“Why did God create man?” someone asked. King David posed a similar question in the long ago. “When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, The moon and the stars, which You have ordained, What is man that You are mindful of him, And the son of man that You visit him?” (Psalm 8:3-4 NKJV). Genesis 1:26 notes the collaboration by members of the Godhead to create mankind, and it was so. A reason why God created mankind does not appear there. Elsewhere in the Bible, we see that we were created to glorify God. “Everyone who is called by My name, Whom I have created for My glory; I have formed him, yes, I have made him” (Isaiah 43:7). In any case, righteous or wicked, man was created for God. “The Lord has made all for Himself, Yes, even the wicked for the day of doom” (Proverbs 16:4). One might also observe that the creation of man represents the outpouring of God’s inexhaustible love (Jeremiah 31:3; 1 John 4:8). For those who comply with God’s Word, they will bask in the love of God eternally in His presence. Though God does not need anything from mankind (Acts 17:24-25), He is willing to share His eternal home with the faithful. Those individuals, our Lord Jesus will return to retrieve someday (John 14:1-3; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17).

Presently, I will also like to know what are Psalms, hymns and spiritual songs as provided in Colossians 3:16.  How can we identify a psalm, a hymn and a spiritual song in a typical Hymn book. The basic definitions for the Greek words translated as “psalms,” “hymns” and “spiritual songs” are as follows. “Psalm” means a religious ode set to music, particularly the Book of Psalms. “Hymns” means a religious ode, such as from the Book of Psalms. “Spiritual songs” refers to religious singing. As one can see from these preliminary definitions, it is difficult to distinguish between psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. However, collectively psalms, hymns and spiritual songs represent a category of music that stands in distinction from secular (non-religious) songs as well as from base or vulgar lyrics (Colossians 3:8). Rather than attempting to categorize songs in our songbooks based on their identity as psalms, hymns or songs, we would do better to ensure that what we sing religiously corresponds to the category represented by “psalms, hymns and spiritual songs.” Other venues outside of a worshipful setting are suitable for secular songs, and vulgar or base songs ought never be sung by or listened to as a choice of entertainment by faithful Christians.

A reader posed the question, asking “how to build a God-fearing and happy family.” A God-fearing family begins with indoctrination—a sort of spiritual inoculation—with God’s Word. Deuteronomy 6:5-9 is an excellent method of instilling God’s Word in one’s family. Of course, Deuteronomy 6 pertains to Judaism, whereas we who live today live under Christianity. Nevertheless, the same procedure for implanting the Word of God into one’s family members will be effective and useful now, too. You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength. And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates. (Deuteronomy 6:5-9 NKJV) The process begins with ensuring that one loves God ultimately, completely and totally (vss. 5-6). Unless parents are fully committed to putting God first in their lives, and unless parents are intimately familiar with God’s Word, they will not be able to impart God’s Word effectively to their children. Then, verse 7 begins by stating that with routine and regularity parents must acquaint their children with God’s Word. Haphazardly and infrequently teaching

Someone asked about “666 in Book of Revelation.” People have been curious about those numbers for a long time (Revelation 13:18). The Book of Revelation is a highly figurative book that was more easily understood by the original recipients than by us who live nearly 2,000 years since it was penned. Consequently, the volume itself and this verse with the mysterious reference to 666 have been widely and variously interpreted. Numerous historical persons throughout the centuries have been suspected of being the 666 in the Book of Revelation. Opinions abound, but definitively identifying who was represented by “666” remains elusive. The theme of the Book of Revelation is more easily discerned than the precise meaning or application of some of the details in the epistle.

“Did Job live before Abraham or before Noah?” The commentary Barnes Notes estimates that Job lived “about 1,800 years before Christ, and about 600 years after the deluge.” Smith’s Bible Dictionary supposes that Abraham lived from 1996 B.C. to 1822 B.C. If the calculations are correct, Job would have lived after Noah and slightly before or nearly contemporary with Abraham. Other resources likewise place Job on a timeline of biblical characters between Noah and Abraham.

There are two perspectives from which one can discern that the Bible is not just another book. First, the Bible considered as simply a specimen of literature is without peers. This primarily pertains to an external analysis of the Book and contrasting it with anything and everything else ever written. Secondly, the Bible is superior as well to every other book from internal evaluation of it and in contrast to every other book ever penned. This pertains to the inescapable acknowledgement by honest hearts of the divine origin of the Bible. From every reflection, the Holy Word of God—the Bible—is not just another book. The most revered ancient secular manuscripts rely on a handful of copies far removed from the originals for their contemporary existence. On the other hand, the Bible’s contemporary presence and content results from an expansive, incomparable foundation of many thousands of witnesses. The type of witnesses to which we refer are thousands of ancient manuscript copies of the Bible books in the original biblical languages of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek; thousands of antique translations of the Bible in various languages; numerous lectionaries (worship service Scripture selections); and the writings of the so-called Church Fathers over several centuries following the commencement of Christianity (i.e., defenses of Christianity and early commentaries). The Bible is the best attested literary work on earth with neither peers nor any other writing even close to being as thoroughly validated as it is. Obviously, the Bible is not just another book! Most books do

“Thou Shalt Not Kill” (Exodus 20:13). This very commandment in the Old Testament and its application in the New Testament has generated a lot of controversy in its interpretation and application in this New Testament dispensation. Thus, I want you to answer the following questions with relevant Scriptures especially from the New testament: (1) Is thou shalt not kill referring to murder or any type of killing including manslaughter, killing by accident, killing in self-defense, etc.? (2) Is there legal and lawful killing in this New Testament [dispensation]? (3) Are worldly governments justified if they mete out capital punishment to criminals, terrorists, murderers, etc.? (4) Can a Christian enlist in the army, police and other paramilitary agencies who are licensed by state governments to kill when necessary? (5) Can nations in this New Testament dispensation go to war? (6) Can Christians who are enlisted in the army fight for their countries during war? (7) Can a Christian kill in self-defense? These questions are very relevant to my spiritual growth and biblical understanding. Therefore, they demand your urgent response. The word “kill” in Exodus 20:13 as it appears in the King James Version of the Bible, for instance, is translated as “murder” in several other translations (e.g., New King James, New International, English Standard Version, Young’s Literal Translation). Even in the Old Testament, there was a distinction between murder and other reasons for which someone might be killed. God provided six cities of refuge to which someone who had committed manslaughter

The late brother T. Pierce Brown once wrote the following profound and biblically accurate statement: “Church membership is the byproduct of salvation.” Some folks in their minds divorce church membership from salvation, but in reality, there is an inseparable, biblical link between them. One cannot enjoy salvation without church membership, and one cannot have actual church membership without first having been saved from his or her past sins. Despite what individuals might imagine, church membership and salvation are permanently tied together. The very process by which one enters into salvation is the identical process by which one enters into church membership. The New King James Version reads, “…the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved” (Acts 2:47). Other translations, referring to church membership, read, “…the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved” (Acts 2:47 English Standard Version). That process leading to salvation and church membership culminates at immersion (Romans 6:3-5) or baptism for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38, 41). Contrary to what general denominational dogma stipulates, water baptism does save from sin (1 Peter 3:20-21). Jesus summarized the divine plan for human redemption in Mark 16:16 as faith plus baptism equals salvation. Corresponding to the physical act of baptism, at baptism, the Holy Spirit places the saved into the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:13), which is the church (Ephesians 1:22-23; Colossians 1:18) of Christ (Romans 16:16). Hence, salvation and church membership are the same activity. Therefore, to decry

Please, could you help me explain what it means for wives to submit to their husbands? Or, does submission have limits, and if yes, what are the limits? A husband is the head of his wife (1 Corinthians 11:3). As such, wives must submit to their own husbands (Ephesians 5:22; 1 Peter 3:1). Ephesians 5:24 says that wives are to submit to their husbands “in everything.” Colossians 3:18, though, reads, “Wives, submit to your own husbands, as is fitting in the Lord” (NKJV). It is proper for wives to obey their husbands, but this obedience extends only to what is proper “in the Lord” or as a Christian. 

There is sufficient implication in Scripture to affirm, “Yes, the apostles were baptized.” Both John the Baptist (Matthew 3:1-6) and Jesus Christ (John 4:1) made and baptized disciples. Some of the apostles had been disciples first of John the Baptist (John 1:35-40; Matthew 10:1-4). Though Jesus was credited with baptizing more people than John the Baptist had baptized, our Lord did not personally baptize anyone, but His disciples performed the baptisms (John 4:2). Since the apostles were involved in both the ministries of John the Baptist and of Jesus Christ, which included baptisms, it is logical to infer that the apostles themselves had been baptized, too. The reason that our Lord gave for His submission to be baptized was “to fulfill all righteousness” (Matthew 3:15). Therefore, the apostles of John the Baptist as well as the apostles likewise needed to be baptized to fulfill all righteous, meaning that baptism was required to be pleasing to God since the time of the ministry of John the Baptist. Further, since the apostles were administering baptism, it is reasonable to conclude that they had received what they were dispensing. The baptism received by the apostles and the disciples of John the Baptist was before the cross and different in purpose from the baptism of the Great Commission (Mark 16:16), which was implemented after the cross of Christ (Acts 19:1-7). The baptisms of John the Baptist and of the Great Commission were the same in form, but they differed in purpose. The difference between the two

My God is real! Since my God is real, and I am a servant of my God, I must show in my life that my God is real. “For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light” (Ephesians 5:8 NKJV). Christians need to conduct themselves the way they ought to conduct themselves as a natural consequence of being Christians. If a creature quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and looks like it is a duck, it might be a duck. Likewise, Christians ought to sound like Christians, walk like Christians and look like Christians. Any behavior or speech contrary to Christian behavior and speech does not evidence that one is a Christian. Lip service alone is hypocritical and unworthy to be associated with Christians. “Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying: ‘These people draw near to Me with their mouth, And honor Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men’” (Matthew 15:7-9). Christians must follow through with the Gospel by implementing it in their lives. “But he who looks into the perfect law of liberty and continues in it, and is not a forgetful hearer but a doer of the work, this one will be blessed in what he does” (James 1:25). “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven”

A local church that belongs to Jesus Christ will have several biblical characteristics about which one can read upon the pages of the New Testament. For instance, does it identify itself with a biblical description or name? Or, does it align itself with a manmade doctrine or some man in the name that it chooses for itself? Biblical designations or names for the church in the New Testament include “churches of Christ” (Romans 16:16) and “the church of God” (1 Corinthians 1:2). Assemblies of Christ or assemblies of God would still be biblically correct since the word “church” means an “assembly.” However, there are additional biblical characteristics of the church of the Bible, such as what is taught about the plan of salvation. Our Lord summarized the scheme of redemption in Mark 16:16, citing that belief or faith plus baptism equals salvation. With this the balance of the New Testament agrees when discussing human salvation (Acts 2:38; 22:16; Romans 6:3-5; 1 Peter 3:21). There are still other characteristics of the church of the Bible, such as how it is organized. The New Testament church was congregational with each church being autonomous or self-governing in accordance with inspired instruction (Acts 14:23). When fully organized, a congregation was led by a plurality of elders appointed over the local congregation according to divine qualifications (1 Timothy 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-11). Elders guide or shepherd the flock of God for the Chief Shepherd—Jesus Christ (1 Peter 5:1-4), and they must account to God for each

Reality is more real today for me than it has ever been in all of the decades preceding the present. Losing the wife of my youth (Proverbs 5:18), as well as growing old (Psalm 90:10), has transformed my thinking from a focus on my worldly existence to the otherworldly pursuit to be with God for eternity in His house. That is, what really matters has changed from the consideration of temporal stuff to eternal things. For the past 45 years, I thought I was seeking “first the kingdom of God” (Matthew 6:33), but I see more clearly now than ever before. To the best of my ability, everything that I think or propose to do I filter through the lenses of a consciousness of whose servant I am, from where I have come and to where I relentlessly purpose to go eternally. The child of God ought to be ever alert to the fact that he or she is a Christian. We must be consistently vigilant to discipline our minds that they, as well as our actions, conform to the biblical instruction of the New Testament. To the Bible the children of God need to appeal—daily—for divine guidance (Psalm 119:105). Resorting to God’s Word as a fixer upper or to effect damage control after acting out of sync with Bible teaching is unprofitable and a misuse of Scripture. Organizing a person’s thoughts and activities throughout one’s daily waking moments to correspond with God’s mandates is also a precursor to orderliness

Someone inquires if it is appropriate for women to wear pants—slacks or trousers. This section of Gospel Gazette Online is dedicated to providing biblical answers to religious questions. However, the Bible does not specifically speak to this question. To answer this inquiry, we will need to appeal to biblical principles, culture and modesty. Following the sin of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, God determined that men and women must wear clothes. God replaced the unsatisfactory fig leaf aprons that Adam and Eve fashioned for themselves instead with animal skins, which covered them more fully (Genesis 3:7, 21). Moving forward from Patriarchy under which Adam and Eve lived, under Judaism, men and women were prohibited from wearing clothing of the opposite sex (Deuteronomy 22:5). This verse is likely the basis of the question posed herein. Despite the teaching of this passage, both the garments and the adornments worn by biblical era people often resembled that of the opposite sex. Sometimes, the differences were subtle, as is still the case around the world where men and women persist in wearing clothing comparable to biblical era clothes. For instance, in one Asian nation, both men and women wear a garment comparable to a skirt; whereas men tuck and secure their garment in the front, women tuck their skirt on one hip or the other. There may be a difference, also, in the print of the skirts respectively for men and for women. Nevertheless, there is a distinction between the appearance of men

Someone asks, “How can I know that I am saved?” It is no wonder that anyone would ask such a question in view of multiple world religions and thousands of so-called Christian denominations—all of which offer their own solutions to the need for salvation. Therefore, no one ought to depend on manmade—but rather divine in origin—answers to so important an inquiry. Forget what mere man has to say, and instead, resort to what God through His inspired revelation has recorded for our inspection and application to our lives. First, it is possible to know that one is saved. By “know,” we refer to knowledge rather than to simply feelings, which can be shifting, unstable and unreliable. “Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments” (1 John 2:3 NKJV). The “Him” in this verse refers to Jesus Christ (v. 1), who saves from sins (v. 2). The sense is that we know that we know Jesus Christ as our Savior “if we keep His commandments.” Thus, keeping the commandments of our Lord is essential to receive the forgiveness of sins. Not only can one know that he or she is saved initially from sins by Jesus Christ upon keeping the commandments of our Lord, but continued obedience to the commandments of Jesus Christ result in continual or ongoing salvation. “But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us

“Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence). Another source further defines “circumstantial evidence” to be “evidence in a trial which is not directly from an eyewitness or participant and requires some reasoning to prove a fact” (emphasis added, https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=191). In a sense, God is on trial as to His very existence. What do the facts establish? Does sufficient evidence exist to prove the existence of God? If God exists, has He provided mankind any guidance respecting this life or eternity to come? In the legal sense, there is no direct evidence establishing the existence of God. By that, we mean no one living today has had or presently experiences direct communication with or observes God. Claims to the contrary by some people lack credibility. God has in the past interacted directly and dynamically with humanity, but no evidence exists that He operates amidst us openly today—providentially and unseen, yes, but not directly and visible (e.g., not with ongoing Bible miracles). Therefore, if there is evidence, today, for the existence of God, it must be indirect or circumstantial evidence. Does circumstantial evidence sufficiently prove the existence of God? There are two primary lines of circumstantial evidence that absolutely, beyond the shadow of any doubt prove the existence of God. Together, they provide overwhelming circumstantial evidence of the

Introduction The following notes represent An Overview of How We Got the Bible because, on one hand, of their brevity compared to the vast amount of detail that is available to be sifted regarding this topic. Secondly, the following are summaries and excerpts from more extensive works on the subject of others who doubtlessly are more eminently qualified to lecture at length about How We Got the Bible. Nevertheless, it is hoped that the material herein is satisfactory to introduce to teachers and preachers How We Got the Bible, as well as to provide the right amount of acquaintance with this matter for other Christians. This study has been rewarding for me, and I have optimism that students of the Bible who pore over these pages will be enriched, too. The Inspiration of the Bible Unless divine inspiration is the source of the Bible, how we got the Bible is of little consequence and is merely a matter of idle curiosity. However, since the Bible exists as a result of divine inspiration, understanding how we got the Bible is an essential part of having and maintaining a proper regard for the Bible. “The Bible…is God speaking. He has spoken, and the Bible is the result. … Hence it is of the highest importance that we know whether or not we have the real Bible today, and if so, how it has come down to us” (H.S. Miller 3). Truly, 2 Timothy 3:16 refers to the divine source of the Bible when it says, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God…”

“Based on one of the qualifications for elders that a man must be ‘the husband of one wife’ (1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:6), were some first century Christians polygamists? Can Christians today be polygamists?” In short, the answers to these two questions are “maybe” and “no.” Religiously, the first century was a period of transition from Judaism (and Patriarchy for non-Jews) to Christianity. As an example, the apostle Paul and other Christians evidently had initiated Jewish vows at a time when Judaism was effective, but they fulfilled those vows after Judaism was no longer God’s religious law in effect and after the commencement of Christianity (Acts 18:18; 21:23). Since Judaism and Patriarchy have both been replaced with Christianity about two millennium ago, the transition between Judaism and Patriarchy has long since ceased. Polygamy was practiced by some under both Judaism (e.g., Solomon, 1 Kings 11:3) and Patriarchy (e.g., Abraham, Jacob). Polygamy, though, was not God’s ideal plan for marriage, evident from His creation of one man for one woman—Adam and Eve. The original instructions for marriage only allowed for one husband and one wife (Genesis 2:24-25). During His earthly ministry, Jesus restored God’s original plan for marriage when He was asked about the subject of divorce (Matthew 19:4-5). Nevertheless, some in the first century may have been polygamists at the time when they became acquainted with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. They, then, found themselves in the situation of having entered into polygamy at a time (under Judaism or Patriarchy)

Regarding Acts 20:7, was the Lord’s Supper account therein observed on Monday? Acts 20:7 reads, “Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight” (NKJV). All standard English translations of the New Testament agree that the church in Troas (Acts 20:6) came together on the first day of the week to observe the communion or the Lord’s Supper. In the first place, irrespective of whether the apostle Paul’s preaching extended beyond the first day of the week into the next day, it remains that the church assembled to observe the Lord’s Supper on the first day of the week—Sunday on our calendars, today. In the second place, the Jewish concept of when a day began and ended differed from how Romans viewed the beginning and the ending of a day. Jewish reckoning of a day considered the day as beginning approximately at 6 p.m. or at sunset (Genesis 1:5, 8); to them, a day was from sunset to sunset (Leviticus 23:32). Therefore, if Jewish understanding of a day were applied to Acts 20:7, the day under consideration had begun at sunset or at about 6 p.m., in which case there was only six hours between the beginning of the day and “midnight.” From the Jewish perspective, then, even after midnight would have been still the same day—the first day of the week. Regardless of whether Roman time—comparable to the contemporary

Several articles about biblical interpretation appear in the archived pages of Gospel Gazette Online. Following are some links for a few of those pages. In addition, in the free digital biblical library on Gospel Gazette Online are several books as PDF files. One of those books is about biblical interpretation, which you may read by selecting the following link. Biblical interpretation involves three different ways of communicating the will of God to man: direct command, approved example and implication (from which we are obligated to infer only what is implied in Scripture without taking from or adding to it). These are the same three ways by which people communicate with each other, too. Sometimes people attempt to disallow approved examples and divine implication in the Bible, supposing that only direct commands equal biblical authority. That is a serious error because it carelessly disregards divine instruction from God to mankind. For instance, without accepting implication from which man must infer what is implied in Scripture, not even direct commands found in the Bible would apply to anyone today, since no Scripture in the Bible was specifically written to anyone now living. For even a direct command to apply to anyone today, one must first see a biblical implication from which he correctly infers that the command not only applied to those to whom it was originally given, but that the same command also applies to people living today. Commands cannot apply today unless one accepts that biblical implication is authoritative. Likewise, approved examples teach

“Male pattern blindness” is a phrase that I have heard on occasion being muttered by some woman, maybe even my wife, regarding men and perhaps me in particular. That expression is likely to occur, for instance, if I were unable to find something in the refrigerator, although whatever for which I was searching was plainly in view. (I tend to think, however, if there is such a thing as “male pattern blindness,” there must also exist sometimes “female pattern blindness.”) Someone else might utter another idiom when something obviously visible cannot be discovered, such as, “If it were a snake, it would’ve bitten you!” All of us, I suppose, on occasion are oblivious to what should be obvious to us. Most of the time, though, our “blindness” when trying to locate something is relatively unimportant and pertains to mundane matters associated with daily life. Yet, it is a serious human failing when we appear to be blinded to spiritual matters, which pertain to one’s eternal life. It is alarming when the children of God seem to have little concern for their own spiritual wellbeing and even less interest in the spiritual welfare of other people. The priority of seeking spiritual pursuits ahead of material needs was clearly stated by our Lord Jesus Christ. “Therefore do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ For after all these things the Gentiles seek. For your heavenly Father knows that you need all these

As far as I can see, your thoughts on resurrection do not teach that Christ is bringing back the spirits to be united with the former body and then “changed.” From 1 Thessalonians 4:13 and 1 Thessalonians 3:13, are not the “spirits from hades” brought back to be reunited with former bodies, which conquers death, the last enemy of Christ. Possibly I missed this in one of your articles? Would be thankful for thoughts. Thank you. I do not know to which article or articles the questioner refers. However, I’m certain that I have never exhausted all that could be said about any subject on which I have spoken or written. Simply not mentioning something or not addressing it as fully as an auditor might prefer does not imply an aversion to some aspect of biblical instruction. The fullest single treatment in the Bible of the resurrection appears in 1 Corinthians 15. In particular, consider the following verses therein. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does corruption inherit incorruption. 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. So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and

If it’s OK, I want to ask a question regarding worship and those who have speaking disabilities (or something similar to that). When we (at our congregation) teach about not using mechanical instruments of music in worship to God, a brother usually brings up the fact that there are disabled people who may not be able to worship as we do. I believe he was talking about those who can’t sing VOCALLY (or some with similar disabilities), but still understand the need to worship. The brother says we shouldn’t leave them out, and I believe his point is that the disabled may understand the words sung in worship by other signals (which the average person may consider an addition or something unauthorized when he himself worships) besides VOCAL. Just want to see if you would comment on this. Thanks. Obviously, Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 refer to the vocal music of singing (i.e., would not include other vocal sounds such as humming, whistling, etc.), which is comprised of audible words. The purpose, in part, is that by those audible words Christians in worship are “speaking to one another” (Ephesians 5:19) and “teaching and admonishing” (Colossians 3:16). Certainly, instrumental music is both an addition to what is authorized for worshipful music and it is incapable to “speaking” as well as “teaching and admonishing.” No one of whom I am aware believes that God requires of anyone what he or she may be physically or mentally incapable of doing. For instance, when

Is Christianity cracked? Is the church broken? Has Christianity been marginalized? Is the church ineffective and irrelevant, today? In one sense, “Yes,” Christianity has stress fractures, the church has been severely damaged, Christianity has been sidelined in the lives of most people, and the church has become an extraneous and unconnected historical tidbit from the past, but stuck in an apathetic present day. For many people nowadays, Christianity and the New Testament church have no practical application. As a world religion, Christianity faces stiff challenges (through sheer numbers and militancy) from other world religions, such as Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and atheism. Most of the world’s population is either completely unaware of or outright rejects without the least consideration of Christianity. What passes for Christianity in the eyes of global populations frequently does not fairly represent Bible teaching and is associated with godless characteristics of western civilization (e.g., general immorality, consumption of alcohol, immodest attire). On the world stage and according to international discernment of what typically represents itself as Christianity, “Yes,” Christianity is cracked at best, the church is broken, Christianity deserves to be marginalized, and the church is irrelevant. Denominational divisions and degrees of active or bygone antagonism between church groups heightens for observers from outside of Christianity the notion of an incapacitated world religion that derives its name from Jesus Christ. Doctrinal discord between church organizations adds to the confusion for adherents to other world religions as well as muddles the minds of those who fall under Christianity’s

A Friend asked a question regarding Ephesians 4:11, which reads, “And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers” (NKJV). Context is immeasurably important in every communication, and it is no less significant regarding biblical interpretation. In the case of Ephesians 4:11, part of the context pertains to the first century when true miracles occurred. Within its context, Ephesians 4:11 concerns different leadership roles in the early church wherein each of them was assisted by miracles, namely, apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors or elders and teachers. After miracles had served their purpose (Mark 16:20; John 20:30-31; Hebrews 2:3-4) and were no longer available (1 Corinthians 13:8-12; Ephesians 4:13), all church leaders must rely on the written Word of God rather than miraculous assistance to fulfill their respective duties. Since the qualifications to be an apostle cannot be achieved by anyone living today (Acts 1:21-26; 22:14), there are no longer any living apostles. Besides, the miracles with which they were equipped are no longer available by which they could function as they did prior to the availability of the written Word of God. Prophets, in the sense of forth-tellers, are no longer available either in the absence of modern-day miracles. Although evangelists, pastors (elders) and teachers remain in the church in our time, they are no longer assisted by ongoing miracles. Instead, they must rely upon the Word of God both for their guidance in their congregational functions and for their teaching and leadership

Someone posed the question, “Can a pastor be an elder?” I know what the inquirer means, but the query, nevertheless, needs some additional explanation. We will address both the actual question as well as the intent behind the question. First, note that there are several synonyms or interchangeable terms in the New Testament for the same office of responsibility. The Greek word “pastor” appears 18 times in the New Testament and is translated as “shepherd” each time, except in Ephesians 4:11 where it is translated as “pastor.” In the context of church leaders, “shepherd” is equivalent to “elder” (1 Peter 5:1-4) or “bishop” (1 Peter 2:25). The same office of responsibility is cited in Scripture as an “overseer” (Acts 20:17, 28). A “pastor” is an “elder,” which is the same as a “shepherd” or a “bishop.” Secondly, now to the intent of the question. Can a minister, an evangelist or a preacher also be an elder? Scripture answers the question in one of the citations in the previous paragraph. “The elders who are among you I exhort, I who am a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that will be revealed” (1 Peter 5:1 NKJV). The apostle Peter was a minister, an evangelist or a preacher as well as an elder. Yes, a pastor can be an elder, since the two words refer to the same church office of responsibility. Yes, a preacher can serve also as an elder if he

Deacons are “servants” of the local congregation rather than “leaders” of the church. Instead, God determined that fully organized local congregations of the Lord’s church are to be led by “elders” or “bishops” who have been appointed in accordance with divinely stipulated biblically recorded qualifications (1 Timothy 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9). Only indirectly, then, do deacons lead, comparable to the distinction in roles that God ordained between men and women for the home and for religion—today, the church (1 Corinthians 11:3; 14:34-35; 1 Timothy 2:11-14). Hence, the qualifications for “deacons” pertain to males rather than to females (1 Timothy 3:8-13). Therefore, deacons do not have a leadership role in the Lord’s church above that of any other faithful male member. Deacons are not “junior elders,” and being a deacon does not necessarily mean that someday he will be promoted to being an elder. A deacon is a servant, and any decisions that he may make in keeping with his special assignment from the elders are likewise with the general permission of the elders. Those decisions are expected and necessary for carrying out his assigned responsibility in service to the congregation. Nevertheless, following, we purpose to examine what the New Testament reveals concerning the qualifications, appointment, work and office of deacons. The English words “deacon” and “deacons” appear only five times in the Bible (“deacon,” 1 Timothy 3:10, 13; “deacons,” Philippians 1:1; 1 Timothy 3:8, 12). The two related Greek words translated “deacon” and “deacons” together appear about 67 times. The Greek diakonos is translated

Someone poses the question, “Are kitchens authorized?” Presumably and based on past and current “church doctrines,” the inquiry does not refer to cooking appliances in one’s home, but rather in a church building. The question, then, is, “Are kitchens authorized to be in church buildings?” By the word “authorized,” we understand the petitioner to refer to what is “authorized” in the Word of God, and even perhaps more refined to what is authorized in the New Testament portion of the Bible. Doubtlessly, anyone who ever pondered this question has done so sincerely and only wants to do what is right according to the Word of God. I would not criticize such an admirable desire. Yet, sometimes apparently mankind troubles himself over matters that do not have their origin in biblical doctrine, or they concern themselves with inconsequential things rather than with clear doctrinal teaching. Our Lord found some in His day during His earthly ministry who exhibited these characteristics. “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone. Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!” (Matthew 23:23-24 NKJV). Certainly, we neither mean to judge anyone’s motives nor to call him a Pharisee. We would simply point out the tendency for humans to show a lesser regard for distinct biblical doctrine while showing an inordinately heightened interest in

For some people, the Bible is merely a neglected, dusty ornament in their homes. Within its pages one may find chronicled such things as births, deaths and marriages. Amongst Bible leaves, as though the volume were some sort of filing cabinet, tucked away for future reference are newspaper clippings and county fair ribbons. Still other Bible sheets evidence colorful stains of flowers (from a memorable occasion) pressed between them, dried and preserved. Infrequently, bedtime stories may be related from the biblical text, but that is the closest episode to actually using the Bible in a meaningful and spiritual way. Instances when the family Bible was nearer than atop a high bookcase shelf, it served as a coffee table coaster or a paperweight. Unfortunately, in those households, the Bible might as easily be used for a doorstop. For these families, the Bible is anything but “God’s Guide Book.” Oppositely, another home’s occupants might profess dignified regard for the Bible. Each family member likely has his or her own personal copy of Holy Writ. However, “the sword of the Spirit” (Ephesians 6:17) may lie like a discarded battlefield weapon of a fallen soldier, howbeit on a pew in the local church’s meetinghouse. Home devotionals may be sporadic at best or non-existent at worst. The home’s inhabitants may imagine that one or more hours spent among fellow Christians in an assembly for Bible class or worship can satisfactorily fortify a person spiritually, but that will prove to be inadequate to offset Satan’s minions among whom we

I read the article on New Jerusalem, and I was wondering how you would explain Revelation 21:2 where it says that the holy city, New Jerusalem, would be coming down out of heaven. Thanks. The person pondering “New Jerusalem coming down from Heaven” refers to a previous Question & Answer in the February 2017 edition of Gospel Gazette Online (https://www.gospelgazette.com/gazette/2017/feb/page14.html#article2). Aside from repeating information contained in the previous article, we turn specifically to providing an explanation for the phrase, “…New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God…” (Revelation 21:2 NKJV). Last month, I contrasted the earthly home of literal Jerusalem with the heavenly home to come, figuratively a spiritual Jerusalem. Earthly Jerusalem, a place of bodily habitation, will be replaced with a figurative or spiritual Jerusalem, a place of habitation for spirits. “…New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God…” doubly identifies the origin of this eternal abode of righteous souls—“out of heaven”—“from God.” As such, the phrase also confirms the spiritual nature of the New Jerusalem, since “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God [Heaven]” (1 Corinthians 15:50) and “God is a Spirit” (John 4:24). Hence, the “New Jerusalem” is figurative or spiritual and not a literal city in which humans in their physical bodies will abide on a physical earth, which will be utterly destroyed—even to the eradicating of the smallest building blocks of creation (2 Peter 3:10-11).

“What is right with the church?” is an interesting question. At first, I misread the inquiry and thought that it read, “What is the right church?” Actually, some of the responses to either query would be the same. First, the church about which one reads in the Bible originated in the mind of Almighty God before the creation of anything. To me, who am less than the least of all the saints, this grace was given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, and to make all see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the ages has been hidden in God who created all things through Jesus Christ; to the intent that now the manifold wisdom of God might be made known by the church to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places, according to the eternal purpose which He accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Ephesians 3:8-11 NKJV) If one is referring to the church about which we read upon the pages of inspiration, one thing that is right with the church is that it originated in the mind of God. In addition, only that church is the right church. This ought to be obvious, in part, because the church of the Bible was the only church that existed for hundreds of years before the establishment of the Catholic Church and hundreds of years later with the development of denominationalism as the outgrowth of the Reformation Movement. The divine origin of the church of the Bible

The late David Lipscomb is attributed with saying, “There is no more propriety in calling baptism the work of the man baptized than there is in calling the burial the work of the person buried.” Stop and think about that analogy for a moment. The dead neither dig the hole in which they are buried nor do they shovel the dirt into the hole upon themselves. Someone else besides the dead is responsible for the activity associated with the burial. Yes, Christian baptism resembles a burial, and it imitates the death, burial, resurrection and walking in newness of life observed in Jesus Christ. Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? 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 also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection. (Romans 6:3-5 NKJV) Just as in the literal, physical burial of the dead, in Christian baptism there are also administrators responsible for bringing about the figurative, spiritual burial of souls who die to sinful lives (Romans 6:6-7). The apostle Paul penned that one such superintendent of Christian baptism is the Holy Spirit. “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body…” (1 Corinthians 12:13). A

“What is wrong with the expression, ‘Sinful Nature’?” someone inquires. First, standard, tried and reliable Bible translations do not use that phrase in the biblical text (e.g., KJV, ASV, NKJV, ESV, etc.). Rather, the words “sinful nature” appear in a small number of translations of the New Testament (e.g., NIV, TEV, and Wuest New Testament), in contradistinction from long revered Bible translations that were brought about by universally recognized scholarship and proficiency in the biblical languages. That alone may be worthy of reconsidering one’s use of some Bible translations, such as the NIV, regarding their fidelity or lack thereof in communicating God’s message from the original languages in which the Bible was penned to contemporary languages. Secondly, the phrase “sinful nature” represents a doctrinal error that is associated with John Calvin, namely, what is popularly referred to as Calvinism. This doctrine crosses denominational lines and is observable in such modern churches as the Presbyterian and most Baptist denominations. Calvinism is summarized and committed to memory through the acrostic, TULIP—which stands for Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace and Perseverance of the Saints. Note the following quotation for the association between Calvinism and the expression “sinful nature.” “All of us have a sinful nature, and it affects every part of us. This is the doctrine of total depravity…” (“What is…”). The appearance in a translation of the Scriptures the words “sinful nature” and that for which it stands—Total Depravity of Calvinism—is an example of denominational doctrine from denominational bias—rather than from scholarship—making its way

The basic question indicated in the title of this article has been answered thoroughly in three articles already appearing in the Archive for Gospel Gazette Online. Please note the following links to those articles. https://www.gospelgazette.com/gazette/2014/oct/page4.htmlhttps://www.gospelgazette.com/gazette/2001/may/page18.htmhttps://www.gospelgazette.com/gazette/2005/oct/page13.htm Someone asked in addition to the basic question above whether Romans 1:25 teaches that everything one does in life is worship. The premise put forth about which the one asking the question ponders is whether the apparent human disposition to worship proves that everything in the life of a child of God is worship. Romans 1:25 reads, “Who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen” (NKJV). There is nothing in either Romans 1:25 or in its surrounding context that legitimizes the proposition that everything done in one’s life is worship. Yes, from observation of this verse and from observation of historical societies, it appears true that mankind has a built-in inclination or is hardwired to worship. However, having a disposition to worship does not prove that all of one’s life is worship. Rather, Romans 1:25 and personal observation of worship practices of former societies around the world only prove that mankind having the predisposition to worship will worship someone or something—an object of worship. Instead of teaching that all of life is worship, Romans 1:25 teaches that worshippers may correctly choose as the object of their worship the true and living God, or they may choose another object of their

What “traits” (so to speak), if any, would you see in the Scriptures that would lead one to the conclusion that a person may be better fitted to be single rather than married? (I’m not speaking specifically of those who aren’t eligible to marry or to date, Matthew 19:9.) From the second chapter of the Bible, Scripture anticipates that ordinarily a family will consist, initially, of a man and a woman (i.e., a husband and a wife). It was not God’s plan for man to be single or alone (Genesis 2:20-25). Yet, a person does not sin by remaining single (1 Corinthians 7:1, 7-8) as long as he or she neither violates New Testament prohibitions (1 Corinthians 15:34) or fails to perform directives in the Gospel of Christ (James 4:17). Since even conscientious Christians sometimes sin, though, there is a remedy in Jesus Christ for such times (1 John 2:1). However, we Christians dare not excuse ourselves from righteousness to commit sin while presumptuously relying on the grace of God (Romans 6:1-2). Especially the young marry (Proverbs 5:18). Both testaments of the Bible address moral purity, especially as it pertains to youth.  For instance, the Book of Proverbs is particularly addressed “to the young man” (1:4). The New Testament also contains instruction for young men. “Likewise, exhort the young men to be sober-minded, in all things showing yourself to be a pattern of good works; in doctrine showing integrity, reverence, incorruptibility, sound speech that cannot be condemned, that one who

If you knew someone who is in the music industry (doesn’t have to be someone famous, but can include the famous), yet was seeking to become a Christian, what biblical advice would you give to him (precautions, encouragements, etc.), given what you know about the industry (good or bad) in modern times? Generally speaking, irrespective of who one is or what it is that one does (including vocationally), the same Gospel message and prescription for redemption applies to one and all alike. The apostle Paul represented the Christians at Corinth to have become the children of God although they had been guilty of any number of and any manner of sins—many of which sinful ways are especially represented in contemporary mankind. Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-11 NKJV) In addition, the apostle Paul spoke regarding the integrity and honorableness of one’s chosen vocation. In other words, there are some livelihoods even though they be legal and socially acceptable nevertheless involve sin—from which faithful Christians ought to distance themselves (e.g., bartender, abortion provider, etc.). “Let him who stole

Someone inquires, “To what does ‘the new Jerusalem’ in Revelation 3:12 refer?” The phrase “new Jerusalem coming down from God out of heaven” also appears in Revelation 21:2. To correctly answer the question introduced above, one must first recognize that the Book of Revelation is mostly comprised of figurative language rather than literal language. A common mistake made by religionists is not “handling aright the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15), which includes distinguishing between figurative and literal language. Secondly, noting the context in which a verse of Scripture appears is essential to the proper understanding of the Word of God. For instance, Revelation 3:12 appears in our Lord’s address to the seven churches of Asia and particularly in the segment thereof dedicated to “the church in Philadelphia” in Asia Minor (contemporary Turkey). “New Jerusalem” there refers to the eternal reward of victorious saints who “persevere” (Revelation 3:10). Thirdly, “new Jerusalem” is comparable to “Jerusalem which is above” (Galatians 4:26), “the heavenly Jerusalem” (Hebrews 12:22) and “the holy Jerusalem” (Revelation 21:10). Otherwise, “the new Jerusalem” is “the city which has foundations, whose builder and maker is God” (Hebrews 11:10). As such, “the new Jerusalem” stands in contrast to the earthly Jerusalem in old Israel. The former city, which housed Solomon’s Temple, is contrasted with its replacement—new Jerusalem, a city whose builder and maker is God, rather than constructed by the hands of mere mortals. The latter is spiritual and pertains to one’s eternal heavenly habitation. The new Jerusalem is the replacement for earthly Jerusalem.

Recently, the preacher was talking about God in control and that government is under God’s control. He stated that Donald Trump was God’s choice to win; so because God is in control, Donald Trump won. I understand God rules, and that in times past He has selected certain individuals to serve His purpose, but how can we make a statement that God chose Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton? If God chose Donald Trump to be president over Hillary Clinton, it is certain that God would have His way. We know from explicit biblical teaching that in the past God has chosen specific persons or nations through His providence to rise to prominence. “By me kings reign, And rulers decree justice. By me princes rule, and nobles, All the judges of the earth”(Proverbs 8:15-16 NKJV). “…He removes kings and raises up kings…” (Daniel 2:21). “…the Most High rules in the kingdom of men, Gives it to whomever He will…” (Daniel 4:17). “…the Most High rules in the kingdom of men, and gives it to whomever He chooses” (Daniel 4:32). The replacement of King Saul with King David is one example of Divine intervention in the human governance of mankind (Acts 13:21-22; Hosea 13:11). Romans 13:1-7 confirms that God still authorizes the existence of governments, though He sanctions no particular form of human government over another. For instance, the type of government ruling the Mediterranean world in the first century when the Roman epistle was penned was not a democracy. Still, Christians were

A reader posed the question, “Is there any verse that addresses the current location of Satan and demons?” Yes, we can reasonably discern from Scripture the current location of Satan and the demons. An incident during the ministry of Jesus gives us the first clue to the current location of Satan, his evil angels and demons. “When He had come to the other side, to the country of the Gergesenes, there met Him two demon-possessed men, coming out of the tombs, exceedingly fierce, so that no one could pass that way. And suddenly they cried out, saying, ‘What have we to do with You, Jesus, You Son of God? Have You come here to torment us before the time?’” (Matthew 8:28-29 NKJV). In the first century—parallel with the time miracles were occurring and revelation from God through the Holy Spirit was being received by mortal penmen (Mark 16:17-18, 20)—Satan and his minions, fallen angels and demons, were loose. They knew, however, that the time was coming when they would enter “the abyss,” and the demons of Matthew 8:28-29 (cf., Mark 5:1-20; Luke 8:26-39) pleaded with Jesus not to assign them to that destination ahead of the appointment time. “And they begged Him that He would not command them to go out into the abyss” (Luke 8:31). The “abyss” refers to the “bottomless pit” of Revelation 20:1-3; it is comparable to the punitive side the Hadean realm—the abode of departed spirits awaiting Final Judgment and sentencing to Hell. “The demons asked Jesus

What should be the Christian’s response to or interaction with illegal immigrants? While Christians have the religious obligation to obey the laws of the land in which they live (Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:17)—except when the law of God and the laws of men directly contradict each other (Acts 5:29), Christianity does not have a political preference. The harsh, iron-fisted Roman Empire dominated the Mediterranean world of the first century when the epistles of Romans and 1 Peter were penned. Primarily, the Gospel of Christ is about human redemption—not politics. Whenever and wherever a Christian encounters a non-Christian, his first obligation is to acquaint him or her with the Gospel of Christ, whereby he or she has the opportunity to become a citizen of heaven itself. Subsequently, in the course of teaching beyond redemption, one will eventually teach such passages as Romans 13:1-7 and 1 Peter 2:17, too. The activism characteristic of either side of an immigration issue is not the focus of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Remotely similar, perhaps, the apostle Paul noted that a first century runaway slave had been converted to Christianity during the absence from his master. Nevertheless, he was directed to return to his master (Philemon 10-19). Teach one the Gospel of Christ, and then teach him to do what is right, even if we personally disapprove of the legal circumstances, which themselves do not directly conflict with the Gospel of Christ.

#1 A question about using the non-baptized young boys to read Scripture on Wednesday nights as “training” has come up. This will be during the regular Bible study time. Please let me know your thoughts on this matter and any Scriptures… #2 Sometimes in the brotherhood there is a practice of using our young men including children to lead in services on Sundays with the aim of developing leadership. …In my aim to ensure that I am not violating any scripture I am asking if this practice is right or wrong. I know that children are innocent since they are not at the age or stage of accountability. I also know that teenage young men can lead. I know that there is a question of those who are not children, since they are older and are not yet Christians. Seeking knowledge. I am not aware of a biblical precedent for children leading in aspects of Christian worship. Neither am I aware of a biblical precedent for non-Christians leading in aspects of Christian worship. Granted, small children are innocent, and it is a noble goal to develop leadership and inclusiveness of youth in Christian worship. Yes, various congregations sometimes permit children to lead songs, for instance, in Christian worship (e.g., Sunday evening or in the devotional associated with Wednesday Bible class). It seems to me that it is biblically unauthorized for a non-Christian male who is perceived to be old enough to have obeyed the Gospel to lead in some aspect

Second Samuel 23:2 reads, “The Spirit of the Lord spoke by me, And His word was on my tongue” (NKJV). This statement asserts “direct and immediate inspiration” and “directly inspired” words (Clarke). The apostle Peter claimed no less “direct and immediate inspiration” and “directly inspired” words for the Old Testament prophets, and by implication for the New Testament prophets as well. “…No prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:20-21). In particular, Jesus Christ validated the Holy Spirit inspired prophetic words of David (Matthew 22:41-45; Mark 12:35-37), which includes 2 Samuel 23:2. The apostle Peter also specifically authenticated David as a divinely inspired prophet (Acts 2:25-36). The declaration, “The Spirit of the Lord spoke by me, And His word was on my tongue,” teaches verbal, plenary, divine inspiration for even the original language words that comprise the Bible. The same omnipotence by which God conveyed His Word to humanity is amply competent to preserve it for posterity, too, in the contemporary dialects of mankind today. Not every Bible translation, though, fairly and accurately represents God’s message to humankind. “One’s understanding of inspiration is critical to the understanding of Scripture…” (O’Dell 1), but proper appreciation for divine inspiration is no less important among those who collaborate to render into modern languages the Holy Word of God. On this count, some of the popular translations of the Bible

Someone inquired as to how many churches Jesus Christ has in view of the biblical statement in Romans 16:16, “…The churches of Christ salute you” (KJV). Does our Lord have one church, or do many churches belong to Him? The English word “church” is translated from the New Testament Greek word “ekklesia.” The Greek word appears 114 times and is uniformly translated as “church,” except in Acts 19:39 where it is translated as “assembly.” “Ekklesia” is a compound Greek word meaning “out of” and “a calling”—the called out. Depending on the context in which it appears, it refers in the Bible to Israel in the wilderness following the Exodus (Acts 7:38), to a lawful assembly of citizens (Acts 19:39), to a mob (Acts 19:32, 41), to the whole of Christianity (Matthew 16:18), to a particular Christian congregation (1 Corinthians 1:2) or to the worship assembly of a congregation (1 Corinthians 14:4-5, 12, 19, 23, 34). Historically and biblically, there was only one church, and there were no denominations yet, when Romans 16:16 was penned by the inspired apostle Paul. There were, though, several congregations of the one church, and that is how “churches” (congregations) is used in Romans 16:16, as well as in Romans 9:31. Furthermore, the apostle Paul wrote that the words “church” and “body” refer to the same thing. “And He put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all

All we can know about acceptable worship is what is revealed upon the pages of inspiration—the Bible (1 Corinthians 4:6). For those living today, the New Testament is the portion of the Bible to which one must turn for instruction regarding Christianity (2 Corinthians 3:6; Hebrews 8:13; 10:9), including to Whom and what worship is authorized. There are five activities of worship about which we can read in the New Testament: praying and singing (1 Corinthians 14:15), breaking the bread of the Lord’s Supper and preaching (Acts 20:7), and giving (1 Corinthians 16:1-2)—in no particular order. Specifically, the fuller question is whether it is proper or permissible to offer worship through prayers or singing to the Holy Spirit. Theoretically and technically, one could endeavor to worship the Holy Spirit through the other three acts of worship, too. If it were conceded that preaching, the Lord’s Supper and giving are inappropriate activities of worship to offer to the Holy Spirit, then it would be logical that neither are prayers and singing suitable activities of worship to offer to the Holy Spirit. Where in the New Testament does it instruct its readers to worship the Holy Spirit in one or more of the acts of Christian worship? Certainly, as a member of the Godhead (Matthew 28:19; Acts 17:29; Romans 1:20) the Holy Spirit possesses all of the qualities, characteristics, traits and the essence of being Deity or God as also do the Father and the Son (Colossians 2:9). Whether the Holy Spirit is worthy of worship is

Today, religion is about the only thing that often is not practiced religiously. The adjective “religiously” in the way under consideration in this article means, “very careful to do something whenever it can or should be done” or “scrupulously and conscientiously faithful.” Synonyms include “fervent” and “zealous” (Merriam-Webster). For instance, people follow sports religiously, but God-given religion is not comprised of athletics (1 Timothy 4:8). While a person may be a fan or a fanatic about something, such as sports, the general public derides religious people who exhibit conviction or what it views as excessive enthusiasm. And who is he who will harm you if you become followers of what is good? But even if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you are blessed. “And do not be afraid of their threats, nor be troubled.” But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear; having a good conscience, that when they defame you as evildoers, those who revile your good conduct in Christ may be ashamed. For it is better, if it is the will of God, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil. (1 Peter 3:13-17 NKJV) While one’s devotion to sports or to hobbies meets with widespread approval or at least indifference, evidence of a person’s devotion to the God of the Bible is frowned upon many times by family, friends, coworkers, acquaintances and even by strangers

Brother Rushmore, I appreciate so much all of your good work and learn much from your writings. One of our members posed a question recently that I would appreciate your thoughts regarding. The question basically was: Did Jesus not have the Holy Spirit prior to the Spirit descending on Him at His baptism? Or, did Jesus have powers after this event that he did not have before (e.g. ability to perform miracles, etc.)? I have searched for and read some of your writings regarding Jesus’ baptism, but did not find anything directly on point with this. Thanks for your many efforts for the Kingdom. In Him, Mark Albert Barnes made the following observation on Matthew 3:16. The gift of the Holy Spirit, in this manner, was the public approbation of Jesus (John 1:33), and a sign of his being set apart to the office of the Messiah. We are not to suppose that there was any change done in the moral character of Jesus, but only that he was publicly set apart to his work, and solemnly approved by God in the office to which he was appointed. (Barnes’). Certainly, it is true that the baptism of Jesus Christ inaugurated His earthly ministry. It is equally certain that His ethic of righteousness remained the same excellence after His baptism as it had been likewise flawless – sinless – prior to His baptism (Hebrews 4:15). However, the question remains, “Did Jesus of Nazareth possess miraculous powers before His baptism at the

No, repenting after death is not an option presented in the Bible. Numerous passages call upon the living to repent of their sins (Matthew 3:2; 4:17). “Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead” (Acts 17:30-31 NKJV). Repentance, we see from this verse, precedes judgment and is not something that dare be put off until after death and when judgment is imminent. In addition, the rich man of Luke 16:19-31 was very much interested in repentance for his brothers who were yet alive (Luke 16:30). Yet, he was not afforded an opportunity after death to repent whereby he could change his eternal destiny. His eternal disposition following death was fixed and unchangeable (Luke 16:26). Hence, the culminating point of the first recorded Gospel sermon is a divine message regarding repentance that every man and woman urgently needs to embrace. “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…’” (Acts 2:38).

Questions concerning the prayer of Cornelius were answered previously in the pages of Gospel Gazette Online. See the following URL. https://www.gospelgazette.com/gazette/2008/aug/page20.htm To that, I merely add the observations of the following commentators. “…having acted according to the light which he had, his prayers were heard, and his alms were accepted” (Barnes). “He was heard because he was yearning for light and using all the light he had” (Johnson). Aside from the miraculous trappings that existed in the first century since such does not persist in the present age (1 Corinthians 13:8-13), God’s providential (behind the scenes) response to earnest truth-seekers does still continue (Hebrews 11:6). Works Cited Barnes Notes. Seattle: Biblesoft, 2005. Johnson, B.W. The People’s New Testament. Georgetown: Wordsearch, 2008.

If you or I were to go on trial for being a Christian, would there be enough evidence to convict either of us? This is no idle question in many parts of the world, and it may become a reality in some sense even in western countries that characteristically and historically have been at least tolerant of Christianity for hundreds of years. Two Gospel preachers of the churches of Christ were arrested in December 2015 by Sudan’s National Intelligence and Security Service (NISS) in its criminal investigation of them for national security crimes. They “were charged with numerous offenses, including waging war against the state, espionage and undermining Sudan’s constitutional system” (McKay). Their fate is now in the hands of a prosecutor for the Attorney General. Essentially, brethren Kuwa Shamal Abu Zumam and Abdulraheem Kodi are being investigated for being Christians and promoters of the Christian faith in the predominantly Muslim nation of Sudan. Christianity is an affront to the Sudan government’s march toward implementation of an entirely Muslim nation under strict Sharia Law. These Christians are particular targets because they have documented and disseminated the brutal and deadly assault upon Christians in Sudan; since leaking such information to the world community may invite international scrutiny, the Sudanese government considers this to be a breach of national security. If convicted, they face the death penalty. This is precisely the import of Revelation 2:10, which reads, “Do not fear any of those things which you are about to suffer. Indeed, the devil

Someone inquired how can one know the difference between “the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.” Doubtless, the question arises from 1 John 4:6, which reads, “We are of God. He who knows God hears us; he who is not of God does not hear us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error” (NKJV). The first part of 1 John 4:6 defines the difference between references to “the spirit of truth and the spirit of error” in the latter portion of that verse. There are two opposing personalities and sources respecting “the spirit of truth and the spirit of error” – God and not God or respecting the initiator of opposition to God – Satan. Likewise, spokesmen for God derive their message from God and thereby represent “the spirit of truth.” Doctrines put forth, teaching and preaching contrary to God and His revealed Word are proclaimed by spokesmen for Satan, thereby representing “the spirit of error.” Several New Testament passages serve as divine commentary on the thoughts and principles that are embedded in 1 John 4:6. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God. These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man does not receive the things of the

Someone inquired about the two words “absolutism” and “relativism.” Merriam-Webster defines “absolutism” as “2 : advocacy of a rule by absolute standards or principles. 3 : an absolute standard or principle.” Dictionary.com says of “absolutism” that it is “any theory holding that values, principles, etc., are absolute and not relative, dependent, or changeable.” On the other hand, “relativism” is defined thusly. “Relativism is the belief that there’s no absolute truth, only the truths that a particular individual or culture happen to believe. If you believe in relativism, then you think different people can have different views about what’s moral and immoral” (vocabulary.com/dictionary/relativism). “The theory that value judgments, as of truth, beauty, or morality, have no universal validity but are valid only for the persons or groups holding them” (thefreedictionary.com/relativism). As an example of the contrast between absolutism and relativism, the American Constitution and its Amendments are viewed by the Judiciary in the United States in accordance with relativism and not according to absolutism. As such, the Constitution and its Amendments are seen as a living, not fixed document that is subject to the interpretation and application of Federal judges and the U.S. Supreme Court, which may and often varies widely from what the framers of those documents clearly intended in the beginning of the United States of America when they were adopted. Religiously or theologically, many professing Christianity view the Bible – God’s Holy Word – in the same way – not fixed, not absolute and changeable per the whims of contemporary people. Almighty God, through

Thank you for your faithful study. Louis, here’s my question. Please direct me to the Scriptures. Which are the non-negotiables when making the decision to extend fellowship or not? I have no other desire than to follow Scripture, but the details that we focus on sometimes in our brotherhood leave me confounded. Can a church look different in things like worship style, for example, and still be given our hand? “Non-negotiables,” as the one posing the question above wrote, most surely are delineated in “the apostles’ doctrine” (Acts 2:42). Just as was true regarding the Old Testament prophets (2 Peter 1:20-21), “the apostles’ doctrine” was not of their own origin, but they were given it from God in heaven (Matthew 16:19) through the Holy Spirit (John 14:26; 16:13). For clarification, commonly translations of Matthew 16:19 do not adequately convey that God made doctrinal decisions that were passed on to the apostles versus the apostles making decisions that were passed on to God. The verse purposes to teach that the apostles’ doctrine was not their own, but that they received it from God. Somewhat awkward in English and not flowing smoothly, nevertheless, the following two translations more accurately reflect that the apostles’ doctrine which they proclaimed pertained to what God in heaven had already decided. “And I will give to thee the keys of the reign of the heavens, and whatever thou mayest bind upon the earth shall be having been bound in the heavens, and whatever thou mayest loose upon the

Late one night recently, I was rinsing off (pre-washing) a few things in the kitchen sink before placing them in the dishwasher. I don’t like to leave dirty dishes and the like in the kitchen when I retire for the evening and go to bed. I’m like that about a lot of things. Several years ago when working with a congregation and while I was teaching an auditorium class, I used myself as an illustration. I was conveying my daughter’s book about the four basic personality types – their strengths, weaknesses, biblical characters who seemed to have the various personalities and how we ought to make self-improvements. I remember my illustration and the reaction that it drew from one elderly sister in Christ. I said that if my shoes weren’t lined up in the closet before I went to bed that I couldn’t sleep at night; it was somewhat of an exaggeration for the purpose of emphasis, but not far from fact. The old sister belted out from the back of the room, “You’re Weird!” Quite possibly, she and I represented two of those four different personality types. Anyway, in passing empty glasses, plates and tableware through my hands under the water before placing them in the dishwasher, I paused and reflected upon the butter knife that I was holding. It was shiny, metal, solid and real, as one might observe in contrast to disposable utensils or even less tangible items like thoughts or the wind. As physical and concretely

Our church as a community effort could help an “adult assisted living/retirement home,” but we found out the Presbyterian Church is behind this effort. Can we visit/help out this home in any biblical way and be correct? I know we are not to “help out or support” in any way other religions. I guess the question ends up being, “Are we helping out their cause?” I am sure that many of these people are really not members of “this church,” BUT would we be helping out “their cause” in the end? Thank you and respond as soon as possible. These days, we often find Catholic, Presbyterian, Methodist and Baptist hospitals, especially in metropolitan areas. These clearly wear the monikers of denominational churches. At the same time, they typically receive public funds as well as charge for their services. These benevolent institutions exist generally because of the effect of Christianity on society and specifically perhaps because of the initiative of some aspect of benevolence promoted by various denominational churches. Yet, such hospitals may be the only hospital services available in some communities, and irrespective of that, usually people do not suppose that receiving treatment from them or even being employed by them is recognized as an endorsement of denominational religious tenets. Additional benevolent institutions may or may not be identified by their names as associated with religious denominations (e.g., personal care homes, nursing homes, hospice houses). Their existence, too, must be attributed generally with the positive effect of Christianity on society,

Does infidelity to an unscriptural marriage transform the unscriptural marriage into a scriptural (God recognized) marriage? That would seem to be the conclusion embedded in the following question about which someone else asked me to reflect. Brother Louis, I need your insight on the following: (1) A man marries, with normal vows to remain faithful, into a non-scriptural adulterous relationship. May he repent, leave that adulterous relationship, and then scripturally remarry another who is free to marry? That question leads into the following questioned position taken by an unnamed elder. While not scripturally married to the first woman, the above man had a second sexual relationship during his first adulterous relationship! The elder holds that had the man not had a second sexual relationship during his adulterous marriage, he could have repented, left that adulterous marriage and scripturally could have been remarried to another. However, his position also taken is that since the man had additional sexual activity outside that first unscriptural, but civil, marriage, he then must remain celibate on the basis on Matthew 19:9? His position seems to hinge on the fact that though God did not approve of the first marriage, He did recognize the relationship as a marriage and the first woman as his wife as He recognized the foreign women of Ezra 10 as wives! Your thinking would be quite helpful, if you have time! I have never heard that position taken by any in the last 70 years. How would you answer? I have

Someone inquires, “Did Jesus preach in Hell?” The short answer is, “No.” It may be that the question arises from either of these two verses that were penned by the apostle Peter. “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” (1 Peter 4:6 NKJV). 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, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. (1 Peter 3:18-20) The point of 1 Peter 4:6 is that the Gospel “was preached” (past tense) to those who “are dead” (present tense) so that it is appropriate for judgment (for righteousness or for sinfulness) to come upon them. The people of 1 Peter 4:6 had been alive when they heard the Gospel, but at the time of the apostle’s writing they were dead. Afterward, final judgment will occur (Hebrews 9:27). The same sort of thing is true respecting 1 Peter 3:18-20. The Holy Spirit (1 Peter 3:18) preached to the spirits who were in prison. However, like with 1 Peter 4:6, those “in prison” had

Hello Louis, I have a question that I would like for you to address for me. I look forward to reading your response. Question: Does a Christian have a responsibility to God to vote in Presidential elections and perhaps all elections of governmental officials? I am deeply concerned by the direction our country has been going for many years. I want to address this topic on Facebook and encourage all Christians and members of denominations to get out and vote, but I need your assistance saying the right things. I certainly do not want to make a mistake as I address this issue. Please help. Darrell G Pratt Regarding the question at hand and Christian obligations, one needs to remember that Christians find themselves in virtually every nation under heaven and amenable to all manner of forms of government. Strictly speaking, Christian obligations are absolute (based on biblical instruction) and the same for every child of God irrespective of where he or she lives and regardless of the form of government under which one lives. With just a little reflection, it is clear that not every form of government under which Christians live affords a person the privilege of voting for candidates in elections. In addition, neither the Old Testament nor the New Testament specifically addresses such an obligation to vote in democratic elections. However, there may be pragmatic reasons for which Christians and other Bible believers would do well to involve themselves by voting for candidates wherever such democratic elections are afforded them. We may rationalize,

Often, lives are built on foundations of regrets. I know that my life’s foundation rests on numerous regrets, things that I wish I had done differently or not done at all! After many years of living, one comes to the stark realization that there are no do-overs in life. Frequently, bad choices made and simply the lack of making choices have results that cannot be undone. Few of us reflecting upon our youthfulness would not be haunted by some indiscretions for which we are now sorry (i.e., actions, words, attitudes, etc.). What would we as parents at this late date wish that we could do over in childrearing? Do we as married persons wish we had been more attentive and responsive to our respective husbands or wives? Have we regrets regarding the educational track or lack thereof that we pursued? Are there choices of employment and work ethics over which we lament because we acknowledge our personal deficiencies? Have we failed to follow our Lord Jesus Christ faithfully or dutifully? Have we let down our families, either by not caring for them adequately or by defaming them due to ruined reputations? Do we rue today because of the regrets of yesterday? Some things for which we have regrets are more serious with ongoing consequences than other matters which we also regret. For instance, the struggling saint certainly regrets every sin of the past and of the present. More than only regretting sin as was true perhaps of Judas (Matthew 27:3-5 “remorseful” or having regret NKJV),

Please help me to better understand what is stated in I Cor. 2:8 in that ”if they had known, they would not have crucified Christ.” “If they had known” that their actions would bring in the Gentiles to salvation, or “if they had known” that Jesus was the Savior they would not have killed him? Thank you Jack Phillips Albert Barnes in his commentary made an excellent observation regarding 1 Corinthians 2:8. In so doing, his reference to Acts 3:17 provides a perfect divine commentary on 1 Corinthians 2:8 also. Their ignorance arose from not understanding the prophecies, and from an unwillingness to be convinced that Jesus of Nazareth had been truly sent by God. In Acts 3:17, Peter says that it was through ignorance that the Jews had put him to death… Had they fully understood his character, and seen the wisdom of his plan, and his work… Had they seen the… fact that he was the long expected Messiah of their nation, they would not have put him to death. It is incredible that they would have crucified their Messiah, knowing and believing him to be such. They MIGHT have known it but they were unwilling to examine the evidence. They expected a DIFFERENT Messiah, and were unwilling to admit the claims of Jesus of Nazareth. For THIS ignorance, however, there was no excuse. If they did not have a full knowledge, it was their own fault. Jesus had performed miracles which were a complete attestation to his

Brother Rushmore, I am a member of the Church, and have been all of my life. I am thankful for your appeal to the truth of Scripture. I read an article you wrote on Denominations, and I have a question. What about churches that do everything according to the Scripture and have a strong foundation regarding the inerrancy and authority of scripture, BUT do not have “Church of Christ” in their name? Mike Hays, Boyd Church of Christ, Boyd, TX The name “Church of Christ” (Romans 16:16) is one of a few scriptural designations that appears in the New Testament to identify the Lord’s church. For instance, “Church of God” (1 Corinthians 1:2) is just as scriptural as “Church of Christ.” Due to denominational confusion, though, the churches of Christ generally do not represent themselves by other even scriptural names lest the Lord’s church be misunderstood as being a religious organization of manmade rather than divine origin. It would not be sinful for a local congregation of the Lord’s church to be known by another biblical designation. Yet, it might not be practical for distinction from other churches by fellow Christians and congregations of the Lord’s church, by denominational people and even non-religious persons, and by government and legal perspectives. It has been rumored from time to time that congregations have been discovered which have achieved the duplication of New Testament Christianity without being aware of other congregations of the Lord’s church previously. Certainly, that is entirely possible, and in

Denying the future resurrection is an old heresy. At nearly the very inception of Christianity a false doctrine arose and was promoted among Christians, members of the churches of Christ (Romans 16:16), which denied the future bodily resurrection from the grave. Three times the apostle Paul specifically identified this apostasy and corrected it. The heretical teaching debunked in the first century is no less fallacious today than it was nearly 2,000 years ago. Remind them of these things, charging them before the Lord not to strive about words to no profit, to the ruin of the hearers. Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. But shun profane and idle babblings, for they will increase to more ungodliness. And their message will spread like cancer. Hymenaeus and Philetus are of this sort, who have strayed concerning the truth, saying that the resurrection is already past; and they overthrow the faith of some. (2 Timothy 2:14-18 NKJV) Just like the proponents today of the A.D. 70 Theory (otherwise known as Kingism, Realized or Fulfilled Eschatology), the error that the apostle confronted in the first century claimed that the resurrection was already past. Regarding this false teaching, Paul said about it that (1) it was striving about words to no profit, (2) the teaching ruined those who heard it, (3) those who either taught it or embraced it were not rightly dividing the word of truth and ought

Someone asks for an explanation of John 5:37 in light of Matthew 3:17 and Matthew 17:5. The petitioner is concerned that there is a biblical contradiction between John and Matthew. John 5:37 reads, “And the Father Himself, who sent Me, has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form” (NKJV). Matthew 3:17 records the voice of God at the baptism of Jesus Christ, and says, “And suddenly a voice came from heaven, saying, ‘This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.’” Matthew 17:5 pertains to the Transfiguration of Jesus Christ and reads, “While he was still speaking, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them; and suddenly a voice came out of the cloud, saying, ‘This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Hear Him!’” First, we need to identify to whom Jesus was speaking in the context of John 5. In John 5:16, we see that those to whom our Lord was speaking were His enemies, fellow Jews who “sought to kill Him.” Secondly, Jesus did not say that God had not spoken to mankind, but on the contrary, He did affirm that especially those to whom Jesus was speaking on that occasion had not listened and heeded the voice of God. God “testified” (John 5:37) of Jesus, but those Jews in particular did not listen to God. Through the centuries on occasion, God did speak to mankind. In the third place, the human auditors of the voice of

Where is my mission? As a Christian, where is my mission (Matthew 5:16)? Is it afar somewhere (Mark 16:15,16), or is it close by as well (Luke 10:25-37)? As a father, where is my mission (Ephesians 6:4)? As a husband, where is my mission (Ephesians 5:25)? As an evangelist, where is my mission (Acts 20:27)? As important of a consideration, what is my mission? What is my mission as a Christian (Ephesians 5:8)? What is my mission as a father (Deuteronomy 6:7)? What is my mission as a husband (1 Peter 3:7)? What is my mission as an Evangelist (2 Timothy 4:2)? Furthermore, for Whom am I a missionary (Colossians 3:24)? Is it me I am to please (Galatians 1:10), or is there someone else whose favor I desire (John 12:26)? Surely, there is no nobler cause than that of Jesus Christ our Lord (2 Corinthians 12:10)! One’s mission and with whom that mission unfolds revolves around Jesus Christ (2 Corinthians 4:5).

The inquiry under consideration herein comes from India where an American’s writings are leading to confusion and religious conflict among members of the churches of Christ. Assertions therein include: “God’s kingdom has always existed… no starting or ending.” “Before created the angels God ruled Jesus and Holy Spirit.” “The Old Testament prophecies did not foretell that Jesus would establish a kingdom, but prophecies taught that Jesus would be a new king in God’s kingdom. Jesus did not establish the kingdom because God’s kingdom always existed.” “Jesus established the church to enter in to the kingdom… The church is not the kingdom.” The foregoing affirmations represent a gross misunderstanding and perversion of Old Testament and New Testament Scripture. The word “kingdom,” much like most words in the Bible or even in contemporary conversation, depends for its specific meaning and application on the context in which it is used. There is a sense in which the kingdom of God predates the kingdom that is the topic of Old Testament prophecies (Psalm 103:10), but it also differs from the kingdom prophesied and ultimately established in fulfillment of those prophecies. As Creator, God rules all as does a king reign over his realm (Isaiah 66:1). God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are coequals; they each possess the essence or characteristics of Deity or God. Jesus Christ, for instance, was and is equally Deity or God as is the Father. “Who, being in the form of God, did not consider

Hello, my question is, “Should Christians believe in Karma yoga ‘laborare est orare,’ which means ‘work is worship’? Is everything we do in a week (e.g., 24/7) considered worship (i.e., ‘work worship’)?” In karma yoga, it is believed that doing ordinary things such as mowing the lawn, if dedicated to God, the work becomes worship to God. What does the Bible say? Is there a difference between “service” and “worship” to God in our daily activities? Thank you! The Latin phrase “laborare est orare” literally translates, “to work is to pray.” The motto was associated with the Rule of Saint Benedict, and it was applied to monks with respect to their communal living about 1,500 years ago (Wikipedia). The same slogan since then has been adopted by others as well, such as the Freemasons (Skhet-Maat Lodge). Some decades ago while on vacation and visiting a church, I personally have heard a Gospel preacher who was teaching a Bible class in a congregation of the churches of Christ specifically say that when we mow grass that we are worshipping God. Obviously, the sentiment of “laborare est orare” is widespread. The one posing the query above asks some very important questions. “Should Christians turn to any source other than the Bible for religious instruction and practice?” “Is everything a child of God does (24/7) worship to God?” “What does the Bible say?” “Is there a difference between ‘service’ to and ‘worship’ of God?” The best and most concise, as well as biblically accurate

The task at hand is the consideration of John 10:16, which reads, “And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd” (NKJV). Generally, both denominational commentators as well as members of the churches of Christ correctly conclude that our Lord Jesus Christ was speaking to Jews and referring to non-Jews or the Gentiles as the “other sheep.” However, some denominational people and even perhaps some non-biblically-minded members of the Lord’s church twist Scripture (2 Peter 3:16) to erroneously teach that the “other sheep” include denominational churches. Some even more progressive than that have little difficulty including world religions such as Judaism, Hinduism and Buddhism among the “other sheep.” Anyone who affirms that the “other sheep” about whom Jesus spoke would include denominations or world religions besides Christianity is exercising himself in eisegesis rather than in exegesis of Scripture. Those of that type are more proficient in putting into the biblical text what is not there rather than extracting meaning from the Sacred Holy Writ that the Holy Spirit caused human penman to write. Speaking of exegesis or exposition, let’s take a closer look at John 10:16. This verse appears in the context of Jesus the Good Shepherd (John 10:7-18). Focusing on verse 16, we want to look briefly at some of the primary words in it. The word “other” from the Greek allos appears in Galatians 1:6 where it is contrasted with a different word for “other” or

I studied that the word “atonement” as found in Lev. 17:11, and specifically the original Hebrew word (Strong’s #3722) found there is defined as (1) to cover, (2) to conceal or (3) to hide. That makes sense as the blood of animals ONLY concealed, hid or covered the sins of the people UNTIL Christ could come. Then through His blood were their sins “actually removed” as found in Heb. 9:15? My question, then, is “Why do writers so often speak of Christ’s atoning blood?” I have often wondered, based upon the specific meaning of the word “atonement.” Christ’s blood “did not atone” in the sense of just covering or hiding; rather His blood REMOVED COMPLETELY our sins, did it not? Christ’s blood did not ATONE as the word meaning covers as far as I understand; it actually REMOVED, did it not? I would like your thoughts. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME, YOUR EFFORTS, SO GREAT OF A WEBSITE. I ENCOURAGE SO MANY TO GO “HERE” IF THEY HAVE QUESTIONS. ~ Jack Phillips The Hebrew word for “atonement” that appears in Leviticus 17:11 means “to cover (specifically with bitumen); figuratively, to expiate or condone, to placate or cancel” (Strong). It is variously translated throughout the KJV Old Testament as “appease, make (an atonement, cleanse, disannul, forgive, be merciful, pacify, pardon, purge (away), put off, (make) reconcile (-liation)” (Strong). Regarding the summary of teaching in both testaments of the Bible, it is true that absolute forgiveness of sin was not generally available to

…how you would respond to one who says that mechanical instruments can have meaning according to 1 Corinthians 14:7-8? This passage was used by one who was responding to a brother who said that mechanical instruments don’t have meaning (the implication really was that mechanical instruments can’t teach or express a message according to what’s required in Ephesians 5:19-20 and Colossians 3:16). …Also, …commenting on whether a mechanical instrument, which conveyed a certain sound (whether rhythmic or not) that all understood as conveying the message of Ephesians 5:19-20 and Colossians 3:16, whether this would be an argument a person could use for justifying mechanical instruments of music in worship. First Corinthians 14:7-8 reads, “Even things without life, whether flute or harp, when they make a sound, unless they make a distinction in the sounds, how will it be known what is piped or played? For if the trumpet makes an uncertain sound, who will prepare for battle?” (NKJV). The context in which these two verses appear addresses the necessity of teaching and preaching using words that can be understood by their auditors, rather than speaking in “tongues” or “languages” (Acts 2:5-11) that are unfamiliar to an audience. The references to instruments of music, that they make different sounds and that they could signal such things as “Charge!” or “Retreat!” are an illustration to teach that comprehension of divine instruction is necessary. Put as charitably as possible, lifting this illustration from its intended purpose by proponents of instrumental music in Christian worship is grasping

Almighty God created the angelic host (Genesis 2:1; Isaiah 45:12; Nehemiah 9:6; Colossians 1:16), and many of them rebelled against their Creator (2 Peter 2:4; Jude 6; Matthew 25:41; Revelation 12:9). Consequently, it might seem that creating angels was a miserable experiment. The Godhead created mankind (Genesis 1:26-27), and the first couple (Genesis 3:6), as well as the balance of humankind after them (Romans 3:10, 23), transgressed divine instructions provided to them. In such a condition, mortals were not suitable to be in the presence of a Holy God (Genesis 3:23-24; Isaiah 59:1-3; 2 Thessalonians 1:9). Creating mankind, then, also appears to have been a miserable experiment. Subsequently in the course of punishing wayward humanity, God on more than one occasion modified the created universe into which He had placed mankind (Genesis 3:15-19; 7:11-12, 20-23; 11:1-9). All that God had created, which He had styled as “good” (Genesis 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25) and “very good” (Genesis 1:31), became less than what it had been. The universe and every component part within it is winding down and slowly deteriorating. Even the created world and everything else that God made from nothing (Hebrews 11:3) appear to be specimens of a miserable experiment. When God endowed angels and mankind with freewill, He gave to them the capacity to make choices for themselves (Joshua 24:15; 1 Kings 18:21). Unfortunately, some of the angels chose to defy God. Regrettably, every human who has attained the ability to discern between right and wrong, likewise, has chosen at

Sir, I thank you and the group of Gospel Gazette very much for the marvelous work you guys are doing in America, and we in Nigeria are so proud of you. My question is as follows: I met a preacher, and he said that all the commandments of Jesus Christ and all of His teachings in all the books of the account of the Gospel before His resurrection are not for Christians. He said anyone who is quoting anything Christ said before His death as an authority is not a Christian and is guilty of following the Law of Moses. For example he said that we are not supposed to quote Christ in Matthew 19:4-12 when we are discussing marriage; likewise we are not supposed to quote Matthew 18:15-17 when we are resolving disputes with our fellow brethren. He also said that the Lord’s Supper command of Christ in Luke 22:16-20 is not a command but prophesy. He said that the reason is that Christ never revealed any of His New Testament doctrines to anyone before He died, and he supported his believe with Ephesians 3:3-5 and John 6:38. Please sir, help me out on this because I am really confused. There is only one reason for anyone to deny that the Gospel records are part of the New Testament. The sole reason that even some Christian brethren deny the place of the Gospel records in the New Testament is in an attempt to set aside what our Lord taught very clearly on the

Someone posed the question, “Can a Christian worship anywhere on the Lord’s Day?” Though not entirely sure what the person asking the question had in mind, there are some things that we can answer respecting the query. In the first century, Christians worshipped with each other, of course. The first benchmark for Christian worship is that Christians assemble together for the purpose of worshipping God in spirit and in truth (John 4:23-24). “Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight. There were many lamps in the upper room where they were gathered together” (Acts 20:7-8 NKJV). “…when you come together as a church…” (1 Corinthians 11:18). “…come together in one place…” (1 Corinthians 11:20, 33). “…the whole church comes together in one place…” (1 Corinthians 14:23). The writer of Hebrews cautioned first century Christians against failing to assemble with each other (Hebrews 10:25). The location or where Christians assembled in the first century varied between public places (Acts 2:46; 3:1, 6; 5:42; 20:20) and private homes (Romans 16:5; 1 Corinthians 16:19; Colossians 4:15; Philemon 2). There were no church-owned meetinghouses for the first 200 years after the establishment of the Lord’s church. The place of worship was not as significant as the Christian worship itself. The place of worship wasn’t especially holy, but the worshippers were holy (2 Corinthians 1:1; Ephesians 6:1) as well as in the presence of Deity during worship (Matthew 18:20;

The only information that anyone can definitively and accurately give regarding any religious question is limited to what is revealed in the Holy Scriptures – the Bible. “The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law” (Deuteronomy 29:29 NKJV). In the absence of biblical evidence for the presence of animals in heaven, therefore, one cannot confidently affirm that animals will inhabit heaven. Furthermore, heaven is a spiritual place in which spirits or souls dwell. The only exception presently is Jesus Christ who through the incarnation took on a physical body, too. However, not only was His body changed and adapted to habitation in heaven, but the bodies of the righteous at the end of time will also be changed and fashioned for a home in heaven where spirits dwell. “Who will transform our lowly body that it may be conformed to His glorious body, according to the working by which He is able even to subdue all things to Himself” (Philippians 3:21). Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does corruption inherit incorruption. 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

Without doubt, the baptism of the Great Commission (Mark 16:16) transforms one from being a child of the Devil (Colossians 1:13; 2:12) into being a disciple of Christ (Matthew 28:19) and to being one who has been added to the church by Jesus Christ Himself (Acts 2:38, 41, 47). Biblical baptism is the point at which one gets into Jesus Christ (Galatians 3:27) and the point at which one receives the remission of sins or is saved (1 Peter 3:20-21) from past sins (Romans 3:25). Naturally, then, evangelism has as its rudimentary goal leading souls into the watery grave of baptism (Romans 6:3-5). How, though, ought Christians to approach unsaved souls with the intention of leading them to obey the Gospel, since not obeying the Gospel consigns people to an eternity isolated from God in hell (2 Thessalonians 1:7-9; 1 Peter 4:17)? The temptation is to use all means to coax as many persons as possible into submitting to baptism. The temptation is to focus on numbers at the expense of actually converting people to Christ, whereupon if they were truly converted He could really add them to His church. “Everyone who is baptized today will receive a new Bible!” “In order to receive medical treatment today, you must have a Bible study with us.” “We are distributing clothes and eyeglasses at the Sunday assembly.” Time and time again, these and similar enticements in foreign fields have resulted in hundreds to thousands of people agreeing to be “baptized.” Yet, time and time again, after

The phrase “wine and spirits” refers to alcoholic drinks. In that regard, a dictionary definition of “spirits” is “a strong distilled alcoholic liquor,” and the British use of the word “spirits” means “alcohol” (Dictionary.com). In consideration, then, of Ephesians 5:18, there appears in Scripture a contrast between an unholy spirit and the Holy Spirit. Notice various translations of Ephesians 5:18 so that we can grasp the effect of consuming alcohol in contrast to being filled with the Spirit. “And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit” (KJV). “And be not drunken with wine, wherein is riot, but be filled with the Spirit” (ASV). “Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit” (NIV). “And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit” (ESV). The words “drunk” and “drunkenness” in both Greek and English have the same definition of “intoxication.” Therefore, Ephesians 5:18 says, “be not intoxicated…” Especially Christians, then, ought to refrain from being filled with spirits and rather opt to be filled with the Spirit. The contrast represents polar opposites with no middle ground. On one hand, consumption of alcohol or spirits is debauchery and leads to more debauchery. On the other hand, being filled with the Spirit is an admirable pursuit, distinctly different from the unholy spirits associated with alcoholic consumption. Medically or physiologically, too, there is no middle ground. The least amount of alcohol introduced into one’s body produces some level of

Hello, Sir. …am from Nigeria worshipping in Church of Christ. … How can I fine a right one without dating? Please, Sir help with scriptural portion. A dictionary definition for “dating” is “to go out socially.” Cultures differ around the world regarding marriage. Some cultures still practice wholly or partially arranged marriages where the couple to wed may not know each other or may have not even met each other prior to the wedding. A modification to arranged marriages is that in some cultures presently either candidate for marriage may decline the particular arrangement. Arranged marriages have for centuries preserved tribal, clan or family cultural norms and values. From observation, arranged marriages appear to be as successful or even more so than marriages that are not arranged by the families of those marrying. Affection and love in many arranged marriages is no less than that in non-arranged marriages. Arranged marriages have a predisposition to permanence by the acknowledgement of the parties being married, and the spouses learn to love each other and work together for the good of the immediate as well as the extended family. In much of the world, though, marriage partners each choose to marry the other. This occurs after social interaction where the parties come to know and appreciate each other. Love or physical attraction occurs prior to marriage and becomes the basis of entering into marriage. This social interaction is what dictionaries call “dating.” However, dating or social interaction must be morally pure for God

I am a church member of Hiroshima Baptist Church, Hiroshima, Japan. I would be very happy if you would be kind enough to reply the following question: (1) Why did John use the Greek word “paroima” and not the word “parabole”? (2)What is the difference between the two words? Sincerely yours, Makoto Watanabe The King James Version (KJV) uses the English word “parable” for the Greek “paroima” in John 10:6. The New King James Version (NKJV) translates the Greek word instead as “illustration.” The Greek definition for “paroima” is similar to the Greek word “parabole,” which is most often translated as “parable;” “parabole” is translated once as “comparison” (Mark 4:30 KJV), once as “proverb” (Luke 4:23 KJV, NKJV), once as “figure” in  Hebrews 9:9 (KJV) or “symbolic” (NKJV) and once as “figure” (Hebrews 11:19 KJV, NKJV). “Paroima” appears a total of five times in four New Testament verses (John 10:6; 16:25 [twice], 29; 2 Peter 2:22). The KJV translates it as “proverb” in John 16 and 2 Peter 2:22; the NKJV renders the Greek into English as “figurative language” (John 16:25) and “figure of speech” (John 16:29). Both “parabole” and “paroima” are compound words, both using the Greek preposition “para,” which means “beside.” The Greek “bole,” the second word in the compound word “parabole,” means to cast or to throw. Hence, “parabole” from which comes the English word “parable” means throwing or placing two things alongside of each other. Jesus did this in His parables for the purpose of comparison. From knowledge of the

Dear brother Rushmore, …I am a member of the Lord’s Church in …Nigeria. …Is it scriptural for a group of individual brothers to form an association, with a name registered with the relevant government authority, having the aim to preach the Gospel or doing charity [work] or both? For instance: Association of Nigerian Brethren in the US, with the mission to evangelize and establish congregations of the Lord’s Church in remote villages in Nigeria. Brothers in my locality are having contrary views. Those who resist the strategy say that only the church/local congregation should preach the gospel, that other associations/names cause divisions. The only organization authorized and charged with the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ throughout the world is the one church for which Jesus died to establish (Acts 20:28), over which He is the Head (Colossians 1:18) and that bears His name (Romans 16:16). That being said, the church is comprised of individual members (1 Corinthians 12:12-27) who are responsible for church growth (Ephesians 4:16). The Great Commission to evangelize the world was given initially to the remaining eleven apostles of Christ (Mark 16:15-16). The responsibility of the church relies upon the individual element, and the church can do nothing without the activity of Christians. Therefore, it would be biblically correct for a church program to be organized under the oversight of a congregational eldership to evangelize as the work of the church. However, there is no scriptural authority for an organization outside of the church to

Every Christian woman is obligated to pray during Christian worship in the assembly. Likewise, every Christian man is obligated to pray during Christian worship in the assembly. However, women may not speak in the worship assembly (1 Corinthians 14:34), and only one man at a time is permitted to speak in a worship assembly (1 Corinthians 14:27-31). Yet, one does not have to speak audibly to pray, and the public prayers that are led by Christian men in the assembly are the prayers in which all Christians present participate; the public prayers are led on behalf of the assembled Christians. Prayer itself is an act of worship, which also occurs outside of worship assemblies. As such, outside of a worship assembly, both Christian men and Christian women pray several times daily.  Again, prayers may be audible or silent. By themselves or in the presence of other women or children, Christian women can also pray aloud without violating the respective roles that God assigned to men and to women. In the first century and preceding centuries, culture distinguished men from women and signified the submission of women to men by women wearing a veil, which covered the head. Consequently, women who prayed were to wear a veil covering their heads when they prayed (1 Corinthians 11:5). Many societies today no longer have the custom of veiling women in public to signify their submission to men, and hence, women in those cultures do not wear veils when praying either inside or outside

Someone inquired about the statement of our Lord Jesus in Matthew 15:24, “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (NKJV). Similarly, Jesus Christ sent His newly appointed apostles only “to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” “These twelve Jesus sent out and commanded them, saying: ‘Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans. But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel’” (Matthew 10:5-6). Historically, the person of the Godhead that we know as Jesus Christ has had several different roles or missions over the centuries. He participated in a very significant way in the creation of the universe and everything in it (Genesis 1:26; John 1:1-3, 14; Ephesians 3:9; Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1:2), and our Lord also is responsible for the continued existed of all creation (Colossians 1:17; Hebrews 1:3). He interacted with patriarchs (Genesis 32:24-30; Matthew 12:26) and the children of Israel in their wilderness wandering (Acts 7:30; 1 Corinthians 10:1-4). The statement of our Lord in Matthew 15:24 pertains to yet another role in preparation for the beginning of Christianity; “the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost” (Luke 19:10). Therefore, Jesus instructed His apostles in Matthew 10:7, “And as you go, preach, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’” Jesus Christ preached the same message (Matthew 4:17). The establishment of the eternal, spiritual kingdom about which

I was discussing with someone, and I said that only the apostles can lay hands on people before they could get the spiritual gift of the Holy Spirit. The person cited Acts 9:17. I am very sure Ananias was not an apostle. Please help me explain this verse. Acts 9:17-18 reads, “And Ananias went his way and entered the house; and laying his hands on him he said, ‘Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you came, has sent me that you may receive your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.’ Immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he received his sight at once; and he arose and was baptized” (Acts 9:17-18 NKJV). Obviously, Ananias was instrumental in some way (1) for Saul of Tarsus (later known as the apostle Paul) to receive his sight, and (2) for him to receive miraculous ability, and we know that the miraculous ability that he later demonstrated was that degree afforded to apostles (2 Corinthians 12:12). However, Ananias stated the reasons for which Jesus sent him to Saul, but he did not attribute to himself the ability to transfer miraculous ability to him. The passage does not stipulate when or how Saul (Paul) received the miraculous ability of an apostle; the first century gift of the Holy Spirit differed in degree from the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which the apostles alone received. All the passage confirms happening at the meeting of

Inevitably there will come in one’s life what we might call a showstopper, an event that is so overpowering that it can neither be ignored nor set aside. Life as one knows it comes to the proverbial screeching halt. Nothing else can happen or interfere until the showstopper is acknowledged and appropriately addressed. We are talking about a crisis in a person’s life that eclipses every other untoward situation previously experienced. If it hasn’t happened yet in your life, it will. In those prolonged, slow-motion moments, maybe encompassing days, weeks, months or even years, every familiar thing in one’s life is subjected to analysis and to evaluation. This is the time when a person reluctantly facing personal tragedy begins to involuntarily sort out in his or her mind the things in this life that really do not matter from what really matters. Some things are so temporal and fickle that honestly, they never really mattered. On the other hand, it becomes increasingly clear that some things have always mattered, they do matter, they will matter tomorrow, they will matter a hundred years from now, and they will matter eternally. Of course, what has always mattered and what will always matter are things spiritual and eternal in nature in contrast to everything in this physical universe (Matthew 16:26). Especially as one contemplates Judgment (Hebrews 9:27) and the eternal disposition of his or her soul, it becomes obvious that only spiritual things really matter (Ecclesiastes 12:13-14; 2 Corinthians 5:10; Revelation 20:12-15). Spiritual awareness and recognition of the

Someone poses the question, “Is it necessary to confess your sin to your parents?” First, a child of God who sins needs to confess or acknowledge his or her sins to God. “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 NKJV). Confessing one’s sins to God is part of the process of repentance. “Repent therefore of this your wickedness, and pray God if perhaps the thought of your heart may be forgiven you” (Acts 8:22). Secondly, Christians need to confess or acknowledge their sins to each other. “Confess your trespasses to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The effective, fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much” (James 5:16). In addition, dependent children and their parents have a relationship before God where the parents are responsible for guiding the children (Ephesians 6:1-4). Therefore, it may be necessary for children to confess or acknowledge their sins to their parents, particularly about publicly known sins, owing both to the child-parental relationship as well as for Christians to acknowledge to fellow Christians their sins of which they repent.

Someone notes that the “Secret Sister” program was associated with some apostate congregations of the churches of Christ in years past and it is a part of some denominational programs today. Furthermore, there may be facets of the “Secret Sisters” program formerly conducted by apostates and presently by denominational people that may be out of harmony with Scripture. The question, then, “Is the ‘Secret Sister’ program something to be avoided, and if so, what does its use by some congregations of the Lord’s church say about them?” Certainly, faithful Christians and biblically sound congregations do not want to do anything that is anti-scriptural. Yet, just because someone else abuses something or someone does not necessarily disqualify a thing. For instance, just because false teachers and denominational people enter their meetinghouses through doorways doesn’t obligate faithful Christians and churches of Christ to access their buildings through the windows instead of through the doors. In other words, faithful Christians do not have to practice anti-scriptural behavior or lend themselves to abuses characteristic of others. If what is styled “Secret Sisters” has merit or even if it is neither especially good nor bad, participants in it may choose to uplift and encourage each other as well as experience fellowship among sisters in Christ. If the general principles involved in “Secret Sisters” are either admirable or harmless and innocent as practiced by Christian sisters, then it is not anti-scriptural.

What do the words “ebon pinion” mean? The hymn, “Night with Ebon Pinion,” poetically refers to the circumstances immediately preceding the arrest of Jesus Christ. The word “ebon” is short for “ebony” or “black.” “Pinion” has to do with the wing of a bird. The combination of the dark of night as well as the dark events surrounding the arrest, trials and crucifixion of our Lord are meant by the use of the words “ebon pinion.” For a fuller treatment of the words “ebon pinion,” go to the magazine article at the following URL. https://truthmagazine.com/archives/volume27/GOT027282.html

Hi, Hope things are well with you. I had a brother ask me a question, and wanted to ask what your scriptural conclusions were. He asked: How do we know that the first day of the week is Sunday? In addition to this, he spoke of how there may be different cultures that reckon the first day of the week to be on a different day. (Note: Just want to say, that, he wasn’t asking this by a spirit of unbelief or rebellion, from what I know of him). Overall, how does one apply universally the responsibility of partaking of the Lord’s Supper on the first day of the week, i.e. Sunday (among other things, 1 Corinthians 16:1-2), and also, recognize other cultures’ reckoning of time? Thanks ahead of time… The word “Sunday” does not appear in the Bible. Rather, in English speaking countries, Sunday is commonly the name of the first day of the week. Other languages, naturally, will have different words to represent the first day of the week. In the New Testament, Christians were instructed to assemble for congregational worship on “the first day of the week” (1 Corinthians 16:1-2), which on calendars for English speaking people is called Sunday. Furthermore, apostolically approved example confirms that the first century church assembled on “the first day of the week” (Acts 20:7), which English speakers call Sunday. References to and the significance of the first day of the week to Christians appears before the establishment of the church concerning the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the grave

Not everything is a test of fellowship, but some things are, in fact, a test of fellowship. While there are many things in life and in religion that do not matter, there are a number of things, including religious beliefs and practices, that mattered yesterday, matter today, will matter tomorrow and will matter eternally. Hence, mankind must adhere to divine instructions when it involves something that matters in both this life and in eternity. “O Lord, I know the way of man is not in himself; It is not in man who walks to direct his own steps” (Jeremiah 10:23 NKJV). Characteristically, humans frequently are given to extremes. Every facet of life demonstrates this (e.g., politics, religion, social organizations, at work, etc.). Some people are too loose with rules and values, while others oppositely are overly strict respecting procedures and beliefs. In the Lord’s church, even some Christians do not try hard enough to practice biblical instructions, while still other Christians try too hard to implement and enforce religious teaching. Those on the left of biblical center loose God-given teaching, while ultraconservative brethren essentially make rules where God did not make any. The Gospel of Christ is difficult enough to apply to one’s life, and so no one ought to take it upon himself to make it more difficult (Galatians 1:6-9; Revelation 22:18-19). Regarding members of the church who take a liberal approach to the Scriptures, it is misleading and deceitful for them to presume that they are more studied and more mature in the Christian faith than those with whom

Someone inquires about the origin of the races that populate the earth. Whereas the atheistic evolutionist attributes everything to his illogical and unprovable theory of evolution, Bible believers are confident that all which exists is the result of creation by God (Genesis 1:1). As such, we look to our first parents – Adam and Eve (Genesis 2:7, 21-23; 3:20) – as representing the original gene pool from which their descendants of varying skin pigments and additional physical characteristics have come down to the present. From consideration of verifiable or true science, is it even possible for one set of parents over the space of just as little as perhaps 6,000 years to produce the various races of humanity? Yes! Please note the article at the following link, whereby you can see for yourself: https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=82. In addition to the original gene pool possessing the wherewith to result in the racial variables discernible today, God periodically made changes to the physical world in which mankind was originally placed. These changes affected humanity both directly and indirectly. The topography of planet earth dramatically changed respecting the events surrounding the universal flood of Noah’s day (Genesis 6-8). Mountains pushed upward. Oceans were formed. In turn, especially in the absence of the cloud canopy that had distributed an equalized climate across the globe, oceans and mountains effected weather patterns not known by man before – some of which are agreeable as well as some that are catastrophic (e.g., tornados, hurricanes, etc.). The eight souls aboard the ark represented

Hello. I have a question concerning the Lord’s Supper. According to the word of God we take the Lord’s Supper to commemorate His death on the cross for us. We are to do it in memory of him. Now it is very good to take it together with other true believers. In some churches, the Lord’s Supper is scarcely taken. I am not complaining about that because every servant of God has when they think it is appropriate for them. But now, there are some believers who will like to take it alone at home. Some feel they will like to take it at home alone though they have their local churches. According to the word of God, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are living with the true believer and he is not living alone. Jesus said he will come and sop with the true believer. Moreover God is a Spirit. Though we do not see him, he is there and the angels of God are always with us. What I want to ask is this. Can a believer take communion alone at home? Is he violating the word of God in some way? There are several assumptions affirmed in the paragraph in which finally a question is posed. Religious affirmations need to be substantiated with Scripture citations. It is an assumption for which there is not biblical validation that it is merely good to partake of the Lord’s Supper with other believers. It is an unfounded

Please sir, kindly explain 1 Corinthians 14:34. Can a sister read the Bible or ask questions during Sunday school period on Sunday? Can a sister be appointed in to the committee of the church? Again, should a brother who marries outside the faith be disfellowshipped even when the brother has not forsaken the assembly of God’s people. Question #1. The restriction in 1 Corinthians 14:34 respecting women pertains to the assembly of the church together for the purpose of worship. It does not prohibit women from speaking in the presence of men, whether one or two or several outside of the worship assembly, such as in a Bible class. Another verse of Scripture, though, prohibits women from religious teaching in an authoritative way over men irrespective of the setting (1 Timothy 2:11-12). A woman is neither allowed to teach a class in which men are present nor is she permitted from the audience to wrest the class from the teacher; men would be prohibited as well from taking over a class from the audience (1 Corinthians 14:29-31). See the following URLs of articles for a more thorough answer to this question. https://www.gospelgazette.com/gazette/1999/may/page15.shtml#womenhttps://www.gospelgazette.com/gazette/2012/jun/page15.htmlhttps://www.gospelgazette.com/biographies/priscilla.shtmlhttps://www.gospelgazette.com/gazette/2005/jan/page15.htm#answer3 Question #2. A committee is two or more persons working together to accomplish an assignment or a common goal. Whether designated as a “committee” or not, persons, some of whom happen to be women, often work together to accomplish a common goal. Yes, a woman can work with other men or other women or a combination of men and women to accomplish

I just want to ask what you would think of one who would make an argument and say that, if one allows the lifting of hands in connection with their worship, then why can’t he allow handclapping (and possibly even mechanical instruments of music) in connection with worship (thinking that they all have the same principle of being an addition to the worship, yet thinking that if one is lawful [i.e. the lifting of hands], then so should the others). It would be a misguided and false argument that lifting hands in worship is an addition to what is authorized in Scripture, and therefore, in the same category of adding instrumental music to worship. While it is true that adding instrumental music to Christian worship is an unauthorized addition, the same is not true regarding lifting hands in Christian worship. Notice that in 1 Timothy 2:8 the apostle Paul recommended the lifting hands in worship by men in their public prayers. “I desire therefore that the men [males] pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting” (1 Timothy 2:8 NKJV). Men, not women, were instructed to lift their hands during prayers in public worship. First Timothy 2:8 in its context appears in distinction and contrast to the God-given role of women (1 Timothy 2:9-15). Why, then, do men today typically not lift their hands while uttering public prayers in worship? The answer lies in one’s understanding of why Christians do not typically practice the “holy kiss” of Romans 16:16. Most people in the Christian world no

Immediately and naturally by mentioning congregational growth, one first thinks about physical growth – an increase in the number of persons attending worship assemblies. Yet, there are two types of congregational growth in which Christians ought to be interested – numerical or physical and spiritual. Frankly, though, spiritual growth ought to be prioritized over numerical growth. There is the ever present danger if a congregation’s goal first and foremost is numerical growth that compromises in Christian doctrine will occur in the all-out effort to achieve the objective of numbers. However, spiritual growth is a more worthy first goal than merely numerical growth. Furthermore, having spiritual growth as a congregational goal is less susceptible to doctrinal concessions than striving primarily for numerical growth. Quantity without quality in anything and especially in God’s kingdom is counterproductive. A congregation must grow from the inside out to achieve and sustain true growth with which God is pleased. The local church grows spiritually as each Christian grows spiritually. Spiritual growth, followed by numerical growth, takes time; be patient, but be active in edification and evangelism. This edification (spiritual growth) and evangelism (leading to physical growth) needs to be a matter of a personal as well as a congregational ongoing effort. Successful evangelism begins with Christian homes successfully implanting Christianity especially in the children of the home. A local congregation will be no stronger than the families who comprise it. Consequently, weak, dysfunctional families will result in weak, dysfunctional and ineffective local churches – and by extension, the church throughout a nation and across the globe. Contrariwise, strong Christian families will

Brief History of Calendars Calendars were developed to permit mankind to measure time – past, present and future. The world has experienced numerous, often competing calendars throughout the centuries. These calendars differed from each other based on the emphasis placed upon them in various parts of the world (e.g., earth’s revolution around the sun, cycles of the moon, seasons, politics, religious considerations, etc.). The lunar calendar, taking notice of the cycles of the moon, anciently was a popular approach to defining time. “The lunar calendar became the basis of the calendars of the ancient Chinese, Babylonians, Greeks, and Jews” (“History of the Lunar Calendar”). However, lunar calendars especially fail to correspond to the makeup of a year as defined by solar calendars – the time it takes for our planet to revolve around its sun. Having less days than solar calendars, lunar calendars represent the four seasons inconsistently at different times on the lunar calendar from year to year. Proponents of Islam still use the Islamic Calendar, a lunar calendar, for religious purposes and observances. The Roman calendar, itself evidencing that it was a revision of previous calendars, was revised by Julius Caesar in 45 B.C. “The Julian calendar was no longer dependent on the observation of the new moon but simply followed an algorithm of introducing a leap day every four years. …The Gregorian calendar was introduced as a refinement of the Julian calendar in 1582 and is today in worldwide use as the de facto calendar for secular

It’s that time of year! May Christians observe Christmas? Most certainly, they can, but may they observe Christmas? First, with today’s casual usage of the word “Christian,” it is necessary to define the term under consideration herein. By “Christian,” we do not simply mean some vague so-called Christian heritage or citizenry in what sometimes people at one time referred to as a Christian nation. Neither do we have in mind for the definition of Christian respecting one’s membership in a church nor a religion that had its origin after the first century, that was founded in some city other than Jerusalem, that was established by mere mortals or that may wear a name that cannot be found in the Bible. “Christian” as it is used in this article refers to baptized believers (Mark 16:16), those who were immersed or buried with Christ in baptism (Romans 6:3-5) for the remission of their sins (Acts 2:38) and who were added to the Lord’s church by Jesus Christ Himself (Acts 2:47). Herein we mean by “Christian” all that it means in the strictly biblical sense and not in a secular or a popular denominational way. So, may a New Testament Christian observe or otherwise participate in Christmas? Well, that depends on some variables, such as what do we mean by “Christmas.” Yes, we are aware of the origin of Christmas regarding it coming about as the institution of the Christ Mass by the Roman Catholic Church and also being combined with tenets of paganism. If that were exactly and only what defined Christmas today, then, of

The question of “What is the origin of evil?” expands upon the question posed, “Did God create evil?” That question arose from a serious misunderstanding of Genesis 2:17 and Isaiah 45:7. This article goes beyond misrepresentations of Genesis 2:17 and Isaiah 45:7 to address the origin of evil initially and the ongoing presence of evil (i.e., sinfulness). The three persons of the Godhead (Acts 17:29; Romans 1:20; Colossians 2:9) are eternal (Genesis 21:13; Psalm 90:2; Romans 16:26; 1 Timothy 1:17) as well as eternally and completely holy (Leviticus 19:2). The Godhead subsequently created everything that was created (Genesis 1-2; Colossians 1:16; John 1:1-3). This included the creation of angels (Nehemiah 9:6). As He did with mankind (Deuteronomy 30:15-16, 19; Joshua 24:15; 2 Samuel 24:12), God created angels with freewill, the ability to make decisions for themselves. Unfortunately, some of those angels chose to rebel against Almighty God (2 Peter 2:4; Jude 6). The ringleader of the angelic rebellion is called the Devil or Satan (Revelation 12:9); he and his fellow rebellious angels were consigned to hell (Matthew 25:41). Satan himself introduced evil and sin into the world among humanity by successfully tempting Eve, as well as Adam, to disobey God (Genesis 3) – to sin (1 John 3:4). Mankind amply demonstrated afterward his tendency to commit sin – from the murder of Abel by his brother Cain, to the rampant evil leading up to the universal flood of Noah’s day and to present times. “But each one is tempted when

Sir, I still have one more question and this one is tearing my congregation apart right now. DOES GOD CREATE EVIL?  My preacher taught my congregation that God is the one who create EVIL and he back up his teaching with Isaiah 45:7 and Genesis 2:17… Oyeye Stanley In Isaiah 45:7, the word “evil” does not refer to sin, but in the context, “evil” refers to the war that God through the Persian ruler Cyrus would bring upon the Babylonian kingdom as a penalty for conquering the kingdom of Judah and taking the Israelites into captivity. The word “evil” in Isaiah 45:7 stands in opposition to the word “peace” in the same verse; the opposite of peace in the context is war. Elsewhere in the Old Testament, the same Hebrew word translated in Isaiah 45:7 as “evil” is translated as “adversity,” “affliction,” “calamity” and “distress,” among additional translations as well. The same Hebrew word is translated as “evil” in Genesis 2:17. In the context there, the Tree of the Knowledge between good and evil is discussed. Having “knowledge,” which is what Genesis 2:17 notes, is neither wicked nor sinful. Instead, Christians are required to know the difference between good and evil, which today comes through study of God’s Word (2 Timothy 2:15). “But solid food belongs to those who are of full age, that is, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil” (Hebrews 5:14). It is a serious misunderstanding of Scripture to accuse

Cause & Effect Consequences of Sin The Book of Job is the ideal occasion to study the topic of “Pain and Suffering.” The patriarch Job’s extreme suffering occupies 42 chapters of biblical text. He and we, too, want to know the answer to the questions: (1) “Why do good people often suffer despite their righteousness?” (2) “Why do bad people often prosper despite their sins?” The short answer is, “Satan is behind pain and suffering.” Satan certainly was responsible for the pain and suffering experienced by poor Job, and at least indirectly, Satan is equally responsible for pain and suffering today as well. Pain and suffering came into the world as the cause and effect of sin entering the world. Satan, in the guise of a talking snake, persuaded mother Eve to violate God’s instructions in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3; 2 Corinthians 11:3; Revelation 12:9). Subsequently, Adam also sinned. As consequences of sin, mankind was expelled from the Garden, women experience labor pains, death was initiated and the earth was modified from what it had been in creation. God cursed the ground with “thorns and thistles,” which necessitated hard work and sweat to produce crops. As the centuries passed, humankind continued to sin greatly. Finally, man’s sins reached the breaking point, whereupon God could no longer tolerate it. Except for Noah and his family—eight souls in all (1 Peter 3:20), God destroyed all other humans with a universal flood (Genesis 6). The means by which God implemented the great deluge

Someone poses the question, “Was Herod’s Temple authorized by God?” Herod the Great spent decades building the Temple to ingratiate the Jews to him. The Temple in existence at the time of Herod was enlarged and aggrandized in a building project that began in 20 B.C. and was not completed until A.D. 64 – a mere six years before it was destroyed in the war between Rome and the Jews. During the ministry of Jesus, the Temple had been under construction for 46 years (John 2:20). Jesus in Mark 11:15-17 acknowledged that Herod’s Temple was the house of God. Hence, that Temple was authorized through our Lord’s acknowledgement of it as belonging to God. This is so despite the lack of any divine mandate for Herod’s construction project relating to the Temple. The first Temple was authorized specifically by God (1 Chronicles 22:8-10). Later, though, the Temple was plundered several times before finally being destroyed by the Babylonians. Following the Persian conquest of the Babylonians, subsequently the Temple was rebuilt at the instigation of God (2 Chronicles 36:23; Ezra 1:1-4). Herod the Great was rebuilding or adding to the Temple that was previously authorized by God. By reason of the fact that the first two constructions of the Temple were authorized by God and the fact that the second Temple was still standing when Herod remodeled it, as well as our Lord’s acknowledgement of it being the house of God, attests to Herod’s Temple being authorized by God. In addition, Jesus during His life

“Can one person worship alone if there are no others to worship with?” There are five acts of worship in Christianity about which one can read in Scripture. They are in no particular order: prayer, Lord’s Supper, giving, preaching and singing hymns (Acts 2:42; Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:1-2; Ephesians 5:19). Ideally, Christians in a community assemble together for worship; especially the preaching and the singing are instructive toward the group gathered together for worship. Obviously, preaching touches those present, but singing involves “teaching and admonishing one another” (Colossians 3:16). Whenever Christian brethren have the opportunity, they need to worship together. However, the question supposes that there are no other Christians with whom one can worship. Can one, then, worship God without other Christians present with whom he or she can participate in worship? Though it may be more uplifting for several Christians to worship together, there is neither logical nor biblical reason why a single Christian cannot worship God. “Yes,” one person can worship alone if there are no others with whom to worship. Edification can occur upon studying God’s Word or perhaps by auditing a recorded sermon or watching a video sermon. One can sing alone, too; the lyrics of hymns are instructive to the one singing as well as constituting praise to God. Giving can occur whereby some aspect of Christian service can occur. Certainly, a group is unnecessary for prayer to be effective. One person can commune with Jesus Christ in the Lord’s Supper (Mark 14:25).

Someone inquires, “Is organized religion true?” Over the years, it has been popular to disavow organized religion in any form, instead preferring often to resort to some supposed spiritual [subjective inner emotions] feelings without stipulated outward manifestations. The appeal of such is obvious – a lack of requirements and specified actions. It is true, though, that much of what represents itself as religion today – portraying Christianity or some other world religion – is foreign to the God-given religion of the New Testament. For instance, denominationalism typically structures itself in accordance with manmade hierarchies that are not found in the Bible. Often, some human heads and rules a church from some earthly headquarters through descending branches of organization. The church of the New Testament qualifies as organized religion, and it is true. However, it differs greatly from the churches that have originated from the efforts of mere mortals. Jesus Christ alone rules His church (Matthew 16:18) from heaven (Acts 7:55). Each congregation is autonomous or self-ruling instead of being chained to an ecclesiastical hierarchy. Furthermore, each fully organized congregation is led by elders (Acts 14:23) who are selected according to biblical qualifications (1 Timothy 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9); elders are also called bishops. Every congregation is bound to one another as well as directed by Jesus Christ through the Word of God – the Bible. Particularly the New Testament is the sole creed for the Lord’s church (Galatians 1:6-9; Jude 3). In it, one discovers how God wants to be worshipped,