Datasets:

vericudebuget

/

Bible-responses-dataset-gotquestions

like 0

Who wrote the book of Nehemiah? Who was the author of Nehemiah?

Answer The [book of Nehemiah](Book-of-Nehemiah.html), together with the book of Ezra, provides a compelling account of Israel after the exile. Nehemiah, originally a cupbearer to King Artaxerxes of Persia, experienced a disruption in his comfortable life through a conversation he had with Hanani, a man visiting from Judah. Nehemiah’s inquiry into the well\-being of the Israelites was met with tragic news: “They said to me, ‘Those who survived the exile and are back in the province are in great trouble and disgrace. The wall of Jerusalem is broken down, and its gates have been burned with fire’” (Nehemiah 1:3\). This revelation set in motion the events recorded in the book, including the rebuilding of the wall amid opposition and various reforms among the people. In the Hebrew canon, Ezra and Nehemiah were considered a single book. The authorship of Nehemiah is ascribed to [Ezra](life-Ezra.html) or [Nehemiah](life-Nehemiah.html). Internal evidence suggests that Nehemiah himself wrote at least portions of the text, given the use of first\-person pronouns and the introduction, “The words of Nehemiah son of Hakaliah: In the month of Kislev in the twentieth year, while I was in the citadel of Susa” (Nehemiah 1:1\). However, there are Jewish and Christian traditions that attribute the book to Ezra the scribe, opening the possibility that Ezra used Nehemiah’s memoir to compile the text of Nehemiah. The books of Ezra\-Nehemiah and Chronicles, which may also have been written by Ezra, command respect. The author’s meticulousness, valuable historical contexts and genealogies, distinctive literary style, and continuity are impressive. The author, either Nehemiah or Ezra, drew from various sources, including genealogies, royal archives, letters, and official Persian edicts. The book of Nehemiah deals with themes such as leadership (by any standard, Nehemiah was a world\-class leader), responsibility, renewal, and God’s faithfulness in keeping His promises despite His people’s rebellion. Christians seeking the relevance of Nehemiah to their faith can draw parallels between Nehemiah and the [Head of the church](head-of-the-church.html), Jesus Christ. Nehemiah’s leadership, sacrifice, passion for serving God, and compassion for God’s people are a wonderful archetype of the Messiah’s ministry. God’s faithfulness to Israel even after His righteous judgment is proof that He never goes back on His promises.

Who wrote the book of Esther? Who was the author of Esther?

Answer The author of the [book of Esther](Book-of-Esther.html) is not revealed in Scripture. The book distinguishes itself by its lack of any [mention of God](Book-Esther-God.html) or any communication between God and the characters of the book. In a world where Christians sometimes grapple with God’s apparent absence, this unique feature of Esther underscores God’s providence implicitly. Additionally, as one of the few biblical texts spotlighting a female protagonist, Esther stands out. The conflict, tension, and situational irony captivate readers as the story of Esther unfolds. Through it all, God rescues the Jews who remained in Persia after the initial wave of Jews returned to Judah. Traditionally, Jewish commentators have attributed the book to [Mordecai](Mordecai-in-the-Bible.html), Esther’s uncle. Esther 9:20 says that “Mordecai recorded these events” as he was preparing to send letters to the Jews throughout the Persian Empire. The ancient historian [Josephus](Flavius-Josephus.html) believed that Mordecai was the author of Esther (*Antiquities* XI.6\.1\). However, the effusive praise of Mordecai in Esther 10:3 suggests that the book was written by someone else. If Mordecai was not the primary author of Esther, then his written records were certainly source material for the author. Some conservative scholars have suggested Ezra or Nehemiah as the author of Esther. [Nehemiah](life-Nehemiah.html), who worked in the Persian court before his journey to Jerusalem, would certainly have known of Mordecai and possibly even knew him personally. Nehemiah also had access to official records; however, the writing style of the book of Esther differs from the meticulous style of Ezra\-Nehemiah. Another possibility is that the book of Esther was written by another Jew who had returned to Judah under [Zerubbabel’s](Zerubbabel-in-the-Bible.html) leadership. Yet another suggestion is that [Esther](life-Esther.html) herself wrote or co\-wrote the book bearing her name. This theory is based on Esther 9:29, which says that “Queen Esther, daughter of Abihail, along with Mordecai the Jew, wrote with full authority” a letter establishing the official observance of the new Feast of Purim. While the author of Esther remains a mystery, we can be fairly certain that the author was a Jew who had an in\-depth knowledge of Persian customs and the situation of the palace in Susa. Details in the book suggest an eyewitness to the events. And the author of Esther was a master storyteller. The book is skillfully written, much like the book of Ruth. The [chiastic structure](chiasm-chiastic.html) and deliberate use of irony and suspense come together to record the history of God’s sovereign care for His children and His behind\-the\-scenes working even in the midst of trouble.

Who wrote the book of Job? Who was the author of Job?

Answer The book of Job, an ancient book of wisdom, remains relevant to many modern readers grappling with the question of God’s sovereignty over suffering, especially the suffering of the innocent. Its wisdom\-laden content enhances its enduring relevance. Job presents a hard reality of living in this world—sometimes, the righteous suffer for no apparent cause. The [book of Job](Book-of-Job.html) is often considered the earliest written book in the Bible, but that would depend largely on the authorship. The text does not explicitly mention the author, and attributing it to Job himself is challenging, given the account of his death in the final chapter (Job 42:17\) and the initial praise of Job’s uprightness, seemingly from a third\-party observer (1:1\). Job might have contributed portions of the text—his speeches can certainly be attributed to him. Jewish tradition attributes the book to Moses. Other narratives set in the time of the patriarchs were written by Moses, so it is reasonable to assume Moses wrote Job, too. Another suggestion is King Solomon, who is credited with a large portion of other wisdom literature. Then there’s [Elihu](Elihu-Job.html), a character in the text of Job. Elihu was the only one of Job’s friends who truly emphasized God and His greatness rather than focus on the human response to Job’s problems (Job 32—37\). And he’s the only one who is not rebuked by the Lord at the end of the book. Some scholars suggest Elihu, an eyewitness to the events of Job, could have been the author of the book. Ultimately, we have to conclude that the author of Job remains anonymous. What we do know is that he was a master at poetry. The *Encyclopædia Britannica* says that the book of Job is “often counted among the masterpieces of world literature” (www.britannica.com/topic/The\-Book\-of\-Job, accessed 1/31/24\). The poet Lord Tennyson said that Job is “the greatest poem, whether of ancient or modern literature” (quoted in “Introduction to Job,” Blue Letter Bible, www.blueletterbible.org/study/eo/Job/Job000\.cfm, accessed 1/31/24\). And novelist Victor Hugo said, “Tomorrow, if all literature was to be destroyed and it was left to me to retain one work only, I should save Job” (ibid.). The author of Job raises uncomfortable questions and challenges a formulaic view of life where things always go as planned. The author’s ultimate purpose is not to provide a five\-step [theodicy](theodicy.html) to explain the problem to evil, but to acknowledge the tension of living in a broken world and call readers to trust in God, whose wisdom surpasses our finite understanding.

What does it mean to “be renewed in the spirit of your mind” (Ephesians 4:23)?

Answer In a challenging teaching on holy living (Ephesians 4:17—5:21\), the apostle Paul emphasized the importance of the believer’s mental outlook. He reminded the Ephesian Christians what they had learned in their relationship with Christ: “To put off your [old self](put-off-the-old-man.html), which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness“ (Ephesians 4:22–24, ESV). The phrase *be renewed* is derived from the Greek verb (*ananeousthai*) meaning “to be or become reestablished in a new and often improved manner.” By entering a relationship with Jesus, the believer is reestablished in an improved standing as a “[new creation](new-creation.html)” in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17\). At the same time, Christians are daily, continually being renewed by the indwelling Spirit of God: “Therefore we do not lose heart. Though outwardly we are wasting away, yet inwardly we are being renewed day by day” (2 Corinthians 4:16\). “The spirit of your mind” refers to the believer’s thoughts and attitudes. In the New Living Translation, Ephesians 4:23 says, “Instead, let the Spirit renew your thoughts and attitudes.” The mind is the arena where the Holy Spirit constantly works on renewal. Paul urged the Romans, “Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will” (Romans 12:2\). Spending time daily in fellowship with Jesus Christ is vital to being renewed in the spirit of our minds. We are renewed in our internal nature as we “learn to know \[our] Creator and become like him” (Colossians 3:10, NLT). In fact, this is the believer’s destiny: “For God knew his people in advance, and he chose them to become like his Son, so that his Son would be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters” (Romans 8:29, NLT; see also John 13:15; Philippians 2:5\). The more we know Jesus, who reflects the very nature of God (Philippians 2:6\), the better we can see and understand the heavenly Father (see Colossians 1:15\). “The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word” (Hebrews 1:3\). As we follow in Christ’s footsteps and arm ourselves with the same attitude He had, our lives become a pleasing “sacrifice to God” (Ephesians 5:21; Peter 2:21; 1 Peter 4:1\). God’s Word is essential to being renewed in the spirit of our minds. Jesus prayed to the Father for all believers, “Make them holy by your truth; teach them your word, which is truth” (John 17:17, NLT). As we develop in our understanding of the truth in Scripture, our minds are renewed and transformed by God’s Spirit, and our lives reflect that change. “Physically, you are what you eat, but spiritually, you are what you think,” writes [Warren Wiersbe](Warren-Wiersbe.html) in *The Bible Exposition Commentary* (Vol. 2, Victor Books, 1996, p. 40\). As we meditate on God’s Word “day and night” and “delight in the law of the Lord,” we become firmly reestablished “like trees planted along the riverbank, bearing fruit each season. Their leaves never wither, and they prosper in all they do” (Psalm 1:1–3, NLT). Prayer is also necessary to be renewed in the spirit of our minds. Paul prayed for the Colossians to be filled “with the knowledge of \[God’s] will through all the wisdom and understanding that the Spirit gives, so that you may live a life worthy of the Lord and please him in every way: bearing fruit in every good work, growing in the knowledge of God” (Colossians 1:9–10\). After David confessed his sins of adultery with Bathsheba and the murder of Uriah, he prayed, “Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me” (Psalm 51:10, ESV). As you seek the Lord in relationship with Jesus, in the truth of His Word and in prayer, you are renewed in the spirit of your mind: “Then you will experience God’s peace, which exceeds anything we can understand. His peace will guard your hearts and minds as you live in Christ Jesus” (Philippians 4:7, NLT). Renewal brings a new mindset of trust, peace, and humble obedience (Isaiah 26:3; Romans 8:5; Philippians 4:8–9; Colossians 3:1–2\).

Who wrote the book of Isaiah? Who was the author of Isaiah?

Answer The [book of Isaiah](Book-of-Isaiah.html) was written by the prophet Isaiah. The book is categorized as one of the Major Prophets in the Old Testament or, in the Hebrew Tanakh, as a Latter Prophet. The term *major* refers to the length of the books rather than the credentials or importance of the authors. In the Tanakh, prophets like Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel are termed “Latter Prophets” to distinguish them from the Former Prophets such as Samuel and Nathan. [Isaiah](life-Isaiah.html) prophesied during the time of the divided kingdom under the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah. Isaiah likely prophesied between 739—681 BC, a time when both the northern and southern kingdoms had turned away from God. Israel [fell to Assyria](Israel-conquered-by-Assyria.html) in 722 BC, and Judah continued its trajectory of rebellion against God. Tragically, the warnings of Isaiah and other prophets changed nothing, and Judah later fell to the hands of Babylon. Isaiah also contains many Messianic prophecies, including Isaiah 7:14; 9:6–7; and 11:1–5\. The prophet probably died during the reign of Manasseh. Tradition states that Isaiah was martyred. The book of Isaiah opens with a line that identifies the author: “The vision concerning Judah and Jerusalem that Isaiah son of Amoz saw during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, kings of Judah” (1:1\). As with other books of both the Major and Minor Prophets, the book of Isaiah was named after the author. Some modern scholars challenge the traditional authorship of Isaiah, proposing a multi\-authorship view. They divide the book into three sections (chapters 1—39, 40—55, and 56—66\) supposedly written by different authors at different times. The three supposed authors are given the names Proto\-Isaiah, Deutero\-Isaiah, and Trito\-Isaiah (First, Second, and Third Isaiah). There is no basis for such claims except for some stylistic differences and the fact that the writer sometimes speaks of future events as if they had already occurred. An instance of the past tense used to describe future events is called “prophetic perfect tense”; a good example is Isaiah 53, where the suffering of the Messiah is spoken of as if it had already happened. Bible commentator Charles Swindoll explains the artificial division of Isaiah as arising from “a scholarly denial of predictive prophecy. This position not only limits the power of God to communicate with His people but also ignores the wide variety of specific, predictive claims about Jesus Christ scattered throughout the book” (https://insight.org/resources/bible/the\-major\-prophets/isaiah, accessed 2/6/24\). Arguing against the claim of multiple authorship is the fact that the book of Isaiah has always existed as a single collection. Further, it has always been called “Isaiah.” The oldest extant copy of Isaiah, found among the [Dead Sea Scrolls](dead-sea-scrolls.html), is dated from c. 175 BC. That copy of Isaiah is a single scroll. From beginning to end, it is undivided, and the transition between chapters 39 and 40 (one of the major divisions, according to the “three Isaiahs” theory) is seamless. Nothing in any ancient copy of Isaiah even hints that the scribes thought the book should be divided into different sections or that they were dealing with different authors. In summary, Isaiah is the author of the book bearing his name. Proposals of multiple authorship should be rejected. The book, one of the most beautifully written in all of Scripture, remains relevant for Christians due to its wide\-ranging prophecies, its warning about the dangers of sin and the certainty of judgment, and its presentation of God’s mercy and restoration.

Who wrote the book of Jeremiah? Who was the author of Jeremiah?

Answer The [book of Jeremiah](Book-of-Jeremiah.html) holds significant importance in the history of Israel and the redemptive narrative of Scripture. It is classified as a Major Prophet in the Old Testament—due to its length—or one of the Latter Prophets in the Hebrew Bible. The prophet Jeremiah wrote the book of Jeremiah (Jeremiah 1:1\). The opening line of the book of Jeremiah establishes the authorship: “These are the words of Jeremiah son of Hilkiah, one of the priests from the town of Anathoth in the land of Benjamin” (‭‭Jeremiah‬ ‭1:1,‬ ‭NLT‬‬). At least some of Jeremiah’s prophecies were dictated to his secretary, Baruch son of Neriah: “Jeremiah called Baruch son of Neriah, and while Jeremiah dictated all the words the Lord had spoken to him, Baruch wrote them on the scroll” (Jeremiah 36:4; cf. verses 17–18\). The author’s use of the first person in several sections (for example, Jeremiah 1:4–19\), further supports the traditional attribution. ‬‬‬‬ The [prophet Jeremiah](life-Jeremiah.html) began prophesying at a young age, his initial reluctance being overcome by God’s reassurance (Jeremiah 1:5–8\). Composed during the final years of Judah before the Babylonian exile, the book served as a final effort in admonishing the Israelites to repent. However, rather than listen to God’s prophet, the residents of Judah persecuted Jeremiah. He was beaten and put in stocks (Jeremiah 20:2\); he was mocked (Jeremiah 20:7\); the scroll he wrote was burned (Jeremiah 36:23\); people clamored for his death (Jeremiah 26:11\); and he was thrown into a cistern and left to die (Jeremiah 38:1–13\). Through Jeremiah, the author of the book, God teaches us more about Himself, His expectations, and His judgment. Jeremiah also foreshadows Jesus in many ways. Not only did Jeremiah’s sufferings and endurance presage the demeanor of Christ, but his prophecies pointed to the relationship God would initiate through Christ and the [New Covenant](new-covenant.html) (Jeremiah 31:31–34\). Jeremiah, the son of a priest from Anathoth, a small town in Judah, likely held a priestly role himself. Called by God to prophesy to Judah of their coming fall to Babylon, he faced persecution, people’s hard\-heartedness, and conflicts with false prophets and corrupt priests who spread misleading proclamations of peace. Due to these challenges—and perhaps his youth—Jeremiah’s message carried an emotional depth that earned him the nickname “the weeping prophet.”

Who wrote the book of Lamentations? Who was the author of Lamentations?

Answer In the Hebrew Bible, the [book of Lamentations](Book-of-Lamentations.html) was originally named *ekah*, meaning “Alas!”—an expression of shock or bewilderment at a tragic event. Later translators gave the book its current title. Lamentations was written in the aftermath of the [Babylonian exile](Babylonian-captivity-exile.html), as the opening line states, “Jerusalem, once so full of people, is now deserted. She who was once great among the nations now sits alone like a widow. Once the queen of all the earth, she is now a slave” (‭‭Lamentations ‭1:1‬, ‭NLT‬‬). This sets the tone of despair and struggle. Lamentations is similar to the book of Job in that it explores the question of suffering. However, while Job tackles the suffering of the innocent, Lamentations focuses on the consequences of sin. We don’t live in a conquered Jerusalem, but we are familiar with the consequences of breaking God’s law. Broken marriages, poverty, high crime rates, and moral decline are some examples of the lamentable effects of sin. ‬‬‬‬ There is no internal claim to authorship within Lamentations, but Jewish and Christian tradition holds that the [prophet Jeremiah](life-Jeremiah.html) wrote it, which is why it is placed alongside Jeremiah in the Old Testament. The Septuagint also notes Jeremiah as the author, further bolstering the traditional attribution. The historical context of Lamentations aligns with Jeremiah’s life and times, and the tone of both books is similar. Jeremiah, the author of Lamentations, was an eyewitness to the Babylonian invasion of Jerusalem. He saw the siege, the plundering, and the destruction of the city, including the demolition of Solomon’s temple, which had stood for 400 years. In response to such devastation, Jeremiah wrote passages such as these, which have earned him the title “the weeping prophet”: My eyes fail from weeping, I am in torment within; my heart is poured out on the ground because my people are destroyed, because children and infants faint in the streets of the city. (Jeremiah 2:11\) and All our enemies have opened their mouths wide against us. We have suffered terror and pitfalls, ruin and destruction. Streams of tears flow from my eyes because my people are destroyed. (Jeremiah 3:46–48\) Jeremiah, the author of Lamentations, was a poet of some note. The book is divided into five separate poems, which now form the five chapters of the book. In the original Hebrew, the poems are acrostic; that is, each line starts with a succeeding letter of the Hebrew alphabet. Despite its dark themes, in the midst of the lament, there is hope. In the center of the book is Lamentations 3:22–25: “‭‭The faithful love of the Lord never ends! His mercies never cease. Great is his faithfulness; his mercies begin afresh each morning. I say to myself, ‘The Lord is my inheritance; therefore, I will hope in him!’ The Lord is good to those who depend on him, to those who search for him” (NLT). ‬‬

What is the purpose of baptism?

Answer There is no verse in the New Testament that specifically explains the purpose of [baptism](Christian-baptism.html). Therefore, we must determine the purpose of baptism from a variety of passages as well as from the cultural background of the first century. The Greek word for “baptize,” *baptizó*, literally means “to dip, immerse or submerge.” It could refer to what happens to a drowning person or a sinking ship (Beasley\-Murray, G., “Baptism,” *New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology*, Vol. 1, Colin Brown, ed., Zondervan Pub., 1975\). However, the ecclesiastical use of the word specifies a particular rite of the church. In many cases, the rite itself has become detached from the actual meaning of the word *baptize*. In the Roman Catholic Church, [babies are “baptized”](infant-baptism.html) (sprinkled with water, although in earlier times they were immersed) to “wash away” original sin. The baby, as he or she matures, will still have to deal with actual sins committed, but, according to Catholic dogma, original sin has been removed, allowing the individual a chance to eventually get to heaven. In [Reformed churches](reformed-theology.html), babies are “baptized” (sprinkled with water) as a sign of the New Covenant. It is a symbol of the parents’ faith and their intent to raise their child in a Christian home. It is seen as the Old Testament counterpart to circumcision. In the Old Testament, when a baby was circumcised, he had no choice in the matter; the ritual was a sign that his parents wanted him to be included in the covenant people of Israel. Likewise, in Reformed theology, baptism is a sign that parents want the child included in the church. Some churches see baptism as the first step of obedience and [necessary for salvation](baptism-salvation.html). In these churches, baptism does not “save” the individual but simply initiates him or her into a life of following Christ and is necessary for final salvation. Viewed this way, baptism is not too different from the Roman Catholic concept. Other churches consider baptism as an act of obedience to Christ but not necessary for salvation. Much of the baptism mentioned in the New Testament is the baptism of [John the Baptist](life-John-Baptist.html) (“one who baptizes”). Baptism was not common in Judaism; however, Gentile converts to Judaism were indeed baptized. When John called Jews to repentance and baptism, he was calling on them to admit their sin, renounce their heritage as a means of acceptance before God, and repent. When people came to John for baptism, they were admitting that they were no better than Gentiles. The purpose of [John’s baptism](baptism-of-John.html) helps explain why the religious leaders refused to participate. “Then Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region about the Jordan were going out to him, and they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins. But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, ‘You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bear fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not presume to say to yourselves, “We have Abraham as our father,” for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham’” (Matthew 3:5–9\). While the baptism of John is not the same as Christian baptism, it does provide the background for it. In the first century, when a person responded to Christ in faith and was baptized in the name of Jesus, that person was rejecting his own righteousness and religious heritage in favor of Jesus as the means of salvation. This would have been obvious to the first\-century Jewish convert, but its significance is often lost on twenty\-first\-century cultural Christians. In the first century, baptism was the final step to identifying with Christ and the church and would thus open the individual to persecution. Until he was baptized, the individual may have simply been curious or even a supporter of the church in some way, but he was not considered truly Christian. Baptism was the event that marked an individual as absolutely committed to Christ. Baptism is the rite that publicly identifies one as a follower of Christ—a Christian. It is included in Jesus’ final instruction to His disciples: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19\). When people responded to the gospel, baptism was the public response and was usually immediate (see Acts 2:38–41; 8:12; 10:47–48\). Baptism in the New Testament symbolizes resurrection and washing. The symbol or rite does not accomplish new life or spiritual cleansing, but it is an outward illustration of the inward reality. When a person is placed under the water and then brought out again, it visibly represents dying to the old life and being resurrected with Christ. Also, it is a picture of washing, as this seems to have been the background of the Jewish baptism of Gentile converts. At the same time, baptism is the public rite of initiation into the church and a public confession of identification with Christ in death and resurrection (see Romans 6:3–4\). Based on the definition of *baptizó*, the resurrection symbolism, and the fact that every use of the word in the New Testament either allows for or implies immersion as the [mode of baptism](baptism-mode.html), we conclude that immersion, not sprinkling, is the most biblical mode of baptism. While sprinkling with water may be a symbol for washing, it is hardly a visible representation of resurrection. Since baptism represents a reality in the life of the one being baptized, only believers are proper candidates for baptism.

Who was G. Campbell Morgan?

Answer G. Campbell Morgan (1863—1945\), whose full name was George Campbell Morgan, was a British pastor, evangelist, Bible scholar, and prolific writer. His first sermon, preached at age thirteen, was a balanced, four\-point message on salvation. Despite having no formal ministerial training, his natural speaking ability and biblical perception would lead him to the pulpit of London’s Westminster Chapel, where he served as pastor for more than 22 years (from 1904—1917 and 1932—1943\). Today, G. Campbell Morgan is remembered by some as “The Prince of Expositors” (“G. Campbell Morgan: The Prince of Expositors,” *Christianity Today*, Vol. VII, No. 18, June 7, 1963\). George was born in the village of Tetbury, Gloucestershire, UK, to George and Elizabeth Fawn Brittan Morgan. George, Sr., was a Baptist minister who, influenced by the famous Brethren preacher [George Muller](George-Mueller.html), resigned his position and began his own independent faith mission. When the family moved to Cardiff, South Wales, they joined the Wesleyan Methodist church and embraced its traditions. G. Campbell Morgan began preaching as a youth and was soon called to evangelize regularly in smaller churches throughout South Wales. He graduated from the Douglas School, Cheltenham, in 1881\. To earn a living, Morgan became a schoolteacher at the Wesleyan Day School in Birmingham. Later he taught at the Jewish Collegiate School (1883—1886\). Amid a crisis of faith, Morgan decided to put away all the progressive books on his shelf, and for seven years, he read only the Bible. He wrote, “I bought a new Bible, and began to read with an open mind and a determined will. That Bible *found* me. Since that time I have lived for one end—to preach the teachings of the Book that *found* me” (ibid.). G. Campbell Morgan knew God had called him to the pulpit. At first, he joined the Salvation Army and became a lay evangelist for the Wesleyan Methodist Church. Ironically, when he applied to become a minister of the Wesleyan Church in 1888, he was refused for failing his trial sermon. But this stinging rejection did not stop Morgan. He would soon become one of the most popular [Bible expositors](expository-preaching.html) of his day. In 1888, Morgan married Annie (also called Nancy). The following year, he was called to minister at the Congregational church at Stone, Staffordshire, and was ordained by the Congregationalists in 1890\. Within a few years, he was ministering at the prestigious Westminster Road Congregational Church in Birmingham (1893—1897\) and then at New Court Church, Tollington Park, in London (1897—1901\). During these years, G. Campbell Morgan’s fame began to spread far and wide as he traveled around the UK holding evangelism crusades. Many remarked on his exceptional eloquence. In 1896, Morgan made his first trip to the United States (he would cross the Atlantic more than 50 times in his life). There, he met [D. L. Moody](D-L-Moody.html) and was invited to preach at his Northfield, Massachusetts, Bible Conference. Every year after that, until Moody died in 1899, Morgan was called upon to speak at the General Conference. In 1901, Moody’s son asked G. Campbell Morgan to lecture at the Northfield Extension. This position took him all over the United States and Canada, speaking at Bible conferences and helping develop the Young Men’s Christian Association ([YMCA](YMCA-YWCA.html)). In 1902, Chicago Theological Seminary awarded Morgan a Doctor of Divinity. Morgan’s reputation as an extraordinary Bible teacher was solidified when he returned to London in 1904 to minister at Westminster Congregational Chapel, Buckingham Gate. His timeless sermons were published in *The Westminster Pulpit* (1915\), and many members of London’s political and social elite attended his services. At a time when the church was in decline, Morgan reinvigorated involvement through the establishment of the Friday Night Bible School, a new Sunday school, and a sisterhood of women workers. He also raised funds for much\-needed renovations and repairs to the building. From 1911 to 1914, Morgan also served as president of Cheshunt College, Cambridge, splitting his time between London and Cambridge. When war broke out in 1914, he was one of a handful of ministers still in London. In 1917, G. Campbell Morgan resigned from Westminster Chapel and spent time training YMCA workers and pastoring at Highbury Quadrant (1918—1919\). He returned to the United States in 1919, spending most of his time at Bible conferences and, for a short while, taught at the Bible Institute of Los Angeles and Gordon College of Theology and Missions in Boston. For three years (1929—1932\), he held his only pastorate in the United States at Tabernacle Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia. Morgan returned to London for a second tenure as pastor at Westminster Chapel in 1932\. In 1938, he asked Dr. Martyn Lloyd\-Jones to join him as his assistant until Morgan retired from the pulpit in 1943\. He passed away on May 16, 1945, in London. All four of Morgan’s sons became ministers. G. Campbell Morgan wrote more than sixty books, including *Discipleship* (1898\), *The Crises of the Christ* (1903\), *The Great Physician* (1937\), and the *Analyzed Bible* (1907\), the fruit of his Friday Night Bible School. Some say he helped the average person of average education and intelligence rediscover the heart of God’s Word like no other preacher of his time. He was gifted with a clear and direct communication style. Martyn Lloyd\-Jones, one of the most gifted preachers of the last century, called his friend and mentor “the last of the great pulpit personalities” (Thompson, D. M., “Morgan, George Campbell,” *Biographical Dictionary of Evangelicals*, ed. Timothy Larsen et al., InterVarsity Press, 2003, p. 442\). Here are some quotes attributed to G. Campbell Morgan: “Holiness is not inability to sin, but ability not to sin” (Manser, M., ed., *Christian Quotations*, Martin Manser, 2016\). “What we do in the crisis always depends on whether we see the difficulties in the light of God, or God in the shadow of the difficulties” (*Concise Survey of the Bible*, 2014, p. 28, Ravenio Books). “Prayer is life passionately wanting, wishing, desiring God’s triumph” (*The Westminster Pulpit, Vol. III: The Preaching of G. Campbell Morgan* 2012 , p. 61, Wipf and Stock Publishers). “There is something infinitely better than doing a great thing for God, and the infinitely better thing is to be where God wants us to be, to do what God wants us to do, and to have no will apart from His” (*The Hidden Years at Nazareth*, 1898\).

Who was Albert Barnes?

Answer Albert Barnes (1798—1870\) was an American Presbyterian pastor, theologian, and author who advocated for temperance, women’s rights, and the abolition of slavery. He is best remembered for his extensive Old and New Testament commentaries, first published in 1832 and still widely read today. His interpretations of the Bible broke from strict [Calvinist](calvinism.html) thought and placed Barnes at the center of the 1837 schism of the Presbyterian Church in the United States. Albert Barnes was born in Rome, New York, to Methodist parents. In his early years, Albert was a skeptic. However, while studying law at Hamilton College in Clinton, New York, Barnes was deeply moved by the writings of Thomas Chalmers, a Scottish Presbyterian preacher known for his outspoken defense of the poor. Barnes became a Christian and, upon graduating from Hamilton, decided to become a Presbyterian minister. He entered Princeton Theological Seminary in 1820 and was ordained in 1825 by the presbytery of Elizabethtown, New Jersey. He began pastoring at the Presbyterian Church in Morristown, New Jersey. By the time he was called to pastor the First Presbyterian Church of Philadelphia in 1830, Barnes had become embroiled in the controversy between Old School and New School Presbyterians. Those of the Old School held to traditional Calvinist doctrine, while New School preachers like Barnes believed in the human exercise of free will in response to God’s offer of salvation. In a printed sermon, Barnes challenged Old School Presbyterians with his views regarding the imputation of Adam’s sin, original sin, and unlimited atonement. He was suspended from ministry for a time by the Presbyterian General Assembly on charges of doctrinal heresy but eventually was acquitted in 1831, though not without censure. In 1835, Albert Barnes was again accused of departing from the [Westminster Confession of Faith](Westminster-Confession-of-Faith.html) after publishing his book *Notes Explanatory and Practical, on the Epistle to the Romans* (1835\). His views on critical doctrines, such as justification by faith and the righteousness of Christ, came under scrutiny. He was brought to trial again before the General Assembly, but Barnes was exonerated and fully restored to the pastorate in 1836\. Barnes’ case brought sharp focus to the broadening gap between conservative and progressive Presbyterians, culminating in a complete separation. After the Auburn Declaration in August of 1837 failed to produce the desired unifying effect, for the next three decades, the Presbyterian Church existed as two separate denominations (New School and Old School), with both claiming to be the official church. Barnes lived just long enough to see the healing reunion of the two entities in the northern states between 1869 and 1870\. The first gathering of the reunited Presbyterian churches was held in his Philadelphia church in 1870\. Albert Barnes continued to pastor the First Presbyterian Church of Philadelphia until 1868, when failing eyesight forced him to retire. His devoted congregation insisted that he retain [pastor emeritus](pastor-emeritus.html) status. Throughout his life, Barnes supported numerous social reforms, including the Prohibition movement. He took a firm and vocal stance against [slavery](Bible-slavery.html), presenting the Bible’s resounding condemnation of it. He diligently promoted [Sunday school](Sunday-School.html) in the church and served as a founding director of the Union Theological Seminary and President of the Pennsylvania Bible Society. As a writer, Barnes possessed a knack for clarity. He wrote more than one hundred devotional and practical books, including *Development of the Christian Character* (1832\), *The Way of Salvation* (1836\), *An Inquiry into the Scriptural Views of Slavery* (1846\), and *The Church and Slavery* (1857\). Albert Barnes’ commentaries on the entire New Testament and portions of the Old Testament are his most significant and famous legacy. More than one million volumes of his commentaries were sold while Barnes was still living, and they continue to be used today. Active until the end, Albert Barnes died suddenly on Christmas Eve of 1870 while ministering to grieving friends near his home in Philadelphia. Here are a few gems from the pen of Albert Barnes: “‘Praise’ now is one of the great duties of the redeemed. It will be their employment forever” (*Barnes’ Notes on Hebrews*). “It does not require great learning to be a Christian, and to be convinced of the truth of the Bible. It requires an honest heart, and a willingness to obey God” (*Barnes’ Notes on Matthew and Mark*). “There is no power *out* of the church that could sustain slavery an hour, if it were not sustained *in* it” (*An Inquiry into the Scriptural Views of Slavery*, p. 383\). “Christianity may produce agitation, anger, tumult as at Ephesus; but the diffusion of the pure gospel of Christ, and the establishment of the institutions of honesty and virtue, at whatever cost, is a blessing to mankind” (quoted by Gilbert, J., in *Dictionary of Burning Words of Brilliant Writers*, W. B. Ketcham, 1895, p. 134\).

Who was B. B. Warfield?

Answer Benjamin Breckenridge Warfield (1851—1921\) was an American Presbyterian theologian, educator, and [apologist](Christian-apologetics.html). He was regarded as one of the last great defenders of conservative Presbyterian theology before the denomination divided in 1929\. As a professor at Princeton Theological Seminary from 1887 until 1921, he upheld the Reformed theological traditions of his predecessors, [Charles Hodge](Charles-Hodge.html) and his son Archibald Alexander (A. A.) Hodge. Warfield was an exceptional scholar, author, reviewer, and editor. His works are still widely read among evangelical Christians, primarily because of his vigorous defense of biblical inerrancy. Benjamin was born into a distinguished family near Lexington, Kentucky. His father, William Warfield, was a wealthy farmer and cattle and horse breeding authority. He also served as a Union officer in the Civil War. His mother, Mary Cabell Breckinridge, was the daughter of Robert Jefferson Breckinridge, a Presbyterian minister, theologian, editor, and politician. Mary’s grandfather was John Breckinridge, an attorney general for Thomas Jefferson and a distant cousin of John C. Breckinridge, the United States vice president under James Buchanan. After receiving a private education, B. B. Warfield attended Princeton University (then the College of New Jersey), graduating in 1871 as valedictorian at age nineteen. Next, he spent a season touring Europe. By the time Warfield returned to Lexington, his inclination toward a career in science had turned toward the ministry. He worked briefly as the livestock editor of the *Farmer’s Home Journal* before entering Princeton Theological Seminary in 1873\. Not long after graduating in 1876, Benjamin married Annie Pearce Kinkead, the daughter of a prominent attorney. Soon, the couple sailed for Europe, where Warfield studied New Testament theology and biblical criticism at the University of Leipzig. During the voyage, they encountered a violent storm, and Annie suffered a debilitating trauma that plagued her for the rest of her life. Biographers don’t specify whether her injury was mental or physical, but she remained severely disabled, living as a shut\-in. Apart from his duties at Princeton, B. B. Warfield also existed in semi\-seclusion, caring for Annie until she died in 1915\. The couple remained childless. After returning to the United States, Warfield served briefly as a supply minister at the First Presbyterian Church in Baltimore, Maryland. In 1878, he accepted a New Testament teaching position at Western Theological Seminary near Pittsburg, Pennsylvania. He was ordained in the [Presbyterian](Presbyterians.html) ministry in 1879\. In 1881, Warfield and A. A. Hodge (then serving as principal of Princeton Theological Seminary) published a collaborative essay on the inspiration of Scripture in an issue of the *Presbyterian Review*. The article—noteworthy for its scholarly and compelling defense of the [inerrancy of the Bible](Biblical-inerrancy.html)—attracted significant attention at the time. In 1887, after the death of Archibald Alexander Hodge, B. B. Warfield succeeded him as Charles Hodge Chair at Princeton Theological Seminary and Professor of Didactic and Polemic Theology. He remained in the position for 34 years, teaching to nearly 3,000 students in his lifetime. Late on the evening of February 16, 1921, B. B. Warfield died in Princeton, New Jersey, after a day of classes. For 12 years (1890—1902\), B. B. Warfield was chief editor of the journal *Presbyterian and Reformed Review*. He also contributed to its successor, *Princeton Theological Review*. Theologically, he held firmly to the doctrines of biblical infallibility, [original sin](original-sin.html), predestination, and limited atonement as outlined in the Westminster Confession of Faith. His writings endeavored to prove through precise and detailed scholarship the authority and inspiration of the Bible—that biblical inerrancy is an essential, orthodox Christian teaching and not an invented concept of the nineteenth\-century church. He passionately argued against modernism and liberalism within Presbyterianism and Christianity in general. Throughout his life, B. B. Warfield wrote biblical, theological, and apologetics books and articles, volumes of sermons, lectures, and reviews, including *An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament* (1886\), *The Gospel of the Incarnation* (1893\), *The Lord of Glory* (1907\), and *Counterfeit Miracles* (1918\). Ten volumes of his most worthy articles were collected and published posthumously. These include *Revelation and Inspiration* (1927\), *Christology and Criticism* (1929\), *Calvin and Calvinism* (1931\), *Perfectionism* (1931—1932\), and *The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible* (1948\). Many of B. B. Warfield’s views continue to play a vital role in evangelical circles today. Here are a few quotes from B. B. Warfield: “Christ took the Sabbath into the grave with him and brought the Lord’s Day out of the grave with him on the resurrection morn” (*Selected Shorter Writings*). “Grace is free sovereign favor to the ill\-deserving” (*Selected Shorter Writings*, Volume 2\). “It is not for Christians to be lukewarm in regard to the investigations and discoveries of the time. Rather, the followers of the Truth Indeed can have no safety, in science or in philosophy, save in the arms of truth. It is for us, therefore, as Christians, to push investigation to the utmost; to be leaders in every science; to stand in the van of criticism; to be the first to catch in every field the voice of the Revealer of truth, who is also our Redeemer” (Jessica Parks, ed., *B. B. Warfield: A Guide to His Life and Writings*, *Faithlife Author Guides*, Faithlife, 2017\).

Who wrote the book of Matthew? Who was the author of Matthew?

Answer The eagerly awaited event, foretold in the Old Testament, was the arrival of the Messiah. The Gospels depict this significant occurrence, portraying Jesus as the Messiah—a carpenter’s son who performed miracles, preached about the kingdom of God, affirmed His divinity, faced crucifixion by adversaries, and triumphantly rose from the dead on the third day. The first Gospel narrative in the New Testament canon is the [book of Matthew](Gospel-of-Matthew.html), though many scholars have concluded that Mark was the first Gospel to be written. Matthew presents Jesus as the fulfillment of both the Law and the Prophets in the Old Testament, and commentators agree that it is the most Jewish Gospel of the four accounts. There is no explicit mention of an author in the text of Matthew. However, Christian tradition attributes the Gospel to Matthew, who was also known as Levi, a former tax collector and disciple of Jesus. His Jewish background explains the emphasis on Old Testament prophecies, as well as his interest in Jesus’ teachings and parables, chiefly the renowned [Sermon on the Mount](sermon-on-the-mount.html). Notably, Matthew incorporates financial details absent in other Gospels (for example, Matthew 17:24\). Beyond Matthew’s background and internal clues, early Christian witnesses all attest to the authorship of Matthew. For instance, [Papias](Papias-of-Hierapolis.html) (AD 60—130\), writes that Matthew “put together the oracles \[of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could” (“Fragments of Papias,” *The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus*, ed. Roberts, Donaldson, and Coxe, vol. 1, *The Ante\-Nicene Fathers*, Christian Literature Company, 1885, p. 155\). Other early church fathers such as Pantaenus, Origen, and Irenaeus also corroborate Matthew as the Gospel’s author. It appears likely that the original Gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew before being translated into Greek. Furthermore, unlike what critics argue, all extant manuscripts of Matthew attribute the apostle Matthew as the author. In this way, no anonymous copies of the Gospel of Matthew exist. In his work, *The Case for Jesus* (Image Books, 2016\), Brant Pitre contrasts the earliest copies of the Gospels to that of Hebrews, which is considered anonymous. While there exist a variety of suggested authors for Hebrews, the authorship of Matthew is unanimous on the manuscripts. Enemy attestations further support Matthew’s authorship, as heretics like Basilides and Cerinthus accepted and utilized the book of Matthew in their teachings. The universal testimony of the early church, internal clues, and manuscript evidence are sufficient to accept that Matthew wrote the Gospel that bears his name.

Who wrote the book of Mark? Who was the author of Mark?

Answer The [book of Mark](Gospel-of-Mark.html), written by John Mark, is considered the earliest Gospel by the majority of scholars and commentators, though some scholars argue for Matthew’s priority. In the New Testament canon, Mark is placed after Matthew and offers a distinct perspective on Jesus. In contrast to Matthew’s Jewish\-centric approach, Mark is targeted to a non\-Jewish audience. It presents facts concisely and provides explanations for Jewish customs and traditions unnecessary for Jewish readers (for example, Mark 7:3–4\). Mark portrays Jesus as God’s servant, distinct from Matthew’s emphasis on kingship, offering a multifaceted view of the Son of God. Although the Gospel does not explicitly mention Mark as the author, Christian tradition attributes it to him, with good reasons. [Eusebius](Eusebius-of-Caesarea.html), citing Papias, states that Mark wrote using Peter’s testimony delivered in sermons. This explains the non\-chronological sequence and emphasis on Jesus’ actions. Early church figures like Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Clement, and Tertullian support this traditional view. Mark likely composed his Gospel in Rome after Peter’s death, accounting for the non\-Jewish audience. Internal clues suggest Peter’s influence on Mark’s work. These clues are detailed by apologist J. Warner Wallace (https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/the\-brief\-case\-for\-peters\-influence\-on\-marks\-gospel\-bible\-insert/, accessed 3/11/24\). Peter is mentioned frequently, referred to with some degree of familiarity, and is the first and last disciple mentioned in the text (Mark 1:16; 16:7\). Using Peter’s name as “bookends” for the Gospel is an example of a literary device known as an “inclusio,” and, in Mark’s case, it is used to cite an eyewitness. Mark also omits information on Peter that could be seen as embarrassing to him (see Mark 5:21–34; cf. Luke 8:42–48\). The Mark who wrote the book is believed to be [John Mark](John-Mark-in-the-Bible.html), mentioned in other parts of Scripture. In the book of Acts, the early church met in his mother’s house (Acts 12:12\). John Mark was also a companion of Paul and Barnabas (Acts 12:25\) and a cousin of the latter (Colossians 4:10\). However, Mark deserted Paul and Barnabas at a point in their first missionary journey, probably out of discouragement (Acts 13:13\). Paul lost trust in him due to his actions, leading to an eventual rift (Acts 15:38\). Given Mark’s unimpressive resume, Paul’s later commendation of Mark indicates a remarkable turnaround (Philemon 1:23–24\). Toward the end of Paul’s life, we witness a full reconciliation between Paul and Mark (2 Timothy 4:11\). God can work through anyone, including someone formerly deemed unreliable and a deserter.

Who wrote the book of Luke? Who was the author of Luke?

Answer Luke, the third book in the New Testament canon, was written by [Luke](Luke-in-the-Bible.html), a physician and companion of Paul on some of his journeys. Often referred to as the “Gospel of mercy,” the book portrays Jesus as showing compassion toward the marginalized, poor, and outcast. In Luke’s Gospel, Jesus is presented as the Savior of all people, not exclusively the Jews, suggesting that the author is a Gentile. The [Gospel of Luke](Gospel-of-Luke.html) distinguishes itself by providing many historical and chronological details. Notably, Luke also includes much information on the women who followed Jesus, mentioning them about 45 times. A large section of Luke contains material unique to that book, including 14 parables not found in the other Gospels. The author of the third Gospel does not explicitly identify himself. The recipient is indicated as “most excellent [Theophilus](Theophilus-Luke-Acts.html),” the same person who received the book of Acts (Luke 1:1–4; Acts 1:1\). As Acts is obviously a sequel to Luke, the same author likely wrote both books. Christian tradition attributes them to Luke, a physician and close companion of Paul. In his letter to Timothy, Paul mentions Luke as someone who stuck with him through hard times (2 Timothy 4:11\). The use of the first\-person *we* in Acts (e.g., Acts 27:1\) confirms that the author witnessed the events firsthand. It is probable that Luke was a Gentile, making him the only non\-Jewish author in Scripture. His purpose for writing the book of Luke was both theological and apologetic, aiming to reinforce Theophilus’ faith (Luke 1:4\). Luke’s awareness of other disciples’ accounts indicates that Mark and Matthew were likely already written when he compiled his account, alongside other reports and sermons the Twelve probably left. This places the Gospel of Luke sometime after the writing of both Matthew and Mark. Since Acts concludes before Paul’s death in AD 68, Luke\-Acts and the first two Gospels were likely written before then. In alignment with his goal of reinforcing Theophilus’ faith, Luke diligently conducted his research. Although not an eyewitness to the life of Jesus, he had access to eyewitness testimony and various sources, including songs, letters, speeches, and trial transcripts. Leveraging his physician’s eye for detail, he crafted an extensive and orderly account. The early church unanimously attributed the third Gospel to Luke, and all the ancient manuscripts we have of the Gospel bear his name. Early church fathers like [Irenaeus](Irenaeus-of-Lyons.html), [Ignatius](Ignatius-of-Antioch.html), [Clement](Clement-of-Rome.html), and [Tertullian](Tertullian.html) affirmed Luke’s authorship, considering his account of the life of Christ authoritative and inspired Scripture. We have no reason to doubt the traditional attribution of the book to Luke, and Luke is properly acknowledged as the author of the Gospel bearing his name.

Who wrote the book of John? Who was the author of John?

Answer The [Gospel of John](Gospel-of-John.html), written by the apostle John, is cherished by many and is often the first book recommended to anyone who wants to learn more about Jesus. John proclaims Jesus as Son of God and Savior, emphasizing belief in Him for salvation. The book contains one of the most well\-known verses in the whole Bible: “For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16\). The concept of Jesus’ deity is affirmed in other Gospels, but the universal consensus is that the Gospel of John proclaims it the loudest. It is the fourth book in the New Testament canon and the last Gospel to be written. The Gospel of John doesn’t explicitly name its author. At every mention of himself, the author states that he is “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (e.g., John 13:23\). The author was an eyewitness to the events (see John 21:24\), and, based on the fact that he was the disciple “leaning back against Jesus” at the Last Supper (John 13:25\), he was likely one of Jesus’ [inner circle](Jesus-inner-circle.html), with Peter and James. Peter is mentioned as separate from the author (John 21:20\), and James was martyred early in the history of the church (Acts 12:2\). That leaves John as the remaining disciple of the inner three and, thus, the author. Apart from the internal clues, the early church uniformly affirmed the authorship of John. Church fathers like [Irenaeus](Irenaeus-of-Lyons.html) plainly spoke of John writing an epistle. Besides Irenaeus, writers like Tatian, Theophilus, Clement, and Tertullian attributed the fourth Gospel to John. John’s Gospel was more theological because he sought to address the theological issues faced by the newer generation of Christians as the apostolic age ended. False teachers had sprung up, questioning core beliefs of Christianity, such as Jesus’ humanity (see 1 John). As a counter, John began his Gospel by introducing the Word who was God and who became flesh (John 1:1, 14\). One objection to John’s authorship concerns his literacy. Being a fisherman, how could he have written a sophisticated and theologically in\-depth narrative? First, we mustn’t dismiss John as uneducated because of his profession. Jewish boys received training at an early age, learning to memorize and write the Torah. John was also acquainted with rabbis and Jewish teachers, such as the high priest (John 18:15–16\). Also worth considering is the use of a scribe, known as an amanuensis. Literate Paul employed the skill of [Tertius](Tertius-in-the-Bible.html), an amanuensis, to write the book of Romans (Romans 16:22\). It is possible that John did the same with his Gospel. Skepticism toward tradition has persisted since the Enlightenment; thus, there will always be criticism concerning the authorship of John. However, the logical conclusion remains that John wrote the Gospel attributed to him.

Who wrote the book of Acts? Who was the author of Acts?

Answer The [book of Acts](Book-of-Acts.html)—also known as the Acts of the Apostles—records the early church’s birth and growth, beginning with Jesus’ resurrection and ending with Paul at Rome. The title is derived from the Greek term *praxis*, signifying action. The book of Acts was written by Luke, the author of the Gospel that bears his name. While Acts serves as a historical document, its purpose goes beyond providing an impersonal church history. Acts vividly depicts the Holy Spirit’s vibrant spread of the gospel, from Jews to Samaritans to Gentiles (Acts 2:1–4; 8:14–17; 10:44–48\), in alignment with Jesus’ statement, “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8\). The opening line of Acts reveals it to be a sequel to the Gospel of Luke, with Theophilus being the recipient of both works. Consequently, Luke and Acts form a cohesive two\-volume work known as Luke\-Acts. Christian tradition holds that Luke, a doctor and companion of Paul, wrote both works. An ancient prologue revealed that Luke first accompanied the apostles before becoming Paul’s companion, which explains the trajectory of the history in Acts. The early church was unanimous in attributing the book of Acts to Luke. We also have internal evidence that the author witnessed some of the events and participated in Paul’s [second](Paul-second-missionary-journey.html) and [third missionary journeys](Paul-third-missionary-journey.html) (Acts 16:10–17; 20:5–6; 21:1–18\). A common objection to the authorship of Acts is the alleged contradictions between Acts and the Pauline Epistles. An example of an alleged contradiction is the difference between Galatians 1:16–20 and Acts 9:19–30 concerning the time immediately after Paul’s conversion. Did Paul spend three years before going to meet the apostles in Jerusalem as he said in Galatians? Or did he head directly to Jerusalem, as Luke seems to imply? A closer look at Acts 9 reveals that Luke didn’t say Paul went directly to Jerusalem from Damascus. In verses 19–22, Paul remained in Damascus, just as he says in Galatians. In verses 23–25, Luke writes, “‭‭After many days had gone by, there was a conspiracy among the Jews to kill him, but Saul learned of their plan. Day and night they kept close watch on the city gates in order to kill him. But his followers took him by night and lowered him in a basket through an opening in the wall.” Sometime after that, Paul went to Jerusalem. The alleged contradiction is resolved simply by recognizing that Luke abridged his version of the narrative using the phrase *after many days* to cover the whole of Paul’s trip to Arabia and his time spent in Damascus. Thus, Luke isn’t contradicting Paul; he simply leaves out details he deemed unnecessary to his account. ‬‬ Of course, alleged contradictions don’t cancel out Luke’s authorship of Acts. At worst, it calls into question his reliability as a historian. But there are reasoned responses to all the so\-called contradictions (see https://crossexamined.org/is\-bart\-ehrman\-right\-when\-he\-says\-that\-acts\-contradicts\-pauls\-letters/), and Luke is widely considered an astute historian.

Who wrote the book of Romans? Who was the author of Romans?

Answer The [book of Romans](Book-of-Romans.html) is an epistle written by the apostle Paul. An epistle is a formal or structured letter intended for a particular audience. In the case of Romans, the original audience was “all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be his holy people” (Romans 1:7\). The structure of the epistle is such that the book is “the clearest and most systematic presentation of Christian doctrine in all the Scriptures” (Swindoll, C., www.insight.org/resources/bible/the\-pauline\-epistles/romans, accessed 3/11/24\). The epistle to the Romans played a vital role in the [Protestant Reformation](Protestant-Reformation.html). The book of Romans is a deep dive into Christian doctrine, elucidating how we attain righteousness in God’s sight. Themes include human depravity, the law’s insufficiency to make us righteous in God’s sight, justification by faith, and Christian living. The overall lesson of Romans can be summarized in Romans 1:16–17: “‭‭For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile. For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed—a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: ‘The righteous will live by faith.’” ‬‬ As with most epistles, the author begins by stating his name: “Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God” (‭‭Romans 1:1\). In writing Romans, Paul employed the services of an amanuensis named [Tertius](Tertius-in-the-Bible.html) (Romans 16:22\). It is generally agreed that the apostle resided in Corinth when he wrote this letter and had not yet been to Rome personally. The epistle is dated in AD 57\. Nero had just become emperor and hadn’t begun persecuting Christians in Rome. Paul's desire to lay a gospel foundation in Rome explains the detailed epistle. Also, his stay in Corinth exposed him to the worst of human depravity, giving him personal experience through which he wrote. He addressed both Gentiles and Jews in the epistle, suggesting a mixed audience (see Romans 1:5–6; 2:14–16, 17–20; 3:1–2\). ‬‬ The book of Romans satisfies our need for a logical presentation of knowledge, and it remains a highly recommended book for anyone who seeks a basic understanding of Christianity. It is especially precious to Protestants as it sparked the flames of Reformation. After [Martin Luther](Martin-Luther.html) studied Romans extensively, he countered many erroneous ideas in the Roman Catholic Church of his time. Today, the book of Romans stands as a reminder that salvation is a gracious gift from God, not a wage earned.

Who wrote the book of 1 Corinthians? Who was the author of 1 Corinthians?

Answer The apostle Paul wrote the book of [1 Corinthians](Book-of-1-Corinthians.html). Written to the church in the bustling city of Corinth, the book of 1 Corinthians is notable for its frankness and resolution of real issues Christians faced in the first century. The parallels between their challenges and ours serve as a reminder that “there is nothing new under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:6\). The issues addressed include sexual immorality, eating food sacrificed to idols, relational divisions, and arguments regarding the resurrection. Often likened to Las Vegas, Corinth was steeped in a sinful lifestyle that had influenced the church, making this letter a call back to faithfulness in Christ. Paul is widely recognized as the author of 1 Corinthians, written a few decades after Jesus’ death and resurrection. The opening greeting identifies Paul as the author (1 Corinthians 1:1\), and there is a strong traditional support for Paul’s authorship. A man named [Sosthenes](Sosthenes-in-the-Bible.html) is also mentioned in the salutation. Whether Sosthenes helped craft the letter, aided Paul as a scribe, or was simply Paul’s companion at the time of the writing, we cannot be sure. It could be that this Sosthenes is the same man who opposed Paul in Corinth in Acts 18; if so, he would be a wonderful example of the transforming power of the gospel. Internal evidence points to another letter the Corinthian church had received before this one (1 Corinthians 5:9\), and Paul received information from them as well (1 Corinthians 1:11\). Paul had a personal relationship with the church of Corinth, being their spiritual father (4:15–16\), and he answered their questions and addressed their issues with a direct, often blunt tone, akin to how a father corrects his children. The church’s division, chaotic worship services, and all\-around messiness grieved Paul, prompting him to write the letter. In Christian apologetics, the book of 1 Corinthians is notable for including an early creed close to Jesus’ death and resurrection. Found in 1 Corinthians 15:3–7, the creed begins with a summarized gospel announcement: “For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures” (verses 3–6\). Paul included this creed to explain the significance of the resurrection. He also emphasized the trustworthiness of the early eyewitnesses by acknowledging Christianity’s falsifiability (1 Corinthians 15:13–19\). Although Paul wrote the book of 1 Corinthians to Christians in Corinth, the impact of this letter extended far beyond that city, becoming authoritative in other churches. By the end of the first century, Paul’s epistles were already considered as Scripture (2 Peter 3:15–16\). In AD 95, when [Clement](Clement-of-Rome.html) wrote a letter to the Corinthians, he relied on the authority of Paul’s letter. Today, 1 Corinthians remains a key passage in Christian teaching and living.

Who wrote the book of 2 Corinthians? Who was the author of 2 Corinthians?

Answer The author of [2 Corinthians](Book-of-2-Corinthians.html) is none other than the [apostle Paul](life-Paul.html), who penned this second epistle to the Corinthian church as a follow up to the initial book. Among the epistles written to churches, 2 Corinthians stands out as Paul’s most personal one. Similar to how a caring pastor yearns for the growth of his flock, Paul constantly strives for the development and unity of the church at Corinth. Woven throughout the letter are insights into Paul’s own suffering and his unwavering trust in God amid adversity. Paul also confirms his apostolic authority and sincerity, which were being attacked by false teachers (2 Corinthians 11:5–6\). Some scholars posit that 2 Corinthians may actually be Paul’s [fourth letter](how-many-letters-Corinthians.html) to the Corinthian church. In 1 Corinthians, Paul alludes to a letter he had previously sent to the church (1 Corinthians 5:9\). This is often referred to as the “warning letter” or “earlier letter.” In 2 Corinthians, another letter, known as the “severe letter,” is alluded to (2 Corinthians 2:1–11\). Many scholars think this “severe letter” is distinct from what is known as 1 Corinthians in the New Testament. So, the order of writing could be 1\) the “warning letter,” 2\) 1 Corinthians, 3\) the “severe letter,” and 4\) 2 Corinthians. Regarding the authorship of 2 Corinthians, there is minimal controversy. However, debates persist as to whether 2 Corinthians was originally written as a single letter or if what we have today is a compilation of correspondence from Paul to the church in Corinth. The passages raising the question include 2 Corinthians 2:14—7:14; 6:14—7:1; 8—9 and 10—13\. Of these, chapters 10—13 receive the most attention, with some suggesting that those chapters originate from a different letter. The inspiration and infallibility of Scripture are not in question here, but it seems more reasonable to view 2 Corinthians as a cohesive unit. Beyond Paul’s personal challenges and interactions with the Corinthians, his letter delves into the theme of Christian generosity. Christians are urged to give joyfully (2 Corinthians 9:6–8\) emulating Jesus’ example (2 Corinthians 8:9\). Paul points to the Macedonian church, who gave generously despite their poverty (2 Corinthians 8:1–5\), as motivation for the Corinthians. Their “overflowing joy” amidst trials serves as inspiration for us as well. We are encouraged to give according to our abilities, but sometimes *beyond* our means, recognizing that our security is in God, not material wealth. In many respects, Paul’s second letter to the Corinthians provides a glimpse into the life of a first\-century follower of Christ. The enduring themes of forgiveness, respect for godly leaders, generosity, God’s grace in weakness, and perseverance in suffering continue to resonate in the 21st century.

Who wrote the book of Galatians? Who was the author of Galatians?

Answer The author of [Galatians](Book-of-Galatians.html) is Paul, an apostle in the early church. The letter begins with the salutation: “Paul, an apostle—sent not from men nor by a man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead—and all the brothers and sisters with me, To the churches in Galatia” (‭‭Galatians 1:1–2\). Galatia was a Roman province in central Asia Minor, and the churches there had predominantly Gentile Christians. Paul’s letter to those churches played a crucial role in combating [legalism](Bible-Christian-legalism.html). ‬‬ After receiving the gospel from Paul with joy, the Galatian believers soon faced confusion introduced by false teachers, whom Paul calls “agitators” in Galatians 5:12\. These agitators insisted on Gentile circumcision and adherence to the law for salvation. The agitators also questioned Paul’s apostleship, creating an atmosphere of uncertainty and doubt. Paul’s response reflects the gravity of the situation, exposing the seriousness of the agitators’ false gospel (Galatians 1:6–9\). He emphasizes that the gospel is complete and should not be altered, cautioning against errors that may arise when grace is deemed insufficient for salvation or spiritual growth (Galatians 3:2–3\). The epistle to the Galatians is one of the least debated Pauline work, but its seeming push against the Torah has led some scholars to erroneously presume that Paul rejected the Jewish law. Paul’s theology is sometimes compared to that of James, with claims of an alleged contradiction. However, Paul regarded the law as holy (Romans 7:12\) and was not against circumcision (Acts 16:1–3\). Rather, he opposed keeping the law as a requirement for salvation or even for sanctification. Paul’s gospel of grace was endorsed by other apostles, including James (Galatians 2:9–10\). The key distinction lies in their emphasis: Paul focuses on being *declared* righteous before God, while James underscores being shown to be right with God, a theme also found in Paul’s letters (James 2:16–24; cf. Philippians 2:12–13\). Both men agree that salvation comes by grace through faith, resulting in good deeds and godly living. The relationship between faith and good deeds is a theme in the letter to the Galatians, as Paul addresses concerns that grace by faith may lead to licentiousness. Paul clarifies that the purpose of grace is to produce righteous living. Because of grace, we are indwelt by the Holy Spirit and are called to live daily under His influence (Galatians 5:16\). Galatians serves as a counterbalance to both legalism and licentiousness. Paul emphasizes that the Savior provides redemption and forgiveness from the penalty of our sin. Salvation is not earned but given to those who trust in that Savior. The Christian life should align with the Spirit’s control, guided by God's Word.

What does the Bible say about sexual compatibility / incompatibility?

Answer One of the most frequent justifications given for sex before marriage is that a couple wants to test their sexual compatibility. “How do we make sure we are sexually compatible unless we have sex?” – the question goes. The Bible clearly and consistently describes sex outside of marriage as immoral (Acts 15:20; 1 Corinthians 5:1; 6:13, 18; 10:8; 2 Corinthians 12:21; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 5:3; Colossians 3:5; 1 Thessalonians 4:3; Jude 1:7; Revelation 21:8\). There is no biblical allowance for “testing for sexual compatibility.” The closest the Bible comes to mentioning sexual incompatibility is in 1 Corinthians 7:5, “Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self\-control.” Regarding participating in a sexual fast, this verse instructs couples not to deprive each other of sex unless it is mutually agreed upon and for a limited time. This guidance should also be applied to the frequency of sex in marriage in general. As the previous verse says, “The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife” (1 Corinthians 7:4\). If a husband and wife disagree regarding the frequency of sex, both the husband and wife should seek to sacrificially love each other and come to a mutual agreement. There should be no demanding or withholding. Rather, the husband and wife should cherish each other and seek each other’s good. In reality, except in extremely rare physiological/medical situations, sexual incompatibility is a myth. If a married couple disagrees about managing money, should they be described as financially incompatible? Or should they work together to come to mutually agreed upon decisions regarding how money is spent versus saved? If a married couple is having difficulties with in\-laws, should they be described as having familial incompatibility? Or should they follow what the Bible says about [leaving and cleaving while honoring](leave-cleave-honor.html) their parents? When a man and woman get married, there is almost always a learning period regarding sex. A husband and wife may need to figure out what their spouse enjoys sexually. There may be some sexual incompatibility for a time, but it can be overcome. In reality, sexual compatibility is not about whether a particular man and woman are compatible, but whether a particular couple’s attitudes about sex are compatible. Hebrews 13:4 says, “Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.” Within a marriage of a loving husband and loving wife, any amount of sexual incompatibility can be overcome. With honor, sacrifice, care, selflessness, practice, patience, communication, and, yes, fun—sexual compatibility is achievable.

Who was J. Gresham Machen?

Answer John Gresham Machen (1881—1937\) was an American [Presbyterian](Presbyterians.html) apologist, scholar, and zealous defender of conservative Reformed theology. For most of his career, he served as a professor of New Testament at Princeton Theological Seminary. He became a leading figure and outspoken voice in the [Fundamentalist](fundamentalism.html)\-versus\-Modernist controversy of the early twentieth century. In 1923, J. Gresham Machen published *Christianity and Liberalism*, a famous defense of traditional Christian theology. He also founded the denomination known today as the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Machen was raised in Baltimore, Maryland. He was the second of three sons born to a prosperous and prominent attorney, Arthur W. Machen. John inherited his father’s passion for classical literature and logical thinking. His mother, Mary Gresham, who was brought up in the Old School Presbyterian Church, instilled in John a thorough education in the Scriptures and the [Westminster Catechism](Westminster-Confession-of-Faith.html). After obtaining a classical education at nearby Johns Hopkins University, J. Gresham Machen enrolled at Princeton Theological Seminary in 1902\. During his years as a seminary student, John struggled with the idea of becoming an ordained clergyman. He believed a ministerial path conflicted with his intellectual and academic aptitude. For a while, he considered a future in banking or international law. But by the time he graduated in 1905, Machen felt drawn to a life of scholarship in New Testament studies. He spent a year in postgraduate study at Marburg and Göttingen in Germany. In the fall of 1906, Machen accepted a position at Princeton Theological Seminary teaching elementary Greek, [Bible exegesis](Biblical-exegesis.html), and an introductory course on the New Testament. He still battled internally with doubts, but Machen’s uncertainties about his calling were eventually resolved within the intellectual and spiritual environment at Princeton and under the mentoring influence of Professor Benjamin B. Warfield—an exceptional scholar and defender of biblical doctrine. J. Gresham Machen dedicated himself to the Lord as a Christian scholar and seminary professor and was ordained to the pastorate in 1914\. Throughout his tenure on the Princeton faculty, Machen argued against [liberal Protestantism](liberal-Christian-theology.html) and defended traditional Christian teachings. He worked tirelessly to preserve the seminary’s conservative character. His 1923 book, *Christianity and Liberalism*, placed him at the center of the growing controversy. In the book, Machen compares the teachings of liberalism with Christianity’s beliefs about God, humanity, Jesus Christ, salvation, and the church. He concludes that “the chief modern rival of Christianity is ‘liberalism’” and “that at every point the two movements are in direct opposition” (*Christianity and Liberalism*, p. 53\). In 1929, J. Gresham Machen left Princeton Theological Seminary in response to the school’s reorganizational move toward more liberal and inclusive Protestantism. That same year, Machen led the founding of Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, with the goal of preserving historic [Reformed theological traditions](reformed-theology.html). He also sought to establish a missions board that could certify the orthodoxy of missionaries independent of the Presbyterian General Assembly. As a result, Machen and several other conservative leaders were expelled from the Northern Presbyterians (the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America). Eventually, in 1936, Machen founded the Presbyterian Church of America (not to be confused with the Presbyterian Church in America), later renamed the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Two of Machen’s better\-known scholarly works defending traditional views of New Testament topics are *Origin of Paul’s Religion* (1921\) and *The Virgin Birth of Christ* (1930\). He also published *New Testament Greek for Beginners* (1923\), a textbook still found in seminary classrooms today. J. Gresham Machen never married. At age 55, he died suddenly of pneumonia while on a preaching tour. His life remains an exemplar of careful scholarship and doctrinal integrity, particularly for young Bible students and ministers in an age of drifting theological currents. Here are a few quotes from the works of J. Gresham Machen: “Light may seem at times to be an impertinent intruder, but it is always beneficial in the end” (*Christianity and Liberalism*). “The Sermon on the Mount, like all the rest of the New Testament, really leads a man straight to the foot of the cross” (*Christianity and Liberalism*). “The religion of Paul was rooted altogether in the redeeming work of Jesus Christ. Jesus for Paul was primarily not a Revealer, but a Saviour” (*The Origin of Paul’s Religion*). “The Biblical writers, after having been prepared for their task by the providential ordering of their entire lives, received, in addition to all that, a blessed and wonderful and supernatural guidance and impulsion by the Spirit of God, so that they were preserved from the errors that appear in other books and thus the resulting book, the Bible, is in all its parts the very Word of God, completely true in what it says regarding matters of fact and completely authoritative in its commands” (*Christian Faith in the Modern World*).

Who were the Nonconformists in church history?

Answer The Bible instructs Christians to submit to civil authorities and church leaders (Romans 13:1–5; Hebrews 13:17\). Yet biblical and post\-biblical history reveals that God’s people have occasionally resisted unholy leadership when it has embraced unorthodox theology and demanded immoral practices (e.g., Exodus 1:15–21\). A notable example occurred in the 17th century when certain Protestant Christians defied the Church of England after Parliament passed the Act of Uniformity in 1662, requiring that all churches use the [Book of Common Prayer](Book-of-Common-Prayer.html), an important text in the English church, in their worship services. In response to this legislation, the dissenters, called Nonconformists, refused to obey the state church, choosing instead to follow their own convictions regarding faith and practice. Notable Nonconformists include [John Bunyan](John-Bunyan.html), Oliver Cromwell, George Fox, [Isaac Watts](Isaac-Watts.html), and the [Pilgrims](who-were-the-pilgrims.html) who emigrated to the New World. Regarding the convictions of the Nonconformists in England, it is significant to note that the New Testament doesn’t endorse the concept of state churches. While it encourages Christians to respect governing authorities (e.g., Matthew 22:21; 1 Peter 2:13–17\), the New Testament doesn’t advocate the merging of church and state. This stance marks a departure from certain eras of Old Testament history, when a union of politics and faith existed in Israel. However, the kingdom that Jesus Christ established is distinct from present\-day civil authorities and political systems (John 6:15; 18:36\). Despite lacking a New Testament basis, state churches have significantly influenced Christian history. In AD 380, Roman Emperor Theodosius I issued the Edict of Thessalonica, making Christianity the state religion of the empire and establishing a precedent for unity between church and state. This tradition continued with the Eastern Orthodox Church, which, following its split from the Roman Catholic Church in AD 1054, gradually became the state church in several Eastern European and Byzantine countries. In the Protestant tradition, a notable development was the establishment of the Church of England as a state church in the 16th century under Henry VIII, following his separation from the Catholic Church. This set the stage for the Act of Uniformity, which gave rise to the Nonconformists in England. Dissent from the [Church of England](Church-of-England.html) emerged in the form of different non\-conforming movements and denominations, including Baptists, Reformed churches (e.g., Presbyterian), Brethren, Methodists, and Quakers. These groups contended that state churches contradicted the Bible’s teaching and the fundamental Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura, i.e., “Scripture alone” (1 Corinthians 4:6; 2 Timothy 3:16–17\). Nonconformist traditions diverged from the Church of England in different ways and with different emphases. Today, the Baptist and Brethren traditions prioritize local congregation governance, with an emphasis on adult baptism and simple, unstructured worship, respectively. The Reformed traditions, with their system of elected elders and Calvinist theology, offer a distinct governance model and theological perspective. Methodists emphasize individual faith and outreach, a departure from the Church of England’s formal rituals, while Quakers reject formal sacraments and clergy, advocating for a direct, personal experience with God. Non\-conformity in the Protestant tradition expanded greatly in the 19th and 20th centuries. In Europe and America, such traditions advocated for the independence of denominations. Furthermore, many influential Protestant denominations, such as Baptists, stressed the independence of local churches. This growth persisted into the 20th century, aided by the emergence of Pentecostalism, which also valued local self\-governance and a decentralized church structure. Also in the 20th century, [non\-denominationalism](non-denominational-church.html) within the Protestant tradition, especially prevalent in America, took the idea of non\-conformity a step further. It not only rejected the notion of church\-state unity, but it also moved away from denominational structures and authorities. Instead, it emphasized the independence of individual congregations. The non\-conformity tradition reflects the heart of the Protestant branch of the Christian faith, which is that genuine faith rests not in worldly authority but in a personal relationship with God.

Who wrote the book of Ephesians? Who was the author of Ephesians?

Answer As the title suggests, the apostle Paul directed the [book of Ephesians](Book-of-Ephesians.html) to the church of Ephesus, though it was later circulated to other churches. One of the [Prison Epistles](prison-epistles.html), Ephesians is the tenth book in the New Testament and deals with profound themes such as our spiritual blessings in Christ (Ephesians 1:1–14\); the unity of believers (1:15—3:21\), marriage (4:21–33\), and spiritual warfare (6:10–20\).. Like other New Testament epistles (except Hebrews), Ephesians begins with a salutation: “Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, to the saints who are in Ephesus, and are faithful in Christ Jesus: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” (Ephesians 1:1\). The introduction confirms Paul as the author. In the 1790s, some scholars displayed skepticism of the Pauline authorship of Ephesians, treating it as a pseudographical text possibly written by one of Paul’s loyal disciples. To support their claim, they cited grammatical distinctions in Ephesians and some fresh theological emphases. The debate has led to four main views regarding the authorship of Ephesians. The first view upholds the traditional attribution, crediting Paul as the author of the text. The second view suggests that Paul dictated the letter, potentially with additions from a later author. The third view rejects Pauline authorship in favor of anonymity. The final view expresses uncertainty. While the debate persists, there is substantial support for the traditional view that Paul is the author of Ephesians. First, arguments about differences in writing style are faulty. Writers routinely adapt their style to the occasion and audience. Additionally, Paul employed scribes in writing some of his epistles (Romans 16:22; Galatians 1:2\), making stylistic differences to be expected. Furthermore, we can’t discount the internal evidence beyond the salutation: the writer was writing from prison (Ephesians 3:1\). As external evidence, the letter of Ephesians was being circulated in the mid\-second century as written by Paul. It was listed in the [Muratorian Canon](Muratorian-Canon.html) and Marcion Canon in that period. In conclusion, there’s no reason to doubt that Paul wrote the letter of Ephesians in prison, along with Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon.

Who wrote the book of Philippians? Who was the author of Philippians?

Answer The [book of Philippians](Book-of-Philippians.html) was written to the church of Philippi by the [apostle Paul](life-Paul.html), author of a large portion of the New Testament. The apostle began the epistle with a proper first\-century salutation: “Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus, to all God’s holy people in Christ Jesus at Philippi, together with the overseers and deacons: Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” (Philippians 1:1–2\). The salutation provides internal evidence that Paul wrote the letter. [Timothy](life-Timothy.html) was with him. Philippians is one of the four [Prison Epistles](prison-epistles.html), along with Ephesians, Colossians, and Philemon. Paul ministered at Philippi and brought many to faith in Christ, including a businesswoman named Lydia (Acts 16:13–15\) and the Philippian jailer (16:22–34\). He and [Silas](life-Silas.html) had suffered much during their time there on the second missionary journey. Paul had a close bond with the church (Philippians 1:7–8\). His tone throughout the letter exudes appreciation and affection, resembling a proud parent encouraging his child (see Philippians 2:12\). Unlike the epistles to Corinth and Galatia, Paul did not write Philippians in response to a crisis, and rejoicing is one of the themes of the letter, earning it the nickname “Epistle of Joy”. Internal evidence strongly suggests that Paul wrote this letter in custody (Philippians 1:7, 13–14\), likely during his Roman detention (4:22\). He also wrote Colossians, Ephesians, and Philemon while incarcerated. Philippians was delivered by [Epaphroditus](Epaphroditus-in-the-Bible.html), Paul’s co\-worker (2:25\), though there was a delay due to Epaphroditus’ illness (2:26–27\). Paul’s imprisonment in Rome was around AD 61 and 62, when he wrote the letter. The Pauline authorship of Philippians is uncontested, but some scholars argue against the unity of the letter, proposing instead a three\-letter hypothesis. Proponents of this hypothesis theorize that Philippians is a composite letter containing more than one correspondence. They cite an abrupt change in tone or focus (for example between 3:1–11 and 3:12—4:1\). Also, they cite the statement “It is no trouble for me to write the same things to you again” (3:1\) as a clue that Paul referred to a different letter. However, these objections to theunity of the book of Philippians can easily be explained. It is possible for someone to change tone and focus in a letter, especially in such a personal letter as Philippians, just as we do in texts, calls, and emails. The statement in Philippians 3:1 may serve more as an emphasis, which can be done within a letter. It’s also possible that Paul is alluding to other (non\-extant) letters he wrote to the church in Philippi. Paul’s letter to the Philippians contributes to our understanding of what it means to live as a follower of Jesus. There are many oft\-quoted passages in this epistle, which teaches that proper Christian experience is the outworking of the life, nature, and mind of Christ living in us (Philippians 1:6, 11; 2:5, 13\). The glorious pinnacle of the book is 2:5 –11, highlighting the humiliation and exaltation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Were there camels in the Middle East during Bible times?

Answer Old Testament books connect camels with figures such as Abraham (Genesis 12:16\), Jacob (Genesis 31:17\), and Job (Job 1:3\). Critics sometimes claim these references prove those texts were written long after their supposed events. The skeptic claims camels were not domesticated until well after the times of the patriarchs. This is presumed to mean that whoever invented those passages did not know this and recorded something historically false. Those conclusions not only badly misinterpret the Bible, but they also misrepresent what researchers and [archaeologists](archaeology-Bible.html) have discovered. Looked at fully and logically, nothing in the Bible conflicts with established history. Since the precise location and timing of Job is unknown, most criticism about camels focuses on Abraham. A common formulation of this attack suggests that the Bible speaks of camels being widely known and used during Abraham’s time, around 2000 BC, even though camels were not domesticated until after 1000 BC. Therefore, says the critic, those biblical references were made up by a later writer who didn’t know the correct details. While these claims may match popular assumptions, they aren’t what the Bible says. Common to all variations of this criticism is assuming information that is not there. Or stretching information to unreasonable conclusions. A 2014 study from the University of Tel Aviv in Israel is most often mentioned in this argument. That study involved radiometric dating of camel bones found near an ancient copper smelting site. The oldest bones at the site date to around 900 BC. This, it was posited, meant camels were not used in that region prior to that time. Skeptics will then claim the Bible indicates widespread, common use of camels centuries earlier. Neither conclusion makes sense. Secular history indicates that camels were domesticated as early as 3000 BC. They are recorded in Mesopotamian art and text prior to 2000 BC. This included use of camels for milk, meat, hide, transport, and trade. Careless skeptics speak of Abraham and his experiences in the Near Middle East, forgetting that Abraham was originally from Mesopotamia (Genesis 11:26–28\). He relocated to Canaan but was not born and raised there (Genesis 12:1–4\). Scripture also doesn’t claim that camels were everywhere in Canaan during the lives of men like [Abraham](life-Abraham.html), Isaac, and Jacob. Those patriarchs owned camels; this doesn’t mean everyone did. Since Abraham came from outside of Canaan, his family’s use of camels would have been seen as a sign of wealth—and this is how most references in Genesis are framed. Claiming that the oldest bones found at an industrial site establish a firm date for the start of camel domestication is illogical. Instead, the finding would suggest well\-developed use of camels *no later than* that date. The lack of camel bones in some ancient cities is also not a sign of their absence. Large, expensive animals have rarely been left to rot wherever they fall. Dairy and beef farms have bred and sold hundreds of thousands of cattle for decade after decade, but the grounds of those farms have virtually no cattle bones. In short, animals don’t need to be common to a region before someone can own them or write about them. Scripture doesn’t claim that camels were widely used and established in Canaan. When Abraham was born in [Mesopotamia](Mesopotamia-in-the-Bible.html), camel domestication was already centuries old. There is no reason to think he could not have brought camels when he moved into Canaan. Archaeological evidence supports the idea that camels were used in the wider region long before Abraham’s life, though they were not adopted as quickly or fully in Canaan as they were elsewhere.

What is St. Jean-Baptiste Day, and should Christians celebrate it?

Answer St. Jean\-Baptiste Day, observed annually on June 24 primarily in French\-Canadian culture, is a [Roman Catholic](Roman-Catholicism.html) feast day that celebrates [John the Baptist](life-John-Baptist.html), the prophetic forerunner of the Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth (Luke 1:76\). In the fourth century, the Catholic Church selected the summertime date for commemorating John because it’s six months before Christmas, aligning with the Bible’s teaching that John is a half\-year older than Jesus (Luke 1:26\). Despite John’s being an important figure in the Gospels, Christians would be ill\-advised to celebrate the religious aspects of St. Jean\-Baptiste Day because the theology that underlies it contradicts biblical teaching. John the Baptist is considered the patron saint of French Canadians, and St. Jean\-Baptiste Day, or *Fête Nationale du Québec*, has become the official holiday of Quebec. The celebration usually commences the night before St. Jean\-Baptiste Day with bonfires, dancing, and traditional folk songs. The morning brings parades and a Roman Catholic mass. Many celebrants wear blue or white clothing and wave the Quebec flag. Ironically, the act of elevating John through the observance of St. Jean\-Baptiste Day violates his own teaching. As evidenced in John 3:30, where the prophet emphatically stated that Jesus “must increase, but I must decrease” (ESV), a religious feast day in his honor ignores John’s desire, disregards his humility, and diminishes the glory that he desired Jesus to receive. Showing such reverence for John not only deviates from his own teaching but also from broader theological themes in Christianity. Three Catholic doctrines that are foundational to such practices—the Holiness of the Saints, the Communion of the Saints, and the Treasury of the Saints—don’t have a biblical foundation. First, the doctrine of the Holiness of the Saints reflects the Catholic Church’s teaching that saints, having been made holy through God’s grace and their individual good works, merit celebration through feast days. It also declares that people can pray to them for help in life. However, the Bible teaches that salvation and holiness are imparted through God’s grace exclusively through faith in Jesus Christ (John 14:6; Acts 4:12\). Therefore, Christians should worship and pray to Jesus alone, not to His followers (1 Timothy 2:5–6; Hebrews 7:25\). Second, the doctrine of the Communion of the Saints describes the Catholic Church’s view that all believers—alive, dead, and those in [purgatory](purgatory.html)—are united and support one another through prayers and good deeds. This belief is rooted in the conviction that the entire community of believers throughout history form one large family. In contrast, the Bible emphasizes the importance of a direct relationship between the individual believer and God, making the need for saintly intercession and mediation unnecessary (Hebrews 4:16; Romans 8:26–27\). Third, the doctrine of the Treasury of the Saints is the Catholic Church’s conviction that there is a spiritual depository stocked with the good deeds of Jesus and the saints. The Catholic Church dispenses these credits as indulgences, which believers can acquire through prayer, penance, or charity. However, the Bible is clear that salvation is an unearned gift from God, based on the imputed righteousness of Jesus, not the transferred merit of the saints (Ephesians 2:8–9; Romans 4:4–6; 2 Corinthians 5:21\). Given these theological concerns, it’s important to clarify that not everyone who celebrates St. Jean\-Baptiste Day embraces the Catholic theology that underlies it. In Quebec, the day has grown to represent French\-Canadian identity. It was named the province’s national holiday in 1925\. Many people observe the day for traditional and cultural reasons, seeking a sense of community and to enjoy the historical aspects and festivities. However, it’s important for Christians to consider the theological implications of their participation. While engaging in cultural and community events is valuable, the Bible cautions against practices that have the appearance of spiritual meaning but lack biblical foundation, as they are ultimately fruitless and unprofitable (1 Corinthians 10:20–22; Revelation 2:14, 20\). Christians would benefit from studying John the Baptist’s life and ministry as the Bible reveals it, seeking theological understanding and application for life today. There is great benefit to learning the lessons that John’s story teaches—like humility, service, and devotion to Jesus—rather than going through the motions of a tradition that is Christian in name but empty of substance.

What is the law of the excluded middle?

Answer The Bible affirms the existence of absolute truth, contrasting with contemporary worldviews such as [postmodernism](postmodernism-dangers.html), which deny it. For example, truth is an attribute of God (Numbers 23:19; Romans 3:3–4\), a characteristic of the Bible (Psalm 119:160; John 17:17\), and embodied in the person of Jesus Christ (John 1:17; 14:6\). The evaluation of truth claims is necessary to determine their validity, and the rules of logic offer a framework that serves this purpose. Among these rules, the law of the excluded middle (LEM) is a fundamental principle historically attributed to the Greek philosopher [Aristotle](Aristotelianism.html). The law states that a declarative proposition—a statement that asserts or denies something—is either true or its negation is true, thereby eliminating a third option. To illustrate the law of the excluded middle, consider the statement “the sun is hot,” symbolized by the variable *P*. The law states that either *P* is true, or its negation is true, i.e., “the sun is not hot,” symbolized by the variable *\~P*. (The \~ symbol is called the “tilde” and represents negation in logic.) The phrase *excluded middle* comes from the principle that there is no middle ground between an assertion being true or false, eliminating the possibility of a third option. For further clarity, in practical terms, the negation of the proposition in the example “the sun is hot” (*P*) does not necessarily mean that “the sun is cold.” While cold is commonly thought of as the opposite of hot, the negation of the proposition merely indicates that the sun is not hot (*\~P*). This implies that the sun could be any temperature other than hot, such as warm. The law of the excluded middle can help Christians understand and defend the Bible’s teachings. For example, in John 17:17, Jesus said to the Father, “Your word is truth” (ESV). Using the law of the excluded middle, the Bible is either true, *P*, as Jesus asserted, or not true, *\~P*. The law reveals that Scripture can’t be true and not true at the same time. Thus, there is no middle ground such as the Bible being true for one reader but not true for another one. Furthermore, the law of the excluded middle applies equally to assertions that deny a proposition. For instance, the Bible asserts that God does not lie, which is a negation (Titus 1:2\). According to the law of the excluded middle, this proposition—“God does not lie,” *\~P*—is either true, or its affirmation—“God does lie,” *P*—is true. The law states that every declarative statement, regardless of being phrased negatively or positively, must be either true or false, with no middle ground. The law of the excluded middle doesn’t only pertain to direct statements in which an assertion is made but can also be used to assess narrative claims. For example, the Gospels teach that Jesus rose from the dead three days after His crucifixion (e.g., Luke 24:2–8\). In this case, the declarative proposition that Jesus rose from the dead, *P*, can only be true or false. If *P* is true, then its negation, i.e., “Jesus did not rise from the dead,” *\~P*, is false. According to the law, there is no middle alternative between *P* and *\~P*. The Bible encourages believers to use reason within the context of their faith (e.g., Isaiah 1:18; James 3:17\), making [logic](Christian-logic.html) a valuable tool to understand, explain, and defend one’s beliefs (e.g., 1 Peter 3:15\). Although it’s impossible to please God without faith (Hebrews 11:6\), logic is a valuable tool for Christians. Jesus is an example of this since He often used logic to explain faith and encourage people to follow Him (e.g., Luke 14:28–32\). Accordingly, the law of the excluded middle is a significant asset to Christianity as it helps believers articulate and analyze truth claims.

Is “survival of the fittest” compatible with the Bible?

Answer [Darwin](Darwinism-definition.html) used the phrase *survival of the fittest* to reference any species that is most adaptable to its ever\-changing environment and therefore lives longer and reproduces. Adaptability and reproduction are the most successful traits that lead to lineage. To discuss whether or not the concept of “survival of the fittest” is compatible with the Bible, we must pick apart the aforementioned premise. Foremost, evolution is a theory developed within the construct of the “natural sciences.” It is one thing to discuss any kind of survival on natural terms amongst natural things (i.e., trees, dirt, and anything dealing with landscape) and an entirely different matter to apply the same criteria to humans, whom the Bible describes particularly as far more than natural. The Hebrew word *nephesh* is used predominantly of humanity (Genesis 2:7; 7:22; Ecclesiastes 3:19\). The Bible makes a distinction between what is naturally living only and what is also spiritually living. If we were to apply the idea of “survival of the fittest” to a spiritual context, it would fall short at the very least because it’s a concept out of its element—it’s too small of an idea to swim in the deep waters of defining the full scope of human existence. Evolution dumbs down human capacity, along with undervaluing all of creation. Second, the idea of “fittest” suggests “better than.” This concept is foreign to Scripture because God measures everyone and everything against the same measuring stick: perfection. His perfection. There is none “fit” except for Him. Anything short of perfect does not compute when compared to the [holy nature of God](holy-God-holiness-of-God.html). Missing the mark of perfection is what the Bible calls sin, and every human and every corner of creation is infected with it (Romans 3:23; 8:19–24; 1 John 3:4\). Sin at its core has corrupted and continues to rot the natural and spiritual order of things. We are not evolving but devolving. We’re getting worse. Third, left to our own, without the gloriously reproducing promise made to Abraham's offspring—that God would bring about a family and a righteous people through Christ (Genesis 12:1–3; Galatians 3:16\), we reproduce only destruction unless something or someone intervenes. Only God can intervene and bless humanity as we multiply for His sake because, without the gospel, multiplication is not the ally of sinful humanity, but our enemy. The more that the sinful human population expands historically, and from a theological perspective, the more pervasive and destructive sin becomes because we do what is right for us, not what is loving (Judges 21:25\). Therefore, we see, for instance, in Genesis 12 that God had to intervene and did so more than once. In this instance, He comes to Abraham and promises him a “[seed](seed-of-Abraham.html)” of reproduction that will be of a perfect genus. This seed will grow up and crush the enemy and introduce an altogether different reproductive DNA into creation (Genesis 3:15\). A perfect one. A healing one. A saving one. This “seed” promised to Adam and Abraham—and whispered about to many others throughout the Old Testament—became a shout in the person of Jesus (Galatians 3\). He gave us a perfect source, and through His lineage and His blood, we enter His perfect family line (Ephesians 1:7–10\). It’s a family that lasts forever and is not just natural, but eternal. We guess we could say that, through the “fitness” of one seed, Jesus, we “survive.”

What does the Bible say about parenting?

Answer Procreation is central to God’s plan for families and the world, as seen in His command to Adam and Eve, “be fruitful and multiply,” a directive that is repeated to future generations (Genesis 1:28; cf. 9:1\). Expanding on this theme, the Bible declares that children are a blessing from God (Psalm 127:3–5\), thereby making parenting a sacred responsibility. To this end, Scripture provides fathers and mothers with moral principles and practical instructions—from explicit commands to wise guidance—for raising their sons and daughters. God designed parenting to occur in the context of a family, the foundation of which is [marriage](marriage-Bible.html). The Bible defines marriage as a lifelong, monogamous covenant between one biological male and one biological female (Genesis 2:24; Mark 10:7\). Heterosexual marriage not only makes procreation biologically possible, but through the complementary pairing of a man and woman, children experience the full breadth of the image and likeness of God that He imprinted on humanity’s two genders when He created them (Genesis 1:26, 2:18; cf. Ephesians 5:22–33\). While God designed parenting to occur within the context of a child’s biological family, adverse circumstances sometimes require the support and care of adoptive parents or legal guardians. An example of this is seen in the story of Esther. After her parents died, her uncle “Mordecai took her as his own daughter” (Esther 2:7, ESV). In such situations, adults other than a child’s biological parents get to experience the blessing of raising children. Whatever the makeup of the child’s family, biblical parenting starts with modeling faithfulness to God in a winsome manner to their children (Exodus 12:24; 13:8\). A father and mother’s relationship with God should be so evident that it solicits questions from their children (Exodus 12:26–27; Deuteronomy 6:20–25; Joshua 4:6–7\). With this aim, parents can follow the examples of holy fathers in the Bible like Joshua, whose devotion to God characterized his household, and holy mothers like Hannah, whose persistence in prayer shaped her child’s identity and purpose in life (Joshua 24:15; 1 Samuel 1:11\). In addition to parents exemplifying faith in God, the Bible emphasizes the crucial role fathers and mothers have in directly teaching their children to follow Jesus. The Bible assigns parents the primary role of discipleship (Matthew 28:19; John 8:31; Psalm 78:4\). This implies that, while others such as Sunday school teachers and youth pastors, can support a child’s faith, God obligates parents to undertake the primary discipleship role in their sons’ and daughters’ lives (Deuteronomy 6:6–9\). In practice, discipling children starts with teaching them about God. Deuteronomy 6:7 commands parents to continuously teach God’s words in their home: “You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise” (ESV; cf. Deuteronomy 31:12–13; Proverbs 3:6\). Similarly, in the New Testament, fathers are told to raise their children in the “instruction of the Lord” (Ephesians 6:4\). Given that children, like their parents, possess a sinful nature, it’s crucial for fathers and mothers to avoid intentionally provoking their children to sin and to guard against accidentally doing so (Ephesians 6:4; cf. Matthew 18:6\). God also assigns parents the task of teaching their children how the Bible applies to life. Understanding the relevancy of Scripture not only edifies a child’s faith, but also forms character, values, priorities, and decisions. Applying the Bible cultivates integrity (Proverbs 15:27\), humility (Proverbs 16:19\), and purity (Proverbs 20:9\). Also, as children gain more independence, parents should work to protect their children from making decisions that could have long\-term negative consequences (Numbers 30:2–15\). Furthermore, [disciplining](Bible-discipline.html) children is pivotal to biblical parenting (Deuteronomy 8:5; 2 Samuel 7:14; Proverbs 13:24\), and a lack of it negatively impacts a child’s future (Proverbs 19:18\). Yet biblical discipline is not merely punitive but formative. Discipline is designed to refine a child’s behavior, mirroring God’s loving discipline of His people (Hebrews 12:6\). Other aspects at the heart of biblical parenting include emotional nurturing, physical provision, and keeping children safe. First, godly parenting is rooted in love, expressed through heartfelt emotions such as compassion (e.g., Psalm 103:13\). Second, responsible parents provide essential needs, like food and drink, to their children (Proverbs 31:13–14; 1 Timothy 5:8\). Third, parents are tasked with protecting and defending their children, ensuring their safety (e.g., Deuteronomy 22:14–15\). To carry out the responsibilities God has given them, it’s important for fathers and mothers to develop a fervent prayer life (e.g., 1 Samuel 2:1–10; Luke 1:46–56\). While the work of raising children is challenging, with God’s help, parents can experience the blessing expressed in Proverbs 22:6, “Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it” (ESV).

Answer The apostle Peter presents a lengthy teaching about the importance of Christian submission to authority, including submission to rulers and masters (1 Peter 2:13–25\) and submission of wives to husbands (1 Peter 3:1–6\). Peter draws from “holy women of the past” as models for Christian wives to follow, “like [Sarah](life-Sarah.html), who obeyed [Abraham](life-Abraham.html) and called him her lord. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear” (1 Peter 3:5–6\). Peter maintains that Sarah “obeyed Abraham and called him her lord.” Here, Peter uses the Greek word *kyrios*, translated as “lord” in English, which is a title of respect for someone in a position of greater authority or stature. Most scholars believe this statement references Genesis 18:12, where Sarah overhears the news that she will become pregnant. By this time, Sarah is well past childbearing age and laughs to herself in disbelief, saying, “After I am worn out and my lord is old, will I now have this pleasure?” Peter highlights that Sarah obeyed Abraham and addressed him with respect. Obedience and respect are two essential elements of submission in a relationship. The Scriptures don’t reveal a whole lot about Sarah’s character as a wife. We know she was loyal to Abraham. When God called him into unknown territory, Sarah willingly followed her husband and embraced his nomadic life (Genesis 11:31; 12:1, 5; 13:1\). She trusted God and Abraham in several unsettling, unpleasant, and even dangerous circumstances (Genesis 12:10–15; 20:2–6; 22:3\). Thus, Peter concludes that, because Sarah called Abraham “lord,” her general attitude toward him was one of loving, respectful submission. Submission is a humble, respectful attitude where obedience is granted in a relationship. God requires submission from all people (Psalm 2:9–11; Job 22:21 1 Peter 5:6\), but especially from believers (Hebrews 12:9; James 4:7\). Because Jesus is our example and He submitted to His heavenly Father (Luke 22:42; John 5:19; 1 Corinthians 15:27–28; Hebrews 5:7–8; Hebrews 10:5–7\), we are called to submit to God. The Bible also teaches believers to submit to governing authorities (Romans 13:1–7; Titus 3:1; 1 Peter 2:13–14; 1 Timothy 2:1–2\), coworkers and employers (Ephesians 6:7; Colossians 3:22–24; Titus 2:9–10; 1 Peter 2:18\), fellow believers (1 Corinthians 16:15–16; 1 Peter 5:1–4\), elders (Leviticus 19:32; 1 Peter 5:5\), church leaders (Hebrews 13:17; 1 Thessalonians 5:12–13\), and to family members in a mutual mindset of submission (Ephesians 5:25–33\). Sarah called Abraham lord in an era when it was not unusual for women to use this title. Today, neither a husband nor a wife would likely be comfortable if such a designation were conferred. Nevertheless, Christian wives can apply the concept as Peter does to encourage a loving, respectful posture of submission toward their husbands. The apostle Paul echoes Peter’s teaching, “For wives, this means submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For a husband is the head of his wife as Christ is the head of the church. . . . As the church submits to Christ, so you wives should submit to your husbands in everything” (Ephesians 5:22–24, NLT; see also Colossians 3:18\). First Peter 3:6 ends with a proviso: a wife’s submission toward her husband should “not give way to fear.” Fear tactics and intimidation are inappropriate in any relationship, but especially in a marriage. A woman should never be forced or bullied into compliance. For this reason, Peter follows up with this reciprocal instruction to husbands: “In the same way, you husbands must give honor to your wives. Treat your wife with understanding as you live together. She may be weaker than you are, but she is your equal partner in God’s gift of new life. Treat her as you should so your prayers will not be hindered” (1 Peter 3:7, NLT; see also Ephesians 5:25, 28–33; Colossians 3:19\).

Who are those who are “under the law” in 1 Corinthians 9:20?

Answer In 1 Corinthians 9:20, Paul writes, “To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law.” We must treat every passage of Scripture like a lake in the mountains. Every collected water source has something flowing into and out of it, which helps us understand why and how the water is there. Likewise, 1 Corinthians 9:20 has a stream of thought flowing in and out of it that helps us understand Paul’s discussion of being “under the law.” Paul begins 1 Corinthians 9 by defending his rights and qualifications as an [apostle](what-is-an-apostle.html). He’s compelled to defend himself because he was taking financial support from Corinth and others. Expectations and money are powerful forces. They can bring with them the tangible allusion of being “under a law.” In 1 Corinthians 9:3–12, Paul clarifies that money and expectations would not make him anyone’s employee, and they his employer. After all, we humans naturally work for the expectation of our employer and use what we earn predominantly on fleshly comforts like eating and drinking, romance, owning property, etc. We call it “rights.” Paul understands these “rights” as the “law” of the world, but he has something better in mind when he talks about “being under” or not “being under the law.” He says he’s not using his rights. He’s under a higher “law” than simply chasing the typical comforts and supply that work and life afford (1 Corinthians 9:12b). His tangible reward comes from sharing the gospel. He reinvests any resources back into that work (1 Corinthians 9:15–18\). When we get to 1 Corinthians 9:19, Paul asserts that he’s not working like an employee of the Corinthian church—under their law, so to speak. Rather, their generosity allows him to serve the Lord’s law of the gospel without hindrance. When we arrive at verse 20, Paul talks about Jewish tradition in a similar form. The Jews, under the [Law of Moses](law-of-Moses.html), had customs, rites, and traditions, and they also added to God's law their own rules that put them “under their own law,” similar to how an employer expects perfection from a worker. They had to perform to meet a standard that wasn't helpful. Paul merely states that he has the ability in Christ to enter spaces of Mosaic tradition, along with man\-made regulation, and even play along, but he is ultimately free from the mandate of what is enforced because he’s not an employee of the Law of Moses any longer, nor of man's invention. He works for God. Paul can therefore dance in and alongside legalism, man\-made expectations, and money, and interact and reason with all of it, but with greater freedom. He owes no one anything. He owes only Christ for fulfilling the law and offering salvation and freedom from the law’s requirements. In Paul’s [letter to Galatia](Book-of-Galatians.html), Paul deepens our understanding of this concept by using the image of a prison and a prison warden to clarify our relationship to any law (specifically, here Paul references the Law of Moses): “Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.” (Galatians 3:23–25\) Being under the law is like being a prisoner locked in prison. We have no freedom to come and go as we please, but are obligated. A prison guard, on the other hand, can come in and out on his own volition. He wears the uniform and subjects himself to the locked environment to work with and for the inmates, but he can leave at the end of the day. The only way prisoners can experience likewise is for someone to come in and pay their bail and free them. This is what the law of the gospel does. Paul’s message about Jesus is the only way out of our prison cell “under the law.” It gives us the ability to live for something better. Living for the gospel transcends money, tradition, or anything that might be expected of us. It allows us to serve others in whatever way possible to see them enjoy similar [freedom](freedom-in-Christ.html).

Who was J. Dwight Pentecost?

Answer Dr. John Dwight Pentecost (1915—2014\) was an American pastor and professor of [Bible exposition](expositional-preaching.html) at Dallas Theological Seminary (DTS). In his six decades on the DTS faculty, he taught more than 10,000 students, who affectionately called him “Dr. P.” He also wrote twenty\-one books, including his best\-known, *Things to Come* (1965\), a biblical study on [end\-time events](end-times-timeline.html). J. Dwight Pentecost was born in Chester, Pennsylvania. By age ten, he knew God had called him to the ministry. According to his obituary published in *The Dallas Morning News* on May 5, 2014, Dwight’s ancestors “changed the family name to Pentecost after fleeing the persecutions of French Protestants in 1573\. The family arrived in England on Pentecost, the seventh Sunday after Easter, when Christians celebrate the descent of the Holy Spirit on the apostles” (www.dallasnews.com/news/obituaries/2014/05/06/seminary\-professor\-j\-dwight\-pentecost\-taught\-until\-age\-98/, accessed 3/26/24\). J. Dwight Pentecost attended Hampden\-Sydney College in Virginia, graduating magna cum laude in 1937\. He entered Dallas Theological Seminary that same year, marking the roll as the one hundredth student to attend the then twelve\-year\-old seminary. He received his master’s in theology in 1941, again finishing magna cum laude. While studying in Dallas, J. Dwight Pentecost married Dorothy Harrison. She passed away in 2000 after 62 years of marriage. The couple had two daughters, Jane Fenby (a DTS alumna) and Gwen Arnold, who died in 2011\. In 1941, J. Dwight Pentecost was ordained in the Presbyterian Church, Cambridge Springs, Pennsylvania, where he served as pastor until 1946\. He then pastored Saint John’s Presbyterian Church in Devon, Pennsylvania, until 1951\. During his tenure at Saint John’s, Pentecost took a part\-time position at the Philadelphia College of Bible (now Philadelphia Bible Institute). This first experience as a Bible instructor (1948—1955\) convinced Pentecost that he needed to return to the classroom for further study, particularly amid the growing debate over end\-times theology among Bible scholars. On his own, Pentecost carved out time to study Greek, theology, and the Bible. In these early morning hours, God further clarified his calling: “While I loved my involvement with people as their shepherd, I felt that I could multiply that effect through teaching,” he said (ibid., accessed 3/26/24\). J. Dwight Pentecost decided to return to DTS to complete his doctorate in theology (1956\). While still enrolled as a student, the seminary’s president, Dr. John F. Walvoord, asked him to join the school’s faculty in 1955, teaching Greek, theology, and Bible exposition. Pentecost would soon accept a full professorship in 1958, a position he retained for the remainder of his days. From 1958 through 1973, Pentecost also served as senior pastor of Grace Bible Church in North Dallas, Texas. When he wasn’t in the classroom or the pulpit, he might have been found volunteering at Luke’s Closet, a ministry that supplied seminary students with free donated clothing items. J. Dwight Pentecost considered himself privileged to teach the Word of God, and his students felt privileged to learn it through him. He only missed classes once in sixty years of teaching. In 2012, the nonagenarian fell and broke his hip but was back teaching three months later. He taught his final class at age 98\. Upon retirement, Dr. P. was honored as professor emeritus of Bible Exposition at DTS, one of only two faculty members so distinguished. Shortly after being diagnosed with malignant tumors, J. Dwight Pentecost died on April 28, 2014, at age 99\. Mark L. Bailey, Ph.D., president of DTS (2001—2020\), honored J. Dwight Pentecost with these words: “Few people have known the Word of God like he did, and few loved the God of the Word like he loved Him. . . . We who have had the privilege to sit under him or teach beside him have all come to know and appreciate the whole of the Bible that our beloved friend believed so thoroughly and taught so faithfully for so many years—all centered in the words and works of Jesus Christ. All of us look forward to God’s ‘things to come’ when we will be reunited with him in glory” (https://voice.dts.edu/article/dr\-dwight\-pentecost\-dies\-age\-99/, accessed 3/26/24\). Here are a few treasured gems from the pen of J. Dwight Pentecost: “True honor is not the honor that one claims for oneself, but rather it is the honor that is conferred on one by others.” (*The Parables of Jesus*, 1982\) “There is the danger that the redeemed one will become so occupied with the anticipation of his own experience of glory that the supreme glorification of the Godhead is lost. Our occupation in the eternal state will not be with our position or glory, but with God Himself.” (*Things to Come*, 1965\) “God can meet the multitude of needs of an infinite number of His children because He is infinite in the riches of His glory. A man who has limited funds will find those funds depleted as he gives to different causes; but if a man has unlimited funds, he can give without limit, and there will be no depletion of his supply. Since God is infinite in glory, God can give to an unlimited number of needs and still have an infinite supply left. When God gives to His obedient children, He gives according to His infinite riches in glory.” (*The Joy of Living*, 1973\)

What does it mean that Jesus is the propitiation for our sins (1 John 4:10)?

Answer In teaching about the nature of God’s love (1 John 4:7–12\), the apostle John explains that God’s divine love forms the basis of Christian love. The believer’s love is unique in that its source is God Himself (verse 7\). If we don’t have love for others, then we don’t know God (verse 8\). Love, then, is a litmus test of our faith. And because true love is expressed through actions, John states, “God’s love was revealed among us in this way: God sent His One and Only Son into the world so that we might live through Him. Love consists in this: not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the [propitiation](propitiation.html) for our sins” (1 John 4:9–10, HCSB). The ultimate demonstration of God’s love for us is this: He sent Jesus to be the propitiation for our sins. Earlier, John stated, “He Himself \[Jesus] is the propitiation for our sins, and not only for ours, but also for those of the whole world” (1 John 2:2, HCSB). *Propitiation* is a word we rarely hear these days. To better understand its meaning, we must look to the past. Many ancient religions, and some still today, include the concept of pacifying an angry God or gods. Polytheists, especially, believed that their deities were volatile and unpredictable beings who, if angered, would dole out punishment. To escape their wrath, worshipers offered sacrifices to their gods to appease their anger. This practice was known as “propitiation.” The Bible applies this exact term only with a slight twist. God is not moody and unpredictable; He is immutable, unchanging (Malachi 3:6; Numbers 23:19; Hebrews 13:8; James 1:17\). He is also righteous and just (Psalm 7:11; Romans 1:18\). Concerning human sin, God does indeed experience anger and demand a sacrifice (Leviticus 16:30; 19:22; Isaiah 59:2; Ephesians 2:1–3\). But God’s anger toward sin is not an irrational, out\-of\-control emotion like human anger. Instead, it is the firmly established opposition of His [holy character](holy-God-holiness-of-God.html) and divine nature toward sin and all that is evil. Sin separates us from God (Isaiah 59:2; Ephesians 2:12\). The penalty for sin is death (Romans 5:12; 6:23; 1 Corinthians 15:56\). God instituted the Old Testament system of sacrifice as the means of atoning for (or paying the penalty for) sin. This system was all about propitiation, but it was only temporary and pointed toward a better solution to the problem of sin (Hebrews 8:6\). A more complete understanding of atonement for sin comes to light in the New Testament, where the word *propitiation* centers on the sacrificial death of Jesus on the cross. Christ’s sacrifice holds the power to cancel the penalty for sin, turn away God’s anger toward sin, and avert God’s wrath once and for all (Hebrews 10:10\). God, in His incredible, indescribable love for us, gave the one and only sacrifice capable of paying the price for our sins. Forms of the Greek term *hilasmos*, translated as “propitiation,” emerge in many significant New Testament passages. The author of Hebrews explains that Jesus had to be made fully human “in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people” (Hebrews 2:17, ESV). In many newer Bible translations, the word for *propitiation* may be rendered as “atonement,” “sacrifice for sin,” “sacrifice of atonement,” or “atoning sacrifice.” In Romans 3:25, the apostle Paul maintains that God presented Jesus as a “propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith” (ESV), a “sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith,” (NIV), or “the sacrifice for sin. People are made right with God when they believe that Jesus sacrificed his life, shedding his blood” (NLT). God’s amazing love is the motivation for propitiation (Psalm 85:2–3; 103:8–12; Micah 7:18–19; Romans 5:6–8; 2 Corinthians 5:19\). Instead of worshipers attempting to mollify an angry God, the God of all mercy and grace presented us with a Savior as the perfect atoning sacrifice for our sins (John 3:16; Hebrews 9:11–14; 1 Peter 1:18–19\). The Father’s demonstration of love through Jesus Christ is the propitiation for our sins, by which we are restored to a peaceful relationship with God (Romans 5:1, 10; Colossians 1:19–20; Ephesians 2:13–17\).

What is the meaning of the saying Jesus H. Christ?

Answer *Jesus H. Christ* is a profane expletive, typically uttered in surprise, disappointment, disgust, exasperation, or astonishment. It is sometimes said in a humorous context. Regardless of its intent, saying “Jesus H. Christ” amounts to [taking the Lord’s name in vain](Lords-name-vain.html). It is an unholy utterance of the Savior’s name, an offense to believers, and a violation of God’s command not to “misuse the name of the Lord your God” (Exodus 20:7, NLT). Taking the Lord’s name in vain (dishonoring it by treating it irreverently or misusing it in an oath) has been happening ever since Bible times (Leviticus 19:12\), but the precise origin of the expression *Jesus H. Christ* is somewhat of a mystery. It most likely developed from an early Christian monogram or abbreviation for the name of Jesus Christ. By the third century AD, the name of the Lord was sometimes shortened in Christian inscriptions, sculptures, and paintings. *IH* is one of the oldest monograms for the name *Jesus*. In the Greek language, it is an abbreviation created from the first letters of the name *Jesus* (*ΙΗΣΟΥΣ*). *IHC* is one of the abbreviated Latin transliterations of this Greek word. The three letters are an Anglicized iota, eta, and sigma, and they correspond to the first, second, and last letters of Jesus’ name in Greek. Today, the abbreviation usually appears as [*IHS*](IHS.html), but in Late Classical Latin, the sigma was represented by a *C*. Those without a knowledge of Latin mistook the iota in *IHC* for a *J*, which they assumed to mean “Jesus”; they likewise interpreted the *C* to mean “Christ.” That left only the *H*. Not knowing what it meant, they left it as an initial and spoke of “Jesus H. Christ,” as if that were His full name. The earliest reported use of *Jesus H. Christ* appears to have been in the mid\-1800s. In his autobiography, dictated in early 1906, Mark Twain tells the story of hearing the swear word in Missouri, where he worked as a printer’s apprentice in the mid\-1800s. According to Twain, a co\-worker had abbreviated Jesus Christ’s name to “J.C.” in a religious tract printed for the evangelist [Alexander Campbell](Restoration-movement.html). After a severe reprimanding from Campbell for the disrespectful treatment of Christ’s name, the co\-apprentice “enlarged the offending J.C. into Jesus H. Christ” (www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2019/02/jesus\-h\-christ.html, accessed 3/27/24\). Twain explains that this particular form of swearing, emphasizing the “H.” in between “Jesus” and “Christ,” was already frequently uttered among “the common swearers of the region” during his childhood (Smith, E. S., ed., *The Autobiography of Mark Twain*, California Press, 2010, p. 458\). In 1885, a New York science and religion journal cited *Jesus H. Christ* as a humorous expression found in a Texas newspaper story. That same year, it appeared in a satirical verse play called *The Creation*. In one line of the play, Adam replies to Eve and refers to God’s Son as Jesus H. Christ. The profanity also made its way into an 1892 folk song, “Men at Work,” in which some workers reluctant to rise early in the morning were cursed: “Then it’s ‘Jesus H. Christ, will you lay there all day?’” (www.grammarphobia.com, op. cit.). The meaning of the name *Jesus H. Christ* is evident. It is a swear word that treats our Lord and Savior’s majestic and holy name with disrespect and dishonor. God’s name reflects His character and presence (Exodus 3:13–15; 34:5–7; Numbers 6:22–27\). All His attributes and the sum of His being are contained in His “holy, awe\-inspiring name” (Psalm 111:9; see also Psalm 8:1\). As believers, we must be careful never to speak the name of Jesus Christ lightly or irreverently. God elevated Jesus to the highest place of honor in His kingdom “and gave him the name above all other names, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth” (Philippians 2:9–10, NLT). His name must be given nothing but the highest esteem and honor. Those who casually, comically, profanely, or in any manner refer to the Lord as Jesus H. Christ are in danger of incurring God’s punishment.

Who wrote the book of Revelation? Who was the author of Revelation?

Answer The [book of Revelation](Book-of-Revelation.html) is the final book in the New Testament and brings the entire Bible to a close. Revelation derives its title from the Greek word *apokalypsis*, related to our word *apocalypse*, and translated “revelation.” The word signifies the unveiling of something as yet unseen. Revelation encapsulates events leading to the promised new heaven and earth. While Revelation has sparked considerable debate over how to best interpret it, its main purpose is not for arguments. The book aims at challenging and encouraging persecuted believers. It envisions a future where God will dwell among His people, erasing pain, suffering, and the broken order (Revelation 21:3–4\). The author identifies himself in the opening line, stating, “The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John” (Revelation 1:1\). John further emphasizes his authorship within the text (Revelation 1:4, 9; 22:8\). Additionally, early church figures like [Irenaeus](Irenaeus-of-Lyons.html), [Justin Martyr](Justin-Martyr.html), and [Clement of Alexandria](Clement-of-Alexandria.html) attribute the eschatological text to John. ‬‬ John penned the book of Revelation around AD 95 while on the Island of Patmos. According to Christian tradition, John was the only disciple not martyred. After unsuccessful attempts to kill him, he was exiled to the island. He originally wrote the book in Koine Greek. Revelation is classified as [apocalyptic literature](apocalyptic-literature.html), but it blends elements from various genres. Its salutation aligns with the epistles, but it also uses apocalyptic symbols and carries prophetic undertones. The use of symbols and obscure imagery renders Revelation challenging to interpret. The difficulty is made more evident by the absence of a parallel genre in modern times. Modern scholars often express skepticism regarding Johannine authorship, citing the ambiguity concerning the popular name “John.” Some prefer to attribute authorship to an unknown “John of Patmos,” while others settle for anonymity. However, [John the Apostle](life-John-Apostle.html) stands out as a prominent figure in early Christianity. He would not have required further clarification in using his name. The salutation also makes anonymous claims unlikely. Coupled with external attestations, it’s reasonable to conclude that John the Apostle wrote the book of Revelation. The book of Revelation intimidates and perplexes many modern readers due to its imagery and emphasis on ultimate judgment. Nonetheless, it paints a vivid picture of paradise regained and earth renewed. We may not fully grasp God’s present activities in a broken world, but we know the end is both perfect justice and a return to Eden.

Who wrote the book of James? Who was the author of James?

Answer The author of [James](Book-of-James.html) simply identifies himself as “James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ” (James 1:1\). Because James the disciple was an early martyr (Acts 12:2\), the likely candidate for the authorship of this epistle is James, the brother of Jesus (Galatians 1:19\). A skeptic at the time of Jesus’ ministry (Mark 3:21; John 7:5\), he converted after witnessing the resurrected Jesus (1 Corinthians 15:7\). James later became a prominent figure in the church (Galatians 2:9\). James participated in the [Jerusalem Council](Jerusalem-Council.html) in Acts 15, delivering a speech in support of Paul (15:13–21\). This is significant due to alleged contradictions between James and Paul, particularly regarding justification by faith (James 2:14–26; cf. Ephesians 2:8–9\). The truth is that the teachings of Paul and James are complementary. While we are declared righteous through faith alone (Paul’s emphasis), our faith is intended to yield good deeds (James’ emphasis). Paul also emphasized the importance of good conduct resulting from faith in the gospel, aligning with the letter of James (see Ephesians 4:1\). The prevailing view remains that [James, the brother of Jesus](life-James.html), is the author of the epistle bearing his name. Some modern scholars propose a pseudonymous alternative, suggesting that an anonymous author wrote the book under James’ name. However, this remains a speculative hypothesis, and there is no reason to discard the traditional view. James addressed his recipients as “the twelve tribes scattered among the nations” (James 1:1\), indicating Jewish Christians. That could explain the book’s emphasis on the moral aspect of the law (James 2:8–12\). Even Paul urged Christians to love as a fulfillment of the law (Romans 13:8–10\). Thus, while the law is inadequate as a means of salvation, God’s moral standard remains unchanged. Due to its practical nature, the book of James is often likened to Jewish wisdom literature such as Proverbs and the book of Sirach. It is structured like a collection of sermons, written in the overall context of dealing with trials. The epistle explores themes like good deeds, godly wisdom, facing temptations, praying for the sick, and honorable living. Like every other biblical text, the book of James remains pertinent for contemporary Christians, especially emphasizing the necessity of aligning actions with faith. While Paul’s teaching often challenges legalism, James stirs us away from licentiousness and passivity. Do our actions reflect our faith? This is the question posed by James, one we must all answer.

What are the consequences for blaspheming God?

Answer The word *blasphemy*, meaning “the act of showing contempt or disrespect to God,” comes from the Greek word *blasphemia*, which appears repeatedly in the New Testament (e.g., John 10:36; Romans 2:24\). Scripture also uses descriptions like “cursing God” (e.g., Revelation 16:11\) and “speaking against” Him (e.g., Malachi 3:13\) to describe the sin. The Bible\-wide meaning of the transgression refers to disparaging God, including profaning His name, defaming His character, and slandering His works. Blasphemy can occur through speech, actions, and attitudes. The consequences for blaspheming God are severe. Scripture exposes the character of those guilty of the sin of blasphemy, revealing the spiritual and moral corruption within their darkened hearts and minds. They are filled with pride (2 Kings 19:22\), devoid of faith (Psalm 73:11\), mired in foolishness (Psalm 74:18\), enraged with anger (Isaiah 8:21\), devoted to idolatry (Daniel 11:36–37\), filled with lies (Hosea 7:13\), and immersed in heresy (Psalm 10:11\). Rather than reflect God’s image and likeness, blasphemers choose to mirror Satan’s adversarial and antagonistic nature (Genesis 1:26–28; cf. Revelation 13:1, 6\). Regarding the expression of corruption, blaspheming God can occur in numerous ways. Some disparage Him with words (e.g., Psalm 139:20\), while others do so through actions (e.g., Proverbs 30:8–9\). The Bible also documents instances where individuals incited others to blaspheme. For example, Job’s wife urged Job to curse God (Job 2:9\), and Paul—before his conversion to Christianity—tried to compel Christians to blaspheme God (Acts 26:11\). The consequences for blaspheming God match the seriousness of the offense. The book of Leviticus recounts the story of a man who cursed and “blasphemed the Name” of Yahweh (Leviticus 24:11\). In response to this sin, God instructed Moses to remove the offender from the community and “have all the congregation stone him” to death (Leviticus 24:14\). This incident established a precedent for future blasphemers under the law God gave Moses (Leviticus 24:16\). Paul’s first letter to Timothy reveals a shift away from the death penalty as the punishment for blasphemy under the New Covenant that Jesus Christ established (Jeremiah 31:31–34; Luke 22:20\). But the consequences for unrepentant blasphemy remain severe. The apostle mentions the excommunication of two men, [Hymenaeus and Alexander](Hymenaeus-and-Alexander.html), from the Christian community, describing their punishment as their being “handed over to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme” (1 Timothy 1:20, ESV). Thus, in contrast to the executed blasphemer in Leviticus, Hymenaeus and Alexander lived. As a reformed blasphemer himself (1 Timothy 1:12–14\), Paul likely hoped that these men would experience a transformative conversion like he did (cf. 2 Timothy 2:25–26\). Nevertheless, Hymenaeus and Alexander’s consequence for blaspheming God wasn’t irrevocably final but potentially redemptive. Beyond the nature, expressions, and consequences for blaspheming God, one of the Bible’s most striking passages on the topic concerns the unforgivable sin. After Jesus healed a demon\-possessed man, the Pharisees accused Him of using demonic powers to perform the miracle (Matthew 12:22–24\). Jesus replied that it’s illogical to argue that Satan is responsible for thwarting the activity of demons. He reasoned, “If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself” (Matthew 12:26, ESV). Jesus went on to explain that “every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but [blasphemy against the Spirit](blasphemy-Holy-Spirit.html) will not be forgiven” (Matthew 12:31\). He elaborated, “Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come” (Matthew 12:32\). Rejecting the Son of Man, which is forgivable, is not repenting of sin and trusting in Jesus for salvation (cf. Mark 1:15\). Indeed, not everyone immediately decides to follow Jesus upon hearing the gospel for the first time. Yet such initial ignorance, confusion, and doubting are pardonable if the person eventually repents and believes. In contrast, the Pharisees committed blasphemy against the Holy Spirit in that they accused Jesus of being demon\-possessed instead of Spirit\-filled. The Pharisees had the Law and the Prophets, they had the Holy Spirit stirring their hearts, they had the Son of God Himself standing in their presence, and they saw with their own eyes the miracles He did. Yet they chose defiance. They purposely attributed the work of the Spirit to the devil, even though they knew the truth and had the proof. Jesus declared their willful blindness to be unpardonable. We do not believe this particular type of blasphemy can be duplicated today. Blaspheming God is a grave sin. Yet for those who have responded to the gospel in faith, this offense, like all others, is forgivable because of the shed blood of Jesus on the cross that washes away sin (1 John 1:7, 9\). The consequences for blasphemy were paid by Jesus on the cross for all those who are born again through faith in Christ. Cooperating with the Holy Spirit’s thorough and ongoing sanctifying work (1 Thessalonians 5:23\) transforms a believer’s words, actions, and attitudes, enabling him or her to live in a manner that reveres God’s hallowed name (cf. Matthew 6:9\).

What were the good tidings of great joy in Luke 2:10?

Answer Luke 2:1–20 records events on the night of Jesus Christ’s birth in Bethlehem. Immediately after Mary delivers the baby Jesus in a humble [stable](Jesus-manger.html) outside the inn, Luke pans to the fields where lowly shepherds guard their sheep by night. Suddenly, an angel of the Lord appears among them, radiating with the brilliance of God’s glory, and announces to the terrified shepherds, “Do not be afraid, for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy which will be to all people. For there is born to you this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord” (Luke 2:10–11, NKJV). The phrase “bring you good tidings” (NKJV) or “bring you good news” (NIV, ESV, NLT) is rendered here in Luke 2:10 from a Greek verb (*euangelizomai*), which means “to announce, proclaim, or convey a message of positive information about recent and important events.” From this term, we get the English word *evangelize*. In the strictly literal Wycliffe Version of the New Testament, the angel proclaims, “I evangelize to you a great joy.” Luke used this verb meaning “to bring good tidings” frequently in his Gospel and the book of Acts (Luke 2:10; 3:18; 4:18, 43; 7:22; 8:1; 9:6; 16:16; 20:1; Acts 5:42; 8:35; 11:20; 17:18; etc.). Each time, it refers to the exceedingly wonderful message that the Savior of humankind has come into the world. The [gospel message](what-is-the-gospel.html) itself eventually came to be called “good tidings.” Indeed, the English word *gospel* comes from an Anglo\-Saxon term (*godspell*) that means “glad tidings.” This term, rendered “good tidings” or “glad tidings” in English, comes from the Greek noun *evangelion*, which literally means “good message” or “good news.” Before this time, the word was mainly used to announce military victories, but the New Testament writers assigned it a new meaning—the good news of salvation brought to the world in the person of Jesus Christ. The angel delivered the news of Jesus Christ’s arrival to all the people of the world, and it was a message of “great joy.” The English word *great* is translated from the Greek adjective *megas*, meaning “remarkable or out of the ordinary in degree, magnitude, or effect.” Joy is an emotion of intense happiness and pleasure. Great joy is an extraordinary degree of happiness and pleasure. This “great joy” refers not merely to a personal human feeling but the ultimate eschatological delight of realizing that the messianic age had arrived (c.f. Luke 4:43; 10:17; 24:41, 52; Mark 1:14–15\). By this time in Israel’s history, shepherds had become outcasts in society. Shepherding was a lonely and lowly line of work. Why did God choose to deliver His good tidings of great joy to these castaway shepherds? By coming to them first, God revealed that the exceedingly great message of His grace was for all humanity, including the lowest shepherds and the poorest outcasts of the inn. “God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are” (1 Corinthians 1:27–28\). *Good tidings of great joy* expresses the coming of the kingdom of God in Jesus Christ. In the kingdom of heaven, the poor, meek, humble, and persecuted are welcome to enter and experience inexpressible and glorious joy (Matthew 5:3–12; 1 Peter 1:8\). This kingdom is not reserved for the wealthy and upper\-class members of society (Matthew 19:23\), but for those who enter by His grace through faith in Jesus Christ (Ephesians 2:4–9\). Jesus would extend God’s invitation to join His kingdom not just to Jews but to Gentiles and all people in the whole world: “And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come” (Matthew 24:14; see also Matthew 28:19; Mark 14:9; Luke 24:47\).

What does “what do you have that you did not receive?” mean (1 Corinthians 4:7)?

Answer In 1 Corinthians 4:7, the apostle Paul uses rhetorical questions to address the problem of [pride](pride-Bible.html) and boasting within the church at Corinth. Regrettably, the believers’ pride had caused them to value outward appearances and eloquent words above the work of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 1:10–4:21\). For this reason, Paul corrects their sin and reminds them of a central theological truth: all their abilities, accomplishments, and achievements are blessings from God. Thus, it is not about what we have done, but what the Lord has done in and through us: “Let the one who boasts boast in the Lord” (2 Corinthians 10:17\). Paul asks three rhetorical questions in 1 Corinthians 4:7 to make his point: 1\. “For who makes you different from anyone else?” — Believers may have different spiritual gifts and roles within the church (1 Corinthians 12:11; Ephesians 4:11\), but no one is above or below the next person (Romans 12:3; Philippians 2:1–11\). The proper attitude, then, is one of [humility](Bible-humility.html). In humility, the “self” should be entirely forgotten: “I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me” (Galatians 2:20, ESV). 2\. “What do you have that you did not receive?” — Believers should remember that everything we have is not self\-attained but received from God: “In him we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28\). In James 1:17, the apostle expresses the same idea but in different words: “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change” (ESV). Because every good and perfect gift comes from God, we are called to steward his possessions wisely, carefully, and faithfully: “This is how one should regard us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. Moreover, it is required of stewards that they be found faithful” (1 Corinthians 4:1–2, ESV). Stewardship includes management of our time (Ephesians 5:15–16\), spiritual gifts (1 Peter 4:10\), relationships (Colossians 3:12–14\), marriages (Ephesians 5:25–27\), finances (Matthew 25:14–30\), and possessions (Luke 12:15\). In short, it encompasses everything we have on earth. 3\. “And if you did receive it, why do you boast as though you did not?” — Boasting about our abilities, accomplishments, and achievements as if they are not received from God is like a charity recipient boasting about his wealth. It is not only misguided but absurd: “Thus says the Lord: ‘Let not the wise man boast in his wisdom, let not the mighty man boast in his might, let not the rich man boast in his riches, but let him who boasts boast in this, that he understands and knows me, that I am the Lord who practices steadfast love, justice, and righteousness in the earth. For in these things I delight, declares the Lord’” (Jeremiah 9:23–24, ESV). Paul’s rhetorical questions in 1 Corinthians 4:7 are poignant reminders to view life through the lens of divine grace (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:9–11\). Everything we have we owe to God. If we fail to give Him credit, then we will become “puffed up with pride” (1 Timothy 3:6\) and lose sight of what is most important: loving God and our neighbor (Matthew 22:36–40\).

What does it mean that Christ is the end of the law (Romans 10:4)?

Answer In Romans 10:4, the apostle Paul writes, “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes” (ESV). The Greek word translated as “end” means “aim or purpose.” Christ is the aim and purpose of the law not because He abolished it but because He [fulfilled it](abolish-fulfill-law.html): “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them” (Matthew 5:17, ESV). By fulfilling the law, Christ guarantees the imputation of His righteousness to everyone who believes. Apart from Christ, no one is righteous (Romans 3:10\). The prophet Isaiah bluntly says, “We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment. We all fade like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away” (Isaiah 64:6, ESV). Unfortunately, Israel had deluded itself into believing that righteousness could be obtained through the law. Paul argues, however, that the law cannot make us righteous. He says, “Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For by the works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin” (Romans 3:19–20, ESV). The law effectively reveals our sinfulness, but it cannot justify or make us right before God. Elsewhere, Paul says, “Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith” (Galatians 3:23–24, ESV). The law, then, was a promise of things to come. Nay, it was a promise of the One to come. Christ, in perfect obedience to the Father’s will (John 8:29\), fulfilled the righteous requirement of the law and became the end of the law. Those who trust in Christ have received His righteousness; not because we have earned it, but because of His grace: “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith” (Romans 3:23–25, ESV). Salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. Israel should have known that the law pointed to Christ: “You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me” (John 5:39, ESV). However, they were “ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness” (Romans 10:3, ESV). Here, we have a biblical definition of sin. It is failure to submit to God’s righteousness. This is a spiritual and moral failure rather than an intellectual one (see John 3:19–21\). To overcome this failure, God “gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16, ESV). In Christ, we graciously receive His righteousness, a righteousness that could not be obtained through our own law\-keeping (2 Corinthians 5:21\). In this way, Christ is the end of the law.

What are dulia, hyperdulia, and latria?

Answer *Dulia* is a Greek word roughly equivalent to “service.” The word *latria* (or, in its ancient Greek form, *latreia*) is the Latin word for “worship.” In [Roman Catholic](Roman-Catholicism.html) teaching, latria is offered to God, but the saints receive dulia ([veneration](veneration.html)) and Mary is worthy of hyperdulia (“beyond service” or “super\-veneration”). Catholicism draws a fine line between dulia and latria, maintaining they are distinct from each other. But, in Scripture, the words *worship* and *service* are often used interchangeably or in association in reference to God or pagan gods: • Joshua 24:14, “Now fear the Lord and serve him with all faithfulness. Throw away the gods your ancestors worshiped beyond the Euphrates River and in Egypt, and serve the Lord.” (Although the English translation has “worshiped” (once) and “serve” (twice), the Hebrew word in all three places is the one for “serve.” That’s how it’s translated in the Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament, which was in use in the first century.) • 2 Kings 17:33, “They worshiped the Lord, but they also served their own gods in accordance with the customs of the nations from which they had been brought.” (In this verse, the word translated “worshiped” is the word for “fear.” Still, the two concepts seem to be roughly equal.) • 2 Kings 17:35, “When the Lord made a covenant with the Israelites, he commanded them: ‘Do not worship any other gods or bow down to them, serve them or sacrifice to them.’” (Here the word for “fear” is translated as “worship.”) • Jeremiah 16:11, “\[They] followed other gods and served and worshiped them. They forsook me and did not keep my law.” (Here, the word translated “worshiped” is the word for “bowing down before.”) • Luke 4:8, “Jesus answered, ‘It is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.’” (This verse uses the same English wording as Jeremiah 16:11\.) The English translations speak of “worship” and “service,” while the Greek and Hebrew seem to divide worship into “fear” and “bow down before.” Even though the two or three words may have slightly different meanings, it is clear that they are all combined to be the sum total of a proper response to the Lord and an improper response to the pagan gods. Worship, service, and fear/respect are not completely separate concepts but different facets of the same response. While the Bible seems to inseparably bind the two (or three) concepts together, the Roman Catholic Church has separated them. In Roman Catholic theology, dulia is the service or honor due to saints. Hyperdulia is the elevated service or honor due to Mary as the greatest of all saints and even more as co\-redemptrix and “Mother of God.” (The prefix *hyper\-* means “above normal.”) Latria is the worship that is due to God alone. In this way, Roman Catholic teaching can maintain that only God is worshiped, and all other acts directed toward Mary or the saints are not in violation of the command to worship God alone. However, this seems to be splitting hairs. It is clear that, in Roman Catholic teaching and practice, faithful Catholics are instructed to respond to saints in ways that the Bible reserves for God alone. Roman Catholic teaching urges the faithful to venerate saints—again, veneration falls short of worship in their teaching. Dulia and hyperdulia are shown in doing things like [visiting shrines and altars](worship-saints-Mary.html) for Mary or other saints as well as praying to them for help to meet various needs, including eternal salvation. It seems clear that dulia and hyperdulia, even as defined by the Roman Catholic Church, should be reserved for God alone.

Why does Michael say, “The Lord rebuke you” (Jude 1:9)?

Answer In the short and often overlooked [epistle of Jude](Book-of-Jude.html), the archangel, Michael, says to the devil, “The Lord rebuke you” (Jude 1:9\). The context of Michael’s rebuke of the devil was a dispute about the body of Moses. Jude does not provide further details about this dispute, but there are still things that we can learn from it. To comprehend the weight of the Lord’s rebuke, we must examine the nature of the dispute between [Michael](Michael-the-archangel.html) and the devil. Jude simply states that Michael contended with the devil about the body of Moses. To complicate matters, this incident is not mentioned anywhere else in Scripture, leaving readers to speculate about the exact circumstances surrounding this spiritual contest. A possible explanation lies in the importance of [Moses](life-Moses.html), one of the most prominent prophets in the Old Testament. He is best remembered for leading the Israelites out of Egypt to the Promised Land. Additionally, he is credited with writing the first five books of the Bible (also known as the Pentateuch). Because of Moses’ prominence in God’s redemptive plan, the devil might have desired to defile or misuse the body of Moses. Michael, the archangel charged with defending God’s people (Daniel 12:1\), guarded Moses’ body against Satan’s malevolent plans. Michael’s response, “The Lord rebuke you” (Jude 1:9\), reveals a profound theological truth about divine authority. Unlike human conflicts, spiritual battles are not fought with fists and swords. In 2 Corinthians 10:4, the apostle Paul makes this exact point: “The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds.” The *we* applies just as much to angels as it does to humans. In other words, even Michael, a mighty angelic being, must submit to the divine power and authority of God to rebuke the devil. Michael’s humility acknowledges that the power to confront and rebuke the devil comes from God alone. This echoes the biblical principle that all authority belongs to God (cf. Matthew 28:18\), and even the most powerful angels do not operate outside of His sovereignty. Michael’s words to the devil (Jude 1:9\) resemble an encounter in the Old Testament. In the book of Zechariah, the high priest, Joshua, stands before the angel of the Lord while Satan accuses Joshua (Zechariah 3:1\). In response, the Lord rebukes Satan with these words: “The Lord rebuke you, Satan!” (Zechariah 3:2\). This parallel reinforces the scriptural teaching that believers should rely on God’s power and authority in the face of demonic opposition. It is the Lord alone who has authority over Satan. The contention between Michael and the devil underscores the reality of [spiritual warfare](spiritual-warfare.html). Although the spiritual world is unseen, there is nevertheless an ensuing battle between cosmic forces who contend for our souls. To withstand the schemes of the devil, we must put on the full armor of God (Ephesians 6:11\) and submit to God (James 4:7\). Jude uses the confrontation between Michael and Satan to underscore the need for humility in spiritual warfare. [False teachers](false-teachers.html) were infiltrating the church, and part of their deception involved speaking words against spiritual entities as if they had the authority to do so: “On the strength of their dreams these ungodly people pollute their own bodies, reject authority and heap abuse on celestial beings. But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not himself dare to condemn him for slander but said, ‘The Lord rebuke you!’ Yet these people slander whatever they do not understand, and the very things they do understand by instinct—as irrational animals do—will destroy them” (Jude 1:8–10\). Jude’s warning is against speaking contemptuously of spiritual powers that no one knows much about. The pride of false teachers leads them to such foolishness. The Lord’s rebuke is not only a rebuff against the devil but is also a declaration of God’s supreme authority. Hence, Michael’s deference to the Lord’s authority models a posture that all believers should emulate in the face of spiritual warfare. As we contend with evil spiritual forces, may we never forget that victory comes not through our own strength, but in the strength of the Lord: “The Lord is my strength and my shield; in him my heart trusts, and I am helped; my heart exults, and with my song I give thanks to him” (Psalm 28:7, ESV).

Who wrote the book of Colossians? Who was the author of Colossians?

Answer According to the salutation, the [book of Colossians](Book-of-Colossians.html) was written by “Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and [Timothy](life-Timothy.html) our brother” (Colossians 1:1\). Timothy was with Paul in Rome during the writing of the letter and may have served as an amanuensis. The epistle was directed to the church of the Colossians. [Paul](life-Paul.html) had not met these Christians personally at the time of writing (Colossians 2:1\). Much like his letter to the Romans, the apostle aimed to establish a personal connection with the people of Colossae, evident in his personal tone. The Colossian church was grappling with a heresy threatening the confidence of its believers. Paul, while imprisoned, received word of their struggles and penned a response. Colossians is one of four [prison letters](prison-epistles.html) written by Paul, alongside Ephesians, Philemon, and Philippians. Paul wrote Colossians at the same time he wrote Philemon, addressed to a man within the Colossian church. In Colossians, Paul emphasizes the supremacy of Christ to counter false teachings. Christ is portrayed in lofty terms as both Creator (Colossians 1:16\) and Redeemer (verses 22–23\), dispelling any doubt about His divinity and sovereignty. Also, Paul underscores that a correct understanding of Christ leads to sound Christian conduct, influencing all relationships. Thus, Paul transitions from exalting Christ to addressing practical and ethical concerns. He challenges prevalent false teachings in the Colossian church (Colossians 2:8, 16–23\) and urges the believers to abandon sinful habits, cultivating godly virtues instead (3:5–10\). He also offers guidance on relationships (3:18—4:1\), encouraging conformity to Christ alone. External evidence, supported by early church fathers such as [Irenaeus](Irenaeus-of-Lyons.html), [Clement of Alexandria](Clement-of-Alexandria.html), [Tertullian](Tertullian.html), and [Origen](Origen-of-Alexandria.html), corroborates Pauline authorship of Colossians. The book’s authorship only came into question in the 19th century. Critics of the traditional authorship cite linguistic differences in Colossians, compared to other Pauline Epistles. However, the differences can be easily explained by human variability. Authors past and present do not limit themselves to a particular style, especially when the subject matter calls for diversity. Also, the use of an amanuensis can account for any perceived differences. There is no reason to doubt that Paul wrote Colossians. As explored in the book of Colossians, false Christs, counterfeit religions and hostile ideologies abound, increasing the need for us to discern truth. Our view of Christ impacts every area of our lives, giving proper motivation for dealing with sin, gaining Christian character, and treating our loved ones with dignity.

How should a Christian treat his/her ex-wife/ex-husband?

Answer After a [divorce](grounds-for-divorce.html), ex\-husbands and ex\-wives rarely get along amicably and peacefully. More commonly, ex\-spouses experience tension and stress or even open and aggressive conflict in their relationship because of deep\-rooted emotional wounds and unforgiveness. So, how should a Christian treat his or her ex\-wife or ex\-husband? The answer begins with living by the principle of the [Golden Rule](Golden-Rule.html) and learning to forgive. Jesus taught His followers what has come to be known as the Golden Rule: “Do to others whatever you would like them to do to you. This is the essence of all that is taught in the law and the prophets” (Matthew 7:12, NLT; see also Luke 6:31\). God wants us to treat other people as we would like them to treat us, and that includes ex\-spouses. If we are to obey the teachings of Jesus, we must be willing to take the first step in treating our ex\-husband or ex\-wife with kindness, patience, and acceptance—the same way we would want him or her to treat us. Living out this command is impossible without God’s help and a willingness to practice forgiveness. Why should we forgive our ex\-spouse? We forgive because God forgave us. Jesus said, “If you forgive those who sin against you, your heavenly Father will forgive you. But if you refuse to forgive others, your Father will not forgive your sins” (Matthew 6:14–15, NLT). Forgiveness is not a feeling but a conscious decision of your will. We choose to forgive an ex\-wife or ex\-husband because God commands us to do so. Forgiving does not mean forgetting. In *The Christian Counsellor’s Manual* (Zondervan, 1973\), Dr. Jay Adams points out that God does not ask believers to forget all the past hurts inflicted by an ex\-spouse. That would be impossible and, in some cases, even dangerous. We cannot simply wipe out all the painful memories. But as followers of Christ, we must do our best to leave them behind us and not dwell on them (Isaiah 43:18; Philippians 3:13\). Instead of dredging up the hurts and waving them in front of our ex\-spouse every chance we get, we lay them at the foot of the cross. We forgive without conditions, just as Jesus forgave us (Mark 11:25; Luke 6:37; Ephesians 4:31–32; Colossians 3:13\). We choose to show mercy and forgiveness to an ex\-spouse without any expectation of mercy or forgiveness in return (James 2:13\). We let go and let God deal with our ex\-husband or ex\-wife. It’s also essential to do our best to keep our children out of the friction of a painful divorce. Be careful not to use children as weapons against an ex\-spouse to spy on them or to take revenge on them. Don’t lay the heavy emotional burdens of your broken relationship on your kids. The divorce will be hard enough for them to deal with; they don’t need to be further traumatized by the emotional fallout their parents are going through divorce. Jesus calls us to be humble and self\-sacrificing in our relationships with others (Matthew 5:3; Philippians 2:3–4; Colossians 3:12\). This does not mean lying down and letting an ex\-spouse walk all over us. Instead, it means doing our best to behave with dignity and respect and let the Spirit of Christ reflect in our words and actions whenever we are around our ex\-spouse, even if he or she refuses to change or cooperate. It may also mean setting up practical boundaries, limiting our exposure to an ex\-spouse, and making wise decisions about where and when to meet. God’s Word says to be humble and self\-sacrificing, but we can’t do that if we insist on getting our way and having everything on our terms. The Bible calls us to lay aside our rights and desires for the good of others (Galatians 5:13–14\). Our motivation for setting aside our own interests to serve others is “out of reverence for Christ” (Ephesians 5:21\). To do this, we must daily die to our selfish desires (Romans 6:4–8; Galatians 2:20; 5:24\), take up our cross, and follow Jesus (Luke 14:27\). Ultimately, Jesus commands us to love not only our friends and neighbors but also our enemies (Matthew 5:43–45\). We must love our ex\-wife or ex\-husband and pray for her or him. Sometimes, we can love them up close, but more often than not, we must love and pray for them from a distance. Navigating the challenges of a post\-divorce relationship is complex and multifaceted, especially when children and stepparents are involved. Depending on the circumstances of the breakup, a particularly contentious divorce will sometimes require help or mediation. In the event you are unable to maintain a civilized relationship and open lines of communication with an ex\-spouse, you should consider seeking professional Christian counseling or pastoral counseling to support and assist you through the challenges.

What must I believe to be saved?

Answer The question of what we must believe to be [saved](Christian-doctrine-salvation.html) takes us to the core of the gospel. It is about knowing who we are and why Jesus entered the world to save us. Once these truths are believed and accepted, we receive the gift of eternal life (Romans 6:23\) and become children of God (John 1:12–13\). [Faith](definition-of-faith.html) is necessary for salvation—we must believe certain truths in order to be saved. “It is through faith that a righteous person has life” (Romans 1:17, NLT), and “without faith it is impossible to please God” (Hebrews 11:6\). The truth we must believe is the gospel, the good news that Jesus [died for our sin](substitutionary-atonement.html) and rose again the third day (see 1 Corinthians 15:1–8\). We must have faith in the truth of this gospel. In other words, we must trust Christ and His work on our behalf. Salvation is found in no one else (Acts 4:12\). Part of receiving the gospel is admitting that we have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23\). This is important because it acknowledges why Jesus entered the world to save us. If we do not believe we [*need* to be saved](need-to-be-saved.html), we will not care about salvation. Passages such as Acts 16:31 and Romans 10:9 say that we must believe in Christ to be saved, and this belief starts with admitting that we have not lived up to the perfect moral standard of a holy, righteous, and just God (see 1 John 1:8–10\). Indeed, we cannot meet the demand of His perfect moral standard because of our depravity: “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?” (Jeremiah 17:9, ESV; cf. Matthew 7:21–23\). The seriousness of sin is seen in its consequences: spiritual death and the reality of divine wrath. In John 3:36, Jesus contrasts those who believe in the Son and those who do not, saying, “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them.” The consequence of sin is more than dying; it is also being eternally separated from God in a fiery hell. The gospel, however, is a message of hope: we can have eternal life through faith in Christ. So, while sin separates us from God, belief in Christ draws us close to Him (John 17:3\). In Christ, our sins are forgiven (Acts 13:38\). To be saved, we must believe that Jesus died on the cross for our sin. The only way to fix our sin problem is through faith in the sacrificial death of Christ on the cross. As the incarnate and perfect Son of God, Jesus is the only one who could absorb the punishment for our sins and save us from God’s wrath (see Isaiah 53\). He is the only one who could die in our place (1 Peter 2:24\). To be saved, we must believe in the [resurrection of Christ](resurrection-Christ-important.html). The physical, bodily resurrection of the Lord is the cornerstone of the Christian faith. This momentous event proves that Jesus [overcame](Jesus-Christ-conquered-death.html) Satan, sin, and death. If He did not rise again, then we would remain stuck in our sins (1 Corinthians 15:17\). But He *did* rise from the grave, powerfully demonstrating that all who believe in Him will overcome sin and death and will live with Him for eternity. As Jesus told His disciples, “Because I live, you also will live” (John 14:19\). The gospel is not complicated. We aren’t required to perform religious rituals, say a series of incantations, or understand a cryptic set of facts. Just the opposite: we must cease from our works, lay down our pride, and accept the grace of God by faith. To be saved, we must believe that Jesus, the Savior, died for our sins and rose again to life eternal. We place our full trust in Him. We stake our eternal destiny on Him and His goodness. He forgives and saves us, not because of anything we have done or could do, but because He is loving, kind, gracious, and merciful (Titus 3:5\). Today, will you believe in Him for salvation? Have you made a decision for Christ because of what you have read here? If so, please click on the “I have accepted Christ today” button below.

How many genders are there?

Answer The Bible asserts that there are only two genders. God’s creation of mankind, described in Genesis 1:27, makes this plain: “So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” Male and female are the two genders. Throughout human history, most societies have agreed with the Bible that there are only two genders. There are males and females, and there are men and women. In modern times, especially in the last century, perceptions and theories have changed. Today, there is a push for people to respect the existence of many different gender identities, including, but not limited to, male, female, [transgender](transsexualism-gender-identity-disorder.html), gender neutral, genderqueer, non\-binary, agender, pangender, and so on. With so many possible genders, the word *gender* has become practically meaningless, at least outside of Scripture. People who believe that there are more than two genders create a distinction between [sex and gender](difference-sex-gender.html). Sex, they say, is a label we are assigned at birth. Some people are assigned male at birth, and other people are assigned female at birth, based on physical anatomy. The label is also referred to as birth sex or biological sex. Gender, the same people suggest, does not always align with a person’s assigned sex. People can identify their own gender, regardless of sex, and express it in individualistic ways. According to this view, humans decide their gender identity, but not the sex they were assigned at birth. We need to be clear on what God says about sex, gender, and gender identity. Of course, we must do with this love, care, and compassion for those who are struggling to make sense of themselves. We are to “speak the truth in love,” as Paul says in Ephesians 4:15\. God defines gender within the context of creation, as He created mankind male and female (Genesis 1:27\). There are undeniable biological differences between males and females. These differences extend to gender. There are differences between men and women, and God has assigned specific roles to each gender. Not only did God create males and females, men and women, but He beheld His creation and called it “very good” (Genesis 1:31\). If God’s creation is “good,” in that it reflects God’s glory, then the attempt to fundamentally change it is not good. While there are differences between men and women, both are created in the [image of God](image-of-God.html) (Genesis 1:27\). This means that men and women have equal dignity. In fact, God blessed Adam and Eve rather than Adam alone and told them to “be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth” (Genesis 1:28, ESV). Of course, the very command to multiply requires two complementary genders. The equal dignity of men and women extends to their spiritual standing before God. Paul says, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:28, ESV). The gospel is equally available for men and women. Everyone needs to be saved from sin. The two genders, mentioned in this verse, are saved the same way. Once saved, men and women are one in Christ. There are several reasons why God created the two genders with differences. First, He created men and women with different sexual organs to procreate (Genesis 1:28\). Procreation can only occur between men and women. Second, God created the two genders with differences that impart value and significance to companionship. Speaking to Adam, God said, “It is not good for man to be alone,” and then He created Eve from one of Adam’s ribs. Third, heterosexual marriages represent God’s love for us. Paul says, “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” (Ephesians 5:25\). Although many will disagree with the biblical teaching that there are only two genders, we hold fast to the truth of God’s Word. We “must teach what is appropriate to sound doctrine” (Titus 2:1\). And we do so unashamedly, as Paul did whenever he preached the gospel: “I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek” (Romans 1:16, ESV).

Who wrote the book of Jude? Who was the author of Jude?

Answer The author of [Jude](Book-of-Jude.html) identifies himself as “Jude, a slave of Jesus Christ and a brother of James” (Jude 1:1, NLT). A very short letter, Jude is written with urgency, which accounts for its brevity. The name *Jude* shares etymological roots with *Judas*. Besides [Judas Iscariot](Judas-Iscariot.html), the Gospels mention two Judases. One of them is an apostle, son of James (Luke 6:16\), and the other is a brother of Jesus and James—a different James than the father of the other Judas (Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3\). It is more likely that the author of Jude is Jesus’ brother, not the apostle, since he identifies himself as the brother of James. Though skeptical of Jesus during Jesus’ lifetime (John 7:3–5\), Jude likely converted after the resurrection. While little is known about Jude as a person, it’s evident he held esteem in the early church, was married, and engaged in missionary trips (1 Corinthians 9:5\). Jude initially planned to write on the “salvation that we all share,” but switched to defending the faith in his letter instead (Jude 1:3\). His tone reveals the seriousness of the situation, as seen in verse 4, “‭‭I say this because some ungodly people have wormed their way into your churches, saying that God’s marvelous grace allows us to live immoral lives. The condemnation of such people was recorded long ago, for they have denied our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ” (NLT). Abuse of grace is a serious issue, whether it leads to licentiousness or legalism. Jude’s tone parallels that of Paul in the epistle of Galatians, with both letters leading to a similar conclusion: grace should never be abused. ‬‬ The books of Jude and 2 Peter share similarities, leading some commentators to conclude that they were written around the same time. If so, then the date for both letters would be between AD 67 and 80\. Both epistles warn against [false teachings](false-doctrine.html), emphasize steadfastness, and reference extra biblical sources. Jude cites the book of Enoch (Jude 1:9\), likely also used by Peter (2 Peter 2:4\). Jude’s warning against falsehood remains relevant today. We are called to defend the faith, be committed to the truth, and recognize and reject falsehood.

Who was Lewis Sperry Chafer?

Answer Lewis Sperry Chafer (1871—1952\) was the primary founder of the Dallas Theological Seminary (1924; then Evangelical Theological College), an institution widely considered the academic front\-runner of dispensationalist theology. Besides serving as the college’s first president and principal theologian, Chafer was a musician, evangelist, and frequent Bible conference speaker. Although he wrote many popular books on prophecy, evangelism, and Christian living, Lewis Sperry Chafer’s most enduring work was his eight\-volume *Systematic Theology*, the first theological textbook framed within a dispensational, premillennial view. Chafer’s early years were spent in Rock Creek, Ohio, where his parents, Thomas and Lomira Chafer, raised three children. His father, a [Congregational](congregationalism.html) church minister, died of tuberculosis when Lewis was eleven. Beginning at age six, when he first professed his faith in Jesus Christ, Lewis felt a call to ministry and an interest in music. After the family moved to Oberlin, Ohio, in 1888, Chafer studied music composition and conducting at Oberlin College and Conservatory but never graduated. Instead, he began ministering as a gospel singer and choir director for A. T. Reed, a Congregational evangelist. From 1891 to 1896, Lewis sang and ministered full\-time at revival services with Reed and other evangelists. In 1896, Chafer married Ella Loraine Case. The two had met while studying music at Oberlin. Soon, they organized their own evangelism team, with Lewis in charge of preaching and singing and Ella accompanying him on the piano. Over the next ten years, the couple traveled around Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, and New Jersey, holding revival services that eventually took them into the southeastern states. During this time, the Chafers caught the attention of [Dwight L. Moody’s](D-L-Moody.html) associates, Ira Sankey and George Stebbins. After serving briefly as assistant pastor of the First Congregational Church in Buffalo (where Lewis was ordained in April 1900\), the Chafers relocated to Massachusetts to participate in Moody’s Northfield Conference while continuing their revival ministry. In 1904, Lewis Sperry Chafer helped start Moody’s Southfield Conference in Crescent City, Florida, overseeing it until 1909\. From 1906 to 1910, Chafer taught Bible and music at Moody’s Mount Hermon School for Boys in East Northfield, Massachusetts. During these years, he transferred membership to the Presbyterian Church, an affiliation he kept for the remainder of his life. Through his involvement in the Northfield Conference, Chafer came under the teaching influence of several groundbreaking fundamentalist Bible scholars, including F. B. Meyer, [G. Campbell Morgan](G-Campbell-Morgan.html), [Reuben Torrey](R-A-Torrey.html), James Orr, James M. Gray, and [Harry Ironside](H-A-Ironside.html). The most profound influence on Chafer’s theology came from [Cyrus Ingerson Scofield](C-I-Scofield.html), the Protestant minister and dispensational premillennialism theologian. Scofield had been president of the Northfield Bible Training School when Chafer attended classes there in 1901 during a lull in his revival meeting schedule. Later, Chafer wrote, “Until that time, I had never heard a real Bible teacher. . . . My first hearing of Dr. Scofield was a morning Bible class. . . . He was teaching the sixth chapter of Romans. I am free to confess that it seemed to me at the close that I had seen more vital truth in God’s word in that one hour than I had seen in all my life before. It was a crisis for me. I was captured for life” (Spencer, S. R., “Chafer, Lewis Sperry,” in *Biographical Dictionary of Evangelicals*, ed. Timothy Larsen et al., InterVarsity Press, 2003, p. 136\). Chafer came alongside Scofield’s ministry and eventually followed suit, holding his own teaching seminars called “Bible institutes.” Scofield made Lewis Sperry Chafer director of the Department of Oral Extension at his New York School of the Bible. Chafer also assisted Scofield in starting the Philadelphia School of the Bible in 1914 and joined the faculty to develop the course curriculum. Lewis continued teaching the Bible, writing books, and developing a close teacher\-disciple relationship with Scofield until his mentor’s death in 1921\. Some of Chafer’s best\-known books were written and published during this time, including *True Evangelism* (1911\), *The Kingdom in History and Prophecy* (1915\), *Salvation* (1917\), *He That Is Spiritual* (1918\), and *Grace* (1922\), which Lewis dedicated to Scofield. In 1922, Lewis Sperry Chafer stepped into the pulpit of Scofield’s former church, the independent First Congregational, Dallas (renamed Scofield Memorial Church at Chafer’s prompting in 1923\). He was also appointed general secretary of the Central American Mission, established by Scofield in 1890\. By now, most of Chafer’s theology had been shaped and settled, and he started to conceive the vision for a non\-denominational theological seminary for training ministers and Bible teachers from a broad range of churches. In collaboration with William M. Anderson, pastor of First Presbyterian, Dallas, and Anglican theologian W. H. Griffith Thomas, Lewis Sperry Chafer established the Evangelical Theological College in 1924\. It was renamed Dallas Theological Seminary in 1936\. Chafer served as the school’s president and professor of [systematic theology](systematic-theology.html) until he died in 1952\. In 1940, after Lewis’ brother Rollin died, Chafer succeeded him as editor of *Bibliotheca Sacra*, the seminary’s theological journal. He also maintained that position until his death. Chafer, who had suffered a heart attack in 1935 and then experienced health problems again in 1945 and 1948, died of heart failure in August 1952\. Chafer was deeply admired by his students not only for his clear and convincing teaching style but also for his personal character, devotion, and graciousness. He undertook to interpret and explain the Scriptures in a systematic way. His theology emphasized three essentials that formed the basis of his educational vision: God’s grace in Jesus Christ as the focal point of salvation and the Christian faith; the importance of following the dispensationalist method to discern and interpret the Bible; and the believer’s spiritual development. Here are some quotes from Lewis Sperry Chafer: “When led of the Spirit, the child of God must be as ready to wait as to go, as prepared to be silent as to speak.” (*True Evangelism, or, Winning Souls by Prayer*, 1919\) “It may be a secret sin on earth, but it is open scandal in heaven.” (*Systematic Theology*, 1947\) “The church is ever in peril—and never more so than now—of the disaster which must follow when she allows men of distinction in the sphere of human attainments, who are unregenerate or unspiritual, to dictate as to what her beliefs shall be.” (ibid.)

What does it mean that Jesus was slain before the foundation of the world (Revelation 13:8)?

Answer In Revelation 13:8, the apostle John writes, “All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world” (NKJV). Here, there is a contrast between those who worship [the beast](beast-of-Revelation.html) (see Revelation 13:1–7\) and those who are in the book of life. Before the foundation of the world, God chose certain individuals to be redeemed by the blood of Christ. These individuals will not worship the beast because their names have been written “in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” The term *book of life* occurs several times in the New Testament (Philippians 4:3; Revelation 3:5; 20:12, 15; 21:27; 22:19\). In each instance, the book of life is a list of names of those who have been redeemed by the blood of Christ. Life, in this context, refers to eternal life in heaven. This is the reward for those who persevere to the end: “Blessed is the man who remains steadfast under trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the [crown of life](crown-of-life.html), which God has promised to those who love him” (James 1:12, ESV; cf. Revelation 2:10\). Believers will persevere to the end because God will preserve them (Philippians 1:6\). The phrase *from the foundation of the world* (Revelation 13:8\) refers either to those who are in the book of life or to the Lamb who was slain. For the former view, Revelation 17:8 is often cited: “The beast that you saw was, and is not, and is about to rise from the bottomless pit and go to destruction. And the dwellers on earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world will marvel to see the beast, because it was and is not and is to come” (ESV). Before God created the world, he knew the names of everyone in the book of life. How could He not? After all, He is omniscient (Isaiah 46:10\). For the latter view, 1 Peter 1:18–20 is sometimes cited. Peter says, “You were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot. He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you” (ESV). Before God created the world, the Father and Son established an eternal covenant of redemption. This means that the sacrificial death of the Lamb was not an afterthought but was a part of God’s perfect plan of redemption: “Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given because you loved me before the foundation of the world” (John 17:24, ESV). Whether we adopt the former or latter view, we can be certain of God’s everlasting love. We need not fear the tyrannical reign of the beast. Believers in [this age](church-age.html) as well as the [tribulation saints](tribulation-saints.html) have this assurance: “I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 8:38–39, ESV).

Who wrote the book of 1 Kings? Who was the author of 1 Kings?

Answer Originally a unified work, the Book of Kings was divided in the Greek Septuagint into two parts, and the title “Kings” comes from the Latin Vulgate. Modern Bibles separate the books like the Septuagint did, each spotlighting specific periods in Israel's history. [First Kings](Book-of-1-Kings.html) commences with an aging David, unfolds the events leading to Solomon’s coronation, and narrates the ascent and downfall of Israel’s wisest king. Included within the history of 1 Kings is the construction of the temple. The authorship of 1 Kings remains uncertain due to no explicit mention of the author within the text and minimal scriptural testimony. Some clues, such as the literary style, thematic consistency, and material used, suggest a single author or compiler. Together, 1 and 2 Kings cover the history of Israel spanning over 400 years, meaning the author likely had access to various source materials and probably wrote during Israel’s exile. Based on the clues, Jewish tradition attributes the text to [Jeremiah](life-Jeremiah.html). Other commentators also consider [Ezekiel](life-Ezekiel.html) and [Ezra](life-Ezra.html). All three individuals were alive during the time of exile and are viable options. Several modern scholars align with the view of German scholar Martin Noth, who advocated the [Deuteronomistic history theory](Deuteronomistic-History.html). According to Noth, the books of Deuteronomy through 2 Kings were the work of a single author, with Deuteronomy serving as an introduction of sorts to the entire collection. Thus, 1 Kings would be part of that group. Other scholars who hold to the Deuteronomisitic history model have introduced various modifications such as the idea that the collection is a composite work. However, the Deuteronomistic history model comes with its challenges. According to a [Gospel Coalition](The-Gospel-Coalition.html) review of Noth’s work, “Criticism has, in the main, been directed against Noth’s explanation of the Deuteronomist’s purpose in writing his history. A number of scholars . . . have rejected Noth’s negative—or at best neutral—evaluation of the notice of Jehoiachin’s rehabilitation at the end of 2 Kings, preferring to see a glimmer of hope in the historian’s tailpiece. Others have complained that Noth did not give full play to the Davidic promises which had a prominent place in the DH and which, in their view, cannot be so easily dismissed as Noth imagined” (www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/review/the\-deuteronomistic\-history/, accessed 2/13/24\). Identifying the author of ancient texts can be challenging, and not just for biblical texts. Nonetheless, it’s certain that Ezra or Jeremiah or whoever wrote 1 Kings did so in the power of the Holy Spirit. The result isn’t just a recounting of events but a theological text laden with lessons on obedience versus disobedience to God’s commands and a foreshadowing the perfect King, Jesus.

Who wrote the book of Jonah? Who was the author of Jonah?

Answer The [book of Jonah](Book-of-Jonah.html) stands among the twelve [Minor Prophets](minor-prophets.html) in the Old Testament. It is distinguished from other prophetic literature by its unique style. Jonah primarily unfolds in a third\-person narrative format, except for a poem in the second chapter, and it reads like a short story. The book of Jonah recounts the journey of Jonah, a reluctant prophet who attempted to evade God’s explicit command to warn the people of Nineveh in Assyria. From boarding a ship to spending three days in the belly of a fish, Jonah experienced the repercussions of his disobedience, prompting him to repent and fulfill his duty by warning the Assyrians. The remainder of the narrative illustrates how God’s mercy can be as discomforting to humans as His justice. How many times do we bristle at God’s mercy toward those we deem undeserving? We find ourselves often in Jonah’s shoes, making this short story relevant to us. But who wrote this book? The traditional view places [Jonah](life-Jonah.html) himself as the author, with support from the superscription: “Now the word of the Lord came to Jonah the son of Amittai, saying” (Jonah 1:1, NKJV). However, some commentators, pointing to the third\-person perspective, conclude that the book of Jonah was written by an unknown author. As one commentator puts it, “The book of Jonah is anonymous. We really don't have any idea who wrote it and the book doesn’t really offer any clues as to who might have written it” (https://zondervanacademic.com/blog/who\-wrote\-jonah, 8/13/19, accessed 3/26/24\). Nevertheless, the option is that Jonah himself wrote it is still plausible. The [chiastic poem](chiasm-chiastic.html) in the second chapter, written in the first person, is undoubtedly Jonah’s. Some modern scholars consider the book of Jonah as a fictional work due to its supernatural elements. However, 2 Kings 14:25 portrays Jonah as a historical figure who lived during the reign of King Jeroboam II, and Jesus Himself references Jonah and the events in the book as factual (Matthew 12:39–41\). Denying Jonah’s historicity would equate to questioning Jesus’ knowledge or honesty, which Christians will not do. Knowing that Jonah was a real historical person and that God can indeed perform miracles, we can safely state that the book of Jonah relates real events. It takes a naturalistic bias against Scripture to argue otherwise. Beyond its lessons on obedience and God’s mercy, the narrative of Jonah offers numerous connections to Jesus. Jonah’s time in the belly of the fish foreshadows Jesus’ burial, and his message of repentance to [Nineveh](Nineveh-in-the-Bible.html) parallels that of Jesus. Even Jonah’s complaint after Nineveh’s repentance provides insight about Jesus (Jonah 4:1–3\). As Jonah complained, “I knew that you are a merciful and compassionate God, slow to get angry and filled with unfailing love. You are eager to turn back from destroying people” (Jonah 4:2, NLT). God’s mercy and compassion are ultimately fulfilled in Jesus, the Lamb sacrificed for our sin.

Who wrote the book of Ezekiel? Who was the author of Ezekiel?

Answer The [book of Ezekiel](Book-of-Ezekiel.html) stands as a prominent piece of prophetic literature. It is categorized as a Major Prophet in the Christian Bible due to its length. It was written during the [Babylonian Exile](Babylonian-captivity-exile.html) by [Ezekiel](life-Ezekiel.html), a priest taken into captivity during the second deportation from Jerusalem to Babylon. His messages are arranged in three parts: judgment against Israel, condemnation of other nations, and a promise of restoration for Israel. Amid the despair of exile, Ezekiel underscores God’s enduring control in employing judgment intended to bring the people to humility and repentance. Notably, the book of Ezekiel incorporates passages hinting at a new covenant (Ezekiel 36:24–28\). Themes include the dangers of sin, the inevitability of God’s judgment, and His commitment to restoration despite human shortcomings. The overarching emphasis is on God’s sovereignty, even in the face of challenging circumstances. The book opens with Ezekiel’s first\-person perspective, “In my thirtieth year, in the fourth month on the fifth day, while I was among the exiles by the Kebar River, the heavens were opened and I saw visions of God” (Ezekiel 1:1\). The third verse explicitly states the author: “The Lord gave this message to Ezekiel son of Buzi, a priest, beside the Kebar River in the land of the Babylonians, and he felt the hand of the Lord take hold of him” (Ezekiel 1:3\). The prophet’s authorship is further attested in Ezekiel 24:24\. It is certain that Ezekiel, the prophet after whom the book was named, wrote the book. Ezekiel identifies himself as the son of the priest Buzi. He channeled his background into his prophetic focus on topics such as the future expansion of the temple (Ezekiel 40—42\), the glory of the Lord (43:1–12\), and the sacrificial system in the restored Israel (45:13—46:24\). Ezekiel began his prophetic journey at age 30, five years after his deportation. He and the prophet Daniel were contemporaries. Ezekiel had a wife whom God took away to symbolize the complete destruction of Solomon’s temple. Ezekiel was not allowed to mourn her death as a sign to the people that they should not mourn the loss of their homeland, being as it was the just judgment of God (Ezekiel 24:15–27\). Ezekiel delivered his prophecy from Tel\-abib, a place where the Babylonians held numerous exiles, including King Jehoiachin (1:2\). There is little controversy on the authorship of Ezekiel, though some Jewish traditions propose that the final edition was compiled by the men of the Great Assembly—composed of scribes, sages, and prophets—based on Ezekiel’s words. Modern scholars argue for additions from later scribes, but, overall, the consensus is that Ezekiel is the sole author of the book.

Who is the evil one in Matthew 6:13?

Answer In Matthew 6:9–13, Jesus gives us an example of how to pray. [The Lord’s Prayer](Lords-prayer.html), as it is commonly called, contains six petitions. Each petition will have the effect of glorifying God and protecting believers from “the evil one” (verse 13\). The evil one is [Satan](who-Satan.html), whom Jesus calls “a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies” (John 8:44, ESV). Knowing that Satan is both a murderer and liar, what should believers do? We should pray to God, following the model of the Lord’s Prayer. When we pray, “Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name” (Matthew 6:9, ESV), we are thereby acknowledging God’s sovereignty and holiness above everything else, including the evil one. This acknowledgment fortifies our spiritual defense against the evil one, who is no match for God. Whenever we call out to our “[Abba](Abba-Father.html),” we are simultaneously rejecting the lies, deception, trickery, and corruption of the evil one. Regarding the name of the Lord, Solomon writes, “The name of the Lord is a strong tower; the righteous man runs into it and is safe” (Proverbs 18:10, ESV). Let us run to the Lord with full assurance that we will be safe from the evil one. The plea for God’s kingdom to come is a prayer against the rule and dominion of the evil one on earth (Matthew 6:10\). In the present age, the kingdom of God refers to His kingly presence in the hearts and lives of believers: “The kingdom of God does not come with observation; nor will they say, ‘See here!’ or ‘See there!’ For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you” (Luke 17:20–21, NKJV). The kingdom of God also refers to the reign of Christ in His church: “He put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all” (Ephesians 1:22–23, ESV). Though God is “Lord over all” (Romans 10:12, ESV), believers must continue to “sanctify the Lord God in \[their] hearts” (1 Peter 3:15, NKJV) through love and obedience (John 14:15\). We ought to pray for God to accomplish His will: “Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven” (Matthew 6:10, ESV). In doing so, we align ourselves with the will of God instead of falling victim to the evil one. The evil one desires nothing but to “steal and kill and destroy” (John 10:10, ESV). To this end, he tries to push us toward sin and rebellion against God. So, by aligning ourselves with the will of God, we resist the evil one’s attempts to lead us astray. Prayer for “[daily bread](daily-bread.html)” acknowledges our dependence on God for all needs, whether physical or spiritual (Matthew 6:11\). In contrast, the evil one tries to lure us toward self\-reliance and greed. Self\-reliance and greed, however, are not what God wants for us. Instead, He wants us to depend on Him for everything. There is no selfishness in this prayer. As D. A. Carson aptly put it, “The prayer is for our needs, not our greeds” (*Matthew: The Expositor’s Bible Commentary*, Vol. 8, Zondervan, 1984, p. 171\). Asking for forgiveness and the resolve to forgive others directly opposes the evil one’s strategy of discord, disunity, and division (Matthew 6:12\). The evil one thrives in unforgiving and chaotic environments. But through this plea in the Lord’s Prayer, we embody the peace and reconciliation of Christ, who made “peace by the blood of his cross” (Colossians 1:20, ESV). Finally, the prayer for deliverance from temptation and evil highlights the reality of spiritual warfare (Matthew 6:13\). Jesus’ mention of “the evil one” explicitly marks Satan as our principal adversary. This part of the Lord’s Prayer is a conscious appeal for divine intervention against the evil one’s attempts to ensnare us in sin. Though the devil seeks to tempt us into sin, God always provides a way of escape: “No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it” (1 Corinthians 10:13, ESV). Prayer is one way of escape, providing us with the armor and strategy needed to withstand the schemes of the evil one.

What is the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability (ECFA)?

Answer The primary purpose of the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability (ECFA) is to assure donors that a Christian nonprofit organization is using donations with efficiency, integrity, and transparency. Since the ECFA is the accepted standard for Christian non\-profits, donors should use due diligence when giving to organizations that are not ECFA accredited or who have failed the accreditation process. “Founded in 1979, ECFA provides accreditation to leading Christian nonprofit organizations that faithfully demonstrate compliance with established standards for financial accountability, transparency, fundraising, and board governance. The Christ\-centered ministries accredited by ECFA include churches, denominations, educational institutions, rescue missions, camps, and many other types of tax\-exempt 501(c)(3\) organizations. . . . ECFA accreditation entitles a ministry to use the ECFA seal and receive other Accreditation Benefits. The continuing use of the seal depends on the ministry’s good faith compliance with all ECFA Standards” (www.ecfa.org/content/about, accessed 4/8/24\). To be accredited by the ECFA means that a ministry has submitted its organization to ECFA scrutiny and has been found to be faithfully using donated funds. Scrutiny is based on [seven standards](www.ecfa.org/Content/Standards). To meet these standards, a ministry must be in agreement with the EFCA’s [written statement of faith](www.ecfa.org/Content/StatementFaith); be governed by a board of at least five individuals; publish independently reviewed financial statements; demonstrate integrity and propriety in paying employees; and display honesty in fund\-raising, among other things. In recent years there have been a number of high\-profile ministries that have voluntarily withdrawn from the ECFA, citing their own rigorous and transparent accounting practices and also the high cost of dues, which can be over $175,000 per year for the largest ministries with the biggest budgets. Others have withdrawn perhaps because they could no longer meet the standards, and withdrawing voluntarily saves face. Of course, when a ministry fails to meet ECFA standards, their stamp of approval is removed from its website and all publications. When there is a change of status with a high\-profile ministry, the information often makes news in Christian media. Occasionally, the ECFA has given its stamp of approval to a ministry that later turns out to have had serious problems with financial integrity. The rigorous standards seem to be more difficult to apply to ministries based outside of the United States or to spending money internationally. In spite of these issues, ECFA certification can help assure donors that the ministries they donate to are using the funds in an efficient and ethical manner. [Got Questions Ministries](https://www.ecfa.org/MemberProfile.aspx?ID=43968) is an accredited member of the ECFA.

What is a “clobber verse” or a “clobber passage”?

Answer Progressives, both religious and non\-religious, accuse conservative Christians of misusing certain verses in the Bible to attack [homosexuals](homosexuality-Bible.html) and others in the LGBTIQA\+ community. These “clobber verses” or “clobber passages,” wrested from their context, make people feel beaten down, abused, and, well, “clobbered” over their sexual inclinations and behaviors. The following are often identified by the homosexual community as “clobber passages”: 1\. Genesis 19:4–25 — (the account of [Sodom and Gomorrah](Sodom-and-Gomorrah.html)) 2\. Leviticus 18:22 — “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an [abomination](abomination.html)” (ESV). 3\. Leviticus 20:13 — “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them” (ESV). 4\. Romans 1:26–27 — “God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error” (ESV). 5\. 1 Corinthians 6:9–11 — “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God” (ESV). 6\. 1 Timothy 1:9–10 — “The law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine” (ESV). Progressive Christians and [pro\-gay advocates](is-being-gay-a-sin.html) argue that focusing solely on these so\-called clobber passages overlooks the broader biblical message on sexuality, specifically homosexuality. They attempt to reframe the passages, suggesting that a deeper exploration reveals an inclusive and affirming stance toward gays and lesbians. Their goal is simply to move past the “clobber passages.” It is true that Christians have been guilty of using Scripture in an uncharitable manner at times, but Scripture is still the Word of God, including the so\-called clobber passages. People may use the six passages above to “clobber” someone, but the words themselves are inspired by God. Paul says, “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16–17, ESV). We cannot dismiss any part of Scripture simply because some Christians are less than gracious in their handling of it. It’s also true that Scripture says more about sex and sexuality than what is contained in the “clobber passages.” What we find, however, is that other passages fully support the Christian ethic that sex should only occur within male\-female marital unions. For example, Genesis 1:27–28 says, “God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them” (ESV). And Genesis 2:24 says, “A man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh” (ESV). It is clear from both passages that God creates males (men) and females (women) to become one flesh. It is no surprise, then, that Jesus quotes both passages in His teaching on marriage in Matthew 19:4–6\. Based on what the Bible clearly says, we believe that sex should be between one man and one woman within the confines of marriage. At the same time, Christians should always extend love, grace, and kindness to everyone. In doing so, we become “like bright lights in a world full of crooked and perverse people” (Philippians 2:15, ESV).

What does “present evil age” mean in Galatians 1:4?

Answer In Galatians 1:4, the apostle Paul writes that Christ “gave himself for our sins to rescue us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father.” Here, Paul introduces the purpose of the sacrificial death of Christ, the nature of the world we inhabit, and the eternal plan of God the Father. In obedience to the Father’s will, Christ voluntarily gave Himself for our sins to deliver us from the present evil age. To appreciate the significance of Christ’s saving work, we must first understand our own [depravity](total-depravity.html). In Scripture, sin is defined as falling “short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23\). This suggests a moral standard that we are unable to meet. The reason we cannot live up to the righteousness that God demands from us is that we are sinners both by nature (Psalm 51:5\) and by choice (John 3:19\). Christ is the only solution to our sin problem. In Him, we are delivered from our sins and from “the present evil age” (Galatians 1:4\). The phrase *present evil age* refers to the current reality that the world is in the grip of Satan. Sin is rampant in our world, and sinners are enslaved to the bondage of sin. In Ephesians 2:1–3, Paul says, “You were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience—among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind” (ESV). Since dead people cannot raise themselves to life, God must make us spiritually alive. In Christ, we are “blameless and innocent, children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and twisted generation, among whom \[we] shine as lights in the world” (Philippians 2:15, ESV). Freedom from the present evil age has profound implications for how we live. God calls us to live Christ\-centered lives in the present evil age. This is accomplished by adopting the mind of Christ, “who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross” (Philippians 2:6–8, ESV). To avoid being corrupted by the present evil age, then, we must humble ourselves by allowing God to work in and through us. Consequently, people will “see \[our] good works and give glory to \[our] Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 5:16, ESV). The age in which we live is indeed evil, but the description also contains the word *present*. There is another age yet to come, one that will be characterized by righteousness and justice, not sin (see Isaiah 9:7\). Living in the present evil age, those who have been rescued have a wonderful future ahead of them.

What does is mean that “it is no longer I who live” in Galatians 2:20?

Answer In Galatians 2:20, the apostle Paul makes a brief yet powerful statement about the believer’s identity in Christ. Paul says, “I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me” (ESV). Here, Paul articulates the implications of being crucified with Christ. When Paul says, “It is no longer I who live,” he is referring to the radical change that occurs when sinners place their faith in the sacrificial death of Christ on the cross. It is the same kind of change that Jesus spoke of during His conversation with Nicodemus: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is [born again](born-again.html), he cannot see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3, ESV; see also verse 5\). Being born again does not mean that we “turn over a new leaf” by changing one or two things about ourselves. Instead, it signifies a brand\-new life. We have been crucified with Christ, and we have died to our “old self” that used to define us: “We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin” (Romans 6:6, ESV). When Paul says, “It is no longer I who live,” he is stating his own self\-effacement for the sake of Christ. The change that Jesus produces in our hearts is so complete that it’s almost like we’re not ourselves anymore. The change is so overwhelming, it’s like we have a new identity, and that identity is Christ. Next, Paul says, “Christ lives in me” (Galatians 2:20\). Simply put, this means that Christ is the source of our lives and our identity. While Christ is physically absent from the world, He continues to abide with us through the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit. It is the Spirit who empowers and enables us to pursue righteousness and bear fruit that leads to eternal life (Galatians 5:22–23\). In fact, the fruit of the Spirit is proof that we belong to Christ (Romans 8:9–11\). Though we have physical bodies and continue to struggle with sin (Romans 7:7–25\), Christ has thoroughly and radically transformed the way we operate our lives. We used to be self\-reliant and self\-righteous sinners. Now, we live by faith, love, and hope (1 Corinthians 13:13\). The faith that Paul speaks of in Galatians 2:20 is not blind faith, but an intimate and personal experience of Christ’s love. Christ not only says that He loves us, but He has shown it through His actions: “God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8, ESV). God’s love for us, then, is the foundation of our lives. The believer can say, “It is no longer I who live” because of the miraculous way his life has been transformed. Our former self and our sinful state are part of the old way of living. We are dead to sin, having been spiritually [crucified with Christ](crucified-with-Christ.html). The Message has a helpful paraphrase of Galatians 2:19–21: “I identified myself completely with him. Indeed, I have been crucified with Christ. My ego is no longer central. It is no longer important that I appear righteous before you or have your good opinion, and I am no longer driven to impress God. Christ lives in me. The life you see me living is not ‘mine,’ but it is lived by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I am not going to go back on that.”

Who wrote the book of 1 Thessalonians? Who was the author of 1 Thessalonians?

Answer The authorship of [1 Thessalonians](Book-of-1-Thessalonians.html) is mostly undisputed, with the epistle considered one of the earliest letters of Paul. The salutation provides internal evidence that [Paul](life-Paul.html) wrote the letter (1 Thessalonians 1:1\). According to Luke’s report, Paul and his companions visited Thessalonica during their [second missionary trip](Paul-second-missionary-journey.html), facing both successes and challenges (Acts 17:1–9\). Paul composed the letter to the Thessalonian church a few months after departing from the city, while he was staying at Corinth. Like a concerned parent checking on his child’s well\-being, Paul sent Timothy to inquire of the church’s welfare (1 Thessalonians 3:1–2\). His initial fear that his efforts had been in vain proved unfounded, as the church thrived in faith and love (3:6–7\). Therefore, Paul’s first letter to them primarily served as encouragement, highlighting their endurance in the face of persecution. The uniqueness of 1 Thessalonians lies in its [eschatological](content_end-times_eschatology.html) value. Paul elaborates on the rapture of believers, an event preceding the seven\-year tribulation (1 Thessalonians 4:13–18\). Facing persecution and life’s challenges, the Thessalonian believers had lost some loved ones. Paul acknowledges their grief but emphasizes the Christian hope, urging them not to “grieve like the rest of mankind, who have no hope” (verse 13\). Similar to the book of Revelation, Paul’s eschatological teachings aim to instill hope in believers who are still alive. In addition to eschatology, Paul addresses topics such as sexual purity, endurance in persecution, sanctification, living peacefully, hard work, and the day of the Lord. The overarching goal of 1 Thessalonians is that the recipients grow in godliness, an ideal that remains important for us. Although scholars widely accept Paul as the author of 1 Thessalonians, certain passages, such as 1 Thessalonians 2:13–16, have been subject to dispute. However, lacking explicit indication of a later insertion, the unity of 1 Thessalonians should be maintained. In a world filled with unanswered questions, uncertainty, and suffering, believers may easily become discouraged. The postmodern, post\-Christian world increasingly opposes the Christian faith, affecting followers of Jesus. However, the hope of resurrection remains available to believers today, even as we navigate the period between Christ’s ascension and the consummation of His kingdom. Clinging to our hope in Christ will transform our perspective on life, motivating us toward right living.

Who wrote the book of 2 Thessalonians? Who was the author of 2 Thessalonians?

Answer Paul is the author of [2 Thessalonians](Book-of-2-Thessalonians.html), written shortly after his first letter to the Thessalonian church. Similar to the first letter, Silas and Timothy were Paul’s companions at the time of writing (2 Thessalonians 1:1\). Paul visited Thessalonica on his second missionary journey (Acts 17:1–9\), following which he wrote the initial letter to encourage the new church. The second letter quickly followed, prompted by confusion regarding the timing of the day of the Lord. Some false teachers had instilled fear among the believers, alleging that the day of the Lord had already commenced (2 Thessalonians 2:2\). Paul’s purpose was to correct their thinking and allay their fears. Due to its purpose, 2 Thessalonians is succinct in its focus on eschatology. Paul elucidates that the day of the Lord will come after the “[man of lawlessness](man-of-lawlessness.html) is revealed” (2 Thessalonians 2:3\), a reference to the Antichrist. This revelation will occur amidst a great rebellion. Though lawlessness was already evident in Paul’s day, as it is now, someone is restraining the revelation of the man of lawlessness until the proper time. While the identity of the [restrainer](restrainer.html) has sparked debate, He is likely the Holy Spirit, whose influence through the church impedes the forces behind the Antichrist from taking control. Following the rapture, nothing will hinder the Antichrist from stepping to the fore and wreaking havoc. In addition to the customary salutation, Paul underscores the authenticity of 2 Thessalonians with his own handwriting (2 Thessalonians 3:17\). Apparently, the false teachers had attempted to fabricate a letter from Paul and his companions (2:2\), prompting Paul’s emphasis. The signature provides a second internal evidence of Pauline authorship. Moreover, 2 Thessalonians boasts strong external evidence, with direct references from the early church fathers. It also appears in Marcion’s canon and the [Muratorian Fragment](Muratorian-Canon.html). Despite the robust internal and external evidence, disputes regarding the Pauline authorship of 2 Thessalonians persist, largely due to perceived dissimilarities with its predecessor. A common objection contends that 1 Thessalonians portrays the end times as a soon\-to\-occur, unexpected event, but 2 Thessalonians emphasizes certain signs that must first occur. However, this objection is easily resolved. Paul simply emphasized different aspects of the same event. In 1 Thessalonians, he wrote on the rapture to encourage the struggling believers. In 2 Thessalonians, Paul’s target was alleviating the fears of believers who felt they had missed the rapture. It is also possible for an event to occur without warning, yet still have signs that indicate its imminency. The evidence supporting the Pauline authorship of 2 Thessalonians undermines any objections critics might raise. The text is authentic, and Paul is its author.

What is an inclusio?

Answer *Inclusio* refers to a literary framing device that repeats a keyword, phrase, similar groups of words, or themes at the beginning and end of a section of text. The repeated language forms a bracket, like bookends; or a pocket of thought, like an envelope. An inclusio frames words and ideas and delineates them into a unit. Inclusios occur frequently in Scripture to create both long and short literary units. Inclusio is sometimes called bracketing. The word *inclusio* is a Latin term meaning “confinement, enclosure.” The literary technique of using inclusio strategically informs readers that everything enclosed or inserted between the opening and closing brackets of repeated words or parallel themes supports the passage’s central idea or message. Inclusios help illustrate the unity, correlation, and association of a few lines of prose, multiple stanzas of a poem, or even an entire book. Full\-line inclusios, in which an entire line of text is repeated verbatim, are frequently used in biblical poetry to identify an important theological concept developed throughout the whole psalm. For example, Psalm 8 begins and ends with this line praising God’s greatness: “Lord, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth!” (verses 1, 9\). The body of the psalm reflects on God’s awe\-inspiring works and ways, lifting the worshiper’s thoughts away from self and onto God’s greatness. Throughout every line of Psalm 103, David encourages his whole being to praise the Lord. The idea is encapsulated in this repeated refrain: “Let all that I am praise the Lord” (Psalm 103:1, 22, NLT). Psalm 118 opens and closes with an inclusio summarizing the liturgical purpose of the hymn as a priestly call to worship: “Give thanks to the Lord, for he is good; his love endures forever” (verses 1, 29\). Full\-line inclusios sometimes appear in biblical prose, such as in Ecclesiastes. The theme “everything is meaningless” is introduced in the beginning bracket of Ecclesiastes 1:1–3\. The idea develops throughout the book and culminates in the ending bracket of Ecclesiastes 12:8\. Partial\-repetition inclusios of the same or similar words and themes are found throughout the Bible. One example is in Jeremiah 30 to 33\. The inclusio reveals a unifying “restoration of fortune” theme arising between the bookend verses of Jeremiah 30:3 and 33:26\. Hezekiah’s prayer (Isaiah 37:14–20\) contains a double inclusio: “You alone are God” and “all the kingdoms of the earth” in verse 16 correspond with “you, Lord, are the only God” and “all the kingdoms of the earth” in verse 20\. The preamble of the book of Proverbs envelops the book’s principal purpose and theme in an inclusio that advises readers that Solomon’s proverbs are “for gaining wisdom and instruction” (see Proverbs 1:1–7\). The Gospel writer Matthew employs an inclusio to illustrate the perpetual presence of “God with us” (see Matthew 1:23; cf. Matthew 28:20\). Luke uses an inclusio to frame Jesus’ public ministry. In Luke 4:18–20, Jesus declares His mission statement and then launches His ministry. Later, at the close of His public ministry, Jesus gives another mission statement: “For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost” (Luke 19:10\). The apostle John uses inclusio to capsulize and develop his teachings about the nature of Christ. Jesus as the Son of God is the theme in John 5—10\. The bookends appear in John 5:18 and John 10:33–36, spotlighting Jesus’ claim to be the Son of God, who is equal to God and therefore divine. [Chiasm](chiasm-chiastic.html) (sometimes called chiasmus) is another literary device involving a patterned set of inclusios in which the opening and closing brackets of words or themes are presented in opposite or reversed order, like so: (A \[B {C — C} B] A). An excellent example of chiasm is found in the prayer of Jonah (Jonah 1:17—2:10\). The four\-level chiasm sets the limits of the literary unit and emphasizes God’s constant redemptive involvement: Inclusio A (Jonah 1:17—2:1\) — God provides a great fish to swallow Jonah   Inclusio B (Jonah 2:2\) — Jonah prays to God from Sheol, a cry for help     Inclusio C (Jonah 2:3–4\) — Although banished from God’s sight, Jonah looks to His holy temple      Inclusio D (Jonah 2:5–6b) — God causes Jonah to descend to the deep      Inclusio D (Jonah 2:6c) — God brings Jonah up from the pit     Inclusio C (Jonah 2:7\) — Although His life is ebbing away, Jonah continues to look to God’s holy temple   Inclusio B (Jonah 2:8–9\) — Jonah prays to God from the temple, a shout of praise and thanksgiving Inclusio A (Jonah 2:10\) — God commands the great fish to spit Jonah back onto dry land These are just a few examples of inclusios in Scripture. This bracketing device has been utilized since the beginning of storytelling (see Genesis 39:2–3; cf. Genesis 39:21–23\), allowing orators, writers, and composers to return to their opening theme and reinforce the message by neatly packaging it in an envelope.

What is the heart of the earth (Matthew 12:40)?

Answer In Matthew 12:40, Jesus says, “For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” (ESV). The Greek word translated as “heart” refers to the “core” of something, including inanimate objects. Following His crucifixion, Jesus, the [Son of Man](Jesus-Son-of-Man.html), will spend three days and three nights in the heart, or core, of the earth. To appreciate the significance of this unique expression, we must review the context of Matthew 12:33–40\. In Matthew 12:33–37, Jesus addresses and challenges the [Pharisees](Pharisees.html) to consider the condition of their hearts. To this end, He uses a metaphor about trees and the fruit they produce. A good tree produces good fruit, but a corrupt tree produces bad fruit. Jesus knew that the Pharisees were evil and corrupt because they had spoken evil things about Him (see Matthew 12:22–31\). On judgment day, the Pharisees will answer for “every careless word they speak” (verse 36, ESV). Next, the scribes and Pharisees request a sign: “Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you” (Matthew 12:38, ESV). Jesus had already performed many signs and miracles in their sight, but they refused to believe in Him as the promised Messiah. So, Jesus says, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah” (verse 39, ESV). Here, the word *adulterous* refers to unfaithfulness to God. The scribes and Pharisees were unfaithful because they honored God were their lips, but their hearts were far from Him (Matthew 15:8\). This was abundantly clear by their request for a sign. When Jesus says, “no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah” (Matthew 12:39\), He is not denying other signs and miracles that He had performed. He is saying, rather, that the most important sign is the one He has yet to perform; that is, His death, burial, and resurrection. Jesus then points to [Jonah](life-Jonah.html), who “was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish” (Matthew 12:40, ESV; see Jonah 2:1–10\). Jonah was swallowed by the great fish because of disobedience to God (Jonah 1:1–3\), but Jesus was perfectly “obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross” (Philippians 2:5, ESV). Following His crucifixion, Jesus was in “the heart of the earth,” that is, in the grave or the “heart of the earth” (Matthew 12:40, ESV). Just as God delivered Jonah from the “belly of the great fish” (Matthew 12:40\), He also delivered His Son from the grave: “You will not abandon my soul to Sheol, or let your holy one see corruption” (Psalm 16:10, ESV). In both instances, the words of Jonah ring loud and clear, “Salvation is of the Lord!” (Jonah 2:9, ESV). Jonah in the belly of the great fish and Jesus in the heart of the earth—both men seemed like goners. No one comes back from such trauma; survival is not to be expected. But God had a different plan. Three days after Jonah was swallowed and given up for dead, here he comes again, on dry land and declaring the good news of salvation to the Assyrian city of Nineveh. Three days after Jesus was buried in “the heart of the earth,” truly dead, here He comes again, alive and well and declaring the good news of salvation to the whole world. We can’t ignore the sign of Jonah. The heart of the Pharisees was set on a sign from Jesus, but Jesus’ heart was set on His death, burial, and resurrection. In effect, Jesus was saying, “You are worried about the wrong things. Instead of seeking a sign from Me, you should examine yourselves to see the impurity in your heart. And the only way to receive a new heart, a heart that is acceptable to God, is to believe in My death, burial, and resurrection.” Indeed, this is the core message of the gospel.

Who was Sir William Ramsay?

Answer Sir William Mitchell Ramsay (1851—1939\) was a Scottish New Testament scholar and archeologist who became recognized as “the foremost authority of his day on the topography, antiquities, and history of Asia Minor in ancient times” (Anderson, J. G. C., “Sir William Mitchell Ramsay,” *Dictionary of National Biography*, 1931—1940, p. 727\). In the ancient ruins of the Greco\-Roman world, Ramsay set out on a mission to prove that Luke’s account of history in his [Gospel](Gospel-of-Luke.html) and the [book of Acts](Book-of-Acts.html) was unreliable and fabricated. But to his dismay and eventual delight, Sir Willliam Ramsay became convinced that these New Testament Scriptures were historically accurate to the minutest detail. Sir William Ramsay was born in Glasgow, Scotland. His father, a lawyer, came from a long line of attorneys. He died when William was six, and the family moved from Glasgow to their country home near Alloa. William’s maternal uncle, Andrew Mitchell, and his older brother helped guide the brilliant and naturally inquisitive young boy toward the best education. That education would incorporate Aberdeen Gymnasium in preparation for the University of Aberdeen, where Ramsay excelled. Finishing at the top of his class, William Ramsay went on to five more years of study and academic honors at Oxford University and St. John’s College at Oxford in England. Every moment of college work, applying himself in the classroom and studying, was pure joy for William. Looking back on this time, he wrote, “The idea was simmering unconsciously in my mind that scholarship was the life for me: not the life of teaching, which was repellent, but the life of discovery” (Ramsay, W. M., *The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament*, Hodder and Stoughton, 1915, p. 7\). During these years, Ramsey also spent time at the University in Göttingen, Germany, studying Sanskrit under the renowned scholar Theador Benfey, who quickened in William an eagerness to learn, discover, and apply knowledge to investigation to perceive truth better. After completing college and getting married to Agnes Dick, William was invited to study for a three\-year traveling studentship offered by Exeter College, Oxford. He won the scholarship, beating his fellow candidate, Oscar Wilde, who would later become a famous scholar, poet, critic, and playwright. In 1880, William and his wife set sail for Asia Minor, where he would begin exploring and studying the geography and archaeology of ancient biblical lands—a pursuit that would become his life’s devotion. In 1885, Ramsay became Oxford’s first Professor of Classical Art and Archaeology. The following year, he was appointed Regius Professor of Humanity (as the Latin professorship is titled) at the University of Aberdeen, a position he maintained until his retirement in 1911\. Ramsay spent most of his teaching breaks on extended visits to Asia Minor, where he continued his research as an archaeologist. Having been educated in the Tübingen school of theology, which disregarded the historical value of many New Testament books, Ramsay believed that Luke’s writings in Acts and the Gospel of Luke were nothing but myth. He aimed to prove it through [archaeology](archaeology-Bible.html). However, dig after dig, he uncovered precision and truth in every geographical and historical detail of Luke’s writings. Luke correctly named the *asiarchs* in Ephesus, the *politarchs* in Thessalonica, and the *proconsuls* in senatorial provinces. Ramsay’s careful research bore out the fact that Luke was a trustworthy historian. The scholar’s skepticism gave way to faith, and Ramsay became a born\-again believer. Ramsey wrote several books on archaeology and historical context in his lifetime, many of which are still referenced as classics today. Among them are *Historical Geography of Asia Minor* (1890\) and *The Church in the Roman Empire before A.D. 170* (1893\). Besides proving Luke’s reliability as a historian, Ramsay confirmed Paul’s authorship of the Pauline Epistles. He also uncovered much of Paul’s history and personal background in *St. Paul, the Traveller and the Roman Citizen* (1895\) and *The Cities of St. Paul* (1907\). Sir William Ramsay’s titles and honors were extensive: He was Wilson fellow at University of Aberdeen (1901—1905\); honorary fellow of Exeter College (1896\) and Lincoln College (1897\); lecturer in Mansfield College, Oxford (1891 and 1895\); Levering lecturer at Johns Hopkins University (1894\); Morgan lecturer at Auburn Theological Seminary (1894\); and Rede lecturer at the University of Cambridge (1906\). He was also honored with doctorates from nine universities, including Oxford, St. Andrews, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Cambridge, Edinburgh, New York, Bordeaux, and Marburg. In 1906, on the four hundredth anniversary of the University of Aberdeen’s founding, William Ramsay was knighted for his accomplishments and service to the scholarly world. He was also awarded the Gold Medal of Pope Leo XIII (1893\) and the Victoria Medal of the Royal Geographical Society (1906\). Sir William Ramsay died on April 20, 1939, but his contributions live on through his enduring works. Foremost among those works were his comprehensive explorations in ancient geography, archaeology, and the historicity of New Testament Scriptures.

What does it mean to clothe yourself with humility (1 Peter 5:5)?

Answer In 1 Peter 5:5, the apostle writes, “Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for ‘God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble’” (ESV). The Greek word translated as “clothe” means “to tie round in a knot.” In other words, believers should fasten and gird themselves with [humility](Bible-humility.html) toward one another. Humble service to one another does not mean that we are inferior to our brothers and sisters in Christ; instead, it shows our willingness to put their needs before our own (see Philippians 2:4\). To make his case for why we should serve one another in humility, Peter says, “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.” The matter is simple: God’s grace is given to those who humble themselves before Him. This truth is also expressed in Proverbs 3:34, but in a much more pointed way: “Toward the scorners he is scornful, but to the humble he gives favor” (ESV). In Luke 1:46–56, also known as “[The Magnificat](Magnificat.html),” Mary magnifies the Lord for exalting the humble and humbling the proud: My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, for he has looked on the humble estate of his servant. For behold, from now on all generations will call me blessed; for he who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is his name. And his mercy is for those who fear him from generation to generation. He has shown strength with his arm; he has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts; he has brought down the mighty from their thrones and exalted those of humble estate; he has filled the hungry with good things, and the rich he has sent away empty. He has helped his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy, as he spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to his offspring forever (ESV). The connection between humiliation (not to be confused with embarrassment) and exaltation is a common New Testament theme. In James 4:10, for instance, James writes, “Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will exalt you” (ESV). And in 1 Peter 5:6, the apostle advises us to “humble \[ourselves], therefore, under the mighty hand of God so that at the proper time he may exalt \[us]” (ESV). The ultimate example of humiliation turned to exaltation is Jesus Christ. In Philippians 2:5–11, also known as the “Hymn of Christ,” the apostle Paul describes Christ’s example of humble service. Prior to His incarnation, Christ was in “the form of God” (verse 6, ESV). The word *form* means the same as having “equality with God.” Although He could have “grasped” and held to His heavenly privileges, He chose to “\[empty] Himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men” (verse 7, ESV). He did this not for His own benefit, but for ours (cf. 2 Corinthians 8:9\). As a human, “he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross” (Philippians 2:8, ESV). The unimaginable pain and suffering of His crucifixion was the ultimate example of humiliation (see Matthew 27:35\). Because of His humility, however, “God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (Philippians 2:9–11, ESV). So, what does it mean to be clothed with humility? It means, quite simply, that we adopt the same attitude or mindset as Christ. Humility, then, is more than lip service to God and others. Rather, it should exude from the wells of our spirits for the world to see: “Let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is heaven” (Matthew 5:16, ESV).

What is the satisfaction or commercial theory of the atonement?

Answer [Anselm of Canterbury](Anselm-of-Canterbury.html) (d. 1109\) rejected the ransom theory of atonement that had held sway for many generations and interpreted Jesus’ work on the cross through the lens of the feudal honor/shame culture in which he lived. According to the satisfaction theory of the atonement, God is due complete honor in the form of absolute obedience. Humans are fallen both because they are descendants of Adam and Eve, who dishonored God by disobeying Him, and because of their own disobedience. God must be honored in a satisfactory way. There are only three ways in which people can properly honor God: act in complete obedience, give recompense, or suffer punishment. This is a problem, for these reasons: \- No one can be completely obedient, so we all carry a debt of honor for God. \- Complete obedience is the baseline of what humans owe God, so it is impossible to honor God “more”; we cannot give recompense because we cannot earn more to fill our debt. \- Since God is infinitely honorable, our punishment must be infinite. Jesus is the only one who can satisfy God’s honor. Because Jesus was perfectly obedient, even to the point of death on the cross (Philippians 2:8\), He perfectly honored God the Father. Because Jesus is God and is infinitely honorable, the merit He earned is infinite. Because He is fully man, He can transfer that merit to humans. The satisfaction theory of the atonement, also called the commercial theory, is not completely wrong. Unlike the [ransom theory](Jesus-pay-ransom.html) before it, it insists that our sin creates a debt to God, not to Satan or to death. The satisfaction theory strongly affirms that people are completely fallen and cannot save themselves with good works (Ephesians 2:8–9\). It also provides a good introduction to the gospel for people in honor/shame cultures such as in the Middle East and Asia. They, more than Westerners, would respond to the truth of how our sin shames God. The satisfaction theory fails to describe atonement, however, because it treats a symptom instead of the disease. It is true that sin dishonors God, but that doesn’t mean that dishonor is the problem—sin is! [Sin](definition-sin.html) is the root issue that must be atoned for. Jesus didn’t go to the cross to build up stores of honor but to take the punishment—to pay the price—for our sin (1 Peter 2:24\). “For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit” (1 Peter 3:18\).

What is the classic, dramatic, or ransom theory of the atonement?

Answer Throughout Christian history, scholars have tried to precisely define the work that provides salvation that Jesus performed on the cross. Their ideas are called theories of atonement. For the first 1,000 years, the predominant view was a theory known in turn as “classic,” “dramatic,” or “ransom.” The ransom theory of atonement is closely related to Jesus’ victory over humanity’s enemy. The idea is simple enough: because of Adam and Eve’s sin, humanity is held hostage. The ransom theory of atonement is based on Mark 10:45 where Jesus says, “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” The ransom theory says that God offered Jesus’ life (Acts 2:23\)—and Jesus voluntarily laid down His life (John 10:18\)—to humanity’s enemy to break its hold. The idea of [*Christus Victor*](Christus-Victor.html), or “Christ the victor,” is an integral part of many interpretations of the ransom theory. It says that, when Jesus submitted Himself to death, His humanity veiled the fact that He is God. As God, the power that held humanity captive could not hold Him, so He escaped, winning victory over the enemy. Who it is that holds humanity captive and to whom the ransom is paid differs. Irenaeus (d. 200\) based his interpretation on Matthew 12:29 where Jesus said, “Or again, how can anyone enter a strong man’s house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man? Then he can plunder his house.” This interpretation says that, by submitting to death, Jesus tied up the “strong man,” identified as Satan, sin, and death, and carried off the “plunder”—God’s chosen. [Origen](Origen-of-Alexandria.html) (d. 254\) was more direct. He believed that Satan holds all people and demanded that God the Father give him God the Son. Satan released humanity, and then found Jesus was too powerful to keep imprisoned. On the third day, Jesus rose again, becoming victor over Satan. [Gregory of Nyssa](Gregory-of-Nyssa.html) (d. 394\) agrees with Origen but uses the analogy that Jesus’ humanity was the bait that hid the fishhook of His deity. John of Damascus (d. 749\) adapted Gregory’s metaphor but insisted Jesus could never be under Satan’s power. It was to death itself that Jesus paid the debt, never Satan. Gustaf Aulén’s (d. 1977\) dramatic theory focuses more strongly on Jesus as victor. He emphasized that Jesus triumphed over the law, sin, death, and Satan in a great cosmic war. Because Jesus triumphed over the foul powers that held humanity captive, He brings reconciliation between God and humanity. As evidence, Aulén presented the many times Jesus expelled demons as well as passages that say Jesus “disarmed the powers and authorities, . . . triumphing over them by the cross” (Colossians 2:15\), that by His death He broke “the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil” (Hebrews 2:14\), and that “the reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work” (1 John 3:8\). Like most views of the atonement, the ransom/classic/dramatic theory of atonement and the *Christus Victor* motif have some truths but do not encompass the heart of the work Jesus performed on the cross. Humanity’s problem is not primarily that we are lost to death. That’s a result of our problem: we are guilty of sinning against God, and we need His forgiveness. Jesus took our rightful punishment so that we could be reconciled with God. That being said, *Christus Victor* can be a powerful witness for cultures that understand the spiritual war around them and seek to placate or earn the favor of spirits to aid them in their daily lives. This includes the animism of Africa and the Caribbean, the ancestor worship of Asia, and the witchcraft favored by some on social media. *Christus Victor* reminds us that Jesus is more powerful than any spirit. He has triumphed over Satan and all other evil forces. It is foolish to seek the favor or protection of spirits when they are already defeated. Christ, indeed, is victor!

Who wrote the book of 1 Timothy? Who was the author of 1 Timothy?

Answer Similar to other letters attributed to Paul, [1 Timothy](Book-of-1-Timothy.html) takes its name from its recipient, not its author. The salutation reveals both the author and recipient, “Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope, To Timothy my true son in the faith: Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord” ‭‭(1 Timothy 1:1–2\). The book of 1 Timothy is categorized as a [Pastoral Epistle](pastoral-epistles.html), along with 2 Timothy and Titus. All three letters exhibit unity, pointing to shared authorship. ‬‬ Among all the letters traditionally ascribed to [Paul](life-Paul.html), the Pastoral Epistles are the most disputed, with even some conservative scholars expressing uncertainty about Paul’s authorship of these epistles. Critics argue that 1 Timothy is a pseudepigraphal text, akin to some later gospels written in the second century. According to this view, 1 Timothy was penned by someone close to Paul, probably a disciple of his. Scholars who dispute the Pauline authorship of 1 Timothy cite numerous reasons for their view. First, they point to the acceptance of pseudonymous works in the ancient world. Second, they note that 1 Timothy addresses the heresy of [Gnosticism](Christian-gnosticism.html), which flourished in the second century. However, Gnosticism had already begun developing in the first century, often with mixed Jewish elements, accounting for the themes of the Pastoral Epistles. Another objection concerns stylistic differences between the Pastoral Epistles and other, less disputed letters of Paul. But Paul used the service of an amanuensis for Romans (Romans 16:22\) and possibly some other letters. If he wrote 1 Timothy and the other Pastoral Epistles himself, it would easily explain the difference in style. Moreover, 1 Timothy is a personal letter, unlike Romans, so the two letters would naturally differ in style. Also, who’s to say that writing style cannot evolve as the author grows older? Critics further suggest that Paul had a theological school, and one of his students wrote 1 Timothy. They cite ancient figures like Plato and Pythagoras whose students wrote works in their names. This view lacks merit due to the lack of substantial evidence of a Pauline theological school, even among the writings of the early church fathers. Also worth noting are the personal words used by the author in the text. For example, 1 Timothy 1:15 states, “Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst.” It is unlikely that a student of Paul would call Paul the worst of sinners. Other scholars reject the pseudepigraphal hypothesis in favor of a fragment theory, mainly due to the personal statements in the text. The fragment theory views 1 Timothy and other Pastoral Epistles as compilations of personal correspondence from Paul. This view is difficult to prove. In conclusion, despite ongoing debates, the traditional view remains the most likely. Paul is the author of 1 Timothy.

Who wrote the book of 2 Timothy? Who was the author of 2 Timothy?

Answer Paul wrote the book of [2 Timothy](Book-of-2-Timothy.html), composed close to his death under Emperor Nero in AD 67\. As its name suggests, the epistle is addressed to [Timothy](life-Timothy.html), a trusted co\-worker and spiritual son of Paul. Timothy ministered in Ephesus during this period, sometime after Paul sent the first letter. Second Timothy is the second book of the Pastoral Epistles, alongside 1 Timothy and Titus. Paul’s impending demise is poignantly reflected in 2 Timothy 4:7, “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.” What a beautiful testimony from a man facing martyrdom! As the apostolic age drew to a close and the apostles passed away, there emerged a pressing need to safeguard orthodoxy and uphold proper conduct among believers. Hence, Paul encouraged his protégé, emphasized sound doctrine, and passed the baton of faithful service. In 2 Timothy, Paul writes with the solemnity of a man drafting a last will and testament, yet instead of sharing assets, he passes down godly wisdom. The personal nature of this epistle is evident in Paul’s request for his cloak (2 Timothy 4:13\) and his addressing of individuals who either supported or abandoned him (verses 9–16\). All these are indications of Pauline authorship. Despite the internal evidence that Paul wrote 2 Timothy, debates persist regarding its authorship. Critics point to differences in vocabulary and style compared to epistles that are undisputedly Pauline. Moreover, ancient figures like [Marcion](marcionism.html) rejected the pastoral letters. Another argument is the ecclesiological difference between 2 Timothy and Paul’s other letters. However, there are responses to these arguments. Marcion’s status as a heretic makes his dismissal of 2 Timothy unsurprising. More trustworthy church fathers like [Irenaeus](Irenaeus-of-Lyons.html) accepted the Pastoral Epistles, lending weight to the traditional attribution of the letter to Paul. Vocabulary differences are of little account, especially if Paul wrote the [Pastoral Epistles](pastoral-epistles.html) himself, without the aid of a scribe. Furthermore, Paul wrote 2 Timothy close to his death, to the pastor of a more developed church facing different challenges than earlier churches. The objections to Pauline authorship are important and need to be addressed, but they don’t nullify the traditional view that Paul wrote 2 Timothy. In conclusion, Paul wrote the second letter to Timothy close to his martyrdom at the hands of Emperor Nero to the pastor of the church of Ephesus, Timothy. Paul’s final letter, filled with instructions, reflections, and encouragement, remains relevant to us today.

Who wrote the book of Titus? Who was the author of Titus?

Answer The author of [Titus](Book-of-Titus.html) is none other than the apostle Paul. Titus, classified as a [Pastoral Epistle](pastoral-epistles.html), was addressed to an early companion of Paul. In Titus 1:1, Paul unequivocally identifies himself as the author. He affectionately calls Titus his “true son in our common faith” (Titus 1:4\), highlighting their close relationship. Titus often travelled on Paul’s behalf, handling assigned responsibilities (see 2 Corinthians 2:12–13\). Although not much is known about the man Titus, he played a major role in the growing church. The themes woven throughout the letter addressed to him include the qualifications of elders, the importance of sound doctrine and good works, Christian conduct, grace, salvation, and the peril of false teaching. The epistle offers invaluable insights into how faith influences life’s myriad decisions. Paul likely composed Titus in AD 63, following his release from his first Roman [imprisonment](why-was-Paul-in-prison.html). Paul and Titus had gone to the island of Crete, where Paul left him to lead the church there (Titus 1:5\). Similar to other Pastoral Epistles, the authorship of Titus has faced opposition, with some scholars questioning its authenticity. The issues raised revolve around differences in style and subject matter. Those who reject Pauline authorship of Titus say the letter was written by one of Paul’s followers in his name. The objection is serious, especially since Titus is a personal letter. A general epistle can be pseudonymous and retain some measure of authenticity, but if someone else formulated a personal epistle in Paul’s name, it would be nothing short of a forgery. Fortunately, the objections to Pauline authorship of Titus are easily resolved. For example, Paul may have used an amanuensis, accounting for stylistic differences. Paul also wrote his pastoral letters later in life, which would explain the different subject matter and even different style. Criticisms notwithstanding, the traditional view that Paul penned the book of Titus remains well\-founded. Paul was writing to his co\-worker and dearly beloved spiritual son. The content remains vital to believers today, reminding us of the importance of sound doctrine, the purpose of grace, and a proper ecclesiology. In a world rampant with false teachings and errant theology, Titus serves as a necessary reminder of the truth.

Who was John Walvoord?

Answer John Flipse Walvoord (1910—2002\) was an American pastor, author, widely respected [dispensationalist](dispensationalism.html) theologian, and long\-time president of Dallas Theological Seminary. Walvoord took over the presidency after the death of its founder, Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer. Over the next 33 years, John Walvoord stabilized the institution’s precarious financial status, expanded its graduate degree programs, and grew its student enrollment from less than 300 to nearly 1,700\. He also served as editor of *Bibliotheca Sacra*, the school’s theological journal, for over 30 years and published numerous books on biblical prophecy, eschatology, Christology, and the Holy Spirit. John Walvoord grew up in Sheboygan, Wisconsin, the youngest of three children born to John Garrett Walvoord, a teacher, principal, and school superintendent. His parents valued education and religious training, emphasizing the importance of daily Bible reading. When John’s mother, Mary Flipse, faced severe health risks during her third pregnancy, the doctors recommended an abortion, but the couple believed the child was a gift from God. Mary carried John to full term, with both remaining healthy. In fact, Mary lived almost to 102\. John’s family moved to Racine, Wisconsin, in 1925 and began attending the Union Gospel Tabernacle (renamed the Racine Bible Church), an independent, nondenominational church. Around this time, while John was in high school, he came to faith in Jesus Christ. All his previous devotions, John realized, had been an attempt to achieve righteousness and salvation through works. John’s conversion came during a group Bible study of Galatians led by William McCarrell, who would later help found the Independent Fundamental Churches of America. In 1928, John Walvoord attended Wheaton College, majoring in Greek and minoring in Latin. He stood out academically and athletically in football, track and field, and debate, winning state and national competitions. He also led the college’s Christian Endeavor and the missionary volunteer band. After graduating with honors in 1931, John attended the Evangelical Theological College (later renamed Dallas Theological Seminary). Throughout his studies, Walvoord planned to become a missionary to China. However, after graduating magna cum laude in 1934 with his bachelor’s and master’s degrees in theology, God began to show him a different path. Under seminary president Lewis Sperry Chafer’s guidance, John Walvoord accepted a pastorate at the Rosen Heights Presbyterian Church in Fort Worth (now Northwest Bible Church) while pursuing doctoral studies at the Dallas Seminary. He earned his Doctor of Theology degree in 1936\. Later, he received a Master of Arts in philosophy from Texas Christian University (1945\), a Doctor of Divinity from Wheaton College (1960\), and a Doctor of Letters from Liberty University (1984\). In June of 1939, Walvoord married Geraldine Lundgren. The couple established a home in Fort Worth, Texas, and John continued pastoring the Rosen Heights Presbyterian Church for sixteen years. John and Geraldine had four boys: John Edward, James Randall, Timothy Peter, and Paul David. John Walvoord had joined the Dallas Theological Seminary faculty in 1936, first serving as registrar and associate professor of systematic theology. In 1945, as Dr. Chafer’s health declined, the seminary president invited John Walvoord to serve as his assistant. For the next seven years, until the death of Dr. Chafer in 1952, John assumed more and more of the president’s daily responsibilities. He was instrumental in helping pull the school out of debt and reorganizing its administrative structure for stable growth. With the seminary’s increasing demands, Walvoord resigned from the Rosen Heights Presbyterian Church (1951\) and joined the [Independent Fundamental Churches of America](IFCA-International.html) (founded by his former pastor, McCarrell). His family joined the Reinhardt Bible Church in Dallas. In February of 1953, John Walvoord was officially installed as the second president of Dallas Theological Seminary. He served as president and professor of systematic theology until 1986, when he was made chancellor and, later, Chancellor Emeritus in 2001\. Walvoord served on the faculty of Dallas Theological Seminary for fifty years. During this time, he emerged as one of his generation’s most influential evangelical scholars. He wrote or co\-wrote numerous books, including the bestselling *Armageddon: Oil and the Middle East Crisis* (1973; revised in 1991\), which deeply impressed President George H. W. Bush during the Persian Gulf Crisis. After the President read the book, he immediately requested more copies for the White House staff to offer insight into the events unfolding in the Middle East. Not only did Walvoord serve as editor of *Bibliotheca Sacra* (1952—1985\), but he was also president of the Evangelical Theological Society (1954\) and a member of the editorial board responsible for revising the New Scofield Reference Bible (1967\). During his tenure as president, Dallas Theological Seminary thrived, adding several new departments and degree programs, building on classrooms and a library, and further developing its staff through higher education. John Walvoord died in 2002 at age 92\. He preached and taught the Bible until a few weeks before he passed. His primary scholarly focus was on the interpretation of biblical prophecy. His most notable legacy is Dallas Theological Seminary, one of the largest evangelical seminaries in the world today devoted to the inerrancy of Scripture, premillennial dispensational theology, and biblical teaching and preaching. Consider these words from the teachings of John Walvoord: “When the Word of God has spoken clearly and plainly, the unbelief of men, the reasonings of the natural mind and the wisdom of the world can be safely disregarded” (*Jesus Christ Our Lord*, p. 9\). “The Bible is God’s declaratory revelation to man containing the great truths about God, about man, about history, about salvation, and about prophecy that God wanted us to know. The Bible could be trusted just as much as if God had taken the pen and written the words Himself” (“Why I Believe the Bible,” https://walvoord.com/article/316\). “In prayer we can approach God with complete assurance of His ability to answer us. There is no limit to what we can ask, if it is according to His will” (“Does God Let Your Prayers Go Unanswered?” https://walvoord.com/article/309\).

What is the church triumphant?

Answer In [Roman Catholic](Roman-Catholicism.html) theology, the church, the people of God, are conceived of in three categories, and the “Church Triumphant” is best understand in the context of the three: • [The Church Militant](church-militant.html) is the church on earth—they are militant in that they are in action, fighting the good fight. • [The Church Suffering](church-suffering.html) is the church in [purgatory](purgatory.html)—they are suffering for their sins until they have been purged and are worthy of entering the presence of God. • The Church Triumphant is the church in heaven—they have finally triumphed over their sin on earth, come through purgatory, and are now enjoying the benefits and blessings of heaven. Other groups, especially Anglicans, Lutherans, and Methodists, may use the categories Church Militant and Church Triumphant in the same way without including the Church Suffering, as these groups do not officially endorse the doctrine of purgatory. Evangelicals do not often use the category Church Triumphant, or when they do it usually means something very different. The Gaither Vocal Band recorded a song called “The Church Triumphant,” but it does not refer to believers in heaven but to the church here on earth—what Roman Catholic theology would refer to as “The Church Militant.” This highlights a key difference between Roman Catholic and evangelical theology. In Roman Catholic theology, very few people can be presumed to have triumphed. Most believers are suffering in purgatory. The saints who have been canonized are the only ones we can be sure are currently members of the Church Triumphant. Presumably, after thousands or millions of years in purgatory, others will join them, and eventually all believers will be triumphant, In evangelical and biblical theology, Christians living today are triumphant in that the victory has been won by Christ. Believers participate in His triumph here and now by their identification with Him. First John 5:4–5 says, “For everyone born of God overcomes the world. This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith. Who is it that overcomes the world? Only the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God.” The Church Triumphant is made up of all believers of all times, even those on earth, because their triumph in Christ is never in doubt. “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Romans 8:1, ESV). Even though believers on earth may struggle and suffer, there is no doubt about their ultimate triumph. Romans 8 includes the “unbroken and unbreakable chain” that begins with believers being chosen by God and ends with their glorification (verses 29–30\). Glorification is so certain that it is referred to in the past tense even though it is yet to happen for believers who are alive on earth. Romans 8 does not use the word *triumphant* but says that believers are “[more than conquerors](more-than-conquerors.html),” which certainly conveys the idea of triumph: Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? As it is written: “For your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered.” No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 8:35–39\). Perhaps there is nothing wrong with thinking of the believers in heaven as the “Church Triumphant.” Certainly, believers in heaven are enjoying the victory. However, because the terminology is so entangled with a theology of merit, perhaps a different term should be used. In Roman Catholic theology, the ultimate triumph of any believer alive today is uncertain because it depends on a combination of the grace of God and the obedient response of fickle, sinful people. In evangelical and biblical theology, the triumph is certain because it depends on the faithfulness of God and the perfect work of Christ on behalf of the believer.

What are the differences between guilt / innocence cultures and shame / honor cultures?

Answer Understanding the difference between guilt/innocence and shame/honor cultures is important for two reasons. First, the Bible was written in the context of shame/honor cultures. Those in guilt/innocence cultures miss a great deal about God’s mercy and grace when this isn’t taken into consideration. Second, these are the two primary cultures today. An emphasis on guilt vs. innocence is the predominant view in Europe and North America; shame and honor are strongly valued in Latin America, the Middle East, and Asia. Understanding these distinctives is imperative for understanding each other and how different peoples will respond to [the gospel](what-is-the-gospel.html). **Wrong Behavior** Guilt or innocence is an individualistic condition. It describes people based on what they have done. The condition of being guilty or innocent is based on a set of laws or rules that define acceptable behavior. People are guilty if they break one of those rules and innocent if they don’t. They have the freedom to choose for themselves, and their condition affects themselves. If they are guilty, they need to justify the act, apologize for the act, make recompense, and/or be punished. Restoration occurs when they are forgiven for their sin or crime. A biblical example of forgiveness for a blatant sin is when Joseph forgave his brothers for selling him into slavery (Genesis 45\). Shame or honor can only occur in the context of relationship. It identifies what people *are*, not what they have *done*. They either bring honor to the partnership, family, clan, or corporation, or they bring shame. Their group strongly influences their behavior, and their behavior reflects on their group. Shame cannot be forgiven; it must be removed or hidden. When Adam and Eve covered themselves with fig leaves and hid from God, they were trying to hide their shame (Genesis 3:7–10\). **Communication Styles** Cultures that value guilt and innocence tend to be more direct—even abrasive. People speak clearly about issues, assign fault, seek solutions, and don’t condemn others who apologize and correct their error. Communication in guilt/innocent cultures tends to be low\-context: the necessary information is given in words, not subtext, non\-verbal communication, or mutually understood background information. Such speech to someone in a shame/honor culture can be incredibly offensive. Paul was very good at direct communication. People in shame/honor cultures are high\-context communicators. In one such culture, a host provides food and drink without asking to prove the guest is welcome. In another, the host asks three times and the guest declines twice before accepting to ensure the host has food to spare. It is shameful to say “no” outright unless the denial is given by a superior to a subordinate. Nuanced answers—or even outright lies—are used instead but understood to mean “no” because of the cultural context. Correcting wrong behavior or a misunderstanding requires a delicate process unless the purpose is to completely destroy the offender. People in guilt/innocence cultures find this communication style confusing and passive aggressive. That’s not the intent, however. A biblical example of culturally distinctive, high\-context communication is Abraham’s negotiation with Ephron the Hittite of a price for Sarah’s burial place (Genesis 23:1–16\). **Atonement** People in guilt/innocence cultures strongly understand the [penal theory of atonement](penal-substitution.html). Our sin is a crime against God’s righteousness. His just wrath against sin must be borne. While Jesus hanged on the cross, He carried the guilt of our sin and took the punishment we deserve as our substitute. We are justified by His blood (Romans 5:9\), and His righteousness covers us (Romans 3:22\). Shame/honor cultures better understand the satisfaction theory of atonement. We have dishonored God by not being fully obedient to Him. We cannot make up for the debt of honor. When Jesus died on the cross, perfectly obedient man and fully honorable God, He accumulated merit that He bestows on His followers. By accepting His merit, God’s honor is satisfied, and our relationship with Him is restored. **Conclusion** No culture is entirely based on guilt/innocence or shame/honor. In the East, shame is caused by specific sins; Western cultures are getting good at “canceling” people for acts considered shameful. Both cultures need to understand that our guilt and shame are most egregious when directed toward God. Our acts of sin against other people are ultimately sins against God (see Psalm 51:4\). The shame we may bring to our group means little compared to the dishonor we give the God of the universe who deserves all honor. From the time of the first sin, God’s plan has been to address both guilt and shame. He promised Eve her descendent would crush the serpent’s head (Genesis 1:15\) and then covered her and Adam’s shame with garments of skin (Genesis 21:21\). The Mosaic Law gives solutions for both individual sins and the shameful condition of being “unclean.” When the prodigal son returned, he confessed his sin against his father (Luke 15:21\), and his father covered his shame with the best robe (Luke 15:22\). Jesus bore our sins on the cross as well as our shame (1 Peter 2:24; Hebrews 12:2\).

Who wrote the book of Daniel? Who was the author of Daniel?

Answer The [book of Daniel](Book-of-Daniel.html) stands out among Old Testament works, blending narrative with prophetic materials and apocalyptic visions akin to Revelation. In the Tanakh it is classified under the [Ketuvim](Writings-Ketuvim.html) (Writings), focusing on Daniel’s historical narrative rather than its prophetic visions. Indeed, Daniel’s distinct literary form, inclusion of narrative, eschatological focus, and apocalyptic visions set it apart from other prophetic literature. Our modern Bibles categorize the book of Daniel as one of the Major Prophets. The book of Daniel captures the essence of godly living during the Babylonian exile, offering a model for Christians living as foreigners in this world (see 1 Peter 2:11–12\). The faithfulness of [Daniel](life-Daniel.html) and his friends remains relevant today, and his visions emphasize God’s sovereignty. The book is divided into two parts: court tales from chapters 1—6 and apocalyptic visions from chapters 7—12\. The book derives its name from Daniel, its author, who lived during the exile and serves as the central character throughout much of the narrative. The author’s knowledge of Persian and Babylonian history also fits with what we know of Daniel. Daniel’s authorship gains further credibility from Jesus, who referenced the “abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel” (Matthew 24:15, ESV; cf. Daniel 9:27; 11:31; 12:11\). Several passages in the book of Daniel also feature Daniel speaking in the first person. An example is Daniel 8:15–17: “While I, Daniel, was watching the vision and trying to understand it, there before me stood one who looked like a man” (see also Daniel 7:2; 9:2; 10:2\). Such passages further support the view that Daniel wrote the book. Some segments of Daniel 4, including a royal decree, were likely written by [King Nebuchadnezzar](Nebuchadnezzar.html), and Daniel included them as supporting material. Some contemporary scholars hold that Daniel was a legendary figure, proposing an anonymous author writing in 167 BC rather than 530 BC when Daniel lived. However, this position of a legendary Daniel is unsubstantiated as Jesus spoke of him as an actual figure. The prophet Ezekiel also mentioned Daniel as a real person, not a legend (Ezekiel 14:14, 20; 28:3\). To assert that Daniel is legendary, the Christian would have to accept that Jesus and Ezekiel were either frauds or gravely mistaken. Even more, given the first\-person perspective in the book of Daniel, we’d also have to acknowledge forgery. Based on the testimonies of Jesus and Ezekiel and internal evidence in the text, we conclude that Daniel was a historical prophet who wrote the book that bears his name.

What does it mean to walk in truth (3 John 1:4)?

Answer Truth is a dominant theme in the apostle John’s third epistle. The word *truth* appears four times in the letter’s opening four verses. John writes to [Gaius](Gaius-in-the-Bible.html), a church elder and dear friend, praising him for his selfless conduct and Christian hospitality. John is overjoyed to learn that Gaius is “walking in the truth.” His greeting concludes, “I have no greater joy than to hear that my children are walking in the truth” (3 John 1:3–4, ESV). In the Bible, a person’s “walk” denotes his behavior or lifestyle. *Walking* in 3 John 1:4 is a form of the verb *walk* (*peripateō* in Greek), which is used figuratively to mean “to live or behave in a specified manner.” Our “[Christian walk](Christian-walk.html)” refers to following Jesus Christ (Matthew 16:24\), learning from Him (Matthew 11:29\), imitating His behavior (John 13:15\), loving and living as He did (John 13:34; 1 John 2:6; Romans 13:14\), and being conformed into His image (Romans 8:29\). The Greek term *alētheia*, translated as “truth” in 3 John 1:4, specifically references “the good news about Jesus Christ, especially as a message that conforms to (and answers) the nature of reality.” The expression *to walk in truth* is biblical imagery for behaving in a way that agrees with the truth of Scripture, the message of the gospel that Jesus preached, and the Christian doctrines we profess. When we apply what we believe to our daily lives, actions, and behaviors, we are walking in truth. Nowadays, instead of “walk in truth,” we might say “walk the talk” or “practice what you preach.” A person who walks in truth is committed to obeying God’s Word, which is truth (Psalm 119:160; John 17:17\). When our lifestyle is based on the Bible, there should be no contradiction between our creed and our conduct. To walk in truth involves walking in love (Ephesians 5:2; John 13:34–35; 2 John 1:5–6\), a concept that John fleshed out in 1 John 4:7–11: “Dear friends, let us continue to love one another, for love comes from God. Anyone who loves is a child of God and knows God. But anyone who does not love does not know God, for God is love. God showed how much he loved us by sending his one and only Son into the world so that we might have eternal life through him. This is real love—not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as a sacrifice to take away our sins. Dear friends, since God loved us that much, we surely ought to love each other” (NLT). Just as walking in love reveals God’s loving character to the world, walking in truth expresses all that we know of His truth to the world. [Warren Wiersbe](Warren-Wiersbe.html) wrote, “True living comes from the living truth” (*The Bible Exposition Commentary*, vol. 2, Victor Books, 1996, p. 542\). When God’s truth dwells within us, the evidence will show in our authentic godly living. To walk in truth is to walk in the Spirit, who is truth (1 John 5:6\). The Holy Spirit teaches us all truth (John 14:17; 16:13; Ephesians 1:13; 1 Corinthians 2:13\). As we “live by the Spirit,” “keep in step with the Spirit,” and are “led by the Spirit,” we are changed from the inside out. Our behavior reflects that transformation in every part of our lives (Romans 8:4, 9; Galatians 5:16–18, 25; Ephesians 5:18\). To walk in truth is to “walk in obedience to all that the Lord your God has commanded” (Deuteronomy 5:33\). It is parallel to walking in the light (Isaiah 2:5; 1 John 1:5–7\), walking by faith (2 Corinthians 5:7\) and walking in a manner [worthy](walk-worthy.html) of the Lord and our calling (Colossians 1:10; Ephesians 4:1\). An excellent way to understand what it means to walk in truth is to consider what happens when we walk. If we walk in the dust and the mud, we get dirty. If we walk in the rain, we get soaked. If we walk in the storm, we get blown around. John encourages us to walk in truth so that it gets all over us and establishes us securely in our faith (Ephesians 6:14; 2 Thessalonians 2:15\). God wants us to become so deeply entrenched and coated in His truth, love, and light that it rubs off onto all the people we touch. If we walk in truth, it has the power to transform and set us free and positively impact the people in our lives (John 8:32; Romans 6:22\).

Who was F. B. Meyer?

Answer Frederick Brotherton (F. B.) Meyer (1847—1929\) was a [Baptist](Baptists.html) pastor, teacher, and evangelist based in London. His preaching ministry and inner\-city mission work were concentrated in England and America but eventually extended to South Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. Meyer was an outspoken campaigner for public morality and against social injustices. A profound concern for people in need marked his life. He wrote more than seventy books, primarily devotional and expositional, along with many famous biographies of Bible figures. F. B. Meyer was born in Clapham, London. He was the son of business owner Frederick Meyer and his wife, Ann. The family attended Bloomsbury Chapel, a missions\-minded Baptist church, where young Frederick developed an early interest in ministry. He was baptized as a believer in his teens and began theological training in 1866 at Regents Park Baptist College. He also attended Brighton College and graduated from London University in 1869\. Meyer began pastoral ministry in 1870 as an assistant and then associate minister at Pembroke Baptist Chapel in Liverpool. In February 1871, he married Jane Eliza Jones, his lifelong companion and partner in ministry. The couple had one daughter. Meyer accepted his first full pastorate at Priory Street Baptist Church in York in 1872\. Here, he met and began a long and close friendship with the evangelist [Dwight L. Moody](D-L-Moody.html). Through Moody’s influence, Meyer began to reshape his ministry outlook, placing evangelism at the forefront of his priorities. In 1874, he left York to pastor Victoria Road Nonconformist Baptist Church in Leicester. However, facing resistance from church leadership to his desire for outward\-facing ministry, Meyer resigned from his role after four years. In 1878, Meyer and a small group of supporters pioneered a new independent church on the outskirts of Leicester. The church building, called Melbourne Hall, was constructed in a non\-traditional style, designed to be a center for evangelistic outreach, Christian teaching, community education, and social activity. Membership quickly swelled from a handful of people to 1,500, making the ministry one of Britain’s first megachurches. It became well\-known for its outreach to thousands of discharged prisoners. Meyer offered them employment and training through two avenues he created: a firewood business and a window\-washing service. From there, F. B. Meyer returned to London to pastor Regent’s Park Baptist Chapel (1888—1892 and 1909—1915\) and Christ Church, Westminster Bridge Road, Lambeth (1892—1907 and 1915—1920\). Meyer incorporated his evangelistic focus, Baptist practices, and Moody\-style worship at both congregations. While at Christ Church, he instituted informal Sunday afternoon gatherings, attracting hundreds of blue\-collar workers. He also devised a large\-scale network of social services for those living in one of London’s poorest sections of town, created a youth center and applied Christian principles to issues such as drunkenness, prostitution, and other societal problems. Between 1895 and 1907, F. B. Meyer led a moral crusade that effectively shut down more than 700 brothels. He was involved in the Blue Ribbon movement promoting [temperance](temperance-movement.html); the Purity, Rescue, and Temperance work of the Central South London Free Church Council; and the Homeless Children’s Aid and Adoption Society. He served as president of the World’s Sunday School Association and the National Union of Christian Endeavor, general secretary of the Regions Beyond Missionary Union, and founder of South London Missionary Training College. F. B. Meyer was a leader in the [Keswick](Keswick-movement.html) holiness or higher Christian life movement, traveling widely and speaking often at Keswick conventions in London and worldwide. Beginning in 1891, he served as a speaker at Moody’s annual conferences in Northfield, Massachusetts. He made numerous trips to the United States and Canada, touring thousands of miles and delivering hundreds of messages. Later, Moody wrote to Meyer, “I do not think you will ever know on earth what you did or what the Lord did through you. I am hearing all the time of blessing” (Douglas, J. D., “God’s Errand Boy,” *Christianity Today*, 1979, vol. 23\). Meyer’s evangelistic tours included North and Central America, Asia, the Middle East, Australia, and South Africa, where he and his wife once met for talks with Gandhi. In 1911, McMaster University in Canada awarded Meyer an honorary Doctor of Divinity. That same year, he successfully crusaded against a world boxing title fight to be held at Earl’s Court between Jack Johnson of the United States and Bombardier Wells, a British contender. Johnson, the title holder, was black, and his challenger was white. F. B. Meyer felt the fight was being portrayed as a public test of racial superiority. The London press criticized Meyer, labeling him “Meddling, Maudlin Meyer.” Eventually, Winston Churchill, England’s home secretary, canceled the fight. In 1917, F. B. Meyer joined many Keswick leaders in introducing the Advent Testimony and Preparation Movement, which promoted the belief that Jesus Christ would soon return to begin His millennial kingdom reign. F. B. Meyers died in March of 1929, just days before turning 82\. He had left an indelible impact on the kingdom of God through his determined voice, prolific pen, dauntless service, and courageous spirit. He transcended denominations and reached outside church walls to be remembered as “the most important bridge\-builder in the evangelical world of his day” (Randall, I. M., “Meyer, Frederick Brotherton,” *Biographical Dictionary of Evangelicals*, ed. Timothy Larsen, et al., InterVarsity Press, 2003, p. 430\). Consider these selected quotations from F. B. Meyer: “The great tragedy of life is not unanswered prayer but unoffered prayer.” “To sacrifice something is to make it holy by giving it away for love.” “Every moment of resistance to temptation is a victory.” “God incarnate is the end of fear; and the heart that realizes that he is in the midst . . . will be quiet in the midst of alarm.” (All cited from *Christian Quotations*, Martin Manser, 2016\)

What is the significance of Tekoa in the Bible?

Answer Tekoa/Tekoah was a small town in Judah, about 12 miles south of Jerusalem and about 5 miles south of Bethlehem. It is mentioned several times in the Old Testament. The name *Tekoa* appears twice in the genealogies in 1 Chronicles: “After Hezron died in Caleb Ephrathah, Abijah the wife of Hezron bore him Ashhur the father of Tekoa” (1 Chronicles 2:24\). Then, “Ashhur the father of Tekoa had two wives, Helah and Naarah” (1 Chronicles 4:5\). A cursory reading might give the impression that Tekoa is the name of an individual. However, Tekoa is not mentioned again in the genealogies. In fact, Ashhur, “the father of Tekoa,” has several children, and none of them are named Tekoa: “Ashhur the father of Tekoa had two wives, Helah and Naarah. Naarah bore him Ahuzzam, Hepher, Temeni and Haahashtari. These were the descendants of Naarah. The sons of Helah: Zereth, Zohar, Ethnan, and Koz” (1 Chronicles 4:5–8\). For this reason, it is most likely that Ashhur is the “father of Tekoa” in the sense that he founded the town of Tekoa; the Tekoa in the genealogy is not a person but a place. (*Tekoa*, however, is a name in use in Modern Hebrew for either boys or girls.) Other mentions of the town of Tekoa occur in the following places: In 2 Samuel 14, when Joab is trying to get David to bring [Absalom](who-was-Absalom.html) back from exile, he summons a wise woman from Tekoa to approach the king with a story that ultimately convinces David to do what Joab wants. Tekoa is mentioned in this chapter in verses 2, 4, and 9\. Both 2 Samuel 23:26 and 1 Chronicles 11:28 list “Ira son of Ikkesh from Tekoa” as one of David’s mighty men. Second Chronicles 11:6 lists Tekoa as one of the cities that [Rehoboam](King-Rehoboam.html) fortified for defense. In 2 Chronicles 20 Jehosaphat leads the armies of Judah against Moab and Ammon, but he was simply to lead them in praise and let the Lord fight the battle. “Early in the morning they left for the Desert of Tekoa. As they set out, Jehoshaphat stood and said, ‘Listen to me, Judah and people of Jerusalem! Have faith in the Lord your God and you will be upheld; have faith in his prophets and you will be successful’” (verse 20\). The Desert of Tekoa would have been the arid place around the town Tekoa. Tekoa is perhaps best known as the hometown of the [prophet Amos](Amos-in-the-Bible.html). His prophecy begins this way: “The words of Amos, one of the shepherds of Tekoa—the vision he saw concerning Israel two years before the earthquake, when Uzziah was king of Judah and Jeroboam son of Jehoash was king of Israel” (Amos 1:1\). Tekoa is in the southern kingdom of Judah, but Amos was sent to prophesy to the northern kingdom of Israel. Amos prophesied against many of Israel’s neighbors but finally against Israel as well, showing that her behavior was no better than that or her pagan neighbors. Later, [Jeremiah](life-Jeremiah.html) prophesied the fall of Jerusalem, mentioning Tekoa in the process: “Flee for safety, people of Benjamin! Flee from Jerusalem! Sound the trumpet in Tekoa! Raise the signal over Beth Hakkerem! For disaster looms out of the north, even terrible destruction” (Jeremiah 6:1\). This warning may have been more poignant if Tekoa was still part of the defensive city network established by Rehoboam. (The word *Tekoa* literally means “trumpet,” so Jeremiah is using a play on words.) Nehemiah 3:5 and 27 report that men of Tekoa helped to repair the [wall of Jerusalem](walls-of-Jerusalem.html), although the nobles from there refused to help. Tekoa was not a major city, but it is mentioned several times in conjunction with some significant episodes in the history of Israel and Judah.

What does “who has bewitched you?” mean (Galatians 3:1)?

Answer In Galatians 3:1, the apostle Paul accuses the Galatian believers of being “bewitched.” He says, “O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified” (ESV). To understand the meaning of the word *bewitched*, we must review the context of Galatians 3:1–9\. False teachers had persuaded the Galatians that Gentiles should practice circumcision and other ceremonies of the Mosaic Law to be justified before God (Galatians 5:2\). This false teaching directly contradicted Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith (see Romans 5:1–2; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Galatians 2:16; 3:11–14\). For this reason, Paul reminds the Galatians of the truth he had proclaimed to them. To express the absurdity of abandoning the truth, Paul uses the words *foolish* and *bewitched* (Galatians 3:1, ESV). The Greek word translated as “bewitched” means “to exercise evil power over someone, like putting them under a spell.” The false teachers exercised evil power over the Galatians by luring them away from the truth. It was as if the Galatians had been bewitched or spellbound. The false teachers in the Galatian churches used what seemed to be wise words, presented eloquently. This helped with the “bewitching” of the Christians there. However, when Paul preached the gospel, he did not use “words of eloquent wisdom” (1 Corinthians 1:17, ESV), nor did he use “plausible words of wisdom” (1 Corinthians 2:4, ESV). He simply preached “Jesus Christ and him crucified” (1 Corinthians 2:2, ESV). The crucifixion teaches us that salvation is by grace alone through [faith alone](salvation-faith-alone.html) in Christ alone. If salvation could be achieved by works, “then Christ died for no purpose” (Galatians 2:21, ESV). As Paul rebukes the Galatian believers, he uses a series of rhetorical questions to communicate the irrationality of seeking justification by works (Galatians 3:2–6\). The Galatians did not receive the Holy Spirit by works but by faith. It is through the Spirit that the Galatians are [sanctified](sanctified.html) and empowered to proclaim the gospel—the same gospel they had abandoned. Their own experience, then, testifies to the fact that justification is by faith rather than works. The Old Testament example of Abraham also teaches that justification is by faith (see Genesis 15:6\). Paul says, “Abraham believed God, and God counted him as righteous because of his faith” (Galatians 3:6, NLT). The word *counted* means that Abraham was not inherently righteous. Indeed, no one is righteous (Romans 3:10\). God counted or declared Abraham as righteous because Abraham trusted and believed in God. This is the doctrine of imputed righteousness, wherein God imputes or attributes the righteousness of His Son to believers: “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Corinthians 5:21, ESV). In doing so, He not only makes us “sons \[and daughters] of Abraham” (Galatians 3:7\), but children of God: “See what kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God” (1 John 3:1, ESV). Paul’s use of the word *bewitched* (Galatians 3:1\), then, is a reality check for the Galatians. False teachers do not care about the flock. They only care about themselves: “It is those who want to make a good showing in the flesh who would force you to be circumcised, and only in order that they may not be persecuted for the cross of Christ” (Galatians 6:12, ESV). Therefore, instead of continuing in sin, error, and deception, the Galatians should examine themselves (see 1 Corinthians 13:5\) and return to “the Shepherd and Overseer of \[their] souls” (1 Peter 2:25, ESV).

What does it mean not to be ignorant of Satan’s devices (2 Corinthians 2:11)?

Answer In 2 Corinthians 2:5–11, the apostle Paul addresses the issue of a man who had committed a sin so grave that it affected the whole body of believers. After the man underwent some form of correction prescribed by Paul and carried out by the church, Paul now believes the [discipline](church-discipline.html) had been effective. He urges the believers in Corinth “to forgive and comfort him, so that he will not be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow” (verse 7\) and to reaffirm their love for the sinner. One reason Paul gave for ending the punishment and forgiving the man was to prevent Satan from outsmarting them and taking advantage of the situation, “for we are not ignorant of his devices” (verse 11, NKJV). Paul recognizes that [Satan](who-Satan.html) is clever and cunning and that believers need to be aware of his schemes. The Greek term translated as “devices” (KJV, NKVJ) in 2 Corinthians 2:11 is alternately rendered “designs” (ESV) and “schemes” (NIV, NASB, CSB). Satan’s devices are the evil intentions and plans he thinks up to oppose God and His people. This passage is not the only time Paul draws the Corinthians’ attention to Satan and his clever devices (see 1 Corinthians 5:5; 2 Corinthians 4:4; 6:15; 12:7\). In 1 Corinthians 7:5, Paul warns married couples not to deprive one another of sexual intimacy for too long “so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self\-control.” He also mentions Satan’s capacity to disguise “himself as an angel of light” (2 Corinthians 11:14, NLT). By forgiving the man who had sinned, the Corinthians would exercise wisdom rather than be ignorant of Satan’s devices. Forgiveness would restore unity in the church and prevent Satan from taking advantage of any division. It would also deprive Satan of an opportunity to discourage or defeat the man through an excessively long and drawn\-out punishment (2 Corinthians 2:6–7; see also Galatians 6:1\). Likewise, it would keep church members from hardening their hearts toward the man. The Bible presents numerous examples of Satan’s schemes. As the enemy of God, the devil is constantly working against God, His purposes, and His people (Job 1:6–19; Matthew 16:23; 1 Thessalonians 2:18\). The apostle Peter strongly advised believers to beware of Satan’s devices: “Stay alert! Watch out for your great enemy, the devil. He prowls around like a roaring lion, looking for someone to devour. Stand firm against him, and be strong in your faith” (1 Peter 5:8–9, NLT). One of Satan’s devices is to accuse believers of their past sins (Revelation 12:10; Zechariah 3:1–2\). Thankfully, Satan’s accusations are baseless and powerless against those who are [forgiven](what-is-forgiveness.html) and [redeemed](redemption.html) by Jesus Christ, who “canceled the record of the charges against us and took it away by nailing it to the cross. In this way, he disarmed the spiritual rulers and authorities. He shamed them publicly by his victory over them on the cross” (Colossians 2:14–15, NLT). Another of Satan’s devices is to tempt Christians to sin and fall away from fellowship with God (Ephesians 4:26–27; 1 Thessalonians 3:5; 1 Timothy 5:14–15\). Jesus warned His disciples that Satan would try to “sift each of you like wheat” (Luke 22:31\). From the beginning, Satan has tried to lure and seduce people to put God to the test (Genesis 3:1–5; Acts 5:3–9; 15:10; 1 Corinthians 10:9\). A favorite device of Satan’s is deceit, “for he is a liar and the father of lies” and “there is no truth in him” (John 8:44; see also 1 Timothy 2:14\). We can resist Satan’s deceitfulness by knowing the truth of God’s Word in the depths of our being (Psalm 119:11\). When the devil tempted Jesus in the wilderness, the Lord responded to each direct attack with the Word of God (Matthew 4:1–11\). Scripture is our most potent weapon against Satan’s devices. Satan has a way of making sin attractive, but we can [resist his temptations](resisting-temptation.html) if we “prepare \[our] minds for action and exercise self\-control. Put all \[our] hope in the gracious salvation that will come to \[us] when Jesus Christ is revealed to the world” (1 Peter 1:13, NLT). Jesus is our High Priest who “understands our weaknesses, for he faced all of the same testings we do, yet he did not sin” (Hebrews 4:15, NLT; see also Hebrews 2:18\). “God is faithful. He will not allow the temptation to be more than you can stand. When you are tempted, he will show you a way out so that you can endure” (1 Corinthians 10:13, NLT). Christians mustn’t be ignorant of Satan’s devices but be vigilant and ready for action. We can rely on God’s faithfulness in times of testing and temptation (see 2 Peter 2:9; Revelation 3:10\). We can “be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. Put on the full armor of God, so that \[we] can take \[our] stand against the devil’s schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms” (Ephesians 6:10–12\). And we can do as Jesus commanded: “Keep watch and pray, so that you will not give in to temptation. For the spirit is willing, but the body is weak!” (Matthew 26:41, NLT).

When should you not take communion?

Answer In 1 Corinthians 11:17–34, a passage dedicated to discussing [communion](communion-Christian.html) or the Lord’s Supper, the apostle Paul gives some important instructions: “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. But if we judged ourselves truly, we would not be judged. But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world” (1 Corinthians 11:27–32, ESV). This passage gives a strong warning against drinking the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner (1 Corinthians 11:27\). Doing so brings judgment (11:29\), which can include weakness, illness, and even death (11:30\). The preventative measure Paul recommends is to examine yourself (11:28\) and to judge yourself (11:31\). In light of these verses, some, after [examining themselves](examine-yourself.html), choose to not take communion. Instead, they decide to wait until they have had the opportunity to fully repent and confess their sins to the Lord (1 John 1:9\) and/or make restitution with a person they have sinned against. Some see Matthew 5:23–24 as outlining a principle that could apply to taking communion: “Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother or sister has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to them; then come and offer your gift.” We take communion in remembrance of Christ (Luke 22:19\). What are we remembering? His death and shed blood, which paid the penalty for our sins. Part of remembering Christ’s sacrifice is making sure our sins are biblically dealt with as we remember what He did for us. When should you not take communion? There is no biblical command “Do not take communion in these situations.” So, it is a matter of conscience and conviction from the Lord. Ask God for wisdom (James 1:5\). Examine yourself (1 Corinthians 11:28\). Ask the Lord to reveal to you if there is any wicked way in you (Psalm 139:24\). Confess your sins to God (1 John 1:9\). If you feel convicted that something is not right with your relationship with God and/or others, it is allowable, maybe even advisable, to not take communion until things are made right. It is also important to not view perfection as the requirement for taking communion. If perfection were the standard, no one could ever take communion. Being ready to take communion is not a matter of sinlessness or having perfectly dealt with the ramifications of every sin you have committed. Rather, strive to be, as much as it depends on you, fully reconciled with the people who are in your life (Romans 12:18\).

Who wrote the book of Philemon? Who was the author of Philemon?

Answer The [book of Philemon](Book-of-Philemon.html) is a short letter the apostle Paul wrote to a slave owner named Philemon concerning a runaway slave, Onesimus. The salutation suggests that Paul was with Timothy at the time of the writing—Paul was in prison then—and there were more recipients besides Philemon (Philemon 1:1–2\). The book of Philemon revolves around [Onesimus](Onesimus-in-the-Bible.html). The slave had run away from his master, a serious crime, but an encounter with Paul brought Onesimus face to face with the gospel. The runaway slave became a believer in Christ. Subsequently, Paul sent Onesimus back to Colossae, to his master, [Philemon](Philemon-in-the-Bible.html), and that was the occasion for the letter. Paul wrote to request reconciliation between Philemon and Onesimus. The slave may have committed theft, and Paul takes the debt of repayment upon himself: “If he has done you any wrong or owes you anything, charge it to me” (Philemon 1:19\). Paul aimed at peace, leveraging his relationship with Philemon and appealing to the faith shared by all parties involved. Paul exemplified Jesus’ beatitude, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God” (Matthew 5:9\). The majority of scholars accept Paul as the author of Philemon. In the 19th century, objections to the letter’s authenticity arose, but those were quickly dismissed. Modern scholars concur on the Pauline authorship of Philemon. The book of Philemon surfaces often in conversations about [slavery](Bible-slavery.html). Some argue that the Bible justifies slavery, pointing to Paul’s lack of explicit condemnation of slavery in the letter to Philemon. However, this objection overlooks the historical context of slavery in the Greco\-Roman world, distinct from transatlantic slavery, which was based on race and ethnicity. In Paul’s day, nearly half of the population were slaves, and slavery was ingrained in the culture as an accepted form of labor. Passages like 1 Corinthians 7:21 indicate Paul’s desire for slaves to attain freedom, and in 1 Timothy 1:10 he condemns slave traders. Elsewhere, Paul places masters and slaves on the same level (Ephesians 6:9\), emphasizes unity regardless of earthly status (Galatians 3:28\), and admonishes fairness toward slaves (Colossians 4:1\). In fact, the book of Philemon plants the seeds of abolition. Paul writes that he sent Onesimus back to Philemon “no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as *a fellow man* and *a brother in the Lord*” (Philemon 1:16, emphasis added). So, Paul works within the prevailing system to obey the laws and make restitution, but at the same time, he emphasizes that master and slave are fellow human beings and, in the case of Philemon and Onesimus, spiritual brothers.

What does it mean that Paul made himself a servant to all (1 Corinthians 9:19)?

Answer The [apostle Paul](life-Paul.html) yearned to see the Jews—his own people—saved and in God’s kingdom (Romans 9:1–3; 10:1\). Even greater was his desire to fulfill God’s unique call on his life to minister to the Gentiles (Ephesians 3:8\). Paul desired for God to use him as an instrument to preach the gospel and lead those who hear the message to saving faith in Jesus Christ. He wrote, “For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them” (1 Corinthians 9:19, ESV). To become an effective conduit of the gospel, Paul renounced his freedom and essentially enslaved himself to Jesus Christ (Romans 1:1; 6:22; 1 Corinthians 7:22; Galatians 1:10\). This idea of making himself into a servant or slave is conceptualized by the Greek term [*doulos*](bondservant.html), which refers to a person legally owned by someone else and whose entire livelihood and purpose is determined by their master. As a free Roman citizen, Paul belonged to no one. He had extensive rights within the laws of his society. He also had spiritual freedoms as a Christian. On the other hand, in the ancient Mediterranean world, enslaved people had almost no rights or freedoms. A slave had to obey his master’s orders. Paul asserted that he was free to do whatever he pleased, but instead, he willingly lowered himself to the status of a slave to all people. He willingly became a servant of all to win as many converts as possible. In saying, “I have made myself a servant to all,” Paul had adopted the mindset of Jesus Christ, “who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant” (Philippians 2:5–8\). Jesus possessed the nature of God, with all the freedoms and advantages that nature affords, yet He lowered Himself, made Himself a servant to all, and died on the cross to become the Savior of the world (1 John 4:14\). Following the Lord’s example, Paul yielded his rights, privileges, affiliations, and preferences to serve others and further the cause of the cause of Christ: “When I was with the Jews, I lived like a Jew to bring the Jews to Christ. When I was with those who follow the Jewish law, I too lived under that law. Even though I am not subject to the law, I did this so I could bring to Christ those who are under the law. When I am with the Gentiles who do not follow the Jewish law, I too live apart from that law so I can bring them to Christ. But I do not ignore the law of God; I obey the law of Christ. When I am with those who are weak, I share their weakness, for I want to bring the weak to Christ. Yes, I try to find common ground with everyone, doing everything I can to save some. I do everything to spread the Good News and share in its blessings” (1 Corinthians 9:20–23, NLT). Some who misinterpret this passage accuse Paul of being a chameleon who changed his message and standards to fit his audience. But Paul never compromised truth. Instead, he adapted his approach to avoid offending his audience. He would not flaunt his freedom in front of the Jews or inflict the law on the Gentiles. His goal was to remove obstacles and stumbling blocks to their acceptance of the gospel (see 1 Corinthians 1:23; 2 Corinthians 6:3; Romans 14:20\). Warren Wiersbe writes, “A good witness tries to build bridges, not walls” (*The Bible Exposition Commentary*, vol. 1, Victor Books, 1996, p. 601\). In Acts 16:1–5, Paul wanted [Timothy](life-Timothy.html) to accompany him on one of his missionary journeys. In deference to the Jews they would minister to, Paul arranged for Timothy (whose father was a Greek) to be circumcised. The missionaries wanted nothing to hinder the Good News from spreading and being received throughout the area. To achieve this aim, Paul and Timothy made themselves servants to all. Paul’s motivation for preaching was not selfish ambition: “You see, we don’t go around preaching about ourselves. We preach that Jesus Christ is Lord, and we ourselves are your servants for Jesus’ sake” (2 Corinthians 4:5, NLT). A good servant of Jesus models himself after his Master, who made Himself a servant to all.

What does it mean that the law is written on our hearts (Romans 2:15)?

Answer Can God justly condemn someone who is ignorant of the [Mosaic Law](law-of-Moses.html)? Paul says the answer is “yes”: “For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them” (ESV). In the [book of Romans](Book-of-Romans.html), there are several passages that seem to support the idea that ignorance of the Mosaic Law pardons sinful behavior. For instance, in Romans 5:13, Paul says, “Sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law” (ESV). And in Romans 7:7, Paul asks, “What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, ‘You shall not covet’” (ESV). A reasonable inference is that God cannot condemn people who are ignorant of the Mosaic Law, but is that a proper conclusion to draw? According to Paul, God can justly condemn people for sin because the “law is written on their hearts” (Romans 2:15, ESV). No, not the Mosaic Law, but God’s absolute and universal moral law. God’s moral law is manifest to everyone—both Jew and Gentile. Paul says, “The wrath of God is revealed from against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So, they are without excuse” (Romans 1:18–20, ESV). Creation, then, reveals enough about God to hold people accountable for sin and unbelief. Gentiles may not have the Mosaic Law, but they naturally “do what the law requires” (Romans 2:14, ESV). How can this be? Again, they possess an internal awareness of God’s moral law. This makes them a law to themselves, even though they do not have the Mosaic Law. There are many unsaved people who believe that it is wrong to murder someone or commit rape or steal someone’s possessions or commit adultery. The list goes on. These things reveal that God’s “law is written on their hearts” (Romans 2:15, ESV). Whether they are Jew or Gentile, God justly condemns people for sin and unbelief. He has provided sufficient evidence for His existence and righteous demands, yet sinners [suppress the truth in unrighteousness](suppress-the-truth-in-unrighteousness.html). Those who suppress the truth cannot stand before God and say they were ignorant of it. No, they will all give an account some day: “The Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done” (Matthew 16:27\).

What does it mean to hold to the testimony of Jesus (Revelation 12:17)?

Answer Revelation 12:17 states, “Then the dragon became furious with the woman and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus. And he stood on the sand of the sea” (ESV). Much can be said about this verse and the surrounding text, but our focus is on the question *What does it mean to hold to the testimony of Jesus?* The testimony of Jesus refers to the [gospel](what-is-the-gospel.html), the good news that encompasses the person and work of Christ. It is the central message of Christianity, without which we wouldn’t have the Christian faith and no one would be saved. The gospel declares that God took on human flesh in the person of Jesus to usher in His kingdom and redeem us from our sin. Humanity and the rest of creation is broken because of sin. Thus, we need redemption, brought by Jesus. The gospel also declares Jesus to be the long\-awaited Messiah who came to free His people from slavery to sin and darkness. In the gospel, we find hope for a renewed future. To hold on to the testimony of Jesus is to remain faithful to the gospel. It transcends mere intellectual assent, calling for total commitment. In Revelation 12, those who hold to the testimony of Jesus are targeted by the dragon (Satan) during the future [tribulation period](tribulation.html). These believers will be faithful unto death as they reject the Antichrist, keep God’s commandments, and bear witness to the truth of the gospel. This time of persecution is also predicted in Daniel 7:25, as the “little horn” on the beast will “oppress the holy people of the Most High” (NLT; see also Daniel 7:21\). Today, we hold to the testimony of Jesus when we witness to others in words and deeds. This involves evangelism, discipleship, and proper Christian conduct that arises from God’s grace. We are called to build our lives on Jesus (Matthew 7:24–25; Colossians 2:6–7\), seeking to become more like Him as the Spirit sanctifies us (Romans 8:28; 2 Corinthians 3:18\). In Revelation 12:17, keeping the testimony of Jesus is linked to keeping God’s command, showing the relationship between both in a Christian’s life. The gospel motivates us to love God by keeping His commandments. Holding to the testimony of Jesus also involves steadfastness in the face of trials. John wrote the book of Revelation to persecuted Christians, and his imagery reveals the devil as the source of this persecution. The renewed earth that God promises will be free from suffering, pain, and tears. However, in this present age we will face trials. We are called to persevere, depending on the Holy Spirit for steadiness through the storm. Our holding to the testimony of Jesus is not in vain. Not only do we find peace in trials and joy beyond circumstance, but we also walk toward a utopia only God can give.

What does “clouds without water” mean (Jude 1:12)?

Answer Scripture abounds with metaphors, allegories, and other figures of speech. For instance, in Jude 1:12, the author mentions “clouds without water” to describe false teachers who fail to deliver on their promises. To understand the significance of this expression, let us review the context of Jude 1:12\. [Jude](Jude-in-the-Bible.html), the brother of James and half\-brother of Jesus (see Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3\), addresses the ubiquity of false teachers and the consequent rise of apostates. [*Apostasy*](apostasy.html) is defined as “the abandonment or renunciation of a religious or political belief.” Apparently, many believers had abandoned the truth of the gospel to embrace the lies of false teachers. For this reason, Jude urges believers to contend for the faith (Jude 1:3–4\). In Jude 1:11, the author compares false teachers to Cain (Genesis 4:5–8\), Balaam (Numbers 22:5–7; 2 Peter 2:15\), and Korah (Numbers 16:1–3, 31–35\). That is, the false teachers are characterized by Cain’s hatred and jealousy, Balaam’s lust for selfish gain, and Korah’s rebellious spirit. Such qualities are antithetical to the gospel. Next, Jude describes false teachers as “hidden reefs at your love feasts” (Jude 1:12\). In the early church, love feasts were communal meals shared among Christians. The primary purpose of these meals was for the sake of fellowship (Acts 2:46–47; 1 Corinthians 11:17–34\). Unfortunately, false teachers had infiltrated these love feasts and lurked unnoticed, like hidden reefs, ready to shipwreck souls without warning. Here, we are reminded of Judas, who shared a meal with the Lord and His disciples, even though he had already decided to betray Christ (John 13:2, 21–30\). Although the disciples did not know who would betray the Lord, Jesus was not caught off guard by Judas’ spineless behavior. These self\-indulgent teachers “feast with \[us] without fear” (Jude 1:12\). Pretending to be “shepherds,” they feed only themselves. This is how Jesus spoke about false shepherds in John 10:12–13: “He who is a hired hand and not a shepherd, who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. He flees because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep.” Jesus, however, is the [good shepherd](Good-Shepherd.html) who lays down His life for the sheep (John 10:11, 14–15\). False teachers can also be likened to “waterless clouds” (Jude 1:12\) and “[waterless springs](wells-without-water.html)” (2 Peter 2:17\). In other words, they cannot deliver on their promises. When we see a sky full of clouds bringing the promise of a refreshing rain, we expect some moisture. When the clouds pass by without so much as a drizzle, we are disappointed. The false teachers are like those waterless clouds. They talk a good talk, but there is nothing to show for it. They promise spiritual refreshment, but none ever comes. They make a show of their knowledge and gifts, but no one benefits. The ancient word of the wise applies to them: “Like clouds and wind without rain is one who boasts of gifts never given” (Proverbs 25:14\). When people set their expectation on “waterless clouds,” they will continue in their dry and parched condition. When they drink the “water” offered by the false teachers, they “will be thirsty again” (John 4:13\). Only Jesus can provide thirst\-quenching, soul\-satisfying water unto eternal life (John 4:14\). Only He provides the showers of blessing we need. Because false teachers are disconnected from the true source of life, they are like “fruitless trees in late autumn, twice dead, uprooted” (Jude 1:12\). Conversely, genuine believers produce fruit that leads to righteousness and eternal life (Galatians 5:22–23\). So, how do we [spot false teachers](false-teachers.html)? We look at the fruit they produce (or fail to produce). We look at the clouds and the rain they give (or fail to give). That tells us everything we need to know about them (Matthew 7:15–20\).

Why should Christians be faithful until death, and what does that mean (Revelation 2:10)?

Answer In [Jesus’ letter](church-in-Smyrna.html) to the church of Smyrna, He warns the believers there that they are about to face extreme hardship, encouraging them to remain steadfast: “Do not fear any of those things which you are about to suffer. Indeed, the devil is about to throw some of you into prison, that you may be tested, and you will have tribulation ten days. Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life” (Revelation 2:10, NKJV). Christians can persevere and be faithful until death or whatever else comes their way because God is faithful and His promises sustain. In His [Olivet Discourse](Olivet-discourse.html), Jesus warned His disciples that, as the end times draw near, believers would face hatred, false teaching, a rampantly sinful culture, and persecution to the point of death (Matthew 24:9–14\). But He also promised, “The one who stands firm to the end will be saved” (Matthew 24:13\). Christians who stand firm to the end and are faithful until death show they are genuine children of God. Our salvation is not dependent on our ability to remain saved but on the One who is faithful to save us. The Lord guarantees the fulfillment of our salvation (Ephesians 1:13–14\). Revelation 2:8–11 instructs the believers at Smyrna not to fear the [persecution](Christian-persecution.html) they would suffer and calls them to be faithful until death. The call for Christians to be faithful until death does not imply that salvation can be lost if they are unfaithful. But being faithful even to the point of death does provide evidence that salvation is real. The Bible teaches that those who are born again are saved forever because God is faithful. In John 10:27–30, Jesus says, “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.” Believers are eternally secure because God is eternally faithful. Believers are sealed by the Holy Spirit until the day of redemption (Ephesians 1:13; 4:30; 2 Corinthians 1:22\) and have His power working in them to enable them to stand firm through all of life’s difficulties (Romans 14:4; Jude 1:24–25\). The Christians at Smyrna were facing intense persecution, and Jesus foretold they would face further persecution. He instructed the believers not to fear what they would suffer and called them to be faithful until death. In His earthly ministry, Jesus similarly instructed believers: “Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matthew 10:28\). People can kill the body, but no one can take away the eternal life that God has given believers. This truth fills believers with hope and gives them strength to be faithful until death. It is possible for Christians to be faithful until death and not to fear because of God’s enablement. God’s faithfulness assures us that what He promises is guaranteed (Deuteronomy 7:9; Psalm 145:13\) and strengthens us when we face hardships. Although difficulties even until death may come, Jesus promises to never leave us nor forsake us. He also tenderly cares for us (see Matthew 10:29–31\). Ultimately, God promises to give believers life as their victor’s crown (Revelation 2:10\). Jesus promised us abundant life for now (John 10:10\) and eternal life in the future. These promises, tied to God’s faithfulness, fuel Christians to be faithful until death. As Christians we are not promised to be kept from persecution or difficulty, but we are promised to be kept in and through it. God is faithful; therefore, we, His people, can be faithful until death. Because of God’s faithful promises to us, we can say, “I will not fear; what can man do to me?” no matter what we face (Hebrews 13:5–6\).

What does it mean that all things were now accomplished (John 19:28)?

Answer John 19:28 says, “After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, ‘I thirst’” (KJV). The Greek word translated as “accomplished” means “finished,” which is how the ESV translates the word. In fact, two verses later, Jesus utters the words “[It is finished](it-is-finished.html)” (verse 30\). In both instances, the idea is that Jesus accomplished, finished, and completed His earthly assignment: “The Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Matthew 20:28, ESV). To appreciate the depth of His sacrifice, we must review the context of John 19:28–30\. Returning to John 19:28, we read, “After this, Jesus, knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, ‘I thirst’” (KJV). Here, the word *know* indicates awareness of (and submission to) the Father’s will: “I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me” (John 6:38, ESV). On the cross, Jesus knew that His imminent death signified the completion of the Father’s redemptive plan. This does not mean that there is nothing else to be fulfilled now, but that everything up to that point was designed to fulfill both the Father’s will and Old Testament prophecies about the Suffering Messiah (see Isaiah 53\). The inhumane and unimaginable suffering that Jesus endured for our sins caused Him to become dehydrated. For this reason, Jesus said, “I thirst” (John 19:28\). Here, John explains to his readers that Jesus’ thirst was so Scripture might be fulfilled. This does not suggest that Jesus only said He was thirsty because He wanted Scripture to be fulfilled. To the contrary, it means that Jesus understood the relevance of the messianic prophecies to Himself (cf. John 5:39\). For example, in Psalm 22:15, the psalmist says, “My strength is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue sticks to my jaws; you lay me in the dust of death” (ESV). And in Psalm 69:21, the psalmist says, “They gave me poison for food, and for my thirst they gave me sour wine to drink” (ESV). The mention of “sour wine” both in Psalm 69:21 and John 19:30 indicates a strong connection between both passages. John 19:29–30 continues this fulfillment theme: “A jar full of sour wine stood there, so they put a sponge full of the sour wine on a [hyssop branch](hyssop-Bible.html) and held it to his mouth. When Jesus had received the sour wine, he said, ‘It is finished,’ and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit” (ESV). In Exodus 12:22, hyssop was sprinkled above doorposts during Passover. So, it seems that John wants his readers to see a connection between the first Passover and “the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29\). The price and penalty for our sins have been paid in full. This is primarily what Jesus means when He says, “It is finished.” In John’s Gospel, especially in John 19:28–30, Jesus is consistently presented not as a helpless victim but as the exemplar of self\-conscious obedience to the Father. Jesus had earlier explained that “the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father” (John 10:17–18, ESV; see also John 14:31\).

What is a mourner’s bench?

Answer Joy is at the heart of salvation (Psalm 13:5\). Yet mourning over sin is an important part of repentance, which, with faith, is central to responding to the gospel of Jesus Christ (Mark 1:15; Acts 20:21\). Related to mourning or sorrow over sin, the apostle Paul taught that there are two different kinds of sorrow (2 Corinthians 7:10\). The first kind is godly, purposeful, and leads to [repentance](repentance.html) and salvation. The second kind of sorrow is worldly and pointless and leads to death. The mourner’s bench is intended to evoke the first kind of sorrow by giving a person a special place to sit and sorrow over his or her sin. Mourner’s benches are commonly found in church sanctuaries and tent meetings. They vary in shape and size, ranging from conventional designs like long seats accommodating three to five people, to a row of chairs. Strategically placed near the front of the congregation, these benches aim to focus a mourner on God’s presence and ensure that clergy and other spiritual leaders are readily available to counsel and pray with those sitting there. Another distinct design of a mourner’s bench consists of a row\-length wooden seat, usually elevated a few feet off the ground and running parallel to the altar at the front of the sanctuary or tent. This type of long bench, designed for kneeling at rather than sitting on, accommodates several people on both sides, enabling people to be near other mourners for support. Those who advocate using a mourning bench believe it helps people to obey the Bible’s instructions about sorrowing over their transgressions. For example, James 4:9 tells people to be miserable over their sin: “Be wretched and mourn and weep. Let your laughter be turned to mourning and your joy to gloom” (ESV, cf. Isaiah 22:12\). Job adds that sorrowing over sin has a larger purpose—turning away from transgression: “Therefore I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes” (Job 42:6\). Importantly, David conveys that those who undertake the challenging task of mourning are giving God an acceptable offering: “The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise” (Psalm 51:17\). Mourning benches gained popularity during the [Second Great Awakening](First-Second-Great-Awakening.html) in the United States (1790—1840\). Many preachers and evangelists at that time believed mourning benches were effective in encouraging people to acknowledge their sin and respond to the gospel message in faith. [Charles Finney](Charles-Finney.html) (1792—1875\), a prominent 19th\-century Christian minister, is the historical figure most associated with the mourner’s bench. Finney, who preferred the term *anxious bench* to emphasize conviction of sin, used the seat to prompt an immediate action in response to the gospel. Churches with a mourner’s bench often have roots in the revival meetings that popularized it, such as churches associated with the [Holiness Movement](Holiness-movement.html). Some Christians avoid the use of a mourner’s bench in the church, arguing that it could lead to exploiting a person’s feelings and even result in disingenuous conversions. Critics further contend that emotional individuals sitting near the front of the sanctuary could distract other worshipers. According to this perspective, mournful introspection should be a private matter between an individual and God, rather than be a public spectacle for others to observe. Though sin separates people from God (Romans 6:23\), Jesus promises God’s presence and compassion to those who genuinely sorrow over their transgressions: “Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted” (Matthew 5:4\). Sorrow over one’s sin is the first step toward repentance, leading to transformative change. For some Christians, both historically and today, a mourner’s bench has played an important role in their conversion to Christianity and in their pursuit of Christlikeness.

Who wrote the book of 2 Peter? Who was the author of 2 Peter?

Answer Similar to many of the New Testament Epistles, the [book of 2 Peter](Book-of-2-Peter.html) begins with the author’s name: “Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 1:1\). Some manuscripts contain the Hebrew form of Simon’s name, *Simeon*, but, either way, the author identifies himself as the person we know as the apostle Peter. James calls him “Simeon” in Acts 15:14 (ESV). Initially, the recipients of the letter are broadly described as “those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus have received a faith as precious as ours.” However, 2 Peter 3:1 clarifies that the intended audience is the same as that of 1 Peter: “Dear friends, this is now my second letter to you. I have written both of them as reminders to stimulate you to wholesome thinking.” [Peter](life-Peter.html) likely wrote the second letter in Rome, close to his martyrdom at the hands of [Emperor Nero](who-was-Nero.html). Apparently, unbelieving scoffers had emerged within the churches, denying Christ’s second coming and living immoral lives (2 Peter 3:3–6\). In response, Peter addresses the apparent delay of the second coming, attributing it to God’s timing and mercy (verses 8–9\). Peter references Paul’s letters, indicating that, when Peter wrote 2 Peter, at least some Pauline Epistles were already in circulation (2 Peter 3:15–16\). Peter’s martyrdom occurred around AD 68, placing the letter’s composition between AD 65 and 68\. While some critics date the letter after Peter’s death and argue for pseudonymity, the evidence leans toward the traditional view that the letter is indeed Peter’s composition. Besides identifying himself in the salutation, Peter also recounts the transfiguration (2 Peter 1:16–18; cf. Matthew 17:1–8\) and alludes to his death (verses 14–15\). Early church fathers such as [Origen](Origen-of-Alexandria.html) also affirmed the epistle’s authenticity, and “there are allusions and quotations from 2 Peter by some of the early church writers, including Aristides, [Justin Martyr](Justin-Martyr.html), [Irenaeus](Irenaeus-of-Lyons.html), [Ignatius](Ignatius-of-Antioch.html), and [Clement of Rome](Clement-of-Rome.html)” (McGee, J. Vernon. *Thru the Bible Commentary*, Vol. 55: 2 Peter, Thomas Nelson Pub., 1991\).. The book of 2 Peter is thematically related to the [book of Jude](Book-of-Jude.html). One author obviously had access to the other’s work, or they drew from a similar source. Some scholars surmise that Peter and Jude were partners in the ministry and they collaborated in the writing of both epistles. That theory is plausible. Both epistles confront false teaching, sometimes with similar wording, and both mention fallen angels, Balaam, Sodom and Gomorrah, and the final judgment. In the New Testament canon, the book of 2 Peter has faced its share of skepticism. Some Christian figures like [Eusebius](Eusebius-of-Caesarea.html) expressed doubt at the authenticity of the book, but it eventually gained widespread acceptance. Second Peter is a short book, containing only three chapters. However, its teachings reverberate beyond its initial recipients, reminding all believers of every age of the end times and the godly lives we’re called to live as we await the fulfillment of God’s plan. Modern Christianity also struggles with scoffers who deny core aspects of the faith, even within the church. Peter’s remedy is simple: hold on to God’s Word.

Who wrote the book of Malachi? Who was the author of Malachi?

Answer The [book of Malachi](Book-of-Malachi.html) was written by the prophet Malachi. It is the final book in the Christian Old Testament, and it is often cited in conversations surrounding divorce and tithing. In the Tanakh, it concludes the [*Neviim* (“Prophets”)](prophetic-books-Neviim.html) section and the collection of the Minor Prophets, though it is not the final book of the Tanakh. Malachi’s themes go beyond divorce and tithing, offering insight into the spiritual state of the Israelites after their return from Babylon. The initial zeal during Nehemiah and Ezra’s day gave way to apathy, corruption, and detestable practices among God’s people. The Israelites also questioned God’s love because they haven’t received the promises they expected to get (Malachi 1:2–3\). In this challenging scenario, Malachi pronounced judgment, urged repentance, and proclaimed future hope. It is significant that his name means “messenger,” as he was the last prophet before the [intertestamental period](intertestamental-period.html). The superscription attributes the words to Malachi, but little is known about the prophet himself. Unlike other prophets, Malachi provides no family ties, geographical location, or ruling leader. Due to this lack of information, scholars debate Malachi’s identity. Some argue that *Malachi* is either a pen name or a title since the name means “messenger.” Jewish tradition suggests Ezra the scribe wrote the book under the pen name. If that is accurate, then the book was written either soon after the reconstructed temple or later, when Ezra aged. There are similarities between the issues addressed in Ezra and Malachi that contribute to this view. However, when compared to other prophetic literature, the superscription seems to indicate that Malachi is a real name, as the use of pen names was rare in prophetic works. Ezra, in his eponymous work, did not use a pen name. Therefore, it is more probable that Malachi was a historical figure, though information on him is limited. Malachi employs a unique rhetorical style, presenting his messages as a series of disputes and responses. The prophet makes a declaration, envisions an objection, and responds accordingly. The first dispute (Malachi 1:2–5\) addresses Israel’s skepticism of God’s love. The second confronts improper religious practices (Malachi 1:6–9\). The third dispute (Malachi 2:10–16\) addresses men who mistreated their wives and those who married idolatrous women. The pattern of dispute\-and\-response continues as Malachi addresses Israel’s accusing God of neglect (Malachi 2:17—3:5\), their selfishness reflected in the refusal to tithe (Malachi 3:6–12\), and their complaints over the apparent success of evil people (Malachi 3:13–18\). In the concluding passages, Malachi touches on the [day of the Lord](day-of-the-Lord.html), a theme consistent with other prophets. This day is terrifying for evildoers but a source of joy for the faithful remnant. As the book of Malachi draws to a close, God promises, “See, I will send the prophet Elijah to you before that great and dreadful day of the Lord comes” (‭‭‭‭Malachi‬ ‭4:5‬). Jesus identifies this prophet as John the Baptist, who paved the way for the Messiah (Matthew 11:13–14; 17:10–13; Mark 9:11–13\). ‬‬‬‬‬

What is a seeker?

Answer The term *seeker* is used to identify someone who attends church but isn’t a Christian. Churches that tailor the elements of their worship services to reach non\-Christians are sometimes called “[seeker\-sensitive](seeker-sensitive-church.html).” Advocates of this terminology argue that the label *seeker* conveys a positive and optimistic perspective of non\-Christians as opposed to terms that identify them only by their lack of faith, such as *unbelievers*. While each seeker has a unique backstory and reason for attending church, research suggests that many have similar experiences and perspectives. Some seekers have had negative experiences with Christians or churches, while others are skeptical of what some call “organized religion” or the “institutional church.” Additionally, many seekers find traditional elements of church services like sermons and hymns outdated or off\-putting. To reach seekers with the gospel, some churches have transformed their worship services—especially their preaching and music. Preaching that is sensitive to seekers often employs methods that its advocates believe effectively resonate with such attendees. Unlike traditional services that may feature [expository preaching](expository-preaching.html), which seeks to interpret and explain a passage of Scripture, many seeker\-sensitive services include topical messages that focus more on individual empowerment than on doctrine. These messages, purposefully devoid of rich theological reflection, aim to address individual concerns known as “felt needs.” For example, seeker\-sensitive preaching might cover topics like personal finance or parenting, rather than original sin or Jesus being the only way to heaven. Another characteristic of seeker\-sensitive services is the transformation of music and sanctuary lighting to align with contemporary trends. This includes replacing traditional choirs with worship bands, hymns with praise choruses, and organs with electric guitars and drums. Song lyrics are projected onto large screens, eliminating the need for hymnals. Additionally, the lighting over the congregation is dimmed, while the front of the sanctuary is illuminated, mimicking the atmosphere found in live entertainment events. Prioritizing sensitivity to seekers has led to transformations in other aspects of church life as well, such as dress, seating, and financial giving. In seeker\-sensitive ministries, clergy attire often mirrors contemporary fashion, with jeans, sneakers, and casual shirts replacing suits and ties. Additionally, many churches have swapped wooden pews for padded chairs to improve comfort. Furthermore, the integration of modern technological conveniences into church practices is evident, such as utilizing smartphone apps for financial giving instead of passing an offering plate. Modernizing elements of worship services were once distinctive markers of the seeker\-sensitive movement. Today, however, these practices have become commonplace in many churches, extending well beyond those calling themselves seeker\-sensitive. Churches have contemplated how to communicate with “seekers,” or non\-Christian visitors, since the first century. The apostle Paul mentioned the presence of non\-Christians at worship services in Corinth. He advised the church to prioritize prophecy over speaking in tongues so that non\-Christians in the service would understand: “If, therefore, the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are out of your minds? But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or outsider enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all” (1 Corinthians 14:23–24, ESV). Despite Paul’s instructions, the topic of how best to accommodate non\-Christians in worship services has sparked considerable debate among Christians today. The core of the disagreement lies in differing views on what sensitivity to non\-Christians should entail and how much church services should focus on appealing to such visitors. Those who argue that church services should target seekers emphasize hospitality and evangelizing the lost (Romans 12:13; Matthew 28:19–20\). Alternatively, proponents of services aimed at edifying Christians highlight the importance of not compromising the gospel or diluting biblical teaching (Galatians 1:6–7; 2 Corinthians 11:4\). The seeker\-sensitive approach to ministry is rooted in the mid\-20th century church\-growth movement. Robert Schuller’s focus on positive preaching at the Crystal Cathedral is often seen as a precursor to the felt\-needs approach to ministry, though Bill Hybels of [Willow Creek Community Church](Willow-Creek.html) is regarded as the pioneer of the seeker\-sensitive movement. Other notable leaders include pastors Rick Warren, Andy Stanley, and Joel Osteen. All followers of Jesus who are committed to obeying His instructions are dedicated to making disciples of all nations (Matthew 28:19–20; Acts 1:8\). However, they sometimes disagree about the most effective methods for persuading non\-Christians to follow Jesus and the role that church worship services should play in this endeavor. Nevertheless, if churches with varying approaches to evangelism share Paul’s heart for unbelievers (see Romans 10:1\), there is optimism that seekers will hear the gospel and have a chance to respond to it, whether inside or outside of a church.

What does it mean that lawlessness will be increased in the end times (Matthew 24:12)?

Answer In Matthew 24:12, Jesus provides His disciples with an overview of the [end times](end-times.html). He says, “And because lawlessness will be increased, the love of many will grow cold” (ESV). This verse is part of a larger discussion of the end times; the passage is often referred to as the [Olivet Discourse](Olivet-discourse.html). After leaving the temple (Matthew 24:1\), Jesus went and sat on the Mount of Olives (verse 3\). At this point, His disciples go to Him in private and ask, “When will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?” In response, Jesus gives an overview of things to come. First, Jesus warns His disciples about deception. He says, “See that no one leads you astray. For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and they will lead many astray” (Matthew 24:4–5, ESV). Next, Jesus speaks about wars, rumors of wars, famines, and earthquakes (Matthew 24:6–7\). Though we may be startled by these events, Jesus assures us that “these are but the beginning of the birth pains” (verse 8, ESV). The expression *birth pains* refers to a period of suffering prior to the return of Christ. The apostle Paul uses a similar expression in Romans 8:22–23: “We know that the whole creation has been groaning in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies” (ESV). Old Testament prophets also used the metaphor of birth pains to describe general suffering (see Isaiah 13:8; Jeremiah 30:5–7\) and specific suffering (see Isaiah 26:17; Micah 4:9–10\). Whether general or specific, the “birth pains” the earth will experience signal the beginning of a process that will culminate with the return of Christ. As the discourse continues, Jesus speaks about the persecution that His disciples will face. He says, “They will deliver you up to tribulation and put you to death, and you will be hated by all nations for my name’s sake. And then many will fall away and betray one another and hate one another. And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray” (Matthew 24:9–11, ESV). Tribulation, death, hatred, and [apostasy](apostasy.html) are signs that the end is near. Lawlessness, Jesus says, is the word to describe this period (verse 12\). When Jesus says, “And because lawlessness will be increased, the love of many will grow cold,” He is speaking of moral decadence. In the last days, there will be a decline or decay in moral standards and values. God’s holy and righteous standard for living will be spurned. Instead of following God’s standard, sinful humanity will follow their own way. Lawlessness and wickedness will increase. Paul also sounded the warning about “terrible times in the last days” (2 Timothy 3:1\). He expounded on the lawlessness of that future time: “People will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self\-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God” (2 Timothy 3:2–4, ESV). Unsurprisingly, love for God and neighbor—the two greatest commandments—will grow cold. This is the result of rampant and unmitigated lawlessness. Amid this bleak outlook, Jesus shines a light of hope. Indeed, He is the only hope. He says, “The one who endures to the end will be saved” (Matthew 24:13, ESV). Those who [endure to the end](endures-to-the-end-saved.html) will persevere in the face of persecution, false teaching, and unrestrained wickedness. They are the ones whose love does *not* grow cold. They are truly born again; they are sealed, and their lives are transformed by the Holy Spirit of power.

What are the pangs of Sheol in Psalm 116:3?

Answer Psalm 116, one of the [Hallel Psalms](Hallel-Psalms.html), is a prayer of thanksgiving and praise in which the psalmist reflects on God’s healing deliverance from a life\-threatening illness. He describes his agonizing ordeal in the throes of death: “The snares of death encompassed me; the pangs of Sheol laid hold on me; I suffered distress and anguish” (Psalm 116:3, ESV). In the original Hebrew language, the word for “pang” means “an oppressive state of physical, mental, social, or economic adversity, distress, affliction, or anguish.” This word appears only in two other verses in the Bible: Psalm 118:5 and Lamentations 1:3\. [*Sheol*](sheol-hades-hell.html) is a transliterated Hebrew term used to refer to “the grave, the pit, or the tomb.” In Scripture, *Sheol* applies to the underworld or the realm of the dead (see Job 14:13; 1 Kings 2:6\). Some older Bible translations incorrectly translate *Sheol* as “hell.” Psalm 89:48 asks, “What man can live and never see death? Who can deliver his soul from the power of Sheol?” (ESV). Death is the destiny of every person, but hell is not. The New Testament equivalent to *Sheol* is *hades* (Greek), which also refers to “the place of the dead.” The psalmist’s torment is so great that he believes the underworld has come to claim him. The ESV speaks of “the pangs of Sheol”; other translations have “the anguish of the grave” (NIV), “the terrors of the grave” (NLT), and “the horrors of the grave” (GW). In his terrified frame of mind and tormented physical state, the psalmist is convinced that his hour of death has arrived. Later, he declares, “For you, Lord, have delivered me from death, my eyes from tears, my feet from stumbling” (Psalm 116:8\). While an ancient Hebrew cantor might say, “The snares of death encompassed me; the pangs of Sheol laid hold on me,” a modern\-day worshiper may sing, “Death stared me in the face, hell was hard on my heels” (The Message), or “I was wound in the wrappings of death; the terror of dying and the grave had a grip on me” (The Voice). One thing is sure: the psalmist was convinced he was as good as dead before the Lord saved and delivered him. In the New Testament, Peter refers to “the pangs of death” in connection with Christ’s resurrection: “God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it” (Acts 2:24, ESV). Since Jesus Christ is the resurrection and life (John 14:6, 25\), death and the underworld have no hold on Him and no power to defeat Him.

What is the meaning of “we speak of what we know” in John 3:11?

Answer In John 3:11, Jesus says, “Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know, and bear witness to what we have seen, but you do not receive our testimony” (ESV). We will begin with a consideration of the immediate context of John 3:1–15\. Nicodemus, a [Pharisee](Pharisees.html) and a member of the Sanhedrin, comes to Jesus at night (John 3:1\). In John’s Gospel, the word *night* often has moral and spiritual overtones (John 9:4; 11:10; 13:30\). While it is doubtless that Nicodemus went to Jesus after sundown, it is equally true that Nicodemus was in spiritual darkness. This is why Nicodemus saw Jesus as “a teacher who has come from God” (John 3:2\) and not as “the Messiah, the Son of God” (John 20:31\). So, Jesus shifts the conversation to the necessity of spiritual regeneration: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is [born again](born-again.html), he cannot see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3, ESV). The words for “born again” can also be translated as “born from above.” Either translation is sufficient. The idea is that God must impart life to spiritually dead people before they can see or enter His kingdom (cf. John 6:44\). Unsurprisingly, [Nicodemus](Nicodemus-in-the-Bible.html) cannot understand Jesus’ words: “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” (John 3:4\). Even when Jesus restates the truth (John 3:5–8\), Nicodemus still does not understand (verses 9–10\). This brief review of John 3:1–10 lays the groundwork for Jesus’ statement that “we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony” in verse 11\. Perhaps most puzzling is Jesus’ repeated use of the word *we*. Who is the “we” that Jesus says speaks and testifies? Some scholars have postulated that Jesus is talking about the knowledge and testimony of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (see 1 John 5:7\). Others interpret the “we” (John 3:11\) in a royal sense, assuming it to be a rhetorical device whereby Jesus communicates His divine authority to speak on heavenly matters (verse 13; cf. 5:19–29\). The plural *we* (John 3:11\) could also be a counter to the “we” Nicodemus used in verse 2: “We know that you are a teacher who has come from God.” Or Jesus could have been referring to His disciples or John the Baptist, who was also involved in preaching. In any case, there is a contrast between Jesus’ omniscience (and authority) and Nicodemus’ limited, earthly perspective: “If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things?” (John 3:12, ESV). *Earthly things* probably refers to Jesus’ teaching on the new birth (see John 3:3, 5\), which takes place in the here and now and extends into eternity future. Jesus’ testimony about earthly and heavenly things is not based on human wisdom or speculation, but on firsthand knowledge of spiritual truths: “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise” (John 5:19, ESV). When Jesus said, “We speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen,” He was assuring Nicodemus that everything Jesus taught was of the greatest certainty. Jesus spoke nothing but was backed up by His own knowledge and personal observation. He was an expert on spiritual matters. Unfortunately, many people do not accept Jesus’ testimony (John 3:11\). Based on Jesus’ discussion with Nicodemus, it should be clear that people do not reject Jesus on intellectual grounds alone. No, they reject Him because of the darkness in their hearts (John 3:19\). This all\-encompassing darkness prevents sinners from seeing the light of truth even when it is staring them in the face.

Who wrote the book of Hosea? Who was the author of Hosea?

Answer The author of [Hosea](Book-of-Hosea.html) is identified within the opening line of the book: “The word of the Lord that came to Hosea son of Beeri . . .” (Hosea 1:1\). In the New Testament, the apostle Paul further supports Hosea’s authorship by referencing Hosea by name in Romans 9:25–26, quoting Hosea 1:10 and Hosea 2:23\. The [prophet Hosea](Hosea-in-the-Bible.html), whose name means “salvation,” ministered for 60 or 70 years in the northern kingdom of Israel, but little more is known of his background. He was a contemporary of both Isaiah and Micah. Following God’s direction, Hosea married Gomer, a prostitute (Hosea 1:2–3\). His marriage and the resultant offspring served as an illustration of the troubling relationship between God and the Israelites. The book of Hosea is the initial book of the Minor Prophets. Hosea addresses the northern kingdom of Israel, passionately calling its inhabitants to repentance. The kingdom succumbed to Assyria in 722 BC, a sad indication that the warnings of the prophets fell on deaf ears and hardened hearts. God’s impartial justice is seen in the judgment of His own people, but all is not lost. Using human marriage as a metaphor, the book of Hosea conveys messages of hope and restoration. God’s faithfulness endures amid rebellion and unrepentance. While scholars generally accept Hosea as the author, debates exist regarding the possibility of later additions by Hosea’s disciples. Contested passages include Hosea 11:8–11 and 14:2–9\. Some consider these words of salvation to be a late insertion. However, a closer examination of prophetic literature reveals that prophets often proclaim future blessings amidst warnings of judgment (see Isaiah 9:6–7; Jeremiah 23:5–6; Joel 2:28–32\). Critics also highlight Hosea’s mention of Judah’s kings instead of Israelites kings as inconsistent with an Israelite prophet (Hosea 1:1\). Nevertheless, it is plausible that Hosea included the kings of Judah as a nod to the Davidic lineage. Hosea’s uniqueness lies in the integration of his personal life with his prophecies, emphasizing that Scripture should not be confined to abstract contemplation but should profoundly impact our lives. We are also offered a picture of God’s faithfulness despite the faithlessness of His people, ultimately displayed when Jesus laid down His life for the world.

What is the new man in Colossians 3:10?

Answer In Colossians 3:5–11, the apostle Paul lists several vices believers are to “put off,” as if taking off items of clothing: “sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry” (verse 5\), and “anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language” (verse 5\). These sins belong to our old “earthly nature” (verse 5\). Finally, Paul says, “Do not lie to one another, since you have [put off the old man](put-off-the-old-man.html) with his deeds, and have put on the new man who is renewed in knowledge according to the image of Him who created him, where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all and in all” (verses 9–11, NKJV). The new man is the newly regenerated spiritual nature of the born\-again Christian. It is the inner self made alive in Jesus Christ and, after that, being renewed by the power of the Holy Spirit day by day (2 Corinthians 4:16; Romans 7:22; Ephesians 3:16\). As we see in Colossians 3:11, the new man is not merely who we are becoming as individual Christians but the collective person we, as members of the [body of Christ](body-of-Christ.html), are becoming together in Him, who is “all and in all.” Paul uses the imagery of changing one’s clothes to illustrate the Lord’s transformative work of recreating believers into His own image: “But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to fulfill its lusts” (Romans 13:14, NKJV; see also Galatians 3:27\). Citing Genesis 2:7, Paul expounds, “‘The first man, Adam, became a living person.’ But the last Adam—that is, Christ—is a life\-giving Spirit” (1 Corinthians 15:45, NLT). Jesus is the new man, the last Adam. Ultimately, the freshly created community of born\-again believers, being renewed into His image, is the new man: “This means that anyone who belongs to Christ has become a new person. The old life is gone; a new life has begun!” (2 Corinthians 5:17, NLT). The Bible teaches that humans were created in God’s image (Genesis 1:26–27; 5:1\). When Adam sinned, the perfect image of God in us was deformed or ruined by sin (Genesis 3:1–24; Romans 1:21; 3:23\). The fall separated humankind from God (Isaiah 59:2; Ephesians 4:18; Colossians 1:21\) and brought death into the world (Romans 5:12\). Nevertheless, humans still bear God’s image (Genesis 9:6; James 3:9\). Thankfully, through Jesus Christ and the new life believers receive in Him, our fallen, sinful natures can be recreated anew into God’s image (Colossians 1:22; Ephesians 5:27; Hebrews 10:14\). Conforming to the new man is God’s purpose for our lives in Jesus Christ: “For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters” (Romans 8:29; see also 1 Corinthians 1:2\). Becoming the new man begins at the cross, when we accept Christ’s gift of salvation (1 Corinthians 6:11; Ephesians 2:13\). Before salvation, we were “dead because of \[our] sins and because of \[our] sinful nature,” but then “God made \[us] alive with Christ, for he forgave all our sin” (Colossians 2:13, NLT). Our old man—our unregenerated, sinful selves—was crucified, died, and buried with Christ. Our new man is raised to new life in Christ (1 Corinthians 6:11; Romans 6:4–6; Galatians 2:20\). From then on, the process of [sanctification](sanctified.html), or internal transformation, continues for the rest of our lives on earth. The Holy Spirit begins to renew our minds, thoughts, and attitudes, changing us and shaping us to be more like Jesus (Romans 12:2; Ephesians 4:23; 2 Corinthians 3:18\). As we spend time in the Lord’s presence, growing in the grace and knowledge of Him and studying His Word, we become “in every way more and more like Christ, who is the head of his body, the church” (Ephesians 4:15, NLT; see also John 17:17; Ephesians 5:25–26; 2 Timothy 3:16\). Becoming the new man is a lifelong process “until Christ is fully developed in \[our] lives” (Galatians 4:19, NLT). It is the goal we should always be pressing toward by the power of the Holy Spirit, throwing off the old man’s clothes and putting on the garments of the new man (Philippians 3:12; Ephesians 4:13; Hebrews 6:1\). Only when we stand face to face with Jesus in eternity will our metamorphosis into the new man be complete (1 John 3:2–3; Philippians 3:21; Hebrews 12:23; 2 Peter 1:4; Jude 1:24\).

What does it mean to glorify God in your body (1 Corinthians 6:20)?

Answer In a broader teaching about [holiness](holiness-Bible.html) and maintaining a Christian testimony in the world, the apostle Paul turns to the subject of sexual sin (1 Corinthians 6:12–20\). He reminds the believers in Corinth that their physical bodies belong to the Lord (verse 10\). As Christians, our “bodies are members of Christ himself” (verse 15\) and “temples of the Holy Spirit” (verse 19\). “You are not your own,” Paul concludes, “For you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body” (1 Corinthians 6:19–20, ESV). The English verb *glorify* in 1 Corinthians 6:20 is translated from the Greek term *doxazō*, which means “to honor; to positively acknowledge, recognize, or esteem one’s character, nature, or attributes.” Paul presses Christians to honor and acknowledge everything they know about God’s holy character with their human bodies. God desires our actions and behaviors to emulate His holiness in everything we do. Ancient Corinth was notorious for being a center of [prostitution](prostitution-Bible.html). The practice was generally accepted as a social convention and intermingled with pagan worship. Worshipers believed they could appease pagan gods and receive blessings and good fortune if they joined in ritual sex acts with temple prostitutes. Some church members, who were not yet renewed in their minds (see Romans 12:2\), persisted in such practices. Therefore, Paul set about correcting their worldly thinking about prostitution and other forms of sexual immorality. In no uncertain terms, Paul insisted, “Run from sexual sin! No other sin so clearly affects the body as this one does. For sexual immorality is a sin against your own body” (1 Corinthians 6:18, NLT). Paul gave his pastoral trainee Timothy similar instructions to “run from anything that stimulates youthful lusts. Instead, pursue righteous living” (2 Timothy 2:22, NLT). At salvation, believers are united with Christ (Ephesians 5:31–32\). They belong to Jesus and are bound to Him in a covenant relationship that is more intimate and enduring than marriage (1 Corinthians 6:17\). The Holy Spirit “moves in,” indwelling and transforming the believer’s body into a sacred place, a home for God’s holy presence (Hebrews 10:10\). In union with Christ, we receive a new nature and identity (2 Corinthians 5:17\). If a believer engages in [sexual immorality](sexual-immorality.html), he or she violates that new creation, which was purchased at a very high price, the blood of the sacrificed Lamb of God (1 Corinthians 7:23; Acts 20:28; Hebrews 9:12, 14; 1 Peter 1:18–19\). Sexual sin takes the believer’s body—which has been joined in holy union with Christ through the Holy Spirit—and dishonors it. It violates our spiritual union with Christ because sexual immorality disregards His divine character, nature, and attributes. It is like dragging our Savior through a filthy gutter or into a brothel. Instead, Paul writes, “Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship” (Romans 12:1\). Glorifying God in your body means doing your best to avoid sin, offering yourself up in sacrifice, dying to self, and making sure everything you do is holy and pleasing to Him (Romans 6:1–7, 11–14; 13:12–14; Galatians 5:24; Colossians 3:5; 1 Peter 2:11; 5:8–9; James 1:21\). God the Father created our bodies; Jesus, His Son, redeemed us and made our bodies members of His own body; the Holy Spirit dwells in us and makes our bodies His [temple](body-temple-Holy-Spirit.html). If we truly grab hold of this truth, as Paul did (see Philippians 1:20–21; Romans 14:8\), we will glorify God in our bodies. We glorify God in our bodies by honoring Him in the way we live and consequently revealing who He is to the world (1 Corinthians 10:31; Romans 4:20; 2 Thessalonians 1:11–12; 1 Peter 2:12\). We honor Him when we serve others with our spiritual gifts (2 Thessalonians 1:11–12\), when we do good deeds that bear much fruit (John 15:8; Matthew 5:16\), when we live by the Spirit, displaying love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self\-control (Galatians 5:22–26; Philippians 1:9–11\), and when we do God’s will on earth (Hebrews 13:20–21\).

What does it mean that everything created by God is good (1 Timothy 4:4)?

Answer The apostle Paul was Timothy’s pastoral mentor (1 Timothy 1:2\). He wrote letters to Timothy to help guide him in ministry and, specifically, to deal with false teachers undermining the church in Ephesus. Paul’s emphasis in 1 Timothy 4 was maintaining the truth of God’s Word. False teachers were propagating a [legalistic religious system](Bible-Christian-legalism.html) that forbade marriage and forced people “to abstain from certain foods” to earn God’s approval (1 Timothy 4:3\). Paul countered this false doctrine with the truth—that God created marriage, and food is “to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer” (verses 3–5\). The false teachers in Ephesus were blending Eastern [asceticism](Christian-asceticism-monasticism.html) with Jewish dietary laws, creating a works\-based approach to righteousness. They believed that holiness could only be achieved through abstinence. Paul had confronted similar false teachings in Colossians 2:8–23 and Romans 14:13–23\. His affirmation in 1 Timothy 4:4 that “everything created by God is good” takes readers back to the creation account in Genesis 1, where God saw His creative works and seven times declared them to be good. The word translated in 1 Timothy 4:4 as “good” (*kalon* in the original Greek) means “having desirable or positive qualities, especially those suitable for a specified thing.” This definition implies that everything created by God has a purpose or function and is beneficial for fulfilling the intent for which He designed it. The false teachers asserted that a life of singleness—of abstinence from sex—was a more spiritual path than marriage. However, Paul endorsed marriage, informing Timothy that church leaders should cultivate a godly marriage (1 Timothy 3:2, 12\). God Himself ordained marriage, saying, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him” (Genesis 2:18; see also Genesis 2:24\). Jesus sanctioned marriage as part of God’s plan for humanity (Matthew 19:1–9\), but He also considered singleness a gift and calling. Some people are gifted by God to remain single, while others are called to marry (Matthew 19:10–12; see also 1 Corinthians 7:7, 9; Jeremiah 16:2; 1 Timothy 5:11–14\). Paul also told Timothy, “Everything created by God is good,” to counter the false teacher’s insistence on rejecting or abstaining from certain foods. Paul taught the Corinthians, “It’s true that we can’t win God’s approval by what we eat. We don’t lose anything if we don’t eat it, and we don’t gain anything if we do” (1 Corinthians 8:8, NLT). He told the Romans, “I know and am convinced on the authority of the Lord Jesus that no food, in and of itself, is wrong to eat” (Romans 14:14, NLT). Jesus affirmed that “nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them” (Mark 7:18\). What defiles a person is what is on the inside—the condition of a person’s heart. Legalism contradicts the gospel and only deals with external matters. No one can be made holy or righteous in God’s sight through abstinence or by obeying manufactured rules and laws (Romans 3:20; 9:31–32; Galatians 3:10–11\). Only the touch of God on a person’s heart can purify him and make him right with God (Psalm 51:1–10; Romans 10:10\). Only through faith in Jesus Christ and the forgiveness and cleansing offered through the sacrifice of His body on the cross can we be made holy (John 17:19; Ephesians 5:25–27; Romans 3:28; Hebrews 13:12\). Along with many other gifts, God created sexual fulfillment within marriage, and He gives us food to enjoy (Song of Solomon 4:3–15; 1 Corinthians 7:4–5; Ecclesiastes 3:13\). Scripture attests to these truths. God’s Word and our grateful prayers consecrate everything created by God as good and suitable for His purposes. We must not reject these things but receive “every good and perfect gift from above” (James 1:17\) with thankfulness and prayer.

Who wrote the book of Habakkuk? Who was the author of Habakkuk?

Answer The prophet Habakkuk wrote the [book of Habakkuk](Book-of-Habakkuk.html), a brief prophetic work consisting of three chapters. Because of its length, it is grouped with the Minor Prophets in the Old Testament. In the Jewish canon, Habakkuk is grouped with other prophets in a collection known as the Twelve. The book unfolds as an intense dialogue between the prophet Habakkuk and God, addressing questions Christians and skeptics both ask: “How long, Lord, must I call for help, but you do not listen? Or cry out to you, ‘Violence!’ but you do not save? Why do you make me look at injustice? Why do you tolerate wrongdoing? Destruction and violence are before me; there is strife, and conflict abounds” (Habakkuk 1:2–3\). God hears Habakkuk’s complaints and assures him that He will raise the Babylonians to judge the evil that Habakkuk sees around him (Habakkuk 1:5–11\). That answer gives rise to another question: how can God use wicked Babylon to punish His own people? (verses 12–17\), and so the pattern of complaint\-and\-response continues. The book of Habakkuk exposes the depth of Israel’s wickedness, tackles the problem of God’s apparent silence in the face of evil, and encourages God’s faithful to remain steadfast. Christians grappling with the persistence of evil in our world can identify with Habakkuk’s cry and take comfort in God’s reply. The authorship of this book is undisputed, although there’s some debate about whether Habakkuk wrote the third chapter, as it is absent from the [Dead Sea Scrolls](dead-sea-scrolls.html). Chapter 3, however, is included in the [Septuagint](septuagint.html). Based on the liturgical nature of the book, Habakkuk likely served as a temple prophet. Habakkuk wrote the book during the pre\-exilic period, possibly after the fall of Nineveh, making dating this book relatively straightforward to the early seventh century BC. In the Hebrew Bible, Habakkuk is not mentioned outside of the book bearing his name. Nevertheless, his name appears in other Jewish texts, such as [Bel and the Dragon](Bel-and-the-Dragon.html), which is found in the Septuagint. Likely derived from folk tales about Daniel, Bel and the Dragon features Habakkuk delivering food to Daniel in the lion’s den. Often overlooked today, the little book of Habakkuk offers valuable insight. In dealing with the highs and lows of the Christian life, it is beneficial to study Habakkuk.

What does it mean that blessing and cursing should not come from the same mouth (James 3:10)?

Answer In James 3:10, the apostle highlights the contradictory nature of the tongue. He says, “From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brothers, these things ought not to be so” (ESV). James is presenting a case for why believers should only use their tongues to “bless our Lord and Father” rather than “curse people who are made in the likeness of God” (verse 9\). The tongue is [difficult to tame](taming-the-tongue.html), even for believers. James says, “For we all stumble in many ways. And if anyone does not stumble in what he says, he is a perfect man, able also to bridle his whole body” (James 3:1, ESV). We stumble or sin with our words because we are not perfect. Regardless of imperfection, we should strive to imitate Christ in thought, word, and deed: “Be imitators of God, as beloved children. And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God” (Ephesians 5:1–2, ESV). James condemns the incongruity of using the same tongue for both blessing and cursing. In church or in prayer, we open our mouths in praise to God, but later we malign those who cross us—James says, “This should not be” (James 3:10\). Many ideas in James find a correspondence in the book of Proverbs, including using the tongue for blessing and cursing: “Death and life are in the [power of the tongue](power-of-the-tongue.html), and those who love it will eat its fruits” (Proverbs 18:21, ESV). If we are not careful, we can do great damage with our words. David also had to deal with people who “take delight in lies. With their mouths they bless, but in their hearts they curse” (Psalm 62:4\). In the same context of blessing and cursing, James calls the tongue “a restless evil, full of deadly poison” (James 3:8, ESV). The tongue is evil and deadly when it is not being used as it should be. The tongue should only be used to “bless our Lord and Father” (verse 9\). Instead, we use it to bless the Lord and “curse people who are made in the likeness of God” (ESV). How can this be? How can we bless, praise, and worship God one moment, and then turn around and speak ill of our brothers and sisters in Christ? This happens because we forget that people are made in the likeness of God. The image of God, then, provides the moral ground for proper use of the tongue. Satan loves to create division and hear people cursing other people. We must not give him a foothold (Ephesians 4:27\). Instead of allowing Satan to control our tongues, we should submit ourselves to the Lord and ensure that our speech will “always be gracious, seasoned with salt” (Colossians 4:6, ESV). Genuine believers are marked by gracious speech. [Matthew Henry’s](Matthew-Henry.html) comment on James 3:10 is still pertinent 300 years after he wrote it: “True religion will not admit of contradictions: how many sins would be prevented, if men would always be consistent! Pious and edifying language is the genuine produce of a sanctified heart; and none who understand Christianity, expect to hear curses, lies, boastings, and revilings from a true believer’s mouth, any more than they look for the fruit of one tree from another” (*Concise Commentary on the Whole Bible*).

What does “against such things there is no law” mean (Galatians 5:23)?

Answer Paul taught the believers in [Galatia](churches-in-Galatia.html) about their freedom in Christ, warning against the tendency to turn back to “a yoke of slavery” or legalism. Many Jewish believers were still trying to be right with God by keeping the Law of Moses (Galatians 5:1–15\). Paul also cautioned them to avoid the other extreme of license or doing whatever their sinful nature desired (Galatians 5:16–21\). He explained that freedom in Christ involves submitting to the Holy Spirit’s guidance in everything. If we pursue a lifestyle “in step with the Spirit” (Galatians 5:25\), the Holy Spirit produces fruit in us of “love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self\-control. Against such things there is no law” (Galatians 5:22–23\). When these qualities of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self\-control develop and express themselves in the believer’s life, there is no need for legalistic obedience to the law. *Against such there is no law* means that the [fruit of the Spirit](fruit-of-the-Holy-Spirit.html) corresponds perfectly with God’s law. The law was meant to limit, restrain, deter, or prohibit certain behaviors and wrongheadedness; however, no prohibition is needed against the virtues that the Spirit produces. There is no law against loving others or experiencing and spreading joy. None of God’s commandments forbid cultivating peace or being patient, kind, good, faithful, or gentle. Those who practice self\-control will naturally be in conformity to the law. The Law of Moses can bring no charges against those who demonstrate the fruit of the Spirit (see Romans 8:1–4\). Those who walk in the Spirit are free; the fruit of the Spirit is beyond the scope of the law. Paul wrote elsewhere, “For the law was not intended for people who do what is right. It is for people who are lawless and rebellious, who are ungodly and sinful, who consider nothing sacred and defile what is holy, who kill their father or mother or commit other murders. The law is for people who are sexually immoral, or who practice homosexuality, or are slave traders, liars, promise breakers, or who do anything else that contradicts the wholesome teaching that comes from the glorious Good News entrusted to me by our blessed God” (1 Timothy 1:9–11, NLT). Obedience to the law does not produce “the fruit of righteousness” (see Philippians 1:8, 11; cf. Galatians 3:2\). We can’t white\-knuckle our way into God’s good graces by toiling and straining to do good works. Only as the Holy Spirit works through our faith are these fruits produced in our lives (2 Corinthians 3:18\). The fruit of the Spirit reflects the character of Christ as we are transformed into His image (John 15:8; Romans 8:5–14; Ephesians 5:8–11; Colossians 1:10\). The [works of the flesh](works-of-the-flesh.html), as well as trying to obey the law through human effort, will eventually lead to death (Hebrews 9:14\). But the fruit of the Spirit grows from abiding in Christ and walking in the Spirit (Luke 8:15; John 15:4–5\). It matures into eternal life (Romans 8:5–6, 13–14; Galatians 6:7–9\). The fruit of the Spirit is meant to be consumed by others so that it can bear fruit in their lives, too (John 15:2\). Warren Wiersbe writes, “People around us are starving for love, joy, peace, and all the other graces of the Spirit. When they find them in our lives, they know that we have something they lack. We do not bear fruit for our own consumption; we bear fruit that others might be fed and helped, and that Christ might be glorified” (*The Bible Exposition Commentary*, vol. 1, Victor Books, 1996, p. 720\). Legalistic rule\-following brings no glory to God. Neither does giving in to the sinful desires of the flesh. But yielding to the Spirit’s guidance in every area of our lives brings glory and praise to God (Philippians 1:11\). This is the path to freedom in Christ, and against such, there is no law, indeed.