The concept of a "sanctuary" actually comes from the Old Testament model of the structure that was build as a bridge between a perfect God and His imperfect creation. It’s main purpose was to serve as the place where sacrifices took place, and these sacrifices took place on a daily basis. People were only expected to go to the sanctuary when they needed to offer a sacrifice, or on special Jewish holy days. Additionally, people could go to the sanctuary to pray, and the priests would often conduct some type of worship service with prescribed prayers and readings.

     As the New Testament book of Hebrews illustrates, these sacrifices–in fact the entire sanctuary service–pointed to Jesus, and the plan of salvation.

     In ancient Israel, there was only one sanctuary, which was located in Jerusalem. Since the sanctuary had a specific function, and was built by Divine edict, there could be no other.

       As Jews became dispersed, they developed the "synagogue" which was based on an entirely different concept than the sanctuary. The synagogue was basically a community hall where the local Jewish communities held social and educational events during the week, and had worship services on Sabbath (if ten men [minyan] were present). While they had a person responsible for taking care of the synagogue (a chazzan), there was no set clergy and any male who had gone through Bar Mitzvah could read and comment on the scripture.

     The New Testament informs us that the earliest Christians worshiped in synagogues with their fellow Jews, and many in Jerusalem continued to worship in the temple. However, with the growing hostility from some of the Jewish leaders, they began to form their own worship communities that came to be known as "churches."

     Now the concept of "church" is different than that of temple or synagogue. Our English word "church" is more accurately a transliteration of the Greek kuriake, meaning "associated with the Lord." However, the word in our Bibles most frequently translated "church" is ekklesia, a term used in secular Greek for an assembly. More specifically, it is derived from the preposition ek and the verb kaleo, and means "to call out of." In other words, the church is comprised of those who have been "called out of" one way of life into another.

     Interestingly, when used in the New Testament, the word ekklesia never refers to a building or any other physical structure, but always to groups of individuals. People comprise God’s church. Church is not where Christians go, it’s who Christians are! This reality leads to the notion that our "bodies" comprise the temple of the holy God. As Solomon himself recognized in 1 Chronicles when he dedicated the Jerusalem temple, God is not confined to a human structure, but dwells in the hearts of those who are in relationship with him.

     Most of our practices surrounding church have been influenced by culture–things like music, dress, liturgy, etc. This is natural, because we are all creatures of culture. The Bible itself does not dictate any specifics on how to dress for church, the order of service, or many of the other things that we frequently see in churches today.

     Having said that, the Bible does provide some guidelines for worship such as those we find towards the end of 1 Corinthians 14, which is basically summed up with the phrase that everything in worship should be done "decently and in order." I hope this helps.

     I would be the first to admit that it could definitely be true. If this were indeed a family plot, the fact that the DNA samples taken from the coffins of Jesua son of Joseph and Mariamne were different, does suggest that they could have been husband and wife. And if the DNA of Judah son of Jesua links with that of Jesua son of Joseph, then this could be probable proof of a father-son relationship. And if Jofa’s DNA links to that of Jesua and Judah, then they could be related too. And if the other Mary’s DNA links to the DNA of Jesua, Judah, and Jofa, but not the first Mary (Mariamne), then she could be the ancestor of the aforementioned men. And if Matthew’s DNA links to the others, then the family ties would definitely be proven.

     Wait a minute. Matthew? What’s he doing in the tomb with Jesua, Joseph, and Mary? Why shouldn’t he be if he was a family member? In fact, Mary could have been Matthew’s wife, or in a polygamous society, he may have had two wives called Mary, one of whom had a son called Jesua. Or, Jesua’s son Judah may have been married to Mary and could have had a son named Matthew who married another Mary.

     I think you get the picture by now. While this could very well be a family tomb, it is absolutely absurd to even suggest that this was the family of Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah of prophecy. In order to embrace this theory, one would first need DNA samples of Jesus–a practical impossibility. Further, one would need access to living relatives of Joseph and Mary to even make a case based on genetics. And even if a person could secure the DNA, how can they tell the relationship of the people in the tomb?

     Additionally, one would have to take giant leaps of faith to accept the theory that Jesus was married to a Mary who bore him a son named Judah. There is absolutely no historical evidence to support that. The Bible goes into great detail about the life of Christ, and says nothing about him being married. In fact, the Bible is clear that there was a bodily resurrection, and a physical ascension into the heavens.

     So, could this be the tomb of Jesus and his family? As I said before, most definitely! But not the Jesus of prophecy, the pre-existent Son of God. It is the tomb that hosted the coffin of one of thousands of men named Jesus who live in Judea during the Greco-Roman period. The Jesus who I serve left behind an empty tomb–a symbol of the grand day, when the faithful of all ages will be raptured and resurrected to eternal life.

     This is an interesting question which can be answered by providing a definition for "gambling." Technically, gambling involves a person putting up funds or some other commodity with the "hope" of getting a bigger return. The operative term here is "hope." Some people see gambling as a form of "investing" and compare it to buying stocks and other types of financial trading. However, an investor does not place funds in a venture merely with the "hope" of getting a return, he or she "expects" to get a return. While it is true that one who invests stands a chance of losing the investment, the probability of that happening with an experienced investor is very slim.

     Anyone who has "gambled" knows that the odds are usually against them. Casinos, lotteries, and other enticing avenues of wealth would not be so successful if a lot of people were winning. There are absolutely no guarantees with gambling, and it is termed "gambling" precisely because there is a strong chance that the money may be lost.

     Now, the Bible itself doesn’t have a text that directly addresses gambling. However, there are a couple verses that speak directly to "gamblers." The first is 1 Timothy 6:10 which warns that the "love of money is the root of all evil." It is no secret that many people have become addicted to gambling and have lied, cheated, stole, murdered, drank, and sunk to deep levels of immorality in order to feed their addiction. It is for this very reason that Hebrews 13:5 also warns Christians to "keep their life free from the love of money, and be content with what they have." Many gamblers are so caught up with getting rich, that they don’t even realize that their actions are making them poorer.

     Now lets get to the heart of the question. Can call in competitions be equated with gambling? I believe the answer lies in the word "competition." A competition is an activity in which any number of people vie for a specific prize–and the awarding of the prize is guaranteed. In fact, many of these competitions require that those who enter answer a question correctly or satisfy some other condition before the prize is awarded. Ultimately, since call in competitions don’t usually demand an outlay of funds from the participants, they probably don’t fit under the category of gambling.

     Having said this, if a person feels compelled to respond to every call-in competition to the extent that it affects her normal way of life, she may just be a gambler....

     I guess the real question is "what was the method for determining which books to include in the Christian Bible"?

     In the Protestant tradition, the Christian Bible consists of the Old and New Testaments. The Bible used by Orthodox and Catholic Christians contain a number of other books which Protestants deem "apocryphal." The word "apocryphal" is somewhat misleading, in that it means "hidden" or "secret" and may suggest that there is a conspiracy to keep them from the public. Since these books are readily available, it is easy to see that this is far from the truth. Nonetheless, for those who deny their inspiration, it is probably better to refer to them as pseudonymous, spurious or fraudulent.

     Well, let’s get back to the Protestant Bible and its two divisions. The books included in the Protestant Old Testament come from the original Hebrew Bible, and are identical to the books that Jews accept as inspired. The Old Testament itself is divided into three volumes: the law, the prophets, and the writings. The law is the oldest of the divisions, and is believed to be God’s revelation to Moses. The writings and prophets use the law as the foundation, and are written by notable historical figures who had public ministries.

     Accepting the Old Testament as the word of God, the earliest Christians would have initially used it as there exclusive Bible. In fact, this was there primary source for interpreting doctrine, and proving that Jesus was the Messiah. In addition to using the Old Testament, early Christians also placed spiritual significance on the words of Jesus, and the theological and instructional letters originating from Jesus’ Apostles. By the beginning of the second century, Christian theologians and preachers were quoting freely from many of the letters that we now know as the New Testament.

     Unfortunately, along with the genuine letters written by people who were connected to Jesus and were filled with the Holy Spirit, a number of other spurious letters also began to circulate. These were often fraudulently written in the name of an apostle. While not touching on the issues of fraudulent letters, Luke lets us know in the first chapter of his gospel that many individuals had published documents about Jesus. Dealing with the issue head on, in 2 Thessalonians 2:2, Paul warns his readers that others have deceitfully written in his name, and authenticates the letter with his own signature (2 Thess 3:17). We know that within the first few centuries, there were gospels being circulated in the name of Judas, Mary, Thomas, Philip and other personalities and causes.

     The proliferation of fraudulent literature brought about the need for early Christians to establish methods for determining which of the books were authentic–and thus inspired. Already by the end of the second century, the Muratorian Canon included most of the books in our current New Testament, and by the fourth century the African theologian Athanasius was the first to use the word "canon" for the books in the Protestant Bible.

     Several criteria were used to determine the authenticity of the book. These included:

     1. Apostolic origin or endorsement

     2. Wide spread usage by the Church

     3. Theological harmony of its teachings with other books

     4. The spiritual and moral effect of its teachings

     5. Attitude of the early church toward the document

     Although certain groups may have been attached to so called apocryphal books, any book that did not measure up to these criteria were not included in the canon. Those who have an opportunity to study the apocryphal books quickly see why, particularly when the doctrinal content is carefully scrutinized.

     Ultimately, the book that we call the Bible is the result of a Supernaturally guided project that spanned about 1,500 years. It contains an account of the words and workings of God, and has tremendous spiritual benefits for its readers. Some have tried to obscure its teachings by casting doubt on the process by which the books came about, but the majority who feast on its words know that "the word of God is indeed alive and powerful...." (Heb 4:12)

     Although there are a few texts that may suggest otherwise, the majority of biblical texts that deal with death agree that when a person "dies" he or she remains in an unconscious state until the time of resurrection. It is true that the passage of scripture in Matthew 17 describing meeting between Jesus, Elijah and Moses on the Mount of Transfiguration appears to contradict this. If the dead remain unconscious, how could Moses and Elijah have appeared to Jesus?

     Fortunately, the Bible is not in the habit of contradicting itself and offers a clear explanation for this meeting. 2 Kings 2:1-14 provides the account of Elijah’s last moments on earth. As Elisha, his young protégé, observed he was taken up into the heavens in a whirlwind and chariots of fire. The Bible is clear that Elijah did not die, and as such was more than able to make an appearance on the Mount of Transfiguration.

The presence of Moses poses a bigger problem, for Deuteronomy 34:1-8 is clear that he died and even speaks of his mysterious burial. If Moses was buried, how could he make an appearance on Transfiguration Mount? However, here again the Bible provides an answer. In the brief book of Jude, we read the account of a dispute over the body of Moses that took place between Michael the Archangel and the devil. While the text does not give a lot of information, it can be deduced–based on the Matthew 17 passage–that the issue involved the special resurrection of Moses (a belief widely written about in Jewish literature). Obviously, the devil did not prevail in his attempt to stop the resurrection, which must have been successful since Moses accompanies Elijah on the special visit to Jesus.

     The only other person in the Bible who escaped death is Enoch, the seventh from Adam who "walked with God and was no more because God took him" (Genesis 5:24). I guess the big question is, "why wasn’t Enoch invited to the reunion on the mountain?"

     There was a definite system for capital punishment in the Old Testament where the so called lex talionis (law of retaliation) was operative. As we look at Exodus 21, and a number of other passages, the Bible is clear that in the Israelite system of governance certain crimes were punishable by death. These included the taking of a life, but also extended to adultery or even disrespect to parents!

     The social setting of the New Testament is radically different from that in the old. Whereas in the Old Testament, the people of God had their own nation and thus their own government, those in the New Testament lived under the government of Rome. Since they did not control their own affairs, it would be hard to apply the Old Testament teachings to the position of the politically disenfranchised New Testament Christians.

     One may well ask what the teaching would have been if the Christians had their own nation and government. Well, given Jesus’ teachings on peace, it is hard to imagine that a government led by Christians would either endorse or enforce capital punishment laws. The New Testament emphasizes the reality that vengeance belongs to God, and heralds the great day of judgement when all unrepentant sinners will receive their eternal punishment.

     Having said this, there are at least two passages in the New Testament that appear to support capital punishment. The first is Romans 13:3-4 where Paul states that the public officials are "servants of God" who "bear the sword" as a deterrent to law breakers. As you read the text, it is obvious that the reference to the ruler bearing the sword refers to capital punishment. The second is 1 Peter 2:13-14, where Peter endorses the right of the governor to "punish those who do wrong."

     Based on these two passages, it does appear as if governments have the right to stipulate punishments for certain crimes. Of course, in governments that claim to be democracies, the people must decide the severity of those punishments. With this in mind, one would hope that in those democracies in which the majority of the population profess Christianity, the prescribed list of punishments will reflect the principle of compassion that is at the center of Christ’s teaching.

     Babylon is first mentioned in 14:8–a prelude to chapters 17 & 18. It is obvious that it refers to an entity with global power. When elaborated upon in chapters 17 & 18, Babylon is described as a woman–more specifically a "whore" (17:1). Here she sits on a scarlet beast with seven heads and ten horns–apparently, the same beast that appears in chapters 12 and 13.

     Based on the fact that Babylon is depicted as a woman, there are some who believe that she is supposed to be the antagonist to the woman clothed with the celestial elements in 12:1. Given the fact that the woman of Revelation 12 appears to be a symbol of physical and spiritual Israel, they conclude that the woman of Revelation 17 and 18 must represent a false system of religion. However, in the context of chapter 12, it is the beast–representing the Devil–who is the real antagonist. Further, chapter 13 spells out that this beast has a religious agenda. The woman of chapter 17 and 18 sits "on" the beast.

     When we look at the description of the Babylonian woman, we notice that she is ornately adorned (17:4). Apparently, the Revelator aims to show that she is dressed like a high priced prostitute. The task of a prostitute is to offer gratification to lustful impulses. Apparently, this prostitute is so successful that she has universal control over every earthly kingdom and much of the earth’s population.

     Further insight into the identity of Babylon is provided in chapter 18, where she is depicted as the source of wealth for the merchants of the earth. Not only did she provide them with lavish material goods, but she also kept them supplied with slaves and entertainment. Given the vivid details in this chapter, it appears as if Babylon is more a political power than a religious one. More specifically, she seems to represent the hedonistic capitalism that has mesmerized humanity for millennia, and continues to widen the gulf between the rich and the poor.

     There are many military men in scripture–most in the Old Testament. Some were great men of God: David, Uriah, Gideon, Jephtha, et al. Of course, these fought in the national Israelite army. Israel was a nation that had a Divinely ordained imperial quest, but also needed a system of defense. Apparently, the Israelite army was only supposed to have a temporary function, as Yahweh envisioned the day when they would turn their "swords into plow shares, and their spears into pruning hooks" (Is 2:4). His ultimate vision was one of peace, when the nations would "study war no more."

     We don’t find God’s people actively involved in the military in the New Testament. A couple of Jesus’ disciples may at one time have been associated with the Zealot guerilla movement–a first century "terrorist" group from the Roman perspective. We also read of the Roman officer accepting the gospel in Acts 10, and he apparently remains in the army. Of course, there is no record of God telling Christians to go out and fight in the New Testament. The emphasis there is on his coming kingdom, which, according to Revelation, will be ushered in by the Messiah and his angelic hosts.

     In fact, Christians were known for their pacifism, and according to some historians, one of the reasons for the demise of the Roman empire was the refusal of soldiers to bear arms after they had become Christian.

     In establishing a biblical principle for level of participation a Christian should have in his or her nation’s military, there are two things to consider:

     According to Ephesians 6, the Christian’s struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, powers, rulers of darkness, and spiritual forces of evil in high places. Taking a human life, whether directly or indirectly, is a violation of God’s express command, "You must not murder." With this clear command, I fail to see any justification for "Christians" to kill in the name of country. Anyone who feels that it is justified may well have been numbered among the 95% of the Nazi soldiers in Hitler’s concentration camp, who were baptized Christians just simply "following orders."

     Let me start by placing Revelation 7:3 in its immediate context. It takes place during the sixth seal that depicts God’s wrath being poured out on the earth (Rev 6:12ff). The Revelator describes an international disaster where the frenzied wicked do everything in their power to escape the calamity. They are so desperate to be delivered from God’s retributive judgement, that according to Revelation 6:16, they call to the mountains and rocks, "Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who is seated on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb, for the great day of their wrath has come, and who can stand before it?"

     It is in response to this question that John transitions to the segment that describes the sealing of God’s servants. In Revelation 7:1-3, he writes, "I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth.... Then I saw another angel ascend from the rising sun with the seal of the living God...., saying, ‘Do not harm the earth or the sea or the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God upon their foreheads." (Rev 7:1-3)

     "Who can stand before the day of wrath? Those who are sealed!"

     I guess the real heart of the question is, "Where will they be?" Well, the commentary provides the two generally accepted understanding of this passage. First is the understanding that the sealing is another name for the "rapture" or the rescue of the saints at the second coming. This interpretation is based on the fact that later on in chapter 7, the saints have been redeemed and stand in the eternal presence of God and the Lamb.

     The second view considers the fact that in Revelation 9:4 under the seven trumpets (which appear to take place under the seventh seal [cf. 8:1ff]), the locusts are told to harm "those people who do not have the seal of God on their foreheads." Some take this to mean that dwellers on the earth at that time will consist of those with the seal and those without. If this is the case, then it can be deduced that the believers are sealed and consequently given special immunity from the atrocities that affect the rest of humanity.

     Whichever position one holds, I think it is important to remember that the Revelator paints a picture of a God who is able to protect his own. Once he places his seal on the saints, there is no entity that can prevail against them. This is not bad news about helpless souls who have to suffer with the wicked, but good news about empowered saints who have the privilege of experiencing God’s protecting mercies in the most powerful way.

I was first forced to wrestle with the biblical teaching on polygamy when I taught a group of ministers in Zimbabwe a few years ago. I naturally assumed that they would all be against it, but there were some who felt that the practice was endorsed by the Bible, and was thus acceptable to Christians.

     Before I continue, it is necessary to clarify that when most people speak of polygamy, they are really referring to polygyny. Polygyny is marriage to multiple "wives" as opposed to polyandry which involves the union of one woman with several men.

     The first apparent polygynous case in scripture is recorded in Genesis 4:19 where Lamech, a descendant of Cain, has two wives–seemingly at the same time. However, the practice of polygyny was not limited to Cain’s descendants as we soon discover when Abraham, the "father of the faithful," forces his Egyptian slave into marriage even while he is married to Sarah. Following the precedent, Jacob, the father of the Israelites, produced twelve sons through four wives (although two had the status of mistresses).

     Apparently, the Israelites accepted polygyny as a societal norm. In Deuteronomy 21:15-17, Moses assumes the legality of polygyny, just as he does with divorce in 24:1-3. The acceptance of polygamy among God’s Old Testament people is evidenced by the fact that David, the "man after God’s own heart" also had several wives. In fact, in 2 Samuel 12:8, Yahweh reveals through Nathan that it was he who gave David Saul’s wives. And who can forget the one-thousand women who called Solomon "husband"?

     The New Testament is virtually silent on the issue of polygyny. Paul is the only New Testament writer who indirectly addresses the issue in 1 Timothy 3:2 & 12, and Titus 1:6. Here he states that church officers can only be married to one wife.

     It appears to me that in making this a criterion for church leaders, the Holy Spirit through Paul elevates the ideal for God’s people. While the Bible does not explicitly forbid polygamy, God’s purpose for marriage is indicated by the fact that he only made one wife for Adam at creation, and declared that the "two become one flesh" in marriage. Jesus heralds the one flesh theme in Matthew 19 when discussing marriage with the Pharisees, and Paul uses the union of one man and one woman to illustrate the symbiotic relationship between Christ and the church in Ephesians 5.

This is a relevant question in an age where fifty percent of first marriages, sixty percent of second marriages, and seventy percent of third marriages end in divorce. Sadly, these figures are as true for the Christian church in the West as they are for the world. Unfortunately, many see marriage as a temporary contract that can be reneged upon when things don’t go exactly how a person expected. With so many Christian couples breaking up, those who face difficulty in marriage feel that it’s OK to throw in the towel. Many reason that God wants them to be happy, and if the spouse is hindering that happiness, he would want them to move on to greener pastures.

     It is clear that society views divorce as a normal outcome of tainted relationships, but what does the Bible say about it?

     The first reference to divorce in the Bible comes in Deuteronomy 24, where Moses provides guidelines regulating the reconciliation of a divorced couple. It is obvious that Moses does not establish the divorce law, but accommodates a societal law that the ancient Israelites recognized. God makes it clear through the prophet Malachi (2:16), that he did not intend for his people to engage in divorce. In no uncertain terms he states: "I hate divorce!"

     The core of the New Testament teaching on divorce is found in Matthew 19:3-9 and 1 Corinthians 7. In Matthew 19, Jesus informs the Pharisees that divorce was not a part of God’s original plan. In fact, he states that Moses only accommodated the Israelites in Deuteronomy 24 because of their obstinacy–in other words, they were going to go against the will of God anyhow, so he made some concessions. Jesus is very clear that divorce is not an option for those following the will of God. He does support annulment, on the grounds of "fornication" (porneia), but judging from the disciples’ response to his declaration in Matthew 9: 10, these cases are highly extreme.

     In 1 Corinthians 7:10-16, Paul is also clear that the union of Christian couples lasts until the death of one of them (cf. 7:39). If there is any difficulty in the relationship, he suggests a period of separation in which each person remains single until reconciliation. During that time, neither is free to divorce and remarry.

This is actually a common belief held by many Fundamentalist Christians who believe that the only way a person can receive salvation is through consciously accepting Jesus as their Lord and Savior. One of the scriptures used to support this position is Romans 10:9–"If you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." Another is John 14:6–"I am the way, the truth, and the life. Noone comes to the Father except through me." Read in isolation, it is easy to see how one can conclude that a person must hear the gospel and accept Jesus in order to be saved.

     However, when seen in the broader context, it is obvious that this is not the message of scripture. For instance, way before Paul made his statement in Romans 8, he made a stunning declaration in Romans 2 concerning the salvation of those who are ignorant of God’s will. In verses 12-16, he distinctly states that God judges a person based on their exposure to his revelation. The same Paul echoes this thought in Acts 17 when addressing the Stoic and Epicurean philosophers on the Aeropagus in Athens. In verses 27-28, he reasons that God has deposited enough evidence in every culture for the earnest seeker to find him, then asserts in verse 30 that God overlooks human ignorance. In other words, he does not hold a person responsible for what he or she does not know. In fact, going back to Romans 10, Paul asks the question in verse 14, "How are they to call on one whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in one of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone to proclaim him?"

     The message of the gospel is clear, as John 3:17 reveals, "God did not send his Son into the world to condemn it, but to save it." There are billions who have gone to their graves without having the opportunity to accept Jesus as their personal Saviour. Our loving God is not a tyrant who will automatically condemn these to eternal destruction, but will judge them based on their fidelity to the truth that was revealed to them.

     Is this to say that there is more than one way to salvation? Absolutely not! Jesus, the Lamb of God who took away the sins of the world is the only way. After all is said and done, all who are saved in the kingdom would only have made it through the blood of Jesus, whether they knew it or not!

Let me start out by saying that the Bible is clear that homosexuality is sinful. As early as Genesis 19 we get an idea of the reprehensible nature of homosexual behavior when the depravity of Sodom is demonstrated by the men who wanted to have sexual relations with Lot’s male visitors. A similar story is also found in Judges 19:22, when the men of Gibeah wanted to gang rape a visiting priest. In Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, the homosexual act is placed in the same category as bestiality and other sexual perversions, and is punishable by death.

     The New Testament prohibitions against homosexual behavior are just as firm. In Romans 1:27, Paul lists it among other sins that evidence a person’s reprobate departure from the will of God. In fact in 1 Timothy 1:9-11, he plainly states that homosexuality violates the law of God. Perhaps the most damning statement is made in 1 Corinthians 6:9, when he goes as far as saying that no homosexual will even enter the Kingdom of God. This thought is echoed by John the Revelator in Revelation 22:15, where he refers to homosexuals as "dogs" who are barred entrance to the kingdom.

Given the preponderance of biblical evidence, I make no hesitation in saying that if one claims to be a Christian, then he or she should not embrace homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle. Thinking about it, based on other passages of scripture, if a person claims to be a Christian, then he or she should not practice adultery, premarital sex, gossiping, lying, stealing, greed, vanity, can I go on? The truth is, there are a number of lifestyle choices that disqualify a person from wearing the Christian badge.

     If you have been listening carefully, you will notice that I have used terms like "homosexual behavior" and "lifestyle choices." This was done intentionally to emphasize the fact that the Bible condemns those who make a conscious decision to ignore the law of God and have no desire to change. However, it is important to recognize that as humans, we all struggle with temptations, and in the sight of God, the person struggling with homosexuality is no different than the person struggling with gossiping. Both are in need of the empowering grace of God as they cooperate with the Holy Spirit who alone can give them power to overcome the temptation.

     In 2 Corinthians 12, Paul reveals his personal struggle with an issue he refers to as "a thorn in the flesh." He petitioned God three times to remove it, but was simply told, "My Grace is sufficient for you for my strength is made perfect in your weakness." For many sincere Christians, homosexual feelings are their "thorns in the flesh." I’m sure many have prayed for deliverance from these feelings, and some have been released. However, for reasons encapsulated in Divine wisdom, there are many others who have been trusted by the Holy Spirit to bear this cross. These are no less Christian than any other who has to overcome obstacles in this challenging Christian walk.

     Encourage your friend to continue cooperating with the Holy Spirit as he claims the victory for each temptation he faces. Furthermore, assure him that in spite of his struggles, he can find peace in the empowering grace of God.

I am impressed by this question, simply because it demonstrates the power of hymns in conveying theological messages. Usually, people get so emotionally drawn to a Christian song that they don’t take the time to determine whether or not the theology of the song is biblical. I must admit, there are some songs I no longer sing for this very reason. Today’s question has forced me to assess whether "Pass Me Not" should be one of them.

     For those unfamiliar with the hymn, the first verse and chorus state: "Pass me not O gently Savior, hear my humble cry, while on other’s thou art calling, do not pass me by. Savior, Savior, hear my humble cry, while on other’s thou art calling, do not pass me by."

      While the notion of a Savior who needs to be begged for assistance appears to go contrary to the image of a caring and benevolent God, it is a familiar one in scripture and every day reality. We know that God is almighty and can do anything, yet we pray for his Divine intervention when facing tragedy. There are times when he answers our prayers in the way in which we phrase them, and there are other times when it appears as if our prayers goes unanswered.

     In the Bible, there are many who had to come to terms with God’s strange method of responding to requests. Hannah pled for years before she was gifted with Samuel. Job sunk to the pit of despair before God made a personal appearance. Daniel got sick waiting for God to answer. Even in the ministry of Jesus, only those who encountered him–directly or through a proxy–had their health restored. There were many sick at the Pool of Bethaisda in John 5, why did Jesus single out the paralytic? And it is only the blind man’s shout in Luke 18 that stopped Jesus from passing him by. The truth is, many people have similar lives and similar experiences, but not all will have the same testimony. At the end of a testimony service, many will still be left asking the question why–why did the Savior who answered your prayer pass me by?

     We will never fully understand how the Savior works, but perhaps we can get some insight from Paul. There was a time when he felt as if the Savior was passing him by. In 2 Corinthians 12:7-9, he speaks of an issue that he had taken to heaven at least three times but had received no response. He only stopped petitioning when God let him know that he would have to live with his problem. His words were assuring, "My Grace is sufficient for thee...." However, those who feel the need for Divine intervention aren’t always comforted by God’s decision "not" to act. Nonetheless, like the lines of the song inspired by Mark 9:24, even at those times when it seems as if God has forgotten us, we can say "Kneeling there in deep contrition, Help my unbelief?"

     Interestingly, this song was written by Fanny J. Crosby, a blind Christian who wrote so many wonderful hymns to the glory of God. Like many of us, she probably experienced moments when it seemed as if God had put her on hold. However, through it all, she learned to trust him in spite of appearances, hence the words of Psalm 73:25 in the final verse, "Whom have I on earth beside Thee? Whom in heaven but Thee."

If you have ever petitioned God and it seems as if he skipped over your request to answer another, this song is for you!

I am fully aware that a number of Christians believe that the Jews have a Divine right to the modern land of Israel, but is this belief biblical? It is true that God promised Abraham that his descendants will inherit the land of Canaan. Although Abraham had several sons, some of whom are the ancestors of the Arab peoples, the specific Divine promise was originally intended for those in the line of Abraham’s son Isaac, and grandson, Jacob.

     The initial fulfillment of the promise is seen after the exodus from Egyptian slavery, when under Joshua’s leadership, the children of Israel settled in the region. However, God’s promise was not unconditional. Before the people settled in the land, Yahweh informed them that their future security would only be guaranteed if they entered into covenant with him (Ex 19:3-6; Deut 28-30). Unfortunately, after a series of apostasies, Yahweh was compelled to keep His word and the physical descendants of Israel were denied Divine protection. This was most manifest in the conquest of the northern kingdom of Israel by the Assyrians in 722, and the capture of the southern Kingdom of Judah by the Babylonians in 587.

     Even after the Babylonian captivity, God’s grace remained active, and a remnant returned to rebuild Jerusalem. After a period of autonomy under the Maccabeans, continued apostasy resulted in Jewish servitude under oppressive Roman rule. The Romans eventually put an end to the kingdom in the Roman-Jewish war of 70-73. Israel and her Jewish descendants had broken the terms of the covenant, and as such disqualified themselves from the promise.

     Although physical Israel did not meet the terms of the promise, chapters 3 and 4 of Hebrews inform us that the essence of the promise is still available for all who wish to enter into covenant with the gracious God. Paul is also clear in Romans 9-11 that God has expanded the covenant to include anyone "who calls on the name of the Lord." This renewed covenant does not just offer the faithful a strip of arid land in a war torn region of the world, but a renovated world with the New Jerusalem as its permanent capital.

     I provide this answer as a physical descendant of a Sephardic Jew, but one who has not set his sights on temporary structures, but on the eternal realities of the coming kingdom. My Jewish siblings escaping persecution in Europe were granted the right to the land of the Philistines by the Balfour Declaration and the United Nations–lets not confuse this with the will of God.

On a psychological level, it definitely does not seem healthy for people to depreciate themselves with negative appellations. In this age of positive thinking where a growing number of Christian preachers promote the theory that we have the ability to transform ourselves, expressions of unworthiness have become taboo. However, although this dehumanizing type of self designation is not in vogue, there is a biblical basis for it.

     In fact, a number of biblical passages in both testaments herald the unworthy theme. In Psalm 51:5, David acknowledges that he was unworthy from birth, and Isaiah declares that our best efforts amount to dirty rags (Is 64:6). Even in the New Testament, Paul admits that no good thing can be found in him (Rom 7:18), and the returning prodigal is quick to declare his unworthiness to his welcoming father.

Now that we have established a biblical basis for the sentiment of "unworthiness", I believe that it is of utmost importance that we differentiate between unworthiness and worthlessness. One’s unworthiness stands from the fact that we have broken covenant with God, and as such we are unworthy of eternal life since "the wages of sin is death" (Rom 6:23).

     However, the fact that we are unworthy of salvation, does not mean that we are worthless in God’s sight. In spite of our shortcomings, God still views us as persons of worth. With all of our weaknesses and failures, God continues to love us. In Jeremiah 31, he speaks of his everlasting love towards Israel. This same love is further amplified in John 3:16-17, where we are informed that God loves "the world" to such an extent that he sent his only Son to redeem the unworthy. Herein lies the paradox–the unworthy have such a high value placed upon them, that God was willing to secure their destiny with his priceless Son.

     With this in mind, the person who has truly accepted the gift of God should not have to approach Him with head hung down in pitiful shame. After all, don’t we have a high priest in the very presence of God who has empowered us to come boldly before God’s very throne. "Amazing Grace how sweet the sound, that saved a wretch like me. I once was lost but now am found, was blind but now I see."

I will have to answer this question in two parts, since Colossians 2:14-15 mark the conclusion of a thought unit, and verses 16-17 indicate the beginning of another thought.

Verses 14-15 are actually the end of a unit that commences in verse 11 where Paul discusses the believer’s transfer from the old life to the new. He uses the metaphor of circumcision to demonstrate how the "body of flesh" has been stripped off by the believer’s participation in the death of Christ through baptism. In verses 13-15, Paul explains that the transfer of the believer from death to life is made possible by five specific actions, which he delineates by the use of five participles (verbal adjectives), all of which are in the aorist tense–indicating past time: (1) the "forgiveness of transgressions"; (2) the "erasing of debts"; (3) the "nailing [of the debts] to the cross; (4) the "embarrassing of the negative rulers and authorities"; and (5) the "triumph of the Messiah."

     Those familiar with reading the text in the King James Version are probably asking, "What about the phrase that says ‘blotting out the handwriting of ordinances’?" Well, this is simply the way that the King James translators chose to render the Greek term "exaleipsas... cheirographon tois dogmasin." Although the word "law" is never used, the way in which the King James translates the phrase has led many to conclude that this must be a reference to the law of Moses. However, an examination of the original language provides a different picture. Literally translated "handwriting," the compound word cheirographon was actually a technical term for a payment owed, and contained details of the item(s) being purchased. In other words, it was the term the Greeks used for an invoice or debt. As is still done with modern transactions, when the debt was paid in full, the invoice was cancelled.

     The debt Paul has in mind was paid when Jesus was nailed to the cross. It is the debt that the entire human race owed to God–the "wages of sin" which is death! Jesus paid that debt on the cross, and in so doing ensured that our invoice was paid in full! It is not the law that needed to die, it was the sinner–and this was accomplished once and for all in the death of the resurrected Messiah.

In part one of our answer, we saw that the phrase the King James Version translates "handwriting of ordinances" actually referred to the record of the sins of humanity that was nailed to the cross with Jesus. As such, Colossians 2:14-15 cannot be used to support the belief that the law was nailed to the cross. But what are we to make of Colossians 2:16-17? Aren’t these clear statements that condemn those who still adhere to customs inscribed in the law? Let’s take another look at these verses in their immediate context.

     The fact that verse 16 starts with "therefore" suggests that it should be read in light of the passage that precedes it. Since members of his audience had been liberated from the demonic powers, they should not allow anyone to "condemn" them. This echos the sentiment of Romans 8:1 where Paul says that there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. Given the specifics of the verse, the areas at which they were subject to condemnation concerned dietary habits (eating and drinking) and the observance of days (festivals, new moons, sabbaths).

     The key to understanding this passage is found in the parallel incident in Romans 14 where the common issue of Gentile adjustment into the customs of covenant people is discussed in greater detail (see also 1 Cor 8 and 10). The new believers would have been introduced to new dietary habits and, as in Corinth, some may have been concerned about the ritual purity of the meat sold in the market, and condemned those who decided to continue eating it. As it relates to special days, it is obvious that many Christians of Jewish heritage still adhered to the ceremonial calendar. Even Paul himself attempts to reach Jerusalem in time for Passover, observes the Festival of Unleavened Bread, and fulfills the requirements of a Nazarite vow (Acts 18:18; 20:5, 16; 21:26).

     However, it is possible that as in the church at Rome, there may have been an element in the congregation that criticized those who felt that ceremonial sabbaths were as binding as weekly Sabbaths (Rom 14:5-6). In encouraging the congregation to stay strong in the face of criticism, Paul does not condemn those who are convinced about the importance of the ritualist demands of covenant obligation.

In fact, in verse 17, he reminds the congregation that these things are a shadow of what is about to come. Some translations incorrectly state that these were a shadow. However, Paul does not view them as obsolete, they are relevant practices foreshadowing a heavenly reality. In other words, these things point to the soon to come Messianic kingdom where the redeemed worship God every new moon and Sabbath (Is 66:23). Whatever internal differences may have been taking place in the community over how to keep the food laws or whether a ceremonial Sabbath was as binding as the weekly Sabbath, Paul reminds the congregation that the body is of Messiah (literally the body of Messiah). An obvious reference to the church, Paul reminds the Colossians that their true identity is found in Messiah.

The actual Greek term used for ‘Lord’s day’ in Revelation 1:9 is kuriake hemera. When it comes to the interpretation of the term, most scholars are divided into three camps. First, there are those who believe it refers to Sunday, the first day of the week. This is based on the fact that in later centuries, Christians referred to Sunday as the Lord’s day, and used the same Greek term that John uses in Revelation 1:9 (kuriake). In fact, in modern Greek, the first day of the week is still referred to as kuriake. The second group of interpreters understand ‘Lord’s day’ to refer to the seventh-day Sabbath. To support their theory, they refer to such texts as Mark 2:28, where Jesus refers to himself as "Lord of the Sabbath," and Exodus 20:10, which refers to the seventh day as the Sabbath of the LORD God. Then there are those who believe that the ‘Lord’s day’ refers to the second coming of Jesus. These find support in such New Testament texts as I Thessalonians 5:2 and 2 Peter 3:10 which refer to the second coming as the ‘day of the Lord.’

     I will provide a brief analysis of each option. For those who believe it to be a reference to Sunday, while it is true that the adjective kuriake was used to refer to the first day by Christians in later centuries, this is the only time it is used in the New Testament in reference to a specific day. If John meant the first day of the week, then surely he would have said it as he does in John 20:1. If kuriake hemera was indeed the new way to refer to the first day, surely other Bible writers would have used it. We can only conclude that those who embrace this theory are guilty of imposing a later understanding of kuriake hemera on Revelation 1:9.

Those who argue for the seventh-day Sabbath as the meaning of ‘Lord’s day’ are also guilty of imposing external evidence on the text. Nowhere in scripture is the Sabbath referred to with the term kuriake hemera. Interestingly, many Sabbatarians have embraced this option because they feel that if it referred to the first day of the week, it would lend support to the theory that the sanctity of the seventh-day was transferred to the first day. However, this reasoning overlooks the fact that the same Christians who referred to the first day as kuriake also referred to the seventh-day as sabbatos. This is still true today in modern Greek, and also in other languages in which the first day is still called the Lord’s day and the seventh-day the Sabbath (e.g. Spanish and Italian). While the eschatological content of Revelation makes the third option most likely, it is still hampered by the fact that the references to the second coming in I Thessalonians and 2 Peter utilize the term hemera tou kuriou and not kuriake hemera.

     With this in mind, I would like to propose a fourth option. I already mentioned that the term kuriake hemera is only used once. However, the adjective kuriak- is also utilized in 1 Corinthians 11:20 in reference to the Lord’s supper (kuriakon deipnon). This was the name that the early Christians gave to Passover, and the adjective kuriakon clearly referred to Jesus. Is it possible that the kuriake hemera of Revelation 1:9 was a day associated with a significant event in the life of Jesus? Could this be a reference to the day of resurrection? Could John have been referring to the event we celebrate at Easter? If this is indeed the case, then the focus should not be on the day of the week, but the commemorated event. Remember, the early Christians did not celebrate the resurrection on a fixed day each year, but on whatever day it fell–in the same way we celebrate New Year of Christmas. Having said all this, it could very well have been a Sunday, or a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, or Saturday. This is just another option for your consideration as you study to show yourselves approved.