Menu

Your Questions

Dietary Restrictions for Christians?

Question: Richard writes: We are a Catholic family and lately have reservations on the food we eat. About meat – can Catholics eat beef, pork, chicken and fish?

Answer: With the growing popularity (at least in North America) of a vegetarian diet, some have suggested it is wrong to eat meat at all. Not being a Catholic, I cannot speak for them. But I will share with you what I believe the Bible teaches.

At the time of creation, the Lord prescribed a vegetarian diet for our first parents (Gen. 1:29). But that was before the fall (man’s first sin), and before the flood. Conditions on earth were ideal, and a non-meat diet was sufficient not only for man, but also for the animals (Gen. 1:30). (In that world, mosquitoes did not have to draw human or animal blood to get the needed protein in their diet. Happy day!)

However, with the fall, came a “curse” upon creation, with nature out of balance becoming a kind of object lesson of the destructiveness of sin (Gen. 3:17-19). Then, with the world-wide flood of Noah’s day climatic conditions changed radically. In place of a uniform warm, moist climate from pole to pole, came more severe weather, with ice and snow, and freezing temperatures in many regions. Further, it seems a protective vapour canopy which once surrounded the earth was removed at that time. The sun’s more harmful rays began to invade the earth. (This is one reason for the dramatic fall in life spans from the pre-flood times. Where human beings once lived nearly a thousand years, longevity rapidly declined after the flood to what we know today.)

With the changes just described, God gave new instructions regarding diet, allowing human beings to eat meat (Gen. 9:3). There are ample examples in the Bible of individuals consuming meat (e.g. I Kgs. 4:22-23; 19:21; Neh. 5:18), and it is not condemned as harmful or sinful. In fact, the holy days of Judaism required the eating of meat. Take the Passover, for example. Central to the ceremony was the consumption of roast lamb (Exod. 12:1-11). And since the Lord Jesus, as to His humanity, was a Jew living under the same law (Gal. 4:4)–a law which He perfectly fulfilled–He apparently ate the Passover lamb too. And we know Jesus not only ate fish (Lk. 24:41-43), but He broiled fish and served it to His disciples (Jn. 21:9, 12-14).

One more issue remains: the dietary restrictions of the Jews. Though they were pointedly allowed to eat the meat of mammals, fowl and fish, there were some limitations. Four-footed animals that did not chew their cud and have cloven hooves were excluded (Lev. 11:4-8), as were fish without scales–as eels or shellfish do not have (Lev. 11:9-12). Birds of prey that feed on dead carcasses were also excluded (Lev. 11:13-19). Some insects were off limits, though locusts could be eaten–and the latter were part of the diet of John the Baptist (Lev. 11:20-23; Matt. 3:4). But two specific questions must be considered with regard to these restrictions.

1) Did God set these limits because the excluded animals were unhealthy to eat? If so, then what was unhealthy 3500 years ago when the Law was given would seem to be unhealthy still–and still something we should avoid. Sometimes pork is used as an example to prove this point in the affirmative. It is pointed out that without proper refrigeration pork would have been extremely dangerous. But surely the same could be said for fowl and fish. In fact, the dietary restrictions of the Jews were mainly ceremonial, not health related. Consider Leviticus 11:24 as an example. Even touching the carcass of one of the restricted animals rendered the individual “unclean,” but only “unclean until evening.” It was a ceremonial uncleanness limiting religious activities until the period of uncleanness was over.

The main reason for all the restrictions seems to be this: God wanted Israel to have a continual reminder that they were different. They had been set apart by God for Himself as a special people, a unique privilege not given to other nations (Deut. 14:2). (Note that this last text immediately precedes a review of the dietary laws.) The daily application of these laws said, “You are different. You are set apart for Me, and must live in obedience to Me, and trust in Me.” It is impossible to prove there is a consistent health problem with consuming the meats on the restricted list (as long as they are properly stored and prepared). It was a ceremonial thing. Which leads to the second issue.

2) Are we still to live by the restrictions of the Jewish Law? The answer is No. On this side of the cross, God is doing a new thing. He is bringing Jew and Gentile together in a new body (the church) through faith in Christ (I Cor. 12:12-13). Those aspects of the Old Testament Law that have to do with morality are also taught in the New Testament (e.g. not committing adultery, not stealing, etc.). But we are pointedly told that the church is not under the old Law (which included 613 commandments in all). About a dozen times this truth is restated (Rom. 6:14; 7:6, etc.).

When Peter was given a vision preparing him to extend the Christian gospel to the Gentiles, he reacted as a Jew (Acts 10:9-16). Commanded by God to eat the meat of animals he considered unclean, he refused. But a voice said, “What God has cleansed you must not call common” (vs. 15). And after Gentiles began to turn to Christ, a church council was held in Jerusalem to consider their status, and whether the Jewish Law should apply to them (Acts 15). The main dietary concern was that the Gentiles should agree not to eat meat from which the blood had not been drained. This had been a major and overarching command of Judaism for centuries (Lev. 17:10-11). Reverence for the blood related to the fact that in it was “the life of the flesh,” and it was shed in the sacrifices “to make atonement for your souls.” The early church agreed to ask for a respect for this prohibition among the Gentile believers (vs. 23; 28-29).

Significantly, nothing at all is said by the Jerusalem council about keeping to a vegetarian diet. Under grace, there is freedom of choice in this area. “Let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths [i.e. the restrictions of the Jewish Law], which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is Christ” (Col. 2:16-17) And Romans 14:1-10 pointedly says that those who believe they can only eat vegetables are “weak in the faith”! The Bible tells Christians, “The living God…gives us richly all things to enjoy” (I Tim. 6:17). Of course, as with most things, moderation is important. Too much red meat in one’s diet may indeed be harmful. Moderation is the key. If a person decides a certain diet is right for him, we may express concern if it seems an unhealthy choice. But we have no right to judge him on religious grounds. In that he has liberty, and is accountable to God, not to us.

The Holy Spirit and the Tribulation

, ,

Question: Juanita asks, “I heard that it says somewhere in the Bible that the Holy Spirit will not be on earth during the Tribulation. Is that so?”

Answer: As God, the third Person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit is omnipresent. There is no place where He is not. Thus the references to Him being “sent” and “coming” at Pentecost are merely verbal tools to describe a change in ministry, not so m1|uch a change in location. The Holy Spirit was very much at work in Old Testament times, before He “came” at Pentecost. He was involved in creation (Gen. 1:2; Job 33:4), and of course He inspired the Old Testament Scriptures (II Pet. 1:21). He also came upon and “filled” individuals to equip them for a particular work (Exod. 31:3; Jud. 3:10).

Prior to Pentecost, sinners still needed to be born again through faith, and receive eternal life. That is a work of the Holy Spirit–which is why Christ (pre-Pentecost) could speak to Nicodemus of his need to be born again of the Spirit of God (Jn. 3:5-8). There are, however, some differences with regard to the ministry of the Spirit of God in the present age. His permanent indwelling of believers is new (Jn. 14:16-17), as is His baptizing work of joining Christians to Christ and to one another in His body (I Cor. 12:12-13; Gal. 3:26-28). The church is unique to the present age.

That brings us to what happens after the rapture of the church. Second Thessalonians 2:6-8 says, “Now you know what is restraining, that he [the Antichrist] may be revealed in his own time. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He [meaning, I believe, the Holy Spirit] who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way. And then the lawless one will be revealed…” One of the ministries of the Spirit now is to restrain the forces of evil. (Imagine what they will be like when unrestrained!) And one of the chief agencies the Spirit uses to accomplish this is the church, and concerned Christians who speak out against wrong. When the church is taken up, this restraint will come to an end.

However, that does not mean the omnipresent Spirit will no longer be here and at work. One writer says the “taking out of the way” of the Restrainer “refers not to spatial removal…but rather [to] a stepping aside.” I sometimes picture it as the opening of flood gates causing a tide of evil to sweep across the world. Millions will be saved during the Tribulation (those who have not heard the gospel and decisively rejected Christ before the rapture–Rev. 7:13-14; cf. II Thess. 2:9-12). They will be convicted by the Spirit of God, and born of the Spirit. But in many respects, judging from the limited Scripture we have on the subject, His operations seem to revert to what they were in the Old Testament.

Could Jesus Have Sinned?

, ,

Question: (This is a follow-up question from a reader of Glenn’s query on the sinlessness of Christ. In my response I indicated that not only did Christ not sin, He could not sin.)

Matt asks, “How does Hebrews 4:15 fit in what you say? In whose ‘like as [we are]’ is the temptation? Would this not suggest that Jesus had two natures? One nature is God. The other nature is human. Jesus felt the temptation on his human side and could have sinned if He wanted to do so. He did not want to do so. How could He be touched with our infirmities if Jesus could not sin?”

Answer: You ask a good question, Matt, and I hope I can clarify things for you. The issue is what’s known in theology as the impeccability of Christ. Could Jesus have sinned if He wanted to? Or was it impossible for Him to sin? There are conservative scholars on both sides of the debate, but I believe the greater weight of argument falls on the latter position. Let me make several points.

Christ was indeed “in all points tempted as we are” (Heb. 4:15). Not that He experienced every single temptation we do. (For example, I doubt He was tempted to smoke cigarettes as they had not been invented yet.) But He experienced every category of temptation common to humanity. The same Greek word is used in Acts 10:12. “All kinds of four-footed animals” does not mean every species on earth, but representatives of the various kinds.

As God the Son, Christ cannot be tempted to sin (Jas. 1:13). But as Man He willingly exposed Himself to the temptations common to humanity. Christ was truly tempted (in your words, He “felt the temptation”), but He did not sin. This truth is emphasized many times (e.g. II Cor. 5:21; Heb. 7:26; I Pet. 2:22; I Jn. 3:5). In being tempted He is like us, and can sympathize with us when we are tempted. He did not have to be able to sin to do that. One theologian uses this illustration to support the point: We cannot say because a powerful army cannot be conquered that it cannot therefore be attacked.

Yes, Christ has had, since His incarnation, two natures. He is both fully God and fully Man. But we must not divide those in a schizophrenic fashion as though He had some kind of split personality. The two natures are fully integrated. “In Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily” (Col. 2:9). He is one Being, not two. And He cannot do something as Man that would be impossible for Him to do as God. For example, the Bible says God “cannot lie” (Tit. 1:2). It is an act which is contrary to His nature.

As perfect Man Christ possessed no sin nature, and in His perfection He fully submitted Himself to the will of God the Father (Jn. 5:19; 8:29). As God the Son–and therefore also as the God-Man–it was impossible for Him to sin. In fact, one of the purposes of His temptation may well have been to demonstrate without doubt that He could not sin!

“There is none who seeks after God”

, ,

Question: Bill asks, “Can you please explain what Paul was teaching in Romans chapter 3 where he refers to no one seeking God. Is this a general condition of mankind? There are many people who think they are seeking God, so to what was Paul referring?”

Answer: The short answer is that Paul is speaking of sinful fallen human beings left to themselves, and without divine intervention. But let’s dig a little deeper.

The entire passage, Romans 3:9-19 is devastating. The sin problem affects both Jews (favoured by God’s covenants, 3:1-2) and Gentiles. They are “all under sin” (vs. 9), and “all the world…[stands] guilty before God” (vs. 19). The passage is referring to each and every fallen human being, without exception. The virgin born Son of God, of course, was not corrupted by sin, nor did He commit sins. But apart from Him, “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (vs. 23).

The most striking note in the passage, is its unrelenting insistence on sin’s inclusiveness. Drawing from six different Old Testament passages, Paul carefully supports his argument: “all under sin” (vs. 9); “none righteous, no not one” (vs. 10); “none who understands…none who seeks after God” (vs. 11); “all turned aside…none who does good, no not one” (vs. 12). It is impossible to miss the point!

Then, the apostle looks at the subject from a different angle. Not only has sin corrupted us all, it has entirely corrupted each of us–that is, every part of our beings. Here is “total depravity” writ large. All of our conduct shows the result. Sin’s pollution affects what we say (vs. 13-14); the way we go, or what we do (vs. 15-17), and the object of our faith or allegiance (vs. 18). The unsaved may do good works, in a temporal and material sense, but not good that is free of fleshly effort and sinful pride. Any “good” the unregenerate might do is thus “unprofitable [worthless]” (vs. 12) in a spiritual and eternal sense. It cannot earn him acceptance with God.

Paul’s goal is to show the absolute necessity of the gospel of grace. To do that he begins with the “bad news”: that sin’s devastating effects are universal and entire. Then, the “but” of vs. 21 begins the “good news” and the answer: That righteousness (i.e. a righteous standing before God) comes through faith in Christ (vs. 22), and those who trust in Him are justified (pronounced righteous) “freely by His grace” (vs. 24; cf. 4:4-5).

Yes, there are many people who think they are seeking after God, or salvation. But it may be a god of their own imagining and a salvation of their own devising, and both are vanity and lead only to destruction. “There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death” (Prov. 16:25). The condition of each individual born into the world is described as being “dead in trespasses and sins” (Eph. 2:1, 5). This deadness involves both a spiritual insensitivity and spiritual inability. No one in such a condition has the spiritual perception to understand God and His ways (I Cor. 2:14), or the power to respond to Him appropriately, even if he could understand (Rom. 5:6).

The only answer is for God to step in. Since man would never seek God on his own, God must act first. As Jesus said, “No one can come to Me unless the Father draws him,” and “no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him by My Father” (Jn. 6:44, 65). Part of this is the convicting work of the Holy Spirit (Jn. 16:8). He also energizes the spirit to respond in faith. We believe “through grace” (Acts 18:27). (Cf. “To you it has been granted…to believe in Him,” Phil. 1:29). And, when the individual reaches out in faith and becomes a new creation in Christ, it is only by the continuing ministry of the Spirit of God that Christlike conduct is produced (Gal. 5:22-23).

Jesus and Sin?

,

Question: Glenn asks, “Referring to Romans 8:3, the author of the footnotes in my Bible says, ‘Jesus, as God, took on our human nature, a nature that was susceptible to temptation. Although He was tempted, He never sinned.’ I don’t believe that Jesus took upon himself our sinful nature. Is there a difference to what the author says in my Bible? Thanks.”

Answer: Both you and the author have a point. The Lord Jesus took upon Himself our humanity–a real human nature, but a sinless nature (Heb. 4:15). (Humanity’s corruption was avoided through His miraculous conception in the womb of the virgin Mary, Lk. 1:35.)

Think of the serpent in the wilderness, to which Christ compares Himself in John 3:15-16 (cf. Num. 21:5-9). It was like the poisonous snakes infesting the camp, but without the poison. Similarly, God sent “His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh” (Rom. 8:3). Notice it does not say “in sinful flesh” (implying that He too was corrupted by sin). Nor does it say simply “in the likeness of flesh” (implying that He was not a real human being).

I am a little more bothered by the phrase “susceptible to temptation” in your Bible’s footnote. If the author means Jesus could be tempted, we know that is so (cf. Matt. 4:1-11). But is he inferring some weakness in the face of temptation? (Susceptible means: admitting of, or accessible to.) Then he is incorrect. The Lord Jesus Christ not only did not sin, He could not sin and still be who He is (Jas. 1:13). He could be attacked by the devil–and was. And the attack was all the more intense because He consistently resisted it without succumbing. But He could not fall.

The Gift of Faith

,

Question: Pat writes, “Hello again, it is I with yet another question. Is there a difference between ‘regular’ faith and the ‘gift’ of faith spoken about in, I believe, 2 Corinthians?”

Answer: You ask a good (and challenging!) question.

Joseph Thayer, in his Greek-English Lexicon, describes faith as “a firm and welcome conviction.” (That is good!) Every “believer” has this kind of faith, by definition. He is one who believes. And all true faith is a gift of God. Acts 18:27 speaks of “those who had believed through grace” (those who had, through the grace of God, become believers in Christ). Paul says of the Philippians, “To you it has been granted…to believe in Him” (Phil. 1:29). And in Ephesians 2:8, “By grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God.” Though in this latter case Paul likely means “that salvation is not of yourselves,” the point is similar. The ability to trust in God for salvation is sovereignly given, not generated by human effort (cf. Jn. 6:44, 65).

There are clearly different kinds of faith. Perhaps it is helpful to see these as mainly affecting, in turn, the individual’s mind, emotions, and will.

A) In The Mind. There is a kind of faith that involves an intellectual acceptance of facts. Theologian Charles Baker calls it Rationalistic Faith. Those with this level of faith know the truth, and may well accept the doctrinal realities about who Christ is and what He has done, but there is no transforming personal appropriation of the truth, no life application. James tells us “even the demons believe–and tremble” (Jas. 2:19). They know the power of Almighty God, and the certainty of their eternal destiny. The thought of it fills them with terror (cf. Lk. 8:30-31). They also know without a doubt who Christ is, but they do not bow the knee to Him in submission, and in sincere worship. Nor do they alter their aims and actions as a result.

B) In The Emotions. This is what we might call a transient enthusiasm, or in Baker’s words, Emotional Faith. It is the kind of belief that many in the crowds following Jesus had. There was a superficial acceptance of Him for a while, but with an absence of firm commitment based on spiritual insight. They exhibited an excited response to His miracles but with little substantive conviction toward Him (cf. Jn. 2:23-24). As a result, when the Lord began to speak of the cross, and the deeper truths of the spiritual life, “Many of His disciples went back and walked no more with Him” (Jn. 6:66). These are represented in Christ’s parable of the sower by the seed that fell upon rock, where there was no depth of earth. “The ones on the rock are those who, when they hear, receive the word with joy [emotion]; and these have no root, who believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away” (Lk. 8:13).

C) In The Will. In contrast to the two above that fall short, there is true biblical faith, a transforming faith, that might be described as “a belief that behaves.” The mind is involved with this faith too: It is rooted in sound doctrine, an understanding of the truth. So are the feelings: There is certainly an emotional response to the truth. But it goes beyond that. There is an appropriation of the truth that leads to decisive action, and a surrender of the self to God. It is this kind of faith James speaks of when he says, “I will show you my faith by my works” (Jas. 2:18). He goes on, “Faith without works is dead” (Jas. 2:20), meaning any “faith” that does not lead to a committed response, and a change in the life, is a dead kind of faith, not the genuine article. And “without faith [genuine faith] it is impossible to please [God]” (Heb. 11:6).

It is this latter kind of faith that is involved at conversion (what is sometimes called saving faith) and in the continuing walk of the Christian life (where it has been called sustaining faith). “For we walk by faith, not by sight” (II Cor. 5:7; cf. Col. 2:6-7).

George Mueller defined such faith as follows: “Faith is the assurance that the things which God said in His Word are true; and that God will act according to what He has said in His Word. This assurance, this reliance on God’s Word, this confidence, is Faith.” But from one believer to another there are variations in both the degree and consistency of faith. (George Mueller himself was a man of outstanding faith.) With the father who came to Jesus one day many of us would cry, “Lord, I believe; help my unbelief” (Mk. 9:24).

The Gift Of Faith. Finally, God does grant to some a special and unique endowment of faith which is beyond the ordinary. Not all have this. And we should not beat up on ourselves because we do not have it! “God has dealt to each one a measure of faith” (Rom. 12:3), and we should seek to exercise what we have. But in the listing of various spiritual gifts in First Corinthians 12:9, Paul adds “to another faith by the same Spirit.” In other words, to another person is given the gift of faith by the Spirit of God, who “distributes to each one individually as He wills” (vs. 11). It is likely this gift Paul has in mind when he speaks of “all faith so that I could remove mountains” (I Cor. 13:2). And perhaps it was evident in the life of Stephen, who is described as “a man full of faith” (Acts 6:5).

John MacArthur writes that this gift is “distinct from saving faith or persevering [sustaining] faith, both of which all believers possess. This gift is exercised in persistent prayer and endurance in intercession, along with strong trust in God in the midst of difficult circumstances.” This is the faith of the great pioneers of church history. Of George Mueller, mentioned earlier, who trusted God to help him feed thousands of orphans. Of missionaries like William Carey and Hudson Taylor. And of the godly men like Dwight Moody and others who founded Bible colleges and began great ministries and movements. They saw a need, as many did. They were deeply concerned, as many were. But they also had a God-given vision for what could be accomplished by His grace, and the holy boldness to launch out and attempt the seemingly impossible. We thank the Lord for this gift to the church!

The Son of Man – In Heaven

,

Question: Glenn asks, “In John 3:13 it says, ‘No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven.’ After the resurrection, was Christ still Man? And is He a Man today, in heaven, interceding for us at the Father’s right hand?”

Answer: You quote an interesting verse. Let’s deal with that first, and then with your questions. There are a few ancient (Alexandrian) manuscripts that omit the last few words. This has led some Bible versions (such as the NIV) to relegate the phrase “who is in heaven,” to a footnote. But it does have good manuscript support, and is likely authentic. If so, it can be understood in one of two ways.

  1. Possibly as a statement by Jesus indicating His omnipresence as God the Son. As deity, He is eternally everywhere at once. Though He sat conversing with Nicodemus (vs. 1), He was also present in heaven. That could be the sense of it. But there is a simpler explanation.
  2. Red letter editions of the Bible commonly print the words of Christ in red. But though such editions may continue the teaching of Jesus in John Chapter 3 down to vs. 21, there is no real evidence that it did not stop with vs. 12. (John did not use quotation marks!) If the Lord’s comments end earlier, the remainder would be an inspired commentary, given to us by the Apostle John. If that is the case (or even if vs. 13 alone is an interjection by the apostle), then John is simply informing us that, at the time he wrote his Gospel, Jesus had already ascended back into heaven.

Now, as to your specific questions, yes, Christ is still Man today–fully God and fully Man. As such He is seated at the right hand of the Father in heaven (Heb. 1:3), on the Father’s own throne (Rev. 3:21). In Paul’s exhortation in First Timothy 6:13-16 he says of Christ that “[He] alone has immortality” (vs. 16). Mortality and immortality are strictly matters of the human body, not of spirit beings. Paul is saying that, so far, only Christ has immortality–i.e. a never-dying body. All others who were resuscitated (such as Lazarus) died again. But Christ “having been raised from the dead, dies no more” (Rom. 6:9). In that He “has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep [in death]” (I Cor. 15:20).

Paul readily speaks of the Lord Jesus as Man–without any indication he sees this humanity as something past and done. “The grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many” (Rom. 5:15). “Since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead” (I Cor. 15:21). Peter likewise speaks of Christ as “a Man” (Acts 2:22).

As to His present ministry, Paul does not say the Mediator between God and man is a spirit, but rather “the Man Christ Jesus” (I Tim. 2:5). Christ’s resurrection body is a glorified body, as ours will one day be (Phil. 3:20-21; I Jn. 3:2), but it is no less a real human body. And it is in His glorified humanity that He will return for all to see. At His ascension, the angels said to the watching disciples, “This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven” (Acts 1:11; cf. Matt. 24:30).

There is a mind-boggling dimension to the resurrection of Christ and His present human body. It is that this has been part of God’s plan from eternity. The late theologian, Lewis Sperry Chafer comments as follows: “The humanity of Christ–His body, soul, and spirit–instantly became that which had been anticipated throughout all eternity, namely, perfect humanity glorified and exalted to the point that it was not only meet [fit] for heaven, but meet as well to be an integral part of the glorified theanthropic [God-Man] Person” (Systematic Theology, Vol. 5, pp. 244-245). That is, Christ’s glorified humanity is fully harmonious with the revelation of His glorious perfection as the Son of God, as we shall know Him forever in the heavenly kingdom.

Jephthah’s Vow

,

Question: Judges 11:30-31 records that “Jephthah made a vow to the Lord and said, ‘If you will indeed deliver the people of Ammon into my hands, then it will be that whatever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the people of Ammon, shall surely be the Lord’s, and I will offer it up as a burnt offering.'” So, what did Jephthah intend by his vow? And more importantly, how was the vow fulfilled?

Answer: Judges goes on to tell how the Lord gave Jephthah power over the Ammonites (vs. 32- 33). Then, he came home to keep his promise. Quite likely animals were kept in the house at night, or in the enclosed courtyard of the house–a frequent practice in ancient times. Jephthah expected he would see a goat or some other animal on his return. He must have had good reason to believe his daughter was elsewhere at this time. But he was wrong. When his daughter (his only child) came out to meet him, joyfully celebrating his victory, Jephthah was horrified. But he felt he could not go back on his vow (vs. 34-35). He believed there was no alternative to sacrificing his daughter!

So, what happened next? Did he offer up his own daughter as a burnt offering? Debate over this has continued since earliest times. Some say Jephthah merely committed his daughter to perpetual virginity, and perhaps to lifelong service at the tabernacle (cf. Lk. 2:37). However, this seems weak in view of his reaction (vs. 35-40), and in view of the annual four days of mourning by the women of Israel for his daughter! Martin Luther’s opinion was, “The text is too clear to admit of this interpretation.” (Cf. similar wording in Gen. 22:2.) Here are some points to keep in mind:

The Law did forbid human sacrifice (Lev. 18:21; 20:2-5). And Jephthah seems to have had some knowledge of the Pentateuch (Jud. 11:12-28). However, these were certainly not days characterized by consistent Law-keeping (Jud. 17:6; 21:25). This also weakens the argument that no priest would officiate at a human sacrifice. There was an option in the Law of the monetary redemption of people dedicated to God by a vow. But Jephthah may not have known that, or may have realized it did not apply in this case. (Nor is there any law or precedent commuting an execution to temple service.) The father grieved that he must do as he said (vs. 35)–which was clearly to offer “a burnt offering” (vs. 31).

Some suggest God would not have given the victory on the basis of such a vow. But there was nothing wrong with the vow per se, at least in terms of Jephthah’s intention. Others object that Israel would not have annually commemorated such a sin (vs. 40). But the custom was to remember the fate of Jephthah’s daughter, not the act itself. And this annual remembrance is rather an extreme measure for one who had simply gone to serve the Lord at the tabernacle. The focus on the girl’s virginity (vs. 37, 38, 39) is not conclusive either. Her early death would mean she died childless, and Jephthah’s family line would come to an end. That was a further tragedy.

Jephthah had a measure of faith in God (Heb. 11:32), and the Spirit of God worked through him (Jud. 11:29). But the same can be said for carnal Samson. These men lived in a crude and violent time, when the nation was in spiritual decline, and they often reflected that. Child sacrifice is wicked and repugnant. But it was practiced by the surrounding nations, and happened many times in Israel (II Kgs. 3:27; 16:3; 17:17; II Chron. 33:6; Jer. 7:31; 19:5; 32:35). Jephthah, the son of a harlot (vs. 1), lived as a renegade, with a band of “worthless men” (vs. 3, literally, sons of Belial, meaning Satan). He lived in a semi-pagan environment, in a time of lawlessness in Israel. This cruel adherence to a pledge suits the kind of “honour code” we might expect from bold and violent men.

Anywhere With Jesus

,

Question: Roger asks, “I lead the singing at our church in Troy, Kansas, and I’m having a problem finding the story behind the hymn: Anywhere With Jesus. Do you have it?”

Answer: Well, I can give you a bit of information about it. “Anywhere with Jesus” was first published in 1887. As printed in most hymn books today, it is actually the work of two people, having been revised about 30 years after the original was produced.

Jesse (Brown) Pounds (1861-1921) suffered from poor health as a child, and was educated at home. When she was 15, she began submitting articles and poems to Cleveland newspapers, and various religious publications. A few years later, an editor told her some of her verses would work well as hymns. That got her started, and she eventually went on to write over 400 gospel songs, as well as some cantatas and operettas. In 1896 she married a pastor named John Pounds.

Mrs. Pounds is responsible for the first two verses of the hymn as it is often printed now (likely including the refrain). They are: “Anywhere with Jesus I can safely go, / Anywhere He leads me in this world below; / Anywhere without Him dearest joys would fade; / Anywhere with Jesus I am not afraid. / Anywhere with Jesus I am not alone; / Other friends may fail me, He is still my own; / Though His hand may lead me over dreary ways, / Anywhere with Jesus is a house of praise.”

Then, around 1915, Helen (Cadbury) Alexander (1877-1969) added some verses of her own. Helen Cadbury, the daughter of a prominent British businessman (and heir to the Cadbury chocolate fortune), married Charles Alexander, the song leader for R. A Torrey in his evangelistic meetings. She traveled with the team and helped in the work, until her husband’s death in 1920. The verses added by Mrs. Alexander are:

“Anywhere with Jesus, over land and sea, / Telling souls in darkness of salvation free; / Ready as He summons me to go or stay, / Anywhere with Jesus when He points the way. / Anywhere with Jesus I can go to sleep, / When the dark’ning shadows round about me creep, / Knowing I shall waken nevermore to roam; / Anywhere with Jesus will be home, sweet home.”

The hymn became a favourite of the Christian Endeavour movement. A group of young people associated with them was in the practice of going to Sing Sing Penitentiary on Sunday afternoons, to lead a service for the prisoners. The hymn became a favourite there. Among the inmates were two men sentenced to death for a murder committed during the burglary of a house. During these weekly meetings, they heard the gospel and put their faith in Christ as Saviour. On their last day on earth, when the two were led to the place of execution, they confessed their sins, saying they deserved the punishment they were facing. But they each added they believed God had forgiven them, and through His grace they could go “anywhere with Jesus.”

Video Games – Should I Buy This One?

,

Question: Matt asks, “I wish to buy a computer game called [game name]. It is a castle simulation. I have the original version and wish to get the second. There are war parts, and I know God does not like that part. What do you think about me buying it?”

Answer: It’s not exactly a Bible question–which is what I usually deal with. But, of course, everything we do in life involves biblical principles. I’ll try to give some suggestions from that perspective. Realize I am not familiar with the specific computer game you mention. So my answer must relate to basic principles, leaving you to make the appropriate application. In any event, what I think about your actions is not as important as what God thinks.

It seems the fact “there are war parts” to the game already concerns you. That it deals with war does not, in itself, rule the game out. There also needs to be some consideration of how graphic it is. Chess is a war game too, with castles and knights, and so on. However it is light years away from the full colour blood and violence of some simulations today. The more graphic the game is–and it is the goal of programmers to make it so–the more caution we should use.

It is good you are being careful. I’ll tell you why. War is real, and it is terrible. It brings painful injury and death to many, as well as causing the destruction of valuable property. Loved ones grieve, and homes are devastated by the loss of family members.

Having said that, there are circumstances when war is just and necessary. In the Bible, God sometimes commanded war to punish wickedness and rebellion against Himself–especially when an opportunity had been given for repentance and there was none (cf. Deut. 25:17-19; I Sam. 15:18). In modern times, the Second World War became necessary because of Adolf Hitler’s determination to dominate more and more nations, and exterminate the Jews in the process. He had to be stopped. But even a just war must not be entered into carelessly.

The problem with a video or computer war game is that it can depict some aspects of such conflict, but we are always at arm’s length. We can sit comfortably in our chairs and watch people being dismembered and killed. But we feel none of the excruciating pain. There is none of the horror and stench of death. When we turn off the program, we can walk away unharmed. This has the potential for hardening us against the terrible cost of conflict. We can become less sensitive to the pain and suffering of those involved. But according to God’s Word, we are to “[have] compassion for one another; love as brothers, be tenderhearted” (I Pet. 3:8). This comes about as we are involved, not sitting on the sidelines as spectators (II Cor. 1:3-4; Heb. 10:32-34).

There is another potential danger as well, and it concerns the seductive nature of fantasy. It’s fun to pretend. But it can get out of hand. Joni Eareckson Tada tells, in one of her books, how she used to fantasize about being able to walk. It was exciting to imagine herself doing all kinds of wonderful things. But when the fantasy ended, there she was, still in her wheelchair. She says she finally had to discipline herself not to go on these daydream trips, because in the end they made her unhappy with the life God had given her. They changed nothing, in reality, and simply left her discontented.

Sometimes, there are painful and difficult things about our lives that we can change. Or things God will change, if we ask Him. But other times He has allowed these challenging aspects to remain, to help us not to be too proud, and to learn to depend on Him (cf. II Cor. 12:7-10). Instead of trying to escape the burdens of life, the Apostle Paul tells us, “I have learned in whatever state I am, to be content” (Phil. 4:11). In times of distress, he found the Lord had the resources he needed to carry on and do His will (vs. 13, 19).

In extreme cases, there can be a psychological addiction to gaming. That is, some have become addicted to these simulation games because they do not like themselves, or the life they have. Instead of looking to God for help, they try to escape into a fantasy world. Recently, while I was in a computer repair shop, a young man came in to ask if his computer was ready to take home. He was desperate to get back to playing a game he admitted sometimes playing for eight hours a day. That is a form of bondage.

The Bible says, “God…gives us richly all things to enjoy” I Tim. 6:17). In the context, it is talking about earthly riches. There are many fun things in life that are not wrong in themselves. And God wants us to enjoy them, within proper limits. One of those limits is that it not be something to which we become enslaved. Scripture puts it this way: “All things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any” (I Cor. 6:12). One test of this might be the amount of time spent doing the activity. Does it seem to be taking more and more time? And is it beginning to rob me of time needed for more worthwhile things?

Even if we are certain an activity does us no harm personally, our responsibility does not end there. What if we invite some friends over to play the game with us? Are we opening them up to a temptation they are not able to handle? God’s Word says, “Beware lest somehow this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to those who are weak” (Rom. 15:1-2; I Cor. 8:9). Long ago, Cain asked, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” (Gen. 4:9). And the answer is yes!

The Bible gives us general guidance in all areas of life, even when the specific thing (such as a computer game) was unknown in ancient times. On other occasions, the Lord uses parents, friends, or maybe a pastor, to give us direction. They are able to make a practical application of God’s Word to us today. One of the best things a young person living at home can do is consult with his or her parents. Your parents are the world’s greatest experts on you. They are in a position to know well both your strong points and your weak points. Their advice and suggestions are extremely valuable.

If you are uncertain about this particular game, maybe that in itself suggests the need for caution. Are there other alternatives? Games that are constructive and without questionable elements? Most games involve a competition against someone else (or of one team against another). But winning may not include killing them–or killing the fantasy characters on their side! There may be games that combine fun with a positive benefit. For example, word games that increase our vocabulary, or “trivial pursuit” type games that give us a wider knowledge of our world, or Bible games that build a knowledge of God’s Word.

Sometimes it is helpful to ask ourselves a few questions when we are considering whether or not to do something about which the Bible is not specific. Here are a few possibilities.

1) Based on what Scripture does reveal, can this be done with the Lord’s approval? Can I have peace with the thought that He is watching me do it?

2) Will those God has put in authority over me approve of my actions?

3) Have I taken into account the matter of God’s timing? (That it may be God’s will for me some time in the future, but not now.)

4) Will my participation be a help or hindrance to others?

5) Could this bring me into closer association with the wrong kind of companions?

6) Does it appeal to the flesh (my sin nature) at the expense of the spirit? Will it strengthen me spiritually? Or weaken me?

7) Is it habit forming? And will it rob me of important resources (time, talents, and treasures) God wants me to use some other way?

8) Since we reap what we sow, am I prepared to reap the consequences of my actions?

There are lots of tricky decisions to be made in modern life for which there are no specifics in the Bible. We have to apply the life principles found there. Sadly, some start out from the premise that they will try to get as close to the fire (a dangerous or doubtful thing) as they can, without getting burned. But if there is real danger, God wants us to stay as far away as possible, not play with fire. And when we commit ourselves to a higher standard, He has a special blessing for our lives that we could gain no other way.

I hope these few thoughts will provide some help. Not knowing the particular game, it is difficult to be more specific. (And even if I were familiar with it, what is okay for one person is sometimes too much of a temptation to another.) So, realize I am not saying “No, don’t get the game.” Think it through. Your concern is commendable. The Bible says, “Let each be fully convinced in his own mind….Each of us shall give account of himself to God” (Rom. 14:5, 12).

Load More