Skip to main content.

Below are questions and my answers concerning various doctrines: the understanding of the message of the Bible concerning various practices and how we may best please God. The decisions between what go here and what are placed on the pages of questions and answers on the Scriptures might be considered arbitrary by many; I have attempted in many ways to determine the spirit in which the question was asked, as a question on the nature of particular doctrines versus a general question about the meaning of a Scripture.

Sections in this Page

The Assembly

Q: All Bible scholars say the Greek Bible word deipnon or The Judaic Supper is an evening meal. Is the Bible word for the Lord's supper understood to be a memorial at supper time, or is the words Lord's supper to be understood in the indefinite figurative case, as the Catholic Church teach? Indefinite figurative case in the word supper does not denote a time, meaning there is no set time to observe, but can be observed on any solemn occasion. If the word supper is not understood in the indefinite figurative case, then where is authority for a breakfast and why do most members of the church of Christ not keep the memorial at supper time?

A: Thayer comments on the Greek word deipnon that it was first used in Homer to signify a breakfast or morning meal, and later is used as the evening meal as we see in the Gospel accounts. Now, if we remember correctly, Jesus was partaking of the Passover meal (Luke 22:15), the Jewish festival commemorating the "passing over" of the houses of the Jews by the angel of God in His quest to kill the first-borns of the Egyptians (Exodus 12). These Jews recognized each day from sunset to sunset, making "supper" their "breakfast." As we can see, the word still carries the idea of a meal in the early part of the day, which for us would be the morning, but for the Jews it is the evening.

Now, that having been said, we must be cautious to not bind more than what ought to be bound. Christ instituted the Lord's Supper, but as we can see (The Lord's Supper), He has not bound literally many parts of this Supper. The number of loaves and cups have not been bound, and I believe that the time itself is also not bound. In Acts 20:7, we see that the Apostles partook of the Lord's Supper on the first day; we can also see in 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 that Christians had a habit of meeting on the first day. Therefore, we ourselves also meet on the first day, by way of example.

Furthermore, the account in Acts 20 could shed some light on the "timing" of the Lord's Supper. We read that they were gathered to break bread (an often-used reference to the Lord's Supper) and Paul preached until midnight (verse 7), and then afterwards, they "broke the bread and eaten," with Paul leaving at daylight (verse 11). According to our way of figuring days, Paul partook on Monday morning! However, if Paul was going by the Jewish way of reckoning days, he would have been partaking in the middle of the first day. Therefore, within our example of partaking on the first day of the week, we see that exactly when on the first day of the week we partake is a liberty, as we have two approved examples at different times.

Q: Is the practice of having potlucks Scripturally forbidden?

A: The practice of Christians coming together to share a common meal is documented in Acts 2:46-47:

And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.

We see, therefore, that Christians are authorized to come together to share a meal-- with your question, a potluck-- but there is no command to do so. With the absence of a specific command mandating the practice, there is no authority for the corporate church to facilitate such meals with the erection of a "fellowship hall" or any other such thing. We therefore certainly can have potlucks; there is no authority, however, for the collective church to facilitate such a gathering.

Q: Hello, I am and have been a Christian for most of my life. Jesus Christ plays a huge role in my life, and I love the Lord with all my heart. After reviewing your web site, I found a topic in which I don't agree with. You mention that the use of instrumental music in your church is looked down upon. As a trombone player who plays in churches quite frequently, I don't understand your view on this issue. I am grateful for the gift of music that our Lord has given to me. I love to celebrate Christ through through the use of my instrument.

A: This question is a response to my page on instrumental music, and I explain my premise and why I adhere to it at A Study of Denominations: Instrumental Music.

I do not believe that the type of question you asked can really be answered due to the fact that the Bible is not intended to be a laundry lists of things we cannot do. The point of the Bible is not determining what we cannot do but to determine what we can and should do. Paul says in Romans 14:23:

whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

Notice what this verse is saying: whatsoever is not of faith is sin, NOT whatsoever is not of sin is faith. In order to determine what is right and honorable in the sight of God, we must look for what we can/should do, not what it says we cannot do.

Furthermore, you say that you like to glorify God through music. Well, I have one question: who should be the one who determines the nature of worship, the one who is worshipped or the worshipper? If you notice on our planet, when a king's subject worships a king, he does not determine how he worships but the king does for him. How much more so shall we do this for the King of Kings! We as subjects to God really have no right attempting to say how we will worship; no, we need to find out how He wishes for us to worship Him.

I have some questions about the idea of using your talents for God no matter what they may be:

God has surely given us many different talents, and a good time and purpose for them. Not all talents, however, can be best used in His service. We should continually strive to make sure that we are doing what God wants us to do as demonstrated in His Word, and not what we as men wish to do for Him.

Q: Are we authorized to have Bible classes on Sunday mornings? Some congregations do, but others say that it is not authorized. What is right?

A: Bible classes are never commanded in the Scripture. We do have evidence, however, of Christians coming together to learn of the truth in Acts 2:42:

And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread and the prayers.
We can only continue steadfastly in the apostles' teaching by studying the Scriptures. I believe that this passage confirms that there is authority to have Bible classes, although since it is never commanded, I would not consider those who do not have Bible classes to be in sin.

Q: We have heard of churches of Christ that do not have Bible classes-- just a worship service on Sunday morning. They use the verses where women are to be silent and not to teach a man, but men can teach, so we are wondering what the problem is. We should study to show ourselves approved unto God.

Furthermore, if women are to be silent in all things, they could not sing in worship because singing edifies and she would be edifying men.

We could really open up a can of worms if we wanted to.

What are your thoughts? Did they have Bible classes in the early New Testament church?

A: The practice of Bible classes in the church building as practiced by churches today is a matter of liberty, for they are nowhere commanded in the New Testament. While I believe that the practice is legitimate, some have problems with the practice because they see them as "divided assemblies" and they see no authority for that in the New Testament, or for other reasons.

While the command does exist to study, that command does not necessitate that study to be done in our formal Bible class in the building setting.

As to 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, the text does seem to indicate that women are to remain silent, and the fact that the men seem to have the ability to ask questions (v. 35) may indicate that the assemblies under discussion involve something more like a "Bible class" than our "sermon" format. As to singing, it would appear that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 does not have the concept of mutual edification in song in view, but speaks more toward a time where a woman would be speaking alone within the assembly.

As to the practices of the early church, we can see that they did spend time in studying the truth together (Acts 2:42-- remaining steadfastly in the doctrines of the apostles), but whether they had "Bible classes" per se is debatable.

In these matters we must give pause so as to not cause any to stumble.

Q: What is the true Sabbath day?

A: While the seventh day was instituted as the Sabbath rest for the Israelites, since it was on the seventh day that God rested from His labors (Exodus 20:10-11, Genesis 2:2-3), Paul says that such is the shadow of the reality, not the substance thereof (Colossians 2:14-17). The Hebrew author establishes persuasively that the true Sabbath rest is Heaven in Hebrews 4:1-11:

Let us fear therefore, lest haply, a promise being left of entering into his rest, any one of you should seem to have come short of it. For indeed we have had good tidings preached unto us, even as also they: but the word of hearing did not profit them, because it was not united by faith with them that heard. For we who have believed do enter into that rest; even as he hath said,
"As I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest:"
although the works were finished from the foundation of the world. For he hath said somewhere of the seventh day on this wise,
"And God rested on the seventh day from all his works;"
and in this place again,
"They shall not enter into my rest."
Seeing therefore it remaineth that some should enter thereinto, and they to whom the good tidings were before preached failed to enter in because of disobedience, he again defineth a certain day, To-day, saying in David so long a time afterward (even as hath been said before),
"To-day if ye shall hear his voice, Harden not your hearts."
For if Joshua had given them rest, he would not have spoken afterward of another day. There remaineth therefore a sabbath rest for the people of God. For he that is entered into his rest hath himself also rested from his works, as God did from his. Let us therefore give diligence to enter into that rest, that no man fall after the same example of disobedience.

The second aspect of the Sabbath-- the permanency of God's rest-- was never given to the Israelites on account of their unfaithfulness, but remains as the promise for the child of God. Let us strive diligently to enter that rest!

Q: When did we start sharing the peace as part of the service, "peace be with you?"

A: The concept of "sharing the peace" per se as part of an assembly is not a New Testament concept; "peace be with you" is a blessing seen often in Paul's letters to the congregations to whom he is writing (e.g., 2 Thessalonians 1:1). It is most likely from this blessing in greetings that the idea got started.

It would appear that many equate "sharing the peace" with a handshake or a "holy kiss" (cf. Romans 16:16). If by "sharing the peace" one refers to Christian greeting, than such of course would go back to New Testament times...although there is no explicit association between "sharing peace" and the greeting of brethren in the text.

The Christian

Q: Does the Bible teach that psalms, hymns and spiritual songs are to be sung without accompaniment outside of worship of God in the assembly of the saints?

A: The Bible teaches in the New Testament that praise to God in song is to be sung and there is no mention of instruments used in either an assembly for worship (as seen in Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16) or for individual praise, as seen in James 5:13:

Is any among you suffering? Let him pray. Is any cheerful? Let him sing praise.

Q: Matthew, Mark and John tell us what the Bible says about money changers. Would it ever be possible to sell a product in the church if we tithe 100% of that money to the church? We have our own singers and complete recording equipment in the church.

We also purchase Christian books and movies from another source and sell them in the church. Biblically, can we sell tapes, compact discs, books, and movies to our congregation?

A: I would first like to mention that the idea of "tithing" is not to be found in the New Testament. Mark 12:41-44 and 2 Corinthians 9:6-10 demonstrate that God is more concerned with how we're giving and if we are giving our firstfruits or what remains. One can certainly give 10% if he gives cheerfully; the term "tithe" or even the concept, however, is not there.

Now, regarding the money changers, you speak of the Gospel record seen in Matthew 21:12-13, Mark 11:15-17, and Luke 19:45-47. The Markan version is quoted below:

And they come to Jerusalem: and he entered into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and them that bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the money-changers, and the seats of them that sold the doves; and he would not suffer that any man should carry a vessel through the temple. And he taught, and said unto them, "Is it not written, 'My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations? but ye have made it a den of robbers.'"

Now, on the surface, one could potentially think that Jesus is condemning the money-changers for their office, that it would be wrong for anyone to change money in the Temple. This is not what Jesus is teaching. Jesus is condemning the rampant corruption of the money-changers and the pigeon-sellers in the Temple. To explain what I mean: the money-changers would convert, say, the Roman denarius to the Jewish shekel. If the real value was (just as an example), 10 denarii for a Jewish full shekel, the money-changers might only give a half-shekel for 10 denarii. A pigeon-seller in the Temple might charge a half-shekel for a pigeon when its real value would be a quarter-shekel. This is what Jesus is condemning-- the robbery of pilgrims by corrupt persons.

Having said all that, I have not found any authority (or, for that matter, need) in the New Testament for a local congregation to sell anything to anyone, let alone its own members. When it comes to how a local congregation receives its funds, the New Testament speaks only of freewill contributions from its members or contributions from other local congregations/individuals in times of need (1 Corinthians 16:1-5). Anything else is going beyond not only the authority of the Scriptures but also the responsibilities of the local church.

Q: Does God condone the use of fermented drink or just grape juice?

A: Although there is dispute over the alcoholic quality or lack thereof in Biblical wines, it is safe to say that today God would not condone the use of fermented drink.

Alcoholic wines in Bible times were not nearly as full of alcohol as they are today; while modern wine may be 12% alcohol, unmixed wine in Biblical times would not have exceeded 4%. It was considered barbaric in Roman times to drink unmixed wine, and citizens would mix water and wine from about one part wine to four parts water to one part wine to eight parts water, and this would leave an alcoholic content of between 0.5 and 1% alcohol. Simply put, one would have to drink twelve glasses of Roman wine to even begin to equal one glass of modern wine, and such a quantity in Roman times would be inordinate for an average meal.

We must remember the wise words of Solomon in Proverbs 20:1 and Proverbs 23:31-35:

Wine is a mocker, strong drink a brawler; And whosoever erreth thereby is not wise.
Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, When it sparkleth in the cup, When it goeth down smoothly: At the last it biteth like a serpent, And stingeth like an adder. Thine eyes shall behold strange things, And thy heart shall utter perverse things. Yea, thou shalt be as he that lieth down in the midst of the sea, Or as he that lieth upon the top of a mast.
"They have stricken me," shalt thou say, "and I was not hurt; They have beaten me, and I felt it not: When shall I awake? I will seek it yet again."

It is also good to note that "drunkenness," which in Greek even includes the process whereby one gets drunk, is condemned as a "work of the flesh" by Paul in Galatians 5:19-21, and those who would do such things "will not inherit the Kingdom of God." There is no need in our day to drink beverages with minor alcoholic contents since we have pure water and many other alternatives, and it cannot be proven to be profitable to bring one so close to temptation to sin (cf. 1 Corinthians 10:23).

Q: Is it Scriptural for a Christian to present alcoholic wine as part of a wedding requirement as demanded by in-laws?

A: While the New Testament does not condemn drinking small quantities of wine, drunkenness is condemned (Galatians 5:19-21), the appearance of evil is condemned (1 Thessalonians 5:22), and it could lead to someone's conscience being seared (1 Corinthians 8). On account of these factors, along with the lack of need to consume alcoholic beverages today for cleanliness' sake, it is not profitable for the Christian to consume any form of alcoholic beverage.

Now, it is recognized that wine has held great prestige in many cultural (and religious) rituals in many lands for many centuries. When, however, a cultural ritual gives consent to immoral behavior-- or behavior leading to immorality-- the Christian must stand against it. I would strongly advise against a Christian engaging in or allowing such a practice.

Q: Will God forgive you if you have committed adultery? Can you be baptized and forgiven of this sin? What would you have to do to feel reborn and free of this and all sins?

A: We can be confident that God can forgive anyone of any sin.

As the Hebrew author states in Hebrews 9:11-12:

But Christ having come a high priest of the good things to come, through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation, nor yet through the blood of goats and calves, but through his own blood, entered in once for all into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption.

Christ entered "once for all" into the holy place, and this would include us with our sin.

Furthermore, Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11:

Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye were washed, but ye were sanctified, but ye were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God.

As Paul lists the various sins that lead to condemnation, he concludes by saying that "such were some of you," and yet they were redeemed by Christ. Therefore, one can have been guilty of adultery, but, having come to the Lord in obedient faith, be washed, sanctified, and justified by God toward eternal life.

It must be said, however, that in order to be forgiven of adultery and redeemed, you would have to repent of adultery-- change your mind so as to no longer engage in it. While God can and will forgive humans of adultery, those who continue in adultery will be liable to the condemnation spoken of in Hebrews 10:26-31:

For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and a fierceness of fire which shall devour the adversaries. A man that hath set at nought Moses law dieth without compassion on the word of two or three witnesses: of how much sorer punishment, think ye, shall he be judged worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant wherewith he was sanctified an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
For we know him that said, "Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense."
And again, "The Lord shall judge his people."
It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Therefore, you must be cleansed of all adultery (cf. Matthew 5:32, Matthew 19:9) and be pure before God. When we stumble, we repent again, confess it before God, and continue to strive to be faithful (cf. 1 John 1:9).

Q: Where does the Bible teach that a person Scripturally divorced, who is guilty of adultery, must remain single?

A: In order to understand this issue, let us read the Scriptures in the New Testament regarding marriage, divorce, and remarriage:

Matthew 5:31-32:

"It was said also, 'Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:'
but I say unto you, that every one that putteth away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, maketh her an adulteress: and whosoever shall marry her when she is put away committeth adultery."

Matthew 19:9:

"And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery."

1 Corinthians 7:10-11:

But unto the married I give charge, yea not I, but the Lord, That the wife depart not from her husband (but should she depart, let her remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband); and that the husband leave not his wife.

We see from these verses the following:

  1. A man who puts away his wife for any reason save sexual immorality makes her an adulteress.
  2. Anyone who would marry such a woman is an adulterer.
  3. If the man marries another, he commits adultery.
  4. Whomever would marry that man commits adultery.
  5. The married ought to stay married, but if they do divorce for improper reasons, they ought to stay unmarried or reconcile.

What is the key to these passages? The violations of the marriage bond represent adultery. We see this explicitly stated when a man divorces his wife for a non-Scriptural reason and marries another, when that divorced wife attempts to remarry another, and those who would marry such persons. Since adultery is the sin that would beset these people, if the original sin is adultery on the part of one spouse, upon what basis would we say that they have the right to remarry?

Let's go back to Matthew 19:9 for a moment.

"And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery."

Let us focus on the exception clause. Jesus' commandment states that if a man divorces his wife for any reason but adultery, and marries another, commits adultery. The conclusion concerning the exception clause must be that if a man does divorce his wife for the reason of adultery, and marries another, he is not guilty of committing adultery himself. No conclusion can be made about the status of the adulterating party.

And now, finally, let us return again to Matthew 5:32:

"but I say unto you, that every one that putteth away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, maketh her an adulteress: and whosoever shall marry her when she is put away committeth adultery."

We see that Jesus saying clearly that if a man puts away his wife for any reason but adultery, she is made out to be an adulteress! How can Jesus say this about her if she has not actually committed adultery? Because she is in the same position as an adulteress if she attempts to marry again. Even though she may not have actually dissolved the marriage bond through the divorce, if she attempts to remarry she is an adulteress and therefore is in the same class as an adulteress. So we have the answer to your question here in Matthew 5:32: the woman divorced for adultery or divorced for any other reason are in the same boat; the only difference in the situations is that the man who divorces his wife for adultery has the right to remarriage, yet the man who divorces his wife for any other reason does not.

I would also add that there are no Scriptures which give the adulterer any right to remarriage and any attempt to do such is in and of itself an inference drawn from Matthew 5:32 which completely contradicts the entire message of this text and God's plan for marriage.

Q: If a man and woman are divorced and both remarry and are divorced and then remarry each other, does that mean that they cannot go to Heaven when they die if they are living a Christian life and believe in the Lord?

A: We read two messages in the Scriptures in this regard, Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 and 1 Corinthians 7:10-11:

"but I say unto you, that whosoever puts away his wife, except for sexually deviant behavior, makes her to commit adultery: and whosoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery."
"And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for sexually deviant behavior, and shall marry another, commits adultery."
But unto the married I give charge, yea not I, but the Lord, That the wife depart not from her husband (but should she depart, let her remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband); and that the husband leave not his wife.

On the surface it would appear that we have a contradiction-- anyone who marries after putting away his wife improperly or anyone who marries a person having been put away commits adultery, yet Paul speaks of couples reconciling. We can see, however, that throughout all discussions of marriage, divorce, and remarriage, the Scriptures are speaking about divorcing and then marrying other people. Therefore, we can affirm that the message of 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 is in force for a couple rightly married who divorce.

According to the old covenant, the example you provide would be abominable (Deuteronomy 24:1-4). The new covenant in the blood of Christ (Hebrews 9:15), however, makes no such statement, and 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 would point to its contrary. In the end, I cannot find any Scriptural evidence for condemning the people of whom you speak on that issue.

Q: How is the salt covenant performed for a wedding ceremony? Who says the words? What is said?

A: I have received a question regarding the salt covenant in a wedding ceremony before (available here), and at that time I was not able to identify any groups which do this. I can attest that it is not a Biblical practice, as no Biblical reference exists to a salt covenant being performed in a wedding.

The only Biblical references to a "salt covenant" are well explained in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia's (ISBE's) examination of the term:

Covenant of Salt
As salt was regarded as a necessary ingredient of the daily food, and so of all sacrifices offered to Yahweh (Leviticus 2:13), it became an easy step to the very close connection between salt and covenant-making. When men ate together they became friends. Compare the Arabic expression, "There is salt between us"; "He has eaten of my salt," which means partaking of hospitality which cemented friendship; compare "eat the salt of the palace" (Ezra 4:14). Covenants were generally confirmed by sacrificial meals and salt was always present. Since, too, salt is a preservative, it would easily become symbolic of an enduring covenant. So offerings to Yahweh were to be by a statute forever, "a covenant of salt for ever before Yahweh" (Numbers 18:19). David received his kingdom forever from Yahweh by a "covenant of salt" (2 Chronicles 13:5). In the light of these conceptions the remark of our Lord becomes the more significant: "Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace one with another" (Mark 9:50).

We may see, then, that a "salt covenant" was basically a covenant of friendship and endurance, and the use of salt in covenantal agreements (such as a sacrifice) symbolize that endurance. I can see how people would translate that symbol to a wedding ceremony, but there is no Biblical references to such.

Q: Where in the Bible does it say that we should have no tattoos on our body?

A: In the Old Testament in Leviticus 19:28 and Leviticus 21:5 we see general prohibitions of making marks in the flesh, although the context speaks of doing these things as signs of grief for the dead.

In the New Testament we have been told in 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 that our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit:

Or know ye not that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit which is in you, which ye have from God? and ye are not your own; for ye were bought with a price: glorify God therefore in your body.

This verse should be consulted and considered before we make any permanent markings on our bodies to see if it would be pleasing to the Lord.

Q: Is it lawful for a Christian to join the military? What about being drafted?

A: It is written:

"Ye have heard that it was said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: but I say unto you, resist not him that is evil: but whosoever smiteth thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man would go to law with thee, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. Ye have heard that it was said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy: but I say unto you, love your enemies, and pray for them that persecute you; that ye may be sons of your Father who is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust. For if ye love them that love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the Gentiles the same? Ye therefore shall be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect" (Matthew 5:38-48).
"But I say unto you that hear, Love your enemies, do good to them that hate you, bless them that curse you, pray for them that spitefully use you. To him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and from him that taketh away thy cloak withhold not thy coat also. Give to every one that asketh thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again. And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise. And if ye love them that love you, what thank have ye? for even sinners love those that love them. And if ye do good to them that do good to you, what thank have ye? for even sinners do the same. And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? even sinners lend to sinners, to receive again as much. But love your enemies, and do them good, and lend, never despairing; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be sons of the Most High: for he is kind toward the unthankful and evil. Be ye merciful, even as your Father is merciful" (Luke 6:27-36).
Render to no man evil for evil. Take thought for things honorable in the sight of all men. If it be possible, as much as in you lieth, be at peace with all men. Avenge not yourselves, beloved, but give place unto the wrath of God: for it is written,
"Vengeance belongeth unto me; I will recompense, saith the Lord."
But if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him to drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good (Romans 12:17-21).

I cannot see how military service can be reconciled with the verses as listed above, since the military is called upon to do harm to the enemies of the country.

As to the draft-- on the one hand, we have what Jesus says here; on the other hand, God tells us to obey the government in Romans 13. In such circumstances, the individual will have to decide whether it is better to conscientiously object or to serve in the draft.

The Church

Q: I understand you are the part of the church of Christ. What makes a true church, calling yourselves "church of Christ" or a group of the born again?

A: The true church represents those who are known to Christ as representing His Body (Ephesians 5:22-33). We may know whether we are part of this Body by establishing that we are doing what the Bible says that such persons will be doing: they will consider Christ their head, they will follow what Christ has said, they will be the pillar and support of the truth, and they will be one (cf. Ephesians 4:4-5, 5:22-33; 1 Timothy 3:15).

Q: What is a difference between the visible church and the invisible church and the church militant and the church triumphant?

A: While these specific terms are not in the Scriptures, they both are making a distinction between Christians who are alive and Christians who have passed on.

The church "visible" would be the Christians still alive, while the church "invisible" would be the saints who await the resurrection (cf. 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17, 1 Corinthians 15).

The church "militant" would represent the Christians fighting against spiritual powers of darkness (Ephesians 6:10-18), while the church "triumphant" should really refer to the universal assembly that will be present in Heaven after the Judgment (Matthew 25:31-46, 1 Corinthians 15), yet often is spoken of in terms of Christians who have completed "the good fight of faith" (2 Timothy 4:7).

Q: Every now in then my boss will say that members of the church of Christ are hypocrites and that we think we're the only ones going to heaven and that we're boring because we don't use instruments. He is Baptist; what should I say because it leaves me speechless?

A: The charges of hypocrisy and that we believe that are the only ones going to Heaven are often leveled at us; normally, however, this is done without merit. If we are hypocrites, it means that we say one thing and do another. We certainly do not want to be hypocrites, and if your Baptist boss can tell you how we're being hypocritical, we can examine these things and see if we truly are saying one thing and doing another and we can strive to correct that.

As to being the "only ones going to Heaven," this charge normally comes as a misunderstanding-- or as a result of overgeneralization-- regarding the truth of the Scriptures regarding the Church that is of Christ. We read the following in Ephesians 4:4-6:

There is one body, and one Spirit, even as also ye were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in all.

As assuredly as there is but one Lord and one God and one Spirit, there is only one body. That body is the church (Colossians 1:18). We are told further about this body in Ephesians 5:23-30 and 1 Timothy 3:15:

For the husband is the head of the wife, and Christ also is the head of the church, being himself the saviour of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives also be to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself up for it; that he might sanctify it, having cleansed it by the washing of water with the word, that he might present the church to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. Even so ought husbands also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his own wife loveth himself: for no man ever hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as Christ also the church; because we are members of his body.
but if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how men ought to behave themselves in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

We can see from these passages that the true church of the Lord will be the one with Him as its head and the pillar and support of the truth; it will not tolerate false doctrine or disobedience and will be completely pure and holy in His sight.

We have been told in James 4:12 to leave judgment up to God, and thus we shall do. We do not know who is going to Heaven, but we do know that those who are found obedient to Him have the hope of Heaven, but those who do not obey Him will be condemned (2 Thessalonians 1:6-9). This is why we constantly strive to make sure that we are within the truth in all matters; if your Baptist boss cannot agree with this, well, that will be taken into account at the Judgment.

In regards to being "boring" without instrumental music: that's his judgment call, albeit a poor one at that. It demonstrates that your boss is not really interested in spiritual things but is instead desiring to be entertained; a true believer in Christ whose mind is on spiritual things would never consider worshipping Him to be "boring" or that the means by which God has desired us to worship Him would be "boring." Keep this in mind when speaking with him.

Q: Is ordination a requirement to serve and/or handle the holy communion? What does the Bible say about a person being ordained as an officer of the church?

A: The New Testament does not make any commandment regarding "ordination" for anyone. We do not find within its pages a distinction between a "clergy" and a "laity," and in fact we find that most everyone was an evangelist in some form. We can read of Aquila and Prisca (Acts 18, Romans 16:3-4); these two were simple tentmakers who also preached and instructed people in the way of Christ but were never "ordained" to anything.

The New Testament further makes no commandment as to who is specifically supposed to serve and/or handle the Lord's Supper. The emphasis of the Lord's Supper-- as seen in 1 Corinthians 11:23-29-- is not who handles the Supper but is completely upon the person partaking of the emblems and how he hallows the memorial.

The only officers that may be found in the New Testament are elders in local congregations, also called bishops, presbyters, and pastors. These elders are appointed when there are a plurality of men in a local congregation who meet the qualifications of 1 Timothy 3:1-7, and these elders are appointed with the approval of the congregation by the evangelist, as is evidenced in Titus 1:5. Appointing and ordination are different things, for ordination requires someone generally considered to be of superior status to the one being ordained, and the New Testament simply does not have such distinctions between Christians.

More information on these issues may be accessed at A Study of Denominations: Positions of Authority.

Q: I have been a member of the church of Christ for 33 years. We have about 150 members, both young and old. Some are eligible to be elected as elders and deacons, but our minister is against having elders. We have a committee with a chairman, a vice chairman, a treasurer, a secretary and few other committee members. Is it Scriptural for a minister to hold a position in the committee? Our minister insists on having a position so that he can have a say in everything. Please advise us on this.

A: From what I can tell based on the information you have provided, the problem is more with this minister.

The New Testament says nothing about "committees" with "chairmen", "treasurers", "secretaries", and whatnot. The New Testament demonstrates clearly that every local congregation is to be shepherded by a plurality of qualified men with deacons serving the congregation (Acts 14:23, Acts 20:27-38, Philippians 1:1, 1 Timothy 3:1-12, Titus 1:5-9, 1 Peter 5:1-4).

Why the minister would desire to not use God's design for the church and to substitute a human innovation is beyond me. I would encourage you to determine why the minister does not want to follow God's plan in this way.

Q: I have recently been nominated as a deacon in our church after much self-examination and researching and counseling with others I have accepted. The announcement of the nomination has now been presented to the congregation. One member of the church does not feel that I am eligible based on 1 Timothy 3:12, "Deacons must be husbands of only one wife." His opposition comes from the fact that my wife has been previously married and divorced. His understanding is that based on Mathew 5:32, "and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery." Disqualifies me as an adulterer, therefore I am not the husband of one wife.

Our relationship did not break up the previous marriage; in fact we did not know each other while she was married before. I myself have not been married prior to this marriage. I became a professing believer after marriage and hold strong to my faith and convictions.

Does the text in 1 Timothy 3:12 mean what it seems to? And that is that I should only have one wife, not more than one. Or is this individual's assessment accurate?

A: We really have three issues here: the relation of a man and wife in 1 Timothy 3, being above reproach, and God's teachings on marriage, divorce, and remarriage.

First we have the requirements of a deacon in 1 Timothy 3:8-13:

Deacons in like manner must be grave, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre; holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. And let these also first be proved; then let them serve as deacons, if they be blameless. Women in like manner must be grave, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things. Let deacons be husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. For they that have served well as deacons gain to themselves a good standing, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Now, we do not have a specific reference to the number of spouses that the wife has previously had. One could perhaps make an argument that if she is "faithful in all things" that part of the "all things" is obeying God's design for marriage and divorcing only for sexual immorality, if that. The text only explicitly demands, however, that the husband be the husband of one wife, perhaps a charge against polygamy but also can be viewed as a man who has only been bound to one woman.

Another consideration to take into account for your personal use, however, is verse 10, that a deacon must be proven to be blameless. If there are some in your congregation who are having difficulties with you serving officially as a deacon, then perhaps you should reconsider accepting the position because of this verse-- even if you think that you are in the clear, a portion of servanthood is knowing when to accept certain positions and knowing when it will cause more problems than it is worth. You are able to do just as many things in the Kingdom of God as a man who serves his fellow brethren as one with the official designation of "deacon."

Finally, we come to marriage, divorce, and remarriage. You have spoken of Matthew 5:32, and this verse does demonstrate that the only legitimate reason for a divorce is for sexual immorality; if your wife did not divorce her former husband for this reason, I am afraid that she did not and does not have the right to marry another, and unfortunately the marriage is not legitimate. I would ask you to please consider this truth of the Gospel and act so as to obey God in all things, as a good servant of God-- either officially as a "deacon" or no-- ought to be.

Q: Can a person be disfellowshiped for not attending church services on Sunday night and Wednesday night since man is the one that set them up?

A: First and foremost, any matter of disfellowshipping of a person must be the determination of the elders of a local congregation, or, lacking such, the congregation itself (1 Corinthians 5). They will be held accountable as to how they used or did not use that option (Acts 17:30-31).

Secondly, any disfellowshipping on the basis of 1 Corinthians 5 must be done as a last resort and after tireless efforts have been made to restore the person in another way.

Now, can a church disassociate from someone because they do not assemble on Sunday and Wednesday evenings? Since such persons are forsaking the coming together of the saints (Hebrews 10:24-25), one could argue on that basis that such would be an acceptable option. It is my conviction, however, that lack of assembling with the saints at every opportunity is a symptom of a greater problem, and that greater problem, whatever it may be, if not repented of, would be a better reason for disassociation.

Q: Is there anything wrong with holding a wedding ceremony in the church building? If so please explain.

A: Where would be the authority for having such an event in a church building?

Church buildings are authorized under the generic authority granted from Hebrews 10:25: Christians are to assemble, and therefore must have a place to assemble. It represents a liberty. Liberties are wonderful for us to have but do not represent firm ground to build any other practice upon.

Weddings are not religious events; they are social events. The focus is not on spiritual things but the dress of the bride, how everything looks nice, and so on and so forth. Many weddings feature instrumental music; should there be music playing on a Friday or Saturday at a wedding that would be entirely disallowed on Sunday or Wednesday? These are thorny issues that are quite easily avoided by simply not having weddings in church buildings.

I could perhaps see a justification for using a church building for a wedding if the congregation was doing so as an act of benevolence for the couple. Otherwise, however, it would be hard to find proper Biblical authority for such a practice (Hebrews 11:1, Romans 14:23).

Eschatology and the Afterlife

Q: In the Bible, Christ is to return to judge the living and dead with a world without end. He will come in glory and in my faith, there will be life everlasting. What, in your opinion, does this mean?

A: The testimony of the Scriptures is clear: on the last day, Christ will return again to judge all mankind, the resurrection will take place, our bodies will be transformed according to the form of Christ, and those who will be redeemed will enter Heaven for eternity while the condemned will be cast into perdition, and all physical matter will perish in great heat (Acts 17:30-31, 1 Corinthians 15, 1 Thessalonians 4, Matthew 25:31-46, 2 Peter 3:9-10). Jesus speaks strongly about this time in Matthew 25, exhorting all those who would follow Him to be prepared for that day, for after that point there will be no more chances!

Q: If someone dies, I understand that they can no longer hear you. Where is that taught in the Bible? Also if I ask God to tell my best friend, who was just killed, something, is there somewhere in the Bible that says that is possible?

A: The Bible gives us an indication in Luke 16 about the separation between the dead and the living and between the dead in Paradise and the dead in torment.

We read about the separation between the dead and the living in Luke 16:27-31:

"And he said, 'Then I beg you, father, that you send him to my father's house-- for I have five brothers--in order that he may warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.'
But Abraham said, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.'
But he said, 'No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!'
But he said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.'"

We are also given the narrative of Saul in 1 Samuel 28 as he requests the witch of Endor to summon up the spirit of Samuel in 1 Samuel 28:7-15 (NASB):

Then Saul said to his servants, "Seek for me a woman who is a medium, that I may go to her and inquire of her."
And his servants said to him, "Behold, there is a woman who is a medium at En-dor."
Then Saul disguised himself by putting on other clothes, and went, he and two men with him, and they came to the woman by night; and he said, "Conjure up for me, please, and bring up for me whom I shall name to you."
But the woman said to him, "Behold, you know what Saul has done, how he has cut off those who are mediums and spiritists from the land. Why are you then laying a snare for my life to bring about my death?"
Saul vowed to her by the LORD, saying, "As the LORD lives, no punishment shall come upon you for this thing."
Then the woman said, "Whom shall I bring up for you?"
And he said, "Bring up Samuel for me."
When the woman saw Samuel, she cried out with a loud voice; and the woman spoke to Saul, saying, "Why have you deceived me? For you are Saul."
The king said to her, "Do not be afraid; but what do you see?"
And the woman said to Saul, "I see a divine being coming up out of the earth."
He said to her, "What is his form?"
And she said, "An old man is coming up, and he is wrapped with a robe."
And Saul knew that it was Samuel, and he bowed with his face to the ground and did homage.
Then Samuel said to Saul, "Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?"
And Saul answered, "I am greatly distressed; for the Philistines are waging war against me, and God has departed from me and no longer answers me, either through prophets or by dreams; therefore I have called you, that you may make known to me what I should do."

While this event certainly occurred and therefore we see it is possible to conjure up spirits, God has declared it a sinful practice to do so (sorcery-- Galatians 5:19-22), and therefore a separation is to exist between the living and the dead until the day of the Judgment and resurrection.

The Bible is silent regarding whether or not God will deliver messages from the living to the dead. You can certainly try and pray to God that He will deliver your message, and be comforted in the knowledge that if it is permissible He will do so and if it is not permissible you perhaps may be able to deliver the message yourself in the by and by.

God and Man

Q: Does God count the good we do in our lives, or just the bad? I realize He loves us but are we credited for good? Will it help us get to heaven?

A: Paul, in the first six chapters of Romans, provides a good answer to your questions.

Yes, we will all stand in judgment to receive back what we have done in the flesh, whether for good or evil (Romans 2:5-11).

On the other hand, all of the "good" that we do in our lives cannot counteract the consequences of the "bad"-- the sin that separates us from God (cf. Isaiah 59:1; Romans 3:23).

Our salvation will not be on account of what we have done but on account of the fact that our sins have been forgiven by God through Christ Jesus (Romans 3:24-26).

Nevertheless, we cannot imagine that we can just keep sinning or do whatever we desire to do; when we are baptized, we go through the likeness of Christ's death and resurrection, walking in newness of life, and have chosen to serve righteousness and not sin (Romans 6). Our obedience is necessary if we are going to be saved (Romans 6:16-23; cf. also Matthew 10:22, 1 Peter 1:22).

Q: How can a loving God send people to Hell?

A: The question you ask is a difficult one and a stumbling block to many.

We must look into the nature of God to understand these things.

His love for His creation is made evident in John 3:16:

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life."

His love is manifested to us in the ability to receive remission of our sins and to have fellowship with Him and be saved.

The reason why people will be sent to hell is not because God hates them but because they disobeyed Him. God gave man free will and choice-- Eve and Adam decided to partake of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; no one compelled them to nor did God prevent them from doing so. God does not desire robots to serve Him but people who choose to serve Him.

While God loves all of mankind, God hates sin because sin is the opposite of His desires for mankind. As Isaiah says in Isaiah 59:1-2:

Behold, the LORD's hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear: but your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, so that he will not hear.

Those who sin do so willfully and therefore separate themselves from God. In the end, therefore, God is not sending anyone to Hell; people have made the choice to serve evil and not good and their wishes are merely fulfilled.

Q: Regarding people who morally follow the teachings of Christ, and are good-hearted people, but not Christians: doesn't the Bible say that they will still go to hell? In a way this is related to God commanding in the Old Testament for entire cities to be destroyed, including the killing of the women and children. Isn't this sort of genocide fundamentally against the teachings of God in the New Testament?

A: First, we read the following in Matthew 7:21-23 and 2 Thessalonians 1:6-9:

"Not every one that saith unto me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day,
'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy by thy name, and by thy name cast out demons, and by thy name do many mighty works?'
And then will I profess unto them, 'I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.'"
If so be that it is righteous thing with God to recompense affliction to them that afflict you, and to you that are afflicted rest with us, at the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with the angels of his power in flaming fire, rendering vengeance to them that know not God, and to them that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus: who shall suffer punishment, even eternal destruction from the face of the Lord and from the glory of his might.

We gain from these passages the insight that not only those who do not know God but also those who do not obey the Gospel of our Lord Jesus will be consigned to hell, and that there will be many who professed Christ yet were not truly His.

So yes, the Bible indicates that although there may be many who profess Christ and live "good" lives, they may have some sin in their lives which shall prevent them from inheriting the Kingdom. This is lamentable indeed.

The destruction of entire cities and nations in the Old Testament has provided not a few problems for some. First of all, yes, the New Testament forbids that type of activity-- Christians are not to go out and slaughter unbelievers (Galatians 5:19-21, Ephesians 6:10-20). We must remember that the covenant between God and Israel involved a physical kingdom with physical adversaries that required physical assault, and Christianity is a spiritual kingdom with spiritual adversaries requiring spiritual assault.

Q: The Bible tells us that God is timeless, and that we have free will, but He knows all things (past, present, and future). If He knows that someone is going to reject Him, then why create them in the first place?

A: It is always difficult to answer any question which presumes to know the mind of God. I think, however, we may gain some insight by the constant comparison of God as "Father" (Hebrews 12, etc.).

It is granted that an earthly parent does not have the ability to know the future and how their child(ren) will turn out, but we do know, for instance, that our child(ren) will die. The result of a soul rejecting God, as we have seen, is spiritual death. But just as we have expectations and hopes for our children even though they, as ourselves, will die, and perhaps in their lives they may have impacts that work for good, I would believe that God also has created man, recognizing that he will do evil and will reject God, but in the hopes that some men will turn to God and obey Him. The child of a man who rejects God may not reject Him-- if the child were never born, how could the child have ever existed to choose to obey God?

I will say again that these are only some thoughts, some speculations to perhaps ease some concerns. They may or may not be accurate, and perhaps others could come upon some more plausible reasons.

Q: Is the soul perishable?

A: Since we know that our God is spirit, and not physical (John 4:24), and since we read the following in Genesis 1:26-27:

And God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."
And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

...we must recognize that we are made in His image by having our soul, since we cannot be in God's image in any other way. Since God is imperishable, we must therefore conclude that the soul also is imperishable.

Q: 1. In Psalm 91, God promises to give us victory and keep us safe from pestilence. Why did the pastor in Singapore and the Christian doctor and his mum die of SARS? Why did God not deliver them?

A: I assume that Psalm 91:3-6 is the text under discussion?

For He will deliver thee from the snare of the fowler, And from the deadly pestilence. He will cover thee with his pinions, And under His wings shalt thou take refuge: His truth is a shield and a buckler. Thou shalt not be afraid for the terror by night, Nor for the arrow that flieth by day; For the pestilence that walketh in darkness, Nor for the destruction that wasteth at noonday.

While there is no denial that David penned these words, nor would I say that it is not Scripture, but we do always have to remember the proper place of the Old Testament. We can learn much from its narrative and recognize the way that God communicates with His creation, but we cannot use the Old Testament as a source of doctrine under the New Covenant with Christ, for the two cannot be so reconciled (Ephesians 2:11-15, Colossians 2:14-16). Therefore, it is more proper to say that God promised "David and the Israelites," not necessarily "us," to be safe from pestilence.

Now, why did the "pastor" and the Christian doctor and his mother die of SARS? We could quite easily ask why anyone dies of anything. Thousands of people like them die of cancer each year; is the question any less legitimate?

Man dies because of his sin; this has been true since Adam in Genesis 3:17-19:

And unto Adam He said, "Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, 'Thou shalt not eat of it:' cursed is the ground for thy sake; in toil shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return."

Yet the Christian, the one obedient to the message of God in the Scriptures, need not be concerned about this death, as Paul explains in 1 Corinthians 15:22:

For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.

All humans have to die; the benefit of Christ is that we can live again.

The one obedient to the will of God may also take comfort in the message of Paul in Philippians 1:21-24:

For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. But if to live in the flesh, if this shall bring fruit from my work, then what I shall choose I know not. But I am in a strait betwixt the two, having the desire to depart and be with Christ; for it is very far better: yet to abide in the flesh is more needful for your sake.

The Christian may enjoy life on Earth but must always, always remember that going to be with Christ is much better than our existence here. If we truly have hope in Christ and truly believe that our resurrection will be like His, then a Christian ought not fear death.

Q: Why did God allow SARS to spread?

A: My answer to this question will also in part answer the portion of your earlier question concerning why "God did not deliver [the ill]."

The immediate impulse of everyone whenever evil occurs is to blame God. After all, if God is this wonderful Creator, why is there such pain and suffering within His creation? The Christian, however, must resist this impulse, and we know this from the book of Job. I would encourage you, and anyone else who feels like God is causing suffering, to re-read the book of Job, especially the speeches at the end. We may gain from this book the understanding that God is Almighty and all-powerful, the only one who understands the way the world and the heavens truly work. Man has no right to question God's sovereignty. We also learn further from James 1:13-17 that God is not the author of temptation and God is responsible for every good thing:

Let no man say when he is tempted, 'I am tempted of God;' for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempteth no man: but each man is tempted, when he is drawn away by his own lust, and enticed. Then the lust, when it hath conceived, beareth sin: and the sin, when it is fullgrown, bringeth forth death. Be not deceived, my beloved brethren. Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom can be no variation, neither shadow that is cast by turning.

We also see in Ephesians 2:1-3 who is allowed to be in control of the world right now:

And you did he make alive, when ye were dead through your trespasses and sins, wherein ye once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the powers of the air, of the spirit that now worketh in the sons of disobedience; among whom we also all once lived in the lust of our flesh, doing the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.

I think we would all agree that SARS, like AIDS and other diseases with high death tolls, are generally not good things. Therefore, according to the Scriptures, what is its source? Is it God? By no means, for God does not give things that are evil, according to James. Therefore, we must conclude that the existence and spread of SARS is caused by the "prince of the powers of the air, of the spirit not now works in the sons of disobedience," otherwise known as Satan or the devil. He is the one responsible for the suffering of mankind, be it through disease or sin.

Purely Doctrinal Considerations

Q: What is justification and what is the difference between legal and evangelical justification?

A: Justification is the word that is often used to translate the Greek word dikaioo or dikaiosis, literally "to declare righteous" or "to make just". In the Scriptures, particularly in Romans, justification is represented in the cross of Christ, that when we are obedient to Christ by faith we are made righteous in Him, since we cannot be made righteous by ourselves.

"Legal" and "evangelical" justification are terms I have not seen in the Scriptures nor even heard of, really, but it may perhaps refer to the idea of being made righteous by law versus being made righteous through the Gospel, getting to the heart of the difference between what persons under the Law of Moses attempted to do and failed but what Christ was able to do for us by the cross.

Salvation

Q: Why did Jesus have to die on the cross?

A: According to the Scriptures, such was necessary so that a proper sacrifice could be made for the remission of sin:

And he took a cup, and gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins. But I say unto you, I shall not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom (Matthew 26:27-29).
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life (John 3:16).

There seems to be three theological themes interwoven into the death of Christ:

1. Jesus as the Passover lamb
2. Jesus as obedient Son
3. Jesus as Mediator

1. Paul makes a quick reference to Jesus as the Passover lamb in 1 Corinthians 5:7, and the Hebrew author explicates a similar idea at length in Hebrews 9-10. Jesus' death upon the cross represents the perfect sacrifice for sin, the only way to appease the justice of God. In this way, Jesus becomes the perfect manifestation of the earthly shadow of the OT. His blood is able to fully cleanse and also to inaugurate the new covenant. In a larger theological theme, Jesus becomes the type of the history of Israel-- Birth, Captivity, Exodus, Conquest, Exile, and Return are all seen in His birth, flight to Egypt, return to Galilee (and Jerusalem), His preaching, culminating in the cleansing of the Temple, death, and resurrection. Thus He is able to "fulfill all things" (Matthew 5:17).

2. Hebrews 4:14-16 and Hebrews 5 indicates how Jesus suffered as a Son, learning obedience, and therefore was able to sympathize with us in our weaknesses and trials.

3. 1 Timothy 2:5 indicates how Jesus fulfills a mediatorial role, and the mediation is based on Jesus being both God and man and also on account of His death for man's sin.

Q: My question is regarding Romans 5:12-21: do these verses really teach original sin as most Christians claim? I am having serious doubts about the "babies born sinners" theory. Also, when reading Psalm 51:5 and talking to Jews concerning this proof text, it seems to me the subject of the verse is David's mother, not David himself. But I have another take on it as well: who is to say that David is not projecting himself here as the unborn baby who later died, after all this is in poetic form and the baby was conceived by sin (David and Bathsheba's adultery)? Well I don't know what to believe anymore but I am having a hard time charging God with creating baby sinners in the womb.

A: You are on target when you have a hard time establishing that God creates baby sinners in the womb. Ezekiel 18:1-4 establishes the following:

The word of the LORD came unto me again, saying, "What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying,
'The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge?'
As I live," saith the Lord GOD, "ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel. Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die."

The LORD speaks to Ezekiel about a proverb spoken in Israel that establishes the idea that the son is penalized for the sins of the father, and the LORD commands Ezekiel to discontinue the use of this proverb in spiritual terms since each man is liable for his own sin and no one else. Jesus echoes this truth and directs it to children in Matthew 18:1-4:

In that hour came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, "Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?"
And he called to him a little child, and set him in the midst of them, and said,
"Verily I say unto you, Except ye turn, and become as little children, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven."

If the way to enter the Kingdom of Heaven is to be humbled as a little child it goes without saying that little children must have the Kingdom of Heaven. I believe these verses establish clearly that there is no "original sin."

You spoke of Romans 5:12-21:

Therefore, as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men, for that all sinned:-- for until the law sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the likeness of Adam's transgression, who is a figure of him that was to come. But not as the trespass, so also is the free gift. For if by the trespass of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God, and the gift by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abound unto the many. And not as through one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment came of one unto condemnation, but the free gift came of many trespasses unto justification. For if, by the trespass of the one, death reigned through the one; much more shall they that receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one, even Jesus Christ. So then as through one trespass the judgment came unto all men to condemnation; even so through one act of righteousness the free gift came unto all men to justification of life. For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the one shall the many be made righteous. And the law came in besides, that the trespass might abound; but where sin abounded, grace did abound more exceedingly: that, as sin reigned in death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

First of all, it must be noted that Paul's entire purpose in this passage is to establish Jesus Christ as the "second Adam," the man who, while tempted, did not fall into sin and gave Himself as the atonement for sin, and therefore counteracts the condemnation given to man from Adam.

Secondly, it is true in one sense that all men and women, regardless of age, suffer under the penalty of Adam in that we all die physical deaths. When an infant dies, that death is due to sin being in the world. Sin is in the world because of Adam's original sin. Sin, therefore, is the reason that people die-- this does NOT mean, however, that every person dies because they have themselves sinned.

It is appropriate, then, to now discuss Psalm 51:5:

Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity; And in sin did my mother conceive me.

Now, it is possible that David utilizes hyperbole-- an exaggeration-- to magnify the terrible nature of his sin. We can also, however, understand this verse in the same context as Romans 5: David was born into a sinful world to parents who themselves had sinned, and he would himself sin. Does this mean that David sinned somehow at birth? Not at all!

These facts, at least, are clear:

  1. Sin entered the world through Adam's sin.
  2. The penalty of sin being in the world is death.
  3. All humans are liable to die at any time.
  4. Humans who have knowledge of good and evil and choose the evil have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

We can see from the passages we have explored, moreover, that the following is also true:

  1. Sin is only attributed to those actually performing sin.
  2. Little children are considered the ideal state for entering the Kingdom of Heaven.

On the matter of original sin, then, we can conclude the following:

It is true that since all humans are liable to die at any time, and death is due to the existence of sin in the world, and Adam was the one to first sin, that infants and small children who die, along with anyone else who dies, die because death is one of mankind's penalties for sin. Merely because they live in a sinful climate, however, does not mean that infants or small children have themselves sinned. One must have recognition of good and evil and choose evil (cf. Isaiah 7:15-16) in order to sin. Since infants and small children do not have that capability, and therefore have no sin against them, and are considered the ideal state for anyone entering the Kingdom of Heaven, we conclude that the denominational notion of "original sin" is false.

Q: What do I need to know before I take the step of being baptized?

A: The best way to answer this question for yourself is to look into the accounts of conversion in the book of Acts and see what they needed to know before they were baptized.

We can learn from Acts 2:14-29, Acts 8:4-13, Acts 8:31-39, Acts 10:1-48, and many other passages, that the following is necessary to know:

  1. That Jesus was the promised Christ, the Son of God.
  2. That you are in sin and have sin against you.
  3. That Jesus' death on the cross was for your sin.
  4. That through believing, confessing, repenting, being baptized, and obedience, you shall receive salvation.
  5. That baptism is for the remission of sin.

If you understand all these things, you ought to be straightaway baptized for the remission of your sins. As you can see from the many accounts in Acts, once the people were convicted they were baptized and rejoiced in their salvation.

Q: I have heard alot of people arguing about Baptism. More specifically whether to use water or oil, whether to imerse or sprinkle, etc. What is your opinion about it, based upon your knowledge of the Bible?

A: In regards to baptism, my overall belief may be found at A Study of Denominations: Baptism.

When it comes to immersion, pouring, or sprinking, we must remember that the Greek word baptizo, from which we get "baptism," means "immersion." The imagery of baptism as a burial in Romans 6:3-7 reinforces the truth that baptism in the New Testament is immersion.

When it comes to the substance of baptism, the only "baptisms" in the New Testament are of the Spirit and of water. The former occurred on only two occasions, on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2 and upon Cornelius and his men in Acts 10, they both were miraculous and done by the hand of God, and, since there is but one baptism (Ephesians 4:5), it is best to look at baptism for us in terms of water, as seen explicitly in Acts 8:34-39 and Acts 10:47, and by necessity in Acts 2:38-44, Acts 16:33, and Acts 19:1-9. The use of oil was designated more for anointment, like for the ill (James 5:14). The "catholic" church developed chrismation, when a convert is anointed with oil, as an extension of the Biblical practice of laying on of hands (cf. Acts 19:1-9, etc.). There is no indication from the New Testament that such is to be practiced.

Q: My fiance was baptized 15 years ago in the Baptist church and I am a member of a church of Christ. He would like to know why it's important for him to become baptized in the church of Christ when he was baptized all those years ago.

A: The issue is not about in which church one is baptized, but what the purpose is of the one being baptized.

The Scriptures attest that the purpose of baptism is for remission of sin, as seen in Acts 2:38 and 1 Peter 3:21:

And Peter said unto them, "Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."
whose antitype doth now save you, even baptism, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the appeal of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

We must remember that baptism in the language of the day was "immersion," and I am confident that most everyone has been immersed in water many times in their lives. What makes such an immersion the type of baptism seen as commanded in the New Testament is it being done for the purpose of remission of sin.

If, therefore, your fiance was immersed in water for the remission of sin, he is fine and well. If his baptism was as a public profession of what was believed to have already been done, or any other reason, he just got wet, and was not, in truth, baptized according to the New Testament command.

The Truth of God and the Scriptures

Q: I hear from non-believers that there are many inconsistencies in the bible. Take, they say, for instance, the different accounts Paul gives of his conversion. They say they are not the same, so therefore the inconsistencies mean they are not true. Would you comment on this?

A: Many times the "inconsistencies" are nothing more than a desire to make the text seem contradictory or inconsistent; the example of Paul's conversion is one of these.

The account of Paul's conversion is given in Acts 9:3-9, Acts 22:6-11, and Acts 26:12-18:

And as he journeyed, it came to pass that he drew nigh unto Damascus: and suddenly there shone round about him a light out of heaven: and he fell upon the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him,
"Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?"
And he said, "Who art thou, Lord?"
And he said, "I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: but rise, and enter into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do."
And the men that journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing the voice, but beholding no man. And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw nothing; and they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus. And he was three days without sight, and did neither eat nor drink.
"And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and drew nigh unto Damascus, about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me. And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me,
'Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?'
And I answered, 'Who art thou, Lord?'
And he said unto me, 'I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest.'
And they that were with me beheld indeed the light, but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.
And I said, 'What shall I do, Lord?'
And the Lord said unto me, 'Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do.'
And when I could not see for the glory of that light, being led by the hand of them that were with me I came into Damascus."
"Whereupon as I journeyed to Damascus with the authority and commission of the chief priests, at midday, O king, I saw on the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them that journeyed with me. And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice saying unto me in the Hebrew language,
'Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the goad.'
And I said, 'Who art thou, Lord?'
And the Lord said, 'I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. But arise, and stand upon thy feet: for to this end have I appeared unto thee, to appoint thee a minister and a witness both of the things wherein thou hast seen me, and of the things wherein I will appear unto thee; delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom I send thee, to open their eyes, that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive remission of sins and an inheritance among them that are sanctified by faith in me.'"

We see here three different ways of saying the same thing. I have not heard people argue that the additions in speech in the three accounts are "inconsistent;" it is difficult to argue as much because the text never asserts that Jesus "only" said to Paul certain things and therefore different lengths of the conversation are given for different purposes. When we put all three accounts together we get the fuller picture of the event. Generally I have seen argued that the inconsistency is in the companions of Paul-- in Acts 9 they hear no voice and see no person, in Acts 22 they see the light but do not hear the voice speaking, and in Acts 26 they see the light. In some other Bible versions (the above is the ASV) the position is given credence that the companions hear something in one account but not in another and see something in one account but not in another; this is merely wishful thinking on the part of those who deny the Bible, for we can see clearly in these passages that the companions could easily have seen a bright light without seeing who was in the light-- hence, they saw the light but saw no person. They also could have heard a noise but could not make out what was being said-- hence, they heard sounds but did not hear the voice of Jesus.

The inconsistencies/contradictions of the Bible are easily explained and readily believable by those who desire to believe. There will always be, however, those who in their darkness do not want to believe and will justify themselves with as much.

Q: In almost any US city, especially major cities, you can find a church on almost any corner that you turn to. Why are there so many Christian based religions in the world today? Is there a right way, wrong way, or has God even given us any one particular way, and place to reverence His worship?

A: One could write many volumes describing why there are so many groups today. When you have men putting forth their opinions above the Word of God, you have such groups (cf. 1 Corinthians 1). For years, groups have been formed, and groups split off in reaction to excesses of other groups. This is not from God!

The Bible is quite clear that there is one particular way to follow God. As assuredly as there is one Lord, there is one body (=one church, Colossians 1:18) and one faith (Ephesians 4:4-5). God expects obedience from His servants (Romans 1:5, Romans 6:16-23); to be obedient, one must actually follow His standard and no other. Knowledge of God is predicated on knowing His commandments (1 John 2:1-5).

We must return to the New Testament and the faith promoted within its pages if we seek to be saved by the God who revealed it.

Women

Q: I have heard many different views about women in authority. What is the Biblical view of this? I have heard that women cannot hold any position that puts them in authority over a man. Is this true?

A: The Scriptures speak in regards to these issues in 1 Corinthians 14:33-35, 1 Timothy 2:9-15, and 1 Peter 3:1-7:

for God is not a God of confusion, but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, let the women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but let them be in subjection, as also saith the law. And if they would learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home: for it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church.
In like manner, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefastness and sobriety; not with braided hair, and gold or pearls or costly raiment; but (which becometh women professing godliness) through good works. Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection. But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness. For Adam was first formed, then Eve; and Adam was not beguiled, but the woman being beguiled hath fallen into transgression: but she shall be saved through her child-bearing, if they continue in faith and love and sanctification with sobriety.
In like manner, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, even if any obey not the word, they may without the word be gained by the behavior of their wives; beholding your chaste behavior coupled with fear. Whose adorning let it not be the outward adorning of braiding the hair, and of wearing jewels of gold, or of putting on apparel; but let it be the hidden man of the heart, in the incorruptible apparel of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. For after this manner aforetime the holy women also, who hoped in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection to their own husbands: as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose children ye now are, if ye do well, and are not put in fear by any terror. Ye husbands, in like manner, dwell with your wives according to knowledge, giving honor unto the woman, as unto the weaker vessel, as being also joint-heirs of the grace of life; to the end that your prayers be not hindered.

We can see from these verses that women are to be in subjection to their husbands, ask of them anything that may give them cause to question in the assembly, and that a woman is not to have authority over the man. If a woman does not have a husband, and is still in her father's house, then she should heed him; if a widow, or divorced, she should consult the elders of the church.

Q: I have heard many different views about women in authority. What is the Biblical view of this? I have heard that women cannot hold any position that puts them in authority over a man. Is this true?

In view of your answer to this question, would you explain Galatians 3:23-29.

A: Paul testifies in 1 Timothy 2:11-14:

Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection. But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness. For Adam was first formed, then Eve; and Adam was not beguiled, but the woman being beguiled hath fallen into transgression (1 Timothy 2:11-14).

From this we gain the understanding that women are not to usurp or exert authority over men.

Galatians 3:23-29 is indeed true; we all of the same value before Christ. The fact that we are all souls valuable to God does not change the fact that we all have different roles in life. Paul can say a similar thing to Galatians 3:28 in Colossians 3:11, and then in Colossians 3:18-4:1 speak of the responsibilities of people in various stations toward each other. The fact that there is neither slave nor free in Christ does not mean that Christian slaves should expect freedom; the fact that there is neither man or woman in Christ does not mean that men and women no longer have roles to fulfill.

Q: I would like to know: is it wrong for women to pray and sing to open a ladies' bible class in the church building when no men are present? Is it wrong for men and women to be in one room and the men are sitting in front teaching a class and a woman is sitting in the back of the room teaching a class of women but they are in the same room and can definitely hear each other?

A: Regarding your first question, there is certainly nothing wrong with women praying and singing to open a Bible class and have women lead such prayers and songs when no men are present. Paul never says that women cannot lead prayers or songs, but just that they are not to usurp authority over men (1 Timothy 2:12).

Regarding your second question-- since the women's class does not contain men and the men should be listening to their own class and are not participants in any way in the women's class, the same applies: no men are involved, no usurpation of authority, thus, there is nothing Scripturally wrong with women leading prayers and song in that situation also.

Q: Why do some women wear trousers while some believe that it is not Scriptural for women to wear men's apparel?

A: The issue is the interpretation of an Old Testament passage in modern terms.

We do find the following said in Deuteronomy 22:5:

A woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment; for whosoever doeth these things is an abomination unto the LORD thy God.

The assumption is then made that trousers are "men's clothing," while skirts are "women's clothing," and therefore, women wearing trousers violates this Scripture.

To this argument I would say the following:

  1. Deuteronomy 22:5 represents Old Testament legislation; we have abundant evidence in the New Testament (Ephesians 2:11-18, Colossians 2:14-17, Hebrews 7-9) that the Law of Moses has been fulfilled in Jesus Christ and superceded by the covenant in His blood. For this belief to be legitimate, it has to find some authority within the New Testament.

  2. The New Testament says the following about apparel in 1 Timothy 2:9-10 and 1 Peter 3:1-4:

    In like manner, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefastness and sobriety; not with braided hair, and gold or pearls or costly raiment; but (which becometh women professing godliness) through good works.
    In like manner, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, even if any obey not the word, they may without the word be gained by the behavior of their wives; beholding your chaste behavior coupled with fear. Whose adorning let it not be the outward adorning of braiding the hair, and of wearing jewels of gold, or of putting on apparel; but let it be the hidden man of the heart, in the incorruptible apparel of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.

    We can see that there is an expectation to dress in a godly manner, in a way that does not stand out nor causes lascivious thoughts (cf. Galatians 5:19-23).

  3. The viewpoint expressed is rather dated, and without any Scriptural foundation. Yes, back before the 1950s, men wore trousers, and women wore skirts. Two hundred years before that, men wore leggings; do women today wearing nylons "wear men's apparel"? We could go all the way back to Roman times, when Paul penned the above words, and bind togas upon men and tunics upon women. In our society, trousers are not gendered. Any attempt to bind skirts on women is going beyond the Scriptures.

  4. On the other hand, if there is a person who honestly believes that women should not wear trousers, and trouser-wearing women are a stumbling-block to this person, it is best for women to wear skirts around such a one, since it is not immodest to wear a skirt and clothing is not worth destroying "him for whom Christ died," (Romans 14:15, cf. the whole chapter).

Response/Feedback

Do you have a question or comment about anything you have read here? Please feel free to contact me through the form below.

E-Mail Address:

Question/Comment/Other Response:

Please click here to return to the Bible Questions and Answers main page. Thanks!