QUESTIONS/ANSWERS FROM THE QUESTION FORUM

Group Number 36

In Matthew 2:1-12 the KJV Bible records that the wise men brought to Jesus gifts of gold, myrrh and frankincense. What is the significance or symbolic importance of these gifts?

The Scriptures so not mention any symbolic significance to these gifts. That does not mean symbolic things cannot be seen in them. It does mean they must be held as private perceptions, and not bound upon others. Some have concluded that the gold signified Christ's Kingship, the frankincense His priesthood, and the myrrh His burial. 

Others see the gold as signifying Christ's Deity, the frankincense His King/Priest office, and the myrrh His manhood, or humanity. There is some truth in all of these things, and precious truth indeed. In this sense, the wise men offered Him gold as their King, incense as their God, and myrrh as one subject to suffering and death.

Other views say that frankincense is a type of the fragrant love and precious worship of those who came to worship and adore Jesus. The gold is a type of the perfection and loveliness of Jesus. The myrrh is significant of the beauty and value of Jesus as He have His life for us.

This can also be viewed as the wise men bringing the best of their land to honor the newborn King. This principle, though probably unknown to the wise men, was given in Genesis 43:11. These were the words of Jacob to his sons, regarding returning to Egypt for food, where they had unknowingly confronted their own brother, Joseph. "Take some of the best fruits of the land in your vessels and carry down a present for the man; a little balm and a little honey, spices and myrrh, pistachio nuts and almonds" (NKJV). 

Still others see a practical value in the gifts, which God supplied to help Joseph and Mary to provide for the Royal Child, who would soon be taken into Egypt, as they escaped from Herod.

All of these represent the views of godly men. There is truth in all of them, and yet there must be much more than this. It is as though the Spirit refrained from giving specific significance to reach of the gifts, that we might explore them, meditate upon them, and see fresh and new aspects our Lord's nature.

My friend says we need to be baptized to be saved. He also criticized some national evangelists because they do not preach that people should be baptized. what do you have to say about this?

To me, the proper question is, what reason can be adduced for NOT being baptized. Peter commanded Cornelius' household to be baptized in water (Acts 10:48). Jesus Himself was baptized "to fulfill all righteousness," even when John balked at baptizing Him (Matt 3:15). 

The fact that all of the teaching about baptism is given to those who are already baptized is significant (Romans 6; Colossians 3:11-12; 1 Peter 3:21). It indicates that it is a significant occurrence during which God Himself works great things. You may remember that when Paul, asked the Ephesian disciples is they had received the Holy Spirit since they believed, they answered they had not even heard of the Holy Spirit. His then asked them about their baptism (Acts 19:3-5). 

As to berating evangelists that do not say everything that needs to be said, if that is what we think we should do, we should be consistent, calling into question preachers that do not include the necessity of holiness (Heb 12:14), separation from the world (Rom 12:1-2; 1 John 1:15-17), looking for the return of Jesus (Tit 2:11-12), etc. etc. We are also under obligation, because we are of God, to accept whatever truth they say, knowing we are under no obligation to give our approval to everything they say. They is something of what is involved in Paul's comments about some preachers of his day (Phil 1:16-18).

I have a friend who does not believe it is a sin in God's eyes for a Christian to become married (or yoked) to a non Christian. I asked my preacher about this, and he said it was all right for a believer to marry an unbeliever. In fact, he said he encourages such marriages, and performs them himself.

On matters like this, it really makes no difference what any of us think. God has spoken about this matter, and quite extensively. It seems to me that if we are not to be "unequally yoked together with unbelievers," some degree of seriousness is to be attached to that Divine requirement. If marriage is not a yoke, then what is it? God forbade the Israelites to do this (Ex 34:16; Deut 7:3; Ezra 9:1). But even if we did not have this preliminary instruction, the Spirit has spoken expressly to those who are free to marry. In particular, a widow is admonished, "she is at liberty to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord" (1 Cor 7:39). And would the minister marry the woman to someone who was not in the Lord anyway, ignoring what God has said? Wasn't intermarriage of those who knew God and those who did not the beginning of the social circumstances that eventually brought the flood to pass (Gen 6:2-3). And if God was against the Israelites for marrying those who did not worship God (Mal 2:11), are we to believe He will ignore those who have received greater illumination in Christ for doing so?

Just what is it that would constrain someone who is born of God to marry someone who is not? What would motivate a person who is in the light to marry one who is in the darkness? How is it that someone on the narrow road that leads to life would choose to marry someone who is on the broad road that leads to destruction? Is such a decision a godly one? Is there a person in all of the world who can defend such an absurd action, much less sanctify it by sanctioning such a marriage in the name of the Lord? What advantages can come from such a marriage? 

There were situations in the Bible where a believer was married to an unbeliever. The choice, however, was not made when they were in Christ, but was the result of one of them being converted. In such a situation, the saved mate was told the unbeliever was sanctified by the believer--that is, the marriage was acceptable. Were that not the case, the Scriptures affirm, the children of the marriage would be "unclean," or unacceptable (1 Cor 7:14). This, however, was a mercy from god to those who were in an unfortunate situation because of their faith. Notwithstanding that grace, it is recognized that a fundamental conflict exists between the believer and the unbeliever. After all, in their present state, one is going to hell and the other to heaven. Thus this word is given, "But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases. But God has called us to peace" (1 Cor 7:15).

One last word on this matter. If a person cannot be trusted to choose a husband or wife that is approved of God, and is in Christ Jesus, just what can they be trusted with? What, pray tell, is there about salvation that would constrain a person to select a life-long mate from "the children of disobedience" in whom Satan works (Eph 2:1-3). Or is there anyone who will affirm that those in Christ are not precisely that? 

I will tell you this, preachers will give an account to God for all of their decisions, involvements, and the rationale that provoked them. The word of God does not support a believer marrying an unbeliever--and that is true from Genesis 6 through the rest of the Bible. When God chose a couple to raise His own Son, they were both believers. When 
He sent John the Baptist, He did so through two believers. There is not so much as one syllable in all of the Bible that sanctions a close bond between the children of God and the children of the devil, between wheat and tares, between believers and unbelievers.

Fasting is denial of ones body of pleasure - food, drinks etc. If one plan to fast for five days at a stretch, is it holy to sleep with ones wife at the break of fast in between these days?

Fasting is not only refraining from "ones body pleasure," as you put it. It is devoting your energies to a quest for the Lord. God has not given us details on HOW to fast. He has said the following regarding your question. It is stated modestly, as is the manner of the Spirit on these matters. "Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control" (1 Corinthians 7:3-6).

The Lord leaves the details of your fasting up to you. As I understand it, fasting should accomplish two things: (1) bring you closer to the Lord, and (2) put you farther from the devil. When either of these do not take place, as far as spiritual life is concerned, fasting is serving no purpose.

God has given you liberty in this matter. As with all other things done unto him, He expects you to keep your word, and not to make a vow you are unable to keep. As it is written concerning areas of freedom, "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind" (Rom 14:5).

I have a friend who is no longer a believer. When we talked about it she said that she did not think that it was fair that God would send a person to hell because he had never heard about Jesus. She said that for a person to have heard and refused is one thing but because he had never heard that was a completely different story. I felt God would give everyone an opportunity to believe, but cannot find any supporting Scriptures. What are your thoughts on this? 

Nothing in God's Word indicates He will necessarily send people to hell who have not heard the Gospel. The word is "He that believes not shall be damned" (Mk 16:16)--not he that heard not. Every man will be judged according to the truth he has received. He that has received little will be judged with that in view. That is involved in Jesus' words, "But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more" (Lk 12:48). Paul also addresses this in Romans 2:14-16.

There is not extensive teaching on this subject in Scripture--only enough to ensure our hearts that God is not looking for a reason to condemn people. There is every reason to believe that unknowledgeable people who truly want to know God will be granted their request. There are a few examples of this in the Word. Cornelius (Acts 10), the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8), and Lydia (Acts 16). God knows who these people are--we do not. But we must labor for Him believing He will not condemn those who are seeking Him, even when it is after the most crude manner. Jesus promised that everyone who seeks will find (Matt 7:7-8). On one occasion, when Paul was in Corinth, it did not look like there was much hope for success. The Lord, however appeared to him in a vision saying, "Be not afraid, but speak, and hold not thy peace: For I am with thee, and no man shall set on thee to hurt thee: for I have much people in this city" (Acts 18:9-10).

You will not find a crystallized statement that will say what you sense to be the truth on this matter. I believe I understand why this is the case. Men would attempt to exploit that situation, and would become lazy in bringing the message to those who have never heard. However, because people CANNOT believe on something of whom they have not heard, and because they cannot hear without a preacher, and because preachers cannot preach except they be sent, "How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!" (Rom 14:14-15). All of that assumes critical judgment comes at the point one is subjected to the Gospel. Other aspects of the judgment are vague, and are to be considered in the hands of a just and merciful God.

So far as the Word is concerned (and that is all that is necessary to know), the point of condemnation is that men "believe not on Christ" (John 16:7-11). We must be willing to leave all of the intricacies of that to the Lord. But that word everywhere presumes the message has been heard. I know of no text that states or hints that those who have never heard are automatically consigned to hell. It is not, therefore, in order for us to say that is the case.

HERE IS A DIALOG I HAD WITH A YOUNG MAN CONCERNING HOW TO PROVE THE BIBLE IS REALLY THE TRUTH

Question-- What do you do when the person you are evangelizing asks you how you know that the Bible is true, that it is indeed God's word?

Response-- Faith is what confirms that to us. It cannot be explained to the satisfaction of an unbeliever. Besides that, we are not obligated to give a reason for believing it is true. Faith, which comes from God (2 Pet 1:3), convinced us, through the power of the Spirit, of the truth of God's Word. Those who doubt its truth are obligated to substantiate their persuasion it is not true. Here is a book that has outlasted all of its critics, and still has great power in the lives of men. The skeptic is obligated to explain that situation, and to justify his unbelief (which is impossible).

Question--  So, what you're saying is that process by which a person is to conclude at the validity of the bible is faith, faith being belief without sensory evidence, or rational proof; is this correct?

Response-- That is correct. Hebrews 11:1 states the case. "Now faith is the SUBSTANCE of things hoped for, THE EVIDENCE of things not seen" (KJV). "Now faith is the ASSURANCE of things hoped for, the CONVICTION of things not seen" (NASB). "Now faith is BEING SURE of what we hope for and CERTAIN of what we do not see" (NIV). That persuasion came from God, for we "believe through grace"Acts 18:27).

Question--  I don't think I understand that quote. "Now faith is the SUBSTANCE of things hoped for, THE EVIDENCE of things not seen." Could you elaborate on it?

Response-- "Faith is the substance" means Faith makes it real to our hearts__putting the persuasion of its reality down in our hearts. This is done without sensual perception__seeing and hearing with our natural faculties. Faith makes the things of God more real to us than if we saw them with our eyes and touched them with our hands.

Question-- So, God wants us to believe in him without sensory evidence or rational proof, correct?

Response-- There is no other kind of faith, so far as God is concerned. The world says "Seeing is believing." But in Christ, "Believing is seeing."

Question-- So, I was correct regarding my previous assertion?

Response-- You certainly are right! Hebrews 11:3 states it this way. "By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible."

Question-- I notice from your profile that you are a minister, which means that your knowledge of Christianity would tend to be greater and more correct than the normal Christians; am I correct?

Response-- I have been a minister for 48 years. I was also an executive for a large manufacturer for 34 years. I make no boast to special knowledge. I have simply devoted myself to the Word of God. For me, that is being a normal Christian.

Question-- Well, what I was getting at is this . . . If my friend asserts one idea of Christianity, and mind you, he isn't a minister and has only 17 years on this earth, and you assert an idea of Christianity contradictory to his assertion, who is correct?, or, by what means can i find out?

Response-- Remember, it is not the purpose of believer in Christ to prove what he believes. To begin with, God has withdrawn all of the evidence. He took Jesus back into heaven, the Holy Spirit cannot be seen with the eye, and the writers of Scripture have all left this world. The Holy Spirit works with truth upon the hearts of people__like He did with Saul of Tarsus. Saul did not believe Jesus was the Son of God, and so he persecuted Christians. Are you familiar with this?

Question-- I am familiar with the specific means by which God lets us know that he exists, by speaking to our hearts as advocated by many Christians, but i know nothing of Saul

Response--  Saul of Tarsus later became Paul the Apostle. His conversion is recorded in the ninth chapter of Acts. My point is that the Holy Spirit, working with the truth Saul had heard, brought him to see the truth himself. In witnessing to other people, we must rely on the Lord to work the same way through the truth we declare__truth that comes from Scripture.

Question-- But back to where I was going. If two christians tell me about christianity and their stories contradict each other, who do I believe; by what means can I find out?

Response-- You just examine what is said two ways. First, ask the Lord to give you understanding. Read Psalm 119:34,73,125,144, and 169, for an example of this kind of prayer. Second, examine what is said by the Word of God. Your aim is to see if God has said what they have said. An example of people who did this is found in Acts 17:11.

Question--  Well, I will give you a specific example. Here, you assert that the tool of cognition we are to properly use to conclude that God exists and that the Bible is true is faith, which is the belief without sensory evidence or rational proof. My friend, on the other hand, says that reason, and logic, support the existence of God and the validity of the Bible. Whom do i believe?

Response-- There is a big difference between "support" and "prove." I agree that SOUND reason, and GODLY logic support the existence of God and the validity of the Bible. But your faith can be in neither one. Faith is in God, not logic or reason. Faith does not eliminate logic and reason, but has higher forms of them both. Abraham believed God concerning the birth of Isaac, even when it was totally illogical from a human point of view. That is expressly stated in Romans 4:18.

Question-- Are you saying that reason and logic are not sufficient means to conclude that God exists and that the Bible is true, and that we need a superior form of cognition (faith) to believe? If yes, is this fact (that faith is needed rather than exclusive reason or logic) conveyed in the bible? if so, which verses?

Response-- Yes I am. Let me give you some examples. Will human reason and logic support the virgin birth, the resurrection of the dead, calming a storm with a word, barren women becoming pregnant, Samson killing 1,000 Philistines with a jawbone, Daniel surviving a night in a den of hungry lions.....etc.? These, and many more, are all in the Bible. What form of human reasoning and logic will support them? Only the reasoning and logic that proceed from faith.

Question--  I believe none would, but my Christian friend would beg to differ

Response-- Then let him produce the reason and logic that does that. Remind him that reason and logic moved Eve to eat the forbidden fruit.

Question--  According to him, the Bible asserts that these things happened, and he knows the Bible to be true because it is backed up by other historical documents, such as the dead sea scrolls, and backed up my archeological evidence

Response-- But faith comes by hearing, and hearing the Word of God (Rom 10:17)–NOT by examining second, third, fourth, and even 100th hand testimony. If what God says has to be backed up for your friend, he does not believe, but disbelieves. That is why he needs the evidence. This was exactly the kind of confirmation Jesus' enemies wanted from Him. They wanted Him to prove to them that he was God's Son. They, like your friend, could not believe on the basis of word.

Question--  I see. And which verses convey that we're supposed to believe the Word simply because it is the Word, rather than requiring evidence and proof?

Response-- 1 Thessalonians 2:13; Acts 2:37; Matthew 16:16; Romans 10:14_17 __ the whole book of Acts provides examples of this, together with all of Jesus' preaching in the Gospels.

In the Jewish celebration of the Passover there is the "seder." One of the items on the plate is a hard-boiled egg that represents "new birth" Where did this practice come from. I can't find it in the bible.

It is not in the Bible. That means the custom itself is of human origin, and is not part of God's preparation of the people for the coming of the Messiah, as well as their deliverance from Egypt. The "egg" used in the "seder" feast does not represent the new birth, but is "symbolic of life's cycle of birth and death," according to the encyclopedia. The following gives the significance of the other items placed on the table. I do not know the origin of all of the customs related to the "seder" meal.
__________________________________________________________________________

"The seder (from the Hebrew word for "order") is the festal meal eaten on the first two nights of Passover, the Jewish celebration of the Exodus from Egypt. The main seder meal does not begin until the story of the Exodus has been retold through the reading of the Haggadah and, more important, reexperienced by the celebrants. This recreation of the circumstances of bondage, together with the minutiae of the deliverance, form the heart and spirit of the seder and of the Passover festival itself.

Certain foods are eaten in set order during the ceremony, including matzoth, the unleavened bread of bondage; maror, bitter herbs (grated horseradish), commemorating the bitterness of slavery; baitzah, a hard-cooked egg, symbolic of life's cycle of birth and death; zaroah, a roasted lamb bone representing the paschal lamb; haroseth, chopped nuts, apples, and wine, symbolic of the clay used by Pharaoh's Hebrew slaves to make bricks; and karpas, parsley, lettuce or other greens, as a reminder that the new growth during this spring festival brings renewed hope of universal peace. Four cups of wine are drunk at various moments in the ceremony. A goblet of wine for Elijah is placed on the seder table in the symbolic hope that the prophet, whose appearance will presage the coming of the Messiah, may enter and partake of the wine that awaits him."

In Eph. 3:20 "the POWER that works in us" The word POWER --Have we assumed it is the HOLY SPIRIT and if so why? I think Rom 1:16 let's us know the POWER !!!! and that POWER we accept by FAITH not a outside force .

The Word is "the sword of the Spirit." It is the means He uses, but it is the Spirit that empowers the Word. Jesus said "It is the Spirit who gives life" (John 6:63). The New Covenant is pointedly called "the ministry of the Holy Spirit" (2 Cor 3:8). I know of no Scripture that views the Word of God independently of the Holy Spirit. He is what makes the Word "quick and powerful" (Heb 4:12). He is why the Word is living. Power is ultimately traced to Divine persons, for "power belongs to the Lord" (Psalm 62:11).

When we are strengthened with power, it is by the Holy Spirit, as expressly stated Ephesians 3:16. God also fills us with all joy and peace that we may abound in hope "through the power of the Holy Spirit" (Rom 15;13).

The power that works within us is the same power God has devoted to us in Christ Jesus, and is mentioned in Ephesians 1:19. We are then told it is the same power that raised Christ from the dead and set Him at God's right hand (Eph 1:20). Elsewhere, referring to the resurrection of Christ, we are told that the Spirit that raised Jesus from the dead also dwells in us, even giving life to our mortal bodies (Rom 8:11). Jesus was put to death in the flesh, but "made alive by the Spirit" (1 Pet 3:18). 

First Thessalonians elaborates on this matter, showing us that the Gospel is not merely a word, but is invested with power by the Holy Spirit. "For our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Spirit and in much assurance" (1 Thess 1:5).

We have not assumed the power is the effect of the Holy Spirit's working. There is simply too much in the Scripture about this. As to an "outside force," there is no such language in Scripture. It is philosophical language, and has no significance in the realm of faith.

We must be careful not to divide between the MEANS of the power (the Gospel), and the Spirit of power; between the Sword, and the Spirit who wields it.

GO TO PREVIOUS PAGE

Go to next page