside the judgments of Egypt (Genesis 10:6\). In Isaiah, God denounces the Israelites who trusted in Cush or Egypt to save them from the Assyrians (Isaiah 20:5\). God’s judgment against Cush is also seen in Ezekiel’s prophecies, which mention how Cush’s wealth and power would be taken away (Ezekiel 30:4–5, 9\).
Although several Bible translations substitute the English word *Ethiopia* for *Cush*, the nation of Cush was not equivalent to modern Ethiopia. The Cush of the Bible often does seem to refer to a region in Africa (Ezekiel 30:4–6\); at other times, it seems to refer to Arabia—in Habakkuk 3:7, Cush is linked to Midian, a land closer to the Red Sea. The reason for the obscurity could well be that the Cushites migrated to various areas.
The Cushites were dark\-skinned (Jeremiah 13:23\). A couple Cushites are mentioned in the Bible. Moses married a Cushite woman (Numbers 12:1\). And it was a Cushite who brought news of Absalom’s death to King David (2 Samuel 18:20–21, 31–32\).
Significantly, Cush is also a nation that received the gospel and will be involved in the millennial kingdom. The evangelist [Philip](Philip-in-the-Bible.html) gave the gospel to an Ethiopian eunuch, who would have been referred to as a Cushite in Hebrew, and the eunuch was one of the first converts of Ethiopia to Christianity (Acts 8:26–39\). He undoubtedly took the gospel back to his land, where he had great influence as a royal official to Queen Candace (Acts 8:27\). During the millennial reign of Christ, Jesus will receive honor from Cush/Ethiopia: “From beyond the rivers of Cush my worshipers, my scattered people, will bring me offerings” (Zephaniah 3:10\).
|
What was the Bar Kokhba revolt?
|
Answer
The Bar Kokhba revolt was a series of battles from AD 132 to 135 waged against the [Roman Empire](Roman-empire.html) by Jews led by Simeon bar Kosba, who made messianic claims and who was renamed *Bar Kokhba* (“Son of the Star”) by an influential rabbi. The revolt was ultimately unsuccessful, and Jerusalem paid a heavy toll for the rebellion.
During the time of the New Testament, Israel was under the rule of Rome. As long as the leadership and the people cooperated with Rome, they were allowed a measure of autonomy. However, the Jewish leaders feared that an uprising surrounding the activities of Jesus would cause Rome to “take away both our temple and our nation” (John 11:48\). Demonstrating their subservience to Rome, the Jewish leaders were not allowed to put Jesus to death; rather, they had to appeal to [Pilate](Pontius-Pilate.html), the Roman governor, to execute the sentence they wanted (John 18:31\). In response to a later Jewish uprising, the Roman general Titus destroyed Jerusalem and the temple in AD 70\. A group of revolutionaries took refuge at [Masada](history-of-Masada.html), but they were eventually defeated in AD 73 in the final conflict of the First Jewish War.
After that time, Israel was ruled as a conquered kingdom, and the Romans began to drive Jews from the area. However, Jewish resistance did not completely evaporate. In the Kitos War of AD 115—117, dispersed Jews in Cyrenaica, Cyprus, and Egypt rebelled. Some refer to this as the Second Jewish War, but others exclude it since it was not fought in Palestine.
The Bar Kokhba revolt is referred to as the Second or Third Jewish War, depending upon one’s opinion of the Kitos War. This revolt, led by Simeon Bar Kokhba, was in response to Emperor Hadrian’s outlawing of circumcision and the forced [Hellenization](Hellenistic-Jews.html) of all Jews in the empire. Bar Kokhba was able to defeat Roman forces garrisoned in Jerusalem, and for about two years an independent Jewish state was established. As a result of his victories against the Romans, many hailed Bar Kokhba as the Messiah who would restore the kingdom to Israel. However, Emperor Hadrian ordered six legions of soldiers into the area along with auxiliaries and reinforcements from other legions. Bar Kokhba was killed, the rebellion was crushed, and many Jews were slaughtered.
After the Bar Kokhba revolt, Jews were barred from Jerusalem except to observe the festival of [Tisha B'Av](Tisha-B-Av.html), which commemorates the destruction of the first and second temples. The Jews began to be persecuted in a way they had not been before, and the [Diaspora](diaspora.html) began in earnest. Jesus had warned against following false messiahs (Matthew 24:5\), and Bar Kokhba was one such counterfeit. After his defeat, Simeon Bar Kokhba was denounced by Jewish leadership, and Jews began to abandon the concept of a personal messiah who would restore Israel. Only recently has the idea of a personal messiah been revived in some segments of Judaism. The result of the Bar Kokhba revolt was that, approximately 100 years after rejecting Jesus as Messiah, Judaism grew disillusioned concerning any hope of a personal savior, a Jewish homeland, and an independent Jewish kingdom.
|
Is it wrong to do charitable giving for tax deduction purposes?
|
Answer
Some Christians worry that claiming a charitable gift as a deduction on an income tax form goes against biblical teaching. The Bible reveals that the motivation behind our giving is what matters to God. If a Christian makes a charitable donation strictly to gain a tax deduction, his or her motive for giving may indeed be wrong. However, if one’s heart intention for giving is pure and in line with God’s Word, there’s nothing wrong with taking advantage of the tax deduction, which is a legitimate benefit that the government has made available to every citizen.
Some Christians are concerned about losing their heavenly reward because of Jesus’ teaching about giving to the needy in the [Sermon on the Mount](sermon-on-the-mount.html): “Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you” (Matthew 6:1–4\).
Jesus said to give “in secret,” but that does not necessarily make claiming a tax deduction wrong. He was addressing the heart issue of [religious hypocrisy](Bible-hypocrisy.html) in Matthew 6\. When people put their generosity on public display or when they are more interested in gaining a reputation as big\-hearted benefactors than in serving God, then they sin. Such religious hypocrites have already received their reward—a reputation—and should not expect any further heavenly blessing.
Tax returns are private and confidential documents, and receiving a deduction for charitable giving is nothing like sounding trumpets. It would be highly unlikely that anyone would claim a charitable deduction to show off his or her righteous deed to the IRS. It would be a stretch to say that Christ’s teaching in Matthew 6 about giving in secret applies to claiming a tax deduction for charitable giving.
The government has made a tax benefit available to all charitable donors, and believers are wise stewards to take advantage of it. The Bible teaches us to make the wisest possible use of the resources God has entrusted to our care (Luke 16:1–18\). Rather than paying higher [taxes](taxes-Bible.html) to the government, God’s people receive even greater financial opportunity to further the work of God’s kingdom when they make use of legitimate deductions.
|
What is the significance of Megiddo in the Bible?
|
Answer
Megiddo is an ancient city in Israel and the site of a number of military conflicts. Today it is the site of a [kibbutz](what-is-a-kibbutz.html) and some rich archeological digs (Tel Megiddo).
Megiddo is first mentioned in Joshua 12:21 as one of the cities of the “Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites” whose kings were defeated by Joshua. Megiddo was in the territory of Manasseh (Joshua 17:11; 1 Chronicles 7:29\), and, although they were not able to completely drive out the residents, the Manassehites were eventually able to subjugate them (Judges 1:27\).
Megiddo is also mentioned in conjunction with the battle between Sisera and Barak (with [Deborah the judge](life-Deborah.html)) in Judges 5:19\. Megiddo was later included in the territory of Baana son of Ahilud, one of Solomon’s twelve district governors (1 Kings 4:12\). Megiddo was one of the cities that was rebuilt or fortified by Solomon (1 Kings 9:15\).
[Ahaziah](King-Ahaziah.html), king of Judah, was wounded in battle against Jehu, who was attempting to overthrow Joram, the king of the northern kingdom of Israel. Ahaziah fled to Megiddo where he died from his wounds (2 Kings 9:27\).
[King Josiah](Josiah-in-the-Bible.html) of Judah, contrary to God’s will, fought against Pharaoh Necho at Megiddo and was killed there (2 Kings 23:29–30 and 2 Chronicles 35:22\).
Zechariah 12:10–12 says, “And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son. On that day the weeping in Jerusalem will be as great as the weeping of Hadad Rimmon in the plain of Megiddo. The land will mourn, each clan by itself, with their wives by themselves: the clan of the house of David and their wives, the clan of the house of Nathan and their wives.” What happened at Hadad Rimmon is not explicitly mentioned in Scripture. This passage is the only time that place name in used in Scripture. Many Jewish and Christian scholars view this to be a reference to the “ultimate grief” of the Jewish people at the death of King Josiah. Zechariah 12 looks forward to a time when the nation will morn for the Messiah as they mourned for Josiah.
The New Testament does not mention Megiddo, but the term [*Armegeddon*](battle-Armageddon.html) (*Har Megiddo*, or “Mount Megiddo”) is mentioned in Revelation 16:16 as a place of judgment against the enemies of God, which would seem to correlate with the imagery in Zechariah 12\.
In popular culture the term *Armageddon*, usually separated from the biblical teaching, has become synonymous with “the end of the world involving a great military conflict.” When Christians hear the term *Armageddon*, they should not respond with fear but with confidence that Christ is the ultimate victor over all His enemies.
|
What does the Bible say about entitlement culture?
|
Answer
Entitlement culture teaches that we deserve to have things given to us and that we should have special privileges. Those enmeshed in entitlement culture believe strongly that the whole world revolves around their perceived rights, needs, and wants. Its rallying cries are “my way,” “my rights,” and “I deserve.” Within American society certain rights are acknowledged as God\-given and inalienable. But the entitlement culture takes it further, presuming rights that are neither divinely granted nor constitutionally guaranteed.
Often, entitlement culture is associated with the younger generation and manifests itself in demands to get something for nothing—education, health care, wages, advancements, etc. But those with a feeling of entitlement—that the world somehow “owes” them—can be older, as well. Many middle\-aged and older people feel entitled to a comfortable life, a lack of pain, a freedom from difficulty of all kinds. Everyone likes the idea of being pampered. It’s when we start demanding perks and comforts as a “right” or when we try to circumvent the principle of *earning* privileges that we succumb to the entitlement culture.
Some people in the Bible had a sense of entitlement. Many Jews in Jesus’ day had an idea that they were entitled to God’s blessings by virtue of the very fact they were Jews—a mentality that John the Baptist countered (Matthew 3:9\). The [Pharisees](Pharisees.html) believed they deserved public places of honor at dinners and in the synagogues (see Matthew 23:6; Luke 20:46\). They craved attention and titles of honor such as “Rabbi” (Matthew 23:7; Mark 12:38\). They loved to be praised by men for their good deeds and strict adherence to the law (Matthew 23:5; Luke 18:11; John 12:43\). Self\-sacrifice and self\-denial were not part of the Pharisees’ nature. Even when they fasted, they made sure others knew it so that they could be praised for their act of reverence (Matthew 6:16\). So entitlement culture is not new.
The Bible does not address entitlement culture by that name, of course, but it clearly opposes the idea of a culture of entitlement. Instead of focusing people on their “rights” or encouraging them to demand something for nothing, the Bible teaches the value of [hard work](Christian-work-ethic.html) and the principle of reaping and sowing (Proverbs 1:31; 10:4; 2 Thessalonians 3:10\). In addition, Scripture teaches a sacrificial lifestyle of following Christ: “Then Jesus said to his disciples, ‘Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me’” (Matthew 16:24\). Instead of self\-centeredness and privilege, the Bible teaches love of God and others (Mark 12:30–31\). Christians are not “entitled” to much in this world; they have died to self and are crucified with Christ, which means we no longer live for ourselves (Galatians 2:20\). Instead of living with an “I\-focus,” we are called to live with a “Jesus\-focus.” “He died for all so that those who live should no longer live for themselves, but for the One who died for them and was raised” (2 Corinthians 5:15, HCSB).
Jesus is our model in not giving in to a sense of entitlement: “Though he was God, he did not think of equality with God as something to cling to. Instead, he gave up his divine privileges; he took the humble position of a slave and was born as a human being. When he appeared in human form, he humbled himself in obedience to God and died a criminal’s death on a cross” (Philippians 2:6–8, NLT). In stark contrast to today’s entitlement culture, Jesus gave up His divine rights and privileges—and His own life—so that we could have eternal life (see John 3:16 and Romans 5:8\).
Christians eschew entitlement culture, preferring to honor God and “work hard with our own hands” (1 Corinthians 4:12\). We avoid selfishness and refuse to pursue sinful pleasures. We understand that, in ourselves, all we are truly “entitled” to is a one\-way ticket to hell with no offer of grace (see Romans 3:23; 6:23\). To the eternal praise of God, we have been [redeemed](redemption.html), “not with perishable things such as silver or gold . . . but with the precious blood of Christ” (1 Peter 1:18–19\). We have been given “an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade” (verse 4\), not because we are entitled to it, but because God is merciful and gracious.
|
What is the history and significance of the churches in Galatia?
|
Answer
Galatia was a region in central Asia Minor, located in the highlands of Anatolia, now known as central Turkey. Paul and Barnabas passed through this area on the [first missionary journey](Paul-first-missionary-journey.html), establishing several churches there. Timothy was from the area of Derbe and Lystra in Galatia.
Galatia has a long history. In the third century BC, the area was invaded by Gallic Celts, and that is what gave the area its name: *Galatia* means “land of the Gauls.” Rome conquered Galatia in 189 BC and made it a province in 25 BC. The name *Galatia* first appears in the New Testament in Acts 16:6 as a region where Paul had preached the gospel.
In the New Testament, Galatian believers are often grouped with those in neighboring provinces. Peter wrote “to God’s elect, exiles scattered throughout the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia” (1 Peter 1:1\). Luke coupled Galatia with Phrygia in Acts 16:6 and 18:23\.
When Paul addressed his [letter to the Galatians](Book-of-Galatians.html), he wrote “to the churches in Galatia,” rather than to a single church as he usually did with other letters (Galatians 1:1–2\). Scholars believe that Galatians was most likely the first book of the New Testament to be written, around AD 49\. Paul had founded this church and was concerned because the new Galatian believers were being influenced by the [Judaizers](Judaizers.html), Jews who taught that salvation required keeping the Mosaic Law (specifically circumcision), as well as believing in Jesus (Galatians 2:14\).
The Galatian churches were a mix of both Jew and Gentile converts, and the Judaizers worked to convince the Galatian churches that the Gentile believers must be [circumcised](circumcision.html) before they could fellowship with the Jewish believers. Paul wrote to clarify what he had initially taught them, that salvation was by faith alone through the grace of God extended to anyone who believed (Ephesians 2:8–9\).
Paul was dismayed at the way the Galatian believers were so easily influenced away from the truth of the gospel, and he was adamant that salvation is not dependent on human works: “I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!” (Galatians 1:6–9\).
Later, on the [second missionary journey](Paul-second-missionary-journey.html), Paul again traveled through Galatia to revisit and encourage the churches in that region. As he and Silas visited each church, “they delivered the decisions reached by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem for the people to obey” (Acts 16:4\), with the result that “the churches were strengthened in the faith and grew daily in numbers” (verse 5\). It was during this time that Timothy began traveling with the missionaries (verses 1–3\).
The book of Galatians, addressed to the churches of Galatia, is a master’s thesis on salvation by grace alone, through faith (see Galatians 2:21\). The theological crisis in the churches in Galatia was confronted head\-on, and all the church benefits from Paul’s exhortation to trust in Christ alone. Those today who try to add to the sufficiency of Christ’s death and resurrection with their own works would benefit from a study of Galatians.
|
What does it mean to call evil good and good evil (Isaiah 5:20)?
|
Answer
In Isaiah 5:8–30, the prophet pronounces “woes” or judgments on Judah for their wicked behavior. Judah had produced the “bad fruit” of unrighteousness, as illustrated in the song of the vineyard (verses 4–7\). Their wickedness even led them to proclaim sinful things as good, which is why Isaiah exclaims, “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter” (verse 20\). Light and darkness are opposites, which adds to the gravity of the men of Judah calling evil “good.”
A major problem in Judah during Isaiah’s time was widespread drunkenness. People would wake up early in the morning to drink alcohol and continue long into the night (Isaiah 5:11\). Instead of respecting “the deeds of the Lord,” they reveled in their sin and drunkenness (verses 11–12\). They did not see their sin as wickedness; rather, they called their evil “good.”
A world in rebellion against God will have a skewed perspective and embrace a topsy\-turvy morality. There are many people today who still call evil “good” and good “evil,” as they promote behaviors that the Bible specifically calls sinful. The celebration of homosexuality and the defense of abortion on demand are usually accompanied by a mockery of those who value life and promote traditional marriage. Evil is being called “good,” and good is slandered as “evil.”
Apart from God, our value system will always become jumbled. We will begin to confuse sweetness and bitterness, light and darkness, and good and evil. We will label [biblical morality](Bible-morality.html) as “intolerant” and “oppressive.” We will take offense at the truth that Jesus is the only way to salvation (John 14:6\). “Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil” (John 3:20\).
Calling good “evil” and evil “good” is a sure sign of spiritual wickedness at work: “The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God” (2 Corinthians 4:4\). Paul warns that the intensity of the spiritual battle will increase: “There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self\-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God—having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people” (2 Timothy 3:1–5\).
Cutting through the confusion over right and wrong and enlightening spiritually darkened minds is the Bible: “I gain understanding from your precepts. . . . Your word is a lamp for my feet, a light on my path” (Psalm 119:104–105\). In their fallen condition, humans cannot accurately determine what is right and wrong. Only God can give definitive answers on good and evil. The Bible is “[God\-breathed](God-breathed.html),” the only certain source in providing guidance to mankind (2 Timothy 3:16\).
|
What does it mean to always be ready to give an answer (1 Peter 3:15)?
|
Answer
First Peter 3:15 says, “But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.” It’s a verse that motivates [Christian apologists](Christian-apologetics.html) as they prepare to give answers in defense of their faith.
In the immediate context, the apostle Peter discusses suffering for doing good (1 Peter 3:13–14\). Persecution and suffering are to be expected in the Christian life (John 16:33\), but a believer’s response to suffering should point others to Jesus. Peter emphasizes that Christ suffered and died to provide eternal life for those who believe in Him, and His example of suffering for doing good should strengthen all of us (1 Peter 3:17–18\). Instead of fearing persecution, Christians are to make sure they suffer for righteousness’ sake, “honor Christ the Lord as holy,” and be prepared to give a defense of one’s hope in Jesus (verse 15, ESV). A believer should always be ready to tell others the good news of salvation in Jesus’ death and resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:2–4\).
Providing a “defense” or giving an “answer” for one’s hope is based on the Greek word *apologian*, which carries the idea of “defending” something as a lawyer would defend his case in court. From the Greek word comes the English *apologetics*, “the discipline of defending” the Christian faith. Notice that Peter does not say that the job of giving an answer is only for the pastor or professional apologist. All Christians need to be prepared to give an answer or defense when someone asks them the reason for the hope that they have.
Peter wrote to the persecuted Christians in Asia Minor. As they were undergoing persecution, their outward behavior demonstrated [hope](Bible-hope.html) in Jesus—not a wishful thought, but a solid and assured faith (see Hebrews 6:19–20\). The believers’ lack of fear in the face of suffering would have propelled others to ask about the reason for their faith, giving the believers a perfect opportunity “to give an answer.” When believers display their sure hope in Jesus despite their circumstances, others will notice (see 1 Peter 2:12\).
To properly answer someone who asks about one’s faith, the Christian must use “gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience” (1 Peter 3:15\). There’s no place for harshness or disrespect in a Christian’s life, especially as he represents Christ and gives an answer to explain his faith. Peter exhorts the believer to answer unbelievers gently, respectfully, and with the example of one’s life (cf. Colossians 4:6\). Believers should reflect Christ’s teaching of gentleness and “speak the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15, NLT).
The command to “always be ready to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have” presupposes a faith that causes us to live out our hope in Christ visibly before others. When unbelievers see a Christian’s great hope in the face of persecution or suffering, they will naturally want to know the reason for that hope (Matthew 5:16\). We need to be prepared to share the [gospel](what-is-the-gospel.html) in a way that is gentle and respectful. The result will be “that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander” (1 Peter 3:16\).
|
What is a Bible handbook?
|
Answer
A Bible handbook is a reference book that provides information on all aspects of the Bible. Bible handbooks are valuable tools for those new to the Bible, those wanting to pursue deeper study, and those needing a wealth of biblical information at the ready. Bible handbooks provide answers for a variety of biblical questions with short commentaries, maps, photos, outlines, historical and archeological backgrounds, lists of kings and judges, genealogies, and more. Bible handbooks also provide a brief summary of each book of the Bible.
Here are some common reasons a person would use a Bible handbook:
1\. To learn the cultural and historical background information about a book of the Bible.
2\. To discover how a certain passage fits into the whole book and why it is included.
3\. To learn the key words, themes, and verses in a book.
4\. To learn more about the Bible’s history: its compilation, printing, and preservation.
5\. To better understand the particular doctrines taught in each book and how they correspond to the overall message of the Bible.
6\. To research the geography and [archaeology](biblical-archaeology.html) associated with the Bible.
One of the most well\-known and trusted Bible handbooks is by Dr. Henry H. Halley (1874—1965\). Halley was a minister, author, and lecturer with a passion for Bible study and Bible memory. Fueled by his belief that every Christian should read the Bible daily, Halley created a 16\-page booklet to encourage Bible study. From that booklet came the current *Halley’s Bible Handbook*, an 864\-page collection of biblical reference material used by Christians around the world. First published in 1924, *Halley’s Bible Handbook* has undergone many updates and is available in many editions.
Other Bible handbooks include *The MacArthur Bible Handbook* by John MacArthur; *The New Unger’s Bible Handbook* by Merrill F. Unger; *With the Word*, a chapter\-by\-chapter handbook by Warren W. Wiersbe; *The Zondervan Bible Handbook*; and *The Holman Bible Handbook*.
The use of a Bible handbook is one way to “study to show yourself approved unto God, a workman who needs not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15\). While preaching, teaching, and personal meditation are all critical for spiritual growth, the use of a Bible handbook can take a Christian from a simple surface reading of Scripture into a deeper study of the [types](typology-Biblical.html), themes, and doctrines we find throughout. A good Bible handbook can help us understand the Bible and better apply Scripture’s doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness to our lives (see 2 Timothy 3:16–17\).
|
What is the history and significance of the church at Thessalonica?
|
Answer
Thessalonica was a prominent city in Macedonia (in modern\-day Greece) due to its location: it had a seaport on the Aegean Sea and was a principal stop on the Egnatian Way, a major Roman road. Paul and Silas traveled to Thessalonica from Phillipi on Paul’s [second missionary journey](Paul-second-missionary-journey.html) to preach the news about Jesus. He spent three weeks teaching in the Jewish synagogue, but most of the Thessalonian Jews became indignant and formed a mob to drive the men out of the city. However, “some of the Jews were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a large number of God\-fearing Greeks and quite a few prominent women” (Acts 17:4\). That was the beginning of the church at Thessalonica.
In Thessalonica, Paul and Silas stayed with a man named Jason, and when the Thessalonian mob decided to get rid of the missionaries, they rushed Jason’s house and dragged him into the streets. After a hasty consultation with city officials, they made Jason post bond and released him. Meanwhile, the new Thessalonian believers hid Paul and company until dark and then sent them on to Berea, a city about 45 miles to the southwest (Acts 17:10\). In Berea, Paul found a much more receptive audience (verses 11 and 12\).The [Bereans](who-Bereans.html) considered Paul’s words and compared them with the Scriptures instead of taking offense and resisting the gospel as the Thessalonians had.
Even though Paul and Silas had left their city, the unbelieving Thessalonian Jews were not satisfied. They followed the missionaries to Berea and tried to stir up the crowd against them there as they had done in their own city (Acts 17:13\). The Berean believers smuggled Paul to the coast where he boarded a ship for Athens. Silas and Timothy remained in Berea to teach and strengthen the new church there.
Not long after his initial visit to Thessalonica, Paul was in Corinth, where he wrote two letters that we now call 1 and 2 Thessalonians, addressed to the newfound church in Thessalonica. [First Thessalonians](Book-of-1-Thessalonians.html) is one of the first of Paul’s letters, or [epistles](what-is-an-epistle.html), to churches. Despite the hostile environment the new believers experienced in Thessalonica, they were holding fast to the word that was preached to them, and news of their devotion to Christ was becoming well\-known throughout Macedonia (1 Thessalonians 1:7–8\).
Paul’s stay in Thessalonica had most likely been difficult for him. In his first letter to the church there, Paul mentions that he had to work during his time in that city, in addition to teaching and preaching, in order not to be a burden to his hosts (1 Thessalonians 2:9\). Although Paul does not state what kind of work he did, it was most likely tent\-making, which was a trade he was experienced in (Acts 18:1–3\).
Due to the short time he had been able to spend in Thessalonica, Paul was concerned about the church there. He tried to return to them “again and again—but Satan blocked our way” (1 Thessalonians 2:18\). So Paul sent Timothy to check on them and encourage them in their faith (1 Thessalonians 3:1–5\). Paul “was afraid that in some way the tempter had tempted \[them]” and that his labors among them had “been in vain” (verse 5\). But Timothy returned to Paul bearing good news about the thriving church in Thessalonica, and Paul wrote the book of 1 Thessalonians to encourage them and to explain the “[day of the Lord](day-of-the-Lord.html)” more clearly.
It seems that, later, some people began teaching the Thessalonian church that the Lord had already come and that Judgment Day was upon them (2 Thessalonians 2:1–2\). Worse yet, these false teachers were alleging that their message came from Paul. The apostle wrote [2 Thessalonians](Book-of-2-Thessalonians.html) to allay their fears and teach them more fully about “the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him” (verse 1\). They had not missed the coming of the Lord.
The church at Thessalonica, located as it was in a prominent city of Macedonia, had an ideal opportunity to share the gospel with the whole region. And that’s what they did, as “the Lord’s message rang out” from the Thessalonian church (1 Thessalonians 1:8\). Just like the church in Thessalonica, many churches today are planted in areas hostile to the gospel. Paul’s exhortations and encouragement to the Thessalonians are also encouragements for those today who “have longed for His appearing” (2 Timothy 4:8\). Paul’s words to his friends at the church in Thessalonica are timeless promises to us all.
|
Does God love the people who are in hell?
|
Answer
This is an important question, and the short answer is “yes.” God does love people in hell. But explaining this answer is fraught with difficulty on at least three points. First, [hell](does-hell-exist.html) is caricatured as silly or trifling in modern Western culture. Just think of how often hell is portrayed as an underground network of caves in which a bright red, horned devil lurks with a pitchfork.
Second, the concept of love has been contorted into an omnibus feeling\-based idea to fit any fleeting object of human desire.
Third, many people conceive of God as a bearded old man sitting somewhere in the clouds, like a human with extra powers. We must disabuse ourselves of these points before we can understand how God can love people in hell.
Let us begin with the last point. If God is conceived of as a finite, creaturely personage, then the doctrine of divine justice will make little sense. His omniscience, perfection, justice, holiness, and goodness are not possible if God is not infinite and transcendent; finite beings cannot be essentially perfect, etc. But making God in the image of man is, unfortunately, what many people do. When we think God is just like us, but with superpowers, we commit a great error. God is not *a* being in the cosmos, He is *being* itself (Exodus 3:14; Acts 17:24–29\). He transcends the cosmos. This is critical to the question of God loving people in hell, because, when 1 John 4:8 says, “God is love,” it means the very essence of God is love. It does not mean that God loves His creation because it does something for Him or that He goes through mood changes having good days and bad days. It does not mean that God is impacted by what happens in time. Rather, God loves people because that is just simply who He is. Because of this, God’s love is not affected by our actions or our location. God loves the people in hell.
The term *love*, in the Christian sense, concerns the willing of what is good for another. To will the good of someone is to first discern what would be good for him and then act toward that end. [Love](Bible-love.html) is not a passion or emotion, per se. When we say that God is love, we mean that the very nature of God is self\-sacrificial love for others. This love was exemplified on the cross, where Jesus gave His life to give us eternal life (John 3:16\). The divine essence knows and wills the good of all creatures.
Pop culture takes a cavalier approach to hell. People will casually tell people to go to hell or assume that hell will be a big party. From the biblical standpoint, what is broadly called “hell” represents something quite abhorrent. The Bible says that, upon death, the wicked soul subsists in conscious torment until the future resurrection (see Luke 16:19–31\). After the resurrection and final judgment, the wicked are cast into the lake of fire (Revelation 20:11–15\). Whereas the righteous dwell with God eternally, the unrighteous are separated from God. This does not mean God’s presence is unknown or absent; rather, the experience of God is different.
So how is it that God loves people in hell? In what way is He willing the good of those who are separated from Him?
From an absolute standpoint, it is good for the creature and Creator to be united, such as it was in the beginning (Genesis 1—2\). Sin causes a fracture in that union. Sin can thus be seen as the inward turning away of creatures from their own good. Habitual sin becomes a reinforcing cycle of bending away from God. Without the healing and redemptive love of Christ bending the creatures back toward God, they will persist in their ruinous state. The creature can come to hate God in that he chooses to love himself and seek everything *but* God despite the reconciling goodness and grace extended to him in countless ways.
God loves His creation—His nature is love—but this love manifests itself differently to the impenitent creature than to the penitent. It is the same love, experienced from two perspectives. As an analogy, two people outside on a bright, sunny day can have very different experiences, if one is in the sunshine and the other is in the shadow. In both cases, the sun is the same; it is the experience of the creatures that is different, depending on their situation relative to the sun. In a similar way, the creaturely experience of God is different in hell than it is in heaven. Instead of experiencing the fullness of God’s grace, one gets the fullness of divine wrath.
|
What was the Jesus Movement?
|
Answer
The Jesus Movement was a counterculture Christian youth revolution that emerged in the United States during the late 1960s and early 1970s. This change in the American religious landscape corresponded with a period of social upheaval in the youth culture of these two decades, which was a time of protest, uncertainty, and rebellion against societal norms.
During this era, many young people experimented with psychedelic drugs and sought to expand their consciousness through experimentation with Eastern mysticism and occult religions. In their ideological opposition to the current social institutions, including the Christian church, they sought various methods of protest. They were labeled “flower children” because they wore flowers and distributed flower\-themed ornaments to represent their ideals of peace, joy, love, and universal belonging. Young men and women alike let their hair grow long, wore love beads, and listened to rock music.
In their pursuit of happiness and a cultural utopia, many of these young people came to faith in Jesus Christ, giving birth to the Jesus Movement, also known as the “Jesus revolution” and the “Jesus People Movement.” Because so many of these converts had been drug addicts and street people, they were often called “[Jesus freaks](Jesus-Freak.html).” But not all who joined the Jesus Movement were former drug users and hippies. Many young people left conventional Christian churches in search of more fulfilling spiritual experiences amid the excitement and transformation of this new movement of Christian renewal.
While the growth of the Jesus Movement was disorganized and diverse, with many scattered subgroups, participants in the spiritual awakening shared common characteristics. Perhaps most apparent were the movement’s intense evangelistic fervor and stress on experience and emotion over doctrine. As part of their anti\-establishment shift, the Jesus Movement pushed away from the norms of institutional religious expression. One widespread aspect of their unconventional lifestyle involved communal living. The Jesus people’s worldview opposed intellectualism and conventional social values of the time. Many old\-school Christians criticized the Jesus Movement for being too simplistic.
In protest of traditional religious music, the sound of the Jesus Movement was solidly rock and roll. A direct legacy of the movement was the [contemporary Christian music](contemporary-Christian-music.html) industry, which exploded in the following decades. Worship services were typically charismatic, informal, and emotional. An intense interest in end times and apocalyptic prophecy pervaded the Jesus Movement, primarily inspired by Hal Lindsey’s book *The Late Great Planet Earth*. A popular message of the movement was “Repent! Get ready! Jesus is coming back soon!”
At the height of the Jesus Movement, adherents were estimated to number anywhere between 30,000 to 3 million people. Many of the early founders of the movement—Ted Wise, Lonnie Frisbee, [Chuck Smith](Chuck-Smith.html), Larry Norman—came from Southern California. Other prominent groups sprang up in Seattle under Linda Meissner (the Jesus People Army) and in Milwaukee headed by Jim and Sue Palosaari (the Jesus People). An offshoot of the Milwaukee movement later grew into the Jesus People USA, which eventually settled in Chicago. This group is one of only a few remaining Christian communes with roots in the original 1970s Jesus Movement.
Other outcomes of the Jesus Movement that reflected the influence of the larger secular counterculture were events like beach baptisms and open\-air Jesus concerts. Jesus people coffee houses featuring live music, prominent periodicals such as *Right On!*, and religious bumper sticker slogans were all trendy elements of the movement.
Eventually, by the late 1980s, the Jesus Movement disintegrated in two directions. One portion became increasingly cultic and alienated from both the Christian community and the larger society. The other segment was absorbed or reabsorbed into Christian groups such as the [Calvary Chapel Association](Calvary-Chapel.html), the [Vineyard Movement](Vineyard-Movement.html), [Jews for Jesus](Jews-for-Jesus.html), and the Christian World Liberation Front.
Like most revival movements, the Jesus Movement was relatively short\-lived but left its mark on Christian history, rejuvenating a portion of the body of Christ through its music, informal worship style, and appeal to young people.
|
What is the history and significance of the church at Antioch?
|
Answer
The church at Antioch of Syria plays a crucial role in the book of Acts. Here believers were first called Christians (Acts 11:26\). With its mixture of Jews and Gentiles, the church at Antioch became fertile ground for the growth and spread of Christianity and a model congregation in the early days of the new Christian church.
[Antioch of Syria](Antioch-in-the-Bible.html) was one of the largest cities in the first\-century Roman world, accommodating a population between 100,000 and 300,000\. The city was home to a wealthy and thriving Jewish community. The first mention of Antioch in the New Testament is in reference to Nicolas, a Gentile convert to Christianity who was one of seven Greek\-speaking (Hellenist) leaders chosen to serve as deacons at the church in Jerusalem (Acts 6:1–7\).
The city’s location at a chief trade intersection between Egypt, Asia Minor, Greece, Italy, and Mesopotamia made the church at Antioch a strategic hub for spreading the gospel to cities around the Mediterranean and beyond.
After the stoning death of [Stephen](life-Stephen.html), the first Christian martyr, believers faced intense persecution in Jerusalem. Seeking refuge in other cities, many Christians traveled to Antioch and preached the gospel among the Jews there (Acts 11:19\). Likewise, believers from [Cyprus](Cyprus-in-the-Bible.html) and Cyrene shared the good news of Jesus Christ’s salvation to the Greek\-speaking Gentiles in Antioch (Acts. 11:20\). Luke reports, “The Lord’s hand was with them, and a great number of people believed and turned to the Lord” (Acts 11:21\).
When news reached Jerusalem about the exploding number of converts in Antioch, leaders sent [Barnabas](life-Barnabas.html) to investigate, and “when he arrived and saw what the grace of God had done, he was glad and encouraged them all to remain true to the Lord with all their hearts. He was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and faith, and a great number of people were brought to the Lord” (Acts 11:23–24\).
Barnabas recognized the Holy Spirit’s work in the lives of both Jews and Gentiles in the church at Antioch, so he joined in the ministry there. After a time, Barnabas set out to find [Paul](life-Paul.html) in Tarsus, and the two returned to teach and minister for a full year to the mixed assembly of believers at the church in Antioch (Acts 11:25–26\). It was during this time that the believers started being called Christians.
In Antioch, the Christian prophet [Agabus](Agabus-in-the-Bible.html) predicted a severe famine that would strike the entire Roman world. The church at Antioch responded swiftly and eagerly to the prophecy by preparing a generous offering to aid the Jerusalem church whenever the famine hit. They entrusted their gift to Barnabas and Paul, who carried it back to the elders of the church in Jerusalem (Acts 11:27–30\).
Besides Paul and Barnabas, other key leaders in the early church at Antioch included Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, all identified as prophets and teachers (Acts 13:1\).
A controversy sprang up in the church at Antioch as certain Judean Christians of a Pharisaic background began teaching the believers that circumcision was required of Gentiles for salvation. Paul disagreed. He and Barnabas were appointed by the church at Antioch to represent the Gentile Christians to a [council of leaders in Jerusalem](Jerusalem-Council.html). Paul and Barnabas testified about all that God was doing among the Gentiles in Antioch. After much debate, Peter stood up and declared, “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are” (Acts 15:7–11\).
[James](life-James.html), a ruling elder in Jerusalem, reinforced Peter’s arguments, citing scriptural proof that God had accepted the Gentiles, and, therefore, they should not have to live by Jewish laws to be saved. In Jesus Christ, salvation is by grace alone, for Jews and Gentiles alike (Acts 15:13–21\). James also laid out some practical guidelines and solutions for fellowship between Jews and Gentiles. A letter of encouragement and four instructions were drawn up by the council, and Judas and Silas were appointed as official delegates to deliver the correspondence to the church at Antioch (Acts 15:22–35\).
The church at Antioch was the launching site for several [missionary journeys](missionary-journeys-Paul.html) (Acts 13:1–3; 14:26,;15:32–33, 36–40; 18:22–23\). In many cases, the church at Antioch commissioned the missionaries for a specific task.
Antioch is also significant in early church history as the place where the apostle Paul disputed with Peter over his segregation of Gentile believers during mealtimes. Paul wrote of the disagreement in Galatians 2:11–12: “But when Peter came to Antioch, I had to oppose him to his face, for what he did was very wrong. When he first arrived, he ate with the Gentile believers, who were not circumcised. But afterward, when some friends of James came, Peter wouldn’t eat with the Gentiles anymore. He was afraid of criticism from these people who insisted on the necessity of circumcision” (NLT). Paul called Peter’s actions “hypocrisy,” and blamed him for leading other Jewish believers astray (Galatians 2:13–14\).
|
What is the House of Jacob?
|
Answer
The “house of” someone can refer to the actual structure in which he or she lives, but it can also refer to the “household” of that person, which would include his family and ultimately his descendants and even his dynasty. *House of* is used extensively this way in the Old Testament: the house of Eli in 1 Samuel 13:14, the house of Saul and house of David in 2 Samuel 3:1, and the house of Jeroboam in 1 Kings 14:10 are just a few examples.
The term *house of Jacob* is simply another way to refer to the nation of Israel. Israel the patriarch was originally named [Jacob](life-Jacob.html) (see Genesis 32\). The interchangeability of the terms is illustrated in Exodus 19:3–4: “Moses went up to God, and the Lord called to him from the mountain, saying, ‘Thus you shall say to the house of Jacob and tell the sons of Israel: “You yourselves have seen what I did to the Egyptians.”’”
There is a religious organization called The House of Jacob Bible Study Class. The following is taken from their official website: “The House of Jacob Bible Study Class is a Church for those who seek entrance into the Kingdom of God. We recognize and teach all that is written in the Holy Bible (Old and New Testament). We teach faith in the testimony of Jesus Christ and observance of God’s laws including: the Ten commandments \[*sic*], God’s Dietary Law and God’s Feast Days. We teach the lineage of the families of the earth including the Gentiles, Hamites and Israelites (Genesis 10\). We show how the ‘so\-called’ African Americans, and others who were historically taken on slave ships into various countries, are the true descendants of the Biblical Israelites (Deuteronomy 28\). We also teach how salvation is open to all people to desire to serve God according to His commandments (Titus 2:11–13\) and (Isaiah 56:5–7\)” (accessed on 9/27/20\).
The House of Jacob Bible Study Class is located in Chicago but spreads its teaching through podcasts, YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter. The membership seems to be primarily black, as one of the distinctive teachings is that “African Americans” are really the physical descendants of Jacob—the house of Jacob. This seems to be consistent with what is known as the [Black Hebrew Israelite Movement](black-hebrews-israelites.html).
The House of Jacob Bible Study Class also insists on obedience to Old Testament commands with emphasis, as noted above, on feast days, [Sabbaths](Sabbath-keeping.html), and dietary laws. It seems that obedience to these laws is necessary for one to be right with God. The New Testament is clear in rejecting this. Speaking before the leaders of the church in Jerusalem, Peter makes an impassioned statement that Gentiles should not be made to keep the law and also points out that Jews were never able to, either: “After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: ‘Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are’” (Acts 15:7–11\).
The core teaching of every false religion is the same: you must obey certain commands to be made right with God. Some emphasize Old Testament commands; some emphasize New Testament commands; some emphasize church commands; some emphasize the humanitarian principles of kindness and general morality. Regardless of the specifics, obedience to be right with God is a false gospel. It is not through obedience but [by grace](saved-by-grace.html) through faith that we are saved (Ephesians 2:8–9\).
|
Who was Rabshakeh in the Bible?
|
Answer
The term *Rabshakeh* means “the chief of the princes” and refers to a field commander sent by Sennacherib, king of Assyria, as a messenger to King Hezekiah of Judah (Isaiah 36\). It is unclear whether *Rabshakeh* was the man’s given name or whether it was merely his title, designating his office. Other Bible versions translate *Rabshakeh* as “field commander” (NIV), “Assyrian chief of staff” (NLT), and “royal spokesman” (CSB). *Rabshakeh* could also refer to the chief cupbearer or vizier of the Assyrian court.
Sennacherib’s Assyrian army had captured all the fortified cities in Judah. Second Kings 18:12 says that “this happened because they \[Judah] had not obeyed the Lord their God, but had violated his covenant—all that Moses the servant of the Lord commanded. They neither listened to the commands nor carried them out.” Sennacherib was poised to capture Jerusalem, so he sent the Rabshakeh with a great army to issue a challenge to Hezekiah. Using the Hebrew language, the Rabshakeh said, “Tell Hezekiah that this is what the great king, the king of Assyria, says: What is the basis of this confidence of yours? You claim to have a strategy and strength for war, but these are empty words. In whom are you now trusting, that you have rebelled against me?” (Isaiah 36:4–5\). The Rabshakeh used the native language of the Jews in order to be heard by the Jewish guards on the wall. He may have been hoping his words would terrify them into pressuring Hezekiah to surrender.
Hezekiah’s emissaries, Eliakim, Shebna, and Joah, said to the Rabshakeh, “Please speak to your servants in Aramaic, since we understand it. Don’t speak to us in Hebrew in the hearing of the people on the wall” (Isaiah 36:11\). But the Rabshakeh only shouted louder in Hebrew, hoping to shake their faith and turn the common people of Judah against their king (Isaiah 36:13\).
The Rabshakeh’s message to the people of Jerusalem was full of lies, boasts, and blasphemies:
• he questioned the object of their trust
• he ridiculed Hezekiah’s strategy as weak and ineffective
• he discounted any help they might receive from Egypt
• he told them the Lord had turned against them
• he claimed the Lord had sent him to destroy the land of Judah
• he crudely reminded them of the horrors of being under siege
• he accused Hezekiah of deceiving the people
• he scoffed at the notion of trusting in the Lord
• he offered gifts of land and peace to anyone who would surrender
• he reminded them that no nation’s gods had yet been able to deliver it from Assyria
• he equated the Lord with the impotent gods of the other nations
When Hezekiah heard the threats, he sent his emissaries to consult with the Lord’s prophet, Isaiah (Isaiah 37:1–2\). Isaiah told them, “This is what the Lord says: Do not be afraid of what you have heard—those words with which the underlings of the king of Assyria have blasphemed me. Listen! When he hears a certain report, I will make him want to return to his own country, and there I will have him cut down with the sword” (verses 6–7\). Hezekiah also took the message he had received from the Rabshakeh to the temple, where he laid it before the Lord and prayed for help.
The Lord did defend Jerusalem, just as He promised (Isaiah 37:36–38\). Despite the taunts and manipulative attempts by the Rabshakeh to defeat God’s people, the Assyrian army was destroyed, and the Lord’s purpose prevailed. It will always prevail (Isaiah 46:9–11\).
Many today attempt to dishearten God’s people, through ridicule, blasphemy, and lies. Like the Rabshakeh, they see themselves as invincible and possibly even claim that God is on their side. Believers must run to God’s Word, seek for wisdom, and pray. Then they must trust in God’s promises.
Malachi 3:16–18 reveals God’s response when a modern\-day Rabshakeh challenges us: “‘On the day when I act,’ says the Lord Almighty, ‘\[those who feared the Lord] will be my treasured possession. I will spare them, just as a father has compassion and spares his son who serves him. And you will again see the distinction between the righteous and the wicked, between those who serve God and those who do not.’”
|
What is apostolic tradition?
|
Answer
The phrase *apostolic tradition* is not found in the Bible, but the term is used to refer to the teachings of the apostles passed down to the church. According to the [Roman Catholic Church](origin-Catholic-church.html), apostolic tradition is “the transmission of the message of Christ, brought about from the very beginnings of Christianity by means of preaching, bearing witness, institutions, worship, and inspired writings. The apostles transmitted all they received from Christ and learned from the Holy Spirit to their successors, the bishops, and through them to all generations until the end of the world” (*Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church*). Among Catholics, apostolic tradition is seen as a special revelation of God, distinct from the written Word, that the apostles passed down to the early church. It is an authoritative supplement to Scripture.
Second Thessalonians 2:15 mentions “tradition” in some translations: “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle” (KJV). The NIV simply says “teachings.” Paul cites both his oral teaching and his written epistles as authoritative for the church. There is nothing here, though, that would suggest apostolic succession or a lasting body of oral tradition distinct from the written Word. Paul, who had been teaching for many years before he wrote any epistle, is simply saying that his previous instructions delivered in Thessalonica were to be followed, as were those contained in his first letter to them. In other words, Paul is saying, “Hold fast to what I directly taught, whether I said it when I was with you, or wrote it after I left.” What Paul had taught the Thessalonian church can all be found in the Bible. There is nothing in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 that teaches acceptance of indirect teaching “traditionally” attributed to the apostles.
Likewise, when Paul instructed Timothy to pass his teaching on to others, he was not referring to an oral transmission of tradition to be passed on during the early church period. Here is what he said: “You have heard me teach things that have been confirmed by many reliable witnesses. Now teach these truths to other trustworthy people who will be able to pass them on to others” (2 Timothy 2:2, NLT). The truths Paul taught refer to the teachings that can now be found in the corpus of his writings, which occupy 13 of the 27 books of the New Testament.
Although Christian creeds and the writings of the [early church fathers](early-church-fathers.html) do have value and can be used as secondary sources in studying biblical issues, the Bible alone is the only authority in a Christian’s life. Men like [Irenaeus](Irenaeus-of-Lyons.html) and [Origen](Origen-of-Alexandria.html) provide insight into the teachings of the early church, but their writings are not inspired and sometimes even contain faulty theology. In contrast, Scripture contains what the apostles explicitly passed down for the instruction and teaching of the church (1 Corinthians 15:3–4; 2 Timothy 3:16–17; 2 Peter 1:16, 20–21\). We do not need an oral tradition passed down through the first few centuries of church history.
Despite the belief of the Catholic Church, the authoritative teachings of the apostles are found solely in Scripture, not in apostolic tradition. Christians do not have to turn to early church writings to read and interpret the Bible. Reading creeds and the works of people like [Papias](Papias-of-Hierapolis.html) or [Clement of Rome](Clement-of-Rome.html) can be insightful, but such works should not be viewed as authoritative in setting a Christian’s faith and doctrine.
|
Is pornography addiction an acceptable reason for divorce?
|
Answer
[Pornography](pornography-Bible.html) is a pandemic sweeping our world, destroying hearts, lives, and families. The damage porn does to marriages is incalculable, as it creates unrealistic and selfish expectations for marital intimacy and leads to frustration and heartache for both spouses. Because addiction to porn, or even its frequent use, is so destructive to relationships, many wonder if it justifies divorce. They cite Jesus’ words in Matthew 5:28 as evidence that lust in the heart equals adultery. Of course, adultery is a biblical reason for divorce (verse 32\); does a pornography addiction qualify as well?
The answer may be both yes and no, and we will look at both possibilities. In our world it is virtually impossible to avoid seeing sexual images. While porn use is rapidly growing among women, it is primarily the husband’s use that threatens a marriage. Sadly, most boys are first exposed to pornography at a very young age. According to research conducted by the University of Nebraska, “the average age of first exposure was 13\.37 years of age with the youngest exposure as early as 5” ([www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2017/08/pornography\-exposure](https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2017/08/pornography-exposure), accessed 10/6/20\). The same study showed that any kind of childhood exposure to pornography directly affected later attitudes and behavior toward women.
For many husbands, pornography use is a dark secret; shame keeps it hidden, and wives [don’t know](pornography-addiction.html). For others, the first time a wife is aware of her husband’s porn use is on the honeymoon when he asks her to do things she feels uncomfortable with. Then it all comes to light. But at what point is a wife justified in divorcing her porn\-addicted husband?
There are two ways to look at this issue. The first is that, since adultery and abandonment are the only explicitly biblical grounds for divorce, porn use does not qualify. The husband is guilty of lust and [self\-pleasuring](masturbation-sin.html), but he did not physically commit sexual immorality with someone else. Many porn\-addicted husbands use this reasoning to shield themselves from more severe repercussions. But as long as a husband hides behind excuses instead of seeking help to overcome the addiction, he is in danger of digging a deeper pit for himself, and the marriage will not thrive.
Even if the above reasoning is accepted, wives committed to God’s standards for marriage are not helpless. While divorce may not be an option, separation can be. Addicts of all kinds are wrapped in deep denial. They refuse to see how their addiction is harming those in their lives. Immediately upon learning of her husband’s porn use, a wife usually blames herself: “I’m not pretty enough, thin enough, fun enough, etc.” A husband’s ongoing porn addiction creates tremendous insecurity in a wife. She sees his porn use as cheating, while the husband may not. However, if he is going to [overcome it](overcome-internet-porn.html), he will need her support and encouragement. A wise wife will walk with him through this, realizing his addiction has nothing to do with her value or attractiveness. And if he is willing to get help, she should seek help, too.
Most Christian therapists recommend a 30\- to 60\-day period of total abstinence from sex as the husband learns new ways of meeting his deep heart needs in Christ rather than through porn. The wife will need to cooperate with this as a way of helping heal what is broken in their marriage. Rather than pursue a divorce, a wife may give her husband an ultimatum: “It’s either porn, or me and the kids.” She does not have to tolerate an unrepentant addiction that is violating the sanctity of the marriage bed (Hebrews 13:4\). She may choose to move out for a season, deny him sex as long as he continues with porn, or, if he refuses to stop, bring the matter before their church leadership. These are temporary measures with the goal of reuniting the couple when accountability and safeguards are in place.
But there is another way of looking at this issue, and that is to see porn use as tantamount to adultery. Some wives believe they have prayed, appealed, fought, waited, pleaded, and sought counsel until there is nothing left to do. An unrepentant husband who refuses to seek help and accountability may, in fact, be providing his wife with biblical grounds for divorce. He is no longer stumbling into lust as everyone does from time to time; he has created an immoral lifestyle. He is forcing his wife to live with an adulterous man and, in some ways, to participate in his sin. When they have sex, he is not making love to her. He is acting out his lust for other women on his wife’s body. That is mental adultery, and she can tell.
While divorce should never be the first response to marriage problems, it may be necessary when living together in peace is not possible (1 Corinthians 7:15\). Jesus’ words in Matthew 19:8 may apply to unrepentant addicts who are abandoning their families in favor of a substance or behavior. To the Pharisees who questioned Him about divorce, Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.” Addicts who refuse to change have hardened their hearts. So if a spouse can honestly say he/she did everything possible to save the marriage, but the addiction is destroying everything marriage means, then divorce may be an allowable decision.
|
Who was Martin Bucer?
|
Answer
Martin Bucer (1491—1551\) was a German Protestant Reformer. Originally, Bucer took the vows of a Dominican friar and studied under the well\-known Catholic humanist [Erasmus](Desiderius-Erasmus.html). Later, Bucer met [Martin Luther](Martin-Luther.html) and heard him teach. In 1521, he became convinced of Luther’s assertion that faith alone is needed for salvation (Ephesians 2:8–9\) and that the Bible is the sole source of one’s faith (2 Timothy 3:16\).
When Bucer moved to Strasburg, France, he became the pastor of a parish and sought to spread the [Reformation](Protestant-Reformation.html) in France and Italy. While in France, Bucer met [John Calvin](John-Calvin.html), who had been exiled from Geneva. During his time with Calvin, Bucer influenced Calvin’s views on worship and liturgy and encouraged the younger theologian to return to Geneva.
One of Bucer’s goals was to reconcile differences among the Reformed denominations. For example, the followers of Luther and [Zwingli](Ulrich-Zwingli.html) disagreed on the theology behind the Lord’s Supper (Mark 14:22–25; Luke 22:18–20; 1 Corinthians 11:23–25\). Luther held to the view of [consubstantiation](consubstantiation.html), which teaches that Christ is spiritually present in the elements of the Eucharist. Zwingli held to the belief of [memorialism](memorialism.html), which teaches that the Lord’s Supper is done in remembrance of what Jesus did for believers on the cross. Bucer held to a middle view between Luther’s and Zwingli’s beliefs and maintained that Christians from both camps could join in unity. This attempt at reconciling both views culminated in the [Marburg Colloquy](Marburg-Colloquy.html) of 1529, but it did not end with the unification that Bucer had hoped.
Not only did Martin Bucer attempt to reconcile denominations within Protestant circles, but he also tried to bridge the gap between Catholics and Protestants. Bucer took part in Holy Roman Emperor Charles V’s attempts at Catholic and Protestant reconciliation at the Colloquy of Regensburg in 1541\. Sharing some political and doctrinal interests, both parties agreed on certain issues, but the main area of disagreement was justification. In the colloquy’s written declaration, the idea of biblical justification was portrayed in an unclear and ambiguous manner. The Protestants held that Scripture taught that works are not needed for salvation (Romans 3:28; 5:1–2\), but the Catholics urged the inclusion of works for perfecting salvation. Martin Luther publicly opposed the declaration, and the Protestant members of the colloquy, including Bucer, subsequently rejected the declaration as well. Given his efforts to make peace among various groups, Martin Bucer is regarded by some scholars as an early advocate of ecumenism.
A major emphasis in Martin Bucer’s theology was the importance of faith in action. He wrote a book in 1523 entitled *Instruction in Christian Love*, and he strongly believed that Christians should show love to all: unbelievers and believers alike. Clearly, this emphasis on Christian love reflects teachings in Scripture (see John 13:34; Philippians 2:4; James 1:27\).
In 1549, Martin Bucer was forced to leave Strasbourg; he moved to England at the request of Thomas Cranmer. While in England, Bucer became a professor of divinity at Cambridge University. Many scholars note the influence that Bucer had on Cranmer’s most recognized work, the [*Book of Common Prayer*](Book-of-Common-Prayer.html). This liturgical guide for worship went on to influence the Anglican Church as well as many other Protestant denominations.
While not as widely known as Reformers such as Luther, Calvin, or Zwingli, Martin Bucer had a wide influence and is best known today for his commitment to compromise.
|
What was Mary’s lineage?
|
Answer
It is common knowledge that the [genealogies](Jesus-genealogy.html) contained in Matthew and Luke differ. Most conservative Bible commentators explain the difference by holding that Jesus’ genealogy in Matthew 1:1–16 is traced through Joseph’s line to show Jesus’ royal right to the Davidic throne; correspondingly, the genealogy in Luke 3:23–38 traces Jesus’ ancestry through Mary’s line. This means that Mary’s lineage is recorded in the Gospel of Luke.
Mary’s lineage, as recorded by Luke, does not mention Mary, but that’s to be expected—including women’s names in genealogies was not standard practice. It begins this way: “\[Jesus] was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli” (Luke 3:23\). This comment affirms the truth of Jesus’ virgin birth (see Luke 1:29–38\). Joseph was a “son” of Heli by virtue of his marriage to Mary, who would have been the daughter of Heli (Matthew 1:16 lists Joseph’s biological father as Jacob).
Some notable points in Mary’s lineage are that she was a descendant of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Luke 3:34\); she was specifically of the tribe of Judah (verse 33\). She was also a descendant of Boaz (verse 32\) and David (verse 31\). Significantly, Luke traces Mary’s lineage all the way back to Adam (verse 38\). This fits with Luke’s purpose as he wrote to Gentiles and emphasized that Jesus is the Son of God who came to save all people (cf. Luke 2:10–11\).
Another issue relating to Mary’s lineage is her relation to [Elizabeth](Elizabeth-in-the-Bible.html), the mother of John the Baptist. Luke says that Mary was related to Elizabeth, who was in the tribe of Levi (Luke 1:5, 36\). An argument sometimes put forward by those who deny the credentials of Christ is that, if Mary was Elizabeth’s “cousin,” then Mary must also have been a Levite. Some translations, such as the KJV, do state that Mary was the “cousin” of Elizabeth (Luke 1:36\). However, the English word *cousin* does not have to imply a close relation, and other versions of the Bible translate the word as “relative” (NKJV, ESV, CSB, BSB). Even if Elizabeth and Mary were close relatives, it was still possible for them to be of different tribes, as women were identified with their father’s tribe, not their mother’s. Elizabeth’s father was a Levite, making her a Levite by birth, but her mother may have been of Judah. Conversely, Mary’s mother may have been a Levite and kin to Elizabeth’s family, while Mary’s father was of Judah. Luke’s genealogy shows that Heli, whom we assume to be Mary’s father, was a direct descendant of Judah, not Levi. In addition, the angel Gabriel affirmed Jesus’ Judean lineage, telling Mary that “he will be very great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his ancestor David” (Luke 1:32, NLT). David was of the tribe of Judah.
Regardless of Mary’s specific lineage, that Jesus is a descendant of David and Judah is beyond doubt. Other Bible verses also point to the fact of Judah being the tribe of Jesus’ heritage, as the rightful [Messiah](is-Jesus-the-Messiah.html) and Savior of all (Hebrews 7:14; Revelation 5:5\).
|
Who was Tacitus?
|
Answer
Tacitus (circa AD 56—120\) was a Roman historian, orator, and politician. He is best known for his historical writings, including *Annals*, *Histories*, and *Germania*. Tacitus’ *Annals* is one of the earliest non\-Christian sources verifying Jesus’ crucifixion. Tacitus also recorded the false accusation that [Nero](who-was-Nero.html) made against Christians when he blamed them for the Great Fire of Rome in AD 64\.
All that is known about Tacitus’ personal life comes from the writings of his contemporary, [Pliny the Younger](Pliny-the-Younger.html). Nothing is known for certain about Tacitus’ family, since Tacitus never mentioned them in his writings, but we do know he was raised in a wealthy home with many privileges and that he was well\-educated. Tacitus studied rhetoric and literary composition in preparation for a career in public office. Working his way up the rungs of public office, Tacitus eventually won popularity as a lawyer and orator. Later in life, Tacitus devoted himself to writing histories and is considered by many scholars to be the greatest Roman historian.
Of particular interest to Christians is the fact that Tacitus mentions Jesus and Christians. This reference, coming as it does from a non\-Christian source, lends credibility to the fact of Jesus’ existence. In *Annals* book 15, chapter 44, Tacitus mentions *Christus*, which is Latin for “Christ,” and His execution at the command of [Pontius Pilate](Pontius-Pilate.html). This reference correlates with Scripture, which states that Pilate gave in to the requests of the Jews for the crucifixion of Jesus (Matthew 27:22–26; Mark 15:15; Luke 23:23–25; John 19:14–16\). Although Scripture is sufficient in providing an accurate testimony to Jesus’ life and crucifixion (1 Corinthians 15:1–8\), the fact that a pagan Roman historian referenced Jesus’ crucifixion provides further evidence to those inclined to doubt Jesus’ existence.
In the same chapter of his *Annals*, Tacitus also states that Nero blamed the Christians for the Great Fire of Rome. Tacitus referred to Christianity as an “evil” superstition that started in Judea and spread like a disease to Rome (*Annals*, 15\.44\). Although he acknowledged that Nero carried out his persecution against Christians to fulfill his own cruel passions, Tacitus described Christians as hated and therefore deserving of their terrible punishment. Tacitus obviously did not understand those who followed Jesus. Persecution under Emperor Nero is part of the fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy that His followers would experience persecution (John 15:20\). As Jesus told His disciples, “If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you” (John 15:18, ESV).
From Tacitus’ perspective, he was merely recording the events of history in the Roman Empire. Some of the details he recorded are of great interest to us today. For skeptics, Tacitus’ reference to Jesus provides evidence, without “Christian bias,” of Jesus’ historical existence. For believers, Tacitus’ *Annals* affirms the Bible’s witness.
|
What does the Bible say about mental health?
|
Answer
The Bible does not explicitly speak on the topic of mental health; however, it does have a lot to say about the heart and mind, spiritual brokenness, and the condition of the soul. Mental health is important, as it affects the whole being: “Above all else, guard your heart, for everything you do flows from it” (Proverbs 4:23\).
The world is in a fallen state (Genesis 3\). Sin separates us from God (Isaiah 59:2\), corrupting creation as it groans for freedom from its state of decay (Romans 8:21–22\). The fall of mankind has had physical ramifications for the body and spiritual effects on the soul. Mental health is not guaranteed any more than physical health is, and, like the body, the mind can get sick or injured.
The Bible has many passages that speak indirectly of mental health. The Lord is the One who renews the mind (Romans 12:2\) and restores the soul (Psalm 23:3\). God has given His children “a spirit not of fear but of power and love and self\-control” (2 Timothy 1:7, ESV). We have Jesus’ promise of peace (John 14:27\) and rest (Matthew 11:28\). And, of course, there are many scriptural injunctions to “fear not” and to bring our anxieties to God (Isaiah 41:10; Matthew 6:34; Philippians 4:6; 1 Peter 5:7\).
Mental health is linked to the health of both the body and the spirit. We have a biblical example in [Elijah](life-Elijah.html), whose mental health suffered during his conflict with Queen Jezebel. Elijah fled the country to a place by himself where he wished to die (1 Kings 19:4\). God dealt with Elijah’s physical needs first, feeding him and giving him time to sleep (verses 5–6\). God knew his journey was “too much” for him in his current state (verse 7\). After Elijah had rested and recharged physically, God gave him encouragement, a new purpose, and an assistant (verses 15–18\).
[Jonah](life-Jonah.html) is an example of someone whose mental health was tied to bad choices he made. Jonah wished for death after God spared Nineveh (Jonah 4:3\)—a desire quite indicative of a depressive state. Leading up to that was Jonah’s rebellion against God. He had directly disobeyed the Lord’s command (Jonah 1:1–3\), but, even after God brought him back in line, his heart was not in tune with God’s desires. Rather than marvel at God’s mercy and praising Him for His grace, Jonah wished to die. Getting realigned with God was the only way Jonah’s depression could ever end.
In some cases, outside spiritual forces have a direct effect on mental health. [King Saul](life-Saul.html) suffered distress as a result of an evil spirit tormenting him (1 Samuel 16:14\). He only found relief when David played the lyre for him and “the spirit from God came on Saul” (verse 23\). Another example of demon\-related [mental illness](mental-illness.html) is the man from the Gerasenes who lived naked among the tombs and constantly cried out and cut himself (Mark 5:1–5\). After Jesus cast the demons out of him, the man was “in his right mind” (verse 15\). The spiritual battle had been won, and the man’s mental health was restored.
The Bible gives some guidelines on attaining and retaining good mental health. We have a description of the healthy thought life in Philippians 4:8\. We have Jesus’ example of taking breaks from the busyness of life to focus on spiritual matters (Luke 5:16\), and He called His disciples to do the same (Mark 6:31\). We have Paul’s acknowledgement that physical exercise is profitable (1 Timothy 4:8\). Self\-care, both physical and spiritual, is a necessity.
God is near to the brokenhearted and saves the crushed in spirit (Psalm 34:18\). He works all things together for the good of His children (Romans 8:28\). The testing of faith produces endurance and maturity (James 1:2–4\). Mental health struggles, while they are difficult, are not pointless. The Bible clearly shows how God can and does use them for His glory.
|
Should a church close due to inclement weather?
|
Answer
“Snowstorm Coming! No Church Tomorrow!” If we’ve been part of a local congregation for any length of time, we’ve received news like that. Whether it be ice, rain, snow, or excessive heat, some natural elements can affect the advisability of corporate gatherings. Like the local school systems, many churches choose caution and safety over pushing forward with a planned activity. No one in authority wants his or her decision to be the cause of someone’s misfortune. However, as people of faith, shouldn’t we be fearless? Isn’t church more important than the weather? Is it right for a church to close due to inclement weather?
The first thing to keep in mind is that no human being has the power to “close” the church. The church is not a building but a body of believers (Romans 12:4–5\), and Jesus declared that even the gates of hell will not prevail against His church (Matthew 16:18\). We have no central temple to which we must go to worship. God has created a new temple—the bodies of His saints (1 Corinthians 3:16; 6:19; 2 Corinthians 6:16\). We take the church with us everywhere we go because Christ is within us. Therefore, even when the congregation cannot meet together physically, they can still worship as one in spirit. Paul spoke of being “with you in spirit” when he could not be physically present with the churches he loved (1 Corinthians 5:3–4; Colossians 2:5\).
Second, when we argue that it is sinful to close the church doors for any reason, we run the risk of stepping into legalism. The [Pharisees](Pharisees.html) of Jesus’ day had created all kinds of religious rules about worship, and Jesus rebuked them for it (Mark 7:7; Matthew 15:7–9\). He reminded the Samaritan woman that the location of worship did not matter to God. The Father was seeking those who would worship Him in spirit and in truth (John 4:19–24\). Like the Pharisees, we can grow so comfortable in our own traditions that we mistake them for God’s commands. Our instruction is that we do not neglect meeting together (Hebrews 10:25\). Missing one Sunday because of bad weather is not being neglectful.
Third, closing church due to inclement weather does not mean there is no church service. In our modern age, with [online services](online-church-service.html) so readily available, no Christian needs to skip Sunday worship. A multitude of Bible\-teaching churches are making the Word available every Sunday, no matter what the weather.
Of course, being part of a local congregation of believers is vital for spiritual growth. Jesus did not create a church filled with [Lone Ranger Christians](solo-Christian.html). Most letters of the New Testament were written to churches, not individuals. Christian fellowship and corporate worship are essential. God gives pastors and elders the responsibility for a specific flock (Acts 14:23; 1 Peter 5:2; Titus 1:5\), and the flock is instructed to honor them as God’s under\-shepherds (Hebrews 13:17\). Sometimes, when challenges such as inclement weather present themselves, the pastor or elder board must weigh carefully the pros and cons of a temporary closing for the good of the congregation. They recognize that there will be consequences of either decision. When the [leaders](church-leadership.html) of a local church decide that the risks of inviting people to get out on slippery roads are greater than the risks of the flock missing a worship service, the local congregation should honor that decision and pray that God will continue to build and strengthen His church.
|
What is a maskil in the Book of Psalms?
|
Answer
*Maskil* is a term of uncertain meaning found in the [book of Psalms](Book-of-Psalms.html). Most Bible translations suggest that *maskil* is a literary or musical term. Most likely, it relates to the purpose of specific psalms or how they were performed or recited.
Thirteen times, the term *maskil* (also spelled *maschil*) occurs in the title of a psalm (Psalms 32, 42, 44—45, 52—55, 74, 78, 88—89, and 142\). Certain Bible translations have rendered the word in English, referring to it as “a contemplation” (NKJV), “a well\-written song” (NET Bible), “a contemplative psalm” (NHEB), or “an instruction” (YLT). The Hebrew word *maskil* is also found in Amos 5:13, where it is translated as “prudent” (ESV) or having “insight” (CSB). Many biblical scholars believe that a maskil is meant to be meditative and to impart wisdom.
Psalm 78 by Asaph is an example of the maskil being used for teaching, as it includes information on the Israelites’ deliverance from Egypt and their time in the desert (Psalm 78:35, 40\). The psalmist pleads for the people to “hear my teaching; listen to the words of my mouth” (verse 1\). His goal is that God’s people remember what the Lord had done for them and teach those things to their descendants. Asaph is teaching “things we have heard and known, things our ancestors have told us. We will not hide them from their descendants; we will tell the next generation the praiseworthy deeds of the Lord, his power, and the wonders he has done” (Psalm 78:3–4\). Psalm 44 similarly states the importance of learning from their fathers about what the Lord had done (Psalm 44:1–2\).
Multiple writers of psalms used the maskil form, including David (Psalms 32, 52—55, and 142\), the sons of Korah (Psalms 42, 44—45\), Asaph (Psalms 74 and 78\), Heman the Ezrahite (Psalm 88\), and Ethan the Ezrahite (Psalm 89\). A couple of the maskils specify that they were to be performed with “stringed instruments” (Psalm 54:1; 55:1\). It’s been suggested that, since maskils were written for instruction and meditation, the songs were sung as a form of teaching in the tabernacle and temple.
Although the exact meaning of *maskil* is unknown, its use in the book of Psalms highlights the fact that different psalms were written in different styles, for different purposes. Other literary and musical terms, such as [*selah*](selah.html), *higgaion*, and [*michtam*](michtam.html), in the largest book in the Bible show how God values songs and the truths they impart.
|
What is skeptical theism?
|
Answer
Skeptical theism claims that human beings lack omniscience and that their limitation must be considered when attempting to judge the decisions made by God. The target of this skepticism is human beings themselves, suggesting we ought to be wary of objections to God’s actions or existence. This makes skeptical theism one of many responses to the “[problem of evil](problem-of-evil.html).”
The problem of evil suggests that unjustified evil is incompatible with the existence of God. Skeptical theism replies that the premise “there is no possible justification for God to allow this perceived evil” is unreasonable. From the standpoint of skeptical theism, the problem of evil amounts to saying, “I cannot perceive a justified reason to allow that evil; therefore, no omnipotent, omniscient being could perceive one, either.”
A common summary used for skeptical theism is the “parent analogy.” Common sense indicates it’s possible a parent can be justified in allowing a child’s suffering, even perceived “evil,” in circumstances when the child does not understand or accept those justifications. A three\-year\-old may insist there can be no good reason for strangers to tie him up and put him in a scary, noisy machine. However, having an MRI is not necessarily unjustified simply because the child thinks it so. The same concept could apply to vaccinations, surgery, and many other issues.
Nonbelievers may reply to that analogy by saying good parents explain their justifications. To simply shrug off the child’s fears by saying “you would not understand” seems unfair and unreasonable. They also note that the evils under consideration are not relatively minor inconvenience; rather, they are issues like genocide, disease, and rape. Such responses often claim that, since God can “do anything,” He ought to provide whatever explanations are needed, suitable to our limited minds.
Skeptical theism, however, would say such objections miss the mark. The point of the parent analogy—and skeptical theism by extension—is that *only within the child’s perception* are there no good reasons for the “evil.” Those with more advanced perception can clearly see some good reasons (1 Corinthians 13:11–12\). Limited knowledge can make it impossible for certain minds to fully understand certain justifications, no matter how strong the justification or how thorough the explanation. Thus, it’s logically possible that an [omniscient](God-omniscient.html), omnipotent being has justifications that we do not fully perceive.
The relative scale of various “evils” is also irrelevant, but not because skeptical theism rejects the reality of pain and suffering. Rather, it’s because we are not God (Isaiah 55:8–9\) and cannot claim to be infallible judges of His actions (Job 38:1–7\). As we grow into adulthood, a great many issues that once seemed simple reveal themselves as more complex and nuanced (1 Corinthians 13:11–12\). God’s infinitely more advanced perspective makes it unreasonable to claim there cannot be justification for God to allow some particular evil. The parent\-child analogy is used simply because the situation is so familiar; a more apt comparison for God and man might be adults and bacteria.
Another point often missed by critics of skeptical theism is that explanation does not compel acceptance (John 5:39–40; James 2:19\). Someone can encounter clear, logical, concise explanations and still reject them—even those that 99 percent of others would accept. Or, as in the case of children, simple selfishness or emotion might override all other considerations. Once again, this proves a narrow point: merely saying, “I do not perceive good reasons for this,” is not proof that such justifications do not or cannot exist. *Good enough reason* is an inherently subjective phrase, and competing desires often color our views of what we will or will not acknowledge.
Skeptical theism inspires many other criticisms and defenses than those referenced here. There are deeper discussions to be had about our knowledge of God and where to doubt our conclusions—even problems like [solipsism](solipsism.html). However, the general concept of skeptical theism is biblically and rationally sound. An omnipotent, omniscient being is not disproved merely because the being’s actions don’t make perfect sense to fallible humans (Romans 9:20–21\).
|
What does Ezekiel 20:25 mean when God says, “I gave them statutes that were not good”?
|
Answer
Ezekiel 20:25 in the ESV reads, “Moreover, I gave them statutes that were not good and rules by which they could not have life.” Why would God give the Israelites “statutes that were not good”? Is God saying that some of the commands, laws, statutes, and regulations He gave the Israelites in the Old Testament Law were not good?
As with any passage, it is exceedingly important to study the context of Ezekiel 20:25\. In Ezekiel 20, these statements are repeated: “I swore to them” (verses 5, 6, 15, 23\), “made known to them” (verses 5, 9\), “I am the Lord your God” (verses 5, 7, 12, 19\), and “but they rebelled” (verses 8, 13, 16, 21\). God makes clear that He is God and that He has made Himself known to the Israelites. He did so by bringing them out of the land of Egypt and into a good and fruitful land He had prepared for them, sparing them the wrath they deserved and giving them laws and statutes. It is notable that God accentuates His faithfulness, His goodness (bringing forth life), and His ability to be found and understood. It is also notable that God emphasizes their rebellion and the abominations of their fathers.
God commanded the Israelites to cast away the detestable things their eyes feasted on and to not defile themselves with the idols of Egypt (Ezekiel 20:7\). He gave them rules that bring life to the obedient (verse 11\). God gave them the Sabbath as a sign to know that God sanctifies them (verse 12\). He commanded them not to walk in the statutes of their fathers or keep their rules. He also commanded them not to defile themselves with idols (verse 18\) and to keep the Sabbath holy (verse 20\).
Israel violated all of God’s commands. They committed abominations (Ezekiel 20:4\). They rebelled against God and were unwilling to listen. They did not cast away the detestable things their eyes feasted on, nor did they forsake their idols (verse 8\). They did not walk in His statues but rejected His rules and profaned the Sabbath (verses 13, 16, 24\). Their hearts went after the [idols](idol-worship.html) of other nations (verses 16, 24\). They rebelled and did not live by the rules that bring life (verses 21, 24\). Their eyes were set on their fathers’ idols (verse 24\).
Ezekiel 20:25 appears to be the direct opposite of what is said in previous verses. God repeats over and over again that His rules bring life and that the Israelites did not live by those rules. So, what is He talking about when He says He gave them rules that were “not good” and by which they “could not have life”?
A few other translations render Ezekiel 20:25 differently:
“So I gave them other statutes that were not good and laws through which they could not live” (NIV).
“I gave them over to worthless decrees and regulations that would not lead to life” (NLT).
“Therefore I also gave them up to statutes *that were* not good, and judgments by which they could not live” (NKJV).
The verse is saying that, since the Israelites violated God’s laws and committed abominations, such as sacrificing their sons (Ezekiel 20:26\), God essentially said, “I’ll let you experience the full misery of what it is like to live under the laws of pagan gods.”
This “giving over” of the Israelites to worthless decrees would be similar to what we see in Romans 1:24, 26, and 28: “God [gave them over](God-gave-them-over.html) in the lusts of their hearts. . . . God gave them over to degrading passions. . . . God gave them over to a depraved mind” (NASB).
When we continue to stubbornly rebel against God, violating His commands, committing idolatry, etc., He sometimes allows us to experience the consequences of our sin. He allows us to see how sin destroys our lives. He allows us to become like the idols we are worshipping.
In summary, when God says, “I gave them statutes that were not good and rules by which they could not have life,” He is declaring that, because the Israelites perverted God’s statutes (the giving of the [firstfruits](firstfruits-offering.html), for example), even to the point of offering their firstborn children, God gave them over to the rules and statutes of their ancestors and the surrounding idolatrous nations. Those rules, which led to death, were the opposite of God’s life\-giving rules and were a judgment in themselves.
Why did God do this? “So that they would know that I am the LORD” (Ezekiel 20:26\) and so that “afterward you will surely listen to me and no longer profane my holy name with your gifts and idols” (verse 39\). God wants our hearts, one hundred percent. He wants us to know that He is the one to be worshipped, for He alone is God and He alone can give us life.
|
What impact did Blaise Pascal have on the Christian faith?
|
Answer
Blaise Pascal (June 19, 1623—August 19, 1662\) was a French mathematician, inventor, scientist, and theologian/philosopher. Although he suffered from poor health, Pascal made major contributions in mathematics and physical science including the areas of hydraulics, atmospheric pressure, and vacuums. Pascal also insisted upon strict empirical observation and the use of controlled experiments. As a mathematician he helped develop differential calculus and probability theory. As an inventor, he developed a digital calculator to aid in commerce that could handle the French monetary units, which were not base 10\. He also invented the syringe and the hydraulic press.
Pascal was raised as a traditional Roman Catholic but as a teenager came into contact with some Jansenists (a Catholic splinter group named for the Dutch theologian Cornelius Jansen) who taught that salvation was by grace, not by human merit. Pascal embraced this faith, but some who study his life today see little impact of his faith. However, on November 23, 1654, during the night he had what some call a “second conversion” when he said that he yielded himself totally to Jesus Christ. He kept a written record of this event sewn inside the lining of his jacket, and it was not discovered until after he died.
After his conversion experience, Pascal did not abandon his scientific studies but spent a significant amount of time in theological reflection and writing. He joined a Jansenist community that soon after became embroiled in a controversy with the Pope, the Jesuits, and most of the ecclesiastical leadership in France. Under the pseudonym Louis de Montalte, Pascal began publishing a series of letters (eighteen in all) defending the Jansenists and attacking the Jesuits. The letters were conversational in tone and used wit, sarcasm, irony, and humor. None of these things were common in French theological discourse at the time. The Letters were well\-received, but ultimately the Jansenists were condemned by a papal bull and all but eradicated in France. These letters today are known as *Les Provinciales* or *Lettres Provinciales* (“The Provincial Letters”) and are available in English online.
Next, Pascal began work on what he hoped would be a comprehensive apology for the Christian faith. This work, published after his death, was called *Pensees* (“Thoughts” or “Reflections”). In this work Pascal did provide evidences for the Christian faith, but he rejected the idea that one could get to the truth by rational processes alone. After reviewing all the evidence, he said, we are still left with a measure of uncertainty. It is here that we must make a choice, and it is his argument at this point that has made Pascal’s most lasting impact on Christianity. [Pascal’s Wager](Pascals-wager.html), as it is called, explains that it only makes sense to wager that God exists. If a person “bets” that God does not exist and is wrong, he loses everything. On the other hand, if a person “bets” that God does exist and is wrong, he really loses nothing. Pascal also points out that there is no middle ground; everyone must make a bet one way or the other.
The wager is not a blind leap of faith because there is [evidence](evidence-existence-God.html) to support God’s existence—just not enough to rule out all uncertainty. The wager is not a proof of God’s existence; rather, it is a wise choice given the stakes and the probabilities. Some atheists counter that the person who “bets” on God and is wrong stands to lose a lot, including fun and happiness in this life, intellectual honesty, and self\-respect. However there are great numbers of believers who have all these things along with love, joy, and peace. If atheism is right, when we die it is all over and a happy believer is no worse off than a happy unbeliever, even if the believer was wrong all his life.
Pascal’s Wager encourages those who are struggling with the existence of God, the truth of Christianity, or the possibility of eternal life to consider all the evidence and then proceed on the basis of the only choice that makes sense. It should also give comfort to believers who occasionally experience doubts. Rather than abandoning oneself to a life of atheism or unbelief, one should keep trying to find God, who promises, “You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart” (Jeremiah 29:13\).
|
What does it mean to comprehend the “breadth and length and height and depth” in Ephesians 3:18?
|
Answer
In Ephesians 3, Paul expresses his desire and prayer for the believers in Ephesus. Part of what he prays for is “that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith—that you . . . may have strength to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God” (Ephesians 3:17–19, ESV). Paul here is explaining that, although he was suffering for the sake of the [gospel](what-is-the-gospel.html) (verses 1, 13\), it was worth it if they could only grasp the magnitude of Christ’s love for them.
The Greek word translated as “comprehend” or “understand” implies more than a mental understanding. It literally means “to take hold of something and make it one’s own.” In order for the Ephesian Christians to truly understand the “love that surpasses knowledge,” they needed to go beyond hearsay. This kind of comprehension is experiential. It requires us to take hold of a truth and define ourselves by it. Paul was encouraging them—and all saints everywhere—to meditate on what it means to be fully loved by God for the sake of Christ. He wanted them to grasp [God’s love](God-is-love.html) in all its fullness; to know “how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ.”
Jesus had already defined love as it was demonstrated by both Father and Son. Of Himself He said, “Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends” (John 15:13\). Of the Father He said, “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son” (John 3:16\). God’s love is all\-encompassing, far exceeding our ability to comprehend. Its breadth and length and height and depth are staggering. It requires meditation, soul\-searching, and honesty in order to draw near enough to God to comprehend His nature (James 4:8\). And that was what Paul urged them, and all Christians, to do: consider the breadth and length and height and depth of the love of Christ for His church. Later in his epistle, Paul again alludes to the love of Christ when he urges husbands to love their wives in the same way Christ loves the church (Ephesians 5:25–27\).
Paul’s use of dimensional language to describe the love of Christ suggests a vastness to Christ's love. The Redeemer's love for His people is so great, of such magnitude, as to be almost beyond comprehension. The four\-fold description of length\-width\-height\-depth carries with it shades of Psalm 103:11–12, which also uses dimensional language:
"For as high as the heavens are above the earth,
so great is his love for those who fear him;
as far as the east is from the west,
so far has he removed our transgressions from us."
There is absolutely nothing at all that can separate us from the love of God in Christ (Romans 8:38–39\). When we learn to bask in that love (1 John 3:1\), celebrate His delight in us (Psalm 37:23\), and rest in His faithfulness (Psalm 136:1\), we enjoy relationship, not religion. Only a relational God could love us so much that we can barely comprehend the breadth and length and height and depth of it.
|
What is the significance of Zoar in the Bible?
|
Answer
Zoar was a city located at the southeast end of the [Dead Sea](Dead-Sea.html). The name *Zoar* means “little” or “insignificant.” It was also known as Bela during the time of Abraham (Genesis 14:2\). Zoar is first mentioned in Genesis 13:10 as one of the boundary cities that defined the region where Abraham’s nephew [Lot](Lot-in-the-Bible.html) moved after they [parted](Abraham-and-Lot.html).
Zoar was one of the cities slated for destruction by God in Genesis 19 but was spared. While the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah are featured most prominently in the destruction with fire and brimstone, other cities were included in the judgment. Genesis 19:24–25 says, “Then the Lord rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah—from the Lord out of the heavens. Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, destroying all those living in the cities—and also the vegetation in the land.” The other cities on that plain were Admah, Zeboim, and Zoar. However, because Lot did not think he could escape to the mountains in time, he pleaded to be allowed to take refuge in the little town of Zoar (verses 18–20\). The Lord agreed to withhold His judgment until Lot and his family reached Zoar; then, God spared Zoar when the rest of the cities in the plain were destroyed (verses 21–25\).
Later, Lot perceived Zoar to be unsafe for him and his two daughters to live in, so they moved into a cave outside Zoar (Genesis 19:30–38\). It was in this isolated setting that his daughters feared they would never marry and have children, so they contrived an incestuous plan. They got their father drunk, had sex with him on two consecutive nights, and became pregnant with his children. The eldest daughter had a son she named Moab, which means “he is from my father.” The younger daughter also had a son and named him an equally shocking name: Ben\-Ammi, which means “son of my father’s people.” The two boys grew up to become the progenitors of the [Moabites](Moabites.html) and the [Ammonites](Ammonites.html).
Zoar is again mentioned in Isaiah 15:5 as part of the nation of Moab. It would make sense that the son of Lot by his eldest daughter would remain in the area of his birth and become the father of a vast tribe, the Moabites.
The town of Zoar escaped the righteous judgment of God only because God had mercy on it for the sake of Lot. Zoar deserved the same destruction that befell Sodom and Gomorrah, but because of the presence of a righteous man, God spared it (see 2 Peter 2:7\). The presence of God’s people makes a difference. As Jesus told His followers, we are to be [salt and light](salt-and-light.html) in the world (Matthew 5:13–16\). Salt is a preservative, and light illuminates darkness. It is the presence of God’s people, the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 3:16; 6:19–20\), that keeps God’s final judgment at bay (see 2 Thessalonians 2:7–8\). But just as Zoar was eventually judged, so will this earth be when Jesus returns (Revelation 19:11–16\). Until that day, Christians should live with the continual awareness that the light of Jesus in us needs to shine for the glory of God.
|
Why does Saul ask who David is, when he had met him earlier (1 Samuel 17:55)?
|
Answer
First Samuel 17 relates the famous battle between [David and Goliath](David-and-Goliath.html). Young David had heard and seen the giant Philistine taunting the armies of Israel, and David said he would volunteer to fight him (verse 32\). Word of David’s offer reached King Saul, who summoned David, interviewed him, and sent him out to fight Goliath (verses 31–37\).
As [David](life-David.html) went out to face the giant, [Saul](life-Saul.html) looked on. The king then asked Abner, the commander of the army, “Whose son is that young man?” (1 Samuel 17:55\). This question has caused some puzzlement, since in the previous chapter, David had been employed to play the lyre for Saul. The king knew David’s name and had been told who his father was (1 Samuel 16:14–23\).
There are several possible explanations for why Saul asks about David in chapter 17 after he had been introduced to him in chapter 16\. As a preface, we should note that Saul was not inquiring of the identity of David per se in chapter 17; rather, he was asking who David’s *father* was (verses 55, 56, and 58\). We assume he knew David’s name. David’s answer, in verse 58, is, “I am the son of your servant Jesse of Bethlehem.”
One explanation for why King Saul asked the identity of David’s father is simply that he had forgotten whose son David was. Saul had been told about Jesse (1 Samuel 16:18\), and he had even had correspondence with him (verses 19–22\), but it’s not unreasonable to think that the name had slipped Saul’s mind. We assume that kings have a lot of information to keep track of, and we understand if Saul did not regularly review the names of all the people in his realm.
Saul needed to know the name of David’s father to deliver the prize promised to the one who defeated Goliath. In 1 Samuel 17:25, Saul had promised great wealth and the king’s daughter in marriage to the man who killed the [giant](how-tall-was-Goliath.html). Saul had also promised the family of the victor tax exemption. In order for Jesse to receive this benefit, Saul had to confirm that’s who David was.
Another possibility is that Saul’s question was meant to inquire of David’s background in general, rather than the specifics of his family. Where does this boy come from? From what tribe is he? What clan?
Another possible explanation for why Saul asked the identity of David’s father is that the events of 1 Samuel 17 occurred chronologically prior to those of chapter 16\. In this case, David’s stepping forward to fight Goliath was the first time Saul had met David.
In any event, the killing of Goliath proved that David was a truly obedient servant of God who was concerned with the interests of his Heavenly Father and his Father’s people (cf. John 8:29\). Jesus, the [Son of David](Jesus-son-of-David.html), likewise stepped forward in the power of God to slay the giants who kept us cowering in fear (see Colossians 2:15 and Revelation 5:5\).
|
What does it mean that God will blot out our transgressions?
|
Answer
Several passages of Scripture refer to God’s promise to “blot out our transgressions.” In Isaiah 43:25 the Lord says to His people, “I, even I, am he who blots out your transgressions, for my own sake, and remembers your sins no more.” Twice in Psalm 51, David prays for the Lord to “blot out” his sin (verses 1 and 9\).
The Hebrew word translated “blot out” in Psalm 51 means “to abolish, destroy, erase, or utterly wipe away,” according to *Strong’s Concordance*. In verse 1, the appeal to God to blot out sin is based on God’s mercy and “[unfailing love](unfailing-love.html).” That request is followed by a prayer that God would “wash away all my iniquity and cleanse me from my sin” (verse 2\). In verse 9, God’s blotting out of sin is linked to David’s request to “hide your face from my sins” and “create in me a pure heart” (verses 9–10\).
The picture is that our sin is recorded in a heavenly book. The bookkeeper is God, and our sins are entered in a ledger in our debit column. Revelation 20:12 presents a similar picture of the dreadful [great white throne judgment](great-white-throne-judgment.html), when “the dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books.” The psalmist, keenly aware of his sin (Psalm 51:3\), pleads with God to erase the record of his sin and cancel his debt. As a sinner, his only hope is that God, in His mercy, will blot out his iniquity.
As Isaiah 43:25 reveals, God is the only one who has the ability to wipe away our spiritual defilement. To the praise of His glory, He is a God who forgives His children: “I have blotted out your transgressions like a cloud and your sins like mist; return to me, for I have redeemed you” (Isaiah 44:22, ESV). For God to refuse to blot out transgression is a severe judgment (see Nehemiah 4:5 and Jeremiah 18:23\).
Although our sins are many, God has mercy. To those who have faith in Jesus Christ, His Son, God applies the blood of Christ to our sin and cancels the debt we owe Him. Colossians 2:13–14 explains how that happens: “And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by *canceling the record of debt* that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross” (ESV, emphasis added).
Other translations of Colossians 2:14 bring out the same truth in various ways:
“Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances . . .” (KJV).
“God wiped out the charges” (CEV).
“He erased the certificate of debt” (CSB).
“Having blotted out the handwriting . . .” (BLB).
“He canceled the record of the charges” (NLT).
The fact is that, in Christ, our sin has been effaced; no trace of it remains.
In ancient times, people hand\-wrote deeds, receipts, and bills with reed or quill pens and black ink made of soot, gum, and water. When they made a printing mistake on a document (other than the Scriptures), they might choose to blot it out with ink, rewrite the letter or word correctly, and move on. The mistake had to be covered.
That’s a picture of the “blotting out” of our transgressions. Our sin must be made right if we are to be fit for God’s presence. The only substance that can cover our sin is the blood of God’s own Son. Under the Old Testament Law, God allowed the substitution of bulls, sheep, and goats (Numbers 29:11; Leviticus 6:25; 2 Chronicles 29:24\). When their blood was spilled, it symbolized what God intended to do when He sent His Messiah to be the final propitiation for sin (Romans 3:25–26; 1 John 2:2; 4:10\). With Jesus’ shed blood, God blots out the transgression of every person who comes to Him in faith (John 3:16–18; Matthew 26:28\). “For as high as the heavens are above the earth, so great is his love for those who fear him; as far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us” (Psalm 103:11–12\).
Those who have had their transgressions blotted out by the blood of Jesus are [forgiven](https://www.compellingtruth.org/how-can-I-be-saved.html) and will spend eternity in heaven with Him. Without Christ, however, sins remain a dark stain on the soul, and the fate of the unforgiven is eternity in hell (2 Peter 2:4–10; Luke 12:4–5\). No amount of sincerity, religious fervor, or good deeds on the “credit” side of our ledgers can blot out our transgressions. Only the blood of the spotless Lamb of God can blot out our transgressions, erase our debits, and make us clean before God (John 1:29; Hebrews 9:13–14\).
|
What is unfeigned love?
|
Answer
The term *unfeigned love* appears a few times in the Bible, specifically in Romans 12:9, 2 Corinthians 6:6, and 1 Peter 1:22, among other places. To feign is to pretend or give a false appearance; thus, unfeigned love is genuine and sincere love, as opposed to feigned love, which is fake and shallow.
Romans 12:9 exhorts believers to “let love be genuine” (ESV). The same command in the NKJV, NASB, and CSB is rendered “let love be without hypocrisy.” This is unfeigned love. It’s a straightforward command, but practicing it gets a little complicated. True, unfeigned love is more than a smile plastered on a face on Sunday mornings that disappears as soon as the handshake ends. It is more than saying nice things and wishing people well. Unfeigned love results in action.
Unfeigned love comes from a true desire to help others. It includes loyalty and does not seek its own honor. Love does not hesitate to help, and it boils over from a spirit close to God. Unfeigned love is not jealous but rejoices with others. It is encouraging, it gives without seeking gain, and it shows hospitality (Romans 12:9–13\).
In 2 Corinthians 6:6, genuine love is one of the ways in which the servants of God commend themselves. Paul and those who worked with him had genuine, unfeigned love for the people of God. Yet, he says, “We are treated as impostors” (2 Corinthians 6:8\). Basically, Paul had to defend himself and his fellow servants against accusations that they were insincere in their ministry. To counter those claims, he reminded them of his demeanor toward them: “We have spoken freely to you, Corinthians, and opened wide our hearts to you. We are not withholding our affection from you” (verses 11–12\). His love had substance; it was not empty, and the Corinthians knew it. They were encouraged to “open wide your hearts also” (verse 13\).
Peter links unfeigned, sincere love to purifying oneself and “obeying the truth” (1 Peter 1:22\). He then gives a reason to show unfeigned love: “For you have been born again” (verse 23\). We should sincerely love one another because Jesus saved us.
Jesus first loved us (1 John 4:19\), and His love was unfeigned. He held nothing back; He died for us. Our love for fellow Christians should be just as unfeigned. In fact, sincere, unfeigned love is the identifying mark of a true Christian. Jesus said, “By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another” (John 13:35\). Our relationship to each other comes down to [one command](love-neighbor-yourself.html): love your neighbor as yourself (Matthew 22:39\). If we can do this without hypocrisy—without feigning—then we are showing the world how Christ, the source of unfeigned love, loves us.
|
Is Zeus mentioned in the Bible?
|
Answer
Zeus is indeed mentioned in the Bible, in the book of Acts: “Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul they called Hermes because he was the chief speaker. The priest of Zeus, whose temple was just outside the city \[of Lystra], brought bulls and wreaths to the city gates because he and the crowd wanted to offer sacrifices to them” (Acts 14:12–13\). This incident occurred during the [first missionary journey](Paul-first-missionary-journey.html) of Paul.
Zeus was considered the highest of the twelve major Olympian gods of the Greek pantheon. As supreme head of pagan deities, Zeus was portrayed as the ruler of the sky and weather. He was often depicted brandishing a thunderbolt while ensconced on the throne of Mount Olympus.
The Greek poet Homer described Zeus as “the father of gods and men.” Other philosophers and poets have depicted Zeus as ruler and protector of all, the source of universal laws, defender of justice, sponsor of victory, guardian of hospitality, revealer of the future, issuer of good and evil fates, and savior of humankind. Zeus’s celebrity has inspired considerable art and literature.
In much of ancient mythology, Zeus is married to Hera (although, in some instances, he is matched with Dione). Through a string of affairs with other goddesses and human women, he fathers Athena, Persephone, Apollo, Artemis, Ares, Hermes, the Muses, Dionysius, and many others. The Romans associated Zeus with their god Jupiter.
The city of Lystra in Asia Minor, where Acts 14:8–18 unfolds, was home to a temple of Zeus. Zeus’s son Hermes, whom the Romans identified as Mercury, was the chief messenger of all the mythical deities and considered to be the god of eloquent speech. In mythology, Hermes and his father, Zeus, were known to travel together.
When [Paul](life-Paul.html) and [Barnabas](life-Barnabas.html) arrived in Lystra, they encountered an entirely Gentile community steeped in pagan idolatry. As they set out to minister to the people, Paul healed a lame man who had been crippled since birth. The crowds saw the lame man leap up and walk, and they naturally concluded that the gods were visiting them. They called Barnabas Zeus and Paul Hermes since he was the eloquent spokesperson of the team.
A local legend in Lystra claimed that Zeus and Hermes—disguised in human form—had visited the city once before and had been hosted in the home of an elderly couple. Believing they were experiencing a similar visitation, the priest of Zeus and the people of Lystra began to prepare a sacrifice to worship and honor the two apostles as their gods. When they realized what was happening, Paul and Barnabas tore their clothes in anguish and rushed into the crowd, shouting, “Friends, why are you doing this? We are merely human beings—just like you! We have come to bring you the Good News that you should turn from these worthless things and turn to the living God, who made heaven and earth, the sea, and everything in them” (Acts 14:15, NLT).
Attempting to bring light to their darkened thinking, Paul continued to preach the gospel. He spoke of God’s power in creation, His goodness, mercy, and provision. But the people of Lystra did not understand. Eventually, when some Jews from Antioch and Iconium arrived in town and began speaking against Paul and Barnabas, the pagan crowd turned on them. Instead of worshipping Paul, now they tried to stone him to death. Believing they had succeeded, they dragged him out of the city. As Paul’s missionary companions gathered around, God raised Paul. The next day Paul and Barnabas departed Lystra and went to Derbe, where their ministry efforts would prove to be more successful.
|
Who was Simon the Pharisee?
|
Answer
We meet Simon the Pharisee in the Gospel of Luke when he welcomes Jesus into his home for dinner. The meal is interrupted by a sinful woman who anoints Jesus with an expensive jar of perfume. This account is the only place Simon the [Pharisee](Pharisees.html) is mentioned in the Bible.
In Luke 7:36–50, Jesus was invited to dine at the home of Simon the Pharisee. While the Lord was reclining at the table in the customary pose, an uninvited guest arrived—an anonymous woman known only for her sinfulness. She brought with her “a beautiful alabaster jar filled with expensive perfume” (verse 37, NLT). The woman kneeled at the feet of Jesus, crying great tears, which fell onto His feet. Then, taking down her hair, she wiped away her tears, kissed the Lord’s feet, and anointed them with her perfume.
When Simon the Pharisee saw what was happening, he was shocked that Jesus would allow such an immoral woman to touch Him. The Pharisees, who were outwardly pious and religiously hypocritical, prided themselves on their separation from anything unclean and sinful. Simon thought to himself, “If this man were a prophet, he would know what kind of woman is touching him. She’s a sinner!” (Luke 7:39, NLT). Reading the man’s thoughts, Jesus demonstrated that He was much more powerful than just a prophet. He said to Simon, “I have something to say to you.”
Jesus told Simon a brief [parable](what-is-a-parable.html): a banker loaned money to two people—a massive sum to one and a modest sum to the other. Neither person could repay the debt, so the banker showed mercy, forgave both, and canceled their debts. Then Jesus asked Simon the Pharisee a crucial question: “Who do you supposed loved the banker more after that?” Simon answered, “The one with the larger debt” (Luke 7:42–43\).
Jesus acknowledged that Simon had answered correctly. Then He turned to the sinful woman and began to compare her—a humble, gracious, and generous\-hearted worshipper—to the proud and ungracious Pharisee. Simon had neglected to perform the basic hospitable courtesies extended to houseguests in those days. He didn’t offer water for Jesus to wash His feet before dinner. Yet the woman had washed His feet with her tears and dried them with her hair. Simon hadn’t greeted his guest with a fond kiss on the cheek, but the woman had showered His feet with kisses. The Pharisee hadn’t even spared olive oil to anoint the Lord’s head—an act that showed respect and courtesy to a guest—but the woman had anointed the Lord’s feet with her priceless perfume.
Finally, Jesus came to the point of his comparison: “I tell you, her sins—and they are many—have been forgiven, so she has shown me much love. But a person who is forgiven little shows only little love” (Luke 7:47, NLT).
Simon the Pharisee had been revolted by the woman’s sinfulness, but Jesus accepted her with love, allowing her to touch, wash, kiss, and anoint Him. Her debt had been massive, and Jesus had forgiven her much. As a result, she poured out her love for God with an extravagant display of passion that Simon the Pharisee could not comprehend. Then Jesus assured the woman of God’s forgiveness (Luke 7:48\).
The men at the dinner table wondered, “Who is this man, that he goes around forgiving sins?” (Luke 7:49, NLT). Jesus was revealing to them that He Himself was God. Through this encounter with the sinful woman, Jesus was also showing them that their love for God was profoundly lacking. Simon the Pharisee was the debtor in the parable whose canceled debt was minimal and whose love for God was stingy at best. The episode went right to the heart of Christ’s ongoing controversy with the self\-righteous Pharisees.
|
Old covenant vs new covenant—what are the differences?
|
Answer
The word *testament* is another word for *covenant*, so in one sense the question could be “What is the difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament?” The terms *Old Testament* and *New Testament* are often used as titles of two halves of the Bible. But the terms *books of the Old Testament* and *books of the New Testament* get us closer to the meaning. If we said “books of the Old Covenant” and “books of the New Covenant,” we would be closer still. The literary work known as the [Old Testament](Old-Testament-Survey.html) is actually made up of 39 individual documents that give us the details of the Old Covenant. The literary work known as the [New Testament](New-Testament-Survey.html) is actually made up of 27 individual documents that give us the details of the New Covenant.
The Old Covenant is the “working arrangement” that God had with Israel. He had chosen them for a special relationship that He did not have with any other group of people on earth. He took just a few [patriarchs](biblical-patriarchs.html) (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob) and grew their descendants into a great nation and gave them a land (Canaan) and His law to live by (see Exodus 20 and following). The Israelites were to remain loyal to God, obeying Him and worshipping Him alone. If they did, He promised to bless them, and if they did not, He promised they would be chastened (see Deuteronomy 27—28\). God established a sacrificial system that would allow them to be cleansed (temporarily) from their sins—but these sacrifices had to be repeated over and over. He ordained priests to represent the people before Him, as the people could never come directly into the presence of God. And even with all these accommodations, the nation as a whole was unfaithful and eventually fell under the judgment of God.
Jeremiah prophesied that judgment was coming upon the nation of Israel, but he also told the nation that something better was coming:
“‘The days are coming,’ declares the Lord,
‘when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel
and with the people of Judah.
It will not be like the covenant
I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
though I was a husband to them,’
declares the Lord.
‘This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel
after that time,’ declares the Lord.
‘I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
No longer will they teach their neighbor,
or say to one another, “Know the Lord,”
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,’
declares the Lord.
‘For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more’”
(Jeremiah 31: 31–34\).
In this new covenant, God said, Israel will be restored, sins will be finally forgiven, people will know God directly, and they will have His law written on their hearts so that they will want to obey Him.
The law under the Old Covenant was never a [means to salvation](Old-Testament-salvation.html); rather, it led to condemnation as people repeatedly broke the law and violated the covenant.
Paul, citing many passages from the books of the Old Covenant, explains:
“As it is written:
‘There is no one righteous, not even one;
there is no one who understands;
there is no one who seeks God.
All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.’
‘Their throats are open graves;
their tongues practice deceit.’
‘The poison of vipers is on their lips.’
‘Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.’
‘Their feet are swift to shed blood;
ruin and misery mark their ways,
and the way of peace they do not know.’
‘There is no fear of God before their eyes.’
Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin” (Romans 3:10–20\).
The book of Hebrews is an extended discourse on the differences between the Old and New Covenants. Here is one passage dealing with the subject:
“The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. Otherwise, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins.
“But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins. It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. . . . Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, and since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool. For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.
“The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says: ‘This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds.’ Then he adds: ‘Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more.’ And where these have been forgiven, sacrifice for sin is no longer necessary” (Hebrews 10:1–4, 11–18\).
The New Covenant sacrifice of Jesus on behalf of His people means that sins can be forgiven once and for all.
Under the Old Covenant, only the priests could enter the [Holy Place](Most-Holy-Place.html) and only the high priest could enter the Most Holy Place once per year.
The author of Hebrews explains: “But when Christ came as high priest of the good things that are now already here, a he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not made with human hands, that is to say, is not a part of this creation. He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption. The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!
“For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant” (Hebrews 9:11–15\).
Because of Christ, the high priest of the New Covenant, we can come into God’s presence: “Let us then approach God’s throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need” (Hebrews 4:16\).
Another aspect of the New Covenant is that Gentiles can be “grafted into the tree of Israel” by faith in Jesus, the King and Messiah of Israel (see Romans 11:11–24\). As James explained at the Jerusalem Council, “Simon has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:
“‘After this I will return and rebuild David’s fallen tent. Its ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it, that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord, even all the Gentiles who bear my name, says the Lord, who does these things’” (Acts 15:14–18\).
In summary, the Old Covenant was governed by a law that prescribed correct behavior and that the people continually broke. It contained a [sacrificial system](blood-sacrifice.html) that only temporarily removed sins. The sacrifices were administered by priests who represented the people of Israel to God, but the people could not enter God’s presence themselves.
The New Covenant is governed by a law that is internalized by the people of God and energized by His Spirit. The sins of the people are forgiven and removed once and for all by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, and the people of God have direct, intimate access to Him. Finally, Gentiles who believe are included in the New Covenant.
|
Why does the Old Testament Law say so much about mildew?
|
Answer
A lot of modern homes have mold or mildew problems, and it is a health concern, as exposure to mildew affects our bodies in adverse ways. The Bible speaks on the subject of mold in Leviticus 14:33–48\. The original word translated “mildew” or “mold” in this passage is literally the word for “[leprosy](Bible-leprosy.html).” God wanted His people to live in a mold\-free environment, showing His concern for their well\-being.
We know today that the presence of mold or mildew in a house contributes to allergies, asthma, bronchitis, and other breathing difficulties. The [Mosaic Law](Mosaic-covenant.html) commanded the Israelites to remove mildew from their houses and gave step\-by\-step instructions on how to do it. The Lord had them take preventative measures to protect their health. Then as now, getting rid of mold was important.
God spoke to Moses to give the instructions on what to do when the Israelites moved into Canaan and encountered mold in a house: the owner of the house was to tell the priest about the mold (Leviticus 14:35\). The priest would then order the house to be emptied, and he would go in and inspect the house. If the mold had greenish or reddish streaks and appeared to run below the surface of the wall, then the priest would quarantine the house for seven days (verses 36–38\). During the quarantine, anyone who entered the house would be ceremonially unclean until evening; anyone who slept or ate in the house must wash his or her clothes (verses 46–47\).
After the one\-week quarantine, the priest would reexamine the house. If the mold had spread, then more drastic steps were taken: “He is to order that the contaminated stones be torn out and thrown into an unclean place outside the town. He must have all the inside walls of the house scraped and the material that is scraped off dumped into an unclean place outside the town. Then they are to take other stones to replace these and take new clay and plaster the house” (Leviticus 14:40–42\). Another period of quarantine followed.
After the removal of the infected parts of the house, the priest would return for yet another inspection. If the mold had reappeared on the new plaster, the priest would declare it to be “a persistent defiling mold” and the house itself “unclean” (Leviticus 14:44\). There was only one thing left to do in that case: “It must be torn down—its stones, timbers and all the plaster—and taken out of the town to an unclean place” (verse 45\).
If, however, the mold or mildew had not spread after the remodel, the priest would pronounce the house “clean” (Leviticus 14:48\). The house would then be ceremonially purified in a unique ritual involving two birds, water, cedar wood, scarlet yarn, and a clay pot (verses 49–53\).
Another reason, besides physical health, for the Bible’s discussion of mildew (or “leprosy”) in a house could be that it is a graphic illustration of sin. Like leprosy in the skin, mildew in a house is destructive, unwholesome, and unclean. The Old Testament Law taught that mildew, like sin, had a debilitating influence in a person’s home. Like sin, it would spread. Like unchecked sin, it would lead to total destruction. And, like sin, it could only be eradicated through the agency of a priest with a blood sacrifice.
|
What does God mean when He says, “Come out of her” in Revelation 18:4?
|
Answer
In Revelation 18 John records a vision of a mighty angel descending from heaven to announce the fall of [Babylon the Great](whore-Babylon-mystery.html). This evil world system, associated with the Antichrist of the end times, is pictured as a prostitute committing fornication with the kings of the earth (Revelation 17:1–2\). The “whore of Babylon” or “mystery Babylon” makes war against the true saints of God (verse 6\) and is best interpreted as an ungodly, end\-times religious system.
The command to “come out of her” in Revelation 18:4 is a warning to God’s people to escape the judgment that is to come upon Babylon the Great. The false religious system had her time of influence, when “the kings of the earth committed adultery with her, and the merchants of the earth grew rich from her excessive luxuries” (verse 3\). But she is the subject of God’s wrath, and she will be judged: “Her sins are piled up to heaven, and God has remembered her crimes” (verse 5\). She will suffer a quick demise: “In one day her plagues will overtake her: death, mourning and famine. She will be consumed by fire” (verse 8\), and “the great city of Babylon will be thrown down, never to be found again” (verse 21\).
God calls His people during the [tribulation](tribulation.html) to disassociate from Babylon the Great. They must “come out of her” (Revelation 18:4\). Have nothing to do with the false religion of the Antichrist. Separate from that system and its sinfulness; have no fellowship with her. Do not commit [spiritual adultery](spiritual-adultery.html). To “come out of her” is to withdraw from her activities, to refuse her luxuries, and to condemn her sinful plans.
To “come out of her” is to follow the path of liberty and safety. The voice from heaven that commands the separation from Babylon also gives the reason for the command: “‘Come out of her, my people,’ so that you will not share in her sins, so that you will not receive any of her plagues” (Revelation 18:4\). To share in the sin is to share in the guilt. God wants His people to maintain their purity and to be free from judgment.
The command to “come out of her” in Revelation 18:4 finds a counterpart in history. In the end times, God’s people are told to separate from *spiritual* Babylon, but in the Old Testament, they were to separate from *physical* Babylon. Israel had been held [captive in Babylon](Babylonian-captivity-exile.html) for seventy years, and when it was time to return home to Jerusalem, God told them to flee: “Flee from Babylon! Run for your lives! Do not be destroyed because of her sins. It is time for the LORD's vengeance; he will repay her what she deserves. . . . She cannot be healed; let us leave her and each go to our own land, for her judgment reaches to the skies, it rises as high as the heavens. . . . Come out of her, my people! Run for your lives! Run from the fierce anger of the LORD” (Jeremiah 51:6, 9, 45; cf. Isaiah 52:11 and Jeremiah 50:8\).
In times of judgment, God separates His people from those being judged. Abraham pointed out this truth in his [conversation with the Lord](Abraham-Sodom-Gomorrah.html) before the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah: “Far be it from you to do such a thing—to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you!” (Genesis 18:25\). When God judged the Egyptians with the [plagues](ten-plagues-Egypt.html), He made a distinction between His people and those being judged (Exodus 8:22–23; 9:4–6, 26; 10:23; 11:7\).
In a foreshadowing of the New Testament command to “come out of her,” Moses commanded the Israelites to separate themselves from the family of Korah. Just before God’s judgment of the rebels, Moses “warned the assembly, ‘Move back from the tents of these wicked men! Do not touch anything belonging to them, or you will be swept away because of all their sins.’ So they moved away from the tents of Korah, Dathan and Abiram” (Numbers 16:26–27\). Immediately following, the earth opened up and swallowed [Korah and the other rebels](rebellion-of-Korah.html) alive (verses 31–33\).
Christians today are told, in essence, to “come out of her”; that is, to [separate themselves](Biblical-separation.html) from the wickedness of the world: “Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. . . . Therefore, ‘Come out from them and be separate,’ says the Lord. ‘Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you’” (2 Corinthians 6:14–17\).
During the tribulation, when the people of the world see the destruction of Babylon the Great, they will mourn the loss of their source of riches and pleasure (Revelation 18:9, 15, 19\). But those who have come out of her and who had been persecuted by her will celebrate:
“Rejoice over her, you heavens!
Rejoice, you people of God!
Rejoice, apostles and prophets!
For God has judged her
with the judgment she imposed on you” (verse 20\).
|
What is millennialism?
|
Answer
Millennialism is the belief in a literal reign of Christ on earth for 1,000 years in the future. The word *millennium* means “1,000 years”—from *mille*, the Latin word for “1,000,” and the word *annus*, Latin for “year.” (*M* is the Roman numeral for 1,000, it takes 1,000 millimeters to make a meter, 1,000 milliliters to make a liter, etc. A person’s *per annum* salary is their salary for one year.)
What is often referred to as the “[millennial kingdom](millennium.html)” is mentioned in Revelation 20:1–7:
“And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key to the Abyss and holding in his hand a great chain. He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for ***a thousand years***. He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until ***the thousand years*** were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time.
“I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ ***a thousand years***. (The rest of the dead did not come to life until ***the thousand years*** were ended.) This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for ***a thousand years***.
“When ***the thousand years*** are over, Satan will be released from his prison” (emphasis added).
This period of 1,000 years is marked by a binding of Satan and the reign of Jesus Christ. When that period of 1,000 years is over, Satan will be released for a short period for a final period of rebellion before the final end of all things.
Much of Christian eschatology (teaching about the “last things”) is couched in terms of a particular view of the millennial kingdom and of when Christ returns in relation to the inauguration of that kingdom.
The [postmillennial position](postmillennialism.html) interprets Revelation 20 somewhat figuratively and holds that this binding of Satan takes place through the preaching of the gospel and the advance of the church throughout the world. At some point, the world will become predominantly Christian, recognizing Jesus as Lord. Of course, not every individual will be saved, but the worldwide culture will be dominantly Christian, ushering in a golden age of human existence. This golden age will not be based on humanism but on the people and governments of the world making a conscious effort to order things according to the priorities of God’s Word. Christ, though physically absent, will be reigning through His people, and this “golden age” dominance of Christian culture may last for a literal 1,000 years, or that number may figuratively represent a long period of time. At the end, there will be a rebellion, and Christ will return to earth to quash it. The term *postmillennial* means that Christ will return at the end of the millennial kingdom.
The [amillennial position](amillennialism.html) teaches that there is no literal 1,000\-year kingdom. The kingdom of God exists right now as Christ reigns as king in the hearts of His people, the church. Satan is bound now, meaning that he cannot prevent the advance of the gospel and the salvation of the elect, but he is still able to wreak havoc in many other areas. The “1,000 years” cannot be literal because it has already been almost 2,000 years since Christ was on earth. The Church may or may not finally “Christianize” the culture of all nations of the world, but the important thing is that the Church lives according to the priorities of God’s Word and proclaims Jesus as Lord. Christ will return one day to quash all rebellion and inaugurate the new heavens and new earth where there is no opportunity for any sin. The position is amillennial because it denies a literal, visible rule of Christ on earth before the new heavens and new earth, but it certainly does not deny the lordship of Christ or His sovereignty over all areas of life.
The [premillennial position](premillennialism.html) teaches that Christ will return to earth to inaugurate the millennial kingdom. Despite the best efforts of Christians to take the gospel to the ends of the earth, the world will never be “Christianized,” and culture will continue to grow worse and worse. However, Christ will come and establish His kingdom visibly on earth, and Satan will be bound—unable to have any impact on world affairs. The governments of the nations of the world will submit to Christ, and there will be a “golden age” of human existence. Truth and justice will be the hallmarks of government instead of the self\-centeredness and corruption that is common today. However, because there will still be human beings with fallen natures inhabiting the kingdom, there will still be sin and rebellion. At the end of the literal 1,000\-year period, Satan will be loosed, and there will be a final rebellion of humanity against Christ. The Lord will put down the rebellion once and for all and usher in a new heaven and new earth where there is no opportunity for any sin.
Those who are looking forward to a future kingdom of 1,000 years’ duration that begins with the return of Christ (premillennialists) are also often referred to as “millennialists.” The term *millennialism* was in use before the *pre\-*, *a\-*, and *post\-* prefixes were added to the word. In older literature, the position that might be called “premillennialism” today would simply be called “millennialism.” This is the only position that holds to a literal 1,000\-year kingdom inaugurated by Christ and characterized by His visible, earthly reign.
|
What is Sabbatarianism?
|
Answer
*Sabbath* is from the Hebrew word for “seven.” The [Sabbath day](Sabbath-day-rest.html) is the seventh day of the week—Saturday. The word *Sabbath* has also become associated with the concept of rest. For instance, a professor may take a sabbatical—a temporary leave from teaching.
Observance of the Sabbath (seventh) day is one of the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20:8–11: “Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.”
The Sabbath rule was clearly a command for ancient Israel, but Sabbatarianism teaches that today’s Christians should observe the Sabbath. A Sabbatarian is a professed Christian who observes the Sabbath. Groups with “Seventh Day” in their names are Sabbatarian groups (e.g., [Seventh\-day Adventists](Seventh-Day-Adventism.html), Seventh\-day Baptists). The reasons and significance of Sabbath observance run the gamut from those who simply believe that this is something that pleases God to those who make it a requirement for salvation to groups who see worship on Sunday (instead of Saturday) as the mark of the beast.
The issue is further complicated by some Christians who believe that Sunday is the “[Christian Sabbath](Christian-Sabbath.html)” and that prohibitions against work have been transferred from Saturday to Sunday. This belief used to be far more common in the United States than it is today and was reflected in “blue laws,” which restricted certain activities on Sunday, and the fact that many, if not most, businesses (including gas stations) were closed on Sundays. It was not uncommon for older Christian writers to refer to Sunday as “the Sabbath,” and some even referred to themselves as “Sabbatarians,” so the modern reader must carefully discern whether the writer is a Saturday or a Sunday “Sabbatarian.” Modern Sabbatarians are Saturday observers.
Several points concerning Sabbatarianism need to be made:
1\. Nowhere in the New Testament is Sunday called a “Christian Sabbath.” Christians are never commanded to cease from work on Sunday. Sunday is the Christian day of worship because Jesus rose from the dead on the first day of the week (Luke 24:1\). It was the early Christians’ practice to meet together on Sunday (Acts 20:7\), but, even then, no New Testament command establishes Sunday as a day of rest and/or worship.
2\. The early church struggled with how to apply the Law of Moses to believing Jews and Gentiles. Some felt that believing Jews and Gentiles must obey the law for salvation (Acts 15:1\). Others thought that keeping the law should be the standard of Christian behavior, but it was not a means of or requirement for salvation (Acts 15:5\). Some believed that believing Jews needed to continue to keep the law but Gentiles were not required to do so. And some believed that no believers, Jew or Gentile, were under obligation to observe the Sabbath or any of the Old Covenant Law. The apostle Paul falls into this last category:
• Romans 14:5: “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.” (In other words, Sabbath observance is not a moral issue but one of personal preference and freedom. One cannot imagine Paul saying, “One man is faithful to his wife and another has several mistresses. Each one should be firmly convinced in his own mind what he should do.”) If a person wants to observe the Sabbath (on Saturday or Sunday) as a healthy practice, that is fine—but it is a personal decision.
• Colossians 2:16–17: “Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.”
3\. The Sabbath day was meant to foreshadow [God’s rest in Christ](enter-Gods-rest.html) available to the Christian. While having a day of rest was/is a blessing, it is a far greater blessing to rest in the salvation that Christ offers. “There remains, then, a Sabbath\-rest for the people of God; for anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from their works, just as God did from his. Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will perish by following their example of disobedience” (Hebrews 4:9–11\). The context is clear that the rest spoken of is salvation in Christ. The disobedience spoken of is a refusal to believe what God has promised. If a person has stopped trying to earn salvation but simply rests in Christ’s finished work, he or she is “keeping the Sabbath” as God intends. Ironically, those who insist that one must keep the Sabbath law to be saved are actually working when they should be resting, and thus denying themselves the true Sabbath rest.
Sabbatarianism should not be confused with Sabbatianism or Sabbateanism, which was a movement in Judaism spurred by the messianic claims of the Ottoman Jew Sabbatai Tsevi (1626—1676\).
|
Can you give me a timeline of Jesus’ life?
|
Answer
Any timeline of Jesus’ life is speculative to some degree. None of the gospels present the life of Christ in chronological order. Rather, most of the material in the gospels is arranged in topical order according to those things that each individual author wanted to emphasize. Additionally, the writers include details that are important to their own themes, so in some instances it is difficult to tell whether a similar incident happened on two different occasions or if the same incident is simply told from a different perspective.
None of this should be a cause for concern regarding the trustworthiness of the gospels. None of the gospels claim to be comprehensive biographies, and in fact they are quite short given the amount of time they cover. The gospel writers were selective in their material. They give us a full understanding of who Jesus is, what He taught, and His significance for us today, but they do not give us a very good understanding of the order in which Jesus did things. That was not their purpose.
There are a number of New Testament reading plans that have the gospels intertwined “chronologically”—in the opinion of the editor of the plan. However, other editors might arrange the events in a different order.
Having said that, there are a few events that can be placed within a broad framework:
John starts with the pre\-existent Jesus in 1:1–3\.
Luke speaks of the birth of Christ in Bethlehem and the visit of the shepherds that very night (chapter 2\).
Matthew 2 speaks of the visit of the [wise men](three-wise-men.html) to the infant Jesus in Bethlehem. We assume that this visit was at a later time than the shepherds’ because, by the time they arrived, Mary and Joseph were living in a house. Matthew 2 also speaks of the rage of Herod and the escape of Mary, Joseph, and Jesus to Egypt where they stayed for an unspecified time. When the threat was over, they returned to Nazareth where Jesus grew up.
There is only one incident mentioned from Jesus’ childhood—the trip to Jerusalem where Jesus’ parents lost track of Him. When they finally found Him, He was in the temple listening and asking questions to the amazement of those who heard Him (Luke 2:41–52\).
The next incident found in Matthew, Mark, and Luke is the [baptism of Jesus](Jesus-baptized.html) immediately followed by His [temptation in the desert](Jesus-temptations.html). This seems to be the official beginning of Jesus’ public ministry. This is followed by the choosing of the disciples and the beginning of an itinerant ministry.
During Jesus’ life, He spent a lot of time in Galilee, which seems to have been where He was headquartered, but He often took trips to Jerusalem for feasts. (The assumption that Jesus’ ministry lasted approximately 3 years is based on the number of times Jesus went to Jerusalem for [Passover](what-is-Passover.html). However, even this is speculative, as there is no guarantee that every Passover that Jesus observed is recorded in the gospels.) It was during these visits to Jerusalem that He often came into conflict with the Jewish leadership. He performed many miracles of healing and feeding, but, again, the gospels arrange the material thematically without attempting to give a true chronology of events. All the while, Jesus is gradually revealing Himself to the disciples and also preparing them for His death.
After a ministry that ranged over Judea, Samaria, and Galilee, Jesus finally sets out from Galilee at Passover time for what He knows will be His final trip to Jerusalem. All of the gospels give much attention to this final trip and the events that happen once Jesus arrives in the capital. From the triumphal entry to the resurrection, Matthew spends 8 out of 28 chapters; Mark, 6 out of 16 chapters; Luke, 5½ out of 24 chapters; and John, 9 out of 21 chapters. Basically, the gospels dedicate between one third and one half of their volume to the last week of Jesus’ earthly ministry.
That final week can be outlined generally as follows:
The triumphal entry on “Palm Sunday.”
Extended teaching to the crowds and confrontation with the Jewish leadership, culminating in “cleansing the temple.”
Jesus observes a Passover meal with His disciples and institutes “the Lord’s Supper” followed by washing their feet. (Judas leaves during the meal to go tell the Jewish leadership where they can find Jesus in a secluded spot to arrest Him.)
Jesus prays in the Garden of Gethsemane while His disciples sleep.
Judas leads a group of temple guards who arrest Jesus.
Jesus has an informal “trial” before the Jewish leaders who condemn Him and take Him to [Pilate](Pontius-Pilate.html), who must ratify their decision since they do not have the authority to carry out the death penalty.
Pilate tries to find a way out, so He sends Jesus to [Herod](Herod-Antipas.html) since Jesus was a Galilean and Galilee was in Herod’s territory. (Herod was in Jerusalem for Passover.)
Herod questions Jesus, has his soldiers torment and mock Him, and sends Him back to Pilate.
Pilate tries again to appease the mob by having Jesus flogged, but they still cry out for crucifixion. He then offers to release to them either Jesus or the convicted murderer [Barabbas](Barabbas-in-the-Bible.html). They choose Barabbas to be set free, and Pilate sentences Jesus to be crucified.
Jesus is crucified on Friday, according to the consensus of scholars, but this is not clearly spelled out in the gospels, and some scholars think the crucifixion must have been on Wednesday or Thursday.
By all accounts, Jesus rose from the dead the following Sunday.
Jesus appeared to various groups of disciples before finally ascending into heaven (Luke 24:50–51\).
Reconstructing a detailed chronology of Jesus’ life might be interesting, and such a project would undoubtedly immerse the student in God’s Word, but it can also detract from the emphases of the inspired authors. Reading the gospels as they were written will allow us to better discern the inspired themes and emphases. An exact chronology of Jesus’ life was simply not something that the gospel authors (or Author) felt was important to communicate.
|
What are the seven woes of Matthew 23?
|
Answer
In Matthew 23, Jesus pronounces seven “woes” on the religious leaders of His day. A “woe” is an exclamation of grief, similar to what is expressed by the word *alas*. In pronouncing woes, Jesus was prophesying judgment on the religious elite who were guilty of [hypocrisy](Bible-hypocrisy.html) and sundry other sins.
The King James Version and some other translations list eight woes in Matthew 23, but older manuscripts leave out verse 14, in which the [scribes and Pharisees](scribes-and-Pharisees.html) are condemned for taking advantage of widows and making lengthy prayers for show. Elsewhere, Jesus speaks against those very sins (Mark 12:40 and Luke 20:47\); most likely, however, Matthew did not include them among the other woes of chapter 23\.
The seven woes are addressed to the teachers of the law and Pharisees; in one of the woes, He calls them “blind guides” (Matthew 23:16\). At the end of His denunciations, He calls them “snakes” and “brood of vipers” (verse 33\). Prior to Jesus’ condemnation of the religious hypocrites, they had been following Him to test Him and try to trick Him with questions about divorce (Matthew 19:3\), about His authority (Matthew 21:23\), about paying taxes to Caesar (Matthew 22:17\), about the resurrection (verse 23\), and about the greatest commandment of the law (verse 36\). Jesus prefaced His seven woes by explaining to the disciples that they should obey the teachings of the Jewish leaders—as they taught the law of God—but not to emulate their behavior because they did not practice what they preached (Matthew 23:3\).
The first of Jesus’ seven woes condemned the scribes and Pharisees for keeping people out of the kingdom of heaven: “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to” (Matthew 23:13\). Jesus is the only Savior and the only way to heaven. In their rejection of Jesus Christ, the Pharisees were effectively refusing to enter the kingdom of heaven. They also hindered the common people from believing in Him, thereby blocking the way to heaven for others. Repentance and faith in Christ is the door of admission into this kingdom, and nothing could be more disagreeable to the Pharisees, who saw no need for repentance in their own lives and attempted to justify themselves by strict adherence to the law.
In the second of the seven woes, Jesus condemned the leaders for teaching their converts the same hypocrisy that they themselves practiced. They led their converts into a religion of works, but not into true righteousness, making them “twice as much a child of hell” (Matthew 13:15\).
The third woe Jesus pronounced referred to the religious elite as “blind guides” and “blind fools” (Matthew 23:16–17\). The hypocrites fancied themselves guides of the blind (see Romans 2:19\), but they themselves were blind and therefore unfit to guide others. Their spiritual blindness caused them to be ignorant of many things, including the identity of the Messiah and the way of salvation. They were blind to the true meaning of Scripture and to their own sin. They purported to guide the people into the truth, but they were incapable of doing so because they had no personal knowledge of the truth. Instead of teaching spiritual truth, they preferred to quibble over irrelevant matters and find loopholes in the rules (Matthew 23:16–22\).
The fourth of the seven woes called out the scribes and Pharisees for their hypocrisy in the practice of tithing. They made a big deal of small things like tithing spices, while they ignored crucial matters. They diligently counted their mint leaves to give every tenth one to the temple, but they “neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness” (Matthew 23:23\). Turning to hyperbole, Jesus said, “You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel” (verse 24\). In other words, they were careful to avoid offense in minor things of little importance (straining gnats), while tolerating or committing great sins ([swallowing camels](strain-gnat-swallow-camel.html)).
In the fifth, sixth, and seventh woes, Jesus further illustrated the different aspects of hypocrisy that characterized the religious leaders. In the fifth woe, Jesus likened them to dishes that were scrupulously cleaned on the outside but left dirty inside. Their religious observances made them appear clean and virtuous, but inwardly their hearts were full of “greed and self\-indulgence” (Matthew 23:25\).
In the sixth woe, Jesus compared them to “[whitewashed tombs](whitewashed-tombs.html), which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean” (Matthew 23:27\). The rotting corpse inside a tomb was like the hypocrisy and lawlessness in the hearts of the scribes and Pharisees. They appeared righteous on the outside, but they were just beautified tombs; inwardly, they were spiritually dead.
The hypocrisy Jesus addressed in the seventh woe was directed to those who erected monuments and decorated the tombs of the prophets of old. Jesus points out that those prophets had been slain by the Pharisees’ own ancestors. They imagined themselves much better than their fathers, saying, “If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets” (Matthew 23:30\). But in that very statement they acknowledged their lineage: Jesus says they were truly their fathers’ sons; they had inherited their ancestors’ wickedness and were following in their steps. Jesus knew their evil hearts, which would soon plot to murder Him (Matthew 26:4\) just as their ancestors had murdered the righteous men of old.
The seven woes of Matthew 23 were dire warnings to the religious leaders of Jesus’ day. But they also serve to warn us against religious hypocrisy today. We are called to true godliness, sincere love, and enduring faith. Pretension, affectation, and hypocrisy will only lead to woe.
|
What does leaven symbolize in the Bible?
|
Answer
The Bible mentions leaven, or yeast, in several contexts. In some contexts, the reference to leaven is obviously literal; in other contexts, *leaven* takes on symbolic connotations.
Leaven causes dough to rise, but the process takes time. The Israelites, when God freed them from captivity in Egypt, had no time to spare, so, in their haste, they baked and ate flat (unleavened) bread for their journey: “With the dough the Israelites had brought from Egypt, they baked loaves of unleavened bread. The dough was without yeast because they had been driven out of Egypt and did not have time to prepare food for themselves” (Exodus 12:39\).
To commemorate of His deliverance from Egypt, God instructed the Israelites to celebrate a week of feasting following the [Passover Day](what-is-Passover.html) (the 14th day of the 1st month on the Jewish calendar). This was called the “Feast of Unleavened Bread.” During that time the Israelites were commanded to remove all leaven from their houses and eat no bread that contained leaven (Exodus 12:15; 13:6–7\).
Elsewhere in the Mosaic Law, leaven represents sin or corruption. The law forbade [grain offerings](grain-offering.html) made with leaven (Leviticus 2:11\). In fact, no yeast was allowed to be burned on the altar in any sacrifice. The grain offering for Aaron and his sons (the priests) was also not to contain leaven and was to be eaten in a holy place (Leviticus 6:17\).
Leaven is also mentioned in the New Testament. In Matthew 16:6–12, Jesus compared the false teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees and Herodians to [leaven](leaven-of-the-Pharisees.html). The Pharisees had come to Jesus to test Him (verse 1\), but Jesus perceived their true intent and the state of their hearts. He later warned His disciples against being taken in by their teachings (verse 12\), which He compared to leaven. A small portion of the “leaven” of falsehood can permeate a person’s heart and mind. In Luke 12:1 Jesus specifies that the leaven of the Pharisees is “hypocrisy.” Having a show of piety, without true holiness, is like leaven in that it gradually increases and spreads corruption, puffing up a person with vanity. Lies and hypocrisy can poison one’s whole character.
Paul warned the church at Corinth against tolerating sin in their midst, using leaven as a metaphor (1 Corinthians 5:1–8\). There was a man in the church who was guilty of sexual immorality. Paul told them to remove the man from their fellowship because, like leaven, his influence would permeate the whole church. “Don’t you know that a little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough?” Paul asks (verse 6\). Then he points them to the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread: “Get rid of the old yeast, so that you may be a new unleavened batch—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed” (verse 7\).
In [one of Jesus’ parables](parable-leaven.html) of the kingdom of heaven, He uses leaven in a different sense: “The kingdom of heaven is like yeast that a woman took and mixed into about sixty pounds of flour until it worked all through the dough” (Matthew 13:33\). In this case, leaven is not used as a symbol of evil; rather, leaven is a symbol of the kingdom, which will gradually and secretly permeate society. Just as a woman uses the smallest bit of leaven in the dough, so the gospel starts with small beginnings. Just as the leaven quietly works its way through the whole batch, the gospel will have a profound impact on all sectors of society.
|
What are spiritual sacrifices?
|
Answer
First Peter 2:5 says, “You also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.” Peter was writing to Christians to encourage them to remain strong in the faith, even through persecution (1 Peter 1:6\). He reminded them that they were highly significant in the sight of God and urged them to live holy lives (verses 15–16\).
Under the [New Covenant](new-covenant.html), every believer in Jesus Christ is a holy priest. As priests, they offer spiritual sacrifices “through Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 2:5\). Spiritual sacrifices replace the material sacrifices of the Old Covenant (Exodus 29:36\). No longer are priests a separate class, and no longer do they offer bulls, goats, and lambs on the altar (Hebrews 10:1–11\). Not only do believers constitute the new priesthood, but they are the “[living stones](living-stone.html)” forming the spiritual temple of God (1 Peter 2:5\). Our worship today involves the offering of spiritual sacrifices.
Spiritual sacrifices include the believer’s prayers, praises, will, bodies, time, and talents. Such sacrifices are made acceptable to God only through Jesus Christ, the [great High Priest](Jesus-High-Priest.html).
[Prayer](daily-prayer.html) is a spiritual sacrifice. Under the law, incense, often associated with prayer, was offered on the [altar of incense](altar-of-incense.html) in the tabernacle and temple. David prayed, “May my prayer be set before you like incense” (Psalm 141:2\). In his vision of heaven, John saw that the elders around the throne “were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of God’s people” (Revelation 5:8; cf. 8:3\). Our prayers offered to God ascend as the smoke of the incense ascended in the sanctuary. The fact that the incense was always burning means that we should always pray (Luke 18:1; 1 Thessalonians 5:17\).
Another spiritual sacrifice is [praise](praise-God.html). God created us to praise Him, and we offer a “sacrifice of praise” (Hebrews 13:15\) when we turn toward God rather than away from Him in the midst of suffering. Praise is easy when all is right with our world. But when the sky falls in, Satan is ready to suggest, like Job’s wife did, that we “curse God and die” (Job 2:9\). When we resist the urge to judge God for our misfortune and offer praises instead, that becomes a spiritual sacrifice.
Another spiritual sacrifice is surrender of the will. Just as Jesus surrendered His will to the Father’s (Luke 22:42\), so do we. Surrender of our will is an ongoing battle. The sin nature that resides within each of us battles for supremacy (Romans 7:18–20\). Self wants to rule. It is an act of worship when we willingly crucify self and embrace surrender to the will of God. We choose His way rather than our own.
Another way we offer spiritual sacrifices is to present our physical bodies as “[living sacrifices](living-sacrifice.html)” (Romans 12:1–2\). Our bodies are the temple of the Lord (1 Corinthians 6:18–20\). Those who are in Christ by virtue of saving faith offer themselves completely to the Lord. The believer’s body is yielded to God as an instrument of righteousness (Romans 6:12–13; 8:11–13\). Believers maintain good sexual boundaries (Ephesians 5:3\). They refuse to use their bodies for theft (Ephesians 4:28\) or for bringing harm to another person (Colossians 3:12–13\). They offer their bodies daily to God, asking Him to live His life through them (Galatians 2:20; Romans 6:12–14\).
Spiritual sacrifices are any words or deeds motivated by a desire to glorify God alone. Jesus promised us rewards for every kind action done in His name (Mark 9:41; Revelation 22:12\). But we don’t offer spiritual sacrifices for what we will get out of it. We offer them without strings attached because our hearts long to live in close fellowship with God. Sacrifice is part and parcel of worship. Christians offer sacrifices of the heart.
|
How does prayer work?
|
Answer
There is no magical formula for [prayer](what-is-prayer.html). In the simplest of terms, prayer is staying in communication with God—talking to Him, spending time in His presence, and drawing near to Him. Through prayer, we express adoration and thanks to God, we make requests known to Him, we intercede for others, and we learn more about His character and His will for our lives.
Learning how prayer works is part of the natural process of growing in our relationship with the Lord. As we develop an active and continuous connection with God our Father through Jesus Christ His Son by the power of His indwelling Spirit, we discover the heart of prayer.
Prayer is a uniquely human activity; no other beings have the privilege of communicating in such a way with their Maker and Redeemer. But prayer can be intimidating, especially if you’re unfamiliar with the practice or if you’ve been taught to see prayer as a complex, formal, or ritualized activity.
The foundation of prayer that works is a saving relationship with Jesus Christ. Jesus told us to pray [in His name](pray-Jesus-name.html) (see John 16:23–24\), that is, to pray in His authority, on the basis of our union with Him, for what would honor and glorify God. Because Jesus is our “great high priest,” we can “approach God’s throne of grace with confidence” (Hebrews 4:14, 16\).
Prayer that works—the effective prayer—must be offered in faith (James 1:5–7\). Part of praying in faith, Jesus taught, is that we persevere in prayer and never give up (Luke 18:1\). Prayer is relational. It is not meant to be forced but, rather, to flow comfortably from the heart since God knows our hearts (Psalm 44:21; Luke 16:15; Acts 15:8; Romans 8:27\).
Prayer is based on God’s love for us. As children of a compassionate Father, we can trust God and turn to Him to care for our needs (Isaiah 64:8–9; Psalm 103:13–14\).
If we genuinely want to know how prayer works, we will make it our mission to study the prayer life of Jesus Christ, God’s Son. More than anyone else, Jesus shared a close personal connection with God the Father, and, therefore, He is our best example to follow.
Jesus gave His disciple this specific teaching about prayer:
“When you pray, don’t be like the hypocrites who love to pray publicly on street corners and in the synagogues where everyone can see them. I tell you the truth, that is all the reward they will ever get. But when you pray, go away by yourself, shut the door behind you, and pray to your Father in private. Then your Father, who sees everything, will reward you. When you pray, don’t babble on and on as the Gentiles do. They think their prayers are answered merely by repeating their words again and again. Don’t be like them, for your Father knows exactly what you need even before you ask him!” (Matthew 6:5–8, NLT).
Jesus stressed honest, heartfelt prayer based on a loving relationship with God the Father. Through the [Lord’s Prayer](Lords-prayer.html), Jesus also gave His disciples a pattern for prayer. First, He showed them what their motives in prayer ought to be—that God’s name be honored and His will be fulfilled: “This, then, is how you should pray: ‘Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven’” (Matthew 6:9–10\).
Submission to God’s will was a defining characteristic of Jesus Christ’s prayer life (see Luke 22:42\). God answers prayer that lines up with His will: “This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us. And if we know that he hears us—whatever we ask—we know that we have what we asked of him” (1 John 5:14–15\).
Jesus taught the disciples that, through prayer, they could come to God to meet their daily needs: “Give us today our daily bread” (Matthew 6:11\). Our Father takes care of us. We don’t have to worry about what we might need today or in the future; we talk to God about our needs, and we depend on Him as our faithful provider.
Prayer also involves searching our hearts, recognizing that we need God’s forgiveness, and confessing our sins: “And forgive us our sins, as we have forgiven those who sin against us” (Matthew 6:12, NLT). Just as our Father graciously forgives us, we are to forgive those who wrong us. Giving and receiving forgiveness is a vital element of our intimate fellowship with God in prayer.
Jesus also taught that prayer is an opportunity to receive strength from God to resist the enemy’s temptations: “And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one” (Matthew 6:13; cf. 26:41\). Prayer keeps us tuned into the Holy Spirit’s power and guidance to resist temptation and overcome sin.
Pastor and author Andrew Murray provided a good description of acceptable prayer, writing that “it must be to the glory of God, in full surrender to His will, in full assurance of faith, in the name of Jesus, and with a perseverance that, if need be, refuses to be denied” (*With Christ in the School of Prayer*, Fleming H. Revell Co., 1895, p. 6\).
So far, we’ve only scratched the surface of exploring how prayer works. The Bible has much more to say about it. The bottom line, however, is that prayer works through the believer’s ongoing relationship with the living God. Those who are [in Christ](in-Christ.html) have the unique privilege of spending their lives discovering more and more about prayer through loving interaction with their heavenly Father.
|
What is the Covenant Code or the Book of the Covenant (Exodus 20:22—23:33)?
|
Answer
The phrase *Covenant Code* is not found in the Bible, but the term is sometimes used to refer to the set of rules in the Books of Moses that would be perpetually observed. For example, Numbers 15:15 speaks of “a lasting ordinance for the generations to come.” The word translated “lasting” is the Hebrew *olam*, meaning “forever” or “for a long time.” Other translations have “a statute forever” (ESV), “an ordinance forever” (NKJV), or “a permanent law” (NLT). In other words, a Covenant Code was an ongoing command of the Mosaic Law for Israel.
The first mention of a law in the “Covenant Code” is in Exodus 12:14: “This is a day you are to commemorate; for the generations to come you shall celebrate it as a festival to the LORD—a lasting ordinance.” This command is in reference to the first [Passover](what-is-Passover.html). That feast would become a yearly tradition practiced from that time forward. Instead of a one\-time event, the Passover was to be part of the Covenant Code.
In addition to the Passover, the ongoing burning of lamps in the [tabernacle](tabernacle-of-Moses.html) was to be a Covenant Code, according to Exodus 27:21\. The lamps in the tabernacle did not last forever, as the tabernacle would later be replaced by Solomon’s temple, and that was later destroyed. So the idea behind a “Covenant Code” was that the law would be ongoing rather than just for one occasion.
The Levitical priesthood of [Aaron](life-Aaron.html) and his sons is also listed as a Covenant Code (Exodus 29:9\), as was the command for them to wash before entering the tent of meeting (Exodus 30:20–22\). In Leviticus, Covenant Codes include not eating the fat or blood (Leviticus 3:17\), priests abstaining from alcohol (Leviticus 10:9\), the yearly Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16\), sacrifices only brought to the priests at the tabernacle (Leviticus 17:1–7\), the yearly Jewish festivals (Leviticus 23\), and lamps, olive oil, and bread before the Lord in the tabernacle (Leviticus 24:1–9\).
In Numbers, more Covenant Codes are mentioned: the blowing of trumpets when the community was to move (Numbers 10:1–10\), offerings (Numbers 15:15\), the call for Levites to oversee the work of the tabernacle (Numbers 18\), and rules related to ritual cleansing (Numbers 19\).
Outside of these books, only two passages mention a “Covenant Code.” In 2 Chronicles 2:4 a Covenant Code is made concerning moving the tabernacle worship to the Jewish temple in Jerusalem. Then, in Ezekiel 46:14 a Covenant Code is given related to a future temple prophesied by the prophet Ezekiel (usually called the [millennial temple](Ezekiel-temple.html)).
As these passages note, the idea of a Covenant Code indicated an ongoing law, but it was not always intended to be eternal. In addition, the Covenant Codes of the Bible are related to the tabernacle, temple, and worship practices of the Jewish people. The first and perhaps most well\-known of these practices was the Passover, the Covenant Code that marked the new beginning for the Jewish people. All of these Covenant Codes were commanded by God to the people of God as ways to obey and honor Him.
|
Who was Chuck Smith?
|
Answer
Chuck Smith founded the [Calvary Chapel](Calvary-Chapel.html) association of churches and served as lead pastor of Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa in Southern California from 1965 until his death on October 3, 2013\. Smith left a legacy of more than 60 years in Christian ministry, a national radio Bible\-teaching program (*The Word for Today*), and the establishment of some 1,700 churches worldwide under the Calvary Chapel umbrella.
Born on June 25, 1927, Smith was trained at LIFE Bible College (now LIFE Pacific) in California and served as a pastor in the charismatic [Foursquare denomination](Foursquare-Church.html) for 17 years. Eventually, he grew tired of the denomination’s political influence and bureaucratic control and left to pastor an independent church in Corona, California.
Amid an era of social upheaval in the youth culture, Smith was hired in 1965 to take over a [fundamentalist](fundamentalism.html) congregation whose membership had sunk to 25\. The church, which started as a Bible study for trailer park shut\-ins in Costa Mesa, California, quickly grew under Smith’s enthusiastic leadership and verse\-by\-verse, [expository teaching style](expository-preaching.html).
By 1973, Chuck Smith and his congregation dedicated a 2,200\-seat auditorium and were soon holding three overcrowded services a week, with many thousand people attending each. This initial Calvary Chapel in Costa Mesa would become headquarters to the Calvary Chapel church movement, presently one of the ten largest Protestant associations in the United States.
Smith was one of the [Jesus Movement’s](Jesus-Movement.html) principal founders. In the early days of Calvary Chapel, he reached out to drug addicts, long\-haired street people, disillusioned youths, and anyone searching for God, welcoming these seekers with unconditional acceptance into the church. The young hippie converts earned the label “[Jesus freaks](Jesus-freak.html)” for their intense evangelical enthusiasm, emotional and informal expressions of worship, and unconventional lifestyle, including communal living.
In many ways, Chuck Smith and the Calvary Chapel movement transformed how church services were conducted. From its beginning, Calvary Chapel emphasized a “come as you are” dress code and casual atmosphere—revolutionary concepts for churches in the 60s and 70s. Instead of wearing a suit and tie and standing in an imposing pulpit, Smith preached in open\-collared shirts and walked casually around the platform as he delivered his sermons. At the same time, Smith preached the uncompromising truth of the gospel and held firmly to conservative, [evangelical theology](evangelical-theology.html). His style was simple, straightforward, and dynamic.
Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa was one of the first churches to embrace rock and roll as part of its worship, paving the way for the Contemporary Christian Music industry. Worship bands popped up and flourished at Calvary Chapel, inspiring Chuck Smith to launch Maranatha! Music as an avenue to promote and distribute the “Jesus Music” his young followers were writing and singing.
Present\-day Calvary Chapels are known for their vibrant worship and chapter\-by\-chapter, book\-by\-book Bible teaching. From the start, Smith taught through the whole Bible from beginning to end, a signature practice of most Calvary Chapel pastors still today. The concept is based in Acts 20:27, where Paul declares to the Ephesian elders, “I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God” (ESV) and the conviction that solid discipleship results from gaining an understanding of the entire Bible.
As the Calvary Chapel network of churches expanded, Smith resisted the idea of forming a denomination, believing such institutions smother growth and promote power struggles, politics, and bureaucracy. He set forth a basic set of shared beliefs and “distinctives” but structured the association as a loosely affiliated network of independent local churches patterned after Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa. Each local body maintains its own unique identity.
Calvary Chapels adhere to traditional, evangelical, and solidly biblical doctrines yet take a distinctive approach to church government. A board of elders and deacons is appointed to care for the body’s spiritual and physical needs. A financial board of elders is also chosen to deal with the business matters of the church. But the senior pastor retains ultimate authority.
In an interview, Smith said that his church’s governing structure was based on “the work that God established in the nation of Israel. Moses was the leader appointed by God. He took 70 men, and they assisted Moses in overseeing the mundane types of issues that developed within the nation. I’m responsible to the Lord. We have a board of elders. We go over the budget. The people recognize that God has called me to be the leader of this fellowship. We are not led by a board of elders. I feel my primary responsibility is to the Lord. And one day I’m going to answer to him, not to a board of elders” (Rob Moll, “Day of Reckoning: Chuck Smith and Calvary Chapel Face an Uncertain Future,” *Christianity Today*, Feb. 16, 2007\).
Critics of Smith’s “[Moses model](Moses-model.html)” believe it breeds an authoritarian culture in the church, leaving the senior pastor unanswerable to anyone. This lack of accountability, they say, can lead to temptations of power and spiritual abuse. Defenders of the model contend that these problems and pitfalls can happen in any denomination. Over the years, Chuck Smith, Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa, and many other Calvary Chapel churches and pastors have fallen into power struggles and political disputes similar to those other Christian denominations endure.
In 2011, Smith was diagnosed with lung cancer and passed away in 2013 at age 86\.
|
Who was Hosea in the Bible?
|
Answer
Hosea was a prophet of God in the Bible. His book is the first of the twelve [Minor Prophets](major-minor-prophets.html) in the Old Testament. As a contemporary of the [prophet Isaiah](life-Isaiah.html), Hosea ministered primarily to the northern kingdom of Israel in the eighth century BC, during the reigns of Kings Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah of Judah, and Jeroboam II of Israel (Hosea 1:1\). Such a lengthy ministry—60 or 70 years—makes Hosea one of the longest\-serving prophets in the Bible.
The central theme of Hosea’s prophetic messages was Israel’s unfaithfulness to God. Following the Lord’s instruction, Hosea married a prostitute to symbolically and poignantly portray Israel’s infidelity to Yahweh. When the Lord first began to speak to Israel through Hosea, God told the prophet, “Go and marry a prostitute, so that some of her children will be conceived in prostitution. This will illustrate how Israel has acted like a prostitute by turning against the LORD and worshiping other gods” (Hosea 1:2, NLT).
During the long reign of King Jeroboam II, Israel’s victory in several military campaigns led the nation into a period of unprecedented prosperity and independence. But as Israel’s fortune soared, the moral fabric of its society collapsed. Corruption and spiritual depravity ran rampant. Israel began to worship pagan deities and attribute the works of God to Baal (Hosea 4:1–13\). The people broke their covenant with God and no longer obeyed His laws (Hosea 6:7; 8:1\). They stopped trusting in God and sought foreign alliances (Hosea 5:13\). In the eyes of the Lord, Israel’s idol worship and unfaithfulness were equivalent to [spiritual adultery](spiritual-adultery.html).
Throughout Hosea’s ministry, the prophet expounded on the adultery metaphor, calling Israel to account for its idolatry and apostasy, laying out God’s charges against the people, and foretelling judgment.
Hosea’s wife, [Gomer](Gomer-in-the-Bible.html), practiced unfaithfulness as a lifestyle. When she conceived and bore children, God told Hosea to give them prophetic names symbolizing the Lord’s judgment on Israel: *Jezreel* foretold a great massacre that would happen in that valley; *Lo\-Ammi* means “not my people,” signaling God’s rejection of Israel; and *Lo\-Ruhamah* means “not favored,” a reversal of God’s earlier description of Israel (Hosea 1:4—2:1\). Hosea’s message was clear—sin brings judgment. Hosea warned of painful consequences, invasion, and slavery.
Not satisfied with her relationship with Hosea, Gomer sought other lovers, just as Israel had pursued other gods (Hosea 2:2–5\). And as God promised to call Israel back, he told Hosea to redeem Gomer from slavery and welcome her home (Hosea 3:1–5\). While God’s punishment was severe, His grace was far more extraordinary. Even while the people worshipped idols and descended into depravity, God never stopped loving them.
Hosea’s bold\-faced depiction of Israel as an adulterous wife reveals both the extent of God’s anguish over the betrayal and His love for His people. More than anything, God longs for intimate fellowship with us, even when we repeatedly reject Him. The metaphor also reveals God’s enduring faithfulness toward us. Ultimately, His goal is for us to return to a fulfilling life marked by dedication and devotion.
Yahweh’s love is eternal. His enduring faithfulness is not like human love that can make a solemn vow and then break it. The definitive message of Hosea is the promise of God’s enduring love. Even when we are unfaithful, God continues to love and cherish us and provide a way for our restoration (cf. 2 Timothy 2:13\).
It’s no surprise, then, that *Hosea* means “Yahweh has rescued” or “salvation.” In Hebrew, it is the same name as *Joshua* (Numbers 13:16; Deuteronomy 32:44\). Both *Hosea* and *Joshua* are related to the name *Yeshua* (meaning “to save”), which in English is *Jesus*.
|
Can I get re-baptized as a “spiritual refresher,” even if my first baptism was biblical?
|
Answer
Some Christians who have already been [baptized](Christian-baptism.html) biblically choose to be rebaptized as a “spiritual refresher” or an act of rededication. It’s common for Christians who visit Israel to want to be rebaptized in the Jordan River, so they can experience baptism in the same place where Jesus was baptized (see Mark 1:9\). Is there anything wrong with being rebaptized in such a case?
First, let’s define what baptism is. Simply put, baptism is the first order of obedience for the Christian. It is a public profession of the believer’s faith in Jesus and a testament to being born again. It is his or her public identification with the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Baptism consists of full\-body immersion in water, after salvation, in obedience to God. Though baptism is not a requirement to go to heaven, it is a part of Christian growth and service (see Acts 2:37–38, 41; 8:12; 18:8; Romans 6:3–4; 1 Peter 3:21\).
The Bible presents baptism as a one\-time event, as it signifies salvation, a one\-time event. Nowhere in Scripture do we see an example of Christians being baptized multiple times.
In addition to the identification aspect of baptism, there are other benefits of being baptized. One is that baptism strengthens our faith. Romans 6:4–7 says, “We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly also be united with him in a resurrection like his. For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body ruled by sin might be done away with, a that we should no longer be slaves to sin—because anyone who has died has been set free from sin.” Baptism reminds us that our old sin nature was crucified, and that we have been given new life. That’s a big boost when the world is bringing us down. It also reminds us that we are no longer slaves to sin because Jesus overcame sin and death (cf. Romans 8:2\). When the temptations come, remembering our baptism can remind us that we don’t have to give in.
Another benefit to baptism is that it typically joins one to a local body of believers. Acts 2:41 shows that the people who heard Peter’s preaching and were saved on the [Day of Pentecost](day-Pentecost.html) “were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.” There is no such thing as a “Lone Ranger” Christian; God’s plan is for His people to be connected to a local body of believers. A local church provides us with spiritual resources, leadership, guidance, and accountability. When we’re feeling overwhelmed, our baptism reminds us that we are not alone in the faith; we are part of the family of God, comprised of other believers in Christ, baptized in the same way.
One more benefit of baptism is that it encourages us to share Christ with others. The [Great Commission](great-commission.html) was one of the last commands that Jesus gave to His disciples. He told them that they were to “make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19\). Our baptism should be a reminder that there are more who yet need to be saved.
Choosing to be rebaptized may be permissible, but it doesn’t really add any spiritual benefit. Assuming one’s motivations are godly, being rebaptized is not sinful, but neither is it necessary. Spiritual refreshment can come by simply meditating on what one’s baptism meant. Those who seek refreshment can find it through confession of sin, repentance, prayer, Bible reading, fellowship with other believers, and the transformation that comes “by the renewing of your mind” (Romans 12:2\).
|
What did God create on the first day of creation?
|
Answer
God created the heavens and earth, the waters, and light on the first day of creation (Genesis 1:1–5\). In our opinion, the first day covered a literal 24\-hour period in which God created [*ex nihilo*](creation-ex-nihilo.html), or “from nothing” (see Hebrews 11:3\). The Hebrew word for “created” is *bara*, which is only ever used in Scripture with God as the subject. Forming the universe and earth was an act of the Lord.
*Heavens and the Earth*: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1\). As part of day one, God created the “heavens,” implying the entire universe, and the earth (cf. Psalm 102:25\). When first created, the earth “was formless and empty” and covered in water (Genesis 1:2\). In the following days, God would build upon this foundation with an atmosphere, dry ground, vegetation, and animal life (Genesis 1:6–12\).
*Water*: “Darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters” (Genesis 1:2, ESV). This verse indicates that on the first day God created water when He created the formless earth. Here, the third Person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, partakes in creation. Life\-giving water was created by the Lord to give viability to Earth, the only planet known to hold water.
*Light*: “Then God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light” (Genesis 1:3, NLT). In contrast to the created darkness/nothingness mentioned in verse 2, the Lord speaks light into existence. He then divided the light from the darkness, ending the first day of creation (Genesis 1:4–5\). All subsequent days of creation are described the same way: “And there was evening, and there was morning” (verse 5\).
Students of the Bible have [questioned what light](light-first-sun-fourth.html) was created in Genesis 1:3, since the sun was not made until the fourth day of creation (verses 14–19\). Of course, an infinite, all\-powerful God does not need the sun to create light. Some commentators have asserted that the light created on day one was another form of natural illumination. Scripture doesn’t specifically state what this light was, but science has demonstrated that other forms of light do exist in the universe, outside of the sun and stars (“The Photon Underproduction Crisis,” J. Kollmeier, et al., *The Astrophysical Journal Letters*, Vol. 789, No. 2, pub. 6/25/2014, https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10\.1088/2041\-8205/789/2/L32, accessed 10/26/2020\). Regardless of the nature of the light that God created on the first day, verse 4 states, “The light was good,” and it illuminated God’s creation during the first three days of the creation week.
The first day of creation reminds believers that all things find their source in the Lord, who has been in existence forever (Psalm 90:2\). Each Person of the Trinity took part in creation (Nehemiah 9:6; Job 38:4; Psalm 89:11; John 1:3; Acts 17:24; Hebrews 1:10\). Christians should be moved to worship the Lord for His wondrous work of creating the heavens, the earth, water, and light in [one day](Genesis-days.html).
|
What are the Five Articles of Remonstrance?
|
Answer
The Five Articles of Remonstrance are five points of [Arminian theology](arminianism.html) written in 1610 by followers of Jacobus Arminius (1560—1609\) outlining their disagreement with five key doctrines of [Calvinism](calvinism.html). The Five Articles of Remonstrance became a source of much controversy in the early Dutch Reformed Church of the Netherlands.
*Remonstrants* is the formal name given to adherents of Arminius (Jakob Hermandszoon in Dutch) who protested to the State of Holland in opposition to their Calvinist rivals. The term *remonstrate* means “to make a forceful, reproachful protest.”
After Arminius died in 1609, believers who shared his convictions came together in January 1610 to put down in writing their views concerning all the disputed doctrines. A document in the form of a remonstrance was drawn up by Jan Uytenbogaert, a leader of the Remonstrants and close friend of Arminius. It was signed by more than forty of Arminius’s followers.
The five articles were taken from the work of Arminius in his *Declaratio Sententiae* (1608\). They briefly defined the Remonstrants’ doctrine and set the agenda for the resulting controversies. With only a few changes, the Five Articles of Remonstrance (also referred to as the Five Articles of Arminianism) were signed again and presented in July 1610 to the State of Holland as a plea for greater theological tolerance.
The Five Articles of Remonstrance heartily rejected Calvinistic positions, declaring that they were not contained in God’s Word or the Heidelberg Catechism. The [Synod of Dort](Synod-of-Dort.html) in 1619 deemed the five articles to be unedifying, dangerous, and not fit for preaching to Christian people. The points of protest are as follows:
**Conditional predestination:** Arminius taught that God elects individuals to salvation based on His foreknowledge of those who, by the grace of the Holy Spirit, believe in Jesus Christ and persevere in faith. This doctrine is sometimes called “conditional election.” In short, a person’s salvation is conditioned upon him or her choosing God. This first article refuted the Calvinist doctrine of [unconditional election](unconditional-election.html), the view that God elects individuals to salvation based solely on His will and not on anything inherently worthy in the individual or any choice that he or she makes.
**Universal, unlimited atonement:** Arminian theology teaches that Jesus Christ died to pay the penalty for the sins of every person in the world. His saving grace is extended to all, but His atoning death becomes effective only in those who believe in Him and receive Him by faith. Calvinists believe in [limited atonement](limited-atonement.html)—that Christ’s death only covered the sins of the elect.
**Total depravity, or deprivation:** The classic Arminian position is that “man has not saving grace of himself.” Salvation is by grace alone. Humans are incapable of exercising saving faith apart from God’s grace. This view did not diverge significantly from the Calvinist position of [total depravity](total-depravity.html).
**Grace is necessary but resistible:** Arminianism rejects the Calvinist belief in irresistible grace, teaching instead that people have the free will to resist the grace of God and reject His call to salvation. The Calvinist doctrine of [irresistible grace](irresistible-grace.html) contends that, when God calls a person to salvation, he or she will inevitably be saved.
**The possibility of falling from grace:** In this fifth article, the Remonstrants did not utterly reject the idea of eternal security but admitted the need for further study, although it was later adopted as an established doctrine. Calvinists hold firmly to belief in the [perseverance of the saints](perseverance-saints.html), meaning a person who is elected by God will continue in faith and will not permanently deny Christ or turn away from Him. The Remonstrants affirmed that believers are empowered to live a victorious life but also conceded the possibility that a person might exercise his or her own free will to turn away from Christ and lose salvation.
The conflict caused by the Five Articles of Remonstrance escalated with a counter\-remonstrance in which the Remonstrants’ views were sharply attacked. Eventually, under Prince Maurice of Orange at the National Synod of Dordt in 1618—1619, the Five Articles of Remonstrance were officially condemned by the Canons of Dordt, and the Remonstrants were denounced as heretics.
For the next decade or so, the Remonstrants were prohibited from holding church services in the Netherlands. Those who did not comply were persecuted, imprisoned, or banished. With the arrival of Prince Frederick Henry after the death of Prince Maurice in 1625, the Remonstrants’ outlook began to improve. They could now build churches in the Netherlands and receive their banished preachers home again. But they were only tolerated and not officially recognized as an independent church community until after the revolution of 1795 when the church and state were separated in Holland.
|
What did God create on the second day of creation?
|
Answer
On the second day of creation (Genesis 1:7–8\), God created the sky, which is described in the Bible as an “expanse” (ESV), “vault” (NIV), or “[firmament](firmament-Bible.html)” (KJV). The Lord had already created water on the first day of creation, but then He separates “water from water” with the vault on the second day. Displaying His power, God spoke the sky into being: “And God said, ‘Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters’” (Genesis 1:6, ESV).
The Hebrew word for “expanse” is *raqia*, which can refer to an “extended surface” or the “(apparently) visible arch of the sky” (*Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance*). In Genesis 1:6, the expanse that God created serves the purpose of dividing the water “under” the vault from the water “above” it. This seems to be an allusion to the water cycle: terrestrial (and subterranean) water exists below the sky, while water vapor and water in the form of clouds rise “above,” separated from the surface water by an expanse of air. Later, on the fourth day of creation, God places “lights in the vault of the sky” (Genesis 1:14\). This is a simple description of how the sun, moon, and stars appear in the sky.
The [canopy theory](canopy-theory.html) holds that the Bible’s reference to waters “above” the vault indicates that at one time there existed a canopy of water enveloping the earth above the atmosphere. This water, whether in solid, liquid, or gaseous form, remained in place until the [cataclysm of Noah’s day](Noah-flood.html), at which point “the floodgates of the heavens were opened” (Genesis 7:11\), and the canopy collapsed upon the earth. According to the canopy theory, the layer of water above the firmament provided warmth to the earth’s inhabitants, filtered out harmful radiation, and contributed to the [longevity of humans](Genesis-long-lives.html) before Noah’s flood.
Regardless of one’s view of the waters above the expanse of sky, God’s power was on full display on the second day of creation. As on the other days of creation, the Lord commands things into existence, stating, “Let there be.” Every time we look up at the sky, we have a reminder of God’s vast wisdom and power.
|
What did God create on the third day of creation?
|
Answer
On the third day of creation, God created the dry ground, seas, plants, and trees (Genesis 1:9–13\). Using the foundation He created on the first day of creation, the Lord began to form the earth into a place suitable for life. On days three through six, the Lord was filling the earth, which had been “formless and empty” on day one (Genesis 1:2\).
*Dry Ground*: “Then God said, ‘Let the water under the sky be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear.’ And it was so” (Genesis 1:9, CSB). Telling the waters to move to one place, the Lord made the dry ground appear, and He called this “land” (NLT) or “earth” (verses 9–10, ESV). By creating land first on day three, God was preparing for the creation of vegetation of all kinds. The Lord was intimately involved in creating the earth; “His hands formed the dry land” (Psalm 95:5\).
*The Seas*: “The gathered waters he called ‘seas’” (Genesis 1:10\). He separated the waters that were created on day one from the dry ground, and He called these waters “the seas.” By creating the ocean and seas, God was preparing for the aquatic animals He would make on day five (Genesis 1:21\). God separated the ocean from the dry ground and set boundaries for the waters not to cross (Proverbs 8:29\). Some commentators hold that the sea originally surrounded [one large continent](pangea-theory.html) because the Bible says the waters were drawn to one place (Genesis 1:9\). According to this view, not until the flood or shortly thereafter did the seven continents break away and spread apart as we see them today.
*Plants*: “Let the earth sprout vegetation: plants yielding seed” (Genesis 1:11, NASB). The Lord spoke vegetation into being upon the dry land, bringing forth seed\-bearing plants of “various kinds”—grass, bushes, vines, flowers, vegetables, etc. These abundant plants would fill the land with food for the animals created on days five and six (Genesis 1:20–24\), as well as for mankind, also created on day six (Genesis 1:26, 29\).
*Trees*: “Trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds” (Genesis 1:12\). All types of trees were created on the third day of creation. The Lord spoke trees into being, including fruit trees, nut trees, conifers, and ornamentals. All trees testify to God’s power of creation, from the smallest to the largest (Psalm 148:9, 13\).
Beginning on day three, God began preparing the earth for the future creation of animals and humans on days five and six. In His divine creative power, God spoke the land, seas, plants, and trees into existence. People today can see evidence of God’s design in a delicate flower or in a majestic tree, as all vegetation displays the truth of God as the Creator of all things (Romans 1:20\).
|
What does it mean to take communion unworthily (1 Corinthians 11:27)?
|
Answer
The concept of taking [communion](communion-Christian.html) unworthily comes from a teaching by the apostle Paul to the believers in the church at Corinth (1 Corinthians 11:17–34\). Communion, or the Lord’s Supper, is an act of worship meant to memorialize Christ’s sacrifice and reflect the love and unity among members of the body of Christ. But, in the case of the Corinthians, it was instead magnifying the divisions among them. As a result, some in the Corinthian church were participating in communion “in an unworthy manner” (verse 27\). Their public worship meetings were doing more harm than good (verse 17\).
Communion should honor Christ, but Paul gave this blistering indictment of the Corinthians’ practice: “So then, when you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat, for when you are eating, some of you go ahead with your own private suppers. As a result, one person remains hungry and another gets drunk. Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God by humiliating those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? Certainly not in this matter!” (1 Corinthians 11:20–22\).
The Corinthians’ communion services had become corrupted with selfishness, drunkenness, and discrimination against the poor. Participants were neither honoring God nor edifying one another in their celebrations.
In the early days of the church, Christians celebrated the Lord’s Supper with feasts (Acts 2:46\). Paul indicated that the Corinthians were favoring the wealthy and privileged but neglecting the poor. Some participants remained hungry while others got drunk. The Corinthians were publicly overindulging in their church services and discriminating against the poor. Their actions, Paul said, were equivalent to “despising the church of God” (1 Corinthians 11:22\).
Paul then reminded the Corinthians how to properly observe communion, stressing that the central focus of the celebration is to remember [Christ’s sacrifice](Jesus-better-Levitical-sacrifices.html) and proclaim His work of salvation (1 Corinthians 11:23–26\). In essence, when people outside the church observe a unified body of believers eating and drinking to remember Christ’s broken body and spilled blood, the message of the gospel becomes visible. Paul hoped that reminding them of the Lord’s simple and straightforward instructions would lead the Corinthians to correct their bad behavior.
After his reminder of what communion is all about, Paul said, “So anyone who eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord unworthily is guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord” (1 Corinthians 11:27, NLT). The phrase *in an unworthy manner* could refer, in general, to harboring unconfessed sin while participating in the Lord’s Supper. Confession of sin is a beneficial practice to prepare one’s heart for worship; in fact, we are told to “examine” ourselves before we partake of communion (verse 28\). But Paul probably had something more specific at the forefront of his mind.
The “unworthy manner” Paul had in mind was most likely a failure to express the love and unity of the body of Christ—the problem he had just addressed. Those who selfishly promoted divisions in the church were guilty of a serious offense. They were dishonoring the very purpose of communion, which is to honor and remember the Lord’s work of salvation on the cross.
Those who partake of communion in an unworthy manner are “guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord” (1 Corinthians 11:27\). That is, they are showing irreverence or contempt for that which is meant to represent the body and blood of Christ. They are not “discerning the body of Christ” (verse 28\), which means they are acting indifferently toward communion, as if it were just another meal.
Paul went on to teach the Corinthians how they could avoid taking communion unworthily—by examining their motives and actions and making sure they lined up with the significance of the Lord’s Supper (1 Corinthians 11:28\). They were to perform this self\-examination in preparation for eating and drinking to avoid bringing God’s discipline upon themselves (verses 29–31\).
Paul stressed that the Lord’s Supper should be a time of celebration for the church in which Christians focus on honoring Jesus, exhibiting unity, and proclaiming the gospel of Christ’s salvation. The focus ought to be on others, and not on oneself. In this manner, believers avoid taking communion unworthily.
|
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.