YOUR QUESTION, PLEASE
When I was a boy, "Your Question, Please" was the title of a weekly program on a Topeka, Kansas TV station. Every Saturday after the noon news, a panel of local ministers would take phone calls about religious topics. Inspired by this, we now offer something similar on the Internet - taking your questions about Bible-related subjects. "Let us reason together, says the Lord...." (Isa. 1:18)
If you have a question about an article on our web site, or some Bible-related topic, click here to e-mail us .
April 2011: Someone apparently was left puzzled by our look at "The Passover Puzzle." She asks: "I might have missed it, but just what evening is... Philadelphia is the night of [April] 16th; Jews.... the night of the 17th.... Mark Nash.... concluded two days before the Jews' Passover calendar."
Mark Nash's name admittedly was a mystery to me. He's a writer for The Philadelphia Trumpet of the Philadelphia Church of God, and he's written articles on Jesus's crucifixion and resurrection.
The visitor asked me to reply with "which day is correct." Oh dear -- asking me to make that sort of ruling is like asking me to judge which car is best for everyone on Earth to drive. I'm not qualified to do that by any means. But our visitor spurred a quick midweek Bible study on the issue.
To determine when Nisan 14 or 15 is, we need to know what Nisan 1 is. Which day was the "beginning of months?" Astronomers say the new moon occurred Sunday, 3 April 11 around 10:30 a.m. U.S. EDT. Based on this, you might think that following Sunday night would mark Nisan 1.
But as far as I know, all Church of God groups put Nisan 1 on Monday night, 4 April -- and so they're keeping the Lord's Supper service Sunday evening 17 April, which they consider the start of Nisan 14. Canadian COG blogger James Malm, who tends to take a hard line on these issues, says new moon "calendar dates begin at sunset the previous evening." Yet Malm did not go back and put Nisan 1 on Saturday night; he advanced it all the way to Monday night.
Malm contends the new moon (for setting the Nisan 1 date) should be set by watching for "the first sliver of light" from the moon. He bases this on Genesis 1:14, where God ordered "lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years." (The rest of Malm's timing is based on Jewish tradition, NOT specific verses.)
Yet U.S. government astronomers note an Islamic month begins when this sliver of light appears "AFTER New Moon." They make a distinction between the two which Malm (and apparently most COG's) do not make. Neither do most observant Jews -- with the "New Moon.... marked by the day and hour that the new crescent is observed." Yet even Jewish groups are not in unanimous agreement on this -- as some small sects use "different versions of the Jewish calendar, which are often out of sync...."
As we said in the original article, this is truly a "Passover Puzzle." Based on all this new evidence, we can see why COG's are marking the Lord's Supper on Sunday evening, 17 April 11. They consider it the start of Nisan 14. Yet based on scientific figuring instead of a close physical look at the sky, some could argue for marking the Lord's Supper on Friday night, 15 April -- two days sooner.
We encouraged our visitor to study all this further on her own -- and in the meantime, pray for God to reveal clearly what He would have all of us do. We'd add an advisory against getting so caught up in the "mechanics" of a ceremony (dates, crucifix shapes, etc.) that the meaning of the event is overlooked. May your taking of the New Testament Passover/Lord's Supper focus primarily on the "ancient of days" and the "Lord of the Sabbath day."
= = = = = = = = =
February 2009: A reader wants us to go deeper with our two-part series comparing Bible translations. "If the NIV sections off John 8:1-11 why isn't that a change?" he asks. "Because it says it is not reliable."
At least my New International Versions include it in the main text, not in marginal notes. But the International Bible Society printing of 1984 has this sentence in brackets above the text: "The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11."
The NIV Study Bible (Barker, ed., 1995) admits in its liner notes, "the story may well be authentic." But it goes on to claim at least part of the section is an attachment to chapter 7, "since Jesus was not present at the meeting of the Sanhedrin described in vv. 45-52." (p. 1608)
The James Moffatt paraphrase has a footnote calling this section a "fragment of primitive tradition...." He suggests it could have been dropped from any of the canonical gospels. Indeed, the Contemporary English Version's footnote says some manuscripts put this section after Luke 21:38, "with some differences in the text." It would contextually make sense there, following a verse about Jesus spending His nights on the Mount of Olives.
But The New Bible Commentary: Revised of 1970 notes the section in question "has ancient attestation and there is no reason to suppose that it does not represent genuine tradition." (p. 946) IVP New Testament Commentaries adds: "It appears to have been a well-known story, one of many that circulated orally from the beginning yet that none of the Gospel writers were led to include. But some in the later church thought this one was too good to leave out."
Our online searching found no New Testament translation which omitted the passage completely. So it seems honest to say the text is not changed, while it has some added decorations on the side.
= = = = = = = = =
August 2007: Someone who read our article on the Book of Mormon offers another example of disparity with the Bible: "Compare 2 Nephi 25:23 with Ephesians 2:8-10."
Let's look at those verses, beginning with 2 Nephi: "For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do."
And from Ephesians: "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do."
At first glance, it's hard to see much of a difference in these passages. We're guessing the writer's point is that the Book of Mormon calls for practicing a life of good works -- and after that, salvation comes by God's grace. Ephesians implies believers by faith already have grace -- and it's apart from works.
But here we come to a key sticking point between Church of God groups -- how to read Ephesians 2:10, in the context of the prior verses. The late Gerald Waterhouse openly mocked Christian preachers who stopped at verse 9. He implied (as did Herbert Armstrong and other "old school" ministers) that verse 10 shows the need for believers to keep doing good works. The 2007 United Church of God book The New Covenant takes a similar view, only without the mockery.
This is a complex issue, that's worth addressing in a full-length article another time. But we'll let you ponder this: if "faith without works is dead" (Jms. 2:26), could we not change Ephesians 2:8-9 to read, "By grace you have been saved, through works.... not by works, so that no one can boast"? Can you be saved through works, yet have it not be by works? Discuss....
= = = = = = = = = = =
May 2007: A reader asks about end-time signs of the sun: "What New Testament verses speak of the sun going down at noon and the earth being dark?"
The phrase quoted in this question actually comes from the Old Testament. Quoting it in full from Amos 8:9: "'In that day,' declares the Sovereign Lord, 'I will make the sun go down at noon and darken the earth in broad daylight."
We can see a hint of this verse in Jesus's words about signs of "the end of the age" (Matt. 24:3). At some point just before our Lord returns, "the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light...." (Mt. 24:29) While He doesn't give a specific time of day for this to occur, a darkened sun would be most noticeable at its highest point in the sky - at noontime. But it could occur sooner in the day; Jesus actually quotes here from Isaiah 13:10, which says, "The rising sun will be darkened...."
The apostle Peter also refers to this phenomenon - and to the Old Testament in doing so - in his famous Pentecost sermon. "The sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood before the coming of the great and glorious day of the Lord." (Acts 2:20). Peter cites Joel 2:31 as a source for this.
In the timing of the book of Revelation, a darkening occurs when the sixth seal is opened by the Lamb (commonly understood to be Jesus): "There was a great earthquake. The sun turned black like sackcloth made of goat hair, the whole moon turned blood red.... the sky receded like a scroll...." (Rev. 6:12-14)
Yet there's also this description of what happens when the fourth angel sounds a trumpet: "a third of the sun was struck, a third of the moon, and a third of the stars, so that a third of them turned dark. A third of the day was without light...." (Rev. 8:12) The earlier Old Testament prophecies would indicate that third would be late morning and noonday. But why would this have to happen, if you believe the events of Revelation are in sequential order -- and the sun has turned black already?
Herbert Armstrong's booklets on Revelation never address the potential disparity in these verses, so we are left to speculate. Perhaps the sun turning black in chapter 6 is a one-time, short-term event. Perhaps there's an eclipse; ministers through the centuries have used such events to "scare" people into believing the end of the age was occurring. Perhaps the sun becomes a "black light" - what some people call ultraviolet light. However it happens, it's bound to be frightening to many people when it does.
So if you're looking for a direct exact quote of Amos 8:9 in the New Testament, it's not really there. But there's plenty of indirect evidence and similar scriptures to back up the concept of a "dark earth" at midday. We thank you for inspiring a thought-provoking review of this topic - and may you be found worthy of God's protection from the end-time wrath, entering into His glorious Kingdom when "the light of the world" comes back.
= = = = = = = = = = = =
February 2007: A reader asks about Luke 10:1: "Why does the K.J version say that Jesus sent 70 2x2... when the n.i.v version say 72 2x2?"
Congratulations - you have asked about what one Bible commentary author calls "one of the most difficult textual problems in the New Testament...." (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Morris, 1974, pg. 198) That's because you can find many arguments on both sides of this question. The New Interpreter's Bible notes manuscripts are "evenly balanced" for both numbers. The Moffatt translation uses 70, as do the RSV, NASB and Eugene Peterson's paraphrase The Message. This number is based on the Masoretic text of the New Testament. But the Contemporary English Version uses 72, which is based on the LXX text. (Broadman's Bible Commentary, 1970, vol, 9, pg. 90)
The CEV's margin explains its choice of 72 this way: "According to the book of Genesis [by counting through Gen. 10], there were 70 nations on earth. But the ancient Greek manuscript of the Old Testament has '72' in place of '70.' Jesus probably chose this number of followers to show that his message was for everyone in the world."
On the other hand, "the preponderance of authority is in favor of 70," according to The Pulpit Commentary of 1950. "The Sanhedrin numbered 71, the elders appointed by Moses were 70 [Ex. 24:1, 9]." Matthew Henry's Commentary argues the number goes all the way back to the "12 springs and 70 palm trees" at Elim, mentioned in Exodus 15:27. This commentary adds: "They were 70 elders of the Jews that were employed by Ptolemy King of Egypt in turning the Old Testament into Greek, whose translation is thence called the Septuagint." Yet we just noted that Septuagint uses the number 72!
If you really want to play the old-fashioned Church of God "numbers game" with this verse - well, a Baptist Professor at Baylor University already did it for you. "'Seventy' was a good Jewish number made by multiplying two numbers for completeness, 7 and 10. This recommends it as the probable original. 'Seventy-two,' however, was another good Jewish number for completeness.... six additional teams of 12, making with The Twelve [disciples], seven teams of 12 each." (Commentary on Luke, Summers, 1972, pg. 126)
Summers comes down on the side of 70, arguing authors would be more likely to increase the number to 72 than reduce it by two. But we found other authors who argued 72 was the original number, with later authors lowering it to 70 so it would match other parts of Scripture.
So this seems to be a question which Jesus Christ will have to resolve when He comes again. But you know what - at that point, there should be far more than even 72 people working with Him around the world. So at that point, will the question really matter? Let's put that on the "things to ask Jesus someday" list - and thanks for a challenging study topic!
= = = = = = = = = =
January 2007: A reader of our article on gluttony writes: "My question is, what do you think, or better yet, is there a scientific definition of gluttony? There is a legal limit of alcohol; I know there won't be a legal limit...."
I'm no scientist - and as far as I know, there's no scientific definition. I suppose we could see some "outer limits" in the problem of bulimia -- where people are "binging and purging" on food. If you can't "keep it down," you've gone too far. But we should keep in mind (and I know this from personal experience) that even a small amount of food can cause a vomiting reaction, if it has dangerous germs from not being heated properly.
I'm also reminded of the advice nutritionists give to people trying to watch their weight during "feast seasons" such as Thanksgiving in the U.S. They say when your stomach begins to feel full, it's time to stop.
For the purposes of this web site, I'm more interested in a Biblical definition of gluttony. Some further research along those lines was quite revealing. Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary says: "Gluttony is more than overeating. In its association with drunkenness (Prv. 23:21; Deut. 21:20), it describes a life given to excess." While the focus here is on food, you could extend the concept we've put in italics to other areas. Could you be a glutton for electronic gadgets? For clothing? For other areas of what some call "conspicuous consumption?"
Another dictionary agrees with this idea, saying a glutton in New Testament usage may be "one who is voracious or one who proves to be a rascal or a scoundrel because of an inordinate fondness for some specified object or pursuit." (Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, 1962 ed., vol. 2, pg. 403)
One Bible commentary from this decade notes the punishment for gluttonous and rebellious children mentioned in Deuteronomy 21 was seldom enforced by observant Jews. "The law.... was interpreted so narrowly that it was virtually impossible for it to be carried out.... applies for only three months after a son turns 13 and only if he has ravenously eaten semi-cooked meat and drunk partially mixed wine...." (Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 6B, pg. 482, 2002)
And have you ever considered gluttony in relation to your income? I had not, until I discovered an old Bible commentary with a short bit of guidance on the subject. "Let not the table [of dining] exceed the fourth part of thy income.... too much is vanity; enough a feast." (Gray and Adams Bible Commentary, vol. 1, pg. 512)
So we come back to our original conclusion: moderation is a good thing - not only in what you eat, but even how much you spend on eating. Thanks for prompting us to dig deeper into this topic.
= = = = = = =
October 2005: We're thrilled to receive e-mail from a Christian in Bahrain! But that person was disappointed by Carn Catherwood's statement in the sermon "Keys to a Growing Church" that Sunday-keeping Christians risked arrest in such a Muslim country. This worshiper who actually lives there says that's not so!
We are not aware of the source of Mr. Catherwood's information. He recently retired from the Worldwide Church of God -- and keep in mind this was a sermon from July 2000. If anyone can help provide the source of this statement, please let us know so everyone can be set straight.
= = = = = = =
June 2004: A reader's question about holy days is one which arises from time to time, and has crossed our minds as well. Is it "holy" or proper to eat out on a Sabbath day?
Some of the Biblical passages concerning the Sabbath can seem to contradict themselves. For instance, the wandering Israelites were warned to bake and boil their manna on the sixth day of the week and hold it over for the seventh. "Everyone is to stay where he is on the seventh day; no one is to go out." (Ex. 16:29) Yet Jesus was "out" with His disciples when they ate gleanings of grain, and He defended them instead of correcting them. (Mt. 12:1-8)
The question tends to follow the reasoning that by going to a restaurant before or after a service, believers make the staff work on the Sabbath. Some ministers have dismissed this by saying, "They're already working, anyway." Yet the fact that those people worked annoyed Nehemiah long ago. "Therefore I warned them against selling food on that day," he wrote in Neh. 13:15. It eventually reached the point that Nehemiah ordered the gates of Jerusalem shut on Friday nights - and even threatened merchants who waited just outside on that night (vs. 19-21).
Yet earlier in this book, look at what Nehemiah counsels weeping Israelites to do on a Feast of Trumpets: "GO and enjoy choice food and sweet drinks.... This day is sacred to the Lord." (Neh. 8:10; see also v. 2) As a result, "then all the people went away to eat and drink...." (v. 12) Where did the people go? The Contemporary English Version specifies, "the people returned to their homes...." This would have been no small trip for some Israelites to make, as they lived in outlying towns and came back the next day for more instruction (7:70, 8:13).
So how do we understand the example of Jesus regarding this matter? Don't overlook the verse that says He once "went to eat in the house of a prominent Pharisee" on the Sabbath (Lk. 14:1). Even beginning Bible students realize how much the Pharisees despised Jesus (Mt. 12:14) -- yet they did keep the Sabbath, and Jesus joined them. If eating at someone else's home was a sin, our Lord would not have gone!
Jesus also pointed out good animal owners lead their animals to water on Sabbaths (Lk. 13:15). And when it comes to eating gleanings, He noted the hungry state of David's army at Nob (I Sam. 21) and concluded, "I desire mercy, not sacrifice...." (Mt. 12:3-7)
2018 UPDATE: A real-life experience we had with a homeless man had led us to personally NOT eat in restaurants on Sabbath, if at all possible. This actually occurred in the spring of 2013, but we forgot this issue was posted here.
The man came from across the street and up the driveway, after we went to a restaurant late on the seventh day of Unleavened Bread. "I'm not looking for a handout," he told us. "I want to work!"
We told the man he should not work oh that day, due to the holy day. A chain of events from there led to the man sleeping overnight on our apartment floor, while we restlessly wondered about his background. As we meditated on bed about what happened, God convicted us that we were guilty of hypocrisy - telling that man he should not work, after having the restaurant staff work for us.
It's reached the point where we now buy lunches or dinners in advance of a holy day, and have them ready to eat when the day comes. Some COG congregations support that approach, and have tables ready for dining and fellowship between services. Sadly, others do not. We wish more would, as a matter of accommodation.
SUMMARY (not revised): Based on what we've studied, we can let the Bible guide our understanding about Sabbath dining as opposed to a minister's opinion. Here are the conclusions I draw:
1. Going out on the Sabbath is fine - but NOT to buy food in the form of groceries.
2. The Sabbath is a time for gathering in homes to eat - and opening your home to others, such as sharing food with those in need.
3. Eating on the Sabbath with "nonbelievers" may be permissible - as long as such people keep a common Sabbath practice.
4. Eating outside homes on the Sabbath is OK in cases of true hunger; God prefers to grant mercy in such cases, as opposed to seeing believers "tough it out" and starve themselves.
To be honest, this is not a set of guidelines I typically hear Church of God ministers offer. But based on a beginning-to-end study of the Bible, it's what the Scriptures seem to indicate.
= = = = = = = =
119 to show blood in the face i.e flush or turn rosy
132 from 119 reddish of the hair or complexion: red ruddy
132 is the exact word in the Strong's to describe David an Israelite....show me an olive skinned or dark skinned person with a rosy complexion and I'll give you a hundred bucks, no one who has ever truly studied Anglo Israel beliefs as ever taken Armstrong seriously, your problem is you were brought up under an intellectual weakling...
Who's blushing now?
These numbers are references in Strong's Concordance, and the Hebrew references are accurate. But look at #132 again: "reddish of the hair or complexion." This actually opens the door for us to draw a different conclusion -- that David may indeed have been fair of skin, but ruddy in his hair color.
Note the other "ruddy" reference concerning David : "Now he was ruddy, and withal of a beautiful countenance, and goodly to look to." (I Sam. 16:12) The margin of my KJV Bible says ruddy can mean "red haired" - so it could well be that the author is giving a more complete description of David's appearance.
As for olive or dark-skinned people not having "rosy complexions" - we admit our own ethnic whiteness here. Would anyone from those people groups like to comment on this? We'll defer to you; please write us.
We thank this writer for the effort to set us straight -- even though in the process it leads us in a different direction. And please keep in mind the conclusion we drew: in terms of salvation and eternal life, this is not a big issue. People who climb onto twigs risk having them break and fall off - leading to a crash landing.
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
August 2003: A COG member read our article The Faith Equation and wrote us: "I'm afraid some who are still 'in transition' as far as their biblical understanding may miss your key points. I personally understood perfectly the final conclusion." He pointed us to Hebrews 10:26-31 in relation to salvation.
"Could you agree with me," the writer asks, "that the complete understanding on this issue is not the one held by 'works alone orthodox Jew' or 'faith alone orthodox Protestant,' but truly faith in Jesus Christ with good works a manifestation of that faith."
The point seems plausible - and it's one we admittedly left out of the original article. But look more closely at the passage cited. "If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left," verse 26 says. This verse does not really speak of doing good works; it's a warning against bad ones, also known as sinning.
As I prepared to respond to this e-mail, I happened to attend a Seventh-Day Adventist Bible study group where the topic was "Jesus and the Covenants." The group leader, a Local Elder in this church, said two words are especially hard for Christians: obey and work. Another person in the group expressed the concept of moving from the "outer court" of the sanctuary in terms of sin to the "inner court" - moving from changing our motions to changing our inner motives in the mind and heart.
Our study group wound up agreeing with the e-mail writer on this additional point: "The law [e.g. Sabbath-keeping] doesn't save, grace through the Lawgiver does." Yet unfaithfulness still can rear its head - for instance, in thinking works AND Jesus bring salvation. (The group leader noted this is a hard religious concept, even for "legalistic Adventists.") Faith is looking back to the cross for redemption -- then having the Law of God "written in our hearts" (borrowing from Hebrews 8:10) and moving forward in living by that Law.
P.S. We left Hebrews 10 out of the original article because we wanted it to have a positive perspective. We also could have brought up the man who buried his talent (Mt. 25:24-29/Lk. 19:20-26). There are plenty of churches which preach about that part of the story, with threats and forboding language. You might say we opted for honey, not vinegar.
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
May 2003: A web site visitor asks: "Where in the Bible, if anywhere, does the Bible say it is the Word of God?"
Thanks to the Internet, you can save time doing Biblical word and phrase searches through online tools. We went to Blue Letter Bible and found the phrase "word of God" appears 48 times in the King James Version. But if you think for a second, this question is somewhat tricky -- since no Biblical writer ever calls his work the "word of God," because they possibly didn't realize what they wrote would become part of the Bible.
"Word of God" admittedly is a common phrase used by humans to describe the Old and New Testaments. But there are places where that phrase indirectly refer to at least part of the written Scriptures. "Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down," Jesus told the Pharisees in Mark 7:13. The "word" here is explained in verse 9 as "the commands of God" (NIV) or "commandment of God" "(KJV) - which the Pharisees likely defined as the Torah, or five books of Moses.
But this phrase can have several meanings beyond the written scripture. Did you know, for instance, that Jesus is called the "Word of God?" That's the name He will have when He comes again! (Rev. 19:13) Also, several passages in Acts indicate it can mean the presence of gospel preaching and belief. (Acts 6:7, 12:24, 19:20)
January 2011 UPDATE: We found this eye-opening verse in a Sabbath morning Bible study years later: "Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God" (Eph. 6:17). Notice the Moffatt translation of that last part: "....take the Spirit as your sword (that is, the word of God)...." In other words, the word of God could be defined as the Holy Spirit! But admittedly, the Amplified Bible describes the "Word of God" as "the sword that the Spirit wields...." So does the last phrase in this verse modify "sword" or modify "Spirit"? At this writing, we're not really sure.
So to apply the phrase "Word of God" simply to the Bible is indeed misleading. We invite you to check the other verses, and expand your thinking about it. And thanks for an eye-opening question!
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
April 2003: "I challenge you to listen to the enclosed tape and read the enclosed book and not see the need to revise the conclusion to your article 'The Passover Puzzle.'" A man in California wrote these words, to take issue with a posting that we must say has brought a strong, wide-ranging response.
The book and tape he sent us are by Fred Coulter, an Ambassador College alumnus who heads the Christian Biblical Church of God. The large-size hardback book "The Christian Passover" runs about 500 pages, from prologue to index. We give Mr. Coulter credit for doing a great deal of research. But do we need to revise our conclusion? Thanks to his topical and scriptural indices, we jumped into the middle of the book to find out:
+ "Communion" was allegedly "adopted in place of NT Passover, 221" (pg. 460, in the Topical Index) - but page 221 never mentions that. Page 237 declares communion a "substitute religious rite" from a deceiving devil to replace the Christian Passover. But the book never mentions I Corinthians 10:16 in the KJV: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?" If this is not referring to Passover, what is it - and why would the NIV call it a "cup of thanksgiving?"
+ "The Passover of the Jews" is mentioned by John several times, such as 2:13, 6:4 and 11:55. "John's repeated use of this terminology makes it clear that the Jews were not keeping these feast days as God intended them to be kept." (Pg. 225) If that's so, then why does John also declare the Feast of Tabernacles a Jewish event? (7:2) And Purim? (5:1) And even the "day of preparation" for a Sabbath? (19:42) The scriptural index never points to these verses - and it also avoids John 10:22: "Then came the Feast of Dedication at Jerusalem." This feast, which we now know as Hanukkah, is not called Jewish at all.
Should we assume the Jews kept Tabernacles incorrectly as well? What did they do wrong on preparation days? What did they do right when it comes to Hanukkah - and if it's right and Jesus was there, should Christians keep Hanukkah today? When the entire book of John is considered, the author's conclusion seems to be the one needing revision.
+ Unleavened Bread at Passover is addressed in one paragraph: "Because it represents the sinless body of Jesus Christ, the bread of the Christian Passover must never be leavened. Throughout the Scripture, leaven is used as a type of sin." (Pg. 244-45) As we wrote originally, we can see the symbolism here. But the book offers no Scriptural evidence to back this claim -- and it never addresses the issue we raised of the two different Greek words.
Two other things to note here: "leaven" also is likened in the New Testament to the Kingdom of God (Matt. 13:33). And another e-mailer pointed out a verse we admittedly overlooked - Luke 24:30: "When he was at the table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them." The Greek word here is artos as in the raised loaf - only this breaking occurred after Jesus was resurrected, and apparently during the days of Unleavened Bread which followed the Passover service! We admit we're still trying to come to grips with this, and whether it has implications for the spring Holy Day season as we keep it now. (Mr. Coulter's book overlooks it as well.)
+ I Corinthians 11:20, according to the Coulter book, is a strong statement against "eating the Old Testament Passover supper, as Jesus did before instituting the new symbols.... there is no such reality as eating 'the Lord's supper' because Jesus never instituted the practice." (Pg. 253)
If you know old-style Church of God doctrine, you probably spotted one problem with that quote right away. Who was the "Lord" Moses obeyed when the Passover meal began in Exodus 12? Why don't we let Mr. Coulter's own book answer that one: "Jesus was the Elohim of the Old Testament Who became God in the flesh." (Pg. 327) Then Jesus did "institute the practice" - didn't He?
But the main issue here, as it pertains to our original conclusion, is whether the New Testament Passover should be called a "Lord's Supper." If there's "no such reality," where did Paul come up with this phrase -- a phrase appearing nowhere else in the Bible, but seized upon by many denominations today? (Seized to the point, in fact, that "supper" is capitalized in NIV, NASB and CEV translations.) The Moffatt translation may offer a clue: "But this makes it impossible for you to eat the 'Lord's' supper when you hold your gatherings." Moffatt puts Lord's in quotes - as if to imply the rowdy brethren in Corinth were keeping some other supper.
The New Bible Commentary agrees with Moffatt: "When the Corinthians assemble for worship it is impossible to eat the Lord's (emphatic) supper, with all that it is intended to express.... Each is interested only in his own (emphatic) supper, not the Lord's." (1970 ed., pg. 1066, emphasis from original text) Another commentator writes: "Their intention was to eat the Lord's Supper, but it was profaned by their gluttony and discrimination." (NIV Study Bible, Barker, General Editor, 1995 ed., pg. 1751) So Paul's correction here may not be about what the congregation was eating, but how.
+ Nisan 14 vs. 15 is a major topic in the Coulter book - but we must note our conclusion (we called it a "summary") did not mention that. Note one section, however: "The rabbinical writings record that the Jews burned all leaven by 10AM on the morning of the 14th. No one was to eat leaven after 11AM.... The first eating of unleavened bread took place at the observance of the Passover on the night of Nisan 14." (Pg. 229) Perhaps so, but that time frame would leave open the possibility of Jesus eating leavened bread with the disciples, at a New Testament Passover the night before.
The tape we received from California was apparently a CBCG Bible Study Fred Coulter conducted in 1994, called "The Passover of the Rejected." He contends there the 14th/15th split stems from the time of Ezra, when exiled believers could not keep Nisan 14. The tape and book go on to argue Nisan 15 cannot be the New Testament Passover. But they leave open the question of what people are doing when they gather for "Night to be Much Observed" dinners at the start of Nisan 15. If unleavened bread and wine are served at these dinners, does it break the spirit of the Passover rules? Are they OK, as long as no one says the word Passover? Should we stop keeping this night to be safe, since New Testament writings do not speak of it?
SUMMARY: Since neither book nor tape took issue with the mood people should have at a Passover service, and since our little song was not criticized, we stand by the "conclusion" we wrote originally.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
March 2003: A writer wants us to explain the issue of equity and equality, as it applies to education. This is an expansion of what we wrote last October (see below). We won't repeat the material there, but offer this additional note of application.
The "equality" aspect from II Corinthians could be applied to knowledge -- and perhaps by extension, educational funding. There's been a debate in recent years about states taking property tax money from wealthy school districts to help low-income districts. This seems like a fair principle, based on what Paul wrote. Yet there's another principle of God to consider here: "....God does not show favoritism, but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right." (Acts 10:34-35)
Giving to "the poor" was considered a mark of righteousness in Jesus's time -- or at least some people TALKED that way. Judas Iscariot suggested it when Mary poured perfume on Jesus's feet -- but John notes: "He did NOT say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief...." (Jhn. 12:5-6; see also Lk. 19:8) Giving everything to the poor without showing love is worthless, anyway, as Paul writes in I Corinthians 13:3. (See also Jms. 2:1-7)
Yet we cannot overlook Jesus' words to the young ruler who trusted not in God, but his own riches: "Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. The come, follow me." (Lk. 18:22)
Is it then showing favoritism to require wealthy districts to share their money with less-wealthy districts? Putting both passages in balance, not necessarily -- IF perhaps there's a threshold point for sharing, somewhere in the middle. (Above a line, money is transferred; below it, it is not.) Where to draw that line is the stuff of state and local governments, and we won't think to go there.
As for "equity" in education, it would seem based on the Bible God desires not only even-handedness to be used, but also a measure of morality. Morality admittedly is a controversial subject in schools today, especially in the public ones. But "equity" can be shown without God necessarily coming up -- for instance, in how students are treated by teachers.
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
November 2002: A writer asks: "How can I be sure I'll go to heaven when I die?"
You ask a very important question, one even long-time believers in God have asked down through the years. Brace yourself, though - because the answer I have for you may be quite different from what many faiths give. Yet it is the proper answer, based on the word God gives us in the Bible.
TO BE WITH GOD
Since heaven is where God is said to dwell on His throne (Mt. 5:34; Acts 7:49), your question would seem to be how you can be with God after death. The good news is that you don't have to wait until death to be "with God." God wants to live IN you NOW -- through Jesus Christ the Son, the Word who eternally "was God," and who "became flesh and made his dwelling among us." (John 1:1, 14) Paul writes in Colossians 1:27 that "Christ in you" is "the hope of glory" - a glory you can receive when Jesus Christ returns. (I Pet. 5:3)
How can Jesus Christ, God in the flesh, live in you? Paul writes we are to become "a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit." (Eph. 2:22) So it's by the Holy Spirit that Jesus, and by extension God, can be in us.
How can the Holy Spirit become part of you? Peter addressed that question on a historic day of Pentecost. "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." (Acts 2:38) "Repent" in the Greek text meant to "think differently." Applied to this verse, it means thinking differently about sin - seeking God's forgiveness in Jesus's name for your sins, or realizing you need Jesus to intervene for them. Peter also calls for being baptized, or "washed," in Jesus's name. The New Testament indicates believers did this physically, to accept Christ in them.
So through repentance and baptism, God gives you the Holy Spirit - and Jesus/God lives in you through that Spirit. Then you need to remain in Christ for the balance of your life: "....he who stands firm [KJV "endures"] to the end will be saved." (Mt. 24:13, 10:22) The context of Jesus's words explains how to do that - such as by expressing love which is warm, not cold (24:12), and by doing good for God (24:46). Those who do such things will be found righteous at Jesus's return, and go on to eternal life. (25:46)
HEAVEN AS A LOCATION
This brings me back to the question as you first stated it - to "go to heaven when I die." You may be surprised to learn that even though the Bible speaks of rooms being prepared for believers (John 14:2-3) and storing up "treasures in heaven" (Mt. 6:20), it does NOT speak of a believer in God going to a place called heaven at death.
In fact, Jesus reveals just the opposite: "No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven - the Son of Man." (John 3:13) Peter even notes King David, a type of Christ described elsewhere in the Bible as a "man after God's own heart" (I Sam. 13:14), has NOT ascended to heaven. (Acts 2:34)
So when we die, where do we go? The Bible indicates we go to the grave and wait - waiting for the resurrection which occurs when Jesus returns. "For the Lord himself will come down from heaven.... and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air." (I Thes. 4:16-17)
When that glorious moment happens, will we be with Jesus in heaven forever? The Bible says no. "On that day his feet will stand on the Mount of Olives.... The Lord will be king over the whole earth." (Zech. 14:4, 9) The people who overcame and did God's will to the end will receive "authority over the nations" (Rev. 2:26) - and the Bible says of those people, "they will reign on the earth." (5:10) Rock singer Belinda Carlisle actually had it right when she sang in the 1980's, "We'll make heaven a place on earth."
But here's the most amazing part. Your Bible shows a day is coming when a "new heaven" will appear (Isa. 65:17, 66:22; Rev. 21:1). A glorious "Holy City, Jerusalem" which is commonly depicted by many Christians as waiting in "heaven above" for believers will come "down OUT of heaven from God" - down to earth, that is. (Rev. 21:10) Instead of believers going to heaven, heaven will come HERE - or at least to wherever the "new earth" is.
SUMMARY
This answer may be longer than you expected, but it needed to be to provide as clear and Biblically sound an answer as possible. (Besides, I don't know where you stand in your relationship with God.) We can sum up the steps this way:
1. Repent of your sin, and begin to think differently - a mind guided by Christ. (Phil. 2:5)
2. Be baptized, in an outward sign that you're washing away your sin.
3. Receive the Holy Spirit of God, so God is in you.
4. Stay firm in your relationship to God to the end.
5. Be received to Jesus at His second coming, to be with Him forever.
This reply is admittedly basic, and probably has raised other questions. If you need further guidance, I'll be happy to help. May God be with you as you consider the important step of committing your life to Him - the most important step any human can take.
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
October 2002: We've been asked to explain the difference between "equality" and "equity" in the Bible. In the King James, "equity" appears ten times in the Old Testament, while "equality" does not appear at all. In contrast, "equality" is mentioned twice in the New Testament, while "equity" never appears.
In fact, the two mentions of equality appear in the same verse: "But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality...." (II Cor. 8:14, KJV) The context here is of giving to those in need: you give from your large stash to those with little, because the day may come when you'll have need of them in return.
Strong's Concordance says the Greek word "equality" can by implication mean "equity," so it would seem there is no difference. But a close look at the Old Testament shows "equity" means much more there than similar amounts of money.
The word first appears in Psalm 98:9: "The Lord.... will judge the world in righteousness and the peoples with equity." According to Strong's, the Hebrew implies not only an evenness of judgment, but a "straightness.... rectitude... uprightness." It's not only physical, but moral and spiritual. (See also 99:4.)
A comparison of translations brings this out elsewhere in the Old Testament. Take Proverbs 1:3, where "justice, and judgment and equity" in KJV becomes "right and just and fair" in NIV. (See also 2:9.) In fact, other Hebrew words are translated as "equity" in the KJV - such as "straightforwardness" or "integrity" (Isa. 59:14) and "success" or "advantage." (Ecc. 2:21) So we should not be surprised to find the NIV turning "equity" into words such as "Integrity" (Prv. 17:26) and "justice." (Isa. 11:4)
This seems to be one of those unusual occasions where the Old Testament provides a depth of spiritual meaning which the New does not. The equality Paul describes is one degree of equity - but there's much more involved.
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
February 2002: A web site visitor asks about Isaiah 14:12, comparing the New International and King James Versions. "Why does it [NIV] take Lucifer out, and say Jesus fell from heaven?"
Let's start by reading the verse in both translations:
KJV: "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!"
NIV: "How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!"
We checked three other translations, and found King James is the only one which uses the title "Lucifer." In fact, this is the only verse in the Bible where that name occurs. But my KJV margin [Thomas Nelson publishing, 1972] notes "Lucifer" could be rendered "day star;" in fact, Strong's Concordance shows the word "Lucifer" translates from Hebrew as "morning star." So the other texts use that wording in some form.
When many Christians see the words "morning star" in Scripture, they tend to think of Jesus. After all, at the end of Revelation, the Savior personally says: "I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star." (Rev. 22:16, KJV unless noted) Yet the Bible reveals Jesus is not the only one who can have this title!
"Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth...." God asks Job at one point, "When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" (Job 38:4, 7) This is a description of creation - and there's more than one morning star! Some commentaries suggest this is a poetic reference to the stars we see in outer space. But given the verse in Isaiah, it arguably could be more than that - referring to spirit beings of some kind.
Revelation 1:20 compares stars to angels: "The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches...." But this creates a puzzle, of why angels would be mentioned twice in the same verse in Job 38. This again could be poetic license by our Lord - or perhaps a sign that "morning star" was some higher title. After all, Ezekiel 28:13-14 suggests the being we now know as Satan was once "the anointed cherub that covereth...." (NIV: "guardian cherub")
Returning to Isaiah 14, the verses surrounding verse 12 can clear up any confusion about whether this "morning star" refers to Jesus. Consider 14:13-14: "For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God.... I will be like the most High." Like the Most High God? Jesus was God from the beginning -- and still is today! (John 1:1, 14) The verses seem to indicate some other "day star" is at work here - one which was "brought down to the grave, to the depths of the pit." (v. 15, NIV)
Jesus didn't stay in His grave; He was resurrected. He was not the one who "made the world as a wilderness.... destroyed thy land, and slain thy people...." (14:17, 20) The only spirit being which logically could have brought this about was a fallen cherub -- which KJV calls "Lucifer" and other translations suggest was a competing, and perhaps even a counterfeit, "morning star." By looking at the context in NIV, Bible students can see Satan's involvement in this passage.
If you have a question about an article on our web site, or some Bible-related topic, click here to e-mail us .
NOTE: Please keep in mind the keeper of this web site is not an ordained minister, but he has taken several college religion classes and studied the Bible extensively over the years.
© 2002-18, Richard Burkard, All Rights Reserved..