Why Does God Want Our Love?

Today’s lead question is pretty simple and straightforward, and comes to us from Hector:

Why does God want our love?

I love these good, basic questions – questions that deal with things that we often take for granted, we assume we know the answer to, but we don’t think through.

So, why does God want our love?

First, let’s look at the wrong answer, or a reason that is not true. God does not want our love because He is “needy” in the way we might think of a person being needy.

1. Edwin Orr used a memorable definition of God, which was thoroughly Biblical: God is the only infinite, eternal, and unchangeable spirit, the perfect being in whom all things begin, and continue, and end.

God relies on no one and no thing – God is self-existent.

John 5:26

For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself

It’s also important to note that God is not “needy” in the sense that any desire for love is satisfied within the persons of the Trinity. Look at these words of Jesus, speaking to God the Father in His great prayer in John 17:

John 17:24

You loved Me before the foundation of the world.

This tells us that before anything was created, there was a love relationship between the Persons of the Godhead, the Trinity. Even if Jesus had not specifically told us this, we might have understood it by other Biblical truths, understanding that God is eternal (Micah 5:2) and that God is love (1 John 4:8 and 4:16). There was never a time when God did not love and was not love.

Now, for the positive reasons – why does God want our love?

1. God wants our love because it is appropriate. It’s right.

This is true for several reasons.

• God is our creator, and it is appropriate for the creator to love the Creator.
• God is a guide to all humanity, speaking to mankind through creation, conscience, and His word (the Bible).
• God is the redeemer of His people, rescuing them from sin, self, judgment, and the powers of darkness.
• God love us first, and it is right for us to return love to Him. As 1 John 4:19 says, We love Him because He first loved us.

2. God wants our love because it’s good for us. It is good for us to love Him. It puts things in the right order.

So, the great Shema statement of Israel:

Deuteronomy 6:5:

You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength.

Specifically confirmed by Jesus:

Mark 12:29-30

Jesus answered him, “The first of all the commandments is: Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ This is the first commandment.

This is a command that comes not from a need in God, but in what is good and appropriate, and in what is good for His creatures – in particular, those creatures that are made in God’s own image.

How can a person struggling to trust God’s (unconditional) love, love Him more in light of 1 John 4:18-19? How do we gain a perfect love which drives out fear & doubt?

1 John 4:18-19 – There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves torment. But he who fears has not been made perfect in love. We love Him because He first loved us.

I’ll give you two things to think about. First, I think that we come to trust God’s love more by simply focusing on His great love for us. Read your Bible with a particular outlook. Keep your eyes open in every verse and in every chapter: how does this display the love of God? I would say that even in Bible passages which speak about the judgment of God, there is often an element of God’s love manifested. Sometimes you can see the love of God in His announcements of judgment because He is warning people so they can avoid or escape judgment. There is also the declaration of God’s love in announcements of judgment, because God demonstrates His love for what is good and what is right. Judgment upon evil is a demonstration of God’s love for that which is good. So, when you read your Bible and in your times of prayer, give great meditation and consideration to the love of God for you in every aspect.

We cannot fathom all the great aspects of God’s love for us. But we can think about it again and again and again. I would really recommend developing the biblical practice of meditation upon God’s Word. Now, this is very different from the Eastern concept of meditation. In general, the Eastern concept of meditation involves emptying the mind and trying to have a blank mind, which, in some sense, even spiritually, can lead to great danger. On the other hand, biblical meditation is to fill your mind with the truth and the beauty and the power of God’s Word. As you spend time meditating on the revelation of the love of God, I think the natural response within us will be to have a greater love for God Himself.

Continue to meditate upon and set your mind on the greatness of the love of God. Sometimes we take God’s love for granted, thinking, “God loves us, okay, great. He loves us. He loves me. He loves everybody. He has to; that’s His job. He’s God.” No, that is a very superficial understanding. I would trust that your appreciation of the love of God is already far beyond that superficial idea. I’m just here to tell you that there is much deeper ground for all of us to go to in our understanding of the love of God.

How are we meant to love God without fear, “because fear has to do with punishment,” (1 John 4:18) when the threat of eternal punishment in Hell is hanging in the balance for Christians? Are we meant to both love & fear God?

Much of the answer to your question is bound up in understanding the idea of fear. In the Bible, fear is a fairly broad idea. Sometimes fear is expressed in a negative sense, in a kind of cringing, halting, fearful expectation of great punishment or judgment upon a person. That’s the kind of fear that can be done away with in Jesus Christ.

But the idea of fear is broad enough in the Bible that it also includes the idea of a healthy respect and honoring of God. The Bible says, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” (Psalm 110:10, Proverbs 1:7, Proverbs 9:10), and that’s absolutely true. But these passages are not talking about a fear that God might smite us. Rather, it is an appropriate honor, awe, and reverence for God.

So, we need to make sure that we’re talking about the same thing when we talk about fear. The fear that has to do with punishment is a fear that absolutely can and should be put away for the believer in Jesus Christ. How can I say that so categorically? Because the believer in Jesus Christ should live in the awareness that all the punishment that our sin deserved – past, present and future – has been poured out on Jesus Christ and satisfied by His sacrifice at the cross. It’s a very simple equation. If Jesus Christ bore the penalty and punishment for all of our sin, then there is no more punishment awaiting us before God. There may be fatherly discipline, but not punishment in the sense of paying for sins. That idea of a fear of punishment from God can and should be put away from the heart and mind of every person who is born again by God’s Spirit. This is part of the assurance of salvation and security that we have in our Savior – not in ourselves, but in our Savior.

Considering the other definition of fear in the Bible, the believer still continues to have a proper reverence and respect towards God, and we should not be flippant or disgraceful or dishonoring to Him in any way. I do not live in fear of hell. I’m a believer, and I have trusted Christ. And even though my faith at times may be weak, it is set upon a great, perfect Savior, who has rescued me, not because I’m so wonderful, but because He’s so wonderful and has done so much for me, especially what He did at the cross and the empty tomb. So, I don’t live in fear of hellfire. That’s been satisfied by what Jesus did at the cross. I think God wants the same for every believer.

How can we respond in love and truth when people say they are led by the Spirit, but don’t read the Bible?

Well, if God gives you the opportunity to respond to a person who would say, “I’m led of the spirit, but I don’t read the Bible,” you should remind them of what the Bible says itself. Jesus said that the Spirit would guide His people into all truth. There is no greater statement of God’s truth than what we find in the Word of God itself. Anybody who wants to divorce the working of God’s Spirit from the working of God’s word is barking up the wrong tree.

Now, I believe that you can make some distinction between the work of the Spirit and the work of God’s word. They’re not entirely separate, but neither are they identical. God’s Spirit and God’s word work in concert together, they’re consistent with each other. The Spirit never contradicts the Word, and the Word will never contradict the Spirit, at least not the true working of the Holy Spirit.

In the great Upper Room Discourse in John 13-16, Jesus spoke about how the Spirit will guide the people of God into all truth. Of course, there’s no greater expression of truth than what we find in God’s word. It’s a dangerous thing for a person to say, “I’m guided by the Spirit. I’m led by the Spirit. But I don’t want to have anything to do with the Bible. I don’t want to read my Bible.” That that can lead to a lot of problems.

Is the filling of the Spirit something that happens to a believer only once or multiple times?

I lead a men’s Bible study group and I use your sermons and commentary for reference. Acts 3-4 tells about Peter being filled with the Holy Spirit on 3 different occasions. Your commentary for chapter 4 says that Peter was filled with the Holy Spirit 3 separate times, and we need to be continually filled with the Holy Spirit and I agree. I have a member in my group that disagrees with being filled with the Holy Spirit more than once. He interprets this Scripture in chapter 4 to say Peter is using the Holy Spirit he was originally filled with at the day of Pentecost. He believes you are only filled with the Holy Spirit once, kind of like “once saved, always saved.” Is the filling of the Spirit something that happens to a believer only once or multiple times? Please advise.

I am firmly within the camp that believes that the filling of the Holy Spirit is an ongoing experience. All I can tell you is what it says in the book of Acts. Three or four times in the early chapters of Acts, it says that the disciples and, in some cases, the same disciples, are filled with the Holy Spirit. Peter is one example of being filled with the Spirit multiple times. I don’t know how to disregard that. The Bible does not say they had access to the Spirit. No, it says filled. All I can say is what the Scriptures themselves say. To your friend, I might say, “Dear brother, I understand what you’re trying to get at. But it does say they were filled with the Spirit here, and again in this place, and again in this other place. I take that to mean they were filled with the Spirit repeated times.”

Additionally, Ephesians 5 says that we should be continually being filled with the Spirit. I’m not an expert in Greek grammar. I just know how to read the fellows who are experts. But from what I read, the grammar and the verb construction there speaks of a continual filling. One person has translated it, “Be constantly being filled with the Spirit.”

I understand, people are wary of Pentecostalism. People are wary of crazy charismatics. They want to emphasize that the work of the Spirit is a one-time occurrence in the life of a believer. But I don’t think that’s what the Scriptures teach. I think the Scriptures teach that we have an ongoing experience with the Spirit of God, and that the filling of the Spirit should be a continuing experience for the believer, just like it was for the disciples in the book of Acts, and just like is described in Ephesians 5, to be constantly being filled with the Spirit.

That’s how I would advise this brother, but you know what? I wouldn’t argue with him about it. Some of these things are just simply spiritually discerned by a person, maybe at the right time and the right place. The Spirit of God Himself will speak to this dear brother of yours in your Bible study group.

Can we really love God out of our own free will (we choose to love God) or is it mostly because we are commanded to do so (Mark 12:30)?

Mark 12:30 – ‘And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ This is the first commandment.

Well, I don’t like using the phrase free will. I think a valid argument can be made that our will is not completely free, that there are at least some hindrances to the exercise of our will, whether hindrances by the world around us or hindrances from within. So, instead of saying free will, I like to say real choices. In other words, I don’t think a person has to have a completely free will, a will that is free in every regard. I don’t think they have to have that in order to make a real choice. I believe that we can choose to love God, given that He does a work in us.

God does work in His people. God does work in unbelievers to draw them to love God by loving them first. We love Him because He first loved us. This is what prompts our love for Him. I think you could probably say rightly say that we cannot love God unless He loves us first. But given that He has loved us first, we can respond to Him in love. I don’t see a contradiction between that and responding to the command of Jesus.

I think a great way for us to take this command is to simply say, “Jesus said that I must love the Lord, so I want to love the Lord my God with all my heart, with all my soul, with all my mind, with all my strength. Lord, how can I love You more? What can I do today to demonstrate my love to You, God? How can I love You with my mind? How can I love You with my soul? How can I love You with my strength? How can I love You with my entire being? I love You, Lord.”

I think that’s a very simple way to respond, to choose to do what God tells us to do. Now, I know that we can’t do anything of love or good towards God unless He empowers us to do it. But God won’t do these things for us. He may do them in us and through us, but He won’t do them for us. Somewhere in this equation, there appears to be a choice that we have to make. And we say, “Yes, Lord, I’ll do this.”

Who Or What is the Generation that Shall Not Pass Away?

I recently heard a Pastor make the assertion that Jesus himself said (no scripture quoted) that the generation that sees Israel become a nation again (in 1948) will not die out before all end time events have unfolded. Is this biblical? Thanks!

This question has to do with Matthew 24:32-35. In that chapter, Jesus gives what we call the “Olivet Discourse” – the teaching He gave His disciples on the Mount of Olives, regarding the destruction of the temple and the end of the age.

In Matthew 24, Jesus spoke of a generation that would not pass away until all the things He spoke of took place. Some people – even many people – connect that generation with the re-establishment of the State of Israel in 1948.

Here’s passage from the Olivet Discourse, Matthew 24:

Matthew 24:32-35

“Now learn this parable from the fig tree: When its branch has already become tender and puts forth leaves, you know that summer is near. So you also, when you see all these things, know that it is near; at the doors! Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away.”

The thinking goes like this:

• The [32] fig tree represents Israel.
• Israel’s [32] “branch” sprouted again and “put forth leaves” in 1948.
• The [32] fig tree has a regular pattern. The leaves appear, and then summer follows. When you see the leaves, you know summer is near.
• Therefore, these things are [33] near, even at the door.
• Therefore, the [33] generation that sees Israel re-founded will see all these things fulfilled.

What are the [33] all these things that will take place that will be seen by this generation?

Here’s a summary in what Jesus said in Matthew 24:1-31:

• There will arise catastrophes and persecutions, but those in themselves are not the sign of the end.
• There will arise a pivotal sign: the abomination of desolation.
• When the abomination of desolation appears, there are warnings to Israel to flee after the abomination.
• On the heels of the abomination of desolation comes great tribulation, and cosmic disturbances.
• In culmination, Jesus Christ will return in glory to the earth.

So, here’s the question: does the fig tree in Matthew 24:32 represent Israel?

My answer is, “I don’t think so.” I don’t regard the fig tree of Matthew 24:32 as representing Israel and its restoration. I don’t think Jesus meant here, “the generation that sees the re-establishment of the State of Israel will see all these things fulfilled.”

Now I must say that recently I spoke at a conference, and one of the other speakers – a good pastor named Barry Stagner – he made the argument that the fig tree here is a picture of Israel, and the “tender branch” and “putting forth of leaves” that Jesus described in Matthew 24:32 was the re-establishment of the State of Israel in 1948. It’s a case that I have heard before (presented by some pastors I really respect) but have not agreed with. Yet I must say, Pastor Barry Stagner made a better presentation of that position and a defense of that position than I have heard before, and that interested me.

One big question I have for the “fig tree equals Israel in Matthew 24” people is, “at what year would you admit this is wrong?” It’s already been 76 years since 1948, when Israel became a nation again. For most people, 76 years is longer than a generation. What is the furthest point out for this to be true? 80 years? 90 years? 100 years? When is “this generation” over?

The fig tree was a common fruit tree in Israel. It is mentioned many times in the Old Testament, especially as a description of the abundance of the land. Sometimes figs or fig trees are also used as symbols or pictures. In passages like Jeremiah 24:1-10 and Hosea 9:10, figs or fig trees are used as a representation of Israel.

However, most Old Testament references to the fig tree use it as simply an example of agricultural blessing. It seems that Jesus’ reference here is not so much on the “figness” of the fig tree, but on the way that the fig tree follows reliable growth cycles related to the seasons. This is especially evident when this passage is compared with Luke 21:29-31: Look at the fig tree, and all the trees. When they are already budding, you see and know for yourselves that summer is now near. So you also, when you see these things happening, know that the kingdom of God is near.

Especially taking the Luke account in consideration, when Jesus said in Matthew 24:33, So you also, when you see all these things, know that it is near; at the doors! – I think all these things refers to all the things Jesus previously mentioned – not exclusively the “fig tree” restoration.

Jesus assured that when these signs appeared as He foretold, His return to the earth would follow. What were the signs?

• The abomination of desolation.
• Followed by great tribulation.
• Followed by signs in the heavens (24:29: the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken).

When a fig tree buds, there is an inevitable result – summer is near and fruit is coming. In the same way, when these signs are seen, the coming of Jesus in glory with His church to this world will inevitably follow.

Really, it was just as Daniel prophesied in Daniel 12:11. The end will come 1,290 days after the abomination of desolation. Jesus assures that the agonies of the Great Tribulation will not continue indefinitely; they will have an end.

So, I hope this explains why some people think the Matthew 24 passage says the generation that sees the re-establishment of the State of Israel (in 1948) will be the generation that sees the end.

I don’t agree with that approach, but I understand it. I think a better explanation is to say that the generation that sees the cataclysmic signs Jesus spoke of will see the very end.

But – I think God has given us many reasons to believe that Jesus is coming soon, and that we should be ready, just as Jesus told to. I do think that the re-establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 is part of that, just not for the “fig tree” reason.

1. [34] Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place: This statement of Jesus is one of the central reasons many have looked for all or most of the events of this chapter to be fulfilled in A.D. 70, approximately 40 years after Jesus spoke these words. Yet as previously argued, to assert this is to greatly stretch the most natural interpretation of the abomination of desolation, of the severity of the great tribulation, of the cosmic signs, and of the coming of the Son of Man. It is better to let those passages have their most natural meaning and to fit this promise into that framework.
2. The generation Jesus meant cannot be the generation of the disciples, because they never saw Jesus return in glory as described in Matthew 24:30. It is undoubtedly the generation that sees these signs. These events and Jesus’ return won’t be on some 1,000-year timetable, but will happen in succession.
3. It has been suggested that the word generation could also be translated “race,” and is a promise that the Jewish race would not be extinguished and would survive to the end. This would be a valuable promise, but some commentators (such as France) claim this is an embarrassingly wrong translation. Yet others – such as Adam Clarke, who strongly believed the events of this chapter were almost all fulfilled in A.D. 70 – writes, “This race; i.e. the Jews shall not cease from being a distinct people, till all the counsels of God relative to them and the Gentiles be fulfilled.”

Josephus: Wars of the Jews, Book 6, Chapter 3, Sections 14-16

There were many false prophets at the time, says Josephus, yet people had not paid attention to the genuine signs of destruction: a star resembling a sword standing over the city, a comet, a brilliant light around the altar, a vision of armed battalions in the sky, and  voices in the Temple, along with the prophecies of a peasant crying ‘Woe to Jerusalem.’ “It is impossible for men to escape their fate, even though they foresee it.”

In this section, Josephus described many signs that warned the Jews of Jerusalem that something terrible was coming. These signs – which the Jews ignored – included:

• A light that shined in the ninth hour of the night around the altar and the temple, so that it seemed to be daytime there for 30 minutes.
• A heifer that was being led by the high priest for sacrifice at the temple gave birth to a lamb.
• The very heavy eastern gate of the temple opened by itself, and was shut again only with great effort.
• As priests entered the temple for service on the night of Pentecost, there was an earthquake and they heard a voice saying, “Let us remove hence.”
• A man named Jesus the Son of Ananus began crying out through the streets of Jerusalem about coming judgment saying, “Woe to Jerusalem.” He was forced to stop, brutally beaten, and eventually was killed.

In this section, Josephus also spoke of celestial or heavenly phenomenon:

“They did not attend, nor give credit to the signs that were so evident, and did so plainly foretel their future desolation. But like men infatuated, without either eyes to see, or minds to consider, did not regard the denunciations that God made to them. Thus there was a star, resembling a sword, which stood over the city: and a comet, that continued a whole year.”

“A certain prodigious and incredible phenomenon appeared: I suppose the account of it would seem to be a fable; were it not related by those that saw it; and were not the events that followed it of so considerable a nature as to deserve such signals. For, before sun setting, chariots and troops of soldiers in their armour were seen running about among the clouds, and surrounding of cities.”

When Jesus rose on the third day, was He still man, or was He Spirit in the flesh?

Thank you for that question. When Jesus rose from the dead, He was still a man. But let me explain. Before the Incarnation, before Jesus was conceived by a miracle of God in the womb of Mary, without normal reproductive processes, humanity was added to the deity of the second person of the Trinity. The second person of the Trinity, God the Son, has always existed. He’s God. He is part of the Godhead, so He has always existed.

So, we have the second person of the Trinity, God the Son, adding humanity to His deity by a miracle of God. He lived His life through boyhood and growing up, and at the end of His three-year ministry, Jesus was crucified, died, was buried, and then resurrected from the dead. When Jesus resurrected from the dead, His humanity remained intact. He was truly God and truly man. How do we know that? The Bible tells us it’s true.

1 Timothy 2:5 – For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

Notice the phrasing of Paul in this verse: he says there is one man, not there was or there will be. He’s talking about the present moment. In his present moment and in our present moment, there is one mediator between God and man: the man Christ Jesus. When Jesus resurrected from the dead and ascended to heaven, He retained the humanity that He had added to His deity. Jesus did not put away His humanity when He rose from the dead and ascended to heaven. Jesus Christ, the God-Man, is enthroned in heaven right now at the right hand of God the Father.

It’s important for us to realize that although the Incarnation had a beginning point, the conception of Jesus in the womb of Mary, it does not have an ending point. As we know from the Scriptures, Jesus became truly man and truly God, and He retains that status for the rest of eternity.

Are there ways in which our will is not free?

I think the best answer to this question was given by the great German Reformer, Martin Luther. In his correspondence with a theologian of his day, Desert Erasmus, there was an ongoing discussion concerning how free the will of man is. Based on that correspondence, Luther wrote a book called, “The Bondage of the Will.” I think Martin Luther made many legitimate arguments in it, basically saying that fallen humanity does not truly have free will, that our will is constrained and bound by sin, by the world, by our own fleshly nature, by the devil and his temptations, by our habits, by our mental and emotional weaknesses. As human beings, we cannot do whatever we want to do; we are bound in our will.

If somebody thinks that there is no aspect of bondage to the will, I would challenge them to do this: just stop sinning. If you’re a totally free person, you can choose to sin or choose to never sin again. But it doesn’t exactly work like that, does it?

There is a very real sense in which our will is constrained by our sin, by the world, by the flesh, by the devil, by our own natural weaknesses and failings. I agree with all of that. However, I still believe that men and women have the capability of making real choices. By the way, when I’m speaking with people from a strongly Reformed background, I try not to use the phrase free will. There is a sense in which our will is not completely, absolutely free, but that does not mean that we as human beings don’t have real choices. Therefore, I don’t argue for the freedom of the will or free will. Instead, I would argue for real choices.

Someone may wish to disagree and argue, “No, as human beings, we don’t have real choices. We’re simply programmed to choose things in a certain way, and therefore we’re going to follow our programming, and that’s all there is to it.” To that I would ask, “If we don’t have real choices, how are we held to account by God?” I’m big on the idea that our will is not completely free, but not to the extent that we don’t have real choices.

Is it appropriate for Christians to use dating apps to find a potential spouse?

I’ll be very straightforward on this. I don’t think you can find anything, biblically speaking, that would prohibit the use of a dating app. A dating app is just a way that people meet each other. As with any other way that you meet people, there are benefits to it, and there are problems with it. It’s possible that for some people, it’s not wise to use a dating app, because the problems outweigh the benefits. But maybe for other people, it is a good way for them to meet other people. Maybe it’s not ideal, or maybe it is ideal, I don’t really know.

I praise the God and Father of my Lord Jesus Christ, that I was married to my wonderful wife Inga-Lill in the year 1983, before the internet was available, much less smartphones and dating apps and all the rest of it. My heart goes out to the rest of you who are not in that place. In my estimation, it’s a tough world out there meeting people, and I don’t know that dating apps have made it any easier. But I can’t think of anything biblically that would command against it.

Therefore, it’s a matter of Christian liberty, and it’s also a matter of Christian wisdom. Each believer has to determine whether it’s wise for them to use a dating app, and whether they have the liberty in Jesus Christ to do it. I think that’s a good way to approach it.

I am strongly against making commands where the Bible does not make a command. Remember the condemnation that Jesus gave the religious leaders of His own day. He said, “You take the traditions of man and make them into the commandments of God.” I think we need to be very careful to not take our traditions and elevate them to the status of the commandments of God. God gave us His Word. I love God’s word, and I don’t want to go beyond God’s word. When something speaks about a topic not mentioned in God’s word, I want to make it very clear that I’m going beyond God’s word, and ultimately leave it up to the liberty and the wisdom of the individual believer.

Is seed offering and Prosperity Gospel biblical?

No, the prosperity gospel is not biblical. It’s really a gross perversion of the gospel. The only way that it might be called biblical is that the Bible warns against it. Now, of course, the prosperity gospel in its current manifestation wasn’t around in the first century. But the wickedness at the heart of man which frames this movement is ancient. It’s simply called greed.

The prosperity gospel also goes by the names of the Faith Movement, or the Gospel of Health and Wealth. Sometimes it’s referred to as Positive Confession. Some modern promoters of it avoid any of those terms since they’ve been tainted by scandal and exposed by ministries like Enduring Word. Mike Winger has done a lot of work in this area as well. Like I mentioned, some popular media ministries push a prosperity message without ever coming out and admitting that’s really what they’re doing.

The roots of the modern prosperity gospel lie in post-World War Two America, when elements in the Pentecostal church adopted the metaphysical ideas of occult spiritualists. They redefined faith as a metaphysical force that could create reality. They said that faith isn’t just believing in and trusting on God, but that it’s a spiritual force that’s independent of God. They would even argue that God used it to create the universe. The gospel of prosperity doesn’t save us from sin into a restored relationship with God so much as it offers to make us godlike beings who can also create reality by harnessing the creative power of faith through positive confessions. The real gospel promises and prepares us for heaven, while the prosperity gospel claims to give the power to bring about heaven here and now. One popular prosperity preacher said, “As good as I can imagine heaven is going to be, by faith I can have that now.”

All of this flies in the face of the record of Scripture in history. Surely no one was more in tune with the gospel of Jesus than the Apostles, the very ones who in Ephesians 2:20 are said to be the foundation of the Church. History tells us that, apart from John, all of the Apostles were martyred. They were put to death for their faith. The only exception was John who eventually died of old age but was first persecuted and spent time in a brutal situation on the prison island of Patmos, where he received the visions that comprise the book of Revelation. Of those Apostles, the men who framed the very foundation of our faith and our understanding of what it means to live by faith, none of them owned a chariot, let alone a mansion or half a dozen mansions spread across prime vacation places of the Roman Empire. If they were supposed to be examples of faith as preached by modern prosperity hucksters, the Apostles failed miserably. But they were, in fact, premier examples of the faith into which Jesus called them. Here is what Jesus told His disciples about the life of those who followed Him:

Mark 10:28-31 – Then Peter began to say to Him, “See, we have left all and followed You.” So Jesus answered and said, “Assuredly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or lands, for My sake and the gospel’s, who shall not receive a hundredfold now in this time–houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions–and in the age to come, eternal life. But many [who are] first will be last, and the last first.”

Matthew 10:34-39 – “Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to ‘set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law’; and ‘a man’s enemies will be those of his [own] household.’ He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it.”

Someone might ask, “Didn’t Jesus say in that passage that those who give for the sake of the gospel will receive a bunch of stuff in this lifetime?” Yes, He said that. He said that they would receive a hundredfold. So please don’t miss that. Prosperity preachers love to quote this verse and then say something like, “Give to me and to this ministry, because by doing so, you unlock the promise and the principle of faith that brings prosperity.” They always define prosperity as monetary wealth, which can then be used to buy stuff. But if that’s what Jesus meant, what do we do with His reference to the reward of a hundredfold? If you give a house, do you get a tract of houses back? If you give ten acres of land, do you get a thousand in return? And how do you give brothers, sisters, parents, and children, which He speaks about in the second passage?

As far as I know, while well-known prosperity preachers do have multiple houses, and prime real estate, none have 100 of them. Such a crass, materialistic promise was not at all what Jesus had in mind. As the mention of people there makes clear, Jesus meant that following Him may involve losing earthly relationships, as it has for millions of Christians over the centuries. That word house in Mark 10 refers to the place where a family lives and lands refer to inheritance. It’s good to be careful to interpret Mark 10 in light of what it meant to those to whom Jesus spoke it. For many people, and especially the Jews, following Jesus has meant being banished from their families. Some families even hold a funeral service for a relative who becomes a Christian. It’s forbidden to even use their name, and they are written out of the will; they have no inheritance. In a time when the family home and lands were passed from one generation to another, in unbroken line of succession, this was a fate worse than death. It was a kind of living death to be written out of one’s family. That’s what Jesus was speaking of there.

The hundredfold return that Jesus spoke of in Mark 10 refers to all that one gains in terms of the kingdom of God. So, yes, following Jesus may mean losing our earthly family and our identity, but we are ushered into the family of God, and we become a brother or sister in Christ, with literally thousands of spiritual relatives.

The prosperity gospel is a religious cloak for the greed of false teachers who prey on the gullible and the uninformed.

1 Timothy 6:5 – …useless wranglings of men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a [means of] gain. From such withdraw yourself.

They wrap their con act in the guise of religion, and they bilk [cheat or defraud] people.

Titus 1:11 – …whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole households, teaching things which they ought not, for the sake of dishonest gain.

2 Peter 2:3a – By covetousness they will exploit you with deceptive words.

Being covetous themselves, they appeal to it in others. They try to sanctify their greed by saying that it’s actually a manifestation of faith. This is an age-old problem in the history of not just the Christian church, but quite frankly, in religion in general. People look for a way to detach guilt from their sin. And it’s easiest to do that by relabeling sin as a form of righteousness. “It’s not greed, it’s faith. It’s not the idol of materialism, the love of things; oh, no, it’s the proof of my great faith.” Jude refers to false teachers in his short letter:

Jude 1:4 – For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ.

Jude 1:16-19 – These are grumblers, complainers, walking according to their own lusts; and they mouth great swelling [words], flattering people to gain advantage. But you, beloved, remember the words which were spoken before by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ: how they told you that there would be mockers in the last time who would walk according to their own ungodly lusts. These are sensual persons, who cause divisions, not having the Spirit.

Paul warns about false teachers in other passages as well:

Philippians 3:17-18 – Brethren, join in following my example, and note those who so walk, as you have us for a pattern. For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, [that they are] the enemies of the cross of Christ.

Romans 16:18 – For those who are such do not serve our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly, and by smooth words and flattering speech deceive the hearts of the simple.

Susan also asked whether the so-called “seed offering” was biblical. I suspect her question was prompted by a favorite passage of the prosperity preachers, 2 Corinthians 9:6-14, where the Apostle Paul gives instructions on how to give. It’s clear from the passage that he’s speaking about giving finances. As Paul planted churches around the Gentile world, he spoke about the desperate situation of Jewish Christians back in Israel. In response, the churches collected funds for their relief. The Corinthians had promised that when Paul came back, they would also give a donation for the relief of their brothers and sisters in Jerusalem. Well, Paul was about to come to Corinth, so he sent a letter on ahead to remind them of their promise. He added a little lesson on how to give, concerning what kind of attitude that we should use as we give.

2 Corinthians 9:6-14 – But this [I say]: He who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and he who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. [So let] each one [give] as he purposes in his heart, not grudgingly or of necessity; for God loves a cheerful giver. And God [is] able to make all grace abound toward you, that you, always having all sufficiency in all [things], may have an abundance for every good work. As it is written: “He has dispersed abroad, He has given to the poor; His righteousness endures forever.” Now may He who supplies seed to the sower, and bread for food, supply and multiply the seed you have [sown] and increase the fruits of your righteousness, while [you are] enriched in everything for all liberality, which causes thanksgiving through us to God. For the administration of this service not only supplies the needs of the saints, but also is abounding through many thanksgivings to God, while, through the proof of this ministry, they glorify God for the obedience of your confession to the gospel of Christ, and for [your] liberal sharing with them and all [men], and by their prayer for you, who long for you because of the exceeding grace of God in you.

A major difference between what Paul says here and the way that it’s used by modern prosperity preachers is who the gift ultimately benefits. Paul asked for gifts for the relief of needy Christians. On the other hand, prosperity preachers are explicit in their call that you plant your seed gift in their ministry, and some go so far as to imply that their specific ministry ensures a return, because they have an inside line with God. They show pictures of some of the works that they do here and there, like an orphanage or some kind of a literacy program in the third world. What they don’t show are their half dozen 15,000-square-foot mansions, their stable of luxury cars, their horses, and their personal jet. Someone is prospering, all right, but it’s the prosperity preachers, not the so-called “seed sowers.”

Paul never intended what he wrote in 2 Corinthians 9 to be a formula for prosperity. We do not give to get. This is not some kind of spiritual investment scheme. Paul simply means that when and as we give, we do so as an act of faith which marks our dependence on God. God loves it when we do that, because it gives Him the opportunity to prove how faithful He is. He will take care of us. He will meet our needs. The key word there is needs, not wants. God is not going to become the means to someone’s end of getting rich. All those prosperity preachers are destined to the harshest judgement, as Jude makes abundantly clear in his letter.

What are your thoughts on pragmatism in the church?

Great question. Let’s define pragmatism first. I once heard someone say, “Pragmatism is a good ol’ American philosophy.” It’s the idea that as long as something works, it’s true or it’s good. In this case, good is not defined by some kind of ethical standard that arises from the character of God, but rather simply if it works. The means justify the ends. As long as it works, it’s true. As long as it works, it’s good.

The problem with pragmatism is that it tends to evaluate good only in terms of the immediate reaction or response or result. As we know from long experience in history, what seems good today might not appear as good tomorrow. In fact, a temporary fix today might be setting up a later disaster. Here’s a classic example. We’ve seen videos of bridges that blow up because they’re engineered improperly, and they start bouncing and eventually explode. Let’s say there’s a river and people need to cross it, so they decide to build a bridge, but they build it as quickly and as cheaply as they can. Once the bridge is opened, people can cross from one side to the other and save a lot of time and a lot of fuel. But in their process of going about it, in what seemed like the pragmatic manner, they end up making a bridge that ends up blowing up, because it was done with pragmatism: simply the desire of a quick fix to get a quick result.

So, what about the use of pragmatism in the church? As we go about ministry, in the life and functioning of the church on a day-to-day, week-by-week, month-by-month, year-by-year, decade-by-decade basis, we need to make sure that we are doing ministry the way that the Bible shows us it needs to be done. That isn’t always seemingly the most efficient way. It doesn’t always seem to align with current values. But God’s word taps into an eternal truth that doesn’t change, as opposed to the culture, which is constantly shifting.

Here’s an example. Some years ago in the evangelical church, there was something called the “seeker sensitive” method of ministry. The idea was that the church needs to be aware and sensitive to the needs of seekers and the unchurched. In that light, they decided to stop using biblical phrases and biblical terminology, and to start using more contemporary terms that unchurched people might know and understand. They brought in cultural forms, music, and movies that they’re used to, in order to use them as bridges to communicate to those people. Now, certainly, we want to be able to speak to our culture, and we want to make the truth relevant to them, but we must do it in a manner that remains faithful to God’s timeless, eternal Word and truth.

When we start approaching ministry in a purely pragmatic way, considering only what is going to fix a problem immediately, we don’t consider the larger context of God’s eternal plan. We end up applying fixes and getting engaged in ministries and activities that are in fact hindering the cause of the Gospel. In many ways, this has been the history of the church, not just in modern America and the evangelical church. This has really been the case of the European church during the Middle Ages. In those days, there was a thriving Christian community in Syria known as the Church of the East. Meanwhile, the church in Europe was really struggling, but the church in Syria was growing. They were incredibly missions-minded, and they continued to reach further and further east into Asia. And they eventually made all the way to the Pacific Ocean to China. There’s even some evidence they had gone to Japan early on by the seventh century. The problem is, they took their culture with them. They didn’t understand the process of contextualization. They were so wedded to their own culture and expression of Christianity that they didn’t understand the cultures where they went. We spend time digging into the word to see how God became Man to communicate to mankind the eternal truths of God.

Ultimately, they ended up not being as effective as they could have been. The cultures to whom they brought the Gospel later saw Christianity as not being for them. It was thought of as Syrian and foreign. And they ended up kicking it out. That’s what happened in China and Japan. The Christianity that originally formed there was not Chinese, it was not Japanese; it was Syrian. And it ended up getting kicked out. It was very pragmatic on the part of those Syrian missionaries to do what they were doing, but it wasn’t biblical. They weren’t contextualized and they weren’t incarnating of the message, as God incarnated the message to us in the person of Christ.

So, pragmatism is a problem. If you’re attending a church, it’s good to look at its systems and its ministries and to ask, “Why are we doing this? What is the fruit? Does it align with Scripture?”

​​Should churches provide annual financial accounts for the congregation to view?

Great question. Yes, I personally believe that churches should make their financial budgets and their year-end statements available to their congregation. Transparency is always good, especially when it comes to finances. You know the old phrase, “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” In our world, money is power. It’s the mechanism by which we transfer power from one place to another. Money is power. In order to keep that power from corrupting, I think that it is good for churches to be transparent in their finances and their accounting.

At our church, we have an annual business meeting. It’s required in our bylaws to do that. Everybody is welcome to come. We go over the finances of the year: how much money came in, how much money was spent, where it was spent, how we spent it. That gives the Body an opportunity to see what’s going on. We make the financial reports available a week ahead of time so that people can view it before they come to the meeting. Then at the meeting, they’re able to ask questions. We as the leadership know that we’re going to be facing people, they’re going to be looking at the numbers, and that we’re going to be answering questions. It’s a good check. It makes us be very careful and cautious about how we spend, and what we spend on and what we spend it for. So, I think it’s a good idea. I would encourage any church to do that. If you attend a church that doesn’t make those available, you might simply ask why. I think that would be a good step. It’s a good practice to do.

Where should a Christian tithe if they aren’t members of a church? Is it only a tithe if it’s financial, or can you tithe your time?

I have a question about obedience on tithing. Where should a Christian tithe if they aren’t members of a home church? And can a tithe be your time, or does it have to be financial? For instance, in the biblical days it was your first fruits – food, harvests. Not necessarily monetary.

Let’s talk about that last part first. In the ancient world, at the period of time where they are told to bring their first fruits, there wasn’t a lot of coinage in use. There was a barter system. One person raised sheep while another raised vegetables, and there was an understanding of how many bushels of vegetables equaled one sheep. That was the system. Everybody knew that. Just like today, we know $1 equals $1. We see a product listed at $15 on the price tag. I have the sense of what the value of $15 is, and I decide if I want to take my value of $15 and give it to the store in exchange for that item. So we go through that same evaluation. We look at something which is too expensive, and decide, “I’m not going to pay that price for that.”

In that light, coinage and currency is kind of a shorthand version of the barter system. In the ancient world, they didn’t really have currency, so they used barter. Everybody would evaluate questions like, “Am I going to take four bushels of vegetables for four sheep? Is that a good deal? No, I want five,” for example. That’s how things were done then. Later, people found that it was actually more convenient and more transportable to convert products into currency and coinage. Instead of bringing a sheep, they could bring the coins acquired from the sale of the sheep and use them anywhere they wanted.

When the Bible originally talks about the first fruits of a harvest, it’s because they didn’t use coin coinage much at that point in time. But later, as societies evolved and coinage became more common, people would do that very thing. They would go to the market in their village, sell their produce, take the coins go to the temple, and tithe with their coins. That’s why in the gospels we read about people bringing coins to the temple and placing them in the box. Remember the story of Jesus and the disciples watching as the widow brings her mite and leaves it there.

So really, tithing is the idea of giving from what God has blessed us. In our culture and setting, we get paid a salary or a wage. The income we earn is the fruit of our labor. So that’s the way that we should tithe. The word tithe means a tenth. It’s interesting that you don’t ask the question, “Should we tithe?” There’s kind of an assumption there that we’re already tithing and that it means a tenth. The idea is that God gets the first part of what we earn.

People wonder if they should tithe on the net or the gross income, whether God should get His share before Uncle Sam gets his tax dollars. Well, tithing transcends the Law. Abraham tithed to Melchizedek long before the Law was given to Israel. This principle was understood by people: when they give to God, you give this amount. But I believe that it’s not a law; rather, it’s a principle.

Many, many people who have adopted the principle of tithing will give the testimony that it opened a new dimension in their relationship with God and observing His faithfulness. Tithing is a way to say, “God, You own it all. You’ve just given it to me to be a good steward of, so I’m going to give you the first tenth, as a reminder to myself that all of it belongs to You. And then I’m ultimately dependent on You for provision.”

Should the tithe be given to a church? Generally, I think that believers need to find a home church and be plugged into that church. We need a spiritual community, a family with which we connect. More and more recently, I’ve seen questions from people saying they’re having a hard time finding a healthy church. We’ve had a number of people move away over the last four years from our church here in Southern California. I think we’ve lost around 30-40% of our congregation. Some have moved away because of job transfers, but quite frankly, most have moved away but just because they’re so disheartened over the political direction that California has taken. So, they moved to Idaho and Tennessee and Texas and Montana and Arizona and Florida and other places. They’ll send us emails, and they continue to watch our live stream. They continue to consider our church as their home church. We urge and encourage them to find a church, but often they say, “I’m having a really hard time finding a faithful, Bible-teaching church.” A few of them continue to send their tithe to us because we continue to be their church, even though at a distance, via the live stream.

If possible, I would encourage you to keep looking for a church. If you simply cannot find a place to connect, you might want to consider tithing to ministries that you find helpful and supportive. Another option would be to put it in savings, with the intention that it’s not your money, it’s God’s money, and you’re waiting on Him to show you where to give it. I have known some people who have done that when they’ve moved. They’ve sensed that they need to tithe to their church, but they haven’t found their church yet. So, they have put their money in savings, or they’ve zeroed it out in their bank account, and they’re keeping a record of how much it is. They’ve set those funds aside, not as their own anymore, but belonging to the Lord. They’re simply setting those funds aside until they find a church, and they are continuing to look for that place. When they do find a home church, then they’re going to give that lump sum, because it has already been given to the Lord. So, that’s an option too. There’s a lot that you can do.

How can I explain “the body, soul, and spirit” to a non-believing friend?

Can you help me with a wording on how to explain to a non-believing friend “the body, soul, and spirit,” and how they relate to each other?

That’s a great question. And quite frankly, it’s not an easy one to answer. There is some debate in evangelical Christianity about how many parts make up the human. The general consensus is either two parts or three parts. If we’re thinking of two parts, there is the material and the immaterial, which would be the soul and the body. They would consider the soul and spirit as effectively the same, or synonyms for the same part of the immaterial part of man, while the body is the physical part.

The other idea is that we’re three parts: body (physical), soul (immaterial), and spirit (also immaterial). I would agree with the second group. I believe that we’re three-part beings. Here’s why.

In one of Paul’s letters, he writes that his readers would be sanctified in their body, soul, and spirit. Paul seems to be identifying three aspects or dimensions of sanctification. If he intended there to be just two parts, I don’t think he would have differentiated between the soul and the spirit.

Looking back to the very beginning of Genesis, and the creation of man, we read that God took the dust of the ground and formed a body. And then He breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. The word breath and breathe there is the Hebrew word Ruach, translated and in Greek as pneuma, which means breath, or wind, or spirit. Breath and wind we can kind of understand but how does that relate to spirit? It refers to the idea of unseen life and movement. God makes a physical body of the dust of the ground, and He breathes the breath of life or the spirit of life into the nostrils of this body. Then it says, “And man became a living soul.”

Our connection to the physical universe is our bodies. Our connection to God is the spirit. Note that Genesis never says about His creation of the animals that He breathed into them the breath of life. Man is the only creation that receives this special endowment from God called His breath, His ruach, His Spirit. So, now we have the Spirit of God, bearing His image in man, in his body, and it says, “And he became.” The idea there is that when the breath entered the body, man became a living soul. This word for soul was explained by one Bible teacher the following way: The soul seems to act as kind of the transmission between the spirit and the body. The body is like the vehicle of the car, the Spirit is like the engine. And we all know how the engine connects to make the body go: it’s the transmission. The transmission is where the engine and the body of the vehicle connect. We are made up of our physical body, and the spirit, this special thing that we get from God that makes us different from the animals. The result is that we become a human being with a soul, a soul being comprised of the mind, the emotions, and the will. When you put those three things together and you have the soul, the personality, that unique thing that each of us have which is different in every single person. We also have similarities to other people, but the soul is unique to each individual, and it makes us unique human beings. The mind is not just the brain; it’s the whole process of our thoughts, our emotions, and how we have those inner feelings and inclinations which move us. Then there is the will, which is a separate faculty we possess that allows us to be able to make decisions. In his book, Mere Christianity, CS Lewis identifies the difference between the will and the mind. We can all relate to this. Note how you when you’re thinking, you have varying thoughts and you kind of go back and forth. “Should I do this, or shouldn’t I do this? Should I go for tacos, or should I go for burgers?” Typically, you go to one or the other when you have two thoughts. But there’s another voice that comes in. If all we had were those voices, they would just argue, and we wouldn’t do anything. There’s a third voice that comes in and decides which one of these I’m going to go with. That’s the will. That’s part of the soul, the critical decision-making faculty that we all have. I think that’s a good way to describe how you would go about explaining the difference between the body, the soul, and the spirit.

Why Do Some Believers Turn to Jewish Customs?

From Sherry via email –

Dear Brother David, 

I just want to tell you how incredibly thankful for this ministry! God is using you to help us with HIS Word! Enduring Word has become an integral part of my daily Bible Study through the commentary, podcasts, and videos! I am wondering if you have any information or opinion regarding the Hebrew Roots Ministry (or others like it). My son has married into a family that is steeped in it, and while I’ve done much research on it myself, I would rather like to hear what you have to say, and of course, what the scriptures say to back it up.

Why is it that some Christians turn to the Old Covenant and customs?

I do not believe this way, as I am not a Jew, but I know that there is freedom in Christ… could it be a false path, or even wrong for non-Jewish Christians to do these things? Or am I wrong to oppose it?

I am praying that my son steps up as the spiritual priesthood of his family and doesn’t allow this to creep into their little family, but he has already abstained from certain foods in order to please his wife. I’m unsure how to approach this. Again, thank you for any information or insights you have! Prayers and Continued Blessings on the Enduring Word ministry!

Sherry really is asking two questions. Why do some Christians turn to the old covenant, and why do some Christians turn to Jewish customs.

There is nothing in the old covenant for the believer in Jesus Christ, except for what we learn by principle and example. In no sense in the believer “under” the old covenant. In Jesus Christ, we are under the new covenant. Chapter after chapter in Hebrews explains this.

For believers under the new covenant, there is nothing wrong in following Jewish customs and traditions, as long as three dangers are avoided:

• They recognize this is not the basis of their standing or status with God, their righteousness. In Jesus, they are not under the old covenant, but the new. Following Jewish customs or traditions does not make them one bit more right with God.
• They do not judge, or think themselves superior to, other believers who do not follow Jewish customs or traditions.
• Jesus, especially in His work on the cross and in His resurrection, isn’t obscured by attention to Jewish customs and traditions – rather, Jesus is highlighted and exalted.

Colossians 2:16-17

So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.

So let no one judge you: The opening “so” is important. It connects this thought with the previous thought. Because Jesus won such a glorious victory on the cross, we are to let no one judge you in food or in drink or in other matters related to legalism. A life that is centered on Jesus and what He did on the cross has no place for legalism.

Food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come: The Old Testament law had certain provisions that are done away with as laws in Jesus, regarding such things as food and sabbaths. It isn’t that those laws were bad, simply that they were [17] a shadow of things to come. Once the substance – Jesus Christ – has come, we don’t need to shadow any more.

The point is clear: days and foods, as observed under the Mosaic Law, are not binding on new covenant people. The shadow has passed, the reality has come. So for the Christian, all foods are pure (1 Timothy 4:4-5) and all days belong to God.

1. Christians are therefore free to keep a kosher diet or to observe the sabbath if they please. There is nothing wrong with those things. However, they cannot think that eating kosher or sabbath observance makes them any closer to God, and they cannot [16] judge another brother or sister who does not observe such laws.

Romans 14:5-6

One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks.

One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike: By bringing in the aspect of observing certain days, Paul lets us know that he is talking more about principles than specific issues. What he says has application to more than just eating meat.

[5] Let each be fully convinced in his own mind: In such issues, Paul is willing to leave it up to the conscience of the individual. But whatever we do, we must be able to do it [6] to the Lord, not using “conscience” as an excuse for obviously sinful behavior.

Romans 14:10

But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you show contempt for your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.

But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you show contempt for your brother? Probably, the use of both judge and show contempt is meant to have application to both those who would celebrate Jewish customs and traditions, and those who do not. Neither should think of themselves as better because of what they do or don’t do. In either case, the attitude is wrong because we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.

The Christian who celebrated some Jewish customs and traditions found it easy to judge his brother, writing him off as someone who was unenlightened, ignorant of the Jewish background to the Christian faith.

The free Christian who did not celebrate some Jewish customs and traditions found it easy to show contempt against his brother, regarding him as a uptight-legalistic-goody-good. Essentially, Paul’s answer is “Stop worrying about your brother. You have enough to answer for before Jesus.”

The judgment seat of Christ is where the life and motives of the believer will be judged. This isn’t a judgment of salvation, but relevant to reward.

Sherry, you are right to oppose the direction your son is going if:

• He thinks any of the Jewish customs or traditions makes him more righteous.
• He thinks himself superior to other Christians who don’t observe Jewish customs and traditions.
• He seems to, in some way, “lose” Jesus in the focus on Jewish customs and traditions.

These are the dangers of “Hebrew Roots” movements and must be avoided.

Is God’s Hand Behind Every Death?

From Pam via email….

I have a question. A friend of mine who was a missionary in Africa for years recently died of cancer.

Another friend says that God killed her based on Deuteronomy 32:39 where He says “I kill and I make alive.” This person says when someone dies then God killed him.

I think it is a misinterpretation of this scripture, taken out of context.

Can you help me?

Pam, I’m sorry to hear about your friend’s death. I pray her family will be comforted and that God will continue to bring fruit from her missionary service.

I’m also sorry to hear what your other friend said, because I don’t think it is helpful or true.

God is behind death in at least three ways:

• By what He allows because God can do all things. It is within God’s power to stop any death.
• By the world He has created, a world of cause and effect. If a person jumps off of a tall bridge and dies from the impact, we wouldn’t normally say “God killed them.” We would say, “gravity killed them.” Yet, God created the world with gravity and cause and effect – and cancer.
• By specific acts of judgment, which God may do (directly or indirectly) in His righteousness.

Yet, there is an important difference between what God actually performs and what He allows. I think it would be completely wrong to say “God killed your missionary friend in Africa” simply because they died of cancer.

It is absolutely true that God has the right to take human life, and sometimes does according to His judgments. The problem is that we can be far too quick to assume we know what is a judgment of God and what isn’t. Remember what it says: who has known the mind of the Lord? (Romans 11:34, 1 Corinthians 2:16)

Now, as for the verse your friend referred to – let’s take a look at that.

Deuteronomy 32:39

‘Now see that I, even I, am He,
And there is no God besides Me;
I kill and I make alive;
I wound and I heal;
Nor is there any who can deliver from My hand.

Don’t stop there – take a look at the context. Just read the two verses following:

[40] For I raise My hand to heaven,
And say, “As I live forever,

[41] If I whet My glittering sword,
And My hand takes hold on judgment,
I will render vengeance to My enemies,
And repay those who hate Me.

Clearly, when God says in verse 39, I kill and I make alive, it is in the context of His work of judgment. It’s not speaking of God’s direct work in each and every death that happens.

Yet please be careful here. We aren’t trying to say, “God had nothing to do with your friend’s death by cancer.” Not at all! As I said before, God clearly allowed it, and God created a world where it is possible for people to die by cancer.

What is more – and I can say this confidently because your friend was a missionary, a believer – God’s promise holds true:

Romans 8:28

And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose.

I would not say that God killed your friend. Yet He allowed it, and created a world where people die from disease, and God has promised to work all these things together for good. It didn’t catch God by surprise, and God isn’t wishing He could have prevented it. God’s hand is at work, even through this.

One more thing: everyone dies.

Can Christian Women Braid Their Hair?

This week, Pastor David’s lead question comes from Garrett:

Hello Pastor David. Why does the Bible prohibit women to braid their hair? (1 Tim 2 & 1 Peter 3) Shouldn’t this still be observed in church today? Thank you for your time.

Let’s look at the two passages mentioned by Garrett:

1 Timothy 2:9-10

In like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works.

8. [9] In like manner also: The word also refers back to the statement that the men pray everywhere in 1 Timothy 2:8. Paul thought the principle of 1 Timothy 2:8 should apply in various congregations, and so should the principle in 1 Timothy 2:9.
9. [9] That the women adorn themselves in modest apparel: This is how Christian women are supposed to dress, especially at their Christian meetings. The words propriety and moderation help explain what modest apparel is.
10. [9] Propriety asks, “Is it appropriate for the occasion? Is it over-dressed or under-dressed? Is it going to call inappropriate attention to myself?” Moderation asks, “Is it moderate? Is it just too much – or far too little?” Moderation looks for a middle ground.
11. [9] The braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing Paul mentions were adornments that went against the principles of propriety and moderation in that culture.

In the Roman culture of that time, elaborately braided hair said, “Look at me. Be impressed by me. Look at how much money and status I have.” That’s not the message a Christian woman should give out when she gets together with other Christians.

But let’s be honest – in the western world in the year 2024, braided hair doesn’t say that. Women have other ways that they can communicate, “Look at me. Be impressed by me. Look at how much money and status I have.” That’s why a woman today could never have braided hair at a church meeting and still break this command by the way she dresses, the accessories she has, and how she carries herself.

The principle is lasting, based on God’s command and what is good for God’s church. How that principle is expressed will differ somewhat from culture to culture and from generation to generation.

1. [10] With good works: The most important adornment is good works. If a woman is dressed in propriety and moderation, with good works, she is perfectly dressed. Good works make a woman more beautiful than good jewelry.

1 Peter 3:1-4

Wives, likewise, be submissive to your own husbands, that even if some do not obey the word, they, without a word, may be won by the conduct of their wives, when they observe your chaste conduct accompanied by fear. Do not let your adornment be merely outward—arranging the hair, wearing gold, or putting on fine apparel— rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God.

1. [3] Do not let your adornment be merely outward: Peter did not forbid all adornment. But for the godly woman outwardadornment is always in moderation, and her emphasis is always on inward adornment.
2. [3] Arranging the hair: According to William Barclay, in the world Peter lived women often arranged and dyed their hair. They also wore wigs, especially wigs made with blonde hair imported from Germany. Peter had this in mind speaking of the adornment that is merely outward. Peter did not forbid a woman fixing her hair, or wearing jewelry, any more than he forbade her wearing apparel (fine is not in the original).
3. [4] Rather let it be the hidden person of the heart: Real beauty comes from the hidden person of the heart. It isn’t something you wear or primp before a mirror to have. It is something you are.
4. The real question is “What do you depend on to make yourself beautiful?” Peter’s point is not that any of these are forbidden, but that they should not be a woman’s [3] adornment, the source of her true beauty.
5. [4] The incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit: The inner beauty of a godly woman is incorruptible. This means that it does not decay or get worse with age. Instead, incorruptible beauty only gets better with age, and is therefore of much greater value than the beauty that comes from the hair, jewelry, or clothing.
6. [4] A gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God: Peter described the character of true beauty – a gentle and quiet spirit. These character traits are not promoted for women by our culture; yet they are very precious in the sight of God.

So, to specifically answer Garret’s question:

Here’s what the Bible forbids – Christian women, especially when they gather as the church, to dress or carry themselves in a way that says, “Look at me. Be impressed by me. Look at how much money and status I have.”

In New Testament times, that meant specific commands about braiding and arranging the hair. Today, the principle stays the same, but the application must fit with what draws attention and communicates status in our present day.

One example I use to illustrate how a principle endures yet the expression might change from culture to culture is the NT command for a holy kiss in congregational gatherings (made 5 times in the NT – that’s a lot). I’m not aware of any contemporary church group that commands congregants kiss one another to express a warm greeting – they correctly understand that the principle of a warm greeting endures, but how it is expressed can differ according to culture, time, place.

Romans 16:16

Greet one another with a holy kiss.

1 Corinthians 16:20

All the brethren greet you. Greet one another with a holy kiss.

2 Corinthians 13:12

Greet one another with a holy kiss.

1 Thessalonians 5:26

Greet all the brethren with a holy kiss.

1 Peter 5:14

Greet one another with a kiss of love.

I’m big on the principle that the Holy Spirit may speak to an individual believer about a matter that isn’t specifically commanded in Scripture. So, while I would say that the Bible does not forbid Christian women from braiding their hair in general, only from braiding their hair in a proud, attention-grabbing, self-exalting way among other believers – to zealously keep the spirit of 1 Timothy 2:9-10 and 1 Peter 3:1-4 in a way that makes sense in our present day – while I would say that, I would not say “A Christian woman must braid her hair.”

No, never. If a woman says, “I believe that God is telling me not to braid my hair from this passage” – if she also kept the command in spirit – I would say, “Sister, you have freedom in Christ to braid or to not braid your hair. Just be zealous to keep the spirit of the command as it would apply to us today.”

What type of entertainment should believers watch? Is it okay to watch movies?

Yes, I believe so. I believe that there is liberty in Christ for Christians to watch movies. We know there are all different kinds of movies. Some of them more edifying, while others are less edifying. Some movies are so unedifying and so harmful that Christians should not watch them. To me, Christians have liberty to be entertained by watching movies.

I believe there is a place in the Christian life for entertainment. This can be greatly abused, especially in our modern age. There are many people who expect that they should be entertained constantly, and they become anxious or depressed if they’re not being entertained constantly. But I believe there is a legitimate place for Christians to be entertained, to be refreshed, to take your mind off your work or some of your problems, and just be entertained for a while. Can that be misused? Absolutely. It can be misused. But there’s hardly a single gift from God under heaven, that cannot be misused.

Therefore, I don’t have a problem with Christians watching movies. It’s a matter of Christian liberty. But they should be zealous to listen to the Holy Spirit, so that the kind of movies they watch would be generally edifying and not harmful to their walk with God. I believe Christians have liberty to watch movies, and they also have the liberty to not watch movies. If somebody were to come to me and say, “I believe that the Holy Spirit’s spoken to me and said I shouldn’t do that,” I’d say to them, “Brother, sister, then you shouldn’t do it.” We need to allow freedom in Christ both to do or to not do certain things.

Is believing what Christ did on the cross for our sins enough to take communion?

Is believing what Christ did on the cross for our sins enough to take communion? I asked because my husband refused communion because of what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 11. He believes that Jesus is the Son of God, the Word manifest in the flesh. He believes the whole Bible is true. He says he’s a Christian, but he has not submitted his life to Christ, and therefore said that he can’t take communion.

There may be many ways in which a person rejects the Lordship of Jesus in subtle and unconscious ways. Somebody could argue that every time we sin, it’s a rejection of the Lordship of Jesus Christ over our life, at least in some way. But all that is different from a conscious and deliberate rejection of Jesus Christ as Lord over one’s life. I would say somebody who is in that place of conscious, deliberate rejection should not receive Communion.

I’m grateful that your husband believes all that he believes. Receiving Communion is a multi-layered, multi-dimensional thing. One of those dimensions is saying, “I am receiving Christ into my innermost being. I am partaking of Christ. I’m putting Him inside me in the deepest sense.” Again, I’m not saying for a moment that that’s the only dimension to what we do with commune. But certainly, it’s an aspect of it.

For someone to take communion while simultaneously consciously rejecting Jesus Christ would be as if they put the bread of communion in their mouth and then spit it out right away. “I want You, Jesus. I don’t want You.” So actually, I would simply agree with your husband. If you are in a state of deliberate, conscious rebellion against Him, and refusing to submit to His Lordship, then it’s better that you don’t take communion.

I don’t know if Jane’s husband will ever see this. But I would say to him, “Dear Sir, why continue on like this? You know who Jesus is. You know the work He did on the cross. I’m going to conjecture that you know that you need a Savior. Maybe what’s holding you back is that you are afraid you can’t make a complete or perfect or total commitment to Jesus. I understand. Nobody can. It’s impossible. But what you can do is bring Him the commitment and surrender you can bring to Him today. Bring to Him all you can. And whatever more there is to bring to Jesus, He will draw it out of you. I pray that you’ll come to a place of a full surrender. And by full, I mean as much as you’re able.”

What are the Five Solas and where did they come from? Why don’t many churches seem to talk about them?

The Five Solas are: Scripture alone, Christ alone, faith alone, grace alone, and glory to God alone.

They are the simple statements which summarize so much of the teaching of the Reformation. They were originally coined in Latin, as summations of reformation theology. I believe that they are all true, although I think that they could potentially be understood in a wrong way. I believe that they are not restricted only to those brothers who come from a direct Reformed tradition. I think churches should adopt them. They are not directly stated in the Bible, although they are formed from biblical concepts. They are good summations of Christian doctrine.

How do I submit to God in all my ways? Are submission and obedience the same?

Full Surrender by Dr. J Edwin Orr – https://a.co/d/7vRPqHx

The idea of submitting to God in all our ways, in full surrender, can sometimes intimidate people, and I understand why. People realize their own imperfections, and think, “I can’t make a full surrender to God. Either today, or tomorrow, or a month from now, I’m going to discover something that isn’t submitted to God. And then I’ll feel like I never made a full surrender.”

How do I submit to God in all my ways? I think we can address it straightforwardly. God understands that we are weak and failing. The Bible says that the Lord pities us as a father pities his children. God knows our condition better than anybody. God knows that, in an objective way, we are unable to give Him a full 100% commitment. In some way, it’s going to fall short. God knows that. God isn’t sitting in heaven saying, “You didn’t commit enough.” We just commit all we are aware of in surrender to God, recognizing that it’s not a perfect commitment. No doubt there are things yet to be submitted to Him. Just give Him all that you’re aware of. We can trust Him and pray with the Psalmist, “Search me, O God, and know my thoughts. Try me and know my heart. See if there be any wicked way in me and lead me in the way everlasting.” We can pray, “Lord, I give You everything right now that I’m aware of that I can think of. And I lay it before You in surrender. I know it’s not perfect, but I give to You what I can.”

The believer’s trust is not in the perfection of their surrender. The believer’s trust is in Jesus Christ who saves. So yes, we endeavor to lay our lives down as a living sacrifice on God’s altar, just as it says in Romans 12:1-2. But we recognize that it’s something which needs to be done continually, because we are imperfect beings. We bring to God what we can. We can be grateful that we’re not saved by the perfection of our surrender. We’re saved by the person and work of Jesus Christ.

What Did Jesus Do During the Three Days After the Cross?

This week, Pastor David’s lead question comes from Liz in South Africa via Facebook:

Good day Pastor Guzik, I take my grandchildren for Bible study each week. They asked me what Jesus did for the 3 days between His Crucifixion and His resurrection. Can you please direct me to one of your teachings on this?

Liz, I don’t think we can be entirely clear about this. I’m going to tell you two things that I think Jesus did in that time between the yielding of His life off on the cross and when His resurrection was made evident on Sunday morning.

I’m not going to get into the whole, “on what day did Jesus die and how could it have been three days and three nights in the grave” thing unless someone specifically asks.

I would say that Jesus did at least two things in that period between the cross and the resurrection:

• Jesus preached a message of condemnation and judgment to imprisoned spirits.
• Jesus preached a message of freedom and liberation to those who had died in the faith and were waiting for the completion of their salvation accomplished by the finished work of Jesus on the cross.

1 Peter 3:18-20a: The Message of Condemnation and Judgment to Imprisoned Spirits

For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly were disobedient,

[19] He went and preached to the spirits in prison: Apparently this work was done in the period after Jesus’ death but before His first resurrection appearance to the disciples. Jesus went to Hades – the abode of the dead – and preached to the spirits there.

[19] Spirits in prison: Though some have regarded these spirits as human spirits, it is more likely that they were demonic spirits. We know that their disobedience was in the days of Noah (1 Peter 3:20). We have evidence that this was a time of gross sin for both demons and humans when there was an ungodly mingling of humans and demons (Genesis 6:1-2).

[19] Preached to the spirits in prison: We also don’t know exactly why Jesus preached to these imprisoned spirits. In all probability this was preaching (the proclamation of God’s message), but it was not evangelism (the proclamation of good news). Jesus preached a message of judgment and final condemnation in light of His finished work on the cross to these disobedient spirits.

In doing this there was a completion in Jesus’ triumph over evil, even the evil that happened before the flood. The Bible says that even those under the earth must acknowledge Jesus’ ultimate Lordship. Here Jesus was announcing that fact: “that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth” (Philippians 2:10).

• Peter did not say that Jesus preached the gospel of salvation to the imprisoned spirits.
• Instead, Jesus announced, proclaimed His triumph over evil. That was bad news for them, but it would be good news – comfort and encouragement – to the suffering Christians that Peter first wrote to.

“What His message was we are not told. Why only those disobedient in the days of Noah are mentioned is not stated. What the purpose or result of Christ’s preaching was, is not revealed. On all these points we may form our own conclusions, but we have no authority for anything approaching dogmatic teaching.” (Morgan)

1 Peter 4:6: Jesus Preached a Message Liberation to Those Who Had Died in Faith

For this reason the gospel was preached also to those who are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.

[6] For this reason the gospel was preached also to those who are dead: Peter also says that because of this eternal judgment the gospel was preached to the dead. The righteous dead know and live on in constant awareness of the reality of eternity – and are rewarded by this understanding as they live according to God in the spirit.

Peter has already told us that Jesus preached to the spirits in prison, preaching a message of judgment (1 Peter 3:19). Apparently during this same time Jesus also preached a message of salvation to the faithful dead in Abraham’s Bosom (Luke 16:22) who anticipated the work of the Messiah for them. This preaching to those who are dead was not the offer of a second chance, but the completion of the salvation of those who had been faithful to God under their first chance.

• In some sense, Jesus “shut down” the part of Hades of blessing, comfort, and refreshment. But the area of Hades reserved for torment is occupied until the final judgment.

In doing this, Jesus fulfilled promises:

• That He would lead captivity captive (Psalm 68:18 and Ephesians 4:8)
• That He would proclaim liberty to the captives and the opening of the prison to those who are bound (Isaiah 61:1 and Luke 4:18).

Two Things Jesus Did Not Do in the 3 Days Between Crucifixion and Resurrection

• Jesus did not stay in Hades. Jesus was in Hades after His death on the cross, but He did not remain there. According to Acts 2:25-32, Jesus could not remain there.
• Jesus made no atonement in Hades; the price was already paid on the cross (John 19:30) when Jesus suffered in His physical body (Colossians 1:19-22). Jesus went to Hades as a victor not as a victim.

Three Days and Three Nights – Does it Have to Mean 72 Hours?

Jesus said in Matthew 12:40:

For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

In the minds of many people, this means that Jesus specifically said that He would be in the tomb for 72 hours – three 12-hour days, and three 12-hour nights, adding up to 72 hours. In addition, Peter said in Acts 10:40 that Jesus was raised on the third day, not “after three days.” Repeatedly, the gospels said Jesus would be raised from the dead the third day (Matthew 16:21, 17:23, 20:19; Mark 9:31, 10:34; Luke 9:22, 13:32, 18:33, 24:7, 24:21, 24:46). Almost all these references are the words of Jesus Himself. Do these contradict with the period described by the phrase three days and three nights?

Literally – taking the words just as they are – three full days and three full nights would mean at least 72 hours. On the third daycould mean as little as 26 hours (a portion of one day, a full second day, a portion of a third day). Again, do the words of Matthew 12:40 contradict either what actually happened, or the phrase on the third day?

If Jesus was put in the tomb in the late afternoon of Friday, and His resurrection was revealed after daybreak of Sunday, that would add up to some partial days and nights along with some full days and nights, and maybe even less that 40 total hours (say from 4pm Friday to 6am Sunday).

However, there is clear evidence from Jewish writings from the general time of Jesus that the expression “x-days and x-nights” was a figure of speech that could refer to any portion of a day or a night. One could refer to the same event happening three days and three nights and happening on the third day without any contradiction.

We are familiar with figures of speech; we use the all the time. When we say that two baseball teams are going “head to head,” we don’t mean that they will actually battle by one team banging their skulls against the skulls of the other team.

Or, today in social media we may speak of someone being “cancelled.” We mean that they are removed or restricted from some social media platform – but 100 years in the past or 100 years in the future, people might wonder if the phrase “they were canceled” meant that they were murdered!

These figures of speech are clear to us, but they might not be clear to someone 100 years in the past or 100 years in the future. We face some of that same challenge with ancient figures of speech, and it’s really helpful when we have ancient writings that explain these ways of speaking.

Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah (around the year AD 100; cited in Clarke and other sources) explained this way of speaking when he wrote:

“A day and a night make a whole day, and a portion of a whole day is reckoned as a whole day.”

This demonstrates how in Jesus’ day, the phrase three days and three nights did not necessarily mean a full 72-hour period, but a period including at least the portions of three days and three nights. There may be other good reasons for challenging the traditional chronology of Jesus’ death and resurrection, but it is not necessary to fulfill the words of Jesus in Matthew 12:40.

In addition to that, there are some biblical examples where a portion of a day is referred to as a whole day, or where the phrasing “after two of days” (or whatever number) is understood to mean “on the second day.”

The Scriptures contain several examples which clearly show that in Bible times a part of a day was often equivalent to the whole day.

• Genesis 42:17 says Joseph incarcerated his brothers for three days. Genesis 42:18-26 says he released them on the third day. It is unlikely that in prison in three days in 42:17 must mean a minimum of 36 hours.
• 1 Samuel 30:12 and 13, the phrases three days and three nights and three days are used interchangeably.
• Esther 4:16 says that Esther fasted for three days, night or day before appearing before the king. Esther 5:1 says that Esther went before the king on the third day.
• In 2 Chronicles 10:5 Rehoboam told Jeroboam to come back after three days. In 10:12, it says that Jeroboam returned to Rehoboam on the third day, and he did this as the king had directed. Because of the figures of speech used at the time, when Rehoboam said, “come back after three days,” Jeroboam rightly understood this as “on the third day.”
• It’s kind of complicated, but the same figure of speech was used by Cornelius when he said Four days ago I was fasting until this hour in Acts 10:30. When you dig into the chronology, the event happened about 72 hours (three literal days) earlier. Yet Cornelius, using the figures of speech common in his time, spoke of it as four days.

What exactly made Jesus endure the cross? How did He defeat death, yet He died?

This question has been the cause of much theological meditation. The Bible makes it very clear that Jesus defeated death at the cross. But how did that work? What is it that He defeated? Here’s my understanding of it. Jesus defeated death because death overstepped its bounds in coming after Him. Death had no claim on Jesus because He was sinless. He was born with a sinless nature, just like Adam and Eve were initially created without a sinless nature. This is difficult to comprehend because it sounds so far from us, but it’s true. Jesus never once sinned in His entire life. When death came at Jesus, He had to yield Himself to death. But nevertheless, death took Him when He did yield Himself to it. Death overstepped its bounds. Through the power of His resurrection, death had no claim on Jesus, because death had no claim over a sinless life. Therefore, Jesus was able to sort of turn the principle of death against itself and conquer over death. That’s why the Bible says that Jesus is the first fruits of the resurrection. He’s the trailblazer, the forerunner. All God’s people, who have put their faith in Jesus Christ – in who He is and what He did especially at the cross and in His resurrection – are born again by God’s Spirit, and they will share in the glory of Jesus’ resurrection.

That’s the best way I can describe how Jesus defeated death, even though He died. He did it in a way that sort of trapped or ensnared death, causing the principle of death to overstep its bounds. It seems that God was determined to do this in a proper way. In our imagination, God could just make a decree against death and say that it’s no longer valid. But something like that would have fallen short of fulfilling God’s righteousness in the fullest extent. God is concerned not only to do things, but to do things in a way that are according to His own righteousness and character.

Did Judas have any chance for repentance, or was he doomed because he was always a hypocrite towards Jesus?

Good question. In theory, Judas had a chance for repentance, but not in practice. This is apparent because Jesus called Judas “the son of perdition.” Perdition is not a word we use very much today, but it means “destruction,” and usually destruction in the sense of judgment. In Hebrew phraseology, to call somebody “the son of” something meant that they were totally and completely identified with that thing. Therefore, when Jesus called Judas “the son of perdition,” He was saying, “This man is the embodiment of destruction of judgment and even damnation.”

Based on that description of Judas, I would say there was no chance for repentance for Judas. But in theory, Judas could have repented. In theory, Judas could have done what Peter did. There’s a sense in which both Peter and Judas denied Jesus. Now, of course, Judas’ crime was significantly worse. Peter didn’t betray Jesus in the way that Judas did. But there’s at least some similarity to the sins of Peter and Judas in denying Jesus. But Peter repented. Judas was filled with remorse and regret, but never really repentance. It’s possible for a person to be sorry about their sin, without truly being sorry for their sin. So, there’s a big difference between Judas and Peter in that regard.

How do we explain Jesus dying on Friday and resurrected on Sunday as three days and three nights?

I had a feeling this question might come up because tomorrow is Good Friday. Today is a Maundy Thursday, the day we recognize as when Jesus washed the disciples’ feet. Tomorrow would be Good Friday, the day we recognize as when Jesus was crucified. There are people who dispute this traditional chronology about the day of Jesus’ death. They usually don’t dispute the day of His resurrection. When they dispute the day of Jesus’ death, they do it because they feel they have to accommodate the period of time of three days and three nights. This is what Jesus said in Matthew 12:40, “For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” In the minds of many people, this means that Jesus specifically meant three days and three nights, adding up to 72 hours. They would argue to accommodate three full days and three full nights, otherwise they’d assume Jesus’ words were not true.

So, were His words in Matthew 12:40 a problem? In many other places, Jesus said that He would be raised from the dead on the third day. Three days and three nights makes it sound like it would be after three days, so if you have three 24-hour days, and then Jesus is raised again, He would actually be raised on the fourth day, not on the third day. But Acts 10:40 says that Jesus was or would be raised from the dead on the third day, which is repeatedly mentioned in the gospels.

Therefore, we have to ask ourselves, does the traditional chronology contradict three days and three nights? And is the idea of resurrection on the third day contradicted by the idea of three days and three nights? Does it mean a literal 72 hours? Taking the words literally, three full days and three full nights would mean something like 72 hours. However, “on the third day” could mean as little as 26 hours, as you could have an hour in one day, 24 hours of the second day, and then an hour in the next day. Conceivably, “on the third day” could mean as little as 26 hours. So, is there a contradiction, either with a traditional chronology or between the statements “three days and three nights” and “on the third day”?

There is clear evidence from Jewish writings from that general time that the expression “X number of days and X number of nights” was a figure of speech that could refer to any portion of a day or a night, so a person could refer to the same event happening across three days and three nights and happening on the third day without any contradiction. It’s possible because it was a figure of speech. We have our own modern figures of speech that may not have been clear to earlier generations. There is an ancient writing by Rabbi Eliezer ben Azariah from around the year 100 AD which has been cited by Adam Clark, Bishop Lightfoot, and many other sources. It explains this way of thinking about a day and a night making a whole day, and a portion of a whole day also being reckoned as a whole day. He’s explaining the figure of speech.

So, this demonstrates how in Jesus’ day, the phrase three days and three nights did not necessarily mean a full 72-hour period, but a period that included at least a portion of three days and three nights. Now, there may be other good reasons for challenging the traditional chronology of the crucifixion of Jesus, saying that Jesus was crucified on Thursday instead of Friday. But I think there is very sound evidence that Jesus’ words in Matthew 12:40, that He would be in the earth three days and three nights, would allow for being crucified on Friday, dead for a portion of Friday, all day Saturday, and a portion of Sunday. It fits with that figure of speech.

What do you think of certain “seeker sensitive” churches refusing to speak of the blood or the cross this weekend, because it offends visitors?

In American culture, Easter is a day when many people who wouldn’t normally go to church are willing to visit a church. It’s a great day for evangelism. When you know that you’re speaking to people who don’t yet believe, you want to be careful to avoid using Christian jargon without explaining it. But I would certainly agree that we must be direct and passionate in speaking about the cross and what Jesus Christ did. Paul said to the Corinthians, “I determined to know nothing among you but Jesus Christ and Him crucified.” We must be clear that salvation does not come to humanity through the excellent teaching of Jesus, by teaching of the nobility of His humanity, or by teaching of the martyrdom that He made by a good example on the cross.

No, salvation comes through His sacrificial death. It was a sacrifice in the place of guilty sinners, but what Jesus achieved on the cross was valid and true in so many dimensions. The primary dimension is that He died in the place of sinners, but that’s not the only dimension at all. This needs to be preached with power and passion, especially at an opportune time like Easter Sunday.

Is My Bible Translation Watered-Down?

From Timothy via email 02/16/2024 –

I was wondering what’s brother David’s opinion on the new Gen Z Bible translation? I’m trying to get my 14-year-old into the word more and was thinking about getting him one. Is it watered down? the apostle Paul states that a watered-down gospel is dung. Is it watered down? What’s brother David’s opinion on that translation? Thanks

An August 30, 2023, online article in the New York Daily Post with the headline, Gen Z gives Bible edgy makeover with slang-filled translation: ‘It’s giving savior of the world’ – this article was not about an actual Bible, but an anonymous TikTok user who posted Bible verses in Gen Z slang (often thought to be those born from the mid 1990s to the mid 2010s).

But on online sellers, you can find The New Testament for Gen Z, published in August of 2023, written by “Broseph Smith.” There is also an Old Testament for Gen Z available. This claims to be an “Unofficial Chat GPT translation of the Bible.”

Here’s a comparison of some of the passages:

Matthew 6:1-2: NKJV

Take heed that you do not do your charitable deeds before men, to be seen by them. Otherwise you have no reward from your Father in heaven. Therefore, when you do a charitable deed, do not sound a trumpet before you as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory from men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward.

The New Testament for Gen Z
“Keep your acts of kindness hush-hush, and your heavenly Father, who sees everything, will give you props for real, like in public and stuff. Now, when it comes to prayin’, don’t be like those hypocrites. They love showin’ off, prayin’ loud and clear in the synagogues and on street corners, just so people will notice them. Let me tell ya, they’ve already got what they were after.”

Matthew 24:1 NKJV

Then Jesus went out and departed from the temple, and His disciples came up to show Him the buildings of the temple.

The New Testament for Gen Z
“So Jesus bounced from the temple and his crew rolled up to him, flexing the sick architecture of the place.”

Mark 5:13 NKJV

And at once Jesus gave them permission. Then the unclean spirits went out and entered the swine (there were about two thousand); and the herd ran violently down the steep place into the sea, and drowned in the sea.

The New Testament for Gen Z
“So, Jesus was like, ‘Alright, go for it.’ And those unclean spirits bounced out of the guy and straight into the pigs. The whole herd freaked out, ran like crazy down a steep slope, and ended up drowning in the sea. There were about two thousand of them, man.”

Luke 11:38, NKJV

When the Pharisee saw it, he marveled that He had not first washed before dinner.

The New Testament for Gen Z
“But then, this Pharisee homie sees that Jesus didn’t wash his hands before dinner, and he’s all shook, like, ‘What’s up with that?’”

The bottom line is that this isn’t a serious Bible translation, and I wouldn’t recommend it for regular Bible reading. It’s basically a novelty Bible translation. Novelty Bible translations exist:

• Klingon Bible
• Pirate Bible
• Cockney Bible
• Hippie Bible
• Cotton Patch Bible

This Gen Z Bible is like these. It should not be used for regular Bible reading. I’m not big on telling people what they can’t read – so if someone really wants to read the New Testament for Gen Z, go ahead – but just remember what it is. It isn’t a serious Bible translation; it is a novelty Bible.

A good, easy-to-understand Bible translation for your 14-year-old is the New Living Translation.

Can I Break a Vow Made to God?

From Josh via email:

Years ago I made a rash vow to God that I would not get married and that I should be cursed if I do. I was angry and sad about my lustfulness and did it to punish myself. I deeply regret it but I’m not sure if I can be forgiven of it. I want to get married. I see in the Bible the importance of keeping vows and in Leviticus 27 that things devoted to God with curses on them are irredeemable. I’m in agony over it because I don’t know if I can marry or not. Will Christ forgive this or do I need to keep it?

Acts 5:1-2: What Ananias and Sapphira Did

But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession. And he kept back part of the proceeds, his wife also being aware of it, and brought a certain part and laid it at the apostles’ feet.

1. Ananias and Sapphira broke a vow they made before the Lord.

The ancient Greek word for kept back is nosphizomai, which means “to misappropriate.” The same word was used of Achan’s theft in the Greek translation of the Old Testament (Joshua 7:21), and in its only other New Testament use, it means to steal (Titus 2:10).

2. Their vow was both private and public.
3. Their vow was a voluntary act of consecration.

Acts 5:3-11: Peter confronts Ananias and Sapphira

1. God knew all about their broken vow – and He knows about our broken vows.

Think of these common examples of broken vows:

• More time in prayer.
• More intercession for others.
• More devotional reading.
• More intense Bible study.
• More personal witness.
• More faithful tithing.
• Better example to others.
• More patience with the children.
• A vow to personal purity in sexual matters.

2. They seemed unaware of how serious their sin was.

They seemed totally unaware that they had lied to the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3).

They seemed totally unaware that they had tested (provoked, challenged) the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:9).

Their sin was serious – and dealt with seriously – because it could poison the whole church at a critical time.

3. Their broken vow was the result of a work of Satan.

Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart (Acts 5:3)

The reason why Satan worked through Ananias and Saphira was because he wanted to attack and derail the whole church into the corruptions of pride, vanity, phony-egotistical-image consciousness, and he tried to use broken vows to do it.

4. Ananias and Saphira broke fellowship with their fellow believers when they broke fellowship with God.

Had Peter and the rest of the church lied to the Holy Spirit? Had Peter and the rest of the church provoked and challenged the Holy Spirit?

When we think of fellowship purely in social terms, we don’t think this way. We often confuse social fellowship with spiritual fellowship. Perhaps it is because we see so little real spiritual fellowship.

5. Ananias and Sapphira paid a price for the broken vow.

Look at this from Ecclesiastes 5:4-6:

When you make a vow to God, do not delay to pay it; for He has no pleasure in fools. Pay what you have vowed; better not to vow than to vow and not pay. Do not let your mouth cause your flesh to sin, nor say before the messenger of God that it was an error. Why should God be angry at your excuse and destroy the work of your hands?

When you go to the bank to take out a loan, they always want to see your credit record. They look at a lot of things, but the first think they look at is how pay the loans you already have. Many of us are like delinquent debtors who keep coming to God for an extension of credit!

“Until broken vows are mended, it is difficult to make any progress along the way of consecration. Before seeking a blessing from God, one should carefully consider in honest retrospect one’s previous dealings with Deity. It is not enough that no affront was intended. It is not enough that no deceit was planned in advance.” (J. Edwin Orr)

More on Broken Vows: Ecclesiastes 5:1-2, 4-6

1. It is better to not make vows at all than to make foolish vows.
2. This does not mean that vows are bad – they can be good. It means we must take them seriously.
3. If you have broken vows, either repent and keep them or repent of your foolishness in ever making the vow and seek His release from the vow.

Look at how we respond to traffic or parking tickets and how we respond to the conviction of the Holy Spirit. Many of us have more respect for the Department of Motor Vehicles than we do for the Holy Spirit of God.

What to do to Restore Broken Vows

We see something of the heart of this in what was required for the breaking of a Nazirite vow in Numbers 6:9-12:

And if anyone dies very suddenly beside him, and he defiles his consecrated head, then he shall shave his head on the day of his cleansing; on the seventh day he shall shave it. Then on the eighth day he shall bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons to the priest, to the door of the tabernacle of meeting; and the priest shall offer one as a sin offering and the other as a burnt offering, and make atonement for him, because he sinned in regard to the corpse; and he shall sanctify his head that same day. He shall consecrate to the LORD the days of his separation, and bring a male lamb in its first year as a trespass offering; but the former days shall be lost, because his separation was defiled.

1. Humble yourself (shown in the shaving of the head).
2. Humble yourself publicly (shown in the shaving of the head).
3. Look to your atoning sacrifice.
4. Start all over again.

What if I think I have broken vows, but I can’t remember any of them?

• Humble yourself, confess, and repent in general terms.
• Ask God to show you if there are specific vows that need to be addressed, and keep your ears open.

Conclusion: Expect God to do great things in your life when you set this area right!

Is Cremation WRONG for Christians?

Magda sent this question:

I have a question for you. Many years ago, our pastor at that time gave his opinion on the question of being cremated. He explained that in the days of Jesus on earth, the people that were criminals were thrown in a fire to be burnt outside the city. So there is a bad connection to being burnt. Also, most people were buried. He said that to be laid in the earth is like burying a seed that comes to life when Jesus comes to fetch us. I am a widow for just over a year now and my husband requested to be cremated. Probably because it was the cheapest option. I would love to know your opinion about this.

• The Bible really doesn’t say anything specific about cremation.
• It’s true that the ancient Hebrews would have been horrified at cremation, given their thinking of how a dead body should be cared for.
• It’s also true that some early Christians – in the first few centuries of Christianity, and then beyond – thought that cremation was (a) an imitation of pagan Roman customs (b) a denial or disrespect of the Biblical principle of resurrection.

John Trapp is an example of a Christian who said believers should not be cremated:

“The bodies of the saints, being temples of the Holy Ghost, should with reverence be commended and committed unto Christian sepulcher, in hope of the resurrection.”

I like what you said about your pastor giving his opinion – because that’s what it is. We need to be careful about knowing what the Bible says and what it does not say. We should also be careful about those who elevate the traditions of men to the commandments of God, or make God’s commandments of no effect because of their traditions (Mark 7:9-13).

• It is absolutely true – the Bible says that God will resurrect these bodies.

1 Corinthians 15:35-38

But someone will say, “How are the dead raised up? And with what body do they come?” Foolish one, what you sow is not made alive unless it dies. And what you sow, you do not sow that body that shall be, but mere grain—perhaps wheat or some other grain. But God gives it a body as He pleases, and to each seed its own body.

1 Corinthians 15:42-44

So also is the resurrection of the dead. The body is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption. 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. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

1 Corinthians 15:51-53

Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed— in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

• It’s true – God has a plan and a purpose for these bodies.
• Our salvation is total: soul, spirit, and body.
• In some way, our resurrection body will come from these bodies that exist right now.
• Yet, the bodies of believers are “destroyed” all the time, either through violent destruction or through the decay of time.
• Cremation does to the body in 30 minutes what 30 years in the ground does.

Anglican Book of Common Prayer:

In sure and certain hope of the resurrection to eternal life through our Lord Jesus Christ, we commend to Almighty God our brother, and we commit his body to the ground; earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust. The Lord bless him and keep him, the Lord make his face to shine upon him and be gracious to him, the Lord lift up his countenance upon him and give him peace. Amen.

• We will all turn to dust anyway, and in some way God will take the molecules of our body and reassemble them into a glorious resurrection body.
• God doesn’t need a well-preserved corpse to do this!
• Since there is no specific Biblical command against cremation, I think Christians are free to choose it if it does not violate their conscience.
• Tradition – both Jesus and Christian traditions – speak against the practice of cremation, but the Bible specifically does not.
• We have freedom in Christ about this.

Remember the resurrection!

Do Christians cremate?

Well, they certainly can. By tradition, some Christian denominations do not cremate. They think it disrespects God’s promise to resurrect the body. Because they want to respect God’s promise to resurrect the body, they don’t want to disrespect it. So that’s why they refuse to cremate. But there’s nothing in the Scripture which prohibits cremation.

Cremation does to the body in 30 minutes what ten years in the ground does to the body. So, it really doesn’t make any difference. The body will decay and turn to ashes and dust in one way or another. I don’t think there’s any Scriptural prohibition to cremation; there are just some Christian traditions who prohibit cremation.

So here is the basic answer: by tradition, both Jews and Christians have been against cremation, because they feel it disrespects the truth and promise of the resurrection of the body. This tradition is probably even stronger in Judaism, coming from the ancient near eastern culture, which believed that to have one’s corpse treated badly after death was a terrible disgrace. However, there isn’t anything in the Bible that specifically condemns cremation… and, as one person said, “Cremation does to the body in 30 minutes what 30 years in the grave does naturally” – the idea being that our bodies decompose and turn to “ash” anyway.

Because it isn’t a strictly Biblical matter, I think it is something up to the individual conscience before God. If someone felt persuaded that they should NOT be cremated, I would not try to persuade them differently. But if someone wanted to do it, I think that is between them and the Lord also. Does that make sense?

Does the Bible teach separation from other believers if they endorse or fellowship with false teachers?

There are Christian brothers who teach things that I think are wrong or false. I believe that God still appoints and grants the gifts of the Spirit, including the more apparently miraculous gifts of the Spirit. I believe that those who teach otherwise, who are known as cessationists, are wrong. In fact, we just finished a 10-part video series on our YouTube channel on Why Cessationism is Wrong.

I believe that those who teach cessationism are wrong, but I would not call them false teachers. People should be aware of what they teach, and if you agree or disagree with them according to your understanding of Scripture, that’s fine.

Other people teach things that I think are dangerous. There are people who teach that there is no substitutionary aspect to the work of Jesus Christ on the cross. I believe that a very important aspect of Jesus’ death on the cross was to stand in the place of guilty sinners and receive the wrath and the judgment that they deserved. But there are Christians that deny that. I would call that a false teaching, to deny that there’s any substitutionary punishment aspect to the atoning work of Jesus Christ. I think that teachers like that should be avoided.

The Bible does say to mark and avoid people who are divisive, and people who teach contrary to the truth. However, we need to have wisdom and priority in this so that we’re not dividing from every single brother or sister with whom we might have a relatively small difference of opinion. If we divided on every small difference of opinion, then there would be no unity in the body of Christ. There really needs to be an ordering of priority in the Christian mind about areas of doctrine that we can disagree about. We can disagree on things, yet still recognize that we are brothers and sisters in Jesus Christ.

On the central doctrines of our faith, we need to agree. If there is dangerous error in the central doctrines, then separation is allowed. We can err on either side, by being too accommodating or by being too strict. We aren’t looking for some golden middle; we are just looking to follow what’s biblical. What is biblical isn’t always in the middle; it could be more to one side or the other. So, we’re not just trying to find the middle. We’re trying to find what’s biblical.

How does the Holy Spirit guide a Christian? How do we seek out His guidance on what or where God is calling us to?

This is a great question. First and foremost, I would say that the Holy Spirit guides a Christian through the Word of God. This is the clear and incontrovertible way that God has communicated to mankind. Has God communicated in creation? Yes, He has. Has God create communicated to mankind in conscience? Yes, He has. But nothing matches the clarity, helpfulness, and comprehensiveness by which God has communicated to humanity in and through His Word. If you want to be guided by the Holy Spirit, the first thing is to really put yourself in the Word of God. I’m won’t say that you’re always going to find a chapter and verse in the Bible that answers your specific question. But the Word of God will help you to abide in Jesus Christ. It will help you to live in a way that honors Him and listens to Him.

Beyond the obvious emphasis of being in God’s word, I’m a big believer in the way that God guides the believer in a naturally supernatural way. He simply guides our steps. In other words, if I’m trying to pick which university to attend, I don’t have to wait for God to put it in flaming letters in the sky. I don’t have to wait for God to speak in an audible voice. I think it would be extremely rare for God to communicate to somebody in an audible voice, so I’d even be a little bit suspicious of that.

Instead of looking for those things, live your life in general obedience to God and fellowship with God, and follow your sanctified common sense. There are ways in which the Holy Spirit communicates to us through an impression in our mind, or through words spoken by another person, and the Holy Spirit makes it alive to us. But we will only be able to discern such communication from the Holy Spirit as we are walking in the Spirit and anchored in the Word.

In making big life decisions, I would encourage you to walk in the Lord, keep your life right with Him as much as you’re able, and then just simply make decisions using sanctified common sense. Weigh out pluses and minuses and ask God to guide you along the way. There is no one answer to your question, but I hope I’ve given you a general way to seek out the guidance of where God is calling us.

I’ll share one more principle. I think where we are in our stage of life matters a lot. If a single guy comes to me and says, “Hey, I think the Lord might want me to move to such and such country and do this and that.” I might respond, “Well, have you prayed about it? What do you think about it? Do you think you could do it? Then go for it.” On the other hand, if somebody who is married and has three or four kids comes to me and asks the same question, I might say, “Brother, take care, and make sure. Let’s seek the Lord.” I really believe that in cases where more people will be impacted by a decision, it’s okay for us to look for more guidance and more confirmation from the Lord on it. That has been true in some of the big decisions I’ve made in my life.

How can I be restored to a close and strong relationship with God, after a lot of discouragement leading to stumbling? I prayed and desire restoration, but I’m scared I’ve fallen away. Is there hope?

Jesus said that whoever comes to Him, He will in no way cast out. The way in which you describe your situation makes me believe that you are the target of a lot of condemnation from the evil one. I don’t really understand exactly how Satan and demonic spirits that are in league with him have the ability to communicate to us, to suggest thoughts to us, or to tempt us, but they do have a way of making us feel extremely discouraged. Discouragement is a very powerful spiritual tool that Satan uses expertly. It’s important to understand that there can be a very real and very demonic source to discouragement.

You need to cling close to God and His Word. You need to just be able to settle down in the presence of the Lord and to say, “I am weak, but God’s promise is strong. God’s love is strong. God’s faithfulness is strong.” Let the faithfulness and goodness of God carry you in this difficult time. It’s okay for you to feel weak. He is strong. Be assured and restful in that. God bless you.

As a Levite, did John the Baptist symbolically bring the Levitical Priesthood to a close?

That’s a very interesting question, and something I haven’t really thought of before. It’s true what you say, that although Jesus and John the Baptist were cousins, John the Baptist’s parents were of the tribe of Levi, and part of the priesthood of the family of Aaron.

So, did John the Baptist symbolically bring the Levitical priesthood to a close? I would say no, because the book of Hebrews makes it really clear that it was the work of Jesus as our High Priest which brought the work of the priesthood to close. The fulfillment of the priesthood is found in Jesus Christ.

Here’s something further to think about. Obviously, clearly, and importantly, the New Testament tells us that Jesus Christ is the culmination is the fulfillment of the Old Testament priesthood, so there needs to be no more animal sacrifice for sin, which now avails nothing. At the same time, the New Testament church was more open to temple ritual and ceremony than we might expect. Even after the resurrection of Jesus, even after the day of Pentecost and Acts 2, Peter and John were still going up to the temple to pray. On at least two occasions, the apostle Paul participated in temple rituals, not for the atonement of sin, but to demonstrate devotion and sacrifice and being set apart unto God.

So, yes, the priesthood is fulfilled and superseded by Jesus Christ. Absolutely. But I’m fascinated by the fact that the book of Acts tells us that not just everyday Christians, but apostles like Peter, John, and Paul participated in temple rituals and ceremonies, even as believers. I find that fascinating.

Should we rebuke and reject evil out loud?

Does rebuking and rejecting the evil as many times as you need to by speaking out loud really work? I was told to do that but I have my doubts.

I can’t give a simple answer to that question because it’s a little more complicated than that. I assume you are speaking about the idea of audibly speaking and repeating, “I rebuke you, Satan. I rebuke your strategies. I rebuke your lies. I rebuke you in the name of Jesus.”

Does it really work? Well, yes, if it is done in faith. However, there are people who do this but not in faith; they do it in the power of superstition. They do it in their idealism about how things should be. They fancy themselves to have power in and of themselves, not power in Jesus Christ, to boss around the demonic realm.

Friends, any authority that the believer has is strictly delegated authority. It’s not inherent to the believer. It is delegated to the believer in Jesus Christ. We don’t rebuke or stand against Satan in our own strength, but only in the strength of Jesus. If those words or practices become mere empty rituals, they really don’t have any power. But if they are expressions of genuine faith in Jesus Christ, in genuine resistance of the devil, then I think they can have great effect.

Remember what the Scriptures say in the letter of James, “Submit yourselves to God, resist the devil and he will flee from you.” If vocally saying such things is an active, true way in which somebody practices resistance against demonic powers and spirits, then there’s spiritual power in that. But again, not just as mere rituals or magic potions or incantations. God not only hears the words spoke, which are important, but also sees the heart behind the words. I would say Satan and his allies in the spiritual realm do as well.
There is a fair amount of superstitious spiritual warfare, where people think that the key to spiritual warfare is almost like casting spells or doing things like that. We must avoid that kind of thinking.

Is Calvinism Biblical?

Understand the difference between Reformed and Calvinist: The many branches of the Reformation

• Historical context: a diagram showing the branches of the Reformation.
• Not all Reformed are Calvinists (Lutheran, Anglican, some others).
• Not all Calvinists are considered to be Reformed.

I don’t consider myself to be Reformed or a Calvinist, although:

• I have learned and gained a lot from Reformed and Calvinistic preachers and writers.
• There are many points in Reformed/Calvinistic theology that are really good and helpful.
• For these reasons, I don’t consider myself to be “anti-Calvinist” – though I will not number myself among them.
• I have found that there is much more of an issue with how the doctrines are held – if they are held in a contentious, argumentative, proud spirit – than the doctrines themselves.

I certainly believe in…

• God’s Sovereignty.
• Man’s inability to save himself.
• The central place of God’s covenants in His plan of redemption.

But I’m no Calvinist – I do not believe in those things just the same way most Calvinists do.

I also appreciate many Calvinist and Reformed thinkers and theologians: Spurgeon, Boice, Lloyd-Jones, Stott, Luther, Calvin himself, and so on. But I certainly don’t agree with all their theology.

I also don’t believe that it isn’t true or helpful to argue that….

• Calvinists don’t believe in a God of love
• Calvinists don’t believe in human responsibility
• Calvinists don’t believe in evangelism
• Calvinists are heretics

It may well be true and helpfully argued that Calvinists are contradictory or confused on such areas, but I’ve seen many arguments made that aren’t true or aren’t helpful.

Some Points of Disagreement

1. Faith and Regeneration

Core to Calvinistic belief is that regeneration precedes faith; that one must be born again before he believes. The idea is that you are saved before you believe.

The Calvinistic belief in how God does His saving work in the believer is often summarized in what is known as the “Five Points of Calvinism,” or TULIP.

T – Total Depravity

U – Unconditional Election

L – Limited Atonement

I – Irresistible Grace

P – Perseverance of the Saints

I find a lot of the debate about these five points to be tiresome, and usually it all depends on how one defines these points. I focus more on the issue, “Are we born again before we believe, or do we believe and then we are born again?”

1. Defending an Incomplete Reformation

In its full expressions, Reformed and (some) Calvinist systems brought over much from the Roman Catholic church that should have been reformed but were not. Three examples that apply more to classically Reformed than to many Calvinists are:

1. Infant baptism.
2. Liturgical, sacramental emphasis.
3. The state church; the idea of a believer’s church was foreign to the major reformers and the reformed world in its early centuries.

I believe what Spurgeon said was true:

“What a blessing it would have been in Luther’s time if the reformation had been carried out completely! Great as the work was, it was, in some points, a very superficial thing, and left deadly errors untouched.” (“No Quarter,” on 1 Kings 18:40. Sermon #1058, preached on June 30, 1872).

1. Eschatology

Not all Calvinist or Reformed people are Amillennial or Post-Millennial, but those are the classic eschatological approaches of Reformed Theology.

We thank God for people like John MacArthur, Donald Grey Barnhouse, and James Montgomery Boice, who though were or are in some places too reformed for my liking, nevertheless were committed pre-millennial, pre-tribulation believers and teachers.

1. Attitude

I have often said that our greatest problem with Calvinists is not their doctrines themselves (though some of those doctrines are certainly in error). In my opinion our greatest problem is the way in which those doctrines are often held; that is, if they are held in an attitude of smug intellectual and spiritual superiority and with a spirit of aggressive, divisive recruitment.

There are many groups we disagree with at different points, but do not have these same problems with. Maybe some of the fault is on our part, but I believe that at least some of it lies on the part of those who hold Reformed and Calvinistic ideas in attitudes of intellectual superiority and aggressive recruitment.

Some other areas related to attitude that I sometimes find problematic among our Calvinistic brethren:

• Criticizing the “logical end” of non-Calvinistic approaches, while not allowing the “logical end” of Calvinistic approaches to be criticized.
• Comparing the best of their churches or practices to the worst of other churches or practices. That’s not fair, no matter who does it.

Conclusion

Let me conclude with some observations from a Calvinist whom I really respect – Charles Spurgeon, the great preacher of Victorian England. He famously, said:

“And I have my own private opinion, that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and him crucified, unless you preach what now-a-days is called Calvinism.  I have my own ideas, and those I always state boldly.  It is a nickname to call it Calvinism.  Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else.”

It’s true – Charles Spurgeon was a committed, persuaded Calvinist and he actually endured a fair amount of opposition because of his dedication to Calvinistic doctrines. However, it is worth noting that his “Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else” statement was made in the very early years of his ministry – February 11, 1855, to be exact – in a sermon on 1 Corinthians 1:23-24 titled, “Christ Crucified.” At that point, he had almost 40 years of ministry in front of him in London. That statement “Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else” appears in sermon number 7 in his collected sermons – number 7 out of 3,563.

Consider some of what Spurgeon said later in his ministry:

“When a Calvinist says that all things happen according to the predestination of God, he speaks the truth, and I am willing to be called a Calvinist; but when an Arminian says that, when a man sins, the sin is his own, and that, if he continues in sin, and perishes, his eternal damnation will lie entirely at his own door, I believe that he also speaks the truth, though I am not willing to be called an Arminian. The fact is, there is some truth in both these systems of theology.” (The Way of Wisdom, sermon #2,862 – March 28, 1872 – more than 15 years later)

“I am myself persuaded that the Calvinist alone is right upon some points, and the Arminian alone is right upon others. There is a great deal of truth in the positive side of both systems, and a great deal of error in the negative side of both systems. If I were asked, ‘Why is a man damned?’ I should answer as an Arminian answers, ‘He destroys himself.’ I should not dare to lay man’s ruin at the door of divine sovereignty. On the other hand, if I were asked, ‘Why is a man saved?’ I could only give the Calvinistic answer, ‘He is saved through the sovereign grace of God, and not at all of himself.’” (Pride Catechized and Condemned, sermon #1,271 – delivered on January 2, 1876 – 20 years after the “Calvinism is the gospel” saying)

“We had better far be inconsistent with ourselves than with the inspired Word. I have been called an Arminian Calvinist or a Calvinistic Arminian, and I am quite content so long as I can keep close to my Bible.” (Heart Disease Curable, Sermon #1604 – June 19, 1881 – some 25 years later)

I’m not trying to say or even imply that Spurgeon was less Calvinistic in his beliefs as he great and matured in ministry. I am suggesting – it would take a lot more research to really “prove” it – that as the years went on and matured in ministry, how he held his Calvinistic doctrines changed. He admitted there was some valuable truth in some perspectives other than Calvinism, and became less condemning towards them.

Faith and Regeneration

Right there, a Calvinist might strongly object to what I just said. Sometimes they say regeneration comes before faith, not before salvation – but that’s something for another time.

• First you are regenerated (born again)
• Then you believe (faith)
• Then you are saved

I regard this as a distinction without a difference, because they don’t believe that anyone can is born again withoutbeing saved. There is no practical or concrete difference between regeneration and salvation; they are two aspects of the same work.

Why do Calvinists believe this?

1. They believe it is what the Bible teaches
2. They believe it gives more honor to God in His saving work
3. They emphasize that before conversion, a man is dead in sin and must be made alive before he can believe
4. They believe that the prior work in a man’s heart before salvation must be actual regeneration

Answering these Beliefs

1. The Bible teaches, simply and plainly, that one believes and then is saved. It’s an idea that is repeated again and again.

Those by the wayside are the ones who hear; then the devil comes and takes away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved. (Luke 8:12)

We sometimes think that our Calvinist brothers would re-write this, lest they should be saved and then believe.

So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” (Acts 16:31)

That if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. (Romans 10:9)

For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. (1 Corinthians 1:21)

Again, the phrasing is clearly not “to create belief in those who were saved,” but to save those who believe.

2. The idea that it gives God more honor or glory in His saving work is pure opinion and speculation. We don’t always know what gives God more honor or glory, and it can be argued that God’s work in and through the faith of man gives Him more glory than acting upon man as a purely passive, robotic entity.
3. Ephesians 2:1 clearly says, And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins. Yet there remains the question, “In what manner, and to what extent, is a person dead before conversion?” Must a person be converted beforethey can believe, or can there be a prior work of God to instill faith that is still short of conversion? Those who argue that man must be regenerated before he can believe like to say that a dead man cannot believe. This takes this particular description further than intended, to say that unredeemed man is exactly like a dead man, because a dead man also cannot sin.

We err if we think that dead in trespasses and sins says everything about man’s lost condition. It is an err because the Bible uses many different pictures to describe the state of the unsaved man, saying he is:

• Blind (2 Corinthians 4:3-4)
• A slave to sin (Romans 6:17)
• A lover of darkness (John 3:19-20)
• Sick (Mark 2:17)
• Lost (Luke 15)
• An alien, a stranger, a foreigner (Ephesians 2:12, 2:19)
• A child of wrath (Ephesians 2:3)
• Under the power of darkness (Colossians 1:13)

Therefore, in some ways the unregenerate man is dead; in other ways he is not. Therefore, it is valid to appeal to all men to believe. We need not look for evidence of regeneration before we tell men to believe and be saved.

4. There is no doubt that no one can believe unless God does a prior or previous work in their heart. Jesus said at John 6:44, No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him. At John 6:65 Jesus repeated, Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.

However, there is no compelling reason to believe that this prior or previous work must be full regeneration, being born again. I believe the order goes something like this: God’s prior and preparing work, faith, regeneration and salvation.

This does not mean that man saves himself. Faith is not a work; it is simply receiving what God graciously gives. We believe that salvation is God’s work and His alone, and that no man saves himself. To believe that a person must believe before they are saved does not contradict this.

When one makes man a completely passive actor who must be saved before he believes, all sorts of problems may result.

It may make men hesitant to call for decision. Remember Peter on Pentecost: And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying, “Be saved from this perverse generation.” (Acts 2:40)

It may lead to all sorts of theological problems. I believe Calvin himself ran into this. One place this is evident is in his Institutes [book III, chapter 2, sections 11-12], where he wondered why some men seem to believe yet will end up lost. Calvin’s solution to the problem? To say that God gives these men a false faith.

With all respect to Calvin, that’s wrong. Though he certainly didn’t intend to, that’s charging God with wrong. It would be wrong for any of us to give men a false faith, and so it would be with God.

If salvation is faith alone why do so many focus on works as if it is a determining factor of our salvation?

Salvation is attained solely through faith in Christ. However, it is crucial to consider the perspective of the apostle James in his epistle. In essence, the idea can be summarized as follows: genuine salvation is achieved through a living faith. While it is undeniably true that faith alone is the means of salvation, the type of faith that truly saves is one that is alive. The evidence of a living faith lies in its manifestation through actions and deeds. Some individuals mistakenly believe they are saved based on a mere intellectual agreement or a superficial acknowledgment of Jesus as a good person. Such a belief does not constitute saving or living faith, which is rooted in a profound trust in the person and redemptive work of Jesus Christ.

While I strongly affirm the significance of God’s grace, it is crucial to recognize that grace is received through a living faith. This contrasts with a faith that is stagnant and lifeless. Consequently, examining one’s works becomes a valid way to gauge the authenticity of a living faith, although it is essential to clarify that works themselves do not bring about salvation. True living faith is characterized by its acceptance of the gift of salvation from God.

Why does God bring about the death of Uzzah, even though he seemed to be doing the right thing, and why did Ananias and Sapphira face merciless consequences for their actions? How can we reconcile these events with the idea that God is merciful?

I think you’re asking a great question. And here’s what we need to understand, both in the case of Uzziah and in the case of Ananias and Saphira, they sinned directly against the Lord. And God immediately called them to account in His righteousness.

There was nothing unjust about God’s punishment of Uzzah or Ananias and Sapphira. Mercy, by its very nature, is never deserved. Once it’s deserved, it’s no longer mercy. And so God is free to bestow or withdraw mercy as He pleases. What should fill us with amazement is how merciful God usually is. The fact that God does not strike down more people as He did with Uzziah or Ananias and Sapphira is a tremendous demonstration of His mercy. And for somebody to stand back and say, well, why didn’t he show that mercy to Ananias and Sapphira? You see, that’s up to God. It’s not up to us. So I really think that it is very easy for people not to understand and not to grasp, not to get into their heads what mercy is all about.

Some of you remember the great American theologian and preacher Jonathan Edwards. Edwards’ most famous sermon was a sermon called “A Sinner in the Hands of an Angry God”. And in that sermon he considered a very interesting question. And the question is, why aren’t sinners burning in hell right now? Why does God let them live and walk the earth? And what Edwards came to in that message was that it’s just the mercy and grace of God, which is not to be despised.

I would take it back to the individual and say, “What are you doing with the mercy that God is showing you right now? Are you despising that grace? Do you see how that only piles up the condemnation of God against you? God is showing you great mercy. And you’re rejecting it.

How does the blood of Jesus function objectively, and how should we incorporate Jesus’s blood into our prayers, as mentioned in Revelation 12:11?
Does the blood have the efficacy to cover material possessions such as cars, houses, and properties?

It is possible to approach the concept of the blood of Jesus in a misguided, superstitious way. Let me clarify this perspective. The actual blood of Jesus had no magical properties when the Roman soldier pierced His side and blood and water flowed out. It’s reasonable to assume that any spot of blood on the Roman soldier had no supernatural power to bring salvation.

When the Bible refers to the “blood of Jesus,” it conveys the idea of sacrifice, similar to the sacrificial blood mentioned throughout the Old Testament. This term serves as a shorthand or word picture for the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ on our behalf. The saving power is in His sacrificial death, not in the physical properties of His blood. While acknowledging the importance of His actual blood in relation to His sacrificial death, it is important not to perceive it as a magical substance. Jesus’ act of laying down His life for the forgiveness of sins, while not magical, can be described as miraculous in the salvation it brings to believers.

When believers pray, “I ask the blood of Jesus over my house,” it is acceptable as long as they understand the symbolism behind it. This phrase signifies a desire for the sacrificial death of Jesus to be recognized, exalted, and to rule over a particular place or object. However, it is crucial for believers not to approach it in a superstitious or materialistic sense. The phrase emphasizes the actual physical death of Jesus, which served as a sacrificial offering to secure salvation for those who believe. Engaging in this practice with a clear understanding is commendable, but approaching it superstitiously may not hold much weight with God.

It feels like our spiritual growth has plateaued at the church we are attending right now. We’re contemplating whether to explore different churches or continue attending the Church we are at. What would be the best course of action in this situation?

Jumping from church to church is not an ideal approach. Ideally, we should settle into a church where there is real fellowship and accountability. Not having a permanent place of fellowship doesn’t meet that ideal. However, if you are not satisfied with your current congregation and don’t believe it is beneficial for you or your family, it is acceptable to consider changing congregations.

For practical purposes, determine a reasonable travel distance, whether it’s 20 minutes, 40 minutes, an hour, or more. Within that distance, look for the best church for you and your family. This decision requires spiritual maturity, because the best church may not be the one you like the most. Avoid churches that compromise biblical doctrine, but don’t choose a church you don’t like just for the sake of change.

Be practical about the process. You may need to try a few churches before you find the right one. It’s acceptable to explore options until you settle on the best church for your family within a practical driving distance.

Changing churches is acceptable, but it shouldn’t be done on impulse. It’s often better to stay a little longer in a less-than-ideal church than to leave hastily. Loyalty is a laudable virtue, so while it’s okay to look for a better fit, the ultimate goal is to settle into a church that matches your values and provides a nurturing environment for your family.

How can I know that I have real faith indeed, as I can’t seem to overcome reoccurring doubts?

Faith is not the absence of doubt. Having doubts does not negate the presence of faith. Instead, I encourage you to confront your doubts in light of your faith. It’s a familiar concept to question and examine our beliefs in order to understand why we hold them. Similarly, we should apply the same scrutiny to our doubts. When doubts arise, question the basis for those uncertainties. It’s important to actively engage with both beliefs and doubts.

It’s important to emphasize that faith does not mean having no doubts. Sometimes true faith is demonstrated by our unwavering commitment to the Lord even when doubts persist. So don’t be afraid to deal with your doubts while maintaining your trust in God.

Are the demons, the people in hell, the pharisees who blasphemed the holy ghost and the ones who take the mark of the beast the only creatures that can never be redeemed?

I would agree with this assessment. After all, being unsaved is a persistent, determined, and repeated rejection of Jesus Christ in this life. I’m excluding the question of those who have never heard of Jesus, as that is a separate issue.

However, for those who stubbornly reject the person and work of Jesus Christ, especially His grace, salvation is not available to them.

Salvation is presented to them through the person and work of Jesus Christ, but they consistently reject it.

So individuals such as demons and those in hell, such as the Pharisees who blasphemed against the Holy Spirit, or those who receive the mark of the beast, are examples of those who, as far as we know, cannot be redeemed. I hope this clarifies the perspective for you.

Is the baptism with the Holy Spirit, stated in Romans 6:4, the one John the Baptist and that Jesus told us would take place? Or is it the baptism rite that Christians practice?

Romans 6:4: Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead, by the glory of the Father, even so we should walk in newness of life.

I am aware that my point of view on this verse may be considered unconventional in comparison to mainstream doctrine, but it is the interpretation that makes the most sense to me.

In my interpretation of Romans 6:4, the baptism referred to is our immersion in Christ, a deep identification with Him that is vividly demonstrated through water baptism. I believe that our salvation is rooted in this radical identification with Christ, where we become inseparable from Him and He becomes inseparable from us. In this divine exchange, He takes our sin upon Himself and we are clothed in His righteousness. This concept is echoed in another passage in Romans, where Paul uses the precise phrase “baptism into Christ.

Furthermore, I consider the baptism of the Holy Spirit to be related, yet distinct. In my view, there are three baptisms that can be discussed, and possibly more for those who delve deeper into the theological intricacies. While acknowledging some overlap and connection, I contend that there is a notable distinction between baptism in Christ, baptism in water, and baptism in the Holy Spirit.

To be clear, when Romans 6:4 speaks of the baptism of believers into Christ by faith, I understand it as a spiritual reality intimately connected with and symbolically represented by water baptism. That is my interpretation, Christopher. I want to emphasize that I see the baptism of the Holy Spirit as related to, but distinctly different from, these other baptisms. I recognize that my view may be considered unconventional compared to mainstream doctrine, but it is the interpretation that makes the most sense to me.

What is our Lord’s name? Is he Abraham’s God, Yahweh or is he named differently?

There is the God revealed in the Bible, especially emphasized in the Hebrew Scriptures as Yahweh-the covenant God of Israel. This is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the same God who revealed Himself to Moses at the burning bush. This unique God is a triune God, existing as one God in three persons – God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Together they perfectly represent and in a sense manifest the Triune God. Each is fully God; therefore, Jesus Christ is Yahweh, God the Father is Yahweh, and God the Holy Spirit is Yahweh.

If you want to understand the nature of God, especially the God revealed in the Hebrew Scriptures or the Old Testament, immerse yourself in the Bible. Yahweh, the covenant God of Israel, is the very God revealed in Jesus Christ. For a full understanding, read beyond the Gospels, as the entire Bible provides insights. However, an excellent starting point is to ground your understanding in the gospels, which illuminate who Jesus is.

In the gospels, Jesus himself claimed, “If you’ve seen me, you’ve seen my Father. Jesus serves as the perfect representative of God, and there is complete harmony between who God is and who Jesus is. If you’re seeking to know God, to understand His love and salvation, putting your trust in Him is a commendable pursuit, Connor. I’m really glad to hear about your quest for understanding and faith.

Manassa repented his sins and God forgave him. Why then does the Bible tells us that Judah went to captivity because of the sins and bloodshed Manasseh committed?

Here we are confronted with the distinction between sin itself and the consequences of sin. God has the ability to forgive a person’s sin, but that person may still have to face the consequences of his actions. An example from the Bible is the forgiveness granted to Manasseh; his sins were forgiven, but the extensive ungodly rule he exercised had serious repercussions in the kingdom of Judah, leading to imminent judgment. This illustrates a clear, though not always easy to grasp, distinction between the guilt of sin and the resulting consequences.

A simple analogy that may help in understanding this concept is to compare sin to a nail driven into a board. Forgiving the sin is like removing the nail, but the hole left in the board represents the lingering consequences. Sometimes God, in His grace and mercy, will fill that hole and relieve the person of the consequences that the sin deserved. But that’s not always the case. It’s important to note that God, in His righteousness, may allow individuals to face the consequences that their sin rightfully deserved.

Consider the scenario of stealing a car: seeking God’s forgiveness for the act of theft does not necessarily negate the need to face legal consequences such as arrest and trial. This illustrates the dual nature of forgiveness-addressing the sin itself while acknowledging the ongoing repercussions or consequences.

Do the dead know what is happening on earth? I’m thinking of the saints asking God when they will be avenged, and the rich man and Lazarus.

The Bible doesn’t provide enough information to answer this question definitively, but there are some subtle hints. You have pointed out some of these clues, such as the story Jesus told of the rich man and Lazarus, which describes individuals in heaven and their awareness of earthly events. Another clue comes from the story of the Great Tribulation martyrs, who seek justice from God and imply a recognition that retribution has not yet come. In addition, Hebrews suggests that we are surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses.

The primary challenge people have with the idea of those in heaven watching earthly events is concern about how heavenly it would be for them to be aware of the problems of their loved ones on earth. The concern is that such awareness might cause stress or anxiety about the circumstances of family members. It’s a valid concern, and the uncertainty surrounding this aspect continues. Perhaps in Heaven, when we have knowledge of events on Earth, there will be no anxiety. This tranquility could come from a perfect understanding that all things work together for good and that God’s providence reigns supreme.

Unfortunately, the biblical evidence on this matter is limited to hints rather than explicit details, making it difficult to provide a more definitive answer. I wish I could give a more conclusive answer.

A new church I am considering has a married lesbian couple attend who are open about their relationship. Is it my responsibility to ask the pastor about this before I join? What should I do?

Certainly, it’s entirely reasonable for you to approach the pastor with that question. I can’t speculate on the pastor’s response since I don’t have any details about the situation; however, I can envision various scenarios in my mind. For instance, the pastor might explain that the couple has recently started attending, they are not believers, and the church is actively seeking to lead them to Christ. There could be various reasons for such a scenario, and your inquiry is entirely fair.

This leads to a broader question about how the church addresses those openly engaging in evident sin. Churches should have a mechanism for dealing with such situations, involving a loving confrontation and an effort to guide individuals towards a more aligned path with their discipleship journey. The important aspect is that the church actively addresses open, evident rebellion against God within its community.

It’s crucial to note that churches lack sin detectors akin to metal detectors at airport entrances. They don’t have a means to identify hidden sins, and their primary responsibility lies in addressing open, evident transgressions. However, the approach can be measured, allowing for a period to observe the work of the Holy Spirit and the Word in the individuals’ lives before initiating confrontation. For instance, if an openly lesbian couple started attending my church, I would eventually speak to them about their situation, but not necessarily in the first week. Sometimes, waiting allows for the transformative work of God through His Word and Spirit to unfold in a beautiful and powerful way.

Is it biblical that a pastor or his wife label himself or herself as an apostle?

While one could possibly make a biblical case for using the term “apostle” in a lower case sense, meaning a special ambassador of God’s work, the practical reality in today’s world is different. Frankly, the use of the title “apostle,” whether given or received, tends to create complications and can become awkward. This is a principle that holds true in today’s context, and I strongly recommend that it be avoided. Although it is possible to make a biblical distinction between apostles with a capital A and apostles with a lowercase A, I find it not only lacking in biblical support, but also unwise in practice.

Should Christians Push for a Third Jewish Temple in Jerusalem?

I believe there will be a third temple, a Jewish temple on what is now called the temple mount in Jerusalem.

Like many aspects of eschatology, this is something that Christians differ about.

1. Because of what Daniel said about the daily sacrifice and the abomination of desolation in Daniel 11:31 and 12:11

Daniel 12:11

And from the time that the daily sacrifice is taken away, and the abomination of desolation is set up, there shall be 1,290 days

It’s easy to think this was fulfilled by the desecration of the temple in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes in the intertestamental period. In a sense, it was – as a prefiguring of an ultimate fulfillment.

2. Because of what Jesus said about the abomination of desolation and the holy place of the temple in Matthew 24:15.

Matthew 24:15

Therefore when you see the “abomination of desolation,” spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place” (whoever reads, let him understand),

The concept of the abomination of desolation is often spiritualized with explaining it as idolatrous worship established in the hearts of God’s people (His “temple”). But in what sense can people be called God’s temple if they worship the Antichrist – an emissary of Satan himself? Certainly this isn’t the most plain or straightforward interpretation.

3. Because of what Paul said about the man of sin and the temple of God in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4

2 Thessalonians 2:3-4

That day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshipped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.

4. Because of what John said about the temple of God in Revelation 11:1

Revelation 11:1

Then I was given a reed like a measuring rod. And the angel stood, saying, “Rise and measure the temple of God, the altar, and those who worship there.

Plus, several other passages in Revelation 11-13 that have some kind of reference to a temple.

I believe that the simplest explanation of all these passages is to see a real Jewish temple on the temple mount in Jerusalem, yet to be built – but coming soon.

In point of fact, today there are Jewish people very interested in rebuilding the temple and resuming sacrifice, and are making preparations to do that exact thing even now.

Today you can visit the Temple Institute in the Jewish Quarter of the old city in Jerusalem. There, a group of Jews absolutely dedicated to rebuilding the temple attempt to educate the public and raise awareness for a new temple. They are trying to replicate everything they can for a new temple, down to the specific pots and pans used in sacrifice.

Israel is a nation again, and efforts to rebuild the temple are for real. The main Jewish group leading the charge to rebuild the temple is an organization called Faithful of the Temple Mount, who say they will continue their efforts to re-establish the Jewish temple on the Mount. One leader in the group said, “We shall continue our struggle until the Israeli flag is flying from the Dome of the Rock.” In Israel, there are students being trained for the priesthood, learning how to conduct animal sacrifices in the rebuilt temple.

It is important to understand that most Jews – religious or secular – do not care one bit about building a temple. And if there were one rebuilt, sacrifice would be difficult in a day of aggressive animal rights activists. Yet, there is a small, strong, highly dedicated group who live to see a rebuilt temple – a temple that will fulfill prophecy.

Many Christians get excited when they see efforts to rebuild the temple – it is prophecy being fulfilled right before their eyes! At the same time, Christians should understand that the basic impulse behind rebuilding the temple is not of God at all – the desire to have a place to sacrifice for sin. Christians believe that all sacrifice for sin was finished at the cross, and any further sacrifice for sin is an offense to God, because it denies the finished work of Jesus on the cross.

• If this is God’s prophetic plan – it’s going to happen, whether Christians are excited about it or not.
• Believers should temper any excitement with the knowledge that those who would build this temple would not be doing it for any Christian purpose.
• In this sense, Christians shouldn’t “support” the building of the temple. If they believe it is in God’s plan, then let God work it.
• I wouldn’t contribute money for a third temple – but I would likely visit it if I had the opportunity (I’m thinking I wouldn’t be around for it, but let’s speak hypothetically).

Why would I hypothetically visit a third temple? Because Paul did. It’s often overlooked that Paul participated in temple rituals as a Christian, as an apostle.

• Acts 18:18-22: Paul went to Jerusalem with a handful of hair he had cut off in a vow, where almost certainly the hair was offered at the temple for the completion of a Nazirite vow.
• Acts 21:23-26: Paul sponsored four Christians (from Jewish backgrounds) who were completing a vow of dedication at the temple. He went to the temple with them for the ceremonies.
• These were not ceremonies or sacrifices related to atonement, but for dedication or consecration – and apparently permitted for Christians. By any measure, Paul endorsed this. Again, not atonement – but dedication, gratitude, consecration.
  
  When you see the “abomination of desolation”: Essentially, the abomination of desolation speaks of the ultimate desecration of a Jewish temple, the establishment of an idolatrous image in the holy place itself, which will inevitably result in the judgment of God. It is the abomination that brings desolation.Standing in the holy place: This means that the abomination of desolation takes place in the Jewish temple. This is the only plain meaning of the phrase holy place. Some believe it happened in a prior Jewish temple, before it was destroyed in a.d. 70. Others – more properly – believe it will happen in the holy place of a rebuilt temple.

  i. For centuries, there was only a small Jewish presence in Judea and Jerusalem. Their presence in the region was definite, and continuous, but small. It was unthinkable that this weak Jewish presence could rebuild a temple. Therefore the fulfillment of this prophecy was highly unlikely until Israel was gathered again as a nation in 1948. The restoration of a nation that the world had not seen for some 2,000 years is a remarkable event in the fulfillment and future fulfillment of prophecy.

  ii. Those who believe that the events of Matthew 24 were all or mostly all fulfilled in a.d. 70 have a difficulty here. There is no good evidence at all that what they believe was the abomination of desolation (the Roman armies or their ensigns) were ever set up as idolatrous images in the holy place of the temple. Instead, the temple was destroyed before the Romans entered.

  iii. Therefore, those with this interpretive approach often re-define what the holy place is, as does Bruce: “One naturally thinks of the temple or the holy city and its environs, but a ‘holy place’ in the prophetic style might mean the holy land.”

  “The normal meaning of hagios topos (‘holy place’) is the temple complex… But by the time the Romans had actually desecrated the temple in a.d. 70 it was too late for anyone in the city to flee.” (Carson)

  As spoken of by Daniel the prophet: The mention of the abomination of desolation is taken from the book of Daniel. They shall defile the sanctuary fortress; then they shall take away the daily sacrifices, and place there the abomination of desolation(Daniel 11:31). This describes a complete desecration of the temple, prefigured by Antiochus Epiphanies in the period between the Old Testament and the New Testament.

  Paul elaborates on the future fulfillment of this in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4:

Daniel 12:11 gives additional insight:

(until the end). When this sign is set up, the end may be determined – there will be almost three and one-half years to go until the consummation of all things.

Through the centuries, the most common interpretive approach to the predictions Jesus made in this chapter is to see them all or mostly all fulfilled in the great destruction that came upon Jerusalem and Judea in a.d. 70. This approach is attractive in some ways, especially in that it makes the words of Jesus in Matthew 24:34 (this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place) easy to understand.

Yet the approach that sees this chapter as all or mostly all fulfilled in a.d. 70 is completely inadequate in its supposed fulfillment of the abomination of desolation. In this approach, the abomination of desolation is almost always understood to be the Roman armies or the ensigns they carried.

Yet when we understand the importance and what is said about this event – the abomination of desolation – we must give priority to this event, even more than the easiest interpretation of Matthew 24:34.

It is the critical sign mentioned in Matthew 24.

It is the warning to flee mentioned in Matthew 24.

It is the sign of the consummation of all things in Daniel 9:27.

It is the sign foreshadowed by Antiochus Epiphanies in Daniel 11:31.

It is the precise marker of days to the end in Daniel 12:11.

It is the revelation of the man of sin in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4.

It is the image of the beast in Revelation 13:14-15.

Taking these passages in their most plain meaning, the abomination of desolation cannot be the Roman armies or the ensigns they marched under; it cannot be totalitarian governments or any other conjecture.

The abomination of desolation must be some kind of image of the Antichrist set in an actual temple, and is the decisive sign for the end. This means that for the most part, Jesus’ predictions in Matthew 24 have not been fulfilled; or at least that the destruction of Jerusalem in a.d. 70 was a foreshadowing fulfillment, even as the desecration of the temple under Antiochus Epiphanies was a foreshadowing of the ultimate abomination of desolation.

Whoever reads, let him understand: Here Jesus (assuming that He said these words, and that they were not added by Matthew) directed us again to the central place of understanding, the abomination of desolation. It was almost as if Jesus said, “Don’t miss this. If you don’t understand this, you won’t understand many other things.” And this is exactly the error of many who, with good intentions, misunderstand the plain meaning of the abomination of desolation. Let him understand!

Does the Bible teach that Christians must give at least 10% of their income (tithing)? What verses support your view?

The Bible doesn’t require Christians to give 10% of their earnings. Yet, it emphasizes generosity among believers. The Old Testament presents tithing as a reference point and the New Testament speaks favorably of it, but it’s not mandated as a strict rule.

Instead, biblical teachings nurture a giving spirit. The Bible’s Second Corinthians chapters 8 and 9 explain the principles of giving, which is a practice recommended for all believers. The apostle Paul stresses that giving should be in proportion to one’s blessings, as guided by the Holy Spirit. Those receiving more should give more.

As for a specific percentage, I, together with my wife Inga-Lill, follow a giving pattern of 10% of our income. While the New Testament does not directly command tithing, it is still viewed positively and serves as a guideline rooted in biblical principles. However, I do not believe it should be seen as the definitive standard; rather, it highlights the value of generosity.

Ultimately, the Bible does not impose a strict 10% requirement on Christians, but rather encourages a giving and generous attitude. In fact, some might even find giving more than 10% appropriate. This perspective is worth considering when deciding how to approach one’s giving.

How should a church respond if a church elder exclusively wants to teach but not pastor?

How should I interpret repeated statements by a Senior Church Elder that he doesn’t want to “do pastoring” but he only wants to teach – especially as the only other Elder is not gifted in pastoring?

I think an elder who doesn’t fully embrace their responsibilities reflects a questionable viewpoint. Elders and pastors must primarily shepherd their congregation by actively engaging in their lives. It’s understandable that not everyone finds this role easy, and it can be demanding to spiritually and practically support, care for, and serve the congregation. It’s not tiring because of what the congregation needs, but because of how deeply involved you must be. It’s possible that people might not fully understand how significant and calling it is to be an elder or pastor.

I am no longer serving as a pastor of a congregation. For the past six years, I have been focused solely on my work with the Bible commentary and Enduring Word. Having been a pastor for almost thirty years, I can say that it often feels like an amazing dream – something you are beyond grateful for. Yet at times, pastoring can be overwhelming, leaving you to wonder if it’s all worth it. Things fluctuate, depending on the situation.

I understand the sacrifices involved of this role. I firmly believe there’s a crucial demand for people who aren’t just teachers but are also intimately involved with the congregation on a pastoral level within God’s community. Churches need pastors who are honest and meet the criteria in Titus and 1 Timothy. These pastors should have the qualities of leaders in God’s service. They play an important role in caring for the people.

How should Christians regard Christian rock music?

This is a matter of conscience for the individual Christian. Nothing in the Bible says that all Christians must reject or accept Christian rock music. I believe it’s a matter between the Spirit of God and the individual believer.

If someone tells me that they feel God is guiding them to avoid this music, I would encourage them to wholeheartedly follow that guidance and refrain from listening. However, I don’t think they should judge other believers who feel free to enjoy it, nor should they feel superior for their choice. Each person should simply follow what they sincerely believe God is leading them to do.

This falls under Christian freedom, unless there’s a clear and proven harm it could cause to someone’s life. In that case, it’s a chance for fellow believers to offer guidance within the church. The Bible doesn’t list the particular music genres for Christians to listen to or avoid, as music has varying associations for people based on their past and present experiences.

I strongly believe that personal discernment between the individual believer and the Holy Spirit is crucial. It’s important for Christians to not overlook the Holy Spirit’s ability to guide believers individually, especially in matters related to their freedom. The Holy Spirit can offer specific direction to different individuals, approving one person’s choices while warning against others. Ultimately, it’s all about being led by the Spirit in these areas.

​Is sanctification our responsibility or God’s?

Can you explain sanctification being from God? Aren’t we responsible for our growth too? Should a believer expect sanctification?

There is much debate within Christian teaching on sanctification. Some think it happens gradually, while others view it as a series of key moments in a Christian’s life where they dedicate themselves to God. Also, some emphasize that sanctification requires God’s transformative work in the believer.

In my view, all three perspectives are partly true. First, God’s work within us contributes to an undeniable aspect of sanctification. As individuals seeking to follow God’s path, we cannot achieve sanctification solely through our efforts. Even our participation relies on God’s action within us.

Second, sanctification involves a gradual journey that develops over time. Continuous growth, learning, and refinement are necessary in our Christian journey.

At times, there are pivotal moments in sanctification where a Christian may experience a significant breakthrough. These moments provide an understanding of the necessity to align more closely with God, turn away from certain behaviors or attitudes, and seek repentance or a renewed commitment to His ways.

I believe that sanctification is a gradual process, combined with pivotal moments of personal commitment, and God’s work. You can find more information on this topic in a video on our YouTube channel by searching for ‘sanctification.’ For further understanding of this subject, my commentary on Romans 12 is available.

How can a person break a sinful habit that has been a years-long struggle?

I have been struggling with quitting looking at certain illicit material for 8 years now, and I don’t know what else to do. I study my bible and memorize, I pray and fast too. But I still fall, what should I do?

God bless you, brother. I’m saddened to hear about your struggles, but it’s essential to understand that your struggle isn’t identical to everyone else’s. However, it’s common for every believer to grapple with their own challenges, much like what you’re experiencing. Every believer faces a battle against sin.

What encourages me most about your inquiry is your perseverance. You haven’t given up. If you need direction on what to do next, the best advice I can give you is to keep following Jesus. Share your problems with Him. You may falter but not necessarily fail completely, or at least not stray far from Him. Admit your imperfections and genuinely ask for forgiveness by saying, “Dear Lord, I know I’m a sinner. I struggle with this persistent sin. It causes me deep distress every time I fall short. I come to You seeking Your forgiveness and restoration.” This shows your true repentance. The Lord values this sincerity. The primary step in progressing on my journey with God is already done.

You’re already engaging in many recommended practices, such as studying the Bible, memorizing scriptures, praying, and even fasting. However, you could make yourself accountable to a fellow Christian brother and confide in him about this struggle if you haven’t already.  As a man, seek a brother you trust and respect to hold you accountable. For women in this situation, find a Christian woman for accountability. For many people, they struggle fighting against sin without someone to hold them accountable.

You’ve taken meaningful actions, so I’m not suggesting this be your first step. However, if your efforts haven’t quite worked, consider finding a trustworthy person to hold you accountable. They can challenge you and you can commit to being truthful and transparent with them. Persist in your journey and hold yourself accountable. These are two essential pieces of advice I would like to offer. May God bless you.

Is the role of the pastor and elder in a church the same?

There are many similarities among the roles of elder, overseer, and pastor. There is certainly overlap between them. Elders should have godly character and embody the heart of a pastor.

The main difference is that the Bible recognizes a distinction between elders who rule and those who teach. 1 Timothy suggests that not all elders are teachers. While each elder should have the skill to teach, it might only apply to a one-on-one context rather than addressing a congregation. Therefore, some elders may not have the proficiency to teach a larger audience.

In essence, although there are minor variations, there is significant overlap in the roles of elders, pastors, and overseers. Some argue that they are the same, but I hesitate to call them completely identical. Instead, I recognize their significant similarities. The roles of elder, overseer, and pastor are essentially synonymous, but there are some nuances that can be discerned upon closer examination.

Is the gift of healing prevalent today or do healings result from a prayer of faith?

Is the gift of healing prevalent today or would you say that healings we see today are more of a “prayer of faith” for others? I believe 9 gifts are still valid, maybe not as in Paul’s day.

Let me tell you my thoughts. Soon, I’ll be releasing a video series named “10 Reasons Why I Think Cessationism Is Wrong.” Cessationism is the belief that the spiritual gifts, or at least most of them, have ceased to operate today. I disagree with cessationism and have ten reasons to back up my disagreement. I believe it is an incorrect doctrine.

There is a lot of misunderstanding about the gift of healing. Some people think that those with the gift of healing could move around healing people at will, as if they had complete control over the gift. But I don’t see this consistency in the Bible. Even Jesus Christ, in my opinion, did not operate this way. He specifically stated that He only did what the Father told Him to do. Even Jesus’ healing acts were done under the direction and power of the Holy Spirit, in accordance with the Father’s guidance in each specific situation.

So, is the gift of healing widely present today? I don’t see a real gift of healing through laying on of hands that can instantly cure someone. The “Ray Gun” approach that some televangelists tout, where someone just points and heals, isn’t supported by the Bible nor is it how healing actually worked in biblical times. It’s not how the gift of healing should be used today. However, I do believe that God might use certain individuals in exceptional ways for healing, although I don’t see it as prevalent. In the Western world, such occurrences seem somewhat rare. These manifestations are more commonly witnessed on the frontiers where the gospel is expanding.

Did the Lord or Satan incite David to take a census in 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 2?

Great question. Was it the Lord or was it Satan? Yes. What do I mean by that? I think Satan brought the temptation, but it was allowed by God because God wanted to do a greater work. We see this type of thing in the Scriptures from time to time.

The idea is that even though Satan is attributed to certain actions, they are allowed by God within the permitted scope. Essentially, Satan’s actions are permitted by God. When considering whether an action is done by Satan or the Lord, it could be seen as both. Satan initiates the action and God permits it. Both entities are involved.

The temptation Jesus faced in the wilderness can be viewed from a similar angle. Did Satan or the Lord initiate this temptation? The answer is both. It’s clear that God allowed Satan to present this challenge, but the actual act was carried out by Satan. In this scenario too, both played a role in the event.

What is the basis for the Catholic church to claim they gave us the Bible?

The premise of their argument is that, without the church, we would not know what books belong in the Bible. Their argument claims that the church provided the Bible’s information and gathered its contents, thereby giving it a status that equals or surpasses the Bible.  I disagree since the church only acknowledged the existence of the Bible and did not create it.  That’s how I would explain it.

The Bible is God’s eternal and enduring word, regardless of whether the church recognizes it or not. Roman Catholics believe that the church came before the Bible and determined which books to include in it, so that the church is equal or superior to the Bible. I disagree.

What is the gift of tongues, and how do I receive it? Is it the evidence of the Holy Spirit?

If I don’t speak in tongues does that mean that I don’t have the Holy Spirit? What exactly is it, and how do I make it happen (or SHOULD I) try to “will it” to happen to me?

We should not seek the gift of tongues to prove to ourselves or others that we have the Holy Spirit. Looking for the gift purely to validate one’s spiritual condition is not the goal. Instead, if one senses an inadequacy in their communication with God, they can seek Him for the gift of tongues.

I explore this topic in my upcoming series, “10 Reasons Why Cessationism Is Wrong,” which will come out in a few weeks. In 1 Corinthians 14, Paul explains that speaking in an unknown language is not directed toward people, but to God. It is not given as a way of communication between individuals, but as a means of communication from a person to God.

When someone asks for my help with praying to receive the gift of tongues, I first ask if they ever feel like they can’t fully express themselves in prayer to God, or if they feel any limitations in their ability to praise or communicate with Him. If they don’t feel a lack in their ability to pray, I encourage them to return if and when they ever feel the need for help, and then we can pray for the gift of tongues.

The ability to speak in tongues should not be sought as proof of being filled with the Holy Spirit. The fruit of the Spirit is the genuine evidence of being filled with the Holy Spirit and is reflected in one’s life. Speaking in tongues enables communication between the believer and God.

If you do pray for that gift, and God puts unfamiliar words in your mind, speak them. If He doesn’t, don’t try to fake it and don’t worry about it. Trust that if and when God deems it necessary, He will grant you this gift.

Are personal “prophetic words” (re healing, job/life direction) biblical?

We see New Testament examples where God prophetically communicated with individuals. The Bible also mentions spiritual gifts like the word of wisdom and the word of knowledge. However, many of the things that are claimed as prophetic occurrences today are often baseless and unfounded, simply invented by humans.

Yes, God can speak to someone through another person with the help of the Holy Spirit. It’s important that we take it back to the Bible’s instructions about words of prophecy. First, compare it with God’s Word since that’s the best means of evaluating it. If someone claims that “The Lord told me to share this with you,” don’t accept it immediately. After that, consult with wise and godly people in your life. Evaluate these prophetic words carefully. Christians can often falter when they disregard this important step of assessment.

Is Replacement Theology Biblical?

This idea goes by several different names.

• Replacement theology
• Supersessionism
• Fulfillment theology (the church fulfills Israel, or Jesus fulfills Israel).
• Israel is no longer a chosen people theology.

Those who believe in Replacement Theology sometimes don’t like the term; they see it as a loaded, biased term. They will often prefer the term “fulfillment theology.”

Whatever exactly you call it, Replacement Theology says, “God is finished with Israel as Israel. Of course, individual Jews can become believers in Jesus Christ just like anyone else. But God has no more place, no more plan, for Israel as Israel or with the Jewish people as the Jewish people. The Jews have no greater place in God’s plan than the Swedes or the Chinese or the Irish. The Church is the new Israel.”

Therefore, replacement theology believes that the church replaces (or fulfills) Israel in God’s plan and promises, at least regarding the promises of blessing unto an obedient Israel.

Replacement Theology has dominated Christian theology throughout the last 2,000 years. Roman Catholics strongly believe in Replacement Theology; they believe that they (the Roman Catholic Church) have indeed replaced Israel. 80%-85% of all Christians in the world belong to churches that teach Replacement Theology.

This would mean that God chose Israel, then He un-chose them.

Deuteronomy 7:6

For you are a holy people to the LORD your God; the LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for Himself, a special treasure above all the peoples on the face of the earth.

But God specifically said that His covenant with Israel was everlasting. Those who believe in Replacement Theology really do believe that God’s everlasting covenant with Israel was cancelled in a.d. 70 – that it had an expiration date!

The many Old Testament prophecies that God made for Israel regarding their restoration and exaltation were not canceled or fulfilled in a.d. 70.

• Genesis 9:16 describes an everlasting covenant: that God would not destroy the world again with a flood.
• Genesis 17:7 describes an everlasting covenant: that God would give the descendants of Abraham a special relationship and the land of Israel.
• Genesis 17:19 describes this covenant again as an everlasting covenant.
• 1 Chronicles 16:17-18 and Psalm 105:10-11 describe again God’s everlasting covenant with Israel.

Psalm 105:9-11

The covenant which He made with Abraham,
And His oath to Isaac,
And confirmed it to Jacob for a statute,
To Israel as an everlasting covenant,
Saying, “To you I will give the land of Canaan
As the allotment of your inheritance,”

This isn’t primarily a matter of eschatology; it’s a matter of hermeneutics – how do we understand what the Bible says? Those who believe in replacement/fulfillment theology believe that in Psalm 105:9-11:

• Everlasting doesn’t mean everlasting.
• Israel doesn’t mean Israel.
• Land doesn’t mean land.
• Inheritance doesn’t mean inheritance.
• Jeremiah 31:35-37 speaks clearly that “the seed of Israel” shall be “a nation before” Him “forever.”
• Many Old Testament passages explain that God will bring together Israel, even referring to the people of the northern kingdom (Israel) and the people of the southern kingdom (Judah).

We believe that God still has a plan for Israel as Israel; for the Jewish people as the Jewish people. We believe this because we believe that when He chose a Babylonian idol worshipper named Abram and made a covenant with him and his descendants, God meant it regarding both the choice and the covenant. For those who believe in replacement theology, God chose Israel – then un-chose them.

Deuteronomy 30:1-6: Re-Gathering and Re-Blessing

1. (1) When all these things come upon you.

Now it shall come to pass, when all these things come upon you, the blessing and the curse which I have set before you, and you call them to mind among all the nations where the Lord your God drives you,

1. [1] Now it shall come to pass, when all these things come upon you: Under the inspiration of the Lord, Moses carefully explained the blessings and curses that would come upon an obedient or disobedient Israel. Under the same inspiration, Moses knew that all these things would come upon Israel.
2. From the height of blessing during the reigns of David and Solomon, to the depth of cursing at the fall of Jerusalem, Israel’s history has been a legacy of either being blessed or cursed under the terms of the Old Covenant.
3. [1] And you call them to mind among all the nations where the Lord your God drives you: God knew that Israel would be scattered and exiled, and here through Moses, God calls the Diaspora (Israel dispersed among the nations) to remember the promises of the blessing and the curse.
4. (2-5) God’s promise to regather Israel in the Promised Land.

And you return to the Lord your God and obey His voice, according to all that I command you today, you and your children, with all your heart and with all your soul, that the Lord your God will bring you back from captivity, and have compassion on you, and gather you again from all the nations where the Lord your God has scattered you. If any of you are driven out to the farthest parts under heaven, from there the Lord your God will gather you, and from there He will bring you. Then the Lord your God will bring you to the land which your fathers possessed, and you shall possess it. He will prosper you and multiply you more than your fathers.

1. [2] Return to the Lord your God: As Israel would return to the Lord, God would bless them and [3] bring you back from captivity, and have compassion on you.
2. Of course, this was fulfilled in part by the return of the Babylonian exiles during the times of Ezra and Nehemiah. But the ultimate fulfillment of this would await the Twentieth Century, when God would regather Israel in the Promised Land. This modern regathering is a larger, broader, more sovereign, and more miraculous restoration than what was recorded in Ezra and Nehemiah.
3. [3] From all the nations where the Lord your God has scattered you: The modern regathering of Israel more accurately fulfills this promise than the return from the Babylonian exile. Today, Israel is populated from Jews from virtually every country in the world. The breadth of this promise is important, because God repeats the idea in verse 4: If any of you are driven out to the farthest parts under heaven, from there the Lord God will gather you.
4. Adam Clarke, writing in 1811, recognized that this regathering had to be fulfilled in a future time: “As this promise refers to a return from captivity in which they had been scattered among all nations, consequently it is not the Babylonish captivity which is intended; and the repossession of their land must be different from that which was consequent on their return from Chaldea.”
5. [5] Then the Lord your God will bring you to the land which your fathers possessed, and you shall possess it: The regathering had to happen in the land of Israel. The modern regathering of Israel more accurately fulfills this promise than the return from the Babylonian exile. In the return from the Babylonian exile, Israel was still a vassal state of the Persians. But in the modern regathering of Israel, you shall possess it is literally fulfilled.
6. At one time, in the early days of the Zionist movement, the British offered the country of Uganda to the Jews as a place to establish a Jewish state. If that would have happened, and if Jews from all over the world would have flocked there to establish a Jewish state, it would not have fulfilled the promise of regathering stated here and in other passages. The promise here is plain: [6] The land which your fathers possessed.
7. [5] He will prosper you and multiply you more than your fathers: This promise was fulfilled only in the modern regathering of Israel, not in the return from the Babylonian exile. In the days of the return from the Babylonian exile, the Jewish community was small, weak, and poor. But today, under the modern regathering of Israel, the state of Israel does indeed prosper and the promise to multiply you more than your fathers is fulfilled. Israel, as a nation, is larger, stronger, and richer than at any time in Biblical history.
8. (6) The spiritual regathering of Israel.

And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live.

1. [6] And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart…to love the Lord your God with all your heart: As remarkable and as prophetically meaningful the modern regathering of Israel is, it is incomplete. The spiritual dimension of the regathering has not yet been accomplished.
2. Today Israel is a largely secular nation. There is respect for the Bible as a book of history and national identity, but there is not, and has not been, a true turning to the Lord God, particularly as a nation
3. Not even the religious or Orthodox Jews have completely turned to the Lord. Though they have had an important and precious part in God’s plan for Israel in helping a spiritual consciousness for the Jewish people to survive through the centuries of the Diaspora, they have not truly turned to the Lord. We can say this because the character and nature of the Lord is perfectly expressed in His Messiah, Jesus. Jesus said, He who believes in Me, believes not in Me but in Him who sent Me. And he who sees Me sees Him who sent Me. (John 12:44-45) Since the Jewish people, except for a precious remnant, reject Jesus, they are rejecting the Lord God.

But God’s promise still stands. As the final aspect of the promise to regather Israel, God will restore them spiritually. He promises to circumcise your heart, and this promise is repeated in many other passages (Ezekiel 36:26-27, Romans 11:26, Matthew 23:39).

1. Some have thought that because the modern regathering of Israel has not yet demonstrated this spiritual dynamic that it has nothing to do with these prophesies. But the spiritual dynamic is properly listed in Deuteronomy 30:2-6 as the last of the blessings of regathering. Also, the picture of regathering in Ezekiel 37 – the vision of the dry bones – shows Israel regathered, and strong, before the Lord breathed the breath of His Spirit on the regathered Israel. We regard the modern regathering of Israel as a remarkable sign, and an extremely significant – but thus far only partial – fulfillment of these prophesies.

How do those who preach Replacement Theology people deal with such passages?

Basically, they replace the phrase “Children of Israel” with the phrase “people of God.” When this is done, then “Israel coming back to the land” spiritually becomes “people coming to Jesus.”

They rely on the concept of “spiritual Israel” and the “spiritual sons of Abraham” found in passages like Galatians 3:6-7, mistakenly thinking that these truths cancel out God’s prior promises to Israel – that they make the chosen people “unchosen.”

A few more words about Replacement Theology and anti-Semitism (Jew-Hatred):

• Through the centuries, the Church – institutional Christianity – has a shameful record of anti-Semitism and horrible persecution against the Jewish people.
• It would be unfair to accuse all people who believe in Replacement Theology of anti-Semitism, and they are often very sensitive regarding this accusation.
• It is true that all Replacement Theology people are not anti-Semitic; but it is also true that virtually all Jew-hating Christians have been Replacement Theology people.
• If I believed in Replacement Theology, I would be offended if someone assumed that it automatically made me anti-Semitic; but I would also take great care that I never gave anyone a reason to think it was true of me. There are some voices in the Replacement Theology camp that have scary, scary attitudes regarding Israel and the Jewish people.

Do believers enter the kingdom of God now spiritually (in Christ)?

Yes, believers enter the spiritual realm of God’s kingdom now through Jesus Christ. Here’s a good definition that captures the essence of the Kingdom of God, which resonates deeply with me, although it does not encompass every aspect: God’s kingdom exists wherever the reign of Jesus Christ is recognized, and the blessings of His reign are received.

Of course, we understand that there is a sense in which God reigns over all things right now. He is actively guiding history towards His intended conclusion, without question. But if anyone claims that the physical manifestation and clarity of God’s kingdom will not increase in the future compared to its current state, I would question their comprehension of the Kingdom of God. Therefore, the Kingdom of God is a present reality—not only in a spiritual sense, but mainly so. Yes, it’s true that believers are citizens of God’s kingdom. We are transferred from darkness to light as we enter the kingdom of God.

How did the Roman Catholic Church begin?

Blessings, Pastor David. I’ve been studying your videos on church history. Do you mind explaining a little bit more about how the Catholic Church (Rome) started and how?

In certain cities of the ancient Roman Empire, such as Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, the leaders of the church, known as bishops, became increasingly more important. In these cities, bishops had more influential leadership roles than leaders in smaller, less important cities. Among these influential cities, Rome became the most authoritative.

This process happened over a long time. The Bishop of the Christian church in Rome aimed to establish authority over the Christian realm. During the early centuries, the Roman Bishop tried to have supreme authority, but church leaders in other areas resisted and disputed this. Nevertheless, the Roman church persisted in its stance. Additionally, after the Western Roman Empire fell, the Roman bishopric was one of the few institutions with organizational structure and was significant in guiding society. This made the Bishop of Rome even more respected.

This process was based on the belief that the Bishop of Rome had control over all Christians—a concept I don’t agree with. Remember that the Pope’s main title is linked to being the Bishop of Rome. Although his followers are centered in Rome, the Bishop of Rome holds power over the entire Church, according to Roman Catholic belief.

Do faith and repentance precede regeneration (2 Corinthians 3:13-18)?

Does 2 Corinthians 3:13-18 teach that faith and repentance precede regeneration, since turning to the Lord precedes the heart’s veil being removed?

2 Corinthians 3:13-18 – Unlike Moses, who put a veil over his face so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the end of what was passing away. But their minds were blinded. For until this day the same veil remains unlifted in the reading of the Old Testament, because the veil is taken away in Christ. But even to this day, when Moses is read, a veil lies on their heart. Nevertheless when one turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord.

I believe this passage supports the idea of faith and repentance before regeneration.  This belief disagrees with Reformed theology. I don’t consider myself anti-Reformed. While I have gained knowledge and teachings from reputable figures in Reformed theology, I don’t agree with every doctrinal aspect. I disagree with Reformed theology’s claim that a person is born again before they believe. This idea doesn’t align with how the New Testament is presented.

According to 2 Corinthians 3, when someone turns to the Lord, the veil is lifted. I strongly believe that an individual cannot approach God through their own will alone; a previous intervention by God is required. I understand this prior step as necessary before belief, but not as regeneration initiated by God. According to Scripture, a person first believes and then experiences rebirth. This simple presentation aligns with how the Scriptures convey this concept. We don’t tell people to wait for rebirth and then believe because that’s not how Scripture approaches it.

Even if it were true that regeneration happens a split second before faith, that’s not the viewpoint God desires us to have. He wants us to comprehend that faith comes before rebirth. The Scripture clearly states that no one can come to the Father unless drawn by the Spirit, emphasizing the prior work God does, as well as the necessity of faith before rebirth.

Essentially, no matter when regeneration occurs, God emphasizes the importance of belief. God doesn’t tell us to gather people and declare, “Those who have been reborn should now believe.” Instead, the message is clear: “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved; you will be reborn.” Understanding this sequence is crucial for grasping the scriptural perspective on salvation and rebirth.

Would you say that Covenant Theology or Replacement Theology are selfish at their core?

I wouldn’t use that term. When I think of Covenant Theology, I don’t associate it with selfishness. I just think it’s not biblical.  Simply put, the fundamentals of Covenant Theology are not supported in the Bible. Their core belief is that God made two overarching covenants – one of works and one of grace – with all of humanity. However, there is a major issue: there are no explicit references to these covenants in Scripture. In other words, there is a glaring absence of any clear mention of them. God speaks of covenants made with Noah, Abraham, Israel at Mount Sinai, David, and the New Covenant, but does not mention the covenant of works or the covenant of grace.

When I read the works of Covenant theologians, they treat this absence as a minor issue, as it is not explicitly stated. In my view, this is not a small issue. It’s like an engine breakdown that makes the car stop moving. Covenant theology seems to originate from systematic theology rather than biblical theology, at least from my perspective.

I understand the value of systematic theology, but I think it should come after biblical theology. Nevertheless, when I think of Covenant Theology, I don’t think of selfishness. Instead, I view it as an example of non-biblical replacement theology.

Now, let’s talk about replacement theology. Although I respect those who follow it, I think it picks and chooses specific passages from the New Testament to nullify Old Testament promises. My stance is that Old Testament promises can never mean less than they did to their original recipients but can potentially mean more. While some may argue that certain promises are fulfilled in broader ways, such as when God gives His people the entire earth, it does not erase the significance of the original promise concerning a real land for the Jewish people. Therefore, even while the application of a promise could expand, the truth within the initial promise remains.

In summary, when I discuss replacement theology, I do not view it as selfish. Rather, I see it as a flawed method that does not correctly interpret the truth within the scriptures. That’s the perspective I hold on these matters.

Is Zechariah 12:10 about the spiritual restoration of Israel (Christ’s second coming)?

Zechariah 12:10 – And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn.

The imminent return of Christ is a truth I hold dear. This precious Old Testament passage echoes the ideas expressed in Romans about the redemption of all Israel. It does not suggest that every person of Jewish descent will be saved, but rather indicates a future moment when Jewish people, as a group, will accept Jesus as their Messiah.

Even though the majority of Jewish people today tend to reject Christ, the Scriptures say that they will eventually accept Him. Zechariah 12:10 shows that God’s plan for Jewish people is ongoing and lasting, with an important role in His unfolding plan of the ages.

There might be fringe voices suggesting that mere Jewish heritage secures salvation or guarantees entry to heaven, but this notion doesn’t align with biblical truth. Salvation isn’t contingent upon ethnicity; rather, it hinges on righteousness. Righteousness is inherited through belief in God; it’s credited to those who have faith in Him, not merely acknowledging His existence. Therefore, there isn’t a separate path to salvation for the Jewish people. Salvation is obtained through righteousness by faith.

Some people believe in replacement or fulfillment theology, suggesting that the Jewish people’s role ended at a particular historical moment, whether it is in 70 AD or 120 AD. I disagree with this belief. I think that the Jewish people still play a significant role in God’s plan. Zechariah 12:10 shows that they continue to have value within God’s unfolding narrative.

How are we to approach a church member who believes that the current Israel is an anomaly? ​Can we consider ourselves to be true born-again believers in Jesus Christ if we hate the Jewish people and nation?

It’s possible to be a sincere Christian and hold incorrect beliefs on important matters. Generally, views on Jewish people, particularly Israel, aren’t essential for salvation, except in rare cases. Someone can genuinely be saved, having been born again, and still hold significant doctrinal errors. How should we interact with those who hold such errors? We should treat them as we would want to be treated if we were in their place. We should approach them with love, seek to persuade them of their errors, and exercise patience and understanding.

Although salvation is not at stake, treating Jewish people based on one’s beliefs can lead to serious errors in action. During the early days of the medieval church, the Pope ordered Jewish individuals in Rome to join a procession carrying their Scriptures, but he then publicly branded them as “cursed and wicked people.” This attitude of disdain towards Jews has persisted among Christians for far too long and is morally reprehensible.

The rationale behind such actions was rooted in the belief that Jews were cursed by God because of their role in Jesus Christ’s crucifixion. By persecuting and mistreating them, the church thought it was aiding their salvation. This wicked and convoluted thinking has influenced Christian practices for centuries, especially in the Roman Catholic Church and beyond.

Despite the gravity of these historical wrongdoings, I want to emphasize that it is possible for a genuine believer to hold erroneous views on crucial matters, much like this particular issue concerning the treatment of the Jewish people.

​Can a believer be demon possessed?

I’m terrified, I think that Luke 11:24-26 might have happened to me. Please give me guidance, Pastor.

Luke 11:24-26 – When an unclean spirit goes out of a man, he goes through dry places, seeking rest; and finding none, he says, ‘I will return to my house from which I came.’ And when he comes, he finds it swept and put in order. Then he goes and takes with him seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter and dwell there; and the last state of that man is worse than the first.

Thank you for sharing your concern. I want to address it directly without any judgment or criticism. If someone is feeling intense demonic oppression or possession, it’s natural to feel afraid. But I want to assure you that despair is not necessary.

The victory achieved by Jesus on the cross holds immense power. The book of Colossians states that Jesus defeated spiritual beings like principalities and powers through the cross, disarming them. This also means that His triumph over all demonic forces gives you victory over them. It’s natural to worry, but there’s no reason to despair.

Simply put your trust in Jesus and His power over all spiritual forces. Pray to Jesus, repent, and request His victory to fill your life and your being. You don’t need to achieve this victory alone because Jesus already won it for you. Look to Him, trust Him, and rely on Him to defeat the demonic forces. Keep turning to Him, and you’ll find victory.

Let me say a quick prayer for you before we proceed. Lord, we pray for our friend to fully trust in Jesus and His triumph on the cross. Give them the confidence that all spiritual forces are defeated for believers, bringing them victory. Protect them from despair and guide them to seek comfort and peace in Jesus. We pray this in Jesus’ name. Amen.

It’s important to remember that many esteemed figures in Christian history have faced intense spiritual warfare.  Legend has it that Martin Luther once woke up in the middle of the night, feeling the presence of Satan in his room and experiencing an unsettling atmosphere. Despite this, Luther recognized Satan’s defeat in Jesus Christ and calmly went back to sleep. He had battled these spiritual forces for so long that he knew they were already defeated in Christ. I often think about this story, hoping to have the same attitude which recognizes the gravity of spiritual warfare but trusts only in the power of Jesus, not our own capabilities.

Would you agree with Jack Hibbs and other dispensational teachers from CC that call replacement theology and any form of Preterism “blasphemous, demonic, and heretical”?

I wouldn’t use that language. I would not call it blasphemous. I believe it’s wrong, but I wouldn’t call it heretical. Replacement theology has been a tool used by the devil to incite Christian persecution against Jews. Although it’s wrong, I believe Christians can hold mistaken views and still be saved. Therefore, I use the word “heretical” only for teachings that affect salvation directly. Basically, I consider it to be an untrue and harmful teaching. The devil has used replacement theology to cause damage to Christians and the Jewish community.

What is the difference between error and heresy?

Here’s how I see these terms. To me, error means teachings or beliefs that are incorrect from a theological or biblical perspective – something that is deemed wrong or inaccurate. Meanwhile, I believe heresy refers to teachings that, if believed, could potentially endanger a person’s salvation. These are beliefs that might lead individuals away from attaining heaven or, if taught, could mislead others and result in their damnation. This distinction, at least in my own thinking, helps me categorize the difference between error and heresy.

What are your thoughts regarding churches who sing worship songs originating from NAR or Word of Faith churches such as Bethel or Elevation?

Hello Pastor David! What are your thoughts regarding churches who sing worship songs originating from NAR or Word of Faith churches such as Bethel or Elevation?

Let me provide a couple of quick responses. First, I fully respect pastors and church leaders when they make decisions for their congregation. If their beliefs differ from what I’m about to share, I respect it. I believe God guides each congregation’s leadership in determining what’s best for their situation.

I have two perspectives on this matter, mainly about songs or hymns. First of all, I support evaluating songs based on their artistry or content rather than only on the author’s personal beliefs or character. Some fantastic songs have been composed by individuals with questionable character. For instance, consider the hymn “It Is Well with My Soul,” which was written by a person whose personal life may have been unorthodox or defective.

Using songs from churches like Word of Faith, Bethel, or Elevation can be concerning because it could support their ministries through licensing fees. I’m not sure how the licensing system works currently, or whether singing a song from Bethel means directly contributing financial support to their church. This money aspect seems more problematic to me than just examining if the songs are theologically sound.

It’s crucial for pastors and church leaders to carefully assess the theology portrayed in the songs they select. Some songs from these movements may match the theology, while others may use terms that have a different meaning within those movements compared to the larger Christian community. This creates a complex issue. Ultimately, I place my trust in local church leadership to discern and navigate this matter wisely for their congregation.

If Jesus was put in the tomb on Friday evening and the resurrection was Sunday morning, how is that 3 days?

Pastor Guzik, can you speak on the timeliness on the resurrection? Jesus was put in the tomb Friday evening and the resurrection was Sunday morning. How is that 3 days?

In both the Old Testament and confirmed by ancient rabbinical scholars from New Testament times, the saying “three days and three nights” was a figure of speech that included any part of a day or night. It’s similar to when we say “a couple of days” nowadays, which doesn’t mean exactly two days or 48 hours.  Instead, it’s a common expression or figure of speech. The term “X days and X nights” was acknowledged in Rabbinic Judaism to indicate any portion of a day or night.

When factoring in Friday evening, Saturday, and Sunday morning, it fulfills this timeframe. This interpretation is supported by the insights found in rabbinical writings from that period. Based on Jesus’ words, he would be in the tomb for “three days and three nights.” Although some argue that Jesus was crucified on Thursday, such specificity isn’t necessary to fulfill the timeframe Jesus referenced.

How should we respond to a church leader believing and teaching Replacement Theology?

When Replacement Theology is the foundation for most presented teachings at a church…what should one do? Although it’s not a salvation issue, how do we respond to a church leader believing and teaching replacement theology?

As a church leader, if I found that the church I attend was teaching replacement theology, my decision to continue attending would depend on the available options of churches in my area. I think that teaching replacement theology is a mistake, and it would really bother me if my church did so. But if my family doesn’t have any other options nearby, I might still choose to attend even if we disagree on this.

We all know that in churches, sometimes we have to make compromises. There’s no such thing as a flawless church, as the popular saying says, “If you find a perfect church, don’t join it, because you’ll be its imperfection.” Since I strongly disagree with replacement theology, if it were being taught in a church I attend, it would likely concern me, and I might consider addressing it with the pastor. But if the pastor strongly believes in this, it’s unlikely that they would change their mind easily.

In this case, the main concern is whether there’s a better church available for my family. If there isn’t, then we might have to accept this difference in religious views and stay at the same church, even if it means feeling uncomfortable during certain teachings.

Does God Answer the Prayers of the Wicked?

Does God listen to or answer prayers of non-saved people (other than their prayers to be saved)?

John 9:31

Now we know that God does not hear sinners; but if anyone is a worshiper of God and does His will, He hears him.

We know that God does not hear sinners: Isaiah 1:15 and Psalm 66:18 are passages that say that God is not obligated to hear the prayer of a sinner. With knowledge of the Scriptures and valid application, the simple man born blind proved that their claim “we know this man is a sinner” was false.

“As a well-brought-up Jew the man regards it as axiomatic that a miracle wrought in answer to prayer is proof that its worker is no sinner. No divine help is available for impenitent sinners.” (Tasker)

The man’s statement was in one sense true and in another sense false. God is certainly under no obligation to hear the prayer of the man or woman in rebellion against Him. Yet in His mercy and for His ultimate wise purpose, He may hear the unrepentant sinner.

Yet the man’s statement was completely true in this sense: “If Christ had been an impostor, it is not possible to conceive that God would have listened to his prayer, and given him the power to open the blind man’s eyes.” (Spurgeon)

Psalm 66:18

If I regard iniquity in my heart,
The Lord will not hear.

1 John 5:14-15

Now this is the confidence that we have in Him, 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 the petitions that we have asked of Him.

Do we need the laying on of hands to receive the Holy Spirit? (Acts 19:2,6 & 8:17)

Acts 19:2, 6 – he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” So they said to him, “We have not so much as heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.” … And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.

Acts 8:17 – Then they laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.

In the New Testament, we see people receiving the Holy Spirit sometimes through having hands laid on them and sometimes without it. Although it’s not necessary, I think it’s a good thing. If a fellow believer comes to me and expresses a desire to be filled with the Holy Spirit and to walk in His power, as discussed in Paul’s message in Ephesians 5 about being continually filled with the Spirit, I usually place my hand on their shoulder during prayer. This act demonstrates faith and solidarity, joining our hearts in seeking the Spirit’s presence. It’s not necessary, as shown by various examples in the New Testament where individuals were filled with the Spirit without hands being laid on them. However, there have been cases, like the ones you referenced, where this bodily action was associated with the giving of the Holy Spirit. It seems to be a common way that God works, though I don’t think it’s a rigid requirement. It’s important to explain that the laying on of hands doesn’t involve any mystical transfer of spiritual power. Instead, it represents sympathy, identification, and a shared faith among those who gather together for prayer.

Should believers use the laying on of hands when praying for healing?

My husband and I have heard other pastors speak about anyone who is a believer performing the ‘laying on of hands’ to ‘heal’ others in the name of Jesus. What are your thoughts?

This idea comes from the book of James, which says to call the elders of your church to come and lay hands on a person and anoint them with oil for the healing of the sick. This practice involves praying with faith in such situations, but it doesn’t guarantee a complete recovery for everyone receiving it. James just tells us how to carry out believing prayer in those circumstances.

Let’s explore James’ section about anointing with oil. According to Scripture, anointing with oil can symbolize the presence of the Holy Spirit. This is a significant representation. But in ancient times, people also commonly applied oil, especially during massages, for medicinal purposes. So, when James talks about laying on hands and anointing with oil in James 5, he could be asking you to pray with faith to heal, and to seek excellent medical care. Neither one goes against the other; they work together.

Just to be clear, it’s okay to pray for someone’s health without touching them, like Jesus and His apostles did in Acts. There is no set method. Instead, it is a biblical tradition that can be practiced in different ways.

Can we lay hands on a non-Christian who needs healing, without them knowing?

Can we lay hands on non-Christians without them knowing? For example, a partner who needs healing.

This is one way of supporting and interceding for someone, by praying for them, even if they don’t know it. It doesn’t need to be a grand gesture, it’s just a specific kind of prayer that involves physically touching them. This act symbolizes a connection, empathy, and love from the Lord. The important part is the laying on of hands. It’s possible to pray for people and sometimes even touch them without them knowing.  Sometimes I’ve offered a silent prayer by placing my hand on someone’s shoulder, although they didn’t realize I was praying. This discreet form of prayer is a valid practice.

My church talks a lot about faith but is not strong on works. Should I be an example of “faith and works” or find a different church?

I attend a church, and when I bring up James’ “faith and works” I get a cold shoulder about the “works” part – yes, we have faith, however we talk a lot, but do nothing outside the church to show our faith. Should I leave, or be the example?

Every church has imperfections and areas where it can improve. Even if you think you’ve found the ideal church, it’s important to understand that no church remains perfect forever. It’s great to attend a church that you see as lively, thriving, and in agreement with your principles, but it’s vital to appreciate that flawlessness is temporary.

Like any community, churches experience different phases. Sometimes things just feel perfect, and that’s definitely something to be thankful for. However, these times don’t last forever and can be temporary. These periods can last anywhere from a year to a decade or more. At some point, challenges arise because we’re all human, and problems are simply unavoidable.

Regarding your question, I recommend choosing the best church that’s nearby and practical in distance. Think about how far you want to drive on a regular basis, and then choose the best church for you and your family within that distance. Even if the church is not perfect in following Christian teachings, make a commitment to it.

If the church you presently attend, despite its faults, is the top choice within a reasonable driving distance, then commit to it. Before deciding, pray for guidance on how you can make a meaningful contribution to improve areas where the church may be lacking.

If the church you’re considering is the right fit for you and your family, commit to it and trust that God may lead you to be a positive influence in that community. Remember to carefully evaluate if the church aligns with your values and is within your travel distance. If the church you’re considering is the right fit for you and your family, commit to it, recognizing the challenges, and trust that God may lead you to be a positive influence in that community.

​Why are mountains so prevalent in Scripture?

I notice that mountains are very prevalent in Scripture. Mt Zion, Mt Moriah, Mt of Olives, Mt of Transfiguration, these are just a few. What are thoughts on why God seems to use mountains?

The importance of the Holy Land, especially Israel, is closely connected to its geography, particularly its abundance of prominent mountains. While the difference between mountains and high hills can be debated, these terms are often used interchangeably, as seen in the Bible. The Bible frequently depicts these elevated landscapes and emphasizes their geographical context when referring to various regions.

Some people believe that mountains in the Bible represent governments in some way. They think that whenever a mountain is used symbolically, it refers to a government entity. However, I doubt this theory. While the Bible does sometimes use mountains as government metaphors, there isn’t a universal biblical idiom. We must be careful not to stretch biblical idioms too far.

In the Old Testament, Israel is sometimes referred to as a basket of figs or associated with fig imagery. However, it would be a mistake to assume that every mention of figs or fig trees always symbolizes Israel. Context is critical for proper interpretation of biblical passages, and these analogies should only be applied in specific situations.

Mountains have an alluring quality that captivates the human mind. The beautiful view of a mountain from far away and the breathtaking experience of standing on top evoke strong emotions. This visual and experiential aspect of mountains resonates with our human nature, giving us insights into how the Bible communicates with us as human beings.

Are promises like Joshua 1:9, “Be strong and of a good courage,” valid only in context, or also for us?

In Joshua 1, God tells Joshua to be strong and courageous when going into the promised land. God repeats this message three times. Later, the people of Israel echo it. I am currently studying Joshua.

Reflecting on Joshua’s encounter with God leads us to a natural question. Is this command only for Joshua or for us too? Let’s use a three-part approach to find out.  First, look at other Bible passages that give the same message to believers. Many examples exist, like where Paul says to “act like men” or to act as a soldier or athlete, bravely pushing forward with strength and courage. This establishes a precedent, indicating that the urge for power and bravery is not only limited to Joshua but also pertains to believers like us.

Another way is to acknowledge that the Holy Spirit could highlight a specific verse or promise in the Scriptures initially meant for someone else and put it directly for an individual believer. In my experience, I’ve seen the Holy Spirit personalize promises from Scripture to suit my life and circumstances. While this approach may raise concerns about potential misuse, it underscores the Holy Spirit’s ability to personalize promises, making them relevant to an individual’s life and circumstances.

Finally, we can consider whether the promise reflects God’s nature and remains relevant to present-day believers. For example, the famous Jeremiah 29:11 verse, which was initially directed to Israel during their return from Babylonian captivity, presents God’s thoughts and plans for a hopeful future. Though the promise was particular to Israel, we acknowledge that God’s generosity in the New Covenant exceeds that of the old. Therefore, we can conclude that promises made in the Old Testament, which align with God’s unchanging nature, have enduring relevance for present-day believers.

In summary, to determine the relevance of a promise, we must evaluate its consistency with biblical principles, seek confirmation from the Holy Spirit, and consider its alignment with God’s timeless character as presented in Scripture.

What is the most effective way of witnessing to Muslims in multicultural societies like Africa?

I may not have a full answer to your question since I haven’t lived close to Muslims in a multicultural society. My experience has mostly been with diverse communities of people from various backgrounds, but I haven’t had direct contact with Muslims. Therefore, my perspective might lack the personal context you’re looking for. However, I can still share insights I’ve learned through conversations with others.

First, people have expressed that evangelism among Muslims is deeply relational, involving significant risk and sacrifice for them to openly embrace Christianity and allegiance to Jesus Christ. Establishing genuine and enduring relationships is crucial, requiring patience and a strong relational foundation.

Furthermore, based on my understanding, successful evangelism to Muslims may involve discussing what the Quran reveals about Jesus. The Quran recognizes Jesus as a prophet, which provides an entry point for conversation. Exploring the Quran’s portrayal of Jesus, particularly as a prophet, can lead into discussions about Jesus’ teachings from Christian Scriptures. This approach is seen as a potentially impactful method of evangelism.

Again, I haven’t had firsthand experience in a multicultural atmosphere with a significant Muslim presence. But based on believers’ accounts of living in these societies, they stress the need to establish relationships and to begin conversations with the Quran’s perspective of Jesus.

What can a person do if there are no churches in an area that are truly Bible believing? I do listen to churches out of my area online – but is that enough?

Being part of a church online might not be the best option. Most people would agree that attending church in person is better. However, an online church is still better than having no church at all. I do not know your specific circumstances or the churches near you, so I can’t tell you exactly what’s best. I encourage you to carefully consider whether all the churches in your area are truly unfaithful or compromised to a point where you are unable to attend.

If you have carefully considered your choice and are confident in your decision, that’s wonderful. However, it’s also okay to attend an online church if there are no faithful fellowships nearby.

Here’s a good way to think about it: the best option is a great local church that you’re committed to, and the second-best option is a decent local church that you’re committed to. Even a mediocre local church that you’re committed to is better than attending online alone. If virtual church is your only choice, it’s still worthwhile to join with fellow believers, even though it can’t fully replace the experience of being present in a physical church. This is an important factor to consider as you weigh your various options.

My church sometimes idolizes the leader. How do we discern if a church is right for us?

I’ve noticed that at times it feels like our church idolizes the leader of the church. I’m wondering, how can I discern whether this church is the place where God wants me to be?

One way you can know is by simply asking whether there is there a better or healthier church that you can attend. I have no problem with someone who says, “ABC church in our community has some problems, but it’s an okay church. But XYZ church in our community is a better, healthier church. It’s a better place for my family, so we’re going to move from ABC church to XYZ church.”

I’m not saying you have to follow this rule, but it’s essential to connect with a healthy community on your spiritual journey. If you find the church culture is to put leaders on a pedestal, it’s crucial to speak up. Such practices are not acceptable. Community, I urge you – whether you’re here live on our YouTube channel or watching later – please take this to heart. Let’s avoid idolizing celebrities in Christianity. Everyone is equal in the eyes of faith. I know this firsthand from occasionally speaking to congregations of various sizes. It’s common to see the person on stage, whether preaching or leading worship, as someone extraordinary. But it’s important to remember that we’re all servants of the Lord, and no one is inherently above anyone else. I will fulfill my responsibilities and talents, and I urge you to do the same. Together, we can accomplish great things in the name of the Lord. Avoid excessive admiration of Christian leaders or idols, as the higher the pedestal, the harder the fall. Let’s steer clear of this danger.

Let’s not idolize pastors or worship leaders, but see them as fellow believers dedicated to God’s work. Embrace your role in serving the Lord, and stand on equal footing before God. Your faithfulness in your own calling may far surpass that of an attention-seeking celebrity pastor. We don’t need celebrity worship. Instead, we must concentrate on serving and honoring the Lord together. The joy is in the unity. Who wants the burden of being a celebrity? Who desires the expectations that come with it? If you can find a better spiritual community, that’s fine. But if you choose to stay, be careful of these concerns in your own heart and mind.

Does the Holy Spirit “leave” us when we grieve Him and “come back” when we repent?

Does the Holy Spirit “leave” us when we grieve Him with sin and then come back when we repent? Or is He in us always, but feels separated because of sin, and yet He fills us again when we repent or pray?

We shouldn’t see the Holy Spirit as something temporary in our lives, here one moment and gone the next, based on our behavior. God doesn’t leave us, and the Holy Spirit doesn’t leave us when we sin. However, when we’re deeply involved in sin, our closeness to God changes. This doesn’t mean we lose our salvation or that God isn’t present, but it affects how deeply we connect with Him. In 1 John, the apostle talks about how walking in darkness interrupts our fellowship with God. Therefore, it is not logical to claim that we have a real connection with God while we continue in our habitual wrongdoing. Our actions produce a physical effect on our relationship with Him.

Fortunately, John reminds us that “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9). This truth is something to be grateful for. We shouldn’t think of the Holy Spirit as constantly coming and going from our lives like a revolving door. But our rebellion and unwillingness to make things right with God – our sin – hampers our relationship with Him. This is what truly obstructs our connection with the Lord.

What is your view on Calvinism?

I don’t follow Calvinism, nor do I completely accept John Calvin’s teachings, although I acknowledge and value his significant contributions to doctrine. Concerning Calvinism’s unique doctrines encapsulated in the acronym TULIP—total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints—there are certain points I would challenge or disagree on, particularly regarding the inflexible adherence of Calvinists to these ideas. I don’t agree that regeneration comes before faith, as this doesn’t match what the Bible says.

However, I’m not against Calvinism. I’m not trying to fight against Calvinists or their beliefs. I have many books from authors who have different Calvinistic beliefs, and I’ve learned a lot from them. Although there is a difference between being reformed and being Calvinistic, these terms are often swapped. Even though I disagree, I still value the contributions of many Calvinistic writers, commentators, and theologians. I try to be honest about where we differ in our beliefs.

As I research church history and read different commentaries, it’s unusual for me to completely agree with just one scholar. In general, people rarely agree completely with one another.

While discussing Reformed or Calvinistic theology, I noticed a practical issue rather than just a theological one. They don’t stress human responsibility enough in their preaching and teaching, even though they claim to believe in it. Effective teaching involves more than just checking a belief box. It requires a clear explanation of human responsibility.

This is crucial for all to consider. I hold Calvinists accountable on this point, and I would similarly challenge Arminians who may jeopardize God’s sovereignty in their teachings. Mere belief is inadequate; it must also be reflected in one’s preaching and teaching.

Consider the example of respected preacher and staunch Calvinist, Charles Spurgeon. Though he asserted Calvinistic beliefs, he sometimes adjusted his position. He noted that his position on Calvinism or Arminianism varied depending on the question. He emphasized the importance of following the Bible rather than fitting into preconceived theological groupings.

As for me, I don’t worry about the labels people assign me. Some people may think I am a strong believer in Calvinism, while others may consider me as a passionate follower of Arminianism based on the Bible passages I have discussed. However, my main aim is to remain devoted to the teachings of the Bible rather than subscribing to specific theological doctrines or groups.

Is it biblical for a pastor to refuse accountability, and to say that only God can correct him?

No, it is against biblical principles for pastors to make such statements. Every church leader needs to be accountable, regardless of their position. It’s vital for them to have someone who can directly confront them and say, “Pastor, you’re mistaken in this regard.” The pastor should really listen and consider the feedback. He may not always agree with them, but he should slow down and consider it carefully when he is confronted, because it’s possible he is wrong.

Accountability is crucial for everyone. Leaders who are not accountable are a constant danger. They not only endanger themselves, but also their followers and God’s overall mission. When those in power are not accountable, it is a dangerous warning sign.

Should children be given communion during Sunday School, or if they don’t understand it?

Hi Pastor David, can you talk about 1 Corinthians 11:27, “eating the bread, drinking the cup” in the context of kids who get given communion in Sunday school but don’t understand it, is it harmful for them?

1 Corinthians 11:27 – Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

I don’t think children should have the bread and cup of communion until they really understand and respect what it symbolizes. But if they do grasp the basic idea and show a basic reverence for it, then it’s okay for them to participate.

The power is not in the ritual itself. The real power is in faith, and faith requires a basic understanding of what one believes in. It’s not about blind or bizarre convictions, but about having meaningful comprehension.

Does Joel 2:25 apply to believers today?

Joel 2:25 – So I will restore to you the years that the swarming locust has eaten, the crawling locust, the consuming locust, and the chewing locust, My great army which I sent among you.

Yes, these principles are relevant today.

Joel prophesied about the locust plagues that were a sign of divine judgment on the people, followed by the expectation of restoration after God’s correction. I wholly support the notion of God as a restoring force, a God of restoration. It’s an integral part of the nature of the Lord we serve. He is a God who restores.

I see nothing wrong with relying on the belief in God’s restorative and redeeming nature. The book of Joel, specifically chapter two, shows God as a restorer.  At times, people colloquially pray for God to restore what has been lost, like when they say “Lord, please restore the years that the locusts have eaten.” This prayer shows an acknowledgment that damage may result from God’s righteous correction or judgment. Yet it recognizes God’s ability to restore and rebuild. It asks God to use His abundant power of restoration.

What does the Bible say about relationships that are both God loving people but have had sex before marriage? Not frequently though.

The Bible says it’s a sin. But it also says if we confess and turn away from our sin, God will forgive us, cleanse us, and let us move on. To do this, we must recognize our wrongdoing, confess it, and genuinely repent. God’s grace is for those who put their trust Jesus, who He is and what He has done for us, especially what He did for us at the cross to pay the penalty for our sins. So yes, even though these behaviors are sinful, they are sins that can be forgiven through Jesus Christ.

Can the devil enter you when you are Holy Spirit-filled?

No, not to possess you. The devil can influence a person to whatever degree they might allow it but cannot possess them. God doesn’t share the habitation of a human body with a demonic spirit. If a person is indwelt by the Holy Spirit, they can’t be demon possessed, but they can be influenced in a very negative way by the presence and the power of demonic spirits.

I would like more information about replacement theology/lost tribes.

Replacement theology is a somewhat inaccurate term used to explain the belief that Jesus or the church replaces Israel. I disagree with both ideas. God has an enduring role for Israel in His unfolding plan of the ages which lasts until the victorious return of Jesus Christ and the millennial kingdom. The Bible spells out these facts in straightforward terms. Therefore, this belief is established on the truth as found in the Bible. I believe that replacement theology is an incorrect interpretation of the Bible.

Concerning the lost tribes, God has promised to gather all tribes of Israel back to the land. Currently, all twelve tribes are represented among the Jewish community residing in Israel – though that is not the majority of Jews around the world. Therefore, I do not view these tribes as lost since they still identify with Jewish culture and ethnicity.

Does the Bible offer encouragement on recovering from rejection?

Do you have any encouragement from the Bible and perhaps life experiences of feeling rejected by others (in dating/relationships) and how to be encouraged and move on?

I’m sorry to hear about your situation. It can be really tough when things don’t work out in relationships. Pursuing love and romance means opening ourselves up to great risks and pain. I want you to know that I feel for you.

So don’t give up hope. It’s often part of God’s plan for people to find partners, start families, and have kids. The Bible also recognizes that not everyone gets married; some people remain single for different reasons. But if you long for companionship, pray and trust in God’s promise for all of humanity. You belong in that promise.

Without being melodramatic or sentimental, I want to emphasize a real truth from Shakespeare: “It’s better to have loved and lost than to never have loved at all.” Even though love can cause pain and make us vulnerable, it’s still worth experiencing, even if it leads to heartbreak. Remember, the experience of love is more valuable than never experiencing it at all. Hopefully, this perspective brings you comfort.

Can church elders be single, or must they have a wife and children?

What are your thoughts on elders not having a wife or children? I’ve heard some pastors argue this is acceptable, but I can’t reconcile with the Scriptures I’ve read.

I think it’s possible to interpret the lists in 1 Timothy and Titus in a legalistic way. But people tend to ignore these lists more often than they follow them. However, we don’t have to choose between these two extremes. Jesus chose to stay unmarried, and Paul was also unmarried, at least during the later years of his ministry. Considering those examples, unmarried individuals should not be disqualified for leadership positions within the church.

The phrase “the husband of one wife” in 1 Timothy is essentially about a leader’s faithfulness and commitment and is expressed in Greek as being a “one-woman man.” It means that a leader should avoid flirting, wandering eyes, and inappropriate romantic behavior. However, I don’t think it’s necessary for an elder, leader, or pastor to have a wife. It’s more important for them to let the Holy Spirit guide and control their romantic desires, if they have any, rather than imposing a strict requirement to have a wife.

Why do some pastors scream loudly instead of speaking softly and in order?

Can you explain why some pastors scream loudly rather than talk softly and in order? I am having a difficulty keeping focus on the message when I experience this.

Sometimes people leave comments on our YouTube channel after watching one of my sermons, expressing concerns about how intense I can be while speaking. I genuinely enjoy discussing God’s word and truths with others, but occasionally my passion can get the best of me. I do acknowledge that there may be times when it becomes excessive, but I hope this does not happen often.

Some pastors speak loudly because they are truly excited and passionate about their message. Sometimes, preachers may raise their volume or intensity to emphasize a point, which can come off as showy and tiring for the audience. It’s important for pastors to be aware that this approach may not always be effective.

Personally, I prefer when preachers can communicate passionately while maintaining a conversational tone. Both styles have their merits. But it’s good for a preacher to realize that only speaking in a loud, passionate, and intense way during sermons may ultimately not be helpful for the audience.

Is the Bible Literally True?

We come to the Bible believing it is the place where God has spoken to man, perfectly and comprehensively.

We believe what is written in 2 Timothy 3:16-17: All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

We can study God, but we can’t put Him under a microscope or test Him in a laboratory. We can only confidently know about Him what He chooses to reveal to us. We are also confident that what He chooses to tell us is profitable and useful for us.

We believe the Bible must be understood literally, that is, as straightforward and true according to its literary context.

The Bible should be understood literally – how else could it be understood?

The Bible is much more than a book; it is a library of books, and books written in different literary forms. Some portions of the Bible give a historical account, others are poetic, and some are prophetic.

We must understand the Bible literally according to its literary context. For example, when David wrote in Psalm 6:6: All night I make my bed swim; I drench my couch with my tears… he used a poetic literary form. We understand he didn’t literally mean he cried so much that he flooded his room and set his bed afloat.

Psalm 119:128 says: Therefore all Your precepts concerning all things I consider to be right. With great confidence, the Psalmist proclaimed the inerrancy of God’s Word. It was right, not wrong; and it was right concerning all things.

• When the Bible gives us history, it is right and true; the events actually happened as described.
• When the Bible gives us poetry, it is right and true; the feeling and experiences were real for the writer and ring true to human experience.
• When the Bible gives us prophecy, it is right and true; the events described will come to pass, just as it is written.
• When the Bible gives us instruction, it is right and true; it truly does tell us the will of God and the best way of life.
• When the Bible tells us of God, it is right and true; it reveals to us what the nature and heart and mind of God are, as much as we can comprehend.

If we don’t approach the Bible this way, then we can only come to it with how we feel about the text, and we decide what is true or false about the text – making ourselves greater than the text itself. Though the teachings of Scripture have many applications, they only have one true interpretation. Sometimes the interpretation is easy to discern and sometimes not, but God meant something with the text revealed to mankind.

“The only proper way to interpret Genesis 1 is not to ‘interpret’ it at all. That is, we accept the fact that it was meant to say exactly what it says.” (Henry Morris)

We believe the Bible is not a book of science; yet where it touches science, it speaks the truth. After all, if the Bible is false in regard to science or other things that we can prove, then we cannot regard it as reliable in regard to spiritual matters that we cannot objectively prove.

Sometimes the literary form of the text is disputed, or sometimes isn’t clear. Is this passage history or poetry? Was this a literal description or a figure of speech? These are valid questions.

When we say that two people met, “head to head” – we understand that they didn’t literally knock their heads together.

When we say something must “stay on track” – we understand that they don’t literally mean something is a railway car or a streetcar that must remain on its rails.

When Jesus said, the Son of man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth (Matthew 12:40) – it should be understood that He used a rabbinic figure of speech of His day, that could refer to any part of a night or a day.

When Jesus told the rich young ruler to sell all he had, give the money to the poor, and follow Him (Mark 10:17-27) – it should be understood that He spoke this specific command to this specific man. It wasn’t a general command given to all the followers of Jesus. There were men specifically described as rich to whom Jesus did not give this command.

Yet, even while it isn’t aways easy to detect every use of hyperbole, poetic exaggeration, figures of speech, commands given to individuals and not to all, and the rest – the only way to understand the Bible is to understand literally. It says what it means and means what it says.

What is the best fulfilled prophecy in the Bible to share in order to help someone believe?

What is the best fulfilled prophecy in the Bible to share with an unbeliever with the goal of helping them to believe that the Bible is true?

That’s a great question. Some very intricate predictions have been accurately fulfilled. For example, in Daniel 10-11, we find comprehensive depictions of the rise of kingdoms following Alexander the Great and their effects on the Jewish people in the Promised Land. Some liberal scholars have suggested that the predictions were written after the events because they find it hard to believe anyone could have foreseen such precise details. However, this perspective is not entirely accurate.

In the book of Isaiah, a prophecy relates to Tyre and Sidon. The importance of these predictions, whether about Tyre and Sidon in Isaiah or the Grecian Empire in Daniel 10-11, is because they are complex. They are very detailed and complicated.

To make it easier, let’s concentrate on the prophecies related to the arrival of Jesus Christ. The life of Jesus includes several events, including His birth in Bethlehem, His work with marginalized individuals, His crucifixion (as predicted in Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22), and His resurrection, which is detailed in various passages. The fulfillment of these prophesies during Jesus’ time on Earth is very convincing.

It’s essential to consider that if the predictions about Jesus’ first arrival were accurately fulfilled, and if Jesus Himself predicted His identity and Second Coming, we should heed His words. Believing in Messianic predictions, which are plentiful and trustworthy, grants us the opportunity to explore the New Testament, particularly the Gospels, and see how well these predictions converge with Jesus’ life.

Sir Lancelot Charles Lee Brenton said, some of the translators of the Septuagint were by no means competent to the task. How reliable is his commentary on the Septuagint?

For those who don’t know, the Septuagint is an important early translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek that happened a few centuries before Jesus Christ was born.  I’m discussing the Septuagint translation without going into too much detail on its reliability. At times, a critic might question the quality of the Septuagint translation. While examining the New Testament, I found certain instances where individuals raised doubts about the Septuagint’s translation quality. The concerns may arise from the translation’s perceived vagueness or limitations, leading some to view it as suboptimal.

It wouldn’t be surprising if the Septuagint were found lacking as a translation. However, the Septuagint played an important role in providing Scriptures for the early Christian Church. The New Testament Church mainly read the Hebrew Scriptures in Greek, using the Greek Septuagint text. I have a copy of the Septuagint which is translated into English from the original Greek.

In my understanding, the Septuagint’s value as a translation is not as significant as its historical importance. Nevertheless, God used it, and it served as the Bible most commonly read by the early Christian Church.

What translation of the Bible does the Enduring Word website use?

We use the New King James Version, although there are many excellent Bible translations available. Options like the ESV, the classic King James Version, the NIV, the Legacy Standard Bible, and even the New American Standard are all popular choices among readers.  There are many great Bible translations to choose from, but I personally prefer the New King James Version. However, the New King James stands out to me for its unique strengths.

First, I like Bible translations that honor the Textus Receptus. Even though I don’t say that the history behind the old King James Bible is perfect every time, I think it should still be considered when translating.

Second, I think the King James and the New King James are beautifully simple. Maybe it’s because I’ve studied them for so long, but they stick with me and are easy to understand. The New King James Version’s direct, brief language helps me remember it better compared to other translations. It has a poetic touch that some modern translations lack.

You can find the Enduring Word Bible Commentary at enduringword.com. We also offer a free app. You can check it out. The Enduring Word app gives a great platform to read our Bible Commentary, and you can access it without any fees or in-app purchases. I’m thrilled to share that in October, for the first time ever, we had more page views on our app than on our main website. This accomplishment is a testament to the hard work and dedication put into the app by our team. It’s truly exciting to see our app gaining such popularity and making the Word of God more accessible to people. Praise the Lord for that!

What book in the Bible is the best place to start, in particular for a person needing direction in a financial crisis?

I recommend the book of Philippians to you. Philippians primarily focuses on the theme of joy and how to experience joy in any situation, especially during times of financial pressure. The Philippian church was known for their generosity toward the apostle Paul. This book highlights God’s promises of blessing and provision for believers who practice generosity.

Beginning with Philippians is a great option. It’s also helpful to examine the Gospels and jot down notes in your Bible or in a separate notebook each time Jesus discusses money. You may be amazed to discover that these occurrences are more common than you first assumed.

How can we defend the Bible without saying, “The Bible says…”?

Hi, Pastor David, I believe the Bible is God’s word and true from front to back. Praise Lord. My question is, how can we defend the Bible without saying, the Bible says, Is that even possible?

It’s possible to defend the Bible without referencing its contents directly. Its significance speaks for itself. It stands as the most influential book ever written, shaping the Western world and beyond. The Bible’s far-reaching impact on the world is well-documented. No other book has exerted such profound influence.

The Bible’s continuity and unified perspective on controversial topics are remarkable achievements considering that it was authored by individuals from diverse backgrounds and locations. Objectively, the Bible is an exceptional and incomparable work. Although one could theoretically suggest the existence of a superior book, such a scenario only remains theoretical because nothing surpasses the Bible’s significance.

Even for those who may not believe, it is worth reading the Bible from beginning to end, starting with Genesis and concluding with Revelation. This is because the Bible has had a greater impact on the world than any other text. This evaluation is entirely objective.

When it comes to looking at the Bible as God’s word, it’s important to realize that believing in its divine origin does require some faith. Nevertheless, it’s not a huge leap of faith, but rather a rational one. My trust in the Bible is not based on blind faith, but on recognizing that it’s the most extraordinary and impactful book throughout history, and that God has used it significantly throughout the ages.

Can you explain how humanity was added to Jesus’ nature without changing His personhood?

Regarding Philippians 2:5-11. Humanity was added to Christ’s nature, he did not become less as God. Please clarify how this does not merit, a change in the personhood of Christ to align with Hebrews 13:8, a Jesus Christ as the same yesterday, today, and forever.

You’re right, and I appreciate how you explained the concept. The Incarnation means humanity was added to Jesus’s divine nature, not taken away from it. It’s important to understand this point. If you’re asking whether this was a change, it was, but only to Jesus’s humanity, not his divinity.

You correctly quoted the Bible verse from Hebrews 13:8, which says “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.” However, it’s important to note that this statement mainly applies to Jesus’ divine nature. As God, Jesus remains unchanged through all time. But if we look at this verse from a human perspective, we see that it doesn’t necessarily hold true.

Let’s take a moment to reflect on this. Jesus progressed through different life stages, advancing from infancy to toddlerhood, through boyhood, adolescence, and young adulthood until He achieved maturity. If you compare a grown man to his three-year-old self, you will observe changes, though there is no discernible genetic alteration. If you compare a grown man to his three-year-old self, you will observe changes, though there is no discernible genetic alteration. The external features evolve over time. Hebrews 13:8 emphasizes that Jesus is unchanging in His divine nature, while He did grow, learn, and develop in His humanity.

It’s important to note that Jesus retains His humanity even after being resurrected and glorified.  He is still the same God-Man mentioned in 1 Timothy, which states that there is only one God and one mediator between God and humanity, and that is the man Christ Jesus. Therefore, Jesus kept His humanity when He went to heaven and still has both His divine and human nature forever.

Do you think it’s wrong or sinful for churches to have “Trunk or Treats” or Christian’s to let their children go trick or treating, as long as costumes aren’t scary?

I think every Christian should decide for themselves whether or not to celebrate events like Halloween. It’s not my place, or anyone else’s, to make that decision for them. If a parent doesn’t feel like Halloween is right for their family, I would tell them, “I respect your choice, and God bless your decision. Do what you feel is best.” Alternatively, if a parent thinks that their children enjoy dressing up and participating in the fun aspects of Halloween without involving any occult or demonic components, that is completely acceptable. They should follow their beliefs, as God permits freedom in both situations.

Moreover, I believe this freedom also pertains to churches. If they prefer to arrange alternative events such as harvest festivals or trunk-or-treat activities, it is a choice for each congregation to make. Since there is no direct instruction on this matter in the Bible, individuals or churches should rely on their conscience to make a decision.

Is it ok for a female believer to baptize another person?

If a sister in Christ baptized a new believer, and it was not in a formal church setting but in the open (pools/ocean), is this faith commendable (if she didn’t know about leadership structure) ​or out of order and need to be repeated?

I can’t find any command in the Bible that says only certain people, like church officers, pastors, or deacons, can do baptisms. Even though it’s a tradition in Christianity, there isn’t a clear rule in the Bible about it. From what I can tell, any Christian can baptize another believer, not just church officials.

I understand that some may disagree with my viewpoint that baptism does not require a church authority, like a pastor, bishop, deacon, or elder, to initiate individuals into the family of God. This is because some believe that these church leaders act as gatekeepers for entrance into the kingdom. Nonetheless, I respectfully challenge this belief because I do not see it explicitly presented in the scriptures.

Someone told me that in Matthew 28, the Bible instructs disciples to baptize and make disciples, and there may be a Greek construction that implies only men should perform the baptisms. I haven’t researched this myself, so I can’t confirm or deny it. I’m only mentioning it as a concern that’s been brought to my attention. If this is accurate, it would back up the idea that men usually perform baptisms. However, I would like to investigate this further with more biblical knowledge.

From what I understand at the moment, there is no specific biblical demand for a baptizer to have certain qualifications. I’m striving to follow what the Bible explicitly teaches and also grant Christian adherents the liberty for matters not specifically determined or established by clear biblical principles.

Who are the cowardly in Revelation 21:8?

Revelation says that the cowardly will be the first thrown in the Lake of Fire. What does John mean by the cowardly here?

Revelation 21:8 – But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.

I would define “cowardly” as people who won’t take a stand or make sacrifices for their beliefs. This definition captures a significant part of what it means to be cowardly. While it may not cover each aspect of the term, it definitely includes those who lack the guts or ability to fight for what is true and just when confronted with opposition. It’s kind of like when Jesus said, “If you deny me in front of others, I’ll deny you to my Father in heaven.” I think there’s a strong similarity between these two statements. Basically, the “cowardly” are people who don’t have the courage or strength to defend or make sacrifices for their beliefs.

Who are the “dead in Christ” in 1 Thessalonians 4:16?

Jesus was prophesied in the OT: Are those who believed in Him in the OT considered the dead in Christ? If not, who are those to be raised up if when we now die we ascend to heaven? (1 Thessalonians 4:16)

1 Thessalonians 4:16 – For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first.

I think the main point of 1 Thessalonians 4:16 is not aimed at the Old Testament saints. Although they may be included, they are not the main group in question. In terms of 1 Thessalonians 4, Paul is speaking to believers who were worried that their fellow church members, who had passed away during their time, would miss out on Jesus Christ’s fantastic return. Paul wanted to reassure the Thessalonians in 1 Thessalonians 4 that those who have died will not miss out on Christ’s return. He wanted them to feel at ease and not to worry.

Even though this message may apply to Old Testament saints in a general resurrection, it’s important to note that it mainly concerns the deceased believers in the Thessalonian community. Paul intended this statement to apply to all “the dead in Christ,” not just the Thessalonians, with a special focus on those who were of immediate concern to the Thessalonian believers.

Does Mathew 24:40-41 refer to the rapture, judgment, or something else?

Kindly expound on Mathew 24:40-41 – one will be taken and the other left – does it mean rapture, judgement or what? Thanks again for always enlightening me on Scripture!

Matthew 24:40-41 – Then two men will be in the field: one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding at the mill: one will be taken and the other left.

Feel free to check out my commentary on enduringword.com for biblical insights. I’ll briefly share my thoughts on Matthew 24:40 with you.

Many Bible interpreters believe that this verse suggests a judgment rather than the rapture of the church. But I see no evidence that calls for a judgment interpretation alone. Rather, I think this passage describes the rapture, as explained in 1 Thessalonians 4.

I’m curious to know why some people think this passage is only about judgment and not about the church being caught away. If you have an explanation or perspective, please share it in the comments. I’m excited to learn more about this topic.

​Since the Bible was primarily written to Jewish people, how much of it applies to us?

Concerning the Bible, the majority of the verses were spoken to the Jews, how do we know if the verse is applicable to us?

It’s important to know that in the Old Testament, God mainly communicated with Jewish people. The New Testament, particularly the Gospels that recount Jesus’ ministry, similarly focused on the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

However, it’s crucial to recognize that God’s ultimate intention was always to reach the entire world through His interaction with the Jewish people. This plan starts with God’s promise to Abraham in Genesis 12. In this covenant, God promised a land, a nation, and a blessing that would extend to every family and every nation on earth. Even when God was working exclusively through the Jewish people, His heart encompassed the entire world.

When we think about what God says and does, we should remember that it applies to everyone, unless there’s a good reason to limit it to Israel only. Sometimes, like with the Mosaic law, there might be a good reason for God to only give specific guidelines to Israel. Nevertheless, it’s important to remember that God’s main goal, even when interacting with Israel, was to connect with and bless all the nations of the world.

​If Jesus is the firstborn over all creation, was He created just like us (Colossians 1:15)?

How can we interpret or explain Colossians 1:15? If Jesus is the firstborn over all creation, does it mean that Lord Jesus was created by his father, just like a normal man like us?

Colossians 1:15 – He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

In the Bible, “firstborn” is often used as a title of importance rather than just referring to the eldest child in a family. Being the firstborn in Biblical times had a meaning of greatness and privilege. So, it’s interesting to note that when God assigns Jesus the title of “firstborn” in Colossians, it’s not a reference to His birth order or creation but rather highlights Jesus’ supremacy over all of creation. In other words, this means that Jesus has the most important position over all of creation.

To illustrate this idea, let’s look at David from the Old Testament. David was one of the youngest sons in his family, with seven or eight older siblings. However, God calls David His “firstborn” in the Psalms. This might seem strange since David wasn’t actually the firstborn in his family, but it shows that he was in God’s most favored position. God selected and raised David above his brothers, fittingly giving him the title of “firstborn.” This same principle applies to Jesus, who, as the “firstborn,” holds the preeminent position over all of creation.

Can you explain replacement theology? Is it biblical?

Our fellowship has been taught over a couple of Sundays that the northern tribes of Israel are “lost” and have been absorbed by other nations, such as ours, Europe, etc. (“replacement theology”) This seems to be very bad teaching in that God’s covenants with Israel are being dismissed at best and at worst, God doesn’t keep His promises.

God’s promises of restoration for Israel encompass not only the southern kingdom of Judah but also the northern kingdom of Israel. The belief that there are “10 Lost Tribes” is not true. God knows where they are and they hold an important place in His divine plan. They will have a future as part of the Jewish people, particularly under the new covenant. This agreement involves bringing Israel together in the end times, uniting them in their belief and reliance on Jesus Christ as their Messiah.

It’s crucial to emphasize that God has neither rejected nor replaced Israel. They continue to play a vital role in His unfolding plan for the ages. Several biblical passages suggest that God intends to reunite the northern kingdom of Israel (including the 10 northern tribes) and the southern kingdom of Judah (made up of the two southern tribes). This reunification is an important part of the fulfillment of the New Covenant. Therefore, I believe that the idea of the 10 Lost Tribes being dispersed or associated with Anglo-Israelism or similar concepts lacks a solid biblical basis.

What’s your view on tithing?

God’s people should tithe. The New Testament doesn’t emphasize tithing, although it is present. Instead, the New Testament urges believers to give generously. Tithing is a helpful standard for giving, where individuals are encouraged to donate about 10% of their income. Those who are currently unable to reach this level of giving should work towards achieving that standard. Many people of faith can give more than 10% of their income as a tithe. They shouldn’t limit themselves to this percentage. Instead, the focus is on giving generously. Tithing was mandatory for Israel in the Old Testament, but the New Testament emphasizes giving generously.

How can we answer those who said we do not need to pray for Israel?

God has a remaining role for Israel in His unfolding plan of the ages. So, I’m going to pray for them. Please remember that Jesus said that He would not return to the earth, to Jerusalem, until the Jewish people said, “Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord.” Jesus Christ is going to return, not to a Christ-rejecting Israel, but to a Christ-embracing Israel. And God will use the events of the very last days to help bring Israel to full faith in Jesus. Their restoration has begun, but it’s very incomplete.

God still has a place for Israel in his unfolding plan of the ages. Pray for Israel. And pray for the people of Gaza as well. Even as I say this, there’s a great conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza right now. Pray for Hamas. Pray for Gaza. Pray that the Christian believers in Gaza would be protected and blessed and would find the strength to oppose the tyrannical Hamas government. Pray for people in Hamas, that they would be convicted of their sin, and put their trust in Jesus Christ. Pray that God would bring salvation and revival to the people of Gaza. That’s what they need, so that they can build a productive, fruitful society, instead of one that is hell-bent on destroying Israel.

Do angels have free will? Lucifer chose not to bow before God, and other angels chose to be on his side.

Do angels have free will? Lucifer chose not to bow before God, and other angels chose to be on his side. Do angels have free will now?

Here’s what we understand. Angelic beings had the chance to choose between being loyal to God or rebelling against Him. Even though the Scriptures don’t directly state this, it seems that their time for making these decisions has ended. Similarly, for humans, the present time is a period of choosing, but it won’t go on indefinitely. It’s important to recognize that there was a time when angels had a real choice to either remain loyal to God or rebel against Him. However, it appears that this opportunity for choice has ended for them, just like it will for the rest of humanity.

Do I need to be afraid of possibly “falling away”?

Can you help me not have fear about possibly “falling away” that the Bible speaks of? I am so worried.

The mere fact that you’re worried about it is tremendous news. If you had really turned your back on God, you wouldn’t care about falling away. You wouldn’t have anything to do with Him. Every time fear rises up within you, I want a smile to come upon your face to say, “Because this matters to me, God must be doing a work in my life. Thank you, Lord, for the work You’re doing in my life.” Hope that’s encouraging to you.

​Does God condemn sorcery, magic, divination, etc., because they have actual power, or because they’re shams? Is Kabbalah demonic?

Does God condemn sorcery, magic, divination, etc., because He agrees these practices have inherent power and accuracy so humans should not dabble in it? or does He say that all these practices are shams? ​Also, is Kabbalah demonic and to be avoided?

I would say both. Much of what goes on in the name of sorcery, magic, and divination is a sham. Visiting a palm reader is not a good idea, and I strongly advise against it. Palm readers often provide false and deceiving information to their clients. On the rare occasion that there is any truth to their predictions, it tends to be of a sinister and demonic nature. Therefore, I would advise you to avoid such practices as they contradict God’s teachings for believers.

Kabbalah is a kind of Jewish mysticism that many people believe falls outside the realm of godly teachings. It does not align with God’s principles and is not suitable for believers. It’s better to concentrate on reading and studying the Bible for true spiritual wisdom and guidance.

What happened to Moses’ wife and children?

What happened to Moses’ wife and children? l am made to understand that good parenting culminates to good children – why is nothing mentioned of Gerishom or Eliezer?

It seems that you may be interpreting the absence of information as something negative. It’s important to note that although the Bible doesn’t mention Moses’s sons taking his position directly, this doesn’t imply a negative outcome. In fact, there is no indication that this was a bad thing.

We do know that Moses traveled with his children during his journeys, including when he returned to Egypt. There’s another matter about the circumcision of Moses’s children. However, it’s crucial to remember that the absence of specific details does not automatically imply a negative outcome.

It’s quite possible that Moses’s wife died in the desert and his sons inherited the promised land. There’s no solid reason to think differently, and this is a logical conclusion based on the information in the Bible.

Why was Rahab praised for using a lie to conceal the spies in Jericho (Joshua 2)?

I understand that this may sound surprising, but there are circumstances where lying might be considered the right thing to do. For instance, Rahab in Jericho lied to the soldiers in a bid to conceal the whereabouts of the Israelite spies. She believed that betraying God’s people would be a more severe transgression than providing false information to those who posed a serious threat.

It’s essential to acknowledge that we may not always agree with this perspective, and we might be concerned that people could misuse this justification to lie in various situations. Yet, the truth is that individuals may lie and rationalize it for personal motives, regardless of what we believe. Ultimately, it depends on the particular situation and the moral decisions people make, and God’s all-knowing ability to comprehend their intentions. In Rahab’s case, her decision to protect the Israelite spies through a lie was seen as a lesser evil when weighed against the alternative of betraying them.

What is the basic teaching of those who don’t believe in the Pre-Tribulation rapture?

The main arguments against the pre-tribulation rapture are usually based on two criticisms: its newness and the accusation of escapism.

Many critics contend that the pre-tribulation rapture is a modern and unconventional doctrine that strays from the traditional teachings of the church. Additionally, they claim that it promotes escapism.

It’s crucial to emphasize that neither of these objections finds substantial support in the Bible. While there are indeed biblical objections to the pre-tribulation rapture, these particular criticisms are based on different grounds. I’ve discussed my reasons for supporting the pre-tribulation rapture in these two audio sermons: Part 1 and Part 2.

God’s Future for Israel

1. God has a future for Israel, the Jewish people.

Surprisingly, many Christians believe God has no future for the Jewish people, that God is finished with Israel. This is even though…

God made an everlasting covenant with Israel, the covenant descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. God has promised the land of Israel to the covenant descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob with everlasting promises (Genesis 17:8).

Genesis 13:15

…for all the land which you see I give to you and your descendants forever.

Genesis 17:8

Also I give to you and your descendants after you the land in which you are a stranger, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.

Some can’t resist spiritualizing all this. For them, “land” doesn’t mean land, “descendants” doesn’t mean descendants, “forever” doesn’t mean forever, and “everlasting possession” doesn’t mean everlasting possession. They spiritualize it all as being for the church today.

While there may be a spiritual application of some of these truths, it doesn’t erase the plain, simple meaning that these words had to those whom God first spoke to them. Remember that the application of God’s promises may become more but will never become less.

God called Israel the land of Israel even when it was under Roman rule and not an independent state (Matthew 2:20-21; 10:23)

Centuries later, God confirmed His commitment to Israel in the strongest possible terms.

Jeremiah 31:35-37

Thus says the LORD,

Who gives the sun for a light by day,

The ordinances of the moon and the stars for a light by night,

Who disturbs the sea, And its waves roar

(The LORD of hosts is His name):

“If those ordinances depart

From before Me, says the LORD,

Then the seed of Israel shall also cease

From being a nation before Me forever.”

Thus says the LORD:

“If heaven above can be measured,

And the foundations of the earth searched out beneath,

I will also cast off all the seed of Israel

For all that they have done, says the LORD.

Some Christians mistakenly think that the truth of spiritual Israel somehow replaces or erases God’s plan for nationalor ethic Israel.

In Galatians 3, Paul makes the point that God accounted Abraham to be righteous – in right relationship with God – because Abraham believed. He trusted in, relied on, and clung to God and His promises. That’s when Paul wrote:

Galatians 3:7

Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham.

This is the important idea of “spiritual Israel.” A man or woman of faith is more connected to Abraham spiritually than those who are connected to Abraham genetically.

None of this replaces or erases the idea of national or ethnic Israel, the Jewish people descended from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and Gentile proselytes who became part of Israel.

The Jewish people are a chosen people (Deuteronomy 7:6), precious to God as the apple of His eye (Zechariah 2:8). They are not chosen to universal salvation, but to have an important role in God’s unfolding plan of the ages. This role did not end with Israel’s part in bringing forth the Messiah, Jesus Christ.

Deuteronomy 7:6

For you are a holy people to the LORD your God; the LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for Himself, a special treasure above all the peoples on the face of the earth.

The modern state of Israel and the Jewish people are not the same thing. One can criticize policies or actions of the state of Israel and still be supportive of the Jewish people.

However, calls to eliminate or destroy the state of Israel are unbiblical and fundamentally anti-Jewish.

2. Israel will be a burden to the nations; none will help her.

Zechariah 12:3

And it shall happen in that day that I will make Jerusalem a very heavy stone for all peoples; all who would heave it away will surely be cut in pieces, though all nations of the earth are gathered against it.

Israel’s restoration to faith will happen in stages, as described in Ezekiel’s vision in Ezekiel 37.

In Ezekiel’s vision of the dry bones, he saw them first gathered as bone-to-bone, then muscles and flesh came upon then, then the skin, and finally the breath of life.

We see a similar thing in the gathering of Israel. In 1948, something remarkable happened. A people who had not been a nation for 2,000 years, and for only about 100 years in the last 2,600 years became a nation again. As significant as this was, it was – and is still – a gathering of unbelief. We can say that the bones and come together and the muscles and the flesh have formed – but the breath of real spiritual life has not yet come in fullness.

3. There will be a time of Jacob’s trouble.

Jeremiah 30:7

Alas! For that day is great,

So that none is like it;

And it is the time of Jacob’s trouble,

But he shall be saved out of it.

As described in Jeremiah 30, this time of Jacob’s trouble seems beyond the catastrophe of the Babylonian invasions and exile. This is a coming time of catastrophe appointed for the Jewish people, also described vividly by Jesus in the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24:15-22), and there connected to what Jesus called the abomination of desolation.

In connecting Jeremiah 30 with Matthew 24, we note that what we often call the great tribulation is particularly the time of Jacob’s trouble; it is when a great and terrible world leader and the government he represents will try to destroy the Jewish people. Working through these, Satan himself will hope to devour the Jewish people (Revelation 12:1-6).

This does not minimize the persecution that will also be brought against the followers of Jesus, both Jewish and Gentile during that time. Yet in God’s plan of the ages, this is noted as the time of Jacob’s trouble, because God will work in and through this catastrophe to bring salvation to the Jews.

4. God will use this time to deliver Israel.

Jeremiah 30:8

‘For it shall come to pass in that day,’

Says the LORD of hosts,

‘That I will break his yoke from your neck,

And will burst your bonds;

Foreigners shall no more enslave them.

Through this time of incomparable tribulation to come against the Jewish people, God will rescue them and bring them His salvation. He will protect them (as in Revelation 12:6) and bring them to faith in their Messiah, Jesus Christ (Jeremiah 23:6, Romans 11:26).

5. Israel will be attacked.

Zechariah 14:2

For I will gather all the nations to battle against Jerusalem;

The city shall be taken,

The houses rifled,

And the women ravished.

Half of the city shall go into captivity,

But the remnant of the people shall not be cut off from the city.

Zechariah has the very end times in view, when Jerusalem will be surrounded and attacked by some type of international force. When the Romans came against Jerusalem in a.d. 70 they came with a multinational army and brought terrible destruction on the city and its people. Yet there was none of the deliverance that Zechariah will describe in the following verses, so it is difficult to say that this was fulfilled in the Roman attack upon Jerusalem in a.d. 70.

This attack against Jerusalem will be severe, but the city itself will not be overthrown (the remnant of the people shall not be cut off from the city).

6. God will protect Israel.

Zechariah 14:3-4a

Then the LORD will go forth

And fight against those nations,

As He fights in the day of battle.

And in that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives,

Which faces Jerusalem on the east.

And the Mount of Olives shall be split in two,

From east to west,

Just when it seems that all hope will be gone for Jerusalem and the people of Israel, then the Lord will fight for His people.

God’s defense of Israel described in Ezekiel 38-39 is hard to place in His unfolding prophetic plan, but it may very well fit in this context.

This speaks of the Lord – Jesus, as God the Son – materially returning to a material earth and setting His feet on the Mount of Olives. At that time a great split will cut the Mount of Olives in two, and the persecuted people of Jerusalem will flee through the valley made by the split.

7. The restoration of the Jewish people to repentance and faith in Jesus will be blessing and life for the church (Romans 11:15, 11:25-27).

Romans 11:12

Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness!

Romans 11:15

For if their being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?

Romans 11:25-27

For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:

“The Deliverer will come out of Zion,

And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob;

For this is My covenant with them,

When I take away their sins.”

All this clearly states that Israel has an enduring role in God’s unfolding plan of the ages. God is not finished using Israel. Jesus said that the Jewish people would turn to Him in the last days, welcoming Him as the one Blessed in the name of the Lord.

Matthew 23:39

…for I say to you, you shall see Me no more till you say, “Blessed is He who comes in the name of the LORD!”

Individual Jewish believers will come in right relationship with God in the way established by Jesus Christ through the new covenant: repentance and faith. They will trust in, rely on, and cling to who Jesus is, and what He has done to rescue His people, especially what He did at the cross and in His resurrection.

So when all Israel will be saved, they will be saved through embracing Jesus Christ as Messiah – as unlikely as this seems. They are not saved with some peculiar “Jewish” salvation.

The Bible indicates this is a necessary condition for the return of Jesus Christ (Matthew 23:39, Zechariah 12:10–11). Jesus will not return again until God turns the focus of His saving mercies on Israel again, and Israel responds to God through Jesus Christ.

Zechariah 12:10-11

And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn. In that day there shall be a great mourning in Jerusalem, like the mourning at Hadad Rimmon in the plain of Megiddo.

God made an everlasting covenant with Israel, the covenant descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. God has promised the land of Israel to the covenant descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob with everlasting promises (Genesis 17:8).

Genesis 13:15

…for all the land which you see I give to you and your descendants forever.

Genesis 17:8

Also I give to you and your descendants after you the land in which you are a stranger, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.

God called Israel the land of Israel even when it was under Roman rule and not an independent state (Matthew 2:20-21; 10:23)

As part of that covenant, God promised that He would bless those who bless Abraham and his covenant descendants, and curse those who curse them.

Genesis 12:3

I will bless those who bless you,

And I will curse him who curses you;

And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.

The truth of spiritual Israel does not replace or eliminate the truth of ethnic or genetic Israel.

Romans 11:26 says, All Israel will be saved. The all Israel of Romans 11:26 is not “spiritual Israel.” It isn’t “spiritual Israel” in Romans 11:25, because that Israel is spiritually blind. Therefore, we shouldn’t regard it as spiritual Israel in Romans 11:26.

We also know this is not “spiritual Israel” because Paul says this is a [25] mystery – and it is no mystery that spiritualIsrael will be saved.

“It is impossible to entertain an exegesis which understands Israel here in a different sense from Israel in verse 25.” (Bruce)

The modern state of Israel and the Jewish people are not the same thing. One can criticize policies or actions of the state of Israel and still be supportive of the Jewish people. However, calls to eliminate or destroy the state of Israel are unbiblical and fundamentally anti-Jewish.

The Jewish people are a chosen people (Deuteronomy 7:6), precious to God as the apple of His eye (Zechariah 2:8). They are not chosen to universal salvation, but to have an important role in God’s unfolding plan of the ages. This role did not end with Israel’s part in bringing forth the Messiah, Jesus Christ.

Israel’s restoration to faith will happen in stages, as described in Ezekiel’s vision in Ezekiel 37.

In Ezekiel’s vision of the dry bones, he saw them first gathered as bone-to-bone, then muscles and flesh came upon then, then the skin, and finally the breath of life.

We see a similar thing in the gathering of Israel. In 1948, something remarkable happened. A people who had not been a nation for 2,000 years, and for only about 100 years in the last 2,600 years became a nation again. As significant as this was, it was – and is still – a gathering of unbelief. We can say that the bones and come together and the muscles and the flesh have formed – but the breath of real spiritual life has not yet come in fullness.

“Every promise to Israel was fulfilled.”

Ezekiel 11:16-20

[16] “Therefore say, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD: “Although I have cast them far off among the Gentiles, and although I have scattered them among the countries, yet I shall be a little sanctuary for them in the countries where they have gone.”’ [17] “Therefore say, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD: “I will gather you from the peoples, assemble you from the countries where you have been scattered, and I will give you the land of Israel.”’ [18] “And they will go there, and they will take away all its detestable things and all its abominations from there. [19] “Then I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within them, and take the stony heart out of their flesh, and give them a heart of flesh, [20] “that they may walk in My statutes and keep My judgments and do them; and they shall be My people, and I will be their God.

Ezekiel 36:24-28

[24] “For I will take you from among the nations, gather you out of all countries, and bring you into your own land. [25] “Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. [26] “I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. [27] “I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them. [28] “Then you shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; you shall be My people, and I will be your God.

Jeremiah 23:3-6

[3] “But I will gather the remnant of My flock out of all countries where I have driven them, and bring them back to their folds; and they shall be fruitful and increase. [4] I will set up shepherds over them who will feed them; and they shall fear no more, nor be dismayed, nor shall they be lacking,” says the LORD.

[5] “Behold, the days are coming,” says the LORD,

“That I will raise to David a Branch of righteousness;

A King shall reign and prosper,

And execute judgment and righteousness in the earth.

[6] In His days Judah will be saved,

And Israel will dwell safely;

Now this is His name by which He will be called:

THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.

What are your thoughts on Martin Luther’s book “On the Jews…”?

What are your thoughts on Martin Luther’s book “On the Jews…”? Why are modern Christians Zionists when all throughout church history, the religion of Judaism was condemned?

You’re asking a very good question. It is absolutely true that for most of church history, Christianity has been largely marked by hatred of the Jews. Sometimes we use the phrase antisemitism, which is sort of interesting, because Arabic people are just as Semitic as Jewish people. But when somebody uses the phrase anti-Semite, they’re not referring to Arabs, they’re referring to Jews. I prefer to use the term Jew-hatred.

It’s true that for the majority of church history, most Christians were raised in an environment where the official policy of the church was to hate the Jewish people. In some measure, Martin Luther reflected that in his book “On the Jews and their Lies.” Now, what a lot of people don’t know about Martin Luther is that in the early days of the Reformation, Luther was very conciliatory and reaching out to the Jewish community in Germany. Luther sarcastically said things like, “If it’s a mark of a good Christian to hate the Jews, oh, then what good Christians we are.” And he criticized the Roman Catholic Church for their Jew-hatred and their persecution of the Jews.

But Martin Luther thought that by having this more generous attitude towards the Jewish people, the Jewish people would respond, take part in his great work of reformation, and receive Christ. When Jewish people of his day rejected Martin Luther’s “kind” overtures, Luther rejected the Jewish people.

Friends, I might be wrong about this. But I do know that in his old age, Martin Luther wasn’t all himself. It could be that some of his antisemitic writings, his Jew hatred writings, came out of that season in his life. But there is no denying that he wrote those things. There’s no denying that Martin Luther published terrible writings against the Jewish people, calling for Jews to be killed in their synagogues and destroyed.

That has been the approach toward Judaism throughout much of church history. I think it’s shameful. I think that is an elaborate Satanic attack upon the Christian church was to lure them into Jew-hatred. It explains a lot of some very difficult periods of church history. So, while it’s true that Christianity’s past is filled with a lot of regrettable, lamentable Jew-hatred, modern evangelicals and the Christian world today mostly show a lot of love, understanding, and acceptance towards the Jews, as it should be.

So yes, it’s true that much of Christianity throughout history has been very hostile to the Jewish people. But it’s a good thing that people recognize a few things. First, it’s important to recognize the essential Jewish roots of Christianity. Secondly, it’s important that Christians recognize that God has an enduring role for the Jewish people in His unfolding plan of the ages. Thirdly, it’s important that Christians should love the Jewish people because God has a particular love for the Jewish people. Again, it’s not a love unto salvation. It’s very grieving to hear some Christian teachers explain this. I’m grateful that there are not many of these, but there are some of them out there. They teach that God has two tracks of salvation: a Christian track of salvation, and a Jewish track of salvation. That’s not true at all. Friends, there’s one way to God. Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, and the life. Any Jewish person who is saved is saved because they put their trust in Jesus Christ. There’s no doubt about that.

However, there is still a chosen place for the Jewish people, not unto salvation, but to have a crucial role in God’s unfolding plan. The Jewish people have a role in God’s unfolding plan of the ages that the Irish people, or Guatemalan people, or Australian people don’t have. Now, I’m not saying that these people have no role in God’s plan. Of course, they do. But there’s a special role for Israel. God has chosen the Jewish people to have this crucial and important role in His unfolding plan of the ages.

Should a person consider re-baptism if they walked away from the Lord for a season?

I was baptized at 17, and lived most of my life as a rebel. Now in my later years, I’m walking with the LORD. Should I get baptized again, because of the way I had lived my life?

I assume that when you were 17, you honestly professed faith and wanted to follow Jesus when you got baptized.  It seems like you wandered away from this commitment for years but have now thankfully come back to your faith. This is truly wonderful. Your question is whether you should get baptized again, considering your previous commitment at 17.

While my views may not align with every Christian perspective, I think your initial baptism was valid and meant a genuine rebirth in your faith. I believe that the decision about being baptized again is yours to make, depending on how you interpret your situation. Also, your return to your faith strongly suggests that you were born again at 17. Therefore, I don’t think it’s necessary for you to be baptized again.

If you want to be baptized again, it’s allowed. Some Christians may disagree with multiple baptisms, but I believe differently. “One baptism” in the Scriptures (see Ephesians 4:5) means unity among Christians, not a limit of one baptism per person. In addition, some Christians see a second or third baptism as a rejection of the previous ones, but that’s not necessarily the case. Renewing your commitment is like when married couples renew their vows on important wedding anniversaries. It doesn’t cancel out your initial commitment but strengthens it.

Getting baptized on certain occasions throughout a Christian’s life is perfectly normal as long as it’s not happening too often, which would be uncommon. Baptism can represent a celebration of your faith journey rather than a denial of previous baptisms.

Can a Christian live a sinless life?

Once a person accepts Jesus as Lord and is born again, is it possible for that person to live a life without sinning, with help of the Holy Spirit?

It’s an interesting question. Can a Christian live a sinless life? The answer is a little complicated: yes and no. It depends on how we define sin. Sin can be split into two types: sins of commission (actions we consciously take that are wrong) and sins of omission (when we don’t do what we should). Avoiding omission sins is almost impossible for any Christian. We all fall short in doing what we should do.

Theoretically, if we stay focused on avoiding doing wrong or giving in to temptation, we can resist sin. There isn’t a necessity to yield to these temptations in theory. However, we often give in to them in practice. Although there is no inherent obligation to yield, encountering temptations is inevitable, and we may eventually succumb to them. In theory, Christians can lead a sin-free life, but practically, it’s challenging, and they are likely to sin.

Until we fully achieve salvation in the resurrection and are glorified, we will keep fighting against sin. Just like the analogy Jesus gave at the Last Supper, we may get spiritually unclean, but we can also be purified. Nonetheless, as believers, it’s crucial to recall that we don’t need to sin. We can choose to have faith in God when we are in temptation and ask for His help for victory. By thinking this way, we can see a big improvement in our Christian life and following what is right.

Did Jesus weep because of anger or compassion when Lazarus died?

When Jesus cried over Lazarus’ death, it showed that He was both angry and compassionate. Jesus’ anger stemmed from His profound awareness of the devastating impact of death on humanity. He understood this more deeply than anyone else who has walked the earth. Nobody else understood it as much as He did. Seeing the extensive damage that death had inflicted upon people likely stirred a righteous anger within Him.

Simultaneously, Jesus felt great compassion for the profound pain that Mary, Martha, and their companions were experiencing due to Lazarus’ death. His heart went out to them, and His compassion for their suffering was evident.

In summary, it’s accurate to say that Jesus wept with both anger and compassion when Lazarus died, as described in John chapter 12.

​Why do some churches enforce Paul’s instructions for women pastors, but don’t hold male leaders to biblical instructions?

Help me understand why a church would enforce Paul’s instructions for women pastors, but make exceptions for his instructions about men having their house in order, husband of one wife, and no alcohol?

Allow me to share a few thoughts on this matter. Humans are naturally inconsistent, and churches may reflect this in their practices. We often hold different standards in different contexts. While this is regrettable, it is a common aspect of being human.

Nevertheless, there is more to consider. It’s possible to interpret Paul’s instructions in Titus 1 and 1 Timothy 3 for elder and leader qualifications in a legalistic way. For example, these passages mention an elder should not drink too much. But does one instance of excessive drinking disqualify someone from leadership permanently? I don’t think so. These qualifications often refer to an individual’s overall lifestyle and character. Sometimes people use these lists too strictly.

Most of the time, you’re absolutely right; these qualifications are simply ignored or neglected. However, there are cases where people misuse them. In those situations, the goal should be to find individuals with the desired qualities, not to exclude others through legalistic means. So, it could be either inconsistency or a misguided application of these criteria.

However, when discussing women in pastoral positions, it’s essential to emphasize that leadership roles in the church are only designated to qualified men, not just any man and excluding women. God appoints qualified men for these roles. Thank you for understanding this point and your willingness to address it.

If you want to learn more about these topics, visit my YouTube channel. I talk about 1 Timothy 2 and the role of women in teaching positions in the church. I also have a video dedicated to women pastors and my advice for them.

Is it enough to pray for lost celebrities one time?

Pastor David, when I pray for salvation for seemingly lost celebrities such as, say, Seinfeld …is one prayer for him (and others) enough?

One prayer is better than no prayers. But to be persistent in prayer is better still. I hope that makes sense to you. If you’re really burdened for the salvation of Jerry Seinfeld, then pray for him. Pray for him regularly. One prayer in better than zero prayers. Yes, it is. But Jesus encouraged us not only to pray, but to pray with persistence.

What does it mean that the knowledge of sin comes through the Law? What is the purpose of the Law?

That’s a great question. God’s law has multiple purposes. To start, as Paul states in Romans 1 and 2, God gave humans a conscience to reveal sin. This inner sense of sin is present but not always clear. Additionally, our conscience can be shaped by sin. So, God’s law reveals a much clearer, detailed account of what constitutes sin. Essentially, God gave His law to help us comprehend sin more accurately.

The law also emphasizes our reliance on a Savior by defining sin and highlighting our inability to fully comply with it, particularly in its true sense. It shows us our need for a Savior, as we realize our inability to keep the law in its entirety.

Furthermore, the law reveals how God desires us to live according to His general will for humanity.  The law has multiple functions that work together to reveal God’s intentions. There is no single purpose of the law, but it plays many vital roles. It serves as a guide, or “schoolmaster,” leading us to Christ and making us aware of our need for a Savior, as Paul writes in Galatians.

The Jewish people’s future as a Christ-accepting people

Zechariah 12:10-12 – And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn. In that day there shall be a great mourning in Jerusalem, like the mourning at Hadad Rimmon in the plain of Megiddo. And the land shall mourn, every family by itself: the family of the house of David by itself, and their wives by themselves; the family of the house of Nathan by itself, and their wives by themselves.”

In the video’s first part, I spent a lot of time discussing God’s future plan for Israel. It’s important to know that God hasn’t abandoned or forsaken Israel and that they have a significant role in His grand design for the ages.

God’s ultimate plan for Israel is for them to believe in Jesus Christ, their Messiah. This is outlined in Romans chapter 11, where Paul affirms that “all Israel will be saved.” It is a great mystery that God is revealing to His church and His people. The plan is revealed in the Old Testament.

The plan is revealed in the Old Testament. The plan is revealed in the Old Testament. One captivating part is the new covenant concept. The Scriptures, such as Ezekiel 11:16, Ezekiel 36:24, and Jeremiah 23:3, depict the new covenant passages. These passages anticipate the restoration of Israel as part of the New Covenant. Restoration isn’t solely about reclaiming land or national power—it involves a revival of true faith in their covenant God, Yahweh, who is fully disclosed through Jesus Christ.

Essentially, as Paul outlines in Romans chapter 11, the Jewish people will ultimately embrace Jesus as their Messiah, leading to the redemption of “all Israel.” It’s worth noting that when Hebrews chapter 11 mentions “all Israel,” it doesn’t necessarily mean every Jewish person but rather the Jewish community as a whole shifting from rejecting Christ to accepting him with repentance and faith.

Zechariah chapter 12, specifically verse 10, is a pivotal passage in this context. It predicts a day when Jerusalem’s people will undergo a deep change. They will see the One they had pierced, mourning, repenting, and trusting Him.

Additionally, I am confident that this godly plan for Israel extends to the millennial era. They will convert to Jesus, their Messiah, just like Paul highlights in Romans 11, where “all Israel will be saved.” This prophecy shows what lies ahead for Israel. Additionally, I am confident that this godly plan for Israel extends to the millennial era. Additionally, I am confident that this godly plan for Israel extends to the millennial era. I believe that Jesus Christ will return and establish His rule over all nations on Earth. During this time, Israel will become an important nation.

Over the centuries, there have been different Christian views on the role of Israel in God’s plan, but it’s important to recognize that God has a significant and lasting plan for Israel in His overall plan for history.

Should preaching be more focused on reminding believers of Bible truths?

Do you feel like there isn’t enough reminder preaching, like Peter taught? Like, when some people know of God’s armor but don’t ever really think about it, because they heard it once before?

This can be a tough issue at times. Sometimes preachers feel like they have to be too fancy, trying to explain things that are entirely new. This need for constant change can cause problems, as teachers try to shock their audience with new ideas.

You brought up a good point. A significant part of a preacher’s job is to remind people of what they already know. It’s worth noting that this practice is supported by the Bible, and even Peter discussed it.

I want to talk directly to Christians, especially those who sometimes go to church and think, “I’ve heard this all before.” The key thing to understand is that pastors are following a biblical tradition when they offer these reminders. However, it’s essential to ask if you’re not only listening but also putting into practice the lessons your pastor teaches. It’s insufficient to claim, “I’ve heard this before.” What truly matters is whether you’re implementing your pastor’s principles. Practical application is even more vital than acknowledging that you’ve encountered these concepts before.

Should the Church give unequivocal support to Israel, even if they reject the Messiah?

Why does the Church teach that we are to give our unequivocal support to Israel, regardless of whether or not they receive Jesus as their Messiah or even stay true to the teachings of the Torah?

As I said before, it’s important to note that the modern State of Israel should not be exempt from scrutiny. Although I believe that Israel has a legitimate right to the land, based on biblical, moral, and political factors, they also have a responsibility to all of their citizens, including Jews, Arabs, and Christians. Additionally, they need to demonstrate fairness and responsibility when interacting with neighboring countries. If they do not meet the expected standards, the international community can hold them responsible. The scrutiny must be applied consistently, as it would with any other nation.

I agree that sometimes, certain Christians’ support for Israel may seem excessive. However, it’s important to understand that supporting Israel does not depend on religious beliefs because Israel is mostly a secular country with many secular Jewish residents. Even though there is a sizable Orthodox Jewish community, it is not the majority. The main reason for backing Israel is due to the ongoing part played by Jewish individuals in God’s plan for mankind, which is based on biblical and political/moral matters, particularly their rightful claim to the land.

It can be troubling when Christians place more emphasis on supporting Israel than on showing love and concern for Palestinian and Christian societies, especially for Arab populations in the region. It’s also important to avoid uncritical support of any entity, even Israel. God’s law applies to everyone.

Do you have any general advice about leading a Bible study?

When leading a Bible study, your responsibility is to teach the Scriptures clearly and understandably. Focus on explaining and applying the Scriptures in a straightforward manner, and avoid trying to be eloquent, as this can cause confusion. Many educators and preachers conducting home Bible studies can face challenges if they strive for eloquence.

Instead, focus on being clear and simple when you explain and apply the Scriptures. You might naturally sound eloquent by doing so, but remember that what people need is simple and clear teachings of God’s truth, not grand speeches.

Fill your heart and mind with the Word of God, then share it in a straightforward manner with others. I hope this guidance helps as you lead your Bible study. God bless your work, as it’s a wonderful undertaking.

​Are Jesus, God, and the Lord the same?

I just started learning the Bible, so my question is, are Jesus, God, and the Lord the same?

The Scriptures sometimes use “God” or “Lord” to refer to different facets of the divine, not just Jesus Christ. It’s important to think about the specific context when these terms appear. Is the text referring to God in general? Is it specifically talking about Jesus Christ? Is it mentioning God the Father or the Holy Spirit? These phrases describe the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, so the context is crucial.

If you’re new to studying the Bible, it’s great to start by learning how to understand the meaning of a passage by looking at the context. Figure out whether references to God are about Jesus, God the Father, the Holy Spirit, or the Trinity as a whole. Knowing the context is a crucial skill as you explore the Scriptures.

In referring to the Holy Spirit, why is “Helper” capitalized (John 14)? Is it a God-given title?

Why is the word “Helper” or “Advocate” in John 14, referring to the Holy Spirit, capitalized in the Bible? Is it a God-given title?

When talking about the New Testament and the Greek manuscripts, it’s important to know that there is no capitalization in the original Greek manuscripts. Capitalization of titles was included by translators. Therefore, it’s a matter of personal preference whether you consider it a fair or unfair addition.

Personally, I prefer capitalizing titles and pronouns when they refer to God. Since the Holy Spirit is God and is called “Advocate,” it’s right to capitalize the “A” in “Advocate.” However, it’s important to note that this decision was made by translators and not in the original text, which didn’t have capital or lowercase letters.

While some modern Bible translations don’t capitalize titles and pronouns when referring to God, others, such as the New King James, do. This is a matter of personal preference and the decision of the translation team.

Do you believe the earth was created with age?

Do you believe the earth was created with age? Like, at creation, the trees were already big, and Adam was not created as a child – so maybe that is why science thinks the world is so old?

I think it’s likely that God made the world seem older than it is. I have no issues with this idea. Some people don’t agree with this, and it’s a controversial subject. They believe it’s misleading for God to make the Earth look like it has a long history. But I don’t believe that’s true.

Making Adam as an adult doesn’t seem deceptive to me either. I don’t consider it dishonest for God to create Eden with mature trees that look 30 years old or for Adam to seem 20, 25, or 30 years old.  This means that I have no problem accepting that God may have created a universe that appears old. Some old-earth creationists might disagree, but I don’t share their concerns.

What does the bible say about patriotism?

In the Bible, we are encouraged to be good citizens of our communities. This means paying taxes, praying for our leaders, and obeying the law. Being a good citizen also means having patriotism, which is loyalty to our country. But this loyalty is not without limits. If a country does evil things, it’s our duty to not get involved and try to change our country’s path if we can.

God divided the world into countries as shown in the Tower of Babel story in Genesis and later passages in the New Testament. This division of countries is God’s plan and indicates that having countries is a good thing. Therefore, it’s okay for citizens to feel proud of their home country. Swedes can be proud of Sweden, French people can be proud of France, Ugandans can be proud of Uganda, and Argentinians can be proud of Argentina. Americans can also feel proud of their country. However, excessive or idolatrous pride should be avoided. It’s important to have a balanced perspective.

Ultimately, the Bible urges individuals to be responsible and law-abiding citizens, and displaying a modest level of love for one’s country can be fitting for such citizens.

What is spiritual formation? Is it good?

Someone recently told me they were focusing on spiritual formation. This term was new to me. As I researched it, I found people referring to it as a movement and even as a method of transformation to be more like Jesus. It almost sounded like it is a works-based way of growing spiritually. I get that we need to do more study, understand the Word, who God is and how we move closer to Him. But it sounds a little bit like if you do things and practices, you can become more like Jesus. I’m curious if you’re familiar with the term spiritual formation, and if I am correct, to show how biblically it may not be what people think it is.

Thanks for your question. I’ve done a bit of research on the idea of spiritual formation in the past. There is definitely some weird and unbiblical stuff that goes on in the name of spiritual formation, I don’t doubt that at all. Those things should definitely be rejected. If you find that it includes things like rituals, customs, religious bondage, manipulation, pressure, or things that conform to the spirit of the age, those are things to be on guard against and to be rejected.

However, we need to be very careful about rejecting things just because of a name. There may be a spiritual formation movement out there that is associated with some weird stuff. But if someone uses the phrase “spiritual formation” with you, don’t assume the weird stuff is what they mean by it. For some people, the idea of spiritual formation is just another way to describe discipleship and becoming more like Jesus. We know from Romans 8 that God’s will for us is to be conformed into the image of His Son. Day by day, on this side of eternity, we should be becoming more and more like Jesus. That process will be ultimately consummated in the Resurrection, when we will know Him as we are known, and our salvation will be perfected and completed in Jesus Christ. Right here and right now, sanctification is an aspect of spiritual formation. You could also say that discipleship is an aspect of spiritual formation.

So, yes, people do and promote and practice some weird things under the name of spiritual formation today. But please, let’s be careful about either condemning or accepting something simply because of the name by which it is called.

If you’re having a conversation with someone about spirit formation, it’s very helpful for you to ask, “What do you mean by spiritual formation?” It’s possible that they mean something as wholesome and as good as simple discipleship. Keep that in mind.

How should we deal with Jehovah’s Witnesses?

How is it best to deal with Jehovah’s Witnesses calling at my door? Do I engage them or not? Do I discuss with them, etc?

It’s interesting that you bring this up. When I was a very young believer, I got excited about researching what Jehovah’s Witnesses believed, comparing that to what the Bible actually says, and learning how to speak to Jehovah’s Witnesses about it. Somewhere, I’ve got a tape recording from more than 40 years ago of me having a discussion with some Jehovah’s Witnesses who were leaders in our particular area. They wanted to speak with me, and I had a long debate with them. It was interesting to me, and I tape-recorded it.

For some people, it’s a challenge to learn how to answer a Jehovah’s Witness. That challenge can really spur people on to learn more about the Bible. If that’s the case with you, that’s a very good thing. However, I don’t think you should feel responsible to do that. I think it’s entirely allowed for an individual Christian to say, “You know what, that’s really not my area of interest or calling. I know that they’re not biblical.” When a Jehovah’s Witness comes to your door, you can plainly say, “I want you to know that I’m a Christian who believes the Bible. Because I believe the Bible, I believe that Jesus Christ is God. Therefore, I don’t have any interest in what you’d have to tell me. Good day.” You can keep it that simple.

There’s one thing you should know again about Jehovah’s Witnesses, or Mormons, who knock at your door. Many people are overly impressed by their sincerity and the energy with which they evangelize. They think, “Well, nobody’s ever knocked at my door wanting to make the case for evangelical, Biblical Christianity. At least these people are out here doing something.” That is something positive to be said for them; they really are out there. But one thing you need to understand about the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Mormons is that these are fundamentally works-based religions and faiths. They’re at your door because they have to earn their salvation. So, it’s true, if we put that pressure on Bible-believing Christians today, maybe they would get more done, but it wouldn’t be biblical Christianity.

How can I learn to explain my faith?

How can I learn to explain my faith? To my shame, I can only explain the basics of salvation. I’m a believer, have been saved, read the Bible, pray, have learned far more, and I listen to your videos endlessly. But I’m very hard pressed to explain clearly, succinctly, and with Bible references learned by heart, about my belief.

I’m so glad that you’re learning and growing. I think the only way to better explain your faith is simply to do it, to work at it, and to practice it. You’re a believer, you’ve been saved, you read the Bible, you pray, and you’re learning and listening a lot. Praise the Lord for those things. If you want to learn how to share your faith better, that’s going to come through practice and repetition.

I don’t know if you’re like me, but I very rarely do something well the first time I try it. If there are things that I can do well, or at least moderately well, it’s because I’ve done them repeatedly. That’s how it is with sharing our faith too.

In order to learn how to explain your faith better, you just need to learn how to do it again and again. You can learn how to give a two-minute explanation as to why you’re a Christian. You can learn how to deliver that by speaking to yourself in the mirror, or in an empty room, again and again. You’ll get better at presenting it. Don’t feel bad that it’s difficult for you to do. Don’t feel bad that this is something that you have to learn and grow in. There’s nothing to feel bad about that at all.

In Zechariah 14, did other nations besides Rome attack Jerusalem?

Your commentary on Zechariah 14 states that Rome attacked Jerusalem in 70 A.D. with a multi-national army. Do you have any information about the other nations that were with Rome?

I’m happy to clarify. The Roman army attacked Jerusalem in 70 A.D. However, the Roman army was multinational. It does not mean that other individual nations besides Rome were attacking Jerusalem. Rather, it means that the Roman Empire extended over many nations and incorporated many nations. They would draw soldiers from those nations to come and fight in either the Roman legions or, more commonly, as auxiliaries to the Roman legions, fighting alongside the Roman armies.

Here’s a quote that I want to highlight for you here, based on Matthew 27:27 – Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the Praetorium and gathered the whole garrison around Him.

In his commentary on the book of Matthew, commentator R.T. France says, “The soldiers of the governor were auxiliaries, not Roman legionnaires, and would be recruited from non-Jewish inhabitants of the surrounding areas: Phoenicians, Syrians, perhaps Samaritans.”

So, there weren’t only ethnically Romans in the Roman army that attacked Jerusalem in A.D. 70. No, it was a multinational army in the sense that the Romans incorporated Phoenicians, Syrians, Samaritans, and other nations into their army during that extended period. I’m very grateful for the opportunity to clarify that.

At what age should a child be baptized?

I’m writing to you regarding baptism. At what age approximately should a child get baptized? My son is 10 and has asked us a few times to get baptized. We go to a nondenominational church regularly, and they have baptized children as young as eight. Our pastor believes a child can be baptized when he reaches a level of maturity and knows the difference between right and wrong. My husband is of a more conservative opinion, and feels that a person should wait longer until at least a teenager or young adult. While the Bible doesn’t say an age, we know that Jesus got baptized as an adult. I appreciate your answer.

Thank you very much for the question. The most basic answer is that a person should not be baptized apart from meaningful faith and repentance. That’s simply it. If a person, a child, a young man or young woman, is old enough to express a meaningful repentance and faith, then I believe they can and should be baptized, putting their trust in Jesus Christ. I would base this on a couple of passages:

Acts 2:38 – Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Of course, these were Peter’s famous words on Pentecost in Acts 2. Notice that Peter said, “Repent.” By the way, this crowd had already declared their desire to believe on Jesus. They were asking him, “What must we do to be saved? What should we do, Peter?” Faith and repentance were already implied there. On that basis, Peter said, “If you repent, if you believe, then you may be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.”

To clarify, I don’t believe that faith and repentance are two different things. I think they are different aspects of the same thing. There are different aspects of what it means to turn to the Lord. If I turn to the Lord, I’m going to turn toward Him in faith, and I’m going to turn away from sin and self. That’s repentance. The act of turning towards the Lord is going to mean that I turn my back on some things, and I turn toward the Lord in other things. I’ll mention another passage that speaks about this:

Acts 8:36-37 – Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, “See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?” Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” In this story, we see that the eunuch believed, made this profession of faith, and then he was baptized.

You mentioned that your husband felt it was appropriate to wait a while before the baptism of your children. I would completely trust your husband’s judgment on this. Oftentimes, almost always, it is the parents who have the perception to know how far along the child is in their faith. If your husband looks at your children and says, “No, I don’t think they’re quite ready,” then you should wait. I leave that judgment up to the parents most of the time. The reason why I say most of the time, is that there have been times when parents have brought a child to me for baptism, and I clearly felt or could perceive that the child was not ready. Then I would say, “Let’s wait a little bit, Mom and Dad.” Sometimes people get baptized just because it seems exciting or seems like something good to do. Sometimes kids want to get baptized because they see other people doing it, and they just want to do it.

Now, it is not wrong to want to get baptized. That’s a good thing, actually. But please remember that it comes down to this. Baptism should be practiced on the basis of a credible expression of faith and repentance and can be valid at wide variety of ages.

Does Acts 8:37 belong in the Bible?

I was having a discussion on baptism with a friend of mine, and I referenced Acts 8:36-37. To our surprise, verse 37 was not included in her version (the ESV). I did some research, but I’m curious about your thoughts on this. Some manuscripts include here, “Philip said, ‘If you believe with all your heart, you may.’ The eunuch answered, ‘I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.’”

Great question. Let’s compare Acts 8:36-37 in two different Bible translations.

Acts 8:36-37 (NKJV) – (36) Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, “See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?” (37) Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”

Allow me to point something out. If you go to your New King James Version Bible, and you look at that verse, there will be a note. If you’re viewing the electronic version, it’s something you can click to see more. If you’re viewing it in print, there will be a note at the bottom of the page.

Here’s what the note says in the New King James Version: “NU-Text and M-Text omit this verse. It is found in Western texts, including the Latin tradition.”

This note is telling you that there are some notable, highly respected, ancient manuscripts (the NU-Text and M-Text) which do not include verse 37. However, it is in many of the Western texts, including the Latin tradition. Next, let’s take a look at the English Standard Version.

Acts 8:36-38 (ESV) – (36) And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?”
(37) See Footnotes (38) And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him.
We also find a note about this verse in the ESV: “Some manuscripts add all or most of verse 37: And Philip said, ‘If you believe with all your heart, you may.’ And he replied, ‘I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.’”
We’re left with a conundrum, aren’t we? Some manuscripts include verse 37, and some don’t. How do we know which is more reliable? The Expositor’s Bible Commentary gives some helpful insight on verse 37. Basically, it says that this verse is not found in many older manuscripts; some of the oldest manuscripts we have do not include it. However, it is included in the writings of many of the Church Fathers: Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrosiaster, Ambrose, and Augustine.
This gives credence to the idea that, first of all, this verse was accepted by the early Christians, and it may be referring to something that existed before the earliest manuscripts we have. For some of the biblical books, the time span can be more than 100 years between when they were written and the date of the earliest manuscripts we still have. Maybe that verse existed in some of the copies which have been lost to history. I’m not saying that with certainty; these things have to be considered on a case-by-case basis. I’m just trying to illustrate that this is a somewhat complicated issue.
I wouldn’t build a doctrine of baptism based on Acts 8:37, but neither would I casually throw it out and say that it doesn’t belong. It is teaching a biblical truth, that there’s a link between a credible expression of faith and baptism. We know that to be true biblically. Because this verse teaches a biblical truth, it may very well have existed in early manuscripts that are lost to history.
One final thing to notice is just how rare such situations are. Friends, it is such a blessing that we have a Bible text which has so few instances of questions like this, although we are reading it now 2000 years after it was written. It’s a testimony to how reliable our biblical text is.

Should Christians celebrate holidays such as Christmas and Easter?

Our Christian religions have intermingled pagan culture and traditions with the celebrations of Easter and Christmas. I am aware of the history behind this and Constantine’s effort to take a pagan holiday and have it recognized for Christ but is still a commingling. Our Father calls us to be a set apart people, and we have joined in with these pagan cultures and traditions of other gods. The Bible tells us what happened to people of old when they did that. You are a Bible scholar. I hope you can shed some light on this and help me to be more comfortable with these changes, if they are in the right. But if they are not in the right, then how can we bring about change? Thanks so much for sharing your knowledge with us all.

I’ll answer this directly. I think it’s fine if modern Christians want to celebrate Christmas or Easter, and if they do it simply in a biblical and God-glorifying way. You’re asking me the question, so I’ll give you my take on it. It matters very little what Christmas meant 1500 years ago. What matters to me today is what it means today, and how I celebrate it today. I think that the so-called pagan origins of Christmas and Easter are sometimes exaggerated. But even if they aren’t exaggerated, it doesn’t bother me that much. The thing that matters is what it speaks of today. I would say that there’s a right way and a wrong way somebody can recognize Christmas today. There’s a right way and a wrong way that somebody can recognize Easter.

Here’s the issue for me. Because the Bible does not specifically command one way or another, then we have freedom in Jesus Christ. I think this freedom goes two ways. We have the freedom to observe a holiday such as Christmas, but we also have the freedom to not observe it, if our conscience tells us that we shouldn’t. If your conscience tells you, “I’m not going to celebrate Christmas,” then don’t do it. Whether you choose to celebrate it or not celebrate it, do that as unto the Lord. Whatever we do, we can do it on the basis of freedom in Christ and according to our conscience. We need not be concerned with what other people think. On such issues, we do have genuine freedom in Christ. Consider this verse:

Colossians 2:16-17 – So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.

Notice those words, “Let no one judge you.” I mean this, let no one judge you if you keep it, and no one judge you if you don’t keep it. Just do what God has persuaded your heart to do. There have been notable Christians and Christian groups throughout the ages that have refused to celebrate Christmas. The pilgrims who settled New England in the colonial days of the United States didn’t celebrate Christmas. They thought it was unbiblical, so they didn’t celebrate it. Well, God bless them for that. They can do it or not do it and let no one judge it.

Let no one judge you if you do it, as long as you do it as unto the Lord. Let no one judge you if you don’t do it, as long as you don’t do it as unto the Lord. This is an area where people can respond to God’s work and God’s guidance according to their conscience.

What were Jesus’ last words?

What were Jesus’ last words – Luke 23:46 or John 19:30? I am very confused. Thank you in advance.

I hope I can shed a little light on this. You’re talking about the order of the seven sayings of Jesus from the cross. I’ll give you what I believe is the accurate and traditional ordering of the seven sayings of Jesus from the cross.

1. Luke 23:34 – Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do.
2. Luke 23:43 – Assuredly I say to you, today, you will be with Me in Paradise. Of course, that’s what Jesus said to the thief on the cross who believed.
3. John 19:26-27 – Woman, behold your son, followed by, Behold your mother.

I would have to dig a little bit to see the reasons for putting that as the third saying. I think there is some case to be made, that might have actually been the second saying on the cross. To me, it seems that Jesus entrusted His mother unto the care and custodianship of John somewhat early on in His time on the cross, and His interaction with the thief on the cross took place after He had been on the cross for some time. It is arguable that #2 and #3 could be reversed.

4. Matthew 27:46 / Mark 15:34 – Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? which is translated, My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?
5. John 19:28 – I thirst.
6. John 19:30 – It is finished.
7. Luke 23:46 – Father, into Your hands I commit My spirit.

It’s possible that #6 and #7 could be reversed, but I think it likely that the very last thing Jesus said was, “Father, into Your hands I commit my spirit” (Luke 23:46). Other people may have different approaches to it, but I think that’s a good ordering of the seven sayings on the cross.

To receive the Holy Spirit, is the laying on of hands necessary?

How can someone receive the Holy Spirit without the laying on of hands?

Thank you for your question. I’m glad you asked this. First of all, there are a few occasions in the book of Acts and in Paul’s letters where people receive the Holy Spirit or a gift from the Holy Spirit, as hands are laid upon them. The idea behind the laying on of hands is praying a sympathetic prayer with somebody. It’s a prayer of coming alongside someone and joining with them by praying for them. That’s the symbolic meaning of the laying on of hands. That’s why that phrase is used sometimes in the Scripture.

So, how can someone receive Holy Spirit without the laying on of hands? Well, just because there are a few occasions in the New Testament where people received the Holy Spirit as hands were laid upon them, it doesn’t mean that it’s a necessary requirement. It’s completely fine to do. If I were to pray for someone to receive the Holy Spirit, I would probably be praying with them with the laying on of hands. But it’s not like it’s a magical or ceremonial thing. The Holy Spirit was poured out upon 120 disciples in the upper room in Acts 2, but there is no record that they were laying hands on one another when that happened. So, it’s not a necessity, but it certainly is a practice that’s shown for us in the Scriptures.

Is speaking in tongues the best evidence of being filled with the Holy Spirit?

How can someone know they are endowed or filled with the Holy Spirit without speaking in tongues?

For a few reasons, I don’t believe that speaking in tongues is the best evidence of being filled with the Holy Spirit. First, it is possible for people to imitate or counterfeit the true gift of tongues just by making babbling sounds. But even the true gift of tongues is not the best evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, because the true gift of tongues is not necessarily manifested in every person who is filled with the Holy Spirit.

Paul made this very clear in 1 Corinthians 12:30 by saying, “Do all speak in tongues?” The way he wrote this question, the expected answer was, “No, not all believers spoke in tongues.” Here’s what we know. A much better measurement for someone being filled with the Holy Spirit is if the fruit of the Spirit is evident in their life. Galatians 5:22-23a – But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.

The fruit of the Spirit is the real evidence of the work of the Spirit. It is not primarily supernatural gifts. Listen, I’m all for supernatural gifts, and I love to see God at work in supernatural ways. But the real fruit of the Holy Spirit is seen in love, joy, peace, long-suffering, and so on. If you have a group of people who claim to have all sorts of spectacular miracles and signs and wonders, yet amongst themselves there is not the love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control, which are truly the fruit of the Spirit, then you just should ask yourself, “Where is the Holy Spirit at work among them?”

The measuring line for the work of the Holy Spirit is the fruit of the Spirit. It is not supernatural works of the Holy Spirit, whether supposed or even legitimate. The best measurement to know whether you’re filled with the Spirit is that you’re walking in the Spirit, and the work of the Holy Spirit is active in your life. Ask yourself the question, and ask other people the question, “Do you see the fruit of the Spirit in my life?” That’s a great way to see how Spirit-filled a person is and how spiritually surrendered they are.

Does God allow women to teach a congregation if men are unavailable?

Where in the Bible does it say that if a man doesn’t step up to teach a congregation, God will allow for a woman to fulfill that role?

There is not a chapter and verse in the Bible specifically concerning a situation of there being no men to lead God’s people, and allowing women to take more leadership than the biblical order would normally allow. I don’t have a Bible verse for that. But I’ll say this. If you think that there are never, under any circumstances, exceptions from normal order, then we’re just going to have to disagree.

I believe that there are times and situations where God would allow things to happen out of normal order. There is a normal order for the church, and sometimes there are extraordinary circumstances.

Let’s just say, as a hypothetical example, that you’re in a nation where there is heavy persecution of Christians. Let’s say you’re in North Korea, and all the men in the congregation who have any kind of spiritual knowledge and maturity are put in prison. Well, then who should lead the group of Christians? Who should lead the house church? If you would say, “Never under any circumstances whatsoever could a woman lead a congregation and God allow it,” then I would disagree. Again, I’m not trying to say that’s the normal order for a church. I would say that it will only be under the most exceptional circumstances. But there have been times when the church has been under exceptional circumstances.

Let me use an imperfect analogy. In an emergency, with no one else available, if a 12-year-old could drive someone to the hospital, that would be allowed. But it does not argue that we should allow every 12-year-old to drive. That’s not the issue at all.

Now, in the world today, when we see a woman pastor, does it fit into that situation? I would say very rarely. Of all the women pastors serving in churches on that level and leading congregations, I would think that 95-99% of the time, they shouldn’t be in that position at all. But can I conceive of, and have there been in church history, certain circumstances that would be an exception to that? Yes.

Now, sometimes people want to take those exceedingly rare exceptions, and use them to erase what is the normative practice for the church. And that should not be allowed. That should not be accepted for one bit. There is a normal practice for the church, and sometimes there are extraordinary circumstances where the church has to do the best they can.

I would say that there are extraordinary circumstances where a woman leader of the congregation might be the best alternative available. These circumstances would be very rare, and almost unknown in the Western world especially. But I would see it being a thing under persecution, or under missionary circumstances perhaps, but very rarely. That’s how I would express it.

I have a couple of videos that might be helpful:
“Men and Women in the Church – 1 Timothy 2:8-15”

“A Word to Women Pastors”

Is the Great Tribulation 7 years or just the final 3 ½ years? Are the Tribulation and the Great Tribulation the same thing?

In the book of Revelation, the seals, the trumpets, and the bowls, describing events of the entire seven-year tribulation are only the last three and a half years of the tribulation, the Great Tribulation. How does a pre-tribulation rapture fit into this? Some of your commentaries look like you’re using the words tribulation and Great Tribulation synonymously.

Sometimes it is difficult, and I confess that at times I may be speaking very generally and use the terms imprecisely. The seven-year period we’re discussing is also known as the 70^th week of Daniel. Keep in mind that whenever we’re talking about the End Times and eschatology, there are significant disagreements among Christians. People disagree about the nature of the kingdom and the arrival of the kingdom. People who have agreements on those things sometimes disagree amongst themselves as to the nature, timing, and circumstances around the return of Jesus Christ. I just want to say that I understand where brothers and sisters who disagree with my perspective are coming from. I love them. I respect them. But I don’t necessarily agree with them. I think they’re wrong, and I’m right. I hope that’s not weird to say. Of course, I think I’m right. Why would I knowingly hold to something that I think is wrong? If I hold to a certain perspective, I do so because I think it’s right. And if I think I’m right, it means that those who disagree are wrong. However, I don’t think they’re evil. I don’t think they’re stupid. I just disagree with how they’re approaching the Scriptures on some of these issues.

Here is how I understand it. The entire seven-year period preceding the glorious return of Jesus Christ can be called the Tribulation. If you want to get specific, you could call the final three and a half years of that time the Great Tribulation.

This is based on something Jesus said in Matthew 24:21. Again, there is some disagreement on this within the Christian world, but I believe Jesus was speaking of this period of time, when He said the following:

Matthew 24:21 – For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be.

I believe Jesus was referring to a time which is still in the future. Plenty of believers who read their Bible would say that was fulfilled, back when the Romans conquered Jerusalem in 70 A.D. But I don’t believe so. I believe that there have been more horrific times for humanity since then, which would make what Jesus said not true. Whatever Jesus is describing, it will be the worst time of suffering and calamity on the earth ever, throughout all of history. And I don’t think that that was 70 A.D. It was terrible. But it wasn’t the worst suffering or calamity in all of human history.

Jesus used the word tribulation and the phrase Great Tribulation. I believe that during the first three and a half years of that seven-year period, the Antichrist will bring tribulation to believers, much of it surrounding the mark of the beast. That will be tribulation. In the second three and a half years, there are going to be two aspects of tribulation. First, the Antichrist will begin to persecute the Jewish people in earnest. That’s one aspect. Believers will be persecuted throughout the whole period, but in the final three and a half years, the Antichrist will begin to persecute the Jewish people. Secondly, and more pointedly, God will pour out His wrath upon a Christ-rejecting world. That will be what makes that tribulation truly great. It will be the outpouring of God’s wrath.

So, yes, it’s true. Bible teachers are sometimes guilty of using these terms without a lot of precision. But in general, I could refer to the entire period as tribulation, because it will be tribulation for believers. Now, I am one of those who believe in a pre-tribulation rapture. I believe that the church, the body of believers existing on earth at that time, will be received by Jesus in the air, in the clouds, and they will escape that tribulation. But I also believe that there will be many who will come to faith during this period of tribulation, and they will be persecuted.

There is the persecution of believers during the entire period, but there will be a definite increase in the tribulation, leading to that period which Jesus spoke about being unmatched in all of human history, which will be more pronounced in the second three and a half years. You can see why there could be some overlap between these two terms. That’s why it’s easy to be imprecise in referring to this period.

What was Preaching like Before the Internet? LIVE Q&A for September 21, 2023

From Smitha via Facebook:

I would like to know about the experience of Pastor while he studied the word of God in a time period with no social media sermons, Google search, digital notebooks etc.

The whole field of Bible study has been radically changed by the internet. I started teaching and preaching the Bible before personal computers were a thing, and before the internet became a resource for Bible study.

It’s exciting that there are so many resources available, so easily found, so inexpensive, taking up so little space. In some ways, it’s a golden age for Bible study resources. Yet, some of this comes at a price – mainly, the effect that google and modern research habits have on the way we think.

• We have far more resources within reach.
• We are subtly but definitely trained to scan screens for information and make quick generalizations.
• The habits of modern internet research work against deep, thorough reading and thinking. We tend to scan and swipe, and think we know more than we do.
• We can and should work against these habits, and make sure we don’t do Bible study the same way we work through a social media feed.

Old School General Resources

• Concordance
• Topical Bible
• Bible Dictionary

Original Language Resources: Englishman’s Greek Concordance, Little Kittel, Dictionary of New Testament Theology, A.T. Robertson

General Overview Commentaries: Morgan, Meyer

Older Commentators: Poole, Trapp, Clarke

• Modern resources give a lot more access to the commentary work of early Christian writers and their commentaries (such as the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture series edited by Thomas Oden)

More Modern Commentators: Meyer, Morgan, Redpath, Maclaren, Barnhouse, Walvoord, Stott, Hiebert, Morris, Kidner, Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Barclay, etc.

Background Resources: Legends of the Jews, Major Cities of the Biblical World, Dictionary of Biblical Archaeology

Spurgeon Resources: Sermons, index of sermons

Enduring Word Commentary in print

Bibliography page on the Enduring Word website  https://enduringword.com/bibliography/

Good Online Resources:

Enduring Word  https://enduringword.com/

Blue Letter Bible  https://www.blueletterbible.org/

Precept Austin  https://www.preceptaustin.org/

Remember some of the uses of a good Bible commentary:

• To confirm what you have already learned from your study.
• To correct misunderstandings from your study.
• To show you things that you may have missed in the passage.
• To show you connections with other Bible passages you may have missed.
• To show you things from the historical context that you didn’t know.
• To show you things from the Biblical languages that you didn’t know.
• To show you how the passages has been understood through history.
• To give better words to what you have seen in the passage.
• To give good illustrations of what you have seen in the passage.
• To give good applications to what you have seen in the passage.

Do we inherit guilt from Adam? If so, how does that reconcile with Hebrews 2:14-18?

Hebrews 2:14-18 – Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham. Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For in that He Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted.

If we inherited guilt from Adam, and Jesus did not inherit guilt from Adam, then how could it be said that He was made like His brethren in all things? Obviously, that’s a figure of speech. Jesus was not actually a sinner, so in that respect He was not made like His brethren in all things. Whether we inherit guilt from Adam or not, we are all sinners. Jesus was not made like us in that sense, except for the fact that on the cross Jesus was treated as if He was a sinner.

Do you see the difference there? Jesus had some experience of what it was like to be treated as if He was a sinner. That’s what happened on the cross. God the Father treated Jesus Christ His only Son not only as if He was a sinner, but as if He was every sinner. Jesus stood in the place of all sin, and He paid for it at the cross.

Jesus being made like His brethren in all things does not encompass every absolute sin or condition of humanity. Jesus, in His unfallen state, was exactly like Adam in his unfallen state. That’s why Paul in Romans 5-6 can refer to Jesus as the second Adam, the last Adam. Was Jesus completely human? Yes. But He was completely human in His unfallen state, having not received inherited guilt from Adam.

As a believer, how do I enforce rules at work while still showing grace?

I have some authority over customers at my work. Sometimes I want to show grace, but other times I don’t. How do I continue to enforce policy/rules as an employee/steward, but also show grace as a believer?

Great question. This is a very practical question. How do we live out our Christianity at our place of employment? How can I be as gracious as possible to my customers? Well, this is what you should do. Be as gracious as possible without working against the interests of your employer. If the interests of your employer would require you to sin against your customers, then you should probably start looking for another line of work. But you don’t want to sin against your employer either. Within that framework, you should be as gracious, accommodating, and helpful to your customers as possible. That’s what I recommend your policy should be.

You do work for your employer, and you need to honor your employer and submit to your employer, as long as your employer isn’t requiring you to sin. And you want to be as gracious and helpful as possible to your customers, as much as would be allowed by the interests of your employer.

As Christians, we should try to be gracious and helpful to people. That’s good Christian conduct. But we shouldn’t work against our employer to do that. If we feel like we’re in a position where that’s required, it’s probably best to find other employment.

​What are your thoughts on the Complete Jewish Study Bible?

I just got the Complete Jewish Study Bible! I love it. Have you looked at it? If so, what are your thoughts?

To be honest, I haven’t spent a lot of time looking at this. But it can be very helpful for Christians to understand how Jewish interpreters approach the text. I’m not saying that Jewish or rabbinic interpreters of the Bible are always correct; Christians should not think that. We see the Bible differently than traditional Jewish or rabbinic teachers, and that’s okay.

Seeing Jesus as the Messiah is going to change the way that you look at the Bible. Seeing prophecy fulfilled in Jesus Christ is going to change how you look at the Bible. Understanding the fulfillment of the New Covenant in Jesus Christ is going to change how you look at the Bible.

It may be helpful and illustrative to look at what Rabbinic Judaism has to say on the Bible. I do that often, and I’m thankful for it. Sometimes in my teaching, you’ll see me mention the insight of certain rabbis on a topic. It can be helpful. But we don’t just yield our biblical interpretation to rabbinic sources. We look to other sources as well.

I hope you find it helpful. Read it with the intent to weigh and consider what it says. Sometimes Christians give way too much weight to commentaries. Let me be very transparent with you all. Sometimes people give too much weight to my Bible commentary. Look, it’s a commentary. It’s my teaching. It’s my understanding and explanation of the text. Do I think it’s correct? Well, yes – not that there aren’t corrections I make along the way. In general, I think that what I present about the Scriptures is correct. But I don’t think that I’m infallible. I think every Christian should be a Berean. Remember in Acts 17, when Paul visited the believers in Berea. The Bible says that they were of more noble character, because they diligently searched the Scriptures to see if the things that Paul said were so. Friends, if that’s something that people should do with Paul’s teaching, how much more should they do it with my teaching or anybody else’s teaching?

How could the people in Romans 1:21 “know God” without glorifying Him?

Can you please explain, “because although they knew God, they did not glorify God?” in Romans 1:21? How did they “know God”?

Romans 1:21 – Because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

In this passage, Paul is exposing some of the darkness of the pagan world and speaking about those who have rejected God as Creator. This is what Paul’s getting it. They knew God. They knew Him in their conscience. In Romans 1, Paul is careful to explain that God has revealed Himself to all of humanity in two ways: in creation and in conscience. All of humanity is accountable to know something about the true living God through creation and through conscience. There are many people reject that knowledge. There are many people who look at the creation and say, “Well, it happened by itself. Well, it just created itself. Well, evolution explains everything. The Big Bang explains everything.”

Friends, I just want to tell you that God has revealed Himself to humanity through creation, and He has revealed Himself to humanity through conscience. But there are many people who have taken that knowledge of God which God has given to humanity, and they have rejected it. They did not glorify God with that knowledge. Therefore, they became futile in their thoughts and their foolish hearts were darkened.

The other day I was listening to a podcast where Christians and skeptics discuss Christianity. One guest who was an atheist asked the question, “Why hasn’t God made Himself more visible? Why hasn’t God given us more persuasive proof? I’m an atheist so I don’t believe God. But if God were real, why didn’t He give us more persuasive proof?” Various people tried to address the concerns of this man. I’m not saying that the responses were all bad, but none of them addressed the concern in the way that I thought it should be done.

Here’s how I think they should have responded: “Dear sir, the living God added humanity to His deity, and walked among us for 33 years. He lived, He taught, He did miracles which confirmed Himself, and He died on a cross and rose from the dead. God dwelt among us and gave us a written record that we can rely on to demonstrate all this. What do you mean that God hasn’t done enough?”

Forgive me for this, but I don’t have a lot of patience for people who fold their arms and say, “I’m not convinced. God should have done more.” What more can God do than add humanity to His deity, and literally walk among us for 33 years, do miracles and signs, predict prophecy, teach like nobody’s ever taught, live like nobody else has lived, die on a cross, and rise from the dead? You’re saying He should do more than that?

When people reject God, they’re doing it despite the evidence, not because of the evidence. That’s what Paul is putting his finger on in Romans 1. Everybody has some knowledge of God through creation and through their own conscience. To that has been added the glorious revelation that God has given us in and through His Word.

How can I minister Jesus’ love to someone with childhood trauma of sexual abuse?

I could use some guidance. I’m trying to minister to someone about Jesus’ love for them to try to get them to see past their childhood trauma of sexual abuse. Advice?

God bless you for your heart in that. There are so many things to think about when somebody has been the victim of sexual abuse. First of all, if there is any legal recourse, it should be pursued. Friends, people who have sexually abused other people should be brought to justice. This is not complicated. Christians should not try to sweep such things under the rug or handle them “in-house” within the church. People who sexually abuse children should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Maybe there is no legal recourse in the situation you’re talking about. But I would say as a general principle, wherever there is legal recourse to be had, it should be pursued.

Secondly, I think this person may need to speak with a trauma-informed counselor. There are many counselors out there who are skilled in knowing how to deal with people who have experienced trauma and suffered these significant wounds and hurts.

But even in the midst of that, this person needs a living, growing, breathing relationship with Jesus Christ. Please understand me, I’m not saying that a good relationship with Jesus is like a magic wand that makes all your other problems go away. I’m not saying that. I don’t believe it’s true in real life. Just because I know Jesus doesn’t mean that I shouldn’t see a doctor for a broken arm. And just because I know Jesus doesn’t mean that I may not need to go to a counselor for some other good biblical guidance and guidance concerning my health and other things that would be helpful. However, I can get all those other things yet still be lacking in my life without that good foundation of a relationship with Jesus.

I would encourage you to love this person in the name of the Lord and help them to pursue spiritual growth and spiritual depth and help. Perhaps this will be a pathway for them to seek the help they need in other areas of their life. But we can’t neglect the basics of Christian living, relating to God through prayer, worship, the fellowship of the saints, personal Bible reading and Bible study. These things work together to help form a foundation for a healthy Christian life. These things help develop a foundation upon which other things and great healing can be built.

That’s the most direct answer I can give. If legal recourse is possible, it should be pursued, if not for the sake of that particular individual who suffered the abuse, then for other people would suffer abuse from the same person. Legal recourse should be taken if possible. Secondly, seek out appropriate counseling by people who know these fields in greater depth. And thirdly, strengthen the spiritual basics in life. I think that’s very helpful.

​How should we have conversations about homosexual conversion therapy?

Hello from Sweden! I recently got extremely angry at my mother’s atheist cousin, when he said he “knew gay conversion therapy is impossible” and he said that “I wanted him to go to hell” (for being gay). What shall I do?

First, it is very important to both homosexuals and their ideological allies to communicate the message that it is impossible for a person to change their sexual orientation. Now, I don’t believe that’s true in every case. I do believe that perhaps it’s true for some people. Maybe there are some people who have only ever been sexually attracted to people of their own sex. Maybe that’s the case, and maybe it’ll remain that way for that person’s entire life.

But that’s not what these people are arguing. They’re saying that it’s impossible for anyone to change their sexual orientation. I do not believe that, because there are people who have changed. There are people who in the past have been absolutely committed male or female homosexuals, and today they are attracted to and content in married relationships with people from the opposite sex. At one time, they were exclusively same sex attracted. Now they are attracted and content with sexual relationships with people of the other sex.

I’m not saying that happens in every case. But there is an agenda among the homosexual community and their allies to say that it’s impossible for anyone to change their orientation. And I would say that’s not universally true.

Secondly, when people say things like, “You want me to go to hell,” this is my response. “Friend, it’s not in my power or in my desire to send you to hell. I have absolutely no control over that. God has not put me in charge of who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. But God has given us a book. In His book, God speaks about the eternal destiny of people who reject Jesus Christ and the work He wants to do in the life of the individual. If that means that you or others are going to hell, that’s not in my hands. That’s not under my authority. That’s something you have to deal with. Jesus is in charge of that. Jesus Christ is the judge of all humanity, not me, not you, not anybody else. You shouldn’t care what I think of you, but you should absolutely care about what Jesus Christ thinks. Just make sure you’re going to the Jesus of the Bible, not the Jesus of your imagination, not the hippie Jesus, the ‘flower power’ Jesus, or the conservative Jesus. The Jesus of the Bible is the Jesus we’re going to have to deal with.”

That’s how I would respond to those questions. Jesus Christ has the power to change lives, and Jesus Christ is the judge of all work.

What is your routine before preaching a message?

Hey Pastor David, what is your routine before going to give a message or preach to a congregation? I find myself leading the men’s Bible study a few times, and I was wondering what are the best way to prepare?

Here’s an idea I heard from a friend of mine, though I don’t think this was original to him. You want to read yourself full, and then write yourself empty. And for me, I would say I do that twice. First, I read myself full with the Bible text. It’s just me and my Bible. I break down the passage, organize it, and explain it. I try to make connections with other biblical passages, and figure out how I want to present the thoughts and provide application. Just me and my Bible. That’s where it begins. I read myself full, and I write myself empty.

Then I go to Bible resources and commentaries, and I read myself full, and I write myself empty. I take whatever help I may have received from the commentaries and integrate it with what I’ve already observed about the text, and join the two. I read myself full and write myself empty twice, first with only the Bible text, and secondly with the help of Bible commentaries. Then I integrate all that I have gathered and craft it into a message. That’s the most basic way I can explain how to do that.
Here are some videos I’ve created about this process:

How To Study The Bible (Part 1)  
How To Study The Bible (Part 2)  
How To Study The Bible (Part 3)  

​If drunkenness is a sin, why did Jesus make so much wine at His first miracle, knowing that people were going to get drunk?

If drunkenness is a sin, why would Jesus make so much wine at his first miracle, knowing that people were going to get drunk? As a former alcoholic this drives me crazy.

Good question. Jesus made a lot of wine. But what was done with the wine? Well, first of all, please remember this was a wedding, and there were a lot of guests. A lot of wine, but a lot of guests. Secondly, the celebration of the wedding would continue for quite a long time. There were a lot of people to spread the wine out over a long period of time, so that nobody would necessarily get drunk or inebriated by that.
Thirdly, some commentators believe that there was plenty of wine left over which the wedding couple later sold, so it could be viewed as a wedding gift from Jesus to the bridal couple. It good wine, and they could sell it later if there was some left over. Nowhere in John 2 does it mention that they drank all that wine at the wedding party. So, it may very well be that there was wine left over which was sold for the benefit of the bridal couple.

I love it when people ask questions like, “Why did this happen? What did they do with this?” So, I’d give you those reasons. First of all, there was not drunkenness at that wedding party because Jesus was there and was supervising things. There were a lot of guests to spread the wine out, there was a lot of time in which to drink the wine, and there’s nothing in the text that says they drank it all at the wedding.

​When leaving a compromised church, should you tell the leadership why you’re leaving?

Would you leave a church before addressing the issues of not screening the leaders, keeping quiet on issues of homosexuality, and having guest pastors that have been known of false teaching, in order to fit into the world?

All I can give you is a general answer because individual situations so often vary. Generally, a person should leave such a church and let the leadership know why. If you are leaving a church because you think that church is in compromise, doctrinally, ethically, or morally, and the compromise is so significant that you should leave, then I think it’s fair for you to let the church know. This can be done in a letter or an email. Of course, you should think it through very carefully.

You should also assume that your email will be shared with other people. Don’t presume on the confidentiality of the leadership. They may feel free to let other people see it. You want to be careful how you phrase things. You want it to be true, accurate, and reflective not only of the truth but of your heart.

Generally speaking, yes, you should let them know that you’re leaving and why. You should say, “Dear Pastor, even though we’ve received some benefit for your church, we’re leaving the church. The reason why is because we believe that you’re in compromise on these specific issues.” I think that’s entirely fair. I would do that. I could also conceive of situations in which that isn’t the right thing to do. So, I’m not giving that as an absolute principle, but in general, I think that’s how it should be done.

​How would you handle a friend leaving a church because it doesn’t affirm LGBTQ?

I know a believer looking for church who said she left hers since “it would not have LGBTQ in the church” – I spoke about love, and the importance of not changing the Bible, but that we must not affirm open sin. How would you handle it?

Churches should not be affirming of sinful lifestyles, period. According to the Bible, to practice homosexuality is to practice a sinful lifestyle. If Christians or a church are saying that’s fine and great, they are in error. If this person is looking for a church which will affirm those things, then they’re looking for a church that will affirm sinful conduct. How else do you say it other than that’s bad? This person has a wrong understanding of what they should look for in a church.

You said the right things, that of course we should love but we cannot affirm open sin. Listen, the Bible says that for a man to lie with a man as he would lie with a woman is an abomination. If people can look at something which God calls an abomination, and say that it’s awesome, there’s something wrong. And look, I don’t want to hear someone argue that eating shellfish is also an abomination. That’s a different context entirely. You’re just telling me that you don’t understand the Bible. The conduct of homosexuality is clearly called an abomination and is rejected in both the Old and New Testaments. Period.

But that does not mean we hate the people who practice it. No, not at all. Jesus Christ loves sinners, and calls all to repentance. But for a church to take something that God calls an abomination, and to call it awesome, is not a good place for any church. They’re forfeiting their responsibility as communicators of God’s word and the good news.

Why was Miriam the only one punished with leprosy, when both she and Aaron spoke against Moses marrying the Ethiopian woman? (Numbers 12)

Hello Pastor David – why was Miriam the only one punished with leprosy, when both she and Aaron spoke against Moses marrying the Ethiopian woman?

Good question. I think I discussed that in my commentary. I would give two suggestions.

Number one, this may suggest that Miriam was the leader in this opposition and maybe Aaron played a minor role. That’s one suggestion. The other suggestion is that God spared Aaron because of his role as High Priest. God didn’t want to disqualify Aaron from the priesthood at that time and place. Although Aaron was disciplined, it was not in the same way as Miriam was disciplined.

I think both of those could have been true. Perhaps Miriam was really the ringleader, and she took a leading place in that sin. Or perhaps Aaron’s status as High Priest created a different dynamic, and that’s why God didn’t afflict him with leprosy.

Did Moses go to heaven?

In a recent question on the website Quora, it was said that Moses did not or will not go to heaven – could you clarify this for me?

Moses was unique in that he died and that the Lord buried him on Mount Moab. It is reported later on in Jude that there was some dispute over his body. It’s a little bit mysterious. We don’t have all the information we wish we had on that. But I would very much say that Moses did go to heaven, as is evident from the fact that later on he appears on the Mount of Transfiguration with Jesus. Moses seems to have had a blessed existence in the afterlife, indicated by the fact that he appears with Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration, which is very clearly as reported in all four Gospels. I would say that the person on Quora is wrong on this point. Sometimes people who speak on the Internet are wrong.

God told Noah to build an Ark for himself and his family. Were other people invited?

God told Noah to build an Ark for himself and his family. It’s like other people were not included. So, were other people not supposed or allowed to enter, or did they refuse or decline to enter, as many preachers say?

Noah and the Ark are mentioned in the book of Genesis and in 1-2 Peter. Peter mentions that the world was condemned, because they didn’t want the rescue which was offered to them. They didn’t avail themselves to receive the offer. So, I would say it was because they didn’t want to. Maybe once the rain started falling and the water started rising, they wanted to get on the ark, but by then it was too late.

The Bible nowhere gives the idea that people were trying to swim to the Ark to be rescued or bang on the door for help. Preachers sometimes speculate about that, but the Bible does not speak about it.

I think it’s entirely possible that people just thought Noah was a fool, and they had no space for what he did. It speaks to the corruption of the earth, that they rejected this rescue. I think that anybody who was truly repentant, believing in the coming judgment, and wanting to be rescued, could have been rescued along with Noah, but no one was. They rejected God’s salvation. That’s why God started humanity basically all over again, with Noah and his family.

The Kingdom of Heaven and the Kingdom of God

TR31K asks:

When Christ refers to “Kingdom of Heaven” and the “Kingdom of God” in Matthew 5 and Luke 17:21, is He referring to a future kingdom on earth, or a figurative meaning? How do I know when to interpret these literally?

Matthew 3:5

Blessed are the poor in spirit,
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 5:10

Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake,
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 5:19

Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

In the New Testament, the phrase kingdom of heaven only occurs in Matthew. It seems that sometimes Matthew uses kingdom of heaven as a replacement for the phrase kingdom of God.

For example, Matthew 3:5 has:

Blessed are the poor in spirit,
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

A similar statement Jesus made is recorded in Luke 6:20:

Luke 6:20

Blessed are you poor,
For yours is the kingdom of God.

To substitute “heaven” instead of saying “God” was common among some Jews, who still today look for words to replace “God” so as to not say the word directly. Matthew’s use of kingdom of heaven seems to be this indirect way of referring to God, appropriate for a gospel written to a mainly Jewish audience.

However, it is interesting to see that Matthew – even though he is the only one to use the phrase kingdom of heaven in the New Testament and uses it 33 times – also uses the phrase kingdom of God five times.

For example, in the same Sermon on the Mount that uses the phrase kingdom of heaven five times, Jesus also referred to the kingdom of God:

Matthew 6:33

But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you.

I don’t know exactly what to make of that, other than to say that while Matthew mainly referred to the kingdom of Jesus as thekingdom of heaven, there were occasions where he referred to it as the kingdom of God, as the other gospel writers did.

What is the Kingdom of God?

Jesus Christ is a King; He is the King of Kings. The kingdom of God is where the reign of Jesus Christ is recognized and submitted to, and the benefits of His reign are received.

The kingdom of God is both spiritual and material. There is a spiritual aspect to the kingdom of Jesus Christ, and there is a material aspect. Churches are, or should be, “outposts” or “embassies” of the kingdom of God.

The kingdom of God is already present, and it is also coming. It is present now among God’s people, and it is to come as a material reality over all the earth.

Isaiah 11:9

For the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD
As the waters cover the sea.

Isaiah 42:4

He will not fail nor be discouraged,
Till He has established justice in the earth;
And the coastlands shall wait for His law.

Isaiah 52:10

The LORD has made bare His holy arm
In the eyes of all the nations;
And all the ends of the earth shall see
The salvation of our God.

Jeremiah 10:10

But the LORD is the true God;
He is the living God and the everlasting King.
At His wrath the earth will tremble,
And the nations will not be able to endure His indignation.

Jeremiah 23:5

“Behold, the days are coming,” says the LORD,
“That I will raise to David a Branch of righteousness;
A King shall reign and prosper,
And execute judgment and righteousness in the earth.

Christians have come to have different approaches to the ultimate establishment of the kingdom of God. To give broad, imprecise definitions:

Some believe the kingdom of God, in its ultimate sense, is already among us.

Some believe the kingdom of God, in its ultimate sense, will be established through God’s people, before the glorious second coming of Jesus Christ.

Some believe the kingdom of God, in its ultimate sense, will be established by Jesus Himself, after His glorious second coming.

But the emphasis is on the word ultimate – it doesn’t deny that the kingdom of God is among us in a real, not a figurative sense – but it is a spiritual sense among God’s people. The more influence God’s people have in any particular city, state, or nation, the more that city, state, or nation should look like the ultimate kingdom of God.

TR31K also asked about Luke 17:20-21:

Luke 17:20-21

Now when He was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, He answered them and said, “The kingdom of God does not come with observation; nor will they say, ‘See here!’ or ‘See there!’ For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you.”

1. [20] When He was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come: We may just imagine a hostile Pharisee coming to Jesus and demanding Him to either “put up” and produce the Kingdom of the Messiah, or to “shut up” and stop claiming He was the Messiah.

In Jesus’ day, just like our own, people longed for the coming of the Messiah. They knew the prophesies in the Old Testament which spoke of the glory of the coming Messiah; they wanted that kind of life and earth now.

1. [20] The kingdom of God does not come with observation: Jesus made it clear to the Pharisee asking the question that the kingdom of God won’t be found through a hostile questioning of Jesus. The ancient Greek word translated observation is better-translated, hostile examination. Jesus told the Pharisees that their hostile, doubting eyes were unable to see or receive the kingdom of God.
2. According to Geldenhuys, the verb from which the word observation comes from is used often in the New Testament and in the Septuagint; it means “hostile observation.”
3. [21] For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you: Jesus told them that the kingdom was right in their midst. Within youcould be better translated in your midst or among you. The kingdom of God was among them because the King was among them.

This was not a mystical revelation by Jesus that in some seed form, the Kingdom of God is within everyone in a New Age sense. After all, Jesus would not have told Pharisees that the kingdom of God was within them. The statement of Jesus called attention to Himself, not to man.

Like many today, the Pharisees said they wanted the Kingdom of God to come; but you can’t want the Kingdom and reject the King. “The Pharisees asked Him when the Kingdom of God would appear, while it was right in their midst because the King Himself was there.” (Morgan)

New Living Translation, Luke 17:20-21

“The Kingdom of God can’t be detected by visible signs. You won’t be able to say, ‘Here it is!’ or ‘It’s over there!’ For the Kingdom of God is already among you.”

ESV, Luke 17:20-21

“The kingdom of God is not coming in ways that can be observed, nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you.”

We read about prayer and fasting both in the OT and NT. What is the spiritual significance of fasting, and how do they (prayer and fasting) work together?

Every time we talk about fasting, I like to recommend the book by my father-in-law, Dedication through Fasting and Prayer by Nils-Erik Bergström. Take a look at this book to get a great explanation.

One of the central ideas of fasting can be expressed by something Jesus said in response to Satan, when He was being tempted in the wilderness. Jesus said, “Man does not live by bread alone.” Fasting recognizes that our lives depend on more than just the food we eat. When we’re hungry, we want food, but there are greater things for us to pursue than our bodily appetites. And any kind of bodily appetite could fit into that category.

Another great benefit from fasting is the practice of self-denial. Look, it’s possible for people to go in a weird direction with self-denial. You read about monks of old, and maybe some people still do this, who were sleeping on sharp objects or on cold floors, keeping themself up watches through the night with ice baths, and so on. So, it’s possible to abuse just about anything. But that does not mean there’s not an entirely appropriate and godly place for self-denial and being able to tell the flesh, “You’re not in charge; God is in charge.” That’s what the practice of fasting does.

Prayer is a way of seeking God and appealing to Him, and fasting is a way in which we prioritize God and align ourselves with His heart and His purpose. Prayer should have God as the priority. Fasting is a way to exercise that, and to say, “God is in fact my priority.”

How would you define a cult? Is the Seventh Day Adventist church a cult?

What is your definition of the word cult? What criteria must be met in order to be a cult? Do you believe that the Seventh Day Adventist church is a cult? Why or why not, in your view?

I love this question because it addresses a serious issue. Christians all the time say “cult” this or “cult” that. But unless we define what we mean by something being a cult, then we can’t come to agreement on things.

First, there is an academic definition of cult, which is basically any religious practice. An academic may look at the customs of ancient Judaism and talk about “the cult of Moses” being instituted, or something like that. Most people don’t use the term in that sense, but we should be aware that that academic sense of the term cult is out there.

Secondly, when I use the definition of a cult, I don’t mean a group that’s just wrong about something. I would make my definition of cult in the same way I make my definition of heresy. I reserve the term heresy for this: if you believe it or if you believe what these people teach, you are going to hell; you won’t go to heaven. You’re in such denial of the biblical truth of who God is and what He did to rescue us, that you are in very real peril of not going to heaven at all. You’re not in right relationship with God. I would put cult in the same category. So, there’s the academic sense of the word, as well as the popular sense of it.

When I use the term cult, I’m using it for things that are outside the realm of biblical Christianity. But there is also a way to speak about a cult in a sociological or cultural sense. In other words, there are Christian groups that have pretty good doctrine, but their social environment is cultish. The way they treat one another, the way the leadership works, and the way that the members or followers respond to the leadership correspond to the social aspects of a cult.

There are also theological cults. I do not believe that the Seventh Day Adventist Church qualifies as a cult. Even though I believe there are some significant errors in their doctrines, I would not say that believing what most Seventh Day Adventist pastors and churches teach will render it impossible for you to come in right relationship with God, or that you won’t go to heaven. I would not put Seventh Day Adventist into that category. Just like in any group, there’s no doubt a radical fringe among Seventh Day Adventist groups who probably are a cult. But my general interactions with Seventh Day Adventists would not lead me to conclude that, broadly speaking, they’re a cult.

I would like your view on 1 Timothy 3. What are the various offices outlined, and how do they translate to today’s church? Is there an office in the church hierarchy that’s appropriate for a woman to hold?

I know it’s possible for us to get super diplomatic and try to smooth over any differences that Christians may have in these areas. But you’re asking me this question, so I’m going to give my answer. And I want to do you the honor of speaking to you directly.

1 Timothy 3 deals with overseers and deacons. The Bible speaks of leadership in the church in three offices: overseers, elders, and pastors. There is an overlap between these different offices. In some sense, they seem to be combined in one role, describing different functions, but in other senses, it seems to imply some variation.

For example, Paul will refer to elders who teach, implying that not all elders teach or handle the word of God. Nevertheless, they are leaders in the congregation, recognized in their leadership as elders, and they have oversight of the congregation as bishops. The third word pastor is used less frequently in the New Testament, but it’s there. It refers to one having a shepherding care over the congregation. I believe that those offices are reserved for qualified men in a congregation. It’s not just men, as if any man can hold these offices. No, not at all. But qualified men can hold these offices of bishop, overseer, elder, and pastor among God’s churches.

I don’t believe that the Bible commands any particular form or structure of church government. I think that’s why we’ve seen different forms and structures of church government throughout the history of the church. There are three classical forms of church government. There’s the episcopal, which puts the authority mostly in a singular leader of the church. Some people could refer to today as the pastoral leadership model. Then there’s the presbyterian or the elder-led model, where the church is led by a team of people who have equal authority and leadership. The third model would be congregational, where the church is led by vote of the congregation.

I believe you can find at least some biblical precedent for every one of these. And I think God did that deliberately. The important thing in church leadership is not fundamentally structure. I’m not saying structure doesn’t matter. But fundamentally, the most important thing in church leadership is character. Any structure of church government, whether episcopal (pastor-led), presbyterian (elder-led), or congregational, can work if the people in those systems are people of godly character. Godliness is more important than the structure. That’s what the New Testament emphasizes.

Is there an office in the church hierarchy that’s appropriate for a woman to hold? I’m going to answer very literally, based on the way you answer that question. Is there an office in the church hierarchy that’s appropriate for women to hold? No, I don’t think so. I don’t think women should hold the offices of overseer, elder, or pastor. Those are offices that God is reserved for qualified men. Friends, if this outrages you, I recommend to you two videos that are in our YouTube library. One is where I teach very carefully through this passage in 1 Timothy 2. (Video: Men and Women in the Church: 1 Timothy 2:8-15). This is an important passage in the New Testament that speaks of this order which God has established for the church. I would also recommend another video on our YouTube channel, Video: A Word to Women Pastors. Check those out if you want to go any deeper on this topic.

Overseer, elder, pastor are offices of authority, which implies some kind of hierarchy. But I do believe there is an office open to women, which is the office of deacon. I believe that the New Testament establishes that there were women or female deacons in the New Testament church. We certainly know that they existed in the early church. But deacon is not fundamentally an office of authority. Is there some authority with it? Well, yes, some. But it’s not in the hierarchy, so to speak. It’s an office, but is focused on service, not on leadership, oversight, or leading or ruling a congregation, as an elder would do.

You asked, “Is there an office in the church hierarchy that’s appropriate for women?” I would say no. Is there an office in church ministry that’s appropriate for women? Absolutely. I would say the office of deacon is open for women.

I don’t know if my answer pleases you or displeases you. That’s not my responsibility. I just want you to know that I’m trying to do you the respect of speaking to you directly on this. If you want more information on those things, I really recommend to you those videos in my YouTube channel which are linked above.

My pastor said we don’t need to confess our sins because they are all forgiven. Is this true?

My Pastor said we don’t need to confess our sins because they are all forgiven. Is this true? I think this is dangerous to say.

I don’t want to undermine the authority of pastors. If your pastor was here in the room with me, and we could discuss this, maybe it would come across a little differently. But based on what you wrote, I would disagree. I would say no, that’s wrong. Here’s an important passage on the topic:

1 John 1:8-10 – If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us.

I’m sure you’re in the same place that I am. I want His word to be in me. John makes it very plain throughout the context of 1 John, that this epistle was written to believers, not unbelievers. 1 John was not written as an evangelistic tract. It’s written to believers about how they can live in true fellowship with God. In 1 John 1:9, we see very plainly that believers should be confessing their sin. There is also the instruction in James 5:16 to, “Confess your sins to one another, and be healed.” So, I would disagree with your pastor.

The point is that we don’t have to confess a sin specifically for it to be covered by the blood of Jesus, because there’s no way that you or I or anybody else could confess every single sin we’ve ever committed. I don’t think we could confess every single sin we commit in a single day, much less our whole life. The idea is not that we need to confess every single sin we’ve ever committed. What John and James are getting at is that we should confess our sins as we become aware that they are interfering with our fellowship with God. That gives us a great reason to confess our sin and to come into a place of restored fellowship. It is possible for a person to be born again and be on their way to heaven, and yet for a season, their fellowship with God is not what it should be. That’s what 1 John was really written to address.

Maybe your pastor is thinking more strictly in terms of salvation. But salvation is not the only issue here. Christians aren’t only concerned with “How do I get to heaven?” They’re concerned with “How do I honor God as a disciple of Jesus Christ?” Part of that includes confessing our sin and keeping ourselves in right relationship with God.

How was Jesus tempted if God cannot be tempted? (James 1:13, Matthew 4:1)

James 1:13 says God can’t be tempted, and Matthew 4:1 says Jesus was led by the Spirit to be tempted. Help!

James 1:13 – Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone.

Matthew 4:1 – Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.

Here’s the simple answer. Jesus was God, but He was also human. It was the humanity of Jesus that was tempted, not His divinity. It’s possible for a person to drive such a division between the humanity and the deity of Jesus, that they’re trying to claim He was two people. But He wasn’t two people; He was one person. There was nothing in the deity of Jesus that could be tempted at all. But Jesus was not only divine. He was also human. In a very basic sense, I would say that Jesus was tempted in His humanity, not in His deity.

Should we call out the church for not living by Scripture (sins of omission)?

Should we be able to call out the church for not living by Scripture? In other words, having the ability to help, not just say “I’ll pray for you.” Could unwillingness to do this be a sin of commission, or would that be omission?

If a person has the opportunity to do good but doesn’t do it, that’s a sin of omission. If a person is obligated to do good and doesn’t do it, that would be more a sin of commission, mingled with a bit of omission. You seem to be referring to a specific situation which would require a lot more information for me to give an adequate answer.

Should we call out the church for not living biblically? Where a church fails scripturally, it’s fair enough to point it out. But we must understand and accept that it may also be happening in our personal lives, too. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus told us very specifically that we should never judge anyone else by a standard that we would not want to be judged by, because God will judge us by the same standard by which we judge others.

The biggest problem is when people are very hard on others and very easy on themselves. They’re full of understanding and accommodation and appreciation when it comes to themselves and their own sins and failings, but they tend to be very harsh and dogmatic and “by the book” when it comes to the sins of other people. We can obviously see that’s a problem. But is it possible and sometimes appropriate for a believer to call out the church for not living by Scripture? Absolutely, it is.

You also asked about having the ability to help, but only saying, “I’ll pray for you.” That very well could be a sin. But the Bible is clear that financial support given by the church needs to be given out judiciously. It’s absolutely fair to examine the life, morality, and conduct of those whom the church would support on a regular basis. I have no idea whether the situation you refer to falls into those categories. In principle, what you’re talking about is true. But how those principles get applied depends on the situation.

Will a miscarried child go to heaven?

When a pregnancy ends very early on day 12 weeks, is it correct to say that the child is in heaven? I don’t know why, but for some reason I have difficulty answering that question.

In the Bible, we read that David’s newborn son died, and that David was confident he would see that child in heaven. I do believe that children who die by miscarriage, in infancy, or in early childhood up to an age of accountability go to heaven, but not because they are innocent. That’s the important thing to recognize. No, we are born guilty in Adam’s sin. The goodness of God’s grace which gave David the ability to confidently say that he would see his newborn who died in heaven is not on the basis of the newborn being innocent. It’s on the basis of the greatness of God’s mercy, and also that the person never made a conscious rejection of God and His saving work for them. They don’t go to heaven because they are innocent, but rather because of the greatness and the mercy of God.

I’ll say one more thing. We have a greater assurance of this for believers than we do for non-believers. I could not confidently tell someone who has not believed in God, and who is not part of God’s family, that they’ll see their baby in heaven. I could say it confidently to a believer, but I could only say it hopefully to an unbeliever. But I could confidently say, based on what Paul writes by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in 1 Corinthians 7:14, that the children are sanctified by a believing parent.

Should we take 1 Corinthians 14:34 literally, that “women are not to speak in the church”?

1 Corinthians 14:34 say “for women are not to speak in the church.” Isn’t this speaking to the church in Corinth, such that it isn’t meant to be read literally by us these days?

Read my commentary on 1 Corinthians 14 here.

I think that this passage is best seen as Paul speaking to women that, because they’re not part of the leadership of the church, they should be silent when it comes to judging prophecy in their midst. That’s the context of 1 Corinthians 14. I do not believe that 1 Corinthians 14 was a prohibition of women speaking in the church at all. Can you imagine a greeting time in the church? “I’m sorry, I can’t speak. I’m not supposed to say anything at church.” That’s not the idea.

If you look at the context in 1 Corinthians 14, it’s clear that women should be silent when it comes to the judging of prophecy. Interestingly, Paul made the allowance that if prophetic gifts were exercised at a house meeting, women could exercise those gifts, but they could not be part of the judging of the prophecy, because that’s for something for God to do through His appointed offices of bishop or overseer, elder, and pastor.

Could you please explain Mark 16:18? Was snake handling only for people in biblical times?

Could you please explain Mark 16:18? I know many churches in the South use snake handling as part of their worship, was this message/provision only for people back in biblical times?

Mark 16:17-18 – “And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues; they will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.”

No, I believe that the sense of this verse is valid for today. I’m going to leave aside the textual question of whether or not those verses belong in the New Testament.

We see a fulfillment of this principle in Acts 28. This happened within the context of Paul doing his apostolic, evangelistic church planting work. Paul ends up on the island of Malta and gets bitten by a snake, but he shakes it off and is not affected, even though it was a dangerous viper. God was saying, “I will give a supernatural protection to those who are out on the frontlines spreading the gospel.” Now, it’s not that no harm could ever come to them, because history shows there have been martyrs for the gospel. Many missionary graveyards around the world are filled with people who have laid down their lives for the sake of the gospel.

In Mark 16:18, God was saying, “I’m going to bless and give some measure of protection to those who are out on the frontlines spreading the gospel.” I think we see the fulfillment of that principle with what happened in Acts 28, and continuing on in church history. Check out my commentary on Mark 16.

What should we bind and loose on Earth or in Heaven?

Diana asked:

Are there other ways to use “Binding and Loosing” than solving disputes, as in Matt 18:18? I know someone who is Word of Faith, and she is daily “binding” the devil over every negative circumstance.

Your friend is misguided, or perhaps mis-taught. We don’t have some broad authority to “bind” the devil as we please.

Looking at the Matthew 18 passage:

Matthew 18:15-18

“Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’ And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.

“Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

[18] Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven: If the process Jesus described in Matthew 18:15-17 is done humbly and according to the word, this is quite binding in the eyes of God, even if the unrepentant ones just go to another church or go their own way.

Matthew 18:18 is limited in it its scope – dealing with a sinning brother among the community of believers. It isn’t a broad, “whatever you bind is bound” kind of authority. It’s a promise that God will “back up” church leaders and His people in general when the practice church discipline according to His word.

This is not some general authority for believers to bind Satan.

Here’s another important passage relevant to the biblical idea of binding and loosing:

Matthew 16:17-19

Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

1. [19] And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven: This idea of Peter holding the keys of the kingdom of heavenhas captured the imagination (and theology) of many Christians throughout the century. In artistic representation, Peter is almost always shown with keys. But what does it mean that Peter has these keys of the kingdom of heaven?
2. Some people think that this means that Peter has the authority to admit people to heaven, or to keep people out of heaven. This is the basis for the popular image of Peter at the Pearly Gates of Heaven.
3. Some people think that it also means that Peter was the first Pope, and that his supposed successors have the keys that were first given to Peter. Indeed – the Papal insignia of the Roman Catholic Church is made up of two prominent keys crossed together.

There is no doubt that Peter had a special place among all the disciples, and that he had some special privileges:

• He is always listed first in the listings of the disciples.
• He opened doors of the kingdom to the Jews in Acts 2:38-39.
• He opened doors of the kingdom to the Gentiles in Acts 10:34-44.

Yet there is no Biblical argument whatsoever that Peter’s privilege or authority was passed on. To put it one way; it is possible to say that Jesus gave Peter the keys, but Jesus didn’t give him the authority to pass them on to further generations, and there is not a whisper in the Scriptures that Peter’s authority was to be passed on.

The idea that apostolic authority comes from Jesus, who gave it to Peter, who set his hands on the heads of approved and ordained men, who in turn set their hands on the heads of approved and ordained men, and so and so on through the generations until today is nonsense. It is exactly what Spurgeon said it was: the laying of empty hands on empty heads.

Where real apostolic authority comes from, we will get to in a moment.

1. [19] And whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven: The power for binding and loosing is something that the Jewish rabbis of that day used. They bound or loosed an individual in the application of a particular point of the law. Jesus promises that Peter – and the other apostles – would be able to set the boundaries authoritatively for the New Covenant community. This was the authority given to the apostles and prophets to build a foundation (Ephesians 2:20).

Ephesians 2:20

having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone,

What did Jesus mean when He said, “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you bind in heaven will be bound on earth”? Jesus meant that God gave both the permission and the authority to the first-generation apostles to make the rules for the early church.

“Binding” and “loosing” were administrative terms in daily Jewish life; whenever a Jew came up against the Law of Moses, that Jewish person was either “bound” or “loosed” regarding that law. To loose was to permit; to bind was to prohibit. To loose was to free from the law, to bind was to put under the law.

In daily Jewish life, this could be rather complicated. Here is one example from ancient rabbinical writings, cited by Mike Russ:

• If your dog dies in your house is your house clean or unclean? Unclean.
• If your dog dies outside your house, is your house clean or unclean? Clean.
• If your dog dies on the doorstep, is your house clean or unclean? Ancient rabbinical writings took the issue on and decided that if the dog died with his nose pointing into the house the house was unclean; if the dog died with his nose pointing away from the house, the house was clean.

Jesus did this binding and loosing for His own disciples. Without using the same words, this is what Jesus did for the disciples when He allowed them to take the grains of wheat in the field (Matthew 12:1-8).

The Idea of “Binding Satan”

Jesus spoke clearly of His power to bind Satan:

Mark 3:27 (also Matthew 12:29, Luke 11:21)

No one can enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man. And then he will plunder his house.

With this Jesus answered the charge that He was in league with the Devil. He said, “I’m not under Satan. Instead, I am proving that I am stronger than he is.” In this short parable Satan is the strong man who guards what belongs to him. Jesus’ ministry was defeating this strong man, both in the case of casting the demon out of the man who was mute and in the broader sense. Jesus promised to plunder the house of Satan. Jesus looked at every life delivered from Satan’s domination and said, “I’m plundering the kingdom of Satan one life at a time.” There is nothing in our life that must stay under Satan’s domination. The one who binds the strong man and will plunder his house is our risen Lord.

• Believers do have some measure of authority in spiritual warfare, but it is all authority that is won in Jesus Christ and received in Him.
• It isn’t direct authority, but indirect authority.
• There is no indication that believers have the authority, power, or ability to “bind Satan” as they please.
• 1 Peter 5:8 warns believers to be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour. In this age, Satan walks about – and we don’t have the power to universally bind Satan.
• We can and should pray for Satan’s influence and power to be defeated in particular situations, waging spiritual warfare in the power and authority of Jesus, not ourselves.

How the Apostles Exercised the Authority to Bind and Loose

In John 20:23 we see that the apostles were commissioned as those who would grant repentance and forgiveness as they are preached in His name: If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.This was heavy apostolic authority!

Another example of this is the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, where at the conclusion they bound and loosed the Christians who read their letter at that time regarding certain things: to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood (Acts 15:20).

Paul exercised this “binding and loosing” authority in the church (1 Corinthians 5:3-5; 2 Corinthians 2:10-11).

To sum up, we see that the concepts of binding and loosing were familiar in 1^st Century Judaism, principles that applied to the leadership of the early church.

The same way the rabbis had administrative and spiritual control over the Jewish community, the apostles had administrative and spiritual control over the Christian community, the Church. The Apostles were the new rabbis.

What Conclusions Do We Draw from All This?

1. It affirms to us the authority of the New Testament. All the books were written by an apostle, or by someone under an apostle’s authority, a close associate of the apostles. That is why when the apostles died, there were no more books of the New Testament being written
2. If this full authority of binding and loosing was reserved for the apostles, then it is no longer active today. Instead, the work of binding and loosing happens by the Spirit of God as He speaks to each individual heart.

This was Paul’s exact point in Romans 14:14-23 and 1 Corinthians 8, where he applied it to what we eat and drink as Christians. One Christian’s conscience may bind him regarding something he eats or drinks, and the conscience of another Christian may be loosed regarding the same things.

3. It reminds us that no Christian today – no matter how used of God they might be – has authority over the conscience of another believer. Even Paul – who at times showed his apostolic authority with no hesitation – at other times made it very clear that he did not want to take dominion over the faith of anyone.

An example of this is in 2 Corinthians 1:23-24: Moreover I call God as witness against my soul, that to spare you I came no more to Corinth. Not that we have dominion over your faith, but are fellow workers for your joy; for by faith you stand.

In saying, not that we have dominion over your faith Paul was careful to point out that he was no one’s lord in the church, even though he was an apostle.

It has been said that God reserves three things to Himself: first, to make something of nothing; second, to know future events; third, to have dominion over men’s consciences.

Sadly, there are far too many that are entirely willing to take dominion over other believers in a manner that Paul would not.

We should never allow someone to take dominion over our faith; the Word of God and the Spirit of God only have this dominion.

A further example of apostolic binding and loosing can be found in 1 Corinthians 5:3-5 where Paul spoke from both prophecy and apostolic authority: For I indeed, as absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged (as though I were present) him who has so done this deed. In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, along with my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

One more example of apostolic authority is found at 2 Corinthians 2:10-11, where Paul displayed it in connection with the same case. Paul is acting as the representative of Jesus, forgiving in His name: Now whom you forgive anything, I also forgive. For if indeed I have forgiven anything, I have forgiven that one for your sakes in the presence of Christ, lest Satan should take advantage of us; for we are not ignorant of his devices.

How do we respond to someone who bases their faith upon making a “deal with God”?

When someone says they made a “deal with God” and their ‘request came true’, they now think that’s how we believe God is real! If it hadn’t, God is not real. How do we respond?

God does not authorize us to make our own deal with Him. God has made a deal with humanity through the good news, the gospel of Jesus Christ, where He offers humanity that deal of the New Covenant. The new covenant is God’s deal for humanity. He offers us the new covenant. He tells us in Old Testament passages concerning the New Covenant, “I will completely forgive you of your sins. I will cleanse you of your sins. I will give you a new heart, a heart made of flesh instead of a heart of stone. I will write My law upon your heart. I will enter into close and meaningful relationship with you, and I will fulfill you with My Spirit.” These aspects of the New Covenant are described very clearly in the Old Testament.

God tells us to repent and believe. To believe means to put your trust in who Jesus is and what He did to rescue us, especially what He did at the cross, being a substitute for our sins, and in His resurrection, triumphing over sin and death. That’s the deal God offers to humanity. Repent, believe, and receive the benefits of the New Covenant.

If somebody thinks they can stand by and make their own deal with God, they have no authority to do so. And God is under no obligation to answer that person’s desire or request. But you know what? Sometimes unbelievers pray crazy prayers which they have no business praying, and God in His mercy answers them. Understand that. Somebody might pray to God and say, ‘Lord, I’m making this deal with You; if you’ll do this, I’ll believe You.” And if God answers, that’s up to God to do. But if we’re talking about something we can confidently believe and receive from the Lord, that’s not it.

The deal God makes with humanity is in the New Covenant. We can repent and believe. We can accept it or reject it. But God is not obligated to honor any kind of deal that we say we’re going to make with Him. Nevertheless, for His own purposes and His own glory, God is very merciful to people and sometimes He may answer their request.

God has every right to say, “You want to make a deal with Me? I made a deal with you in the New Covenant. Go find your own deal. I’ll just destroy you.” I mean, God has the right to do that. It’s a very arrogant thing for humanity to come to God and say, “I’m going to make my own deal with God.” But again, God is so long suffering and so rich in mercy that sometimes He does answer them, although He’s under no obligation to do so. He sometimes does accommodate people who say, “I’m making my own deal with God.” And if He does, it’s up to them whether they’re going to use it for God’s glory or otherwise.

Why did God tell Hosea to marry a prostitute? Was this an allegory?

Why did God command Hosea to marry a prostitute and have children with her, knowing she would be unfaithful due to her “profession”? Did God use this as an allegory? It seems like sin.

Yes. God very specifically used it as an allegory in Hosea’s life. This would never be a course of action that we would recommend to somebody. We would never say, “Hey, look, it’s in the Bible, Hosea married a prostitute.” You should do not, and we would never recommend that.

But let’s also recognize that, to my knowledge, the Bible doesn’t say it is a sin to marry a prostitute. If anything, it might be a sin against wisdom to marry a prostitute, especially one who might be prone to return to her profession of prostitution as Hosea’s wife Gomer did. I wouldn’t say that it’s a sin, but it may be a sin against wisdom. But you’re exactly right. God allowed and even directed Hosea to do this in order to be a powerful prophetic illustration. The pain which Hosea obviously endured in this situation was an example and representation of God’s own pain and difficulty in dealing with Israel. Spiritually speaking, at this time, the nation of Israel was acting like a prostitute in their relationship with Yahweh, the covenant God of Israel.

​What about binding demons in Jesus’ name?

I think that the believer has directed, pointed ability to do that in specific situations. But we don’t have the ability to universally bind demons. If we did, why not just say, “Lord, I bind every demon for the rest of my life, so I can never be tempted or assaulted or deceived by a demon”? We don’t have that kind of authority.

But I believe we do have that authority in specific situations of spiritual warfare. Many parents really begin to encounter some spiritual warfare as they raise their children and grandchildren, so they pray, “Lord, whatever strategies that Satan and his agents may have against my child or grandchild, I pray that in the name of Jesus those strategies would be defeated, and Satan would be bound.”

There is a way to pray that understands how these things work in the realm of the spirit, and on the other hand there is a way that seems to think that we as believers have magical power, as if we could just throw out some pixie dust. Let me be honest with you. For some Christians, or at least claimed Christians, the name of Jesus is like magic dust that they throw out. They think that if they just say the name of Jesus, they will get whatever they want.

Friends, if you were to say, “I want Satan and all of his demonic spirits bound from the world in Jesus’ name,” that’s not going to happen, because God has not directed it to happen. In this period of time, God has ordained that the devil would walk about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he made devour. Ultimately, that is going to serve God’s purpose, no doubt about it. But now we are in a season when God has ordained that Satan would be active on the earth. Later on, Satan will be bound. The book of Revelation is very clear that not only will he be bound, but he will be unable to impact humanity in the slightest way, because he will be bound and imprisoned (see Revelation 20).

​How can the church help build a desire for God’s word?

How can the church help build the desire for the Word like Peter said a believer should have? It seems many are just getting the fire insurance and moving on.

Let me be straightforward with you. First of all, the church builds the desire for the word by preaching and teaching God’s word. It’s funny thing. When people are starved for God’s word, they will sometimes lose their appetite for it. But when they receive it, they develop a hunger for it again. We need to receive good preaching and teaching from God’s word, verse by verse, chapter by chapter, book by book, Old Testament as well as New Testament.

Friends, I’m a little wary of ministries that only teach the New Testament and virtually ignore the Old Testament. I don’t understand it, I don’t get it. I don’t know why some ministries virtually ignore speaking about the Old Testament, and refuse to do careful, quality, verse-by verse exposition through the Old Testament, but this is what we need. We need the whole Bible for a whole Christian life. And the more we get of that, the more we will hunger for it.

You also mention the idea that many people are just getting “fire insurance.” We need to realize that a lot of people are believers in name only. They call themselves Christians. They may attend church every once in a while, or even regularly, but they’re not real believers. They don’t live their life for Jesus Christ in any meaningful way. They don’t do what the word believe means, in the language of the New Testament means. To believe means to trust in, rely on and cling to.

We might ask a person, “Do you believe Jesus lived and taught and died and rose again?” They might respond, “Yeah, I believe all that.” But do they trust in it? Do they rely on it? Do they cling to it in any meaningful way? The teaching the Bible drives away some nominal believers; not all, but some. And if that’s the way it is, that’s the way it is.

Do we bind Satan in Jesus’ name or ask God/Jesus to bind Satan?

Good question. I think the heart is much more meaningful in this than the formulation of words. Let’s always remember that we are not casting spells, where the formulation of the words is all-essential for it to work. It’s much more of a matter of the heart. In other words, what are you trusting? I could say all the right words, but if I’m trusting in myself and in my own power, it’s no good before God. On the other hand, I could say words that aren’t phrased in the best way, but if I’m truly putting my trust in Jesus Christ and His authority and His work, God can honor that, and He often does.

So, do we bind Satan in Jesus’ name or ask God or Jesus to bind him? I would say either one can be fine, as long as it is understood that we don’t do it in our own authority. We do it only by delegated authority.

Don’t think for a moment that the believer has no authority. Believers have great authority, but all of that authority is in Jesus Christ. It’s not in the believers themselves. It’s delegated authority from Jesus Christ. And if saying in Jesus’ name helps that person to remember that, then that’s good. Don’t ever forget that when Michael the archangel rebuked Satan in the book of Jude, he said, “The Lord rebuke you.” He did it in the name of the Lord, in Yahweh’s name, and Jesus is Yahweh.

Again, in this situation, the heart is more important than the specific words.

Can spiritual uncleanliness be a generational curse?

Your question is more complicated than it immediately seems. But let me explain a few things.

First, there is, in a sense, a generational curse on all of humanity. Every one of us inherited a sin nature from our first parents, Adam and Eve. That’s what Romans 5-6 means when it says that we are born in Adam, and that we are represented by Adam. In a sense, every person ever born – with the exception of the virgin-born Jesus Christ – has inherited spiritual uncleanliness. But we need to be very careful with the idea of a generational curse, that someone is bound by a particular curse.

Now, I don’t doubt at all that the sins of the fathers can be visited upon their descendants. We see this pattern in Scripture. It can happen that, because of the environment, the example, or the culture around them, children repeat the sins of their fathers. Oftentimes, granddad was a drunkard, daddy was a drunkard, and the sons are drunkards. It can happen that way. Although it may certainly function as a generational curse in that matter, I don’t believe that people are born cursed in this way, beyond the general curse that we receive from Adam himself.

Biblically, spiritual uncleanness is a ceremonial idea in the Old Testament, under the Old Covenant. In a New Testament context, spiritual uncleanness has to do more with the sins that a person practices. When the Bible says to put away all uncleanness, it’s talking about specific sins. It’s not talking about the ritual things under the Old Covenant that would make someone unclean.

So, if you’re talking about the sins of the fathers being passed on to generations following them, that happens, but I don’t think it’s by any sort of magical curse. I think it happens through example and environment. As far as ritual uncleanness, we’re not under that.

What does Jesus mean by “resist not evil” in Matthew 5:39? Does this extend to providing safety for your family or protecting others in danger?

What does Jesus mean by “resist not evil” in Matthew 5:39? Does this extend to providing safety for your family, like it’s mentioned in 1 Timothy 5:8, or protecting others in danger?

Matthew 5:39 – But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.

No, I would say that it does not extend to that. I believe that Jesus and the Bible consistently give people the right to defend themselves and to defend their families from physical violence. In Matthew 5, in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus talks about the insults and evil received by His people from those who would resist or oppose them. He wasn’t talking about the context of physical violence, even when He said that someone would strike you on your cheek. In that day, that action was understood as being an insult. Sometimes in cartoons we see somebody take a glove off their hand and slap a person in the face. It’s not really meant to be a physical assault. It’s more of an insult to the person.

That’s the same connotation Jesus spoke about in the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus didn’t say, “If somebody hits you with a baseball bat, let them keep hitting you, because that will bring Me glory.” No. The Bible itself promotes the idea that people can and should defend themselves from physical violence, and they should defend their families. I want you to think about some of those. Look it up for yourself in a concordance, by searching for the word sword. In the Gospels, at least some of the time, the disciples of Jesus carried swords with them for self-defense.

But friends, it is indisputable that the sword was never to be the method by which the gospel was advanced. The sword was not to be the means by which the Church increased its influence. God forbid. But Jesus and His disciples referred to their being in possession of a sword. It seems that Peter had a sword in the Garden of Gethsemane. This was for self-defense. In today’s context, this would be like somebody being armed. There were a lot of bandits and a lot of bad people around. And Jesus countenanced His disciples properly defending themselves, even though Jesus obviously could have used supernatural means to defend them.

The idea of not resisting evil through physical violence is the connotation given into it by pacifists. I don’t agree with pacifism. I understand why they make their arguments. I understand why they do what they do, and I strongly disagree with them. But that’s between them and the Lord. The Bible does give repeated occasion where it permits self-defense, including even amongst the disciples of Jesus who at times carried a sword for their defense.

​Is the saying “God helps those who help themselves” based on a biblical idea?

Can you comment on a saying that is used quite frequently amongst some Christian’s “God helps those who help themselves “? I understand that it’s not literally in the Bible, but is it figuratively scriptural?

I have a great anthology of writings by Benjamin Franklin. Benjamin Franklin was a very important person in the beginnings of the United States of America in colonial times, around the time of the American Revolution. Benjamin Franklin was never a president or even a governor, but he was a very influential man, and he was a publisher. One of the things he published was something called Poor Richard’s Almanac. As far as I know, the proverb, “God helps those who help themselves” came from Poor Richard’s Almanac, by Ben Franklin. Maybe that wasn’t the origin, but at least that’s one story that goes around.

I would say that “God helps those who help themselves” is true in a limited sphere. It is limited in the sphere of simply being able to say, “Hey, don’t be completely inactive. If you want God to move, get moving yourself. If you want God to work, get working yourself.” You can imagine somebody praying, “Oh, Lord, help me with my work. I just need Your help with this work. I need the desire to work. I need Your help to work.” In response, God might say something like, “Well, why don’t you get working, and I’ll help you help yourself, and My help will be with you.” So, there is a limited area in which that proverb is true. But let me tell you very strongly where it is not true.

It is not true as a principle of the kingdom of God. Where we are brought into right relationship, this is not the way it is. We are not brought into right relationship with God because we’ve tried our best. God does not say, “Oh, you’ve tried your best. Now let Me help you take the rest of the slack.” No, we are brought into right relationship with God completely and only by the work of Jesus, not by anything we do. It’s not by anything we’ve done in the past, anything we’re doing right now, or anything we promise to do in the future. We are not brought into right relationship with God by helping ourselves, and by God helping us with the part we can’t do. No, we are brought into right relationship with God because of what Jesus Christ has done for us, and done in us, and done through us.

In a very practical way, I would say to the student, “Get to work, God helps those who help themselves.” I would say to the person working a job, “Get to work, God helps those who help themselves.” But to the person who understands their need to be made right with God, and to walk in right relationship with God, I would say, “Stop trying to save yourself. Stop trying to help yourself. Look fully and completely to what God gives you in Jesus Christ for your help.”

​Why do I need to accept Jesus? I experience the same things that people who believe experience (good and bad). So why do I need religion?

I keep asking myself, why do I need to accept Jesus? Because in my life, I experience the same things that people who believe experience (good and bad). So why do I need religion?

Thank you for your question. Let me tell you why you need religion. Let me tell you why you need Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and He’s God the Son. Jesus said that He was the only way for people to come into right relationship with God. Jesus said, “I am the way, I am the truth, I am the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.”

I’ll be very honest with you. It wouldn’t matter if Jesus would make your life better, or if Jesus would make your life worse. The only way for you to enter into right relationship with God is through who Jesus Christ is and what Jesus Christ has done for you, especially what He did at the cross and in His resurrection.

Maybe you’re looking at purely on terms what benefits yourself. I’ll be honest with you. To become a Christian means to put your faith in Him, to trust in, rely on and cling to Jesus Christ and all of who He is, and all of what He did, according to the Bible. It means to bring the real you to the real Jesus. If you do that, in some ways your life will get better, and in some ways, it’ll probably get worse. That’s how it is. You need to understand that. You need to sober-mindedly decide if you’re going to accept or reject Jesus Christ.

But I will also tell you this, very plainly and directly. Not only does life and happiness in this life depend on putting your whole faith in Jesus Christ, but it also matters for eternity. You should do it because it’s the right thing to do, and because Jesus Christ is who He said He was, and He proved it through His resurrection. That’s why you should do it.

​Why do some people say they are Israelites today?

Well, there are people who are Israelites today. They are genetically descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and they are of Israel according to the flesh. There is also Israel according to the Spirit. Every person who is a believer of Jesus Christ is Israel according to the Spirit. Spiritual Israel is a true concept. The problem isn’t that people believe in the concept of spiritual Israel. The problem is when they stop believing in God’s continuing role for genetic Israel. God has and continues to have a real, genuine place for genetic Israel in His plan.

​Do you have any advice to share about witnessing to a Mormon?

In my own experience in speaking to Mormons about Christianity, I have found Mormons to be remarkably uninterested in theology and doctrine. They don’t really care about theology. If you try to show them that they’re wrong according to the Bible or according to theology, they just haven’t cared very much. But they’re not in Mormonism for the theology. They’re in it for the morals. They’re in it for the community. I’m sure that that’s decreasing these days, as the Mormon church becomes more and more progressive and less and less biblical, even in its morality. It’s long been unbiblical in its theology, but now it’s becoming less and less biblical in its morality. Mormon theology does not present the God of the Bible.

​When and how did the people in Bible times hear and know about the prophets in the Old Testament? Was it in the Law? Was the entire Old Testament given to them?

It came in stages. First, the prophets would speak their message by voice, but then it would be recorded either by the prophet himself or by an associate. Over time, the copies of those words of the prophets would be distributed throughout Israel.

The first five books of Moses, known as the Law or the Torah, were gathered and read all around Israel throughout their history by the Levites. The priests and the Levites had the responsibility to bring the Word of God to the people of Israel. That would have been the first five books, the Torah, and then other books were added to that by the guidance of the Holy Spirit over time. They didn’t have Bibles as we had Bibles. But there was a fair amount of access to the Scriptures which existed in their time, because of the commands of the teaching priests and Levites. That’s really a wonderful subject to discuss.

How can Hell be a place of fire and darkness? Wouldn’t the fire light up the darkness?

Maybe God has fire in Hell that doesn’t give light, and only gives darkness. The Bible tells us that in Heaven there is no sun because the Lamb will be the light of the new heavens and the new earth. In hell, it could be just the opposite, and things that we would normally think would have light don’t have light in hell. I don’t know if we get a biblical explanation or description of it. But it’s no problem for God to accomplish it.

​Could you share the top commentaries you use or study tools?

I’ve got a lot of favorite commentators. I like to read a lot of Charles Spurgeon, which is evident in my commentary. For the Old Testament, I like commentators like Derek Kidner; I think he’s a tremendous commentator. Joyce Baldwin has some great commentaries in the InterVarsity Press series. I try to read a lot of F.B. Meyer; he’s helpful. Adam Clark has a tremendous commentary. John Trapp is an old Puritan guy that I really appreciate.

For the New Testament, I really appreciate the work of Leon Morris. He may be one of my favorite commentators. F.F. Bruce has a lot of good stuff in there. Throughout the whole Bible, I also appreciate the work of James Montgomery Boice. I find D. Edmond Hiebert to be a careful commentator. Romans:  Verse-by-Verse by William Newell is a fine commentary. He has works on Hebrews and Revelation as well. Those are some just quick ones off the top of my head. Maybe for a future program, we’ll make that a lead question, and I’ll actually show you some of the commentaries that I’m interested in, and why I find them helpful.

How do I love someone who is really wrong?

How do we guard against the feelings of enmity like hatred for those we believe are wrong on spiritual matters and stand our ground in truth?

I think this is a good question about a very tough issue. I’ll talk about it in terms of a few principles.

First, we will have enemies, but our call is to love those enemies. Let me read to you a familiar passage from Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount.
Matthew 5:43-47 – You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so?

These are obviously some very challenging words from Jesus, as He straightforwardly tells us to love our enemies. A person who is wrong on spiritual matters, teaching false doctrines, or even a heretic could be considered our enemies in some regard. By the way, I love the realism of Jesus here. One approach to dealing with enemies is by pretending that we don’t have them, but that’s never the approach of Jesus or of the Bible. The Bible acknowledges that you will have enemies, but your duty as a believer, as a Christian, is to love them, to do good to those who hate you, and to pray for them. And your pattern for doing this is God Himself. Jesus said that God makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good. He sends rain on the just and on the unjust. So, if God in some way loves those who are evil or unjust, then we are responsible to love them as well.

This occasion in Matthew 5 where Jesus spoke about loving your enemies is based off a command in Leviticus 19:18 – You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD.

However, there were some teachers in the days of Jesus who took that verse to mean, “I will love my neighbor and hate my enemy.” But Jesus spoke against that very plainly. The command goes all the way back to the Old Testament that you should love your neighbor as yourself. Therefore, it was important to define who is your neighbor. Jesus told the parable of the Good Samaritan to illustrate the principle of who our neighbor is.

Biblically speaking, we as Christians aren’t allowed to divide the world into those whom we love and those whom we hate. Now, there is a sense in which we can divide the world into those who are true and those who are false, and at least in some sense we can divide the world into those who are right and those who are wrong. Friends, those who say, “Jesus Christ is not God,” are wrong. I cannot express it more clearly than that they are wrong. And that’s just all there is to it. We can stay very calm and confident about that. If you believe Jesus is God, according to what the Scriptures teach, and someone else teaches that Jesus is not God in defiance of the Scriptures, it’s entirely right for you to say, “I’m right, and you’re wrong.” However, however, you still have to love them.

When you stand for the truth, you are going to gain some enemies as a result. Yet you are called to love even those enemies that you gain. So, how do we love our enemies? I think Jesus explained at least a little bit about how we love our enemies when He described this back in Matthew 5. He said, “Bless those who curse you.” Find a way to bless them. Pray for them. Jesus said, “Pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you.” Pray for them. Look for ways to bless them. Do good for them. Find a way to do something good for them. Consider what is good about that person, and not only what is bad or wrong about them. Now, I’m not telling you to forget about their error or what they’re wrong about. It’s okay for you to remember that. In fact, it’s even good for you to remember that. But consider their good as well and consider your thoughts about them. Don’t allow your mind to go off on extended times of dreaming of their downfall and destruction.

And friends, I’ll confess something to you right here. There have been times in my life when I have been so filled with hatred of some kind or another towards somebody else that I would dream of their downfall. I would fantasize about their destruction. And friends, that’s wrong. That was a sin for me to do. We have no business doing that as the children of God. We need to control our thoughts about those who are enemies, and not allow ourselves to go off on these extended times where we dream about their downfall and destruction. In simple ways, we are to act towards them as we would want them to act towards us. I’m going to touch on that point again, in just a moment here. But let me deal with the dynamic where we do these things.

I’ll give an example. Let’s say I’m in conflict with another person. A conflict could arise about many things, but for example’s sake let’s say they are very adamant that Jesus Christ is not God. And let’s say I’m sticking to what the Bible says that Jesus Christ is God, and I’m doing all those right things: I pray for them, I look for ways to bless them, I look for a way to do good for them, I consider their good and not only their bad, and I’m controlling my thoughts. Even though I’m trying to do all those things, let’s say feelings of hatred or animosity against them still rise up.

So, to get my heart and mind in the right place for this, in the strength of Jesus, I’m taking every thought captive to Christ. I’m thinking as I should regarding an enemy. And let’s say that lasts for a couple of hours, or even 24 hours. But a day later, I’m thinking the same rotten thoughts about them again. What do I do then? Well, just like anything in the battle of the mind, you have to remain persistent. You have to do it, and then keep doing it. This is just one of the characteristics of the battle that we have in our mind.

Loving our enemies is also remembering the golden rule. Now, it’s not called the golden rule in the Scriptures. But that’s the common term for what Jesus said when asked about the greatest commandment (see Matthew 22:37-39) Jesus said, do to your neighbor as you would want them to do to you. We call that the golden rule.

The question is, if you were wrong about something, how would you want to be confronted? If you were stubbornly wrong about something, how would you want people to treat you? If somebody had rotten thoughts about you, which could definitely happen, then what would you want them to do with those thoughts? Do you see what I’m getting at here? Treat others the way you would want them to treat you. We have to consider this when in disagreement with others. If you were wrong about something, how would you want other people to treat you?

The first principle is to love your enemies as Jesus commanded. The second principle is to remember the golden rule. The third principle is to stay humble. Friend, don’t forget that you have been wrong about plenty of things. I know I have. The person with whom I disagree is not the only one who’s ever been wrong about something. In fact, it’s possible that you or I could be wrong about some things right now. Take a moment to consider that the person who is your enemy may be asking the same questions right now about you. Maybe right now they’re wondering, “How do I love that person who is so wrong?” I don’t say that to knock you off your place of truth. I’m just saying, stay humble in your pursuit of truth. Finally, stand your ground, but do it in love. Like Athanasius of old, we want to stand our ground on a truth as important as the deity of Jesus Christ, even if the whole world should believe in opposition to it. We stand our ground about biblical truth, but we do it in love.

If you are standing on some matter of biblical truth, to the best of your ability, remain standing. At the same time, be open for more data. Maybe there are some passages or perspectives that you haven’t noticed. But don’t fall into the trap of abandoning truth for the sake of sympathy. Don’t fall into the trap of abandoning truth for the sake of pretended kindness. Pretended kindness is no kindness at all.

Long ago, there was an Anglican bishop named George Horne. I love what he said about sin because it’s also true regarding error. This comes from his commentary on the Psalms; I think he wrote this on Psalm 139. He said, “We are neither to hate the men on account of the vices which they practice, nor to love the vices for the sake of the men who practice them.” Substituting the concept of wickedness or vices with error, let me paraphrase it like this, “We are neither to hate the men on account of the errors they believe, nor to love the errors for the sake of the men who practice them.” Friends, we must remain strong in the truth, but we need to do it in love.

Number one, remember Jesus’ command that we are to love our enemies. Number two, remember the golden rule do unto your neighbor as you would want them to do to you. Number three, stay humble. And number four, stand your ground, but stand your ground in love.

Does the Bible ever refer to Mary Magdalene as a prostitute? Where does this suspicion / idea come from?

No, the Bible never refers to Mary Magdalene as a prostitute. Never. Now, the Bible does say in Mark 16:9 and Luke 8:2 that Jesus had cast seven demons out of Mary Magdalene. But nowhere does it say that she’s a prostitute. I don’t know where that story came from, to be honest. But you’re absolutely right. Many people commonly say that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute, but nowhere in the Bible does it say that. So, get that out of your mind.

She was demon-possessed. She did live in the village of Magdala, which by the way, is a place where many Israel tours visit. The village of Magdala has had some really spectacular discoveries in recent years, and it’s a great sight to see in Israel.

Next year, in October 2024, we are going to lead an Enduring Word trip to Israel. More details will be announced about the trip very soon. I’m pretty sure one of the places we’re going to visit is Magdala. You can see the ruins of the synagogue and some of the ruins of the village where Mary Magdalene was from and where Jesus visited.

But again, the Bible does not say anything about Mary Magdalene being a prostitute. I have no idea where that comes from, other than that maybe some people associated a demon-possessed woman with being a prostitute. But there’s no obvious link there either. At least biblically speaking, we can clear Mary Magdalene’s reputation on that one, because there is just no hint of it in the Bible.

Is there biblical support for a person to die and come back from the dead? If so, do they claim to have seen or spoken to Jesus while dead?

I don’t see any biblical support for a person to die and come back from the dead, do you? Many make this claim and say they saw and spoke to Jesus.

Yes, there is the biblical precedent for a person dying and coming back from the dead. There are a few occasions in the Bible when people other than Jesus died and came back to life. There was the daughter of the ruler of the synagogue, as recorded in the Gospels (see Mark 5 and Luke 8). There was the widow’s son in the ministry of Jesus (see Luke 7:12-15). There was the raising of the widow’s son by Elijah (see 1 Kings 17). There was the raising of Dorcas or Tabitha in the book of Acts (see Acts 9:36-41). There was the raising of Eutychus, the young man who fell from the window as Paul was preaching in Troas (see Acts 20:7-12). So, there are several instances in the Bible, several in the New Testament, one or two in the Old Testament, of people being dead and coming back to life. The most dramatic of all is the resuscitation of Lazarus by Jesus in the Gospel of John (see John 11).

But in none of those cases is there a record or emphasis or revelation of what those people experienced while they were dead. You’re just not going to find it. It’s nowhere in there. Therefore, I think it is very unwise for Christians to give much attention at all to these claims. So, I’m going to agree with you that this isn’t something for Christians to give attention to.

I do believe that it has happened biblically, and it can happen again, that people could be genuinely dead, and God could bring them back to life. Now, I’m not referring to the resurrection that awaits all believers, because resurrection is being raised in a body that will never die. Rather, this is what I would call resuscitation, somebody being raised in their own body which is still subject to death.

But this idea of people dying and having heavenly visions that they explained to others is not in the Bible. Paul explains the heavenly vision that he had; John presents Revelation as a heavenly vision he had; Isaiah gives record of a heavenly vision; and probably Ezekiel as well with some of his visions. But none of those are presented as being from people who were dead.

There has been some outright fraud and corruption having to do with such supposed reports. These are things that Christians should keep a distance from and just shouldn’t give attention to. Here’s how I see it. If somebody truly were to die, have some kind of experience of heaven, be resuscitated to life back in their own body, and personally tell me about it, I want you to know that it would not make heaven one bit more precious to me. Not at all.

Heaven and the life beyond are precious to me because of what the Bible says. I don’t need somebody else’s explanation to make it precious to me.

What happens to people who die during the millennial reign? Do they get glorified bodies like the saints? Are they able to reproduce during or after the millennial reign?

We can answer some of these things on a biblical basis, but some of them we can’t. As usual, I’ll give my eschatological disclaimer that many Christians disagree on this. Historically, many Christians and churches believe that we are in the millennium right now. I know that seems fantastical. As one Bible preacher I know says, “The Bible describes Satan being bound with a chain during this period of the millennium. And if Satan is bound, he must have a very long chain.” He certainly doesn’t seem to be bound in a complete sense at this time. I’m going to answer this question from my eschatological perspective. I understand that my perspective is not shared by the entire body of Christ, either in the past or in the present.

Are people able to reproduce the in or after the millennium? Yes, because the Bible speaks of children in the millennium. Therefore, I believe they are able to reproduce. What happens when they die? If they have trusted in Christ, I think they’re resurrected. And maybe they begin in the management phase, but who knows exactly? The Bible doesn’t speak to us about that. But people will be born and will die during the Millennium. It’s just that they will have extremely long lifespans. The long lifespans that seemed to mark the beginning of humanity will also mark the end of humanity, as evidenced in the millennial reign. So yes, because the Bible does speak of children and the millennial reign, I believe there will be children, and that people will be able to reproduce.

Life for the citizens of earth during the millennial reign will be in many ways much more like life right now than we think. But it will be perfectly administered, reigned over, and ruled by Jesus Christ as King. Jesus Christ will reign over all the earth in the period of time we call the Millennium that is to come.

Do Ephesians 6:12 and Romans 13:1 contradict each other?

Are these verses contradicting each other? Ephesians 6:12 said we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, but in Romans 13:1, it says the opposite?

Ephesians 6:12 – For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.

Romans 13:1 – Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.

Ephesians 6:12 is speaking of conflict, battle, and warfare that is spiritual in nature, and not flesh and blood in nature. It refers to a spiritual battle against spiritual entities. On the other hand, Romans 13:1 is speaking of flesh and blood authorities, the governing authorities that we deal with day to day right now, such as the mayor, the city council, the legislature, the police, or whatever it would be.

Ephesians 6:12 is talking about spiritual warfare and relating to the spiritual realm, while Romans 13:1 is speaking about the flesh and blood realm right here. So, there is no contradiction. It’s just speaking about different realms.

Is the writer of Psalm 75 speaking figuratively about avenging himself on his enemies?

Does the author of Psalm 75 have the power to do what they were talking about, especially in verse 10? Does God approve of it? ​Is the author speaking figuratively? David usually waited on the Lord to avenge him from his enemies and the ungodly…

Psalm 75:10 – “All the horns of the wicked I will also cut off, but the horns of the righteous shall be exalted.”

You are correct that David usually waited on the Lord to avenge him from his enemies and from the ungodly. But Psalm 75 is not a Psalm of David. It’s a Psalm of Asa. David did not author every psalm.

I believe that the speaker in Psalm 75:10 is the Lord Himself. It is indicated by quotation marks in the New King James Version. By the way, verses 8-9 are strongly prophetic about the cup of the Lord being drunk. But I think it is the Lord speaking in verse 10, describing God’s work of judgment. God is saying that He would do that, and it is spoken in the voice of the Lord directly. It’s God’s proclamation.

I believe God speaks through His word. Does He also speak audibly?

Any advice on how God speaks? I just taught a study about the Word being how God speaks, and my invited speaker said God had audibly spoken to them.

I think you’ve done the right thing in pointing people to the word of God in seeking God’s voice. Now, I do believe that God can communicate to us outside of His word. I don’t believe it’s the only way that God communicates. But I will avoid Dan the word “speak,” because I don’t think anybody should expect to hear the audible voice of God. I’m not saying it’s impossible for God to speak with an audible voice. There are a few occasions in the Scriptures when He did that. But I believe it’s very important for us to not anticipate it.

If somebody is really wishing to hear God’s audible voice, sometimes all they think about is, “I want to hear the voice of God, I want to hear God’s audible voice, please let me hear God’s audible voice.” If that’s their mentality, I think they could actually be opening themselves up to deception. It is possible that a deceiving voice could come in and supply the voice they’re looking for. Not necessarily, but it’s possible.

I tell people all the time, “If you want to hear a word from God, open His word.” I’ve also had occasions in my own life when I do believe that God has communicated to me through a prophetic word, or through the counsel and advice of others, or through an inward voice, not something which I could audibly hear, but something I just “heard” in my mind. But don’t put yourself out where you’re seeking to hear some supernatural voice of God. If God wants to communicate to you in that way, He’s more than capable of doing it, and you won’t have to manufacture it in any way.

That’s my advice on how God speaks. I do believe that God is able to communicate with people outside of His word. For example, the conviction of sin can be a communication from God outside His word. We shouldn’t seek the voice of God outside of reading and seeking the revelation given through His Word, but we understand that God may communicate a word of the Lord that is proven to be His word, as He has done in my life on several occasions.

How can I overcome sin? I want to change but I keep sinning.

How can I overcome sin? I feel as though it’s hard to stop. I ask God to help me and change me. However, I keep sinning. I don’t want to. I want to change – how can I?

God bless you. Thank you for your passion and desire to obey God and honor Him. Obedience to God isn’t legalism. We shouldn’t feel that we’re getting legalistic if we simply want to obey God.

To answer your question about how to overcome sin, I would recommend that you make a dedicated study of Romans 5-8. In those chapters, especially Romans 6, Paul addresses the Christian life, whether a Christian should care about habitual sin, and then whether a Christian should care about occasional sin. You can read my commentary on Romans 6 here. Look at Romans 5-8, but give a special emphasis to Romans 6.

The key to your overcoming sin is to really realize the new person that Jesus Christ has made you. He’s made you a new person. You are a new man or woman in Jesus Christ. And now you are simply trying to live out the new life that Jesus Christ has given you in Him. Wouldn’t that be a wonderful thing, just to live out the newness of life that He’s given you?

There is a lot more to addressing the problems of habitual sin in our life and breaking those patterns. But you’ll find wonderful direct guidance in Romans 5-8. Take a look at my commentary on this and find out how God graciously deals with sin in the life of the believer. Thank you for your heart in wanting to walk in obedience to God. That’s more than half the battle right there. God is going to work in your life because you want to please Him. God bless you in that.

​Do you feel the nation of Israel is justified in whatever they do to push the other nations out of the land?

I’m going to assume that you’re speaking about modern Israel. Israel as a nation is responsible before God today. God cares about how Israel treats its neighboring nations. Like any nation, Israel has a right to be concerned with and to promote its own security. I think every nation has that right. But they’re also responsible to do it in a way that, as much as possible, does their very best to minimize damages which impact civilians, and to deal with other people justly and fairly.

The nation of Israel has a responsibility to do that. But it’s not easy. It’s not easy to deal with a security situation where you have enemies from without, and you have at least some enemies from within. That’s a very difficult situation. As far as I’m concerned, the Israeli government gets a lot of sympathy from me in dealing with those challenges. But they are responsible to deal with their neighboring nations and with their own citizens in an appropriate and just way before God.

God requires this of all nations. He doesn’t require it of Israel because they are His chosen people. He requires it from every nation. Every nation is required by God to rule rightly. And God reserves the right to judge nations that do not do so. He has judged Israel throughout their history when they were chronically unjust towards other people. He has judged other nations in history who were chronically unjust to others, both beyond their borders and within their borders.

I believe Israel has a place in God’s unfolding plan of the ages. But that does not in any way mean that everything the modern nation of Israel does is just and good. No, they need to follow God’s perspective on those things. God will hold them to account just as He would hold any nation to account for those things.

Does Jesus’ knowledge of the future impact our free will?

How do you respond to the notion that Jesus’s knowledge of the future cannot coexist with our libertarian free will?

I’m not going to present myself as an expert on these matters. This area of theological and philosophical investigation doesn’t interest me all that much. But I know that men and women have real choices. To be honest, I don’t like using the phrase free will. It’s not that I’ll never use it, but I don’t like to use it, because I think there’s a good argument to be made that nobody’s will is completely free, especially as fallen men and women.

So, I avoid the phrase free will. Instead, I prefer to use the phrase real choices. Whether or not a person has absolutely free will, they still have real choices. That’s what it comes down to for me. I believe men and women have real choices. But I also believe that God has a predetermined plan that He’s working out throughout history. God isn’t hoping that things turn out. He knows where things are going. And He knows how to guide things in that direction.

Understanding that Jesus has knowledge of the future is no different than God’s knowledge of anything in the future. If God wasn’t in charge of history, then there could be no prophecy in the Bible. You might argue, “God couldn’t prophesy that the Messiah was going to be born in Bethlehem. Because what if the parents of the Messiah decided they didn’t want to go to Bethlehem?” I would answer that God knows how to guide these things, without violating the real choices that men and women make.

Again, I don’t have much interest in this area. I know that both of these principles are true: God has a sovereign, predetermined plan that He’s working out through history, and men and women have real choices, not fake or robotic choices. How those two principles come together and intersect, I don’t know. I’m entirely fine with leaving that up to the area of mystery.

​What do the Scriptures mean by “the falling away”?

Can you help me understand what the Scriptures mean about “the falling away”? I’m so scared that I will become deceived and fall away.

The Scriptures you should be most concerned about are those which speak about falling from grace.

Your moral obedience in and of itself did not save you, and your moral disobedience in and of itself will not damn you, or make you lose your salvation. Let me explain.

We’re not saved because we earn it. We don’t lose salvation because we “un-earn” it. But what’s of concern is falling from grace. That means no longer trusting in Jesus Christ and His finished work as the source of our salvation, our sanctification, and our being in right relationship with God. That’s what the believer should fear.

Now, I won’t say that the two aren’t related. If a person no longer trusts in Jesus Christ (and what He did for them on the cross as the basis of their right standing before God), if they stop trusting in Jesus and they lose their faith, it often leads to immoral behavior. But that’s a symptom, not the cause.

What should we do? Just abide in Jesus today. Every day, make it your pattern to trust in Jesus, to trust in who He is and what He did to save you, especially what He did at the cross and His resurrection. Make it your point to do that all over again every day. That’s what you need to do. Don’t feel like you’re walking on a razor’s edge of saved or not saved. Instead, focus on the greatness of Jesus, who He is, and what He did, especially what He did at the cross.

There can be a trap which believers fall into, where they become overly introspective. There is no problem with a believer looking at their own life and considering it. The Bible encourages us to do that. But a person can become overly introspective. They wonder, “Oh, am I saved today? I had a bad thought. Maybe I’m not saved anymore.” I pray that the Lord would guard you from that excessive introspection.

​If I lead someone to Christ and they backslide or fall away, should I feel guilty?

If I lead someone to Christ and they backslide or fall away, should I feel guilty?

Only if you gave them a very incomplete gospel. Only if you gave them a gospel with no warning of hardship, and no idea that the Christian life is a death to self. Of course, it is also receiving innumerable benefits from God, but it includes death to self. If you failed to mention those things, then I think maybe you should feel a little guilty. We know that all this is in God’s hands ultimately. But it may be right to feel a little guilty and realize that we need to be clearer in how we speak to people about Jesus Christ.

How can I build a strong faith? Are there different levels or types of faith?

How many different “levels/types of faith” would you say there are? A minimum of a saving faith though full gift of faith with things in between?  How do you build your level of faith? I understand that “gift of faith” is a gift, but how to build the strongest possible faith you can?

I’ll give you two ways to build your faith. First, spend more time in God’s word. How much time? More than you are now. The Bible says in Romans 10:17 that faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. That’s what the Bible says, so we can take it as true. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. That’s our foundation for faith. The more understanding we have of His word, and the more His word fills our heart and our mind, God continues to build faith within us. That’s one way.

A second way in which you build faith is by exercising faith. Let me give you an illustration. When I was about 40 years old, we responded as a family to what we believe was God’s call for us to leave the church I had pastored for some 14 years in Southern California and go to Germany in order to start and direct a small international Bible college. Friends, that was a big step of faith for our family. Understanding that, it’s much easier for me to make other steps of faith now because God blessed it. God had His hand upon it. I’m not going to say that there were no problems, or that there was no price to pay, but overall, God blessed that step of faith. When we build our faith and exercise our faith, our faith gets stronger. It’s nothing really dramatic. We find out that God can be trusted, and therefore we trust Him more.

Which book of the Bible was the most difficult for you to write a commentary on? Which book was the most enlightening?

The most difficult was Proverbs. Now, writing my commentary on the book of Proverbs was not as difficult as I thought it would be. Proverbs is unique because throughout most of the book, there’s no real context. It’s one standalone statement followed by another, which makes it very different than the other books of the Bible. Being so different than other books in the Bible made it a true challenge, although I must say it was not as challenging as I thought it would be. Once I was in the rhythm of it, I really enjoyed it. So, Proverbs was the most difficult or challenging book for me to write a commentary on.

Asking me the most enlightening book is like asking me to pick my favorite child. I don’t have a favorite child. I love my children. Every one of them is a wonderful person and a blessing to be around. It’s the same with books of the Bible for me. But I will say that going through the Psalms was very meaningful for me. I wrote more than 1100 pages of commentary through the Psalms. My video teaching through the Psalms on YouTube channel is more than 100 hours long, taking each of the 150 Psalms one by one, and giving them a good fair treatment. There was something very meaningful for me in doing the admittedly hard work of going through all the Psalms.

Is it ever okay to lie if the ends justify the means? Abraham, Rahab, and Samson lied for seemingly good reasons.

Your question is difficult, but I’ll give you a straight answer. It’s an unpopular answer with some. If this answer offends you, I hope you’ll allow me to explain. I do think there are times when lying is justified, when it would be worse to tell the truth than to lie.

Now, I hesitate to say that because every liar is searching for justification for their sin. People like that will claim justification when there is none. Nevertheless, I would say that there are certain situations where lying is justified. Rahab was justified in lying to preserve the life of the Hebrew spies who visited her in Jericho. The sin of betraying them would have been worse than the sin of lying.

You also mentioned Abraham, but no, his lie was not good. Samson’s lie was also not good. There are rare times (but they do exist) where a lie is justified, because to tell the truth would lead to a worse sin than the sin of lying. Now that is “strong meat,” a hard truth. People find it easier to say, “No, we can never justify lying, ever, ever, ever.” But I don’t think that the Bible displays that. And I don’t believe that real life displays that. But I say that while very strongly recognizing that there are people who misuse that principle all the time, and use it to justify lies that they have no business saying.

This Live Q&A is hosted by Pastor Lance Ralston.

Do Luke 14:26 and 1 John 3:10 contradict each other? What should we do to follow Jesus?

Luke 14:26 – If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple.

1 John 3:10 – In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother.

These two verses present an apparent contradiction, though not a real contradiction. Before we deal with those verses, I want to take a moment to talk about the larger issue of contradictions in the Bible, which is a frequent point brought up by skeptics and critics.

Last week, I got an email from someone asking how to answer a comment by a critic. Here is the contradiction: “The original Bible was compiled of writings gathered 1700 years ago by the Catholic hierarchy. There have been 30,000 changes in the Bible, along with 1000 contradictions, in order to control the masses.” Now, nothing in that statement is true, not a thing. The person who said it probably assumes that it’s true, not because they have any real proof, but because they heard it from another skeptic and took it as fact. Many arguments used by unbelievers have no basis in reality and have already been answered, but they depend on people not knowing the answers and not knowing the truth. In dealing with this kind of thing over the years, I have found that most skeptics accept as fact anything that seems to undercut Christianity, without checking to see if it’s true, while at the same time demanding endless proof for the supports of the faith, and even then, refusing to admit that it’s true.

Now, without getting into detail about all the absurdities of this critic’s remark, the Bible was not compiled 1700 years ago by the Catholic hierarchy. That’s simply a restatement of a long-refuted falsehood that, in the early fourth century, Emperor Constantine and 300 bishops of the church council at Nicaea established the books of the Bible. That’s wrong on two accounts. The Council of Nicaea met to deal with a heresy called Arianism. The council said nothing about the books of the Bible. Furthermore, there was no Catholic church hierarchy in the early fourth century.

The story of the formation of what’s called the canon of Scripture, the accepted books of the Bible, is a fascinating tale. When honestly engaged, it leads to great confidence that we have the inspired, inerrant Word of God today. The books of the Old Testament were, of course, already settled by the third century BCE, while the New Testament canon was finally closed at the Council of Carthage in 397. Now, I realize that seems late. But it’s important to realize that the 27 books which the council settled on had already been accepted as the standard for a long time. For example, the Muratorian Canon was written in 170 AD, and it lists the 27 books of the New Testament as the standard for the Christian faith and practice. By the time of the Council of Carthage, 200 years after that, church leaders felt an obligation to simply say that the books which ought to be in the New Testament were a settled issue. You see, they knew that time had run out on being able to apply the exacting criteria which much earlier church leaders had used for deciding what books were legitimate.

As for the 30,000 changes to the Bible, I don’t even know what that means. There’s simply no documentation for that. Scripture hasn’t changed, as the Dead Sea Scrolls made clear concerning the Old Testament when they were discovered in the 1950s. As for changes to the New Testament, that is simply not true. There have been no changes. Yes, there have been translations into dozens of other languages from the Koine or common Greek of the first century, when they were originally penned, but no changes to the actual content. The number of 30,000 is just made up out of thin air.

As for 1000 contradictions in the Bible, not only are there not 1000; there aren’t any real contradictions in Scripture. Yes, there are some apparent or seeming contradictions which are cleared up by a careful examination of the text. A contradiction is a statement of conflicting facts that cannot both exist at the same time. For example, if I say that yesterday at 3pm, I was physically both in and not in Los Angeles, California, that would be a contradiction. In the normal use of the words, both could not be true at the same time. Either I was or I wasn’t in LA, but it couldn’t be both at the same time.

On the other hand, an apparent or alleged contradiction exists when a careful look at what is said reveals that both statements could be true. There are several of these in the Bible. Some present more of a challenge than others. For instance, how many angels were at Jesus’ tomb after the Resurrection? Well, Matthew and Mark’s gospels mention one angel, while Luke’s gospel says that there were two. That seems like a contradiction until we take a closer look at all three accounts. Matthew and Mark don’t say there was only one angel, just that there was an angel who spoke to the women who went to the tomb early Sunday morning. Luke says the women saw two angels. So, a little consideration of the three passages clears things up. There were two angels, but only one of them spoke. If Matthew and Mark had said that there was only one angel, or Luke had said that there were two and not one, well, then we’d have a problem. I could give more examples of alleged contradictions in the Bible. Instead, let me recommend a book entitled, “When Critics Ask” by Norman Geisler. Many books have been written to help sort out these Bible difficulties.

But now back to the question, “Do Luke 14:26 and 1 John 3:10 contradict each other? What should we do to follow Jesus?”

Luke 14:26 – If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple.

1 John 3:10 – In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother.

These two verses seem to present a contradiction until we dig a little deeper. This is a classic case where context is crucial. In Luke 14, Jesus speaks to the need of counting the cost of being His disciple. Being a follower of Christ is going to cost everything, even our own lives. In fact, in the next verse, He says, “Whoever does not bear his cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple” (Luke 14:27).

Now, I’m sure you know that a cross was an implement of execution, and dead people can’t follow Jesus. Jesus is obviously speaking metaphorically. He means that we must die to self. Putting Luke 14:26-27 together, we realize that Jesus is saying that being a disciple means that our relationship with Him reigns supreme, so much so that all other relationships are cast in different light, even our relationship with ourselves. Therefore, of course our relationship with parents and siblings is going to be affected. Our love for and devotion to Jesus is so far above and beyond any of those relationships, that in comparison our attitude toward other relationships is like hate. By the way, this kind of hyperbolic contrast was a common figure of speech among Jews in the first century. We may not speak that way today, but they did.

This wasn’t the only thing that Jesus had to say on the subject of love. In giving some final instructions to His disciples, He says this in John 15:12: “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.” And again, five verses later in John 15:17, He says, “These things I command you, that you love one another.”

I assume that the second part of our question, “What should we do to follow Jesus?” was meant in the light of these verses in Luke and 1 John. So, what does following Jesus mean – it is hating or loving our family? We’ve clarified what Jesus meant by hate, that it does not mean we are to loathe our family, but that we’re to seal our devotion to Jesus so tightly that no other relationship competes with or weakens it. It means we do what Jesus says to do. And His command is that we love others. In other words, our love for Jesus compels us to love others. We love others because He tells us to, not just because they’re our parents, or siblings, or friends. We love even strangers and our enemies because Jesus tells us to do so. Loving Jesus is lived out by loving others.

No one understood this better than the apostle John, who wrote this in 1 John 4:7-8, 11-12, 16b: “Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God, and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. He who does not love does not know God, for God is love. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No one has seen God at any time. If we love one another, God abides in us, and His love has been perfected in us. God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God in him.”

The evidence that we really love God, who we can’t see, is loving and serving those who we can see. We are to follow Jesus through a devotion to Him which moves us to love and to serve others. Obviously, a lot more could be said about what it means to be a disciple of Jesus. But as it relates to those verses in Luke 14, and 1 John 3, I think that pretty well covers it.

In John it says the Pharisees took up stones to stone Him. Where were these stones & what was the process?

What was the process of stoning in the days of Jesus? It seems several times that the Pharisees gathered up stones and prepare to stone Him. Were these stones just around the temple in case they were needed? Or did they go to a certain place to stone people?

That’s a great question. From my study and research on the execution of stoning, here’s what they would typically do. They would take the condemned person to a high place, some kind of a cliff, of which there are many around Israel. They would throw the guilty person off, so that when they landed, they would be dazed, or a limb would be broken, and they would not be able to run away. Then the people would stand on the top of the cliff from which the condemned had just been thrown, and from that vantage point, their stones would have greater effect because of the pull of gravity. They would take up stones large enough to require two hands to use, lift them over their heads, and then rain them down on the dazed person below. That was the primary form of stoning.

But we do read about the Pharisees, Jesus’ opponents and enemies, taking up stones while He was in the Temple. Of course, there wasn’t any cliff where they could take Jesus and throw Him off of there. So, the question is, where did they get the stones in the Temple? When we think about the Temple, we envision it in the way things are set up today. Not long ago, I took a trip to Israel, and we went up to onto the Temple Mount. Of course, the Temple is not there now. Some Muslim buildings are there instead, including the Dome of the Rock and the Al Aqsa Mosque. There is also a huge pavement set there.

Back in the ancient world, in the first century, they didn’t have everything covered in cement and concrete like we do today. Yes, there was a pavement in the Temple. But there were also plenty of places where plants were growing, and rocks were ubiquitous. They were everywhere. Today, when we see rocks lying around, we think something is out of place, because of the way that we design our landscaping and so on. But that’s just not the way it was in the ancient world. They didn’t wonder why rocks were sitting around, or ask “How did these get here?” They were just part of the scenery, part of the landscape. So, there would have been rocks on the Temple Mount which could have been used for stoning.

What is your position on the validity of a pre-70 AD writing of Revelation? It seems to me that a lot of what John wrote happened in the first century.

That’s a great question. This deals with a teaching regarding eschatology or end time things called Preterism. Preterists believe that virtually everything foretold in the book of Revelation, except for the very last chapters, was fulfilled before 70 AD and the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. They take the visions which John had in Revelation and find some kind of fulfillment for them in historical events, most typically the Roman conquest of Israel in the first century between 68-72 AD.

Here’s the problem with that. I hold to the futurist view, which means I believe that most of the book of Revelation will be fulfilled in end time events which are yet to occur, and that John had visions of those things and described them in terminology that would have been understandable in the first century. That is also the view of the Enduring Word ministry here, including David Guzik, Miles DeBenedictis, and Chuck Musselwhite. We’re futurists.

But the preterist view believes that most of the book of Revelation was fulfilled by 70 AD. You have to take the visions John had in the book of Revelation and spiritualize them to a great degree in order to make them fit events which happened in 70 AD and before. I’ll give you an example. At one point, John says that a quarter of the world’s population will die because of the plagues that come upon the earth. A bit later in Revelation, because of the results of another plague, another one of the judgments of God, a third of the world’s population will die. If you put those numbers together, a total of over half of the world’s population will be wiped out by the judgments of God and the plagues of that are described in the book of Revelation. How do you find a fulfillment of that in the events that happened in Israel in 70 AD? You would have to spiritualize those things to an extent that they don’t make sense anymore. The words can’t line up.

Because of this, preterists believe that John had to have written the book of Revelation before 70 AD, because they say it prophesies the events that happened in 70 AD. But historically, we know that John wrote the book of Revelation in probably the early 90s AD, and not before 70 AD. Here’s why we know this. In Revelation 1, John writes that he had been sentenced to the island of Patmos under the reign of Domitian. Domitian was a Roman emperor that lived in the 90s AD. He wasn’t an emperor in 68 or 70 AD. So historically, the setting for Revelation is not in 68-70 AD, when they say that he wrote it. It was written closer to 90-91 AD, and that’s pretty historically clear. There are some very smart Preterists, but they really have to work to make the text promote their view on the end times.

Why did Jesus ask the lame man at the pool, “Do you want to be made well?” (John 5:6)

John 5:6 – When Jesus saw him lying there, and knew that he already had been in that condition a long time, He said to him, “Do you want to be made well?”

It seems obvious that he wants to be better. Of course, that’s why he’s at the pool. If you remember the story, he’s been lying there for years waiting for the stirring of the water. It was believed that an angel came down and stirred up the water. When that happened, the first person into the water got healed. But this man is lame, and many other people are also waiting for the moving of the water so they can jump in. Somebody always beats him. By this time, he’s been there waiting for a long time.

So, Jesus asked a question which seems like a no-brainer, “Hey, do you want to get better? Do you want to be healed?” Notice the man’s answer. He says, “Someone always beats me into the water.” Isn’t that interesting? We would expect him to say, “Yeah, that’s why I’m here.” But instead, he comes up with an excuse. Jesus is dealing with something that’s deeper than just the surface appearance. The guy is therein that place to be healed. But his reply may indicate something that was going on in the man’s heart, which of course, Jesus saw. He’s drilling down on that.

If a person has been dealing with an issue for a long time, but is not making progress and overcoming it, they can get to the point where they just resign themselves to it. They become so habituated to their lifestyle, their behavior, and their identity as being broken and needing healing, that maybe outwardly they would say, “Well, yeah, I want to get better.” But when it comes down to it, they’re not willing to do what it would take to get better. They’ve accustomed themselves to their brokenness.

I think we see this with a lot of people today. They know that they could be saved. They know that Jesus is the answer to their problems, but they’re so used to their lifestyle, to their brokenness, to their sin. They know it’s not good. They know that they should not be doing it. But they rationalize, “I’ve been doing it so long,” and they end up identifying with their spiritual lameness.

Jesus asked this man, “Do you want to get better?” because it gives the man an opportunity to stop and think about what he’s looking for. Through his own reply, he realizes he’s got an excuse. “Well, yeah, but somebody always gets in ahead of me.” Now he has to confront that as an excuse.

And Jesus meets him in that, and He heals the guy. Not only did Jesus heal him from his lameness and physical weakness. I think Jesus healed him of something even more important: his spiritual weakness, his spiritual disability. He was identifying himself as lame and perpetually lame. Jesus liberated him from the physical ailment as well as the spiritual ailment.

I think it’s a good question that we can all ask ourselves, even those of us who are believers that follow Jesus. All of us have some kind of spiritual lameness, something that the Holy Spirit is working on. 2 Corinthians 3 tells us that as we walk with God, we are led from glory to glory. We are being led into deeper experiences of God’s truth and grace and mercy. As time goes by, we see more and more about ourselves. When we see those ugly things which we realize we have accommodated ourselves to, God says, “Do you want to get better?” And we have to ask the question, “Do I? Do I really want to get better?” And the answer is that once we’ve seen what God has for us, and how much better life is when we yield completely to Him in total surrender, then we say yes. But sometimes the Spirit has to first ask us the question, “Do you really want to get better?”

If God already knows which people will inherit the kingdom of God, why are others born and allowed to suffer?

If God already knows which amongst all people will inherit the kingdom of God, why are others born and thus allowed to suffer?

What a profound question. It’s one of the reasons why some skeptics and critics reject the gospel and the Christian faith. It’s a form of the question, “If God is all-loving and all-powerful, why is there evil in the world?” That is a deep philosophical question which we can deal with another time. Let’s deal with this aspect of that question.

Since God knows ahead of time who is going to be saved, and who is not, why does God allow people to be born who are going to reject Him and end up in eternal torment? Well, there isn’t a simple answer to that. It’s a deeply philosophical and theological question. Let me attempt as simple an answer as I can.

God gave human beings the power to choose. He created us in His image. Part of that image means having the ability to make real choices. The ultimate goal is a love relationship with God. God created us in His image so that we could have a real relationship with Him, and that relationship has to be freely chosen. We have to be free to choose it or not. And we know what happened: Adam and Eve chose to turn away from that relationship. We call it “the Fall.”

God does not take away our power of choice, because it’s all about love. And love has to be free. If it is free, it has the power to say no, to choose not to love, and to choose not to be in relationship. Had God only made people who would be saved, He would in effect be denying the choice of those that would not. I realize that may not be a very satisfying answer, but it is the truth.

What does God do with a man and woman who have a sexual relationship? It’s their choice to do that. And that sexual contact has the potential to generate a new life. What is God to do? Should He stop the fertilization of that egg because the person who comes from that will eventually reject Him and end up in hell? He would in effect be taking away the choice of the people who are committing that act.

Furthermore, there have to be consequences for our choices, or the choices aren’t real. Let me use an example. A person picks up a gun loaded with a bullet, aims it at another person, and pull the trigger. The bullet comes out of the front of the gun and goes towards the person. Because God is all powerful, He could snatch the bullet out of the air. But if He does that, what has He just done to the person who made the choice to pull the trigger, knowing that that bullet was going to kill someone? You see, that choice no longer has a consequence. Consequently, a real choice has not been made.

We can’t even imagine a world like that, where, because God is all-loving and all-powerful, He does not allow the consequences of free choices. They would no longer be free or choices because they don’t really do anything that we would deem evil or wrong or bad as a consequence.

God’s perspective on the totality of eternity is much larger and greater than ours. All of us have personal experience of something that seems bad at the moment and ends up turning out good. And vice versa, we’ve all experienced something which seems good at the moment and ends up turning out bad. God knows from the beginning, even before the choices are made, what the consequences of those choices are going to be. And because He has created us as humans to be free and to make real choices that have real consequences, He honors that. Otherwise, we’re not really human. For Him to preempt our choices and remove the consequences of our free actions, we wouldn’t be human anymore.

So, there will be people in Heaven and people in Hell. When all is said and done, and we see the justice of God, we will say that God was just and perfect in His decisions from beginning to end. Right now, from our perspective, it may be a little bit difficult to see how that works out. But from the perspective of eternity, knowing that God is all-good, all-loving, all-powerful, and perfectly just, we will come to that place and say, “He is holy, He is righteous, He is just, in all that He has done.” And for those whose lives will end in eternal torment in Hell, that was their choice. I think it was CS Lewis who said that those who end up in Hell won’t be in Hell, wishing they were in heaven. Think about that. Why? Because what makes Heaven Heaven is God. And what these people throughout their life have chosen is, “I don’t want God. I want nothing to do with Him. I don’t want to answer to Him. I don’t want Him messing with my life and my choices.” So, the ultimate result of that choice is that they get eternity with what they wanted: existence without God. No one in hell wishes they were in Heaven. Now, they might wish they weren’t in Hell. But they don’t wish they were in Heaven. Because Heaven is where God is, and they don’t want God. It’s a sobering thought.

Can you speak on the baptism of the Holy Spirit?

I’m sure most of our readers are aware that there is some controversy among believers concerning the baptism of the Holy Spirit. There are those who would say that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is salvation, that when you are born again, you are baptized in the Holy Spirit. Others would say that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is an experience with the Holy Spirit that comes subsequent to salvation, after being saved. I hold to the second opinion, and I know that my fellow board members (Miles, Chuck, and David) are of that opinion as well. We believe that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is a subsequent experience to salvation.

Maybe the clearest demonstration of that in Scripture is after Jesus was resurrected. He appeared to the disciples, and He breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit.” That word receive is an imperative, a command, and it’s in the present tense, so it means right now. Jesus is breathing on them, because wind, breath, and spirit are all the same word in Greek (pneuma). The idea of the Spirit is that the Spirit is invisible, but you see the effect of the Spirit in His movement on people. It’s like the wind. You don’t see the wind, but you can see its effect. You know the wind is blowing because the leaves on the trees are moving. It’s the same way with the Spirit. We can’t see the Spirit, but we can see the movement of the Spirit by what happens in people’s lives.

So, Jesus breathes on them as kind of an object lesson, while no doubt also literally imparting the Holy Spirit to them, because He is the one who gives the Holy Spirit. And then He says, “Receive the Holy Spirit” so they know what’s happening. And notice this. Right after this happens, it says in Luke’s gospel that He opened their understanding, and then showed them how all of the Old Testament Scriptures pointed to Himself. Isn’t that interesting?

Up to this point in the narrative of the gospels, the disciples were so often clueless when Jesus was teaching them. Jesus would say things like, “Hey, guys, don’t you get what I’m saying? This is simple stuff.” And then He would go on and elaborate, and they would nod in agreement, but you knew they weren’t really getting it. That’s why He said the same things over and over again, because it took a while for them to grasp these truths. Why was that? Because they didn’t have the Holy Spirit yet.

Earlier in John’s gospel, in speaking of the Holy Spirit who would come to them after the Resurrection, Jesus says, “The Holy Spirit has been with you, but will be in you.” In John 20:22, as Jesus breathes on them, and they receive the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit comes to live in them. How do we know that? Because Luke 24:45 says that He opened their understanding, and they finally understood the Word of God, the Scriptures, and how they spoke of Him.

In 1 Corinthians 2, the Apostle Paul says that the natural man does not understand the things of the Spirit of God, because they are spiritually discerned. This is why people who aren’t born again can read the Bible, but it’s just gibberish to them and they don’t really get it. They may understand the technical or straightforward meaning of the words, but they don’t understand the spiritual truths that are being communicated in the Scriptures. But I have heard many believers give their testimony and say, “I read the Bible and it didn’t make any sense to me, but then I was born again, and the Bible became like a new book.” That’s because we have the Holy Spirit now. As Jesus said, the Spirit is with you but later He will be in you. And after the Resurrection, the Spirit comes within them.

In Acts 1, as Jesus was preparing to ascend into Heaven from the Mount of Olives, remember what He said to the disciples who were gathered there with Him. He said, “Return to Jerusalem, and wait until the promise of the Father has come upon you.” Notice He uses a different preposition. He has already said that the Holy Spirit is with you, then that He will be in you (which was proved by their understanding of the Scriptures), and now He says that the Holy Spirit will come upon you. We read in Acts 2 that on the day of Pentecost, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with other tongues and became powerful witnesses of Him there in Jerusalem, and eventually also to Judea, Samaria, and continuing on to the ends of the earth.

So, we see that they were born again on that Resurrection Sunday evening, when Jesus breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit.” We know they were born again because they finally understood the Scriptures. But there was this other experience with the Holy Spirit which came later, on the day of Pentecost, as the Holy Spirit came upon them in power. That explains the baptism of the Holy Spirit. And Jesus said that this is to be normative.

Let’s make sure we’re not separating Christians into two groups, those who have been baptized in the Holy Spirit and those who haven’t. We should all be baptized in the Holy Spirit, as Paul says in Ephesians 5:18, “Be constantly being filled with the Holy Spirit.” That’s normative. It’s what all of us should be seeking and experiencing. And you aren’t baptized with the Holy Spirit once. There’s an initial experience of being baptized in the Holy Spirit, but then it should be normative that we are constantly being filled with the Holy Spirit. And then we walk in the Spirit. That is how, as Jesus says, “Power will come upon you, and you shall be witnesses of Me.” It happens as we are walking in the Spirit. As the Spirit constantly fills us, we show forth the life of Christ, as our own lives have been redeemed and transformed by the presence of Christ.

What are your thoughts on the Johannine Comma issue?

Hello Pastor Lance, I love your podcast, especially the series of episodes about Rabban Sauma. What are your thoughts on the Johannine Comma issue?

To listen to Lance Ralston’s Church History podcasts about Rabban Sauma, visit Communio Sanctorum.

Great question. As evangelicals, we have a very high regard for the Bible. We believe that it is the inspired and inerrant Word of God. But that does not mean that we don’t recognize that there are some manuscript challenges. Let’s remember, we don’t have the autographs, the original manuscripts written by the Apostles. We don’t have those. We have copies of copies of copies. But some of those copies are very early, so the distance in time between the originals and the copies that we have is a very short period of time.

The Johannine comma is a statement found in 1 John 5:7b-8a which makes an overt mention of the Trinity. There’s a lot of controversy on this passage, because earliest manuscripts of 1 John do not include this verse. It is the single place in the New Testament about which we can say with real confidence that John himself did not write that. It was originally a scribal note that was written in the margin of the epistle, but at some point, someone moved it from the margin into the text as they were copying the manuscript. They placed it right after a verse that says pretty much the same thing. But we know from the documentation of earlier manuscripts, even manuscripts considered to be inspired, that this section was not originally included, and it doesn’t appear until later copies were made.

Therefore, we can say with real confidence that it should not be there, and that it does not really belong in the text. Actually, I think it’s one of those things that gives even greater credence to our belief and support and confidence in the veracity of the New Testament manuscripts and documents, that just this one specific verse should not be included. We have great confidence that John did not include that in his in his original epistle.

It is a great verse for supporting the Trinity. But you know, if you take that verse out, it doesn’t do anything in changing the Bible’s doctrine on the Trinity. The Trinity is found in many other places. Throughout the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, there are three persons who claim to be God: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They all make claims that can only be applied to them. So, either one or two are lying (which is not likely), or it’s true, which means that there are three persons who make up the one God.

Some people call reformed theology or Calvinism heretical. What is heresy according to the Bible?

I’m in a Reformed church. I believe the five points of TULIP to be soundly biblical. Some people call reformed theology or Calvinism heretical. What is heresy according to the Bible?

I won’t dive into the whole Calvinism versus Arminianism versus traditionalism debate. Let’s narrow it down to your specific question.

What does the Bible mean by heresy? Nowhere in the Bible do we find a definition of heresy. The root word from which it comes means to divide. Heresy would be a deviation from the essentials of the faith. I’m sure most of you have heard the phrase, “In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity.” There are going to be differences of opinion on issues that are not necessary for us to be saved. Earlier we were dealing with the issue of the baptism the Holy Spirit. People can just disagree on that. Christians do. People who are saved disagree on that. Brilliant people lined up on both sides of that issue. So that’s not essential.

But there are certain things which must be believed in order to have genuine faith in Jesus. That would include the deity of Christ, because if Jesus wasn’t God, then He could not have died for our sins. If He was only man, He would be a sinner, so when He died, He would only be dying for His own sins. For Him to be sinless would be impossible if He was only human. So, we must believe in the deity of Christ.

Let’s move on to other essentials. We must believe that His death on the cross provides the atoning sacrifice for our sins, that His death fully pays for our sins, and that we cannot work to earn God’s favor. Salvation is a gift which we receive by faith in Jesus, that He is God, and that He died for our sins. You see, it isn’t just faith. It isn’t just believing something or anything that you want. It isn’t the presence of really believing something that saves us. No, it’s faith in something specific. That’s what constitutes the essentials, that Jesus is God, that Jesus died for our sins, and that He rose again from the dead, proving that His death has paid for our sins.

If Jesus had not risen from the dead, He’d still be dead. And that means He would still be, in effect, paying for our sins. This is why the resurrection is absolutely essential. You can’t be born again, be saved, and not believe that Jesus rose from the dead. It’s not possible. The resurrection proves that our sins have been paid for, and that our faith has real substance and content in what Christ did.

Another thing that we must believe in is the ascension of Christ, that He ascended into heaven. The ascension of Christ back to Heaven, to be seated at the Father’s right hand, is proof that the Father has accepted Him and His work. Because ultimately, God the Father is the judge. He’s the one who determines whether the atoning sacrifice of Christ can account for those who put their faith in Christ.

There are some other essentials. Heresy would be to disagree with any one of those essentials. All those essentials must be believed in order to be saved.

Now, a person who first comes to faith in Christ may not understand all the nuances. I know I didn’t. I bet most people listening right now did not understand all the nuances of the theology when they were first saved, but they came to understand or are coming to understand. All they knew was that they were sinners because the Holy Spirit was convicting them. They heard the message that Jesus died for our sins, and He rose again from the dead to give us new life and to justify us before God. Believing that, they were born again.

As we grow in our faith, we grow in our knowledge of Christ and what He’s done, and in doctrine and theology. We begin to understand how it all works. That’s why it is so important to be in a good Bible-teaching and Bible-believing church, so that you can learn these things. The more you learn about what Christ has done, about who He is, and what He continues to do in us by the Holy Spirit, the deeper our relationship grows.

It’s like a marriage. You get to know somebody, you’re attracted to them, you get married, and then marriage is about growing in your knowledge of your mate. Over the years, you become more intimate as you get to know each other better. And in that process, you get to know yourself better as well. As you’re getting to know the other person better, you’re actually learning stuff about yourself, and you’re seeing things that need to change.

It’s the same thing in our relationship with Christ. As we grow in our relationship with Him and our knowledge of Him, it starts to reveal stuff about ourselves. Actually, the Holy Spirit is revealing those things so that we can bring them to Christ. And He who is the Savior can save us from them. The work of Christ in salvation isn’t just something He did,it’s something He does, and something ultimately He will do when He brings us into glory.

Heresy is a deviation from any of the essentials that are required in order to be born again in order to be saved.

As born-again Christians, does our eternal life begin only after death, or are we already living in our eternal life now, here on earth?

When does eternal life begin? That’s such a great question. It’s one I love preaching on. Eternal life begins the moment you’re born again. Eternal life doesn’t just refer to endless life. It refers to a quality of life as well. It is a newlife. That’s why, as Paul wrote in 2 Corinthians 5:17, “If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.”

We have a new life and that life, which is eternal, begins at the moment that we’re born again. For that reason, we are to grow in truth and grace. We are to experience Christ in this life that He’s given to us and begin to experience the reality of eternal life now.

Think back to the early church and the transformation which took place in those first disciples. The great hallmark of their lives was their love. Let’s not forget who those first Christians were. They were Jews. And as Jews, they were highly moral people. They endeavored to keep the Ten Commandments; those were very important to them. The Ten Commandments were their mandate for living. So, they were an incredibly moral people. At least, outwardly they appeared that way. When they became Christians, the people around them would not have noticed a tremendous moral difference in them.

So, what was the difference? What was the real distinction between these followers of Jesus and their Jewish peers? It was the love they had for each other. It was so remarkable, that even when the officials were putting the pressure on them and persecuting them, they were winning people to faith in Christ.

Throughout the first three centuries of the church, believers were being persecuted. And persecution got steadily worse after the earliest days of the church, as it began to move out into the Gentile world. The church became officially persecuted, and yet it kept growing. Why? Because of the quality of the lives of those who had come to faith in Christ. There was a difference. It was a different way to live, literally. And the people around them saw that and said, “I know that becoming a Christian could result in me losing my job, losing my family, losing my friends, or losing my life. But what I’m seeing in this person who has become a Christian, is of greater attraction to me than survival.” That’s amazing.

Eternal life begins the moment we’re born again. We enter into the fullness of our awareness of the reality of God, when the veil between this world and the spiritual is removed, that happens with our death. That is why death has really changed its meaning for the Christian. That’s why in the New Testament, death is referred to oftentimes as sleep. The body stops working, and the spirit goes to be with the Lord, but the day is coming when the spirit and a new body will be reunited. So, death takes on a new meaning for the believer. As Paul said in 2 Corinthians 5:8, to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.