 |
|
|
Bible Questions
Answers Below:
Q: Did Jesus really give authority to forgive sin to the apostles and the church in John 20:22 and Matthew 16:19?
A: This requires a lengthy explanation so bear with me.
1. Matt 16:18 can easily be understood that the “rock” that Jesus says his church will be built upon is not Peter the man but on Peter’s statement concerning Jesus. The original Greek supports this as much as the other interpretation. So that fact drops this verse into the category of “cryptic.” In other words, since we disagree about what the verse means then we must set it to one side and explore the rest of the Bible’s teaching on the topic. Once we have a clear understanding of the general biblical direction then we can pick this verse back up to see if it can be understood in a way that fits the rest of scripture, which it easily can be.
2. Peter didn’t oversee the early church. James did. So really if anyone at all would be considered the head of the early church it should be James, (Acts 15:13, 19; cf. Acts 1:13; 12:17; 21:18; 1 Cor. 15:7; Gal. 2:9, 12).
3. If the early church assigned the kind of authority to Peter that the later church assigned to him (i.e. being able to speak for God even beyond scripture) then Paul would have never “opposed him to his face” when he was “clearly wrong.” (Gal. 2:11-14).
4. Concerning loosing and binding in heaven what is bound on earth, this is like number one. If we don’t agree on what the verse means it’s time to set it aside and do a Bible study on the subject without that verse. In other parts of scripture can we support of the idea that God gave sinful humans the power to absolve other sinful humans of sin? I can’t.
But we can support easily God’s power to forgive sin. The Bible is replete with the general principle that God alone forgives sin (Acts 20:21; Mk 2:7; Lk 5:21; 1 Jn 1:7, 9; Mt 6:14; Acts 5:31). Even the Pharisees understood that, and Jesus didn’t refute them. So once we see a clear direction of scripture without the particular verse in question then can we pick that verse back up and try to understand it in a way that agrees with the rest of the Bible.
As far as I can think of this is the only reference given for the idea that the church can forgive sin. On the other hand it’s easy to understand this reference in another way: The church has the responsibility to “call sin by its right name.” If someone is living in direct, obvious disobedience to God the church has the responsibility to say so. If that person truly repents the church also has the responsibility to judge and acknowledge the response of forgiveness that heaven has already given. The literal translation of the verse is not what will happen in heaven but what has already happened: “what you loose has been loosed and what you bind has been bound.”
5. The Bible is conspicuously absent of any reference of anyone but Jesus saying, “Your sins are forgiven.” It’s also absent of any reference to someone asking anyone but God to absolve them of their sin.
6. The entire Old Testament sanctuary service is bound up in way heaven deals with sin. To accept the idea of humans forgiving sin on God’s behalf you really have to throw out the all of the symbolism of the sanctuary service.
Q: How can we be dead to sin and alive to God if we have a sinful nature? Aren’t we “saints” if we are born again? We can’t be saints and sinners at the same time.
A: It seems to me that Paul understood there to be a continuing battle going on spiritually between the new life in Christ and the old life of sin. That is why he in his sanctified status he still cried out, “O wretched man that I am, who will rescue me from this body of death…” (Rom. 7:24). In Romans 7:18, speaking in present tense he says, “I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out.”
I get the distinct feeling that Paul felt keenly his own conflict between a fallen nature trying to surrender entirely to the new life in Christ and recognizing that Christ dwelling in him was slowly but surely taking over every stronghold in his life. All the while, however, due to the grace of Christ, he has the status of a holy saint. Not because he was yet perfect, but because he was on the narrow path toward perfection. That’s why he said he had to “die daily.”
So in Christ’s incredible grace he bestows upon us the status of saint simply because we desire for his life to be lived out in us and daily die to our sinful nature so that he can live in us more and more. We are still drawn to sin sometimes, unfortunately. That is the nature of our corrupt hearts. But thank God that Jesus’ life in us is transforming us—as an ongoing process (2 Cor. 3:18).
Q: It has been said that Romans 13 was Hitler’s favorite chapter. How should we understand Romans 13?
A: I can easily see a dictator liking that chapter. Still, I don’t think Romans 13 needs to be taken any other way than what it seems to be. It all comes down to an issue of trusting God. If we believe that God really is in control and that nothing happens without his permission then how do we respond to his supremacy when it comes to the way we react to people in authority over us, including Hitler?
Nebuchadnezzar’s holocaust was just as bad as Hitler’s, and yet God worked much in Nebuchadnezzar. This doesn’t justify Hitler or Nebuchadnezzar. Romans 13 is not an attempt to justify any dictator. It’s not even a message to dictators. It’s a message to those living under them. The message is: Respect the authority over you because you have no idea how the King of kings is using that leader. Obey them insofar as they do not require you to disobey God. If they demand your money, give it to them. If they demand that you honor them do so, etc. And do it all in the name of Jesus Christ. In obeying the authorities over us we are obeying God— again, so long as they don’t require us to disobey the commands of God. Paul says the same thing to slaves whose masters beat them. Their master is wrong, yet they are to obey and respect them for Christ’s sake.
We are not to do this because they are acting like God. They are not. But God requires us to love and respect even our enemies. Romans 13 is yet another call to join God’s underground resistance movement of sabotaging evil with good. It’s the way of the kingdom of heaven.
Q: What is the role of the conscience in sin? Does someone need to be convicted of a truth personally before they become responsible for being obedient?
A: There’s obviously a story behind this question. Truth, says 2 Corinthians 4:2, will commend itself to our conscience. In other words God is consistent. When he says he is love, he is love. Every truth must be passed through that filter. So if we hear an alleged truth about God that seems inconsistent with love, our conscience should hold it suspect. In response we should immediately search our Bibles for an understanding consistent with who God says he is.
That said, however, our conscience isn’t always a reliable guide, because sin cauterizes and desensitizes the conscience. Therefore, especially when it comes to obedience, we often have to operate by faith and not by sight. When God plainly says, “Do” or “Don’t,” then what we happen to think about it is inconsequential. The fact is that the Spirit of God will never “convict” us to act contrary to the Word of God. Unfortunately, another spirit (often confused with the Spirit of God) loves to “convict” us that obedience is unnecessary, at least until such time as we are “convicted” that it is necessary. That is absolutely false.
Q: Who are the 144,000 of Revelation 7, why are they the only ones who can sing the song, and how are they related to the great multitude?
A: In Revelation there’s a pattern of John hearing something and then seeing it, or seeing and then hearing about it. So there is always the vision itself, which he sees in conjunction with the explanation of what he saw or would see. For example in Revelation 5 John hears that he will see the lion of the tribe of Judah. When he actually looks he doesn’t see a lion but a lamb. He hears and sees different symbols but, of course, what the different symbols represent are really the same thing, Jesus Christ.
In the same way in Revelation 7, John hears that he will see the 144,000, but when he looks he sees the great multitude that cannot be numbered. So these two things seem to be the same. The 144,000 is a symbol of God’s people not a literal number. Symbolism, remember, is default mode for Revelation.
The 144,000/great multitude are all those who have come through the tribulation. Whether tribulation refers just to the final events and plagues (which many of God’s people clearly will experience) or the entire tribulation of sin on planet earth since the beginning is a little unclear from the text. I tend to think the latter.
The reason only the 144,000/great multitude can sing the song is because they are the only ones who have had the experience. A country singer might be said to really sing the song about lost love when he is singing from experience, whereas it might be said that another can’t really sing the song because he isn’t singing from experience. To him the song is just words.
Q: God never changes, so why don’t we still stone people for disobeying certain laws?
A: There is a distinction between different kinds of Old Testament laws. There are the moral laws, the ceremonial laws, and the civil laws.
- The moral laws (i.e. the Ten Commandments) God gave to all people for all time. We still keep those laws, or at least we should.
- The ceremonial laws had the specific function of pointing people to the Messiah. Those laws naturally ended with the death of the Messiah as symbolized by the tearing of the sanctuary veil when Jesus died.
- The civil laws governed Israel as a nation during Old Testament times. Some of those civil laws still make sense in our time and culture and therefore we have adopted them, others do not make sense in our context so we have not adopted them. Among those we have not adopted are sending people out of the camp for skin conditions, burning houses that contract mildew, and execution by general population.
God never changes but the people he commands do change. He commanded Israel as a nation to do certain things but he doesn’t command the United States as a nation to do the same things simply because we’re not Israel.
Q: “What is Romans 14 really all about?”
A: I understand why you ask the question because Romans 14 is often used out of context to make an unrelated point, which is, “Go ahead and eat whatever you want as long as you ask God's blessing on it. Romans 14 as well as Peter’s rooftop vision proves that God no longer cares what we eat.”
I couldn’t disagree more with that use of Romans 14 or of Peter’s vision. I think God cares a great deal what we eat because physical life and spiritual life are inextricably and profoundly linked. Healthy people always bring more glory to God than unhealthy people. I would care greatly if my kids decided to eat cake, ice cream, Fruit Loops, and candy every morning for breakfast, even if they informed me that they would ask God to bless it. When God gave health laws to his children he gave them for the same reason we give health laws to our children. Even in the Old Testament the health laws were given not for ceremonial reasons but for practical reasons. Naturally God wants us to be healthy and what we eat is without question the biggest factor in influencing our health.
What Romans 14 is really about is unity and every Christian’s responsibility to create unity. It just so happened that the example Paul used to make this point on unity was food. But he could have used anything else just as easily.
Basically Paul is saying that before anything else unity is a necessity among Christians. The mature Christian may understand that he can eat certain things offered to idols because he understands that the entire concept of food being contaminated by a block of wood or stone is pretty lame. Idols have no power to affect food. But such a Christian should not let his freedom in this matter affect unity. If someone is offended by this, for goodness sake, it’s not worth it. For the sake of unity don’t eat any food in the presence of a weaker Christian if it causes him a crisis.
In the interest of unity the mature Christian has a responsibility to protect the immature Christian as a mature parent would protect an immature child. However, Paul goes on to point out that the immature Christian has a responsibility also, and that is not to judge the mature Christian based on his own perception of right or wrong. We must all give other Christians the freedom to live according to their own conscience.
In the end, says Romans 14, just get along. Don’t knowingly hurt each other. Mind your own business when it comes to other people’s morality, and treat gently those who can’t seem to mind their own business concerning your morality. Love each other and maintain unity. That is what Romans 14 is about.
Q: “Revelation 14:9 speaks about the wicked being tormented in the presence of the Lamb. Does this mean the wicked will actually be able to see heaven from hell?”
A: In a way the answer to your question is yes, but probably not in the way you are imagining it. The popular doctrine of eternally burning hell is not one I can agree with because I can’t find evidence for it in the Bible—at least not enough evidence to counteract the evidence for what theologians call annihilationism, which is the belief that hell has a beginning and an end. We can’t deal with all of the evidence in this short space, but we do have study guides that will walk you through all of the biblical evidence for what hell really is all about, which you can request through one of the churches listed on the right.
In short, the idea of never ending torture in hell is built on a few texts that can give that impression when you have that preconceived belief. Revelation 14:9 is one of them that says the smoke of their torment rises forever. How can smoke rise forever if the fire goes out? Also there are Jesus’ words in Matthew 25:41, which say that the wicked will go into the eternal fire prepared for them. That’s pretty clear, isn’t it? Or is it?
Consider Jude 7. Sodom and Gomorrah are an example of eternal fire. And consider Isaiah 34:9, 10, which uses the same language concerning Edom. Are these cities still burning? No, so there must be another way to understand these verses. They can easily be understood to agree with the rest of scripture that the effects of the judgment by fire are eternal. Smoke rising for ever and ever is simply a poetic image of permanence.
I’m not trying to explain away something because I want to. The truth is I must explain away much more to defend a belief of everlasting torture. I would have to explain away Malachi 4:1-3, Revelation 20:9, Matthew 10:28, Isaiah 65:16-19, 2 Thessalonians 1:9, just to mention a few.
What scholars from many faith traditions see is that the Bible gives a clear picture of everlasting punishment not everlasting punishing. This still covers the requirements of justice. If God loves his children more than we will ever love a child, can you imagine the kind of torture God would endure through the ceaseless ages knowing what was happening to his precious children? In my heart that strikes me more like a sadistic God than a just God. 2 Corinthians 4:2 says that the truth will commend itself to our conscience. We do well to pay attention to that.
The final chapters of Revelation present a clear picture of the way hell plays out. The righteous are raised at the second coming. Later the holy city comes back to earth. The wicked dead are raised, judgment is pronounced on them, fire comes from God and burns them up in the presence of the Lamb. That is hell. Then, when those unquenchable fires have finally died out the earth is recreated into a new heaven and a new earth.
There’s much more that could be said on this topic, but I would recommend requesting the Discover Bible guides for a complete picture. Also, even though it strikes me as a bit sensational, the website www.helltruth.com seems to get it right.
Q: “If the only way to God is through Jesus does that mean those who have never heard of Jesus cannot be saved?”
A: A lot of people have died not knowing the name of Jesus, including most of the people in the Old Testament, some of whom have already gone to heaven, like Moses and Elijah and Enoch. Jesus made this possible, of course, but knowing his name specifically doesn’t seem to be the operating principle. The operating principle is a heart of faith.
That’s Old Testament. Is the situation different in New Testament times since “there is no other name by which we are saved?” God says he doesn’t change so I can’t imagine that God would go by the heart in the Old Testament and then by something else later. Hebrews 11 says it is by faith that we please God.
Someone whose heart is filled with sincere faith is a heart that is pleasing to God. So someone who dies having never heard the name of Jesus will still be judged on his heart condition just as those who have heard the name of Jesus will be judged on their heart condition. See Romans 2:12-16.
Does this mean we should keep others in ignorance of Jesus so that they might be saved by never having the opportunity to reject him outright? Of course not. The fallen human heart is usually set to a default mode of faithlessness. A knowledge of Jesus is the most effective way to transform a heart that is not pleasing to God in to one that is. So in a very real way, the only way to God is through Jesus because he can transform hearts—even before someone knows his name.
Q: Do you think Jesus knew when he went into the wilderness to be tempted that he would come out victorious?
A: If the question is did he know supernaturally, I don't think so, except maybe through his gift of prophecy the same as other human prophets experienced it. Jesus wouldn't have used powers not available humans.
But I think he did know he would come out victorious in the same way that we can know we will. God promises victory to those who rely completely on him. Anyone who does not come out victorious the problem isn't their own strength, because no one has that kind of strength. We can know we will be victorious if we have the kind of reliance on God that allows his power to work, and God's power is always victorious.
Jesus couldn't have prepared more for the conflict than he did. He knew scripture. He knew his Father. He had denied his body. He had practiced his faith and trust in God. He could do no more to be prepared for the conflict. So at that point he had just to rely on God's promises of victory. I think his faith and trust in those promises assured him of victory.
Q: “What is at the heart of the sanctuary doctrine, and have we as a church lost sight of it or know it as we should?”
A: This is a deep subject that would require a lot of space to explore. Pretty much every belief of Seventh-day Adventists is nothing new. Others have believed the same for millennia. But the sanctuary doctrine is the one completely unique doctrine the Adventist Church holds. The earthly sanctuary symbolizes what is happening in the heavenly sanctuary as it relates to the plan of salvation and judgment.
Back in the 1800s a man named William Miller took the country by storm preaching that Jesus was going to return in 1844. He based this on calculations of time prophecies mainly in the book of Daniel that led up to the cleansing of the sanctuary. Miller supposed that the cleansing of the sanctuary referred to the coming of Jesus, which was obviously not so when Jesus failed to show up in 1844.
In the aftermath of disappointment the followers of Miller experienced they had to choose one of three options. 1) Give up the faith entirely, 2) reinterpret the time prophecies and re-figure when Christ would return, or 3) re-interpret what the cleansing of the sanctuary meant.
The people studied their Bibles diligently to see if one man's idea that something happened in heaven instead of earth that day was really a possibility. What they discovered was the idea of the pre-Advent judgment made a whole lot of sense and was well-supported biblically. The cleansing of the sanctuary happened on the Day of Atonement in the old Jewish temple services. It would make sense that the anti-typical Day of Atonement would begin also in heaven at some point in time. This, they decided, was what was indicated in the prophecies of Daniel.
And it makes sense. Rev. 22:12 says, “Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done. It seems that the only way Jesus could bring his reward with him at the second coming is by having already completed at least some phase of judgment by that time.
Q: “Where in the Bible does it say that you have to join a church in order to be baptized?”
A: The Bible doesn’t say in so many words, “You must join a church to be baptized.” But the Bible is clear that if you want to fellowship with Christ you do it, in part, by fellowship with his body. The Bible says that Christ is the head of the church, the church is called Christ’s body, and we are called Christ’s body. Why would anyone want to commit their life to Jesus Christ and not become part of the body of Christ? That seems about like saying I want to marry you but not live with you.
Some key verses:
• Col 1:18, "And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy."
• Eph 5:23, “For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.”
• 1 Cor. 12:27, “Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it.”
It seems pretty clear that a commitment to Christ, which is what baptism is, is also a commitment to the church.
Q: “After Jesus’ resurrection he told Mary not to touch him because he had not yet ascended to his Father. A while later he told his disciples to touch him. Did Jesus ascend to his Father between these two?”
A: This is better translated “do not hold onto or embrace, do not detain," rather than literally touch. The Bible does not say exactly when Jesus went to heaven the first time after his resurrection, but his statement to Mary leads us to believe that he was in a hurry to get to heaven to confirm that his sacrifice had been accepted. (Which says something to me about what happens when we die). Then apparently he was going back and forth frequently until his final ascension.
Q: I know the Bible says we should tithe 10 percent, but should we tithe on our gross income or our net income?
A: I had the same question at one time and I asked someone whom I respected for his thoughts on the matter. He didn't state a simple answer, he just asked me a question: "Would you rather be blessed on your gross or your net?" Tithe paying is a biblical mandate, however, the specific details are not so clearly laid out in scripture. Some basics are given, like tithe is to be used to support the spread of the gospel. The Lord will impress upon you the way you should tithe, and as you see Him blessing you you will likely feel like giving even more. You will soon discover that it's simply not possible to give more to God than He gives back to you!
Q: What is the worm that does not die that Jesus talks about in Mark 9?
A: I can't say that I really know a rock solid answer to that question. Jesus was quoting Isaiah, who was quite the literary poet in the Hebrew style of poetry. Hebrew poetry is based on parallelism. In other words, the poet makes a statement and then repeats the same concept again using different words. It appears that is what Isaiah was doing, which can help us figure out a little better what Jesus meant. Mark 9:48 says, "...their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched." He is speaking of hell here. A few have suggested that the worm represents the soul that does not die, but most commentators reject that interpretation whether or not they believe in a soul that can live separately from the body. It seems that perhaps Jesus and Isaiah were poetically referring to the permanency of the destruction of the wicked in the fires of hell. The fire cannot be put out, it will have to burn itself out, and the destruction of the wicked is permanent situation. Tough question. I'm not sure that it's an adequate answer.
Q: What is the Spirit of Prophecy?
A: This is an important question because it is used to help describe God's last day remnant people. To answer the question we have to link lots related texts together. Revelation 19:10 says that "the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy." The logical follow up question then is what is the testimony of Jesus? The testimony of Jesus is just what it sounds like; it's the testimony or the messages or the example that Jesus gave us. Also in Revelation 14:12 the Bible describes the remnant as those who keep the commandments and remain faithful to Jesus. The spirit of prophecy is one of the gifts of the spirit listed in 1 Corinthians 12. Connect all of these texts together, as well as much more that the Bible talks about, and you get a clear picture of what it all means.
In a nutshell Scripture is telling us that God's commandments and the messages from God's prophets are the ultimate criteria by which we shall be judged. Therefore, it makes a lot of sense for God's people to spend a lot of time in learning to understand what it means to keep the commandments and in searching the Word of God for the messages he has sent through his prophets--and also in keeping our eyes open for any more true prophets that God may send us. Which opens up a whole new question: how can you know if a prophet is true.
Q: Some Biblical Tests of a True Prophet
A: The Bible indicates that the gift of prophecy will continue all the way until the Second Coming. It also warns us to beware of false prophet that will seem like true prophets. How can we know for sure if a prophet is really genuine? Here are some Biblical tests to compare to anyone claiming to be a prophet.
1) A true prophet does not lie. His predictions come to pass. (Jer. 28:9)
2) A true prophet prophesies in the name of the Lord, not in his own name. (2 Pet. 1:21)
3) A true prophet does not give his own private interpretation of prophecy. (2 Pet. 1:20)
4) A true prophet points out the sins and transgressions of the people against God. (Isa. 58:1)
5) A true prophet warns of God's coming judgment. (Examples of judgment such as portrayed in Isa. 24:20, Rev. 14:6, 7).
6) A true prophet edifies the church, counsels and advises it in religious matters. (1 Cor. 14:3, 4")
7) A true prophet's words will be in absolute harmony with the words of the prophets that have preceded him. (Isa. 8:20)
8) A true prophet recognizes the incarnation of Jesus Christ. (1 John 4:1-3)
9) A true prophet can be recognized by the results of his work. (Matt. 7:16-20)
10) A true prophet acts in accordance with the will and approval of God. (Deut. 18:19)
Q: Why does the Bible say women shouldn't speak in church?
A: 1 Corinthians 14:33ff was written in the context of an orderly church worship service. Apparently, whatever the women in the Corinthian church were doing was disruptive. It appears that Paul was setting forth a principle that stated that church was a sacred time and should be conducted in order and reverence and that anything that distracted should be stopped. Some scholars feel that Paul made a statement that applies to all Christian churches from then until the end of time, but the rest of Scripture seems to give women a distinct place in ministry both inside and outside of church. This is a subject that needs to be studied in light of the whole range of Bible principles. See "What is the best way to study the Bible?"
Q: What is the best way to study the Bible?
A: There are many great ways to study the Bible, such as reading the Bible through, memorizing passages, studying a single verse in depth considering context, culture, etc. However, I believe that Isaiah 28:10 gives us one very important principle for studying Scripture. "For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little." In other words, the Scriptures must be studied as a whole, not in bite-sized pieces. Many people will take their belief, find a text to support it (often a hard to understand text) and then they must try to force the clear parts of Scripture into the mold they have created around their belief. The only really safe way to study God's Word is to have no set agenda or belief in mind which you want to prove. It's best to go to the work involved in searching for everything God has to say on a particular subject. When you do that you will see the Bible pointing in an unmistakable direction toward a particular belief. At that point you can take the not-so-clear verses that may seem to contradict the direction the rest of the Bible seems to point and study those more closely to see if they can be understood in a way that fits the rest of Scripture. You will find that the Bible doesn't contradict itself and is its own best interpreter.
Q: Where in the Bible does it say that Michael and Jesus are one and the same?
A: It doesn't! At least not directly. But given the evidence in the Bible, many Christian scholars say chances are that references to Michael and Jesus are referring to the same individual. The Bible uses the name Michael five times: Dan. 10:13, 21; 12:1; Jude 9; and Rev. 12:7). Most of these to equate Michael with an angel and we normally think of angels as being created beings, which Jesus is not. The term "angel" has come to mean a type of creature but the Bible uses the term more as a function describing a messenger. Usually these messengers are created beings, but there is one notiable exception. In the Old Testament (Ex. 3:2, 4; Judges 6:12, 14) the "angel" is equated with God. In other words, sometimes Jesus delivers his messages himself, and is called an angel when he does so. Michael refers to the chief angel, the archangel, the great prince and so on. In Rev. 12:7 Michael is the one who fought the devil. In Dan 12:1 Michael is the one who arises to save his people. These are functions of Jesus. Given the functions of Michael and the fact that an angel doesn't necessarily refer to a created being, then it would be reasonable to assume that Michael and Jesus are the same. Fortunately this isn't a salvation issue. One way or the other Michael is going to save his people!
Q: What is a salt covenant?
A: A salt covenant is a covenant of permanent and perpetual obligation. When covenants were made, they were usually confirmed with sacrificial meals, and salt was always present (Num 18:19).
Q: What is a heave offering?
A: The heave offering, is the same as the wave offering, which was literally waved over the altar. The term "heave" isn't used in modern translations. They say "waved" and "presented."
Q: Why does the end of 1st Samuel say that Saul killed himself and the first part of 2nd Samuel says an alien did it?
A: Saul killed himself on his own sword. The young man that came to David made up the story about killing Saul hoping that he would gain the appreciation of the new king. However, his plot backfired when David had him killed for killing the Lord's annointed.
Q: When Saul went to the woman at Endor, if the dead are really asleep why did Samuel come to communicate with Saul?
A: Evil spirits can take on other forms. See 2 Cor. 11:14. This was what happened at Endor that night.
Q: What is the meaning of Matthew 12:40? Even if partial days are included in the traditional thinking, as it relates to the crucifixion, you are still hard pressed to honestly say that Jesus was dead for three days since he arose prior to the sun coming up on the third day. But more importantly how can one come up with three nights if tradition is followed since that idea says Jesus was crucified on Friday (just before the Sabbath) and arose Sunday morning which leaves only Friday and Saturday night. Is it possible that the Sabbath that is referred to is not the weekly Sabbath but rather the Sabbath of the Passover (or Unleavened Bread)?
A: Jesus referred to the time he would spend in the tomb on several occasions. He said "In three days," "After three days," and "The third day." Of course, Jesus wasn't contradicting himself so all of them must mean the same thing. The difficulty comes in the way we understand three days and the way they did back then. A period of a day meant the daylight hours. Actually, that's not so far off from today either. If I tell my wife I'm going to be gone three days I don't go away for five days (an extra day on each end of the three) just to be sure that I'm for a full three days. It means I leave Friday sometime and come back Sunday sometime. Calling it a day even when it referred to just part of a day wasn't uncommon in many of parts of the world. Apparently there is a different word in the Greek for a full night/day and just a calendar day. I gather from the SDA Commentary that Jesus used the word for three calendar days. Why Jesus said he would be in the grave three nights, we can't be sure, but again, either we misunderstand something about language then, or Jesus was contradicting himself in his other references. Another thing to remember is that Jesus was crucified during a Passover, which included a High Day. A High Day was when the "sabbath" of the passover fell on an actual Sabbath, so it wouldn't figure that it was simply a sabbath with a small "s".
Q: Does 2 Corinthians 3 prove that the the Ten Commandments were rendered invalid when Jesus died?
A: Both Adventist and non-Adventist commentators state that 2 Cor. 3 is speaking not of the Ten Commandments but of the Jewish ceremonial system that pointed forward to the Messiah. The same thing that Paul was trying to symbolize by talking about the glory fading from Moses' face was shown when the temple curtain was ripped from top to bottom at Jesus’ death. The Jewish sacrificial system faded away with the Messiah’s visit to earth. The old covenant was rendered invalid.
God’s original covenant with his people wasn’t bad. It was glorious. But it paled in comparison to his new covenant in Jesus Christ. Interestingly, the word “law” isn’t even mentioned in 2 Cor. 3. The Jewish ceremonial and sacrificial system were rendered invalid at the cross, but that should not be confused with God’s moral law being rendered invalid. The problem is that sometimes people consider the old covenant and the Ten Commandments one and the same, but Scripture does not support this. That the commandments are still valid is extremely clear in other parts of Scripture. Here are just a few texts that show that.
- Rom. 13:9—Paul references the commandments with no allusion that they are now invalid.
- Rom. 3:31—Paul states clearly that the law is not nullified, but in fact we uphold it.
- 1 Cor. 7:19—This is a hot topic for Paul that the Jewish ceremonial laws are gone, but here he adds that keeping God’s commandments is what counts.
- Rev. 12:17—In the end of time the Dragon will make war with the offspring of the Woman, those who obey God’s commandments.
- Rev. 14:12—Clearly states that the saints obey God’s commandments.
- Luke 16:17—Jesus says that not one “jot or tittle” not one stroke will drop out of the law.
Q: Some people believe we are "predestined" to go to heaven or hell and we have no choice. Does the Bible support this?
A: No.The predestination concept comes in part from Ephesians 1:4-5 and Rom. 8:29, 30. If you refuse to dig deeper, I can see how you might read the texts as some people do. However, there are significant parts of the verses that show the word "predestination" must be defined differently than some people define it without consideration.
The logical progression makes it clear that predestination depends not on an arbitrary choice by God, but on our relationship with Christ. Follow it through:
1. Ephesians 1:4-5: He chose us in Him before creation to be holy and blameless. In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus.
2. 2 Cor. 5:21: Jesus became sin for us so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God. (See also 1 Cor. 15:22; 1 Thess. 4:16).
3. Rom. 8:29, 30: God foreknew (NIV) and those He predestined are called (refusal is permitted). Those who accept are justified (in Christ).
God would like to have everybody be saved (1 Tim. 2:4; see 2 Peter 3:9. Eze. 33:11). All who are in Christ are predestined (as a class) for eternal life. All who reject salvation are predestined (as a class) to be lost. Our destiny is not fixed. John 15:1-7: We must remain (NIV) or abide (KJV) in Him.
A choice on our part is involved. (Josh. 24:25; see Deut. 30:19; Ps. 119:30; Joel 3:14). 1 Jn.5:12, 13: He who has the Son has life, he who does not have the Son does not have life…you may know that you have eternal life. Salvation is for all who accept it. (John 1:29; 3:16; 1 Ti. 2:6; Heb.2:9; 2 Peter 3:9; 1 Jn.2:2) It is based on our relationship to Christ. (Jn.3:15, 16, 36; 17:3; 1 Jn.5:13; Rom.6:23; 1 Cor. 15:22; Eph.1:7; 1 Tim.2:6; Col.1:14), plus many more texts.
Q: Do Adventists believe that heaven and hell is only a state of mind?
A: No. Adventists believe in a literal heaven and hell. Where we differ from other Protestant denominations is that we don't believe that hell is everlasting. We believe that hell is the lake of fire at the end of time when sin is finally eradicated completely. God isn't out to torture people, but to cleanse the world. If hell was a place of permanent torment, it seems that then the wages of sin is not death but eternal life of torture. If you take all the texts that seem to support the idea of an eternal hell you can also easily understand those texts in the opposite way to support the idea of a limited hell. The better way to study the Bible is to take everything that is clear and then see if the unclear parts can agree by understanding them in a particular way. The other way, building an opinion based on the unclear passages and then trying to force the clear parts of the Bible to fit that opinion, is not only difficult but even dangerous. You can make the Bible say anything you want that way.
Q: Do Adventists believe that the scapegoat that is sent into the desert represents Satan?
A: The understanding of what the scapegoat represents in the ancient Jewish sanctuary service long has been and still is debated between Bible scholars. The Adventist belief that the scapegoat represents the devil was also believed by the ancient Jews. There are plenty of Protestant Bible scholars that believe this also.
Simply, the belief that the scapegoat represents the devil comes down to the fact that the Lamb has completed His work of atonement. There is nothing else to be done except to transfer the guilt of sin from the Lamb to the goat where it belongs. Then the goat, which has no other part to play in the sanctuary process, is sent out into the dessert to die a permanent death, the sins of the people along with him. This parallels the devil's part to play in the controversy between Christ and Satan.
Perhaps the sheep and the goats analogy that Jesus uses adds more weight with this belief as well. Also, the original name of the goat, Azazel, has from ancient times been identified with an evil spirit. The way I understand it, the idea that the goat is a type of Christ is a fairly new one, though I don't know why I have thought that
Home | About Us | Calendar | District Info | Ministries | Bible Study | Prayer | News | Devotional | Radio | Bookstore | Contact/Find Us
|
