In 1772, John Fawcett penned the words to the Christian hymn, “Blest Be the Tie that Binds.” The first stanza reads, “Blest be the tie that binds, Our hearts in Christian love; The fellowship of kindred minds, Is like to that above.” All of the words in the spiritual song are appropriate, but we want to dwell for a few paragraphs on the ideas put forth in the first stanza. We begin by posing a question. Since the churches of Christ (i.e., the church of God, 1 Corinthians 1:2; the New Testament church) have neither earthly headquarters nor centralized church government, just what are the ties that bind together individual Christians and the congregations of which they are members? What binds together into a worldwide fellowship barefoot Christians wearing cultural costumes that date back thousands of years with finely dressed Christians in contemporary western garb on the distant shores of other continents? First, Christians everywhere voluntarily bow down (Romans 14:11) humbly in obedience (Hebrews 5:8-9) to Jesus Christ. He has “all authority…in heaven and on earth” (Matthew 28:18). Further, our Lord is the Head of the church (Ephesians 1:22-23) and Head of the body of Christ (Colossians 1:18). Christians of every nation (Matthew 28:19; Revelation 5:9), of every complexion and from diverse cultures scattered all over the world are bound together in one universal church under Jesus Christ Who is the Head of that church, which He built as He promised that He would (Matthew 16:18-19). Secondly, Christians throughout the

Someone asks, “Is it permissible to sing during the Lord’s Supper?” The New Testament does not address this question. In other words, we have neither a directive nor an example to substantiate the practice of singing during the Lord’s Supper. However, it is also true that we do not have a single specimen in the New Testament of a worship assembly to observe precisely how it was conducted. On the other hand, we do have occasions in which facets of New Testament worship were addressed because early Christians were practicing it incorrectly (i.e., multiple speakers at the same time, 1 Corinthians 14:26-33; women speaking in the assembly, 1 Corinthians 14:34-35; confusion and disorder in the assembly, 1 Corinthians 14:33, 40). The apostle Paul also devoted a significant amount of space in 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 to address abuses of the Lord’s Supper observance (i.e., factions within the assembly, combining eating of food with the Lord’s Supper for the nourishment of the body rather than noting the spiritual memorial feast, partaking of the communion in an unworthy manner). Especially abuses of the Lord’s Supper did – and continue to have – serious consequences. “Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks

Biblical significance of dreams and visions pertained to the scope of miraculous activity. For instance, God caused the Babylonian king, Nebuchadnezzar, to have an inspired dream. Then, God empowered the prophet Daniel to interrupt the king’s dream, which was prophetic about the distant from Nebuchadnezzar’s day and time and then future establishment of an eternal, spiritual kingdom – the church (Daniel 2:31-44). Neither my dreams nor the dreams of anyone else today are inspired of God since the miraculous period closed about 2,000 years ago (1 Corinthians 13:8-13) after miracles had served the purpose for which they were given (Mark 16:20). Likewise, the prophecy of Joel 2:28-3:2 specified that dreams and visions would correspond to the establishment of the kingdom of God or of the church. That the Old Testament prophecies regarding the establishment of the kingdom pertained to the church one can be sure upon observation of our Lord’s conversation with the apostle Peter, whereupon Jesus used the words “kingdom” and “church” to refer to the same divine organization; likewise, the apostles Paul and John used “church” and “kingdom” interchangeably to refer to the same thing (Colossians 1:13; Revelation 1:9). Dreams and visions were a part of the miraculous demonstration that eternal kingdom or church was being established in Acts 2. The apostle Peter quoted Joel 2 and applied it to the birthday of the church and noted that the miraculous manifestations on that day pertained to Joel’s prophecy. But this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel:

Someone inquires about “fasting and prayer.” Immediately, the Bible student is aware that one can read repeatedly in both testaments of the Bible about children of God who practiced fasting and prayer for a number of different reasons. Old Testament examples of fasting and prayer include when a loved one is deathly ill (2 Samuel 12:16), in the face of impending danger (Esther 4:16), coupled with contriteness and acknowledgement of sin (Nehemiah 9:1-2), during bereavement (1 Chronicles 10:12) and in response to wickedness among the people of God (Ezra 10:6). Fasting and prayer was commonplace in the first century before the establishment of the church and Christianity. The Pharisees and even the disciples of John the Baptist routinely fasted and prayed (Matthew 9:14). Further, we have the example of our Lord Jesus Christ also engaging in fasting and prayer following the Great Temptation (Matthew 4:1-2). However, since Jesus lived and died under Judaism, that He fasted and prayed as did others living under the Old Testament Law does not necessarily imply that fasting and prayer ought to be a part of Christianity as well. Turning to the New Testament, though, the Bible reader discovers occasions of Christians practicing fasting and prayer under the New Law, too. The church of Antioch of Syria engaged in fasting in prayer at the appointment of Barnabas and Saul (the apostle Paul) to be foreign evangelists (i.e., what we call missionaries) (Acts 13:3). Since that congregation was predominantly or perhaps wholly of Gentile ancestry, its

The real left behind are not the supposed post-premillennial rapture refuse of ungodly souls per that anti-biblical and unscriptural manmade, denominational doctrine that has been and continues to be so popular with the majority of the religious crowd in Christendom. The real left behind are the survivors whose parents, children, spouses, other family members or friends have passed away. “We who are alive and remain” (1 Thessalonians 4:15) have been left behind, and we grieve. The severity of our grief varies from person to person, differs respecting who it is that left us behind (e.g., acquaintance, friend, grandparent, sibling, aunt or uncle, spouse, child, etc.) and fluctuates in keeping with the depth of the relationship we enjoyed with the deceased (i.e., the closer the relationship and the more love exchanged). In any case, we grieve because we have been left behind by our loved ones. We who have been left behind find ourselves overwhelmed with a myriad of often simultaneous and involuntary feelings. There is that biting, overshadowing umbrella of loneliness and a sense of abandonment. At the same time, there is the stifling and stuffy delirium of sadness and depression that leads us to throw away formerly held human and earthly aspirations as though there is little left for which to live and no expectation of ever enjoying anything again or even any longer maintaining a longing for life. Life, death and eternity become the only realities. An embarrassing spontaneous bitterness arises, really with no one or anything toward which to direct it, though some mourners fashion the

Someone poses the question, “Is it biblical to select a board to oversee an activity of the church?” In the first place the question is too general to categorically answer satisfactorily. Who is doing the selecting? What is the activity being ascribed to the church as its responsibility? In addition, the word “oversee” may be viewed as prejudicial to an answer to the question since the word “oversee” in Scripture pertains to the duties of elders. An answer cannot be adequately stated that would appropriately speak to all of the possible unknown variables potentially either within the question or lying with how someone else might decide to apply it. Therefore, I cautiously offer these considerations. If elders of a local congregation are the ones doing the selecting, they certainly do rely on other congregational members and sometimes non-Christians also to help accomplish duties for which they are responsible to oversee (e.g., ministers, deacons, secretaries, janitors, grounds keeping, etc.). Not even deacons necessarily do what they do all by themselves. The phrase, “But let these also first be tested [“proved” KJV]…” (1 Timothy 3:10 NKJV) among the qualifications for the appointment of deacons indicates that these men were already working for the Lord in the local congregation – and amenable to the elders and likely to a deacon who is responsible for a specified area of labor, who in turn reports to the elders. Don’t call the arrangement anything or refer to it as a committee or as a board and

“How are camps organized in the churches of Christ?” someone inquires. Much of the time if not nearly always, Christian camps are organized by members of the churches of Christ instead of by one or more congregations of the churches of Christ. The distinction is that families who have a keen interest in the spiritual and physical welfare of their children and the children of others, too, arrange for camp facilities and camp activities for children. Several families may cooperate with each other to make a Christian camp possible. On the other hand, a congregation may see a Christian camp as an opportunity for participating in one or more of the assignments for which the Lord’s church is responsible to the Lord. Usually, those church duties are recognized as involving benevolence, edification and evangelism. Therefore, it is possible that a congregation might view a Christian camp as an extension of its efforts toward edification – efforts that often manifest themselves in Bible classes and preaching. In addition, particularly when non-Christians attend (i.e., members’ children who have not obeyed the Gospel yet or children of non-members), a church may view its participation in a Christian camp as an extension of its effort to evangelize lost souls. Noting that some children who may benefit from attending a Christian camp cannot afford the nominal expenses required, a congregation may consider it a matter of benevolence along with edification or evangelism to make it financially possible for such children to attend. Hence, how a Christian camp, for instance, is organized depends on

he only church of which everyone now living desperately needs to be a member is the single church about which one can read in both testaments of the Bible. Especially in the Old Testament, the Bible student can read about the church in prophecy. However, in the New Testament, the same truth seeker finds the fulfillment of those prophecies upon the establishment of the church that Jesus Christ died to establish and over which He alone is the Head. Throughout the centuries preceding the commencement of Christianity, though, God’s plan for mankind’s redemption, and that it involved the church, remained a curious mystery (1 Peter 1:10-12). Yet, the interrelation of God’s scheme for human redemption, the church and Jesus Christ is no longer hidden from earnest pupils of the Holy Scriptures since the New Testament completes divine revelation of the mind of God to mortals. What was formerly a “mystery” is now recognized as the Gospel of Jesus 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 3:9-11 NKJV) If the New Testament church is the result of Old Testament prophecies, we should expect to find church prophecies in the Old Testament. God had a plan that involved the church

Someone posed the question, “Are all marriages amenable to the Law of Christ?” Usually, such a question as this is asked to ascertain whether the marriages of non-Christians are supposed to be regulated by the Law of Christ, the Gospel or the New Testament—in addition to marriages of those who first become Christians prior to matrimony. Essentially, Jesus Christ restored God’s original plan for marriage for under Christianity, namely, one man for one woman for life (Matthew 19:3-8). Our Lord provided only one exception—the innocent spouse in a divorce because of adultery may marry again someone biblically eligible to be married (Matthew 19:9). Therefore, the real question is does our Lord’s teaching apply to non-Christians as well as Christians? In other words, does God grandfather in biblically unscriptural marriages of non-Christians when they aspire to become Christians? Simply put, our Lord’s teaching on marriage, divorce and remarriage is as applicable to non-Christians as is our Lord’s teaching about how one becomes a child of God is applicable to non-Christians. Jesus said, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved…” (Mark 16:16). All of the Gospel of Christ is binding on all souls who are accountable for themselves, irrespective of whether or not they are Christians. There is no logical or no hermeneutically satisfactory way to excuse oneself from the application of Matthew 19:3-9 while at the same time acknowledging the responsibility to comply with Mark 16:16. Either they both apply to non-Christians or neither passage is obligatory upon non-Christians. Obviously, Mark 16:16 does apply to non-Christians,

Your lessons are very, very encouraging and beneficial to me and others. God bless you and your coworkers. Please sir, what is the Bible stand on “dating” and “courtship”? Should a Christian who is preparing for marriage practice them? Yours in Christ, Bro. Nkereuwem Sunday Akpan, church of Christ, NIGERIA.  “Dating” and “courtship” or whether there even are any “dating” and “courtship” prior to marriage pertains primarily to cultural norms rather than to a “Bible stand.” For instance, occasions can be observed within the Bible text of consensual as well as arranged marriages wherein at least one of the participants was not permitted to choose a spouse. Today, culture throughout the world varies widely, ranging from arranged marriages, arranged marriages with the right of the participants to object, and marriages in which the prospective spouses make marriage decisions with little or no input from their respective families. However, acceptable conduct for “dating” and “courtship” is regulated by a “Bible stand.” As with every other facet of one’s life, “dating” and “courtship” where it does occur must be morally upright in accordance with biblical instruction. Everyone living today is bound by New Testament teachings and will be held accountable by them before Jesus Christ in front of His Judgment Seat. “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad” (2 Corinthians 5:10 NKJV; cf. Romans 14:10). Especially the child of

“Is the church of Christ a denomination?” someone inquired. That depends on the definition consulted. Contemporary dictionary definitions for the word “denomination” include: “a religious organization whose congregations are united in their adherence to its beliefs and practices” (Merriam-Webster Dictionary) and “a religious group, usually including many local churches, often larger than a sect: the Lutheran denomination” (Dictionary.com). The churches of Christ make up a worldwide religious organization, and its congregations are united in their adherence to the Bible and the New Testament in particular for their beliefs and practices. Furthermore, the churches of Christ are comprised of many local churches and are larger than a sect. It would seem by those contemporary definitions for the word “denomination” that the answer would be “Yes” to the question, “Is the Church of Christ a denomination?” However, absent from the definitions cited are some important factors regarding denominations. Denominations typically have earthly, centralized headquarters that control their member congregations, siphon funds from them and from which the church leaders issue forth often evolving but obligatory doctrinal requirements. There are various cities around the globe in which the denominations had their beginning, and they began in numerous, different years over the centuries. The churches of Christ in contrast do not have an earthly, centralized headquarters. Jesus Christ is the Head of the church, and He rules from Heaven. Each congregation independently governs itself and spends its funds at its own discretion in service to our Lord. In addition, there is no doctrine to

“Why was Deborah able to be a judge?” someone asks. The question arises out of the awareness that God designed different roles for men and women, especially in the home and in the church. “Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says” (1 Corinthians 14:34 NKJV). In addition, Deborah was the only female judge among the 15 Old Testament judges that acted on God’s behalf before the era of the Israelite kings. Most of the judges about which one reads in the Book of Judges were not religious officers. They were charismatic personalities raised up by God in troublesome times to encourage the Israelites to throw off their oppressors. Their duties were more of a civil type than a ceremonial religious nature. The judges were local heroes rather than governors of all the Israelites, and Deborah was the person for the job at hand when she arose to the occasion. Essentially, Deborah was a judge in Israel because God said so, implied from her being a prophetess (Judge 4:4) and the lack of divine criticism for her activities recorded in the Book of Judges, which was divinely inspired.

Forgiveness “Redemption” and “forgiveness” are synonyms. “In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace” (Ephesians 1:7). “In whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins” (Colossians 1:14). “Forgiveness” means “pardon” (Biblesoft’s). Mortals must have a willingness to forgive their fellow men, or else God will not forgive those who are unwilling to forgive (Matthew 6:14-15; 18:35). An unwillingness to forgive others will render one’s prayers void (Mark 11:25-26). However, preceding forgiveness, sinners must repent. “Take heed to yourselves. If your brother sins against you, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. And if he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times in a day returns to you, saying, ‘I repent,’ you shall forgive him” (Luke 17:3-4). We cannot truly forgive those who because of their impenitence God has not forgiven, but we must be willing to forgive. Those who have repented and have been forgiven by God, the child of God must forgive likewise. “This punishment which was inflicted by the majority is sufficient for such a man, so that, on the contrary, you ought rather to forgive and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one be swallowed up with too much sorrow. Therefore I urge you to reaffirm your love to him” (2 Corinthians 2:6-8). Christians must be forgiving of one another as well (Ephesians 4:32; Colossians 3:13). Consequently, when we also repent of our sins, God will forgive us of our

Someone inquires, “What does it mean to preach Christ of contention?” The question arises from the King James Version rendering of Philippians 1:16, which says, “The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds.” The New King James Version or translation reads, “The former preach Christ from selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my chains” (Philippians 1:16). The context of Philippians 1:12-18 records the apostle Paul’s joy that Jesus Christ was being preached. However, he noted that the motives of some who were preaching Christ were improper. Nevertheless, Paul was pleased that at least Christ was being preached. Unfortunately but evidently, even the apostle Paul had enemies within the Lord’s church. Christians with impure motives challenged the apostle Paul at other times and on other occasions, too (1 Corinthians 9:1-2). Regrettably, the same circumstance persists today within the Lord’s church when individual Christians seem to forget that the church belongs to Jesus Christ and that a local congregation does not belong to beastly and barbaric Christians who have determined to rule or ruin the heritage of our Lord (3 John 9-11). The real reason that the apostle Paul was imprisoned was because he was a very influential Gospel preacher. Christianity was the reason he was jailed. Therefore, enemies of Paul sought to increase and further lengthen his stay by boldly preaching the Gospel, for which Paul had been imprisoned. They maybe even hoped that by accentuating the reason for which Paul had been

Thanks for all your teaching. Please Sir, can you explain Genesis 20 to me. Did Abraham actually lie in this passage? ~ Bro. Nkereuwem from Nigeria. A lie is a false statement told for the purpose to deceive. It is also lying intentionally to convey a false impression or purposely to present an inaccurate account (Dictionary.com). Both testaments of the Bible teach that it is sinful to tell a lie (Exodus 20:16; Revelation 21:8). However, it is possible for a person to tell something that is inaccurate or not the truth without it being a lie. Someone may unknowingly say something that is not true without being aware that what he or she is saying is not accurate. The information would still be defective, but the one conveying it would be mistaken instead of purposely stating a falsehood. Of course, a person ought always to do his or her best to make sure that what he or she affirms is true. Abraham, though, in Genesis 20 stated incomplete and inaccurate information for the purpose of deceiving people. Abraham lied. Abraham sinned. Furthermore, this was not the first time that Abraham told this particular lie (Genesis 12:11-20). One of the marks of the authenticity of the Bible being from God and not being the product of human ingenuity is that the Bible even records the failings of the children of God. Human authors would not chronicle the less flattering characteristics of the Bible’s heroes of faith. For instance, King David was at one time an adulterer

That the words “Yet I have set My King On My holy hill of Zion. I will declare the decree: The Lord has said to Me, ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You’” (Psalms 2:6-7 NKJV) refer to Jesus Christ there can be no doubt since by inspiration the apostle Peter made that connection and the inspired penman Luke recorded it (Acts 13:33; cf. Hebrews 1:5; 5:5). Hence, Jesus Christ was prophesied to be King (Genesis 49:10; Isaiah 6:1-3; 9:6-7; Jeremiah 23:5-6; Daniel 7:13-14). He is called “the LORD of hosts, He is the King of glory” (Psalm 24:10). Gentiles and Jews alike were aware of King Jesus coming to earth (Matthew 2:2). Jesus of Nazareth declared Himself to be that prophesied King (Matthew 21:5; 27:11; John 12:15; 18:36-37). Spiritually minded souls have always acknowledged the rightful place of King Jesus in their lives. “Nathanael answered and said to Him, ‘Rabbi, You are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!’” (John 1:49; cf. 12:13). Jesus Christ is presently reigning as King, and He will continue in that role until the end of time (1 Corinthians 15:23-28). The apostle Paul attributed to Jesus the position of being “the King of kings” (1 Timothy 6:15); the apostle John did likewise (Revelation 1:5; 19:16). No earthly ruler surpasses Jesus Christ in authority (Matthew 28:18)! Anyone in any age who possessed reverence for God exhibited an irrepressible compulsion to speak only in accordance with the revealed divine will. “And Balaam said to Balak, ‘Look, I have

Someone asks, “Why did Jesus die?” He died for you and me so that we could be saved from our sins, whereby we could come into the presence of God spiritually on earth and later literally in heaven where God is. Mortals can be sanctified through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ for mankind’s sins (Hebrews 10:10). For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another — He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation. (Hebrews 9:24-28 NKJV)  “Who Himself [Jesus Christ] bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness — by whose stripes you were healed” (1 Peter 2:24). “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 word “oxymoron” at first glance might appear to be a reference to a moronic ox, but the definition of “oxymoron” really pertains to apparently contradictory words in an expression. On the other hand, some oxymorons may make one think about a moronic ox. So called “gay marriage” is a serious oxymoron. As the word “gay,” meaning a practitioner of homosexuality, is coupled with the word “marriage,” there exists a biblically sinful contradiction, not just the appearance of a contradiction where there is none, but a real contradiction. He who created man and woman essentially also instituted the first marriage, between Adam and Eve (Genesis 2:21-24). One man and one woman joined together by God (Matthew 19:6) from then onward through to the present has always been and is the God-given definition of marriage (Matthew 19:4-5). Everything else, although mankind may call it marriage, is outside God’s definition of marriage and is sinful (Matthew 19:9). Specifically, homosexuality has always been condemned by God as sinful. More so, God considers homosexuality as worse than merely sinful, calling it an abomination. “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination” (Leviticus 18:22 NKJV). Furthermore, under Old Testament Judaism, God determined that homosexuality was a capital offense, requiring death. “If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them” (Leviticus 20:13). Yes, the New

The New Testament governs everyone now living. All of the Old Testament was replaced with the New Testament (Romans 7:6-7; Ephesians 2:15; Colossians 2:14). The prophet Jeremiah had prophesied hundreds of years earlier that this would occur (Jeremiah 31:31-34; Hebrews 8:6-13). The theme of the Book of Hebrews was to establish in the minds of Jewish Christians that they had made the correct choice to no longer practice Judaism but rather to embrace Christianity. In addition, the apostle Paul cautioned Christians through his epistle to churches throughout Galatia not to return to Judaism (Galatians 2:16, 21; 5:4; cf. Acts 13:39; Romans 3:20). Therefore, one needs to turn to the New Testament rather than to the Old Testament to reflect on examples of conversion that apply to mankind today. However, the Gospel records and the first chapter of the Book of Acts bridge the two testaments, and the people then living, including our Lord Jesus Christ, lived under the Old Testament. The church of our Lord did not come into existence until Acts 2. The Gospel records and the entire Old Testament were preparatory and pointed in the direction of Christianity. Hence, in our search for examples of conversion that apply today, we need to examine the New Testament from Acts 2 onward. The first occasion of a conversion relative to Christianity appears in Acts 2. The thief on the cross, for instance, lived and died under Judaism before the church began (Acts 2:47), and so, he has no bearing on conversions that

If you baptize someone unknowingly that he has many wives and later you discover it, what should you do with such problem? Ouma Christopher God overlooked polygamy in Patriarchal times (Genesis 16) and during biblical Judaism (2 Samuel 12:7-8), though God had established monogamy in the Garden of Eden when He created Adam and Eve. During His ministry on earth in preparation for bringing about Christianity, Jesus Christ restored marriage as God originally had instituted it. The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?” And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.” They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?” He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.” (Matthew 19:3-9 NKJV) This quotation primarily concerns

I’m brother Nkereuwem Akpan from Nigeria. pls sir i want to know when a man has the right to have sexual relationship with a woman. i met a sister that i love to marry, both families have agreed, i have paid certain marital rites but not all. i have not paid the pride price yet because is a huge amount of money but i would pay later. my father-in-law and the family have agreed that i should go ahead and live with my wife. but my minister says i don’t have right over my woman except the pride price is paid. please should i sent her packing since she is not my wife according to my preacher? pls when did marriage starts? it is an urgent issue please! Jesus Christ (Matthew 5:32; 19:9) and His apostles (1 Corinthians 5:9; 6:18; 10:8; Ephesians 5:3; 1 Thessalonians 4:3) condemned fornication. Fornication, which is “illicit sexual intercourse” (Vine’s), appears in lists of additional sins (Matthew 15:10; Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25; 2 Corinthians 2:21; 1 Timothy 1:10) that also will keep souls out of heaven (1 Corinthians 6:9; Galatians 5:19-21; Ephesians 5:5; Revelation 21:8) and result in them experiencing “eternal fire” (Jude7). The biblical solution to avoid fornication is marriage. “Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband” (1 Corinthians 7:2 KJV). “Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge” (Hebrews 13:4 NKJV). Essentially, the

Which statement is biblically correct: “I am saved because I feel good” or “I feel good because I am saved”? Notice that all of the same words appear in both expressions, but there is a significant difference in their meanings. More importantly, the variation between them can affect where a soul spends his or her eternity. Therefore, it is extremely important for you and me to distinguish between these approaches to salvation as we make preparation to meet God at the end of time (Amos 4:12). Doubtless, the first statement is widely popular among the majority of people today who claim to be Christians. However, despite its widespread acceptance, is it biblically accurate? Are personal feelings the divine benchmark for determining if one has been saved? If a person feels good, is Almighty God obligated to bestow forgiveness of sins and reserve for him or her a place in heaven above? Do mortals have the standing before the God to obligate Him to save them on their own terms? Or, as created beings, must men and women humbly yield to the mandates of the Creator regarding salvation—and every other directive? Prior to visiting relevant New Testament passages and simply upon reflection of relative questions posed here, common sense alone leans in the direction of discounting one of the statements. It is not reasonable to imagine that the God of all creation must bow Himself to the casual impulses of the creature—man. Proponents of feel-good salvation and subsequent feel-good religion suppose that perhaps the Holy Spirit is responsible for them feeling

Some events in everyday life are remarkable and astonishing. Then, consider God’s miraculous interaction with humanity in the past. Some biblical incidents would be unbelievable if it were not for the all-powerful hand of Almighty God in them. The child of God can exclaim regarding numerous such occasions throughout the biblical text, “It really happened!” Despite as much as they stretch one’s imagination, “They really happened!” Who Turned Off the Water? Through the hand of God 40 years earlier, the Israelites had escaped slavery in Egypt after a series of plagues and a stupendous crossing of the Red Sea with Pharaoh’s army in hot pursuit. Because of a humongous detour circumventing the land of Edom, finally a new generation of Israelites found themselves standing on the east bank of the Jordan River. The Promised Land for which they and their parents had longed for decades since it was promised to them (Exodus 3:8) was only the breadth of a river away. However, between them and their Canaan Land destination was a serious obstacle—the Jordan River. There were no bridges spanning the Jordan River at that time, but there were over 50 well-known shallow spots or fords for crossing it (Joshua 2:7). However, the Jordan River was at flood stage (Joshua 3:15). Therefore, the inhabitants of Canaan did not feel threatened by the millions of Israelites teeming on their borderland—as long as they remained on the far side of the flooded Jordan. Further, the Canaanites saw no need to fortify the

Do you believe the church can have activities like Trunk or Treat, in the realm of expediency (as a means of fellowshipping each other)? I ask because I see Trick or Treat like I see the expediency of the church coming together to eat and fellowship each other. There are some, though, who oppose the event (they are NOT Non-institutional, but oppose the event because they don’t believe it’s a work of the church). I have only heard of “Trunk or Treat” twice, first with this question and secondly in the bulletin of a respected congregation of the churches of Christ. Whether this activity or some other activities are things with which I am personally comfortable is immaterial (i.e., it doesn’t really matter whether I personally like it). From the perspective of fellowship, perhaps outreach and trying to capitalize on something of which Christians and non-Christians are familiar, I understand the reasoning for “Trunk or Treat,” etc. It is my opinion that “Trunk or Treat” as described herein is a matter of opinion or personal judgment of individuals and local congregations. The wisdom of promoting an event among Christians or opening it to the community that may correspond with holidays, denominational and Catholic holy days and community occasions (e.g., Halloween, Easter, Christmas, prom, etc.) is something for Christian parents and local congregations to decide for themselves (Romans 14:5-6).

Please how do you explain to a Jehovah witness when they cite Daniel 12:1-2 that Jesus Christ is not the angel Michael according to the bible passages quoted? Thanks, Godswill Ujah Jude 9 makes a distinction between the archangel Michael and Jesus Christ. “Yet Michael the archangel, in contending with the devil, when he disputed about the body of Moses, dared not bring against him a reviling accusation, but said, ‘The Lord rebuke you!’” (NKJV). Michael is the only archangel named in the Bible (Jude 9; cf. Daniel 10:13, 21; 12:1; Revelation 12:7), but evidently, he is not the only archangel (Daniel 10:13). An unspecified archangel will accompany our Lord at His Second Coming (1 Thessalonians 4:16). The description of an angel, Gabriel, appears in Daniel 10:5-6. Angels are created beings whose creation predates the creation of humanity (Colossians 1:16; Nehemiah 9:6; Psalm 148:2, 5). However, Jesus Christ is not a created being; He existed before creation and was responsible for creation (Colossians 1:16-17). In addition, the apostle John wrote by inspiration that Jesus Christ is God. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made” (John 1:1-3 NKJV). “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth” (John 1:14).

Relationships can be baffling, and there is no more important relationship to understand than one’s relationship with God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. Of course, relationships with other persons are no less challenging. This includes relationships between fellow Christians and even spouses. Yet, figuring out the nature of one’s relationship with either God or with people is essential on so many levels. Understanding the proper relationship that the Christian ought to have with God is of chief importance, but that can be daunting, especially when it comes to “works.” On one hand, the student of the Bible recognizes that he is not saved by and his eternal redemption does not depend upon meritorious works (Galatians 2:16; 2 Timothy 1:9; Romans 11:6). “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast” (Ephesians 2:8-9 NKJV). On the other hand, there is a real sense in which the children of God under Christianity need to show forth “works” (James 2:14-26) or “fruit” (John 15:1-8). “By this My Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit; so you will be My disciples” (John 15:8). Jesus Christ even stated that a determining factor in where a person spends his eternity is based on what he or she does or does not do benevolently toward others (Matthew 25:31-46). Since Christians do not earn their salvation and eternal redemption, how should we harmonize these apparent contradictions or this paradox? A paradox

The phrase “new heavens and a new earth” appears three times in Scripture. The first two occasions are prophetic and appear in Isaiah 65:17 and 66:22. The third reference is 2 Peter 3:13 and refers back to the prophecies. Compare these to “a new heaven and a new earth” in the figurative language of Revelation 21:1. The apostle Peter refers to a future habitat for righteous souls after the destruction of this present world in which we now live (2 Peter 3:10). Speaking without figurative language, our Lord identified the eternal habitation of the righteous as being heaven (Matthew 5:12). The apostle Peter likewise taught the same thing (1 Peter 1:4). Numerous New Testament passages assign the eternal abode of righteous souls as being where God is – in heaven (John 14:1-3). Note also some of the articles from the “Archive” of Gospel Gazette Online that refer to “new heavens and a new earth.” https://www.gospelgazette.com/gazette/2002/dec/page18.htmhttps://www.gospelgazette.com/gazette/2004/jan/page12.htmhttps://www.gospelgazette.com/gazette/2001/aug/page18.htmhttps://www.gospelgazette.com/gazette/1999/jul/page5.shtml “New heavens and a new earth” is an idiom or figurative expression referring to the future heavenly home of righteous souls – redeemed from all ages.

“Did the pharaoh of the Israelite exodus die in the Red Sea?” Some commentators and artists are certain that this pharaoh died in the Red Sea with his military force. Consider this exemplar of that persuasion. “Whether he himself was drowned has been considered matter of uncertainty, as it is not so stated in the account of the exodus. Another passage, however, appears to affirm it (Ps 136:15)” (McClintock and Strong). Others are equally sure that though the army was destroyed in the Red Sea, pharaoh himself did not perish at that time. Still others are not sure, and I am uncertain whether pharaoh died in that miraculous incident at the Red Sea crossing of the Israelites. Fortunately, knowing for sure one way or the other does not affect salvation, Christian worship, Christian living, Christian service or Christian doctrine. However, let us look at the available biblical information. Exodus 14:17-18 announces the intention of God to punish Pharaoh and his military host, but the verses fall short of specifically stating that the Egyptian king and his army would suffer the same fate. And I indeed will harden the hearts of the Egyptians, and they shall follow them. So I will gain honor over Pharaoh and over all his army, his chariots, and his horsemen. Then the Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord, when I have gained honor for Myself over Pharaoh, his chariots, and his horsemen. (Exodus 14:17-18 NKJV) Likewise, after the Egyptians died in the Red Sea pursuit

I will like to know if it is true that 666 will come in our days now and that there will be a last kingdom which will take over the whole world before the rapture will come. These are what I don’t understand much, and I need your assistance on these lessons to enable me teach others who are always asking me of this topic that I can’t answer them. …My problem was I really want to know if the world 666 will come, and also of the rapture, what does the Bible say about it… Kind Regards, Noah Opoku The Book of Revelation is one of the Bible books that is written in highly figurative language, and that it is composed of very figurative language ought to be apparent to anyone who has read very much of it. The problem comes when people treat the figurative language of the Book of Revelation as though it were literal language. In addition, the problem is compounded when manmade ideas are interjected into the biblical text. Consequently, denominationalism today is awash in the manmade and anti-biblical doctrine of premillennialism and its component parts (i.e., 666; rapture; 1,000 year reign on earth in Jerusalem; the great tribulation; the earthly battle of Armageddon; etc.). The key part of the sincere question above is “what does the Bible say about it?” The Bible does not teach a contemporary, literal, earthly application of 666, the rapture, a 1,000 year reign on earth by Jesus Christ on a throne in Jerusalem,

Redemption Requires a Redeemer “For I know that my Redeemer lives, And He shall stand at last on the earth” (Job 19:25). Once prosperous from every consideration, then destitute of this world’s goods and even of his health, yet Job maintained the hope of a heavenly hereafter that sufficiently overshadowed every present distress. Job demonstrated confidence in the Lord to whom he gladly trusted his eternity. Job earnestly desired that the consolation with which he was comforted based on this hope would be realized by many others as well. Job’s hope and confidence was three-fold: (1) Job was confident that the Redeemer lives; (2) he also fully expected that the Messiah would someday appear to rescue his and other souls; and, (3) Job was hopeful and confident regarding the general resurrection in which he would participate. These reflections encouraged Job in the face of his severe adversity and served as the basis of his hope. Likewise, contemporary children of God who find themselves greatly afflicted or facing death can appropriate to themselves consolations through the same hope. Certainly, for the rest of us who are relatively free from great trials, we can also through this hope known to Job find sufficient strength to satisfactorily cope with daily difficulties. The Redeemer of whom Job spoke is the Christ (i.e., Savior, Christ, Messiah), whose function and certain ministry on earth was first intimated in Genesis 3:15. That our Redeemer lives is the foundation of all our hope; if our God were dead

A reader asks, “Can a woman officiate a marriage ceremony?” I am sure that the person posing question really means, “May a woman or is she permitted by the Bible to officiate a marriage ceremony?” The word “can” relates to capacity or ability, whereas “may” sometimes pertains to permission to do something. Certainly, a woman “can” officiate a wedding if permitted to do so by applicable laws (e.g., judge, justice of the peace, marriage officer, religious minister). The question remains whether she “may” do that with God’s approval. Many people presume that performing weddings is a religious activity since often religious ministers officiate marriage ceremonies. However, performing marriages is not described in the Bible as a religious activity, and no duties relative to officiating marriage ceremonies appear in the New Testament ascribed to Gospel preachers, evangelists or religious ministers. Rather, the common supposition that marriages are the special purview of “the church” derives from historical Catholicism and denominationalism – not the New Testament. In modern times, religious officiates of marriage ceremonies receive their authority not from religious groups but from governmental law. Therefore, a woman who acts in accordance with applicable laws of the land as a judge, a justice of the peace or some other secular, public marriage officer “can” and “may” officiate marriage ceremonies. However, women ought not to perform weddings as Gospel preachers, evangelists or religious ministers since those roles are not biblically permitted for women respecting mixed audiences of men and women (1 Timothy 2:12; 1 Corinthians 14:34).

Dear Mr. Rushmore, The gospel is not repentance, confession, baptism and faith. The gospel is 1 Cor. 15:1-8. This is what Paul taught as the gospel and he learned the gospel from Christ Himself, Gal. 1:11-12. I do not think Christ gave Paul your gospel. In fact Paul said the if anyone teaches a different gospel that the one he declairs that person is cursed. Darrel Clark The English word “gospel” appears 101 times in the New Testament, beginning with Matthew 4:23, which reads in part, “And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the gospel of the kingdom…” (NKJV). “Gospel” is translated from related words, a noun and a verb, which mean “a good message” and “to announce good news” (Biblesoft’s). First Corinthians 15:1-4 provides an overview definition of the Gospel thusly. Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you — unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures. Those are the facts of the Gospel. However, those facts must be obeyed for the Gospel to be the power of salvation for anyone. “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of

A correspondent inquires whether it is permissible for a denominational preacher to officiate the wedding of Christians. After all, true Christians and members of the Lord’s church distinguish themselves from so-called denominational Christians and the manmade denominations of which they are members. Is it biblically permissible for a denominational preacher to officiate the wedding of Christians? Is it less than ideal for a denominational preacher to perform the wedding of Christians? The Bible makes a distinction between illicit sex (e.g., fornication, adultery, homosexuality, etc.) and sanctified sex (i.e., between a husband and his wife). “For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy” (1 Corinthians 7:14 NKJV). “Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge” (Hebrews 13:4). However, the Bible does not specify details for officiating marriages. Incidentally, Scripture does not record whether there was even any officiating of the first ever marriage – between Adam and Eve. “Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man” (Genesis 2:22; 3:12). Of course, there was no one besides Adam, Eve and God before whom officiating a marriage could occur. There was no cultural norm yet for officiating marriages, and there were no civil laws yet respecting officiating of marriages. Over the years, cultural customs adopted various procedures for recognition of a husband and

Comparatively speaking, the Bible treats the Ascension of Christ less often in its pages than several other Christian doctrines. Yet, many biblical passages are more or less dependent upon and imply the Ascension of Christ. Irrespective of the amount of space dedicated to the Ascension of our Lord in the Bible, it is a crucial and cardinal doctrine of Christianity. For instance, the Ascension of Jesus Christ enabled Him to act as Intercessor (Romans 8:34), Mediator (1 Timothy 2:5) and Advocate (1 John 2:1) for Christians before Almighty God. In addition, note: “The spiritual value of the Ascension lies, not in Christ’s physical remoteness, but in His spiritual nearness. He is free from earthly limitations, and His life above is the promise and guarantee of ours” (ISBE). The Ascension Defined The Ascension of Jesus Christ is “…his visible passing from earth to heaven in the presence of his disciples, on the Mount of Olives, forty days after the resurrection…” (McClintock and Strong). Three accounts of the occurrence of the Ascension appear in the New Testament. “So then, after the Lord had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God” (Mark 16:19 NKJV). “And He led them out as far as Bethany, and He lifted up His hands and blessed them. Now it came to pass, while He blessed them, that He was parted from them and carried up into heaven” (Luke 24:50-51). Now when He had spoken these things, while

A person asked, “How does Exodus 3:6 indicate the resurrection?” The verse reads, “Moreover He said, ‘I am the God of your father — the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.’ And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon God” (NKJV); verse 15 of that chapter repeats the same statement. In addition, Jesus Christ quoted this phrase in Matthew 22:32, and He also commented further on it and defined those words as relating to the resurrection. “But concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living” (Matthew 22:31-32). The words of our Lord Jesus verify, then, that Exodus 3:6 implies the resurrection from the dead. Biblical language is much more precise than the everyday colloquial speech we hear daily. Typically, people mix and mismatch their words in ungrammatical ways. Not so, though, with the Bible. Therefore, when the Lord said “I am the God” of deceased Bible characters Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, He affirmed that although their bodies had died, they were yet alive; compare verse 14, which reads, “I AM has sent me to you.” Exodus 3:6 implies that mankind is composed of a body and a spirit (a soul), which followers of God have understood to be the case under Patriarchy, Judaism and Christianity. In addition, even non-religious

Someone inquires whether an elder may resign from the eldership. Historically over the last three centuries, the church has observed elders resigning for a number of reasons. Likely, from time to time since the establishment of the Lord’s church nearly 2,000 years ago elders have resigned from their respective elderships. Some reasons for which elders sometimes resign include the death of a spouse or their failing health or the failing health of their respective family members. In addition, since elders are appointed over the congregations of which they are members, were an elder to move away, obviously he could not serve as an elder over a congregation with which he no longer worships. Furthermore, he would not automatically be an elder over whatever congregation with which he next placed his membership. Among the qualifications for the appointment of elders in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 is especially one requirement that pertains to this inquiry. The very first qualification listed is that a man desire the office of responsibility of being an elder in the church. “…If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work” (1 Timothy 3:1 NKJV). If for whatever reason a brother serving as an elder no longer desires to serve in that capacity, then owing to not possessing the very first qualification of being an elder, it is reasonable for him to resign from the eldership.

The resurrection of Jesus Christ was the core of the Gospel message preached in the first century, and it remains the heart of the Gospel message throughout the New Testament. “And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty” (1 Corinthians 15:14). One simply cannot overemphasize the significance of the resurrection of Christ. Among other considerations, the hope of our resurrection depends upon the resurrection of Jesus Christ. “Knowing that He who raised up the Lord Jesus will also raise us up with Jesus, and will present us with you” (2 Corinthians 4:14). “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled and that does not fade away, reserved in heaven for you” (1 Peter 1:3-4). Why Jesus’ Resurrection Matters The resurrection of Jesus Christ from the grave, never to return thereto, is a critical aspect of Christianity. Had Jesus Christ not resurrected from the grave, there would have been absolutely no hope for sin-laden, lost humanity! Though Jesus Christ was the Son of God, without His resurrection human hopes would have been forever dashed. Though Jesus Christ was the long prophesied Savior or Messiah, without His resurrection He could have saved no one. Although Jesus Christ shed his precious blood on Calvary’s cross, without the resurrection its purchase price would have been

“Are all good people going to heaven?” someone inquires. Admittedly, there are many good, moral people in the world with whom we come in contact in our neighborhoods, at work or at school. So, this is a question that numerous thoughtful souls may ponder. However, before one can accurately answer this question, we must define “good people” in relationship to the heavenly hereafter. Man’s definition of “good” is different from what God through the Bible defines as “good” relative to one’s entrance into heaven. Since man’s determination of what is “good” does not affect one’s entrance into heaven, it behooves us to do two things: (1) learn from the Bible – God’s Word, especially from the New Testament or Gospel (under which mankind today lives), what God considers “good” with respect to going to heaven; (2) apply that biblical information to oneself before it is too late. By anyone’s personal standard for defining “good,” certainly Cornelius was a “good” person. “There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of what was called the Italian Regiment, a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, who gave alms generously to the people, and prayed to God always” (Acts 10:1-2 NKJV; cf. verse 22). Yet, this “good” man was still in need of salvation. Therefore, God caused the apostle Peter to be sent to Cornelius to convey to him the saving message of the Gospel. “And he told us how he had seen an angel standing

Someone inquired, “Why did the Sabbath change?” The Sabbath has not changed. What the one posing the question probably means is, “Why has the day of worship changed from the seventh day or Sabbath under Judaism to the first day of the week under Christianity?” The first day of worship under Christianity is not called the Sabbath in the Scriptures. Nothing taught in the Old Testament is applicable under Christianity unless it is taught in the New Testament. The New Testament has replaced the Old Testament (Romans 7:6-7; Ephesians 2:15; Colossians 2:14). New Testament Scriptures note persons, particularly Jews, observing Sabbath day worship, but the New Testament does not teach Christians to observe the Sabbath, which was the seventh day of the week. Instead, the New Testament teaches Christians to assemble for congregational worship on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:1-2). The Old Testament had a purpose, which was to prepare mankind for the coming of Christ and the Gospel or the New Testament system of faith. “What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made…” (Galatians 3:19 NKJV). “But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor” (Galatians 3:23-25). Yet, the Old

Good evening Sir, I have an important question that has been bordering (sic) me and the question is should Christians observe memorial service after the death of someone? Thanks and God bless you. ~ Andrew Alozie The Bible does not require or provide instructions to regulate a funeral or a memorial service for a deceased person. However, there is nothing innately wrong or against Scripture in having a funeral or a memorial for the deceased. Lamenting and by implication a memorial service or funeral was prohibited, though, specifically for the priestly sons of Aaron, who were destroyed by God with fire for their disobedience (Leviticus 10:1-6). That prohibition was specifically directed toward those particular individuals, and it does not extend generally to all people. There are several references in Scripture to mourning for the dead (1 Kings 14:13). Joseph, his brothers and other family members as well as the Egyptians mourned for Jacob for over 70 days when he died, and then Jacob was buried in Canaan (Genesis 50:1-13). In later years after the establishment of the Jewish kingdom, “Then David lamented with this lamentation over Saul and over Jonathan his son” (2 Samuel 1:17-18). David lamented for Abner also (2 Samuel 3:33-35). Much later at the end of Jewish rule, God sent a message to King Zedekiah through the prophet Jeremiah that the king would die in peace and afterward have his funeral or memorial service. “You shall die in peace; as in the ceremonies of your fathers, the former kings

Clearly, Cain worshipped God, but God rejected his worship. And in the process of time it came to pass that Cain brought an offering of the fruit of the ground to the Lord. Abel also brought of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat. And the Lord respected Abel and his offering, but He did not respect Cain and his offering. And Cain was very angry, and his countenance fell. So the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it.” (Genesis 4:3-7 NKJV) Apparently, on that occasion and under the period of Patriarchy, God required worshippers to worship Him with animal sacrifices and not with fruits and vegetables. Probably neither Cain nor Abel were aware of the significance of the shed blood of animal sacrifices as types or figures of the shed blood of Christ that would occur about 4,000 years after they lived. It is unlikely that either brother understood why fruits and vegetables were unacceptable for worship, but animal sacrifices were acceptable for worshipping God. “For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins” (Hebrews 10:4). Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained

A visitor to Gospel Gazette Online posed the question, “Is it wrong for Christians to protest?” Right and wrong, of course, relates to what does the Bible instruct, and more specifically for the Gospel Age in which we live, we must turn for instruction to the New Testament portion of the Bible (Romans 7:6-7; Ephesians 2:15; Colossians 2:14). The New Testament guides those who will consult it about salvation, Christian worship, Christian living, Christian service, the Christian home, and Christian doctrine. The New Testament teaches that Christians are obligated to abide by the laws of civil government. “Remind them to be subject to rulers and authorities, to obey, to be ready for every good work” (Titus 3:1 NKJV). Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, whether to the king as supreme, or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men — as free, yet not using liberty as a cloak for vice, but as bondservants of God. Honor all people. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king. (1 Peter 2:13-17) Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who

The phrase, “great and notable day” appears in Acts 2:20 (KJV) and was a part of the first recorded Gospel sermon, which was preached by the apostle Peter (Acts 2:16-21). Peter quoted from the Old Testament prophet Joel (2:28-32). But this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel: ‘And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God, That I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh; Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, Your young men shall see visions, Your old men shall dream dreams. And on My menservants and on My maidservants I will pour out My Spirit in those days; And they shall prophesy. I will show wonders in heaven above And signs in the earth beneath: Blood and fire and vapor of smoke. The sun shall be turned into darkness, And the moon into blood, Before the coming of the great and awesome day of the Lord. And it shall come to pass That whoever calls on the name of the Lord Shall be saved.’ (Acts 2:16-21 NKJV; cf. Joel 2:28-32) It is obvious that both Joel and Peter were using figurative language. The apostle Peter preached that the fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy was the baptism of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles (Acts 2:1-4) and the subsequent miracles by which the apostles were able to speak in the native languages of the 15 nationalities of Jews who were present on that Pentecost (Acts 2:5-11). Neither Joel nor Peter referred to

Someone posed the question, “Did Paul have a wife?” No, the apostle Paul was unmarried, and he made reference to the fact that he was not married. During a period of what the apostle called “the present distress” (1 Corinthians 7:26), Paul advised unmarried Christians to remain unmarried like him. “For I wish that all men were even as I myself. …But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am” (1 Corinthians 7:7-9 NKJV). On another occasion in the same New Testament epistle, the apostle Paul noted that though he was not married, he had a biblical right to be married and to derive financial support for his wife and himself from the Lord’s church (1 Corinthians 9:4-15). “Do we have no right to eat and drink? Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas? Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working?” (1 Corinthians 9:4-6). “…Nevertheless we have not used this right… But I have used none of these things…” (1 Corinthians 9:12, 15). Other Gospel preachers and other apostles, too, were married. Since they devoted themselves fulltime to the ministry of the Word of God, they refrained from secular employment, and they and their families were supported by the church. However, the apostle Paul did not choose to marry. Noting the highly

Outwardly and disassociated with its true biblical significance, baptism is merely a dip in water or a bath, which at best could only effect a washing of the body. The apostle Peter acknowledged that to the uninformed onlooker the act of baptism may appear to effect the cleansing of the flesh. However, the apostle affirmed that biblical baptism rather results in the cleansing of one’s conscience because it saves the soul from sins. “Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 3:20-21 KJV). Obviously, every reasoning soul needs to be baptized for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38), whereby his or her sins are washed away (Acts 22:16). Yet, baptism is not for everyone! As just implied, of course, Bible baptism is not needed by souls who because they are too young or due to mental incapacity cannot choose for themselves to be baptized. Babies are born without sin (Ezekiel 18:20), and God imputes sin to them in later years (Ezekiel 28:15) after they become responsible for their own actions. For instance, babies and such like cannot respond to the biblical commands to believe, repent, confess Jesus Christ

(1) Did the church (kingdom of God) exist before the Pentecost day? (2) If no, what about those whom were baptized before the Pentecost day; what were they added to? God has always ruled the universe that He created. Mankind has always been obligated to obey his Creator God, beginning in the Garden of Eden with Adam and Eve under Patriarchy. Later, God continued to rule humans through Judaism, and now He governs under Christianity. Prior to the establishment of the Jewish kingdom, beginning with King Saul, God was the King of His people under a theocracy. Hundreds of years after the commencement of Judaism, God permitted the beginning of a physical kingdom of God. “And the Lord  said to Samuel, ‘Heed the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them’” (1 Samuel 8:7 NKJV). Yet, the Old Testament and the opening of the New Testament promised the establishment of a spiritual kingdom of God (Isaiah 2:2-3; Daniel 2:31-45; Joel 2:28-3:2; Matthew 16:18-19; John 18:36-37; Acts 1:6). “And in the days of these kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed; and the kingdom shall not be left to other people; it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever” (Daniel 2:44). “Jesus answered, ‘My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants

Lately, we have received several inquiries in person and through email asking whether the Bible permits women to wear pants or trousers. Usually in western society, if this question arises, it is from senior folks who look with disdain on more youthful generations that have modified the norm for dress from what it was in former eras; seldom does anyone in the western world, such as in the USA, question pants on women today. A couple of religious groups, though, do apply Deuteronomy 22:5 to their women, forbidding them to wear pants. More often in our day, inquiries about whether women are prohibited by the Bible to wear pants or trousers come from mostly rural areas in nations where cultural norms in the countryside have not yet been transformed by cultural drifts more evident in urbanized areas. Still, some countries characteristically resist western dress in favor of ancestral garb, though western clothing styles make inroads there, too. My wife and I are careful to observe cultural customs respecting expected attire as we travel from region to region in the United States as well as from country to country. We attempt to dress ourselves in such a way that we are unlikely to offend anyone unnecessarily. Often, that means that Bonnie will refrain from wearing trousers in public in Asia and South America, as well as for worship assemblies and Bible classes in the USA. She does wear pants in North American casual settings and for air travel (to reduce the

Jesus was not the Son of God in the eternity before the foundation of the world and on earth while He was serving for His Father. But He is Son of God after He ascended to the heaven and after His Coronation as king over the spiritual Israel. There are several souls apart from the angels in heaven. God chose one of the best souls and made him as His Son and sent Him to this earth. The two quotations above come from two sources, and presenters of the respective declarations appear to disparage the deity of Jesus Christ, supposing that He is a created being selected for a task by God and appointed to a position. These theories are without biblical basis, and therefore, they are both false. In addition, there is no biblical information respecting persons in heaven aside from the Godhead and one kind of angel or another. It is true that the Second Person of the Godhead best known to us as Jesus Christ did not always occupy the role of Messiah or Savior. It was at a particular junction in human history that our Lord was declared to be such or accepted that role. Jesus Christ was validated as Messiah and Savior upon His resurrection from the dead never to return thereto (Psalm 2:7; Acts 13:30-35; Romans 1:4). However, Jesus Christ is eternal and one of the three persons of the Godhead (Acts 17:29; Matthew 28:19). Speaking of Jesus Christ, note the opening verses of

Students who handle correctly the Word of God acknowledge that the three persons of the Godhead possess equally the divine characteristics of deity. There is “one God” (Malachi 2:10; Mark 12:32; Romans 3:30; James 2:19). “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one!” (Deuteronomy 6:4 NKJV). Though there is only one essence of God, there are three divine persons who possess the essence of God, namely God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19). These three persons comprise the “Godhead” (Acts 17:29; Romans 1:20; Colossians 2:9) or what the Bible means when it refers to “one God.” The Greek words translated as “Godhead” simply mean “divinity”; all three persons of the Godhead possess the essence of being God or divinity. On the other hand, there is the consideration of mankind. Mankind has to do with humanness or possessing the essence of being a human. Presently, over seven billion persons possess the essence of being human or membership in mankind. The number of persons being added to mankind amounts to an increase in human population of over 62 million annually; however, the number of persons in the Godhead or the persons who possess the essence of being God or divinity remains at three. Should we worship Jesus since He is God or possesses the essence of deity, that is, divinity? Well-meaning students of God’s Word err if they imagine that they have proved that we should worship Jesus simply by noting that our

In western society in general, even among many members of the churches of Christ, purported conversion to Christ appears to be from the outside or superficially with some notion that eventually “conversion” will work itself to the inside and somehow result in conviction. How’s that working? Well, of course, it is not working at all! Instead, true church growth needs to be precipitated through conviction that leads to conversion. To indeed be true conversion, it needs to work itself from the inside to the outside – manifesting itself in one’s manner of life (Ephesians 5:8). Unfortunately, much that passes in our day for evangelism – stateside and foreign, is purposely orchestrated to ease souls into the Lord’s church, after which planning to indoctrinate those “converts” with biblical doctrine and hoping that scenario will manifest itself in true conversion and conviction; that is completely backward, whereas conviction ought to precede conversion. How is conversion followed by conviction working? Well, of course, it is not working! Such tactics may inflate numbers and serve as the basis for future fundraising to repeat the process, but these things do not contribute to producing mature, fruitful Christians (Matthew 7:19-20). Usually coercing souls into baptismal waters with promises of Bibles, medical treatment, eyeglasses, clothes or other material benefits only temporarily swells the ranks of those who call themselves after Christ, and immediately they are gone as soon as the freebie-toting promoters have returned home; little to nothing remains in the wake of episodes like these either to establish congregations where there were none or to grow existing

What is your interpretation of Matthew 19:12? By abstaining from any sexual relations, can one become a eunuch for Christ? “For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it” (Matthew 19:12 NKJV). The inquiry concerns the part of the verse that reads, “…there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake.” Allegorically or figuratively, not physically or literally, these persons choose to abstain from marriage. H. Leo Boles cited these persons as “…those who voluntarily subdue the natural inclinations and practice self-denial for the sake of ‘the kingdom of heaven’” (Boles). “This means, for the sake of going to heaven, some have chosen to live celibate lives” (Webster 417). There are a number of possible circumstances wherein these virtual eunuchs may either opt to remain celibate or perhaps even involuntarily find themselves required to adopt celibacy, for instance, to comply with God’s law on marriage, divorce and remarriage. These are those normal people who, while sexually perfectly capable of consummating marriage, have the gift to live the single life happily in special service to God, and choose to do so. Paul had the gift and used it for more effective service in the Kingdom by leaving himself free to carry on a wideranging evangelistic ministry. (See

Someone inquired, “On what day did Jesus ascend back to heaven?” In the first place, it does not matter on what day of the week Jesus Christ Ascended. We are not trying to be dismissive, but simply acknowledge that the Scriptures do not revere the day of our Lord’s Ascension as an occasion as a special day on which to worship. Manmade religions, even those claiming an affinity for Christianity, have manufactured a number of holy days that God through the Bible has not designated. This is not a new practice, but it was occurring in the first century, too (Galatians 4:10-11). Secondly, for centuries beginning with the Catholic Church, Thursday has been associated with Jesus’ Ascension and set aside as a manmade holy day as well. Two days prior to the Sabbath the year Jesus Christ was crucified, our Lord observed the last divinely authorized Jewish Passover meal, instituted the Communion and was later arrested. The following day (Friday) He was crucified and died. On the third day (including Friday), Jesus Christ arose from the grave on the first day of the week (1 Corinthians 15:4; Matthew 28:1). On the 40th day after His resurrection (including the day of His resurrection), Jesus Christ Ascended back to heaven (Acts 1:3, 9). Forty days from the resurrection of Jesus Christ on the first day of the week (Sunday on our calendars) occurs on a Thursday. In addition, the church was established on the first Pentecost following the death, burial, resurrection and Ascension of Jesus Christ.

A reader of Gospel Gazette Online wrote and asked, “Did Methuselah Die after the Universal Flood?” Methuselah was the grandfather of Noah, and he lived 969 years (Genesis 5:25-29). Genesis 5 provides the ages of the first 10 patriarchs, between and including the Adam and Noah, when their firstborn sons were born. Adding together the ages of those patriarchs when their firstborn sons were born provides, plus adding the 600 years that Noah lived before the flood occurred, shows that the age of the earth at the time of the flood was 1,656 years since creation. Now, adding together the ages of the first seven patriarchs when their firstborn sons were born, through the father of Methuselah – Enoch, one learns that Methuselah was born in the year 687 since creation. Next, add the number of years that Methuselah lived – 969 years, and the result is 1,656 years since creation. Hence, it becomes clear that Methuselah died the same year as the universal flood of Noah’s day. Some suppose that Methuselah died months before the great deluge occurred, whereas others wonder if, instead, Methuselah died in the flood. There is not enough biblical genealogy and chronology to determine whether Methuselah died in the year of the flood before it occurred, or whether he died in the flood with the rest of humanity – except the eight souls on Noah’s Ark (1 Peter 3:20). It is clear, though, that Methuselah did not survive the flood, and he died the year of the flood.

Someone asks, “What is our relationship to the Law of Moses?” Most denominations today persist largely on not knowing the correct, biblical answer to this question. Therefore, this questions is both timely and extremely important. Typically denominational doctrine consists of pulling portions of the Old Testament from the respective contexts of the Bible books that comprise that testament and likewise extracting pieces of the New Testament from their contexts, too. Then, personal opinions and human desires intertwine with the extractions from both testaments to produce distinctive, manmade (rather than divine) doctrines. Hence, each denomination, going through the same procedure with its own concoction of snippets from biblical text in both testaments with the admixture of human ideology, comes up with a different denominational doctrine from other denominations. More importantly, that procedure also results in manmade religions that differ from the church that Jesus Christ died to establish and about which we can read in the New Testament. The Old Testament or the Law of Moses is not the law of God to which Christians must turn today to ascertain divine instruction. The Old Testament or the Law of Moses has been replaced with the New Testament (2 Corinthians 3:6-11; Ephesians 2:15; Colossians 2:14). Specifically, Romans 7:6-7 inform us that the Law of Moses is no longer effective for people living today. “But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not

Someone inquired, “Is the church building sacred?” Church buildings or meetinghouses are not mentioned in the New Testament, and commonly it is agreed that historically there were no churched-owned buildings for the first 200 years after the establishment of the church of the New Testament. Hence, church buildings are not sacred or holy. The New Testament church, instead, was and is a spiritual entity, also sometimes referred to as the kingdom (John 18:36; Colossians 1:2, 13, 18). The word in the Greek means an assembly or those who have been called out. Though the term in a different context refers to any group of individuals called out for a specific purpose, religiously, the word church refers to those who have been called out of the world by the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Those who repent of their past sins and are baptized (immersed, Colossians 2:12) for the remission of their sins (Acts 2:38) are added to the church by Jesus Christ Himself (Acts 2:47). Biblically speaking, the word “church” is used in three senses in the New Testament, none of which occasions refers to a building. First, the word “church” refers to the spiritual body of Christ that our Lord promised to build (Matthew 16:18) and over which He is the Head (Colossians 1:18). This is the church in its universal sense, spanning all places and from generation to generation. Secondly, the word “church” refers to a particular congregation of Christians in some place (1 Corinthians 1:2). Therefore, customarily “the churches of

Someone inquires, “What are the steps to salvation?” For we who live in the Christian Age, the New Testament holds the answer to this question. There is no more important question, and consequently there could be no more important answer or answers than to this question. There are a number of elements to which the New Testament attributes saving qualities. For some of these elements there is a discernible sequence of steps leading to the forgiveness of past sins. Following is a list of these saving components. God’s Redemptive Plan GOD’S PARTLove (John 3:16)Grace (Ephesians 2:8)Mercy (Titus 3:5)Gospel (Romans 1:16) CHRIST’S PARTThe Blood of Christ (Revelation 1:5)Our Mediator (1 Timothy 2:5) HOLY SPIRIT’S PARTRevelation (2 Peter 1:20-21) MAN’S PARTBible Faith (John 8:24)Repentance (Acts 17:30)Baptism (1 Peter 3:21)Obedience (Hebrews 5:8, 9)Purity (Revelation 22:14)Faithfulness (Revelation 2:10)Love (1 John 2:10)Hope (Romans 8:24)Works (James 2:24)Endurance (Matthew 10:22)Confessing Christ (Romans 10:9-10)Being Born Again (John 3:3-5)Laying Aside Evil (James 1:21)Preaching (1 Corinthians 1:18, 21)Calling on the Name of the Lord (Romans 10:14)Knowledge of the Scriptures (2 Timothy 3:15) As components, all of the above work together toward the salvation of a soul, rather than being a shopping list from which one might select only some of them that one found desirable to the exclusion of the rest. In addition, there is a point at which one receives the forgiveness of sins. Everything before that juncture leads in the direction of salvation. A person must turn exclusively to the Word of God – for we who live

Clearly, the word “saint” in the New Testament refers to a follower of God, and after the establishment of the Lord’s church, “saint” was a synonym for “Christian” (Acts 9:13). However, the Catholic Church uses the word “saint” in a way different from how it is used in the Bible. In Catholicism, the word “saint” refers to someone who has lived a virtuous and exemplary life, has died and now is in heaven. Furthermore, that person is said to have performed at least two miracles after death from heaven, for which reason the Catholic Church officiates his or her sainthood through its process that it calls canonization. Following canonization, these Catholic saints become the object of veneration or worship to whom prayers are offered. One miracle qualifies a person for the Catholic Church to solemnize one for beatification, and a second miracle leads to canonization. What the Catholic Church or some other manmade religious organization decrees, though, does not alter biblical truth. Jesus Christ, not a man or a group of men or women, is the Head of the church (Colossians 1:18) for which He died (Acts 20:28; Romans 5:8), about which we can read in Scripture (Acts 2:47) and for which He will return someday to take back with Him to heaven (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17). Only Jesus Christ has all authority in heaven and on earth (Matthew 28:18 NKJV). That authority of Christ is related to mankind through the Holy Scriptures (2 Timothy 3:16-17; Jude 3). There are no more new

A reader put forth the question, “Should women be part of the church business meeting in a congregation without elders?” Presumably, the inquiry means to ask if Christian women should have an equal part with Christian men in making decisions in congregations that do not have elders. It seems implicit that the one asking the question would acknowledge that in congregations where elders serve that only men – the elders who are all men, per Scripture (1 Timothy 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-11) – ought to make the decisions for those congregations. That is an indirect concession that God has designated male leadership in the church (1 Timothy 2:8-14; 1 Corinthians 14:34-35) – as He has done likewise in the home (Genesis 3:16; Ephesians 5:24). God has decreed male leadership religiously and domestically (1 Corinthians 11:3, 8-9). Can a local church exist and function without elders? Yes, it can, and even first century congregations did so for a while before biblically qualified men were appointed to the roles of elders (Acts 14:23). Nevertheless, something important is lacking in every congregation wherein elders have not been appointed (Titus 1:5). Until such time as elders are appointed, it still remains the responsibility of male leadership to make congregational decisions. May women be present when men in a congregation without elders make the actual decisions? In my opinion, it is no more wise to permit such than is it prudent to have men who are not elders or women present in elders’ meetings when they

A reader inquired, “How many denominations are there?” Doubtlessly, no one truly knows the answer to that question. Estimates range from above 20,000 to move than 30,000, with possibly five or six new ones being established each week. Synonyms for the word “denomination” include “unit” and “brand.” A religious denomination is perceived to be a unit of a larger collection of units that are imagined together to comprise Christianity. Further, religious denominations essentially are thought to be differing brands of Christianity. In truth, though, Jesus Christ died to establish only one church, which belongs to Him (Acts 20:28; Matthew 16:18). He alone is the Head of it (Colossians 1:18). Only He has the authority to govern it (Matthew 28:18 NKJV). Jesus Christ will return someday to take His church back to heaven with Him (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17; John 14:1-3). That church is the one about which we can read in the Bible; it is clearly revealed in the New Testament. Sometimes in Scripture referred to as “the church of God” (1 Corinthians 1:2) or “the churches of Christ” (Romans 16:16), it preceded the Catholic Church by hundreds of years and the first Protestant denomination by about 1,500 years. Wherever today men and women simply obey the Gospel in the New Testament and worship God in His own prescribed way, “the church of God” or the “churches of Christ” assemble in our time. However, the one true church of the Bible is more difficult to discern today than it was in

Please, I need a biblical answer to this question. Here in Southern Nigeria youths of the Churches of Christ have grouped themselves and started organizing youth forums and evangelism. The youths elect their chairman and other executives annually. The youths would plan and finance the youth lectureship and other evangelical works. The youth would then use their own letterhead and issue invitations to youths and other congregations. The main aim of this youth gathering is to revive the church through evangelism and assist weak congregations. Some gospel ministers are members of this gathering. But there is an influential minister and a few brethren who preach against the activities of the youths, calling it unscriptural. The church is almost divided by this problem. Please, are the activities of the youth unscriptural? Please help me and the churches here. Thanks. This question is not an easy one to answer for a couple of reasons. First, there is not enough comprehensive information provided to be fully aware of some details that could materially affect one’s response. Secondly, brethren who otherwise agree about most aspects of practicing pure, New Testament Christianity disagree about the extent of freedom an individual Christian or individual Christians may have to demonstrate their Christianity without the direct and constant oversight of the elders of the congregation of which they are members, or in the absence of elders, without the consent of the body of faithful, male members. Of course, what members of the churches of Christ do or do

I would like to know more about the cost of true worship. Is there a cost for true worship? The question is a little vague; it is not clear to me precisely what the one posing the question is asking. However, we will attempt to offer some insight from one perspective at least respecting the cost of true worship. One important ingredient for truly worshipping God is the complete investment of one’s self into his or her Christianity. About 2,000 years ago, Christians in Macedonia, despite extreme poverty, voluntarily contributed from their meager means some funds to relieve the poor saints in Judaea. Once a child of God completely devotes himself to Christianity, dispensing with some of his material possessions is not a challenge. Moreover, brethren, we make known to you the grace of God bestowed on the churches of Macedonia: that in a great trial of affliction the abundance of their joy and their deep poverty abounded in the riches of their liberality. For I bear witness that according to their ability, yes, and beyond their ability, they were freely willing, imploring us with much urgency that we would receive the gift and the fellowship of the ministering to the saints. And not only as we had hoped, but they first gave themselves to the Lord, and then to us by the will of God. (2 Corinthians 8:1-5 NKJV) So, one significant cost of true worship is one’s all submitted to God. This corresponds with the words of our

“What is the tree of life?” a reader inquired. The Tree of Life is introduced to us first in Genesis 2:9. It was placed in the midst of the Garden of Eden so that the first pair would have perpetual life (Genesis 3:22); it was the “antidote of disease or decay of the body” (McClintock and Strong). However, following the fall of Adam and Eve and their expulsion from the Garden of Eden, cherubim prevented our first parents from reentering the Garden and gaining access to the Tree of Life (Genesis 3:24). God has since removed the Tree of Life to heaven’s paradise (Revelation 2:7; 22:2, 14). Works Cited McClintock and Strong Encyclopedia. CD-ROM. Seattle: Biblesoft, 2006.

Someone inquired, “Did the eunuch from Ethiopia receive the Holy Spirit?” The account of the conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch appears in Acts 8:26-40. The Holy Spirit advised the evangelist Philip to speak to the Ethiopian (v. 29), and later after his conversion, the Spirit somehow whisked Philip away from the presence of the new convert (v. 39). The context in which we read of the conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch does not specify whether he received the Holy Spirit. Other passages indicated that the Holy Spirit in some manner dwells within the Christian (Romans 8:9-16; 1 Corinthians 3:16; 6:19; 1 John 4:13). However, there is widespread confusion as to what it means that the Holy Spirit dwells in one or how that indwelling occurs. Miracles had as their purpose the validation of new revelation from God – the New Testament (Mark 16:20), and the reception of new revelation and validation of it is complete. Therefore, miracles no longer occur today (1 Corinthians 13:8-13). In addition, Christians differ in their understanding as to how the Holy Spirit dwells in them – literally and bodily or through the Word of God. Not at issue is the biblical fact that the Holy Spirit indwells Christians, which would include the Ethiopian eunuch.

Someone muses, “When and where was the pastorate form conceived?” The word “pastorate” relates to the denominational designation of “pastor” for a congregation’s minister or religious leader. “Pastorate” came into use in the English language between 1785 and 1795, according to various dictionaries. The word “pastor” is used in the New Testament as a synonym for the term “elder” (Ephesians 4:11). The Catholic Church redefined its use in the 14th century to apply instead to a minister or priest, according to a number of dictionaries. That is, the word “pastor” came to be applied to a minister before the rise of the first denomination breaking away from the Catholic Church. Subsequently, denominations have continued to apply the word “pastor” to their ministers or religious leaders, but from the beginning of Christianity it was not so. The New Testament uses the terms “elder” (Titus 1:5; James 5:14), “bishops” (Philippians 1:1; 1 Timothy 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9), “presbytery” (1 Timothy 4:14) and “pastors” (Ephesians 4:11) interchangeably to refer to the plurality of men who meet biblical qualifications and have been appointed to lead a local congregation. There is no biblical basis for using the words “pastor” or “pastorate” to refer to a minister or his work. Anyone interested in doing Bible things in Bible ways and using Bible words in Bible ways will take note and not use the terms “pastor” and “pastorate” in unscriptural ways.

I am Samson from Bangalore, India. I read the article “Do the Evil Spirits Mentioned During Jesus’ Time Exist Now?” Can you please send me more information regarding the same? I was not convinced with the discussion in the above mentioned topic as I witnessed my aunt being exorcised by a denomination preacher. It seemed very real. I would really appreciate if you could help me get over that incident. There are four perspectives involved in the question above and the observation that an “exorcism” witnessed “seemed real.” There is the participation of the one upon whom exorcism purportedly was done. There is the involvement of the “denominational preacher.” There is the observation of Samson respecting the episode with his aunt, presumably a beloved relative. Finally, there is the consideration of the authority and reliability of the Word of God. There are two primary possibilities respecting Samson’s aunt aside from granting that a real exorcism occurred. First, a person can have a psychosomatic condition that appears to resolve itself when one’s mind is satisfactorily persuaded. Psychosomatic means, “Of or relating to a disorder having physical symptoms but originating from mental or emotional causes” (“American Heritage”). Secondly, in the excitement of the moment, a person can surmise that a mental or physical condition has been altered, in this case supposedly by an exorcism, only to find that the condition returns afterward. The “denominational preacher” may actually believe that he was performing a real exorcism when in fact he was deluded, or he may

As you see in scripture, dunamis can be applied to the power of the gospel (Romans 1:16), strength from Christ through weakness/affliction (2 Corinthians 12:9), and the power to work miracles (1 Corinthians 12:10, 28-29 – a first century phenomenon). My question is: Would the fact that dunamis is used in a miraculous context as well as receiving strength from Christ (non-miraculously) be justification for one to say that God still works miracles today, if they are meaning that one receives strength according to Romans 1:16 and 2 Corinthians 12:9? I ask this, not from any thought that I would say God worked a miracle, sign, or wonder today (in light of 1 Corinthians 13:8-10).  I ask, though, on the basis of dunamis and anyone who may attempt to make an argument from this word, that miracles can be applied today, but in the context of other works beside what God does DIRECTLY. The Greek word dunamis means, “force (literally or figuratively); specially, miraculous power…” (Biblesoft’s). Vines’s adds that dunamis especially refers to “inherent power” (“Dominion”). Another Greek resource includes these variances in the meaning of dunamis: “ability” (2 Corinthians 1:8), “power” (Acts 1:8), “mighty deed” (Acts 2:22), “ruler” (Romans 8:38-39), “supernatural power” (Ephesians 6:12) and “meaning” (1 Corinthians 14:11) (“Dunamis” Greek-English). Likewise, Thayer’s Greek Lexicon denotes several variables to the way in which dunamis is used in the New Testament: inherent power, the power of miracles, moral power of excellence, the power and influence of riches, power arising from numbers, military power, the meaning of a word. “Words deriving from the stem ‎duna‎- all have the basic

A reader asks, “Should a Christian attend shows with dancing and music?” The question is too vague and also indicates some misunderstanding as well. The definition of “dancing” is, “a successive group of rhythmical steps or bodily motions, or both, usually executed to music” (“Dancing”). Nowhere in Scripture are Christians forbidden, aside from singing hymns, psalms and spiritual songs in worship (Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16), from enjoying or playing instrumental music. In addition, successive rhythmical steps or bodily motions accompanied by music are not necessarily sinful; whether it is sinful depends on the type of bodily motions and with whom (if anyone) the dancing occurs. The type of dancing forbidden by Scripture are “revelries” (Galatians 5:21; 1 Peter 4:3), which are associated with “drunkenness” (Galatians 5:21) and “lewdness” (Galatians 5:19). Christians ought not to subject themselves to the influence of or participate in bawdy gyrations with or without music and with or without alcoholic beverages. The type of behavior between persons that is immoral is no more acceptable if plied with booze or set to music. Yet, Christians may well enjoy shows with dancing and music that are not characterized by the vices contained in the Sins of the Flesh in Galatians 5:19-21, etc. Works Cited “Dancing.” Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc. 01 Sep. 2014. <Dictionary.com https://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dancing>.

I stopped at a fast-food joint following an evening preaching appointment many miles from home. Though I had dispensed already with my jacket and tie, perhaps my long-sleeved white shirt betrayed me as a preacher. A fellow diner in line ahead of me at the counter asked if I was a preacher, and I acknowledged that I was. Then, he asked for what church I preached. When I mentioned the church of Christ, he said, “So you’re one of those fellows who thinks that only the church of Christ is going to heaven!” Sometimes the joke is told of new arrivals in heaven being given the grand tour by the apostle Peter. Upon approaching one chamber, Peter puts his finger to his lips and whispers, “Be very, very quiet because over there are members of the church of Christ, and they think that they are the only ones up here.” Both the statement uttered by a fellow fast-food consumer and the little joke are attempts to ridicule and mock Christians. Spontaneously, I answered my new acquaintance at the restaurant, “Why would you say something so prejudicial and unkind?” He was taken aback and said, “What do you mean?” I asked him, “Do you believe the Bible is the Word of God?” He said, “Yes.” “I do, too!” I responded. “Do you have religious conviction based on what you read in the Bible?” I blurted out, which he also affirmed. We must not be ashamed (Romans 1:16) to affirm and stand

Someone inquired whether it was proper for there to be a female soloist at a funeral. Presumably, the question implies the singing of a religious song at a funeral of a Christian and attended by church members, perhaps in the auditorium of the church’s meetinghouse. It is impossible to know all of the particulars that the one posing the question had in mind from the brief information provided. First, a funeral is not precisely a worship service such as we experience upon the first day of each week (Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:1-2). Prayers and singing hymns are worshipful activities, but a funeral is no more a worship service than is each of the meals that we eat daily because we preface them with prayers. Therefore, strictly speaking, strictures for congregational singing that are applicable to Sunday worship may not apply with the same force for a funeral, irrespective of the location or in what building it transpires. However, to avoid confusing non-Christians who may be aware that we religiously refrain from instrumental music, solos, etc. in our worship periods, it may be prudent to abstain from any of those things in funerals. This may be especially true when the general public may construe it as a religious activity of the local church due to the number of members present, those officiating or the funeral commemoration occurring in the church’s meetinghouse. Even Christians may register a complaint through doubts or strongly held opinions. Similarly, weddings, strictly speaking, are not equivalent

Brother Rushmore, I just read the article in Voice of Truth, “Did Dinosaurs Really Exist?” I noticed two conclusions that I cannot reconcile with the Job passage. Please know that my intent in writing you is not to be argumentative! And I certainly am not trying to say what this creature may or may not be. Just trying to be careful. It is my habit to look up scriptures that are cited in an especially interesting article as I study it more. Then I also see what other translations say, in case the conclusions from the article’s author were drawn from a particular translation. In doing this today, in paragraph three each verse has quotes about the animal’s descriptions. But verse 17 has no quote – just a comment. When I read it from three translations (KJV, NASB, NIV), they all speak of the movement of the tail, not the size. The picture developing from verse 16, where it speaks of his strength being in his hips and stomach (with thighs that are knit together) seems to show how this movement is strongly caused – as if a cedar tree were back there being swung about. The second place in question is in verse 19. The Bible says the animal is “chief of the ways of God” (KJV), “ranks first among the works” (NIV) and “first of the way” (NAS). There is no mention of mass or size that I can see. I guess my point is really this: As an older adult who has “grown up in the church,” I want

Essentially, the biblical plan of salvation for today can be summarized, encapsulated and briefly stated in just nine (9) words – one short sentence. Numerous additional New Testament Scriptures could be marshalled respecting the plan of salvation for non-Christians, but just nine words in one little sentence reveal enough information to identify the point at which one’s sins are removed. Furthermore, the scope of the authority of the Speaker – Jesus Christ – who made the nine-word statement encompasses heaven and earth (Matthew 28:18 NKJV).  Our Lord and Savior said, and it is recorded, in Mark 16:16 (NKJV), “He who believes and is baptized will be saved…” One has to marvel at the simplicity of our Lord’s declaration, which is equivalent in simplicity to 1 + 2 = 3. Belief + baptism = salvation! The plan of salvation could not be any simpler than that, and any thinking mind can easily understand it, too. Frankly, someone would have to have the wrong kind of help to misunderstand that straightforward statement of Jesus. Some people mistakenly make an unwarranted distinction between the words of Jesus and the speeches and writings of the apostles of Christ and other writers of the New Testament. Actually, God and the Holy Spirit are behind both the words of our Lord (John 12:49-50) and of the writings in the rest of the New Testament (Matthew 10:19-20; 2 Peter 1:21). Nevertheless, Red Letter Edition Bibles highlight the words of Jesus Christ in red letters, and therefore, Mark 16:16 appears in red

A correspondent asks would it be alright for a Christian to dance at his or her wedding. There are a number of things that would be alright to take place between a husband and a wife that are not appropriate to take place in all places, for instance publicly. The type of dancing or behavior that the New Testament forbids is that of sensuality (“uncleanness,” Galatians 5:19), arousing sexual desire (“lasciviousness,” Galatians 5:19) and immoral behavior, usually associated with alcoholic drink (“reveling,” Galatians 5:21). Whereas a husband and his wife are expected by God to participate in sensuality, and it is their right to arouse each other in sexual desire (1 Corinthians 7:2-5), this is not something that God permits them to do publicly. What otherwise would be immoral behavior is not immoral between a husband and his wife (Hebrews 13:4), but again, this was never intended by God to be a matter of public display. Furthermore, dancing that results in or predictably could produce sensuality, sexual arousal and immoral behavior is definitely not something that either a husband or his wife ought to share with others. In addition, even if a husband and his wife dance exclusively with each other at their wedding, what implied stamp of approval are they proclaiming to all others present, irrespective of whether dance partners are married to each other? Likewise, on other occasions in public when a husband and a wife would dance together exclusively, what kind of an example would they be providing? Especially outside of a

Hi Louis, Thanks so much for the GGO. I enjoy reading the articles every month. They are insightful. I did want to pose a question. I understand how & why miracles were used to confirm the God given authority of Jesus, the Apostles, and the New Testament. It seems to me that in today’s era people are performing miracles—particularly healing miracles and while I acknowledge that God can heal anyone at any time for any ailment they may have can the saints claim these miracles in God’s name given the time of using miracles as proof is done? The other thing that concerns me is should the saints be casting out demons from people? I don’t know too much about this myself but I do believe it was best left in Jesus’ hands. Your thoughts? As the one posing the question acknowledged, miracles had as their purpose the confirmation of the Word of God and the validation of the presenters of new revelation (i.e., the New Testament), according to Mark 16:20. Once the New Testament was completed, around the end of the first century, miracles were slated to cease (1 Corinthians 13:8-13). Part of the list of miracles performed was casting out demons (Mark 16:17-18); demon possession was permitted by God during the time of miracles to demonstrate that Jesus Christ and His apostles had power from God over the spirit world, too. Hence, Jesus Christ showed during his earthly ministry that He had all power in heaven and on earth

Someone asks, “Can a person become a Christian in a denomination?” The “church” about which one reads in the New Testament and denominations are the antithesis or opposite of each other. The Lord’s church came into existence nearly 2,000 years ago in Jerusalem (Acts 2), whereas denominations began hundreds to thousands of years later, first with the Catholic Church in Rome and then with a myriad of denominations that are still being established daily in cities throughout the world. That circumstance alone should be sufficient to discern that the church of the Bible and denominations are the reverse of each other, the former brought to pass by divine decree and the latter the product of manmade rebellion. A person may be a denominational member when he or she learns the truth and obeys the Gospel, at which time the Lord adds him or her to His church (Acts 2:47). However, then, the newborn Christian is no longer a denominational person. There may be much yet to learn, and the new convert may need to alter several things in his or her life, but as a child of God (true Christian), he or she is no longer a Baptist, a Methodist, a Presbyterian, a Catholic, a Lutheran, an Adventist, a Disciple of Christ or Christian Church member, a Pentecostal or a Mormon. There may be Christians in denominations, but if so, they are erring Christians, and the “latter end” will be worse for them than the beginning when they were already

Biblical Worship: Reading of scripture prior to the sermon seems to be of recent origin. Does the one who reads the scripture have to be a baptized believer? Based on the silence of the scripture re this issue I think yes. But this seems to be an argument from the silence of the scriptures. Certainly there is no doubt whatsoever that even Christian women are forbidden by Scripture (where men are present) to pray aloud, teach or preach in a public assembly of the church for worship (1 Corinthians 14:34). Jesus Christ only authorized apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors (elders) and teachers to edify the body of Christ (men and women) in the first century (Ephesians 4:11-12), and hence, the churches of Christ do not permit non-Christians to instruct them in public worship. Furthermore, it is reasonable to conclude from an understanding of the roles of Christian men in public worship that only faithful male Christians may lead in Christian worship assemblies. A leadership role in public worship occurs when one or more men by course or one at a time speak or conduct some facet of the worship, while everyone else is obligated to be quiet and compliant (1 Corinthians 14:27, 29-31, 40). It would be hard to conceive of it being inappropriate to read Scripture in the assembly, and this definitely was central to any teaching or preaching in assemblies of God’s people under either Judaism or early Christianity (Luke 4:16-21; Acts 13:14-16); New Testament assemblies mimicked synagogue assemblies

Two similar questions ask what the dead know about the present: “Are the dead aware of earthly events?” and “Are the saints watching our lives?” We on this side of the threshold of death can only know for certain what is revealed in God’s inspired Word (Deuteronomy 29:29). Everything else is merely speculation. There is no biblical evidence of which I am aware that indicates that departed spirits are aware of contemporary events, people, etc. in real time. The rich man who died and found himself tormented after death gave no indication in his conversation with Abraham that he was aware of ongoing events in the lives of anyone still living, though he did surmise based on what he knew of his family when he died that they, too, would eventually follow him into torment (Luke 16:19-31). On another occasion in the Old Testament, the prophet Samuel was permitted to speak from the dead, providing quite a shock to the witch of Endor (1 Samuel 28:12). When Samuel spoke to King Saul, he asked why he had disturbed him, perhaps indicating that he was unaware of contemporary events, people, etc. Samuel, though, did prophesy regarding the demise of Saul, comparable to what he had done while alive as a messenger between God and mankind. It is a comforting thought, perhaps, that our departed loved ones look down upon us, but if it is so, we cannot discern it from the Scriptures. However, we can be sure that even if our

Dear Brother Rushmore, I regretfully write to you with a question concerning church discipline and specifically, what is acceptable contact with one who has been withdrawn from, by members of the local congregation in general and also by Christian family members of the withdrawn? We are unfortunately having to withdraw from a member of our congregation. He has a wife who is a new Christian and is not being withdrawn from. He also has an adult son in the congregation. There has been debate within the congregation on whether the wife and son are still obligated to the man in those family roles. It has been stated by an individual that if the man were to be in a life and death situation (i.e., injured in an accident and bleeding to death) the most that the son or any other Christian should do for the man is perhaps call 911 and then leave the scene. He believes it would be sinful to physically assist him in anyway. Again if he were in a position that he could not provide for his physical needs and was starving to death, he believes it would be sinful to provide him food. Please help me to understand what the Scriptures say in regards to this issue. Mankind is given to extremes, and this is perhaps the most severe extreme I have ever heard, even regarding the subject of “church discipline.” With extremes, some do not try hard enough, whereas others try too hard in

A person cannot always materially change his or her living conditions when it comes to economic circumstances that are beyond one’s capacity to alter them. Yet, there are a number of opportunities to make positive changes in one’s lifestyle, in most cases, irrespective of economic limitations. Certainly, a person can leave behind morally bad behavior with its attendant maladies, and anyone can opt to become and to remain an obedient child of God (Mark 16:16), regardless of inconveniences or even personal peril (2 Timothy 3:12; Revelation 2:10). Popular music lyrics typify broken homes and the sin-sick world that appears in every direction to which we might cast our view. Shootings are epidemic; murders are widespread from urban metroplexes to small towns and rural areas. The world is awash in alcohol and drugs. The whole planet is crazy about sex; sexy commercials sell cookies and burgers to everything else imaginable. Such a list could be lengthened indefinitely, but you get the idea. It would be difficult to conceive of Noah’s pre-flood world being any more depraved than what we experience in the 21st century (Genesis 6:5). However, mankind does not have to live that way! More specifically, neither men nor women, for instance, have to troll bars, streets and the Internet for lovers and one-night stands, over which they experience regret – if any part of one’s conscience remains unseared (1 Timothy 4:2) – just to do it again and again, night after night, week after week, month after month and year

“Transparency.” I have not seen a biblical article that explains why it is ‘scriptural’ to believe that the “contribution” does not belong to any particular member of the church. It is the Lord’s money. In all of the congregations that I have visited, here in …, not one person is requiring that their leaders provide a regular report of the income and expenses received and dispensed within the congregation they are a member of. Most often, the ‘preacher’ works with one or two people that knows the amount of weekly contributions. Nor does this ‘insider’ group encourage a financial report of the expenses against the weekly “offering.” My request is that you provide your prospective of your understanding on what the New Testament has to say on this subject. The “love of money” (Timothy 6:10) is an ever-present human malady, even among members of the church. There are few congregational considerations that garner more attention than church finances (e.g., budgets, what various works cost, appropriate application of funds, etc.). Since money is of both of special temptation and general interest, financial transparency should be the normal operating procedure for any congregation of the Lord’s people. The apostle Paul provided us with a biblical example of providing this financial transparency when he enlisted several respected brethren to accompany him with the funds for poor saints in Judaea (1 Corinthians 16:3-4). “…who was also chosen by the churches to travel with us with this gift, which is administered by us to the

Here is the situation. Years ago, the church met in a house. As the church grew, they were able to build a church building. The church repurposed the house as the preacher’s house. Later when times became difficult, with members moving away to find work, the church made the decision to rent out the house to supplement their support. By doing so, the church was able to continue to work despite the financial hardship. Was the church authorized to rent the house? There are members who believe that renting the house is unscriptural. I would appreciate it if you could provide a clear and reasonable response from the Scriptures. The last thing we want is to cause division. Thank you. Let’s have lunch at a local eatery. These days, most restaurants serve alcoholic beverages. In my case, I try to evaluate whether a particular candidate for my meal is a restaurant that serves booze or a bar that serves food. The distinction can be subtle, but usually one can discern a difference in atmospheres between the two. The focus and primary purpose of restaurants and bars differ, though they both offer elements of either. The point that we want to offer for consideration is, “What is the intent?” Please bear with me for a moment as we progress. Certainly, the scriptural instruction for a congregation to finance itself is freewill giving weekly on the Lord’s Day (1 Corinthians 16:1-2). That ought to be the means by which a congregation intends to finance the various obligatory expenses that

“…how do you tell young children about Santa Claus? He is supposedly everywhere and knows whether you are good or bad. Is this a permissible lie to tell or is this being a little ridiculous? May God continue to give you and Bonnie what you need to do His work.” Some brethren feel very strongly that Christians must not go along with the Santa Claus story regarding their children. Many of them believe that such is lying, which would be sinful (Revelation 21:8). One Gospel preacher, who views Santa Claus as a lie, told me that he was disillusioned after he learned that Santa Claus was not real; as a youngster, he then began to wonder if his parents had lied to him about God, too, and that perhaps He was not real either. Other Christians who object to Santa Claus also reject all aspects of Christmas on the basis of its origin arising out of Catholic and pagan religious practices. Further, these saints argue for an observable distinction by the churches of Christ, respecting Christmas, from Catholicism, denominationalism, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. Certainly, one ought not to violate his or her conscience (Romans 14:20, 22-23), irrespective of whether the practice against which a person has a conscience is right or wrong biblically (Romans 14:5, 14). The apostle Paul taught in Romans 14 a tolerance of Christians toward each other in matters of conscience that Scripture does not clearly define (1, 3, 5, 10, 13, 15, 19, 22). There are some issues that

For decades now, some members of the churches of Christ have been arguing that Implication and Inference is not a valid hermeneutic or mechanism in correct biblical interpretation. Sometimes styled as the so-called New Hermeneutic, these brethren have adamantly affirmed that only Commands or Direct Statements constitute biblical authority. That declaration, of course, jettisons from consideration as biblically authoritative Approved Examples and Implication and Inference. There are numerous problems or horns of a dilemma with that approach to biblical interpretation, but the chief reason for seeking a New Hermeneutic in the first place seems to be the attempt to exempt mankind from divine instructions that are viewed as unpalatable. Incidentally, brethren who are willing to ignore Approved Examples in hermeneutics are completely agreeable to ignoring, for instance, the weekly observance of the Lord’s Supper on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7). The elders and the preacher of one local congregation told me directly that they see no biblical authority necessitating the observance of the Lord’s Supper each week or that when it is observed that it needs to be observed on the first day of the week. The same church leaders, though, are as comfortable ignoring Commands or Direct Statements respecting singing (Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16) versus use of instrumental music in Christian worship. Furthermore, they have downgraded the biblical qualifications for appointment of elders and deacons (1 Timothy 3:1-13; Titus 1:5-8) to mere “suggestions,” despite the Commands or Direct Statements by which the New Testament conveys those instructions. It becomes quite clear, then, that the true object of the New Hermeneutic is the

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

Little babies don’t start out destined to be internationally notorious characters like Joseph Stalin or Adolf Hitler. Infants don’t start out to become rapists, murderers, burglars, drunkards or other derelict citizens of world society. Nevertheless, boys and girls do grow up to be enemies of God and man alike. Why is that? Innocent newborns don’t start out their lives with any aspirations for themselves or of their parents for them to be the personification of evil. Yet, our world is rife with violent criminals, flagrant lawbreakers, warlords and villains. Why is that? Contrary to the Catholic idea of “original sin” and Calvinism’s concept of “total depravity,” the Bible teaches that children are born without sin; this is true about all newborns. “You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created, Till iniquity was found in you” (Ezekiel 28:15 NKJV). Children do not inherit the sins of Adam and Eve or of their forefathers. “The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself” (Ezekiel 18:20). Instead, little children are innocent, thereby being suitable examples of the guiltless inhabitants of heaven someday from among the human population. Our Lord Jesus said, “Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven”

When Jesus was conversing with the woman at the well and He told her she had had FIVE HUSBANDS and the man she had then was not her husband, why did He continue to talk to her since she had committed the “unpardonable sin” of being in multiple marriages? Why didn’t He tell her she was hopelessly and eternally lost because of all this marrying and divorcing? This is an example of the proverbial loaded question, because (1) it portrays an uncharitable, sarcastic bias and (2) it proposes a preposterous straw man dialog to promote a counter answer about the topic of marriage, divorce and remarriage. Hence, the paragraph above is not as much of a “question” as it is an “affirmation” of a doctrinal position. Yet, we will not presume that the one posing the question possesses this attitude, for these words may be merely the grammar of another repeated. In any case, the “question” or “affirmation” needs to be addressed from a biblical perspective. Generally, Bible students refer to blasphemy against the Holy Spirit as the so-called unpardonable sin (Matthew 12:31-32). However, the reason that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit or “a sin unto death” (1 John 5:16 KJV) is unpardonable is because the sinner refuses to repent. In both testaments, God has been willing to forgive sins for which sinners will repent; consider these biblical citations. “Let the wicked forsake his way, And the unrighteous man his thoughts; Let him return to the Lord, And He will have mercy on him; And to our God, For He will abundantly

When Jesus said whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart, what is the difference between that and the literal act? The verses under consideration are these. “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’  But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:27-28 NKJV). There are no more frequently asked questions than about “Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage,” and the Gospel Gazette Online “Archive” reflects that with numerous articles addressing this topic. A comprehensive article concerning “Matthew 5:28” by this author appears at the following URL. https://www.gospelgazette.com/gazette/2004/mar/page18.htm Other noteworthy articles on “Marriage, Divorce & Remarriage” from the Gospel Gazette Online “Archive” include these two. https://www.gospelgazette.com/gazette/2004/apr/page2.htm https://www.gospelgazette.com/gazette/2004/sep/page2.htm This articles provides additional insight and observations regarding “Matthew 5:28,” and it specifically addresses the specific question submitted above. The subject matter of Jesus’ statement in Matthew 5:28 is “impure desire” (Clarke). “Jesus locates adultery in the eye and heart before the outward act” (Robertson’s). “Adultery begins within one’s heart (looking lustfully) and follows in the act. The lustful desire, in the heart, as wrong as the act, indicates that one is not rightly related to God” (Bible Knowledge). Sexual impurity begins in the desires of the heart. Again, Jesus is not saying that lustful desires are identical to lustful deeds, and therefore a person might just as well go ahead and commit

What is the teaching of Deuteronomy 24:1-4; Jeremiah 3:1; Hosea 11 and Ezekiel 23? Note the parallel teachings recorded in Deuteronomy and Jeremiah. “When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some uncleanness in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house, when she has departed from his house, and goes and becomes another man’s wife, if the latter husband detests her and writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her as his wife, then her former husband who divorced her must not take her back to be his wife after she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the Lord, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the Lord  your God is giving you as an inheritance” (Deuteronomy 24:1-4 NKJV) “They say, ‘If a man divorces his wife, And she goes from him And becomes another man’s, May he return to her again?’ Would not that land be greatly polluted? But you have played the harlot with many lovers; Yet return to Me,” says the Lord (Jeremiah 3:1 NKJV). Old Testament instruction found in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 and Jeremiah 3:1 prohibited Israelites from marrying a second time to a spouse after which he had divorced her she

In Ezekiel 44:22 priests were told not to take as a wife a widow or a divorced woman. What’s the teaching or the example in this passage? Was this command just to the priests? Could other men marry widows and divorced women? Why were divorced women put in the same context with the widows? The cited passage reads, “They shall not take as wife a widow or a divorced woman, but take virgins of the descendants of the house of Israel, or widows of priests” (Ezekiel 44:22 NKJV). This is similar to divine regulation of Jewish priests (Leviticus 21:7) and high priests (Leviticus 21:13-14) found near the inception of the Jewish priesthood. Additional requirements imposed by God on the Jewish priests promoted a higher level of purity and holiness to distinguish them from the rest of the people. This higher standard also included regulation whom the priests could marry, which differed somewhat from divine regulation respecting non-priests. Both divorced women and widows (except for “widows of priests”) did not meet the model of innocence or ceremonial purity that God desired to impress on the Jews respecting the distinction of holiness between the priests and the rest of the people. The widows of priests would have previously met the stipulation of innocence from their virginity until they had wed their priestly husbands. There is no direct example in this Old Testament instruction applicable today under Christianity. However indirectly in principle, one could note especially for special servants of God today (e.g.,

When John the Baptist told Herod that it was not lawful for him to have his brother Philip’s wife, were they living together or was Herodias divorced from Philip? If she was divorced why did John still refer to her as Philip’s wife? The Jewish historian Josephus, who was nearly contemporary with John the Baptist and Herodias, and other reference works state that Herod and Herodias were married. Herodias divorced her husband Herod Philip, and Herod Antipas divorced his wife so that Herodias and Antipas could marry. Mankind is obligated to abide by the law of God. God is not obligated to abide by man’s law. Despite mankind then or now calling “marriage” what God in the Bible calls “adultery,” such does not convert adultery into valid marriage. John the Baptist, representing God’s perspective, accused Herod Antipas and Herodias of adultery in spite of the recognition of their “marriage” by the law of the land as legal. Frankly, it is no different today. “For Herod had laid hold of John and bound him, and put him in prison for the sake of Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife. Because John had said to him, ‘It is not lawful for you to have her’” (Matthew 14:3-4 NKJV). The point is that mankind said the marriage of Herod Antipas and Herodias was “lawful,” but God through John the Baptist said their marriage was “not lawful.”

…If they have to go back and “make that right” where does he stop “making past sins” right? … All this man-made legislating for God has ruined hundreds of lives… Why is this dogma being taught when it is not a teaching that promotes the simplicity that is in Christ? The message sounds like the blood of Christ can and does cover any and all sin, but divorced unbelievers need not apply! Believers in a second or subsequent marriage must divorce their present mate, go back and find their first mate, remarry them and THEN their salvation is once again assured – if this is not done, then hell will be their home. Their other option is to dissolve the present marriage since it was never recognized by God in the first place and live celibate for the rest of their lives. Where in the Bible is all this found? The quoted paragraph above is more nearly a rant than is it a question, but we will assume that the questioner desires an honest reply from God’s Word. Doubtless many members of the church have similar misgivings about what the New Testament teaches concerning marriage, divorce and remarriage – and I am persuaded that many of them feed off of each other, sharing the same words, phrases and complaints. There is always a contest trying to fit God’s instructions into a world gone haywire away from biblical truth. Unfortunately, far too much of the carnal world has crept into the Lord’s church

If previous marriages doom you to hell then why doesn’t obesity? Folks are added to the church overweight, they remain in the church overweight, and they die in the church overweight. Are these folks on their way to hell for lack of self-control just like the one who can’t and won’t be forgiven for a previous marriage? What’s the difference between marital repentance and repentance of a lack of self-control? With all due kindness, nevertheless, this is a prejudicial series of questions melded together into a larger question with a decidedly stacked deck in defense of unscriptural marriage practices. We will, though, address the “question,” piece by piece, under the assumption that someone desires an honest, biblical answer. First, the word “obesity” means, “a condition characterized by excessive bodily fat,” and the word “overweight” means, “1 : weight over and above what is required or allowed. 2 : excessive or burdensome weight” (Merriam Webster’s). Therefore, “obesity” and “overweight” are subjective terms relative to conflicting standards touted by uninspired men, rather than being biblical words tied to specific biblical instruction. Even definitions in the medical community for obesity and being overweight have changed from time to time and continue to change from time to time. Granted, some people may fit the questioner’s profile above and be unquestionably unhealthy. Yet, it is an overgeneralization that all fat or heavy people, by someone’s subjective standard, are sinners condemned to hell. For one thing, there may be a number of genetic, medical or environmental reasons that even an obese person may

The “issue” about which a questioner bemoans that “there is no consensus” is marriage, divorce and remarriage. The problem with this way of thinking is that no doctrine of God is up for vote! Irrespective of whether mankind can muster a consensus of approval respecting any doctrine of God, divinely given, inspired truth is absolute and unchangeable. New Testament truth was decided upon and delivered to mankind nearly 2,000 years before any contemporary person was born. The decisions regarding biblical doctrine were made before any of us made our respective debut on planet earth, and God asked none of us for our opinions. Neither has Almighty God crowned any living person with the authority to countermand biblical Truth. Jesus Christ had and has “all authority… in heaven and on earth” (Matthew 28:18 NKJV), and He has not surrendered any of it to mere mortals – and certainly not to anyone living today. New Testament teaching in a nutshell regarding marriage, divorce and remarriage is contained in primarily two passages – Matthew 19:9 and 1 Corinthians 7:10-11. Jesus Christ Himself uttered what we find in the first of those two references. The apostle Paul attributed what he penned in the latter citation to Jesus Christ as well. Jesus Christ alone is responsible for the teaching about marriage, divorce and remarriage that is applicable in the Christian Age, and it matters not all whether members of the church can come to a consensus among themselves about what to believe and practice.

What about the believer who has married an unbeliever KNOWING this was against what the Bible teaches and they continue to stay married? How does the believer repent of that unequal yoke? Does he divorce the unbeliever even though he has no “scriptural” grounds to do so, since sexual infidelity is the only exception in the marriage relationship? There is an apparent misunderstanding of Scripture indicated in the question above regarding what it means to be unequally yoked. Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God. As God has said: I will dwell in them And walk among them. I will be their God, And they shall be My people. Therefore Come out from among them And be separate, says the Lord. Do not touch what is unclean, And I will receive you. I will be a Father to you, And you shall be My sons and daughters, Says the Lord  Almighty. (2 Corinthians 6:14-18 NKJV) First, do you see how many times in the quotation from 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 that references to marriage occur? None! Yet, many people, including the questioner above, apparently only see in that context a reference to marriage between an unbeliever and a Christian. Someone must

What are the considerations to consider in the choice and selection of a life-partner for marriage? How does one go about finding a godly mate in the Lord in today’s perverse and crooked world? What place should religious convictions and denominational affiliations have in the selection of mate for marriage for life? Are there Bible guidelines on marriage and family life matters like contraception, family planning, child spacing, parenting teenagers and adoption in case of infertility? The questioner is to be commended for inquiring thoughtfully about important matters concerning a future marriage. Few decisions in life are more important than choosing a spouse. That choice affects not only earthly happiness but may affect favorably or unfavorably the eternal destiny of both spouses and any children born into the family. Therefore, one ought to choose a mate who will help him or her get to heaven. One must look carefully and patiently “in today’s perverse and crooked world” before selecting a mate. In the process, one must not compromise Christian convictions, which are based upon the Word of God (and for people living today, particularly the New Testament). Morally good persons, who may esteem the Bible highly, may be found in denominations, but it is important to genuinely convert such a candidate for marriage before deciding on such a one for a lifelong marriage partner. Otherwise, there will be not only conflict in the home, but there will be diverse directions pursued in rearing children, Christian living and worship. While one

A brother has been divorced and remarried 10 years ago. Does the reason for his divorce effect whether he is allowed to preach and participate with his new wife at the Lord’s Supper? Are there any restrictions on his ministry? The sole permission in the New Testament for divorce and remarriage is Matthew 19:9, where our Lord taught that only for the reason of adultery may the innocent party divorce and remarry. Jesus clearly stated that every other divorce and remarriage is adultery, irrespective of whether the law of the land sanctions such a marriage. If a man’s divorce and remarriage are scriptural, there is no biblical reason for prohibiting him from serving in any capacity for which he may be qualified in the Lord’s church, including preaching. However, as it is with elders, in order to serve effectively, a man must be held in esteem by fellow Christians and to some extent by community members (1 Timothy 3:7). Congregations choose for themselves their own preachers who instruct them in God’s Word, and they have the discretion, as long as biblical doctrine is not violated, to decide who will serve in that capacity.

Is unscriptural divorce and remarriage adultery if there is no sexual intercourse? Instead of divorcing again and living apart, this couple decides not to have any physical contact that involves intercourse. Thank you. The lone reason provided in the New Testament for divorce and remarriage was provided by Jesus Christ Himself. “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery” (Matthew 19:9 NKJV). The singular instruction for spouses who have divorced for any other reason is provided by the apostle Paul, who affirms that He is conveying what Jesus Christ taught. “Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart from her husband. But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife” (1 Corinthians 7:10-11). What the questioner asks essentially is whether persons divorced for a reason other than adultery and who contract a civilly approved marriage that God does not recognize as a valid marriage may pretend to be married in the eyes of God. Put that way, it appears to me to be an iffy scenario at best. The clearer and certain course of action would be not to pretend to be married. That does not diminish moral responsibility for any children already brought into this world through such a union, and it would not

A questioner asks, “Why is Tamar’s name included in the genealogy of Matthew?” (Matthew 1:3). That’s an easy question to answer. She was among the ancestors of our Lord. However, it was more common to include male ancestors rather than the female ancestors, though some other notable female ancestors also appear in the family tree (e.g., Rahab, Ruth and a reference to Bathsheba, Matthew 1:5-6). The Gospel Advocate Commentary for the Gospel According to Matthew supposes that Tamar was included due to the unorthodox way in which she was the mother of one of Judah’s sons in Christ’s lineage; the same could be said of Bathsheba. Rahab and Ruth, both Gentiles, represent along with Jewish ancestry the sum of all human races in the lineage of our Savior. The tainted characters of Tamar, Rahab and Bathsheba along with the Gentile background of Ruth in the family tree of Christ did not detract from the effectiveness of His redemptive mission. Rather, Jesus Christ came to save all mankind, though unfortunately most of the world’s population has not responded to God’s free gift of His Son.

Someone inquires, “What is the importance of the Old Testament.” Truly, where should I begin? As the Bible opens with the Book of Genesis, one learns about the creation of the universe and everything in it, with a special notice of the origin of the human race. The very first verse of the Bible introduces God as the source of everything except Himself. From the Old Testament we learn about the existence of divine law and the consequences of disobeying it. We have in the Old Testament the history of the human race for about the first 4,000 years. The blood-red strand woven throughout the Old Testament and in to the New Testament pertains to the blood-sacrifice of the second person of the Godhead for the redemption of sinful mortals. Particularly in the Old Testament one finds hundreds of prophecies concerning that Redeemer – better known to us as Jesus Christ; all of those prophecies were fulfilled in the first century, and we can read about their fulfillment in Jesus Christ upon the pages of the New Testament. The Old Testament details a preparatory time during two divinely-given law systems (i.e., Patriarchy and Judaism, Galatians 3:23-25; Ephesians 3:3-4). Finally, at just the right time in God’s master plan for redeeming mankind, God sent Jesus Christ into the world (Galatians 4:4-5). We would understand little to none of all the preparing of mankind God did throughout the ages or that our Lord was the precise fulfillment of all those Old Testament

Someone asks, “How Many Israelites Crossed the Red Sea?” Scripture adequately stipulates the number of able-bodied men who crossed the Red Sea, beginning with Exodus 12:37, which reads, “Then the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand men on foot, besides children” (NKJV; cf. Numbers 11:21). A more precise number of men able to go forth as warriors can be discerned from a census that occurred just over a year following the crossing of the Red Sea. “… for everyone included in the numbering from twenty years old and above, for six hundred and three thousand, five hundred and fifty men” (Exodus 38:26). Not counted in that number were children, wives, the tribe of Levi and the old or infirm. So all who were numbered of the children of Israel, by their fathers’ houses, from twenty years old and above, all who were able to go to war in Israel — all who were numbered were six hundred and three thousand five hundred and fifty. But the Levites were not numbered among them by their fathers’ tribe; for the Lord had spoken to Moses, saying: “Only the tribe of Levi you shall not number, nor take a census of them among the children of Israel.” (Numbers 1:45-49) Therefore, the actual number of people crossing the Red Sea in the Exodus from Egypt was several times larger than the round figure of 600,000 by the time women, children, the old, the infirm and the Levites are