# commentaries

text:
Did Jesus ever pray for unbelievers?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Jesus said here, “I pray for them [the disciples]. I do not pray for the world.” But elsewhere Jesus prayed for unbelievers, even those who crucified Him, saying, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do” (<a href='B:490 23:34'>Luke 23:34</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> In His high priestly prayer, Jesus wasfocusing on His disciples, not on the world. This does not mean that we should never pray for the world. Indeed, Jesus died for the sins of the world (<a href='B:500 3:16'>John 3:16</a>; <a href='B:690 2:1-2'>1John 2:1-2</a>; <a href='B:520 5:6-8'>Rom 5:6-8</a>). He prayed that the Father would forgive those who crucified Him (<a href='B:490 23:34'>Luke 23:34</a>). He also asked His disciples to “pray the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into His harvest” (<a href='B:490 10:2'>Luke 10:2</a>). Jesus’ followers urged “prayers … for all men” (<a href='B:610 2:1'>1Tim 2:1</a>). And, the Apostle Paul prayed passionately for his unsaved kinsmen (<a href='B:520 10:1'>Rom 10:1</a>). 


text:
Was it lawful for the Jews to exercise capital punishment?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> In this verse, the Jews of Jesus’ day claimed that “It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death.” However, in the very next chapter, they insisted that “We have a law, and according to our law He ought to die” (<a href='B:500 19:7'>John 19:7</a>). Which was correct?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Both statements are correct. According to the Jewish Law of Moses, anyone who blasphemes God was to be given capital punishment (see <a href='B:30 24:16'>Lev 24:16</a>). However, when speaking to Pilate, the Roman governor, the Jews correctly noted that the Romans did not allow their subjects to exercise capital punishment, but retained that right for themselves. Thus, the Jews correctly said to Pilate, “it is not lawful [according toRoman law] for us to put anyone to death” (<a href='B:500 18:31'>John 18:31</a>). 


text:
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:
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>).<p/><b>JOHN 19:14 —</b> Was Jesus crucified on Friday?<p/>(See discussion on <a href='B:470 12:40'>Matt 12:40</a>.)<p/><b>JOHN 19:14 —</b> What time was Jesus placed on the cross?<p/>(See comments on <a href='B:480 15:25'>Mark 15:25</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.<p/><b><a href='B:500 19:19'>JOHN 19:19</a> —</b> What did the sign on the cross really say?<p/>(See discussion on <a href='B:470 27:37'>Matt 27:37</a>) 


text:
If Jesus had not yet ascended to the Father, how could He have committed His Spirit to the Father?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Jesus said here “I have not yet ascended to My Father.” But earlier on the cross He said, “Father, into Your hands I commend My spirit” (<a href='B:490 23:46'>Luke 23:46</a>). If He was already with the Father, then why did He say that He had not yet ascended to Him?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The day He died, Jesus’ spirit went to be with the Father (as <a href='B:490 23:43'>Luke 23:43</a>; <a href='B:420 23:46'>46</a> records). So His spirit had been with the Father, but His body had not yet ascended into heaven when He spoke to Mary. The bodily ascension took place some 40 days later (cf. <a href='B:510 1:3'>Acts 1:3</a>; <a href='B:510 1:9'>9–10</a>). 


text:
How could Jesus walk through a closed door with a physical body?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> It is inferred by some critics that, since the resurrected Christ could appear in a room with closed doors (<a href='B:500 20:19'>John 20:19</a>), this proves that His body must have dematerialized to do so, showing that His resurrection body was not essentially or continuously material. However, many other Scriptures indicate that Jesus’ resurrection body was literal “flesh and bones” (<a href='B:490 24:39'>Luke 24:39</a>) that could eat physical food and even had the crucifixion scars in it (<a href='B:420 24:40-43'>Luke 24:40-43</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Jesus’ resurrection body was essentially and continuously material (see comments on <a href='B:490 24:34'>Luke 24:34</a>). The fact that Jesus could get into a room with a closed door in no way proves that He had to dematerialize in order to do it. This is clear for several reasons.<p/>First, the text does not actually say Jesus passed through a closed door. It simply says that “when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst” (<a href='B:500 20:19'>John 20:19</a>). The Bible does not say how He got into the room.<p/>Third, even before His resurrection Jesus performed miracles with His physical body that transcended natural laws, such as walking on water (<a href='B:500 6:16-20'>John 6:16-20</a>). But walking on water did not prove that His pre-resurrection body was immaterial. Otherwise, Peter’s pre-resurrection walk on water (<a href='B:470 14:29'>Matt 14:29</a>) would mean his body dematerialized for a moment and then quickly rematerialized!<p/>Fourth, although physical, the resurrection body is by its very nature a supernatural body (see comments on <a href='B:530 15:44'>1Cor 15:44</a>). Hence, it should be expected that it can do supernatural things, such as appearing in a room with closed doors. 


text:
Was the Holy Spirit given to the disciples before Pentecost?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> In Acts, the apostles are told to wait until Pentecost before they receive the Holy Spirit (<a href='B:510 1:4-8'>Acts 1:4-8</a>; cf. 2:1–2). Yet even before His crucifixion Jesus breathed on His disciples and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit” (<a href='B:500 20:22'>John 20:22</a>). Didn’t they receive the Holy Spirit at this point and not later at Pentecost?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> First of all, the John passage is a difficult one, with no direct parallels, and it is hard to know exactly what it means. And like all obscure passages, one should not base any major teaching on it.<p/>Third, even if Jesus meant them to receive the Holy Spirit at that moment (in <a href='B:500 20:22'>John 20:22</a>), it was apparently in a different sense. Here the Spirit is given “to forgive the sins” (v. 23). But in <a href='B:510 1:8'>Acts 1:8</a> the Spirit was to be given to provide “power … [to] be witnesses” for Him to the “end of the earth.”<p/>Fourth, the promise of the Spirit in John was for His indwelling the believer (cf. <a href='B:500 14:16'>John 14:16</a>), not for His being baptized by the Holy Spirit (<a href='B:510 1:5'>Acts 1:5</a>; cf. <a href='B:530 12:13'>1Cor 12:13</a>), which is a different act of the Holy Spirit. In this sense, then, there is no conflict between the two passages, since they speak of different activities of the Spirit which came at different times.


text:
Does this passage support the Roman Catholic view that priests have the power to forgive sins?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Roman Catholics claim that Jesus gave His disciples the power to forgive sins and that this power has beenpassed on to Roman Catholic priests down through the centuries. Does this text support their position?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Jesus did give His disciples the power to forgive sins, and this power still exists today. However, it is not unique to Roman Catholic priests. Any believer in Christ possesses the same power to pronounce someone’s sins forgiven, based on their trust in the finished work of Christ. Notice the context of the passage. First of all, many see this as an extension of the power promised in <a href='B:470 18:18'>Mat 18:18</a> to bind and loose sins with the “keys of the kingdom” (<a href='B:470 16:19'>Matt 16:19</a>). It is given to all the apostles, not just Peter (see comments on <a href='B:470 16:18'>Matt 16:18</a>). And inasmuch as the mission of the church extends “to the ends of the age” (<a href='B:470 28:20'>Matt 28:20</a>), Christ is “present” to forgive sins with all who preach the Gospel at any time or place. Further, this is John’s parallel to the Great Commission. Jesus introduces it by the words, “as the Father has sent Me, I also send you” (<a href='B:500 20:21'>John 20:21</a>). But the clergy (priesthood) is not the only group commissioned to serve Christ; every believer is to be a witness (cf. <a href='B:470 28:18-20'>Matt 28:18-20</a>; <a href='B:540 4:1'>2Cor 4:1</a>ff).<p/>Finally, this power is present only through the Holy Spirit. Jesus said, “Receive the Holy Spirit” (<a href='B:500 20:22'>John 20:22</a>). This is parallel to what Jesus said later, “You shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth” (<a href='B:510 1:8'>Acts 1:8</a>). But all believers have this same power to pronounce forgiveness of sins as the witness to the good news of Christ throughout the world. There is absolutely no mention here about any unique priestly power resident in a select clergy. It is simply John’s equivalent of the Great Commission to all believers to proclaim the message of Christ’s forgiveness to all the world (cf. <a href='B:490 24:47'>Luke 24:47</a>). 


text:
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:
Did Peter make a mistake in quoting Joel?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> In Acts 2, Pentecost arrives, and the disciples are filled with the Holy Spirit. In response to criticism, Peter says that what they hear and see was “spoken by the prophet Joel” (cf. <a href='B:360 2:28-32'>Joel 2:28-32</a>). Yet, in the passage that Peter quotes, there are events in it that did not happen at Pentecost, like the moon turning to blood. Does Peter err on this occasion?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> First, Peter was simply showing that Pentecost involved a partial or initial fulfillment of <a href='B:360 2:28-32'>Joel 2:28-32</a>. This partial fulfillment was in regard to the indwelling Holy Spirit for believers. And this is exactly what happened on the day of Pentecost. Joel says that God “will pour out My spirit on all flesh … I will pour out My Spirit in those days” (<a href='B:360 2:28-29'>Joel 2:28-29</a>). And God did pour forth His Spirit on the day of Pentecost.<p/>Second, Peter’s reference was to indicate that the last days had been inaugurated (cf. <a href='B:650 1:1-2'>Heb 1:1-2</a>; <a href='B:650 2:4'>2:4</a>). The wonders of the sky above and the signs on the earth beneath (Acts 19–21) are to take place later on in earth’s history at the time of Christ’s second coming. Notice that these things will happen “before the … great and notable day of the Lord” (v. 20) which is yet future (cf. <a href='B:470 24:1'>Matt 24:1</a>ff). 


text:
Is David in heaven or not?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Peter seems to imply here that David was not in heaven. He wrote, “David did not ascend into the heavens.” Yet the Bible indicates that David was one of God’s choice servants (<a href='B:510 13:22'>Acts 13:22</a>) who obviously went to be with his Lord when he died (cf. <a href='B:470 22:42-46'>Matt 22:42-46</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Peter is not speaking of David’s soul here, but of his body. David’s soul is in heaven along with all other believers, but his body is still in the grave (<a href='B:510 2:29'>Acts 2:29</a>). Since David’s body has not yet been raised, it is clear that he has not yet “ascended” bodily into heaven either. It is for this same reason that Jesus said to Mary, “I have not yet ascended to My Father” (<a href='B:500 20:17'>John 20:17</a>). The day He died, Jesus’ spirit went to be with the Father (see <a href='B:490 23:43'>Luke 23:43</a>; <a href='B:420 23:46'>46</a>). So, His spirit had been with the Father, but His body had not yet ascended into heaven when he spoke to Mary. The bodily ascension took place several weeks later (cf. <a href='B:510 1:3'>Acts 1:3</a>; <a href='B:510 1:9'>9–10</a>). (See also comments on <a href='B:560 4:9'>Eph 4:9</a>) 


text:
Did Peter declare that baptism was necessary for salvation?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Peter seems to be saying that those who responded had to repent and be baptized before they could receive the Holy Spirit. But this is contrary to the teaching of Paul that baptism is not part of the Gospel (<a href='B:530 1:17'>1Cor 1:17</a>) and that we are saved by faith alone (<a href='B:520 4:4'>Rom 4:4</a>; <a href='B:560 2:8-9'>Eph 2:8-9</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> This is resolved when we consider the possible meaning of being baptized “for” the remission of sins in the light of its usage, the whole context, and the rest of Scripture. Consider the following:<p/>Second, people are saved by receiving God’s word, and Peter’s audience “gladly received his word” before they were baptized (<a href='B:510 2:41'>Acts 2:41</a>).<p/>Fourth, later, those who believed Peter’s message clearly received the Holy Spirit before they were baptized. Peter said, “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” (<a href='B:510 10:47'>Acts 10:47</a>) Fifth, Paul separates baptism from the Gospel, saying, “Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the Gospel” (<a href='B:530 1:17'>1Cor 1:17</a>). But it is the Gospel which saves us (<a href='B:520 1:16'>Rom 1:16</a>). Therefore, baptism is not part of what saves us.<p/>Sixth, Jesus referred to baptism as a work of righteousness (<a href='B:470 3:15'>Matt 3:15</a>). But the Bible declares clearly 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>).<p/>Seventh, not once in the entire Gospel of John, written explicitly so that people could believe and be saved (<a href='B:500 20:31'>John 20:31</a>), does it give baptism as part of the condition of salvation. It simply says over and over that people should “believe” and be saved (cf. <a href='B:500 3:16'>John 3:16</a>; <a href='B:500 3:18'>18</a>; <a href='B:500 3:36'>36</a>).<p/>In view of all these factors it seems best to understand Peter’s statement like this: “Repent and be baptized with a view to the forgiveness of sins.” That this view looked backward (to their sins being forgiven after they were saved) is made clear by the context and the rest of Scripture. Believing (or repenting) and being baptized are placed together, since baptism should follow belief. But nowhere does it say, “He who is not baptized will be condemned” (cf. <a href='B:480 16:16'>Mark 16:16</a>). Yet Jesus said emphatically that “he who does not believe is condemned already” (<a href='B:500 3:18'>John 3:18</a>). So neither Peter nor the rest of Scripture makes baptism a condition of salvation. 


text:
Did early Christians practice communism?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Some have inferred from the fact that these early Christians “sold their possessions” and had “all things in common” that they were practicing a form of communism. However, even the Ten Commandments imply the right to private property, forbidding one to “steal” or even “covet” what belongs to another (<a href='B:20 20:15'>Ex 20:15</a>; <a href='B:20 20:17'>17</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There are several reasons to believe that this passage does not teach an abiding form of Christian communism or socialism.<p/>Fourth, the selling of property and giving of money was onlypartial. The text implies that they sold only extra land and other possessions, not that they sold their only place of residence. After all, they all eventually left Jerusalem, to which they had come for the Feast of Pentecost (<a href='B:510 2:1'>Acts 2:1</a>), and went back to their homes which were scattered all over the world (cf. <a href='B:510 2:5-13'>Acts 2:5-13</a>). 


text:
Will all things be restored to God or just some things?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> On the one hand, this verse speaks of the “restoration of all things,” which seems to imply that all will eventually be saved. On the other hand, the Scriptures declare that many will be lost (<a href='B:470 25:41'>Matt 25:41</a>; <a href='B:730 19:20'>Rev 19:20–20:15</a>). Will everyone eventually be saved?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> God desires that all people be saved (<a href='B:610 2:4'>1Tim 2:4</a>; <a href='B:680 3:9'>2Pet 3:9</a>). However, some are simply “not willing” to accept His grace (cf. <a href='B:470 23:37'>Matt 23:37</a>). Since God is love (<a href='B:690 4:16'>1John 4:16</a>) and humans are free, God cannot force them to freely love Him. Forced freedom is a contradiction in terms. Hence, God will allow the unrepentant to have it their way. Those who do not say to God, “Your will be done,” will eventually hear God declare to them, “your will be done.” Such is the nature of hell. Nowhere in the Bible does it hold out hope for those who refuse to accept God’s love. A loving God cannot force anyone to love Him. Forced love is a contradiction in terms. Love always works persuasively, but never coercively (see also comments on <a href='B:580 1:20'>Col 1:20</a>).<p/>What then does “the restoration of all things” mean? Peter is speaking here to the Jews and makes reference to the “restoration of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began” (<a href='B:510 3:21'>Acts 3:21</a>). Peter said it is referring to the “covenant which God made with our [Jewish] fathers, saying to Abraham, `And in your seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed’ ” (<a href='B:510 3:25'>Acts 3:25</a>). This Abrahamic covenant was unconditional and included the promises of possessing the land of Palestine “forever” (<a href='B:10 13:15'>Gen 13:15</a>). It is to the future fulfillment of this Abrahamic covenant that Peter refers. It is the restoration of all things to Israel, not to the salvation of all people (see also comments on <a href='B:520 11:26-27'>Rom 11:26-27</a>).


text:
Is Christ the only way of salvation?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Peter declares that “there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” But isn’t this a narrow exclusivism? What about the sincere pagan or Buddhist? Is God going to send them to hell?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Several observations are relevant to this question.<p/>First of all, sincerity is not a good test of truth. Many people can and have been sincerely wrong about many things (<a href='B:240 14:12'>Prov 14:12</a>).<p/>Fourth, Jesus and the NT clearly and repeatedly emphasize that Jesus is the only way of salvation. (1) Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (<a href='B:500 14:6'>John 14:6</a>). (2) Jesus also claimed He was the door (<a href='B:500 10:9'>John 10:9</a>), insisting that “he who does not enter the sheepfold by the Door … the same is a thief and a robber” (v. 1). (3) The Apostle Peter added, “Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (<a href='B:510 4:12'>Acts 4:12</a>). (4) And Paul contended that “there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus” (<a href='B:610 2:5'>1Tim 2:5</a>). 


text:
Did early Christians practice communism?<p/>(See comments on <a href='B:510 2:44-45'>Acts 2:44-45</a>) 


text:
Is repentance a gift of God or an act of man?<p/>(See discussion on <a href='B:620 2:25'>2Tim 2:25</a>) 


text:
Does Luke make a mistake concerning Theudas and Judas?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> In Acts, a Pharisee named Gamaliel makes mention of a Theudas and Judas of Galilee. Yet, the 1st century Jewish historian Josephus also refers to a Theudas and Judas. Some think that there is a discrepancy between the individuals to whom Gamaliel and the ones to whom Josephus refers.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> First, concerning Theudas, Luke’s account and that of Josephus are talking about two different individuals. The Theudas in the Josephus account revolted in A.D. 44 while the Theudas in Acts revolted before the census which took place around A.D. 7 (cf. <a href='B:510 5:37'>Acts 5:37</a>). In other words, there were two different men named Theudas. We know this because Theudas preceded Judas of Galilee who arose during the days of the census. Therefore, the Theudas Gamaliel refers to is different than the one mentioned by Josephus. 


text:
Does this passage indicate that it is a sin to receive a blood transfusion?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The ability of modern medicine to sustain life by blood transfusion is a common practice that has no doubt been used by Christians. However, this verse is used by some religious groups, such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses, to claim that blood transfusions are against God’s will.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> This passage is talking about the OT restriction against eating or drinking blood (<a href='B:10 9:3-4'>Gen 9:3-4</a>; cf. <a href='B:510 15:28-29'>Acts 15:28-29</a>). However, a blood transfusion is not “eating” or “drinking” blood. This is clear from several facts.<p/>Fourth, it is clear that this OT passage is not primarily concerned with the eating of blood. Rather, it is primarily concerned with the fact that the life is in the blood. <a href='B:30 17:10-12'>Lev 17:10-12</a> makes this plain:<p/>The prohibitions in <a href='B:10 9:3-4'>Gen 9:3-4</a> and <a href='B:30 17:10-12'>Lev 17:10-12</a> were primarily directed at eating flesh that was still pulsating with life because the lifeblood was still in it. But, the transfusion of blood is not eating flesh with the lifeblood still in it.<p/>Finally, the prohibition in Acts was not necessarily given as a law by which Christians were to live, for the NT clearly teaches that we are not under law (<a href='B:520 6:14'>Rom 6:14</a>; <a href='B:550 4:8-31'>Gal 4:8-31</a>). Rather, the Jerusalem counsel may have been advising Gentile Christians to respect their Jewish brethren by observing these practices, thereby not giving offense “either to the Jews or to the Greeks or to the church of God” (<a href='B:530 10:32'>1Cor 10:32</a>). In any event, the restriction can in no way be construed as a prohibition against blood transfusions. 


text:
Why did Paul have Timothy circumcised when he himself spoke so strongly against it?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Paul’s main point in Galatians can be summarized in his words, “If you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing” (<a href='B:550 5:2'>Gal 5:2</a>). Yet Paul admits that he had Timothy circumcised “because of the Jews who were in that region” (<a href='B:510 16:3'>Acts 16:3</a>). Wasn’t this a contradiction to his own teaching.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Even if Paul were wrong here in his action, it would not prove that the Bible erred in its teaching, but simply that Paul erred. Paul, like any other human being, was capable of error. Since the Bible is the Word of God (see Introduction), it is not capable of erring in anything it teaches.<p/>Furthermore, Paul’s action in having Timothy circumcised is not necessarily inconsistent with what he taught in Galatians, since the two cases are different. Paul was violently opposed to any who made circumcision necessary for salvation. But he never opposed it as helpful for evangelism. Indeed, Paul said elsewhere, “to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews” (<a href='B:530 9:20'>1Cor 9:20</a>). However, when Judaizers insisted that “unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved” (<a href='B:510 15:1'>Acts 15:1</a>), then Paul took an intractable stand against circumcision. 


text:
Why did the Holy Spirit forbid Paul to preach in Asia when Jesus said to go into all the world?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Jesus commanded His followers to “make disciples of all the nations” (<a href='B:470 28:19'>Matt 28:19</a>) and to be witnesses to “the end of the earth” (<a href='B:510 1:8'>Acts 1:8</a>). But in <a href='B:510 16'>Acts 16</a> Paul and Timothy “were forbidden by the Holy Spirit to preach the word in Asia” (v. 6).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Paul was only forbidden immediately. God had a more strategic route for the Gospel through Europe first (<a href='B:510 16:9'>Acts 16:9</a>). Eventually, however, the Gospel got to Asia and to every place through Paul’s converts in Europe (cf. <a href='B:590 1:7'>1Thes 1:7</a>) and by Paul himself (<a href='B:510 19:10'>Acts 19:10</a>; <a href='B:510 19:22'>22</a>; <a href='B:510 19:26'>26</a>; <a href='B:510 20:4'>20:4</a>; <a href='B:510 20:16'>16</a>; <a href='B:510 20:18'>18</a>; <a href='B:530 16:19'>1Cor 16:19</a>). So, the prohibition was only temporary, not permanent. 


text:
Why did Paul quote an uninspired pagan poet?<p/>(See comments on <a href='B:630 1:12'>Titus 1:12</a>) 


text:
How could Eutycus be dead if he had life in him?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Verse nine says he was “taken up dead.” But in the very next verse Paul said, “his life is in him.”<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> His life was in him only after Paul had performed the miracle (v. 10), not before (v. 9). 


text:
Did Paul lie when he said he didn’t know the high priest?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The high priest Ananias commanded that Paul be struck on the mouth. Paul rebuked him for doing so, and those who stood by condemned Paul for reviling the high priest. Paul responded by claiming, “I did not know … that he was the high priest” (<a href='B:510 23:5'>Acts 23:5</a>). But this is highly unlikely, since Paul himself was a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin and worked closely with him before his conversion (<a href='B:510 9:1-3'>Acts 9:1-3</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There are several views taken on this passage. Some suggest that Paul may have not known the high priest personally, even though he was previously a member of the Jewish Council. Others claim that Paul may have had poor vision (perhaps his “thorn in the flesh”) and not been able to see him clearly. Still others believe that Paul could have been lying to get himself out of a bad situation. Apostles sinned too (cf. <a href='B:550 2:11-13'>Gal 2:11-13</a>). In this case, Acts is simply giving us a true record of Paul’s sin. 


text:
Are the heathen lost?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father, except through Me” (<a href='B:500 14:6'>John 14:6</a>). Also, <a href='B:510 4:12'>Acts 4:12</a> says of Christ, “And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved” (NASB). But what if someone has never heard the Gospel of Christ, will he be eternally lost? Paul seems to answer this in the affirmative. But is it fair to condemn people who have never even heard about Christ?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Paul’s answer is clear. He said that the heathen are “without excuse” (1:20) because “what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made” (1:19–20). So, the heathen are justly condemned for several reasons.<p/>First, <a href='B:520 2:12'>Rom 2:12</a> states, “For as many as have sinned without Law will also perish without Law, and as many as have sinned in the Law will be judged by the Law.” This passage teaches that the Jew is judged by the Law, the Hebrew Scriptures, but the Gentile is condemned by “the Law written in their hearts.” “For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness, and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them” (<a href='B:520 2:14-15'>Rom 2:14-15</a>,NASB).<p/>Second, the question assumes innocence on the part of the saved man who hasn’t heard the Gospel. But the Bible tells us that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (<a href='B:520 3:23'>Rom 3:23</a>). In addition, <a href='B:520 1:18-20'>Rom 1:18-20</a> says that God clearly reveals Himself through natural revelation “so that they are without excuse.” Human beings are not innocent regarding God’s natural revelation.<p/>Third, if a person who has not heard the Gospel lives his life to the best of his ability he simply is doing works for salvation. But salvation is by grace, “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>). Not in any way, shape, or form can anybody do anything to gain access into heaven. If there was such a way, then the work of Christ on the Cross was a futile act.<p/>Finally, the Bible says in essence, “seek and you will find.” That is, those who seek the light they have through nature, which is not sufficient for salvation, will get the light they need for salvation. <a href='B:650 11:6'>Heb 11:6</a> says, “But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.” <a href='B:510 10:35'>Acts 10:35</a> adds, “But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him.” God has many ways to get the truth about salvation through Christ to those who seek Him. He can send a missionary (<a href='B:510 10'>Acts 10</a>), or a Bible (<a href='B:230 119:130'>Ps 119:130</a>), give them a vision (<a href='B:340 2'>Dan 2</a>; <a href='B:340 7'>7</a>), or send an angel (<a href='B:730 14'>Rev 14</a>). But those who turn their back on the light they have (through nature) and find themselves lost in darkness, have no one to blame but themselves. For “men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil” (<a href='B:500 3:19'>John 3:19</a>). 


text:
Does this verse mean that homosexuals should not be heterosexual because it is unnatural to them?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to some homosexuals, when Paul spoke against what is “unnatural” in <a href='B:520 1:26'>Rom 1:26</a>, he was not declaring that homosexuality was morally wrong, but simply that it was unnatural for homosexuals. “Unnatural” is used in a sociological, not a biological way. So rather than condemning homosexual practices, it is argued that this passage actually approves of them for homosexuals.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> When the Bible declares that homosexual practices are “against nature” (<a href='B:520 1:26'>Rom 1:26</a>), it is referring to biological nature, not sociological nature. First, sex is defined biologically in Scripture from the very beginning. In Genesis 1, God created “male and female” and then told them to “be fruitful and increase in number” (<a href='B:10 1:27-28'>Gen 1:27-28</a>, NIV). This reproduction was only possible if He was referring to a biological male and female.<p/>Second, sexual orientation is understood biologically, not sociologically, when God said “for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh” (<a href='B:10 2:24'>Gen 2:24</a>, NIV). For only a biological father and mother can produce children, and the reference to “one flesh” speaks of a physical marriage.<p/>Thirdly, the Romans passage says that “men committed indecent acts with other men.” This clearly indicates that this sinful act was homosexual in nature (<a href='B:520 1:27'>Rom 1:27</a>, NIV).<p/>Fourth, what they did was not natural to them. They “exchanged” the “natural relations” for the unnatural ones (<a href='B:520 1:26'>Rom 1:26</a>, NIV). So the homosexual acts were pronounced unnatural for homosexuals too. 


text:
Is immortality acquired or possessed?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Paul speaks here of “seeking” immortality. He also refers to acquiring it at the resurrection (<a href='B:530 15:53'>1Cor 15:53</a>). However, Jesus taught that the soul is immortal, that is, it cannot be destroyed by death (<a href='B:490 12:5'>Luke 12:5</a>). Paul also insists that the soul survives death (<a href='B:540 5:8'>2Cor 5:8</a>; <a href='B:570 1:23'>Phil 1:23</a>; cf. <a href='B:730 6:9'>Rev 6:9</a>). But which is it—do we already possess immortality or do we only acquire it at the resurrection?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The Bible reserves the term “immortality” for humans in their resurrected state. It is something acquired, not possessed before the Resurrection, since Christ, who was the first one to attain an immortal resurrection body (<a href='B:530 15:20'>1Cor 15:20</a>), “brought life and immortality to light” (<a href='B:620 1:10'>2Tim 1:10</a>) for the rest of the race.<p/>Nevertheless, thefact of immortality includes the human soul as well. For the soul is not destroyed by physical death, just as Jesus said (<a href='B:490 12:5'>Luke 12:5</a>). It survives death and goes into either God’s presence (<a href='B:540 5:8'>2Cor 5:8</a>; <a href='B:570 1:23'>Phil 1:23</a>), if it is saved, or into conscious hell (<a href='B:420 16:22-26'>Luke 16:22-26</a>; <a href='B:730 19:20'>Rev 19:20–20:15</a>), if it is lost. Since the soul (and/or spirit) is not mortal, as the body is, in this sense it is proper to say the soul is immortal. However, the whole person—soul and body—is resurrected to immortality. So in this sense, the soul gains immortality at the resurrection of the body.<p/>However, in the biblical sense of living forever in an immortal body, human beings do not possess immortality before the resurrection. Even so, only God is intrinsically immortal (see comments on <a href='B:610 6:16'>1Tim 6:16</a>); whatever immortality humans have, they derive from God. The matter can be summarized as follows:<p/>Indestructible by man Indestructible by God Survives 


text:
How can those who are by nature sinners keep God’s laws of nature?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> <a href='B:560 2:3'>Eph 2:3</a> asserts that all humans are “by nature children of wrath.” But Paul speaks here of unbelieving Gentiles who “by nature do the things contained in the law” (<a href='B:520 2:14'>Rom 2:14</a>). These two things seem mutually opposed.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Ephesians is speaking of the cause of sinful actions, whereas Romans refers to the rule for our actions. The former relates to ourpropensity to sin and the latter to the norm for what is sin. There is a difference between what humans are inclined to do by nature and what they ought to do according to the natural law “written in their hearts” (<a href='B:520 2:15'>Rom 2:15</a>). 


text:
Does this statement imply that we were only potential humans before we were born, not actual human beings?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to this text, “all [human beings] sinned [in Adam].” But, we were not yet even conceived, let alone born, when Adam sinned. Therefore, we could not possibly have been actual human beings. Hence, we must have been merely potential human beings.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> For several reasons it is evident that this text does not prove that unborn human beings are not fully human.<p/>Second, the fact that we were all genetically, representatively, or potentially in Adam, and therefore responsible in his sin, reveals that there is a corporateness about human nature. That is, there is a unity in humanity, so that we cannot separate off one member from another (cf. <a href='B:520 14:7'>Rom 14:7</a>), no matter where we are located.<p/>Third, the very fact that we are all declared sinners from conception (see comments on <a href='B:230 51:5'>Ps 51:5</a>), by virtue of being in Adam, reveals that even from the point of conception one is considered to be part of the actual human race, not merely a potential human being. 


text:
Is it fair to judge all people because of Adam’s sin?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Death came to all people because of the sin of Adam (<a href='B:520 5:12'>Rom 5:12</a>), but <a href='B:520 5:14'>Rom 5:14</a> says, “Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam.” But, if they did not sin like Adam, why are they held accountable?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There are two types of people who may fall into this category: (1) infants, and (2) those who do not deliberately disobey God’s dictate.<p/>First, many Bible scholars believe that infants and small children who die before the age of moral accountability will go to heaven. This is based on the following verses. (1) In <a href='B:100 12:23'>2Sam 12:23</a>, when David’s baby died, he said “I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.” This implies that the baby was with the Lord. (2) In Psalm 139, David speaks of even an unborn baby as written in God’s book in heaven (v. 16). (3) Further, Isaiah distinguishes between those who are not yet old enough to “know to refuse the evil and choose the good” (7:15), which implies they are not yet morally accountable. (4) Jesus added, “if you were blind, you would have no sin” (<a href='B:500 9:41'>John 9:41</a>). (5) And Paul speaks of Christ’s sacrifice making all righteous (<a href='B:520 5:19'>Rom 5:19</a>), which would cover even little children who are born in sin (<a href='B:230 51:5'>Ps 51:5</a>). (See also comments on <a href='B:100 12:23'>2Sam 12:23</a>.)<p/>Second, we “all sinned [in Adam]” as our representative, and as a consequence the guilt of Adam’s sin was imputed to all of us. But Christ’s death cancelled this and released the human race from this judicial guilt (<a href='B:520 5:18-19'>Rom 5:18-19</a>). Even so, those who attain the age of accountability are responsible for their personal sin and therefore are justly condemned.<p/>So those who did not sin in the likeness of Adam, nevertheless still sinned in Adam (<a href='B:520 5:12'>Rom 5:12</a>). That is why death still reigned from the time of Adam and Moses. <a href='B:520 2:14-15'>Rom 2:14-15</a> affirms that the Gentiles, even if they have not the Mosaic Law, still were a law to themselves. They have the Law written in their hearts and their conscience bears witness to their actions. Humans after Adam are still sinful and responsible for their actions.<p/>Just because people do not sin in the likeness of Adam does not mean that they are not sinful. In other words, it doesn’t mean that humans are not held accountable by God for their actions. Man dies because man sins (<a href='B:520 6:23'>Rom 6:23</a>). God is just in condemning sin, and He is merciful in providing salvation for those who will receive it. 


text:
If all are made righteous by Christ why aren’t all saved?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> It is agreed by scholars that in Paul’s contrast between the “one” and the “many” here, that “many” means all. For the “many” were “made sinners” by the “one” (Adam’s) sin, and Paul had already concluded that “all have sinned [in Adam]” a few verses earlier (<a href='B:520 5:12'>Rom 5:12</a>). But if all were “made sinners” means all actually became sinners, then why doesn’t all “will be made righteous” in the same verse mean that all will be saved? (<a href='B:520 5:19'>Rom 5:19</a>)<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There are two broad answers to this question—universalism and particularism. That is, those who claim this verse as proof that all people will eventually be saved and those who believe only some will be saved. Since the Bible clearly rejects universalism (see comments on <a href='B:580 1:20'>Col 1:20</a>), we will focus here on the two general responses of particularists.<p/>The Judicial View: According to this position, all persons were “made sinners” and “made righteous” in the same sense—judicially. That is, both Christ and Adam were our legal representatives. And while in Adam all his race were before God made sinners officially, nonetheless, in Christ all are officially made righteous, though not actually and personally. And just as every person, when they come to the age of accountability (see comments on <a href='B:100 12:23'>2Sam 12:23</a> and <a href='B:520 5:14'>Rom 5:14</a>), must personally sin to be personally guilty, even so everyone must personally accept Christ to be personally saved. Christ removed the official and judicial guilt that was imputed to the race because of Adam’s sin. This does not mean that everyone is actually saved, but only that they are no longer legally condemned. 


text:
Was Jesus actually in human flesh or only in its likeness?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Paul asserts that Jesus was made “in the likeness of sinful flesh,” but he does not assert that Jesus is human flesh. Yet the Bible speaks repeatedly of Jesus being incarnated in human flesh, that is, of being truly human, not just like a human.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Jesus was not just similar to humans—He was human. He did not come simply in something like of human flesh. He came in real human flesh. On this the Scriptures are clear. John declared, “The Word [Christ] became flesh and dwelt among us” (<a href='B:500 1:14'>John 1:14</a>). Later, he warned that anyone who “does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God” (<a href='B:690 4:3'>1John 4:3</a>; cf. <a href='B:700 1:7'>2John 7</a>). Likewise, Paul insisted that “God was manifested in the flesh” (<a href='B:610 3:16'>1Tim 3:16</a>).<p/>Elsewhere in the same book Paul uses the phrase “likeness” to mean being actually like, not just similar (<a href='B:520 1:23'>Rom 1:23</a>; <a href='B:520 5:14'>5:14</a>; <a href='B:520 6:5'>6:5</a>). So, it may be that Paul intended no difference between “likeness” and “the same as.” Or, perhaps when Paul affirmed (in <a href='B:520 8:3'>Rom 8:3</a>) that Jesus was only in the “likeness” of it, he was not speaking of human flesh as such, but of “ sinful human flesh.” Jesus was exactly like human flesh but only similar to sinful human flesh, since He had no sin (<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/>In any event, in <a href='B:570 2'>Philippians 2</a> Paul speaks of Christ being “in the likeness of men” as meaning the same as being human (v. 7). So even without the qualifier “sinful,” Paul speaks of Jesus’ “likeness” to humans as meaning the same as “being human.” 


text:
Is the Holy Spirit our mediator or is Christ?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> First Timothy 2:5 asserts that “there is one … Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus.” But <a href='B:520 8:26'>Rom 8:26</a> informs us that the Holy Spirit intercedes for us to God “with groanings which cannot be uttered.” How can Christ be the only mediator when the Holy Spirit also mediates?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Christ is the only mediator; the Holy Spirit is only an intercessor. Christ alone died for our sins (<a href='B:650 1:1-2'>Heb 1:1-2</a>), making reconciliation with God possible (<a href='B:540 5:19'>2Cor 5:19</a>). The Holy Spirit did not die for our sins; He prays to the Father on our behalf, based on the redeeming work of Christ. Further, the intercession of the Holy Spirit is not in heaven, as Christ’s work is (<a href='B:690 2:1-2'>1John 2:1-2</a>). Rather, it is in us. The indwelling Spirit pleads in us to the Father on the grounds of the mediating work of the Son. 


text:
Are all the called ones saved or only some?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Paul indicates here that all who are “called” by God are eventually “justified” and “glorified” (<a href='B:520 8:30'>Rom 8:30</a>). But Jesus said that “many are called, but few chosen” (<a href='B:470 20:16'>Matt 20:16</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The word “called” is being used in different senses. This is not uncommon in languages. Take, for example, the following sentence: “The dog would bark by the tree but did not scratch the bark from the tree.” Clearly the word “bark” is used in two different senses. Likewise, Paul and Jesus are using different senses of the word “called” which can be contrasted as follows:<p/>Call for salvation Call of salvation 


text:
How can God hate Esau when He is a God of love?<p/>(See comments on <a href='B:460 1:3'>Mal 1:3</a>) 


text:
How can Pharaoh be free if God hardened his heart?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> God said to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth” (<a href='B:520 9:17'>Rom 9:17</a>, NASB). In fulfillment of this, it says that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart (<a href='B:20 4:21'>Ex 4:21</a>; cf. <a href='B:20 7:3'>Ex 7:3</a>). But if God raised up Pharaoh and even hardened his heart to accomplish His divine purposes, then isn’t Pharaoh exempt from responsibility for his actions?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> First, God in His omniscience foreknew exactly how Pharaoh would respond, and He used it to accomplish His purposes. God ordained the means of Pharaoh’s free but stubborn action as well as the end of Israel’s deliverance. In <a href='B:20 3:19'>Exo 3:19</a>, God told Moses, “But I am sure that the king of Egypt will not let you go, no, not even by a mighty hand.” Pharaoh rejected the request of Moses and only after ten plagues did Pharaoh finally let the people go.<p/>Second, it is important to note that Pharaoh first hardened his own heart. When Moses initially approached Pharaoh concerning the release of the Israelites (<a href='B:20 5:1'>Ex 5:1</a>), Pharaoh responded, “Who is the LORD that I should obey His voice to let Israel go? I do not know the LORD, nor will I let Israel go” (<a href='B:20 5:2'>Ex 5:2</a>). The passage Paul quotes (in <a href='B:520 9:17'>Rom 9:17</a>) is <a href='B:20 9:16'>Exo 9:16</a> which, in context, is the plague of the boils, the sixth plague. But Pharaoh hardened his own heart before God made this statement. Just because God raised up Pharaoh does not mean that Pharaoh is not responsible for his actions.<p/>Third, God uses the unrighteousness of humans to show His glory. God still holds Pharaoh accountable, but in the process of his hardened heart God used Pharaoh to display His greatness and glory. God sometimes uses evil acts to bring about good results. The story of Joseph is a good example of this point. Joseph is sold by his brothers and later becomes a ruler in Egypt. In Egypt, Joseph saves many lives during a famine. When he later reveals himself to his brothers and forgives them, he says, “But as for you, you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, in order to bring it about as it is this day, to save many people alive” (<a href='B:10 50:20'>Gen 50:20</a>). God can use bad actions to bring about His glory (see also discussion on <a href='B:20 4:21'>Ex 4:21</a>). 


text:
Does keeping the law bring life?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Paul seems to imply that law-keeping brings life when he cites Leviticus (<a href='B:30 18:5'>18:5</a>) that “the man who does those things [written in the law] shall live by them” (<a href='B:520 10:5'>Rom 10:5</a>). But elsewhere Paul himself calls it “the law of sin and death” (<a href='B:520 8:2'>Rom 8:2</a>). He affirms flatly, “the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death” (<a href='B:520 7:10'>Rom 7:10</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Keeping the law does not bring saving life to anyone. On this the Bible is crystal clear. Paul told the Galatians, “if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law” (<a href='B:550 3:21'>Gal 3:21</a>). He added, “by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight (<a href='B:520 3:20'>Rom 3:20</a>). For “no one isjustified by the law in the sight of God,” for “the just shall live by faith” (<a href='B:550 3:11'>Gal 3:11</a>).<p/>What then do the passages mean that seem to imply that the law will bring life? These are to be understood hypothetically, not actually. Theoretically, if one were to keep the law perfectly he would be perfect, but in actual fact no one can do that. For “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (<a href='B:520 3:23'>Rom 3:23</a>). And “whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all” (<a href='B:660 2:10'>Jam 2:10</a>). To summarize: can keeping the law bring life? <b>YES NO</b><p/>Hypothetically Actually 


text:
How can there be a future for the nation of Israel since they rejected the Messiah?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The nation of Israel clearly rejected Christ as their Messiah (<a href='B:520 9–10'>Rom 9–10</a>; cf. <a href='B:500 1:10-11'>John 1:10-11</a>). And the Bible says that the promises of Abraham go to his spiritual seed, not his descendants according to the flesh (<a href='B:520 4'>Rom 4</a>; <a href='B:550 3'>Gal 3</a>). Why then does <a href='B:520 11'>Rom 11</a> speak of a future for the nation of Israel?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Abraham has both a spiritual seed (descendants) and literal descendants. Anyone who believes in Christ can become a spiritual heir of the promise for justification (<a href='B:520 4'>Rom 4</a>; cf. <a href='B:10 15'>Gen 15</a>), because Christ came of the seed of Abraham (<a href='B:550 3:16'>Gal 3:16</a>).<p/>However, there are also promises to Abraham’s literal descendants, the Jews, that have never yet been completely fulfilled. For example, God unconditionally promised that Abraham’s literal descendants would inherit the land of Palestine forever (<a href='B:10 12:1-3'>Gen 12:1-3</a>; <a href='B:10 13:15'>13:15–17</a>; <a href='B:10 15:7'>15:7–21</a>; <a href='B:10 17:8'>17:8</a>). Only one short time in Israel’s history did they inherit this land (<a href='B:60 11:23'>Josh 11:23</a>), but God gave it to them by an unconditional oath (cf. <a href='B:10 15:7-21'>Gen 15:7-21</a>) “forever” (<a href='B:10 13:15'>Gen 13:15</a>), as an “everlasting possession” (17:8). Since God cannot break an unconditional promise (<a href='B:650 6:17-18'>Heb 6:17-18</a>; <a href='B:620 2:13'>2Tim 2:13</a>), this promise is yet to be fulfilled for the nation of Israel.<p/>Paul is speaking of the literal descendants of Abraham, the children of Israel in Romans 9–11. He calls them “my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites” (<a href='B:520 9:3-4'>Rom 9:3-4</a>) and “Israel” (<a href='B:520 10:1'>Rom 10:1</a>). This same national group (Israel) that was temporarily cut off will be grafted in again into the tree, and “all Israel will be saved” (<a href='B:520 11:26'>Rom 11:26</a>). Jesus spoke of this time in <a href='B:510 1'>Acts 1</a> when asked by His disciples, “Will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” (<a href='B:510 1:6'>Acts 1:6</a>) His answer was not a stern rebuke for misunderstanding the Scriptures, but an assurance that only the Father knows the “times or seasons” in which this will occur (v. 7). Earlier Jesus spoke of “the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, [and] you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (<a href='B:470 19:28'>Matt 19:28</a>). Indeed, in the final book of the Bible, the Apostle John spoke of God redeeming out of the tribulation “one hundred and forty-four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel” (<a href='B:730 7:4'>Rev 7:4</a>). So there is every reason to believe that God will honor His unconditional covenant to Israel to give them the land of Palestine forever. 


text:
Did Paul oppose water baptism?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Paul declares that Christ did not send him to baptize. Yet Christ commissioned His disciples to “make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (<a href='B:470 28:19'>Matt 28:19</a>). Does Paul contradict Christ?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Paul was not opposed to baptism, but neither did he believe it was a condition of salvation (see comments on <a href='B:510 2:38'>Acts 2:38</a>). Paul himself was baptized by water (<a href='B:510 9:18'>Acts 9:18</a>; <a href='B:510 22:16'>22:16</a>), and he taught water baptism in his epistles (cf. <a href='B:520 6:3-4'>Rom 6:3-4</a>; <a href='B:580 2:12'>Col 2:12</a>). Indeed, in this very passage (<a href='B:530 1'>1Cor 1</a>), Paul admits that he baptized several people (vv. 14, 16) as he did the Philippian jailor after he was saved (<a href='B:510 16:31-33'>Acts 16:31-33</a>). While Paul believed water baptism was a symbol of salvation, he did not believe it was part of the Gospel or essential to salvation. 


text:
How could Paul say the rulers of this world did not know Christ, when Christ came before them at His trial?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The apostle affirms that “none of the rulers of this age knew [Christ]; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.” Yet Jesus came before both Jewish and Gentile rulers, including Pilate, Herod, and Caiaphas (cf. Matt. 26–27; Mark 14–15; Luke 22–23; John 18–19).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> First of all, Paul does not say they did not know Christ; he said they did not know the “mystery” about Christ’s redemption that was hidden for ages (<a href='B:530 2:7-8'>1Cor 2:7-8</a>; cf. <a href='B:560 3:3-4'>Eph 3:3-4</a>). Second, they knew that they had allowed Christ to be crucified (cf. <a href='B:470 21:38'>Matt 21:38</a>), but they “did it in ignorance” (cf. <a href='B:510 3:17'>Acts 3:17</a>), not realizing the implications of their decision. They were morally blinded (cf. <a href='B:500 16:3'>John 16:3</a>), even though they were physically and socially aware of the fact that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified. 


text:
Who is the foundation of the church, Christ or the apostles?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> In this text, Paul insists that “no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” On the other hand, Paul told the Ephesians that the church is “built on the foundation of the apostles” (<a href='B:560 2:20'>Eph 2:20</a>). Which is it?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The answer is in the very next phrase in the last quote: “Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone” (<a href='B:560 2:20'>Eph 2:20</a>). Christ is the foundation in a primary sense, and His chosen apostles are the foundation in a secondary sense. Christ is, as it were, the substructure, and the apostles are the foundation built on that (see <a href='B:470 16:16-18'>Matt 16:16-18</a>). Christ isthe kingpin that holds the apostolic foundation of the church together. It was His deeds (death and resurrection) and their doctrine (cf. <a href='B:510 2:42'>Acts 2:42</a>) about Him that formed the foundation of the Christian church. 


text:
Does this passage support the Roman Catholic view of purgatory?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Roman Catholics appeal to this passage in support of the doctrine of temporary punishment for those not good enough to go directly to heaven. They point to the fact that it speaks of people who “suffer loss” when their works are “burned” by fire and yet they are eventually “saved” (<a href='B:530 3:15'>1Cor 3:15</a>). Does the Bible teach that there is a temporary hell (purgatory) where people suffer for their sins before they are let into heaven?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Nowhere does the Bible teach the doctrine of purgatory. This doctrine is contrary to many facts of Scripture.<p/>First, hell is a permanent place of “everlasting fire” (<a href='B:470 25:41'>Matt 25:41</a>). It entails “everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord” (<a href='B:600 1:9'>2Thes 1:9</a>; see comments on that passage). Jesus declared it is a place where the fire “shall never be quenched” and where the body “does not die” (<a href='B:480 9:45'>Mark 9:45</a>; <a href='B:480 9:48'>48</a>).<p/>Second, once one goes to hell, he can never get out. Jesus said there is “a great gulf fixed, so that those who want to pass” from one side to the other cannot do so (<a href='B:490 16:26'>Luke 16:26</a>). This is true even if they regret being there (<a href='B:490 16:23'>Luke 16:23</a>; <a href='B:420 16:28'>28</a>).<p/>Third, the doctrine of purgatory is an insult to the all-sufficiency of the death of Christ on the cross. When Jesus died for our sins (<a href='B:530 15:3'>1Cor 15:3</a>) He announced, “It is finished” (<a href='B:500 19:30'>John 19:30</a>). Looking forward to the cross, He prayed to the Father, “I have finished the work which you have given Me to do” (<a href='B:500 17:4'>John 17:4</a>). Hebrews informs us that “after He [Jesus] had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, [He] sat down at the right hand of God” (<a href='B:650 10:12'>Heb 10:12</a>). “For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified” (<a href='B:650 10:14'>Heb 10:14</a>).<p/>Fourth, the only purgatory ever to be experienced was experienced by Christ on the cross when He purged our sins. Hebrews declares that “when He had by Himself purged our sins, [He] sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high” (<a href='B:650 1:3'>Heb 1:3</a>).<p/>Finally, in 1 Corinthians, Paul is not speaking of purgatory, but of the “judgment seat of Christ,” before which all believers must come to receive their rewards “for the things done in the body” (<a href='B:540 5:10'>2Cor 5:10</a>). All our “work” will be “revealed by fire.” And “if anyone’s work … endures, he will receive a reward” (<a href='B:530 3:13-14'>1Cor 3:13-14</a>). And “if anyone’s work is burned, he will suffer loss [of reward]; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through the fire” (<a href='B:530 3:14-15'>1Cor 3:14-15</a>). Since salvation from hell is by grace, not by works (<a href='B:520 4:5'>Rom 4:5</a>; <a href='B:560 2:8-9'>Eph 2:8-9</a>; <a href='B:630 3:5-7'>Titus 3:5-7</a>), it is clear that this passage is speaking about the “work” and “reward” of the believer for serving Christ, not about any alleged purgatory where they (instead of Christ) suffer for their sins. 


text:
How could Paul consider the words of Eliphaz inspired when God rebuked Eliphaz for saying them to Job?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> In <a href='B:530 3:19'>1Cor 3:19</a> the Apostle Paul quotes from the Book of Job a statement made by one of Job’s friends Eliphaz which says, “For it is written, `He catches the wise in their own craftiness’ ” (cf. <a href='B:220 5:13'>Job 5:13</a>). Yet later in Job, God says to Eliphaz, “My wrath is aroused against you and your two friends, for you have not spoken of Me what is right, as My servant Job has” (<a href='B:220 42:7'>Job 42:7</a>). If what Eliphaz spoke was not right, then can his words be considered inspired?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> First, God did not say that everything uttered by Eliphaz was false, but only his accusations that God was punishing Job because of his sin. On this point Eliphaz and his friends did not speak what was right of God. For God considered Job perfect, a man who did good and turned away from evil (<a href='B:220 2:3'>Job 2:3</a>). Satan thought that, given the right circumstances, Job would curse God (2:4–5). Therefore, the things that happened to Job were allowed by God to show that Job would not curse Him. They did not happen because he had sinned. In light of this, Job’s friends were wrong. But this does not mean that they never said anything that was true in their speeches. For example, Eliphaz is certainly correct in asserting that “He [God] gives rain on the earth, and sends waters on the fields” (<a href='B:220 5:10'>Job 5:10</a>). Likewise, he is right in affirming that God “catches the wise in their own craftiness” (<a href='B:220 5:13'>Job 5:13</a>).<p/>Second, Paul uses the phrase “It is written” to introduce the quoted material. This is a standard practice in the NT to show that a particular passage is authoritative (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>). Thus the inspired NT places its approval on this statement as true. Indeed, the fact that God takes up this same basic truth in His declaration to Job (37:24) gives divine approval to it and makes it appropriate for Paul to quote it as inspired. 


text:
If Paul wrote an inspired epistle, how could God allow it to be lost?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Paul refers to a previous epistle he “wrote” to the Corinthians which is not in existence. But since it was written by an apostle to a church and contained spiritual and authoritative instruction, it must be considered inspired. This raises the question as to how an epistle inspired of God could be allowed by Him to be lost.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There are three possibilities here.<p/>Second, others believe that the letter referred to (in <a href='B:530 5:9'>1Cor 5:9</a>) may not be lost at all, but is part of an existing book in the Bible. For example, it could be part of what we know as 2 Corinthians (chaps. 10–13), which some believe was later put together with chapters 1–9. In support of this is offered the fact that chapters 1–9 have a decidedly different tone from the rest of the Book of 2 Corinthians (chapters 10–13). This may indicate that it was written on a different occasion. In addition, they point to the use of the word “now” (in 5:11) in contrast to an implied “then” when the former book was written. They also note that Paul refers to “letters” (plural) he had written in <a href='B:540 10:10'>2Cor 10:10</a>.<p/>Third, others believe that Paul is referring to the present Book of 1 Corinthians in <a href='B:530 5:9'>1Cor 5:9</a>, that is, to the very book which he was writing at the time. In support of this they note the following:1) Even though the Greek aorist tense used here (“I wrote”) may refer to a past letter, it could also refer to the book at hand. This is called an “epistolary aorist,” because it refers to the very book in which it is being used.2) In Greek, the aorist tense is not a past tense as such. It has reference to the kind of action, rather than to the time of action. It identifies a completed action that may have even taken a long time to be accomplished (cf. <a href='B:500 2:20'>John 2:20</a>).3) The aorist tense often implies a decisive action, in which case Paul would be saying something like this: “I am now decisively writing to you.” This certainly fits the context of this passage in which he is urging the church to take immediate action to excommunicate a wayward member.4) An “epistolary aorist” is used by Paul elsewhere in this very letter when he said, “I am not writing these things that it may be done so in my case” (<a href='B:530 9:15'>1Cor 9:15</a>, NASB).5) There is absolutely no indication in early church history that any such letter of Paul, other than the existing 1 and 2 Corinthians, ever existed. The reference in <a href='B:540 10:10'>2Cor 10:10</a> saying, “his letters are weighty” may mean no more than “what he writes is weighty.” And the “now” of <a href='B:530 5:11'>1Cor 5:11</a> need not indicate a later letter. It can be translated “rather” (RSV) or “actually” (NASB). 


text:
How will the saints judge the world and angels?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The Bible asserts that God is the judge of the world (<a href='B:230 96:13'>Ps 96:13</a>; <a href='B:510 17:31'>Acts 17:31</a>; <a href='B:730 20:11-15'>Rev 20:11-15</a>), including evil angels (<a href='B:680 2:4'>2Peter 2:4</a>; <a href='B:730 12:9'>Rev 12:9</a>). Why, then, does Paul affirm that Christians will be the judges of the world and angels?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Obviously, God is the judge of wicked humans and angels in a different sense in which Christians will be. Whatever judgment we have will be as God’s delegates or representatives, not by any right we have inherent in ourselves. We are simply the instruments through which God executes His judgment. We do not make the ultimate decisions.<p/>First, during Christ’s reign, the apostles “will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (<a href='B:470 19:28'>Matt 19:28</a>).<p/>Second, those who were faithful to Christ during the tribulation “reigned with Christ for a thousand years” (<a href='B:730 20:4'>Rev 20:4</a>). John said, “I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them” (<a href='B:730 20:4'>Rev 20:4</a>).<p/>Third, some believe that God will judge the godless by the godly conduct of believers. Jesus said even of the men of Nineveh that they “will rise in the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah” (<a href='B:470 12:41'>Matt 12:41</a>). Apparently, God will hold up repentant sinners as examples to those who did not repent, and those who did not repent will, therefore, be justly condemned by their own contemporaries. Likewise, the angels who sinned in the perfect environment of heaven will be judged on the basis of the conduct of humans who were saved in the imperfect environment of earth (cf. <a href='B:680 2:4'>2Peter 2:4</a>). 


text:
Was Paul’s condemnation of homosexuality merely his private opinion?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Paul told the Corinthians that “neither fornicators … nor homosexuals … will inherit the kingdom of God” (6:9–10). But in the same book he admitted that he was only giving his private “opinion” (<a href='B:530 7:25'>1Cor 7:25</a>, NASB). In fact, Paul admitted, “I have no commandment from the Lord” (v. 25), and “I [say this], not the Lord” (v. 10). Was not this, by his own confession, merely Paul’s own nonbinding opinion on this issue?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Paul’s condemnation against homosexuality is divinely authoritative and not merely his private opinion. This is made plain once the evidence is fully examined.<p/>First of all, Paul’s clearest condemnation of homosexuality is in <a href='B:520 1:26-27'>Rom 1:26-27</a>, the divine authority of which is not challenged by anyone who accepts the inspiration of Scripture.<p/>Second, Paul’s apostolic credentials are firmly established in Scripture. He delcared in Galatians that his revelations were not something that man made up, but were “received … by revelation from Jesus Christ” (<a href='B:550 1:12'>Gal 1:12</a>).<p/>Third, Paul declared to the Corinthians that, “The things that mark an apostle— signs, wonders, and miracles—were done among you” (<a href='B:540 12:12'>2Cor 12:12</a>, NIV). In short, he had exercised apostolic authority in his ministry to the Corinthian Christians.<p/>Fourth, even here in the Book of 1 Corinthians where Paul’s authority is severely challenged by his critics, his divine authority is made evident in three ways. (1) He begins the book by claiming that he has “words taught by the Spirit” (<a href='B:530 2:13'>1Cor 2:13</a>, NIV). (2) He concludes the books claiming, “what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command” (14:37, NIV). (3) Even in the disputed chapter 7 where Paul is alleged to be giving his own uninspired opinion, he declares “I too have the Spirit of God” (v. 40, NIV). Indeed, when he said “I, not the Lord” he does not mean his words are not from the Lord; this would contradict everything he says elsewhere. Rather, it means that Jesus did not speak directly to this matter while on earth. But Jesus promised His apostles that He would send the Holy Spirit to “guide you into all truth” (<a href='B:500 16:13'>John 16:13</a>). And Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians was a fulfillment of that promise.<p/><b><a href='B:530 6:9'>1Cor 6:9</a> —</b> Was Paul against all homosexual acts or only offensive ones?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to the NIV, <a href='B:530 6:9'>1Cor 6:9</a> speaks only against “homosexual offenders,” not against homosexuality as such. That is, the passage only condemns offensive homosexual acts, but it is not against homosexual activity per se. Was Paul against homosexual behavior or only offensive homosexual behavior?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> When Paul speaks of “homosexual offenders” (NIV) it means the offense of homosexuality, not an offensive homosexual act as opposed to a non-offensive one. This is made plain by several factors. First, “homosexual” qualifies “offenders,” not the reverse. That is, it speaks against a homosexual kind of offense, not an offensive kind of homosexual.<p/>Third, no such qualification—that only offensive kinds of homosexuality are wrong—is made anywhere else in Scripture in the numerous times it is condemned (see <a href='B:30 18:22-24'>Lev 18:22-24</a>; <a href='B:520 1:26'>Rom 1:26</a>; cf. also <a href='B:610 1:10'>1Tim 1:10</a>; <a href='B:720 1:7'>Jude 7</a>). 


text:
If God is going to destroy the body, then how can it be resurrected?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Paul said, “Foods for the stomach and the stomach for foods; but God will destroy both it and them” (<a href='B:530 6:13'>1Cor 6:13</a>). On this basis, some argue that the resurrection body will not have the anatomy or physiology of the pre-resurrection body. On the other hand, Paul inferred that we would recognize our loved ones in heaven (<a href='B:590 4:13-18'>1Thes 4:13-18</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The body that goes into the grave is the same body, made immortal, that comes out of it. This is proven by the fact that Jesus’ tomb was empty, He had the crucifixion scars in His body (<a href='B:500 20:27'>John 20:27</a>), that His body was “flesh and bones” (<a href='B:490 24:39'>Luke 24:39</a>), that people could and did touch it (<a href='B:470 28:9'>Matt 28:9</a>), and that He could and did eat physical food (<a href='B:420 24:40-42'>Luke 24:40-42</a>).<p/>As for <a href='B:530 6:13'>1Cor 6:13</a>, a careful study of the context here reveals that, when Paul says God will destroy both food and the stomach, he is referring to theprocess of death, not to the nature of the resurrection body. For he refers to the process of death by which “God will destroy both it and them” (v. 13). Further, while the resurrection body may not have the need to eat, it does, however, have the ability to eat. Eating in heaven will be a joy without being a need. So, the body that death “destroys” (decays), is the same one that resurrection restores. To argue that there will be no resurrection body because the stomach will be “destroyed” is tantamount to claiming that the rest of the body—head, arms, legs, and torso—will not be resurrected because death will also turn them into dust. 


text:
Does Paul contradict what Jesus said about divorce?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> This passage from 1 Corinthians talks about a Christian who has an unbelieving mate. At one point, Paul says, “But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases” (v. 15). Jesus said in <a href='B:470 5:32'>Mat 5:32</a> and 19:8–9 that one can divorce a spouse only in the case of marital unfaithfulness. Does Paul advocate divorce or abandonment?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There is no discrepancy between what Paul says and the words of the Lord Jesus.<p/>First, Paul says that if one spouse is a Christian and the other isn’t, and if that unbelieving spouse does not want to leave, the Christian should not insist they do (vv. 12–13).<p/>Also, Paul does not tell the spouse to divorce or remarry if the unbelieving spouse leaves. Rather, he suggests that they remain unmarried (v. 11), undoubtedly in hope for reconciliation. God’s ideal for marriage is one man and one woman united till death (<a href='B:530 7:2'>1Cor 7:2</a>; cf. <a href='B:520 7:1-2'>Rom 7:1-2</a>). Hence, as long as there is hope for reunion, both partners are obligated to work to that end. This accords completely with what Jesus said about permanence of marriage (in <a href='B:470 5:33'>Matt 5:33</a> and 19:7–9). 


text:
How can Paul’s words be inspired if he says he is merely giving his own opinion?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> In two places in 1 Corinthians (<a href='B:530 7:12,40'>7:12,40</a>), the Apostle Paul seems to imply that he is writing on his own authority, not the Lord’s. First, in 7:12 Paul says, “But to the rest I, not the Lord.” And in 7:40 he says “and I think I also have the Spirit of God” which seems to imply that Paul is not sure if he has the Holy Spirit. How can these verses be harmonized with the divine authority claimed by Paul in his epistles (cf. <a href='B:550 1:11-17'>Gal 1:11-17</a>; <a href='B:620 3:16-17'>2Tim 3:16-17</a>)?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> First, concerning <a href='B:530 7:12'>1Cor 7:12</a>, Paul is referring to the fact that the Lord did not directly address this issue when He spoke about divorce and marriage (<a href='B:470 5:31-32'>Mat 5:31-32</a>; <a href='B:470 19:4'>19:4–12</a>). So Paul does speak to it here, giving his authoritative view on whether a believing wife should stay with an unbelieving husband.<p/>Second, Paul was not uncertain of his possession of the Holy Spirit on this matter, since he said clearly “I also have the Spirit of God” (<a href='B:530 7:40'>1Cor 7:40</a>). So this passage cannot be used to show that Paul disclaimed divine authority.<p/>Finally, Paul clearly affirmed his divine authority in this very book, declaring what he wrote as “words … the Holy Spirit teaches” (<a href='B:530 2:13'>1Cor 2:13</a>). Indeed, he concludes the book by saying, “the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord” (14:37). So his words in chapter 7 should be taken in harmony with these emphatic claims. 


text:
If idols are nothing, why does God condemn idolatry?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Paul affirms here that “an idol is nothing in the world.” Yet the Bible repeatedly condemns idolatry (cf. <a href='B:20 20:4'>Ex 20:4</a>), and even Paul said there are demons behind idols (<a href='B:530 10:19'>1Cor 10:19</a>). Is he then claiming that demons are nothing?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Paul does not deny the existence of idols, but simply their ability to affect mature believers who eat meat that has been offered to them (cf. 8:1). It is not the reality of idols, but their divinity which Paul denies. The devil does deceive idolaters (<a href='B:530 10:19'>1Cor 10:19</a>), but he cannot destroy the meat which God has created and pronounced good (<a href='B:10 1:31'>Gen 1:31</a>; <a href='B:610 4:4'>1Tim 4:4</a>), even if someone else has offered it to an idol. 


text:
Does Paul encourage or discourage running to obtain a spiritual goal?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> In this text, the apostle encourages the believer to “run in such a way that you may obtain it.” However, in Romans, Paul informs us that “it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy” (9:16).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The first passage is speaking about rewards which do depend on our works (cf. <a href='B:530 3:11'>1Cor 3:11</a>ff and <a href='B:540 5:10'>2Cor 5:10</a>), while the last passage is speaking about salvation which is by grace and not by works (<a href='B:520 4:5'>Rom 4:5</a>; <a href='B:560 2:8-9'>Eph 2:8-9</a>; <a href='B:630 3:5-7'>Titus 3:5-7</a>). 


text:
Does Paul make a mistake in quoting how many people died?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Paul says in this verse that 23,000 people died. In <a href='B:20 32:28'>Exo 32:28</a>, the number of people listed as having died <a href='B:290 3'>is 3,000</a>. This would seem to be an error.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> First, the people killed in <a href='B:20 32:28'>Exo 32:28</a> were killed by the sword, and those Paul mentions are those killed by the sword and a plague. <a href='B:20 32:35'>Exo 32:35</a> says, “So the LORD plagued the people because of what they did with the calf which Aaron made.” Paul gives a complete total from the plague as well as the sword. But <a href='B:20 32:28'>Exo 32:28</a> gives only the number of those killed by the sword.<p/>Second, some feel that the number of people killed that Paul gives relates to an account of judgment in <a href='B:40 25:9'>Numbers 25:9</a> which says that 24,000 were killed. This may be answered in two ways. First of all, the passage in Numbers does not give a specific time period in which how many people died. Yet, the Apostle Paul says that 23,000 died in one day. Here Paul is giving an account of those killed in one day as opposed to the passage in Numbers which does not specify how many were killed in one day, but gives the total. Further, some say that Paul does not refer to this passage in Numbers because <a href='B:530 10:7'>1Cor 10:7</a> quotes from <a href='B:20 32:6'>Exo 32:6</a> which would fit the context of 1 Corinthians and <a href='B:20 32:28'>Exo 32:28</a>. 


text:
Should women wear veils when they pray?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Paul insisted here that “every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head” (v. 5). Does this mean that women should wear veils in church today, or is this purely cultural? And if it is cultural, then how do we know what is cultural and what is not?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Several considerations will cast light on this difficult problem.<p/>Second, there is a difference between command and culture. The commands of Scripture are absolute—culture is relative. For example, few believe that Jesus’ command to His disciples not to have an extra pair of sandals with them while on an evangelistic tour applies today. And most Christians do not literally “Greet all the brethren with a holy kiss” anymore (<a href='B:590 5:26'>1Thes 5:26</a>). Nor do they believe that “lifting up holy hands in prayer” is essential to public prayer (<a href='B:610 2:8'>1Tim 2:8</a>). There is a principle behind all these commands that is absolute, but thepractice is not. What Christians must do is absolute, but how they do it is culturally relative. For example, Christians must greet one another (the what), but how they greet each other will be relative to their respective cultures. In some cultures, as in the NT, it will be with a kiss, in others with a hug, and in still others with a handshake. Many Bible scholars believe that this principle is also true of the practice of wearing a veil. That is, women in all cultures at all times must show respect for their husbands (the what), but how this respect is manifest may not always be with a veil. For example, it might be with a wedding ring or some other cultural symbol. 


text:
How can nature teach that long hair is wrong for a man when length of hair is culturally relative?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Paul asked, “Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him?” But, the length of a man’s hair is relative to the culture and time in which he lives. It is not something that is known by nature.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> This is a difficult passage, and commentators are not in agreement on it. But, there are two general kinds of answers.<p/>Nature Understood Subjectively. In this sense, “nature” denotes the instinctive feelings or intuitive sense of what is proper. This, of course, may be affected by habits and practices unique to the culture. If this is the sense of the passage, then Paul’s statement means something like this: “Do not your own customs teach you that long hair is a shame for a man to have?” This interpretation is difficult to justify in terms of the normal meaning of the word “nature” (phusis) which has a much stronger sense than “custom” in the NT (cf. <a href='B:520 1:26'>Rom 1:26</a>; <a href='B:520 2:14'>2:14</a>).<p/>Nature Understood Objectively. In this sense, “nature” means the order of natural laws. Paul speaks of homosexuality as being “against nature” (<a href='B:520 1:26'>Rom 1:26</a>) and of Gentiles knowing “by nature”—that is, by the “law written in their hearts” (<a href='B:520 2:15'>Rom 2:15</a>)—what is right and what is wrong. In this sense, Paul is saying something like this: “Even heathen, who have no special revelation, still have a natural inclination to distinguish the sexes by the length of their hair, women generally having fuller and longer hair.” Human beings instinctively distinguish between the sexes in different ways, one of which is the length of hair. There were exceptions arising out of necessity (health, safety), perversity (homosexuality), or special sanctity (the vow of the Nazarite). But, these only serve to prove the general rule based on the natural tendency to differentiate the sexes based on length of hair.<p/>Of course, no absolute standard of what is “long” was in mind. This would vary with the culture. The main point was to aid in distinguishing the sexes. It was for this reason that the OT also forbade a man to dress like a woman (<a href='B:50 22:5'>Deut 22:5</a>), a practice that would have given rise to all sorts of improprieties, both social and moral. 


text:
If coveting is wrong, why does Paul encourage coveting the best gifts?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> One of the Ten Commandments says, “You shall not covet” (<a href='B:20 20:17'>Ex 20:17</a>). Yet Paul encourages the Christian church at Corinth to “covet earnestly the best gifts” (<a href='B:530 12:31'>1Cor 12:31</a>, KJV).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> “Covet” is used here in the good sense of “earnestly desire” (NKJV), rather than in the bad sense of an unlawful craving of what does not belong to us. 


text:
Did Jesus only appear to believers?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Some critics have attempted to cast doubt on the validity of Christ’s resurrection by insisting that He appeared only to believers, but never to unbelievers. Is this so?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> It is incorrect to claim that Jesus did not appear to unbelievers. This is clear for several reasons.<p/>First, He appeared to the most hostile unbeliever of all, Saul of Tarsus (<a href='B:510 9:1'>Acts 9:1</a>ff). The Bible devotes much of several chapters to relate this story (<a href='B:510 9'>Acts 9</a>; <a href='B:510 22'>22</a>; <a href='B:510 26'>26</a>).<p/>Second, even Jesus’ disciples were unbelievers in the resurrection when He first appeared to them. When Mary Magdalene and others reported that Jesus was resurrected “their words seemed to them like idle tales, and they did not believe them” (<a href='B:490 24:11'>Luke 24:11</a>). Later, Jesus had to chide the two disciples on the road to Emmaus about disbelief in His resurrection, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken!” (<a href='B:490 24:25'>Luke 24:25</a>) Even after Jesus had appeared to the women, to Peter, to the two disciples, and to the ten apostles, still Thomas said, “Unless I see the nail marks in His hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe it” (<a href='B:500 20:25'>John 20:25</a>, NIV). He was hardly a believer in the resurrection.<p/>Finally, in addition to appearing to His unbelieving disciples, Jesus also appeared to some who were not His disciples at all. He appeared to His brother James (<a href='B:530 15:7'>1Cor 15:7</a>), who, with his other brothers, was not a believer before the Resurrection (<a href='B:500 7:5'>John 7:5</a>). So, it is simply false to claim that Jesus did not appear to unbelievers.<p/><b><a href='B:530 15:5-8'>1Cor 15:5-8</a> —</b> Why did Jesus appear to only a select few?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Some critics have suggested that the fact that only a few saw Jesus after His resurrection indicates that He was essentially invisible to the human eye, and only materialized to a few people on select occasions. But this is contrary to the orthodox contention that Jesus’ resurrection was literal and physical.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> First of all, Jesus did not appear to only a few people. He appeared to over 500 people (<a href='B:530 15:6'>1Cor 15:6</a>), including many women, His own apostles, His brother James, and to Saul of Tarsus (the chief anti-Christian of the day).<p/>Second, Jesus did not simply appear on a few occasions. He appeared on at least 12 different occasions. These were spread over a 40-day period of time (<a href='B:510 1:3'>Acts 1:3</a>) and in many different geographical locations. (See chart on <a href='B:470 28:9'>Matt 28:9</a>.)<p/>Third, Jesus did not allow just anyone to lay hands on Him even before His resurrection. On one occasion, an unbelieving crowd tried to take Jesus and “throw Him down over the cliff. Then passing through the midst of them, He went on his way” (<a href='B:420 4:29-30'>Luke 4:29-30</a>; cf. <a href='B:500 8:59'>John 8:59</a>; <a href='B:500 10:39'>10:39</a>).<p/>Fourth, even before His resurrection, Jesus was selective about those for whom He performed miracles. He refused to perform miracles in His own home area “because of their unbelief” (<a href='B:470 13:58'>Matt 13:58</a>). Jesus even disappointed Herod who had hoped to see Him perform a miracle (<a href='B:490 23:8'>Luke 23:8</a>). The truth is that Jesus refused to cast pearls before swine (<a href='B:470 7:6'>Matt 7:6</a>). In submission to the Father’s will (<a href='B:500 5:30'>John 5:30</a>), He was sovereign over His activity both before and after His resurrection. But this in no way proves that He was essentially invisible and immaterial either before or after His resurrection. 


text:
Was Paul’s boasting contrary to Scripture?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Paul boasted here when he declared, “I labored more abundantly than they all.” In <a href='B:540 11:16'>2Cor 11:16</a>, Paul even admitted that he was bragging, claiming that none of the other apostles had anything on him (cf. <a href='B:540 12:11'>2Cor 12:11</a>). But Paul himself admitted that boasting was wrong and “that no flesh should glory in His presence” (<a href='B:530 1:29'>1Cor 1:29</a>). And Proverbs exhorts, “Let another man praise you, and not your own mouth” (<a href='B:240 27:2'>Prov 27:2</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> It is important to note, first of all, that when Paul boasted he admitted, “I speak not according to the Lord, but as it were, foolishly” (<a href='B:540 11:17'>2Cor 11:17</a>). Furthermore, Paul qualified his boasts by phrases like “though I am nothing” (<a href='B:540 12:11'>2Cor 12:11</a>) and “not I, but the grace of God” (<a href='B:530 15:10'>1Cor 15:10</a>). His “boasts” must be understood in the light of his confession that “by the grace of God I am what I am” (<a href='B:530 15:10'>1Cor 15:10</a>). In addition, Paul’s motive was not one of self-applause or self- vindication, but the defense and spread of the Gospel. Finally, Paul did not glory in theflesh. He gloried rather in the Lord and in the privilege to be humiliated and persecuted for Him (<a href='B:540 11:22'>2Cor 11:22</a>ff). This kind of “boasting” is in perfect harmony with true humility. 


text:
Was Jesus the first one ever to be resurrected from the dead?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The Bible seems to claim here that Christ was the first one ever to rise from the dead, calling Him “the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.” However, there are many other resurrections recorded in the Bible before Jesus’ resurrection, both in the OT (cf. <a href='B:110 17:22'>1Ki 17:22</a>; <a href='B:120 13:21'>2Ki 13:21</a>) and in the NT (cf. <a href='B:500 11:43-44'>John 11:43-44</a>; <a href='B:510 20:9'>Acts 20:9</a>). How then could Jesus’ resurrection be the first one.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> When Jesus returned from the dead, it was the first real resurrection. Every other raising from the dead was merely a resuscitation or revivification of a dead body. There are some crucial differences between a true resurrection and a mere resuscitation.<p/>First of all, a resurrection is to an immortal body, whereas a resuscitation is merely back to a mortal body (cf. <a href='B:530 15:53'>1Cor 15:53</a>). That is to say, Lazarus and everyone else who was raised from the dead before Christ eventually died again. Christ’s resurrection was the first to declare anyone “alive forevermore” (<a href='B:730 1:18'>Rev 1:18</a>).<p/>Further, resurrection bodies manifest some supernatural qualities, not inherent in mortal bodies, such as, the ability to appear and disappear from sight immediately (<a href='B:490 24:31'>Luke 24:31</a>) or to get inside a closed room (<a href='B:500 20:19'>John 20:19</a>).<p/>Finally, while a resurrection is more than a resuscitation, it was not less than one. Resuscitated corpses die again, but Jesus’ resurrection body was immortal. He conquered death (<a href='B:650 2:14'>Heb 2:14</a>; <a href='B:530 15:54-55'>1Cor 15:54-55</a>), whereas merely resuscitated bodies will eventually be conquered by death. However, that Jesus was the first to be raised in an immortal body does not mean it was an immaterial body. It was more than a reanimation of a material corpse, but it was not less than that. It was His same body of “flesh and bones” (<a href='B:490 24:39'>Luke 24:39</a>). 


text:
Doesn’t advocating baptism for the dead contradict Paul’s teaching that each person must believe individually?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Paul said, “what will they do who are baptized for the dead?” This seems to imply that if a person gets baptized on the account of a dead person, then the deceased will be saved. But, this is in conflict with the clear teaching of Scripture that anyone old enough must believe for himself or herself (<a href='B:500 3:16'>John 3:16</a>; <a href='B:520 10:9-13'>Rom 10:9-13</a>; cf. <a href='B:330 18:20'>Ezek 18:20</a>) to be saved.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> This is an obscure and isolated passage. It is unwise to base any doctrine on such a passage. Rather, one should always use the clear passages of Scripture to interpret the unclear ones. The Bible is emphatic that baptism does not save (see comments on <a href='B:510 2:38'>Acts 2:38</a>). We are saved by grace through faith, not by works (<a href='B:560 2:8-9'>Eph 2:8-9</a>; <a href='B:630 3:5-7'>Titus 3:5-7</a>; <a href='B:520 4:5'>Rom 4:5</a>). Further, we cannot do anything that would obtain salvation for another person. Each person must personally believe (<a href='B:500 1:12'>John 1:12</a>). Everyone must make his own free choice (<a href='B:470 23:37'>Matt 23:37</a>; <a href='B:680 3:9'>2Pet 3:9</a>).<p/>Some believe Paul is referring to a cultic practice among the Corinthians who had many other false beliefs (cf. <a href='B:530 5'>1Cor 5</a>; <a href='B:530 12'>12</a>). In effect, Paul would be saying, “If you don’t believe in the Resurrection, then why engage in the practice of baptizing people for the dead. You are inconsistent with your own (false) beliefs.” They think that the practice was so obviously wrong that Paul does not need to condemn it explicitly. They point to the fact that Paul says “they” (others) not “we” baptize the dead (v. 29).<p/>Some suggest that Paul is referring to the fact that baptism symbolizes the believer’s death with Christ (<a href='B:520 6:3-5'>Rom 6:3-5</a>). The Greek word “for” (eis) can mean “with a view to.” In this sense, he would be saying, “Why are you baptized with a view to your death and resurrection with Christ, if you do not believe in the Resurrection?” 


text:
By quoting a pagan poet as part of Scripture, doesn’t Paul thereby pronounce this pagan writing a part of Scripture?<p/>(See comments on <a href='B:630 1:12'>Titus 1:12</a>) 


text:
Is Paul teaching that the resurrection body is a different one from the one that is sown—a kind of reincarnation?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to this verse, we “do not sow that body that shall be.” Some take this to mean the resurrection body is a different one, a “spiritual” (v. 44) body that is not essentially material (see comments on <a href='B:530 15:44'>1Cor 15:44</a>). Does this prove that we are not raised in the same physical body of flesh and bones in which we die?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There are real changes in the resurrection body, but it is not changed into a nonphysical body—one substantially different from the one we possess now. The seed that goes into the ground brings forth more seeds that are the same kind, not immaterial seeds. It is in this sense that Paul can say “you do not sow [cause to die] the body that shall be,” since it is immortal and cannot die. The body that is raised is different in that it is immortal (<a href='B:530 15:53'>1Cor 15:53</a>), not in that it is immaterial. Of His resurrection body Jesus said, “It is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not haveflesh and bones as you see I have” (<a href='B:490 24:39'>Luke 24:39</a>).<p/>There are many reasons for holding that the resurrection body, though transformed and glorified, is the numerically same body of flesh and bones Jesus possessed before His resurrection. And since our resurrection bodies will be like His (<a href='B:570 3:21'>Phil 3:21</a>), the same is true of the believer’s resurrection body. Notice these characteristics of Jesus’ resurrection body: (1) It was the same body with the crucifixion scars it had from before the resurrection (<a href='B:490 24:39'>Luke 24:39</a>; <a href='B:500 20:27'>John 20:27</a>). (2) It was the same body that left the empty tomb behind (<a href='B:470 28:6'>Matt 28:6</a>; <a href='B:500 20:5-7'>John 20:5-7</a>; cf. <a href='B:500 5:28-29'>John 5:28-29</a>). (3) The physical body of Jesus did not corrupt in the tomb (<a href='B:510 2:31'>Acts 2:31</a>). (4) Jesus said the same body that is destroyed will be built up again (<a href='B:500 2:21-22'>John 2:21-22</a>). (5) The immortal body is “put on” over, but does not replace, the mortal body (<a href='B:530 15:53'>1Cor 15:53</a>). (6) The plant that springs forth from the seed is both genetically and physically connected with the seed. What is sown is what is reaped (<a href='B:530 15:37-38'>1Cor 15:37-38</a>). (7) It is the same body of “flesh and bones” (<a href='B:490 24:39'>Luke 24:39</a>) that could be touched (<a href='B:470 28:9'>Matt 28:9</a>; <a href='B:500 20:27'>John 20:27</a>) and could eat physical food (<a href='B:420 24:41-42'>Luke 24:41-42</a>).<p/>The “change” (<a href='B:530 15:51'>1Cor 15:51</a>) Paul referred to at the resurrection is a change in the body, not a change of the body. The changes in the resurrection are accidental, not substantial. They are changes in secondary qualities, not changes inp rimary qualities. It is changed from a corruptible physical body to an incorruptible physical body. It is not changed from a physical body into a nonphysical body. It is changed from a mortal to an immortal physical body. But it is not changed from a material to an immaterial body. 


text:
Is the resurrection body material or immaterial?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Paul declares that the resurrection body is a “spiritual body” (<a href='B:530 15:44'>1Cor 15:44</a>), but a spiritual body is an immaterial body. However, elsewhere the Bible says Jesus’ resurrection body was made of “flesh and bones” (<a href='B:490 24:39'>Luke 24:39</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> A “spiritual” body denotes an immortal body, not an immaterial body. A “spiritual” body is one dominated by the spirit, not one devoid of matter. The Greek wordpneum atikos (translated “spiritual” here) means a body directed by the spirit, as opposed to one under the dominion of the flesh. It is not ruled by flesh that perishes, but by the spirit that endures (<a href='B:530 15:50-58'>1Cor 15:50-58</a>). So “spiritual body” does not mean immaterial and invisible, but immortal and imperishable. This is clear from several facts:<p/>Earthly (v. 40) Heavenly<p/>The complete context indicates that “spiritual” (pneumatikos) could be translated “supernatural” in contrast to “natural.” This is made clear by the parallels of perishable and imperishable and corruptible and incorruptible. In fact, this same Greek word (pneumatikos) is translated “supernatural” in <a href='B:530 10:4'>1Cor 10:4</a> when it speaks of the “supernatural rock that followed them in the wilderness” (RSV).<p/>Second, the word “spiritual” (pneumatikos) in 1 Corinthians refers to material objects. Paul spoke of the “spiritual rock” that followed Israel in the wilderness from which they got “spiritual drink” (<a href='B:530 10:4'>1Cor 10:4</a>). But the OT story (<a href='B:20 17'>Ex 17</a>; <a href='B:40 20'>Num 20</a>) reveals that it was a physical rock from which they got literal water to drink. But the actual water they drank from that material rock was produced supernaturally. When Jesus supernaturally made bread for the five thousand (<a href='B:500 6'>John 6</a>), He made literal bread. However, this literal, material bread could have been called “spiritual” bread (because of its supernatural source) in the same way that the literal manna given to Israel is called “spiritual food” (<a href='B:530 10:3'>1Cor 10:3</a>).<p/>Further, when Paul spoke about a “spiritual man” (<a href='B:530 2:15'>1Cor 2:15</a>) he obviously did not mean an invisible, immaterial man with no corporeal body. He was, as a matter of fact, speaking of a flesh and blood human being whose life was lived by the supernatural power of God. He was referring to a literal person whose life was Spirit directed. A spiritual man is one who is taught by the Spirit and who receives the things that come from the Spirit of God (<a href='B:530 2:13-14'>1Cor 2:13-14</a>). The resurrection body can be called a “spiritual body” in much the same way we speak of the Bible as a “spiritual book.” Regardless of their spiritual source and power, both the resurrection body and the Bible are material objects. 


text:
Was Christ a life-giving spirit after His resurrection, or did He have a physical body?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Paul asserts here that Christ was made a “life-giving spirit” after His resurrection. Some have also used this passage to prove that Jesus had no physical resurrection body.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> This does not follow for many reasons.<p/>First, “life-giving spirit” does not speak of the nature of the resurrection body, but of the divine origin of the resurrection. Jesus’ physical body came back to life only by the power of God (cf. <a href='B:520 1:4'>Rom 1:4</a>). So Paul is speaking about its spiritual source, not its physical substance as a material body (see also comments on <a href='B:530 15:44'>1Cor 15:44</a>).<p/>Second, if “spirit” describes the nature of Christ’s resurrection body, then Adam (with whom He is contrasted) must not have had a soul, since he is described as “of the earth, made of dust” (v. 47). But the Bible clearly says that Adam was “a living being [soul]” (<a href='B:10 2:7'>Gen 2:7</a>).<p/>Third, Christ’s resurrection body is called “spiritual body” (v. 44) which, as discussed under <a href='B:530 15:44'>1Cor 15:44</a>, is the same word used by Paul to describe material food and a literal rock (<a href='B:530 10:4'>1Cor 10:4</a>). 


text:
If flesh and blood cannot enter heaven, then how can there be a physical resurrection?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The Bible speaks of the resurrection of the physical body from the grave (<a href='B:500 5:28-29'>John 5:28-29</a>), which is composed of “flesh and bones” (<a href='B:490 24:39'>Luke 24:39</a>) and which leaves an empty tomb behind (<a href='B:470 28:6'>Matt 28:6</a>). However, according to this verse, “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.”<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> To conclude from this phrase that the resurrection body will not be a body of physical flesh is without biblical justification.<p/>Second, to convince the frightened disciples that He was not an immaterial spirit (<a href='B:490 24:37'>Luke 24:37</a>), Jesus emphatically told them, “Look at My hands and My feet. It is I Myself! Touch Me and see; a ghost does not haveflesh and bones, as you see I have” (<a href='B:490 24:39'>Luke 24:39</a>,NIV). Peter declared that the resurrection body would be the same body offlesh that went into the tomb and never saw corruption (<a href='B:510 2:31'>Acts 2:31</a>). Paul also reaffirmed this truth in a parallel passage (<a href='B:510 13:35'>Acts 13:35</a>). And John implies that it is against Christ to deny that He remains “in theflesh” even after His resurrection (<a href='B:690 4:2'>1John 4:2</a>; <a href='B:700 1:7'>2John 7</a>).<p/>Fourth, the phrase “flesh and blood” in this context apparently means mortal flesh and blood, that is, a mere human being. This is supported by parallel uses in the NT. When Jesus said to Peter, “Flesh and blood has not revealed this to you” (<a href='B:470 16:17'>Matt 16:17</a>), He could not have been referring to the mere substance of the body as such, which obviously could not reveal that He was the Son of God. Rather, the most natural interpretation of <a href='B:530 15:50'>1Cor 15:50</a> seems to be that humans, as they now are, earth- bound and perishable creatures, cannot have a place in God’s glorious, heavenly kingdom. 


text:
Did Moses wear a veil when speaking to the people or not?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> <a href='B:20 34:33'>Exo 34:33</a> (KJV) asserts that, “Till Moses had done speaking with them, he put a vail [sic] on his face” (cf. v. 35). This implies he had the veil on while speaking with them. But this seems to contradict the statement here in <a href='B:540 3'>2Cor 3</a> that they could not look “steadily” on it, which implies that they were looking at it when Moses spoke (vv. 7, 13).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Recent translations have corrected this problem, rendering <a href='B:20 34:33'>Exo 34:33</a> as follows: “when Moses had finished speaking with them [the people], he put a veil on his face.” This fits the context better as well, since this verse is followed by the assertion that “whenever the children of Israel saw the face of Moses, that the skin of Moses’ face shone, then Moses would put the veil on his face again, until he went in to speak with Him [God]” (v. 35). Then Moses would come out, take the veil off and speak to the people until they could not bear the glory, and he would cover it up until he again went in before the Lord (v. 34). 


text:
How could Jesus be made sin when He was sinless?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Paul asserts here that Jesus was “made to be sin.” However, many other Scriptures insist that Jesus was “without sin” (<a href='B:650 4:15'>Heb 4:15</a>; cf. <a href='B:670 3:18'>1Peter 3:18</a>). But how could Jesus be without sin if He was made sin for us?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Jesus was always without sin actually, but He was made to be sin for us judicially. That is, by His death on the Cross, He paid the penalty for our sins and thereby cancelled the debt of sin against us. So, while Jesus never committed a sin personally, He was made to be sin for us substitutionally. The issue can be summarized as follows: 


text:
Was Paul the greatest or the least of apostles?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Here Paul claimed, “I am not at all inferior to the most eminent apostles” (<a href='B:540 11:5'>2Cor 11:5</a>). And elsewhere he would have us believe that he is “the least of the apostles” (<a href='B:530 15:9'>1Cor 15:9</a>). But it would seem that both cannot be true.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Paul is speaking in different contexts. In one passage, he is speaking with respect to his ability, training, and zeal. However, unlike the other apostles, Paul had persecuted the church of Christ before his conversion and, therefore, considered himself unworthy even to be an apostle (cf. <a href='B:550 1:13'>Gal 1:13</a>; <a href='B:510 9:1'>Acts 9:1</a>). So with respect to his preconversion antagonism to C hrist he rightly considered himself “the least of the apostles.” 


text:
Is Paul teaching reincarnation in this passage?<p/>(See comments on <a href='B:300 1:5'>Jer 1:5</a>) 


text:
Is Christ blessed or cursed?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Paul declares that Christ was cursed of God, “having become a curse for us.” However, the Bible declares repeatedly that Christ was blessed of God (cf. <a href='B:230 72:17'>Ps 72:17</a>), the one worthy to receive “glory and blessing” forever (<a href='B:730 5:12'>Rev 5:12</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> These passages view Christ under different aspects. He is blessed in heaven, but He became a curse for us on earth. He is blessed in Himself, but was cursed for us on the Cross. Actually, as the perfect Son of God, He is the most blessed of all persons. Yet, judicially, as He became our substitute—He was the most cursed of all. The difference is manifest in this contrast: 


text:
Does Paul err in the amount of time between Abraham and the time the Law was given?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> In <a href='B:550 3:17'>Galatians 3:17</a>, the apostle states that a period of 430 years elapsed between the time of God’s promises to Abraham (<a href='B:10 12:1-3'>Gen 12:1-3</a>), which was about 2000 B.C., and the giving of the law to Moses, which was around 1450 B.C. This would be a mistake of over 100 years.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The time that Paul refers to is not the initial giving of the Abrahamic covenant (Gen. 12–15), but the later confirmation of the covenant to Jacob (<a href='B:10 46'>Gen 46</a>), which was about 1877 B.C. Since the Exodus occurred around 1447 B.C. (cf. <a href='B:110 6:1'>1Ki 6:1</a>), this would be exactly<p/>430. There is good indication that Paul is referring to the confirmation to Jacob, not to the initiation of the covenant to Abraham. The text clearly dates the 430 years from “the covenant that was confirmed” (<a href='B:550 3:17'>Gal 3:17</a>). Thus, the time period is the final reaffirmation of the Abrahamic promises to the descendants (seed) of Abraham which takes place in <a href='B:10 46:2-4'>Gen 46:2-4</a> to Jacob, a descendent of Abraham, which was 430 years before the children of Israel came out of Egypt. 


text:
Are we to bear other’s burdens or our own?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> In <a href='B:550 6:2'>Galatians 6:2</a>, Paul exhorts us to “bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.” But only a few verses later he says “every man shall bear his own burden” (v. 5, KJV).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The word for “burden” is different in each case. In the first passage, Paul urges sympathy for others. In the other, he is speaking of taking responsibility for ourselves. There is no conflict between being accountable for our own lives and being helpful to others.


text:
Does this verse teach that all will be saved (universalism)?<p/>(See comments on <a href='B:580 1:20'>Col 1:20</a>) 


text:
How can a person believe if he or she is dead in sins?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The Bible repeatedly calls on the unbeliever to “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and … be saved” (<a href='B:510 16:31'>Acts 16:31</a>). However, this passage declares that unbelievers are dead in their sins, and dead people cannot do anything, including believe.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> “Death” in the Bible is not to be understood as annihilation, but as separation. Isaiah said, “Your iniquities have separated you from your God” (<a href='B:290 59:2'>Isa 59:2</a>). If death were annihilation, then the second death would be eternal annihilation, but the Bible declares that the lost will be consciously separated from God, as was the rich man in hell (<a href='B:420 16'>Luke 16</a>), as will be the beast and false prophet who will be “tormented day and night forever and ever” (<a href='B:730 20:10'>Rev 20:10</a>). Indeed, they were cast “alive” into the lake of fire at the beginning of the 1,000-year reign of Christ (<a href='B:730 19:20'>Rev 19:20</a>), and they were still alive at the end of the 1,000 years (20:10). So, the second “death” is eternal conscious separation from Christ.<p/>Furthermore, believers die physically, but their souls survive death and are consciously in the presence of God. Paul said, “absent from the body and … present with the Lord” (<a href='B:540 5:8'>2Cor 5:8</a>). And he went on to say, “having a desire to depart and be with Christ, which is far better” (<a href='B:570 1:23'>Phil 1:23</a>).<p/>Likewise, spiritual death is also separation from God, not annihilation. Adam and Eve, for example, died spiritually the moment they ate the forbidden fruit (<a href='B:10 3:6'>Gen 3:6</a>; cf. <a href='B:520 5:12'>Rom 5:12</a>), yet they were still alive and could hear God’s voice speaking to them (<a href='B:10 3:10'>Gen 3:10</a>). So, whereas the image of God in fallen man is effaced, it is not erased. It is marred, but not destroyed. Thus, unsaved persons can hear, understand the Gospel, and believe it to be regenerated or made alive in a spiritual sense (<a href='B:560 2:8-9'>Eph 2:8-9</a>; <a href='B:630 3:5-7'>Titus 3:5-7</a>). 


text:
How could the mystery of Christ be hidden in previous ages and yet known by the OT Prophets?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to this passage, the mystery of the church, the body of Christ, was not known in other ages. Yet the apostle goes on to say that it was revealed to the “apostles and prophets.” But the prophets lived prior to the time of Paul. How could the prophets have known if people in the OT did not know the mystery?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There are several reasons for believing that Paul is referring to NT prophets, not OT ones.<p/>Second, this same phrase is used to describe the foundation of the NT church which is built on the “foundation of the apostles and prophets” (<a href='B:560 2:20'>Eph 2:20</a>). But the NT church did not begin in the OT, but only after Christ announced it in <a href='B:470 16:18'>Mat 16:18</a>.<p/>Third, the text says clearly that the mystery of the spiritual body of Christ “was not made known” to the sons of men “in other ages” but only now to “the apostles and prophets” (<a href='B:560 3:5'>Eph 3:5</a>).<p/>Finally, the parallel passage in Colossians says emphatically, “the mystery … has been hidden from ages and from generations, but now has been revealed to His saints” (1:26). Thus, the “prophets” to whom it was made known were NT prophets (cf. <a href='B:530 12:28'>1Cor 12:28</a>; <a href='B:560 4:11'>Eph 4:11</a>). 


text:
Did Jesus descend into hell?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Paul claims here that Jesus “descended into the lower parts of the earth.” And the Apostles’ Creed declares that after Jesus died, He “descended into hell.” However, when Jesus was dying, He committed His spirit into His Father’s hand (<a href='B:490 23:46'>Luke 23:46</a>) and told the thief that He would be with Him in “paradise” (<a href='B:490 23:43'>Luke 23:43</a>) which is in the “third heaven” (<a href='B:540 12:2'>2Cor 12:2</a>; <a href='B:540 12:4'>4</a>). Where did Jesus go—to heaven or to hell?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There are two views as to where Jesus went the three days His body was in the grave before His resurrection.<p/>The Hades View. One position claims that Christ’s spirit went to the spirit world, while His body was in the grave. Here, they believe, He spoke to the “spirits in prison” (<a href='B:670 3:19'>1Peter 3:19</a>) who were in a temporary holding place until He would come and “lead captivity captive,” that is, take them to heaven. According to this view, there were two compartments in Hades (or sheol), one for the saved and another for the unsaved. They were separated by a “great gulf” (<a href='B:490 16:26'>Luke 16:26</a>) which no person could pass. The section for the saved was called “Abraham’s bosom” (<a href='B:490 16:23'>Luke 16:23</a>). When Christ, as the “firstfruits” of the resurrection (<a href='B:530 15:20'>1Cor 15:20</a>), ascended, He led these OT saints into heaven with Him for the first time.<p/>First, Jesus affirmed that His spirit was going directly to heaven, declaring, “Father, into Your Hands I commend My spirit” (<a href='B:490 23:46'>Luke 23:46</a>).<p/>Second, Jesus promised the thief on the cross, “Today, you will be with me in Paradise” (<a href='B:490 23:43'>Luke 23:43</a>). But “Paradise” is defined as “the third heaven” in <a href='B:540 12:2'>2Cor 12:2</a>; <a href='B:540 12:4'>4</a>.<p/>Third, when OT saints departed this life, they went directly to heaven. God took Enoch to be with Himself (<a href='B:10 5:24'>Gen 5:24</a>; cf. <a href='B:650 11:5'>Heb 11:5</a>), and Elijah was caught up into “heaven” when he departed (<a href='B:120 2:1'>2Ki 2:1</a>).<p/>Fourth, “Abraham’s bosom” (<a href='B:490 16:23'>Luke 16:23</a>) is a description of heaven. At no time is it ever described as hell. It is the place that Abraham went, which is the “kingdom of heaven” (<a href='B:470 8:11'>Matt 8:11</a>).<p/>Fifth, when OT saints appear before the cross, they appear from heaven, as Moses and Elijah did on the Mount of Transfiguration (<a href='B:470 17:3'>Matt 17:3</a>).<p/>Sixth, OT saints had to await Christ’s resurrection before their bodies could be resurrected (<a href='B:530 15:20'>1Cor 15:20</a>; cf. <a href='B:470 27:53'>Matt 27:53</a>), but their souls went directly to heaven. Christ was the Lamb slain “from the foundation of the world” (<a href='B:730 13:8'>Rev 13:8</a>), and they were there on the merits of what God knew Christ would accomplish.<p/>Seventh, “descending into the lower parts of the earth” is not a reference to hell, but to the grave. Even a woman’s womb is described as “lowest parts of the earth” (<a href='B:230 139:15'>Ps 139:15</a>). The phrase simply means caves, graves, or enclosures on the earth, as opposed to higher parts, like mountains. Besides this, hell is not in the lower parts of the earth—it is “under the earth” (<a href='B:570 2:10'>Phil 2:10</a>).<p/>Ninth, the “spirits in prison” were not saved, but unsaved beings. Indeed, they may refer to angels, not to human beings (see comments on <a href='B:670 3:19'>1Peter 3:19</a>).<p/>Finally, when Christ “led captivity captive,” He was not leading friends into heaven, but bringing foes into bondage. It is a reference to His conquering the forces of evil. Christians are not “captives” in heaven. We are not forced to go there against our own free choice (see <a href='B:470 23:37'>Matt 23:37</a>; <a href='B:680 3:9'>2Pet 3:9</a>). 


text:
Is anger a sin or not?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> On the one hand, the Bible seems to approve of anger, saying, “be angry” (<a href='B:560 4:26'>Eph 4:26</a>). On the other hand, the Bible seems to disapprove of it, listing it as one of the “works of the flesh” (<a href='B:550 5:19-20'>Gal 5:19-20</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Anger as such is not necessarily wrong. In fact, anger at sin is definitely right. Jesus was angry at unbelief and hypocrisy (cf. <a href='B:470 23'>Matt 23</a>; <a href='B:500 2:13-17'>John 2:13-17</a>), and God is angry at unrighteousness and apostasy (cf. <a href='B:20 4:14'>Ex 4:14</a>; <a href='B:40 11:1'>Num 11:1</a>). What is wrong is not anger at sin, but sinning in anger. Briefly, there is both a good sense and a bad sense of anger:<p/><b>GOOD ANGER BAD ANGER </b><p/>Righteous indignation Unrighteous eruptions 


text:
Doesn’t this command perpetuate the institution of slavery?<p/>(See comments on <a href='B:640 1:16'>Phile 16</a>) 


text:
If Christ emptied Himself of deity while on earth, then how could He be God?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Paul seems to say that Jesus “emptied Himself” of His deity or “equality with God” (vv. 6–7), becoming “a man” (v. 8). But elsewhere Jesus claimed to be God on earth (<a href='B:500 8:58'>John 8:58</a>; <a href='B:500 20:28'>20:28</a>). But how could Jesus be God while on earth if He left His deity aside to become man?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Jesus did not cease being God while on earth. Rather, in addition to being God, He also became man. His incarnation was not the subtraction of deity, but the addition of humanity. Several things in this text support this position. First, it does not say Christ gave up or emptied Himself of His deity, but merely of His rights as deity, assuming the “form of a servant” (v. 7) so as to be an example for us (v. 5). Second, the text declares that He was in the “form of God” or “in very nature God” (v. 6, NIV). Just as the “form of a servant” (v. 7) is a servant by nature, so the “form of God” (v. 6) is God by nature. Third, this very passage declares that every knee will one day confess Jesus is “Lord,” a citation from <a href='B:290 45:23'>Isaiah 45:23</a> that refers to Yahweh, a name used exclusively of God. 


text:
If Paul had the gift of healing, why couldn’t he heal his coworker, Epaphroditus?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> In the Book of Acts, Paul healed the sick and even raised the dead (<a href='B:510 20:9-10'>Acts 20:9-10</a>). On one occasion he even healed everyone in an entire city (<a href='B:510 28:9'>Acts 28:9</a>). But here, he apparently could not even heal a needed coworker.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There are two possible responses to this.<p/>Some believe that possessing the gift of healing did not guarantee that one could always heal everyone. On one occasion the disciples could not heal a demon- possessed young man (<a href='B:470 17:16'>Matt 17:16</a>). They insist that the gift of healing did not make a person 100 percent successful, any more than the gift of teaching made one infallible.<p/>Others insist that the gift of healing was always successful, noting that Jesus healed the young man (in <a href='B:470 17'>Matt 17</a>) and rebuked the disciples for not exercising their God-given power to do it (vv. 17–18). They claim that the gift of healing was 100 percent successful, just as no one with the gift of prophecy ever uttered a false prophecy with it. For a false prophecy was a proof that someone was not exercising the gift of prophecy (cf. <a href='B:50 18:22'>Deut 18:22</a>).<p/>The reason Epaphroditus was not healed is not stated in the text. But neither does it say Paul attempted to heal him and failed. Since no exercise of the gift of healing is recorded past about S._. 61 (<a href='B:510 28:8'>Acts 28:8</a>), it may be that the special apostolic gift of healing (cf. <a href='B:540 12:12'>2Cor 12:12</a>; <a href='B:650 2:4'>Heb 2:4</a>) had passed away by this time. It is not listed in the much briefer list of gifts in <a href='B:560 4'>Eph 4</a> (ca. A.D. 60), as it was earlier in <a href='B:530 12:30'>1Cor 12:30</a>. 


text:
Are Christians perfect, or still on the way?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> In this verse, Paul calls on those who “are perfect” (KJV) to act as he did, but only three verses earlier he claimed that he was not “already perfect” (v. 12), but that he was still pressing on to attain perfection. Which one should we believe?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Here is a good example of how the same word can be used in different senses. This is not uncommon in languages, as the English word “board” illustrates. Take this sentence for example: “The board members took a stroll on the board walk and then stopped at the desk to inquire about room and board. ” It is obvious that the same word “board” is being used here in three different senses. Likewise, Paul uses the word “perfect” in different senses. Some believers are “perfect” in the sense of being mature or complete. But no believer this side of death is perfect in the sense of havingfully arrived or having reached the ultimate goal. This only comes, as Paul indicated, at “the resurrection from the dead” (<a href='B:570 3:11'>Phil 3:11</a>). 


text:
How can we rejoice always when Jesus said “blessed are those who mourn”?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Paul commands us here to “Rejoice in the Lord always,” but Jesus insisted that “Blessed are those who mourn” (<a href='B:470 5:4'>Matt 5:4</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Properly understood, these are not mutually exclusive. Mourning is the condition and rejoicing is the result of a proper relation to God. It is those who humble themselves whom God lifts up (cf. <a href='B:660 4:10'>Jam 4:10</a>). So it is those who mourn in their spirit who will be able to rejoice in their Lord. True sorrow for sin is the antecedent of the consequent joy of salvation. 


text:
Is the Lord’s coming at hand or far off?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to this passage, “The Lord is at hand” (cf. <a href='B:670 4:7'>1Peter 4:7</a>). However, other passages portray Christ’s coming as not being immediate, but as having intervening events. “For that Day will not come,” writes Paul, “unless the falling away comes first” (<a href='B:600 2:3'>2Thes 2:3</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Bible scholars respond to this problem in two different ways, depending on their view of future things (eschatology).<p/>Non-imminent View. Those who believe Christ’s coming is not imminent take the verses that speak of it as “at hand” as only general descriptions, but not specific time frames. They note that the “last days” includes the whole period of time between Christ’s first and second comings (cf. <a href='B:650 1:1'>Heb 1:1</a>; <a href='B:690 2:18'>1John 2:18</a>). Thus, they see no difficulty with passages (like <a href='B:600 2:3'>2Thes 2:3</a>) that speak of some events that must occur first before Christ can return. That is, they believe that it is true in a general sense that “the Lord is at hand,” but deny that this means that He could literally come at any moment. Some specific events, like the “falling away,” must come first before Christ will actually return.<p/>Imminent View. Other Bible scholars, including the authors, take the verses declaring that Christ’s coming is “at hand” (<a href='B:570 4:5'>Phil 4:5</a>; cf. <a href='B:670 4:7'>1Peter 4:7</a>) literally. They claim that otherwise it could not be “the blessed hope” spoken of by Paul (<a href='B:630 2:13'>Titus 2:13</a>), nor the purifying hope by John (<a href='B:690 3:2-3'>1John 3:2-3</a>). Further, why should the believer be exhorted to “watch” for it and not to be taken by surprise (cf. <a href='B:590 5:1-2'>1Thes 5:1-2</a>). In addition, they believe that if there were discernable signs and events that must occur before Christ returns for believers, then we could know “the day and hour” (<a href='B:470 24:36'>Matt 24:36</a>) or “times or seasons” (<a href='B:510 1:7'>Acts 1:7</a>) which Christ said we cannot know.<p/>According to this view, then, when the Bible speaks of Christ’s return as a sign- less, imminent event that could happen at any moment, it is speaking about Christ’s coming in the airfor His saints before the tribulation (i.e., the rapture of <a href='B:590 4:13-18'>1Thes 4:13-18</a>). And when the Scriptures talk about signs and events that must occur beforethe coming of Christ, it is referring to His coming with His saints to earth after the tribulation (<a href='B:470 24:29-30'>Matt 24:29-30</a>).<p/><b>COMING FOR HIS SAINTS COMING WITH HIS SAINTS </b><p/>Before the tribulation After the tribulation 


text:
If Christ is only the firstborn in creation, then how can He be God?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> John declared Christ to be eternal and equal with God (<a href='B:500 1:1'>John 1:1</a>; <a href='B:500 8:58'>8:58</a>; <a href='B:500 20:28'>20:28</a>). But here Paul seems to say that Christ was only a creature, the first one born (created) in the universe.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Paul clearly declares Christ to be God in this very letter by saying He “created all things” (1:16) and has “the fullness of the Godhead” (2:9). The reference to “firstborn” does not mean He is the firstborn in creation, but the firstborn over creation (v. 15), since “He is before all things” (v. 17). “Firstborn” in this context does not mean the first one to be born, but the heir of all, the Creator and owner of all things. As Creator of “all things,” He could not have been a created thing.


text:
Does this verse teach that all will be saved (universalism)?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The Apostle Paul wrote to the Colossians, “For it was the Father’s good pleasure … through Him [Christ] to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven” (<a href='B:580 1:19-20'>Col 1:19-20</a>, NASB). If Paul says that all things are reconciled to Christ by His death and resurrection, this seems to imply that all people are saved. But other Scriptures declare that many will be lost (e.g., <a href='B:470 7:13-14'>Matt 7:13-14</a>; <a href='B:470 25:41'>25:41</a>; <a href='B:730 20:11-15'>Rev 20:11-15</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> First of all, Paul is not speaking about universal salvation here, but simply universal sovereignty of Jesus Christ. In other words, all authority has been given to Jesus Christ in heaven and on earth (<a href='B:470 28:18'>Matt 28:18</a>). By virtue of His death and resurrection, Christ as the Last Adam is Lord over all that was lost by the First Adam (cf. <a href='B:530 15:45-49'>1Cor 15:45-49</a>). Note the contrast between two crucial passages by Paul:<p/>When Paul speaks of being “in Christ” (i.e., being saved), he does not include “those under the earth” (i.e., the lost). However, all persons, saved and unsaved, will one day bow before Christ and acknowledge His universal lordship. But nowhere do the Scriptures teach that all people will be saved. Jesus will say to many, “Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels” (<a href='B:470 25:41'>Matt 25:41</a>). John spoke of the devil, the beast and the false prophet, and all whose names are not written in the Book of Life being cast into the lake of fire forever (<a href='B:730 20:10-15'>Rev 20:10-15</a>). Luke speaks of a great impassible gulf between heaven and hell in which those who have rejected God are living in torment (<a href='B:420 16:19-31'>Luke 16:19-31</a>). Paul speaks of punishment on the wicked as “everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord” (<a href='B:600 1:7-9'>2Thes 1:7-9</a>). Jesus declared Judas was lost and called him “the son of perdition” (<a href='B:500 17:12'>John 17:12</a>). It is evident from all these passages that not everyone will be saved. 


text:
How can Christ’s death on the Cross be sufficient for salvation when Paul speaks of what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The Bible declares that Jesus’ death on the cross was both sufficient and final for our salvation (<a href='B:500 19:30'>John 19:30</a>; <a href='B:650 1:3'>Heb 1:3</a>). Yet Paul states that we are to fill up what is “lacking in the afflictions of Christ.” But if the Cross is all-sufficient, then how can anything be lacking in Christ’s suffering for us?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Christ’s death on the Cross is sufficient for our salvation. The Bible makes this emphatically clear. Anticipating the Cross, Jesus said to His Father, “I have finished the work which You have given Me to do” (<a href='B:500 17:4'>John 17:4</a>). On the cross He cried out, “It is finished!” (<a href='B:500 19:30'>John 19:30</a>). The Book of Hebrews declares unequivocally that “by one offering [on the cross] He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified” (<a href='B:650 10:14'>Heb 10:14</a>). And this He did “by Himself” (<a href='B:650 1:3'>Heb 1:3</a>), with no help from anyone else.<p/>Nevertheless, there is a sense in which Christ still suffers after His death. Jesus said to Paul, “Why are you persecuting Me?” In this sense, we too can suffer for Him, since “it has been granted on behalf of Christ, not only to believe on Him, but also to suffer for His sake” (<a href='B:570 1:29'>Phil 1:29</a>). But in no sense is our suffering for Christ a means of atoning for sin. Only Jesus sufferedfor sin. We suffer because of sin (ours and others), but never for sin. Each person must bear the guilt of his own sin (<a href='B:330 18:20'>Ezek 18:20</a>) and accept the fact that Christ suffered for his sin (<a href='B:670 2:21'>1Peter 2:21</a>; <a href='B:670 3:18'>3:18</a>; <a href='B:540 5:21'>2Cor 5:21</a>). When we suffer for Christ, we are undergoing pain as part of His spiritual body, the church, but only what Christ suffered in His physical body on the Cross is efficacious for our sins. Our suffering, then, is in service, not for salvation. 


text:
Does this verse mean Christians should not study philosophy?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Paul warned here, “Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit.” Does this mean that Christians should not study philosophy? If so, then why did God give us a mind and command us to think (<a href='B:470 22:37'>Matt 22:37</a>) and reason (<a href='B:670 3:15'>1Peter 3:15</a>)?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> First of all, the Bible is no more against philosophy than it is against religion. It is not against philosophy, but against vain philosophy, which Paul calls “empty deceit” (v. 8). Likewise, the Bible is not opposed to religion, but only against vain religion (cf. <a href='B:660 1:26-27'>Jam 1:26-27</a>).<p/>Further, Paul is not speaking about philosophy in general, but about aparticular philosophy, usually understood as an early form of Gnosticism. This is indicated by his use of the definite article (in Greek), which should be translated “thephilosophy” or “this philosophy.” So Paul was referring to this particular gnostic-like philosophy that had invaded the church in Colosse and involved legalism, mysticism, and asceticism (cf. <a href='B:580 2'>Col 2</a>) and not to all philosophy.<p/>What is more, Paul himself was well trained in the philosophies of his day, even quoting them from time to time (cf. <a href='B:510 17:28'>Acts 17:28</a>; <a href='B:630 1:12'>Titus 1:12</a>). Paul successfully “reasoned” with the philosophers on Mars Hill, even winning some to Christ (<a href='B:510 17:17'>Acts 17:17</a>; <a href='B:510 17:34'>34</a>). Elsewhere he said a bishop should be able “to exhort and convict those who contradict” (<a href='B:630 1:9'>Titus 1:9</a>) and that he was “appointed for defense of the Gospel” (<a href='B:570 1:17'>Phil 1:17</a>). Peter exhorted believers to “always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you” (<a href='B:670 3:15'>1Peter 3:15</a>). Indeed, Jesus said the great command is to love the Lord “with all your mind” (<a href='B:470 22:37'>Matt 22:37</a>). 


text:
Are Christians obligated to keep the Sabbath?<p/>(See comments on <a href='B:20 20:8-11'>Ex 20:8-11</a> and <a href='B:470 5:17-18'>Matt 5:17-18</a>) 


text:
Does Paul contradict Jesus when he exhorts children, “obey your parents in all things”?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> While Paul told children to obey their parents in everything, Jesus said, “He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me” (<a href='B:470 10:37'>Matt 10:37</a>). Surely children should not obey a parent who commands them to curse God, or hate Jesus, or kill their brother.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> A text must be understood in its context. The “all things” in <a href='B:580 3:20'>Colossians 3:20</a> does not include things that displease the Lord, since the very next phrase says, “for this is well pleasing to the Lord.” Furthermore, in the parallel passage in Ephesians, written at the same time, Paul explicitly qualifies this command, saying, “children, obey your parents in the Lord” (<a href='B:560 6:1'>Eph 6:1</a>). This makes it clear that a child is not to obey his or her parents if they command the child to do something against the Lord. 


text:
Doesn’t this command perpetuate the institution of slavery?<p/>(See discussion on <a href='B:640 1:16'>Phile 16</a>.)


text:
What happened to the lost epistle of the Laodiceans?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Paul refers to the “epistle from Laodicea” as a book he wrote that should be read by the church at Colosse, just as the inspired Book of Colossians was to be read by the Laodiceans. However, no such 1st century epistle to the Laodiceans exists (though there is a 4th century fraud). But, it is very strange that an inspired book would perish. Why would God inspire it for the faith and practice of the church (<a href='B:620 3:16-17'>2Tim 3:16-17</a>) and then allow it to be destroyed?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There are two possibilities.<p/>First, it is possible that not all divinely authoritative or inspired books were intended by God to be in the Bible. Luke refers to other gospels (<a href='B:490 1:1'>Luke 1:1</a>), and John affirmed that there were many other things Jesus did that are not recorded in his Gospel (<a href='B:500 20:30'>John 20:30</a>; <a href='B:500 21:25'>21:25</a>). So, it is possible that only those inspired books that God preserved by His providence were intended to be in the canon of Scripture.<p/>Second, there are some good reasons to believe that “the epistle from Laodicea” is not really lost, but is really the Book of Ephesians. First of all, the text does not call it the epistle of the Laodiceans, but the “epistle [coming] from Laodicea” (<a href='B:580 4:16'>Col 4:16</a>), whatever name it may have had. Second, it is known that Paul wrote Ephesians at the same time he wrote Colossians and sent it to another church in the same general area. Third, there is evidence that the Book of Ephesians did not originally bear that title, but was a kind of cyclical letter sent to the churches of Asia Minor. As a matter of fact, some early manuscripts do not have the phrase “in Ephesus” in <a href='B:560 1:1'>Eph 1:1</a>. It is certainly strange that Paul, who spent three years ministering to the Ephesians (<a href='B:510 20:31'>Acts 20:31</a>), sent no personal greetings to them, if the book known as “Ephesians” was intended for them alone. By contrast, Paul had never visited Rome, but he greeted numerous people in his letter to them (<a href='B:520 16:1-16'>Rom 16:1-16</a>). Fourth, no epistle of the Laodiceans is cited by any early church father, though they make over 36,000 NT citations including every book and almost every verse of the NT. A fraudulent epistle of the Laodiceans appeared in the 4th century, but scholars do not believe it is the one referred to by Paul. Indeed, it is largely a collection of quotations from Ephesians and Colossians which the Church Council of Nicea (A.D. 787) called a “forged epistle.” 


text:
Did Paul teach the doctrine of soul-sleep?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Several times the Bible refers to the dead as being asleep. Does this mean that the soul is not conscious between death and resurrection?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The souls of both believers and unbelievers are conscious between death and the resurrection. Unbelievers are in conscious woe (see <a href='B:490 16:23'>Luke 16:23</a>; <a href='B:480 9:48'>Mark 9:48</a>; <a href='B:470 25:41'>Matt 25:41</a>) and believers are in conscious bliss. “Sleep” is a reference to the body, not the soul. Sleep is an appropriate figure of speech for death of the body, since death is temporary until the resurrection when the body will “awake” from it.<p/>1. Enoch was taken to be with God (<a href='B:10 5:24'>Gen 5:24</a>; <a href='B:650 11:5'>Heb 11:5</a>).<p/>2. David spoke of bliss in God’s presence after death (<a href='B:230 16:10-11'>Ps 16:10-11</a>).<p/>3. Elijah was taken up into heaven (<a href='B:120 2:1'>2Ki 2:1</a>).<p/>4. Moses and Elijah were conscious on the Mount of Transfiguration (<a href='B:470 17:3'>Matt 17:3</a>) long after their time on earth.<p/>5. Jesus said He went to the Father the day He died (<a href='B:490 23:46'>Luke 23:46</a>).<p/>6. Jesus promised the repentant thief that he would be with Him in paradise the very day he died (<a href='B:490 23:43'>Luke 23:43</a>).<p/>7. Paul said it was far better to die and be with Christ (<a href='B:570 1:23'>Phil 1:23</a>).<p/>8. Paul affirmed that when we are “absent from the body” then “we are present with the Lord” (<a href='B:540 5:8'>2Cor 5:8</a>).<p/>9. The writer of Hebrews refers to heaven as a place where “the spirits of just men [are] made perfect” (<a href='B:650 12:23'>Heb 12:23</a>).<p/>10. The “souls” of those martyred during the tribulation were conscious in heaven, singing and praying to God (<a href='B:730 6:9'>Rev 6:9</a>). 


text:
Did Paul teach that he would be alive when Christ returned?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Paul spoke here to the Thessalonian Christians of “wewho are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord.” This seems to imply that he was affirming that Christ would come before he died. But Christ did not come before the death of Paul (<a href='B:620 4:6-7'>2Tim 4:6-7</a>). Did Paul make a mistake here?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There are two ways to understand this verse without alleging that Paul made a mistake.<p/>Second, Paul may simply be expressing his own hope here, without affirming that he would in actual fact be alive when Christ returns. After all, Christ’s return is the blessed hope (cf. <a href='B:630 2:13'>Titus 2:13</a>) of all believers. Had Paul wanted to affirm that he would be alive when Christ came back, he could have said very clearly, “I will be alive and remain until the coming of the Lord.” But he did not say this. The “we” could have implied a hope he had without making any affirmation about whether he would or would not remain alive until the rapture. 


text:
Will the wicked be annihilated or suffer conscious punishment forever?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> In some passages of Scripture, like this one, it speaks of the wicked being “destroyed” by God, suffering “the second death” (<a href='B:730 20:14'>Rev 20:14</a>), or going to “perdition” (<a href='B:680 3:7'>2Peter 3:7</a>). Yet in other places, it speaks of them suffering conscious torment (e.g., <a href='B:420 16:22-28'>Luke 16:22-28</a>). Will unsaved persons be annihilated, or will they consciously suffer forever?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> “Destruction” does not mean annihilation here, otherwise it would not be “everlasting” destruction. Annihilation only takes an instant, and it is over. If someone undergoes everlasting destruction, then they have to have everlasting existence.<p/>Furthermore, “death” does not mean annihilation, but separation. Adam and Eve died spiritually the moment they sinned, yet they still existed and could hear God’s voice (<a href='B:10 2:17'>Gen 2:17</a>; cf. 3:10). Likewise, before one is saved, he is “dead in trespasses and sins” (<a href='B:560 2:1'>Eph 2:1</a>), and yet he is still in God’s image (<a href='B:10 1:27'>Gen 1:27</a>; cf. 9:6; <a href='B:660 3:9'>Jam 3:9</a>) and is called on to believe (<a href='B:510 16:31'>Acts 16:31</a>) and to repent (<a href='B:510 17:30'>Acts 17:30</a>) and be saved.<p/>Likewise, when the wicked are said to go into “perdition” (<a href='B:680 3:7'>2Peter 3:7</a>), and Judas is called the “son of perdition” (<a href='B:500 17:12'>John 17:12</a>), it does not mean they will be annihilated. The word “perdition” (ap?leia) simply means to perish or to come to ruin. But junk cars have perished in the sense of having been ruined. But they are still cars, ruined as they may be, and they are still in the junk yard. In this connection, Jesus spoke of hell as a junk yard or dump where the fire would not cease and where a person’s resurrected body would not be consumed (see comments on <a href='B:480 9:48'>Mark 9:48</a>).<p/>Finally, there are several lines of evidence that support the everlasting consciousness of the lost. First, the rich man who died and went to hell was in conscious torment (<a href='B:420 16:22-28'>Luke 16:22-28</a>), and there is absolutely no indication in the text that it was ever going to cease.<p/>Second, Jesus spoke repeatedly of the people in hell as “weeping and gnashing of teeth” (<a href='B:470 8:12'>Matt 8:12</a>; <a href='B:470 22:13'>22:13</a>; <a href='B:470 24:51'>24:51</a>; <a href='B:470 25:30'>25:30</a>), which indicates they were conscious.<p/>Third, hell is said to be of the same duration as heaven, namely, “everlasting” (<a href='B:470 25:41'>Matt 25:41</a>).<p/>Fourth, the fact that their punishment is everlasting indicates that they too must be everlasting. One cannot suffer punishment, unless a person exists to be punished (<a href='B:600 1:9'>2Thes 1:9</a>).<p/>Fifth, the beast and the false prophet were thrown “alive” into the lake of fire at the beginning of the 1,000 years (<a href='B:730 19:20'>Rev 19:20</a>), and they were still there, conscious and alive, after the 1,000 years (<a href='B:730 20:10'>Rev 20:10</a>).<p/>Sixth, the Scriptures affirm that the devil, the beast, and the false prophet “will be tormented day and night forever and ever” (<a href='B:730 20:10'>Rev 20:10</a>). But there is no way to experience torment forever and ever without being conscious for ever and ever.<p/>Seventh, Jesus repeatedly referred to hell as a place where “the fire is not quenched” (<a href='B:480 9:48'>Mark 9:48</a>), where the very bodies of the wicked will never die (cf. <a href='B:420 12:4-5'>Luke 12:4-5</a>). But it would make no sense to have everlasting flames and bodies without any souls in them to experience the torment.<p/>Eighth, the same word used to describe the wicked perishing in the OT (abad) is used to describe the righteous perishing (see <a href='B:290 57:1'>Isa 57:1</a>; <a href='B:400 7:2'>Micah 7:2</a>). The same word is used to describe things that are merely lost, but then later found (<a href='B:50 22:3'>Deut 22:3</a>), which proves that “lost” does not here mean go out of existence. So, if perish means to annihilate, then the saved would have to be annihilated too. But we know they are not.<p/>Ninth, it would be contrary to the created nature of human beings to annihilate them, since they are made in God’s image and likeness, which is everlasting (<a href='B:10 1:27'>Gen 1:27</a>). For God to annihilate His image in man would be to attack the reflection of Himself. 


text:
How can God send a lie for people to believe and yet not allow liars in heaven?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Paul wrote, “And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie” (<a href='B:600 2:11'>2Thes 2:11</a>). But <a href='B:730 21:8'>Revelation 21:8</a> says, “the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.” But it seems inconsistent for God to condemn liars and yet send such a strong delusion that people should believe a lie.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> God does not send a lie but simply confirms those who do not wish to believe the truth. God is not responsible (i.e., culpable) for those who go to hell. For it is because of their rejection of the Gospel that they eventually end up there, not because of God’s negligence. The context of this passage reveals that man has already rejected the Gospel of Christ. Paul says that when the Antichrist comes, he will come with signs and false wonders with all deception of wickedness (<a href='B:600 2:8-10'>2Thes 2:8-10</a>). These things happen for “those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved” (v. 10). When God sends the deluding influence, Paul says He does so in order “that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness” (v. 12). They have chosen to reject God rather than to accept His provision of salvation. God is not sending the lie to trick people, but He sends delusions to reveal human depravity in which they choose evil over good. 


text:
Does the Bible limit the ministry of women?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Paul said here that he did not “permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.” Likewise, in <a href='B:530 14:34'>1Cor 14:34</a> he added, “Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak” (cf. <a href='B:670 3:5-6'>1Peter 3:5-6</a>). Doesn’t this deny women a ministry and degrade their personality?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Not at all. When properly understood in context, these and many other passages in the Bible exalt the role of women and give them a tremendous ministry in the body of Christ. Several things should be kept in mind on the topic of the role of women in the church.<p/>First, the Bible declares that women, like men, are in the image of God (<a href='B:10 1:27'>Gen 1:27</a>). That is, they are equal with men by nature. There is no essential difference— both male and female are equally human by creation.<p/>Second, both women and men are equal by redemption. They both have the same Lord and both share equally in exactly the same salvation. For in Christ “there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (<a href='B:550 3:28'>Gal 3:28</a>).<p/>Fourth, throughout the Bible, God gifted, blessed, and greatly used women in the ministry. This includes Miriam, the first minister of music (<a href='B:20 15:20'>Ex 15:20</a>), Deborah (<a href='B:70 4:4'>Judge 4:4</a>), Huldah the prophetess (<a href='B:140 34:22'>2Chron 34:22</a>), Anna the prophetess (<a href='B:490 2:36'>Luke 2:36</a>), Priscilla the Bible teacher (<a href='B:510 18:26'>Acts 18:26</a>), and Phoebe the deaconess (<a href='B:520 16:1'>Rom 16:1</a>).<p/>Fifth, Jesus had many women who assisted Him in the ministry (cf. <a href='B:490 23:49'>Luke 23:49</a>; <a href='B:500 11'>John 11</a>). Indeed, it is very significant that in a patriarchal culture that Jesus chose women for His first two resurrection appearances (<a href='B:470 28:1-10'>Matt 28:1-10</a>; <a href='B:500 20:10-18'>John 20:10-18</a>). St. Peter did not make it until the third round (<a href='B:530 15:5'>1Cor 15:5</a>)!<p/>Sixth, whatever Paul may have meant by the “women be silent” passages, he certainly did not mean that they should have no ministry in the church. This is clear for several reasons. For one thing, in the same book (of 1 Corinthians), Paul instructed women on how they should pray and prophesy in the church, namely, in a decent and orderly way (cf. 11:5). Further, there were also times when all the men were to be “silent” as well, namely, when someone else was giving an utterance from God (cf. 14:28). Finally, Paul did not hesitate to use women to assist him in the ministry, as is indicated by the crucial role he gave to Phoebe in delivering to its destination the great epistle to the Romans (<a href='B:520 16:1'>Rom 16:1</a>).<p/>Seventh, when understood in context, the “silence” passages are not negating the ministry of women, but are limiting the authority of women. Paul asserts that women were not permitted “to have authority over a man” (<a href='B:610 2:12'>1Tim 2:12</a>). Likewise, he follows his exhortation to “keep silent” by reminding them to be “submissive” (<a href='B:530 14:34'>1Cor 14:34</a>). Of course, men too were under authority and needed to submit to the headship of Christ over them (<a href='B:530 11:3'>1Cor 11:3</a>). Indeed, the ultimate proof that there is nothing degrading about being submissive is that Christ, who was God in human flesh, is always submissive to the Father, both on earth (<a href='B:570 2:5-8'>Phil 2:5-8</a>) and even in heaven (<a href='B:530 15:28'>1Cor 15:28</a>). That male headship and leadership is not simply a cultural matter is evident by the fact that it is based on the very order of creation (<a href='B:530 11:9'>1Cor 11:9</a>; <a href='B:610 2:13'>1Tim 2:13</a>). Thus, elders are to be men, “the husband of one wife” (<a href='B:610 3:2'>1Tim 3:2</a>). This, however, in no way demeans or diminishes the role of women, either in the family or in the church. The fact that men cannot have babies is not demeaning to their humanity or their role in the family. It is simply that God has not granted them this function, but a different one.<p/>Eighth, God has given women an exalted role both by order of creation and redemption. First of all, Eve was not created from Adam’s feet to be walked on by him, nor from his head to rule over him, but from his side to be equal to him and companion of him (cf. <a href='B:10 2:19-25'>Gen 2:19-25</a>). Furthermore, every man ever born was carried in a woman’s womb (<a href='B:530 11:12'>1Cor 11:12</a>) and then, the vast majority were nurtured by her through infancy, childhood, and youth until they grew up. In addition, when God chose the vessel by which He Himself would become manifest in human flesh (<a href='B:500 1:14'>John 1:14</a>), it was not by direct creation of a body (as Adam), or in assuming a visible form (as the angel of the Lord), nor was it by cloning a male human being. Rather, it was by being miraculously conceived and carried to full term in a woman’s womb, the blessed virgin Mary (<a href='B:470 1:20-21'>Matt 1:20-21</a>; <a href='B:550 4:4'>Gal 4:4</a>). What is more, God has, through the birth and nurturing process, endowed woman with the most marvelous role in forming all human beings, including every man, at the most tender and impressionable time in their lives, both prenatal (cf. <a href='B:230 139:13-18'>Ps 139:13-18</a>) and postnatal.<p/>Finally, in the church, God has made women “one in Christ Jesus” (<a href='B:550 3:28'>Gal 3:28</a>) and bestowed upon them the gifts of the spirit (<a href='B:530 12'>1Cor 12</a>; <a href='B:530 14'>14</a>; <a href='B:520 12'>Rom 12</a>) whereby they can edify the body of Christ, including prophecy (cf. <a href='B:510 2:17-18'>Acts 2:17-18</a>; <a href='B:510 21:9'>21:9</a>) and teaching (<a href='B:510 18:26'>Acts 18:26</a>; <a href='B:630 2:4'>Titus 2:4</a>). 


text:
Does this contradict Jesus’ instruction about not storing treasures on earth?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Jesus exhorted His disciples, “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth” (<a href='B:470 6:19'>Matt 6:19</a>). Luke added, “Give to everyone who asks of you” (<a href='B:490 6:30'>Luke 6:30</a>). By contrast, Paul affirmed that “If anyone does not provide for his own … he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (<a href='B:610 5:8'>1Tim 5:8</a>). And <a href='B:240 13:22'>Prov 13:22</a> claims that “a good man leaves an inheritance to his children’s children.” But how can we give all our treasure to God and others and still have an inheritance left for our family.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The Bible does not command us to give away all our money to God and others. The OT laid down the tithe as the minimum all should give (cf. <a href='B:460 3:8'>Mal 3:8</a>), and proportionally blessed those who brought more offerings (cf. <a href='B:530 16:2'>1Cor 16:2</a>; <a href='B:540 8:14-15'>2Cor 8:14-15</a>). In addition to this, we should help those in need, especially our own family and other believers (<a href='B:610 5:8'>1Tim 5:8</a>).<p/>Jesus in no way intended that we should give away all that we possess. His advice to the rich young ruler to do so was a special case, since money had become an idol to this man (see <a href='B:490 18:22'>Luke 18:22</a>). Jesus encouraged prudence and economy and forbade making “treasures” our chief good. He encouraged us not to be unduly “anxious” about our earthly provisions (<a href='B:470 6:25'>Matt 6:25</a>) nor to selfishly hoard treasures for ourselves on earth (<a href='B:470 6:19-20'>Matt 6:19-20</a>). But in no way did He say we should not invest our money or plan for the future. Indeed, He gave parables about investing our treasures (<a href='B:470 25:14'>Matt 25:14</a>ff) and about counting the cost before building a tower (<a href='B:490 14:28'>Luke 14:28</a>).<p/>Neither is there any indication that the early believers ever took Jesus’ statement (to give to those who ask) to the extreme of giving away everything they possessed. In spite of some misunderstood verses to the contrary (see comments on <a href='B:510 2:44-45'>Acts 2:44-45</a>), the early church did not practice any abiding form of communism or socialism. Most of them apparently owned their own homes and/or other property. Otherwise, how could they have fulfilled the command to provide for their own and to leave an inheritance to their families. The prudent believer gives of his or her possessions first to God (see <a href='B:470 6:19'>Matt 6:19</a>; <a href='B:470 6:33'>33</a>), then for family and other believers (<a href='B:610 5:8'>1Tim 5:8</a>), and then, as much as is possible, to help the poor (<a href='B:550 2:10'>Gal 2:10</a>). 


text:
Was Paul recommending wine-drinking for Christians?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The Bible repeatedly warns against abuse of strong drink and drunkenness (<a href='B:240 20:1'>Prov 20:1</a>; <a href='B:240 31:4'>31:4–5</a>; <a href='B:290 24:9'>Isa 24:9</a>; <a href='B:530 6:9-10'>1Cor 6:9-10</a>; <a href='B:560 5:18'>Eph 5:18</a>). However, here Paul tells Timothy to “no longer drink only water, but use a little wine for your stomach’s sake and your frequent infirmities.” Doesn’t this commend wine drinking?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Once the entire context is understood, there is no basis here for Christians to engage in the social drinking of wine (or other alcoholic beverages). First, Paul says “a little,” not a lot. Paul elsewhere urges Christian leaders to be temperate (<a href='B:610 3:3'>1Tim 3:3</a>; <a href='B:610 3:8'>8</a>).<p/>Third, the Bible speaks often of the evil of wine drinking. It pronounces woes on those who drink in excess (<a href='B:290 5:11'>Isa 5:11</a>; <a href='B:370 6:6'>Amos 6:6</a>; <a href='B:400 2:11'>Micah 2:11</a>). All are warned that too much alcohol will lead to disgrace and judgment (<a href='B:370 6:6-7'>Amos 6:6-7</a>).<p/>Finally, the wine that was used in the biblical times was mixed with three parts water to one part wine, thus diluting it to a relatively harmless amount of alcohol. When this was taken in this minimal amount in conjunction with a meal, there was little chance in a non-alcoholic society for it to be personally or socially harmful. The same is not true today, since the wine, beer, and whiskey being imbibed is by biblical standards “strong drink.” And this is even more problematic in an alcoholic culture where one out of ten persons who begins to drink becomes a problem drinker. In this context it is better to follow the advice of Paul elsewhere when he said, “it is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak” (<a href='B:520 14:21'>Rom 14:21</a>). 


text:
Does only God have immortality or do humans also have it?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to Paul in this passage, God “alone has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light.” However, in other places, Paul speaks of Christians being raised in “immortal” physical bodies (<a href='B:530 15:53'>1Cor 15:53</a>) and partaking of “immortality” through the Gospel (<a href='B:620 1:10'>2Tim 1:10</a>). But if God alone has immortality, then how can anyone else have it?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> God is the only one who has immortality intrinsically, by virtue of His very nature. All believers get it as a gift from God, but it is not inherent to their very nature as creatures. Or, to put it another way, only God is immortal—human beings simply have immortality. Likewise, God alone is existence (cf. <a href='B:20 3:14'>Ex 3:14</a>)—creatures only have existence (cf. <a href='B:510 17:28'>Acts 17:28</a>). Further, God’s immortality is without beginning or end. Our immortality has a beginning with no end. In summary:<p/><b>GOD’S IMMORTALITY HUMAN IMMORTALITY</b><p/>Intrinsic to His nature Not intrinsic to our nature<p/><b><a href='B:610 6:16'>1TIMOTHY 6:16</a> —</b> Does God dwell in darkness or in light?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to Paul, God “dwells in unapproachable light.” However, the Bible repeatedly says things like “the Lord said He would dwell in the dark cloud” (<a href='B:110 8:12'>1Ki 8:12</a>) because “He made darkness His secret place (<a href='B:230 18:11'>Ps 18:11</a>; cf. 97:2). Which is it—darkness or light?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> In considering this discrepancy, we must remember, first of all, that “light” and “darkness” may be figures of speech and need not be taken literally. Both describe God’s unsearchableness (cf. <a href='B:520 11:33'>Rom 11:33</a>). 


text:
Should wealth be avoided or retained?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Jesus urged the rich young ruler to “sell what you have and give to the poor” (<a href='B:470 19:21'>Matt 19:21</a>). The early disciples sold their possessions and laid the money at the apostles’ feet (<a href='B:510 4:34-35'>Acts 4:34-35</a>). And Paul warned that “the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil” (<a href='B:610 6:10'>1Tim 6:10</a>). However, God blessed Abraham and Job with riches, and Paul does not instruct the rich to give away all they have, but to use and “richly enjoy” (<a href='B:610 6:17-18'>1Tim 6:17-18</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> It should be observed, first of all, that Jesus’ instruction to “sell what you have and give to the poor” (<a href='B:470 19:21'>Matt 19:21</a>) was to a rich young man who had made money his god, not to those who have not. There is nothing wrong withpossessing riches —there is something wrong with being possessed by riches.<p/>Further, there is no indication that the early disciples in Acts were either urged to sell all, or that they actually did. The land sold (<a href='B:510 4:34-35'>Acts 4:34-35</a>) may have been extra property. It is noteworthy that it does not say they sold their homes (see discussion on <a href='B:510 2:44-45'>Acts 2:44-45</a>). Finally, Paul does not say that money is evil, but only that the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil. Seeking riches for their own sake is wrong, but seeking to have something to share with others in need is not. Thus, while God “gives us richly all things to enjoy” (<a href='B:610 6:17'>1Tim 6:17</a>), in the same breath He warns, “not … to trust in uncertain riches.” 


text:
If Jesus abolished death, why do we still die?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Paul affirms in this text that Christ “has abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the Gospel.” But death is not abolished, since “death spread to all men” (<a href='B:520 5:12'>Rom 5:12</a>), and “it is appointed for men to die once” (<a href='B:650 9:27'>Heb 9:27</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> First of all, Christ did not abolish physical death immediately, but by His death and resurrection it will be abolished eventually. Christ is the first one to experience resurrection in an immortal body (<a href='B:530 15:20'>1Cor 15:20</a>)—the rest of the human race will experience this later, at His second coming (<a href='B:530 15:50-56'>1Cor 15:50-56</a>). Second, Christ abolished death officially when He personally defeated it by His resurrection. However, physical death will not be completely destroyed actually until He returns again and “death is swallowed up in victory” (<a href='B:530 15:54'>1Cor 15:54</a>). For Paul tells us that “the last enemy that will be destroyed is death” (<a href='B:530 15:26'>1Cor 15:26</a>). 


text:
Is it wrong for Christians to argue about theological matters?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Paul seemed to forbid theological arguments when he instructed Timothy “not to strive about words to no profit” (<a href='B:620 2:14'>2Tim 2:14</a>) and to “avoid foolish and ignorant disputes” (v. 23). On the other hand, Paul himself argued with the Jews in their synagogues (<a href='B:510 17:2'>Acts 17:2</a>; <a href='B:510 17:17'>17</a>) and disputed with the philosophers on Mars Hill (<a href='B:510 17:18'>Acts 17:18</a>ff). Indeed, Jude exhorted us “to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (<a href='B:720 1:3'>Jude 3</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> A distinction must be made between the two senses of what it means to argue or to contend.Arguing is not necessarily wrong, but being argumentative is. We should contend for the faith, but we should not be contentious in so doing. Making an earnest effort to defend the faith is good (cf. <a href='B:570 1:17'>Phil 1:17</a>; <a href='B:670 3:15'>1Pet 3:15</a>). But engaging infruitless quarrels is not. Likewise, Paul did not oppose disputing about what words really mean in a given context—he simply opposed mere semantical wrangling. 


text:
Is repentance a gift of God or an act of man?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Paul speaks here of God “granting them repentance, so that they may know the truth” (cf. <a href='B:510 5:31'>Acts 5:31</a>). Yet in other places, repentance is considered a person’s own act. Jesus, for example, calls on people to “Repent, and believe in the Gospel” (<a href='B:480 1:15'>Mark 1:15</a>). Paul tells us that God “commands all men everywhere to repent” (<a href='B:510 17:30'>Acts 17:30</a>). But doesn’t it have to be either an act of God or else an act of the individual believer?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There are two possible answers here, neither of which negates a person’s God-given responsibility to exercise free choice. First, repentance could be an actual gift of God, but like other gifts, it must be received to be enjoyed. On this view, God offers all who are willing the gift of repentance unto eternal life. Those who are not willing do not get repentance. In this way, God is impartial in His offer, but man is still responsible to accept or reject the gift of repentance necessary for salvation. <b>TWO DIFFERENT SENSES OF REPENTANCE</b><p/>As a God-given opportunity As a free human act 


text:
Are all who live godly lives persecuted, or only some?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Here the apostle makes the sweeping statement that “all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution.” This appears to be in flat contradiction to Solomon’s claim that “When a man’s ways please the Lord, He makes even his enemies to be at peace with him” (<a href='B:240 16:7'>Prov 16:7</a>). How can both be true?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Neither of these passages should be taken universally. Proverbs were only general statements, not universal truths. Likewise, Paul’s statement seems hardly appropriate for persons who die shortly after becoming believers or who live in a Christian environment all their life.<p/>Even if taken with strict literalness, being at “peace” with one’s enemies does not mean they are not persecuting us. It simply means that the believer, like Christ commanded, is not retaliating against his enemy or fighting back (cf. <a href='B:470 5:39-40'>Matt 5:39-40</a>). 


text:
Does this passage prove the inspiration of all Scripture or just some?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Paul says in this passage that “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God.” Some think that the word “all” should be replaced by the word “every.” Plus, some believe that the copula “is” should be placed after the remark concerning the inspiration of the Scriptures, not before. In doing so this can lead to the conclusion that some Scripture is not inspired.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> First, most versions translate this verse “All Scripture is God-breathed,” except those that translate this verse with the copula “is” after the word “God.” This makes it sound like there are some Scriptures that are not inspired of God (e.g., RSV, ASV), although the marginal notes in these translations give a more accurate rendering. But, most Bibles see the verse as reading “All Scripture is inspired of God.”<p/>Second, concerning whether the word “all” should be translated “every,” some argue that it should on the grounds of, if the definite article is missing in reference to this word, the verse should be translated “every.” However, whenever the word “Scripture” (graph?) is used in the NT, it always refers to authoritative and inspired writings—never the opposite—with or without the definite article in Greek. This word is used of the Hebrew Scriptures (as in our present verse) or NT writings (<a href='B:680 3:16'>2Peter 3:16</a>).<p/>Third, the word for “inspired of God” suggests that God so guided the NT authors as to write the very word of God. As we notice in <a href='B:680 1:20-21'>2Peter 1:20-21</a>, no prophecy of Scripture came about by the will of man but by the Holy Spirit moving (carrying along) the writers of Scripture to speak from God. The word for “moved” (pher?) in 2 Peter is the same word used in <a href='B:510 27:15'>Acts 27:15</a> where the ship which carried Paul was so caught up in a storm that they could not face the wind. They gave way to it, and they let themselves be “driven along” by the storm. This is true of the Holy Spirit inspiring the authors of Holy Scripture to write the Word of God. But if all the authors of Scripture were moved by God, then the words of Scripture were breathed out by God and without error, since God cannot err (<a href='B:650 6:18'>Heb 6:18</a>; <a href='B:630 1:2'>Titus 1:2</a>; <a href='B:500 17:17'>John 17:17</a>).<p/>Finally, even if it could be argued from the NT that not every use of “the Scriptures” refers to an inspired writing, nonetheless, it would not undermine Paul’s teaching here that the entire OT is inspired of God. For the context makes it clear that the “Scripture” to which he refers is “the Holy Scriptures” (1:15) which Timothy’s Jewish mother and grandmother had taught him (cf. <a href='B:620 1:5'>2Tim 1:5</a>), and this could be none other than the whole Jewish OT. 


text:
Doesn’t Paul involve himself in a paradox or contradiction here?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Paul quoted a Cretan who said that “Cretans are always liars” (1:12). But if this was said by a Cretan and Cretans always lie, then he too was lying. But if this Cretan was lying when he said Cretans always lie, then Cretans do not always lie and there is a lie in the Scripture. If, on the other hand, this Cretan was telling the truth about Cretans, then Cretans do not always lie, at least not the one who said this. In either event, by incorporating this statement in Scripture, the apostle seems to have included a falsehood.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Paul seemed to be aware of this dilemma and quickly added, “This testimony is true” (v. 13). In other words, the Cretans generally lie, but at least on this one occasion a Cretan uttered the truth when he characterized the Cretans as liars. In this way the paradox is broken, and no falsehood is thereby included in Scripture.<p/><b><a href='B:630 1:12'>TITUS 1:12</a> —</b> Doesn’t Paul pronounce this pagan poet inspired by making him part of Scripture?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Christians believe that only the Bible is the Word of God (<a href='B:620 3:16'>2Tim 3:16</a>). Yet the Apostle Paul quotes pagan poets on at least three occasions. But in so doing he seems to give assent to the sources he quotes as inspired, just as when he quotes OT Scripture as the Word of God (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>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Paul is not quoting this non-Christian source as inspired, but simply as true. All truth is God’s truth, no matter who said it. Caiaphas the Jewish high priest uttered a truth about Christ (<a href='B:500 11:49'>John 11:49</a>). The Bible often uses non-inspired sources (cf. <a href='B:40 21:14'>Num 21:14</a>; <a href='B:60 10:13'>Josh 10:13</a>; <a href='B:110 15:31'>1Ki 15:31</a>). Three times Paul cites non-Christian thinkers (<a href='B:510 17:28'>Acts 17:28</a>; <a href='B:530 15:33'>1Cor 15:33</a>; <a href='B:630 1:12'>Titus 1:12</a>). Jude alludes to truths found in two non-canonical books (<a href='B:720 1:9'>Jude 9</a>; <a href='B:720 1:14'>14</a>). But never does the Bible cite them as divinely authoritative, but simply as containing the truth quoted. The usual phrases, such as, “thus saith the Lord” (cf. <a href='B:290 7:7'>Isa 7:7</a>; <a href='B:300 2:5'>Jer 2:5</a>, KJV) or “it is written” (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>) are never found when these non-inspired sources are cited. Nonetheless, truth is truth wherever it is found. And there is no reason, therefore, that a biblical author, by direction of the Holy Spirit, cannot utilize truth from whatever source he may find it. 


text:
Should the wayward be instructed or expelled from the church?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> This verse says we should “reject” them, and in <a href='B:530 5'>1Cor 5</a> the adulterous member was excommunicated (v. 5). But in <a href='B:620 2:25'>2Tim 2:25</a> leaders are exhorted, “in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance.”<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The severity of the action of the church will depend on the seriousness of the sin of the member being disciplined. Those who are living in immorality should, after being exhorted to change, be excommunicated, since their sin has a leavenous or contagious effect on others (<a href='B:530 5:5-7'>1Cor 5:5-7</a>). Even so, if they repent, they should be reinstated in the church (cf. <a href='B:540 2:6-7'>2Cor 2:6-7</a>), since the primary purpose of discipline is not to reject, but to reform.<p/>The main difference in the severity of the discipline was in thepenitence of the person being disciplined. If the person repented, he was to be reinstated (<a href='B:540 2:6-7'>2Cor 2:6-7</a>). If not, then “after the first and second admonition” (<a href='B:630 3:10'>Titus 3:10</a>) he was to be rejected. 


text:
Doesn’t Paul approve of the institution of slavery?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The Apostle Paul seems to favor the institution of human slavery by sending a runaway slave, Onesimus, back to his owner. But slavery is unethical. It is a violation of the principles of human freedom and dignity.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Slavery is unethical and unbiblical and neither Paul’s actions nor his writings approve of this debasing form of treatment. In fact, it was the application of biblical principles that ultimately led to the overthrow of slavery. Several important facts should be noted in this connection.<p/>First, from the very beginning, God declared that all humans participate in the image of God (<a href='B:10 1:27'>Gen 1:27</a>). The apostle reaffirmed this, declaring, “we are the offspring of God” (<a href='B:510 17:29'>Acts 17:29</a>), and He “has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth” (<a href='B:510 17:26'>Acts 17:26</a>).<p/>Second, in spite of the fact that slavery was countenanced in the semitic cultures of the day, the law demanded that slaves eventually be set free (<a href='B:20 21:2'>Ex 21:2</a>; <a href='B:30 25:40'>Lev 25:40</a>). Likewise, servants had to be treated with respect (<a href='B:20 21:20'>Ex 21:20</a>; <a href='B:20 21:26'>26</a>).<p/>Third, Israel, itself in slavery in Egypt, was constantly reminded by God of this (<a href='B:50 5:15'>Deut 5:15</a>), and their emancipation became the model for the liberation of all slaves (cf. <a href='B:30 25:40'>Lev 25:40</a>).<p/>Fourth, in the NT, Paul declared that in Christianity “there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (<a href='B:550 3:28'>Gal 3:28</a>). All social classes are broken down in Christ; we are all equal before God.<p/>Fifth, the NT explicitly forbids the evil system of this world that traded the “bodies and souls of men” (<a href='B:730 18:13'>Rev 18:13</a>). Slave trade is so repugnant to God that He pronounces His final judgment on the evil system that perpetrated it (Rev. 17–18).<p/>Sixth, when Paul urges, “Servants, be obedient to those who are your masters” (<a href='B:560 6:5'>Eph 6:5</a>; cf. <a href='B:580 3:22'>Col 3:22</a>), he is not thereby approving of the institution of slavery, but simply alluding to the de facto situation in his day. Rather, he is instructing them to be good employees, just as believers should be today, but he was not thereby commending slavery. 


text:
If Jesus was already perfect, how could He be made perfect through suffering?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The Bible declares that Jesus was absolutely perfect and without sin, even in His human nature (<a href='B:540 5:21'>2Cor 5:21</a>; <a href='B:650 4:15'>Heb 4:15</a>; <a href='B:670 2:22'>1Pet 2:22</a>; <a href='B:670 3:18'>3:18</a>; <a href='B:690 3:3'>1John 3:3</a>). But according to this verse, Jesus was made “perfect through sufferings.” But to be made perfect implies that He was not perfect to begin with, which is a contradiction.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Jesus was absolutely and unchangeably perfect in His divine nature. God is perfect (<a href='B:470 5:48'>Matt 5:48</a>), and He cannot change (<a href='B:460 3:6'>Mal 3:6</a>; <a href='B:650 6:18'>Heb 6:18</a>). But Jesus was also human, and as such was subject to change, though without sin. For example, “Jesus increased in wisdom and stature” (<a href='B:490 2:52'>Luke 2:52</a>). If his knowledge as a man increased, then his experience also did. Thus, He “learned obedience by the things which He suffered” (<a href='B:650 5:8'>Heb 5:8</a>). In this sense He was “made perfect” in that He experienced the perfecting work of suffering in His own sinless life (cf. <a href='B:220 23:10'>Job 23:10</a>; <a href='B:650 12:11'>Heb 12:11</a>; <a href='B:660 1:2-4'>Jam 1:2-4</a>). That is, He gained all the experiential benefits of suffering without sinning (<a href='B:650 4:15'>Heb 4:15</a>). In this way He can be of real comfort and encouragement to those who suffer. 


text:
Does the devil have the power of death or does God?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The writer of Hebrews speaks here about Christ’s coming so “that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil.” But in other places the Bible asserts that only God has the power over life and death: “I kill and I make alive” (<a href='B:50 32:39'>Deut 32:39</a>; cf. <a href='B:220 1:21'>Job 1:21</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> God is sovereign over all life. Only He can create it, and only He has determined the number of our days (<a href='B:230 90:10-12'>Ps 90:10-12</a>) and has “appointed” the day of our death (<a href='B:650 9:27'>Heb 9:27</a>). But by tempting Adam and Eve, the devil succeeded in bringing on the human race God’s pronounced judgment of death for disobedience (<a href='B:10 2:17'>Gen 2:17</a>; <a href='B:520 5:12'>Rom 5:12</a>). So, in this sense, the devil may be said to have had the power of death (<a href='B:650 2:14'>Heb 2:14</a>). However, by tasting death for every man (<a href='B:650 2:9'>Heb 2:9</a>) and rising triumphantly from the grave (<a href='B:520 4:25'>Rom 4:25</a>), Christ now holds “the keys of Hades and of Death” (<a href='B:730 1:18'>Rev 1:18</a>), having “abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the Gospel” (<a href='B:620 1:10'>2Tim 1:10</a>). 


text:
Was it possible for Christ to have sinned?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The writer of Hebrews says that Christ “had to be made like His brethren in all things… For since He Himself was tempted in that which He has suffered, He is able to come to the aid of those who are tempted” (2:17–18,NASB). Does this mean that Christ could have sinned?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Some argue that Christ could not have sinned. They believe that our Lord was tempted like we are and that He can sympathize with our weaknesses, but that He was incapable of sinning. In support of this view they argue, first, that since Christ was God, and since God cannot sin (<a href='B:650 6:17'>Heb 6:17</a>; <a href='B:660 1:13'>Jam 1:13</a>), it follows that Christ could not sin either. Second, since Christ had no fallen human nature, as we do, He had no propensity to sin. Finally, they observe that His temptation was only from without, not from within. Hence, He could be tempted without having the real possibility of sinning.<p/>Other orthodox scholars believe that Christ had the ability to sin (since He had the power of free choice), but did not sin. In short, sin was possible, but not actual in Jesus’ life. To deny this possibility, they believe, would deny His full humanity, His ability to “sympathize with our weaknesses” (<a href='B:650 4:15'>Heb 4:15</a>), and would make His temptation into a charade. They note that while Jesus could not sin as God, nonetheless, He could have sinned (but didn’t) as man. Since Jesus had two natures, one divine and one human, a distinction must be made in what He could do in each nature. For example, He could not get tired, hungry, or sleepy as God. But He did all of these as man. His divine nature could not die. Yet He died as man. Likewise, they argue, Christ could not have sinned as God but could have sinned as man. 


text:
<b>a—</b> Did Christ have flesh only before His resurrection?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Speaking of the “days of His [Jesus’] flesh” as past seems to imply that Jesus did not rise in the flesh and ascend into heaven in the same physical body in which He died. Yet Jesus Himself said that His resurrection body was one of “flesh and bones” (<a href='B:490 24:31'>Luke 24:31</a>) and theApostles’ Creed confesses the “resurrection of the flesh.”<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The phrase “days of His flesh” simply refers to Jesus’ earthly sojourn. It affirms nothing about the nature of the resurrection body. It is clear from many passages that Jesus rose in literal, physical, human flesh (see comments on <a href='B:490 24:39'>Luke 24:39</a>; <a href='B:690 4:2-3'>1John 4:2-3</a>).<p/><b><a href='B:650 5:7'>Heb 5:7</a> b—</b> Did Christ shrink from death or face it courageously?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> On the one hand, it would seem that Christ shrunk from death, since He prayed “with vehement cries and tears to Him who was able to save Him from death” (<a href='B:650 5:7'>Heb 5:7</a>). He said, “O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me” (<a href='B:470 26:39'>Matt 26:39</a>). On the other hand, we are led to believe that He faced death obediently and boldly, for He “steadfastly set His face to go to Jerusalem” (<a href='B:490 9:51'>Luke 9:51</a>), calmly facing His arrest, trial, and crucifixion, and repeatedly assuring His disciples He would rise again (<a href='B:470 12:40-42'>Matt 12:40-42</a>; <a href='B:500 10:18'>John 10:18</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Christ faced dath boldly but not eagerly. He met it willingly but not apathetically. Christ was “obedient to the point of death” (<a href='B:570 2:8'>Phil 2:8</a>). He approached it boldly and bravely, declaring, “I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again” (<a href='B:500 10:18'>John 10:18</a>). He willingly submitted to the Father, saying, “not as I will, but as You will” (<a href='B:470 26:39'>Matt 26:39</a>).<p/>Christ’s willingness and boldness notwithstanding, He nevertheless felt the full emotional and existential impact of His impending death. He did pray with “vehement cries and tears,” but the writer adds, He “was heard because of His godly fear” (<a href='B:650 5:7'>Heb 5:7</a>). Jesus wished as a man that His cup (death) could pass from Him (<a href='B:470 26:39'>Matt 26:39</a>), but He willed, as the Father willed, that it would take place for the salvation of the world. While His soul was “troubled” about death, He never prayed, “Father, save me from this hour.” He only asked, “shall I say” this? His answer was no, “for this purpose I came to this hour. `Father glorify Your name’ ” (<a href='B:500 12:27-28'>John 12:27-28</a>). He never feared death as such, but banishment from the Father (<a href='B:470 27:46'>Matt 27:46</a>). In fact, by His death Jesus overcame the power and fear of death, defeating the devil (<a href='B:650 2:14'>Heb 2:14</a>). 


text:
Does this passage teach that it is possible for Christians to lose their salvation?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> <a href='B:650 6:4-6'>Heb 6:4-6</a> seems to be written for Christians because it contains certain characteristics that would be true only of them, such as “partakers of the Holy Spirit” (v. 4). But it declares that if they fall away, it is impossible “to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame” (v. 6). Does this mean that Christians can lose their salvation?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There are two basic interpretations of this passage. Some take it to refer to believers and others to nonbelievers.<p/>Those who say this refers to unbelievers argue that all of these characteristics could belong to those who merelyprofess Christianity, but who do not reallyposse ss the Holy Spirit. They note that they are not depicted in the normal ways of describing a true Christian, such as, being “born again” (<a href='B:500 3:3'>John 3:3</a>), being “in Christ” (<a href='B:560 1:3'>Eph 1:3</a>), or being “sealed by the Holy Spirit” (<a href='B:560 4:30'>Eph 4:30</a>). They point to Judas Iscariot as a classic example. He walked with the Lord, was sent out and commissioned by Jesus on missions having “power over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all kinds of sickness and all kinds of disease” (<a href='B:470 10:1'>Matt 10:1</a>). However, Jesus, in His prayer in John’s Gospel, spoke of Judas as “the son of perdition” (<a href='B:500 17:12'>John 17:12</a>).<p/>There are several problems with taking this to refer to nonbelievers, even for those who hold that a believer can lose his salvation (i.e., Arminians). First, the passage declares emphatically that “it is impossible … to renew them again to repentance” (<a href='B:650 6:4'>Heb 6:4</a>; <a href='B:650 6:6'>6</a>). But few Arminians believe that once a person has backslidden it is impossible for him to be saved again. Further, while the description of their spiritual status differs from other ways of expressing it in the NT, some of the phrases are very difficult to take any other way than that the person was saved. For example, (1) those spoken of had experienced “repentance” (<a href='B:650 6:6'>Heb 6:6</a>), which is the condition of salvation (<a href='B:510 17:30'>Acts 17:30</a>); (2) they were “enlightened and have tasted the heavenly gift” (<a href='B:650 6:4'>Heb 6:4</a>); (3) they were “partakers of the Holy Spirit” (v. 4); (4) In addition, they had “tasted the good word of God” (v. 5); and (5) have tasted the “powers of the age to come” (v. 5).<p/>On the other hand, those who hold a Calvinistic point of view (such as the authors) point to several facts. First, the word for “fall away” (parapesontas) does not indicate a one-way action. Rather, it is the word for “drift,” indicating that the status of the individuals is not hopeless. Second, the fact is that it is “impossible” for them to repent again indicates the once-for-all nature of repentance. In other words, they don’t need to repent again since they did it once and that is all that is necessary for “eternal redemption” (<a href='B:650 9:12'>Heb 9:12</a>). Third, the text seems to indicate that there is no more need for “drifters” (backsliders) to repent again and get saved all over any more than there is for Christ to die again on the cross (<a href='B:650 6:6'>Heb 6:6</a>). Finally, the writer of Hebrews calls those he is warning “beloved,” a term hardly appropriate for unbelievers. 


text:
Does this verse support reincarnation?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Hebrews tells us that Melchizedek, “having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, remains a priest continually.” Since Jesus assumed this priesthood (7:21), some reincarnationalists use this verse to prove that Jesus is a reincarnation of Melchizedek. Are they correct?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> No, this is a misuse of this passage. This is clear for several reasons. First of all, it says Melchizedek was only “made like”Jesus, not that Jesus was Melchizedek (<a href='B:650 7:3'>Heb 7:3</a>). Second, Christ was only a priest “according to the order of” (<a href='B:650 7:21'>Heb 7:21</a>) Melchizedek. It does not affirm that He was Melchizedek. Finally, the fact that Melchizedek had a mysterious and unrecorded birth and death (<a href='B:650 7:3'>Heb 7:3</a>) does not prove reincarnation—it was merely used as an analogy for the eternal Messiah, Jesus Christ. 


text:
Do these verses indicate that an embryo is merely a potential human being, not an actual human person?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The writer of Hebrews declares that Levi paid tithes to Melchizedek through Abraham. However, Levi was not even born until hundreds of years after this time. So Levi could not possibly have actually paid tithes to Melchizedek—he could only have done it potentially.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> This text is not speaking of an embryo, to say nothing of calling it a potential human being.<p/>Fourth, if this is so, then even human sperm (before they fertilize an ovum) are potential human beings just like embryos. But this is genetically incorrect. Sperm have only 23 chromosomes while embryos have 46 (see comments on <a href='B:230 139:13-16'>Ps 139:13-16</a>). 


text:
Was the Law of Moses perfect or imperfect?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The psalmist declared that the “law of the Lord is perfect” (<a href='B:230 19:7'>Ps 19:7</a>). It reflects the very character of God (cf. <a href='B:30 11:45'>Lev 11:45</a>). Yet the writer of Hebrews insists that “the law made nothing perfect” (7:19), and thus God brought in a “better covenant” (v. 22). This, he contends, would not have been necessary “if that first covenant had been faultless” (<a href='B:650 8:7'>Heb 8:7</a>). So, who is right? Is the law perfect or imperfect?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The law was perfect in its nature, but imperfect in its results. It was a perfect expression of God’s righteousness, but an imperfect means of making man righteous. Of course, that is not the fault of the law itself or the purpose for which God gave it. For the law was never given to redeem sinners (<a href='B:630 3:5-6'>Titus 3:5-6</a>; <a href='B:520 4:5'>Rom 4:5</a>), but to reveal sin. As a standard and means of revealing sin, the law was an impeccable norm and teacher. But it was only “our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith” (<a href='B:550 3:24'>Gal 3:24</a>). Like a mirror, the law was intended to reveal our imperfections as we look into it; but it, no more than the mirror, was intended to correct our imperfections. So the law is perfect in itself, as a rule and revealer of sin, but it is imperfect as a means of empowering us to overcome sin. 


text:
Is Jesus our priest or our sacrifice?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Christ is presented here as the “High Priest” of believers (cf. 7:21). However, later Jesus is depicted as the “sacrifice” for our sins (<a href='B:650 9:26'>Heb 9:26</a>; <a href='B:650 9:28'>28</a>; <a href='B:650 10:10'>10:10</a>). Which is He?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Jesus is represented correctly by both figures. He is our Priest in that He speaks to God on behalf of man. Yet He is our Sacrifice, since He offered Himself on the Cross for our sins. He is the Offerer and the Offered; both Sacrificer and Sacrificed. “He offered up Himself” (<a href='B:650 7:27'>Heb 7:27</a>). 


text:
Was the altar of incense in the Holy Place or in the Most Holy Place behind the veil?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to <a href='B:20 30:6'>Exo 30:6</a> (cf. <a href='B:20 26:33'>26:33</a>; <a href='B:20 40:3'>40:3</a>), the altar of incense was in the Holy Place in front of the veil, not in the Most Holy Place behind the veil. However, <a href='B:650 9:3-4'>Heb 9:3-4</a> states that it was “behind the … veil, [in] the part of the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all.”<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Several possible solutions have been suggested to this difficulty. Any one of them would resolve the problem.<p/>2. The altar was inside the veil. Following <a href='B:650 9:3-4'>Heb 9:3-4</a>, it has been argued that the Altar of Incense was always inside the Most Holy Place. This view is supported with the following arguments. First, it is in accord with the clear statement in <a href='B:650 9:3-4'>Heb 9:3-4</a>. Second, it is implied in other passages which speak of this altar as “before the ark of the testimony” (<a href='B:20 40:5'>Ex 40:5</a>), which was in the Most Holy Place. Third, <a href='B:110 6:20'>1Ki 6:20</a> speaks of the altar of incense as “belonging to the inner sanctuary” (Phillip E. Hughes translation).<p/>Opponents of this view have noted several objections. First, it is contrary to clear statements in the OT (e.g., <a href='B:20 30:10'>Ex 30:10</a>) that place the altar of incense in the Holy Place, along with the bread and the candles. The priest, who was forbidden to enter the Most Holy Place (except on the Day of Atonement), served at the altar of incense daily (<a href='B:20 30:6-11'>Ex 30:6-11</a>). Second, Philo, Josephus, and other Jewish authorities all placed it outside the veil in the Holy Place. Finally, the NT locates it outside the veil where ordinary priests like Zechariah ministered (<a href='B:490 1:5'>Luke 1:5</a>ff).<p/>3. The Veil was moved on the Day of Atonement. According to this position, the altar of incense was usually stationed outside the veil in the Holy Place. However, they believe the veil was moved back on the Day of Atonement so the priest could have ready access to the altar of incense in order to use it in the Most Holy Place. Support for this view is derived from the following: First, the Bible usually speaks of the altar of incense as being separated from the Most Holy Place by a veil (cf. <a href='B:20 30:6'>Ex 30:6</a>; <a href='B:30 16:12'>Lev 16:12</a>; <a href='B:30 16:15'>15</a>; <a href='B:30 16:17'>17</a>). The only time it speaks of this altar being accessible to the priest in the Most Holy Place is on the Day of Atonement (cf. <a href='B:30 16:2'>Lev 16:2</a>; <a href='B:650 9:7'>Heb 9:7</a>). Finally, this fits with the typology of the OT high priest who did once a year what Christ did once for all time (cf. <a href='B:650 10:10-11'>Heb 10:10-11</a>), namely pull back the veil that separates us from God. In this connection it is noted that Christ has rent the veil (<a href='B:470 27:5'>Matt 27:5</a>) and there is no longer a separation between the Holy Place and the Most Holy Place.<p/>The main problems with this view are these: First of all, there is no passage that actually states the veil was moved back on the Day of Atonement. Second, it may be pushing a type too far. After all, not everything the OT priest did prefigured Christ. For example, they continued to offer sacrifices after their Day of Atonement (<a href='B:650 10:11'>Heb 10:11</a>); Christ did not after His. Third, there are passages which clearly imply the veil was still in place on the Day of Atonement, speaking of the priest going “inside the veil” to do his work (<a href='B:30 16:12'>Lev 16:12</a>; cf. 15, 17, 23, 27).<p/>4. There were two altars of incense. Some scholars posit two altars to resolve the difficulty, one stationed inside and one outside the veil. This view has the merit of explaining all the data and of avoiding the difficulties of the two previous views. However, there are major problems with this position. First, there is no reference to two altars of incense in either the OT or NT. Second, Jewish authorities (such as Philo and Josephus) make no reference to any such second altar. Third, if there were two altars, then the author of Hebrews must be charged with a gross omission, since he makes no reference to the altar of incense in the Holy Place, which was a regular daily part of the priestly ministry (<a href='B:650 9:3-4'>Heb 9:3-4</a>). Finally, this suggested solution seems harmonistic, that is, suggested as a solution without any substantial evidence for it.<p/>5. The golden censer differs from the golden altar. This position contends that the Greek word thumiaterion often translated “golden altar” (<a href='B:650 9:4'>Heb 9:4</a>) should be rendered “golden censer.” This would resolve the difficulty, since the altar of incense would be outside the veil and the golden censer would be inside the veil where the priest could use it on the Day of Atonement. In support of this position the following can be offered: First, “censer” is an acceptable translation of the Greek word thumiat?rion, which can mean either the place or the instrument of incense. Second, the same Greek word is used of a censer elsewhere in the Greek translation of the OT (cf. <a href='B:330 8:11'>Ezek 8:11</a>; <a href='B:140 26:19'>2Chron 26:19</a>). Third, this view is supported by the Jewish Mishnah which gives a detailed description of this golden censer. Fourth, it avoids a flat contradiction which involves having one altar in two places. Fifth, it fits with the fact that the altar of incense is usually mentioned with the bread and candles (which are always in the Holy Place), whereas the golden censer is used only once a year in the Most Holy Place (<a href='B:30 16:2'>Lev 16:2</a>; <a href='B:30 16:12'>12</a>; <a href='B:30 16:29'>29</a>). Sixth, Aaron the high priest was expressly commanded to burn incense in a censer before the mercy seat on the Day of Atonement (<a href='B:30 16:12-13'>Lev 16:12-13</a>). Seventh, as a Jewish teacher familiar with the law, the author of Hebrews would have been familiar with the temple furniture and ritual. Eighth, his message would have had no credibility with his Hebrew readers had he made a gross mistake in the positioning of the altar of incense. Ninth, since this instrument for incense was used only once a year in the Most Holy Place, it is only reasonable that it would be kept in the most sacred place. As much as there is to commend it, this view is not without objections. First of all, the Greek word in question is usually translated “golden altar” (e.g., ASV, NASB, RSV, NIV, NKJV), not a “golden censer.” Second, if it is translated “golden censer,” then the author of Hebrews must be charged with a gross omission of the altar of incense, which seems unlikely given its importance in the tabernacle furniture and daily ministry. Third, if “censer” was meant it would not have been made of gold but of brass to house the hot coals for the incense. Finally, the same term is used by contemporary Jewish authorities (Philo and Josephus) to refer to the altar of incense.<p/>6. The altar of incense was moved on the Day of Atonement. Other scholars affirm that <a href='B:650 9:3-4'>Heb 9:3-4</a> is a reference to the “golden altar” of incense which was moved from its regular location outside the veil on the special occasion of the Day of Atonement. There are several arguments in favor of this view. First, it resolves the apparent conflict by holding that there was only one ark which is located in two different places at the appropriate times. Second, it explains all the data consistently. Third, it avoids the speculative nature of the two altar theory. Fourth, it seems inconceivable that the author of Hebrews, writing to Hebrew Christians familiar with the facts, would place such an important item of tabernacle furniture in the wrong place. This view avoids such an unlikely situation. Fifth, it explains how the high priest could have used this altar so readily in cleansing the Most Holy Place on the Day of Atonement, since it was moved there on that occasion. Sixth, it fits with the other references of Scripture which speak of incense being offered in the very presence of a holy God (<a href='B:730 8:3'>Rev 8:3</a>; <a href='B:730 9:13'>9:13</a>). Seventh, it is congruent with <a href='B:110 6:22'>1Ki 6:22</a> which can be rendered, “the entire altar [of incense] … was in the inner sanctuary.” Eighth, <a href='B:20 30:6'>Exo 30:6</a> (cf. 40:5) may be instructions to move the altar of incense to the Most Holy Place on the Day of Atonement. Likewise, <a href='B:650 9:6'>Heb 9:6</a> may encompass this move when it says, “now when these things had been thus prepared.” Ninth, the Jewish Apocalypse of Baruch (6.7), which belongs to this same period, describes the Most Holy Place as containing the altar of incense.<p/>It has been suggested that the lack of explicit reference to moving the altar of incense for the Day of atonement makes this view problematic. Likewise, some have queried how the high priest could have moved this heavy altar by himself. But neither of these is telling arguments, since not everything is explicitly noted in Scripture and the other priests were available to make any arrangements necessary for the Day of Atonement.<p/>7. The altar was “inside” by doctrinal association. Some Bible students have suggested that the altar of incense was actually located outside the veil but that it was listed as “inside” in <a href='B:650 9:3-4'>Heb 9:3-4</a> because of its close association with the ark of the covenant and the atoning sacrifice offered there. In brief, Hebrews is speaking of it being “inside” by doctrinal association but not in its spatial location. In support of this conclusion they cite the fact that the author of Hebrews uses the participle “having” (echousa) instead of the expression “in which” (en h?) which would clearly mean spatial location.<p/>This view, of course, would solve many of the problems associated with other views, but it creates problems of its own. First of all, the same word (echousa) translated “having” is used spatially in this very passage (cf. v. 4). Furthermore, the two phrases are used interchangeably in this text, indicating that it is more a matter of variation in style than a desire to give a non-spatial relational impression.


text:
Were there three things in the ark or only the tables of stone?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> This passage claims that the ark of the covenant had the golden bowl of manna, Aaron’s rod that budded, and the two tables of stone. But elsewhere it affirms that only the tables of stone were there (<a href='B:20 40:20'>Ex 40:20</a>; <a href='B:50 10:5'>Deut 10:5</a>; <a href='B:110 8:9'>1Ki 8:9</a>). Which is correct?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The two “tables of stone” (i.e., the Ten Commandments) are not the same as the “book of the law.” The latter was not put in the ark, but was placed along side of it (<a href='B:50 31:26'>Deut 31:26</a>). Originally, all three items (tables of stone, pot of manna, and Aaron’s rod) were in the ark (as <a href='B:650 9:4'>Heb 9:4</a> says). Subsequently, the last two were removed (<a href='B:20 40:20'>Ex 40:20</a>). 


text:
How can we explain the distorted quotation of <a href='B:230 40'>Psalm 40</a>?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> <a href='B:230 40:6'>Psalm 40:6</a> cites the Messiah as saying “My ears You have opened,” but the writer of Hebrews quotes it as “a body You have prepared for Me” (10:5). There is no similarity whatsoever in these quotations. The NT seems to totally distort this OT passage.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The difficulty arises here from the fact that the writer of Hebrews cites a version of the Greek translation of the OT (the Septuagint), whereas <a href='B:230 40'>Psalm 40</a> was originally written in Hebrew. However, this does not solve the difficulty for anyone who believes in the inspiration of the Bible, since once the NT cites a passage this guarantees its truthfulness. How, then, can this apparent misquotation be resolved?<p/>Others claim this is a synecdoche, in which one part stands for the whole. That is to say, if God is to “dig out the ears” (so that the Messiah can obey God and become a sacrifice for sin), then He must “prepare a body” for Him in which He can enter the world and accomplish His divine mission (cf. <a href='B:650 10:5'>Heb 10:5</a>). Either way would satisfactorily resolve the difficulty and satisfy the principle that the NT citations need not be exact quotations as long as they are faithful to the truth contained in the OT text. 


text:
Did OT sacrifices make atonement for sins?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> <a href='B:30 17:11'>Lev 17:11</a> affirmed that God gave blood sacrifices “to make atonement” for our souls. But Hebrews seems to contradict that, insisting that the Aaronic priest “stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins” (10:11).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The sacrifices in the OT were not intended to take away sin, but only to cover over sin until Christ came who could do away with it. Each blood sacrifice before Christ looked forward to Christ. The passover lamb was a type that anticipated fulfillment in “Christ, our Passover, [who] was sacrificed for us” (<a href='B:530 5:7'>1Cor 5:7</a>). They provided only a temporary covering for sins until Christ could bring in thepermanent solution to the sin question. Old Testament offerings had, as it were, an IOU attached to them, awaiting the price to be paid by the “Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (<a href='B:500 1:29'>John 1:29</a>). 


text:
Did Abraham know where he was going when he left his homeland to follow God?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The writer of Hebrews informs us here that Abraham “went out, not knowing where he was going.” Yet <a href='B:10 12:5'>Gen 12:5</a> asserts that Abraham “departed to go to the land of Canaan.”<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Abraham did not know at the time he was called by God where he would eventually go. He was simply told by God to go to “a land that I will show you” (<a href='B:10 12:1'>Gen 12:1</a>). Or, as Hebrews renders it, “to the place which he would afterward receive as an inheritance” (<a href='B:650 11:8'>Heb 11:8</a>). The statement (in <a href='B:10 12:5'>Gen 12:5</a>) that he “departed to go to the land of Canaan” is a comment by the author looking back, not the condition of Abraham’s mind at the time.


text:
Should some of the men listed in this “hall of faith” really be included?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Why should Barak, Samson, and Jephthah be listed among the great men of faith such as Abraham, Moses, and Joseph? After all, they failed in many ways.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> It is true that Barak did not want to go to war without Deborah and showed lack of leadership. Samson had a flare for women, and Jephthah negotiated with the Ammonites which he should not have done. Yet none of these acts should necessarily exclude these men from being listed. For, as the NT says, “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (<a href='B:520 3:23'>Rom 3:23</a>). This is true even of others mentioned in the list of great men of faith. Abraham lied concerning Sarah his wife, and Moses killed a man. David will always be remembered for his adulterous act with Bathsheba, yet God called him a man “who followed Me with all his heart” (<a href='B:110 14:8'>1Ki 14:8</a>). What separates these men from other individuals is theirfaith, not their sinfulness. Their heroic faith warranted their inclusion in the “Faith Hall of Fame.” For example, even after Samson’s decline, he performed mighty acts of faith and accomplished great things for God, destroying more of God’s enemies in his death than he did in his life (<a href='B:70 16:30'>Judge 16:30</a>). 


text:
Why couldn’t Esau repent if he sought it with tears?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The Bible informs us here that Esau “was rejected, for he found no place for repentance, though he sought it diligently with tears.” But why wouldn’t God accept his sincere repentance, when He commands all men everywhere to repent (<a href='B:510 17:30'>Acts 17:30</a>) and is patiently waiting for people to repent (<a href='B:680 3:9'>2Peter 3:9</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There are two important things to observe about this pasage.<p/>Second, tears are not a sure sign that a person has genuinely repented. One can also have tears of regret and remorse that fall short of true repentance or change of mind (cf. Judas, <a href='B:470 27:3'>Matt 27:3</a>).<p/>Finally, this text is not talking about spiritual blessing (salvation), but earthly blessing (inheritance). God always honors the sincere repentance of sinners and grants them salvation (<a href='B:510 10:35'>Acts 10:35</a>; <a href='B:650 11:6'>Heb 11:6</a>). 


text:
Is it desirable to avoid trials and temptation?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Jesus instructed His disciples to pray, “do not lead us into temptation” (<a href='B:470 6:13'>Matt 6:13</a>). But James says here, “count it all joy when you fall into various trials.”<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The two situations are different, as indicated by several factors. First, James is speaking of trials we “fall into,” and Jesus is referring to things we should not want to be “led into.” Second, James is speaking of trials, and Jesus is speaking about temptations. It is not a sin to fall into trials, but sin does result from being led into temptations. Finally, while the believer should not masochistically seek trials, neither should he try to avoid them at all cost. God can work in and through them to perfect our lives (cf. <a href='B:220 23:10'>Job 23:10</a>; <a href='B:650 12:11'>Heb 12:11</a>; <a href='B:660 1:3-4'>Jam 1:3-4</a>). (See comments on <a href='B:470 6:13'>Matt 6:13</a>) 


text:
If God doesn’t tempt anyone, then why did He tempt Abraham?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The Bible says “God tempted Abraham” (<a href='B:10 22:1'>Gen 22:1</a>, KJV), and Jesus taught His disciples to pray to God, “do not lead us into temptation” (<a href='B:470 6:13'>Matt 6:13</a>). How then can James say of God, “nor does He Himself tempt anyone” (<a href='B:660 1:13'>Jam 1:13</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> God did not tempt Abraham (nor anyone) to sin. Rather, He tested Abraham to see if he would sin or be faithful to Him. God allows Satan to tempt us (cf. <a href='B:470 4:1-10'>Matt 4:1-10</a>; <a href='B:660 4:7'>Jam 4:7</a>; <a href='B:670 5:8-9'>1Pet 5:8-9</a>), but James is correct in saying, never does God “Himself tempt anyone.” God cannot be tempted by sin, since He is absolutely and unchangeably perfect (<a href='B:470 5:48'>Matt 5:48</a>; <a href='B:650 6:18'>Heb 6:18</a>), nor can He tempt anyone else to sin (<a href='B:660 1:13'>Jam 1:13</a>). When we sinful human beings are tempted, it is because we allow ourselves to be drawn away by our own lustful desires (<a href='B:660 1:14-15'>Jam 1:14-15</a>). The source of temptation comes from within, not from without. It comes from sinful man, not from a sinless God.<p/>While God does not and cannot actually tempt anyone to sin, He can and does allow us to be tempted by Satan and our own lustful desires. Of course, His purpose in permitting (but not producing or promoting) evil is to make us more perfect. God allowed Satan to tempt Job so that Job could say “When He has tested me, I shall come forth as gold” (<a href='B:220 23:10'>Job 23:10</a>). God allowed evil to befall Joseph at the hands of his brothers. But in the end Joseph was able to say to them, “you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good” (<a href='B:10 50:20'>Gen 50:20</a>). 


text:
Does the law bring liberty or bondage?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> By James’ account, the law of God brings liberty into the Christian’s life, since he describes it here as the “law of liberty.” This appears to be in direct conflict with the Apostle Paul’s contention that the Law of Moses “gives birth to bondage” (<a href='B:550 4:24'>Gal 4:24</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> James and Paul are speaking of two different laws. Paul is speaking of the OT Law of Moses, “the one from Mount Sinai” (<a href='B:550 4:24'>Gal 4:24</a>). And James is speaking of the NT “law of liberty,” which Paul calls the “law of Christ” (<a href='B:550 6:2'>Gal 6:2</a>) that has set us free from the law of bondage. As Paul put it, “what the Law [of Moses] could not do in that it was weak through the flesh,” nevertheless “the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death” (<a href='B:520 8:2-3'>Rom 8:2-3</a>). The Law of Moses was written in stone, but the law of Christ is inscribed by the Spirit in our hearts (<a href='B:300 31:31'>Jer 31:31</a>; <a href='B:540 3:3-7'>2Cor 3:3-7</a>). The two laws can be summarized as follows:<p/><b>THE LAW OF MOSES THE LAW OF CHRIST</b><p/>Brings bondage Brings liberty 


text:
If the demons believe in God, then why are they not saved?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to the Bible, all that is necessary to be saved is to “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ” (<a href='B:510 16:31'>Acts 16:31</a>), for “whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life” (<a href='B:500 3:16'>John 3:16</a>). Paul said salvation comes “to him who does not work but believes on Him” (<a href='B:520 4:5'>Rom 4:5</a>). If this is so, then why are not the demons saved, since the Bible admits that “even the demons believe” (v. 19).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The demons are not saved because they do not exercise a saving kind of faith. This is James’ very point, namely, not any kind of faith can save a person. Only the kind of faith that produces good works can save (<a href='B:660 2:17'>Jam 2:17</a>). While we are saved by faith alone, nevertheless, the faith that saves is not alone. It is always accompanied by good works. We are not saved by works (<a href='B:560 2:8-9'>Eph 2:8-9</a>), but we are savedfor works (<a href='B:560 2:10'>Eph 2:10</a>).<p/>The difference between saving faith and non-saving faith is that the former is only belief that God exists. The latter is faith in God. No one can be saved by believing that God exists and that Christ died for their sins and rose again. They must believe in Him (i.e., trust Him). In like manner, no one can get to the top floor by an elevator if she simply believes that elevators can get her there. She must believe in the elevator (i.e., trust it) enough to step in it and allow it to get her there. The demons do not believe in (trust God) for their salvation—they simply believe that God exists, but they continue in their rebellion against Him (<a href='B:720 1:6'>Jude 6</a>; <a href='B:730 12:4'>Rev 12:4</a>). 


text:
If Abraham was saved by works, why does the Bible say he was justified by faith?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Paul clearly teaches that we are justified by faith and not by works (<a href='B:520 1:17'>Rom 1:17</a>). He declared, “But to him who doesnot work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness” (<a href='B:520 4:5'>Rom 4:5</a>). 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>). For “by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast” (<a href='B:560 2:8-9'>Eph 2:8-9</a>).<p/>But James seems to flatly contradict this by declaring, “a man is justified by works, and not by faith only” (2:24), for “faith without works is dead” (2:26). Indeed, while Paul said Abraham was justified by faith (<a href='B:520 4:1-4'>Rom 4:1-4</a>), James declares, “Was not Abraham our father justified by works” (2:21). Are these not flatly contradictory?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> James and Paul would be contradictory if they were speaking about the same thing, but there are many indications in the text that they are not. Paul is speaking about justification before God, while James is talking about justification before humans. This is indicated by the fact that James stressed that we should “show” (2:18) our faith. It must be something that can be seen by others in “works” (2:18–20). Further, James acknowledged that Abraham was justified before God by faith, not works, when he said, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness” (2:23). When he adds that Abraham was “justified by works” (v. 21), he is speaking of what Abraham did that could be seen by people, namely, offer his son Isaac on the altar (2:21–22).<p/>Further, while Paul is stressing the root of justification (faith), James is stressing thefruit of justification (works). But each man acknowledges both. Immediately after affirming that we are “saved by grace through faith” (<a href='B:560 2:8-9'>Eph 2:8-9</a>), Paul quickly adds, “we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them” (<a href='B:560 2:10'>Eph 2:10</a>). Likewise, right after declaring that it is “not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us” (<a href='B:630 3:5-7'>Titus 3:5-7</a>), Paul urges that “those who have believed in God should be careful to maintain good works” (<a href='B:560 2:8'>Eph 2:8</a>). The relation between Paul and James can be summarized this way:<p/><b>PAUL JAMES</b><p/>Justification before God Justification before humans 


text:
Does the “course of nature” refer to reincarnation?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> James makes reference to the “course of nature,” which has been translated “wheel of beginning.” Some take this to be a reference to reincarnation, since they believe life goes around in cycles of birth, death, and rebirth (into another body). Is this a correct interpretation of the passage?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> James is not writing about reincarnation. This is evident for several reasons. First, the context is speaking about the power and persuasiveness of the human “tongue,” with its far reaching effects. Second, the “course of nature” refers to the ongoing of life in general, not the recycling of individual souls. Third, James affirmed forgiveness of sins (cf. 5:20) and petitionary prayer (5:15–17), both of which are contrary to the doctrine of Karma behind reincarnation, which affirms that whatever is sown in this life, must be reaped in the next life (no exceptions). Finally, even if there were some question as to how this verse should be interpreted, an unclear passage should always be understood in the light of a clear one. And the Bible clearly opposes reincarnation (see <a href='B:650 9:27'>Heb 9:27</a>; <a href='B:500 9:2'>John 9:2</a>). 


text:
Are riches a blessing or a curse?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Solomon lauded riches as a blessing from God, saying, “In the house of the righteous there is much treasure” (<a href='B:240 15:6'>Prov 15:6</a>; cf. <a href='B:230 112:3'>Ps 112:3</a>). However, James warned the rich to “weep and howl for your miseries that are coming upon you!” (5:1). Which is it?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The texts that speak about God blessing the righteous with riches refer to the general promise of God to supply the needs of those who live righteous lives. Exceptions to this establish the general rule, not diminish it. The passages that warn of the woes of wealth are written to those who idolize it, setting affection on it rather than on God (cf. also <a href='B:490 12:21'>Luke 12:21</a>). Both are true and complementary. 


text:
Is oath-taking forbidden or blessed?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> This and many other verses (cf. <a href='B:350 4:2'>Hosea 4:2</a>; <a href='B:470 5:33-37'>Matt 5:33-37</a>) condemn oath- taking. In James’ words, “Above all, my brethren, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or with any other oath.” Jesus had said the same thing, namely, “Do not swear at all: neither by heaven … nor by the earth” (<a href='B:470 5:34-35'>Matt 5:34-35</a>). On the other hand, there are many places in the Bible where oaths were taken and blessed by God (cf. <a href='B:10 21:24'>Gen 21:24</a>; <a href='B:50 6:13'>Deut 6:13</a>). Indeed, angels took oaths (<a href='B:730 10:5-6'>Rev 10:5-6</a>), as did God Himself (<a href='B:650 6:13'>Heb 6:13</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Obviously there is a good sense of oath-taking and a bad sense that can be contrasted in the following manner:<p/><b>GOOD OATHS BAD OATHS </b><p/>True ones False ones<p/>Nothing in the Bible condemns taking a courtroom oath “to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God.” On the other hand, secret oaths taken in fraternal organizations which are contrary to God’s Word are forbidden by the Scriptures cited above. Even Jesus submitted to being put under oath by the high priest at His trial (<a href='B:470 26:63'>Matt 26:63</a>). 


text:
Was the drought three years or three-and-a-half years?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Both here and in <a href='B:490 4:25'>Luke 4:25</a> it speaks of a three and one-half year drought in the days of Elijah. But in <a href='B:110 17:1'>1Ki 17:1</a> (and 18:1) it refers to the drought being three years.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There are three possible solutions here. First, the three years may be a round number. Second, the third year in Kings may be reckoned from the time of Elijah’s stay with the widow of Zarephthah, not the full time of the drought. Third, it is possible that the drought began six months before thefamine did, making both passages precise but referring to different things. 


text:
 Are we sanctified by God’s truth or by God’s Spirit?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Peter speaks in this text about “sanctification of the Spirit,” but Jesus prayed, “Sanctify them by Your truth” (<a href='B:500 17:17'>John 17:17</a>). Which way are we set apart to God—by His Spirit or by His truth?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> We are sanctified through God’s truth which isfrom God’s Spirit. The Spirit of God is the efficient cause (that by which God works in our hearts), and the truth of God is the instrumental cause (that through which God works in our hearts). In short, God is the source, and God’s truth is the means of our sanctification. 


text:
Why does Peter command believers to reason about their faith when the Bible says elsewhere to simply believe?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Over and over again the Scriptures insist that one should simply believe in God (cf. <a href='B:500 3:16'>John 3:16</a>; <a href='B:510 16:31'>Acts 16:31</a>). Hebrews declares that “without faith it is impossible to please God” (<a href='B:650 11:6'>Heb 11:6</a>). Paul contended that, “the world through wisdom did not know God” (<a href='B:530 1:21'>1Cor 1:21</a>). Yet Peter here instructs believers to “defend” and give a “reason” for their faith. Aren’t faith and reason opposed?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Faith and reason are not mutually exclusive. A person should not believe in something without first inquiring whether it is a worthy object of belief. For example, few people would undergo a serious medical operation by a totally unknown person whom they had no reason to believe was anything but a quack. Likewise, God does not call on us to exercise blind faith.<p/>Since God is a God of reason (<a href='B:290 1:18'>Isa 1:18</a>), and since He has made us rational creatures in His image (<a href='B:10 1:27'>Gen 1:27</a>; <a href='B:580 3:10'>Col 3:10</a>), He wants us to look before we leap. No rational person should step into an elevator without first looking to see if there is a floor. Likewise, God wants us to take a step of faith in the light of the evidence, but not a leap of faith into the dark.<p/>The Bible is filled with exhortations to use our reason. Jesus commanded, “You shall love the Lord … with all your mind” (<a href='B:470 22:37'>Matt 22:37</a>, emphasis added in all quotes here). Paul added, “whatsoever things are true … think on these things” (<a href='B:570 4:8'>Phil 4:8</a>, KJV). Paul also “reasoned” with the Jews (<a href='B:510 17:17'>Acts 17:17</a>) and with the philosophers on Mars Hill (v. 22ff) winning many to Christ (v. 34). Bishops were instructed to be able “to refute those who contradict” (<a href='B:630 1:9'>Titus 1:9</a>, NASB). Paul declares that he was “appointed for the defense of the gospel” (<a href='B:570 1:17'>Phil 1:17</a>). Jude urged us to “contendearnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (<a href='B:720 1:3'>Jude 3</a>). And Peter commanded, “be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you” (<a href='B:670 3:15'>1Peter 3:15</a>).<p/>The devil believes that God exists, but He does not believe in God. Belief that is a matter of the mind knowing something based on the evidence human reason can see. Belief in God (or Christ), however, is a choice of the human will under the persuasion of the Holy Spirit. So belief that will never save anyone (cf. <a href='B:660 2:14-20'>Jam 2:14-20</a>)—only belief in Christ can do that. However, no rational person should ever believe in something, unless he first has evidence to believe that it is true. No sensible traveler gets into an airplane with a broken off wing. So, reason is valid as a basis for belief that, but is wrong to demand as a basis for belief in (cf. <a href='B:500 20:27-29'>John 20:27-29</a>). 


text:
Was Jesus raised in the Spirit or in a physical body?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Peter declares that Christ was “put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit” (NASB). This seems to imply that Jesus did not rise in the flesh, but only in His spirit, which conflicts with Jesus’ statement that His resurrection body was “flesh and bones” (<a href='B:490 24:39'>Luke 24:39</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> To interpret this as proof of a spiritual, rather than a physical resurrection, is neither necessary nor consistent with the context of this passage and the rest of Scripture. Several reasons support this conclusion.<p/>Second, the parallel between death and being made alive normally refer to the resurrection of the body in the NT. For example, Paul declared that “Christ died and rose and lived again” (<a href='B:520 14:9'>Rom 14:9</a>), and “He was crucified in weakness, yet he lives by the power of God” (<a href='B:540 13:4'>2Cor 13:4</a>).<p/>Third, the context refers to the event as “the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (3:21). But this is everywhere understood as a bodily resurrection in the NT (cf. <a href='B:510 4:33'>Acts 4:33</a>; <a href='B:520 1:4'>Rom 1:4</a>; <a href='B:530 15:21'>1Cor 15:21</a>; <a href='B:670 1:3'>1Pet 1:3</a>; <a href='B:730 20:5'>Rev 20:5</a>). 


text:
Does Peter support the view that a person can be saved after he dies?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> First Peter 3:19 says that, after His death, Christ “went and preached to the spirits in prison.” But the Bible also says that “it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment” (<a href='B:650 9:27'>Heb 9:27</a>). These two verses appear to teach mutually opposing positions.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The Bible is clear that there is no second chance after death (cf. <a href='B:650 9:27'>Heb 9:27</a>). The Book of Revelation records the Great White Throne Judgment in which those who are not found in the book of life are sent to the lake of fire (<a href='B:730 20:11-15'>Rev 20:11-15</a>). Luke informs us that, once a person dies, he goes either to heaven (Abraham’s bosom) or to hell and that there is a great gulf fixed “so that those who want to pass” from one to the other cannot (<a href='B:490 16:26'>Luke 16:26</a>). The whole urgency of responding to God in this life before we die gives further support to the fact that there is no hope beyond the grave (cf. <a href='B:500 3:36'>John 3:36</a>; <a href='B:500 5:24'>5:24</a>).<p/>There are other ways to understand this passage, without involving a second- chance at salvation after death. Some claim that it is not clear that the phrase “spirits in prison” even refers to human beings, arguing that nowhere else is such a phrase used of human beings in hell. They claim these spirits are fallen angels, since the “Sons of God” (fallen angels, see <a href='B:220 1:6'>Job 1:6</a>; <a href='B:220 2:1'>2:1</a>; <a href='B:220 38:7'>38:7</a>) were “disobedient … in the days of Noah” (<a href='B:670 3:20'>1Peter 3:20</a>; cf. <a href='B:10 6:1-4'>Gen 6:1-4</a>). Peter may be referring to this in <a href='B:680 2:4'>2Peter 2:4</a>, where he mentions the angels sinning immediately before he refers to the Flood (v. 5). In response, it is argued that angels cannot marry (<a href='B:470 22:30'>Matt 22:30</a>), and they certainly could not intermarry with human beings, since angels, being spirits, have no reproductive organs.<p/>Another interpretation is that this refers to Christ’s announcement to departed spirits of the triumph of His resurrection, declaring to them the victory He had achieved by His death and resurrection, as pointed out in the previous verse (see <a href='B:670 3:18'>1Peter 3:18</a>). Some suggest that Jesus offered no hope of salvation to these “spirits in prison.” They point to the fact that the text does not say Christ evangelized them, but simply that Heproclaimed the victory of His resurrection to them. They insist that there is nothing stated in this passage about preaching the Gospel to people in hell. In response to this view, others note that in the very next chapter Peter, apparently extending this subject, does say “the Gospel was preached also to those who are dead” (see comments on <a href='B:670 4:6'>1Peter 4:6</a>). This view fits the context here, is in accord with the teaching of other verses (cf. <a href='B:560 4:8'>Eph 4:8</a>; <a href='B:580 2:15'>Col 2:15</a>), and avoids the major problems of the other view. 


text:
Is the Gospel preached to people after they die?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Peter says that “the Gospel was preached also to those who are dead.” This appears to claim that people have a chance to be saved after they die. But this runs into conflict with <a href='B:650 9:27'>Heb 9:27</a>, which insists that “it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment.”<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> In response it should be noted, first, that there is no hope held out anywhere in Scripture for salvation after death. Death is final, and there are only two destinies—heaven and hell, between which there is a great gulf that no one can pass over (see comments on <a href='B:670 3:19'>1Peter 3:19</a>). So, whatever preaching to the “dead” may mean, it does not imply that one can be saved after he dies.<p/>re are other possible interpretations of this passage that do not conflict with the teaching of the rest of Scripture. (1) For example, it is possible that it refers to those who are now dead who heard the Gospel while they were alive. In favor of this is cited the fact that the Gospel “was preached” (in the past) to those who “are dead” (now, in the present). (2) Or, some believe this might not be a reference to human beings, but to the “spirits in prison” (angels) of <a href='B:670 3:19'>1Peter 3:19</a> (cf. <a href='B:680 2:4'>2Peter 2:4</a> and <a href='B:10 6:2'>Gen 6:2</a>). (3) Still others claim that, although the dead suffer the destruction of their flesh (<a href='B:670 4:6'>1Peter 4:6</a>), yet they still live with God by virtue of what Christ did through the Gospel (namely, His death and resurrection). This victorious message was announced by Christ Himself to the spirit world after His resurrection (cf. <a href='B:670 3:18'>1Peter 3:18</a>). 


text:
Did the Apostle Peter really write this book?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The style of writing in 1 Peter is different than 2 Peter. Also the tone used in the first epistle is different than that of the second epistle. How can evangelicals claim that Peter wrote this epistle?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> First, in his earlier epistle, Peter had Silas as a secretary (5:12, NIV), but in the second epistle Peter seems to have written it himself. This could account for the lack of smoothness and style between the two epistles.<p/>Third, there is good internal evidence that the letter is from Peter. Verse 1 claims it is from the Apostle Peter. Peter remembers the words of Jesus concerning His death, as recorded in <a href='B:500 21:18-19'>John 21:18-19</a> (cf. <a href='B:680 1:14'>2Peter 1:14</a>). The author of this letter was an eyewitness to the Mount of Transfiguration, which is recorded in <a href='B:470 17:1-8'>Mat 17:1-8</a> (cf. 1:16–18). Peter even calls this his “second letter” (3:1, NIV) which presupposes a first. And he is aware of the writings of the Apostle Paul and calls him “our beloved brother Paul” (3:15–16).<p/>Fourth, there are not only some differences between epistles, but also some likenesses. Both place emphasis on Christ, 1 Peter on His suffering and 2 Peter on His glory. And in both epistles Peter refers to Noah and the flood (<a href='B:670 3:20'>1Peter 3:20</a>; <a href='B:680 2:5'>2Pet 2:5</a>; <a href='B:680 3:5'>3:5–6</a>). 


text:
Are fallen angels bound or are they free to tempt human beings?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Peter affirms in this passage that God cast the fallen angels “down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment” (cf. <a href='B:720 1:6'>Jude 6</a>). However, it is evident from the NT that demons roam freely over the earth, oppressing and even possessing people (cf. <a href='B:470 12:22'>Matt 12:22</a>; <a href='B:470 17:14'>17:14–17</a>; <a href='B:510 16:16-18'>Acts 16:16-18</a>; <a href='B:730 16:14'>Rev 16:14</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There are two basic explanations of this apparent contradiction. First, it is possible that Peter is speaking of the official and ultimate destiny of fallen angels (demons), not their actual and immediate status. That is, while they are already sentenced by God to eternal damnation, they have not yet actually started serving their term. Nonetheless, they know their time is coming (<a href='B:470 8:29'>Matt 8:29</a>; <a href='B:730 12:12'>Rev 12:12</a>).<p/>Second, these passages may be speaking of two different classes of fallen angels, some already in chains (<a href='B:680 2:4'>2Peter 2:4</a>) and the rest yet loose. Some believe Peter is referring to the “sons of God” (angels) of <a href='B:10 6'>Gen 6</a> who instigated intermarriage with women just before the Flood, since the very next verse refers to Noah (v. 5). If so, then this may account for why these particular angels are already in chains (so they cannot repeat their feat), as opposed to other demons who are loose. 


text:
Does perdition mean the unsaved will be annihilated?<p/>(See comments on <a href='B:600 1:9'>2Thes 1:9</a>) 


text:
Doesn’t John contradict himself when he asserts that Christians are without sin?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> John affirms here that “Whoever has been born of God does not sin.” But in the first chapter he insisted that “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us” (1:8).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> John nowhere claims that believers are without sin or never commit a sin. First <a href='B:500 3:9'>John 3:9</a> is in the present continuous tense and should be translated “Whoever is born of God does not continually practice sin.” Conversely, if a person habitually practices sin, he is not born of God. As James argued, true faith will produce good works (<a href='B:660 2:14'>Jam 2:14</a>ff). If a pig and a lamb fall into the mud, the pig wants to stay there, but the lamb wants to get out. Both a believer and an unbeliever canfall into the same sin, but a believer cannot stay in it and feel comfortable. 


text:
Does this refer to Jesus being in the flesh before or after His resurrection?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> John declares that those who deny “Jesus Christ has come in the flesh” are of Antichrist. While all orthodox Christians take this to mean Jesus was fully human, including having a physical body of flesh before His resurrection, some contend that Jesus was not raised from the dead in the same body of flesh and bones in which He died, but in a body that was not essentially material. What does this verse mean?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> John uses the perfect tense here in Greek, meaning past action with continuing results in the present. Thus, he affirms that Jesus came in the flesh in the past and continues in the flesh in the present (i.e., when he is writing, which was after the Resurrection).<p/>This is further clarified by John’s use of the same phrase, only in the present tense. He declared that many deceivers do not “confess Jesus Christ as coming [present tense] in the flesh” (<a href='B:700 1:7'>2John 7</a>). From this it is clear that, even after the Resurrection when John wrote, he insisted that Jesus was still continuing in the flesh.<p/>Finally, in addition to these two passages in John’s epistles, there are two other NT texts which explicitly declare Christ’s resurrection body to be one of flesh. Referring to the resurrection of Christ, Peter declared that “nor did Hisflesh see corruption” (<a href='B:510 2:30-31'>Acts 2:30-31</a>). Jesus Himself said to His disciples in one of His post- resurrection appearances, “Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not haveflesh and bones as you see I have” (<a href='B:490 24:39'>Luke 24:39</a>). 


text:
If love casts out all fear, why are we told to fear God?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> John affirms here that “perfect love casts out all fear.” Yet we are told that the “fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge” (<a href='B:240 1:7'>Prov 1:7</a>) and that we should “serve the Lord with fear” (<a href='B:230 2:11'>Ps 2:11</a>). Indeed, Paul said, “knowing … the terror [fear] of the Lord, we persuade men” (<a href='B:540 5:11'>2Cor 5:11</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Fear is being used in different senses. Fear in the good sense is a reverential trust in God. In the bad sense it is a sense of recoiling torment in the face of God. While proper fear brings a healthy respect for God, unwholesome fear engenders an unhealthy sense that He is out to get us. Perfect love casts out this kind of “torment.” When one properly understands that “God is love” (<a href='B:690 4:16'>1John 4:16</a>), he can no longer fear Him in this unhealthy sense. For “he who fears has not been made perfect in love” (<a href='B:690 4:18'>1John 4:18</a>). Nonetheless, at no time does proper love for God ever show disrespect for Him. Rather, it is perfectly compatible with a reverential awe for Him, which is what the Bible means by “fearing God” in the good sense (cf. <a href='B:540 7:1'>2Cor 7:1</a>; <a href='B:670 2:17'>1Peter 2:17</a>). 


text:
Why is this verse on the Trinity missing in many modern translations?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> John declares that “there are three who bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one” (KJV). This is the clearest statement on the Trinity in the Bible. However, most modern translations omit this verse. Why?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The reason is very simple. This verse has virtually no support among the early Greek manuscripts, though it is found in Latin manuscripts. Its appearance in late Greek manuscripts is based on the fact that Erasmus was placed under ecclesiastical pressure to include it in his Greek NT of 1522, having omitted it in his two earlier editions of 1516 and 1519 because he could not find any Greek manuscripts which contained it.<p/>inclusion in the Latin Bible probably results from a scribe incorporating a marginal comment (gloss) into the text as he copied the manuscript of 1 John. But including it in the text violates almost every rule of textual criticism. Even the NKJV, which generally retains the longer readings and disputed passages (see <a href='B:480 16:9'>Mark 16:9</a>ff and <a href='B:500 7:53'>John 7:53–8:11</a>), comments in the margin that this is “a passage found in only four or five very late Greek mss.” 


text:
What is a sin unto death? Is it forgivable?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> On the one hand, the Scriptures speak of God’s free and unconditional forgiveness to all who want it (cf. <a href='B:510 13:38-39'>Acts 13:38-39</a>; <a href='B:520 5:20'>Rom 5:20</a>; <a href='B:690 2:1'>1John 2:1</a>). On the other hand, Jesus spoke of an unpardonable sin that can never be forgiven. And John declares here that there is a “sin leading to death.”<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Bible commentators differ on just what John had in mind here. Some say he was referring to repeated sin (see comments on <a href='B:690 3:9'>1John 3:9</a>). Others believe he was speaking of agrave sin. Still others believe he had apostasy in mind (cf. <a href='B:680 2'>2Peter 2</a>).<p/>Whatever John envisioned, there is no reason that it could not refer to a sin so serious that it would eventuate in physical death. Paul mentioned that the Corinthians had so participated in the Lord’s Supper in an unworthy manner that some were sick and others were dead as a result (<a href='B:530 11:29-30'>1Cor 11:29-30</a>). In fact, the priests Nadab and Abihu were smitten dead for their disobedience to the Lord (<a href='B:40 3:4'>Num 3:4</a>), as were Ananias and Saphira for their sin (<a href='B:510 5:1-9'>Acts 5:1-9</a>). So, it is entirely possible that John has some such serious sin in mind here whereby the believer is turned over to Satan for “the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus” (<a href='B:530 5:5'>1Cor 5:5</a>). 


text:
Can Satan injure God’s children or not?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Even Jesus admitted to Peter, “Satan has asked for you, that he may sift you as wheat” (<a href='B:490 22:31'>Luke 22:31</a>). However, John insists here that “he who has been born of God keeps himself, and the wicked one does not touch him.” These passages appear to conflict with each other.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> There is an apparent conflict here, but no contradiction for several reasons. First of all, it does not really say that Satan actually injured Peter. Jesus simply states that Satan “asked” for permission to do so.<p/>Second, just as was the case with Job, Satan cannot do anything to a believer that God does not permit him to do, because God has “made a hedge around him” (<a href='B:220 1:10'>Job 1:10</a>).<p/>Third, technically speaking, there is a difference between “sifting” wheat (believers) and destroying them. God may allow the former, but He will never permit Satan to do the latter to one of His children (cf. <a href='B:520 8:38-39'>Rom 8:38-39</a>). 


text:
Who was the “elect lady”?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> John addresses his second letter to “the elect lady.” Some have argued that because this was strictly a personal letter addressed to a particular lady, that it does not belong in the canon of Scripture. Was the “elect lady” a person or not?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> First of all, if the “elect lady” were a particular person, this would not exclude it from the canon of Scripture. Several of the epistles of Paul were personal letters to particular individuals (e.g., Timothy, Titus, Philemon).<p/>Second, it is possible that the elect lady was not a particular person. The proposals of commentators basically fall into two categories, the literal and the figurative. Those who understand this address to be literal hold that this was indeed a certain individual whom John knew. The following points are offered in favor of this view. First, it seems to be more natural to take the words as an address to an actual lady and her children. Further, this view fits with the references to the children of the elect lady, her sister (v. 13), and her sister’s children (v. 13). Also, the basic structure of the greeting in verse 1 fits with the basic structure of the greeting of <a href='B:710 1'>3John 1</a> (“To the … whom I love in truth”) which itself was an address to a certain individual. Finally, if the term “lady” refers to the church, then to whom does the word “children” refer. Are the “children” not included in the church? Are they somehow different from the church?<p/>Fourth, the personification of the church in feminine terms is a common use in the Bible (e.g., <a href='B:560 5:29'>Eph 5:29</a>ff where Paul develops the idea that the church is the bride of Christ; <a href='B:670 5:13'>1Peter 5:13</a> where Peter uses the feminine expression of the church). 


text:
Why does this verse tell us not to receive certain people when Jesus told us to love our enemies?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to Jesus, we are supposed to love our enemies, bless those who curse us, and do good to those who hate us (<a href='B:470 5:44'>Matt 5:44</a>). However, according to John, we are not to receive into our house or even greet anyone who comes to us and does not believe that Christ is come in the flesh. Which are we supposed to do?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> We are supposed to follow both instructions. The apparent discrepancy between these directives arises from the fact that they are talking about two totally different situations.<p/>In the passage in Matthew, Jesus is contrasting His own teaching to that of the Pharisees. The divine principle of love should be the guiding principle of one’s life. Even though some people are the enemies of God, He still allows the rain to fall upon their crops and causes the sun to shine on them. God treats the wicked with loving kindness. However, He never condones their wickedness. As Paul points out in Romans, the goodness of God is not a sign of His approval of their actions. Rather, the goodness of God is designed to lead to repentance (<a href='B:520 2:4'>Rom 2:4</a>).<p/>Second, it must be remembered that, in the early church, the evangelistic and pastoral ministry of the church was conducted primarily by individuals who traveled from location to location. These itinerant pastors depended on the hospitality of the people of a local congregation. John is directing the church not to extend this kind of hospitality to teachers of false doctrine. This is not contradictory to Jesus’ teaching. We are to love our enemies, but not encourage them in their evil deeds. We are to do good to them that hate us, but not to condone their wickedness. As Jesus said, we are to show ourselves to be children of our Father. In the very same Sermon on the Mount, Jesus went on to warn His disciples to beware of false prophets “who come … in sheep’s clothing” (<a href='B:470 7:15'>Matt 7:15</a>). John gave practical application to this warning, and thereby encouraged the local church to maintain its purity and devotion to Christ. 


text:
Should money be taken from unbelievers to do God’s work?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> John claims here that the brethren took no support for their ministry from unbelievers. Yet when Solomon built the temple he accepted gifts from Gentiles (<a href='B:110 5:10'>1Ki 5:10</a>; <a href='B:140 2:13-16'>2Chron 2:13-16</a>). Is it always wrong to take money from unbelievers for God’s work?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> As a rule, God’s work should be supported by God’s people. For those who benefit spiritually should share materially with their teachers (<a href='B:530 9:1-14'>1Cor 9:1-14</a>). On the other hand, it may offend an unbeliever to turn down his gift and place an obstacle in the way of his becoming a believer. Moses did not reject gifts from Egypt (<a href='B:20 12:25-36'>Ex 12:25-36</a>). Nor did Solomon reject the gifts and help of the Gentile King Hiram (<a href='B:140 2:13-16'>2Chron 2:13-16</a>) or from the Queen of Sheba (<a href='B:110 10:10'>1Ki 10:10</a>). So, while money should not be sought from unbelievers, neither should it be rejected, unless of course there are strings attached. Under no conditions should spiritual or other favors be bought by anyone.<p/>Furthermore, it should be noted that this passage in 3 John is not prescriptive, but descriptive. It does not say “Never take money from unbelievers.” It simply notes that these believers on this journey did not accept help from the heathen. No doubt they wanted to refrain from any appearance of selling the truth (cf. <a href='B:540 11:7'>2Cor 11:7</a>; <a href='B:590 2:9'>1Thes 2:9</a>). Rather, as it should have been, they depended on other believers to “send them forward on their journey in a manner worthy of God” (v. 6). We should not expect unbelievers to support the cause of faith. 


text:
Isn’t the dispute between Michael the Archangel and the devil based on an apocryphal story?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Jude records an account in which Michael the archangel and the devil have a dispute over the body of Moses, saying, “Yet Michael the archangel, in contending with the devil, when he disputed about the body of Moses, dared not bring against him a reviling accusation, but said, `The Lord rebuke you!’ ” (v. 9) This account is not found in the OT and is also considered to be found in a pseudepigraphal book (false writing) titled The Assumption of Moses.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Just because the account is not found in any OT passages of Scripture doesn’t mean that the event did not occur. The Bible often cites truths from books that are not inspired, but which contain, nevertheless, some true statements. A biblical author is not limited to citing only Scripture. All truth is God’s truth, wherever it is found. 


text:
Doesn’t Jude cite the uninspired Book of Enoch as divinely authoritative?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Jude quotes The Book of Enoch, saying, “Now Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men also, saying, `Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints’ ” (v. 14). However, Enoch is not an inspired book but is considered pseudepigraphal (a false writing) by the Christian church.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> First, it is not certain that Jude is actually citing the Book of Enoch. He may simply be mentioning an event which is also found in this uninspired book. It is noteworthy that Jude does not affirm that Enoch wrote this statement. He simply records that “Enoch said ” (v. 14). Jude may have been using a valid oral tradition and not the Book of Enoch.<p/>Further, the Apostle Paul cites truths from pagan poets (<a href='B:510 17:28'>Acts 17:28</a>; <a href='B:530 15:33'>1Cor 15:33</a>; <a href='B:630 1:12'>Titus 1:12</a>) without implying that these books are inspired. Indeed, even Balaam’s donkey uttered a truth (<a href='B:40 22:28'>Num 22:28</a>). The inspiration of the Book of Jude does not guarantee whatever else is said in an uninspired source it cites—it only guarantees the truth it cites.<p/>Finally, the external evidence for Jude is extensive from the time of Irenaeus (ca. A.D. 170) onward. It is in the Bodmer papyri (P72) ofA.D. 250, and traces of it are found even earlier in the Dicache (2:7) which probably dates from the second century. So there is evidence for the authenticity of the Book of Jude which is not diminished by this allusion to what Enoch said. The existence of Enoch and his communication with God is a fact established elsewhere, both in the OT (<a href='B:10 5:24'>Gen 5:24</a>) and NT (<a href='B:650 11:5'>Heb 11:5</a>).


text:
How can the Holy Spirit be seven spirits if He is one person?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit is one person, the third person of the triune Godhead. Jesus referred to the Holy Spirit as “He” (singular). But John referred to “the seven Spirits who are before His [God’s] throne” (<a href='B:730 1:4'>Rev 1:4</a>), which many commentators see as a reference to the Holy Spirit. But how can the Holy Spirit be seven spirits?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The Book of Revelation contains a good bit of symbolism, and this is only one example. There is similar symbolism in other portions of this book. For instance, most agree that <a href='B:730 12:3'>Revelation 12:3</a> speaks about Satan, but he is called a “great red dragon” with “seven heads and ten horns.” Here, the seven heads and ten horns are attributed to one individual, Satan. Also, speaking of the beast from the sea, <a href='B:730 13:1'>Revelation 13:1</a> says that he has “seven heads and ten horns.” The number seven symbolizes completeness, as there are seven days in a complete week.<p/>Other symbols are used of the Holy Spirit in Scripture. For instance, He is spoken of as a dove in <a href='B:480 1:10'>Mark 1:10</a> and is likened to the “wind” in <a href='B:500 3:8'>John 3:8</a> and water in <a href='B:500 4:14'>John 4:14</a>. He is also portrayed as “tongues as of fire” in <a href='B:510 2:3'>Acts 2:3</a>. And <a href='B:560 1:13'>Eph 1:13</a> says we are “sealed” by the Holy Spirit, signifying God’s ownership of us and the security of our salvation.<p/>Many Bible students believe the sevenfold nature of the Holy Spirit may derive from the reference in <a href='B:290 11:2'>Isaiah 11:2</a> where He is called the Spirit of the Lord, the Spirit of wisdom, of understanding, of counsel, of might, of knowledge, and of thefear of the Lord —seven different characteristics of one and the same Spirit. 


text:
Will Jesus come again as a lion or a lamb?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> In this prophecy, Jesus is depicted as a Lion, the king of beasts. This fits with the fact that He will come as King to reign over all the earth (Rev. 19–20).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> It is clear that both figures of speech are appropriate to Christ’s second coming. John even speaks of the “wrath of the Lamb” (<a href='B:730 6:16'>Rev 6:16</a>). While at His first coming Jesus was “the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (<a href='B:500 1:29'>John 1:29</a>), nonetheless, He will return as a wrathful Lamb. Why? Because He who died for the sins of the world has the right to execute judgment on those who reject His death for their sins. The only safe place to flee in the judgment is where God’s judgment already fell—on the Cross. Those who do not take refuge in the Lamb who took the wrath of God for them (cf. <a href='B:540 5:21'>2Cor 5:21</a>) will experience the wrath of the Lamb on them. The figure of a lamb, then, is an appropriate symbol of the love of a just God who is executing His judgment on those who reject Him. 


text:
Is Christ merciful or wrathful?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> Throughout the Gospels Christ is presented as merciful, healing the sick, blessing the poor, comforting the sorrowing, and forgiving sinners (cf. <a href='B:490 9:56'>Luke 9:56</a>; <a href='B:420 19:10'>19:10</a>). But the Book of Revelation speaks of “the wrath of the Lamb” (6:16) and the judgment of Christ on the whole world (<a href='B:730 19:11-15'>Rev 19:11-15</a>).<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Often the differences in these passages is due to their reference to different times in Jesus’ work on earth, namely, His first coming versus His second coming. His first coming was primarily a mission of mercy. His second coming, however, will be initially one of wrath. He who died as a Lamb (<a href='B:500 1:29'>John 1:29</a>) will also return as a Lion (<a href='B:730 5:5'>Rev 5:5</a>). During His first coming, Jesus was a bruised reed (<a href='B:290 42:3'>Isa 42:3</a>), but at His second coming He will rule with an iron rod (<a href='B:230 2:9'>Ps 2:9</a>).<p/>At other times, Jesus’ different attitudes and actions were simply due to the fact that they were directed at different people or conditions. For example, even during His first coming Jesus was angry with hypocrites (<a href='B:470 23'>Matt 23</a>) and indignant with those who had commercialized the house of God (<a href='B:500 2'>John 2</a>). He cursed the fig tree, which symbolized the fruitless nation of Israel that rejected their Messiah (<a href='B:470 21:19'>Matt 21:19</a>). At all times, Jesus is merciful to the penitent and wrathful to the impenitent. 


text:
Does the Bible teach that the world is square?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> John speaks here of the “four corners of the earth,” which implies that the earth is square. But modern science teaches that it is round. Isn’t this a mistake in the Bible?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> The Bible does not teach that the world is square. First of all, this is a figure of speech meaning “from every section of the globe” or as Jeremiah put it, “from the four quarters of heaven” (<a href='B:300 49:36'>Jer 49:36</a>). It is a succinct way of referring to the four directions, “north, south, east, and west.” In this sense it is akin to the phrase, “the four winds … of heaven” (<a href='B:300 49:36'>Jer 49:36</a>).<p/>The only references to the shape of the earth in the Bible speak of it as round. Isaiah spoke of God “who sits on the circle of the earth … (<a href='B:290 40:22'>Isaiah 40:22</a>, MKJV). And Job refers to the world as hanging in space, asserted that God “stretches out the north over the empty place, [and] He hung the earth on nothing” (<a href='B:220 26:7'>Job 26:7</a>, MKJV). There is certainly nothing unscientific about these statements. 


text:
Who are the 144,000 of whom John writes here?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> In this passage, John mentions a specific group of 144,000 believers. Is this an exact number, and does it mean only this many will be saved? If not who are they?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Spiritual Interpretation. Some take the “144,000 of all the tribes of Israel” to be a spiritual reference to Christians. However, this view is not supported by the facts. First, the word “tribes” is never used of anything but a literal ethnic group in Scripture.<p/>In addition, even the physical dimensions of the New Jerusalem (<a href='B:730 21:16-17'>Rev 21:16-17</a>), to say nothing of the rest of God’s vast universe, could contain a much larger number than 144,000 people.<p/><a href='B:730 7:9'>Revelation 7:9</a> declares that there were, in addition to the 144,000, “a great multitude … of all nations” who were also redeemed, which not only indicates that the saved are not limited to them but that the passage makes more sense if taken literally.<p/>In further support of the literal interpretation is the fact that Jesus spoke of the 12 apostles (whom we know were literal persons) sitting on “twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel” in the last day (<a href='B:470 19:28'>Matt 19:28</a>). There is no reason not to take this as a reference to 12 literal tribes of Israelites.<p/>In addition, the last question Jesus answered before His ascension directly implied that He would return and “restore the kingdom to Israel” (<a href='B:510 1:6-8'>Acts 1:6-8</a>).<p/>Indeed, the Apostle Paul spoke of the restoration of the nation of Israel to its former privileged position in <a href='B:520 11'>Rom 11</a> (cf. vv. 11–26).<p/>Many Bible scholars believe in a literal restoration of the nation of Israel, because God’s land promises to Abraham’s literal descendants (<a href='B:10 12'>Gen 12</a>; <a href='B:10 14'>14</a>; <a href='B:10 15'>15</a>; <a href='B:10 17'>17</a>; <a href='B:10 26'>26</a>) have never been fulfilled “forever,” as they were promised (cf. <a href='B:10 13:15'>Gen 13:15</a>), but at best only for a short period during the time of Joshua (<a href='B:60 11:23'>Josh 11:23</a>). 


text:
Is heaven a place of rest and quiet or of incessant praise and singing?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> According to this verse, heaven is a place in which the saints “rest from their labors.” However, earlier in the Book of Revelation heaven is described as a place of constant praise and singing (Rev. 4–5). Which is it?<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Heaven is both. There is no contradiction between resting from labor and singing praises to God. It is exactly what God’s people do today on their day of rest and worship. Heaven is just an extension of what we do on the Lord’s Day now. “Labor” implies what is wearisome and painful. Resting from this and praising God forever are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they go hand in hand. 


text:
Can demons perform miracles?<p/><b>PROBLEM:</b> The Bible sometimes uses the same words (sign, wonders, power) to describe the power of demons as those used to describe miracles of God (<a href='B:730 16:14'>Rev 16:14</a>; <a href='B:600 2:9'>2Thes 2:9</a>). However, a miracle is a supernatural act of God, and only God can perform such acts. The devil is a created being and has only limited power.<p/><b>SOLUTION:</b> Although Satan has great spiritual powers, there is a gigantic difference between the power of the devil and the power of God. First, God is infinite in power (omnipotent); the devil (and demons) is only finite and limited. Second, only God can create life (<a href='B:10 1:1'>Gen 1:1</a>; <a href='B:10 1:21'>21</a>; <a href='B:50 32:39'>Deut 32:39</a>); the devil cannot (cf. <a href='B:20 8:19'>Ex 8:19</a>). Only God can raise the dead (<a href='B:500 10:18'>John 10:18</a>; <a href='B:730 1:18'>Rev 1:18</a>); the devil cannot, though he gave “breath” (animation) to the idolatrous image of the Antichrist (<a href='B:730 13:15'>Rev 13:15</a>).<p/>The devil has great power to deceive people (<a href='B:730 12:9'>Rev 12:9</a>), to oppress those who yield to him and even to possess them (<a href='B:510 16:16'>Acts 16:16</a>). He is a master magician and a super scientist. And with his vast knowledge of God, man, and the universe, he is able to perform “lying wonders” (<a href='B:600 2:9'>2Thes 2:9</a>; cf. <a href='B:730 13:13-14'>Rev 13:13-14</a>). But true miracles can be performed only by God. The devil can do the supernormal but not the supernatural. Only God can control the natural laws He has established, though on one occasion He granted Satan the power to bring a whirlwind on Job’s family (<a href='B:220 1:19'>Job 1:19</a>). Further, all the power the devil has is given him by God and is carefully limited and monitored (cf. <a href='B:220 1:10-12'>Job 1:10-12</a>). Christ had defeatedthe devil and triumphed over him and all his host (<a href='B:650 2:14-15'>Heb 2:14-15</a>; <a href='B:580 2:15'>Col 2:15</a>), thus giving power to His people to be victorious over demonic forces (<a href='B:560 4:4-11'>Eph 4:4-11</a>). Thus, John informed believers: “He who is in you is greater than he who is in the world” (<a href='B:690 4:4'>1John 4:4</a>).


