Biblical answers

LEave Your Question as a comment

Sun, 16 May 2010 13:43:45 -0400

Leave your question as a comment. I’ll frequently check the site and delegate your questions to a capable Bible students. Then I will post the answers to your questions the “Biblical Answers” page.

What’s up with the number 666?

Sat, 23 May 2009 01:35:41 -0400

This is an excellent question. This number gets thrown around a lot. It is very popular, yet misunderstood. Hollywood loves to use it in movies (often about Satan, monsters, etc...). Sometimes someone might hand us a pamphlet on the street claiming that our social security number is the “new 666”. Though not many are very clear on the actual significance of this number, just about everyone knows that it’s somehow attributed to the devil and overall a bad thing.

Well, like many Biblical misconceptions, the best place to start looking for answers is in the Bible. We should be accustomed to people misinterpreting Bible passages by now, and we need to trust in our own ability to find the truth for ourselves. The number “666” is found only once in the Bible. It appears in Rev 13:18. The book of Revelation is a description of a series of allegorical prophetic visions regarding to coming judgment of Rome. More simply put, Revelation is John’s retelling of dreams that predict the fall of Rome. Rome was guilty of persecuting the Christians. For that, God was going to destroy them. The suffering Christians needed a message of hope in the dark times.

By the time we reach Revelation 13, we are introduced to a character known as “the beast”. In an attempt to draw the Christians away from Christ, Satan summons two fearsome beasts to persecute and antagonize anyone who doesn’t worship them. This is metaphorical of Satan leading the Roman Empire and pagan religions to persecute the Christians for being disloyal and different to their way of life.

To differentiate their followers, the beast places a mark on his loyal subjects. This mark grants them protection from persecution and freedom to buy and sell in the market. Anyone without this mark would live a troubled life. The mark given is represented as “666”. It was known as the mark of the beast. Since the beast is just Satan’s pawn, the number really refers to those who are loyal to the devil.

Why the number “666”? Well, in other portions of the Bible (including Revelation), seven is seen to be a number representing complete fullness. Seven would be a good number then. So, as a means of mocking Satan, God symbolizes his number as “666 (essentially: “incomplete, incomplete, incomplete”). The number is simply an indirect diss from God to Satan.

People today tend to place a great deal of attention to the number. Some propose wild ideas such as: the Government will one day institute a decree marking all Americans with a bar code. This bar code will be the “new mark of the beast”. I already mentioned that some have suggested that our social security number is the “new mark of the beast”. Please do not be dissuaded to believe this. it is entirely misguided. First of all, the mark of the beast refers to something that happen MANY YEARS AGO. These events go back to the first two centuries. The mark of the beast isn’t something that will occur in our future. It is something that has already happened. The next big mistake is over literalizing the number. There wasn’t really an actual physical number placed on the Roman citizens. The number offered in Revelation is just a physical representation of their loyalty to Satan rather than God. More accurately, the mark of the beast was the sinful lives led by the sinful pagan citizens of Rome.

With all this attention in chapter 13, why hasn’t anyone noticed chapter 14? Everyone knows about 666, Why doesn’t anyone know about the mark of God? Just like Satan’s followers were branded, God branded His followers. All the righteous who have remained undefiled during the time of crisis have the name of their Father written on their foreheads. This represents their loyal life of servitude to God rather than Satan.

Well, having said all that, perhaps we should fear the mark of the beast. Not a literal number, but a sinful lifestyle. If we aren’t loyal to God with faith and obedience, we are already branded by Satan. Maybe we can live a more pleasurable life with his mark, but I’d rather live righteously and have God’s name written on my forehead so as not to incur the same harsh judgment God dealt upon the evil Romans.

How do you know the boundaries when preaching the word?

Thu, 9 Apr 2009 14:08:44 -0400

This question could have different meanings. Here are at least two ways to look at the question: 1) How do I prepare and present the Word? 2) How long do I keep preaching to someone? While the questioner probably had the second idea in mind it is important to begin with the first question.

First, how to prepare and present God's Word. There appears to be 3 stages of a lesson or sermon: 1) Telling God's Word, 2) explaining its meaning, and 3) making applications. Let us examine more closely each stage.

1) Every lesson should have as its foundation the Word of God. Paul said he had not failed to declare the whole counsel of God to the Ephesians (Acts 20:27). The teacher's opinions, feelings, and/or suggestions cannot save others.

Timothy was given the simple yet effective instruction to "preach the Word!" (II Timothy 4:2). Consider that command in light of the context: 1) Paul had just told Timothy what all Scripture will do for the man who receives it (II Timothy 3:16-17) and 2) that God will judge everyone (II Timothy 4:1). Based on these two things a preacher must "Preach the Word!".

2) Sometimes there is need to explain the meaning by defining words or describing the surrounding context. An example of this point is seen in the previous verse. A text is given (II Timothy 4:2) and then it is explained, using the previous verses of the text.

Ezra and the Levites did this very thing in Nehemiah 8:8. They read from God's Word and then helped the people understand its meaning. Care must be given to only retell the meaning and not to change the meaning. Other passages may help us understand a verse but generally speaking it is best to understand it from the verses before and/or after.

Remember the Word Jesus preached was to common men without much formal education. God's Word was written to be understood. By far the majority of the Bible needs little explanation.

3) A conclusion is often made to show why the text is meaningful in the audience's life. God's Word is intended to change our lives so that we will be pleasing to our Lord (II Timothy 3:16-17). At times it is appropriate to show where applications can be personally made. This is especially true when teaching someone who is not familiar with God's Word and needs to be trained to be a doer of the Word and not merely a hearer (James 1:22-25).

Now to deal with the question, "How long do I preach to someone?" or "When should I give up?".

The Bible gives commands and examples of reaching a point when it is no longer good to keep preaching to someone (Matthew 10:14; Acts 10:46). Note that in the Bible commands and examples, it is the listener who reveals that he/she is not interested in God.

The verses that follow Paul's command to "preach the word" explain that some will get tired of hearing the truth and will wander away into error (II Timothy 4:3-4). While this truth may be seen in some today, remember that in the same text Paul instructs the teacher to teach with longsuffering (v.2) and to make sure to "fulfill your ministry", that is, serve as God would have it.

It is the wise teacher who imitates God. God is longsuffering, patient, and desirous that all be saved (I Timothy 2:4; II Peter 3:9). Jesus exercised great patience with his apostles. There were times when they failed to understand lessons that Jesus expected them understand. Sometimes they even opposed and contradicted His teaching. Even in this, Jesus did not give up on them. Peter was probably the worst offender and yet become one of the greatest preachers. Would not it be sad to give up on someone who could have become like Peter.

It is a serious mistake to give up on someone too early. Prefer to teach too long to someone rather than stopping too soon.

Was David Justified in eating the consecrated bread?

Thu, 9 Apr 2009 11:01:37 -0400

David’s eating of the consecrated, holy bread, in 1 Samuel 21:1-6, is another example of the weakness and sin of all men, even the children of God. When David committed adultery with Bathsheba and had Uriah, her husband killed, the prophet of God openly condemned the sin and God publicly punished David. The reaction of God through the prophet occurred because of the effect of this sin in the history of Israel. Because David is not criticized in this text is not an indication that what he did was condoned.

The bread was holy, consecrated, set apart for use in the holy place in the temple. The shewbread was to stay on the table in the holy place until it was replaced by fresh bread each day. When the bread was taken off the table it was to be eaten by the priests in the holy place. Note these passages.

And thou shalt set upon the table shewbread before me alway.
Ex. 25:30

And thou shalt take fine flour, and bake twelve cakes thereof: two tenth deals shall be in one cake.
And thou shalt set them in two rows, six on a row, upon the pure table before the LORD.
And thou shalt put pure frankincense upon [each] row, that it may be on the bread for a memorial, [even] an offering made by fire unto the LORD.
Every sabbath he shall set it in order before the LORD continually, [being taken] from the children of Israel by an everlasting covenant.
And it shall be Aaron's and his sons'; and they shall eat it in the holy place: for it [is] most holy unto him of the offerings of the LORD made by fire by a perpetual statute. Lev. 24:5-9

First of all, it is clear in the text that what David wanted was reluctantly allowed by the Ahimelech the priest. The condition of “at least kept themselves from women” was poor, human effort to somehow justify what was clearly forbidden. The fact that no other bread was available did not justify what was done, for this bread was not available, it was taken.

Not only is David’s weakness seen in the event, the compromise and weakness of the priest is clearly evident. Such sin and compromise was typical in the history of Israel, both in their kings and priests.

There are other examples of sins committed by God’s servants that are not exposed and condemned on the spot. Remember the lies of Abram, Jacob’s deceit, Joseph’s brothers’ cruelty to Joseph, Judah’s adultery with Tamar, etc. Condemnation and judgment is not always immediate. The sins are revealed in the Bible stories to give a true picture of weakness, failure and sin, even among those called God’s people. David was aware of the guilt of sin and wrote several psalms that cry out for God’s mercy and forgiveness of sins unnamed in the psalm.

Jesus mentioned David’s sin in Matthew 12:1-8 to expose the hypocrisy of those who condemned Him and his disciples for plucking and eating heads of grain on the Sabbath. Jesus says that what David did was unlawful. Jesus also reminded them that the priests “worked” on the Sabbath to fulfill the requirements of God. While those hypocrites would excuse and praise David and understand the point of the priests work they judged Jesus who did not sin and did not violate the Sabbath by what he did. Jesus did not approve of what David did; He said he did what was unlawful. He merely brings it up to expose their hypocrisy.

Acts 10:28 says that it’s unlawful for a Jew to Meet with a Gentile. was that unlawful according to the law of moses or just unlawful according to the customs of the jews?

Tue, 7 Apr 2009 12:33:19 -0400

This was not explicitly enjoined by Moses, but it seemed to be implied in his institutions, and was at any rate the common understanding of the Jews. The design was to keep them a separate people. To do this, Moses forbade alliances by contract, or marriage, with the surrounding nations, which were idolatrous. See Leviticus 18:24-30; Deuteronomy 7:3-12; comp. Ezra 9:11,12. This command the Jews perverted; and explained as referring to intercourse of any kinds, even to the exercise of friendly offices and commercial transactions. Comp. John 4:9.

One other comment I'll make is that the prohibitions in Deut. 7 had to do particularly with the idolatrous nations surrounding Israel and not necessarily with all gentiles. The Jews, obviously, applied them to all gentiles.

- Gardner Hall

Can you be forgiven of sins after being baptized?

Wed, 1 Apr 2009 13:14:03 -0400

Yes, you can. When Jesus died on the cross, his sacrifice was to cleanse away the sins of the world. Baptism is how we can receive that cleansing of forgiveness. Jesus' one sacrifice was powerful enough to clean up all of our problems when we are baptized.

God will use that cleansing to forgive us after baptism too. 1 John 1:9 says that "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us". John was writing to Christians who had already been baptized. He was letting them know what they needed to do if they made mistakes after being baptized.

John keeps talking about the same subject in the next chapter. He says in 1 John 2:1-2 that he doesn't want Christians to sin anymore. Then he says, "And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous...". What John means is this:
1) We're not supposed to sin after we become baptized
2) If we do sin, we need to go back to Jesus to ask for forgiveness and try to do better again

Mistakes may happen, even for Christians. It's our job to stop those mistakes and go to God for help and forgiveness. He will do the cleansing.

-dan bunting

Can you provide a brief outline of II corinthians? i think knowing the basic structure will help me as i read the book.

Fri, 12 Sep 2008 16:29:17 -0400

Introduction: 1:1-7

I. Paul’s trials, principles, and consolations as a preacher, 1:8-7:16
1. His interest in the Corinthian church, 1:8-2:11
2. His service both to God and men, 2:12-2:17
3. His appointment by the Holy Spirit, 3:1-18
4. His power given by God, 4:1-18
5. His hope of future blessedness, 5:1-19
6. His encouragement and appeal to the church, 5:20-7:4
7. His joy at the reception of the word, 7:5-7:16

II. The collection for the poor saints, 8:1-9:15
1. Appeal for liberality (generosity), 8:1-15
2. The sending of Titus and two other brethren, 8:16-9:5
3. The blessedness of liberality, 9:6-9:15

III. Paul’s apostolic authority, 10:1-13:10
1. He defends His apostolic authority, 10:1-12:13
2. He warns them that his coming will be with apostolic authority, 12:14-13:10

Conclusion 13:11-14

Outline by J. B. Tidwell (The Bible Book by Book,WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.)
Posted by Hermano Tim

What is the best way to explain to someone that “the kingdom of God” refers to the church instead of a new physical kingdom?

Tue, 2 Sep 2008 12:38:05 -0400

In Matthew 16:18-19 Jesus said, ". . . I will build my church, and the gates of Hades shall not pevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven..." The word church in the original language means "an assembly." Jesus was promising to gather an assembly of people. Their government would be a kingdom to which Peter would have keys. Peter used the keys on the day of Pentecost, the day the church began, when he told the people how to be saved. When they were saved they were the church that Jesus promised to build (See Acts 2:47, 5:11). When people are saved, they are "delivered out of the power of darkness and conveyed into the kingdom of the Son of His love" (Colossians 1:13). In Revelation 1:9 John, writing to "the seven churches of Asia" identified himself as "your brother and companion in the tribulation and kingdom...,"

The word kingdom simply identifies the kind of government the church has; it is a kingdom with Jesus Christ as King. Christ will reign "until God has put all enemies under His feet" and "The last enemy that will be destroyed is death" (1 Corinthians 15:25-26). When Jesus returns and the dead are raised it will be the end, not the beginning, of the kingdom of earth. "Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father. . ." (1 Corinthians 15:24).

Sewell Hall

Are Women supposed to be submissive to all men or just their husbands? Women need to be subjective to their husbands in all things. Do they need to be subjective to all men in all things?

Tue, 19 Aug 2008 11:08:49 -0400

Some passages command women to be in subjection to their own husbands (ex. Eph 5:22; Col 3:18). These passages, especially Ephesians 5:22, describe the relationship of a husband and wife and it would be wrong to force the text to apply to all men. God says the husband is the head of the wife and therefore she should be subject to him (V.24). Clearly this relationship is special and her relationship to her husband is unlike that with anyone else.

Other passages do teach women to be submissive to men in general (ex. 1 Tim 2:11). The context of I Tim 2:1-8 is for godly men in general and not just for married men. The connecting phrase of verse 9, "in like manner", suggests that the woman under consideration would be all godly woman, not just a married woman toward her husband.

I Timothy 2:11-12 should be studied together. Notice how the verses are connected: verse 11 refers to learning and verse 12 speaks of teaching, also both verses discuss the woman being "silent", which in the original means "quietness" (see II Thes 3:12). Perhaps it is helpful to consider that these two verses are saying essentially the same thing, verse 11 in the positive ("do this") and verse 12 in the negative ("don't do this"). Some have suggested that the idea here is that a woman is not to "teach over" or "have authority over" a man. In light of other Bible passages, this appears to be a reasonable conclusion. A woman may submissively teach (ex: Acts 18:26). That is, help a man learn something while still remaining in the position which God placed her.

Some suggest that I Timothy 2:11 should only be limited to church activities, such as Bible classes and business meetings. Common sense demands that we not limit I Timothy 2:9-10 to only certain areas or places. Therefore I do not see how we can make a change in arrangement for verse 11. Women should be submissive to men (V.11) in whatever place they would dress in modest apparel (V.9) and profess godliness (V.10).

Others suggest I Timothy 2:11 only applies to the husband/wife relationship. Again, do verses 9-10 only apply to the husband/wife relationship? Consider the problems if one understands that the woman of I Timothy 2 cannot teach or have authority over her own husband but she can teach and have authority over another woman's husband.

My conclusion: What distinction can made between the way a woman submits to her husband versus men in general? Ephesians 5:24 shows that a wife is to be submissive to her husband "in everything", while I Timothy 2:11 commands any woman to not authoritatively teach or rule over a man in any way.

Joe Works

Can WE have a relationship with an unbeliever?

Tue, 5 Aug 2008 14:41:22 -0400

The answer really depends on what you mean by relationship and/or what kind of relationship. The Bible teaches that we are in the world (mixing with people in the world) but not of the world (motivated and controlled by it). Notice that 1 Corinthians 5 is teaching Christians to separate themselves and not associate with Christians who are continuing to practice sin. Paul states clearly, however, that it is not necessary to separate from people of the world who are practicing the same sins "since then you would need to go out of the world." (1 Cor. 5:9-13)

So, relationships with unbelievers are a part of life in this world. Yet, we must "walk as children of light...have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them." (Eph. 5:1-14). As we associate with people of the world we cannot participate in their sin, or offer any approval for their sin. We must even speak up in exposing and opposing their sin. If my relationship with a person causes me to fail in this area, I need to get out of that relationship.

There is one clear warning in scripture that deals directly with your question: 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 -- "Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers." The idea of being yoked is tied together, as oxen on the farm, so you can pull a plow or a wagon. If you are in a relationship with an unbeliever and are pulling and working in the same direction as that person -- What direction are you going? If the unbeliever is pulling you away from truth, faith, and righteousness -- get out of that yoke! If the unbeliever is being influenced for good by you, you are pulling him toward faith, righteousness and goodness ... if you are pulling together toward God, that is good.

If you are talking about dating and the marriage relationship, all of the above principles apply. However, this kind of relationship is so close and personal that it will not last unless one person or the other changes or compromises. Who is going to change? Will you change or will they change? It is impossible to be absolutely sure about that answer! In the matter of marriage, you cannot try it for now and decide later that your influence is not strong enough. You are married for life. Christians are putting their souls and souls of their children at very serious risk in such a relationship with an unbeliever.

Don Bunting