Category Archives: The Bible

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

January 9, 2015

Posted under

Genesis, The Bible

Comments

1 Comment

Where did the people of Nod come from?

In Genesis 4 the Bible says that Cain, after being cursed by God to wander and be an exile on the earth, settled in the land of Nod.  That simple statement, added with the assertion that Cain knew his wife, has caused some to speculate that the land of Nod was the dwelling place of another race of people not descended from Adam and Eve. If the people of Nod are not another race , where did they come from and how did Cain settle in the land of Nod?

As was already answered, nothing in Genesis 4 requires that Cain met people in the land and married into their clans. We don’t know if Cain and Abel had any other siblings at the time of Abel’s murder, but we do know from Genesis 5:4 that Adam and Even had other sons and daughters. It is not at all unreasonable to think that as the population of the world increased they spread out from around Eden into other lands. All the members of the first generation would have married siblings or children of siblings. The genetic mutations we are concerned about now would not have been a problem, only after generations would mutations have crept into the gene pool and the danger of close intermarriage (consanguinity) come into being. In the first generations after Adam and Eve, human population would only have increased by familial intermarriage.

After years of exile, Cain settled in a desolate land that came to be called Nod. Cain married, had children and his descendants populated the land first settled by their forefather. Instead of Cain joining the people of Nod, the people of Nod were descended from Cain. He settled in that region and become the father of the land of Nod.

Interestingly Nod means wandering. Since Cain was condemned by God to wander away from his parents and siblings as an exile, it makes perfect sense that the land where Cain eventually settled would be called the land of Wandering. It is not strange that Genesis gives the place of his settling a name in the fashion it does. We do this today when talking about historical figures. In the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, there are many places that have interesting historic significance. The early explorers that came through the area settled in places with names like Michilimackinac, Sault Ste. Marie and L’Anse. Many of these places were not given names until after they were settled, some were not given these names until much later, but it is very rare to hear any one say, “he settled in the place which would eventually be called . . .” We find the same thing in the Bible. Places were at times referred to by the names they would later be given in history. The fact that the land is called Nod does not require there to have been a people in the land that had already named it. Rather, the land Cain settled was eventually called Nod, the land of wandering.

 

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

December 29, 2014

Posted under

Church, The Bible

Who decided what books were included in the New Testament?

Recent books, movies and popular news reports have spread the idea of a group of church leaders meeting together to determine which of the many letters and gospels being passed around the early churches were actually authentic and Biblical. Some use this supposed meeting as proof of a conspiracy to reject certain gospels, redefine Christianity to maintain the importance of a privileged few or to exclude women from the leadership of the church. Despite the popular opinion and brash assertions by certain scholars, no such council, meeting or determination was ever held.

Possibly the most common depiction of this event accuses the council of Laodicea held in the 360’s (a council is a gathering of pastors and bishops from many churches to discuss important issues the churches were facing) of formulating a list of approved New Testament books. Copies of the Laodicea meeting notes do contain a list of New Testament books, but the inclusion of the list is very suspect. Many believe it was added in later. Even if the list is genuine, nothing in the council argued for or against the acceptance of books. No determination about which books were Biblical was made, all the council did was list the 66 books of the Bible.

Without a doubt the church council of Carthage in 397 did publish an official list of the books of the Old and New Testament. However, this list cannot be read as a determination on which books were to be included and which ones were not. The bishops did not argue about which books to include. They did not vote on which books to allow into the New Testament. They did not blackball some books from the New Testament. No church council ever created a list of New Testament books. Those councils which included a list of New Testament books were only identifying those books which the church already recognized as Biblical. They listed the books to help prevent controversies, but these pastoral meetings did not decide which books were Biblical.

To help put this in perspective, consider a couple other issues discussed by early church councils. The council of Nicea held in the early 300’s declared that Jesus is God. The council of Nicea did not devise the doctrine that Jesus’ deity and humanity were combined in one being, who is fully God and fully man. The council only affirmed the already existing Biblical teaching of Jesus’ humanity and Deity. Because of some who were spreading false teaching about Jesus, the church leaders had to address the issue in a council and issue an official statement for the benefit of the entire church. The council of Constantinople in the late 300’s had to address the Deity of the Holy Spirit. Once again, they did not gather together and create a new doctrine. They spelled out in brief and clear fashion what was already recognized Biblical doctrine. In the same fashion, no council determined which books would be in the Bible. At most the councils spelled out in a simple statement the list of books already recognized as genuine Scripture.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

December 15, 2014

Posted under

Death, Sin, The Bible

Why did people in the Bible live so much longer than we do today?

Anyone reading through the book of Genesis will soon notice people lived a whole lot longer than they do now. A little math in Genesis 5 will reveal that Adam died at the age of 930. His son Seth lived to be 912. Methusaleh died at the age of 969. All but three of the first ten patriarchs lived over 900 years. After Noah’s flood human lifespans dropped dramatically. The first death recorded after the flood is of a man 239 years old. For the next several generations, most of the men lived 175-250 years. By the time of Moses, the recorded life spans were much closer to our own. After Moses no generation had an average life span significantly longer than those of modern man. For the first quarter of human history, man appears to have averaged a life span of nearly 1,000 years. (Genesis 5) Over the next 1,500 years man appears to have averaged a life span of around 200 years. (Genesis 11) Throughout the second half of human history, up to today, the life span seems to average around 70 years. Why the changes? What happened to man?

The Bible does not give us any definite answer to this question, so we are left with speculation. It seems that two things are the primary factors in the incredible decrease in human life span. First is the destructive effect of sin on the world and the human body. When man sinned he immediately fell under the penalty of death. Man was separated from God who is the only source life. (Genesis 3:8) This separation from God results in physical death. (Genesis 3:19) Not only did man’s sin bring death, it also brought a curse upon the entire world. As man moved farther and farther from God, the effects of sin upon his life would have become more and more pronounced. Romans 8:22 says, “For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together.” All creation is in agony because of sin. The human body has been devastated by sin and the effects continue to wreck our health and strength today.

The agony of sin’s curse includes an environment that is inimical to human life. The other factor in man’s shortened lifespan is the radical changes in the world after the flood. We do not know for certain anything about the world before the flood, but we can be confident that the world immediately after the flood was a world ravaged. The living conditions after the flood were much less conducive to life than those pre-flood. To add to the harsh conditions of the flood shattered world, at the tower of Babel the language of mankind was confused and population scattered. The population became divided in small groups and driven by God out of the area, isolating pockets of people from the rest of humanity. The difficult conditions brought about by man’s continued rebellion against God would have horribly diminished man’s life.

All speculation aside, we know that death is the result of sin. No matter how long men may live, death is inevitable. Death is not the result of errors creeping into our DNA, or certain proteins no longer working properly. Death is the result of man’s separation from God. Only reconciliation to God through the forgiveness of Jesus will remove the spectre of death and give men eternal life.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

December 12, 2014

Posted under

The Bible

How do I tell the difference between Biblical truth and Hollywood fiction?

Another epic Bible based movie is arriving in theater’s near you. This time it is a remake of the classic “The Ten Commandments”. The popularity of such movies is at first gratifying to those who believe the Bible. However, upon further reflection those who believe the Bible to be the Word of God do well to be troubled by the many fantastic and fictitious elements added into the movies.

Every film treatment of Biblical stories is going to inevitably add some things in that are not part of the Biblical account. Sometimes these are details that are just not recorded, like the color of Jesus’ robes. However, many times these movies also add a lot of dialogue, people and events and that are not found in the Biblical accounts. They are pure fantasy. To some this may not seem like a big deal, but the additions often result in a message communicated that is very different from the message of the Bible. This makes it imperative that those who watch these movies be able to separate truth from Hollywood fiction.

To separate truth from error, the first and most obvious and most obvious place to start is the Bible. Open it up and read for yourself what the Bible actually says about a person or event. However, if you are wanting to find out about the life of Moses, you have to know where to start. There are many tools available to help you, but a simple search online will give you a pretty good idea of where to start reading to find out for yourself. This is a great starting place, but I know that even if you know where to look in the Bible to find the information you want the task can be pretty daunting. For example, if you want to know the truth about the life of Jesus, you would need to read and compare four entire books of the Bible, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Now, I of course highly recommend you read and study all four of the gospels, but I realize not everyone is going to dig into books of the Bible like to discover the facts for themselves.

To help speed you along the process of discovery, I recommend a couple other handy resources. The easiest and most useful way to find out what is Biblical truth is to find a good church in your area that teaches the Bible (and by that I mean that reads the Bible during the service and then clearly explains what it means). Meet the pastor and ask him to explain to you the truths of the Bible and the differences between the movie and the Bible.

If you know someone who attends church regularly talk to them about the movie and see what things they noticed that were different from the Bible. Another option is to submit a question here or on our Facebook page. One of our pastors will be happy to answer the question and any other follow up questions you may have. If you look, you can find someone nearby who will be glad to talk to you about what the Bible really says.

Finally, don’t believe everything you see in the movies. I know, that seems kind of obvious, but sometimes people tend to believe movies about the Bible as if they are straight from the Bible. They never are. Don’t imagine that you know what the Bible says or what it teaches because you have seen a movie. Sometimes the facts are added to and embellished some for the sake of making a movie. Many times movies make major changes that end up changing the entire story or the whole purpose of the Biblical account. Don’t believe everything you see. Even if you don’t care to find out the facts for  yourself, don’t believe the movie.
Standard

Posted by

Posted on

December 8, 2014

Posted under

Church, The Bible

Was Mary Magdalene a disciple?

The recent Bible miniseries that showed on cable television and it’s sequel, the movie Son of God, gave the very definite idea that Mary Magdalene was one of Jesus twelve disciples. She is seen with Jesus shortly after the calling of Peter and then is visible with Him throughout his journeys and during His years of ministry. She is give as much importance in the film as any of the disciples. Was Mary a disciple? Did she travel with Jesus during His ministry? Was she there among the twelve as another close disciple of Jesus?

The gospels give absolutely no indication that Mary traveled around, participated in Jesus ministry or sat under His long term teaching. Mary Magdalene was a follower of Jesus. She was probably one of the 120 disciples that gathered together after Jesus’ death and resurrection. She was probably part of the first church in Jerusalem. We know she was one of the ladies who went to Jesus’ tomb on Sunday morning and found it empty. She was one of the ladies who first told the disciples about the resurrection. She was the first person to see Jesus after He was restored to life. Mary Magdalene was definitely one of those who loved Jesus and worshiped Him as God the Savior.

However, Mary Magdalene was not a disciple. The Bible gives us a definite list of the twelve disciples. Matthew, Mark, Luke and Acts each give a list of the disciples. Mary is not mentioned in any of those lists. Mary isn’t mentioned in the next anywhere close to those lists. Instead, Mary Magdalene is mentioned in only three Biblical scenes. Mary Magdalene first shows up in the gospels about a year and half into Jesus’ ministry. She is not in the picture for at least the first half of Jesus’ public ministry. The earliest reference to Mary is in Luke 8:2-3. She is part of a group of ladies that provided food for Jesus as He preached throughout Galilee. The only other direct references to Mary Magdalene are found in connection with Jesus’ death and resurrection. She is most likely a part of the group of believing women mentioned in Acts 1. Aside from this, we have no other direct information about Mary Magdalene.

Mary Magdalene loved and served Jesus. He healed her, driving seven demons out of her. She worshiped Him and believed Him to be God and the promised Savior. She was not one of the twelve. She had no special position or relationship with Jesus other than that held by every Christian.
Standard

Posted by

Posted on

December 5, 2014

Posted under

Christian living, Salvation, The Bible

Comments

2 Comments

What happens to a Christian who dies without having been baptized?

Imagine for a moment that someone is in the hospital, days from death when she turns to Jesus trusting Him to forgive her sin and give her peace with God. Her impending death makes baptism impossible, so what happens to her when she dies? What about in the case of a healthy young man who gets saved and refuses to be baptized. He goes his entire life showing all the signs of being a genuine Christian but is never baptized. What happens when he dies? In both cases the answer the same. They go to heaven. One of the key components of true, Biblical teaching is that salvation is in no way dependent on anything the person does. None are ever saved, or kept saved, by any ritual, good deed, regulation or lifelong habit. Salvation is fully given to one who trusts Jesus. No other things are necessary. In the book of Galatians Paul says that any attempt to add anything else as necessary to salvation is a denial of the gospel. One who is saved, is saved by Jesus regardless of whether or not the person has been baptized.

A portion of the account of Jesus’ death on the cross highlights this truth. When Jesus was crucified, two other men were executed alongside him. Luke 23 tells us about these men, and the response of one of them in particular. “ And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.” The criminal beside Jesus was not going to come down from that cross alive. The Roman soldiers surrounding the crosses would have killed him themselves before letting him come down (in fact, the Bible tells us the soldiers broke the legs of the two criminals to speed up their death so they could be taken down that day). This man was never going to be baptized. However, what did Jesus promise him? Jesus assured the believing thief that he would enter into heaven with Jesus. The lack of baptism was not going to keep him from heaven, because baptism does not save. The thief was saved because he believed Jesus to be God and Savior.

Should a Christian be baptized? Absolutely. To refuse baptism is disobedience to the commands of the Bible. However, salvation is no more necessary to anyone’s salvation than attending Sunday School or giving in the offering. Salvation is completely accomplished by Jesus apart from any work an one does.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

December 3, 2014

Posted under

Christian living, Christianity, The Bible

Are Christians forbidden to eat pork?

image1The above graphic was emailed to me with a request for my thoughts. At first, I am a little amused by the image. For the sake of full disclosure, I am an avid carnivore. I delight in consuming a myriad of mammalian and avian life. I have no qualms about hunting, killing, gutting, butchering, cooking and then eating a critter. I have no desire to give up my meat eating ways, nor restrict them in any fashion. That being said, if the Bible commands me as a Christian to stop eating a particular animal, I will obey the Word.

The question implicitly answered in the above image is that modern day American Christians do not have license to eat porcine food products (and I assume that also includes other foods prohibited in the Old Testament). The statements made by the graphic designers are factually accurate. Peter’s vision in Acts 10:9-16 was not given to lead him down the path of bacon and pork chops. Peter’s vision prepared him for ministry to the Gentiles. God was giving Peter a poignant object lesson to break down the barriers of prejudice that were still in the hearts of many Jews- the disciples included.
However, to us the above truth as evidence we should not be eating pork would be to overlook or ignore a number of other very clear passages. We have to draw a clear line between the Jews of the Bible and the Gentiles of today. The question at stake is if believing Gentiles are under the dietary restrictions of the law of Moses. That question was answered clearly and definitively in three distinct places in the New Testament. Acts 15 is the first time the church addressed this specific issue.
As the gospel spread throughout Gentile regions a group of men began teaching that Gentiles must also keep the laws of Moses to be saved. In Acts 15, church leaders from Jerusalem and Antioch met together to address the matter. Peter was one of the leading voices at that council. After mentioning how God used him to first take the gospel to the Gentiles he said, “Why tempt ye God, to put a yoke on the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?” Paul and Barnabas spoke after Peter and declared much the same thing. James, the pastor of the church in Jerusalem, stood and concluded the meeting by affirming that Gentile believers are under no obligation to keep the ceremonial and civil restrictions of the law of Moses. This conclusion was later affirmed by the entire church, and was a major part of Paul’s correction of the Galatian and Colossian errors. In fact, in his first letter to Timothy Paul declared that any one who forbade eating meats was teaching a demonic doctrine. The New Testameny explicitly teaches the Gentile Christian has no obligation to obey the laws given to the Israelites, including dietary restrictions.
American Christian’s today can enjoy or abstain from all varieties of meat. We are under no specific command to imbibe or forsake any kind of meat. Instead, we give thanks God who has made us clean through Jesus. We rejoice that because of Jesus, diet plays no part in our standing with God.
Standard

Posted by

Posted on

November 24, 2014

Posted under

Jesus, The Bible

Why does it Matter if Jesus was Married

Another book has been recently published that claims to have discovered new evidence that Jesus was married and had children. Claims such as this one have popped up over and over again in recent years. They are certainly not new claims, dating back to within a few centuries of Jesus life. Those who propose this theory today declare it will have a huge impact on the church. According to them, once people realize Jesus was married and lived a normal family life everything we think about church will be changed. Some people look at this issue and wonder what the big deal is. Who cares if Jesus was married or not. Why is it such a big deal if Jesus was married?

The ones claiming to have discovered evidence of Jesus’ marriage actually have no sound historical evidence on which to base their conjectures. At best they are dealing with ancient documents written several hundred years after Jesus with an agenda to teach a new doctrine about Jesus. The claims of Jesus’ marriage always begin with a number of presuppositions about the Bible. Most importantly the originators of such claims have already concluded the Bible is not the Word of God and Jesus is not who the Bible says He is. Despite their errors about the Bible they are correct in recognizing that if it were proven to be true that Jesus was married then it would change everything we think about Christianity. This matter matters because if Jesus had a wife and kids, then He is not the person described in the Bible. If Jesus is not the person described in the Bible, He is a fraud and all Christianity is a tragic hoax.

I am not saying this important because it would have been sinful for Jesus to be married. Nor am I saying this is important because it helps support certain ideas about the role of women in the church. This issue is important because it affects the credibility of the gospel writers and the truthfulness of the New Testament. The gospels give no hint, no indication, not the slightest inkling of a notion, that Jesus was married. Despite some modern day fanciful imaginings about Mary Magdalene, the Bible gives no suggestion that He had a relationship with her that was different than his relationship with any of His other female followers. The Bible tells us of Jesus’ parents, siblings, aunts, uncles and cousins. Why would it say nothing of a wife or children? We know that Peter, the other apostles and Jesus’ brothers were married and that Paul was not. Why do we have declarations of the marital status of all these other individuals but not Jesus? The Bible is silent on the matter and in this case the silence of the Bible speaks volumes about Jesus’ marital status. He was not married.

Jesus could not have been married. Besides the problems inherent with the sinless Son of God fathering children who would have been born free from sin and not under Adam’s curse, for Jesus to have been married would have distracted from His purpose. Even as a twelve year old boy, Jesus knew He was to be about His Father’s business. Jesus was never distracted from His purpose. Throughout His life He was on a direct collision course with the cross and never let anything turn Him from that. The time He spent preaching, doing miracles and teaching His disciples was all in preparation for the cross. A wife and children would have not furthered His work of redemption.

The Biblical impossibility of Jesus being married puts the claims of Jesus’ marriage in a serious category. These are not just idle claims that have little impact on the gospel or the truth of the Bible. If Jesus was married, then the history of Jesus presented in the New Testament can not be accurate. If Jesus was married, the entire New Testament is worthless. If Jesus was married, the gospel is a fraud and the gospel writers charlatans. This issue matters because the silence of the Bible on Jesus’ marriage seriously undermines it’s believability in all other matters. This is not just a difference of opinion between Godly men about a secondary figure in Christianity. We are talking about the spreading of false teaching concerning the One who is central to all Scriptures and on Whom our faith rests.

Those who insist Jesus was married have already decided that the Bible was not written by the men the Bible says wrote it. They have already determined that the Bible is not the Word of God. They have rejected any possibility of the Bible being historically accurate or, more importantly, spiritually accurate. Their conclusions about the Bible lead them to seek means to discredit the Bible, no matter how ridiculous those means become. Despite their unbelief, a normal reading of the New Testament reveals that Jesus is the Son of God who became human to die for the sin of men. He was not just a good man. He was the God-man who bore the wrath of God for the sin of mankind. Jesus never married. He never fathered children. To teach otherwise is to deny the reliability and accuracy of the Bible.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

November 21, 2014

Posted under

The Bible

Why Four Gospels?

The New Testament begins with four books collectively called “the gospels”. Each gospel, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, tell the story of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection. The first three gospels are so similar in content that they are often lumped together in one bunch called “The Synoptic Gospels.” Since all four gospels tell of the same person, and since they cover similar events, why do we need four of them? Why couldn’t one gospel have told us everything we need to know about Jesus?

The question fails to take into consideration one very important fact. The gospels were first written to a specific audience of people. The gospel of John is the only one that may have been written with a more worldwide scope. The gospel of Matthew was written to the Jewish people. The gospel of Mark was written to Gentiles. The gospel of Luke was written to a single person, probably a Roman and possibly as part of a prepared defense of Paul’s ministry. Matthew, Mark and Luke were probably written within 5-10 years of each other. The gospel of John was written 20-30 years after the other three gospels and was probably written for distribution among a group of churches in modern day Turkey.

Though all four gospels share a similar purpose, to show Jesus as God and Savior, they each have different emphases because of the audience to which they were written. For example, Matthew was written to show the Jews that Jesus is the Messiah. This different purpose means Matthew, while giving very similar information as Mark and Luke, emphasized certain things and communicated some things in a different fashion. Mark’s gospel is a brief gospel presentation intended to confront the readers with Jesus and call them to faith in Him.

We also have four different gospels that the testimony of one man will be confirmed by the others. The Bible provides two or three witnesses as the standard for verification of a claim. The four gospels verify the testimony of the others, especially the synoptic gospels. Some have speculated that Matthew, Mark and Luke look so much alike because they all borrowed from one another or they borrowed from another gospel that has since been lost to us. Matthew, Mark and Luke look so much alike because they are factual accounts of the same events. Accurate eye witnesses are going to agree together. Collusion and conspiracy is not necessary, just honesty. The gospels confirm the truth of one another, assuring us anew that the facts recorded are historical and reliable.

We have four different gospels because God used four men to reach four specific groups of people with the truths of His Son. The entire church today benefits from having all four gospels. We cannot look back and speculate that one gospel to everyone would have been better than four gospels tailored to the education, religion and needs of four different audiences.
Standard

Posted by

Posted on

November 6, 2014

Posted under

Current Events, Marriage, The Bible

Why did God allow people in the Old Testament to have more than one wife?

He didn’t. God established the standard for marriage on the day He created man. God made one man and one woman. He put them together in the garden as man and wife. The Bible tells us because of God’s created design, “A man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife and they shall be one flesh.” (Genesis 2:25) The design of marriage, one man with one woman, has not changed since creation. The Bible also tells how man sinned and soon began to operate in opposition to God’s design for marriage. As a result, we find in the Bible men like Jacob, David and Solomon who had multiple wives and concubines. This fact is often brought up in arguments to show that Christians who insist marriage is a permanent union between one man and one woman are being foolish. According to this line of arguing, the Bible does not insist on one man-one woman marriage. Does the Bible allow for a different definition of marriage? Absolutely not. Certainly there were men in the Bible who did not marry according to God’s plan and design. Those men were not always condemned in the Bible for their disobedience. The lack of direct condemnation of a person’s example does not prove God did not view that action as sin. We can find in the Bible a number of examples of disobedience that are not directly condemned. For example, in the book of Judges a man killed a woman and cut her into pieces. The Bible does not explicitly condemn that specific act of murder, so are we to assume that the Bible actually approves of murder despite it’s clear commands to the contrary? Of course not. That would be foolish. Because people in the Bible do things that are forbidden elsewhere in the Bible does not mean the Bible has changed and now God approves of their actions. Second, those who make the case that God somehow approves of polygamy because he allowed it in the Old Testament make it sound like the Old Testament is filled with polygamists. The fact is, there are very few saints in the Old Testament who were polygamists. Two very common examples are David and Solomon. God did not approve of David’s sin, nor did He excuse it. God had commanded in Deuteronomy 17:17 that the kings of Israel were not to have multiple wives. David is called a man after God’s own heart, yet we know he had several wives. David and Solomon were in clear disobedience of that command and they paid an awful price for their disobedience. Because of David’s polygamy, his family was ripped apart and he had to deal with open rebellion by one son and covert rebellion by one of his generals. Solomon’s case was even worse. Solomon’s many wives led him away from the worship of God into idolatry. One other example is the patriarch Jacob. Jacob’s multiple wives are actually a part of his punishment for deceiving his father Isaac and result in great turmoil within his family. The Bible clearly defines marriages as one man permanently joined to one woman. The Bible never approves of polygamy and shows abundant examples of the dire consequences when we fail to follow God’s design.