Category Archives: Bible Questions

Articles, Bible Questions

Bible Q&A – The Thief on the Cross–Does it Matter?

1 Comment

Question: Last week, you posted a question and showed that the thief on the cross lived and died under the Old Testament. My question is why does that even matter? Why post an entire article on something so trivial?–Anonymous.

First, thank you for taking the time to read our article. Second, thank you for taking the time to drop us a note asking this question. There’s two answers to your question: the short answer and the slightly longer answer.

The short answer:

Someone asked us the question, so we took the time to answer it.

The slightly longer answer:

The Bible states that we are to “rightly divide” or “handle properly” the word of truth (II Timothy 2:15). There are many good, sincere people who have mishandled the story of the thief on the cross–and some people will lose their souls over it!  This is not a trivial thing.

Let me explain.

There are several religious groups–prominent, well-known religious groups–that try to tell people that they can be saved just like the thief on the cross was: By simply acknowledging Jesus as the Christ.

When it’s pointed out that Jesus said “he that believes and is baptized shall be saved” (Mark 16:16), they frequently run to the thief on the cross, and say “He wasn’t baptized, therefore baptism isn’t required for salvation.” It doesn’t matter how many times baptism is shown in Scriptures to be connected with salvation and sin-removal (see I Peter 3:21, Acts 2:38, 22:16, and several others), they still point to the thief on the cross as their proof.

The problem with their stance–with their sincerely-held belief–is that the thief on the cross isn’t an example of someone being saved during the New Testament. The thief lived and died under the Old Testament. It’d be just as logical to appeal to the examples of Noah, Abraham, Moses, Job, and David for the answer to “what must I do to be saved” as it is to appeal to the example of the thief on the cross. All of them lived and died before the New Testament ever came into existence.

The thief on the cross lived and died during a time when forgiveness was based on obedience to the Law of Moses and the system of animal sacrifices. If we appeal to his being saved on the cross, then logically–to be consistent–we also have to argue that we can be forgiven today by means of animal sacrifices.

One other thing to consider regarding the thief on the cross is that his salvation, as promised by Jesus, was not the same as becoming a child of God. In other words, the thief was already a child of God. He was an Israelite, born into the family of God by means of his ethnic heritage–by means of being a Jew. He was like the Prodigal Son–someone who was already part of the family of the Father, but who had gone astray and needed to be brought back.

Yet whenever the thief on the cross is brought up as an example of how to be saved, people use it as an example of how to become part of the family of God. The thief didn’t become a child of God while on the cross. He simply came back home to God.

God Himself (speaking through Peter) answered the question “What must we do?” with the following words: “Repent and be baptized, every one of you for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:37-38).

When someone–regardless of how well-meaning and sincere they may be–teaches that all you have to do to become a child of God is to do what the thief on the cross did, they’re teaching a false salvation.

The thief on the cross is an example of how an erring child of God can come back in repentance. He is not an example of how someone becomes a child of God.

Announcements, Bible Questions

Bible Q&A – Did the Thief on the Cross Live Under Two Covenants?

Leave a comment

Question: Since both thieves on the crosses were still alive after Jesus died (their legs had to be broken to quicken their death while Jesus was already dead–John 19:31-33) did they live under both the Old and New Covenant? –An Inmate in Oklahoma

Just so the readers can have a bit more background to the question, the one asking has been taking a Bible correspondence course, and one of the questions was “Did the thief on the cross live under the Old Testament, the New Testament, or neither?” The student searched, and wasn’t sure because both of the thieves were still alive after the death of Christ—albeit a very short time.

First, let me thank you for asking such a great question. It shows that you’re putting a lot of effort, thought, and consideration into your Bible study, which is great!

The thieves both lived and died under the Old Testament, and we’ll look at a few ways to show that this is the case.

First, the gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The New Testament is based completely on this gospel. Peter preached it that way (Acts 2:22-24). Paul proclaimed it that way (I Corinthians 15:1-3). When the thieves were on the cross, Jesus had indeed died, but He had not yet been buried or resurrected. The gospel (the “good news”) had not yet happened when the thieves died. So, they did not live under the New Testament, because the gospel hadn’t happened yet.

Second, entrance into the New Testament was based on baptism in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19-20). There was no baptism into the name of Christ until the Day of Pentecost, 50 days after the resurrection of Christ (Acts 2:1, 38). Jesus had told the apostles not to preach until they received “power” (the miraculous working of the Holy Spirit) in Jerusalem (Luke 24:49, Acts 1:4-5, 8). Therefore, it was impossible for anyone to be a part of the New Testament until Pentecost.

Third, the New Testament is the Will (as in “last will and testament”) of Jesus Christ. A will is not in force until after the person is dead (Hebrews 9:16-17). But just as obvious is this: the official reading of the will takes place days after actual death—sometimes weeks or months afterwards. Until the official reading of the will, there’s no way for people to follow it. The will of Christ was not officially read, and its contents made clear and binding, until the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2). Until that time, all people were still living and answerable to the Old Testament.

Fourth, When Jesus told the repentant thief on the cross, “today you will be with me in Paradise,” Jesus was still alive (Luke 23:43). Thus, there is no doubt whatsoever that the thief’s salvation was acquired prior to the death of Christ—therefore we can say with 100% sureness and accuracy that his salvation was guaranteed based on his actions under the Old Testament.

Fifth, God is no respecter of persons. The thieves had lived their entire lives under the Old Testament, and now they find themselves nailed to crosses—unable to do much more than struggle to breathe and talk. It is obvious that one of the thieves was repentant, and Christ promised him he would be saved. But if the New Testament instantly started and was therefore binding on all Jews the moment Christ gave up the ghost, then the thieves (including the repentant one) were both lost with no possible way of being saved. As we saw above, baptism into the name of Jesus Christ is a requirement for salvation under the New Testament (see also Mark 16:16, I Peter 3:21). Neither one of the thieves could be baptized into the name of Christ, because they were nailed to crosses when Jesus died. God will not make it impossible for someone to be saved. That would make Him a respecter of persons (Acts 10:34).

For this same reason, we can know that the New Testament was not binding on anyone else until Pentecost. Because if it was, then God made it impossible for anyone to be saved from the death of Christ (or the resurrection, if you want to use that as the starting point) until Pentecost, fifty days later. That would make God a respecter of persons, which He is not. There has always, for all people, at all times, been the possibility of salvation through obedience to whatever law of God they lived under. The thieves on the crosses are no exception to this rule.

Thank you for your dedication to studying and understanding God’s word.

—Bradley Cobb

 

Articles, Bible Questions

Bible Q&A – How Many Cups?

Leave a comment

Dear sir, a friend of mine said that it is sinful to use more than one cup per congregation when taking the Lord’s Supper, and that everyone must drink from that one cup.  He said that Jesus took “the cup” (singular), and therefore, we can only use one cup.  What does the Bible say about this?–Anonymous

Thanks for the question.  It is true that we have some good, sincere brethren that insist that you can only use one cup in the Lord’s Supper.  They claim there is a special significance to the one cup.  They claim that Jesus only authorized one cup.

How can we know for sure? As always, let’s go to the Bible!

I Corinthians 10:16-17 has the apostle Paul (who at that point was sitting in the city of Ephesus) writing to Christians in Corinth (which was over 100 miles away, across the Aegean Sea).  And in that passage, he says “the cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we, being many, are one bread and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.”

Did you notice that? He said that the Christians in Ephesus, as well as the Christians in Corinth all used the same cup!  Now, was Paul saying they (over 100 miles apart) used the same literal cup each time they took the Lord’s Supper?  Of course not, because that would be physically impossible.

It is pointed out by these brethren that the Bible says we are to “drink this cup [singular]” (I Corinthians 11:26), and that Jesus took the cup and said that as often as we drink it [the cup, singular] we are to do it in remembrance of Him (I Corinthians 11:25).  Our brethren in Christ then ask, “In light of this evidence, how can we come to any other conclusion?”

It’s not the cup that is being drunk, it’s the stuff in the cup.

If the focus is on one literal cup, then that one literal cup (not the stuff in it, but the cup itself) has to be drunk…by each person present.  Don’t drink the contents, but drink the actual container.  Put it in your mouth and swallow it.  Jesus is obviously talking about drinking the “fruit of the vine” which is in the cup.  You can’t drink a literal cup.

IF we are only permitted to use one cup in the Lord’s Supper, then it must be the same cup that Jesus Himself used!  Jesus said this cup is the New Testament in my blood (I Corinthians 10:25).  And every congregation across the entire world must use that one exact cup.

But let’s look at one more verse which settles the issue.

Luke 22:17 – “And He took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, “take this, and divide it among yourselves.”

Look at that passage, and you will see that it was after telling them to divide it among themselves that he instituted the Lord’s Supper (verses 19-20).  When Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper, the fruit of the vine was already in twelve different cups.

The conclusion from this is that the number of cups doesn’t matter—it’s what is in the cup that counts.

–Bradley Cobb

Articles, Bible Questions

Bible Q&A – Is the Bible from God?

Leave a comment

This week’s Bible Q&A is like a “part 2” to last week’s question.  Six years ago, I had to write a letter proving that God exists.  The follow-up assignment was “OK, now you’ve convinced ‘Agnostic Agnes’ that God exists.  Now write her a letter proving that the Bible is inspired.”

This letter may make you chuckle, but hopefully it will also show you that showing the Bible is from God isn’t as hard as you might think.  And in case you wondered, “Aunt Agnes” isn’t a real person.  Enjoy!

Dear Aunt Agnes,

I heard about the confrontation you had with your science teacher at college. I never dreamed that you would share my last letter with him. Grandpa said you wouldn’t sit down until he read the letter and answered the arguments for the existence of God. It amazes me that he didn’t even try to argue. Good job! Has uncle Bubba’s toe healed yet? He needs to be more careful with that post-hole digger.

I am happy that you have come back to realizing that God truly exists. I do disagree with you, however on one thing. You said in your last letter that there is no proof that the Bible is really from God, and I am just taking it on blind faith. That’s really not the case. I’ll see if I can explain what I mean.

Could Junior have written a book like “Gone With the Wind”? Of course not. Junior’s not smart enough to have written that book. That proves it was written by someone more intelligent than him. It’s the same way with the Bible. If we can look at the Bible and see things in it that are beyond the capacity of human beings, it must have come from someone more intelligent than any human. That someone would be God. By the way, that is another way you can prove to someone that God exists.

For example, in Isaiah 40:22, it speaks of the circle of the earth. The word there actually means a sphere, like a ball. That’s not much of a surprise to us today, but when that was written (over 2,000 years ago), everyone thought the earth was flat. If you remember, that was still the common belief when Columbus sailed to America just over 500 years ago! But somehow the Bible knew it before anyone else.

Also, I learned in elementary school that there are currents in the oceans. If you saw that movie Finding Nemo, you’ll remember that the dad fish and the turtles rode the East Australian Current. That is one of them. They were discovered less than 150 years ago. Before that, no one knew about them. Well, no one except for the Bible. Psalm 8:8 speaks of the paths of the seas. This was around 3,000 years ago!

How could the Bible contain things that humans have only discovered in that past few hundreds of years? There is only one possible explanation: it was given by God. The people who wrote the books of the Bible were given what they were supposed to write straight from God.

If the Bible was just something that a group of men came up with, how could it have endured for thousands of years when people have tried and tried to destroy it? Even in the Bible, there were people who attempted to destroy all traces of God’s word. There was a wicked king named Jehoiakim who heard God’s word read to him and he got so made after only a few pages that he cut it up and burned it. That’s in Jeremiah chapter 36. If you read further, you will see that God just had Jeremiah’s secretary write it again. So, even the king could not destroy it.

Over 2,000 years ago, there was a somewhat insane ruler named Antiochus who tried to destroy all traces of Jewish worship. He even went so far as to burn every copy of the Old Testament that he could find, and kill all the people he found that possessed copies of it. This man was the ruler of the empire at the time, and yet the Old Testament still exists and we have many copies of it. He’s dead, but the Bible lives on.

Many people since then (including some rulers of the entire Roman Empire) have tried to physically destroy the Bible. Some extremely powerful people have done everything that they could to keep all copies of the Bible out of the hands of the common people.

Still others have tried to destroy the Bible intellectually. Many people who did not believe in God stated that the Bible would be completely forgotten in their lifetimes. But they keep dying; the Bible lives on. How do you explain the fact that the Bible has endured more persecution than any person or book in history, yet it still lives on in abundance? There are literally millions of Bibles printed every month. God gave us the Bible, and He is making sure we always have it.

Do you remember hearing a few years ago about them finding another ancient city that was mentioned in the Bible? That happens quite frequently nowadays. The archaeologists keep digging up more things that confirm that the Bible is correct. There have been many people mentioned in the Bible that skeptics say never really existed, but time after time, evidence keeps proving them wrong. There was an entire nation of people in the Bible, called the Hittites, that some people said did not ever exist, but archaeological evidence has proven that they existed, and that they existed exactly when the Bible says they did.

Some people have even gone so far in their efforts to discredit the Bible that they say Moses couldn’t have written the first five books of the Bible because there was not any written language back then. Yet, archaeologists discovered that there was a written language around 3500 BC, which was about 2,000 years before Moses was born. How is it that the “greatest” historians have to keep re-writing their histories as new evidence comes up, but the Bible is always right? It can only be that the Bible is from God; that is why it is 100% accurate.

Another thing that proves the Bible came from God is the fact that even though it was written by around 40 men over a period of about 1600 years, they all agree with each other. The writers of the Bible came from far different backgrounds and educations, yet they are all united in their presentation. There were kings, shepherds, a doctor, and even a tax collector that all wrote what God said to write. Have you ever wondered how all these people could have known what to write, and to make it in perfect harmony with the rest of the Bible? You could not get 40 people who knew each other to sit in the same room and write on the same subject and all be in agreement. How is it that the Bible accomplished just that? God told them what to write!

I bet you’re probably thinking “but the Bible does not always agree.” You probably think that there are contradictions in the Bible. I once heard someone say there were thousands of contradictions in the Bible. That is simply not true. While we might not completely understand everything involved in a supposed contradiction, most of them are easily explained. For example, suppose you were speaking with aunt Rex and Uncle Blondie and asking them who they saw in the grocery store. Rex says she saw Kacie and Rick, but Blondie just tells you they saw Rick. Is one of them lying to you? No, Rex is just telling you a more complete version of it.

A large chunk of the supposed contradictions involve similar scenarios. Matthew 8:28 speaks of two demon-possessed men healed by Jesus, while Luke and Mark both only mention one. Well, Matthew simply mentions all of them, the others only mentioned one of them. That is not a contradiction. The same type of “contradiction” appears in how many angels were at the tomb of Jesus. Matthew and Mark each mention one angel, but Luke mentions two. Luke gave a fuller account of what happened there. There is no contradiction. One great writer once said that a contradiction cannot exist unless it is impossible for both accounts to be true. If there were two angels, it is obvious that there was at least one angel there. The records of the Bible are complimentary.

Sometimes, there are totally different things mentioned in the same story. Well, Agnes, why do they always call so many witnesses in trials? Isn’t one witness good enough? You know better than that. One person sees things from a different angle, and may relay different parts of the story from another. The same is true with the Bible. Over the four gospel accounts (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), there are seven different things said by Jesus while He was on the cross.   Is one of them untrustworthy if he doesn’t mention all seven things? Are they contradictory if they mention some, but not others? Of course not. You must have read twenty different biographies of Elvis, but do all of them say the same thing that the others do? No, they all add different information that the others leave out. It all depends on what the author was wanting to focus on. When you read them all, you get a fuller idea of who Elvis was. In the Bible, there are four different books about the life of Jesus; when you read all of them, you get a fuller idea of who Jesus really was. You get the whole story that way.

One of the things that a lot of people point to as a contradiction is the genealogies of Christ. There are two of them given in the New Testament. One of them is in Matthew, and the other is in Luke. There are almost no similarities between them, except for just a few names. Let me ask you something before I go any further: is your mother’s family line the same as your father’s? Of course not. One of the genealogies was from Jesus’ mother, Mary’s side of the family, and the other was from His adoptive father, Joseph.

So you see, there are some things that seem at first glance to be contradictions, but when you look at them, there is a logical explanation for each of them. Sometimes, we don’t know the answer, but when you have a reliable witness, you take it on faith until you find the evidence to prove it. That might seem odd to say, but remember old aunt Sue? You could take her word for anything; she never told a fib. If she told you something that sounded outlandish, you would still believe her, right? That’s because she has been completely trustworthy and reliable on everything else. You should treat the Bible in the same way. As I’ve mentioned throughout this letter, the Bible has been proven reliable and accurate over and over again. There is no reason to doubt anything that it says!

Well, I guess that’s about it for now. Remember, you can always call me if you have any questions about this stuff. I’m no expert, but I’ll do my best to talk with you so that we’re both on the same page. Have a nice week!

Brad

Articles, Bible Questions

Bible Q&A – Does God Exist?

Leave a comment

This week’s Bible Q&A is a little bit different than normal.  Six years ago, I was asked to write a letter to an agnostic (someone who believes the existence of God cannot be proven one way or the other).  The purpose of this assignment was to see if we could explain how we can know that God exists.

And in case anyone wonders, “Agnostic Agnes” is not a real person.  This letter will probably make you chuckle, but it will also show you that you don’t have to be an intellectual to talk to people about “Does God Exist?”

Enjoy!

Dear Aunt Agnes,

I was thrilled to hear that you decided to go back to college to finish your degree.  Congratulations!  That is a very admirable thing to do, especially in your 60s.  I hope uncle Bubba is doing well.  I heard about the accident with the pick-up, but I am glad to hear that he’s recovering.

Grandpa told me that you took some science classes there at the university, and that the teacher was trying to convince everyone that God does not exist and that anyone who believes in God was ignorant.  Grandpa told me that you weren’t really sure what to think about it anymore.  Does God exist?  I tell you that He does, and I’ll tell you why I know it.

First off, take a look at the watch that your sister got you for your birthday.  You see how nice it looks?  You know there are quite a few cogs, springs, and wires inside there that are wound and placed in the perfect place to make your watch work correctly.  Now, did that watch happen by an accident?  Did every small piece just happen to fall together somewhere and land perfectly in the shape of a perfectly functioning watch?  Of course not, that’s obvious.  If something shows obvious design, there must have been someone who designed it to work that way.  Not only that, but there must be somebody to put the thing together in order to make it work.  That’s just common sense, right?

Now, look at the world around you.  Isn’t it interesting that humans can breathe the air on this planet easily?  Is it not also interesting that the air we breathe out is carbon dioxide, the exact thing that plants “breathe in” to survive?  Look also at the human DNA.  I know you went over the DNA in your science class.  They call it “the human blueprint.”  A blueprint is a design, is it not?  Even your science books admit to that design.  Look at the solar system.  Do you realize that if the earth’s tilt were just a little different, we would freeze to death?  The earth’s rotation is just the right speed, too.  If it were much faster, we would be thrown into the air.  If it were much slower, the gravity would hold us so much that we could hardly move.  Everything in us as humans, on the earth, and in the solar system is designed perfectly for us as humans.  If it is designed perfectly (which it is), who designed it?  A watch cannot happen by accident.  The universe is far more complex, and your teacher expects us to believe that it was an accident?  No, since there is design, there must have been someone who designed it, and that someone is God.

Another thing to consider is this: if evolution is really the answer to how we got here, how do they explain the morals of humans?  Anywhere you go, in every civilization throughout history, there has been a moral code of some sort.  While there are shades of differences in some of them, some remain the same.  Where has it ever been looked upon as right to murder someone who was completely innocent?  When has kidnapping been viewed as a noble thing?  What about thievery?  There are some things that are wrong, and everyone knows it.

But let us look at it from another angle.  Suppose a bull gores and kills a man.  This man was completely innocent and did not deserve death.  Do we then take the bull and arrest it, putting it on trial?  Of course not!  That is ridiculous!  Bulls don’t have the sense of morals that humans do.  But if a man kills another man, it is a different story, right?  If evolution were true, then there would be other animals that have the same moral code within themselves as we do.  This moral code within us is something that we are born with.  When your great-nephew Matthew got cut in front of in line last month, didn’t he tell the other kid cutting was wrong?  How does Matthew know that it was wrong?  If evolution is true, then there is no real right or wrong, but only what someone thinks is good for them.  That Matthew knew it was wrong shows that he has a sense of morals (and we know it didn’t come from his parents).  The fact that humans, and only humans, have morals within themselves shows that it had to come from some place.  If it were evolution, other animals would have it.  Morals have no scientific basis.  Science can not find a “moral gene” or some muscle in your body that controls morals.  It doesn’t exist.  The place it comes from is God!  That is the only explanation for the existence of our morals.

Another thing you might think about is this: there is a law in science that everything is the result of something else.  Basically, nothing can exist, work, or move without something creating it or moving it.  There is no perpetual motion, because eventually everything slows down and stops working.  Your watch is a good example of this.  It will not work on its own without you winding it, right?  Everything that moves or works has to have someone start it.  What about the planets?  What about the universe?  Since there is no such thing as perpetual motion, the planets had to have been started by something.

I know that your science teacher probably said that everything started with the “big bang,” right?  But let’s look at the other part of the law I just mentioned.  Nothing can exist without someone making it.  If you start with nothing, you end up with nothing.  You can’t just sit and wait and expect a pizza to show up on your table without someone making it and putting it there, right?  Since matter (stuff) and energy eventually run down, they had to have been created and put into motion at some point.  The big bang is a fun explanation for how everything began if you ignore the fact that there had to have been something to make the “big bang.”  Where did that something come from?  Science, then, is back in the same mess they had before trying to explain where everything came from.  Simply put, God made everything and put it into motion.

Something else to consider is this little experiment.  Imagine the most horrifying, scary monster possible.  Think of all the horrible features you could give it, both in looks and in powers and attitude.  Now, what did you think of in that monster that you had not either read about, seen, or heard before?  Everything we can think of is based on something that we have experienced or sensed before, right?  I know in your philosophy class, they told you that there is no such thing as a new or truly original thought.  They are correct.  No matter how hard you try, you cannot think of anything new beyond that which you have sensed or experienced.

What does that mean?  Have you noticed that all cultures and civilizations all have worship to a higher being?  The Indians have the “great spirit,” the Muslims have “Allah,” the Greeks and Romans had a large group of mythological gods.  There is an inner desire to find God.  Have you ever wondered why so many people are looking for their purpose in life?  If we came from evolution, there is no purpose in life.  But isn’t just about everyone yearning to find a purpose?  Something beyond themselves?

Putting the two of those together, how could anyone, let alone all the cultures on earth, have a concept of a higher being beyond themselves if one did not exist?  Remember, man is only capable of imagining that which they have sensed or experienced.  Since man has a conception of the idea of God, the only explanation is that somewhere along the line, God interacted with man.  Since man has a concept of God, God must exist.

If your science teacher is anything like the teacher I had at John A. Logan College a decade ago, he likely used pain and suffering as his “ace in the hole” against God existing.  The thing is, that does not really prove anything.  The teacher liked to say “if God is all-loving, why does evil exist?”  Let me ask you a question, Agnes.  Do you love your son, Junior?  I know you do.  That is why you let him make his own decisions (although I still think you should kick him out of the house; he is 35 now).  God is the same way.  He loves us all, and because of that, He lets us make our own decisions.  People can choose to murder, rob banks, kidnap, drive drunk, and all other kinds of things.  But when they do, does that show God as uncaring?  No!  If Junior robbed a bank, does that show that you don’t love him?  Of course not!  Evil exists because of choices that people make to do those things that are evil.

What about the innocent people who are hurt?  They didn’t do anything wrong, right?  How can we say God cares when innocent people get hurt all the time?  It is a fact that the choices we make affect us and other people as well.  You can’t say that it not true.  If you and the rest of the ladies up there stopped going to McDonald’s every morning, they might go out of business.  Something that you do can affect other people.  It can have good effects (like when you helped that homeless man get some food) or it can have bad effects (like when someone chooses to drive drunk and kills someone).  It is all because of choices that we make.  If someone chooses to do something wrong, evil exists, and innocent people might get hurt because of it.

I know that it breaks your heart when a baby is born with some kind of problem.  Was it the baby’s fault that it had the problem?  Of course not.  But, you have seen parents who smoke and drink while the baby is growing in the womb.  Those things do affect the baby.  Also, there may be things that one of our ancestors did that caused there to be a problem with us.  Sometimes, it takes multiple generations for these things to manifest themselves, and we never know exactly where they come from.  But it all comes down to people and the choices they make.

Agnes, I know you are busy with finals coming up, so I’ll go ahead and end this letter here.  I hope I have given you some things to think about.  Let me know what I can do to help in the future.  Give uncle Bubba my regards.  Tell Junior to get back to work.

Bye,

Brad

Articles, Bible Questions

Bible Q&A – What was Paul’s “Thorn in the Flesh”?

Leave a comment

Question: What was Paul’s “thorn in the flesh”?—anonymous.

Thanks for the question, and for reading! This is one of the most common questions that people ask. It’s often used as an example of what people call “unimportant questions.” But everything in the Bible is important. There’s no such thing as an “unimportant question” from the Bible.

Before we go on, it’s important that you come to this with an open mind and an open Bible. A lot of people say “no one knows what the thorn in the flesh is.” Others say, “It’s probably bad eyesight, but no one knows for sure.” We’re not concerned with what people have to say about it. We’re only interested in what the Bible has to say about it. So, open your Bible and let’s discover the answer for ourselves.

The “thorn in the flesh” is described in Second Corinthians 12:7-9. Please notice how Paul describes it:

  1. It is something physical (a thorn in the flesh).
  2. It is the “messenger of Satan.”
  3. Its purpose is to beat Paul (buffet, in King James, which literally means to hit or strike repeatedly. This indicates violence).
  4. It humbled Paul.
  5. It didn’t go away, even after Paul prayed about it.
  6. Paul calls it “my infirmities.”

Now, look back a chapter and let’s see what the context tells us. In chapter eleven, Paul is dealing with the Jews who were trying to undermine his efforts for Christ. These are frequently called “Judaizers” or “Judaizing teachers.” They were Jews who tried to take people away from Christ and back to the Law of Moses. Look what Paul says about them and their work against him.

  1. These Jews brought physical persecution (11:24-26, 32-33).
  2. These Jews are called “messengers” of Satan (11:13-15).
  3. These Jews attacked Paul with violence (11:24-26, 32-33).
  4. These persecutions kept Paul from exalting himself (11:30).
  5. These persecutions didn’t go away, even after Paul prayed about them (see the book of Acts).
  6. These persecutions from the Jews were called “my infirmities” (11:30, 12:5).

If you notice, everything that was said about Paul’s thorn in the flesh was said about the persecution Paul endured from the Jews—just one chapter earlier.

Based on the evidence and the context, Paul’s “thorn in the flesh” was the continual persecution from the Jews who were trying to destroy Paul and the message of the gospel.

-Bradley S. Cobb

Articles, Bible Questions

Bible Q&A – Do We Have All the Apostles’ Letters?

Leave a comment

Question: Could you expand on your answer about whether there are missing books of the New Testament?  Are you saying that we have everything the apostles wrote? Is it possible there other letters that we simply don’t have?—anonymous

That’s a great question, and it really deserves an answer. After all, if we don’t have everything, there could be something important that God expects of us that we don’t know about! We know that the Old Testament mentions books and writings that we don’t have. However, many of those are mentioned simply as historical records and not God-inspired books. Other writings mentioned in the Old Testament might be references to specific Old Testament books, just under a different name. For example, 2 Chronicles 9:29 mentions “the book of Nathan the prophet…the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and…the visions of Iddo the seer.” This could very well be a reference to the books of first and second Kings.

But now, let’s look at the questions that were asked.

Do we have everything the apostles wrote? No, we don’t. How can I say that? I find it difficult—no, impossible to believe that 75% of the apostles never wrote anything. I also find it impossible to believe that the apostle Paul spends two years in jail in Caesarea and writes nothing during that time. Or that during his (minimum) two years—730 days—in jail in Rome, he only writes four short letters. But the fact that we don’t have everything that ever was written by the apostles shouldn’t make us concerned.

Here’s some things to consider:

1. Not everything the apostles wrote would have been inspired. If the apostle Paul gave Luke a list of scrolls to pick up from the Roman library, that wouldn’t have been an inspired list. So, even if we’re missing Andrew’s list of chores for his son to do, that doesn’t mean we’re missing anything inspired. Letters by the apostles of a non-religious nature would not be inspired, nor would there be any reason for them to be copied and passed on for 2,000 years. That’s why we don’t have any of them.

2. A different letter doesn’t mean it contained different information. Look at the books of Colossians and Ephesians. They are very similar in a lot of the things they discuss. Many congregations were dealing with the same kinds of problems. So, even if Paul wrote a letter to the church in Macedonia, that doesn’t mean it contained anything different from what’s in the other letters that we do have. If letters to other congregations were written by Paul or the other apostles, they would have been inspired, but they would have contained basically the same information as we have in the New Testament books.

3. We might actually have some of the supposedly “missing” letters. Many people point to the “Letter from Laodicea” that Paul mentions in Colossians 4 as a letter that’s gone missing. But many Bible students have suggested that this letter is actually the letter we call Ephesians, or possible Philemon (this will be addressed in a later Bible Q&A). So, it is quite possible that we have some of the letters that people think are “missing.”

4. Any supposedly missing letters were not ever recorded as existing. The early church (the first couple centuries after Christ) wrote a lot, and quoted from a lot of Scripture. So much so that it’s said, “if every copy of the Bible were destroyed, we could put it back together through quotes from the early Christian writers.” Every apostolic letter they mentioned or quoted from is contained in the 27 books of the New Testament. They never quoted from any other letters of Paul, Peter, Matthew, John, or any of the other apostles. This is because they didn’t have any others. If there were other letters, they were unknown to the church at large from the very beginning.

5. If we don’t have it, we don’t need it. God is powerful. God could rip apart the entire earth and then put it back together as though it had never happened. If God wanted us to have a specific letter, we’d have it. His word says that “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God…so that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works,” and that God has given us everything “that pertains to life and godliness” (II Timothy 3:16-17, II Peter 1:3). God made sure that we have what we need. If there are other letters, they do not contain anything different or additional to what we already have. Because God is infinitely powerful, we can know that everything that He expects from us and commands of us is contained in the 27 books that are in the New Testament.

-Bradley Cobb

Articles, Bible Questions

Bible Q&A – Was Jesus Created?

9 Comments

Some people came to my door and said that since Jesus is the “Son of God,” that means He can’t be God. They said that Jesus was the first being created by God. Was Jesus created?—F.F., Arkansas.

Thank you for the question. What you described sounds like a group who call themselves “Jehovah’s Witnesses.” But before we answer the question, something must be made extremely clear:

Right and wrong is determined by what the Bible says. Just because a certain religious group teaches something doesn’t automatically mean it’s right, but it also doesn’t automatically mean it’s wrong, either.

Let’s start with your question, Was Jesus created? Then we’ll move on to the issue about the “Son of God.”

In Micah 5:2, there is a prophecy about Jesus being born in Bethlehem (fulfilled in Matthew 2:5-6). But that’s not the only thing in that verse. Jesus is also described as the one “whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” According to this Old Testament passage, the Messiah (the Christ) would be one who has existed “from everlasting,” that is, forever. If someone is from everlasting, that means He couldn’t have been created.

But let’s go further and look at how ridiculous this claim of a “created Jesus” is. The Bible makes it crystal-clear that everything that was created was created by Jesus Christ (John 1:1-3). The Scriptures say that there is nothing created except for that which was created by Jesus. Now, taking this crystal-clear Bible knowledge with us, let’s use some common sense. The only way—according to the Bible—that Jesus was created is if Jesus created Himself out of thin air before He existed.

The Bible makes it clear that Jesus was not created. He is eternal, and is the one who created everything—no exceptions!

But let’s also take a look at the “Son of God” argument.

One of the ways the “Jehovah’s Witnesses” try to bring up the topic of Jesus is by saying that He’s the Son of God, and then make the comment, “Isn’t that interesting that he’s called the Son of God.” When you ask, “What do you mean?” they start saying that since Jesus is the Son of God, that means Jesus can’t be God.

The same Bible says that Jesus is the “son of man.” According to the Jehovah’s Witness argument, that would mean that Jesus can’t be man, either, since he’s the son of man. If we take their argument to its logical conclusion, Jesus isn’t deity, and was never human either. Both of those stances violate several Scriptures.

The son of a human is a human—by his very nature. The Son of God, therefore, is God—by His very nature.

Jesus Christ is deity (by His very nature), and Jesus is also human (by being the Son of man). He is eternal. Jesus was not created. He is the one who created everything.

-Bradley Cobb

Articles, Bible Questions

Bible Q&A – Are Babies Born in Sin?

2 Comments

I heard someone on the radio talk about people having a “sinful nature,” and as proof that we are all born sinners, he quoted Psalm 51:5 from the NIV. Are we really born sinners?—D. from Illinois.

Thanks for the question. This is one that has bothered people for many years. In fact, this one doctrine has led to all sorts of other doctrines and practices which are foreign to the Bible.

Before we go any further, let’s look at the passage, quoted in the NIV (since that was what the man referenced). This version of the Bible has David saying, “Surely I was sinful at birth; sinful from the time my mother conceived me.” When you read that passage by itself (which is questionably translated), it can sure make you think that we are all “born in sin.” But we need to look at the rest of the Bible first, then we’ll come back to this passage.

In order to understand where people are coming from when they say that we are all “born in sin,” we need to figure out how they came to that conclusion. They claim that all people are born sinful, condemned to hell from the time they were conceived (some say from the moment of birth) because of the sin of Adam. They claim that we all hell-bound sinners from birth because we bear the guilt of Adam’s sin in the Garden of Eden. This is why Catholics and Lutherans “baptize” (actually sprinkle) babies—to supposedly cleanse them of the sin of Adam.

But do we really bear the sins of Adam?

Let’s think this through for a moment. If every human is born sinful because of the sin of Adam, then that applies to everyone who has ever been born, starting with Adam and Eve’s first child. That would apply to every person under the Old Testament, as well as the New Testament.

But this doctrine is 100% denied in the Old Testament. The prophet Ezekiel, while speaking words directly from God, said, “the soul that sins, it shall die” (Ezekiel 18:4). And look at what else God says through this prophet: “The son will not bear the sin of the father, nor will the father bear the sin of the son” (Ezekiel 18:20). God makes it incredibly clear that we do not “inherit” sin from any ancestors.

King David was incredibly upset, because his brand-new baby was incredibly sick. Then the baby ended up dying at just 7 days old. But, when the baby died, King David said these words: “Now he is dead…can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me” (2 Samuel 12:23). David, a prophet of God (Acts 2:29-30), said that he would be reunited with his son. Since David was a man after God’s own heart, and fully expected to go to heaven, that means he also fully expected his infant sin to be in heaven as well. This is because babies aren’t born in sin.

But suppose someone won’t accept these Old Testament examples as evidence. What then?

How about the New Testament, which clearly states that we will be judged on what we do, and not on what someone else does? All people will be judged, according to their works (Revelation 20:12-13, 2 Corinthians 5:10).

But let’s consider one more thing: if all babies are born sinful, bearing the guilt of Adam’s sin, then no one can be saved!

Whoa! Wait a minute! What do you mean by that???

If all babies are born in sin, born sinful, then that means Jesus Christ was a sinner from birth. That means Jesus wasn’t the sinless and perfect sacrifice. And if Jesus isn’t the sinless and perfect sacrifice then (1) His death on the cross couldn’t take away sin, and (2) the New Testament contains lie after lie when it says that Jesus “knew no sin” (2 Corinthians 5:21, I Peter 2:22, Hebrews 4:15).

So, which one are you going to believe: the Bible, which says Jesus never knew sin, or the people who claim all babies (which must include Jesus) are born in sin?

As for me and my house, we’ll believe the Bible.

But what about Psalm 51:5?

Yes, that’s where this question started, so let’s paint the picture. David has sinned, having committed adultery with Bathsheba. The prophet Nathan has confronted him and said, “You are that man!” (2 Samuel 12:7). David’s realization that he has sinned completely overwhelms him. And in that state, he writes Psalm 51.

He says, “blot out my transgressions. Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin. For I acknowledge my transgressions, and my sin is ever before me [that is, it’s all around me, it’s everywhere I look]. Behold, I was shaped in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me…purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean. Wash me and I shall be whiter than snow” (Psalm 51:1-7).

David is poetically saying that all he can see is his sin. It’s like he’s always sinning. He’s such a horrible sinner, it’s like he’s done nothing but sinning. It’s like he’s been sinning since he was born. His sin is overwhelming him, and he’s begging for God’s forgiveness. He’s not saying, “I was a hell-bound sinner the instant I was conceived.” He’s saying, “I’m such a horrible sinner, it feels like that’s all I’ve done my entire life.”

And he’s not that different from us. Haven’t you ever said, thought, or heard the words, “I can’t do anything right”? Or perhaps, “All I ever do is mess up”? That’s how David was feeling when he wrote Psalm 51.

So, to answer the original question: No, we are not born sinners. We do not get our sin from someone else. We are born precious and free from sin. We become sinners when we ourselves disobey God’s law.

For further reading on this topic, check Luke 18:16 and Romans 7:7-9.

-Bradley S. Cobb

Bible Questions

Bible Q&A – How Old Should an Elder Be?

8 Comments

We’ve discussed installing some new elders.  Some of the men under consideration are in their late 30s.  Are they old enough to be elders? –A Christian from Indiana.

That is a great question that really needs to be discussed.

It was about eleven years ago when the knocking of a hand against my front door got my attention.  Upon opening the door, I was faced with two Mormon boys who could not have been older than 19.  I asked the customary question, “Can I help you?”  Instead of answering the question, they proceeded to introduce themselves.  “My name is Elder Bob, and this is Elder Joe.”  Knowing that these boys had no idea what the word “elder” meant, I asked them a simple question.  “How are your wife and kids?”  The look of confusion across their face told me they also didn’t know what the Bible teaches about elders.  Upon explaining that an elder was the husband of one wife and had believing children, I asked them the question again.  They said “thank you” and shortly thereafter were on their way to the next house.

The word “elder” signifies, by its very definition, someone who is older.  How old?  Ask the members of the congregation what they consider to be an “older man” and you’ll have a pretty good guess.  But let’s look at some of the other things the Bible says on this matter.  There are certain “benchmarks” that also help us in determining a minimum age for an “elder.”

The first place to look is in the qualifications for elders which were laid out by the apostle Paul in I Timothy 3.  The person desiring the office of bishop (elder) must be the husband of one wife.  Literally, the wording is “a one-woman man.”  This man must have proven himself to be faithful to his wife, a dedicated husband.  Obviously this is not something a 19-year old can prove.  This is something that is proven over a period of time.  According to some sources, most men during the first century did not marry until they were in their 30’s.  Imagine, then, the age at which these people would have been known as dedicated husbands by the rest of the congregation.

Also, the elder must have faithful children (Titus 1:6).  Does this mean faithful to him or faithful to God?  Skipping this question for a moment, let us look at the simple point that the man must have children who are old enough to show they are faithful.  The children must be old enough to make decisions and show that they have been raised to make the right ones.  They obey their father because they are in subjection to him (I Timothy 3:4).  This does not describe children under the teenage years.  If this means children who are faithful to God, it means that the children must be faithful Christians.  If it means faithful to their father, this age of accountability would be about the same, wouldn’t you think?  This man’s children must be known to be obedient.  This again is something that takes time to prove, especially if it is referring to being a faithful Christian.

Looking at the likely age of marriage (say 30-35), adding the time it would take for their children to get to be teenagers (add another 15 or more years), as well as tacking on the time it would take for the children to prove themselves “faithful” once they reach the age of accountability, and you get someone who meets these first two qualifications for being an elder probably around age 50.

Let us also consider one last point.  The apostle Peter, approximately 61-63 AD, said he was an elder of the Lord’s church (I Peter 5:1).  If we accept that he was about Jesus’ age when he became a disciple of the Lord, then Peter would be about 65 years old when he wrote this.  He commanded the elders to whom he wrote, using the fact that he was an elder as back-up for his commands (I Peter 5:1-4).  This is not something that a newly-appointed elder would likely do, so Peter had likely been an elder at the church in Jerusalem for some time, perhaps a decade?

From a Biblical perspective, there is no way that a 19-year old could be an elder.  It would be pushing it to say someone in their 40s would qualify as “older,” as the word “elder” necessitates.  Though the Bible gives no specific age, it does give certain milestones (faithful husband and faithful children) which would be very difficult to reach and prove before their late 40s/early 50s.

Plus, unless you’re asking teenagers, no one considers a 40-year old to be an “older man.”

-Bradley S. Cobb