The question was posed, “Where in the Bible does it talk about voting?” The Bible does not specifically mention “voting.” The New Testament, though, does teach that mankind is obligated to obey civil government. Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour. (Romans 13:1-7). God has not ordained any particular form of civil government (e.g., monarchy, democracy); however, God nevertheless sanctions civil government. The government dominating the first century civilization ringing the Mediterranean Sea was …

A correspondent writes, “Can you give me a biblical reference regarding teenagers showing respect to their teachers? I recall reading something in the new testament that refers to respect from students to teachers and for employees to employers.” Proverbs 5:13 appears in a context where young persons are warned to refrain from fornication; it reads: “And have not obeyed the voice of my teachers, nor inclined mine ear to them that instructed me!” The first and primary teacher of youth, though, is the parent. The apostle Paul wrote of parental responsibility and the responsibility of children to their parents. After that, the apostle also penned instructions to servants or slaves toward their masters; in principle, the instruction Paul gave to servants is applicable to employees toward their employers. Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right.  Honour thy father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise;) That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth. And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any …

If a couple is living in an adulterous marriage are they supposed to stop living together or are they supposed to get a divorce too? Some of the details regarding the sinful situations into which people get themselves are not specifically stated in the New Testament. Under those circumstances, it may be necessary to use one’s best judgment as one earnestly tries to follow what Scripture does specify. Further, there is usually a course of action that can be pursued by which one can have full assurance that he or she has made necessary amendment to his or her life (i.e., a way that cannot be wrong). In the case under consideration, that means a man and a woman who discover that they are in a biblically adulterous marriage (1) must stop cohabiting (i.e., sleeping together), and (2) they may want to obtain a legal divorce to make sure that they have done everything that God requires to absolve themselves of adultery. Right or wrong, brethren in modern history have approached this increasingly common situation with various remedies while trying to conform to New Testament teaching about marriage, divorce and remarriage. Especially when young children are involved (though children do not mitigate responsibilities respecting marriage, divorce and remarriage, Ezra 10:3, 44), if it is not common knowledge that a man and a woman have no biblical right to be married to each other, some preachers have advised such couples to refrain from sleeping together though they may continue to live in the same house. In some …

Does God hear the prayers of little children and others who are safe? I understand the safe ones to be those who have never developed in mind to the point they are accountable to God. We believe God hears all things. Does he answer the prayers of these? How do we harmonize all of this with the Christian have the right and privilege of prayer? All help appreciated. ~ Don Turnmire As far as I know, the Bible does not specifically address or provide an example of how God responds to the prayers of unaccountable children. Any suppositions we avow, based on whatever principles to which we may appeal, probably evidence diminished certainty. Sometimes we must defer to the principle of Deuteronomy 29:29: “The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.” However, we should include instructions about prayer in the upbringing of our even small children; we must teach them to pray (Luke 11:1; Ephesians 6:4). Further, that Jesus instructed accountable persons (his disciples and others present) to imitate the virtuous traits of small children respecting salvation (i.e., humility, Matthew 18:3-4), indicates that the children of God (Christians today) need to acquire the innocency of small children (who are safe rather than saved). Therefore, it is reasonable to acknowledge that unaccountable children enjoy a relationship with God that accountable persons can obtain by becoming as little children …

I believe that we are to sing and not play because it is not authorized in scripture. What do you do when someone tells you that the context of Ephesians 5 does not talk about worship? I was wondering if you could shed some light on this subject for me and what about the elders and their harps. If you could I would appreciate it. Thanks ~ Ryan Irrespective of what one may conclude regarding the surrounding context, Ephesians 5:19 does address one aspect of worship, a specific kind of worshipful music–singing! The verse reads: “Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord.” Colossians 3:16 is comparable to Ephesians 5:19, and reads: “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.” Singing “psalms and hymns and spiritual songs” rather than or combined with instrumental music, humming, percussion, etc. is authorized as worshipful music, such as one would find in an assembly of Christians for worship (1 Corinthians 14:15). However, what many people fail to realize respecting Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 is that the place or occasion is not addressed in those verses, but the activity of worshipful music is addressed in those verses. Hence, the place or occasion is irrelevant as to the affect on worshipful music. Whenever and wherever one proceeds to voice psalms, hymns and spiritual songs, irrespective of the place or occasion, the Bible only and exclusively authorizes singing. …

We have installed elders where I worship. The men who were put before the congregation were objected to by ten different men with scriptural objections. The men in a men’s meeting decided to choose five men to review the objections. They decided that the objections would not prevent the men from serving. They did not interview any of the men making the objections. They called for a vote of the men and the men voted to install the men as elders. I cannot find scripture to support voting in elders. Please give scriptural way to install elders. Please respond. ~ Jimmy Harrison. The reason that you cannot find Scripture respecting the “voting in elders” is because there are no Scriptures that address the procedures by which elders are installed. So, not only is “voting” absent from the biblical record, but any and every other possible procedure for the selection of elders (besides the Scriptural qualifications for elders) is absent from Scripture. Yet, some mechanism must be employed to survey the consensus of the members who would select elders. Call it what you will, essentially any procedure through which a consensus or lack thereof is determined amounts to counting noses (i.e., “ayes” and “nays”). The qualifications each elder must possess (1 Timothy 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9) are what primarily matter regarding the appointment of elders. Until qualified men are available to be those elders, responsibility for the affairs of a congregation falls to the men of a congregation by default; first century …

I F A MAN’S WIFE DIES AND HE MARRIES A WOMAN WHO HAD A SCRIPTURAL RIGHT TO DIVORCE AND HE KEEPS THE MARRIAGE VOWS AND SHE CHEATS ON HIM LEFT AND RIGHT AND TELLS HIM I CAN’T PROMISE THAT I WOULD NOT CHEAT ON YOU AND CONTINUES TO DO SO. HE THEN DIVORCES HER AND LIVES A LIFE OF CELIBACY CAN THIS MAN MARRY A WOMAN WHO HAS A SCRIPTURAL RIGHT TO A DIVORCE AND IS A FAITHFUL CHRISTIAN WOMAN. PLEASE ANSWER ME THIS QUESTION TO MY MAIL WHEN YOU HAVE THE TIME. I WILL BE AWAITING YOUR ANSWER WITH A CONCLUSION TO WHAT YOU SUM UP. A person who is biblically permitted to marry may contract a marriage with anyone who is biblically permitted to marry. The New Testament permits a marriage of a widowed person to another person who is biblically permitted to marry (Romans 7:1-3; 1 Corinthians 7:39). A person who divorces his or her spouse for adultery is permitted to marry a person who is biblically permitted to marry (Matthew 19:9). Again, a person who is biblically permitted to marry may contract a marriage with anyone who is biblically permitted to marry.

If one’s behavior is not that of a disciple, not saying perfect but at least trying, such as desertion with out reconciliation no repentance of sin, could they be considered a non-believer? Thanks Tom. An erring Christian, for instance, who refuses to provide for the physical welfare of his family is said to be “worse than an infidel” (1 Timothy 5:8). However, even an erring child of God from whom the church has withdrawn fellowship is still a brother in Christ (2 Thessalonians 3:6, 14-15; 1 Corinthians 5:1-13; 2 Corinthians 2:6-8). One purpose for which church discipline must be exercised when necessary is to try to restore the erring child of God (James 5:19-20; Jude 23). We must be willing to forgive the penitent in the event that they should ever repent, and as often as they may repent (Matthew 18:21-22). No rationale will permit us to get more mileage (or liberty) out of other passages by some re-designation of brethren, howbeit they may be erring brethren who may never return to the Lord.

I am dealing with an issue regarding the displaying or wearing of religious emblems such as crosses, fish, crucifix, angels and such like. I was wondering what your thoughts on this subject are. Any help that you can give me would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Bruce Stulting Certainly, we realize, that unlike the stance of some religious groups, a child of God may wear jewelry. For instance, should one refer to 1 Peter 3:3 as “proof” that a Christian cannot wear jewelry, he would be arguing simultaneously (whether he realized it) that a Christian cannot wear clothes either–hardly a satisfactory conclusion to derive from a purportedly biblical principle. “Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel.” Of course, the lavish, outward adornment (not ordinary and modest adornment) in that context is contrasted with the humble, inner spirit of a godly Christian (1 Peter 3:4). The question, though, essentially is may a Christian wear religious jewelry. My computer database of various religious magazines I have read and catalogued over the past 30 years does not register a single article that addresses this question; if there are any articles in my periodical library that address that question, I have overlooked them. Briefly consulting a collection of religious questions and biblical answers incorporated in book form, likewise, I was unable to find a single reference to the question posed here. Apparently, that question has not been a …

Acts 20:7 prescribes the frequency that the Lord’s Supper is biblically authorized to be observed. Like the contribution (1 Corinthians 16:1-2) and other acts of New Testament worship (singing, prayer, preaching), the Lord’s Supper should be observed every first day of the week. The Lord’s Supper is the only act of worship that Scripture authorizes exclusively or only for the first day of each week, since giving, singing, prayer and preaching can be observed in Scripture occurring outside the Lord’s Day assembly. Congregations that may have more than one worship period on the first day of the week often provide an opportunity for persons who were unable to attend an earlier worship period to partake the Lord’s Supper at the latter worship period. However, I am not personally aware of anyone partaking the Lord’s Supper more than once on the Lord’s Day. It seems that the example of Acts 20:7 admits of only one worship period on that day in Troas; it is fairly certain that first century churches did not partake the Lord’s Supper multiple times on the Lord’s Day. Contemporary churches of Christ have not learned from the Scriptures to observe the Lord’s Supper multiple times per Lord’s Day. The biblical requirement is to observe the Lord’s Supper once weekly on the Lord’s Day (first day of the week), and I know of no biblical reason that anyone would desire to observe the Lord’s Supper more than once on the Lord’s Day. If someone has a non-biblical reason …

I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO FIND THE SCRIPTURE THAT EVERYONE KEEPS REFERRING TO THAT SAYS THE GUILTY PARTY MAY NOT EVER REMARRY. SO FAR I HAVE NOT FOUND IT. I HAVE LOOKED AT THE REFERENCES OFFERED AND I CAN SEE HOW ONE CAN GET AN INFERENCE TO THAT, BUT AN EXACT. Matthew 19:9 either means something or it doesn’t mean anything. The verse reads, “And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.” Without the exceptive clause, Jesus Christ said, “Whosoever shall put away his wife and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.” Here, Jesus plainly stated if either of the parties to a marriage divorce and remarry, God considers it adultery. With the exceptive clause, “except it be for fornication,” respecting the one divorcing his spouse because of adultery, Jesus said that one may marry another biblically eligible candidate for marriage. The same exceptive clause is not applied in the verse (or elsewhere in the New Testament) to the person guilty of adultery. What Jesus taught about marriage-divorce-and-remarriage is not popular today. It was not popular among the disciples of Jesus Christ when he taught it, and our Lord’s apostles reacted adversely to that teaching. “His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good …

DEAR SIR: MAY A WOMAN PLAN A LESSON AND TEACH IT TO A MAN OUTSIDE OF THE ASSEMBLY AND STILL HONOR GOD? DIDACTIC STYLE OF TEACHING? THANKS. I AWAIT YOUR ANSWER. ~ RL JOHNSON SR The English dictionary definition for “didactic” is “1 a : designed or intended to teach. b : intended to convey instruction and information as well as pleasure and entertainment.2 : making moral observations” (Merriam). The question was posed in English and the response is in English as well. So far, “didactic” pertains to conveying information without reference to the manner in which it is conveyed (i.e., either the authority with which one may or may not present the information respecting those to whom the information is conveyed). However, every religious question deserves a biblical answer. Didasko is the primary Greek word for teaching. “The unambiguous meaning is ‘to teach’”; Didaskalos “…means ‘instructor’ as a. ‘schoolmaster’…” Nomodidaskalos means “teachers of the law”; Kalodidaskalos occurs once in the New Testament (Titus 2:3) referring to “aged women” who are to be “teachers of good things.” Pseudodidaskalos appears only in 2 Peter 2:1 and is translated “false prophets”; Didaskalia means “teaching” or “teaching activity” and is often translated as “doctrine.” Heterodidaskaleo means a different teaching or doctrine (1 Timothy 1:3; 6:3). Didache “…means ‘teaching,’ ‘instruction’ as a fact.” Didaktos “…has three senses: a. ‘taught,’ b. ‘learned,’ and c. ‘teachable’”; Didaktikos means “able to teach” (Kittel and Friedrich). The biblical context contains the information relative to the respective roles of men and women in Christianity, and when, where and how a woman may teach a man about religion. The leadership roles, including preaching or teaching in …

I am not aware of any special significance of the number eight in Christianity. The number eight occurs in some Old Testament references, but even then, it is not as frequently used as several other numbers.

What was the affliction which Job suffered from, according to the Bible? How long (days, months, years) did job suffer? The McClintock and Strong Encyclopedia records that from antiquity Job’s disease was commonly believed to have been “elephantiasis or black leprosy,” and that a very early Greek version names this disease in the text of Job 2:7 as Job’s ailment. However, McClintock and Strong also cautions that it may not be possible from the Bible text to confidently affirm from what particular disease Job suffered. After all, contemporary doctors do not customarily diagnose diseases, for instance, over the phone, and Job is removed from the possibility of examination by over 2,500 years. Yet, the Barnes’ Commentary likewise presents the likelihood of Job’s disease being elephantiasis or black leprosy that was common in Egypt. The description of the symptoms and Job’s recourse to attempt some relief lead commentators to suspect Job’s disease was black leprosy (to distinguish it from white leprosy). In addition, the definitions of the original language words in Job that are pertinent to the disease describe a burning ulceration that enveloped all of Job’s skin. Black leprosy is marked by eruptions in the skin that are first red and later turn black. Especially with the limbs, the skin swells and becomes crusty and irregular, resembling the hide of an elephant, hence the name, elephantiasis. The Jamieson, Fausset and Brown Commentary agrees that Job’s illness appears to be black leprosy or elephantiasis, and it also concurs with other reference works that the original language word for “boils” in Job …

I need some help please. How do I comfort someone who’s two year old daughter has been raped by her father, she wants to know how can God let this happen? Please answer this so I can help her. Thanks, Howard Huckabee There may be no words that will adequately comfort the mother and child who endured such a tragedy. Yet, in humanity’s quest to blame someone and often God for whatever calamities befall us on earth, we fail to consider some important facts. First, God is not evil and can have no association with evil (James 1:13); our God is holy (1 Peter 1:15-16). Second, God created humanity sinlessly pure, but sin entered the world through Adam and Eve (Genesis 3; Romans 5:12) and every accountable soul sins (Romans 3:23). However, babies and other unaccountable souls are free from sin (Ezekiel 28:15; 18:20). Third, because of the abuse of freewill that God has given to humanity, people often make the wrong choices whereby the innocent are injured or even killed. However, the same freewill enables mankind to choose to be the children of God and obey the Gospel (Mark 16:16). Finally, when whatever tragedy befalls humanity, even when the innocent are hurt or killed, God is right where he was when ungodly humanity took the Son of God and nailed him to a cross.

…one stumbling block I have always had trouble overcoming is the Eucharist.  Wasn’t Our Lord clear about His actual Body and Blood being consumed?  Those who could not bear to hear such talk walked no more with Him.  He did not correct any “misunderstanding.” The passage of Scripture to which you refer is: I am that bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by …

Are there any scriptures that state by necessary inference or in any way imply that Solomon was lost?  My understanding is yes, he did disobey God in a most blatant manner, but the book of Ecclesiastes was his repentance.  I had a sister tell me last nite after our ladies’ class she agrees, the book may have been, but repentance means nothing if you don’t DO something.  She went on to say that all the idols erected during Solomon’s reign were not torn down until King Josiah, and if Solomon had repented in the biblical sense, he would have had them torn down. ~ Marilyn The sins of Solomon are acknowledged in Scripture. Various sources conclude from the biblical text that Solomon was ultimately lost. “He died disillusioned and spiritually insensible” (Unger’s). “Near the end of his life, the king lost the ideals of his youth, becoming restless and unsatisfied. …Eventually he approved of, and even participated in, these idolatrous acts” (Nelson’s). Other commentators presume that Solomon repented at the last. “Solomon probably repented in the end; for Chronicles make no mention of his fall” (Fausset’s). Matthew Henry assumes that Solomon’ soul was recovered for God: The account we have of Solomon’s apostasy from God, in the latter end of his reign 1 Kings 11:1, is the tragical part of his story; we may suppose that he spoke his Proverbs in the prime of his time, while he kept his integrity, but delivered his Ecclesiastes when he had grown old …

The question is posed that if only baptized believers can receive the “gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38), then how does one account for the fact that Cornelius (and those with him) received the “gift” of the Holy Spirit before baptism (Acts 10:44-48). Ordinarily, according to Acts 2:38, reception of the “gift of the Holy Spirit” occurred after one was baptized in the baptism of the Great Commission. The time and place of the reception of the “gift of the Holy Spirit” was not simultaneous to one’s baptism, but came afterward through the imposition of apostolic hands and prayer (Acts 8:14-17). When the apostle Paul traveled to Ephesus, he intended to impart the “gift of the Holy Spirit” (miraculous power) to 12 disciples there. However, when he inquired whether they had received the Holy Spirit yet, they were not aware of the Holy Spirit. Since the “gift of the Holy Spirit” was announced in conjunction with the teaching of the Great Commission baptism, Paul inquired into what baptism they had been baptized if they were not aware of the Holy Spirit. Because they had been baptized into the baptism of John the Baptist when that particular baptism was no longer valid, having been replaced with the Great Commission baptism, Paul baptized them in the baptism Peter preached in Acts 2:38. Then, Paul imparted to these disciples the “gift of the Holy Spirit” or the ability to perform miracles (Acts 19:1-7). However, the exception to the ordinary procedure in the first century …

How should I respond to my investigation of biblical Christianity (The church of Christ) if there are “couples” (both straight and gay cohabiting) going to service and Bible study? Thanks. Sean Sin in the camp of the Israel of God is not a new thing (Joshua 7), and sin unattended among the people of God will have an adverse affect on other children of God as it did in Joshua’s day. Sin is still sin irrespective of who is committing it. Churches that are unresponsive to ongoing sin in their midst are guilty before God (1 Corinthians 5:1-13). Once, I was familiar with a congregation that did nothing for over a decade about a member who was an adulterous, and who bore and reared two children. This sin was not addressed because her family was prominent in the congregation and because the elders were afraid that the church would split if church discipline were exercised. The congregation’s laxity toward this sin encouraged one or more young members to practice fornication. For ten years, I encouraged and taught the church to do the right thing, though I could not immediately prevail on the church to police itself. Finally, some time after I was no longer associated with that particular congregation, it withdrew fellowship from the adulterous woman. As Christians, we should hate the sin and love the sinner, a difficult posture to assume. We need to call upon one another to repent of sins and be ready always to forgive those who …

I have a question about the Blood that was shed for the JEWS every so often for them by the Levites was it not for the past sins of the Jew that was offering the sacrifice. (individual). Today at the Lords Supper is it not scriptural to say that in partaking of this fruit of the vine, you should realize what you are about to do and partake worthy. Knowing full well this deices HIS DEATH BURIAL AND RESURRECTING. Depicting our sins are forgiven for us as sinners. But does it not go deeper than that for us as CHRISTIANS, we sin every day and need forgiving of those sins, and so the LORDS SUPPER IS A PERSONAL WAY TO SAY LORD FORGIVE ME OF MY PAST WEEK OF MY UNFORGIVEN SINS IN MY LIFE. Otherwise how do we get the DEMONINATIONAL WORLD to look at us for it on the first Day as a COMMAND. First, the apostle Paul corrected abuses of the Lord’s Supper in the Corinthian congregation (1 Corinthians 11:20-29). The apostle warned these first century brethren lest they “eateth and drinketh unworthily” (verses 27, 29). The word “worthily” is an adverb describing the manner in which the Corinthians were incorrectly observing the Lord’s Supper; adverbs usually modify and describe verbs as here. The word “worthy,” which does not appear in this context, is an adjective. Brethren are mistaken when they partake or refrain from partaking the Lord’s Supper based on whether they esteem themselves “worthy”; we …

Ignoring just for a moment your view that the speaking of tongues has ceased, I need to know something more about the interpretation of tongues, namely – Was it OK for the speaker of tongues to interpret the tongues himself / herself? The Bible says so; but I am unable to see what the purpose of speaking in tongues would have been at all if the speaker was also the one to interpret. Why then not speak the interpretation straight out, without the tongues? The reason that “speaking in tongues” was employed in the first place (first in the New Testament in Acts 2) was to communicate effectively with audiences whose languages differed from the native language of the speakers (Acts 2:6-11). While all those in Acts 2 may have known a common language besides the languages native to the parts of the world in which they were living respectively, the relatively uneducated apostles of Christ speaking in those respective native languages caught the attention of the masses and validated that it was God’s Word that was preached that fateful day. However, when an individual, miraculously assisted preacher stood before an audience in which more than one language was represented in that audience, it was necessary for the Gospel to be preached in one of those languages and then re-preached or interpreted in the additional language also represented in the audience. Someone besides the preacher if someone were available who knew both languages could do the interpreting for a second …

Praise the Lord, I am a believer and wish to take water baptism, however the church I go to follows a pentecostal belief. Its been their belief that a believer should not be wearing ornaments, if however they wear it after their baptism then they will not be given communion. This rule has made me step back on my decision I am confused. My argument is why does man have to fall under the human laws when God’s one and only one condition to receive baptism is to have faith. There happens to be a few who forgo communion after baptism since they wear ornaments. To favor the new generation kids and the above mentioned category of people the commitee has come up with modified versions of their law, saying that sunday’s its a must to follow traditions and the rest of the week is not the church’s responsiblity. I need I answers I have been worried about all this hypochrisy. I will be grateful if you could convince me. thanks regi You are right! No one should be subject to human laws when it comes to God’s religion, Christianity. The group with which you are familiar is biblically astray in a number of ways, some of which you announce in your question. First, it is a misunderstanding of Scripture to forbid the wearing of jewelry. The passage of Scripture to which Pentecostals appeal and misapply to dismiss jewelry would also dismiss wearing clothes. “Whose adorning let it not be …

In order to repent of the sin of gambling, a person would have to stop gambling. Let’s say the person that is repenting of the sin of gambling has won thousands of dollars gambling. Does the person have to return the thousands of dollars that was won to the gambling company in order to repent? Thanks for your help with this issue. Tongue in check, my first inkling is to provide my address and suggest you send the thousands of dollars to me for disposal. Joking aside, we will attempt to provide a serious answer. A car thief upon repenting must quit stealing cars, and it would be reasonable for him to make restitution, especially if he still has some of the stolen cars in his possession. A man who has stolen another man’s wife (i.e., adultery, Matthew 19:9) upon repenting certainly cannot keep her for his own. Yet, the man who through manslaughter or murder takes another person’s life, upon repenting, must not murder, but he cannot provide complete restitution (i.e., bring someone back to life). The fact that a penitent murderer cannot restore life to the dead would not necessarily make true repentance impossible. Someone who has won thousands of dollars from an organization (e.g., racetrack, casino, state lottery, etc.) and subsequently repented of gambling may not have the opportunity to return the money acquired through gambling. In addition, it may not serve much purpose to refund some gambling venture were they willing to receive the money back. …

I have a question regarding the role of women. Can a woman assist a man in teaching a Sunday school class for 7-8th graders? What does the Bible say about it? If you can be of assistance to me in any way I would appreciate it. Thanks and God bless! ~ Ryan Wilson Essentially the question arises: “Is a Christian woman biblically permitted to teach teenage male Christians in a Bible class where she is the teacher?” The passages of Scripture that come to bear on this question are the passages of Scripture that concern the woman’s role in the church and religion. Further, the question is how to apply those verses to the real life circumstance of the presence of Christian young men in our Bible classes. Christian women predominately fulfill our teacher responsibilities in our Bible classes, but when should our Christian women defer to male Christians to teach our newly baptized, teen and preteen male children? The problem is magnified when we often have a shortage of willing or able male Christians to lend themselves to our Bible classes. The fact that a male Christian and a female Christian, in the question posed, may teach a class together (team-teach) is immaterial to consideration of passages of Scripture that affect whether God permits Christian ladies to teach young male Christians as their class teacher. The passages that concern the role of women as teachers of men are: “But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp …

Have you ever heard of “Messianic Jewry”? Do you know anything about this stuff? I can’t find anyone in my area that knows anything about it. There was a congregation in my area, that I do not fellowship, that “sponsored” a lecture by a fellow Joseph Baruch Shulam, a Messianic Jew. He has written two commentaries, “The Jewish Roots of Romans” and a two volume set “The Jewish Roots of the Acts of the Apostles”. He is about 58 years old and a Lipscomb graduate. His “missionary work” in Israel is sponsored by the North Boulevard Church of Christ in Murfreesboro, TN. You can do a GOOGLE search and quickly find his web site and other numerous web sites about “Messianic Jewry”. I think this stuff is a terrible error for folks to get involved in. My own cursory look at North Boulevard’s web site tells me they are significantly liberal after the likes of Shelly and Lucado. I’ve never seen anyone in the Brotherhood address this issue. Is the Brotherhood aware of it? I have an enquiring mind. I’d like to know. Thank you in advance for your time and attention. Sincerely, Gary E. Miller The Gospel of Christ is for Jew and Gentile alike (Romans 1:16). It is commendable that either non-Jews have an interest in acquainting Jews with the Gospel and Jesus Christ or that Jews express an interest in Jesus Christ. However, first, a cursory look at Messianic Jewry discovers that it is neither wholly Jewish nor …

The Greek word sabbaton (#4521 in Strong’s Concordance) is used in the New Testament 68 times. FIFTY-NINE times it is translated SABBATH, but NINE times the very same word is ARBITRARILY translated “first day of the week.” Contrary to what every good Sabbatarian believes, the hundreds of scholars who over the centuries translated in our English versions “first day of the week” instead of  “one Sabbath” correctly represented the Greek into our language. Contrary to what every good Sabbatarian believes, the numerous commentators on the Christian day of worship (beginning with contemporaries to the apostles) correctly represented the Christian’s special day of worship as the first day of the week and not as the seventh day of the week. The error of Sabbatarianism has been fought throughout past decades on so many fronts, and those battles may be found in various books, including recorded debates. This present excerpt from a longer email post attempts to defend Sabbatarianism through appeals to the Greek language. However, first, the standard reference works to which students of the Bible appeal for insight into a better understanding of God’s Word do not support Sabbatarianism. The McClintock and Strong Encyclopedia says under the entry, “Lord’s Day”: “Again, the phrase mia sabbaton is generally understood to be, according to the Jewish mode of naming the days of the week, the common expression for the first day.” The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia at the entry, “Lord’s Day,” notes a Hebraism for the “first day of the week”: “The word in all passages for ‘first’ is …