# commentaries

text:
Why does Paul quote these words of Eliphaz if Eliphaz was rebuked by God in <a href='B:220 42:7'>Job 42:7</a> for what he said?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Eliphaz was one of the friends of Job who came to comfort him in his affliction. In <a href='B:220 5:13'>Job 5:13</a>, Eliphaz makes the following observation which Paul quotes in <a href='B:530 3:19'>1Cor 3:19</a> : “He [God] catches the wise in their own craftiness.” However, in <a href='B:220 42:7'>Job 42:7</a>, God rebukes Eliphaz and his friends because “you have not spoken of Me what is right, as My servant Job has.” How could Paul quote Eliphaz since God rebuked him for not saying the right things?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Although God rebuked Eliphaz for his overall view of God, this does not mean that every statement Eliphaz made was incorrect. There were manyparticular things which Job said that were not right; however, Job’s view of God was right in general. At times, even Job recognized that some things that Eliphaz and his friends said were true. Their problem was that they misdirected the truth they knew and improperly applied it to what God was doing in Job’s life. 


text:
Does this verse contradict the Bible’s teaching about resurrection?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The Scriptures teach that all people will be raised bodily from the tomb (cf. <a href='B:340 12:2'>Dan 12:2</a>; <a href='B:530 15:22'>1Cor 15:22</a>; <a href='B:730 20:4-6'>Rev 20:4-6</a>). Indeed, Jesus said that one day “all who are in the graves will hear His voice and come forth” (<a href='B:500 5:28-29'>John 5:28-29</a>). However, Job seems to say just the opposite, when he wrote: “he who goes down to the grave does not come up” (cf. also <a href='B:220 14:12'>Job 14:12</a>; <a href='B:290 26:14'>Isa 26:14</a>; <a href='B:370 8:14'>Amos 8:14</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> As the first set of passages clearly reveals, there will be a resurrection of all the dead, both the just and the unjust (<a href='B:510 24:15'>Acts 24:15</a>; cf. <a href='B:500 5:28-29'>John 5:28-29</a>). Job himself expressed belief in the resurrection, declaring, “After my skin is destroyed, this I know, that in my flesh I shall see God” (<a href='B:220 19:26'>Job 19:26</a>). What he meant when he spoke of someone going down to the grave and not coming up (7:9) is explained in the very next verse. “He shall never return to his house ” (v. 10). In other words, those who die do not return to their mortal lives again. Indeed, the resurrection is to an immortal life (<a href='B:530 15:53'>1Cor 15:53</a>), not to the same mortal life one had before.<p/><a href='B:220 14:12'>Job 14:12</a> does not deny there will be any resurrection, but simply that there will be none until “the heavens are no more,” that is until the end of the age. But, that is precisely when the resurrection will take place, namely “at the time of the end” (<a href='B:340 11:40'>Dan 11:40</a>; cf. 12:1–2; <a href='B:500 11:24'>John 11:24</a>). In fact, the passage actually teaches resurrection. For Job simply spoke of being hidden in the grave by God until an appointed time when God would again remember him (14:13) in the resurrection.<p/>Likewise, the Isaiah passage (<a href='B:290 26:14'>Isa 26:14</a>) does not deny the resurrection. Here too the resurrection is affirmed in the succeeding verse which states clearly, “Your dead shall live; together with my dead body they shall arise” (v. 19). Obviously, then verse 14 means “they will not live” until the resurrection. The memory of the wicked will perish from the earthly scene. Not until the heavenly scene dawns will they be raised again.<p/>Also, some texts which may appear to deny the resurrection (e.g., <a href='B:370 8:14'>Amos 8:14</a>) simply refer to the enemies of God falling, never to rise to oppose Him. They will never resume their former sway over God’s people. In short, God overthrew them irretrievably. 


text:
Can God be known by humans?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Job seems to imply that God cannot be known by human reason. Paul also declared that God’s judgments are “unsearchable … and His ways past finding out” (<a href='B:520 11:33'>Rom 11:33</a>). On the other hand, the Bible declares that God has revealed Himself to all people (<a href='B:520 1:20'>Rom 1:20</a>) so that they “are without excuse” (v. 20). Indeed, the Bible is said to be a special revelation of God by which we can know Him and serve Him (<a href='B:620 3:16-17'>2Tim 3:16-17</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> God cannot be known directly in this life, nor can He be known completely. For “now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known” (<a href='B:530 13:12'>1Cor 13:12</a>). God can be known “by the things that are made” (<a href='B:520 1:19'>Rom 1:19</a>), but He cannot be known in Himself. The following contrast summarizes the ways God can and cannot be known:<p/>HOW GOD CANNOT BE KNOWN HOW GOD CAN BE KNOWN Indirectly<p/>Completely Partially<p/>As Spirit As Incarnate in Christ<p/>While “no one has seen God at any time [in His essence]” (<a href='B:500 1:18'>John 1:18</a>), nonetheless, His only begotten Son has revealed Him. Thus, Jesus could say, “He who has seen Me has seen the Father” (<a href='B:500 14:9'>John 14:9</a>). 


text:
Does this contradict the Bible’s teaching on the resurrection?<p/>(See comments on <a href='B:220 7:9'>Job 7:9</a>) 


text:
How could Job have children here when they were all killed earlier?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> In <a href='B:220 1:2'>Job 1:2</a>; <a href='B:220 1:18'>18–19</a> (cf. 8:4) all of Job’s children were killed in a great windstorm. Yet here he speaks of his breath being “repulsive to the children of my own body.”<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The term “children” can mean “grandchildren” or even his “blood relatives.” With seven sons and three daughters, including their own families (cf. 1:2, 18), Job undoubtedly had many grandchildren. Job lived 140 more years after his sickness (<a href='B:220 42:16'>Job 42:16</a>). So, in his long life, he had many years to have many grandchildren and great grandchildren. 


text:
Does this verse indicate that the resurrection body will be a body of flesh?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Satan had afflicted Job’s body, and his flesh was rotting away. However, Job expressed his faith in God by saying, “in my flesh I shall see God” (<a href='B:220 19:26'>Job 19:26</a>). Does this mean that the resurrection body will be a body of flesh?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Yes. Although the preposition “from” (min) may be translated “without,” it is a characteristic of this preposition that when it is used with the verb “to see,” it has the meaning “from the vantage point of.” This idea is strengthened by the use of contrasting parallelism employed in this verse. Hebrew poetry often employs two parallel lines of poetic expression which sometimes express contrasting words or ideas (called antithetic parallelism). Here the loosing of Job’s flesh is contrasted by his trust in God to restore the body that is decaying before his eyes, and that in his very flesh, he would see God. This is a most sublime expression of Job’s faith in a literal, physical resurrection (see also <a href='B:340 12:2'>Dan 12:2</a>; <a href='B:490 24:39'>Luke 24:39</a>; <a href='B:500 5:28-29'>John 5:28-29</a>; <a href='B:510 2:31-32'>Acts 2:31-32</a>). 


text:
Does the Bible err in speaking of a solid dome above the earth?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Job speaks of God who “spread out the skies” like “a cast metal mirror” (37:18). Indeed, the Hebrew word for the “firmament” (raqia) which God created (cf. <a href='B:10 1:6'>Gen 1:6</a>) is defined in the Hebrew lexicon as a solid object. But this is in clear conflict with the modern scientific understanding of space as non-solid and largely empty.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> It is true that the origin of the Hebrew word raqia meant a solid object. However, meaning is not determined by origin (etymology), but by usage. Originally, the English word “board” referred to a wooden plank. But when we speak of a church board member, the word no longer has that meaning. When used of the atmosphere above the earth, “firmament” clearly does not mean something solid. This is evident for several reasons. First, the related word raqa (beat out, spread out) is correctly rendered “expanse” by many recent translations. Just as metal spreads out when beaten (cf. <a href='B:20 39:3'>Ex 39:3</a>; <a href='B:290 40:19'>Isa 40:19</a>), so the firmament is a thinned out area.<p/>Second, the root meaning “spread out” can be used independently of “beat out,” as it is in several passages (cf. <a href='B:230 136:6'>Ps 136:6</a>; <a href='B:290 42:5'>Isa 42:5</a>; <a href='B:290 44:24'>44:24</a>). Isaiah wrote, “So says Jehovah God, He who created the heavens and stretched them out, spreading out the earth and its offspring (<a href='B:290 42:5'>Isa 42:5</a>, MKJV). This same verb is used of extending curtains or tents in which to dwell, which would make no sense if there was no empty space there in which to live. Isaiah, for example, spoke of the Lord “who sits on the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in …” (<a href='B:290 40:22'>Isa 40:22</a>, MKJV).<p/>Third, the Bible speaks of rain falling through the sky (<a href='B:220 36:27-28'>Job 36:27-28</a>). But this makes no sense if the sky is a metal dome. Nowhere does the Bible refer to little holes in a metal dome through which the drops fall. It does speak figuratively of the “windows of heaven” opening for the Flood (<a href='B:10 7:11'>Gen 7:11</a>). But this should probably not be taken any more literally than our idiom, “It is raining cats and dogs.”<p/>Fourth, the Genesis creation account speaks of birds that “fly above the earth across the face of the firmament” (<a href='B:10 1:20'>Gen 1:20</a>). But this would be impossible if the sky was solid. Thus, it is more appropriate to translate raqia by the word “expanse” (as the NASB and NIV do). And in this sense there is no conflict with the concept of space in modern science.<p/>Fifth, even taken literally, Job’s statement (37:18) does not affirm that the “skies” are a “metal mirror,” but simply that they are “ as [like]” a mirror. In other words, it is a comparison that need not be taken literally, any more than God is really a “strong tower” (cf. <a href='B:240 18:10'>Prov 18:10</a>). Further, the point of comparison in Job is not the solidity of the “skies” and a mirror, but their durability (cf. word “strong” [chazaq]; v. 18). So when all is considered, there is no evidence that the Bible affirms that the firmament of the sky is a metallic dome. And thus there is no conflict with modern science. 


text:
Does this passage make reference to the mythological figure Leviathan?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> <a href='B:220 41:1'>Job 41:1</a> makes reference to the mythological figure Leviathan. But, how can the Bible talk about Leviathan as if it were a real sea monster?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Although this is basically the same name used in the Ugaritic documents about a mythological sea monster, it is not at all clear that <a href='B:220 41:1'>Job 41:1</a> is a reference to this monster. Some commentators have proposed that this is a reference to a large crocodile, and that the name “Leviathan” is used to heighten the emphasis on its uncontrolability. 


text:
Should Christians meditate, or is this a Buddhist practice?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> David declared here that the righteous person “meditates day and night.” However, meditation is associated with Eastern religions, such as Buddhism and Hinduism, which are contrary to Christianity. Should Christians engage in meditation?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There is a significant difference between Christian meditation and mystical meditation found in many eastern religions, popularly known in western forms as “New Age” religions. The differences are brought out in this contrast:<p/>CHRISTIAN EASTERN RELIGIONS<p/>Object Something (God) Nothing (void) 


text:
How could David have written this Psalm when critics insist that most Psalms were not completed until much later?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The inscription on this psalm, as on many others, says, “A Psalm of David.” However, biblical critics argue that the form and style of the psalm reflects a much later period than David’s time.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Most scholars do not believe these inscriptions are part of the inspired text, but were added later. However, there is strong evidence that David did write this psalm, as well as some 70 others attributed to him. Consider the following.<p/>Second, David, being a true poet (cf. <a href='B:100 1:17-27'>2Sam 1:17-27</a>) was certainly capable of writing these psalms.<p/>Third, there is evidence that David possessed the rich imagination needed to write Hebrew poetry (cf. <a href='B:100 1:19-27'>2Sam 1:19-27</a>).<p/>Fourth, David was also a good musician (cf. <a href='B:90 16:18-23'>1Sam 16:18-23</a>) which would greatly aid him in composing these psalms that comprised the ancient hymnal of Judaism.<p/>Fifth, David probably composed the music used in Solomon’s temple (<a href='B:130 6:31-32'>1Chron 6:31-32</a>) in which these psalms were later sung.<p/>Sixth, the Bible declares that David was endued with the Spirit of God (<a href='B:90 16:13'>1Sam 16:13</a>), thus enabling him to write such inspired poems.<p/>Seventh, David was deeply spiritual in both character and heart (cf. <a href='B:100 7'>2Sam 7</a>), something obviously true of the author of the psalms attributed to him.<p/>Ninth, David swore on his death bed that God spoke through his mouth as the “sweet psalmist” of Israel (<a href='B:100 23:1'>2Sam 23:1</a>).<p/><a href='B:230 2'>Psalm 2</a> is cited in <a href='B:510 4:25-26'>Acts 4:25-26</a> as by David<p/><a href='B:230 32'>Psalm 32</a> is cited in <a href='B:520 4:7-8'>Rom 4:7-8</a> as by David<p/><a href='B:230 95'>Psalm 95</a> is cited in <a href='B:650 4:7'>Heb 4:7</a> as by David<p/><a href='B:230 110'>Psalm 110</a> is cited in <a href='B:470 22:44'>Mat 22:44</a> as by David. 


text:
How can this verse say God hates the wicked when <a href='B:500 3:16'>John 3:16</a> says that God loves the world?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> <a href='B:230 5:5'>Psalm 5:5</a> states, “You [God] hate all workers of iniquity.” However, <a href='B:500 3:16'>John 3:16</a> says God loves the world. Don’t these verses contradict each other?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There is no contradiction in these statements. The difficulty arises when we wrongly assume that God hates in the same way men hate. Hatred in human beings is generally thought of in terms of strong emotional distaste or dislike for someone or something. However, in God, hate is a judicial act on the part of the righteous Judge who separates the sinner from Himself. This is not contradictory to God’s love, for in His love for sinners, God has made it possible for sin to be forgiven so that all can be reconciled to God. Ultimately, the sinner will reap the harvest of God’s hatred in eternal separation from God, or the harvest of God’s love by being with Him for all eternity. But, God is “not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance” (<a href='B:680 3:9'>2Peter 3:9</a>). God’s justice demands that sin be punished. God’s love carried that punishment for every man in the person of His Son (<a href='B:540 5:21'>2Cor 5:21</a>). 


text:
Is God approachable or unapproachable?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Throughout the Bible God is depicted as eminently approachable, for “God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble” (<a href='B:230 46:1'>Ps 46:1</a>; cf. 73:28; <a href='B:660 4:8'>Jam 4:8</a>). On the other hand, in this psalm God is portrayed as inaccessible. For example, “Why do You stand afar off, O Lord? Why do You hide Yourself in times of trouble?” (<a href='B:230 10:1'>Psa 10:1</a>; cf. <a href='B:290 14:15'>Isa 14:15</a>; <a href='B:330 20:3'>Ezek 20:3</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The psalmist is speaking figuratively here. Just as “drawing near” to God (<a href='B:660 4:8'>Jam 4:8</a>) is figurative, not literal, likewise, neither does God literally “hide” from us. It may seem to us as though He does simply because He does not respond as fast as we would like or in the way we would like. Nonetheless, the Scriptures assure us that God is both listening and acting in our best interest (cf. <a href='B:650 4:14-16'>Heb 4:14-16</a>; <a href='B:650 12:11'>12:11</a>). There is no text of Scripture that says God does not respond to the earnest and penitent prayers of believers (see comments on <a href='B:500 9:31'>John 9:31</a>). 


text:
How can this verse say God hates some people when <a href='B:500 3:16'>John 3:16</a> says God loves everyone?<p/>(See discussion under <a href='B:230 5:5'>Ps 5:5</a>) 


text:
Is the earth founded upon the seas or on nothing?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The psalmist declares that the earth was “founded upon the seas.” But Job said, “He hangs the earth on nothing” (<a href='B:220 26:7'>Job 26:7</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The first text speaks about the obvious fact that the earth is situated above the seas so that they cannot overflow and destroy it. The verse in Job may refer to the scientific fact that the earth is suspended in space, something that could have been inferred from observation of other heavenly bodies visible to the eye, and inferences made from eclipses. Indeed, Aristotle (4th century B.C.) concluded that the earth was round in a similar way. 


text:
Why does the subtitle to <a href='B:230 30'>Psalm 30</a> make reference to the dedication of the house of David when the psalm says nothing about it?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The subtitle to <a href='B:230 30'>Psalm 30</a> is “A Song at the dedication of the house of David.” However, the psalm itself makes no reference to the house of David, and the content is concerned with a personal experience of God’s grace in time of trouble. Is this subtitle an error?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The titles and subtitles that appear in our Bibles were not part of the original inspired psalms. These were added at a later time in much the same way that study Bibles today provide titles and subtitles over various sections of a given book. In many cases they provide valuable information about the psalms with which they are connected.<p/>However, some scholars believe that some of these sentences that have been understood to be titles of one psalm have come to be seen as postscripts of the previous psalm. This may be the case with the subtitle over Psalm<p/>30. Some think that <a href='B:230 29'>Psalm 29</a> is much better suited as a psalm of dedication, and perhaps what has been taken to be the subtitle of <a href='B:230 30'>Psalm 30</a> is actually the postscript of Psalm<p/>29. 


text:
Why does the subtitle of this Psalm have the name Abimelech when the name should be Achish?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The subtitle of <a href='B:230 34'>Psalm 34</a> states, “A Psalm of David when he pretended madness before Abimelech, who drove him away, and he departed.” However, David’s act of madness, recorded in <a href='B:90 21:13'>1Sam 21:13</a>, took place before Achish, not Abimelech. Is this an error?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> It must be remembered that the titles and subtitles of the various psalms were not part of the original, inspired psalms. Therefore, it is possible that those who added these titles made an error in this instance.<p/>Others have proposed that perhaps Abimelech was another name for Achish. It was not an uncommon practice in ancient times to have two names. Gideon was also named Jerubbaal (<a href='B:70 6:32'>Judge 6:32</a>; <a href='B:70 7:1'>7:1</a>), and Solomon also went by the name Jedidiah (<a href='B:100 12:25'>2Sam 12:25</a>). It is possible that the name Abimelech was a recurring name in a certain dynasty of the Philistines. 


text:
<b>PSALM 37:9; <a href='B:230 37:34'>34</a> —</b> When the wicked are cut off, are they annihilated?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The psalmist affirms that “evildoers shall be cut off.” Elsewhere (<a href='B:230 73:27'>Ps 73:27</a>; <a href='B:240 21:28'>Prov 21:28</a>), it says they will perish (see comments on <a href='B:600 1:9'>2Thes 1:9</a>). But, does being cut off forever mean they will be annihilated?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Being “cut off” does not mean to be annihilated. If it did, then the Messiah would have been annihilated when He died, since the same word (karath) is used of the death of the Messiah (in <a href='B:340 9:26'>Dan 9:26</a>). But, we know that Christ was not annihilated, but lives on forever after His death (cf. <a href='B:730 1:18'>Rev 1:18</a>; also see comments on <a href='B:600 1:9'>2Thes 1:9</a>). 


text:
Do the righteous ever beg bread?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> David declares here, “I have not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his descendants begging bread.” But this is obviously not always true. Many of the starving thousands in the world today are Christians. Even the Bible spoke of “a certain beggar named Lazarus” who was in heaven (<a href='B:490 16:20'>Luke 16:20</a>). David’s statement seems to be clearly false.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Several things should be kept in mind about David’s statement. First of all, strictly speaking it is not a universal claim— it is simply a statement about his own personal experience. He begins it by saying, “I have been young, and now am old;yet I have not seen ” (v. 25).<p/>Third, the context of his statement was the OT Jewish economy wherein no one needed to starve because the Law provided that they could glean in the fields (cf. <a href='B:30 19:10'>Lev 19:10</a>; <a href='B:50 24:21'>Deut 24:21</a>). In this system, there was generally no need to “beg bread”—it could be gleaned freely from the fields. 


text:
<b><a href='B:230 37:9'>PSALM 37:9</a>; 34 —</b> When the wicked are cut off, are they annihilated?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The psalmist affirms that “evildoers shall be cut off.” Elsewhere (<a href='B:230 73:27'>Ps 73:27</a>; <a href='B:240 21:28'>Prov 21:28</a>), it says they will perish (see comments on <a href='B:600 1:9'>2Thes 1:9</a>). But, does being cut off forever mean they will be annihilated?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Being “cut off” does not mean to be annihilated. If it did, then the Messiah would have been annihilated when He died, since the same word (karath) is used of the death of the Messiah (in <a href='B:340 9:26'>Dan 9:26</a>). But, we know that Christ was not annihilated, but lives on forever after His death (cf. <a href='B:730 1:18'>Rev 1:18</a>; also see comments on <a href='B:600 1:9'>2Thes 1:9</a>). 


text:
Does God sleep?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to <a href='B:230 121:4'>Psalm 121:4</a>, God shall “neither slumber nor sleep.” Yet, in this verse the psalmist calls on God, “Awake! Why do You sleep, O Lord?”<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The psalmist uses “sleep” as a figure of speech referring to the fact that God had deferred judgment, showing at that moment no signs of activity (cf. <a href='B:230 44:9-10'>Ps 44:9-10</a>). 


text:
Is this a prediction of Mohammed?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Since this verse speaks of one coming with the “sword” to subdue his enemies, Muslims sometimes cite it as a prediction of their prophet Mohammed, who was known as “the prophet of the sword.” They insist it could not refer to Jesus, since He never came with a sword (<a href='B:470 26:52'>Matt 26:52</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> This contention, however, fails for several reasons. First, the very next verse (v. 6) identifies the person spoken of as “God” whom Jesus claimed to be (<a href='B:500 8:58'>John 8:58</a>; <a href='B:500 10:30'>10:30</a>). But Mohammed denied he was God, saying he was only a human prophet. Second, the NT affirms that this passage refers to Christ (<a href='B:650 1:8'>Heb 1:8</a>). Third, although Jesus did not come the first time with a sword, He will at His second coming (cf. <a href='B:730 19:11-16'>Rev 19:11-16</a>). 


text:
Was man brought forth in iniquity or made upright?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> David said he was “brought forth in iniquity,” but Solomon taught that “God made man upright” (<a href='B:250 7:29'>Ecc 7:29</a>). Which is true?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Both are correct, but each is speaking about something different. Solomon is referring to man’s original creation before he “sought out many schemes” (<a href='B:250 7:29'>Ecc 7:29</a>). David is alluding to how humans have been “brought forth” from actual “conception”in their mother’s womb since the Fall.<p/><b><a href='B:230 51:5'>PSALM 51:5</a> —</b> Does this verse support the position that an unborn fetus is only a potential human being?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> David claimed that he was “conceived” in sin in his mother’s womb. However, he could not have actually sinned at the moment of conception, since he had no moral consciousness or free will which are necessary for moral acts (see <a href='B:290 7:15'>Isa 7:15</a>; <a href='B:500 9:41'>John 9:41</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> This text does not support the view that a human embryo is merely a potential human being, as opposed to an actual human being. This is evident for several reasons. First, even if it were teaching that humans are potential sinners from conception, it does not follow that they are potential humans.<p/>Second, in whatever sense the unborn are declared sinners from the point of conception, it reveals, nevertheless, that they are human, that is, they are part of the fallen human race. For it is only by virtue of being part of the Adamic human race that we are conceived in sin (see comments on <a href='B:520 5:12'>Rom 5:12</a>). 


text:
Did David disavow the sacrificial system of Moses?<p/>(See comments on <a href='B:350 6:6'>Hosea 6:6</a>) 


text:
Doesn’t this verse contradict itself?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The psalmist said, “they are in great fear where no fear was.” But how could they be in fear if there was no fear there?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The Bible critic here manifests two serious flaws—utter presumption that the biblical writer was so stupid as to contradict himself in the same sentence, and complete ignorance of the fact that the same word is often used in different senses, even in the same sentence. For example, “You knowperfectly well that you do not know anythingperfectly. ” (See also comments on <a href='B:240 26:4-5'>Prov 26:4-5</a> and <a href='B:570 3:15'>Phil 3:15</a>) The meaning in this psalm is captured by the NIV : “There they were, overwhelmed with dread, where there was nothing to dread.” 


text:
How can an innocent child be wicked from the womb?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Over and over the Bible speaks of the innocence and guiltlessness of little children (cf. <a href='B:50 1:39'>Deut 1:39</a>) who do not “know to refuse evil and choose the good” (<a href='B:290 7:15'>Isa 7:15</a>), and who are part of the kingdom of God (<a href='B:470 18:3-4'>Matt 18:3-4</a>; cf. <a href='B:520 9:11'>Rom 9:11</a>). Yet, in this verse David insists that “the wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies.” But, if a baby is morally guiltless, then how can he or she speak lies?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> It is clear that this cannot refer to actual sins, but onlypotential ones, since the baby has not yet developed its moral consciousness and responsibility. The Scriptures clearly speak of “children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil” (<a href='B:520 9:11'>Rom 9:11</a>). The sense in which a person is “sinful at birth” (<a href='B:230 51:5'>Ps 51:5</a>,NIV) is by way of inclination, not by way of moral action. All persons are “by nature children of wrath” (<a href='B:560 2:3'>Eph 2:3</a>) because they are born with a tendency to sin, but they are not born in sin in reality. The condemnation over the head of everyone who comes into Adam’s race is judicial guilt, not personal guilt. We stand condemned before God because “all sinned” in Adam our representative (<a href='B:520 5:12'>Rom 5:12</a>). This situation can be summarized as follows. 


text:
Does Paul inaccurately quote <a href='B:230 68:18'>Psalm 68:18</a>?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Paul quotes <a href='B:230 68:18'>Psalm 68:18</a> saying, “When He ascended on high, He led captivity captive, andgave gifts to men” (<a href='B:560 4:8'>Eph 4:8</a>). Yet the OT Psalm reads, “You have ascended on high, you have led captivity captive; you have received gifts among men.” Is there a discrepancy here between these two texts?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Some say that Paul did not quote from the Septuagint, but from the Aramaic Targum which is used by orthodox Jews to interpret the text. The Septuagint translates the Hebrew as “You have taken,” while the Targum translates the Hebrew “You have given.”<p/>In any event, the idea given by these two translations of the Hebrew is that God received or took gifts so that they could then be distributed to men. Since both ideas are in the text, both renderings are correct. Thus, Paul says, “He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers” (<a href='B:560 4:11'>Eph 4:11</a>). In other words, Paul quotes this OT passage to show that Christ was victorious over our spiritual enemies, taking from them the spoils of battle and passing on the gifts to believers who in the exercise of these gifts can be victorious over the enemy. Therefore, there are no discrepancies to be found in Paul’s use of this Psalm, since this is precisely what David did when he robbed his enemy of their gifts and gave them to his men. 


text:
How can this verse talk about God awakening when <a href='B:230 121:3'>Psalm 121:3</a> states that God never sleeps?<p/>(See comments on <a href='B:230 44:23'>Ps 44:23</a>) 


text:
Doesn’t this verse imply there are many gods?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The psalmist commands, “Worship Him, all you gods.” Yet the Bible elsewhere insists there is only one God (<a href='B:50 6:4'>Deut 6:4</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> First of all, there is no other God, but there are many gods. There is only one true God, but there are manyfalse gods. Indeed, Paul declares that there are demons behind false gods (<a href='B:530 10:20'>1Cor 10:20</a>). And one day even the demons will bow before the true and living God and confess that He is Lord (<a href='B:570 2:10'>Phil 2:10</a>).<p/>Furthermore, good angels are sometimes called “gods” (elohim) in the Bible (<a href='B:230 8:5'>Ps 8:5</a>; cf. <a href='B:650 2:7'>Heb 2:7</a>). This verse (<a href='B:230 97:7'>Ps 97:7</a>) could be a command for the angels to worship God, as they are so commanded in <a href='B:230 148:2'>Psalm 148:2</a> : “Praise Him, all His angels.” 


text:
Will the earth abide forever or will it be destroyed?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> This verse, and several others (cf. <a href='B:230 78:69'>Ps 78:69</a>; <a href='B:250 1:4'>Ecc 1:4</a>), speak of the earth being “established forever.” By contrast, the Bible also teaches that the heavens and the earth “will perish” (<a href='B:230 102:26'>Ps 102:26</a>) or “pass away” (<a href='B:490 21:33'>Luke 21:33</a>), being “burned up” (<a href='B:680 3:10'>2Peter 3:10</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> First, the Hebrew word for “forever” (olam) often simply means a long period or an indefinite time. Hence, one need not take the verses that speak of the earth lasting “forever” as literally meaning without any end. Further, even taken literally an important distinction must be made. While the earth will not abide forever in its present form, its constituent elements will remain, and it will be reformed into a “new heaven and a new earth” (<a href='B:730 21:1'>Rev 21:1</a>) which will never pass away. In this sense, both are true—the basic elements of the universe God created will last forever, but not in their present shape which has been infected by sin and decay (<a href='B:520 8:18'>Rom 8:18</a>ff). God will one day destroy the universe in its present form and reconstruct it into a perfect world, “a new heaven and a new earth” (<a href='B:730 21:1'>Rev 21:1</a>) which contains no disease, death, or decay (cf. Rev. 21–22). 


text:
<b>ff—</b> How can the God of love in the NT be reconciled with the vengeful God of these cursing Psalms?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> This psalm, like many others in the OT (e.g., <a href='B:230 35'>Pss 35</a>; <a href='B:230 69'>69</a>), pronounces curses on one’s enemies. Thus they are called imprecatory (cursing) psalms. David says, “Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow” (109:9). By contrast, Jesus said, “Love your enemies … and pray for those who … persecute you” (<a href='B:470 5:44'>Matt 5:44</a>). How can the God of vengeance of the OT be the same as the God of love of the NT (<a href='B:690 4:16'>1John 4:16</a>)?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Several important factors must be kept in mind in understanding these imprecatory or so-called cursing psalms.<p/>First, the judgment called for is based on divine justice and not on human grudges. David said clearly of his enemies in this psalm, “they have rewarded me evil for good, and hatred for my love” (v. 5). While David did pray this imprecation (curse) on his enemies, he nonetheless loved them and committed them to the justice of God for a due reward for their wicked deeds. David’s action in sparing Saul’s life is vivid proof that revenge was not a motivation behind this psalm. In spite of the fact that Saul stalked David’s life, David forgave Saul and even spared his life (cf. <a href='B:90 24'>1Sam 24</a>; <a href='B:90 26'>26</a>).<p/>Third, since the Hebrew culture made no sharp distinction between the sinner and his sin, the judgment is expressed in personal terms rather than abstractly. Furthermore, since the Hebrew family was a solidarity, the whole family was saved (cf. Noah, Gen. 7–8) or judged together (cf. Achan, <a href='B:60 7:24'>Josh 7:24</a>).<p/>Fourth, the phenomenon of imprecation is not unique to the OT. Jesus urged His disciples to curse cities that did not receive the Gospel (<a href='B:470 10:14'>Matt 10:14</a>). Jesus Himself called down judgment on Bethsaida and Capernaum in <a href='B:470 11:21-24'>Mat 11:21-24</a>. Paul declared anathema any who did not love the Lord Jesus (<a href='B:530 16:22'>1Cor 16:22</a>). Even the saints in heaven cried out to God for vengeance on those who martyred believers (<a href='B:730 6:9-10'>Rev 6:9-10</a>).<p/>Even in these OT imprecations one can see an anticipation of Christ. God has committed all judgment to the Son (<a href='B:500 5:22'>John 5:22</a>). So those who long for justice are not only aspiring to His righteous kingdom, but can wait patiently for Him who comes quickly to execute it justly (<a href='B:730 22:12'>Rev 22:12</a>). 


text:
Can the dead praise God or are they unconscious?<p/>(See comments on <a href='B:250 9:5'>Ecc 9:5</a> and <a href='B:120 14:29'>2Ki 14:29</a>) 


text:
Is it true that David never erred from God’s precepts or did he go astray from them?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> David appears to contradict himself in the same psalm. First he says to God, “I have not strayed from Your precepts” (v. 110). But later he admitted, “I have gone astray like a lost sheep” (v. 176). However, it would seem that both cannot be true.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> David has two different things in mind. In the first case he is speaking in general, and in the latter he is speaking inparticular. In verse 110 David states that the general trend of his life has been faithfulness to God. But, in verse 176, David affirms what we must all acknowledge, namely, the universal truth that “all we like sheep have gone astray” (<a href='B:290 53:6'>Isa 53:6</a>). So understood, there is no real contradiction here. (See also comments on <a href='B:110 11:4'>1Ki 11:4</a>) 


text:
How could the Psalmist rejoice at the thought of little ones being dashed against rocks?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> When the psalmist considers the ultimate judgment that will be brought against Babylon, he appears to rejoice that babies will be injured. How could a man of God rejoice over such a tragic and cruel event?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The psalmist is not rejoicing over the dashing of babies. Rather, he is rejoicing over the retributive justice of God that would ultimately return the cruelty of the Babylonians upon them as a just punishment for their crimes. The Babylonians had treated the Hebrews and their children with just such acts of brutality. Ultimately, God would bring the Medes and Persians to inflict His judgment upon Babylon. In the hands of God, the armies of the Medes and Persians would balance the scales of justice, for the Babylonians would reap what they had sown (see comments on <a href='B:230 109:1'>Ps 109:1</a>ff). 


text:
Can it be inferred from this verse that the Bible considers abortion to be murder?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to this passage, God looks upon the unborn as a human being. However, if the unborn is fully human, then abortion would be the willful killing of the innocent—murder. Does this passage indicate that God considers abortion to be murder?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Yes. Several other passages reinforce this position. First, the unborn are known intimately and called out by God. In <a href='B:300 1:5'>Jeremiah 1:5</a>, God says, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; before you were born I sanctified you; and I ordained you a prophet to the nations.”<p/>Second, the unborn are said to possess personal characteristics—sin, as in <a href='B:230 51:5'>Psalm 51:5</a>; or joy, as in <a href='B:490 1:44'>Luke 1:44</a>.<p/>Third, anyone who harms the unborn receives the same punishment for harm done to an adult. Elsewhere (see comments on <a href='B:20 21:22-23'>Ex 21:22-23</a>), equal punishment is given for harm done to a woman or to the child she carries. God looks upon the unborn as fully human. And the willful taking of an innocent human life is murder. 


text:
Who is referred to as “wisdom” in these verses?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Many commentators have claimed that the person identified as wisdom in <a href='B:240 8:22-31'>Prov 8:22-31</a> is Jesus, because <a href='B:530 1:30'>1Cor 1:30</a> states that Jesus is the wisdom of God. However, though the NKJV translates 8:22 as “The Lord possessed me,” the Hebrew uses the word qanah which is usually translated “to create.” If this passage is a reference to Jesus, then why does 8:22 affirm that the Lord created wisdom? If “wisdom” in Proverbs is not a reference to Jesus, then who is it?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> This passage is not a direct reference to any person. Poetic expression often takes an abstract idea and talks about it as if it were a person. This is called personification. The wisdom referred to here is not a reference to Jesus. Rather, it is a personification of the virtue or character of wisdom for the purpose of emphasis and impact. However, since Jesus is the perfect wisdom of God, He is the only one who perfectly personified and exemplified the wisdom spoken of in Proverbs—for “in Whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (<a href='B:580 2:3'>Col 2:3</a>). 


text:
Are the righteous rewarded in this life or in the next one?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Here Solomon speaks as though the godly person receives his reward in this life, claiming, “the righteous will be recompensed on the earth.” However, the Bible repeatedly speaks of the rewards of the believer as being yet future, after Christ returns (cf. <a href='B:530 3:12-15'>1Cor 3:12-15</a>). Jesus said, “Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work” (<a href='B:730 22:12'>Rev 22:12</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Rewards only begin in this life—they are not completed until the next life. They are onlypartially passed out on earth—they will befully given in heaven. The same is true of punishment for the wicked. The same retributive justice that governs this world will also rule the world to come. The wrath of God is already abiding on unbelievers (<a href='B:500 3:36'>John 3:36</a>), yet we are told to flee from the wrath to come (<a href='B:470 3:7'>Matt 3:7</a>). 


text:
Does God always spare the godly from grave trouble?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> In some places the Bible promises, “No grave trouble will overtake the righteous” (<a href='B:240 12:21'>Prov 12:21</a>; cf. <a href='B:670 3:13'>1Peter 3:13</a>). But, in other places, such as the fate of Job, it makes a point to show how the godly sometimes suffer great troubles.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Two factors help to explain this apparent contradiction. First, the promise in Proverbs is only general, not universal. For example, the promise that the enemies of the godly will be at peace with him (<a href='B:240 16:7'>Prov 16:7</a>) is surely not universal. Paul pleased God, and yet his enemies stoned him (<a href='B:510 14:19'>Acts 14:19</a>). Surely Jesus pleased God, and yet His enemies crucified Him!<p/>Second, the believer is not promised that no tribulation would befall him. In fact, he is warned that “in the world you will have tribulation” (<a href='B:500 16:33'>John 16:33</a>). On the contrary, God deliberately allowed Job to undergo grave trouble (<a href='B:220 1'>Job 1</a>), another man to be born blind for His glory (<a href='B:500 9:3'>John 9:3</a>), and the Apostle Paul to have an affliction (<a href='B:540 12:7-9'>2Cor 12:7-9</a>). What the believer is promised is that nopermanent or ultimate evil will befall him. No evil will beset us out of which God cannot bring some greater good (cf. <a href='B:10 50:20'>Gen 50:20</a>; <a href='B:520 8:28'>Rom 8:28</a>). 


text:
Are believers obligated to leave an inheritance to their children?<p/>(See comments on <a href='B:610 5:8'>1Tim 5:8</a>) 


text:
Does God make people to be doomed?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> On the one hand, the Bible speaks of human beings as having free choice (<a href='B:470 23:37'>Matt 23:37</a>; <a href='B:680 3:9'>2Pet 3:9</a>) and being responsible for their own destiny (cf. <a href='B:330 18:20'>Ezek 18:20</a>; <a href='B:500 3:36'>John 3:36</a>). On the other hand, Solomon declares here that “the Lord made … even the wicked for the day of doom.” Indeed, Paul speaks of some people being “vessels of wrath” (<a href='B:520 9:22'>Rom 9:22</a>). How can we justify God making people in order to destroy them?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> God does not create people in order to destroy them. God loves “the world” (<a href='B:500 3:16'>John 3:16</a>), and Christ died “for the whole world” (<a href='B:690 2:2'>1John 2:2</a>). Indeed, Christ’s blood “bought” even those who deny Him (<a href='B:680 2:1'>2Peter 2:1</a>). And God “is not willing that any should perish” (<a href='B:680 3:9'>2Peter 3:9</a>). There is a hell, but it was not prepared for human beings. Jesus said it was “prepared for the devil and his angels” (<a href='B:470 25:41'>Matt 25:41</a>).<p/>How then can we explain the fact that God made the wicked for the day of doom? The word “made” (asah) has broad usage in Hebrew. It can mean “appoint” or “institute” or even “administer.” God is in sovereign control of the entire universe. Even when humans intend something for evil, God can mean it for good (<a href='B:10 50:20'>Gen 50:20</a>). In this sense, “Surely the wrath of man shall praise You” (<a href='B:230 76:10'>Ps 76:10</a>). For “in all things God works for the good” (<a href='B:520 8:28'>Rom 8:28</a>, NIV). So even the “day of doom” is “for” God in the sense that He is in control of it and it will ultimately redound to His glory. For God’s love is magnified in heaven, and His justice is manifest in hell.<p/>Of course, it is not God’s directive will that anyone be judged, but in His sovereign will He has appointed (“made”) that even judgment on sin will magnify Him. Nonetheless, God “desires all men come to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (<a href='B:610 2:4'>1Tim 2:4</a>). Even the “vessels of wrath” were only “prepared for destruction” (<a href='B:520 9:22'>Rom 9:22</a>) because they refused to repent, since God patiently “endured [them] with much longsuffering,” waiting for them to repent (cf. <a href='B:680 3:9'>2Peter 3:9</a>). 


text:
How can this verse be true when experience teaches us that often children abandon the principles of their training?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to <a href='B:240 22:6'>Prov 22:6</a>, if a child is trained in the way to live, he or she will not depart from this training even when older. However, experience shows that this is not always true. Isn’t this proverb contradicted by experience?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> This proverb does not contradict experience because it is only a general principle that allows for individual exceptions. Proverbs are not designed to be absolute guarantees. Rather, they express truths that provide helpful advice and guidance for wise living by which individuals should conduct their daily lives. It is generally true that the diligent training of godly parents will influence children to follow that training in later years. However, circumstances and individual personalities and problems might work against the training a child has received. The proverb encourages parents to diligently fulfill their responsibilities, and to trust the future to the grace and sovereignty of God. 


text:
<b>PROVERBS 22–24 —</b> Wasn’t this section of Proverbs copied from the Egyptian work titled “The Wisdom of Amenemope?”<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> An Egyptian document containing a book titled “The Wisdom of Amenemope” was discovered in<p/>1888. Many of the sayings are similar to those found in Proverbs chapters 22–24. However, if these chapters in Proverbs are simply a copy of this Egyptian book, then at least this section was not written by Solomon, as it claims to be (cf. 1:1; 25:1).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> First, there is no reason why God could not guide Solomon to use other human sources in writing God’s Word. Other authors of Scripture did this (cf. <a href='B:420 1:1-4'>Luke 1:1-4</a>). However, it is not clear that Solomon used this Egyptian source. For, although there are sentences and contents that are quite similar, the fact is that the differences outweigh the similarities. The two books deal with the same general subject matter, and this fact alone can account for the similarities. Furthermore, closer examination by scholars has revealed that, if there was any borrowing, it was more likely that the Egyptian author borrowed from the Hebrew author. Ultimately, of course, God is the source of all truth, wherever it is found. Thus the proverbial wisdom found in these chapters of Proverbs is from the Holy Spirit whatever human source He employed. 


text:
Does this verse justify breaking the law to stop abortions?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Solomon urged here that we “Deliver those who are drawn toward death, and hold back those stumbling to the slaughter.” Does this justify illegal attempts to “rescue” babies by blocking pregnant women’s path into legal abortion clinics?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> This passage does not justify breaking the laws of God-ordained human government (cf. <a href='B:520 13:1'>Rom 13:1</a>; <a href='B:670 2:13'>1Pet 2:13</a>), even if we believe they are unjust laws. The only time believers are allowed to disobey the law is when it compels them to sin, not when itpermits someone else to sin (see comments on <a href='B:20 1:15-21'>Ex 1:15-21</a>). Otherwise, we would be obligated to block the doors to non-Christian churches or temples where they are sinning by worshiping false gods. We should disobey a law that compels us to worship idols (<a href='B:340 3'>Dan 3</a>), but we should not disobey one that permits others to do so.<p/>Furthermore, this text (<a href='B:240 24'>Prov 24</a>) does not support illegal attempted “rescues” for several reasons. First, the chapter does not support civil disobedience; it commands civil obedience. It says, “fear the Lord and the king” (v. 21), and fear implies obedience to His commands (cf. <a href='B:520 13:1'>Rom 13:1</a>; <a href='B:520 13:3'>3</a> and <a href='B:630 3:1'>Titus 3:1</a>). Second, those being led away to death (24:11) are victims of those breaking the law; they were not the lawbreakers. In other words, they were being carried away contrary to the law, whereas legal abortion is occurring in accordance with the law. 


text:
How can Solomon be the author of Proverbs when Hezekiah’s men copied them?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The Book of Proverbs claims to be written by Solomon (1:1; 10:1). Conservative Jewish and Christian scholars have long attributed this book to King Solomon. However, <a href='B:240 25:1'>Prov 25:1</a> speaks of King Hezekiah’s men “copying” these proverbs long after Solomon’s death. Further, the last two chapters claim to be written by Agur (30:1) and King Lemuel (31:1) and not by Solomon.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Since Solomon wrote some 3,000 proverbs (<a href='B:110 4:32'>1Ki 4:32</a>)—many more than are in this book—it is possible that the Book of Proverbs was not put together from Solomon’s many proverbs until after his death. If so, then God would have guided His servants who compiled it so that they selected the ones He wanted in His authoritative Word. 


text:
How can contradictory commands both be true?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Verse 4 says “Do not answer a fool according to his folly;” and verse 5 tells us to “Answer a fool according to his folly.” But this looks like a flat contradiction.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> This would be contradictory if it were not qualified by the accompanying phrases. We should answer a fool according to his folly if not doing so will leave him “wise in his own eyes” (v. 5). But, we should not answer him according to his folly if in so doing we will “also be like him.” In other words, it depends on the circumstances. Sometimes we should and sometimes we should not answer a fool. The wise man will know the difference. And if one lacks wisdom, let him ask of God (<a href='B:660 1:5'>Jam 1:5</a>). 


text:
Is foolishness correctable?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> <a href='B:240 22:15'>Prov 22:15</a> teaches that “Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child, But the rod of correction will drive it far from him.” But, according to this verse, foolishness is irremediable, because, “Though you grind a fool in a mortar with a pestle along with crushed grain, yet his foolishness will not depart from him.”<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There are two significant differences in these passages. First, one is speaking of a child, who is still teachable. The other is referring to an adult who is beyond hope. Second, the correctable foolishness is only waywardness, whereas the incorrigible foolishness is beyond hope. 


text:
Is it right to cover sins or not?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> God warns here that “He who covers his sins will not prosper.” However, elsewhere God commends those who have had their sins covered, saying, “Blessed is he … whose transgression is covered” (<a href='B:230 32:1'>Ps 32:1</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> In response, several crucial differences should be observed. First, anyone who attempts to cover his own sin is condemned, but the one who confesses his sins and has God cover his sins for him is blessed. Second, in the first case, it is an unjustified concealment of sin that God is condemning. In the other passage it is a God-appointed means of remission or atonement. Third, one passage is condemning anyone who attempts to cover up his sin. The other is commending those who have God cover their sins by blood atonement. 


text:
If the fear of man is on all beasts, why do lions not fear humans?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> God told Noah that “the fear of you and the dread of you shall be on every beast of the earth” (<a href='B:10 9:2'>Gen 9:2</a>). However, this is not the case, for even <a href='B:240 30:30'>Prov 30:30</a> admits that the lion “does not turn away from any.”<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Several things help us to understand this problem. First, “the turn away” may refer to other beasts, not to humans. Second, unless they are desperately hungry or defending their young or turf, beasts do try to steer clear of human beings. Third, whatever exceptions there may be only serve to establish the rule that the presence of human beings tends to intimidate lower forms of life. 


text:
Does this verse encourage drinking strong alcoholic beverages?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> On the one hand the Bible speaks against strong drink, claiming it is a “mocker” and arouses “brawling” (<a href='B:240 20:1'>Prov 20:1</a>). On the other hand, Solomon declares here that we should “give strong drink to him who is perishing, and wine to those who are bitter of heart.” Doesn’t this encourage drinking strong alcoholic beverages?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The Bible strongly condemns the social abuse of strong drink (see comments on <a href='B:610 5:23'>1Tim 5:23</a>), but not its medicinal use. This is clearly a medicinal use here, since it was to be given to those who are dying (“perishing”) or in deep pain or shock (“bitter distress” or “misery,” v. 7). Used in this way and for this purpose is not forbidden in Scripture. Indeed, alcohol properly administered has healing power both on the inside of the body (<a href='B:610 5:23'>1Tim 5:23</a>) and on the outside (<a href='B:490 10:34'>Luke 10:34</a>). But to abuse strong drink or engage in drunkenness is forbidden in Scripture (cf. <a href='B:530 5:11'>1Cor 5:11</a>; <a href='B:610 3:8'>1Tim 3:8</a>). 


text:
If this book is inspired, why isn’t it quoted in the NT?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The NT writers quote the vast majority of the OT from Genesis to Malachi. There are literally hundreds of citations from every major section of the OT. Yet, the Book of Ecclesiastes is not quoted once. If it was inspired, then why isn’t it cited at least one time?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There are several OT books that are not directly quoted in the NT, including Ruth, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Esther, Song of Solomon, and Ecclesiastes. However, all these books were considered inspired by both Judaism and Christianity. Several points should be kept in mind.<p/>What we sow we reap <a href='B:250 11:1'>Ecc 11:1</a>, cf. <a href='B:550 6:7'>Gal 6:7</a><p/>Avoid lust of youth <a href='B:250 11:10'>Ecc 11:10</a>, cf. <a href='B:620 2:22'>2Tim 2:22</a><p/>Death is divinely appointed <a href='B:250 3:2'>Ecc 3:2</a>, cf. <a href='B:650 9:2'>Heb 9:2</a><p/>Love of money is evil <a href='B:250 5:10'>Ecc 5:10</a>, cf. <a href='B:610 6:10'>1Tim 6:10</a><p/>Don’t be wordy in prayer <a href='B:250 5:2'>Ecc 5:2</a>, cf. <a href='B:470 6:7'>Matt 6:7</a><p/>Third, the NT writers had no occasion to quote from every book in the OT. Few Christians have quoted recently from 1 Kings, yet the NT did (<a href='B:520 11:4'>Rom 11:4</a>). Indeed, few believers ever cite 2 or 3 John, and yet they are part of the inspired Word of God. Whether, or even how often, a book is quoted does not determine whether it is inspired.<p/><b>OBADIAH —</b> If the Book of Obadiah is inspired Scripture, then why is it not quoted in the NT?<p/>(For a discussion of this question, see <a href='B:250 1:1'>Ecc 1:1</a>.)


text:
How can this book be part of the Scriptures since it contains such skepticism?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Several statements that Solomon makes throughout this book indicate a skepticism that seems contrary to the Bible as a whole. In <a href='B:250 9:5'>Ecclesiastes 9:5</a> Solomon says, “For the living know that they will die; but the dead know nothing. ” However, the Book of Ecclesiastes is included in the canon of Holy Scriptures as an inspired book. How can such a skeptical book be inspired Scripture?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Although Ecclesiastes does contain statements that, when taken in isolation, appear to be contrary to the teaching of the Bible, the book is not a book of skepticism. Once these statements are understood in their contexts, their meaning is compatible with other Scriptures. Such statements as found in <a href='B:250 1:2'>Ecclesiastes 1:2</a> are not designed to produce or to promote skepticism. Rather, Solomon is recording his search for happiness and meaning in life by pursuing everything that this world offers. Each of these seemingly skeptical observations is aimed at demonstrating that, apart from God, everything “under the sun” is only vanity, and that the only source of true happiness and lasting peace is the Lord our God. Solomon’s investigations led eventually to the conclusion that the whole duty of man is to “fear God and keep His commandments” (<a href='B:250 12:13'>Ecc 12:13</a>). 


text:
Isn’t it false to claim there is nothing new under the sun?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Solomon declared here that “there is nothing new under the sun.” But not only is this contrary to science and human history, but it is opposed by other verses of Scripture (cf. <a href='B:290 43:19'>Isa 43:19</a>; <a href='B:300 31:22'>Jer 31:22</a>) where God says He will do “a new thing.”<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Of course there are new inventions, and God does new things. Solomon is not speaking about these, but as to how a human being can be satisfied “under the sun” (v. 8). All the regular means of wine, wealth, wisdom, and works (see <a href='B:250 2'>Ecc 2</a>) have already been tried and found wanting. 


text:
Is wisdom the source of happiness, or the means of sorrow?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Solomon affirms here that “in much wisdom is much grief, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow.” However, Proverbs asserts that “Happy is the man who finds wisdom, and the man who gains understanding” (<a href='B:240 3:13'>Prov 3:13</a>). Does wisdom bring sorrow or happiness?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> It all depends on the purpose for which wisdom or knowledge are sought. In Ecclesiastes, Solomon is seeking wisdom “under the sun” (cf. 1:3), that is, apart from God, as the source of happiness. This he rightly concludes is “vanity and grasping for the wind” (1:14). However, if wisdom is viewed as based in “the fear of the Lord” (<a href='B:240 1:7'>Prov 1:7</a>), then it is the very means of obtaining true happiness. Indeed, Solomon came to this very conclusion in Ecclesiastes (see 8:12; 12:13). Also, the OT understanding of wisdom is not the accumulation of great amounts of knowledge. For Solomon, wisdom is first and foremost living a successful life of righteousness and peace in obedience to God. Knowledge alone does not bring wisdom. Indeed, the message of Ecclesiastes is that knowledge alone brings only sorrow. Wisdom is the accumulation of the right kind of knowledge coupled with a life that is in harmony with God’s commands and at peace with Him. 


text:
Is laughter good or bad?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Sometimes the Bible speaks as though laughter is good and other times as though it is bad. Solomon concluded, “I said of laughter, `It is madness’; and of mirth, `What does it accomplish?’ ”(<a href='B:250 2:2'>Ecc 2:2</a>). He added that “sorrow is better than laughter” (7:3). Jesus added, “Woe to you who laugh now” (<a href='B:490 6:25'>Luke 6:25</a>). On the other hand, the Bible encourages laughter, claiming that “a merry heart does good, like medicine” (<a href='B:240 17:22'>Prov 17:22</a>). Solomon even “commended enjoyment, because a man has nothing better under the sun than to eat, drink, and be merry” (<a href='B:250 8:15'>Ecc 8:15</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The answer lies in another verse. “To everything there is a season, a time for every purpose under heaven … a time to laugh; a time to mourn” (<a href='B:250 3:1'>Ecc 3:1</a>; <a href='B:250 3:4'>4</a>). What the Bible says about laughter can be summarized in the following contrast. In riotous derision 


text:
Is Solomon commending hedonism here?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Solomon concluded, “There is nothing better for a man than that he should eat and drink, and that his soul should enjoy good in his labor.” But this is hedonism, which is condemned elsewhere in the Bible (<a href='B:420 12:19-20'>Luke 12:19-20</a>; <a href='B:530 10:7'>1Cor 10:7</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Solomon is not recommending pleasure-seeking hedonism apart from God. There is a big difference between the hedonist’s “Eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die” and Solomon’s exhortation to enjoy life because it comes “from the hand of God” (<a href='B:250 2:24'>Ecc 2:24</a>). The kind of pleasures Solomon commended is that “which God gives him under the sun” (<a href='B:250 8:15'>Ecc 8:15</a>), and that “is the gift of God” (<a href='B:250 3:13'>Ecc 3:13</a>).<p/>God is not a cosmic killjoy or a heavenly scrooge. He “gives us richly all things to enjoy” (<a href='B:610 6:17'>1Tim 6:17</a>) and at His “right hand are pleasures forevermore” (<a href='B:230 16:11'>Ps 16:11</a>). However, Solomon warns, “Rejoice, O young man, in your youth, and let your heart cheer you in the days of your youth; walk in the ways of your heart, and in the sight of your eyes; but know that for all these God will bring you into judgment” (<a href='B:250 11:9'>Ecc 11:9</a>). God wants us to enjoy this life, but to live it in the light of the next one. 


text:
Is man’s fate the same as that of animals?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Solomon seems to claim here that there is no difference between the death of humans and animals. “One thing befalls them: as one dies, so dies the other.” Yet Solomon asserts later that, unlike animals, when a human dies, “the spirit will return to God who gave it” (<a href='B:250 12:7'>Ecc 12:7</a>). How can this conflict be explained?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There are both similarities and differences between the death of animals and humans. In both cases, their bodies die and return to dust. Likewise, their death is certain, and both are powerless to prevent it. In these respects, thephysical phenomena are the same for both humans and animals.<p/>On the other hand, humans have immortal souls (spirits), and animals do not (<a href='B:250 12:7'>Ecc 12:7</a>; cf. 3:21). Of no beasts does the Bible say, “to be absent from the body … [is] to be present with the Lord” (<a href='B:540 5:8'>2Cor 5:8</a>). Likewise, nowhere does the Bible speak of the resurrection of animals, as it does of all human beings (cf. <a href='B:500 5:28-29'>John 5:28-29</a>; <a href='B:730 20:4-6'>Rev 20:4-6</a>). So there is a big difference in the spiritual realm between the death of humans and animals. Consider the following summary:<p/>HUMAN AND ANIMAL DEATHS 


text:
If all return to dust, how can there be a resurrection?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Some have argued against a physical resurrection on the grounds that the scattered fragments of decomposed corpses cannot be reassembled, since some become plants, or others are eaten by animals or even cannibals. Yet, the Bible declares that all bodies will “come forth” from the “graves” (<a href='B:500 5:28-29'>John 5:28-29</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Several things must be noted in this connection. First, as many scholars have pointed out, if necessary, it would be no problem for an omnipotent God to bring all of the exact particles of one’s body together again at the resurrection. Certainly He who created every particle in the universe could reconstitute the relatively few particles (by comparison) in a human body. The God who created the world out of nothing is surely able to fashion a resurrection body out of something.<p/><b><a href='B:250 3:20-21'>ECCLESIASTES 3:20-21</a> —</b> If there is life after death, why does Solomon declare that man has no advantage over the beasts?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The Bible teaches that the soul survives death (<a href='B:570 1:23'>Phil 1:23</a>; <a href='B:540 5:8'>2Cor 5:8</a>; <a href='B:730 6:9'>Rev 6:9</a>). But, Ecclesiastes insists that “all go to one place: all are from the dust, and all return to dust” (v. 20). Hence, “man has no advantage over beasts, for all is vanity” (3:19).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The reference here is to the human body, not to the soul. Both men and beast die and their bodies return to dust. However, humans are different in that their soul “goes upward” (v. 21). In fact, Solomon speaks of “eternity” in the human heart (<a href='B:250 3:11'>Ecc 3:11</a>) and of its immortality when he declares that at death “man goes to his eternal home” (12:5). He also emphasized that we should fear God because there is a day when “God will bring you into judgment” after this life (11:9). So Ecclesiastes is not denying life after death; it is warning about the futility of living only for this life “under the sun” (cf. 1:3, 13; 2:18). (See prior comments under 3:19.) 


text:
If there is life after death, why does Solomon declare that man has no advantage over the beasts?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The Bible teaches that the soul survives death (<a href='B:570 1:23'>Phil 1:23</a>; <a href='B:540 5:8'>2Cor 5:8</a>; <a href='B:730 6:9'>Rev 6:9</a>). But, Ecclesiastes insists that “all go to one place: all are from the dust, and all return to dust” (v. 20). Hence, “man has no advantage over beasts, for all is vanity” (3:19).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The reference here is to the human body, not to the soul. Both men and beast die and their bodies return to dust. However, humans are different in that their soul “goes upward” (v. 21). In fact, Solomon speaks of “eternity” in the human heart (<a href='B:250 3:11'>Ecc 3:11</a>) and of its immortality when he declares that at death “man goes to his eternal home” (12:5). He also emphasized that we should fear God because there is a day when “God will bring you into judgment” after this life (11:9). So Ecclesiastes is not denying life after death; it is warning about the futility of living only for this life “under the sun” (cf. 1:3, 13; 2:18). (See prior comments under 3:19.) 


text:
How is it possible to be too righteous?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Jesus commanded His followers to be “perfect just as your Father in heaven is perfect” (<a href='B:470 5:48'>Matt 5:48</a>). God said, “You shall therefore be holy, for I am holy” (<a href='B:30 11:45'>Lev 11:45</a>). But, Solomon instructs us not to be “overly righteous” (<a href='B:250 7:16'>Ecc 7:16</a>). How can someone be too righteous? Surely one cannot be too just or too loving?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> A person cannot be too righteous, but he can be overly righteous. The Pharisees were a good case in point. They were so righteous that they were self- righteous. For, “being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, [they] have not submitted to the righteousness of God” (<a href='B:520 10:3'>Rom 10:3</a>). 


text:
Are the lives of the wicked prolonged or shortened?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to this verse, “the sinner does evil a hundred times, and his days are prolonged” (cf. <a href='B:220 21:7'>Job 21:7</a>). Yet elsewhere the Bible says, “the years of the wicked will be shortened” (<a href='B:240 10:27'>Prov 10:27</a>; cf. <a href='B:250 8:13'>Ecc 8:13</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The texts that speak of the wicked living short lives affirm the general principle that such living tends to shorten human life. Whatever exceptions there are prove the general rule. The texts that speak of the wicked living long lives speak only of some, not all. These become the occasion of the godly cry as to why? The answer, of course, is that not all justice is accomplished in this life. 


text:
Do the dead remember anything?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Taken at face value, Solomon seems to be claiming that the dead have no more knowledge of anything. He wrote here, “the dead know nothing.” Likewise, the psalmist said, “in death there is no remembrance” (<a href='B:230 6:5'>Ps 6:5</a>). But, this seems to contradict the many passages that speak of souls being conscious after death (e.g., <a href='B:100 12:23'>2Sam 12:23</a>; <a href='B:540 5:8'>2Cor 5:8</a>; <a href='B:730 6:9'>Rev 6:9</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The Bible teaches that the soul survives death in a conscious state of knowledge (see comments on <a href='B:120 14:29'>2Ki 14:29</a>). The passages which say there is no knowledge or remembrance after death are speaking of no memory in this world, not of no memory of this world. Solomon clearly qualified his comment by saying it was “in the grave” (<a href='B:250 9:10'>Ecc 9:10</a>) that there was “no remembrance.” He affirmed also that the dead do not know what is going on “under the sun” (9:6). But while they do not know what is happening on earth, they certainly do know what is going on in heaven (cf. <a href='B:730 6:9'>Rev 6:9</a>). In short, these texts refer simply to man in relation to this present life —they say nothing about the life to come immediately after this one. 


text:
Should a young man follow his own way or God’s way?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> In this text, Solomon encourages a young person to “walk in the ways of your heart, and in the sight of your eyes.” But this flies in the face of other Scriptures that urge them to seek not after “your own heart and your own eyes” (<a href='B:40 15:39'>Num 15:39</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There are several ways to understand this Ecclesiastes passage that do not conflict with other Scriptures. First, some have suggested that it is an example of irony, meaning, therefore, they were not to go their own way but God’s. Since irony is a perfectly legitimate human literary form that the Holy Spirit may use (see Introduction), this is entirely possible.<p/>Second, even taken literally, the advice is not without qualification, since Solomon adds quickly, “But know that for all these God will bring you into judgment. Therefore … put away evil from your flesh, for childhood and youth are vanity” (<a href='B:250 11:9-10'>Ecc 11:9-10</a>). In this sense, Solomon’s advice would be, enjoy yourself. Do what your heart desires, but at the same time bear in mind that you are accountable to God, “who gives us richly all things to enjoy” (<a href='B:610 6:17'>1Tim 6:17</a>). 1<p/>1 


text:
How did a sensual book like this get in the Bible?<p/><b>PROBLEM 1: </b>The Bible condemns the lust of the flesh and sensuality (<a href='B:520 6:6'>Rom 6:6</a>; <a href='B:550 5:16-21'>Gal 5:16-21</a>; <a href='B:690 2:16'>1John 2:16</a>). Yet this love song is filled with sensual expressions and sexual overtures (cf. 1:2; 2:5; 3:1; 4:5).<p/><b>SOLUTION 1:</b> The Bible does not condemn sex, but only perverted sex. God created sex (<a href='B:10 1:27'>Gen 1:27</a>), and He ordained that it should be enjoyed within the bonds of a monogamous marriage and in a relationship of love. The Scriptures declare, “Rejoice with the wife of your youth. As a loving deer and a graceful doe, let her breasts satisfy you at all times; and always be enraptured with her love” (<a href='B:240 5:18-19'>Prov 5:18-19</a>).<p/>After warning against those who forbid marriage (<a href='B:610 4:3'>1Tim 4:3</a>), the apostle declares that “every creature of God is good” (v. 4), and he goes on to speak of the God “who gives us richly all things to enjoy” (6:17). Hebrews insists that “marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge” (<a href='B:650 13:4'>Heb 13:4</a>).<p/>God realizes that normal people will have sexual desires, but He adds, “Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband” (<a href='B:530 7:2'>1Cor 7:2</a>). So, sex itself is not sinful, nor are sexual desires. God created them and intends that they be enjoyed within the loving bonds of a monogamous marriage. The Song of Solomon is a divinely authoritative example of how sensual love should be expressed in marriage.<p/><b>PROBLEM 2:</b> Some question whether this book should be in the Bible, claiming that some rabbis rejected it. Was it always a part of the Jewish Scriptures?<p/><b>SOLUTION 2:</b> From the very earliest times, this book was part of the Jewish canon. Centuries after it was accepted into the canon of Scriptures, the school of Shammai (A.D. 1st century) expressed doubt about its inspiration, but the view of Rabbi Akiba ben Joseph (c. A.D. 50–132) prevailed when he declared, “God forbid!—No man in Israel ever disputed about the Song of Songs … for all the ages are not worthy the day on which the Song of Songs was given to Israel; for all the writings are holy, but the Song of Songs is the Holiest of Holies” (See Geisler and Nix,A General Introduction to the Bible, Moody Press, 1986, 259).<p/><b>PROBLEM 3:</b> Many modern scholars propose that this book of Solomon is simply a collection of love poems that have been put together on the basis of their similarity in theme. However, as a whole, this book is said to have been written by Solomon. How can it be a book written by Solomon if it is really only a loosely connected group of poems?<p/><b>SOLUTION 3:</b> Actually, the Song of Solomon is not a loosely connected group of love poems. The structure of the book demonstrates that it is a single poetic expression of the relationship between Solomon and his Shulamite bride. The structure of the Song of Solomon is revealed in the repetition of key phrases.<p/><b>OPENING PHRASES</b> <b>CLOSING PHRASES</b><p/>2:8 “The voice of my beloved! Behold, he comes.” 2:7 “I charge you O daughters of Jerusalem …”<p/>The repetition of “A”s and “B”s is a pattern called chiasm that was frequently employed by the Hebrew poets as a means of structuring their material. This structure not only indicates the unity of the book, but it provides evidence of a single author who put the material together in this manner to tell a true story and communicate a message. This literal account of the love of Solomon for his wife teaches the sanctity of human love in the marriage relationship (cf. <a href='B:650 13:4'>Heb 13:4</a>).


text:
Why do so many people who claim to interpret the Bible literally, spiritualize the Song of Solomon?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Evangelical Christians defend the literal interpretation of the Bible. They insist that it should be taken in its normal, historical-grammatical sense, not in some hidden, mystical, or allegorical sense. To do so in the Gospels, for example, leads to liberalism, denying the historicity of the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. However, many evangelicals do not take the Song of Solomon literally, but give it an allegorical or spiritual meaning. Is this not inconsistent?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There are three basic interpretations of the Song of Solomon—the literal, the allegorical, and the typical.<p/>First, there is a literal interpretation. According to this view, it is a literal story about King Solomon and his love for his wife and her love for him, although scholars differ over just which of his 700 wives and 300 concubines (<a href='B:110 11:3'>1Ki 11:3</a>) this might be. Some say it was “the daughter of Pharaoh” (<a href='B:110 11:1'>1Ki 11:1</a>). Others suggest it was a lowly maiden known as the Shulamite. But all who take it literally insist that it is about the historical King Solomon and a love affair he had with a woman. They insist, then, that the book is intended to extol the beauty, purity, and sanctity of marriage.<p/>Third, many Christians opt for a typical interpretation of this canticle, seeing in it the prefiguration or type of Christ and His love for the church (cf. <a href='B:560 5:28-32'>Eph 5:28-32</a>). This view also denies that the book should be taken in a literal sense, insisting rather on a deeper spiritual meaning.<p/>Whatever application this love story may have to God’s relation to His people, or Christ’s love for His church, it seems better to insist on a literal interpretation of this book for the following two basic reasons. First, it is inconsistent to allegorize this story and insist on taking the Gospels and other parts of Scripture literally. Second, taking it literally does not contradict any other teaching of Scripture. Rather, it complements it in many ways. God instituted marriage (<a href='B:10 2:23-24'>Gen 2:23-24</a>). God created sex and gave it to humans to enjoy within the bonds of marriage (<a href='B:10 1:27'>Gen 1:27</a>; <a href='B:240 5:17-19'>Prov 5:17-19</a>). Paul declared that sex should be exercised within a monogamous marriage (<a href='B:530 7:1-5'>1Cor 7:1-5</a>). Timothy was informed that sex within marriage should not be forbidden (<a href='B:610 4:1-4'>1Tim 4:1-4</a>) and that God “gives us richly all things to enjoy” (<a href='B:610 6:17'>1Tim 6:17</a>). The Song of Solomon is a beautiful example of a real romance between two actual people that extols the biblical view of sex and marriage. 


text:
Why are Solomon’s wives and concubines listed as 140 when he had 1,000?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Here Solomon is said to have had only 140 wives and concubines, but <a href='B:110 11:3'>1Ki 11:3</a> gives the number of 1,000.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> These two passages may refer to two different times in his life, the lower number being the earlier one. Or, it may be that there were different ways of counting his wives. First Kings 11:3 does not really say he had seven hundred wives but “seven hundred wives, princesses.” In other words, many of these were more political alliances rather than actual marriages. Further, in the Song of Solomon it speaks of “virgins without number” (<a href='B:260 6:8'>Song 6:8</a>) being part of Solomon’s female entourage. This general statement could easily account for the total of 1,000 mentioned in 1 Kings<p/>11. 


text:
Hasn’t it been shown that Isaiah is actually two or more books, and that it was not all written by one Isaiah in the 8th century B.C.?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The traditional view of the Book of Isaiah is that it was written by Isaiah, son of Amoz, some time between 739 and 681 B.C. However, modern critics have argued that Isaiah is actually composed of at least two individual books. What has been designated as First Isaiah encompasses chapters 1 through 39, while Second Isaiah encompasses chapters 40 to<p/>66. Is the Book of Isaiah actually several books put together, or is it one book written by the one prophet Isaiah who lived in the 8th century B.C.?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The traditional view that the Book of Isaiah is a single work written by the prophet Isaiah is supported by several arguments. First, the critical view that separates Isaiah into two or more books is based on the assumption that there is no such thing as predictive prophecy. Modern scholars claim that the prophecies in chapters 40–55 concerning Cyrus must have been written after Cyrus ruled in Persia. This view is antisupernatural and tries to explain these sections of Isaiah as history rather than predictive prophecy. However, since God knows the end from the beginning (<a href='B:290 46:10'>Isa 46:10</a>), it is not at all necessary to deny the supernatural element in Isaiah’s prophecies.<p/><b> CHAPTERS 1–39 CHAPTERS 40–66 </b><p/>1:15—“Your hands are full of blood.” 59:3 —“For your hands are defiled with blood.”<p/>Fourth, in <a href='B:490 4:17'>Luke 4:17</a> we find that when our Lord rose to read in the synagogue, “He was handed the book of the prophet Isaiah.” The people in the synagogue and Jesus Himself assumed that this book was from the prophet Isaiah. Other NT writers accepted Isaiah as the author of the entire book. <a href='B:500 12:38'>John 12:38</a> states that Isaiah was the one who made the statement that is found in <a href='B:290 53:1'>Isaiah 53:1</a>. Other instances where the NT ascribes portions of chapters 40–66 to Isaiah include <a href='B:470 3:3'>Mat 3:3</a> (<a href='B:290 40:3'>Isa 40:3</a>), <a href='B:480 1:2-3'>Mark 1:2-3</a> (<a href='B:290 40:3'>Isa 40:3</a>), <a href='B:500 1:23'>John 1:23</a> (<a href='B:290 40:3'>Isa 40:3</a>), <a href='B:470 12:17-21'>Mat 12:17-21</a> (<a href='B:290 42:1-4'>Isa 42:1-4</a>), <a href='B:510 8:32-33'>Acts 8:32-33</a> (<a href='B:290 53:7-8'>Isa 53:7-8</a>), and <a href='B:520 10:16'>Rom 10:16</a> (<a href='B:290 53:1'>Isa 53:1</a>). 


text:
Did the prophet Isaiah disavow the sacrificial system of Moses?<p/>(See comments on <a href='B:350 6:6'>Hosea 6:6</a>) 


text:
Is this verse a prophecy about the virgin birth of Jesus Christ?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The prophecy of <a href='B:290 7:14'>Isaiah 7:14</a> concerns the conception of a virgin and the bringing forth of a son whose name would be Immanuel. However, verse 16 seems to place the birth of the child before the invasion of the Assyrian armies and the fall of Samaria in 722 B.C., and <a href='B:290 8:3'>Isaiah 8:3</a> seems to be a fulfillment of this prophecy. How can this be a prophecy about the virgin birth of Jesus?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The fulfillment of this prophecy may be two-fold. Because of the desperate situation which the people of Israel faced, God promised to give them a sign that would assure them that He would ultimately deliver His people out of bondage. Many scholars believe this sign came in two ways. First, it came as a sign of the physical deliverance of Israel from the bondage to which they were going under the invading Assyrians. Second, it came as a sign of the spiritual deliverance of all of God’s people from the spiritual bondage to Satan. The first aspect of the sign was fulfilled in the birth of Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz as recorded in <a href='B:290 8:3'>Isaiah 8:3</a>. The second aspect of the sign was fulfilled in the birth of Jesus Christ at Bethlehem as recorded in the Gospels.<p/>The word translated “virgin” (almah) refers to a young maiden who has never had sexual relations with a man. The wife of Isaiah who bore the son in fulfillment of the first aspect of the prophecy was a virgin until she conceived by Isaiah. However, according to <a href='B:470 1:23-25'>Mat 1:23-25</a>, Mary, the mother of Jesus, was a virgin even when she conceived and gave birth to Jesus. The physical conception and birth of the son of Isaiah was a sign to Israel that God would deliver them from physical bondage to the Assyrians. But, the supernatural conception and birth of the Son of God was a sign to all of God’s people that He would deliver them from spiritual bondage to sin and death. 


text:
Why is Jesus called “the everlasting Father” if He is the Son of God?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The orthodox Christian doctrine of the Trinity holds that God is one Essence in three Persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. However, <a href='B:290 9:6'>Isaiah 9:6</a> calls the Messiah “the everlasting Father.” How can Jesus be both the Father and the Son?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> This verse is not a Trinitarian formula that calls Jesus Christ the Father. Actually, it is easier to grasp the idea when the phrase is rendered literally into English, “Father of eternity.” The first part of verse six makes reference to the incarnation of Jesus. The part that lists the names by which He is called expresses His relationship to His people. He is to us the Wonderful Counselor, the Mighty God, the Father of Eternity, the Prince of Peace. Considered in this way, we see that Jesus is the One who gives us eternal life. By His death, burial, and resurrection, He has brought life and immortality to light. Truly, He is the Father of eternity for His people. The name “Father of eternity” indicates that, as a loving father provides for His children, so Jesus loves us and has provided for us by giving us everlasting life. 


text:
Who is Lucifer in this verse?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Many commentators consider this passage to be a reference to Satan, because the name “Lucifer” is used. However, in <a href='B:290 14:4'>Isaiah 14:4</a> this entire poetic section stretching from 14:4 through 14:27 is a proverb against the king of Babylon. How can this be a reference to Satan when it is against the king of Babylon?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> This passage is a literal reference to the king of Babylon, but its significance encompasses the ultimate defeat and fall of Satan. There have been many different views as to the identity of this king of Babylon. Some propose that this is a reference to Sennacherib, a fierce enemy of God’s people. Others see the poetic figure of personification in which the kingdom of Babylon as a whole is referred to in personal terms. The Hebrew word translated in the NKJV as “Lucifer” literally means “shining one.” Verse 12 could be translated “How you are fallen from heaven, O shining one, son of the morning.” Because the king of Babylon desired to set himself up as God, his fall would be as from heaven.<p/>The parallels between this passage and such NT passages as <a href='B:490 10:18'>Luke 10:18</a> and <a href='B:730 20:2'>Revelation 20:2</a> indicate that this passage may have a broader application. The prophecy was given for those who lived in Isaiah’s day, and it had immediate significance for them. God was promising them that their enemy, the king of Babylon and the evil empire itself, would ultimately be torn down. Yet, the prophecy may have significance for us as a picture of the ultimate demise of the evil ruler of this world whom God will ultimately destroy (<a href='B:730 20:10'>Rev 20:10</a>). 


text:
Does this passage predict the coming of Mohammed?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Some Muslim commentators take the rider on the “donkeys” to be Jesus and the rider on “camels” to be Mohammed, whom they believed superseded Jesus.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> This is a totally unfounded speculation with no basis in the text or the context. Actually, the passage is speaking of the fall of Babylon (v. 9) and the news of its fall that spread by various means, namely, those riding on horses, donkeys, and camels. There is absolutely nothing here about the prophet Mohammed. 


text:
Will the light of the sun and moon be increased or decreased in the future kingdom?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Isaiah has two apparently contradictory predictions. One is that the light to the heavenly bodies will be increased sevenfold (<a href='B:290 30:26'>Isa 30:26</a>). The other is that it will be “ashamed” in the light of the Lord Himself (<a href='B:290 24:23'>Isa 24:23</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Some scholars believe these are mutually compatible poetic predictions that even though the light of the sun and moon is increased manifold (perhaps, figuratively), nevertheless, the light of the Lord will outshine them.<p/>Others take these as literal predictions about two different future times. They hold that the natural light of the heavenly bodies will be increased during the reign of Christ for “a thousand years” (<a href='B:730 20:4-6'>Rev 20:4-6</a>). But after that, when the “new heaven and a new earth” (<a href='B:730 21:1'>Rev 21:1</a>) are created, there will be “no need of the sun or of the moon to shine in it, for the glory of God illuminated it” (<a href='B:730 21:23'>Rev 21:23</a>). 


text:
Will the wicked behold God’s glory?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Isaiah declares in this passage that “the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.” However, earlier Isaiah contended that the wicked “will not behold the majesty of the Lord” (<a href='B:290 26:10'>Isa 26:10</a>). How can both be true?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> First, the answer lies in the fact that the wicked do not voluntarily recognize God’s glory, as the godly do. Further, the wicked do notpresently recognize God’s majesty, but one day every knee will bow to Him—both the godly and the wicked (<a href='B:290 45:23'>Isa 45:23</a>; cf. <a href='B:570 2:10'>Phil 2:10</a>). Understood in this way there is no disharmony between the texts. 


text:
If nothing is like God, then how can humans be in the image of God?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Isaiah wrote: “ `To whom will you liken Me, or to whom shall I be equal?’ says the Holy One.” Yet the Bible says “God created man in His own image” (<a href='B:10 1:27'>Gen 1:27</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Isaiah is not denying all similarity between God and His creatures. In fact, the Bible affirms elsewhere, “He who planted the ear shall He not hear? He who formed the eye, shall He not see?” (<a href='B:230 94:9'>Ps 94:9</a>) Indeed, God is reflected in the mirror of His creation (cf. <a href='B:230 19:1'>Ps 19:1</a>; <a href='B:520 1:19-20'>Rom 1:19-20</a>). Isaiah is simply affirming that the transcendent God is more than His creation, even though He is not totally unlike it. 


text:
How could Isaiah talk in such specific terms about a king that would not exist for some 200 years?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> In <a href='B:290 44:28'>Isaiah 44:28</a> and 45:1, Isaiah specifically names Cyrus in connection with the future restoration of Israel and the laying of the foundations of the temple. However, Isaiah conducted his ministry some time between 739 and 681 B.C., while Cyrus would not even become king of Persia until 539 B.C. That is a period of at least 150 years. How could Isaiah specifically name Cyrus before he even lived?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> This is an instance of supernatural prophecy. Although it was not in the power of Isaiah to look into the future, it is certainly in the power of God who declares “the end from the beginning” (<a href='B:290 46:10'>Isa 46:10</a>). Not only does God know who will come to power, but, “the Most High rules in the kingdom of men, and gives it to whomever He chooses” (<a href='B:340 4:32'>Dan 4:32</a>). It is God who sets up kingdoms, and it is God who brings them down. It is no small wonder, then, that God is able to name a king almost 200 years before he takes the throne. (See comments on <a href='B:340 1:1'>Dan 1:1</a>) 


text:
Is God the author of evil?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to this verse, God “creates good and evil” (KJV, cf. <a href='B:300 18:11'>Jer 18:11</a> and <a href='B:310 3:38'>Lam 3:38</a>; <a href='B:370 3:6'>Amos 3:6</a>). But many other Scriptures inform us that God is not evil (<a href='B:690 1:5'>1John 1:5</a>), cannot even look approvingly on evil (<a href='B:420 1:13'>Hab 1:13</a>), and cannot even be tempted by evil (<a href='B:660 1:13'>Jam 1:13</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The Bible is clear that God is morally perfect (cf. <a href='B:50 32:4'>Deut 32:4</a>; <a href='B:470 5:48'>Matt 5:48</a>), and it is impossible for Him to sin (<a href='B:650 6:18'>Heb 6:18</a>). At the same time, His absolute justice demands that He punish sin. This judgment takes both temporal and eternal forms (<a href='B:470 25:41'>Matt 25:41</a>; <a href='B:730 20:11-15'>Rev 20:11-15</a>). In its temporal form, the execution of God’s justice is sometimes called “evil” because it seems to be evil to those undergoing it (cf. <a href='B:650 12:11'>Heb 12:11</a>). However, the Hebrew word for evil (r?) used here does not always mean moral evil. Indeed, the context indicates that it should be translated, as the NKJV and other modern translations do, as “calamity.” Thus, God is properly said to be the author of “evil” in this sense, but not in the moral sense—at least not directly.<p/>Further, there is an indirect sense in which God is the author of moral evil. God created moral beings with free choice, and free choice is the origin of moral evil in the universe. So, ultimately God is responsible for making moral creatures who are responsible for moral evil. God made evilpossible by creating free creatures, but the free creatures made evil actual. Of course, the possibility of evil (i.e., free choice) is itself a good thing. So, God created only good things, one of which was the power of free choice, and moral creatures produced the evil. However, God is the author of a moral universe and in this indirect and ultimate sense is the author of the possibility of evil. Of course, God onlypermitted evil, but does notpromote it, and He will ultimatelyproduce a greater good through it (cf. <a href='B:10 50:20'>Gen 50:20</a>; Rev. 21–22).<p/><b>GOD IS NOT THE GOD IS THE </b><p/>In the sense of sin In the sense of calamity 


text:
Was Jesus despised by men or respected by them?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to Isaiah, Jesus was “despised and rejected by men.” Yet in the Gospels, even Jesus’ enemies seemed to respect Him, saying as Pilate did, “I find no fault in Him at all” (<a href='B:500 18:38'>John 18:38</a>). The Roman soldiers who crucified Jesus exclaimed, “Certainly this was a righteous Man” (<a href='B:490 23:47'>Luke 23:47</a>). Indeed, Luke says that Jesus “increased … in favor with God and men” (2:52). Which is true—was Jesus respected or despised?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Both are true. In general, He was respected by Hisfriends and rejected by His enemies. He was honored by His disciples, but crucified by His foes. 


text:
Did Isaiah predict there would be homosexuals in the kingdom?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to some pro-homosexual interpreters, <a href='B:290 56:3'>Isaiah 56:3</a> prophesied homosexuals will be brought into the kingdom of God. The Lord said, “to them I will give within my temple and its walls a memorial and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that will not be cut off” (NIV). Should this be taken to mean that Isaiah predicted the day of acceptance for homosexuals into God’s kingdom?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The Bible makes no predictions about homosexuals being accepted into the kingdom of God. First of all, Isaiah’s prophecy is about “eunuchs,” not homosexuals. And enunuchs are asexual, not homosexual.<p/>Second, the “eunuchs” spoken of are probably spiritual, not physical. Jesus spoke of spiritual “eunuchs” who had given up the possibility of marriage for the sake of the kingdom of God (<a href='B:470 19:11-12'>Matt 19:11-12</a>).<p/>Finally, the Bible says emphatically that “neither fornicators … nor homosexuals … will inherit the kingdom of God” (<a href='B:530 6:9'>1Cor 6:9</a>). The Scriptures repeatedly and consistently condemn homosexual practices (see comments on <a href='B:30 18:22'>Lev 18:22</a>; <a href='B:520 1:26'>Rom 1:26</a>). God loves all persons, including homosexuals. But He hates homosexuality. 


text:
Does God dwell in eternity or with men?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Isaiah speaks of God as “the High and Lofty One Who inhabits eternity.” Yet John claims that “God is with men, and He will dwell with them” (<a href='B:730 21:3'>Rev 21:3</a>). Is God in eternity or in time?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> God is in both. He is “out there” as well as “in here.” In technical terms, He is both transcendent over the universe and yet immanent in it. All of God is everywhere, in heaven and on earth (<a href='B:230 139:7-10'>Ps 139:7-10</a>). He is over all and in all. He created the universe and has manifested Himself in it, but He is not identical to the universe (<a href='B:580 1:15-16'>Col 1:15-16</a>). God is in the world, but God is not the world. Like a painter and his painting, God put Himself in His creation but is still more than it. 


text:
Does Jeremiah teach reincarnation in this verse?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> God told Jeremiah: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; before you were born I sanctified you; and ordained you a prophet to the nations.” But if God knew Jeremiah before he was formed in the womb, then He must have preexisted as a soul before he was incarnated into a body, which is what reincarnation teaches.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> These verses do not speak of the soul preexisting before birth, but of God calling and setting apart people for the ministry long before they are born. “I knew you” does not refer to apreexistent soul, but to theprenatal person. They were known by God “in the womb” (<a href='B:300 1:5'>Jer 1:5</a>; cf. <a href='B:230 51:6'>Ps 51:6</a>; <a href='B:230 139:13'>139:13–16</a>). The word “know” (yada) implies a special relationship of commitment (cf. <a href='B:370 3:2'>Amos 3:2</a>). It is supported by words like “sanctified” (set apart) and “ordained,” which reveal that God had a special assignment for Jeremiah (and Paul, <a href='B:550 1:15-16'>Gal 1:15-16</a>), even before birth. Therefore, these passages do not implyp reexistence of a soul; rather, they affirm preordination of an individual to a special ministry. 


text:
Were Israel’s sins eradicable or not?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Jeremiah seems to imply that nothing could wash away Israel’s sins. “ `For though you wash them with lye, and use much soap, yet your iniquity is marked before Me,’ says the Lord God.” However, later Jeremiah changes his tune and calls upon them to “Wash your heart from wickedness that you may be saved” (4:14). Why the difference?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The solution seems to lie in the fact that the first passage is speaking about mere outward washing that does not cleanse their hearts. That is, no external ritual can purify a sinful heart. As the prophet said elsewhere, they needed to “circumcise” their hearts, not just their flesh (<a href='B:300 4:4'>Jer 4:4</a>; cf. <a href='B:50 10:16'>Deut 10:16</a>). What was wrong with them could only be purified by true penitence, not by phony practices. 


text:
Do the later prophets disavow the earlier sacrificial system of Moses?<p/>(See comments on <a href='B:350 6:6'>Hosea 6:6</a>) 


text:
Do the wicked prosper or not?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Jeremiah complained, “Why does the way of the wicked prosper?” The same complaint is heard elsewhere in Scripture (cf. <a href='B:220 12:6'>Job 12:6</a>; <a href='B:230 73:7'>Ps 73:7</a>). However, other passages of Scripture contend that the wicked do not prosper. Rather, “evil pursues sinners” (<a href='B:240 13:21'>Prov 13:21</a>) and “evil shall slay the wicked” (<a href='B:230 34:21'>Ps 34:21</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Jeremiah is speaking of temporary prosperity, which the wicked often enjoy. The transitory nature of their prosperity, however, is due to the longsuffering of God, wherein He delays judgment in favor of mercy and in the hope of repentance (<a href='B:680 3:9'>2Peter 3:9</a>). When the Bible speaks of God slaying the wicked, it does not always mean immediately, but ultimately. When understood in this way, there is no real conflict between these passages. 


text:
Can God repent?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The prophet speaks of God repenting so many times that He is “weary of relenting.” Yet in other places the Bible affirms that “He is not a man that He should relent” (<a href='B:90 15:29'>1Sam 15:29</a>; cf. <a href='B:460 3:6'>Mal 3:6</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> God does not actually change, but only appears to change as we change, just as the wind appears to change when we turn and go in another direction (see comments on <a href='B:10 6:6'>Gen 6:6</a> and <a href='B:20 32:14'>Ex 32:14</a>). God cannot change His character nor His unconditional promises (<a href='B:650 6:17-18'>Heb 6:17-18</a>), because they are based in His unchangeable nature (cf. <a href='B:620 2:13'>2Tim 2:13</a>). In fact, it is because God is unchangeable in Himself that He appears to change in relation to humans who vary in their character and conduct. God’s immutability demands that His feelings and actions toward different human beings be different. Since He always feels the same revulsion toward sin (<a href='B:420 1:13'>Hab 1:13</a>), God cannot feel the same toward a person who has just fallen in sin as toward that same person when he confesses his sin and calls upon God’s mercy for salvation. In this case, it is not God who changes, but the person who changes in relation to God. 


text:
Did God deceive Jeremiah?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The KJV of this verse reads, “O Lord, thou has deceived me, and I was deceived.” But, God is a God of truth who cannot lie (<a href='B:650 6:18'>Heb 6:18</a>), nor can He tempt others to sin (<a href='B:660 1:13'>Jas 1:13</a>). How then could He deceive Jeremiah?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The Hebrew word (patah) translated “deceived” by the KJV does not imply moral deception here. It can be translated “induced” or “persuaded” (NKJV and NIV note). It simply means that God persuaded or constrained Jeremiah into a ministry of which he was not fully aware of all the consequences. But this is a good description of marriage. And who but the most cynical would insist that all romance and courtship are moral deception simply because the couple could not foresee all they were getting into. 


text:
Was Jehoiachin childless or did he have heirs?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Jeremiah was told here to “write this man down as childless.” However, Jechoiachin had a son, Shealtiel, who is listed in <a href='B:470 1:12'>Mat 1:12</a>.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> First of all, the verse does not say he would actually be childless. Jeremiah was simply told to write him down “as if childless” (NIV). Further, this is explained by the last part of the verse, namely, “none of his descendants shall prosper, sitting on the throne of David, and ruling anymore in Judah.” This is true of His immediate successors. And it is even true of his long-range successor, Christ, who was not an actual son of Jehoiachin but only a legal son through his legal father, Joseph (see comments on <a href='B:470 1:17'>Matt 1:17</a>). Jesus, however, was the actual son of David through Mary, His actual mother (cf. <a href='B:100 7:12'>2Sam 7:12</a>ff; <a href='B:490 3:23'>Luke 3:23</a>; <a href='B:420 3:31'>31</a>). 


text:
Is this passage about Jehoiakim or Zedekiah?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> In the NKJV, this passage reads, “In the beginning of the reign of Jehoiakim.” However, verses 3 and 12 identify Zedekiah as king of Judah, and 28:1 indicates that the prophecy of chapter 27 was given during the time of the reign of Zedekiah, not Jehoiakim. Should it be Zedekiah or Jehoiakim here?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> It is most likely the case that a scribe miscopied the text by inadvertently placing the heading of chapter 26 over chapter<p/>27. There is good textual evidence from the Syriac and the Greek versions of the OT that there is a scribal error here. While the Syriac version reads “Zedekiah,” the Greek version omits this verse altogether. This could indicate that a problem had developed in the early stages of the transmission of this portion of Jeremiah’s text, and the Greek translators were not able to decipher the verse at all and merely left it out. The context and the historical situation indicates that the original read “Zedekiah” instead of “Jehoiakim.” 


text:
Did God delight in Zion (Jerusalem) or did it provoke His anger?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The psalmist declared that “the Lord loves the gates of Zion.” (<a href='B:230 87:2'>Ps 87:2</a>). In fact, “the Lord has chosen Zion … [as] My resting place forever” (<a href='B:230 132:13-14'>Ps 132:13-14</a>). But, in this text, Jeremiah quotes God as saying, “This city has been to Me a provocation of My anger and My fury from the day that they built it, even to this day.” Well, then, does God delight in Zion forever, or has He been provoked by it from the beginning?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Actually both are true, whether taken in a spiritual sense or in a literal sense. Some scholars take thisspiritually, as a reference to God’s eternal blessing on His heavenly Zion, the church (cf. <a href='B:650 12:22'>Heb 12:22</a>; Rev. 21–22).<p/>Other Bible scholars understand this literally as yet to be fulfilled when Israel is restored to their land forever as God promised (see comments on <a href='B:520 11:26'>Rom 11:26</a>). Accordingly, the city of Jerusalem which was chosen by God as the capital of His people Israel was a perpetual pain to God. But, when the Messiah returns to set up His throne and reign there (cf. Zech. 13–14; <a href='B:470 19:28'>Matt 19:28</a>), it will be a source of endless delight to God. 


text:
Did Zedekiah see the King of Babylon or not?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Jeremiah declared here to King Zedekiah: “your eyes shall see the eyes of the king of Babylon … and you shall go to Babylon.” However, <a href='B:120 25:7'>2Ki 25:7</a> says the Babylonian invaders “put out the eyes of Zedekiah, bound him with bronze fetters, and took him to Babylon.” How then could he see the king of Babylon, if he was blind?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> These passages are perfectly harmonious, once all the factors are known. First, the king of Babylon summoned that the captured King Zedekiah be brought to his headquarters in Riblah (cf. <a href='B:120 25:6'>2Ki 25:6</a>). There, after seeing the king of Babylon “face to face” (<a href='B:300 34:3'>Jer 34:3</a>), Zedekiah’s eyes were put out. Then Zedekiah was bound and taken to Babylon. So Zedekiah saw the king of Babylon, but not the city of Babylon. 


text:
How can this book be inspired if the original manuscript of Jeremiah perished?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to evangelical scholars, only the original manuscripts (autographs) were inspired and inerrant, not the copies, since there are minor errors in the copies. But according to this passage, the king destroyed the original manuscript in the fire.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> When evangelicals refer to the “original manuscripts” alone being inspired (autographs), they do not exclude the fact that a biblical author may have had a “second edition” in original manuscripts too. Nor do they exclude the fact that, if the original is destroyed, God can inspire another one just like it. Indeed, Jeremiah was told, “Take yet another scroll, and write on it all the former words that were in the first scroll” (v. 28). So both manuscripts were inspired, only the first one perished without a copy. So the second one is now the “original” one.<p/>Technically, we should not claim that only the original manuscripts are inspired, but the original text. For example, a perfect copy (e.g., a photo copy) of an original manuscript is as inspired as is the original manuscript itself. Likewise, all existing manuscript copies of the original are inspired in so far as they have accurately reproduced the original manuscript. God in His wisdom has not deemed fit to preserve the original manuscripts of Scripture. Some believe this is so men would not make an idol of it (cf. <a href='B:120 18:4'>2Ki 18:4</a>). Others claim it was His way of keeping it from human distortion by diffusing so many copies that it would be impossible to distort all of them. Whatever the case, the copies we do have are earlier, more numerous, and more accurate than those of any other book from the ancient world. They bring us all the truth of the original text, and the minor differences do not affect any doctrine of the Christian faith. 


text:
How can this verse say that Jehoiakim shall have no one to sit on the throne when his son reigned after him?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Because Jehoiakim burned the book of the prophecy of Jeremiah, God told Jeremiah to prophesy again to Jehoiakim that he “shall have no one to sit on the throne of David” (<a href='B:300 36:30'>Jer 36:30</a>). However, according to <a href='B:120 24:6'>2Ki 24:6</a>, Jehoiachin the son of Jehoiakim “reigned in his place.” Is this contradictory?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> This is not a contradiction. Although Jehoiachin did take over after the death of his father, he was in Jerusalem only three months before the city fell to the invading armies of Nebuchadnezzar. After reigning in Jerusalem for only three months, Jehoiachin was taken into captivity, and Zedekiah was placed on the throne in his stead. The Hebrew idea expressed in the phrase “sit on the throne” indicates a more permanent enthronement. God was telling Jehoiakim that his family name would not continue in the place of leadership, and that no dynasty in his name would continue. The extremely short reign of Jehoiachin, and his almost immediate removal and captivity, were a fulfillment of this prophetic statement. 


text:
How can these verses talk about the invasion of Nebuchadnezzar when there is no evidence that it ever happened?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to this prophecy of Jeremiah, Nebuchadnezzar would attack and devastate Egypt. However, the Greek historians made no mention of this event, and there does not seem to be sufficient historical evidence to substantiate the claim that there ever was such an invasion. Is this an error in the biblical record of history?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> No, there is no historical error. Until recently, the only testimony from ancient historians was the record of Josephus, the Jewish historian. Modern scholars rejected Josephus’ testimony as a fabrication to support the Hebrew Scriptures. However, a small fragment of a Babylonian chronicle from about 567 B.C. confirms both the record of Josephus and the biblical record concerning Nebuchadnezzar’s invasion of Egypt. There is also confirmation from an inscription on the statue of Nes-hor, governor of southern Egypt under Hophra. Nebuchadnezzar did indeed invade and devastate Egypt as Jeremiah had prophesied. 


text:
Does this date of the defeat of the Egyptian armies by Nebuchadnezzar contradict the date given in <a href='B:340 1:1'>Dan 1:1</a>?<p/>(For a consideration of the historical accuracy of this statement, see comments under <a href='B:340 1:1'>Dan 1:1</a>) 


text:
Is God compassionate or ferocious?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> This and many other verses in Scripture describe God as merciful and compassionate, slow to wrath and plentiful in kindness (cf. <a href='B:230 94:9'>Ps 94:9</a>; <a href='B:660 5:11'>Jam 5:11</a>; <a href='B:690 4:16'>1John 4:16</a>). By contrast, there are numerous passages in the Bible which reveal God as wrathful and vengeful. God told Moses, “You shall destroy all the peoples whom the Lord your God delivers over to you; your eye shall have no pity on them” (<a href='B:50 7:16'>Deut 7:16</a>; cf. <a href='B:90 6:19'>1Sam 6:19</a>; <a href='B:90 15:2'>15:2–3</a>; <a href='B:300 13:14'>Jer 13:14</a>; <a href='B:650 12:29'>Heb 12:29</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> In each case, the object is different. God executes His wrath on the wicked, as His justice demands, and He bestows His kindness on the righteous, as His love constrains Him. These are consistent acts of God in accordance with His own unchangeable essence (<a href='B:460 3:6'>Mal 3:6</a>; <a href='B:660 1:17'>Jam 1:17</a>). But since the objects are different it only appears that God is acting contradictorily when in fact they are eminently compatible in a holy, loving God. 


text:
Is this a manifestation of UFOs and extraterrestrial intelligence?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Ezekiel speaks here of “living creatures” whose faces were in “the likeness of a man” which moved “like a flash of lightning” (v. 14). They were “lifted up from the earth” (v. 19) and their “wheels were lifted up together with them” (v. 20). Some have taken this to be a reference to UFOs and extraterrestrials. Are there human-like UFO creatures in outer space?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> This is not a reference to UFOs, but is a vision of the glory of God. This is evident for several reasons. First, the text states clearly that “This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord” (<a href='B:330 1:28'>Ezek 1:28</a>).<p/>Second, these are called “visions” in the very first verse. Visions are usually given in highly symbolic form (cf. <a href='B:730 1:9-20'>Rev 1:9-20</a>). Hence, the “likeness” (v. 28) given of things should not be taken literally, but symbolically.<p/>Third, the “living creatures” were angels, since they had “wings” (v. 6) and flew in the midst of heaven. They compare to the angels mentioned in <a href='B:290 6:2'>Isaiah 6:2</a> and especially to the “living creatures” (angels) which were around God’s throne (in <a href='B:730 4:6'>Rev 4:6</a>).<p/>Fifth, there is no real evidence that any UFO, human-like creatures exist anywhere in the universe. There are, of course, demonic spirits which the Bible calls a “lying spirit” (<a href='B:110 22:22'>1Ki 22:22</a>) and “deceiving spirits” (<a href='B:610 4:1'>1Tim 4:1</a>). These demons or evil angels may deceive people into thinking they are extraterrestrials. But they can be known by their false teaching and the evil practices they encourage, such as idolatry, witchcraft, astrology, divination, fortune telling, and contacting departed spirits (cf. <a href='B:50 13:1-9'>Deut 13:1-9</a>; <a href='B:50 18:9'>18:9–14</a>; <a href='B:610 4:1-3'>1Tim 4:1-3</a>). 


text:
Did God deceive these false prophets?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Ezekiel declares that God “induced” the false prophets to speak and then would “destroy” them for doing so. But this sounds deceptive.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> God’s action was neither deceptive nor morally coercive. Giving false prophecies is exactly what false prophets like to do. So, there is no coercion by God in inducing them to ply their trade. The sovereign God so ordered the circumstances that these evil men would, by their own free will, utter false prophecies that would reveal their true character and lead to their eventual doom. It is because they did not love the truth that God gave them over to error and its eventual consequence, destruction (see <a href='B:600 2:10-11'>2Thes 2:10-11</a>). 


text:
Did Israel imitate the heathen or not?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> In <a href='B:330 5:7'>Ezekiel 5:7</a>, the Israelites were condemned because they had “multiplied disobedience more than the nations that are all around” them. Yet, here in <a href='B:330 16:47'>Ezekiel 16:47</a> they were condemned by God who said, “You did not walk in their ways nor act according to their abominations.”<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There are two possible explanations of this discrepancy. Some scholars hold that the Israelites had imitated the pagan nations in some regards, but not in all. They had not gone so far as to incur the same judgment of God as the heathen around them, even though their present course was not consistent with God’s Law. 


text:
Was the sin of Sodom selfishness rather than homosexuality?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Ezekiel described the sin of Sodom as selfishness: “Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy” (NIV). No mention is made of homosexuality or related sexual sins. Contrary to the traditional view, they were apparently condemned simply because they were selfish, not because they were homosexuals.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Sodom’s sin was not only selfishness, but also homosexuality. This is evident from several facts. First of all, the context of <a href='B:10 19'>Gen 19</a> reveals that their perversion was sexual (see comments on <a href='B:10 19:8'>Gen 19:8</a>).<p/>Third, by calling their sin an “abomination,” the very next verse (v. 50, NKJV) indicates that it was sexual. This is the same word used to describe homosexual sins in <a href='B:30 18:22'>Lev 18:22</a>. 


text:
Does God ever punish one person for another’s sin?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Ezekiel says clearly God does not punish the sons for their fathers’ sins, but that “the soul who sins shall die [for its own sins].” However, in <a href='B:20 20:5'>Exo 20:5</a> we are informed that God visits “the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations.” These seem flatly contradictory.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Ezekiel is speaking of the guilt of the father’s sin never being held against the sons, but Moses was referring to the consequences of the fathers’ sins being passed on to their children. Unfortunately, if a father is a drunk, the children can suffer abuse and even poverty. Likewise, if a mother has contracted AIDS from drug use, then her baby may be born with AIDS. But, this does not mean that the innocent children are guilty of the sins of their parents.<p/>Further, even if the Exodus passage implied that moral guilt was somehow also visited on the children, it would only be because they too, like their fathers, had sinned against God. Noteworthy is the fact that God only visits the iniquities of “those who hate” Him (<a href='B:20 20:5'>Ex 20:5</a>), not those who do not (see also comments on <a href='B:520 5:12'>Rom 5:12</a>). 


text:
Does God rejoice over the sinner’s doom?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to this verse, God declares, “I have no pleasure in the death of one who dies [in his sins].” Yet in <a href='B:240 1:26'>Prov 1:26</a>, God declares to the sinner, “I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your terror comes.” But, these seem to be contrary attitudes toward the doom of the sinner.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The answer lies in the fact that the passages are speaking about two different types of people. God does not rejoice in the death of an ultimately unrepentant sinner, since He knows “it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment” (<a href='B:650 9:27'>Heb 9:27</a>). However, God does “laugh” (is satisfied) when the unwise learn the consequence of their imprudence in this life (cf. <a href='B:240 1:31'>Prov 1:31</a>). “Laugh” is a figure of His indignation at their spurning the path of wisdom for foolishness. God is rightly indignant over the foolhardy and the ways of those who do not fear Him (v. 29) and who bring disaster on themselves. But, in no way does He rejoice in those who go to their ultimate doom without Him, for He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. 


text:
Are God’s statutes evil?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Ezekiel tells us that God “gave them up to statutes that were not good, and judgments by which they could not live.” However, the Bible declares that God’s laws are perfect and holy (<a href='B:30 11:45'>Lev 11:45</a>; <a href='B:230 19:7'>Ps 19:7</a>; <a href='B:520 7:7'>Rom 7:7</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> First of all, Ezekiel is probably not referring to the laws of God, but to pagan statutes to which God turned over His people when they disobeyed His holy law. Notice the text says, God also gave them up to statutes that were not good because “they rebelled against Me” (20:21).<p/>Second, there is a sense in which God’s holy law can be said to be not good, namely, disobedience to it brings evil results. The Apostle Paul put it this way: “Is the law sin? Certainly not! … But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law sin was dead” (<a href='B:520 7:7-8'>Rom 7:7-8</a>). That is, thepurpose of the law is good (namely, to reveal God’s righteousness), but the result to the law is evil (since it is the occasion of man’s sinfulness). 


text:
How can Ezekiel’s prophecies be included in Scripture if they are wrong about Nebuchadnezzar?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to the prophecies in Ezekiel 26, God would bring Nebuchadnezzar against the proud city of Tyre and would utterly destroy it. However, <a href='B:330 29:18'>Ezekiel 29:18</a> indicates that Nebuchadnezzar failed to capture Tyre. How can these two statements be reconciled?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Nebuchadnezzar did destroy the coastal cities. However, the people of the port of Tyre had obviously relocated to the island city, which they were able to successfully defend against the Babylonian invaders. Nebuchadnezzar had defeated and plundered the cities on the shore, as Ezekiel prophesied in 26:7–11, but he could not defeat the island city. This fact is reported in <a href='B:330 29:18'>Ezekiel 29:18</a>. 


text:
Who is the prince of Tyre?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Many conservative scholars equate the prince of Tyre with Satan. However, such statements as “you are a man, and not a god” (<a href='B:330 28:2'>28:2</a>) indicate that this is a reference to a human prince, not to Satan. Who is the prince of Tyre?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Evangelical scholars hold differing positions concerning the identity of the prince of Tyre. Some hold that the language in chapter 28 is highly poetic with figurative expressions that are designed to emphasize the arrogance of the prince of Tyre. These commentators understand this to be a human prince, although there is difference of opinion about exactly who this man would be. Some identify this prince as Ethbaal III who ruled from about 591 to about 572 B.C. Others identify him as Ithobal II, who may have been the same person under a different name. Some commentators propose that the language cannot be applied to any specific person, but is a personification of the city itself. The “king” serves as a symbol of the government and the people as a whole.<p/>All conservative commentators agree, however, that chapter 28 is a prophecy against the city of Tyre and its ruler, whoever that might be. This ruler exalted himself above God and deserved the judgment that God would bring upon him. Although the specific identity of the prince and king of Tyre is a debated issue, the application of this passage extends to all those who exalt themselves in pride and arrogance against God, whether they be kings, demons, or common people. And, of course, Satan himself is the ultimate example of all such proud creatures (cf. <a href='B:610 3:6'>1Tim 3:6</a>). 


text:
Does Ezekiel prophesy about an invasion of Egypt by Nebuchadnezzar which never actually took place?<p/>(For a discussion of the historical accuracy of the prophecies of Nebuchadnezzar’s invasion of Egypt, see comments under <a href='B:300 43:8-13'>Jer 43:8-13</a>) 


text:
How can these prophecies be understood literally when the NT declares that the sacrificial system has been abolished by Christ’s death?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Ezekiel seems to predict that, in the messianic period, the sacrificial system used by the Jews before the time of Jesus will be reinstituted (chaps. 40–48). However, the NT in general and the Book of Hebrews in particular is emphatic in declaring that Christ has by one sacrifice forever done away with the need for animal sacrifices (10:1–9).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There are two basic interpretations of this passage of Scripture. Some take it spiritually and others view it literally.<p/>First, some argue for a spiritual interpretation that these sacrifices are not to be understood literally, but only as symbols or foreshadows of what was fulfilled in Christ’s all-sufficient sacrifice on the Cross (<a href='B:650 1:1-2'>Heb 1:1-2</a>). They give the following reasons for their view.<p/>1. The NT teaches that Christ fulfilled and abolished the OT sacrificial system and priesthood (<a href='B:650 8:8-10'>Heb 8:8-10</a>).<p/>3. Ezekiel portrays the Gentiles as excluded from Israel’s temple, which is contrary to the NT teaching that Jew and Gentile are one in Christ (<a href='B:550 3:28'>Gal 3:28</a>; <a href='B:560 2:12-22'>Eph 2:12-22</a>).<p/>4. The NT speaks of the church as a spiritual Israel in which OT predictions are fulfilled (<a href='B:550 6:16'>Gal 6:16</a>; <a href='B:650 8:8-10'>Heb 8:8-10</a>).<p/>The literal interpretation looks to an actual restoration of the temple and sacrificial system,just as Ezekiel predicted it to be fulfilled during Christ’s millennial reign on earth (<a href='B:730 20'>Rev 20</a>). They support their position with the following points:<p/>3. The Bible distinguishes between Israel and the church (<a href='B:530 10:32'>1Cor 10:32</a>; <a href='B:520 9:3-4'>Rom 9:3-4</a>). Promises unique to Abraham and his literal descendants, such as the Promised Land (<a href='B:10 12:1-3'>Gen 12:1-3</a>), are not fulfilled in the church, but remain yet to be fulfilled in the future (<a href='B:520 11'>Rom 11</a>; <a href='B:730 20'>Rev 20</a>).<p/>4. The picture in <a href='B:730 21'>Revelation 21</a> is not that of the millennium (<a href='B:730 20'>Rev 20</a>), but of the eternal state that follows it. Ezekiel’s prediction (40–48) will be fulfilled in the millennium. Later, in the new heaven and the new earth, there will be no temple or sacrifices.<p/>6. The rest of Ezekiel’s prophecy will be fulfilled in a literal 1,000-year reign of Christ (<a href='B:730 20:1-7'>Rev 20:1-7</a>) as He sits on a literal throne with His 12 apostles sitting on 12 literal thrones in Jerusalem (<a href='B:470 19:28'>Matt 19:28</a>). If so, then there is no reason not to take the prophecy about the sacrifices as literal too.<p/>7. The OT did not foresee how Jew and Gentile would be joined together (cf. <a href='B:560 3:4-6'>Eph 3:4-6</a>), but it did envision that the Gentiles would be blessed (<a href='B:290 11:10-16'>Isa 11:10-16</a>). Ezekiel’s presentation does not exclude this later revelation (cf. <a href='B:580 1:26'>Col 1:26</a>). 


text:
<b>a—</b> Wasn’t the Book of Daniel actually written after about 170 b.c.?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Daniel contains an incredible amount of detail concerning the kingdoms of the Gentiles from the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, from about 605 b.c., down to the Roman empire which began to exercise dominance as early as 241 b.c. and, under the Roman general Pompey, took over the Promised Land in 63 b.c. However, conservative scholars have maintained that Daniel wrote in the 6th century b.c. How could Daniel have given such historically accurate details of events in the future?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The Book of Daniel contains supernatural prophecies that, from Daniel’s time, extended hundreds of years into the future (<a href='B:340 2:7'>Dan 2:7</a>). <a href='B:340 11'>Dan 11</a> presents a sweeping display of detailed prophecy that stretches from the reign of Cyrus the Great to the reign of antichrist, to the millennial kingdom, to the end of the age and into eternity. The record of the movement of nations and events is so accurate, it reads as the historical account of an eyewitness. However, conservative scholarship places the date of the Book of Daniel at a time before any of these events took place. The book itself claims to be predictive prophecy (cf. 9:24ff). To avoid the conclusion that Daniel’s prophecy was a supernatural act of God, modern scholars have proposed a number of explanations including a late date of writing. However, the historical accuracy of Daniel’s record confirms a 6th century composition, and the best conclusion is that the Book of Daniel is a revelation from God about historical events that were future to Daniel, many of which are still future to us today.<p/><b><a href='B:340 1:1'>Dan 1:1</a> b—</b> Is the date given here of Nebuchadnezzar’s invasion in contradiction to the date given in <a href='B:300 46:2'>Jeremiah 46:2</a>?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The Book of Daniel begins with the dating of the invasion of Nebuchadnezzar in the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim of Judah. However, in <a href='B:300 46:2'>Jeremiah 46:2</a>, the date of Nebuchadnezzar’s invasion is given as during the fourth year of the reign of Jehoiakim of Judah. Which is correct?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Both statements are correct. The difference is a result of two different calendar systems used by the two prophets. Daniel employed the Tishri (around October) calendar system which was the first month of the new year on the Hebrew calendar. Jeremiah, whose prophecy concerned the coming invasion of the Assyrian armies, employed the calendar of the Assyrians that marked Nisan (around April) as the first month of the new year. Jehoiakim came to the throne in the month of Tishri in 609 b.c. The official reckoning of a king’s first year starts on the first day of the new year, Tishri<p/>1. Since Jehoiakim became king of Judah several days after the first day of the new year, his first official year as king did not begin until the first day of the following year. For Daniel, this meant that Jehoiakim’s first official year began on the first day of Tishri, almost a whole year later. For Jeremiah, this meant that Jehoiakim’s first official year began about six months later on the first day of Nisan. Nebuchadnezzar’s invasion took place in the summer of 605 b.c., between the months of Nisan and Tishri. This means that according to Daniel’s reckoning, it was only the third official year of Jehoiakim’s reign, but according to Jeremiah’s reckoning it was Jehoiakim’s fourth official year as king of Judah. 


text:
Why does Daniel refer to the Chaldeans as a group of wise men here when he refers to them as an ethnic group in 5:30?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> When Daniel refers to those whom Nebuchadnezzar summoned to interpret his dream, he identifies these as magicians, astrologers, sorcerers, and Chaldeans. Each of these is a group of wise men who functioned as advisors to Nebuchadnezzar. However, in 5:30 Daniel refers to the Chaldeans as an ethnic group when he refers to Belshazzar as king of the Chaldeans.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There is no contradiction here. Although these two verses use the same word, kasdim, this word has two distinct uses in the Hebrew language. The Hebrew word can refer to a class of astrologer-priests, as it is used in <a href='B:340 2:2'>Dan 2:2</a>. It can also refer to the ethnic group of Chaldeans as it is used in 5:30. Due to its development through several languages and cultures, what originally started out as the Sumerian word Gal-du, which was applied to the astrologers meaning “master builder,” has ultimately become confused with the Hebrew word for the ethnic group, Chaldeans (kasdim). Consequently, Daniel employs the same word in its two common uses.


text:
If Daniel was faithful to God, why did he not refuse to bow to this idol too?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> In the first chapter, Daniel and the three other young men refused to do anything that violated their conscience (cf. <a href='B:340 1:8'>Dan 1:8</a>ff). However, here only the three young men refused to bow to the image. Why didn’t Daniel refuse to perform this idolatrous act also?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> He undoubtedly would have refused, if he had been there. But, there is absolutely no indication that Daniel was present. Since he was a government official (cf. <a href='B:340 1:19'>Dan 1:19</a>), he may have been out of the capital on business at this time. We do know that later (<a href='B:340 6'>Dan 6</a>) he stood firm on his spiritual convictions, even under the threat of death. So, had he been present, we can be assured that he would not have engaged in this idolatry either.


text:
<b>— </b>How can Daniel say the last king of Babylon was Belshazzar when history records that it was Nabonidus?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> <a href='B:340 5'>Dan 5</a> records the downfall of Babylon and identifies the king of Babylon as Belshazzar. However, neither Babylonian nor Greek historians record the existence of any such person. In fact, ancient historians report that Nabonidus was the last king of the Babylonian empire. Is Daniel’s record in error?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Daniel’s historical record of Belshazzar has been confirmed by recent archaeological evidence. Nabonidus was the king of Babylon from 556 to 539 b.c. However, according to a cuneiform document known as the “Persian Verse Account of Nabonidus,” in the third year of his reign, about 553 b.c., Nabonidus departed from Babylon on a long journey and entrusted the rule of Babylon into the hands of his first born son, Belshazzar. When Cyrus overthrew Babylon, Nabonidus was in Tema in North Arabia. Since Belshazzar was the subordinate of Nabonidus, his name was forgotten, because the ancient Babylonian and Greek historians were primarily interested in the reigns of the official kings. Daniel’s record has proven to be amazingly accurate.


text:
How can the Book of Daniel be inspired if it makes reference to a man that modern scholarship says never existed?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to <a href='B:340 5:31'>Dan 5:31</a>, the kingdom of Belshazzar fell to the invading armies, and Darius the Mede took over as king. However, modern scholars have rejected the historical accuracy of the Book of Daniel. They argue that there never was a Darius the Mede, since there is no mention of such a person in ancient documents. Is this an error in Daniel’s historical account?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Like the historical record of Belshazzar, which modern scholars questioned until archaeological evidence vindicated Daniel’s accuracy, Daniel has again recorded the existence of a man that other ancient historical documents omit. Some modern scholars claim that the author of Daniel mistakenly thought that the Medes conquered Babylon instead of the Persians. They claim that this author then confused Darius I, king of Persia (521–486 b.c.) with the conqueror of Babylon and identified this figure as Darius the Mede. However, there is no reason to assume that the Book of Daniel is in error. Darius the Mede is a different person from Darius I of Persia. Darius the Mede was a subordinate to Cyrus the Great. Cuneiform texts refer to Darius the Mede as Gubaru who was appointed by Cyrus to be governor over all of Babylonia. The tendency to deny the historical accuracy of Daniel simply because there is currently no corroborating historical information stems from the antisupernatural bias of modern scholarship. Daniel’s historical record has proven to be a reliable source of information.


text:
Did Daniel continue until the first year of Cyrus or the third year of his reign?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> <a href='B:340 1:21'>Dan 1:21</a> asserts that Daniel “continued until the first year of King Cyrus.” But <a href='B:340 10:1'>Dan 10:1</a> says that Daniel was still there until the “third year of Cyrus king of Persia.”<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The first passage (<a href='B:340 1:21'>Dan 1:21</a>) does not say Daniel did not continue to live longer. It simply notes that he lived until that glorious year when the Jewish exiles received permission to return to their homeland (cf. <a href='B:150 1:3'>Ezra 1:3</a>). The second passage (<a href='B:340 10:1'>Dan 10:1</a>) notes that Daniel also lived even beyond that time. Further, the word “continued” may imply that he retained his position or continued in Babylon. Although he lived on after Cyrus took over, Daniel would not necessarily have retained his government position with Babylon (cf. <a href='B:340 1:19'>Dan 1:19</a>) after this time, since the Medo-Persians took over.


text:
Will the resurrection be partial or universal?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Some Scriptures leave the impression that only some will be raised from the dead. Daniel says “many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake” (<a href='B:340 12:2'>Dan 12:2</a>). The NT often refers to resurrection “out from among” (Gk., ek) the dead, implying that not all will be raised (e.g., <a href='B:490 20:35'>Luke 20:35</a>; <a href='B:510 4:2'>Acts 4:2</a>; <a href='B:520 1:4'>Rom 1:4</a>; <a href='B:530 15:12'>1Cor 15:12</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There will be both a partial resurrection and then later a complete resurrection. There are two resurrections—the resurrection of the “just” and then later the resurrection of the “unjust” (<a href='B:510 24:15'>Acts 24:15</a>). First, “those who have done good” will come forth and then “those who have done evil” (<a href='B:500 5:29'>John 5:29</a>). John informs us that these two resurrections are separated by “a thousand years.” The “first resurrection” is before the thousand years (<a href='B:730 20:6'>Rev 20:6</a>). This is the resurrection of the saved who “lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years” (v. 4). But, “the rest of the dead [the unsaved] did not live again until the thousand years were finished” (v. 5). So, the first resurrection is partial, consisting only of the saved, and the second resurrection completes the picture, resurrecting all the rest, namely, the unsaved.


text:
How could a holy God who condemns harlotry command Hosea to marry a harlot?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> God commanded Hosea to “take yourself a wife of harlotry.” However, according to <a href='B:20 20:14'>Exo 20:14</a>, adultery is a sin; and according to <a href='B:530 6:15-18'>1Cor 6:15-18</a>, to have sexual relations with a harlot is immoral (cf. <a href='B:30 19:29'>Lev 19:29</a>). How could a holy God command Hosea to take a harlot as his wife?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Some scholars have attempted to avoid the difficulty by claiming this is an allegory. However, while God obviously intended this as a dramatic illustration to Israel of their unfaithfulness to Him (cf. 1:2), there is no indication in the text that it is anything but a literal event. How else could it have been such a forceful example to the wayward people of Israel. Taken literally, there is no real contradiction with any other Scripture for several reasons.<p/>First of all, when God commanded Hosea to take Gomer, the daughter of Diblaim, to be his wife, Gomer may not yet have actually committed adultery. However, God knew what was in her heart, and He knew that she would ultimately be unfaithful to Hosea. This is similar to the angel of the Lord calling Gideon a “mighty man of valor” before he had fought a single battle (<a href='B:70 6:11-12'>Judge 6:11-12</a>). God knew that Gideon would become a great leader in Israel even though he was not yet. God commanded Hosea to take a woman whom He knew would become a harlot. God commanded this as a picture of how Israel had committed spiritual adultery against Him. When God brought Israel out of Egypt, she was a brand new nation. She had not yet broken the covenant which God would establish with her in the wilderness. Just like Israel had committed spiritual adultery by worshiping other gods, so Gomer would commit physical adultery by having relations with other men. The relationship between Hosea and Gomer was an object lesson for all Israel.<p/>Fourth, the command in <a href='B:30 21:14'>Lev 21:14</a> to not marry a harlot was given to the levitical priests, not to everyone. Salmon apparently married Rahab the harlot (<a href='B:470 1:5'>Matt 1:5</a>) from whose legal genealogy Christ eventually came. At any rate, Hosea was a prophet, not a levitical priest, hence, the prohibition to not marry a harlot did not apply to him.<p/>Finally, the command in <a href='B:530 6:16'>1Cor 6:16</a> not to be joined to a harlot is not a command never to marry a woman who was a harlot. Rather, the command is directed against those who were having sexual relations outside of the marriage relationship. But, Hosea did not have sexual relations outside of marriage. God commanded Hosea to marry Gomer and always be faithful to her.


text:
Do the prophets disavow the sacrificial system of Moses?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Moses commanded the use of sacrifices in the worship of the Lord, saying, “And you shall burn the whole ram on the altar. It is a burnt offering to the Lord; it is a sweet aroma, an offering made by fire to the Lord” (<a href='B:20 29:18'>Ex 29:18</a>). However, the later prophets seemed to repeatedly repudiate the sacrificial system. Hosea quotes the Lord, saying, “I desire mercy and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings” (<a href='B:350 6:6'>Hos 6:6</a>). David confessed to God, “You do not desire sacrifice, or else I would give it; You do not delight in burnt offering” (<a href='B:230 51:16'>Ps 51:16</a>). God declared through Jeremiah, “Your burnt offerings are not acceptable, nor your sacrifices sweet to Me” (<a href='B:300 6:20'>Jer 6:20</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The later prophets did not repudiate the OT sacrificial system—they only stressed that God did not desire mere outward observance, but also inward obedience. This is clear from three lines of evidence.<p/>First, God expressed approval with the offering of sacrifices, even during the same period in which many of the above quoted verses were written, which are mistakenly taken to express His disapproval. For example, Solomon offered thousands of burnt offerings to the Lord, which God accepted by a supernatural manifestation of fire from heaven (<a href='B:140 7:1-4'>2Chron 7:1-4</a>). The godly King Josiah manifested his obedience to the Law of Moses by eating the passover lamb (cf. <a href='B:120 23:21-23'>2Ki 23:21-23</a>). Other good kings offered burnt sacrifices which were acceptable to God (cf. <a href='B:120 16:15'>2Ki 16:15</a>; <a href='B:140 29:18'>2Chron 29:18</a>). Even after the captivity, at the end of the OT, sacrifices were offered during the time of Ezra (cf. <a href='B:150 3:5'>Ezra 3:5</a>; <a href='B:150 8:35'>8:35</a>) and Nehemiah (cf. <a href='B:160 10:33'>Neh 10:33</a>) which were accepted by God.<p/>Second, even the later prophets themselves offered sacrifices and/or encouraged others to do so. Samuel offered a “burnt offering to the Lord” (<a href='B:90 7:9'>1Sam 7:9</a>). Elijah offered a “burnt sacrifice” on Mt. Carmel which God accepted (<a href='B:110 18:38'>1Ki 18:38</a>). The prophet Joel lamented that “the grain offering and the drink offering have been cut off from the house of the Lord” (<a href='B:360 1:9'>Joel 1:9</a>; <a href='B:360 1:13'>13</a>). Likewise, Zephaniah prophesied of a time when worshipers would return with an “offering” to the Lord (<a href='B:430 3:10'>Zeph 3:10</a>). Ezekiel also predicted the continuance of offerings in the future kingdom (<a href='B:330 40:38'>Ezek 40:38</a>). Even David, who stressed the need for inner purity of heart, nevertheless, in the same psalm, spoke of the need to offer a “burnt offering” (<a href='B:230 51:19'>Ps 51:19</a>).<p/>Finally, the verses that seem to speak against sacrifices and offerings do not condemn them as such, but only in the vain way in which they were being offered. It was ritual without reality that God condemned. They had a “form of godliness but denying its power” (<a href='B:620 3:5'>2Tim 3:5</a>). That this is what the verses mean is evident from several facts: (1) As just noted, during this same period God was accepting sacrifices offered with a right heart. (2) Also, as just observed, even the prophets themselves offered sacrifices to the Lord. (3) Samuel the prophet, who made one of the condemning statements (<a href='B:90 15:22'>1Sam 15:22</a>), offered a sacrifice to the Lord in the very next chapter (<a href='B:90 16:2'>1Sam 16:2</a>; <a href='B:90 16:5'>5</a>). (4) The very wording of this condemnation implies that God was not against sacrifices as such. For example, the prophet Samuel said “to obey is better than sacrifice, And to heed than the fat of rams” (<a href='B:90 15:22'>1Sam 15:22</a>). It is clear that this is not a condemnation of sacrifices, but of sacrifices without an obedient heart.


text:
How can this verse say that Ephraim will return to Egypt when 11:5 says that Ephraim will not return there?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to the prophecy of <a href='B:350 8:13'>8:13</a>, because Israel, or Ephraim, had sinned against God, Hosea prophesied that they would return to Egypt (cf. <a href='B:350 9:3'>9:3</a>). However, in <a href='B:350 11:5'>11:5</a> God specifically states that Israel “shall not return to the land of Egypt.” Is this a contradiction?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There is no contradiction because the statements refer to different aspects of Israel’s experience. In <a href='B:350 8:13'>Hosea 8:13</a>, God is remembering the sin of Israel in worshiping other gods. In their hearts, the people of Israel were always “returning to Egypt.” In <a href='B:350 11:5'>Hosea 11:5</a>, God is reiterating the promise of <a href='B:50 17:16'>Deu 17:16</a> that Israel would not return to the captivity of Egypt. Although God would punish the sin of His people, He would not cause them to return to the captivity of Egypt. Rather, He would bring the Assyrian armies to enact His judgment, and Israel would be carried away as the captives of this foreign enemy. On several occasions Israel had sought help from Egypt against the Assyrians. The promise that they would not return to Egypt was not only a restatement of the promise of <a href='B:50 17:16'>Deu 17:16</a>, but it was also a warning that Egypt would not be able to help Israel any more against the invading Assyrians. 


text:
How could Joel mention the Greeks if his book was written before the 4th century B.C.?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to many scholars, Joel was written in the 9th century B.C. However, the Greek reference in <a href='B:360 3:6'>Joel 3:6</a> indicates that the earliest the book could have been written is the late 4th century B.C.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> It is not necessary to suppose that the mention of Greeks places the composition of the book in the late 4th century B.C. The context of chapter 3 is the judgment of the nations. God promises punishment specifically upon the Phoenicians and the Philistines because they had plundered His people and sold them into slavery to the Greeks. Verse 6 states that these nations had sold His people to the Greeks: “That you may remove them far from their borders.” If Joel had been written after the expansion of the empire of Greece by Alexander the Great in the middle of the 4th century B.C., then God could not have accused the Phoenicians and the Philistines of selling the Jews to the Greeks who were “far from their borders.” The Greeks are referred to in ancient Neo-Babylonian inscriptions as early as the 7th-century B.C., and the Cretan Linear B tablets indicate the beginning of the Greek civilization and language from about 1500 B.C. So, it is not possible to use this reference to date Joel’s prophecy in the fourth century B.C. 


text:
Does God sit or stand to judge?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Joel declares that God will “sit to judge all the surrounding nations.” But, elsewhere the Bible says God “stands to judge the people” (<a href='B:290 3:13'>Isa 3:13</a>). Which is true?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Both are figures of speech which express literal and compatible truths. God “sits” to hear everyone impartially and decide their guilt or innocence. Then He “stands” to execute the judgment on the case. Each expression describes a different aspect of God’s rule as judge. 


text:
What does Amos mean when he says there will be a famine of hearing the words of the Lord?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Because of the sin of Israel, God pronounced through His prophet Amos that He would bring judgment upon the people. One aspect of that judgment was that there would be a famine of hearing the words of the Lord. However, there is no indication from history that the Hebrew Scriptures were destroyed or removed from Israel at this time. To what does the “famine” in hearing the words of the Lord refer?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> This verse addresses the lack of messengers from God, such as His prophets. Israel had not only despised the messengers of God, but had put many of them to death for their words. In God’s judgment upon Israel, there would come a time when Israel would seek for help and guidance, but God would be silent (compare <a href='B:330 7:26'>Ezek 7:26</a> and <a href='B:400 3:7'>Micah 3:7</a>). He would not send any messengers to them. Although they would still have the written Hebrew Scriptures, there would be a famine of the words of the Lord through His prophets. 


text:
<b>OBADIAH —</b> If the Book of Obadiah is inspired Scripture, then why is it not quoted in the NT? (For a discussion of this question, see <a href='B:250 1:1'>Ecc 1:1</a>.)<p/><b>OBADIAH —</b> Is the prophecy of Obadiah simply an expression of Jewish nationalism?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The prophecy of Obadiah is essentially a message of divine moral judgment upon the nations. Of the 21 verses that comprise this book, 16 are directed as pronouncements of coming judgment against Edom, and 5 verses are dedicated to the prophecies of the future triumph of Israel over Edom. But, isn’t this simply an example of Jewish nationalism rather than a revelation of God?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The Book of Obadiah is a revelation of the sovereignty of God presented in the midst of national disgrace and defeat. The impotence of God’s people against their enemies was a reflection upon the power of the God of Israel. Wasn’t Yahweh a defeated God? Wasn’t He powerless to resist the enemies of His people? No is Obadiah’s resounding reply! The God of Israel will keep His promises even though the future looks black. The nations have not understood that their temporary victory over God’s people was the very work of God. The message of Obadiah is that the God of Israel is always in complete control, and He will accomplish His purpose. It is a message of faith and hope, and triumph against the enemies of God. But the triumph of Israel will be a blessing to all nations. Israel’s apostasy brought judgment. But, “if their being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?” (<a href='B:520 11:15'>Rom 11:15</a>) This book is not simply an expression of Jewish nationalism. It is a declaration of the faithfulness of God, and a testimony to His moral justice by which He will ultimately establish justice in the earth. 


text:
Is the Book of Jonah fact or fiction?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Traditional Bible scholarship has held that the Book of Jonah records events that actually took place in history. However, because of the literary style of the book and the amazing adventures that are said to have befallen the prophet Jonah, many modern scholars propose that it is not a book of actual historical events, but a fictional story designed to communicate a message. Did the events of Jonah actually happen or not?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There is good evidence that the events recorded in the Book of Jonah are literal historical events that took place in the life of the prophet Jonah.<p/>Third, the most devastating argument against the denial of the historical accuracy of Jonah is found in <a href='B:470 12:40'>Mat 12:40</a>. In this passage Jesus predicts His own burial and resurrection, and provides the doubting scribes and Pharisees the sign that they demanded. The sign is the experience of Jonah. Jesus says, “For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” If the tale of Jonah’s experience in the belly of the great fish was only fiction, then this provided no prophetic support for Jesus’ claim. The point of making reference to Jonah is that if they did not believe the story of Jonah being in the belly of the fish, then they would not believe the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. As far as Jesus was concerned, the historical fact of His own death, burial, and resurrection was on the same historical ground as Jonah in the belly of the fish. To reject one was to cast doubt on the other (cf. <a href='B:500 3:12'>John 3:12</a>). Likewise, if they believed one, they should believe the other.<p/>Fourth, Jesus went on to mention the significant historical detail. His own death, burial, and resurrection was the supreme sign that verified His claims. When Jonah preached to the unbelieving Gentiles, they repented. But, here was Jesus in the presence of His own people, the very people of God, and yet they refused to believe. Therefore, the men of Nineveh would stand up in judgment against them, “because they [the men of Nineveh] repented at the preaching of Jonah” (<a href='B:470 12:41'>Matt 12:41</a>). If the events of the Book of Jonah were merely parable or fiction, and not literal history, then the men of Nineveh did not really repent, and any judgment upon the unrepentant Pharisees would be unjust and unfair. Because of the testimony of Jesus, we can be sure that Jonah records literal history. 


text:
Is Jonah’s testimony to the size of Nineveh accurate?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> When Jonah arrived at the city of Nineveh, he observed that the city was so large, that it took a three-day journey to pass through it. However, such a statement must be an exaggeration, since it is argued that the average man could walk only from 50 to 70 miles in three days. A city of 50 to 70 miles in diameter is not recorded in all of history until modern times. Is this an error?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There have been several proposals to explain this observation by Jonah. Some commentators propose that Jonah is commenting on the circumference of the city. A city 50 miles in circumference would be about 16 miles in diameter. This size more nearly fits the estimated population of about 600,000 people in this major ancient city. Other commentators propose that Jonah is not claiming that it would take three days to walk straight through the city. Rather, Jonah observed that it would take three days to go through all the various areas in the entire city. Those who hold this position point out that Jonah went to Nineveh in order to proclaim the message of judgment to the people. This would require him to go to every part of the city, not simply to walk through the middle from one side to the other. This also fits the statement of verse 4 in which Jonah enters the city and, in the first day’s walk, proclaimed the message as he went along. 


text:
Why does Jonah refer to the king of Assyria simply as the king of Nineveh?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Conservative scholars maintain that the Book of Jonah was written by the prophet Jonah who actually experienced the events recorded in the book. However, if the Book of Jonah was written by a Hebrew prophet who lived in the time of the Assyrian empire, why would he refer to the king of the Assyrian empire simply as the king of Nineveh?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> All of the ancient records regarding the history of Assyria testify to the fact that it was common knowledge that Nineveh was the capital city of Assyria. Simply because Jonah identifies this king as the king of Nineveh does not mean that Jonah did not also realize that this man was the king of the Assyrian empire of which Nineveh was the capital. The king of Assyria would certainly be the king of its capital city. To identify the king of a nation as the king of its capital city was not uncommon. In <a href='B:110 21:1'>1Ki 21:1</a> Ahab, king of Israel, is referred to as the king of Samaria. So, Jonah’s use of this title is not anachronistic, and does not provide evidence for a late date. 


text:
Does God ever withhold His blessing from those who cry out for it?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> This text and other passages of Scripture (cf. <a href='B:290 1:15'>Isa 1:15</a>; <a href='B:660 4:3'>Jam 4:3</a>) speak of God withholding His blessing from those who cry unto Him. But, the Bible contends, on the other hand, that God “gives to all liberally” who ask (<a href='B:660 1:5'>Jam 1:5</a>), “for everyone who asks, receives” (<a href='B:490 11:10'>Luke 11:10</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> These diverse texts are speaking about different kinds of people. God never withholds His promised blessing from those who call with a sincere and repentant heart. But, He does withhold it from those who do not call in “faith with no doubting” (<a href='B:660 1:6'>Jam 1:6</a>) or who “ask amiss” to spend it on their own pleasures (<a href='B:660 4:3'>Jam 4:3</a>). In brief, God always grants His promised blessings on the faithful, but He does not always promise the same blessings to the unfaithful.<p/>Second, not all of God’s promised blessings are unconditional, as was His unilateral land promise to Abraham and his descendants (<a href='B:10 12'>Gen 12</a>; 14–15; <a href='B:10 17'>17</a>). Many of His blessings are conditioned on His people’s obedience, such as the bilateral covenant with Israel (“If you will indeed obey my voice,” <a href='B:20 19:5'>Ex 19:5</a>).<p/>Likewise, God never promises that He will heal everyone in this life of all diseases. In fact, God refused to heal Paul though he pleaded three times with Him to be relieved of his burden (<a href='B:540 12:8-9'>2Cor 12:8-9</a>). Nor does God promise that He will make all believers rich in this life. Even Jesus became poor for us (<a href='B:540 8:9'>2Cor 8:9</a>), and He declared that there would always be poor (<a href='B:470 26:11'>Matt 26:11</a>), spiritually blessed though they be (<a href='B:470 5:3'>Matt 5:3</a>). In these cases, no matter how much faith one musters, God will not necessarily bestow the blessing in this life, since He never unconditionally promised to do so. 


text:
How can we explain Matthew’s apparent misquotation of <a href='B:400 5:2'>Micah 5:2</a>?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> <a href='B:470 2:6'>Mat 2:6</a> quotes <a href='B:400 5:2'>Micah 5:2</a>. However, the words Matthew uses are different than those used by Micah.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Although Matthew seems to have changed some of the words from the passage in Micah, there is no real deviation in the meaning of the text. Matthew, in some instances, seems to have paraphrased.<p/>First, Matthew inserts the phrase “land of Judah” for the word “Ephrathah.” This does not really change the meaning of the verse. There is no difference between the land of Judah and Ephrathah, except one is more specific than the other. In fact, Ephrathah refers to Bethlehem in the Micah passage, and Bethlehem is located in the land of Judah. However, this does not change the basic meaning of this verse. He is speaking of the same area of land. Interestingly, when Herod asked the chief priests and the scribes where the child was to be born, they said, “in Bethlehem of Judea” (<a href='B:470 2:5'>Matt 2:5</a>, NASB).<p/>Finally, Matthew uses the phrase “who will shepherd My people Israel” and Micah does not. <a href='B:400 5:2'>Micah 5:2</a> recognizes that there will be a ruler in Israel, and Matthew recognizes this as well. However, the phrase that is not mentioned in Micah is actually taken from <a href='B:100 5:2'>2Sam 5:2</a>. The combining of verses does not take away what is being said, but it strengthens the point that the author is making. There are other instances where an author combines one Scripture with another. For example, <a href='B:470 27:9-10'>Mat 27:9-10</a> combines some of <a href='B:450 11:12-13'>Zech 11:12-13</a> with <a href='B:300 19:2'>Jeremiah 19:2</a>; <a href='B:300 19:11'>11</a> and 32:6–9. Also, <a href='B:480 1:2-3'>Mark 1:2-3</a> combines some of <a href='B:290 40:3'>Isaiah 40:3</a> with <a href='B:460 3:1'>Mal 3:1</a>. Only the first passage is mentioned, since it is the main passage being cited.<p/>In brief, Matthew is not misrepresenting any information in his quotation of <a href='B:400 5:2'>Micah 5:2</a> and <a href='B:100 5:2'>2Sam 5:2</a>. Matthew’s quote is still accurate even though he paraphrases part of it and combines another portion of Scripture with it. 


text:
Does God get angry?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Nahum declares that God “avenges and is furious.” Indeed, God is often represented as being angry in the Bible (cf. <a href='B:290 26:20'>Isa 26:20</a>; <a href='B:300 4:8'>Jer 4:8</a>). At the same time, the Bible urges believers not to be angry, since it is a sin (cf. <a href='B:550 5:20'>Gal 5:20</a>). But if it is a sin, then how can God do it?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Anger as such is not sinful. It depends on the purpose, nature, and/or object of anger. Even Jesus, our perfect moral example, was angry at sin (cf. <a href='B:470 23:15-36'>Matt 23:15-36</a>). Paul exhorted us, “Be angry, and do not sin” (<a href='B:560 4:26'>Eph 4:26</a>). In short, we should be angry at sin, but we should not sin in being angry. The problem with human anger, even in the good sense of anger at sin, is that it is easy to carry it too far so that we sin in our anger. Unlike God, who is “slow to anger” (<a href='B:160 9:17'>Neh 9:17</a>), we are often quick to anger. In short, there is good and bad anger for humans.<p/>GOOD ANGER BAD ANGER 


text:
If God is everywhere, then how could He “come from Teman”?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> This verse seems to contradict God’s omnipresence. If God is everywhere (<a href='B:230 139:7-10'>Ps 139:7-10</a>; <a href='B:300 23:23'>Jer 23:23</a>), then how could He be localized in the city of Teman from which He was to come to judge His enemy?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> This is not a reference to God in His omnipresence, but to a special manifestation of God, such as a theophany. Just as God came down in a special display of His glory to Moses on Mt. Sinai (<a href='B:50 33:2'>Deut 33:2</a>), or as the angel of the Lord to Manoah (<a href='B:70 13'>Judge 13</a>), even so here He came from Teman.<p/><b><a href='B:420 3:3'>HABAKKUK 3:3</a> —</b> Is this a prediction of the Prophet Mohammed?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Many Muslim scholars believe this refers to the prophet Mohammed coming from Paran (Arabia), and use it in connection with a similar text in <a href='B:50 33:2'>Deu 33:2</a>.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> As already noted (see comments on <a href='B:50 33:2'>Deut 33:2</a>), Paran is not near Mecca where Mohammed came, but is hundreds of miles away. Furthermore, the verse is speaking of “God” coming, not Mohammed. Finally, the “praise” could not refer to Mohammed (whose name means “the praised one”), since the subject of both “praise” and “glory” is God (“His”), and Mohammed is not God. 


text:
Hasn’t it been demonstrated that Zephaniah is actually composed of two books with different messages?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Conservative scholars maintain that the Book of Zephaniah is a single work composed by the prophet Zephaniah. However, modern scholarship claims that the book is actually two books with different messages put together as if it were one. The very beginning of this book is a message of dread and coming judgment. The overriding theme is the devastation and destruction that is about to fall in the swiftly approaching Day of the Lord (1:7, 8, 10, 14–15, etc.) However, verses 8–13 of chapter 3 present a message of hope that seems completely out of keeping with the theme of the book as a whole. How can this book be considered the sole work of one person, Zephaniah?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There is no reason to suppose that the messages of judgment and hope are incompatible. In fact, it is the message of the Book of Zephaniah that the coming judgment of the Day of the Lord is the very means by which God would bring about the ultimate restoration of His people. The Day of the Lord is a day of purification from sin and salvation of the remnant. The hope of salvation in the midst of judgment, is found as early as 2:1–3 and 3:8–9, clearly pointing out that it is this purifying judgment that will prepare the way for the restoration of God’s people. Zephaniah is a single unified work by the prophet Zephaniah. 


text:
How could foreign influence have caused the work to cease when <a href='B:440 1:2'>Haggai 1:2</a> blames it on the indifference of the leaders?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> <a href='B:150 4:7-23'>Ezra 4:7-23</a> records that after the great beginning made by the people in laying the foundation of the temple, foreign enemies came up to force the people to stop the rebuilding project. However, <a href='B:440 1:2'>Haggai 1:2</a> implies that the people were indifferent toward the building project. What was the real reason for the delay in rebuilding the temple?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Both statements are true. Although the military force of the enemy caused the rebuilding to stop, it was the indifference of the people that was responsible for the fact that the project was not restarted. During the reign of Cyrus the Great, the climate was hostile toward the people, and the building project faced stiff opposition. Once Darius I had taken power in Persia in about 522 B.C., the opportunity to restart the building project was much more favorable. However, the leaders of the people had become so involved in their own affairs that they were not interested in undertaking such an enormous project.<p/><b><a href='B:440 1:2'>HAGGAI 1:2</a> —</b> How could the indifference of the leaders have caused the work to cease when <a href='B:150 4:23'>Ezra 4:23</a> blames foreign influence?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> <a href='B:440 1:2'>Haggai 1:2</a> implies that the people were indifferent toward the building of the temple, while <a href='B:150 4:7-23'>Ezra 4:7-23</a> claims that foreign enemies came up to force the people to stop the rebuilding project. Was the reason indifference or opposition?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Both statements are true. The military force of the enemy caused the rebuilding to stop, but it was the indifference of the people that prevented the project from being restarted. (See comments on <a href='B:150 4:23'>Ezra 4:23</a>) 


text:
Why does this verse imply that the building of the temple began in 520 B.C.?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> <a href='B:440 2:15'>Haggai 2:15</a> implies that the building of the temple did not begin until 520 B.C. <a href='B:150 3:8-13'>Ezra 3:8-13</a> claims that the rebuilding of the temple began in about 536 B.C., while <a href='B:150 4:24'>Ezra 4:24</a> says the rebuilding of the temple took place during the reign of Darius, king of Persia. Which one of these is correct?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> All of them are correct. They are simply referring to different aspects of the work. For a discussion of these passages see under <a href='B:150 3:10'>Ezra 3:10</a>. 


text:
How can these verses be part of Zechariah when <a href='B:470 27:9'>Mat 27:9</a> says they belong to the Book of Jeremiah?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> When Matthew presents the prophetic prediction that related to the death of Judas, he quoted from <a href='B:300 32:6-9'>Jeremiah 32:6-9</a>. However, he also quoted from <a href='B:450 11:12-13'>Zech 11:12-13</a>, but he asserts that these quotes are from the prophet Jeremiah. Does the Zephaniah passage actually belong in Jeremiah?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> It is not exactly accurate to say that Matthew quoted exclusively from <a href='B:450 11'>Zech 11</a> or Jeremiah<p/>32. There are other passages in Jeremiah that refer to the potter’s field (<a href='B:300 18:2'>Jer 18:2</a>; <a href='B:300 19:2'>19:2</a>; <a href='B:300 19:11'>11</a>), and Matthew’s rendering is not an exact quote from any of the passages. Matthew is combining the various elements of these prophecies to make his point. Because Jeremiah is the more prominent prophetic book, Matthew simply mentions Jeremiah’s name as the source of the prophetic message which he is bringing out. Matthew did this earlier (<a href='B:470 5:2'>Matt 5:2</a>) where he cites from two passages (<a href='B:400 5:2'>Micah 5:2</a> and <a href='B:100 5:2'>2Sam 5:2</a>). It was a common practice of the day to cite the more popular prophet. 


text:
If God is love, how could He hate any person?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> In the latter part of verse 2 and the first part of verse 3, God says, “Yet Jacob I have loved; But Esau I have hated.” But, John says, “God is love” (<a href='B:690 4:16'>1John 4:16</a>). How can a God of love hate any one person?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> First of all, God is not speaking about the person Esau, but of the nation that came from him, namely, Edom. So God is not expressing hate toward any person here.<p/>Further, the nation Edom was deserving of God’s indignation for their “violence against your brother Jacob [Israel]” (<a href='B:380 1:10'>Obad 10</a>). They sided with Israel’s enemies, blocked the way of their escape, and even delivered up those who remained (vv. 12–14).<p/>Finally, like the Nicolaitans, God hates the works of the sinner, not the sinner himself. John commends the believers that “hate the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate” (<a href='B:730 2:6'>Rev 2:6</a>; also see comments on <a href='B:230 5:5'>Ps 5:5</a>). 


text:
Is Joram the father of Uzziah or of Ahaziah?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Matthew says “Joram begot Uzziah.” However, <a href='B:130 3:11'>1Chr 3:11</a> lists “Joram [and then] his son, Ahaziah.” Which one is correct?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Ahaziah was apparently the immediate son of Joram, and Uzziah was a distant “son” (descendant). Just as the word “son” in the Bible also means grandson, even so the term “begot” can be used of a father or grandfather. In other words, “begot” means “became the ancestor of,” and the one “begotten” is the “descendant of.” Matthew, therefore, is not giving a complete chronology, but an abbreviated genealogy of Christ’s ancestry. A comparison of <a href='B:470 1:8'>Mat 1:8</a> and <a href='B:130 3:11–12'>1Chr 3:11–12</a> reveals the three generations between Joram and Uzziah (Azariah):<p/><a href='B:470 1:8'>Mat 1:8</a> <a href='B:130 3:11-12'>1Chron 3:11-12</a><p/>Joram Joram 


text:
Did Matthew make a mistake concerning the father of Jotham?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> In <a href='B:120 15:1-7'>2Ki 15:1-7</a>, the Bible mentions the father of Jotham as Azariah, and in <a href='B:120 15:32'>2Ki 15:32</a> and 34, Jotham’s father is named Uzziah. Some have concluded that the Bible made a mistake by listing two different people as the father of Jotham.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> These are two different names for the same person. For different reasons, the Bible occasionally gives two different names for one individual. For example, Paul was also named Saul (<a href='B:510 13:9'>Acts 13:9</a>). Also, in Judges, Gideon receives the second name, Jerubbaal (6:32; 7:1). Jehoiakim’s son Jehoiachin is also known as Jeconiah (cf. <a href='B:120 24:6'>2Ki 24:6</a> and <a href='B:130 3:16'>1Chron 3:16</a>). Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah were all given new names. They are Belteshazzar, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego (<a href='B:340 1:7'>Dan 1:7</a>). Also, some of Jesus’ disciples had two names, for example, Simon (Peter) and Lebbaeus (Thaddaeus) (<a href='B:470 10:2-3'>Matt 10:2-3</a>). 


text:
How many generations were listed between the captivity and Christ, 14 or 13?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Matthew says the generations “from the captivity in Babylon until the Christ are fourteen generations” (<a href='B:470 1:17'>1:17</a>). However, he lists only 13 names after the captivity is counted. So, which is correct, 13 or 14?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Both are correct. Jeconiah is counted in both lists, since he lived both before and after the captivity. So, there are literally 14 names listed “from the captivity in Babylon until the Christ,” just as Matthew says. There are also literally 14 names listed between David and the captivity, just as Matthew claims (<a href='B:470 1:6-12'>Matt 1:6-12</a>). There is no error in the text at all. 


text:
Why does the Bible commend the Magi for following the star, when it condemns astrology?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The Bible condemns the use of astrology (see <a href='B:30 19:26'>Lev 19:26</a>; <a href='B:50 18:10'>Deut 18:10</a>; <a href='B:290 8:19'>Isa 8:19</a>), yet God blessed the wise men (Magi) for using a star to indicate the birth of Christ.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> First, we need to ask what astrology is. Astrology is a belief that the study of the arrangement and movement of the stars can enable one toforetell events— whether they will be good or bad. Second, the star used in the biblical account was to announce the birth of Christ, not toforetell this event. God gave the star to the Magi to proclaim to them that the child had already been born. We know the child was already born, because in <a href='B:470 2:16'>Mat 2:16</a>, Herod gives a command to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and vicinity that are two years old or younger in accordance with “the time which he had ascertained from the Magi” (NASB). Third, there are other cases in the Bible in which the stars and planets are used by God to reveal His desires. <a href='B:230 19:1-6'>Psalm 19:1-6</a> affirms that the heavens declare God’s glory, and <a href='B:520 1:18-20'>Rom 1:18-20</a> teaches that creation reveals God’s existence. Christ refers to what will happen to the sun, moon, and stars in connection with His second coming (<a href='B:470 24:29-30'>Matt 24:29-30</a>), as did the prophet Joel (2:31–32). The star guiding the Magi was not used topredict, but to proclaim the birth of Christ. 


text:
Didn’t Matthew make a mistake by claiming a prophecy that is not found in the OT?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Matthew claims that Jesus moved to Nazareth to live, in order “that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene” (<a href='B:470 2:23'>Matt 2:23</a>). However, no such prophecy is found in any OT prophet. Did Matthew make a mistake?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Matthew did not say that any particular OT “prophet” (singular) stated this. He simply affirmed that the OT “prophets” (plural) predicted that Jesus would be called a Nazarene. So we should not expect to find any given verse, but simply a general truth found in many prophets to correspond to His Nazarene-like character. There are several suggestions as to how Jesus could have “fulfilled” (brought to completion) this truth.<p/>Some point to the fact that Jesus fulfilled the righteous requirements of the OT Law (<a href='B:470 5:17-18'>Matt 5:17-18</a>; <a href='B:520 8:3-4'>Rom 8:3-4</a>), one part of which involved the holy commitment made in the vow of the “Nazarite.” The Nazarite took this vow “to separate himself to the Lord” (<a href='B:40 6:2'>Num 6:2</a>), and Jesus perfectly fulfilled this. However, the word is different both in Hebrew and Greek, and Jesus never took this particular vow.<p/>Others point to the fact that Nazareth comes from the basic word netzer (branch). And many prophets spoke of the Messiah as the “Branch” (cf. <a href='B:290 11:1'>Isa 11:1</a>; <a href='B:300 23:5'>Jer 23:5</a>; <a href='B:300 33:15'>33:15</a>; <a href='B:450 3:8'>Zech 3:8</a>; <a href='B:450 6:12'>6:12</a>).<p/>Still others note that the city of Nazareth, where Jesus lived, was a despised place “on the other side of the tracks.” This is evident in Nathaniel’s response, “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” (<a href='B:500 1:46'>John 1:46</a>) In this sense, “Nazarene” was a term of scorn appropriate to the Messiah whom the prophets predicted would be “despised and rejected of men” (<a href='B:290 53:3'>Isa 53:3</a>; cf. <a href='B:230 22:6'>Ps 22:6</a>; <a href='B:340 9:26'>Dan 9:26</a>; <a href='B:450 12:10'>Zech 12:10</a>). 


text:
<b>(cf. <a href='B:420 4:5-12'>Luke 4:5-12</a>)</b>—Is there a mistake in recording the wilderness temptation of Christ by Matthew or Luke?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to both Matthew and Luke, the first temptation was to turn stones into bread to satisfy Jesus’ hunger. The second temptation listed by Matthew took place at the pinnacle of the temple. The third temptation listed by Matthew involved all the kingdoms of the world. However, although Luke mentions these same two events, he lists them in reverse order—the kingdoms of the world are mentioned second and the pinnacle of the temple is mentioned third. Which is the correct order?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> It may be that Matthew describes these temptations chronologically while Luke lists them climactically, that is, topically. This may be to express the climax he desired to emphasize. <a href='B:470 4:5'>Mat 4:5</a> begins with the word “then” while verse 8 begins with the word “again.” In Greek, these words suggest a more sequential order of the events. In Luke’s account, however, verses 5 and 9 each begins with a simple “and” (see NASB). The Greek in the case of Luke’s account does not necessarily indicate a sequential order of events. Furthermore, there is no disagreement on the fact that these temptations actually happened. 


text:
Why does Matthew incorrectly quote Isaiah?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Matthew does not seem to quote <a href='B:290 9:1-2'>Isaiah 9:1-2</a> accurately. Rather, he seems to have changed it.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> It is not necessary to quote a passage verbatim to cite it accurately. Matthew does not distort the meaning of this passage. He simply condenses or summarizes it. Toparaphrase accurately is not to distort. Otherwise, no news report or historical account was ever accurate, since summary is essential to history. 


text:
<b>(cf. <a href='B:470 5:3'>MATT 5:3</a>)—</b> Why does Luke’s version of the Beatitudes differ from those in Matthew?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Luke’s version of the first beatitude states “Blessed are you poor.” While Matthew’s account says “Blessed are the poor in spirit.” Luke appears to be speaking about poverty in a financial sense and Matthew about poverty in a spiritual sense.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Some believe that the difference in renditions could be because these are two different occasions. They point to the fact that Matthew says it was given to a multitude including His disciples (<a href='B:470 5:1'>Matt 5:1</a>), while Luke’s version was given to His disciples (<a href='B:490 6:20'>Luke 6:20</a>). Also, in Matthew, Jesus spoke on a hill (5:1) while in Luke He spoke on level ground (6:17). Then too, Luke’s account is much more brief than Matthew’s. (But see “Solution” to <a href='B:490 6:17'>Luke 6:17</a>.)<p/>Others, however, note that both sermons were given at the same time, in the same geographical area, to the same group of people, with many of the exact same sayings. In both accounts His sermon was preceded by special healings, and followed by His going to Capernaum. Furthermore, although Luke introduces the sermon by saying Jesus “lifted up His eyes toward His disciples,” like Matthew, he notes that Jesus gave “all His sayings in the hearing of the people” (<a href='B:490 7:1'>Luke 7:1</a>; cf. <a href='B:470 5:1'>Matt 5:1</a>). All of this makes it unlikely that two different events are represented.<p/>The difference in the accounts can be accounted for in several ways. First, Luke’s account is much more brief than Matthew’s. Second, Jesus may have said much more on this occasion than either writer recorded. So each writer is selecting from a larger body of material that which suited their theme. Third, Luke places a different emphasis on Jesus’ words, stressing the significance for those who were poor. Matthew does not exclude financial poverty but speaks of that poverty of spirit which the poor often have as opposed to the rich (cf. <a href='B:420 16'>Luke 16</a>; <a href='B:610 6:17'>1Tim 6:17</a>). 


text:
Are believers the light of the world, or is Jesus?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> In this passage, Jesus said to His disciples, “You are the light of the world.” However, in <a href='B:500 9:5'>John 9:5</a>, Jesus declared, “I am the light of the world.” Who is the light of the world, Jesus or His disciples?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Both. Jesus is theprimary light, and we are the secondary light. As the light of the sun is to the moon, so Jesus is the source of the light, and we are the reflectors of the light. Jesus said, “as long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world” (<a href='B:500 9:5'>John 9:5</a>). Now that He is no longer here, we are His reflected light in the world. 


text:
Did Jesus come to do away with the Law of Moses?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Jesus said very explicitly, “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy, but to fulfill.” However, on one occasion Jesus approved of His disciples when they broke the Jewish law about working on the Sabbath (<a href='B:480 2:24'>Mark 2:24</a>), and Jesus Himself apparently did away with the ceremonial law by declaring all meats clean (<a href='B:480 7:19'>Mark 7:19</a>). Jesus’ disciples clearly rejected much of the OT law, including circumcision (<a href='B:510 15'>Acts 15</a>; <a href='B:550 5:6'>Gal 5:6</a>; <a href='B:550 6:15'>6:15</a>). Indeed, Paul declared that “You are not under law but under grace” (<a href='B:520 6:14'>Rom 6:14</a>) and that the Ten Commandments engraved in stone have been “taken away in Christ” (<a href='B:540 3:14'>2Cor 3:14</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> In the matter of whether the Law of Moses was done away with by Christ, confusion results from failing to distinguish several things.<p/>First of all, there is a confusion of time. During His lifetime, Jesus always kept the Law of Moses Himself, including offering sacrifices to the Jewish priests (<a href='B:470 8:4'>Matt 8:4</a>), attending Jewish festivals (<a href='B:500 7:10'>John 7:10</a>), and eating the passover lamb (<a href='B:470 26:19'>Matt 26:19</a>). He did on occasion violate the pharisaical (and false) traditions that had grown up around the Law (cf. <a href='B:470 5:43-44'>Matt 5:43-44</a>), chiding them, “You have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition” (<a href='B:470 15:6'>Matt 15:6</a>). The verses that indicate the law has been fulfilled refer to after the Cross when there is “neither Jew nor Greek … for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (<a href='B:550 3:28'>Gal 3:28</a>).<p/>Second, there is a confusion of aspect. At least some of the references (if not all) to the Law being done away with in the NT are speaking of OT ceremonies and types. These ceremonial and typological aspects of the OT Law of Moses were clearly done away with when Jesus, our passover lamb (<a href='B:530 5:7'>1Cor 5:7</a>), fulfilled the Law’s types and predictions about His first coming (cf. Heb. 7–10). In this sense, Jesus clearly did away with the ceremonial and typological aspects of the Law, not by destroying the Law, but by fulfilling it.<p/>Finally, there is a confusion about context. Even when the moral dimensions of the law are discussed, there is a confusion. For example, not only did Jesus fulfill the moral demands of the Law for us (<a href='B:520 8:2-3'>Rom 8:2-3</a>), but the national and theocratic context in which God’s moral principles were expressed in the OT no longer apply to Christians today. For example, we are not under the commands as Moses expressed them for Israel, since, when expressed for them in the Ten Commandments, it had as its reward that the Jews would live “long upon the land [of Palestine] which the Lord your God is giving you [Israelites]” (e.g., <a href='B:20 20:12'>Ex 20:12</a>). When the moral principle expressed in this OT commandment is stated in the NT, it is expressed in a different context, namely, one that is not national or theocratic, but is personal and universal. For all persons who honor their parents, Paul declares that they will “live long on the earth” (<a href='B:560 6:3'>Eph 6:3</a>). Likewise, Christians are no longer under the commandment of Moses to worship on Saturday (<a href='B:20 20:8-11'>Ex 20:8-11</a>), for, since the Resurrection, appearances, and Ascension (all of which occurred on Sunday), Christians worship on Sunday instead (see <a href='B:510 20:7'>Acts 20:7</a>; <a href='B:530 16:2'>1Cor 16:2</a>). Sabbath worship, declared Paul, was only an OT “shadow” of the real substance which was inaugurated by Christ (<a href='B:580 2:16-17'>Col 2:16-17</a>). Since even the Ten Commandments as such were expressed in a national Jewish, theocratic framework, the NT can speak correctly about that which was “engraved on stones” being “taken away in Christ “ (<a href='B:540 3:7'>2Cor 3:7</a>; <a href='B:540 3:13'>13–14</a>).<p/>Christians today are no more under the Ten Commandments as given by Moses to Israel than we are under the Mosaic Law’s requirement to be circumcised (see <a href='B:510 15'>Acts 15</a>; <a href='B:550 3'>Gal 3</a>) or to bring a lamb to the temple in Jerusalem for sacrifice. The fact that we are bound by similar moral laws against adultery, lying, stealing, and murder no more proves we are still under the Ten Commandments than the fact that there are similar traffic laws in North Carolina and Texas proves that a Texan is under the laws of North Carolina. The truth is that when one violates the speed laws in Texas he has not thereby violated a similar law in North Carolina, nor is he thereby bound by the penalties of such laws in North Carolina. In like manner, although both the OT and NT speak against adultery, nevertheless, the penalty was different—capital punishment in the OT (<a href='B:30 20:10'>Lev 20:10</a>) and only excommunication from the church in the NT (<a href='B:530 5:1-13'>1Cor 5:1-13</a>), with the hope of restoration upon repentance (cf. <a href='B:540 2:6-8'>2Cor 2:6-8</a>). 


text:
Is hell the grave or a place of conscious torment?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Jesus refers here to the “body” being “cast into hell,” and the psalmist speaks of “bones” being “scattered at the mouth of hell [sheol]” (<a href='B:230 141:7'>Ps 141:7</a>, KJV). Jacob talked about his “gray hairs” being brought down to hell (<a href='B:10 42:38'>Gen 42:38</a>, KJV; cf. 44:29, 31). However, Jesus referred to hell as a place where the soul goes after one dies and is in conscious torment (<a href='B:420 16:22-23'>Luke 16:22-23</a>). Is “hell” just the grave, as the Jehovah’s Witnesses and some other cults claim?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The Hebrew word translated “hell” (sheol) is also translated “grave” or “pit.” It simply means “unseen world,” and can refer either to the grave, where the body is unseen after burial, or to the spirit world, which is invisible to mortal eyes. In the OT, sheol often means grave, as indicated by the fact that it is a place where “bones” (<a href='B:230 141:7'>Ps 141:7</a>) and “gray hairs” (<a href='B:10 42:38'>Gen 42:38</a>) go at death. Even the resurrection of Jesus’ body is said to be from “hell” (i.e., the grave) where it did not see corruption (<a href='B:510 2:30-31'>Acts 2:30-31</a>).<p/>While there may be some allusions to “hell” as a spirit world in the OT (cf. <a href='B:240 9:18'>Prov 9:18</a>; <a href='B:290 14:9'>Isa 14:9</a>), “hell” (Gk., hades) is clearly described as a place of departed spirits (souls) in the NT. Angels are there and they have no bodies (<a href='B:680 2:4'>2Peter 2:4</a>). Unrepentant human beings are in conscious torment there after they die and their bodies are buried (<a href='B:420 16:22-25'>Luke 16:22-25</a>). In the end those in hell will be cast into the lake of fire with the devil where they will be “tormented day and night forever” (<a href='B:730 20:10'>Rev 20:10</a>; <a href='B:730 20:14'>14–15</a>). Jesus spoke many times of hell as a place of conscious and eternal suffering (cf. <a href='B:470 10:28'>Matt 10:28</a>; <a href='B:470 11:23'>11:23</a>; <a href='B:470 18:9'>18:9</a>; <a href='B:470 23:15'>23:15</a>; <a href='B:480 9:43'>Mark 9:43</a>; <a href='B:480 9:45'>45</a>; <a href='B:480 9:47'>47</a>; <a href='B:490 12:5'>Luke 12:5</a>; <a href='B:420 16:23'>16:23</a>). 


text:
Did Jesus condemn all oath taking, even in court?<p/>(See comments on <a href='B:660 5:12'>Jam 5:12</a>.)


text:
Should believers literally give anything to anyone who asks?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Here Jesus clearly said, “Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away” (cf. <a href='B:490 6:30'>Luke 6:30</a>). But, if we took this literally we would have nothing to provide for our own families. Also, Paul says that those who do not provide for their own families are worse than infidels (<a href='B:610 5:8'>1Tim 5:8</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> A text out of its context is a pretext. We must understand the context in which Jesus said “give to him who asks you.” First of all, as we know from other things Jesus said and did, this does not mean to give to people what will harm them. As Jesus said, no good father would give a serpent to his child (<a href='B:470 7:10'>Matt 7:10</a>). Furthermore, it does not mean give to those who can work, but refuse to. Paul said emphatically, “If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat” (<a href='B:600 3:10'>2Thes 3:10</a>). Finally, the whole context of Jesus’ statements here are to reaffirm the spirit of the law which He came to fulfill (<a href='B:470 5:17-18'>Matt 5:17-18</a>), as opposed to what they “heard” (cf. <a href='B:470 5:21'>Matt 5:21</a>; <a href='B:470 5:27'>27</a>; <a href='B:470 5:33'>33</a>; <a href='B:470 5:38'>38</a>; <a href='B:470 5:43'>43</a>)—what had been said by oral tradition and misinterpretation (cf. <a href='B:470 15:3-6'>Matt 15:3-6</a>).<p/>Here Jesus is explicitly addressing the legalistic misinterpretation of the OT that says take revenge on your enemy with “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” (<a href='B:470 5:38'>Matt 5:38</a>). By contrast Jesus says, don’t retaliate against your enemy. Love him, and give to help him (cf. v. 44). But Jesus no more expected His listeners to take, without qualification, the command to “give to him who asks you” than He intended them to literally cut off their hands and pluck out their eyes if they offended them (vv. 29–30)! 


text:
Why did the OT prescribe that one could hate his enemies?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Jesus said here of the OT, “You have heard that it was said, `You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ ” How could a God of love (<a href='B:20 20:2'>Ex 20:2</a>; <a href='B:20 20:6'>6</a>; <a href='B:690 4:16'>1John 4:16</a>) command them to hate their enemies?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> God never commanded His people at any time to hate their enemies (see comments on <a href='B:460 1:3'>Mal 1:3</a>). God is an unchanging God of love (cf. <a href='B:690 4:16'>1John 4:16</a>; <a href='B:460 3:6'>Mal 3:6</a>), and He cannot hate any person, nor can He command anyone else to do so. Jesus said the greatest commands were to love God and to love our neighbor as ourself (<a href='B:470 22:36-37'>Matt 22:36-37</a>; <a href='B:470 22:39'>39</a>). In point of fact, this very command is taken by Jesus from the OT. <a href='B:30 19:18'>Lev 19:18</a> declares: “you shall love your neighbor as yourself”!<p/>Why then did Jesus say the OT taught that we should “hate our enemy” (<a href='B:470 5:43'>Matt 5:43</a>)? He didn’t, and for a very good reason. Nowhere in the OT can any such verse be found. In fact, Jesus is not quoting the OT here, but the pharisaical misinterpretation of the OT. Notice, Jesus does not say “it is written,” as He often did when quoting the OT (cf. <a href='B:470 4:4'>Matt 4:4</a>; <a href='B:470 4:7'>7</a>; <a href='B:470 4:10'>10</a>). Rather, He said, “you have heard,” by which He meant the Jewish “tradition” that had grown up around the OT and by which they had made the commandment of God of no effect (cf. <a href='B:470 15:3'>Matt 15:3</a>; <a href='B:470 15:6'>6</a>). The truth is that the God of love commanded love both in the OT and NT and never at any time commanded that we hate other persons. 


text:
If Jesus said prayer should be in private, why does the Bible commend public prayer?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> In this text, Jesus urged His disciples to pray in private, saying, “When you pray, go into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in the secret place.” However, elsewhere the Bible commends praying in public. For example, Daniel prayed with his window open so he could be seen (<a href='B:340 6:10'>Dan 6:10</a>). Solomon offered his great dedicatory prayer for the temple in public (<a href='B:110 8:22'>1Ki 8:22</a>). And Paul urged public prayers “for men everywhere” (<a href='B:610 2:8'>1Tim 2:8</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> It is not public prayers which Jesus condemned, but ostentatious prayers. He was not opposed to people praying in appropriate public places, but in conspicuous places. It was not the place of prayer so much as thepurpose of their prayer that Jesus spoke against, namely, “that they may be seen by men” (<a href='B:470 6:5'>Matt 6:5</a>). 


text:
Why should we pray that God would not lead us into temptation when God cannot tempt anyone?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The Bible says emphatically, “God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone” (<a href='B:660 1:13'>Jam 1:13</a>). Why, then, does Jesus ask us here to pray, “and lead us not into temptation”?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> God can test us, but He cannot tempt us to sin. When we are tempted, we are drawn away by our own lusts (see comments on <a href='B:660 1:2'>Jam 1:2</a>). So, God should be invoked to order our lives in such away that we are not led into situations in which we will be tempted. In other words, this is a plea for providential guidance through the mine field of sin in this fleshly sojourn. It is a request of God that He help us to “make no provision for the flesh” (<a href='B:520 13:14'>Rom 13:14</a>). 


text:
<b>(cf. <a href='B:420 7:2-10'>Luke 7:2-10</a>)—</b> Is there a mistake in the accounts concerning Jesus and the centurion?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Matthew seems to present the centurion as the one who seeks the help of Jesus (<a href='B:470 8:5'>Matt 8:5</a>); but, Luke seeems to say that the centurion sent elders to see Jesus (<a href='B:490 7:3'>Luke 7:3</a>). Also, Matthew appears to say that the centurion himself comes to talk with Jesus. However, in Luke, the Bible says only the centurion’s representatives saw Jesus.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Both Matthew and Luke are correct. In the 1st century, it was understood that when a representative was sent to speak for his master, it was as if the master was speaking himself. Even in our day this is still the case. When the Secretary of State meets individuals from other countries, he goes out in the name of the president of the United States. In other words, what he says, the president says. Therefore, Matthew states that a centurion came entreating Jesus about his sick slave, when in fact the centurion sent others on his behalf. So, when Matthew declares that the centurion was speaking, this was true, even though he was (as Luke indicated) speaking through his official representative. 


text:
<b>(cf. <a href='B:470 20:18'>Matt 20:18</a>; <a href='B:470 24:30'>24:30</a>; etc.)—</b> If Jesus was the Son of God, why did He call Himself the Son of Man?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Jesus referred to Himself most often as the Son of Man. This seems to point to His humanity more than His deity. If He was really the Messiah, the Son of God, why did He use the self-description, “Son of Man”?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> First of all, even if the phrase “Son of Man” is a reference to Jesus’ humanity, it is not a denial of His deity. By becoming man, Jesus did not cease being God. The Incarnation of Christ did not involve the subtraction of deity, but the addition of humanity. Jesus clearly claimed to be God on many occasions (<a href='B:470 16:16-17'>Matt 16:16-17</a>; <a href='B:500 8:58'>John 8:58</a>; <a href='B:500 10:30'>10:30</a>). But, in addition to being divine, He was also human. He had two natures conjoined in one person.<p/>Furthermore, Jesus was not denying His deity by referring to Himself as the Son of Man. The term “Son of Man” is used to describe Christ’s deity as well. The Bible says that only God can forgive sins (<a href='B:290 43:25'>Isa 43:25</a>; <a href='B:480 2:7'>Mark 2:7</a>). But, as the “Son of Man,” Jesus had the power to forgive sins (<a href='B:480 2:10'>Mark 2:10</a>). Likewise, Christ will return to earth as the “Son of Man” in clouds of glory to reign on earth (<a href='B:470 26:63-64'>Matt 26:63-64</a>). In this passage, Jesus is citing <a href='B:340 7:13'>Dan 7:13</a> where the Messiah is described as the “Ancient of Days,” a phrase used to indicate His deity (cf. <a href='B:340 7:9'>Dan 7:9</a>).<p/>Further, when Jesus was asked by the high priest whether He was the “Son of God” (<a href='B:470 26:63'>Matt 26:63</a>), He responded affirmatively, declaring that He was the “Son of Man” who would come in power and great glory (v. 64). This indicated that Jesus Himself used the phrase “Son of Man” to indicate His deity as the Son of God.<p/>Finally, the phrase “Son of Man” emphasizes who Jesus is in relation to His Incarnation and His work of salvation. In the OT (see <a href='B:30 25:25-26'>Lev 25:25-26</a>; <a href='B:30 25:48'>48–49</a>; <a href='B:80 2:20'>Ruth 2:20</a>), the kinsman redeemer was a close relative of someone who was in need of redemption. So Jesus, as our Kinsman Redeemer, was identifying Himself with humankind as its Savior and Redeemer. Those who knew the OT truth about Messiah being the Son of Man understood Jesus’ implicit claims to deity. Those who did not, would not so recognize this. Jesus often said things in this way so as to test His audience and separate believers from unbelievers (cf. <a href='B:470 13:10-17'>Matt 13:10-17</a>). 


text:
<b>(cf. <a href='B:490 9:60'>Luke 9:60</a>)—</b> Wasn’t it absurd for Jesus to tell the dead to bury their own dead?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> A man wanted to follow Jesus but first asked Jesus if he could go and bury his father. Jesus responded, “let the dead bury their own dead.” But the dead can’t bury anyone. This doesn’t seem to make any sense.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Jesus was not speaking of those who werephysically dead, but of those who are spiritually dead (cf. <a href='B:560 2:1'>Eph 2:1</a>). Jesus requested that the man follow Him (<a href='B:490 9:59'>Luke 9:59</a>). The man responded saying he wished to take care of his family first. So the issue is, who comes first—one’s family or Jesus Christ. The answer Jesus gives indicates the spiritual state of this man’s family. They were apparently not believers, and the Bible says that those who are not Christians are “dead in trespasses and sins” (<a href='B:560 2:1'>Eph 2:1</a>; <a href='B:560 2:5'>5</a>). Jesus was telling the man that his spiritually dead family should take care of the burial. Jesus wanted this man to follow Him. Christian discipleship calls for high commitment. 


text:
<b>(cf. <a href='B:480 5:1-20'>Mark 5:1-20</a>; <a href='B:420 8:26-39'>Luke 8:26-39</a>)—</b> Where were the demoniacs healed?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The first three Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) each give an account of Jesus healing demoniacs. Matthew states that the place where the healing took place was the country of the Gadarenes. However, Mark and Luke say it was in the country of the Gerasenes.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There is a textual problem here. The critical text of the Greek NT (Nestle- Aland/United Bible Societies) renders Mark and Luke the same as Matthew, namely, in the country of the “Gadarenes.” However, some manuscripts give the name of the country as the Gerasenes. It is possible to account for the variant reading in these manuscripts as a scribal error. Gadara may have been the capital of the region, and Matthew therefore referred to the area as the “country of the Gadarenes” because the people of that region, whether they lived in Gadara or not, were identified as Gadarenes. Mark and Luke were perhaps giving a more general reference to the country of the Gerasenes, which was the wider area in which the incident occurred. However, a scribe, confusing the reference in Matthew as a reference to the town instead of the people of the region, may have attempted to correct the manuscripts and altered the references to make them uniform. It seems that the best textual evidence is in favor of Gadara, although there are varying opinions among commentators. There is no contradiction or error here, because the problem developed as a result of transcription, and there is no evidence to demonstrate that there was a conflict in the original manuscripts.<p/><b><a href='B:470 8:28-34'>Mat 8:28-34</a> (cf. <a href='B:480 5:1-20'>Mark 5:1-20</a>; <a href='B:420 8:26-39'>Luke 8:26-39</a>)—</b> How many demoniacs were healed?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Matthew reports that two demoniacs came to Jesus, while Mark and Luke say that only one demoniac approached Him. This appears to be a contradiction.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There is a very fundamental mathematical law that reconciles this apparent contradiction—wherever there are two, there is always one. There are no exceptions! There were actually two demoniacs that came to Jesus. Perhaps Mark and Luke mentioned the one because he was more noticeable or prominent for some reason. However, the fact that Mark and Luke only mention one does not negate the fact that there were two as Matthew said. For wherever there is two, there is always one. It never fails. If Mark or Luke had said there was only one, then that would be a contradiction. But, the word “only” is not in the text. The critic has to change the text to make it contradict, in which case the problem is not with the Bible, but with the critic. 


text:
Did Jesus come only for Jews or also for Gentiles?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Jesus told His disciples to “make disciples of all the nations” (<a href='B:470 28:19'>Matt 28:19</a>), because He had “other sheep … which are not of this fold” (<a href='B:500 10:16'>John 10:16</a>). Even the OT prophets declared that Jesus would be “a light to the Gentiles” (<a href='B:290 49:6'>Isa 49:6</a>). However, Jesus Himself instructed His disciples, “Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans” (<a href='B:470 10:5'>Matt 10:5</a>). Later, He affirmed, “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (<a href='B:470 15:24'>Matt 15:24</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> These apparently contradictory commands refer to two different periods. It is true that Jesus’ original mission was to the Jews. But, the Scriptures testify that “He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him” (<a href='B:500 1:11'>John 1:11</a>). The official Jewish position was to reject Him as their Messiah and to crucify Him (<a href='B:470 27'>Matt 27</a>; <a href='B:480 14'>Mark 14</a>; <a href='B:420 22'>Luke 22</a>; <a href='B:500 18'>John 18</a>).<p/>Therefore, it was after His crucifixion and resurrection that the mission of the disciples was to go to the nations. This was in fulfillment of prophecies about the Gentiles. Thus, the Apostle Paul could tell the Roman Christians that the Gospel was “for the Jew first and also for the Greek” (<a href='B:520 1:16'>Rom 1:16</a>). Because of their rejection of Jesus, the nation of Israel was cut off (<a href='B:520 11:19'>Rom 11:19</a>), but, when the subsequent “fullness of the Gentiles” (11:25) has been completed, then Israel will be grafted in again (11:23, 26). Of course, even though Jesus’ mission was officially to the Jews, He did not neglect Gentiles. He healed the Syro-Phoenician woman’s daughter (<a href='B:480 7:24-30'>Mark 7:24-30</a>). He went out of His way to minister to the woman of Samaria (<a href='B:500 4'>John 4</a>). He told His disciples of His anticipated work (through them) among the Gentiles (<a href='B:500 10:16'>John 10:16</a>), and His Great Commission was to “make disciples of all the nations” (<a href='B:470 28:18-20'>Matt 28:18-20</a>). But, both in order of priority and time, the message of Christ came first to the Jew and then to the Gentile. The difference, then, between the two sets of verses can be contrasted in this way: 


text:
<b>(cf. <a href='B:480 6:8'>Mark 6:8</a>)—</b> Did Jesus command that the disciples take a staff or not?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> In Matthew, Jesus seems to say that the disciples should not take a staff, but in Mark it appears that He allows them to have one.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> A closer examination reveals that the account in Mark (6:8) declares that the disciples are to take nothing except a staff, which a traveler would normally have. Whereas the account in Matthew states that they are not to acquire another staff. There is no discrepancy between these texts. Mark’s account is saying that they may take the staff that they have, while Matthew is saying that they should not take an extra staff or tunic. The text reads “Provide neither … two tunics, nor sandals, nor staffs” (plural: vv. 9–10). It does not say that they should not take a staff (singular). So there is no contradiction. 


text:
Did Jesus promise to return to earth during the lifetime of the disciples?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Jesus sent His disciples on a mission and promised them, “you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.” However, it is obvious that He never even went to heaven, to say nothing of returning again, before they had returned from their evangelistic tour.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There are many interpretations of this passage. Some take it to be a reference to the destruction of Jerusalem (A.D. 70) and the end of the Jewish economy. But this hardly suits as a fulfillment of the phrase “before the Son of Man comes.”<p/>Others understand Jesus’ statement to refer to an outpouring of the Holy Spirit or a great revival before the return of Christ to earth to set up His kingdom. They believe the preaching of the Gospel will usher in the kingdom (cf. <a href='B:470 24:14'>Matt 24:14</a>). But, this too seems to go far beyond the literal meaning of the text here.<p/>Still others see it as containing a projection from their immediate mission to their continuing mission to proclaim the Gospel “even to the end of the age” (<a href='B:470 28:20'>Matt 28:20</a>). Note the fact that the disciples would probably have not gone through all “the cities of Israel” in the short mission on which Jesus sent them. One problem with this is that there is no direct indication in the text that Jesus was referring to the distant future.<p/>Another alternative is to take the promise literally and immediately and to interpret the phrase “before the Son of Man comes” as a reference to the fact that Jesus rejoined the disciples after their mission. This view may be supported by several facts. First, the phrase “before the Son of Man comes” is never used by Matthew to describe the Second Coming. Second, it fits with a literal understanding of the first part of the verse. The disciples went literally and immediately into “the cities of Israel” to preach, and Jesus literally and immediately rejoined them after their itinerant ministry. Third, there is no indication here or anywhere else that the disciples believed that Jesus was going to go to heaven while they were gone on their preaching tour. This certainly would have startled them (cf. <a href='B:500 14:1-5'>John 14:1-5</a>). Furthermore, He had already told them that He had to die and rise from the dead (<a href='B:500 2:19-22'>John 2:19-22</a>) before He could go to heaven and return. 


text:
Did Jesus come to bring peace or war?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Here Jesus affirms, “I did not come to bring peace but a sword.” However, elsewhere He is called “the prince of peace” (<a href='B:290 9:6'>Isa 9:6</a>) who said, “My peace I give to you” (<a href='B:500 14:27'>John 14:27</a>) and told His disciples to put away the sword, “for all who take the sword will perish by the sword” (<a href='B:470 26:52'>Matt 26:52</a>). So, which are we to believe? Did Jesus come to bring peace or the sword?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> We must distinguish between the purpose of Christ’s coming to earth and the result of it. His design was to bring peace—peace with God for unbelievers (<a href='B:520 5:1'>Rom 5:1</a>) and eventually, the peace of God for believers (<a href='B:570 4:7'>Phil 4:7</a>). However, the immediate consequence of Christ’s coming was to divide those who were for Him and those who were against Him—the children of God from the children of this world. But, just as the goal of an amputation is to relieve pain, so the immediate effect is to inflict pain. Likewise, Christ’s ultimate mission is to bring peace, both to the human heart and to earth. Nonetheless, the immediate effect of His message was to divide those in the kingdom of God from those in the kingdom of Satan. 


text:
How can God’s sovereign and peaceful kingdom be entered by force?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Paul declared that the kingdom (rule) of God is “peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” (<a href='B:520 14:17'>Rom 14:17</a>). However, Matthew says “the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent take it by force.” How can one enter God’s kingdom by force?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> This is a difficult passage, and it has been interpreted several ways. Some take it to mean that the kingdom is violently taken by its enemies. That is, the forceful religious leaders of Jesus’ day were resisting the kingdom introduced by John. They wanted a kingdom, but not the kind that was being offered by John and Jesus (cf. <a href='B:520 10:3'>Rom 10:3</a>). However, some object that this is opposed to the context that is expressing the greatness of John the Baptist and the contrast between his day and Christ’s. 


text:
Didn’t Jesus say John the Baptist was Elijah reincarnated?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Jesus refers here to John the Baptist as “Elijah who is to come” (cf. <a href='B:470 17:12'>Matt 17:12</a>; <a href='B:480 9:11-13'>Mark 9:11-13</a>). But, since Elijah had died many centuries before, John must have been a reincarnation of Elijah.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There are many reasons why this verse does not teach reincarnation.<p/>First, John and Elijah did not have the same being —they had the samefunction. Jesus was not teaching that John the Baptist was literally Elijah, but simply that he came “in the spirit and power of Elijah” (<a href='B:490 1:17'>Luke 1:17</a>), namely, to continue his prophetic ministry.<p/>Second, Jesus’ disciples understood that He was speaking about John the Baptist, since Elijah appeared on the Mount of Transfiguration (<a href='B:470 17:10-13'>Matt 17:10-13</a>). Since John had already lived and died by then, and since Elijah still had the same name and self- consciousness, Elijah had obviously not been reincarnated as John the Baptist.<p/>Third, Elijah does not fit the reincarnation model for another reason—he did not die. He was taken to heaven like Enoch, who did not “see death” (<a href='B:120 2:11'>2Ki 2:11</a>; cf. <a href='B:650 11:5'>Heb 11:5</a>). According to traditional reincarnation, one must first die before he can be reincarnated into another body.<p/>Fourth, if there is any doubt about this passage, it should be understood in the light of the clear teaching of Scripture opposing reincarnation. Hebrews, for example declares, “it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment” (<a href='B:650 9:27'>Heb 9:27</a>; cf. <a href='B:500 9:2'>John 9:2</a>). 


text:
Is Jesus’ yoke easy or hard?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Jesus said here, “My yoke is easy and My burden is light.” However, Hebrews declares that “whom the Lord loves He chastens, And scourges every son whom He receives” (<a href='B:650 12:6'>Heb 12:6</a>). Which is it—easy or hard?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> These verses are referring to different aspects of the Christian life. The life of a believer is “easy” in that it brings “rest for your souls” (<a href='B:470 11:29'>Matt 11:29</a>), but it is hard on the “flesh,” which often needs the disciplining hand of God to keep it in line. Salvation brings “peace with God” (<a href='B:520 5:1'>Rom 5:1</a>), but it also brings conflict with the world (<a href='B:690 2:15-17'>1John 2:15-17</a>; <a href='B:550 5:17'>Gal 5:17</a>). The Apostle Paul himself experienced God’s grace in his life, but he also had a thorn in his flesh (<a href='B:540 12:7-9'>2Cor 12:7-9</a>). 


text:
Did Jesus’ disciples break the Jewish Sabbath law?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Jesus said, “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill” (<a href='B:470 5:17'>Matt 5:17</a>). Yet Jesus’ disciples deliberately and knowingly picked grain on the Sabbath, thus arousing the ire of the Pharisees by doing “what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath” (<a href='B:470 12:2'>Matt 12:2</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Jesus kept the OT law perfectly (see comments on <a href='B:470 5:17-18'>Matt 5:17-18</a>). By eating grain on the Sabbath when hungry, Jesus’ disciples did not break God’s law. However, it did violate the Pharisees’ law. Jesus often rebuked the Pharisees for adding their “traditions” (cf. <a href='B:470 5:43'>Matt 5:43</a> and 15:6) to God’s laws. Deeds of mercy and necessity were permitted on the OT Sabbath. Jesus’ disciples were not harvesting bushels full of grain on the Sabbath. They were merely eating handfuls of it as they passed through the field, which was permitted by OT law (see <a href='B:50 23:25'>Deut 23:25</a>).<p/>Further, as Jesus noted on this occasion, “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath” (<a href='B:480 2:27'>Mark 2:27</a>). He also pointed out that “the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath” (<a href='B:470 12:8'>Matt 12:8</a>). In short, the Sabbath law was not the highest law, for there were “weightier matters” (cf. <a href='B:470 23:23'>Matt 23:23</a>), such as justice and mercy. Jesus, as the Messiah and the Son of God, was not the servant of the Sabbath—He was Lord of it. He made it! And He could (and later did) change it, if He so desired (see comments on <a href='B:470 5:17-18'>Matt 5:17-18</a>). 


text:
Did Jesus contradict Himself by saying there would be no sign given (cf. <a href='B:470 12:38-39'>Matt 12:38-39</a>)?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> In Mark, the Pharisees ask for a sign from Jesus, but He says that no sign shall be given to that generation. But Matthew’s account says that Christ responded that the sign of the Prophet Jonah would be given (namely, Jesus’ resurrection).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> First, the main point here is that Christ was not willing to grant their immediate request for a sign. Jesus does not say in Matthew that the sign of the Prophet Jonah will be immediately given. This sign (of His death and resurrection) occurred later. So, even in Matthew He did not grant the requests of the Pharisees. Jesus refused to do miracles just to entertain (<a href='B:490 23:8'>Luke 23:8</a>). He did not “cast pearls before swine.” However He did perform miracles to confirm His messiahship (<a href='B:500 20:31'>John 20:31</a>), and the Resurrection was the crowning miracle of that nature (cf. <a href='B:510 2:22-32'>Acts 2:22-32</a>).<p/>Second, it is evident that on more than one occasion Jesus was asked to give a sign. <a href='B:490 11:16'>Luke 11:16</a>; <a href='B:420 11:29'>29–30</a> states that others sought for a sign. Here in Luke, Jesus responds very similar to the way He does in Matthew<p/>12. Also, again in <a href='B:470 16:1-4'>Mat 16:1-4</a> the Pharisees ask for a sign from Jesus to which He responds that none will be given except the sign of Jonah, just as He had in chapter<p/>12. So, it is clear that on other occasions Jesus was asked to give a sign and each time, Jesus refused to agree to their immediate demands. Miracles are performed according to God’s will, not according to human want (cf. <a href='B:650 2:4'>Heb 2:4</a>; <a href='B:530 12:11'>1Cor 12:11</a>). 


text:
<b>(cf. <a href='B:500 19:14'>John 19:14</a>)—</b> If Jesus was crucified on Friday, how could He have been in the grave three days and nights?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Christ rose on Sunday (<a href='B:470 28:1'>Matt 28:1</a>), but He stated that He would be “three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” If Christ was crucified on Friday, how could He have been three days and three nights in the earth and rise on Sunday only two days later?”<p/>First, the phrase “day and night” does not necessarily mean a complete 24 hour period. The psalmist’s reference to meditating “day and night” on God’s Word does not mean one has to read the Bible all day and all night (<a href='B:230 1:2'>Ps 1:2</a>).<p/>Third, Jesus used the phrase “on the third day” to describe the time of His resurrection after His crucifixion (<a href='B:470 16:21'>Matt 16:21</a>; <a href='B:470 17:23'>17:23</a>; <a href='B:470 20:19'>20:19</a>; cf. 26:61). But, “ on the third day” cannot mean “ after three days” which 72 hours demands. On the other hand, the phrase “on the third day” or “three days and nights” can be understood to mean within three days and nights.<p/>Fourth, this view fits best with the chronological order of events as given by Mark (cf. 14:1), as well as the fact that Jesus died on Passover day (Friday) to fulfill the conditions of being our Passover Lamb (<a href='B:530 5:7'>1Cor 5:7</a>; cf. <a href='B:30 23:5-15'>Lev 23:5-15</a>). 


text:
Is God unfair in giving to those who have?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> God is presented in the Bible as fair and evenhanded (<a href='B:520 2:11'>Rom 2:11</a>; <a href='B:10 18:25'>Gen 18:25</a>). Jesus, as God incarnate, is set up as the perfect moral example (<a href='B:650 4:15'>Heb 4:15</a>). However, in this passage Jesus said we should take away from “whoever does not have” and give to “whoever has.” What could be more unfair?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> “Give to him who has and take from him who has not” is a proverbial saying used by Jesus in this context to mean that when Jesus spoke in parables (<a href='B:470 13:10'>Matt 13:10</a>), the result was that those whothought they had some insight into the kingdom had less because they were more confused. Their unbelief caused their confusion, so that “seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear” (v. 13). On the other hand, those who received Jesus’ words (namely, His disciples) had even a greater understanding than before. 


text:
Did Jesus make a mistake when referring to the mustard seed as the smallest of all seeds?<p/><b>PROBLEM 1:</b> Jesus said that the mustard seed was “the least of all the seeds.” However, today we know that the mustard seed is not the smallest seed of all. Some think Jesus was speaking of the black mustard seed. But, even this is not the smallest of all seeds.<p/><b>SOLUTION 1:</b> Jesus was not referring to all the seeds in the world, but only those that a Palestinian farmer sowed in his field. This is made clear by the qualifying phrase “which a man took and sowed in his field” (v. 31). And it is a fact that the mustard seed was the smallest of all seeds which the 1st century Jewish farmer sowed in his field. So there is no contradiction here between science and Scripture. What Jesus said was literally true in the context in which He said it.<p/><b>PROBLEM 2:</b> Some claim that the mustard seed cannot grow big enough to house birds, let alone grow to tree size.<p/><b>SOLUTION 2:</b> But this is not so, because there is evidence that some mustard seeds grow into trees about ten feet tall. This would certainly provide enough branch space for a bird to build a nest (<a href='B:470 13:32'>Matt 13:32</a>). 


text:
Did Jesus always speak in parables or not?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> This text states distinctly that “without a parable He [Jesus] did not speak to them.” However, Jesus gave His whole Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5–7) without a single parable in it.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There are two qualifying factors that must be noted, one of which is stated and another implied. First, <a href='B:470 13:34'>Mat 13:34</a> states that Jesus spoke these things “to the multitude,” whereas the Sermon on the Mount was given to His “disciples” (<a href='B:470 5:1-2'>Matt 5:1-2</a>; cf. <a href='B:490 6:20'>Luke 6:20</a>), even though the multitudes apparently listened in (cf. <a href='B:470 7:28'>Matt 7:28</a>). What is more, Jesus’ statement may have only a reference to what He was doing at that time, not on every occasion. It does not say that He always and on every occasion spoke to a crowd only in parables. However, this interpretation is possible, since we have only a limited record of what Jesus spoke (cf. <a href='B:500 21:25'>John 21:25</a>). 


text:
Was Mary a perpetual virgin, or did she have other children after Jesus’ virgin birth?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Roman Catholicism teaches that Mary was a perpetual virgin, that is, that she never had sexual intercourse, even after Jesus was virgin born. Is it true that when the Bible refers to Jesus’ “brothers and sisters” (<a href='B:470 13:56'>Matt 13:56</a>) it means cousins or close relatives?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> It is true that the words for brother and sister can mean close relative. This must be determined by the context and from other Scriptures. And in the case of Jesus’ brothers and sisters, the context indicates they were his real half brothers and sisters.<p/>First, nowhere does the Bible affirm the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity. Like the Roman Catholic doctrine of Mary’s sinlessness (see comments on <a href='B:490 1:46'>Luke 1:46</a>), there is no statement anywhere in the Bible that supports this teaching.<p/>Second, when “brothers and sisters” are used in connection with father or mother, then it does not mean cousins, but actual blood brothers and sisters (cf. <a href='B:490 14:26'>Luke 14:26</a>). Such is the case with Jesus’ brothers and sisters. <a href='B:470 13:55'>Mat 13:55</a> says, “Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas?” (cf. <a href='B:480 6:3'>Mark 6:3</a>)<p/>Third, there are other references in the Bible to Jesus’ “brothers.” John informs us that “even His brothers did not believe in Him” (<a href='B:500 7:5'>John 7:5</a>). And Paul speaks of “James, the Lord’s brother” (<a href='B:550 1:19'>Gal 1:19</a>). On another occasion Mark refers to “His [Jesus’] brothers and His mother” (<a href='B:480 3:31'>Mark 3:31</a>). John spoke of “His mother, His brothers, and His disciples” (<a href='B:500 2:12'>John 2:12</a>). Luke mentions “Mary the mother of Jesus, with His brothers” being in the Upper Room (<a href='B:510 1:14'>Acts 1:14</a>). 


text:
Why does Peter’s confession here differ from that recorded in Mark and Luke?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Peter’s confession of Christ in Caesarea Philippi is stated differently in the three Gospels:<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There are several reasons why the Gospel accounts of Peter’s statements differ. First, Peter probably spoke Aramaic, while the Gospels are written in Greek. So, some changes come naturally as a result of translating the words differently. Second, the Gospelwriters sometimes paraphrased the essence of what people said, much like the way journalists do today. Third, other writers selected and abbreviated what was said to fit the theme of their book or the emphasis they wished to make. 


text:
Is Peter the rock on which the church is built?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Roman Catholics use this passage to support their belief in the primacy of Peter, that is, that he is the rock on which the church is built. But Paul said the church is built on Christ, not Peter (<a href='B:530 3:11'>1Cor 3:11</a>). Is Peter the “rock” in this passage?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There are different ways to understand this passage, but none of them support the Roman Catholic view that the church is built on St. Peter, who became the first Pope—infallible in all his official pronouncements on faith and doctrine. This is evident for many reasons.<p/>First of all, Peter was married (<a href='B:470 8:14'>Matt 8:14</a>), and Popes do not marry. If the first Pope could marry, why later pronounce that no priest (or Pope) can marry.<p/>Second, Peter was not infallible in his views on the Christian life. Even Paul had to rebuke him for his hypocrisy, because he was not “straightforward about the truth of the Gospel” (<a href='B:550 2:14'>Gal 2:14</a>).<p/>Third, the Bible clearly declares that Christ is the foundation of the Christian church, insisting that “no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (<a href='B:530 3:11'>1Cor 3:11</a>).<p/>Fourth, the only sense in which Peter had a foundational role in the church, all the other apostles shared in the same way. Peter was not unique in this respect. For Paul declared that in this sense the church is “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone” (<a href='B:560 2:20'>Eph 2:20</a>). Indeed, the early church continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine [not just Peter’s]” (<a href='B:510 2:42'>Acts 2:42</a>). Even “keys of the kingdom” given to Peter (<a href='B:470 16:19'>Matt 16:19</a>) were also given to all the apostles (cf. <a href='B:470 18:18'>Matt 18:18</a>).<p/>Fifth, there is no indication that Peter was the head of the early church. When the first council was held at Jerusalem, Peter played only an introductory role (<a href='B:510 15:6-11'>Acts 15:6-11</a>). James seems to have a more significant position, summing up the conference and making the final pronouncement (cf. <a href='B:510 15:13-21'>Acts 15:13-21</a>). In any event, Peter is never referred to as the “pillar” in the church. Rather, Paul speaks of “pillars” (plural), such as, “James, Cephas, and John” (<a href='B:550 2:9'>Gal 2:9</a>). Peter (Cephas) is not even listed first among the pillars.<p/>Sixth, many Protestant interpreters believe that Jesus’ reference to “this rock” (<a href='B:470 16:18'>Matt 16:18</a>) upon which His church would be built was to Peter’s solid (rock-like) testimony that Jesus was “the Christ, the son of the living God” (<a href='B:470 16:16'>Matt 16:16</a>). But even if this rock has reference to Peter (Petros, rock), which is certainly a possible interpretation, he was only a rock in the apostolic foundation of the church (<a href='B:470 16:18'>Matt 16:18</a>), notthe rock. Nor is he the only apostolic rock. Even Peter himself admitted that Christ is the chief rock (“cornerstone,” <a href='B:670 2:7'>1Peter 2:7</a>). And Paul notes that the other apostles are all part of the “foundation” (<a href='B:560 2:20'>Eph 2:20</a>). 


text:
Why did Jesus instruct His disciples to tell no one He was the Christ?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Jesus commissioned His disciples, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations” (<a href='B:470 28:19'>Matt 28:19</a>). Yet over and over again throughout His ministry He insisted that His followers “tell no man” (cf. <a href='B:470 8:4'>Matt 8:4</a>; <a href='B:470 16:20'>16:20</a>; <a href='B:470 17:9'>17:9</a>; <a href='B:480 7:36'>Mark 7:36</a>; <a href='B:480 8:30'>8:30</a>; <a href='B:480 9:9'>9:9</a>; <a href='B:490 5:14'>Luke 5:14</a>; <a href='B:420 8:56'>8:56</a>; <a href='B:420 9:21'>9:21</a>). Doesn’t this contradict His Great Commission?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The problem is easily resolved if several things are remembered.<p/>First, there was often a stated or implied condition on this command to “tell no man.” Jesus said clearly to His disciples on one occasion, “tell no one … till the Son of Man ha[s] risen from the dead” (<a href='B:480 9:9'>Mark 9:9</a>; cf. <a href='B:470 17:9'>Matt 17:9</a>). There is no contradiction between this and His pronouncement to tell everyone after He rose from the dead (in <a href='B:470 28:19'>Matt 28:19</a>).<p/>Second, sometimes Jesus was simply trying to keep down the crowds so that He could continue His ministry. Mark writes, “He commanded them that they should tell no one; but the more He commanded them, the more widely they proclaimed it” (<a href='B:480 7:36'>Mark 7:36</a>). Likewise, Luke reports that immediately after Jesus instructed the cleansed leper to “tell no one” (<a href='B:490 5:14'>Luke 5:14</a>), “then the report went around concerning Him all the more… So He Himself often withdrew into the wilderness and prayed” (vv. 15–16).<p/>Finally, Jesus did not wish to parade His messianic claims, especially among the Jews, since they had a false expectation of a political redeemer who would deliver them from the yoke of Rome (see comments on <a href='B:500 4:26'>John 4:26</a>). On one occasion, they even wanted to make Him king by force because of the signs which He did (see <a href='B:500 6:14-15'>John 6:14-15</a>). Since that was not His purpose, He withdrew from them, for His purpose was to die on the cross (see <a href='B:480 10:45'>Mark 10:45</a> and <a href='B:500 10:10'>John 10:10</a>; <a href='B:500 10:15'>15</a>). 


text:
Did Jesus make a mistake about His disciples seeing the kingdom come in their lifetimes?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Jesus told His disciples that some of them would not see death until they saw Him coming in His kingdom. Yet during the life of the apostles, Jesus never returned to set up His kingdom.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> This is a question of when this was going to take place, not whether it would. There are three possible solutions.<p/>First, some have suggested that this may be a reference to the Day of Pentecost where Christ’s Helper, the Holy Spirit, came to descend upon the apostles. In John’s Gospel (14:26), Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit, and, in the beginning of Acts (1:4–8), He tells them not to leave Jerusalem until they have received the Holy Spirit. But this hardly seems to fit the description of seeing Christ coming in His kingdom (<a href='B:470 16:28'>Matt 16:28</a>).<p/>A third and more plausible explanation is that this is a reference to the appearance of Christ in His glory on the Mount of Transfiguration which begins in the very next verse (17:1). Here Christ does literally appear in a glorified form, and some of His apostles are there to witness the occasion, namely Peter, James, and John. This transfiguration experience, of course, was only a foretaste of His Second Coming when all believers will see Him come in power and great glory (cf. <a href='B:510 1:11'>Acts 1:11</a>; <a href='B:730 1:7'>Rev 1:7</a>). 


text:
<b>(cf. <a href='B:480 10:17-31'>Mark 10:17-31</a>; <a href='B:420 18:18-30'>Luke 18:18-30</a>)—</b> If Jesus was God, why did He seem to rebuke the rich young ruler for calling Him good?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The rich young ruler called Jesus “Good Teacher,” and Jesus rebuked him, saying, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God.” Yet on other occasions Jesus not only claimed to be God (<a href='B:480 2:8-10'>Mark 2:8-10</a>; <a href='B:500 8:58'>John 8:58</a>; <a href='B:500 10:30'>10:30</a>), but He accepted the claim of others that He was God (<a href='B:500 20:28-29'>John 20:28-29</a>). Why did Jesus appear to deny that He was God to the young ruler?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Jesus did not deny He was God to the young ruler. He simply asked him to examine the implications of what he was saying. In effect, Jesus was saying to him, “Do you realize what you are saying when you call Me Good? Are you saying I am God?” 


text:
<b>ff—</b> Are rewards the same for all, or do they differ in degree?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Jesus told a parable of His kingdom in which each servant got the same pay even though each had worked a different number of hours. Yet in other places, the Bible speaks of different degrees of reward for working in God’s kingdom (cf. <a href='B:530 3:11-15'>1Cor 3:11-15</a>; <a href='B:540 5:10'>2Cor 5:10</a>; <a href='B:730 22:12'>Rev 22:12</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There are different degrees of reward in heaven, depending on our faithfulness to Christ on earth. Jesus said, “I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work” (<a href='B:730 22:12'>Rev 22:12</a>). Paul said each believer’s work will be tried by fire and “if anyone’s work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward” (<a href='B:530 3:14'>1Cor 3:14</a>). In 2 Corinthians 5, he says 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” (v. 10, emphasis added).<p/>The point of the parable in <a href='B:470 20'>Mat 20</a> is not that all rewards will be the same, but that all rewards are by grace. It is to show that God rewards on the basis of opportunity, not simply on accomplishment. Not all the servants had the opportunity to work for the master the same amount of time, but all, nevertheless, were given the same pay. God looks at our disposition as well as our actions and judges accordingly. 


text:
<b>(cf. <a href='B:480 10:35'>Mark 10:35</a>)—</b> Who came to talk with Jesus, the mother of James and John or James and John?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> In Matthew, the mother of James and John made a request of Jesus. However, Mark states that it was James and John who came to Jesus to make their request.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> It is clear that both the mother and her sons came to Jesus to make the request, since the text declares “the mother … came to Him with her sons” (v. 20). It is possible that the mother spoke first with the two sons closely following to reiterate the request. This is supported by Matthew’s account because when Jesus responds “are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink?” the Bible says “they said to Him, `weare able’ ” (v. 22). So, there is no unsolvable conflict here. The two accounts are harmonious. 


text:
<b>(cf. <a href='B:480 10:46-52'>Mark 10:46-52</a>; <a href='B:420 18:35-43'>Luke 18:35-43</a>)—</b> Did Jesus heal two blind men orjust one?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Matthew says that Christ healed two men, but Mark refers to only one man being healed (10:46). This appears to be a clear contradiction.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Although Mark records one individual getting healed, this does not mean that there were not two, as Matthew says there were. First of all, Mark does not declare that there was only one blind man healed. Matthew says there were two, and where there are two there is always one, every time! Matthew earlier mentions two demoniacs where Mark and Luke mention one (<a href='B:470 8:28-34'>Matt 8:28-34</a>), so Matthew again mentions the two blind men where Mark mentions just one. Further, the fact that Mark mentions the name of one blind man, Bartimaeus, and his father (Timaeus, 10:46), indicates that Mark is centering onthe one that was personally known to him. If two men were to receive a medal of honor from the president of the United States and one was your friend, it is understandable that when you relate the story you might only speak of the one whom you knew receiving the medal.<p/><b><a href='B:470 20:29-34'>Mat 20:29-34</a> (cf. <a href='B:480 10:46-52'>Mark 10:46-52</a>; <a href='B:420 18:35-43'>Luke 18:35-43</a>)—</b> Did Jesus heal the blind man coming into or going out of Jericho?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to Luke, a blind man was healed as Jesus entered the city of Jericho (18:35), but Matthew and Mark declare that the healing took place as Jesus left the city of Jericho. Again, the accounts do not seem to be harmonious.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Some believe that the healing in Luke may have actually taken place as Jesus left Jericho, claiming that it was only the initial contact that took place as “He was coming near Jericho” (<a href='B:490 18:35'>Luke 18:35</a>) and the blind man may have followed Him through the city, since he was continually begging Jesus to heal him (vv. 38–39). But this seems unlikely, since even after the healing (v. 43) the very next verse (19:1) says, “then Jesus entered and passed through Jericho.”<p/>Still others suggest that these are two different events. Matthew and Mark clearly affirm the healing occurred as Jesus left the city (<a href='B:470 20:29'>Matt 20:29</a>; <a href='B:480 10:46'>Mark 10:46</a>). But Luke speaks of healing one blind man as He entered the city. This is supported by the fact that Luke refers only to a “multitude” of people being present as Jesus entered the city (18:36), but both Matthew (20:29) and Mark (10:46) make a point to say there was a “great multitude” of people there by the time Jesus left the city. If the word spread of the miraculous healing on the way into the city, this would account for the swelling of the crowd. It might also explain why two blind men were waiting on the other side of the city to plead for Jesus to heal them. Perhaps the first blind man who was healed went quickly to tell his blind friends what happened to him. Or maybe the other blind men were already stationed at the other end of the city in their customary begging position. At any rate, there is no irresolvable difficulty in the passage. The two accounts can be understood in a completely compatible way. 


text:
<b>(cf. <a href='B:480 11:2'>Mark 11:2</a>; <a href='B:490 19:30'>Luke 19:30</a>)—</b> Were there two donkeys involved in the triumphal entry or just one?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Matthew’s account records Jesus’ request of two disciples to go into a village and get two donkeys. But in Mark and Luke, He requests that the two disciples get just the colt.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Both animals were involved in Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem. There is no mistake in the accounts because Mark and Luke mention just the colt (p_olos), and Matthew refers to the colt (p_olos, 21:5) and its mother. The passage in Matthew is pointing out the literal fulfillment of the prophecy of <a href='B:450 9:9'>Zech 9:9</a> which states, “Behold your king is coming to you … humble, and mounted on a donkey, even on a colt, the foal of a donkey.” The Greek version of the OT uses the same word for colt (p_olos) as the NT passages. Matthew literally states that once the disciples placed their garments on the donkeys, Jesus sat on them, that is, on their garments. Matthew does not say that Jesus rode on both the mother and the colt. It merely states that Jesus sat on the garments that the disciples had placed on the donkeys. Perhaps they placed some garments on the mother and others on the colt, and Jesus sat on those garments which were placed on the colt. The fact is the text of Matthew simply does not say on which donkey Jesus sat. Mark and Luke focus on the colt on which Jesus rode, while Matthew mentions the presence of the colt’s mother. Her presence may have been necessary because the colt was so young. <a href='B:480 11:12'>Mark 11:12</a> states that no one had ridden on the colt, and that the colt would be taking a passenger through a noisy crowd (<a href='B:480 11:9'>Mark 11:9</a>). Perhaps the mother was brought along in order to be a calming influence upon her young. 


text:
<b>(cf. <a href='B:480 11:12-14'>Mark 11:12-14</a>; <a href='B:480 11:20'>20–24</a>)—</b> When was the fig tree cursed by Jesus, before or after the temple was cleansed?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Matthew places the cursing of the fig tree after the cleansing of the temple. But Mark places the cursing before the temple was cleansed. But, it cannot be both. Did one Gospel writer make a mistake?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Jesus actually cursed the fig tree on His way to the temple as Mark said, but this does not mean that Matthew’s account is mistaken. Christ made two trips to the temple, and He cursed the fig tree on His second trip.<p/><a href='B:480 11:11'>Mark 11:11</a> says that Christ entered the temple the day of His triumphal entry. When Christ enters the temple, Mark does not mention Christ making any proclamations against any wrongdoing. Verse 12 says “Now the next day,” referring to the trip to the fig tree on the way to the temple on the second day. On this day, Christ threw out those buying and selling in the temple. Matthew, however, addresses the two trips of Christ to the temple as though they were one event. This gives the impression that the first day Christ entered the temple He drove out the buyers and sellers as well. Mark’s account, however, gives more detail to the events, revealing that there were actually two trips to the temple. In view of this, we have no reason to believe that there is a discrepancy in the accounts. 


text:
Will we be like angels (spirits) in heaven, beings without physical bodies?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Jesus said that in the resurrection we will be “like the angels of God” (<a href='B:470 22:30'>Matt 22:30</a>). But angels have no physical bodies—they are spirits (<a href='B:650 1:14'>Heb 1:14</a>). Thus, it is argued that we will have no physical bodies in the resurrection. This, however, is contradictory to those verses that claim there will be a resurrection of the physical body from the grave (<a href='B:500 5:28-29'>John 5:28-29</a>; <a href='B:490 24:39'>Luke 24:39</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Jesus did not say that we would be like angels in that they are spirits, but like them in that they do not marry. Two observations are relevant here. 


text:
Does Jesus want us to love ourself first or others?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Jesus says in Matthew that we are to love our neighbor as ourselves. But, if we love ourselves first, before we love our neighbor, then this would be putting self before neighbor. Is Jesus teaching that we should be selfish?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Loving others as we love ourselves can be understood in different ways, but in no way is Jesus implying that we should be selfish. The Bible condemns “lovers of themselves” (<a href='B:620 3:2'>2Tim 3:2</a>). It exhorts us not to consider only our own interests, but also the interest of others (<a href='B:570 2:4'>Phil 2:4</a>). There are three ways to understand the phrase, “love others as yourself.”<p/>Second, Jesus could have meant that we should love others as we ought to love ourselves, namely,properly. There is a legitimate self-respect or self-love. Ephesians tells us to care for our own bodies, “for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it” (5:28–29). There is nothing wrong with a legitimate self-care and self-respect. The Bible condemns someone for “thinking of himself more highly than he ought,” but urges him to think “soberly” (<a href='B:520 12:3'>Rom 12:3</a>). In this sense, Jesus may be saying love others as you ought to love yourselves. 


text:
Is it wrong to call others our father?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Here Jesus commanded: “Do not call anyone on earth your father.” Yet elsewhere the Bible not only tells us “honor your father and mother” (<a href='B:20 20:12'>Ex 20:12</a>), but even uses the term “father” of those who are spiritual mentors (<a href='B:120 2:12'>2Ki 2:12</a>; cf. <a href='B:530 4:15'>1Cor 4:15</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The context of Jesus’ statement indicates that He is referring to taking human beings as infallible spiritual masters, not that He is opposed to havingfallible spiritual mentors. In fact, Paul was a spiritual father to Timothy (<a href='B:530 4:15'>1Cor 4:15</a>) whom he called, “my beloved son” (<a href='B:620 1:2'>2Tim 1:2</a>). However, Paul was careful to instruct his spiritual children only to “Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ” (<a href='B:530 11:1'>1Cor 11:1</a>). Showingproper respect to our spiritual leaders is one thing (cf. <a href='B:610 5:17'>1Tim 5:17</a>), but giving them unquestioned obedience and reverence that is due only to God is another. 


text:
Why did Jesus call people fools and yet condemn others for doing the same thing?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Jesus said, “whoever says [to his brother], `You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire” (<a href='B:470 5:22'>Matt 5:22</a>). Yet He Himself said to the scribes and Pharisees, “Fools and blind!” (<a href='B:470 23:17'>Matt 23:17</a>) The Apostle Paul, following suit, said, “O foolish Galatians” (<a href='B:550 3:1'>Gal 3:1</a>; cf. <a href='B:530 15:36'>1Cor 15:36</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There are good reasons why there is a strong difference between the two uses of the term “fool.”<p/>Third, technically speaking, Jesus only commanded that a “brother” (<a href='B:470 5:22'>Matt 5:22</a>) not be called a “fool,” not an unbeliever. In fact the scriptural description of a fool is one who “has said in his heart, `There is no God’ ” (<a href='B:230 14:1'>Ps 14:1</a>). In view of this, one can see the seriousness of calling a brother a fool; it is tantamount to calling him an unbeliever. Hence, when He who “knew what was in man” (cf. <a href='B:500 2:25'>John 2:25</a>) called unbelievers “fools,” it was a most appropriate description of what they really were. 


text:
Did Jesus make a mistake in referring to Zechariah the son of Jehoiada rather than to Zechariah the son of Berechiah?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Jesus said to the scribes and Pharisees that the guilt of all the righteous blood from Abel to Zechariah will fall on them. Concerning Zechariah, Jesus said he was killed between the sanctuary and the altar. Some conclude that the Zechariah referred to by Christ is the son of Jehoiada (<a href='B:140 24:20-22'>2Chron 24:20-22</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The Zechariah referred to has to be the son of Berechiah. This Zechariah is one of the minor prophets, and his father is listed as Berechiah (<a href='B:450 1:1'>Zech 1:1</a>). He would be the most likely candidate because the other Zechariah (son of Jehoiada) died about 800 B.C. If one thinks Christ referred to this Zechariah, then the time span from Abel to this Zechariah would not cover the OT period, which extended to 400 B.C. Abel to Zechariah the son of Berechiah would make a much better sweep of the OT period than would the period from Abel to Zechariah the son of Jehoiada. Since many Zechariahs are mentioned in the OT, it would not be too difficult to imagine two Zechariahs dying from similar circumstances. 


text:
Did Christ come to earth immediately following the Tribulation or sometime later?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> In Matthew, Jesus represents His coming as “immediately after” (<a href='B:470 24:29'>24:29</a>) the Great Tribulation. But Luke seems to separate it by the “times of the Gentiles” (<a href='B:490 21:24'>Luke 21:24</a>; <a href='B:420 21:27'>27</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The interval referred to by Luke is the time between the destruction of Jerusalem (A.D. 70), which began God’s judgment on Jerusalem (cf. <a href='B:470 24:2'>Matt 24:2</a>), and the return of Christ to earth “with power and great glory” (<a href='B:470 24:30'>Matt 24:30</a>). So, when Matthew affirms that Christ’s coming is “immediately after the tribulation of those days” (24:29), he is referring to the end of the “times of the Gentiles” mentioned by Luke (21:24). Hence, there is no irresolvable conflict between the two accounts. 


text:
Did Jesus err by affirming that the signs of the end time would be fulfilled in His era?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Jesus spoke of signs and wonders regarding His second coming. But Jesus said “this generation” would not end before all these events took place. Did this mean that these events would occur in the lifetime of His hearers?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> These events (e.g., the Great Tribulation, the sign of Christ’s return, and the end of the age) did not occur in the lifetime of Christ’s hearers. Therefore, it is reasonable to understand their fulfillment as something yet to come. This calls for a closer examination of the meaning of “generation” for meanings other than that of Jesus’ contemporaries.<p/>First, “generation” in Greek (genea) can mean “race.” In this particular instance, Jesus’ statement could mean that the Jewish race would not pass away until all things are fulfilled. Since there were many promises to Israel, including the eternal inheritance of the land of Palestine (<a href='B:10 12'>Gen 12</a>; 14–15; <a href='B:10 17'>17</a>) and the Davidic kingdom (<a href='B:100 7'>2Sam 7</a>), then Jesus could be referring to God’s preservation of the nation of Israel in order to fulfill His promises to them. Indeed, Paul speaks of a future of the nation of Israel when they will be reinstated in God’s covenantal promises (<a href='B:520 11:11-26'>Rom 11:11-26</a>). And Jesus’ response to His disciples’ last question implied there would yet be a future kingdom for Israel, when they asked: “Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” Rather than rebuking them for their misunderstanding, He replied that “It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority” (<a href='B:510 1:6-7'>Acts 1:6-7</a>). Indeed, Paul in <a href='B:520 11'>Rom 11</a> speaks of the nation of Israel being restored to God’s promised blessings (cf. vv. 25–26).<p/>Second, “generation” could also refer to a generation in its commonly understood sense of the people alive at the time indicated. In this case, “generation” would refer to the group of people who are alive when these things come to pass in the future. In other words, the generation alive when these things (the abomination of desolation [v. 15], the great tribulation such as has never been seen before [v. 21], the sign of the Son of Man in heaven [v. 30], etc.) begin to come to pass will still be alive when these judgments are completed. Since it is commonly believed that the tribulation is a period of some seven years (<a href='B:340 9:27'>Dan 9:27</a>; cf. <a href='B:730 11:2'>Rev 11:2</a>) at the end of the age, then Jesus would be saying that “this generation” alive at the beginning of the tribulation will still be alive at the end of it. In any event, there is no reason to assume that Jesus made the obviously false assertion that the world would come to an end within the lifetime of His contemporaries. 


text:
Was Jesus always present with His disciples?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to Jesus’ statement here, He would not always be with the disciples, for He said: “but Me you do not have always” with you. On the other hand, in <a href='B:470 28:20'>Mat 28:20</a> Jesus said, “Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> In the first passage, Jesus was speaking of Hisphysical presence (which would not be with them between His ascension and second coming), and, in the later text, He is referring to His spiritual presence with them as they preached the Gospel in all the world. There is no contradiction here whatsoever. 


text:
<b>(cf. <a href='B:480 14:30'>Mark 14:30</a>)—</b> When Peter denied Christ, did the rooster crow once or twice?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Matthew and John (13:38) say before the rooster crows once, Peter will have denied the Lord three times. But Mark affirms that before the rooster crows twice Peter will deny Christ three times. Which account is right?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There is no contradiction between the two accounts because, given the correctness of the text, Matthew and John do not expressly state how many times the rooster will crow. They simply say Peter will deny Christ three times “before the rooster crows,” but they do not say how many times it will crow. Mark may simply be more specific, affirming exactly how many times the rooster would crow.<p/>It is also possible that different accounts are due to an early copyist error in Mark, that resulted in the insertion of “two” in early manuscripts (at <a href='B:480 14:30'>Mark 14:30</a> and 72). This would explain why some important manuscripts of Mark mention only one crowing, just like Matthew and John, and why “two” appears at different places in some manuscripts. 


text:
Is Jesus advocating pacifism and denouncing capital punishment in this passage?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> When the soldiers came to arrest Jesus, Peter took out his sword and cut off the ear of the high priest’s servant. Jesus told Peter to put back the sword because those who take up the sword will die by the sword. Some use this verse to support pacifism and to oppose capital punishment, which the Bible affirms elsewhere (<a href='B:10 9:6'>Gen 9:6</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Total pacifism is not taught in this Scripture. Indeed, Abraham was blessed by the Most High God (<a href='B:10 14:19'>Gen 14:19</a>) after engaging in a war against the unjust aggression of the kings who had captured his nephew Lot. In <a href='B:490 3:14'>Luke 3:14</a>, soldiers come to inquire of John the Baptist about what they should do. John never told them to leave the army. Likewise, Cornelius, in Acts 10, was a centurion. He was called a devout man (v. 2), and the Scriptures say that the Lord heard the prayers of Cornelius (v. 4). When Cornelius becomes a Christian, Peter does not tell him to leave the army. Also, in <a href='B:420 22:36-38'>Luke 22:36-38</a>, Christ says that the one who has no sword should sell his robe and buy one. The apostles responded saying that they had two swords. Jesus responded saying that “it was enough.” In other words, they did not need to get rid of their swords. The Apostle Paul accepted the protection of the Roman army to save his life from unjust aggressors (<a href='B:510 23'>Acts 23</a>). Indeed, he reminded the Roman Christians that God had given the sword to the king who did not bear it in vain (<a href='B:520 13:1-4'>Rom 13:1-4</a>). When Jesus returns to earth, He will come with the armies of heaven and will war against the kings of the earth (<a href='B:730 19:11-19'>Rev 19:11-19</a>). So, from the beginning to the end, the Bible is filled with examples of the justification of war against evil aggressors.<p/>What, then, did Jesus mean when He commanded Peter to put away his sword? Peter was making two mistakes in using his sword. First, while the Bible permits the sword by the government for civil purposes (<a href='B:520 13:1-4'>Rom 13:1-4</a>), it does not endorse its use for spiritual ends. It is to be used by the state, not by the church. Second, Peter’s use was aggressive, not purely defensive. His life was not being unjustly threatened. That is, it was not clearly an act of self-defense (<a href='B:20 22:2'>Ex 22:2</a>). Jesus appears to have endorsed the use of the sword in civil self-defense (<a href='B:490 22:36'>Luke 22:36</a>), as did the Apostle Paul (<a href='B:510 23'>Acts 23</a>).<p/>Likewise, capital punishment is not forbidden in Scripture, but rather was established by God. <a href='B:10 9:6'>Gen 9:6</a> affirms that whoever sheds man’s blood, the blood of the killer will also be shed. <a href='B:40 35:31'>Numbers 35:31</a> makes a similar statement. In the NT, Jesus recognized that Rome had capital authority and submitted to it (<a href='B:500 19:11'>John 19:11</a>). The Apostle Paul informed the Romans that governing authorities are ministers of God and that they still possessed the God-given sword of capital authority (13:1, 4). So Jesus in no way did away with the just use of the sword by civil authorities. He simply noted that those who live lives of aggression often die by the same means. 


text:
<b>(cf. <a href='B:510 1:18'>Acts 1:18</a>)—</b> Did Judas die by hanging or by falling on rocks?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Matthew declares that Judas hanged himself. However, the Book of Acts says that he fell and his body burst open.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> These accounts are not contradictory, but mutually complementary. Judas hung himself exactly as Matthew affirms that he did. The account in Acts simply adds that Judas fell, and his body opened up at the middle and his intestines gushed out. This is the very thing one would expect of someone who hanged himself from a tree over a cliff and fell on sharp rocks below.<p/><b><a href='B:510 1:18'>ACTS 1:18</a> —</b> In what way did Judas die?<p/>(See comments on <a href='B:470 27:5'>Matt 27:5</a>) 


text:
<b>(cf. <a href='B:480 15:26'>Mark 15:26</a>; <a href='B:490 23:38'>Luke 23:38</a>; <a href='B:500 19:19'>John 19:19</a>)—</b> Why are all the Gospel accounts of the inscription on the cross different?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The wording of the accusation above Christ’s head on the cross is rendered differently in each Gospel account.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> While there is a difference in what is omitted, the important phrase, “the king of the Jews,” is identical in all four Gospels. The differences can be accounted for in different ways.<p/>First, <a href='B:500 19:20'>John 19:20</a> says, “Then many of the Jews read this title, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin.” So then, there are at least three different languages in which the sign above Christ’s head was written. Some of the differences may come from it being rendered in different languages. 


text:
Did both robbers revile Christ, or did only one do this?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Matthew says here, “even the robbers who were crucified with Him reviled Him.” However, according to Luke, only one reviled Him (<a href='B:490 23:39'>Luke 23:39</a>) while the other one believed in Him, asking, “Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom” (<a href='B:490 23:42'>Luke 23:42</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> This difficulty is easily resolved on the supposition that at first both reviled the Lord, but that later one repented. Perhaps, he was so impressed hearing Jesus forgive those who crucified Him (<a href='B:490 23:34'>Luke 23:34</a>) that he was convinced that Jesus was the Savior and asked to be part of His coming kingdom (v. 42). 


text:
Did Jesus die on the cross or just swoon?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Many skeptics, as well as Muslims, believe that Jesus did not die on the cross. Some say that He took a drug that put Him in a comalike state and that He later revived in the tomb. Yet the Bible says repeatedly that Christ died on the cross (cf. <a href='B:520 5:8'>Rom 5:8</a>; <a href='B:530 15:3'>1Cor 15:3</a>; <a href='B:590 4:14'>1Thes 4:14</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Jesus never fainted or swooned, nor was He drugged on the cross. In fact, He refused the drug customarily offered to the victim before crucifixion to help deaden pain (<a href='B:470 27:34'>Matt 27:34</a>), and He accepted only “vinegar” later (v. 48) to quench His thirst. Jesus’ actual physical death on the cross is supported by overwhelming evidence.<p/>First of all, the OT predicted that Christ would die (<a href='B:290 53:5-10'>Isa 53:5-10</a>; <a href='B:230 22:16'>Ps 22:16</a>; <a href='B:340 9:26'>Dan 9:26</a>; <a href='B:450 12:10'>Zech 12:10</a>). And Jesus fulfilled the OT prophecies about the Messiah (cf. <a href='B:470 4:14-16'>Matt 4:14-16</a>; <a href='B:470 5:17'>5:17–18</a>; <a href='B:470 8:17'>8:17</a>; <a href='B:500 4:25-26'>John 4:25-26</a>; <a href='B:500 5:39'>5:39</a>).<p/>Second, Jesus announced many times during His ministry that He was going to die (<a href='B:500 2:19-21'>John 2:19-21</a>; <a href='B:500 10:10'>10:10–11</a>; <a href='B:470 12:40'>Matt 12:40</a>; <a href='B:480 8:31'>Mark 8:31</a>). Typical is <a href='B:470 17:22-23'>Mat 17:22-23</a> that says, “The Son of Man is about to be betrayed into the hands of men and they will kill Him, and the third day He will be raised up.”<p/>Third, all the predictions of His resurrection, both in the OT (cf. <a href='B:230 16:10'>Ps 16:10</a>; <a href='B:290 26:19'>Isa 26:19</a>; <a href='B:340 12:2'>Dan 12:2</a>) and in the NT (cf. <a href='B:500 2:19-21'>John 2:19-21</a>; <a href='B:470 12:40'>Matt 12:40</a>; <a href='B:470 17:22'>17:22–23</a>), are based on the fact that He would die. Only a dead body can be resurrected.<p/>Sixth, the piercing of Jesus’ side with the spear, from which came “blood and water” (<a href='B:500 19:34'>John 19:34</a>), is proof that He had physically died before the piercing. When this has happened, it is a medical proof that the person has already died (see point eleven below).<p/>Seventh, Jesus said He was in the act of dying on the cross when He declared “Father, into Your hands I commend My spirit” (<a href='B:490 23:46'>Luke 23:46</a>). And “having said this, He breathed His last” (v. 46). John renders this, “He gave up His spirit” (<a href='B:500 19:30'>John 19:30</a>). His death cry was heard by those who stood by (vv. 47–49).<p/>Eighth, the Roman soldiers, accustomed to crucifixion and death, pronounced Jesus dead. Although it was a common practice to break the legs of the victim to speed death (so that the person can no longer lift himself and breathe), they did not even break Jesus’ legs (<a href='B:500 19:33'>John 19:33</a>).<p/>Ninth, Pilate double-checked to make sure Jesus was dead before he gave the corpse to Joseph to be buried. “Summoning the centurion, he asked him if He had been dead for some time. And when he found out from the centurion, he granted the body to Joseph” (<a href='B:480 15:44-45'>Mark 15:44-45</a>).<p/>Tenth, Jesus was wrapped in about 75 pounds of cloth and spices and placed in a sealed tomb for three days (<a href='B:500 19:39-40'>John 19:39-40</a>; <a href='B:470 27:60'>Matt 27:60</a>). If He was not dead by then, which He clearly was, He would have died from lack of food, water, and medical treatment.<p/>Eleventh, medical authorities who have examined the circumstances and nature of Christ’s death have concluded that He actually died on the cross. An article in the Journal of the American Medical Society (March 21, 1986) concluded:<p/>Clearly, the weight of historical and medical evidence indicates that Jesus was dead before the wound to his side was inflicted and supports the traditional view that the spear, thrust between his right rib, probably perforated not only the right lung but also the pericardium and heart and thereby ensured his death. Accordingly, interpretations based on the assumption that Jesus did not die on the cross appear to be at odds with modern medical knowledge.


text:
<b>(cf. <a href='B:480 15:39'>Mark 15:39</a>; <a href='B:490 23:47'>Luke 23:47</a>)—</b> What did the centurion really say about Christ on the cross?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Matthew records the centurion saying, “Truly this was the Son of God,” while Mark says substantially the same thing, adding only the word “man,” rendering it, “Truly this Man was the Son of God.” Luke records the words of the centurion as follows: “Certainly this was a righteous Man!” What did he really say?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> He may have said both. The centurion’s words need not be limited to one phrase or sentence. The centurion could have said both things. In accordance with his own emphasis on Christ as the perfect man, Luke may have chosen to use this phrase rather than the ones used by Matthew and Mark. There is no major difference between Matthew and Mark, for in Greek the word “man” is implied by the masculine singular use of the word “This.” It is also possible that Luke may have been paraphrasing or drawing an implication from what was actually said. 


text:
Why does Matthew say there was only one angel at the tomb when John says there were two?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> <a href='B:470 28:5'>Mat 28:5</a> refers to the “angel” at the tomb after Jesus’ resurrection, and yet John says there were “two angels” there (<a href='B:500 20:12'>John 20:12</a>)?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Matthew does not say there was only one angel. John says there were two, and wherever there are two there is always one; it never fails! The critic has to add the word “only” to Matthew’s account in order to make it contradictory. But in this case, the problem is not with what the Bible actually says, but with what the critic adds to it.<p/>Matthew probably focuses on the one who spoke and “said to the women, `Do not be afraid’ ” (<a href='B:470 28:5'>Matt 28:5</a>). John referred to how many angels they saw; “and she saw two angels” (<a href='B:500 20:12'>John 20:12</a>). 


text:
To whom did Christ appear first, the women or His disciples?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Both Matthew and Mark list women as the first ones to see the resurrected Christ. Mark says, “He appeared first to Mary Magdalene” (16:9). But Paul lists Peter (Cephas) as the first one to see Christ after His resurrection (<a href='B:530 15:5'>1Cor 15:5</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Jesus appeared first to Mary Magdalene, then to the other women, and then to Peter. The order of the twelve appearances of Christ goes as follows :<p/>(<a href='B:500 20:10-18'>John 20:10-18</a>)<p/>(<a href='B:470 28:1–10'>Matt 28:1–10</a>) X X X Empty tomb<p/>(<a href='B:530 15:5'>1Cor 15:5</a>) Clothes<p/>(<a href='B:490 24:13–35'>Luke 24:13–35</a>)<p/>(<a href='B:420 24:36-49'>Luke 24:36-49</a>; <a href='B:500 20:19-23'>John 20:19-23</a>)<p/>6. Eleven X X X Saw wounds Apostles (<a href='B:500 20:24-31'>John 20:24-31</a>)<p/>7. Seven X X Ate food Apostles (<a href='B:500 21'>John 21</a>)<p/>8. All Apostles X X (<a href='B:470 28:16-20'>Matt 28:16-20</a>; <a href='B:480 16:14-18'>Mark 16:14-18</a>)<p/>9. 500 Brethren X X (<a href='B:530 15:6'>1Cor 15:6</a>)<p/>10. James X X (<a href='B:530 15:7'>1Cor 15:7</a>)<p/>11. All Apostles X X Ate with Him (<a href='B:510 1:4-8'>Acts 1:4-8</a>)<p/>12. Paul X X (<a href='B:510 9:1-9'>Acts 9:1-9</a>; <a href='B:530 15:8'>1Cor 15:8</a>) 


text:
How can three persons be God when there is only one God?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Matthew speaks of the “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” all being part of one “name.” But these are three distinct persons. How can there be three persons in the Godhead when there is only “one God” (<a href='B:50 6:4'>Deut 6:4</a>; <a href='B:530 8:6'>1Cor 8:6</a>)?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> God is one in essence, but three in Persons. God has one nature, but three centers of consciousness. That is, there is only one What in God, but there are three Whos.There is one It, but three I’s. This is a mystery, but not a contradiction. It would be contradictory to say God was only one person, but also was three persons. Or that God is only one nature, but that He also had three natures. But to declare, as orthodox Christians do, that God is one essence, eternally revealed in three distinct persons is not a contradiction. 


text:
Why does Mark omit giving any genealogy of Jesus like Matthew and Luke do?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Both Matthew (chap. 1) and Luke (chap. 3) give an ancestry of Jesus (see <a href='B:470 1:1'>Matt 1:1</a>). However, Mark provides no genealogy whatsoever. Why the omission?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Mark presents Christ as a servant, and servants need no genealogy. The Roman audience to whom Mark directed his Gospel was not interested in where a servant came from, but in what he could do. Unlike Mark’s Roman audience, Matthew’s Jewish audience looked for the Messiah, the King. Thus, Matthew traces Jesus back to His Jewish roots as the Son of David the king (<a href='B:470 1:1'>Matt 1:1</a>). Likewise, Luke presents Christ as the perfect man. Hence, Christ’s ancestry is traced back to the first man, Adam (<a href='B:490 3:38'>Luke 3:38</a>). John, on the other hand, presents Christ as the Son of God. Therefore, he traces Christ back to His eternal source with the Father.<p/>Consider the following comparison of the four Gospels which explains why Mark needed no ancestry for Jesus. <b>Matthew</b> <b>Mark</b> <b>Luke</b> <b>John<p/>Christ</b> King Servant Man God<p/><b>Presented </b> Lion Ox Man Eagle<p/><b>Key</b> Sovereignty Ministry Humanity Deity<p/><b>Audience</b> Jews Romans Greeks World<p/><b>Ancestry</b> To royalty In anonymity To humanity To deity 


text:
How can Mark’s misquotation of this OT prophecy be justified?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Mark misquotes Malachi, as indicated by the italicized words:<p/><a href='B:460 3:1'>Mal 3:1</a> <a href='B:480 1:2'>MARK 1:2</a><p/>Behold, I send My Behold, I send My messenger<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> First, it should be pointed out that, in spite of the change in words, the original sense is retained. In view of one of the fundamental principles of understanding difficult texts (see Introduction), “A NT citation need not be an exact quotation.” As long as the meaning is retained, the words can differ. Second, in this case, Mark simply draws out the meaning by adding “before Your face.” This is implied in the original passage, but made explicit by Mark. Third, the change from “Me” (first person) to “You” is necessitated because God is speaking in the Malachi passage, whereas Mark is speaking about God. Had he not changed the words he would have changed the meaning. 


text:
Was Jesus wrong when He mentioned Abiathar as high priest instead of Ahimelech?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Jesus says that at the time David ate the consecrated bread, Abiathar was high priest. Yet <a href='B:90 21:1-6'>1Sam 21:1-6</a> mentions that the high priest at that time was Ahimelech.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> First Samuel is correct in stating that the high priest was Ahimelech. On the other hand neither was Jesus wrong. When we take a closer look at Christ’s words we notice that He used the phrase “in the days of Abiathar” (v. 26) which does not necessarily imply that Abiathar was high priest at the time David ate the bread. After David met Ahimelech and ate the bread, King Saul had Ahimelech killed (<a href='B:90 22:17-19'>1Sam 22:17-19</a>). Abiathar escaped and went to David (v. 20) and later took the place of the high priest. So even though Abiathar was made high priest after David ate the bread, it is still correct to speak in this manner. After all, Abiathar was alive when David did this, and soon following he became the high priest after his father’s death. Thus, it was during the time of Abiathar, but not during his tenure in office. 


text:
<b>(cf. <a href='B:480 5:1-20'>Mark 5:1-20</a>; <a href='B:420 8:26-39'>Luke 8:26-39</a>)—</b> Where were the demoniacs healed?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The first three Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) each give an account of Jesus healing demoniacs. Matthew states that the place where the healing took place was the country of the Gadarenes. However, Mark and Luke say it was in the country of the Gerasenes.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There is a textual problem here. The critical text of the Greek NT (Nestle- Aland/United Bible Societies) renders Mark and Luke the same as Matthew, namely, in the country of the “Gadarenes.” However, some manuscripts give the name of the country as the Gerasenes. It is possible to account for the variant reading in these manuscripts as a scribal error. Gadara may have been the capital of the region, and Matthew therefore referred to the area as the “country of the Gadarenes” because the people of that region, whether they lived in Gadara or not, were identified as Gadarenes. Mark and Luke were perhaps giving a more general reference to the country of the Gerasenes, which was the wider area in which the incident occurred. However, a scribe, confusing the reference in Matthew as a reference to the town instead of the people of the region, may have attempted to correct the manuscripts and altered the references to make them uniform. It seems that the best textual evidence is in favor of Gadara, although there are varying opinions among commentators. There is no contradiction or error here, because the problem developed as a result of transcription, and there is no evidence to demonstrate that there was a conflict in the original manuscripts.<p/><b><a href='B:470 8:28-34'>Mat 8:28-34</a> (cf. <a href='B:480 5:1-20'>Mark 5:1-20</a>; <a href='B:420 8:26-39'>Luke 8:26-39</a>)—</b> How many demoniacs were healed?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Matthew reports that two demoniacs came to Jesus, while Mark and Luke say that only one demoniac approached Him. This appears to be a contradiction.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There is a very fundamental mathematical law that reconciles this apparent contradiction—wherever there are two, there is always one. There are no exceptions! There were actually two demoniacs that came to Jesus. Perhaps Mark and Luke mentioned the one because he was more noticeable or prominent for some reason. However, the fact that Mark and Luke only mention one does not negate the fact that there were two as Matthew said. For wherever there is two, there is always one. It never fails. If Mark or Luke had said there was only one, then that would be a contradiction. But, the word “only” is not in the text. The critic has to change the text to make it contradict, in which case the problem is not with the Bible, but with the critic.<p/><b><a href='B:480 5:1-20'>MARK 5:1-20</a> —</b> How many demoniacs were there? Where was the demoniac healed?<p/>(See comments on <a href='B:470 8:28-34'>Matt 8:28-34</a>) 


text:
If Jesus is God, why couldn’t He do mighty works here?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> First of all, the Bible describes Jesus as God (<a href='B:500 1:1'>John 1:1</a>) who has, with the Father, “all authority in heaven and earth” (<a href='B:470 28:18'>Matt 28:18</a>). However, on this occasion Jesus “could do no mighty work there” (v. 5). Why couldn’t He, if He is all powerful?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Jesus is almighty as God, but not almighty as man. As the God-man, Jesus has both a divine nature and a human nature. What He can do in one nature He cannot necessarily do in the other. For example, as God, Jesus never got tired (<a href='B:230 121:4'>Ps 121:4</a>), but as man He did (cf. <a href='B:500 4:6'>John 4:6</a>).<p/>Furthermore, just because Jesus possessed all power does not mean that He always chose to exercise it. The “could not” in <a href='B:480 6:5'>Mark 6:5</a> is moral, not actual. That is, He chose not to perform miracles “because of their unbelief” (<a href='B:480 6:6'>6:6</a>). Jesus was not an entertainer, nor did He cast pearls before swine. So the necessity here is moral not metaphysical. He had the ability to do miracles there and in fact did some (v. 5), only He refused to do more because He deemed it a wasted effort. 


text:
<b>(cf. <a href='B:480 6:8'>Mark 6:8</a>)—</b> Did Jesus command that the disciples take a staff or not?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> In Matthew, Jesus seems to say that the disciples should not take a staff, but in Mark it appears that He allows them to have one.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> A closer examination reveals that the account in Mark (6:8) declares that the disciples are to take nothing except a staff, which a traveler would normally have. Whereas the account in Matthew states that they are not to acquire another staff. There is no discrepancy between these texts. Mark’s account is saying that they may take the staff that they have, while Matthew is saying that they should not take an extra staff or tunic. The text reads “Provide neither … two tunics, nor sandals, nor staffs” (plural: vv. 9–10). It does not say that they should not take a staff (singular). So there is no contradiction.<p/><b><a href='B:480 6:8'>MARK 6:8</a> —</b> Did Jesus command the disciples to take a staff or not?<p/>(See discussion on <a href='B:470 10:10'>Matt 10:10</a>) 


text:
Did Jesus contradict Himself by saying there would be no sign given (cf. <a href='B:470 12:38-39'>Matt 12:38-39</a>)?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> In Mark, the Pharisees ask for a sign from Jesus, but He says that no sign shall be given to that generation. But Matthew’s account says that Christ responded that the sign of the Prophet Jonah would be given (namely, Jesus’ resurrection).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> First, the main point here is that Christ was not willing to grant their immediate request for a sign. Jesus does not say in Matthew that the sign of the Prophet Jonah will be immediately given. This sign (of His death and resurrection) occurred later. So, even in Matthew He did not grant the requests of the Pharisees. Jesus refused to do miracles just to entertain (<a href='B:490 23:8'>Luke 23:8</a>). He did not “cast pearls before swine.” However He did perform miracles to confirm His messiahship (<a href='B:500 20:31'>John 20:31</a>), and the Resurrection was the crowning miracle of that nature (cf. <a href='B:510 2:22-32'>Acts 2:22-32</a>).<p/>Second, it is evident that on more than one occasion Jesus was asked to give a sign. <a href='B:490 11:16'>Luke 11:16</a>; <a href='B:420 11:29–30'>29–30</a> states that others sought for a sign. Here in Luke, Jesus responds very similar to the way He does in Matthew<p/>12. Also, again in <a href='B:470 16:1-4'>Mat 16:1-4</a> the Pharisees ask for a sign from Jesus to which He responds that none will be given except the sign of Jonah, just as He had in chapter<p/>12. So, it is clear that on other occasions Jesus was asked to give a sign and each time, Jesus refused to agree to their immediate demands. Miracles are performed according to God’s will, not according to human want (cf. <a href='B:650 2:4'>Heb 2:4</a>; <a href='B:530 12:11'>1Cor 12:11</a>). 


text:
Why did Jesus say worms would not die in hell?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Jesus said that hell is a place “where `their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched’ ” (<a href='B:480 9:48'>Mark 9:48</a>). But what do everlasting worms have to do with hell?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Jesus is not speaking of earthworms, nor any other kind of animal here. He is speaking about the human body. Notice, He did not say “where the worm does not die” but, rather, “where their worm does not die.” The antecedent of “their” is a human being who sins and dies without repentance (cf. <a href='B:480 9:42–47'>9:42–47</a>). “Worm” is simply a way to refer to the human “worm,” or shell known as the body. This fits with the context where He is speaking of the parts of the body, such as, “hands” and the “foot” (<a href='B:480 9:43–45'>9:43–45</a>). Jesus said here that we should not fear the one (man) who could destroy our body, but not our soul, but, rather, to fear the One (God) who could send soul and body into the everlasting flames (<a href='B:420 12:4-5'>Luke 12:4-5</a>; cf. <a href='B:480 9:43-48'>Mark 9:43-48</a>). 


text:
<b>(cf. <a href='B:480 10:17-31'>Mark 10:17-31</a>; <a href='B:420 18:18-30'>Luke 18:18-30</a>)—</b> If Jesus was God, why did He seem to rebuke the rich young ruler for calling Him good?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The rich young ruler called Jesus “Good Teacher,” and Jesus rebuked him, saying, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God.” Yet on other occasions Jesus not only claimed to be God (<a href='B:480 2:8-10'>Mark 2:8-10</a>; <a href='B:500 8:58'>John 8:58</a>; <a href='B:500 10:30'>10:30</a>), but He accepted the claim of others that He was God (<a href='B:500 20:28-29'>John 20:28-29</a>). Why did Jesus appear to deny that He was God to the young ruler?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Jesus did not deny He was God to the young ruler. He simply asked him to examine the implications of what he was saying. In effect, Jesus was saying to him, “Do you realize what you are saying when you call Me Good? Are you saying I am God?”<p/><b><a href='B:480 10:17-31'>MARK 10:17-31</a> —</b> Did Jesus deny He was God to the rich young ruler?<p/>(See comments on <a href='B:470 19:16-30'>Matt 19:16-30</a>) 


text:
<b>(cf. <a href='B:480 10:35'>Mark 10:35</a>)—</b> Who came to talk with Jesus, the mother of James and John or James and John?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> In Matthew, the mother of James and John made a request of Jesus. However, Mark states that it was James and John who came to Jesus to make their request.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> It is clear that both the mother and her sons came to Jesus to make the request, since the text declares “the mother … came to Him with her sons” (v. 20). It is possible that the mother spoke first with the two sons closely following to reiterate the request. This is supported by Matthew’s account because when Jesus responds “are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink?” the Bible says “they said to Him, `weare able’ ” (v. 22). So, there is no unsolvable conflict here. The two accounts are harmonious.<p/><b><a href='B:480 10:35'>MARK 10:35</a> —</b> Who came to talk with Jesus, the mother of James and John or James and John?<p/>(See discussion on <a href='B:470 20:20'>Matt 20:20</a>) 


text:
<b>(cf. <a href='B:480 10:46-52'>Mark 10:46-52</a>; <a href='B:420 18:35-43'>Luke 18:35-43</a>)—</b> Did Jesus heal two blind men orjust one?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Matthew says that Christ healed two men, but Mark refers to only one man being healed (10:46). This appears to be a clear contradiction.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Although Mark records one individual getting healed, this does not mean that there were not two, as Matthew says there were. First of all, Mark does not declare that there was only one blind man healed. Matthew says there were two, and where there are two there is always one, every time! Matthew earlier mentions two demoniacs where Mark and Luke mention one (<a href='B:470 8:28-34'>Matt 8:28-34</a>), so Matthew again mentions the two blind men where Mark mentions just one. Further, the fact that Mark mentions the name of one blind man, Bartimaeus, and his father (Timaeus, <a href='B:480 10:46'>10:46</a>), indicates that Mark is centering onthe one that was personally known to him. If two men were to receive a medal of honor from the president of the United States and one was your friend, it is understandable that when you relate the story you might only speak of the one whom you knew receiving the medal.<p/><b><a href='B:470 20:29-34'>Mat 20:29-34</a> (cf. <a href='B:480 10:46-52'>Mark 10:46-52</a>; <a href='B:420 18:35-43'>Luke 18:35-43</a>)—</b> Did Jesus heal the blind man coming into or going out of Jericho?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to Luke, a blind man was healed as Jesus entered the city of Jericho (<a href='B:490 18:35'>18:35</a>), but Matthew and Mark declare that the healing took place as Jesus left the city of Jericho. Again, the accounts do not seem to be harmonious.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Some believe that the healing in Luke may have actually taken place as Jesus left Jericho, claiming that it was only the initial contact that took place as “He was coming near Jericho” (<a href='B:490 18:35'>Luke 18:35</a>) and the blind man may have followed Him through the city, since he was continually begging Jesus to heal him (vv. 38–39). But this seems unlikely, since even after the healing (v. 43) the very next verse (<a href='B:490 19:1'>19:1</a>) says, “then Jesus entered and passed through Jericho.”<p/>Still others suggest that these are two different events. Matthew and Mark clearly affirm the healing occurred as Jesus left the city (<a href='B:470 20:29'>Matt 20:29</a>; <a href='B:480 10:46'>Mark 10:46</a>). But Luke speaks of healing one blind man as He entered the city. This is supported by the fact that Luke refers only to a “multitude” of people being present as Jesus entered the city (<a href='B:490 18:36'>18:36</a>), but both Matthew (<a href='B:470 20:29'>20:29</a>) and Mark (<a href='B:480 10:46'>10:46</a>) make a point to say there was a “great multitude” of people there by the time Jesus left the city. If the word spread of the miraculous healing on the way into the city, this would account for the swelling of the crowd. It might also explain why two blind men were waiting on the other side of the city to plead for Jesus to heal them. Perhaps the first blind man who was healed went quickly to tell his blind friends what happened to him. Or maybe the other blind men were already stationed at the other end of the city in their customary begging position. At any rate, there is no irresolvable difficulty in the passage. The two accounts can be understood in a completely compatible way.<p/><b><a href='B:480 10:46-52'>MARK 10:46-52</a> —</b> Did Jesus heal two blind men or just one?<p/>(See comments on <a href='B:470 20:29-34'>Matt 20:29-34</a>) 


text:
<b>(cf. <a href='B:480 11:2'>Mark 11:2</a>; <a href='B:490 19:30'>Luke 19:30</a>)—</b> Were there two donkeys involved in the triumphal entry or just one?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Matthew’s account records Jesus’ request of two disciples to go into a village and get two donkeys. But in Mark and Luke, He requests that the two disciples get just the colt.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Both animals were involved in Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem. There is no mistake in the accounts because Mark and Luke mention just the colt (p_olos), and Matthew refers to the colt (p_olos, <a href='B:470 21:5'>21:5</a>) and its mother. The passage in Matthew is pointing out the literal fulfillment of the prophecy of <a href='B:450 9:9'>Zech 9:9</a> which states, “Behold your king is coming to you … humble, and mounted on a donkey, even on a colt, the foal of a donkey.” The Greek version of the OT uses the same word for colt (p_olos) as the NT passages. Matthew literally states that once the disciples placed their garments on the donkeys, Jesus sat on them, that is, on their garments. Matthew does not say that Jesus rode on both the mother and the colt. It merely states that Jesus sat on the garments that the disciples had placed on the donkeys. Perhaps they placed some garments on the mother and others on the colt, and Jesus sat on those garments which were placed on the colt. The fact is the text of Matthew simply does not say on which donkey Jesus sat. Mark and Luke focus on the colt on which Jesus rode, while Matthew mentions the presence of the colt’s mother. Her presence may have been necessary because the colt was so young. <a href='B:480 11:12'>Mark 11:12</a> states that no one had ridden on the colt, and that the colt would be taking a passenger through a noisy crowd (<a href='B:480 11:9'>Mark 11:9</a>). Perhaps the mother was brought along in order to be a calming influence upon her young.<p/><b><a href='B:480 11:2'>MARK 11:2</a> —</b> Were there two donkeys involved in the triumphal entry or just one?<p/>(See discussion on <a href='B:470 21:2'>Matt 21:2</a>) 


text:
<b>(cf. <a href='B:480 11:12-14'>Mark 11:12-14</a>; <a href='B:480 11:20'>20–24</a>)—</b> When was the fig tree cursed by Jesus, before or after the temple was cleansed?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Matthew places the cursing of the fig tree after the cleansing of the temple. But Mark places the cursing before the temple was cleansed. But, it cannot be both. Did one Gospel writer make a mistake?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Jesus actually cursed the fig tree on His way to the temple as Mark said, but this does not mean that Matthew’s account is mistaken. Christ made two trips to the temple, and He cursed the fig tree on His second trip.<p/><a href='B:480 11:11'>Mark 11:11</a> says that Christ entered the temple the day of His triumphal entry. When Christ enters the temple, Mark does not mention Christ making any proclamations against any wrongdoing. Verse 12 says “Now the next day,” referring to the trip to the fig tree on the way to the temple on the second day. On this day, Christ threw out those buying and selling in the temple. Matthew, however, addresses the two trips of Christ to the temple as though they were one event. This gives the impression that the first day Christ entered the temple He drove out the buyers and sellers as well. Mark’s account, however, gives more detail to the events, revealing that there were actually two trips to the temple. In view of this, we have no reason to believe that there is a discrepancy in the accounts.<p/><b><a href='B:480 11:12-14'>MARK 11:12-14</a>; <a href='B:480 11:20'>20–24</a> —</b> When was the fig tree cursed by Jesus?<p/>(See comments on <a href='B:470 21:12-19'>Matt 21:12-19</a>.)<p/><b><a href='B:480 11:23-24'>MARK 11:23-24</a> —</b> Did Jesus promise to give literally anything we ask in faith?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> On the face of it, this verse seems to be saying that God will grant any request we make of Him as long as we believe. On the other hand, Paul asked God three times to be relieved of his thorn in the flesh, and God refused (<a href='B:540 12:8-9'>2Cor 12:8-9</a>)<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There are limitations on what God will give, indicated both by the context and by other texts, as well as by the laws of God’s own nature and the universe.<p/>First of all, God cannot literally give us anything. Some things are actually impossible. For example, God cannot grant a request of a creature to be God. Neither can He answer a request to approve of our sin. God will not give us a stone if we ask for bread, nor will He give us a serpent if we ask for fish (cf. <a href='B:470 7:9-10'>Matt 7:9-10</a>).<p/>Second, the context of Jesus’ promise in <a href='B:480 11'>Mark 11</a> indicates that it was not unconditional, for the very next verse says “ If you … forgive” your brother then God will forgive your trespasses. Thus, there is no reason to believe that Jesus intended us to take His promise to give us “whatever things” we ask without any conditions.<p/>Third, all difficult passages should be interpreted in harmony with other clear statements of Scripture. And it is clear that God does not promise, for example, to heal everyone for whom we pray in faith. Paul wasn’t healed, though he prayed earnestly and faithfully (<a href='B:540 12:8-9'>2Cor 12:8-9</a>). Jesus taught that it was not the blind man’s lack of faith that hindered his being healed. Rather, he was born blind “that the works of God should be revealed in him” (<a href='B:500 9:3'>John 9:3</a>). In spite of the Apostle Paul’s divine ability to heal others (<a href='B:510 28:9'>Acts 28:9</a>), later he apparently could not heal either Epaphroditus (<a href='B:570 2:25'>Phil 2:25</a>ff) or Trophimus (<a href='B:620 4:20'>2Tim 4:20</a>). It clearly was not unbelief that brought Job’s sickness on him (<a href='B:220 1:1'>Job 1:1</a>). What is more, if faith of the recipient were the condition for receiving a miracle, then none of the dead Jesus raised would have come back to life, since the dead cannot believe!<p/>Finally, when the rest of Scripture is taken into consideration there are many conditions placed on God’s promise to answer prayer in addition to faith. We must “abide in Him” and let His Word “abide in us” (<a href='B:500 15:7'>John 15:7</a>). We cannot “ask amiss” out of our own selfishness (<a href='B:660 4:3'>Jam 4:3</a>). Furthermore, we must ask “according to His will” (<a href='B:690 5:14'>1John 5:14</a>). Even Jesus prayed, “Father, if it is possible, let this cup [His death] pass from Me” (<a href='B:470 26:39'>Matt 26:39</a>). Indeed, on all except God’s unconditional promises, this “if it be your will” must always be stated or implied. For prayer is not a means by which God serves us. Rather, it is a means by which we serve God. Prayer is not a means by which we get our will done in heaven, but a means by which God gets His will done on earth. 


text:
Was Jesus ignorant of the time of His second coming?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The Bible teaches that Jesus is God (<a href='B:500 1:1'>John 1:1</a>) and that He knows all things (<a href='B:500 2:24'>John 2:24</a>; <a href='B:580 2:3'>Col 2:3</a>). On the other hand, He “increased in wisdom” (<a href='B:490 2:52'>Luke 2:52</a>) and sometimes did not seem to know certain things (cf. <a href='B:500 11:34'>John 11:34</a>). Indeed, He denied knowing the time of His own second coming here, saying, “but of that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.”<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> We must distinguish between what Jesus knew as God (everything) and what He knew as man. As God, Jesus was omniscient (all-knowing), but as man He was limited in His knowledge. The situation can be schematized as follows: 


text:
<b>ff—</b> Did Jesus institute the Lord’s Supper on the day of the Passover or the day before?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> If the first three Gospels (synoptics) are correct, then Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper “on the first day of Unleavened Bread, when they killed the Passover lamb” (cf. <a href='B:470 26:17'>Matt 26:17</a>; <a href='B:490 22:1'>Luke 22:1</a>). But John places it “before the feast of the Passover” (13:1), the day before the crucifixion on which “they might eat the Passover” (18:28).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There are two basic positions embraced by evangelical scholars on this point. Those who hold that Jesus ate the Passover lamb (and instituted the Lord’s Supper at the end of it) on the same day it was observed by the Jews, support their view as follows: (1) It was the day required by OT Law, and Jesus said He did not come to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it (<a href='B:470 5:17-18'>Matt 5:17-18</a>). (2) It seems to be the meaning of <a href='B:480 14:12'>Mark 14:12</a> which says it was “on the first day of Unleavened Bread, when they killed the Passover lamb.” (3) When <a href='B:500 19:14'>John 19:14</a> speaks of it being “the Preparation Day of the Passover” they take this to mean simply the preparation for the Sabbath which occurred in that paschal week.<p/>Other scholars contend that Jesus ate the Passover lamb on the day before the Jews did because: (1) He had to eat it a day early (Thursday) in order that He might offer Himself the next day (Good Friday) as the Passover Lamb (cf. <a href='B:500 1:29'>John 1:29</a>) to the Jews, in fulfillment of OT type on the very day they were eating the Passover lamb (<a href='B:530 5:7'>1Cor 5:7</a>). (2) The plain reading of <a href='B:500 19:14'>John 19:14</a> is that it was “the Preparation Day of the Passover” [not the Sabbath], or in other words, the day before the Passover was eaten by the Jews. (3) Likewise, <a href='B:500 18:28'>John 18:28</a> affirms that the Jews did not want to be defiled on the day Jesus was crucified “that they might eat the Passover.”<p/>Either view is possible without contradiction. However, the latter view seems to explain the texts more forthrightly. (See also comments on <a href='B:470 12:40'>Matt 12:40</a>) 


text:
<b>(cf. <a href='B:480 14:30'>Mark 14:30</a>)—</b> When Peter denied Christ, did the rooster crow once or twice?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Matthew and John (<a href='B:500 13:38'>13:38</a>) say before the rooster crows once, Peter will have denied the Lord three times. But Mark affirms that before the rooster crows twice Peter will deny Christ three times. Which account is right?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There is no contradiction between the two accounts because, given the correctness of the text, Matthew and John do not expressly state how many times the rooster will crow. They simply say Peter will deny Christ three times “before the rooster crows,” but they do not say how many times it will crow. Mark may simply be more specific, affirming exactly how many times the rooster would crow.<p/>It is also possible that different accounts are due to an early copyist error in Mark, that resulted in the insertion of “two” in early manuscripts (at <a href='B:480 14:30'>Mark 14:30</a> and 72). This would explain why some important manuscripts of Mark mention only one crowing, just like Matthew and John, and why “two” appears at different places in some manuscripts.<p/><b>MARK 14:30 —</b> When Peter denied Christ, how many times did the rooster crow, once or twice?<p/>(See comments on <a href='B:470 26:34'>Mat 26:34</a>) 


text:
<b>(cf. <a href='B:500 19:14'>John 19:14</a>)—</b> Was Jesus crucified in the third hour or the sixth hour?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Mark’s Gospel account says that it was the third hour (9 a.m. Jewish time) when Christ was crucified (15:25). John’s Gospel says that it was about the sixth hour (12 noon Jewish time) when Jesus was still on trial (19:14). This would make His crucifixion much later than specified by Mark. Which Gospel is correct?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Both Gospel writers are correct in their assertions. The difficulty is answered when we realize that each Gospel writer used a different time system. John follows the Roman time system while Mark follows the Jewish time system.<p/>According to Roman time, the day ran from midnight to midnight. The Jewish 24 hour period began in the evening at 6 p.m. and the morning of that day began at 6 a.m. Therefore, when Mark asserts that at the third hour Christ was crucified, this was about 9 a.m. John stated that Christ’s trial was about the sixth hour. This would place the trial before the crucifixion and this would not negate any testimony of the Gospel writers. This fits with John’s other references to time. For example, he speaks about Jesus being weary from His journey from His trip from Judea to Samaria at the “sixth hour” and asking for water from the woman at the well. Considering the length of His trip, His weariness, and the normal evening time when people come to the well to drink and to water their animals, this fits better with 6 p.m., which is “the sixth hour” of the night by Roman time reckoning. The same is true of John’s reference to the tenth hour in <a href='B:500 1:39'>John 1:39</a>, which would be 10 a.m., a more likely time to be out preaching than 4 a.m. 


text:
<b>(cf. <a href='B:480 15:26'>Mark 15:26</a>; <a href='B:490 23:38'>Luke 23:38</a>; <a href='B:500 19:19'>John 19:19</a>)—</b> Why are all the Gospel accounts of the inscription on the cross different?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The wording of the accusation above Christ’s head on the cross is rendered differently in each Gospel account.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> While there is a difference in what is omitted, the important phrase, “the king of the Jews,” is identical in all four Gospels. The differences can be accounted for in different ways.<p/>First, <a href='B:500 19:20'>John 19:20</a> says, “Then many of the Jews read this title, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin.” So then, there are at least three different languages in which the sign above Christ’s head was written. Some of the differences may come from it being rendered in different languages.<p/><b>MARK 15:26 —</b> Why is the inscription on the cross different in all the Gospels?<p/>(See comments on <a href='B:470 27:37'>Matt 27:37</a>) 


text:
<b>(cf. <a href='B:480 15:39'>Mark 15:39</a>; <a href='B:490 23:47'>Luke 23:47</a>)—</b> What did the centurion really say about Christ on the cross?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Matthew records the centurion saying, “Truly this was the Son of God,” while Mark says substantially the same thing, adding only the word “man,” rendering it, “Truly this Man was the Son of God.” Luke records the words of the centurion as follows: “Certainly this was a righteous Man!” What did he really say?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> He may have said both. The centurion’s words need not be limited to one phrase or sentence. The centurion could have said both things. In accordance with his own emphasis on Christ as the perfect man, Luke may have chosen to use this phrase rather than the ones used by Matthew and Mark. There is no major difference between Matthew and Mark, for in Greek the word “man” is implied by the masculine singular use of the word “This.” It is also possible that Luke may have been paraphrasing or drawing an implication from what was actually said.<p/><b>MARK 15:39 —</b> What did the centurion actually say about Jesus on the cross?<p/>(See discussion on <a href='B:470 27:54'>Matt 27:54</a>) 


text:
Was Mary at the tomb before sunrise or after?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Mark states that Mary was there “very early in the morning … when the sun had risen” (v. 2). But John says it was “early, while it was still dark” (<a href='B:500 20:1'>John 20:1</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There are two general possibilities here. One possibility suggests that the phrase “when the sun had risen” (<a href='B:480 16:2'>Mark 16:2</a>) merely denotes early dawn (cf. <a href='B:230 104:22'>Ps 104:22</a>), when it was“still dark” (<a href='B:500 20:1'>John 20:1</a>), relatively speaking.<p/>Another view holds that Mary came alone at first when it was still dark before sunrise (<a href='B:500 20:1'>John 20:1</a>), and then again later after sunrise, she returned with the other women (<a href='B:480 16:1'>Mark 16:1</a>). In support of this is the fact that only Mary is mentioned in John, but Mary and the other women are named in Mark. Also, Luke (24:1) says it was “very early in the morning,” implying after sunrise, when the “women” [not just Mary] had come. Likewise, Matthew (28:1) speaks of it being “after the Sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn” that “Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb.” Only John mentions Mary being there alone “while it was still dark” (<a href='B:500 20:1'>John 20:1</a>). 


text:
Did the women tell of their experience at the tomb or not?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Mark says that the women returning from the empty tomb “said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid” (<a href='B:480 16:8'>16:8</a>). But Matthew asserts that they “ran to bring His disciples word” (<a href='B:470 28:8'>Matt 28:8</a>; cf. v. 9).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> In response, it should be observed that Matthew does not actually say the women told the disciples, but they went back with the intention to tell them. Also, since Mark reveals that they did not speak because “they were afraid,” it may be that at first they held their peace (as Mark indicated), and then later spoke up (as Matthew may imply). It is also possible that the women left the tomb in two groups at slightly different times, Mark referring to one and Matthew to the other. 


text:
Why is this passage of Scripture omitted in some Bibles?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Most modern Bibles contain this ending of the Gospel of Mark, including the KJV, ASV, NASB, and the NKJV. However, both the RSV and the NIV set it off from the rest of the text. A note in the NIV says, “Most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have <a href='B:480 16:9-20'>Mark 16:9-20</a>.” Were these verses in the original Gospel of Mark?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Scholars are divided over the authenticity of these verses. Those who follow the received text tradition point to the fact that this text is found in the majority of biblical manuscripts down through the centuries. Thus, they believe it was in the original manuscript of Mark.<p/>Whether or not this piece of text belongs in the original, the truth it contains certainly accords with it. So, the bottom line is that it does not make any difference, since if it does belong here there is nothing in it contrary to the rest of Scripture. And if it does not belong, there is no truth missing in the Bible, since everything taught here is found elsewhere in Scripture. This includes tongues (see <a href='B:510 2:1'>Acts 2:1</a>ff), baptism (<a href='B:510 2:38'>Acts 2:38</a>), and God’s 1st century supernatural protection of His messengers unwittingly bitten by poisonous snakes (cf. <a href='B:510 28:3-5'>Acts 28:3-5</a>). So, in the final analysis, it is simply a debate about whether this particular text belongs in the Bible, not over whether any truth is missing. 


text:
<b>ff—</b> Was the announcement of the birth of Christ made to Mary or to Joseph?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Matthew says the announcement of Jesus’ birth was made to Joseph (<a href='B:470 1:20'>Matt 1:20</a>), but Luke asserts that it was made to Mary (<a href='B:490 1:26'>Luke 1:26</a>ff). Who is correct?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The announcement was made to Mary first and then to Joseph. Mary had to know first, since she would have been the first to know she was going to have the baby. Joseph needed to know next, since his wife was going to have a baby that was not his! This kind of pairing of visions on important matters is found elsewhere in Scripture. Compare Peter and Cornelius (<a href='B:510 10:3'>Acts 10:3</a>; <a href='B:510 10:15'>15</a>) and Saul and Ananias (<a href='B:510 9:6'>Acts 9:6</a>; <a href='B:510 9:10'>10–16</a>). 


text:
How could Elizabeth be related to Mary when she was from the tribe of Aaron?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to <a href='B:490 1:5'>Luke 1:5</a>, Elizabeth was from the priestly tribe of Aaron. But here in <a href='B:490 1:36'>Luke 1:36</a> she is described as a relative of Mary, who was from the tribe of Judah (1:39; 3:30).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Being a relative of someone in the tribe of Judah does not mean she was from that tribe. She could have been related by marriage. Intermarriage between tribes was permitted, except in the case of an heiress. Aaron himself married someone from the tribe of Judah (<a href='B:20 6:23'>Ex 6:23</a>; <a href='B:130 2:10'>1Chron 2:10</a>). 


text:
<b>ff—</b> Should Christians worship Mary?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The angel said Mary was the most blessed of all women, declaring to her, “Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women!” (<a href='B:490 1:28'>Luke 1:28</a>) Although the highest form of worship is reserved for God alone (latria), Roman Catholics believe that Mary should be venerated in a lesser sense (hyperdulia) as the most highly favored above all other creatures since she is the “Mother of God” and “Queen of Heaven.” Why do Protestants not give Mary her proper due?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Protestants do honor Mary as the blessed “mother of … [our] Lord” (<a href='B:490 1:43'>Luke 1:43</a>). But for many reasons, we believe it is idolatry to worship Mary.<p/>First of all, Mary was a human being, not God. The Bible commands us, “You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only you shall serve” (<a href='B:470 4:10'>Matt 4:10</a>).<p/>Second, Mary confessed that she was a sinner in need of a Savior just like any other human being. She said, “my soul magnifies the Lord, And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior” (see comments on <a href='B:490 1:46'>Luke 1:46</a>).<p/>Third, the angel from God did not affirm that Mary was to be blessed over all women, but simply among all women. He declared only, “Blessed are you among women” (<a href='B:490 1:28'>Luke 1:28</a>, emphasis added). In practice many Roman Catholics have exalted Mary above all women, virtually to the place of God.<p/>Fourth, the cult of Mariolatry grew in the Roman Catholic Church during the Middle Ages, adding to her such titles as “Coredemtrix,” and “Queen of Heaven.” However, this manifests a pagan influence on Christianity patterned after the old Babylonian goddess called by this very name “the queen of heaven” in Jeremiah (<a href='B:300 7:18'>Jer 7:18</a>; <a href='B:300 44:17'>44:17–19</a>; <a href='B:300 44:25'>25</a>). 


text:
Was Mary born sinless as Roman Catholics claim?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Roman Catholics claim that Mary the mother of Jesus was immaculately conceived (i.e., conceived without sin). However, with the exception of Christ, the Bible asserts that every human being is born in sin (<a href='B:230 51:5'>Ps 51:5</a>; <a href='B:520 5:12'>Rom 5:12</a>). Was Mary immaculately conceived?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Mary the mother of Jesus was the most blessed among women (see comments on <a href='B:490 1:28'>Luke 1:28</a>ff). However, she was not sinless, and the Bible makes this clear in many ways.<p/>First, David declared for all human beings, “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me” (<a href='B:230 51:5'>Ps 51:5</a>).<p/>Second, Paul affirmed that every human born of natural parents since Adam’s time sinned in Adam, for “through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned [in Adam]” (<a href='B:520 5:12'>Rom 5:12</a>).<p/>Third, there is absolutely no trace anywhere in the Bible that Mary was an exception to the rule that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (<a href='B:520 3:23'>Rom 3:23</a>). In Christ’s case, however, it points out repeatedly that He was human, yet without sin (<a href='B:540 5:21'>2Cor 5:21</a>; <a href='B:650 4:15'>Heb 4:15</a>; <a href='B:670 3:18'>1Pet 3:18</a>; <a href='B:690 3:3'>1John 3:3</a>).<p/>Finally, Mary proclaimed her own sinfulness when she confessed, “my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior” (<a href='B:490 1:46'>Luke 1:46</a>). Like everyone else, Mary too needed a Savior. 


text:
Did Luke make a mistake when he mentioned a worldwide census under Caesar Augustus?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Luke refers to a worldwide census under Caesar Augustus when Quirinius was governor of Syria. However, according to the annals of ancient history, no such census took place.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Until recently, it has been widely held by critics that Luke made an error in his assertion about a registration under Caesar Augustus, and that the census actually took place in A.D. 6 or 7, (that is mentioned by Luke in Gamaliel’s speech recorded in <a href='B:510 5:37'>Acts 5:37</a>). The lack of any extra-biblical support has led some to claim this is an error. However, recent scholarship has reversed this trend, and it is now widely admitted that there was in fact an earlier registration as Luke records. This has been asserted on the basis of several factors.<p/>Fourth, it was not an unusual requirement that people return to the place of their origin, or to the place where they owned property. A decree of C. Vibius Mazimus in A.D. 104 required all those who were away from their home towns to return there for the purpose of the census. For the Jews, such travel would not have been unusual at all since they were quite used to the annual pilgrimage to Jerusalem. There is simply no reason to suspect Luke’s statement regarding the census at the time of Jesus’ birth. Luke’s account fits the regular pattern of census taking, and its date would not be an unreasonable one. Also, this may have been simply a local census that was taken as a result of the general policy of Augustus. Luke simply provides us with a reliable historical record of an event not otherwise recorded. Since Dr. Luke has proven himself to be a reliable historian in other matters (see Sir William Ramsey, St. Paul the Traveler and Roman Citizen, 1896), there is no reason to doubt him here (see also comments on <a href='B:490 2:2'>Luke 2:2</a>). 


text:
Why does Luke say the census was during Quirinius’ governorship since Quirinius was not governor until A.D. 6?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Luke states that the census decreed by Augustus was the first one taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. However, Quirinius did not become governor of Syria until after the death of Herod in about A.D.<p/>6. Is this an error in Luke’s historical record?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Luke has not made an error. There are reasonable solutions to this difficulty.<p/>It is possible that <a href='B:490 2:2'>Luke 2:2</a> reads, “This census took place before Quirinius was governing Syria.” In this case, the Greek word translated “first” (pr?tos) is translated as a comparative, “before.” Because of the awkward construction of the sentence, this is not an unlikely reading. 


text:
Why does Luke present a different ancestral tree for Jesus than the one in Matthew?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Jesus has a different grandfather here in <a href='B:490 3:23'>Luke 3:23</a> (Heli) than He does in <a href='B:470 1:16'>Mat 1:16</a> (Jacob). Which one is the right one?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> This should be expected, since they are two different lines of ancestors, one traced through His legal father, Joseph and the other through His actual mother, Mary. Matthew gives the official line, since he addresses Jesus’ genealogy to Jewish concerns for the Jewish Messiah’s credentials which required that Messiah come from the seed of Abraham and the line of David (cf. <a href='B:470 1:1'>Matt 1:1</a>). Luke, with a broader Greek audience in view, addresses himself to their interest in Jesus as the Perfect Man (which was the quest of Greek thought). Thus, he traces Jesus back to the first man, Adam (<a href='B:490 3:38'>Luke 3:38</a>).<p/>That Matthew gives Jesus’ paternal genealogy and Luke his maternal genealogy is further supported by several facts. First of all, while both lines trace Christ to David, each is through a different son of David. Matthew traces Jesus through Joseph (his legal father) to David’s son, Solomon the king, by whom Christ rightfully inherited the throne of David (cf. <a href='B:100 7:12'>2Sam 7:12</a>ff). Luke’s purpose, on the other hand, is to show Christ as an actual human. So he traces Christ to David’s son, Nathan, through his actual mother, Mary, through whom He can rightfully claim to be fully human, the redeemer of humanity.<p/>Further, Luke does not say that he is giving Jesus’ genealogy through Joseph. Rather, he notes that Jesus was “as was supposed” (<a href='B:490 3:23'>Luke 3:23</a>) the son of Joseph, while He was actually the son of Mary. Also, that Luke would record Mary’s genealogy fits with his interest as a doctor in mothers and birth and with his emphasis on women in his Gospel which has been called “the Gospel for Women.”<p/>Finally, the fact that the two genealogies have some names in common (such as Shealtiel and Zerubbabel, <a href='B:470 1:12'>Matt 1:12</a>; cf. <a href='B:490 3:27'>Luke 3:27</a>) does not prove they are the same genealogy for two reasons. One, these are not uncommon names. Further, even the same genealogy (Luke’s) has a repeat of the names Joseph and Judah (3:26, 30). 


text:
Is there a mistake in the temptation of Jesus recorded by Matthew and Luke?<p/>(See comments on <a href='B:470 4:5-10'>Matt 4:5-10</a>) 


text:
<b>(cf. <a href='B:420 4:5-12'>Luke 4:5-12</a>)</b>—Is there a mistake in recording the wilderness temptation of Christ by Matthew or Luke?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to both Matthew and Luke, the first temptation was to turn stones into bread to satisfy Jesus’ hunger. The second temptation listed by Matthew took place at the pinnacle of the temple. The third temptation listed by Matthew involved all the kingdoms of the world. However, although Luke mentions these same two events, he lists them in reverse order—the kingdoms of the world are mentioned second and the pinnacle of the temple is mentioned third. Which is the correct order?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> It may be that Matthew describes these temptations chronologically while Luke lists them climactically, that is, topically. This may be to express the climax he desired to emphasize. <a href='B:470 4:5'>Mat 4:5</a> begins with the word “then” while verse 8 begins with the word “again.” In Greek, these words suggest a more sequential order of the events. In Luke’s account, however, verses 5 and 9 each begins with a simple “and” (see NASB). The Greek in the case of Luke’s account does not necessarily indicate a sequential order of events. Furthermore, there is no disagreement on the fact that these temptations actually happened.<p/><b><a href='B:420 4:1-13'>LUKE 4:1-13</a> —</b> Is there a mistake in the temptation of Jesus recorded by Matthew and Luke?<p/>(See comments on <a href='B:470 4:5-10'>Matt 4:5-10</a>) 


text:
Why does Jesus not quote this passage accurately?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> When Jesus cited this prophecy, He lopped off the rest of the verse in <a href='B:290 61:2'>Isaiah 61:2</a> which adds, “And the day of vengeance of our God.” Why didn’t He quote it accurately?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> First of all, Jesus did quote the passage accurately, but He didn’t quote it completely. That is neither uncommon nor unacceptable. It is still done by authors today. Indeed, we have done it many times in this very book, usually indicated by ellipses (…). Furthermore, Jesus had a very good reason for not quoting the rest of the verse—it would have been wrong. Jesus told His audience that the quotation was limited to what “is fulfilled in your hearing” (<a href='B:490 4:21'>Luke 4:21</a>). But the only part of the verse that was fulfilled in His first coming was exactly the part He cited. Had He continued and read “And the day of vengeance of our God” (which refers to His second coming, <a href='B:290 61:2'>Isa 61:2</a>), then what He said would not have been true. 


text:
Why does Luke say Jesus gave this sermon on a level place when Matthew declares it was given on the mountain?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Luke affirms that Jesus “stood on a level place” when He gave this famous sermon, but Matthew says “He went up on a mountain” to deliver it (<a href='B:470 5:1'>Matt 5:1</a>). How can this discrepancy be resolved?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Granted that the two accounts are referring to the same event (see comments on <a href='B:490 6:20'>Luke 6:20</a> below), they can be reconciled by noting that the mountain only refers to the general area where everyone was, while the level place denotes the particular spot from which Jesus spoke. It says “He stood on a level place.” It does not say all the people were seated in a level place. A level place from which to preach to a multitude on a mountain side would make a natural amphitheater.<p/><b><a href='B:490 6:17'>Luke 6:17</a> —</b> Why does Luke say Jesus stood to teach them when Matthew declares that He sat to teach them?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Luke says that Jesus “stood on a level place” to preach. But Matthew recorded that “when He was seated … He opened His mouth and taught them” (<a href='B:470 5:1-2'>Matt 5:1-2</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> These references may be of slightly different times during the same event. One possibility is that Matthew’s reference is to the beginning of the event when “His disciples came to Him … and [He] taught them” (<a href='B:470 5:1-2'>Matt 5:1-2</a>). Then when the “great multitude [that] followed Him” gathered to listen in, Jesus would naturally want to stand to project His voice so that all could hear, as Luke records.<p/>Another possibility is that Luke’s reference to Jesus’ standing is before He gave the sermon while He is still healing people (<a href='B:420 6:17-19'>Luke 6:17-19</a>). Then, since “the whole multitude sought to touch Him” Jesus may have found a place to sit where “He lifted up His eyes toward His disciples and said … [His message]” (6:20). This fits the order given in Luke and would also explain why Matthew declares that Jesus was sitting when He spoke to His disciples. In any event, there is no irreconcilable difference in the two accounts, even assuming they both refer to the same occasion. 


text:
Is a good name a blessing or a curse?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> In this text, Jesus told His disciples that people would speak evil of them, as they had of the prophets before them. On the other hand, Solomon taught that “A good name is better than precious ointment” (<a href='B:250 7:1'>Ecc 7:1</a>). But if a good name is to be chosen over riches (<a href='B:240 22:1'>Prov 22:1</a>), then why did Jesus tell His disciples to rejoice when people spoke evil of them?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> A good name does not necessarily mean all people will speak well of those who possess it. Many persons with good names have evil enemies. Who has a more blessed name than Jesus Himself, and yet who is cursed more. Jesus warned His disciples in the Luke passage to be wary when those who are willing to sacrifice principle for popularity speak well of you. The acclaim of crowd pleasers is disastrous, but the recognition of the righteous is blessed. 


text:
Is there a mistake in the accounts concerning Jesus and the centurion?<p/>(See comments on <a href='B:470 8:5-13'>Matt 8:5-13</a>) 


text:
<b>(cf. <a href='B:480 5:1-20'>Mark 5:1-20</a>; <a href='B:420 8:26-39'>Luke 8:26-39</a>)—</b> Where were the demoniacs healed?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The first three Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) each give an account of Jesus healing demoniacs. Matthew states that the place where the healing took place was the country of the Gadarenes. However, Mark and Luke say it was in the country of the Gerasenes.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There is a textual problem here. The critical text of the Greek NT (Nestle- Aland/United Bible Societies) renders Mark and Luke the same as Matthew, namely, in the country of the “Gadarenes.” However, some manuscripts give the name of the country as the Gerasenes. It is possible to account for the variant reading in these manuscripts as a scribal error. Gadara may have been the capital of the region, and Matthew therefore referred to the area as the “country of the Gadarenes” because the people of that region, whether they lived in Gadara or not, were identified as Gadarenes. Mark and Luke were perhaps giving a more general reference to the country of the Gerasenes, which was the wider area in which the incident occurred. However, a scribe, confusing the reference in Matthew as a reference to the town instead of the people of the region, may have attempted to correct the manuscripts and altered the references to make them uniform. It seems that the best textual evidence is in favor of Gadara, although there are varying opinions among commentators. There is no contradiction or error here, because the problem developed as a result of transcription, and there is no evidence to demonstrate that there was a conflict in the original manuscripts.<p/><b><a href='B:470 8:28-34'>Mat 8:28-34</a> (cf. <a href='B:480 5:1-20'>Mark 5:1-20</a>; <a href='B:420 8:26-39'>Luke 8:26-39</a>)—</b> How many demoniacs were healed?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Matthew reports that two demoniacs came to Jesus, while Mark and Luke say that only one demoniac approached Him. This appears to be a contradiction.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There is a very fundamental mathematical law that reconciles this apparent contradiction—wherever there are two, there is always one. There are no exceptions! There were actually two demoniacs that came to Jesus. Perhaps Mark and Luke mentioned the one because he was more noticeable or prominent for some reason. However, the fact that Mark and Luke only mention one does not negate the fact that there were two as Matthew said. For wherever there is two, there is always one. It never fails. If Mark or Luke had said there was only one, then that would be a contradiction. But, the word “only” is not in the text. The critic has to change the text to make it contradict, in which case the problem is not with the Bible, but with the critic.<p/><b>LUKE 8:26-39 —</b> How many demoniacs were there? Where was the demoniac healed?<p/>(See discussion on <a href='B:470 8:28-34'>Matt 8:28-34</a>) 


text:
Did Jesus contradict Himself when He referred to those who are for Him (cf. <a href='B:490 11:23'>Luke 11:23</a>)?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> In <a href='B:490 9:50'>Luke 9:50</a>, Jesus says that “he who is not against us is for us.” Yet in <a href='B:490 11:23'>Luke 11:23</a> Jesus says that “He who is not with Me is against Me.” Which position is correct?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> First, <a href='B:490 9:50'>Luke 9:50</a> is better translated “he who is not againstyou is for you. ” The KJV translates the word “you” for “us,” but it is better translated the other way around. The original Greek is clear on which pronouns should be used. Most all Greek manuscripts older than the 8th century S._. do not contain the “against us … for us” rendition. If this is so, then the problem dissolves.<p/>Second, the contexts of each particular account are different. In both passages, the casting out of demons are in view. In Luke 9, an individual who is not one of Christ’s 12 disciples is casting out demons in Christ’s name and John tried to stop him (<a href='B:490 9:49'>9:49</a>). Jesus instructed His disciples not to hinder him “for he who is not against us is for us.” In <a href='B:490 11'>Luke 11</a> the situation is different. Here, Jesus has cast out a demon from someone and some people were saying that Jesus casts out demons by Beelzebub, the ruler of demons (vv. 14–15). The people here wereagainst the work of the Lord while the man in <a href='B:420 9'>Luke 9</a> was doing the work in the name of the Lord. One wasfor the Lord while others were against Him. Thus there is no real contradiction. 


text:
Did the Samaritans receive Christ or reject Him?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Luke says clearly that “they did not receive Him.” Yet, when Jesus spoke to the Samaritan woman at the well, a great multitude flocked to meet Him (<a href='B:500 4:39-40'>John 4:39-40</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> These passages refer to different times and different places. First of all, Luke is speaking of a specific village, not all Samaritans. Further, Luke gives the reason for the rejection at this time, “because His [Jesus’] face was set for the journey to Jerusalem” (_. 53). Finally, the positive response of the Samaritans in John was because of the testimony of the woman who told her friends that she had found a prophet, one “who told me all things that I ever did” (<a href='B:500 4:29'>John 4:29</a>). 


text:
<b>(cf. <a href='B:490 9:60'>Luke 9:60</a>)—</b> Wasn’t it absurd for Jesus to tell the dead to bury their own dead?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> A man wanted to follow Jesus but first asked Jesus if he could go and bury his father. Jesus responded, “let the dead bury their own dead.” But the dead can’t bury anyone. This doesn’t seem to make any sense.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Jesus was not speaking of those who werephysically dead, but of those who are spiritually dead (cf. <a href='B:560 2:1'>Eph 2:1</a>). Jesus requested that the man follow Him (<a href='B:490 9:59'>Luke 9:59</a>). The man responded saying he wished to take care of his family first. So the issue is, who comes first—one’s family or Jesus Christ. The answer Jesus gives indicates the spiritual state of this man’s family. They were apparently not believers, and the Bible says that those who are not Christians are “dead in trespasses and sins” (<a href='B:560 2:1'>Eph 2:1</a>; <a href='B:560 2:5'>5</a>). Jesus was telling the man that his spiritually dead family should take care of the burial. Jesus wanted this man to follow Him. Christian discipleship calls for high commitment.<p/><b><a href='B:490 9:60'>Luke 9:60</a> —</b> How can the dead bury their own dead?<p/>(See comments on <a href='B:470 8:22'>Matt 8:22</a>) 


text:
Are those who see blessed, or those who do not see?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Here Jesus tells His disciples: “Blessed are the eyes which see the things you see.” However, later He said to them, “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed” (<a href='B:500 20:29'>John 20:29</a>). Which one is right?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> First of all, there is a different meaning to the word “blessed” in each passage. In the first case, it seems to mean that they were highly favored because they were seeing these miracles occur (cf. 10:17–19). In the John passage, “blessed” means worthy of praise, which is a reference to those who believe in Christ without having the opportunity to place their finger into the crucifixion wounds in His resurrection body. 


text:
Do all seekers find God?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Jesus says, “Seek and you will find.” Other passages of Scripture reaffirm the same truth (<a href='B:130 28:9'>1Chron 28:9</a>; <a href='B:290 55:6'>Isa 55:6</a>; <a href='B:510 10:35'>Acts 10:35</a>). Yet, according to Jesus, “many … will seek to enter and will not be able” (<a href='B:490 13:24'>Luke 13:24</a>). Likewise, Jesus said in John, “You will seek Me and not find Me” (<a href='B:500 7:34'>John 7:34</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> All who earnestly seek God, find Him, for “He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him” (<a href='B:650 11:6'>Heb 11:6</a>). In fact, God is “longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish” (<a href='B:680 3:9'>2Peter 3:9</a>).<p/>Of course, there are those who seek God on their own terms (by human works) who will not be saved, since it is “not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us” (<a href='B:630 3:5'>Titus 3:5</a>). The Bible says, “there is a way which seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death” (<a href='B:240 14:12'>Prov 14:12</a>). Further, there are those who seek too late, namely, after they die for “it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment” (<a href='B:650 9:27'>Heb 9:27</a>). But there is no one who comes to God in this life in penitence, falling upon His mercy, that does not receive His gracious gift of salvation.<p/>Those coming God’s way Those coming their own way<p/>Judas regretted his sin (<a href='B:470 27:4'>Matt 27:4</a>), but Peter repented of his. Hence, Judas is lost (<a href='B:500 17:12'>John 17:12</a>), and Peter is saved. 


text:
Do miracles prove Jesus’ divine mission?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Beginning with Moses, miracles were given as a proof of the divine mission of His servants (cf. <a href='B:20 4:1-17'>Ex 4:1-17</a>). Nicodemus knew Jesus was sent from God because, he said to Jesus, “No one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him” (<a href='B:500 3:2'>John 3:2</a>). Luke tells us that Jesus was “attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him” (<a href='B:510 2:22'>Acts 2:22</a>). The writer of Hebrews declared that God bore “witness both with signs and wonders, with various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit” (<a href='B:650 2:4'>Heb 2:4</a>).<p/>On the other hand, it is evident that miracles do not work to confirm the divine message to those who do not believe. Jesus Himself admitted this fact in this passage when He said, “Neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead” (<a href='B:490 16:31'>Luke 16:31</a>). And in a pivotal verse in John, after Jesus performed His many miraculous signs, John conceded, “But although He had done so many signs before them, they did not believe in Him” (12:37). So, it would seem from these verses that miracles do not really work to confirm a divine mission.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The reason for this discrepancy is not difficult to find. There is a difference betweenproof and persuasion. Given the theistic context, Jesus’ miracles were a confirmation of His claims, but that does not mean everyone who saw them would be convinced by them. They were an objective demonstration of His claims, but not everyone was subjectively convinced by them. Even the best evidence is effective only on the willing, not the unwilling. Those who are closed to God will hear only “thunder,” while those who are open hear the very voice of God (cf. <a href='B:500 12:27-29'>John 12:27-29</a>). 


text:
<b>ff—</b> Should prayer be continuous or brief?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Jesus condemned the long and repetitious prayers of the Pharisees who thought they would “be heard for their many words” (<a href='B:470 6:7'>Matt 6:7</a>). Yet in this parable Jesus encouraged incessant prayer of those “who cry out day and night” to God (<a href='B:490 18:7'>Luke 18:7</a>). But these passages seem to be in conflict.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> What Jesus spoke against was not long prayers but repetitious prayers. He was more concerned with the strength of the prayer than the length of the prayer. Petitioners before God are not heard for their “many words,” but they are heard for their sincere “cry.” 


text:
<b>(cf. <a href='B:480 10:17-31'>Mark 10:17-31</a>; <a href='B:420 18:18-30'>Luke 18:18-30</a>)—</b> If Jesus was God, why did He seem to rebuke the rich young ruler for calling Him good?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The rich young ruler called Jesus “Good Teacher,” and Jesus rebuked him, saying, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God.” Yet on other occasions Jesus not only claimed to be God (<a href='B:480 2:8-10'>Mark 2:8-10</a>; <a href='B:500 8:58'>John 8:58</a>; <a href='B:500 10:30'>10:30</a>), but He accepted the claim of others that He was God (<a href='B:500 20:28-29'>John 20:28-29</a>). Why did Jesus appear to deny that He was God to the young ruler?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Jesus did not deny He was God to the young ruler. He simply asked him to examine the implications of what he was saying. In effect, Jesus was saying to him, “Do you realize what you are saying when you call Me Good? Are you saying I am God?”<p/><b>LUKE 18:18-30 —</b> If Jesus is God, why did He rebuke the young ruler for calling Him good?<p/>(See discussion on <a href='B:470 19:16-30'>Matt 19:16-30</a>) 


text:
<b>(cf. <a href='B:480 10:46-52'>Mark 10:46-52</a>; <a href='B:420 18:35-43'>Luke 18:35-43</a>)—</b> Did Jesus heal two blind men orjust one?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Matthew says that Christ healed two men, but Mark refers to only one man being healed (10:46). This appears to be a clear contradiction.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Although Mark records one individual getting healed, this does not mean that there were not two, as Matthew says there were. First of all, Mark does not declare that there was only one blind man healed. Matthew says there were two, and where there are two there is always one, every time! Matthew earlier mentions two demoniacs where Mark and Luke mention one (<a href='B:470 8:28-34'>Matt 8:28-34</a>), so Matthew again mentions the two blind men where Mark mentions just one. Further, the fact that Mark mentions the name of one blind man, Bartimaeus, and his father (Timaeus, 10:46), indicates that Mark is centering onthe one that was personally known to him. If two men were to receive a medal of honor from the president of the United States and one was your friend, it is understandable that when you relate the story you might only speak of the one whom you knew receiving the medal.<p/><b><a href='B:470 20:29-34'>Mat 20:29-34</a> (cf. <a href='B:480 10:46-52'>Mark 10:46-52</a>; <a href='B:420 18:35-43'>Luke 18:35-43</a>)—</b> Did Jesus heal the blind man coming into or going out of Jericho?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to Luke, a blind man was healed as Jesus entered the city of Jericho (18:35), but Matthew and Mark declare that the healing took place as Jesus left the city of Jericho. Again, the accounts do not seem to be harmonious.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Some believe that the healing in Luke may have actually taken place as Jesus left Jericho, claiming that it was only the initial contact that took place as “He was coming near Jericho” (<a href='B:490 18:35'>Luke 18:35</a>) and the blind man may have followed Him through the city, since he was continually begging Jesus to heal him (vv. 38–39). But this seems unlikely, since even after the healing (v. 43) the very next verse (19:1) says, “then Jesus entered and passed through Jericho.”<p/>Still others suggest that these are two different events. Matthew and Mark clearly affirm the healing occurred as Jesus left the city (<a href='B:470 20:29'>Matt 20:29</a>; <a href='B:480 10:46'>Mark 10:46</a>). But Luke speaks of healing one blind man as He entered the city. This is supported by the fact that Luke refers only to a “multitude” of people being present as Jesus entered the city (18:36), but both Matthew (20:29) and Mark (10:46) make a point to say there was a “great multitude” of people there by the time Jesus left the city. If the word spread of the miraculous healing on the way into the city, this would account for the swelling of the crowd. It might also explain why two blind men were waiting on the other side of the city to plead for Jesus to heal them. Perhaps the first blind man who was healed went quickly to tell his blind friends what happened to him. Or maybe the other blind men were already stationed at the other end of the city in their customary begging position. At any rate, there is no irresolvable difficulty in the passage. The two accounts can be understood in a completely compatible way.<p/><b>LUKE 18:35-43 —</b> Did Jesus heal two blind men or just one?<p/>(See comments on <a href='B:470 20:29-34'>Matt 20:29-34</a>) 


text:
<b>(cf. <a href='B:480 11:2'>Mark 11:2</a>; <a href='B:490 19:30'>Luke 19:30</a>)—</b> Were there two donkeys involved in the triumphal entry or just one?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Matthew’s account records Jesus’ request of two disciples to go into a village and get two donkeys. But in Mark and Luke, He requests that the two disciples get just the colt.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Both animals were involved in Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem. There is no mistake in the accounts because Mark and Luke mention just the colt (p_olos), and Matthew refers to the colt (p_olos, 21:5) and its mother. The passage in Matthew is pointing out the literal fulfillment of the prophecy of <a href='B:450 9:9'>Zech 9:9</a> which states, “Behold your king is coming to you … humble, and mounted on a donkey, even on a colt, the foal of a donkey.” The Greek version of the OT uses the same word for colt (p_olos) as the NT passages. Matthew literally states that once the disciples placed their garments on the donkeys, Jesus sat on them, that is, on their garments. Matthew does not say that Jesus rode on both the mother and the colt. It merely states that Jesus sat on the garments that the disciples had placed on the donkeys. Perhaps they placed some garments on the mother and others on the colt, and Jesus sat on those garments which were placed on the colt. The fact is the text of Matthew simply does not say on which donkey Jesus sat. Mark and Luke focus on the colt on which Jesus rode, while Matthew mentions the presence of the colt’s mother. Her presence may have been necessary because the colt was so young. <a href='B:480 11:12'>Mark 11:12</a> states that no one had ridden on the colt, and that the colt would be taking a passenger through a noisy crowd (<a href='B:480 11:9'>Mark 11:9</a>). Perhaps the mother was brought along in order to be a calming influence upon her young.<p/><b><a href='B:490 19:30'>Luke 19:30</a> —</b> Were there two donkeys involved in the triumphal entry or just one?<p/>(See discussion on <a href='B:470 21:2'>Matt 21:2</a>) 


text:
What did Jesus mean when He said “This is My body”? Should it be taken literally?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Orthodox Protestants believe in interpreting the Bible literally. But if Jesus’ statement here is taken literally, it seems to support the Roman Catholic view of transubstantiation, namely, that, when consecrated, the communion bread becomes the actual body of Christ.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Jesus no more meant that the statement “This is My body” should be taken literally than the statement “I am the true vine” (<a href='B:500 15:1'>John 15:1</a>). The Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation (that the bread becomes the actual body of Christ) is without biblical or rational support for many reasons.<p/>First, the context is opposed to taking this literally. All agree that when Jesus made this statement, He was referring to the bread. Luke says “He took the bread, gave thanks, and broke it … saying, `This is My body’ ” (<a href='B:490 22:19'>Luke 22:19</a>). But it was obvious to all that Jesus’ actual body was holding the bread in His hands. So none of His disciples present could possibly have understood Him to mean the bread was His actual body.<p/>Third,parallel statements by Jesus are opposed to taking this literally. Jesus often spoke in figurative language. He said, “I am the Door” (<a href='B:500 10:9'>John 10:9</a>) and we should “eat the flesh of the Son of Man.” But neither Catholics nor Protestants take these literally (see comments on <a href='B:500 6:53-54'>John 6:53-54</a>). Why then should we take His statement (“This is My body”) about the communion bread literally? 


text:
<b>(cf. <a href='B:480 15:26'>Mark 15:26</a>; <a href='B:490 23:38'>Luke 23:38</a>; <a href='B:500 19:19'>John 19:19</a>)—</b> Why are all the Gospel accounts of the inscription on the cross different?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The wording of the accusation above Christ’s head on the cross is rendered differently in each Gospel account.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> While there is a difference in what is omitted, the important phrase, “the king of the Jews,” is identical in all four Gospels. The differences can be accounted for in different ways.<p/>First, <a href='B:500 19:20'>John 19:20</a> says, “Then many of the Jews read this title, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin.” So then, there are at least three different languages in which the sign above Christ’s head was written. Some of the differences may come from it being rendered in different languages.<p/><b><a href='B:490 23:38'>Luke 23:38</a> —</b> What did the sign on the cross really say?<p/>(See comments on <a href='B:470 27:37'>Matt 27:37</a>) 


text:
Did Christ err when He told the thief on the cross that he would be in paradise the day Christ died?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> If Christ did not go to heaven until at least three days after His death, how can the thief be in paradise the day Christ died?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Christ’s soul went immediately to paradise, which is the third heaven (<a href='B:540 12:2-4'>2Cor 12:2-4</a>), but His body went to the grave for 3 days. Jesus said on the cross, “Father, into Your hands I commit My Spirit” (<a href='B:490 23:46'>Luke 23:46</a>, NIV), which indicates His soul went to be with the Father in heaven the very instant He died. When Jesus said to Mary after His resurrection, “I have not yet ascended to My Father,” He was referring to His body ascending into heaven 40 days after His resurrection (<a href='B:510 1'>Acts 1</a>), not to his soul going to heaven between death and resurrection. The phrase “descended into hell” is not in the earliest Apostles’ Creed but was added much later. (See comments on <a href='B:560 4:8'>Eph 4:8</a>) 


text:
<b>(cf. <a href='B:480 15:39'>Mark 15:39</a>; <a href='B:490 23:47'>Luke 23:47</a>)—</b> What did the centurion really say about Christ on the cross?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Matthew records the centurion saying, “Truly this was the Son of God,” while Mark says substantially the same thing, adding only the word “man,” rendering it, “Truly this Man was the Son of God.” Luke records the words of the centurion as follows: “Certainly this was a righteous Man!” What did he really say?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> He may have said both. The centurion’s words need not be limited to one phrase or sentence. The centurion could have said both things. In accordance with his own emphasis on Christ as the perfect man, Luke may have chosen to use this phrase rather than the ones used by Matthew and Mark. There is no major difference between Matthew and Mark, for in Greek the word “man” is implied by the masculine singular use of the word “This.” It is also possible that Luke may have been paraphrasing or drawing an implication from what was actually said.<p/><b><a href='B:490 23:47'>Luke 23:47</a> —</b> Is the remark of the centurion about Jesus accurately recorded?<p/>(See comments on <a href='B:470 27:54'>Matt 27:54</a>) 


text:
Were Jesus’ resurrection appearances physical or mere visions?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Jesus spoke of His resurrection body having “flesh and bones” (<a href='B:490 24:39'>Luke 24:39</a>). He ate physical food (v. 42) and was touched by human hands (<a href='B:470 28:9'>Matt 28:9</a>). But Luke calls it a “vision” in this passage, which implies that it was not a real physical appearance. In addition, some point to the fact that those who were with Paul during his Damascus road experience did not see Christ (see <a href='B:510 9:7'>Acts 9:7</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The Resurrection appearances were literal, physical appearances. This is evident for several reasons.<p/>Second, the post-resurrection encounters with Christ are described by Paul as literal “appearances” (<a href='B:530 15:5-8'>1Cor 15:5-8</a>), not as visions. The difference between a mere vision and a physical appearance is significant. Visions are of invisible, spiritual realities, such as God and angels. Appearances, on the other hand, are of physical objects that can be seen with the naked eye. Visions have no physical manifestations associated with them, but appearances do.<p/>People sometimes “see” or “hear” things in their visions (<a href='B:490 1:11'>Luke 1:11</a>ff; <a href='B:510 10:9'>Acts 10:9</a>ff), but not with their naked physical senses. When someone saw angels with the naked eye, or had some physical contact with them (<a href='B:10 18:8'>Gen 18:8</a>; <a href='B:10 32:24'>32:24</a>; <a href='B:340 8:18'>Dan 8:18</a>), it was not a vision but an actual appearance of an angel in the physical world. During these appearances the angels temporarily assumed a visible form after which they returned to their normal invisible state. However, the Resurrection appearances of Christ were experiences of seeing Christ with the naked eye in His continued visible, physical form. In any event, there is a significant difference between a mere vision and a physical appearance.<p/><a href='B:340 2'>Dan 2</a>; <a href='B:530 15'>71</a>; <a href='B:530 15'> Corinthians 15</a><p/><a href='B:540 12'>2Cor 12</a> <a href='B:510 9'>Acts 9</a> 


text:
<b>a—</b> Did Jesus dematerialize when He suddenly disappeared from the disciples after an appearance?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Jesus could not only suddenly appear after His resurrection (cf. <a href='B:500 20:19'>John 20:19</a>), but He could also instantly disappear. Is this evidence, as some critics claim, that Jesus dematerialized on these occasions?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Jesus rose in the same physical, albeit glorified, body in which He died. Such a body is an important dimension of His continuing humanity both before (cf. <a href='B:500 1:18'>John 1:18</a>) and after (<a href='B:490 24:39'>Luke 24:39</a>; <a href='B:690 4:2'>1John 4:2</a>) His resurrection.<p/>Second, it is the very nature of a miracle that it is immediate, as opposed to the natural gradual process. When Jesus touched the man’s hand, “immediatelyhis leprosy was cleansed” (<a href='B:470 8:3'>Matt 8:3</a>). Likewise, at Jesus’ command the paralytic “immediately … arose, took up the bed, and went out in the presence of them all” (<a href='B:480 2:10-12'>Mark 2:10-12</a>). When Peter proclaimed that the man born crippled be cured, “immediatelyhis feet and ankle bones received strength … leaping up, [he] stood and walked” (<a href='B:510 3:7-8'>Acts 3:7-8</a>).<p/>Third, Philip was immediately transported from the presence of the Ethiopian eunuch in his physical pre-resurrection body. The text says, after baptizing the eunuch “the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away, so that the eunuch saw him no more” (<a href='B:510 8:39'>Acts 8:39</a>). One moment Philip is with the eunuch; the next he suddenly and miraculously disappeared and later appeared in another city (<a href='B:510 8:40'>Acts 8:40</a>). Such a phenomenon does not necessitate an immaterial body. Hence, sudden appearances and disappearances are not proofs of the immaterial, but of the supernatural.<p/><b><a href='B:490 24:31'>Luke 24:31</a> b—</b> If Jesus had the same physical body after His resurrection, why did His disciples not recognize Him?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> These two disciples walked with Jesus, talked with Him, and ate with Him and still did not recognize Him. Other disciples had the same experience (see verses below). If He rose in the same physical body (cf. <a href='B:490 24:39'>Luke 24:39</a>; <a href='B:500 20:27'>John 20:27</a>), then why didn’t they recognize Him.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Jesus did rise in the numerically same body of flesh and bones in which He died (see comments on <a href='B:530 15:37'>1Cor 15:37</a>). There were many reasons why He was not immediately recognized by His disciples:<p/>1. Dullness— <a href='B:420 24:25-26'>Luke 24:25-26</a> <a href='B:420 24:2'>2</a>. Disbelief— <a href='B:500 20:24-25'>John 20:24-25</a> <a href='B:500 20:3'>3</a>. Disappointment— <a href='B:500 20:11-15'>John 20:11-15</a> <a href='B:500 20:4'>4</a>. Dread— <a href='B:420 24:36-37'>Luke 24:36-37</a> <a href='B:420 24:5'>5</a>. Dimness— <a href='B:500 20:1'>John 20:1</a>; <a href='B:500 20:14'>14–15</a> <a href='B:500 20:6'>6</a>. Distance— <a href='B:500 21:4'>John 21:4</a> <a href='B:500 21:7'>7</a>. Different Clothes— <a href='B:500 19:23-24'>John 19:23-24</a>; cf. 20:6–8 


text:
Was Jesus invisible to mortal eyes before and after He appeared?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The phrase “He appeared” means “He made Himself visible” to them (cf. <a href='B:530 15:5-8'>1Cor 15:5-8</a>). Jesus also disappeared (<a href='B:490 24:31'>Luke 24:31</a>). Some take this to mean that Jesus was not essentially material, but simply materialized when He appeared to His disciples and dematerialized when He disappeared. However, other passages declare that Jesus had the same continuously material body of flesh and bones in which He died (<a href='B:490 24:39'>Luke 24:39</a>; <a href='B:500 20:27'>John 20:27</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> That Jesus’ resurrection body was essentially material is clear from the following facts. First of all, Christ’s resurrection body could be seen with the naked eye during His appearances. They are described by the word hora_o (“to see”). Although this word is sometimes used of seeing invisible realities (cf. <a href='B:420 1:22'>Lk 1:22</a>; <a href='B:420 24:23'>24:23</a>), it often means to see by the naked eye. For example, John uses the same word (hora_o) of seeing Jesus in His earthly body before the Resurrection (6:36; 14:9; 19:35) and also of seeing Him in His resurrection body (20:18, 25, 29). Since the same word for body (s_oma) is used of Jesus before and after the Resurrection (cf. <a href='B:530 15:44'>1Cor 15:44</a>; <a href='B:570 3:21'>Phil 3:21</a>), and since the same word for seeing it (hora_o) is used of both, there is no reason for believing the resurrection body is not the same literal, physical body.<p/>Furthermore, even in the phrase “he let Himself be seen” (aorist passive, ophth_e), it simply means that Jesus took the initiative to show Himself to the disciples, not that He was essentially invisible. The same form (“He [they] appeared”) is used in the Greek OT (<a href='B:140 25:21'>2Chron 25:21</a>), in the Apocrypha (1 <a href='B:460 4:6'>Mac 4:6</a>), and in the NT (<a href='B:510 7:26'>Acts 7:26</a>) of purely human beings appearing in normal physical bodies. In this passive form the word means to initiate an appearance for public view, to move from a place where one is not seen to a place where one is seen. It does not necessarily mean that what is by nature invisible becomes visible. Rather, it means more generally “to come into view.” There is no reason to understand it as referring to something invisible by nature becoming visible, as some do. For in this case it would mean that these human beings in normal pre-resurrection bodies were essentially invisible before they were seen by others.<p/>Furthermore, the same event that is described by “He appeared” or “let Himself be seen” (aorist passive), such as the appearance to Paul (<a href='B:530 15:8'>1Cor 15:8</a>), is also described in the active voice. Paul wrote of this same experience in the same book, “Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?” (<a href='B:530 9:1'>1Cor 9:1</a>). But if the resurrection body can be seen by the naked eye, then it is not invisible until it makes itself visible by some alleged “materialization.”<p/>Jesus also disappeared from the disciples on other occasions (see <a href='B:490 24:51'>Luke 24:51</a>; <a href='B:510 1:9'>Acts 1:9</a>). But if Jesus could disappear suddenly, as well as appear, then His ability to appear cannot be taken as evidence that His resurrection body was essentially invisible. For by the same reasoning His ability to disappear suddenly could be used as evidence that it was essentially material and could suddenly become immaterial.<p/>Finally, there are much more reasonable explanations for the stress on Christ’s self-initiated “appearances.” First of all, they were the proof that He had conquered death (<a href='B:510 13:30-31'>Acts 13:30-31</a>; <a href='B:510 17:31'>17:31</a>; <a href='B:520 1:4'>Rom 1:4</a>). Jesus said, “I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold I am alive forever more. Amen. And I have the keys of Hades and of Death” (<a href='B:730 1:18'>Rev 1:18</a>; cf. <a href='B:500 10:18'>John 10:18</a>). The translation (“He let Himself be seen,” <a href='B:530 15:5'>1Cor 15:5</a>ff) is a perfectly fitting way to express this self-initiated triumphalism. He was sovereign over death as well as His resurrection appearances.<p/>Furthermore, no human being saw the actual moment of the Resurrection. But the fact that Jesus appeared repeatedly in the same body for some 40 days (<a href='B:510 1:3'>Acts 1:3</a>) to over 500 different people (<a href='B:530 15:6'>1Cor 15:6</a>) on 12 different occasions is indisputable evidence that He really rose bodily from the dead. In brief, the reason for the stress on the many appearances of Christ is not because the resurrection body was essentially invisible and immaterial, but rather to show that it was actually material and immortal. Without an empty tomb and repeated appearances of the same body that was once buried in it, there would be no proof of the Resurrection. So it is not surprising at all that the Bible strongly stresses the many appearances of Christ. They are the real proof of the physical Resurrection. 


text:
Was the OT divided by the Jews of Jesus’ day into two or three parts?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The Jewish Bible is divided into three sections—the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. Many believe that Jesus is alluding to this threefold division in the phrase “the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms.” However, the standard NT way of referring to the entire OT by Jesus and the NT writers was by the phrase “the Law and the Prophets” (cf. <a href='B:470 5:17'>Matt 5:17</a>; <a href='B:490 24:27'>Luke 24:27</a>). Which is correct?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The earliest reference to divisions or sections in the OT is twofold—Law and Prophets. This is true during the period of the Jewish exile (6th century _._.), as indicated by Daniel (9:2, 11, 13), and also after the exile (<a href='B:450 1:4'>Zech 1:4</a>; <a href='B:450 7:7'>7:7</a>; <a href='B:450 7:12'>12</a>; cf. <a href='B:460 4:4'>Mal 4:4</a>; <a href='B:460 4:5'>5</a>). References to the OT continued between the OT and NT in the Apocrypha (1 Mac. 4:45; 9:27; 2 Mac. 15:9), as well as in the Qumran community (Manual of Discipline 9.11). Also, as indicated, this is the standard way to refer to the divisions of the OT in the NT (cf. <a href='B:470 5:17'>Matt 5:17</a>; <a href='B:490 24:27'>Luke 24:27</a>).<p/>Furthermore, this phrase “Law and Prophets” included the whole OT (all 39 books), since Jesus said it referred to “all the Scriptures” (<a href='B:490 24:27'>Luke 24:27</a>). It also includes everything God revealed through prophets up to John the Baptist (<a href='B:470 11:13'>Matt 11:13</a>). Indeed, the emphatic manner in which Jesus referred to not a “jot or tittle” of the OT passing away from the “Law or the Prophets” (<a href='B:470 5:17-18'>Matt 5:17-18</a>) indicates He is referring to the entire OT.<p/>However, there apparently was an early alternate way of dividing “the Prophets” into two sections which came to be known as Prophets and Writings. The “Prologue of Ecclesiasticus” (ca. 132 B.C.) uses a threefold division, as did the Jewish philosopher Philo (ca. A.D. 40). So did the Jewish historian Josephus (A.D. 37–100) just after Jesus’ time (Against Apion, 1.8), even though he did not place the exact same books in this division as later Jewish groups did. The modern threefold classification into Law, Prophets, and Writings found in today’s Jewish Bibles is derived from the Babylonia Talmud (ca. A.D. 4th cent.). So Jesus’ reference in <a href='B:490 24:44'>Luke 24:44</a> may or may not refer to this threefold division. It is interesting that He did not call the third group “Writings,” but referred only to the Book of “Psalms.” Some believe that He may have singled it out only because of its messianic significance. At any rate, Jesus had just referred to the standard twofold division of Law and Prophets calling it “all the Scriptures” (in <a href='B:490 24:27'>Luke 24:27</a>). 


text:
Why did the disciples go to Galilee when Jesus commanded them to stay in Jerusalem?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to Luke, the apostles were told to “tarry in the city of Jerusalem” until Pentecost. But Matthew tells us that they went into Galilee (<a href='B:470 28:10'>Matt 28:10</a>; <a href='B:470 28:16'>16</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> First, it is possible that the command was not given until after they had been in Galilee. In this event there would be no conflict whatsoever. Furthermore, the command to “tarry” simply meant to make Jerusalem their headquarters. It did not preclude taking short trips elsewhere. Jerusalem was the place they were to receive the Holy Spirit (<a href='B:490 24:49'>Luke 24:49</a>) and to begin their work. 


text:
Did Jesus ascend from Bethany or from the Mountain of Olives near Jerusalem?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Luke says Jesus ascended from Bethany (<a href='B:490 24:50'>Luke 24:50</a>), but <a href='B:510 1:9-11'>Acts 1:9-11</a> affirms that He ascended from the Mt. of Olives near Jerusalem.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Bethany was on the eastern slope of the Mt. of Olives, which is just east of Jerusalem. Luke, who wrote both passages (cf. <a href='B:510 1:1'>Acts 1:1</a>), saw no contradiction in referring to both places as the general location of Christ’s ascension. Jesus may have begun His ascension from the mount, passing to the east over Bethany as He disappeared from their sight. 


text:
Is Jesus God or just a god?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Orthodox Christians believe Jesus is God and often appeal to this passage to prove it. However, Jehovah’s Witnesses translate this verse “and the Word (Christ) was a god” because there is no definite article (“the”) in the Greek of this verse.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> In Greek, when the definite article is used, it often stresses the individual, and, when it is not present, it refers to the nature of the one denoted. Thus, the verse can be rendered, “and the Word was of the nature of God.” The full deity of Christ is supported not only by general usage of the same construction, but by other references in John to Jesus being God (cf. 8:58; 10:30; 20:28) and the rest of the NT (cf. <a href='B:580 1:15-16'>Col 1:15-16</a>; <a href='B:580 2:9'>2:9</a>; <a href='B:630 2:13'>Titus 2:13</a>).<p/>Furthermore, some NT texts use the definite article and speak of Christ as “the God.” So it does not matter whether John did or did not use the definite article here— the Bible clearly teaches that Jesus is God, not just a god (cf. <a href='B:650 1:8'>Heb 1:8</a>).<p/>That Jesus is Jehovah (Yahweh) is clear from the fact that the NT attributes to Jesus characteristics which in the OT apply only to God (cf. <a href='B:500 19:37'>John 19:37</a> and <a href='B:450 12:10'>Zech 12:10</a>). 


text:
Why does John say no one has seen God when other verses declare we will see God?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> On the one hand the Bible claims no one can see God, but on the other hand it says “Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God” (<a href='B:470 5:8'>Matt 5:8</a>) and His servants “shall see His face” (<a href='B:730 22:4'>Rev 22:4</a>) and “we shall see Him as He is” (<a href='B:690 3:2'>1John 3:2</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The verses which teach that no man can see God are referring to no mortal man in this life. Even Moses was refused this honor (<a href='B:20 33:23'>Ex 33:23</a>). Mortal man is not suited for that exposure. However, what mortal man cannot see in this life, immortal man will see in the next life (<a href='B:530 13:12'>1Cor 13:12</a>; <a href='B:730 22:4'>Rev 22:4</a>). This is known as the beatific (blessed) vision and will be the spiritual climax of the believer to see God face-to- face, to know Him directly in His essence and not merely indirectly as reflected through created things (<a href='B:520 1:18-20'>Rom 1:18-20</a>).<p/><b>JOHN 1:18 —</b> Was Jesus alone the Son of God?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Jesus is called “the only begotten Son” in this verse. Yet only a few verses earlier John informs us that we can by faith “become children of God” (1:12). If then we are sons of God, how can Jesus be the only Son of God?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There is a gigantic difference between the senses in which Jesus is the “Son of God” and we are “sons of God.” First, He is the unique Son of God; I am only a son of God. He is the Son of God with a capital “S”; human beings can become sons of God only with a small “s.” Jesus was the Son of God by eternal right of inheritance (<a href='B:580 1:15'>Col 1:15</a>); we are only the sons of God by adoption (<a href='B:520 8:15'>Rom 8:15</a>). He is the Son of God because He is God by His very nature (<a href='B:500 1:1'>John 1:1</a>), whereas we are only made in the image of God (<a href='B:10 1:27'>Gen 1:27</a>) and remade in “the image of Him” by redemption (<a href='B:580 3:10'>Col 3:10</a>). Jesus is of God by His very nature; we are onlyfrom God. He is divine in nature, but we only participate in it by salvation (<a href='B:680 1:4'>2Peter 1:4</a>). And we can participate only in God’s moral attributes (like holiness and love), not in His non-moral attributes (like infinity and eternality). To summarize the differences: 


text:
Did John the Baptist know Jesus before His baptism or not?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Before His baptism John said categorically, “I did not know Him.” Yet in <a href='B:470 3:13-14'>Mat 3:13-14</a> John recognized Jesus before he baptized Him and said, “I have need to be baptized by You.”<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> John may have known Jesus before His baptism only by reputation, not by recognition. Or, he may have known Jesus only bypersonal acquaintance, but not by divine manifestation. After all, Jesus and John were relatives (<a href='B:490 1:36'>Luke 1:36</a>), even though they were reared in different places (<a href='B:490 1:80'>Luke 1:80</a>; <a href='B:420 2:51'>2:51</a>). However, even though John may have had some previous family contact with Jesus, He had never known Jesus as He was revealed at His baptism when the Spirit descended on Him and the Father spoke from heaven (<a href='B:470 3:16-17'>Matt 3:16-17</a>). The context indicates that, up to His baptism, no one really knew Jesus as He would then “be revealed to Israel” (<a href='B:500 1:31'>John 1:31</a>). 


text:
Were the apostles called at this time or later?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> John records that Jesus called Andrew, Peter, Philip, Nathanael, and another disciple at this time. However, the other Gospels record their call as taking place much later (cf. <a href='B:470 4:18-22'>Matt 4:18-22</a>; <a href='B:480 1:16-20'>Mark 1:16-20</a>; <a href='B:420 5:1-11'>Luke 5:1-11</a>). When were they called?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The first passages indicate Jesus’ initial interview of the disciples, not their permanent call. As a result of this first contact they only stayed with Jesus “that day” (<a href='B:500 1:39'>John 1:39</a>), after which they returned to their homes and regular employment. The later passages indicate the time they left their former jobs and took up their full-time ministry as disciples of Christ. 


text:
Does being “born again” indicate that Jesus taught reincarnation?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Traditionally, Christians have believed that the Bible does not teach the doctrine of reincarnation (cf. <a href='B:650 9:27'>Heb 9:27</a>). However, many groups use this verse to claim that Jesus taught that it was necessary to be reincarnated.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> What Jesus is teaching in this passage is not reincarnation, but regeneration. This is clear from several facts.<p/>Second, the doctrine of reincarnation teaches that people die over and over until they reach perfection (Nirvana). However, the Bible clearly teaches that “it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment” (<a href='B:650 9:27'>Heb 9:27</a>).<p/>Third, in the verses that follow, Jesus explains what He means by being born again. Jesus says, “unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (<a href='B:500 3:5'>John 3:5</a>). Although there are commentators who differ on exactly what this “water” means (see comments on <a href='B:500 3:5'>John 3:5</a>), they are all agreed that it cannot possibly refer to reincarnation. Being born again, then, is being cleansed from our sins, and being given the life of God by the Spirit of God (<a href='B:520 3:21-26'>Rom 3:21-26</a>; <a href='B:560 2:5'>Eph 2:5</a>; <a href='B:580 2:13'>Col 2:13</a>). 


text:
Does this verse teach baptismal regeneration?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Jesus told Nicodemus that “unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” Does this mean a person has to be baptized to be saved?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Baptism is not necessary for salvation (see comments on <a href='B:510 2:38'>Acts 2:38</a>). Salvation is by grace through faith and not by works of righteousness (<a href='B:560 2:8-9'>Eph 2:8-9</a>; <a href='B:630 3:5-6'>Titus 3:5-6</a>). But baptism is a work of righteousness (cf. <a href='B:470 3:15'>Matt 3:15</a>). What then did Jesus mean when He referred to being “born of water”? There are three basic ways to understand this, none of which involve baptismal regeneration.<p/>Others take “born of water” to refer to the “washing of water by the word” (<a href='B:560 5:26'>Eph 5:26</a>). They note that Peter refers to being “born again … through the word of God” (<a href='B:670 1:23'>1Peter 1:23</a>), the very thing John is speaking about in these verses (cf. <a href='B:500 3:3'>John 3:3</a>; <a href='B:500 3:7'>7</a>).<p/>Still others think that “born of water” refers to the baptism of John mentioned (<a href='B:500 1:26'>John 1:26</a>). John said he baptized by water, but Jesus would baptize by the Spirit (<a href='B:470 3:11'>Matt 3:11</a>), saying, “repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand (<a href='B:470 3:2'>Matt 3:2</a>). If this is what is meant, then when Jesus said they must be “born of water and the Spirit” (<a href='B:500 3:5'>John 3:5</a>) He meant that the Jews of His day had to undergo the baptism of repentance by John and also later the baptism of the Holy Spirit before they could “enter the kingdom of God.” 


text:
How could Christ say no one has ascended to heaven when Elijah had?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Jesus declared in this text that “No one has ascended to heaven…” However, the OT records Elijah’s ascension into heaven in a chariot (<a href='B:120 2:11'>2Ki 2:11</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> In this context, Jesus is setting forth His superior knowledge of heavenly things. In essence He is saying, “No other human being can speak from firsthand knowledge about these things, as I can, since I came down from heaven.” He is claiming that no one has ascended to heaven to bring down the message that He brought. In no way is He denying that anyone else is in heaven, such as Elijah and Enoch (<a href='B:10 5:24'>Gen 5:24</a>). Rather, Jesus is simply claiming that no one on earth has gone to heaven and returned with a message such as He offered to them. 


text:
Did Jesus come to judge the world or not?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to this verse, God did not “send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.” He added later, “I judge no one” (<a href='B:500 8:15'>John 8:15</a>; cf. 12:47). However, in other places Jesus claimed “authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of Man” (<a href='B:500 5:27'>John 5:27</a>). Indeed, He even claimed, “For judgment I have come into this world” (<a href='B:500 9:39'>John 9:39</a>) and the Father “has committed all judgment to the Son” (<a href='B:500 5:22'>John 5:22</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> These verses were spoken in different contexts and with different references. In general, the references to Jesus sitting in judgment on the human race are references to His second coming (see Rev. 19–20), while verses about His not coming to judge but to save have His first coming in mind. Sometimes Jesus is simply speaking about not acting as an earthly judge during His life on earth. A case in point is His answer to the man who wanted him to arbitrate the family inheritance: “Man, who made Me a judge or an arbitrator over you?” (<a href='B:490 12:14'>Luke 12:14</a>).<p/>Another distinction that clears up some difficulties is found between the real purpose of Christ’s coming (to save those who believe) and the net effect of it (to judge those who don’t believe). His statement that “for judgment I have come into this world” (<a href='B:500 9:39'>John 9:39</a>) seems to fit this latter category (cf. v. 40). 


text:
Why did Jesus confess He was the Messiah here, but avoid doing it elsewhere?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> In the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) Jesus seemed to go out of His way to avoid claiming He was the Jewish Messiah. He would ask His disciples in private (<a href='B:470 16:13'>Matt 16:13</a>) and would sometimes exhort people who discovered it “to tell no man” (see comments on <a href='B:470 16:20'>Matt 16:20</a>). Yet here in John the woman of Samaria said, “I know that Messiah is coming who is called Christ” (<a href='B:500 4:25'>John 4:25</a>). Jesus forthrightly volunteered, “I who speak to you am He” (v. 26).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Here Jesus was in Samaria, not Judea. The Jews of Jesus’ day had a distorted concept of the Messiah, namely, as one who would deliver them from the political oppression of Rome. In this context, Jesus was more careful to make His claims more covert, so as to elicit from His disciples a more spiritual concept of the one who came to redeem His people (cf. <a href='B:490 19:10'>Luke 19:10</a>; <a href='B:500 10:10'>John 10:10</a>).<p/>Indeed, this is why Jesus so often spoke in parables, so that those who were truly seeking would understand, but those who had a false concept would be confused (see <a href='B:470 13:13'>Matt 13:13</a>). This is why when Jesus performed miracles He would sometimes exhort the person to tell no one, since He did not want to be thronged by the curious. Indeed, Jesus rebuked those who, having seen Him multiply the loaves, wanted to make Him king (<a href='B:500 6:15'>John 6:15</a>), declaring that they followed Him “because you ate of the loaves and were filled” (v. 26). However, in Samaria, where this false Jewish concept of a political deliverer from Rome who could feed the masses did not prevail, Jesus did not hesitate to claim that He indeed was the true Messiah. Furthermore, Jesus said this to only one Samaritan woman in private, not to the masses of Jews in Judea.<p/>Nonetheless, Jesus did claim to be the Messiah in public, in Judea and to the Jews. Usually, however, His claim was more covert, trying to get them to discover for themselves who He was. However, when the chips were down and it became necessary to declare Himself before the high priest, Jesus explicitly answered the question “Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed” by declaring, “I am [the Christ]” (<a href='B:480 14:61-62'>Mark 14:61-62</a>; cf. <a href='B:470 26:64'>Matt 26:64</a>; cf. <a href='B:490 22:70'>Luke 22:70</a>). 


text:
Is Jesus advocating salvation by works?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Jesus says in John’s Gospel that the time is coming when people in the graves will hear His voice “and come forth—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation” (v. 29). This seems to be a clear contradiction to salvation by grace (cf. <a href='B:560 2:8-9'>Eph 2:8-9</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> First, Jesus does not believe in salvation by works. In the beginning of John’s Gospel, John writes, “But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God” (<a href='B:500 1:12-13'>John 1:12-13</a>). Jesus says in <a href='B:500 3:16-18'>John 3:16-18</a> : For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.<p/>Furthermore, in <a href='B:500 5:24'>John 5:24</a>, Jesus says, “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life” (NASB). From these passages it is clear that Jesus did not believe in works salvation.<p/>Second, Jesus’ reference to good works in <a href='B:500 5:28-29'>John 5:28-29</a> is to that which occurs after saving faith. To be saved, one needs the grace of God (<a href='B:560 2:8-9'>Eph 2:8-9</a>), but authentic faith expresses itself in good works (v. 10). The Apostle Paul in the Book of Romans, says something very similar to what Jesus says in <a href='B:500 5:28-29'>John 5:28-29</a>. In Romans Paul says that God “will render to every man according to his deeds: to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation” (<a href='B:520 2:6-8'>Rom 2:6-8</a>, NASB). But Paul also wrote, “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God” (<a href='B:560 2:8'>Eph 2:8</a>). In the passage in Romans, Paul is not talking about the one who obtains eternal life by faith, but the individual who shows this life in his good works. In Ephesians, Paul is saying that none can save himself by worksprior to salvation. (See also comments on <a href='B:660 2:21'>Jam 2:21</a>) 


text:
Was Jesus’ self-testimony true or false?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> In <a href='B:500 8:14'>John 8:14</a> Jesus said, “If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is true.” But here in <a href='B:500 5:31'>John 5:31</a> He seems to say just the opposite, namely, “If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not true.”<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There are two ways to understand this verse—hypothetically or actually. On the first interpretation, Jesus is saying in essence, “Even if you don’t accept my testimony about Myself, you should accept that of John the Baptist in whose ministry you rejoiced” (cf. 5:32).<p/>Others take the verse as declarative, not hypothetical, claiming both texts are true, but in different senses. That is, everything Jesus said was actually true, but officially it was only considered true if it was verified by “two or three witnesses” (<a href='B:50 19:15'>Deut 19:15</a>). Since Jesus was “truth” incarnate (<a href='B:500 14:6'>John 14:6</a>), everything He said was true. However, since He is trying to establish His claims to the Jews, He notes that they need not accept His words alone, but also the witness of the Scriptures and the Father. The difference between these two passages can be outlined as follows: 


text:
Did Jesus accept human testimony about who He was?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> In this verse Jesus rejected human testimony about Himself, insisting, “I do not receive testimony from man.” But elsewhere He accepted Peter’s testimony that He was the Christ, the Son of the Living God (<a href='B:470 16:16-18'>Matt 16:16-18</a>). In fact, even in this same book (<a href='B:500 15:27'>John 15:27</a>) Jesus said to His disciples, “And you also will bear witness, because you have been with Me from the beginning.”<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The difference in these statements is due to the circumstances of the testimony. He did not accept mere human testimony to establish who He was, but He did accept it topropagate who He was. God, by miraculous acts, established who Jesus was (cf. <a href='B:510 2:22'>Acts 2:22</a>; <a href='B:650 2:3-4'>Heb 2:3-4</a>), not human beings. On the other hand, once humans discovered what God had disclosed, their testimony was valid. Even after Peter’s great confession, Jesus reminded him that “flesh and blood has not revealed this to you” (<a href='B:470 16:17'>Matt 16:17</a>). The matter can be summarized in this way: 


text:
Can God’s voice be heard?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Jesus declared to the Jews, “You have neither heard His [God’s] voice at any time, nor seen His form.” Yet the voice of God was heard many times in the OT (cf. <a href='B:90 3:4-14'>1Sam 3:4-14</a>), and the Father spoke from heaven three times during Jesus’ earthly ministry (<a href='B:470 3:17'>Matt 3:17</a>; <a href='B:470 17:5'>17:5</a>; <a href='B:500 12:28'>John 12:28</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There are a number of interpretations of this passage.<p/>First, some claim that Jesus is simply referring to the crowd to whom He is ministering here, thus, not excluding the fact that God’s voice had been heard by others. However, this seems unlikely in view of the sweeping phrase “at any time,” as well as the fact that Jesus seems to be addressing the Jewish nation in general which rejected Him (cf. <a href='B:500 1:10-11'>John 1:10-11</a>; <a href='B:500 5:39'>5:39</a>; <a href='B:500 12:37'>12:37</a>).<p/>Second, still others believe Jesus is contrasting their state of knowledge with that of the OT prophets who heard God’s voice and saw His form (manifested in theophanies). If so, their inability to understand it was due to the fact that they were “not willing” to respond to God speaking in and through it (<a href='B:500 5:40'>John 5:40</a>).<p/>Third, many scholars hold that this refers to their not heeding God’s unique or inner voice speaking to their hearts, since they were not receptive to His Word (cf. <a href='B:530 2:14'>1Cor 2:14</a>). This fits with the fact that they could search the Scripture (<a href='B:500 5:39'>John 5:39</a>) and still miss its main message, Christ. In addition, the reference to the Father’s testimony of Him (v. 37) may be a reference to the voice from heaven at Jesus’ baptism, which, like the later voice from heaven (<a href='B:500 12:28'>John 12:28</a>), they dismissed as “thunder” (<a href='B:500 12:29'>John 12:29</a>). 


text:
Why are the “I AM” statements of Jesus only mentioned in John?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> John mentions numerous times that Jesus said “I Am” (e.g., <a href='B:500 6:35'>John 6:35</a>; <a href='B:500 8:58'>8:58</a>; <a href='B:500 10:9'>10:9</a>; <a href='B:500 14:6'>14:6</a>). Yet not one of these statements is mentioned in any other Gospel. Did John make these up, or did Jesus actually say them?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> John reported accurately what he heard and saw. First of all, he was an eyewitness of the events (<a href='B:500 21:24'>John 21:24</a>; cf. <a href='B:690 1:1'>1John 1:1</a>). His Gospel is filled with details of geography (3:23), topography (6:10), and private conversations that betray a first-hand, first-century knowledge of the events (cf. <a href='B:500 3'>John 3</a>; <a href='B:500 4'>4</a>; 13–17).<p/>In addition, the other Gospels record some of the same types of conversation recorded in John. <a href='B:470 11:25-30'>Mat 11:25-30</a> sounds like something right out of the Gospel of John. Even Jesus’ characteristic use of “verily” (KJV), (“truly,” NASB; “assuredly,” NKJV) in John (cf. 1:51; 3:3, 11; 5:19, 24, etc.) is found in other Gospels (cf. <a href='B:470 5:18'>Matt 5:18</a>; <a href='B:470 5:26'>26</a>; <a href='B:480 3:28'>Mark 3:28</a>; <a href='B:480 9:1'>9:1</a>; <a href='B:490 4:24'>Luke 4:24</a>; <a href='B:420 18:17'>18:17</a>), though John alone doubles it perhaps for emphasis.<p/>Finally, John’s differences from the synoptics can be accounted for in several ways. First of all, John writes primarily about Jesus’ Judean ministry, whereas the other Gospels speak largely about His Galilean ministry. Second, John records many of Jesus’ private conversations (cf. chaps. 3–4; 13–17), whereas the other Gospels speak mostly about His public ministry. Third, clear “I Am” statements come usually after Jesus has been challenged and He declares His point simply and emphatically. Even so, they are not without parallel in the other Gospels, where Jesus says “I am” [the Christ] (<a href='B:480 14:62'>Mark 14:62</a>). 


text:
What did Jesus mean when He said we should eat His flesh?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Evangelical Christians believe in taking the Bible literally. But Jesus said, “unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you” (<a href='B:500 6:53'>John 6:53</a>). Should this be taken literally too?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The literal (i.e., actual) meaning of a text is the correct one, but the literal meaning does not mean that everything should be taken literally. For example, the literal meaning of Jesus’ statement, “I am the true vine” (<a href='B:500 15:1'>John 15:1</a>) is that He is the real source of our spiritual life. But it does not mean that Jesus is a literal vine with leaves growing out of His arms and ears! Literal meaning can be communicated by means of figures of speech. Christ is the actual foundation of the church (<a href='B:530 3:11'>1Cor 3:11</a>; <a href='B:560 2:20'>Eph 2:20</a>), but He is not literally a granite cornerstone with engraving on it.<p/>There are many indications in <a href='B:500 6'>John 6</a> that Jesus literally meant that the command to “eat His flesh” should be taken in a figurative way. First, Jesus indicated that His statement should not be taken in a materialistic sense when He said, “The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life” (<a href='B:500 6:63'>John 6:63</a>). Second, it is absurd and cannibalistic to take it in a physical way. Third, He was not speaking of physical life, but “eternal life” (<a href='B:500 6:54'>John 6:54</a>). Fourth, He called Himself the “bread of life” (<a href='B:500 6:48'>John 6:48</a>) and contrasted this with the physical bread the Jews ate in the wilderness (<a href='B:500 6:58'>John 6:58</a>). Fifth, He used the figure of “eating” His flesh in parallel with the idea of “abiding” in Him (cf. <a href='B:500 15:4-5'>John 15:4-5</a>), which is another figure of speech. Neither figure is to be taken literally. Sixth, if eating His flesh and drinking His blood be taken in a literalistic way, this would contradict other commands of Scripture not to eat human flesh and blood (cf. <a href='B:510 15:20'>Acts 15:20</a>). Finally, in view of the figurative meaning here, this verse cannot be used to support the Roman Catholic concept of transubstantiation, that is, eating Jesus’ actual body in the communion (see comments on <a href='B:490 22:19'>Luke 22:19</a>). 


text:
Why did Jesus fear death and yet tell His disciples not to do so?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> John informs us here that “Jesus walked in Galilee; for He did not want to walk in Judea, because the Jews sought to kill Him.” Yet Jesus said to His disciples, “My friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body” (<a href='B:490 12:4'>Luke 12:4</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Jesus did not fear death; He merely avoided dyingprematurely. Before the appropriate time Jesus would say, “My hour has not yet come” (<a href='B:500 2:4'>John 2:4</a>; <a href='B:500 8:20'>8:20</a>). But when “His hour came” (cf. <a href='B:500 12:23'>John 12:23</a>), Jesus faced death bravely and courageously. Though humanly speaking Jesus shrunk from the horror of the Cross (see comments on <a href='B:650 5:7'>Heb 5:7</a>b); nevertheless, He prayed, “what shall I say? `Father, save Me from this hour’?” to which He answered with an emphatic no : “But for this purpose I came to this hour” (<a href='B:500 12:27'>John 12:27</a>). Jesus knew from the very beginning that He had come to die (cf. <a href='B:500 2:19-20'>John 2:19-20</a>; <a href='B:500 10:10'>10:10–11</a>), and He never hesitated in His resolute purpose “to give His life a ransom for many” (<a href='B:480 10:45'>Mark 10:45</a>). However, to accomplish this as God had ordained and the prophets predicted, Jesus had to watch out for attempts on His life before the appointed time and way. For example, He was to be crucified (cf. <a href='B:230 22:16'>Ps 22:16</a>; <a href='B:450 12:10'>Zech 12:10</a>), not to be stoned, as the Jews sought to do on one occasion (see <a href='B:500 10:32-33'>John 10:32-33</a>). 


text:
Did Jesus lie to His brothers?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Jesus’ unbelieving brothers challenged Him to go up to Jerusalem and show Himself openly if He was the Messiah (<a href='B:500 7:3–4'>7:3–4</a>). Jesus refused, saying, “I am not yet going up to this feast, for My time has not yet fully come” (v. 8). However, only a few verses later Jesus “went up to the feast” (v. 10).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Jesus did not go up to Jerusalem in the way in which His brothers suggested. They suggested He go and be “known openly” (7:4). But the Scripture explicitly declares that “He also went up to the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret” (7:10). 


text:
<b>(cf. <a href='B:520 13:4'>Rom 13:4</a>)—</b> Did Jesus repudiate capital punishment in this text?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Passages like <a href='B:520 13:4'>Rom 13:4</a> present a good case for capital punishment, for the passage says, “for it [the government] does not bear a sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil” (NASB). In <a href='B:500 8'>John 8</a> a woman is caught in an adulterous situation, which was cause for stoning according to the Mosaic Law. Yet Jesus did not seek her death, but rather forgave her sin. Did Jesus thereby reject capital punishment?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> First, the authority in <a href='B:520 13'>Rom 13</a> is the Roman government and the authorities in <a href='B:500 8'>John 8</a> are Jewish ones. The point is that the Jews had to act under Roman law. For instance, if they were really going to stone a woman, why did they seek the help of Pilate in the crucifixion of Jesus? For in <a href='B:500 18:31'>John 18:31</a> the Jews respond to Pilate saying, “It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death.” But in the case of the adulterous woman, they were ready to stone her.<p/>Second, they did not act in accordance with the Law itself. The Law stated that both the parties, male and female, had to be brought before the people (<a href='B:50 22:22-24'>Deut 22:22-24</a>). Since this woman was caught in the very act (v. 4), why wasn’t the man brought out with the woman to be stoned? The scribes and Pharisees who were supposed to be law abiding citizens failed in a key aspect of their own law.<p/>This passage, then, is not a good text for anyone who wants to propose that Jesus opposed capital punishment. In fact, other places of Scripture seem to support the very idea (see <a href='B:10 9:6'>Gen 9:6</a> and <a href='B:470 26:52'>Matt 26:52</a>). 


text:
Why do some scholars question whether this story should be in the Bible?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> This story of the woman taken in adultery is found in the KJV, the ASV, the NASB, and the NIV. However, the NEB places it at the end of the Gospel under the caption “An incident in the temple.” And since 1971 the RSV places it in special print set off from the rest of the text, as does the NRSV. The standard Greek NT (Nestle- Aland Text, United Bible Societies) places brackets around it, indicating that it is not part of the text of John. Why do many scholars believe this story is not part of the original manuscript of the Gospel of John?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There are several reasons why many scholars question whether this passage belongs here in John’s Gospel. (1) The passage does not appear in the oldest and most reliable Greek manuscripts. (2) It is not found in the best manuscripts of the earliest translations of the Bible into Old Syriac, Coptic, Gothic, and Old Latin. (3) No Greek writer commented on this passage for the first 11 centuries of Christianity. (4) It is not cited by most of the great early church fathers, including Clement, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Cyril, and others. (5) Its style does not fit that of the rest of the Gospel of John. (6) It interrupts the flow of thought in John. John reads better if one goes right from <a href='B:500 7:52'>John 7:52</a> to 8:12. (7) The story has been found in several different places in Bible manuscripts—after <a href='B:500 7:36'>John 7:36</a>; after <a href='B:500 21:24'>John 21:24</a>; after <a href='B:500 7:44'>John 7:44</a>; and after <a href='B:490 21:38'>Luke 21:38</a>. (8) Many manuscripts that include it in <a href='B:500 7:53'>John 7:53–8:11</a> have marked it with an obelus, indicating they believe it is doubtful.<p/><b><a href='B:500 8:3-11'>JOHN 8:3-11</a> (cf. <a href='B:520 13:4'>Rom 13:4</a>)—</b> Did Jesus repudiate capital punishment in this text?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Passages like <a href='B:520 13:4'>Rom 13:4</a> present a good case for capital punishment, for the passage says, “for it [the government] does not bear a sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil” (NASB). In <a href='B:500 8'>John 8</a> a woman is caught in an adulterous situation, which was cause for stoning according to the Mosaic Law. Yet Jesus did not seek her death, but rather forgave her sin. Did Jesus thereby reject capital punishment?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> First, the authority in <a href='B:520 13'>Rom 13</a> is the Roman government and the authorities in <a href='B:500 8'>John 8</a> are Jewish ones. The point is that the Jews had to act under Roman law. For instance, if they were really going to stone a woman, why did they seek the help of Pilate in the crucifixion of Jesus? For in <a href='B:500 18:31'>John 18:31</a> the Jews respond to Pilate saying, “It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death.” But in the case of the adulterous woman, they were ready to stone her.<p/>Second, they did not act in accordance with the Law itself. The Law stated that both the parties, male and female, had to be brought before the people (<a href='B:50 22:22–24'>Deut 22:22–24</a>). Since this woman was caught in the very act (v. 4), why wasn’t the man brought out with the woman to be stoned? The scribes and Pharisees who were supposed to be law abiding citizens failed in a key aspect of their own law.<p/>This passage, then, is not a good text for anyone who wants to propose that Jesus opposed capital punishment. In fact, other places of Scripture seem to support the very idea (see <a href='B:10 9:6'>Gen 9:6</a> and <a href='B:470 26:52'>Matt 26:52</a>). 


text:
Does God hear the prayers of sinners?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> John said here, “Now we know that God does not hear sinners.” Yet Jesus said God heard the publican who prayed, “God be merciful to me a sinner” (<a href='B:490 18:13'>Luke 18:13</a>). Does He hear sinners when they pray?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> God hears sinners when they confess they are sinners and accept His forgiveness. For “whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved” (<a href='B:520 10:13'>Rom 10:13</a>). Jesus promised, “the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out” (<a href='B:500 6:37'>John 6:37</a>).<p/>However, God does not promise to answer the prayers of sinners who are not serving the true God. Jesus said, “if anyone is a worshiper of God and does His will, He [God] hears him” (<a href='B:500 9:31'>John 9:31</a>). Even so, God’s grace exceeds His promise, and He apparently does on occasion respond to the prayer of an unsaved person as part of His overall providential plan to bring them to Himself (cf. <a href='B:390 1:14-15'>Jonah 1:14-15</a>). In this sense, God’s response to the prayer of the unsaved is part of the “goodness of God [that] leads you to repentance” (<a href='B:520 2:4'>Rom 2:4</a>). 


text:
Is Jesus the shepherd or a sheep?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> John presents Christ here as the “Good Shepherd.” Yet elsewhere He is a sheep (lamb) that dies for our sins (<a href='B:500 1:29'>John 1:29</a>; <a href='B:500 1:36'>36</a>). Which is He?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Christ is appropriately presented by both figures of speech. He died as our Passover Lamb (<a href='B:530 5:7'>1Cor 5:7</a>), and He leads and guides His people as a Good Shepherd. In one context, believers are like the people of Israel who need the passover lamb to die for them. In the other, we are like wandering sheep who need a shepherd to lead us. Both are true.<p/><b>JOHN 10:11 —</b> Did Jesus die just for His friends or for His enemies too?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> John quotes Jesus as claiming that He laid down His “life for the sheep” (cf. 15:13). But Paul claims “Christ died for the ungodly” while they were still “enemies” (<a href='B:520 5:6'>Rom 5:6</a>; <a href='B:520 5:10'>10</a>). How can both be true?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Jesus died for both His friends (disciples) and His enemies. In fact, His “friends” were enemies when He died for them. There is no contradiction here, since the text does not say that Christ died only for His friends. He did die for those who would become His friends, but He also died for those who would remain His enemies. Peter refers to the apostates who were “denying the Lord who bought them” (<a href='B:680 2:1'>2Peter 2:1</a>). 


text:
Was Christ one with the Father?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Jesus said here, “I and My Father are one.” But on other occasions He distinguished Himself from the Father, saying “I came forth from the Father and … I leave the world and go to the Father” (<a href='B:500 16:28'>John 16:28</a>). Further, He prayed to the Father as one person to another (<a href='B:500 17'>John 17</a>), and even said, “the Father is greater than I.”<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Jesus was one with the Father in nature, but distinct from Him inperson. The triune Godhead has one essence, but three distinct persons (see comments on <a href='B:500 14:28'>John 14:28</a>). So, Jesus was both the same in substance and yet was a different individual from the Father. 


text:
Did Jesus advocate that man could become God?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Jesus answered a group of Jews and said, “Is it not written in your law, `I said, you are gods’?” Does this mean that humans can become God as pantheistic religions and New Age advocates claim?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The context of this passage reveals that Christ had just pronounced Himself one with the Father saying, “I and My Father are one” (10:30). The Jews wanted to stone Him because they thought Christ was blaspheming since He was making Himself out to be equal with God (vv. 31–33).<p/>Jesus responded by quoting <a href='B:230 82:6'>Psalm 82:6</a> which says, “I said, you are gods.” This psalm addresses judges who are judging unjustly. The title of “gods” is not addressed to everyone, but only to these judges about whom Jesus said are those to “whom the word of God came” (v. 35). Jesus was showing that if the OT Scriptures could give some divine status to divinely appointed judges, why should they find it incredible that He should call Himself the Son of God? Thus, Jesus was giving a defense for His own deity, not for the deification of man. 


text:
Did Jesus make a mistake when He said Lazarus’ sickness was not unto death?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Jesus at first said, “This sickness is not unto death” (<a href='B:500 11:4'>John 11:4</a>). However, later even Jesus admitted that “Lazarus is dead” (v. 14). Was Jesus mistaken when He thought Lazarus would not die?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Jesus knew all along that Lazarus would die and that He would raise him from the dead so that God would receive the glory (v. 4). He used different figures of speech to teach the disciples that Lazarus’ death was not final. He called it “sleep” (v. 11) and said it was “not unto death” (v. 4), meaning that it would noteventuate in Lazarus’ being dead, but in his being alive by Jesus’ resurrection power. That is, although Lazarus’ sickness would temporarily bring death, Jesus’ power would restore him to life. 


text:
How could Jesus say we will never die when the Bible declares all will eventually die?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> God Himself said to Adam, “In the day that you eat of it you shall surely die” (<a href='B:10 2:17'>Gen 2:17</a>). Paul reaffirmed this, declaring that “through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned” (<a href='B:520 5:12'>Rom 5:12</a>). But Jesus seems to contradict this when He affirmed, “whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die” (<a href='B:500 11:26'>John 11:26</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> First of all, even taken literally, Jesus was not denying that believers would die. In fact, He affirmed it in the previous verse, saying, “though he may die, he shall live.” In other words, Jesus claimed that because He was “the resurrection and the life” (v. 25), He would resurrect those who believe in Him unto eternal life (cf. <a href='B:500 5:28-29'>John 5:28-29</a>).<p/>Further, Jesus may have been speaking about spiritual life and spiritual death. In this sense, those who believe in Him will have spiritual life (<a href='B:500 3:16'>John 3:16</a>; <a href='B:500 3:36'>36</a>), even though they will experience physical death. For those who are born only once will die twice, once physically and once again at the “second death” (<a href='B:730 20:14'>Rev 20:14</a>) or final separation from God. But those who are born twice (<a href='B:500 3:3'>John 3:3</a>; <a href='B:500 3:7'>7</a>) will only die once (physically), but will live with God forever. 


text:
How could Lazarus come forth from the tomb if he was bound hand and foot?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> This verse states what seems impossible, namely, when Jesus raised Lazarus “he who had died came out bound hand and foot.”<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> It is not impossible. The Jewish corpses were not wound so tight (like an Egyptian mummy) that it precluded all motion. When life came back into Lazarus body he was no doubt jolted into action. He could have slid from his slab, stood upright on the floor, and if necessary, even jumped to the cave opening. Nothing more than this is implied in the term “came forth.” Having done what only He could do (namely, raise Lazarus from the dead), Jesus expected Lazarus and others to do what they could do. So Jesus asked them to unloose Lazarus’ cords. 


text:
Was heaven prepared from eternity or is Jesus still preparing it?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Matthew affirms that heaven was “prepared for you from the foundation of the world” (25:34). But here in <a href='B:500 14:2'>John 14:2</a> Jesus said, “I go to prepare a place for you,” implying that it was not yet prepared at that time.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The first text speaks about the creation of heaven and the second about its preparation. The former passage speaks in general about the preexistence of heaven; the latter specifically about its preadaptation to each particular soul. There is a dual preparation of heaven for each person and each person for heaven. Since individual believers will have different rewards (<a href='B:530 3:11-15'>1Cor 3:11-15</a>; <a href='B:540 5:10'>2Cor 5:10</a>), then their reward in heaven, which already exists, will have to be suited to their particular service. 


text:
Are Muslims right in referring this promise of the coming “helper” to Mohammed?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Muslim scholars see in this reference of the promised “Helper” (Gk., parakl?tos) a prediction of Mohammed, because the Quran (Surah 61:6) refers to Mohammed as “Ahmad” (periclytos) which they take to be the correct rendering of “parakl?tos. ”<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There are absolutely no grounds for concluding the “Helper” (parakl?tos) Jesus mentioned here is Mohammed. First of all, of the 5,366 Greek manuscripts of the NT, not a single manuscript contains the wordpericlytos (“praised one”), as the Muslims claim it should read. Second, Jesus clearly identifies the “Helper” as the Holy Spirit, not Mohammed. Jesus referred to “the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send” (<a href='B:500 14:26'>John 14:26</a>). Third, the “Helper” was given to His disciples (“you,” v. 16), but Mohammed was not. Fourth, the “Helper” was to abide with them “forever” (v. 16), but Mohammed has been dead for 13 centuries! Fifth, Jesus said to the disciples, “You know Him [the Helper]” (v. 17), but they did not know Mohammed. He wasn’t even born for 6 more centuries. Sixth, Jesus told His apostles, the Helper will be “in you” (v. 17). In no sense was Mohammed “in” Jesus’ apostles. Seventh, our Lord affirmed the Helper would be sent “In My [Jesus’] name” (<a href='B:500 14:26'>John 14:26</a>). But no Muslim believes Mohammed was sent by Jesus in His name. Eighth, the Helper Jesus would send would not “speak on His own authority” (<a href='B:500 16:13'>John 16:13</a>), whereas Mohammed constantly testifies to himself in the Quran (cf. Surah 33:40). Ninth, the Helper would “glorify” Jesus (<a href='B:500 16:14'>John 16:14</a>), but Mohammed claims to supersede Jesus, being a later prophet. Finally, Jesus asserted that the Helper would come in “not many days” (<a href='B:510 1:5'>Acts 1:5</a>), whereas Mohammed did not come for 600 years. 


text:
Did Jesus think of Himself as less than God?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Orthodox Christianity confesses Jesus is both fully man and fully God. Yet Jesus said in <a href='B:500 14:28'>John 14:28</a>, “My Father is greater than I.” How can the Father be greater if Jesus is equal to God?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The Father is greater than the Son by office, but not by nature, since both are God (see <a href='B:500 1:1'>John 1:1</a>; <a href='B:500 8:58'>8:58</a>; <a href='B:500 10:30'>10:30</a>). Just as an earthly father is equally human with, but holds a higher office than, his son, even so the Father and the Son in the Trinity are equal in essence, but different infunction. In like manner, we speak of the president of our country as being a greater man, not by virtue of his character, but by virtue of hisposition. Therefore, Jesus cannot ever be said to say that He considered Himself anything less than God by nature. The following summary helps to crystalize the differences: 


text:
Was Jesus the vine or the root?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> John portrays Jesus as the vine of which believers are the branches. But elsewhere the Bible calls Him a “root out of dry ground” (<a href='B:290 53:2'>Isa 53:2</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Both of these are appropriate figures of Christ, each describing a different aspect of His ministry. Jesus was a root (source of life) in relation to the vine (Israel) in the OT. But He is the vine in which believers abide for spiritual life in the NT (<a href='B:500 15:1'>John 15:1</a>; <a href='B:500 15:3'>3</a>). 


text:
Did Jesus reveal everything to His disciples or hold back some things?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Only a short time earlier Jesus left His disciples with the impression that He had told them everything He wanted to communicate to them, saying, “all things that I heard from My Father I have made known to you” (<a href='B:500 15:15'>John 15:15</a>). However, here in <a href='B:500 16:12'>John 16:12</a> He reveals, “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.” It appears that these statements are in conflict.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Some scholars believe that the first statement is proleptical, envisioning in the present everything He was about to tell them in the future as well. In this case, the “many things” (of 16:12) would refer to what the Holy Spirit was yet to teach them (cf. 16:13). 


