Results 101 - 120 of 253
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: Beja Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
101 | Are tatoos allowed? | Lev 19:28 | Beja | 228234 | ||
Magie, The only scripture that references it is Leveticus 19:28. Lev 19:28 'You shall not make any cuts in your body for the dead nor make any tattoo marks on yourselves: I am the LORD. Many believe that this command was oriented around the gentile practice of marking yourself in devotion to one of their gods. So it is very much debated as to whether this command was meant for us, or rather was part of the ceremonial distinctions of the time which Christ later did away with. It is a difficult call I suppose especially since the verse immediately follows a command that is certainly a ceremonial law done away with and yet precedes a ongoing moral point. Lev 19:27 'You shall not round off the side-growth of your heads nor harm the edges of your beard. Lev 19:28 'You shall not make any cuts in your body for the dead nor make any tattoo marks on yourselves: I am the LORD. Lev 19:29 'Do not profane your daughter by making her a harlot, so that the land will not fall to harlotry and the land become full of lewdness. For what my opinion is worth, I do not think a tattoo is inherently sinful. By this I mean some certainly are sinful, but this would be because of the nature of the tattoo. Such as if I had something blasphemous or sinful, such as a lustful picture of a naked woman, tattoed upon me. With regards to Christ having a tattoo they would almost certainly be referring to Revelation 19:16. Rev 19:16 And on His robe and on His thigh He has a name written, "KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS." To which John Gill gives an excellent explination. "This name, afterwards expressed, is said to be written on his vesture, in allusion to the custom of persons of note and eminence having their names interwoven in their garments, and which was sometimes done in letters of gold." Ultimately we ought to push beyond the simple question of is it permissable to the question of is it something I "ought" to do. In this we must ask if it will be a stumbling block to others; will it edify or disrupt the church of God? I would suggest it could very easily become a sin along those lines. 1Co 8:11 For through your knowledge he who is weak is ruined, the brother for whose sake Christ died. 1Co 8:12 And so, by sinning against the brethren and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. I say all this as a pastor who actually has a tattoo. Over a decade ago I decided to get a cross with a banner tattoo'd on me and the banner reads "Acts 20:24." I very much like the tattoo but now in retrospect I see it more as a mark of the ignorance I had at the time, an ignorance of what pleases God. I proceeded as if marking my body was how he'd be pleased for me to express my love for Him when doing His expressed will was how I had been told in His word to love Him. I hope this helps. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
102 | Does God approve of slavery? | Lev 25:44 | Beja | 232787 | ||
Dear Jenny, It has occured to me that perhaps instead of discussing slavery with those who have attempted to answer you, perhaps I should give you my own thoughts on God's view of slavery. I pray you excuse the length, but a simple answer probably wouldn't ease your mind even if it was accurate. First, you ask does God "approve" slavery. Now that is quite a hard phrasing to answer. You might perhaps mean does he think it is a good thing. I'm not sure how I would answer that. However, let's begin with that when we look to scripture, God "permits" slavery in Old Testament Israel. He gives multiple guidelines concerning it, but at the end of the day we must acknowledge that he does permit it. Now if I understand EdB correctly (I may not) the thrust of his arguement is that we must not take God's permitting slavery and import all the horrible ideas of slavery which we have seen outside the biblical picture of it. If that is his thrust then he is quite right. That is exactly how we must approach this. We admit that God permitted slavery and then we must make sure we understand the exact nature of the slavery which God permitted. If we do not carefully do that we will end up saying that God permitted horrible things such as murder, rape, maiming, and other attrocities that have gone hand in hand with wicked instances of slavery in history. However, as we begin to seperate these wicked things from the biblical picture of slavery we must be careful that we don't rule out some of the things which biblical slavery does permit. For example. I do think in scripture that there is a clear notion of owndership over the slave. I do think that Exodus 21:20 is getting at the idea of the slave being property. There is owndership that does actually seem to alter some of the slaves rights. What I mean is, a normal Israelite would have to be brought before a judge, an elder, a king, or something in order to be beaten. Why? Because no offended man had the right to simply assert himself as the judge, jury, and executioner of the one who offended him. It would be sin to simply say to another Israelite, "You have offended me and now I will punish you for it." With slaves we see a different picture. In Exodus 21:20,21 we see that there is no grounds to punish a master who has beaten his slave. I believe what we are seeing here is that there is a clear recognition that the master DOES have the right to be the judge, jury, and executioner over the slave. And it seems to me that verse 21 says that the grounds for his right to do so is that he is the authority over his slave based upon the fact that he owns the slave. Now, before anybody accuses me of something I don't affirm. We must acknowledge that scripture sets very specific limits on this. Should he even cause the slave to loose a tooth in disciplining him then the slave becomes a free man on account of it. This is in the same passage! Exodus 21:27. Other similiar statements are made. So we see it is simply permission to have his slave punished in a similiar way the elders would punish another Israelite. Not license for whatever cruel torture he desires. I would articulate it like this. "While biblical slavery acknowledges the ownership of the slave and affirms him as the property of the master, it constantly remembers that what is owned is a human being with a certain God-given dignity." As we protect the scriptural notion of slavery from wicked practices that has accompanied worldly slavery, we must still be carefull not to misrepresent it as something better than it actually was. I will address this further in a second post. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
103 | Does God approve of slavery? | Lev 25:44 | Beja | 232788 | ||
Dear Jenny, This is part two of my reply. I hope that all will read part 1 first. I would like to answer the natural question of, "Why would God permit slavery?" We have seen that he does permit it, but now I ask WHY. Now the most common answer I have heard regarding this is to point to the social function of slavery as ultimately something needed and good. What I mean is that the natural way in which one became a slave was extreme poverty. The slave was going to starve to death due to poverty and as a result the choice was between death and slavery. Slavery is surely a mercy compared with death. God's appointment of such a system provided people with an opportunity to live and one day be free again standing on their own two feet. I think we are right to say these things. I do not think it goes far enough in explaining the good intentions which God had with regards to slavery. Slavery served a gospel purpose. Almost everything in their culture was designed by God to prepare for and point to the gospel of Jesus Christ. The priesthood is one example. Through being very familiar with the priesthood, the jewish people were able to easily understand the notions of Christ coming and functioning as a priest to attone for their sins by sacrifice. Now I would argue that slavery also formed a similiar function. I believe that God allowed slavery not merely for some social good, but so that Israel could understand what it meant to be enslaved, to long for freedom, to emotionally and mentally grasp the notion of a redeemer, to long for the seventh year when they would be set free, and to look forward to the day of Jubilee when all captives would be set free from their bonds and receive an inheritance and a place in the people of God. These are gospel hopes! All of these things which could not have been taught so clearly without slavery, served to teach what was coming on a spiritual level. I think that is why God "permited" what he was ultimately going deliver from. For all things are from Him, and through Him, and for Him. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
104 | SEEMS CONTRADICTION IN NUM 20:21-22. | Numbers | Beja | 229820 | ||
donaldb, I do not know that I can answer perfectly to your satisfaction, but let me give you some pointers on reading the story as a whole, because it is wonderful. Read it from the perspective of the peopleof Israel concerning God's faithfulness to His people. The story begins with individuals plotting the destruction of God's people in secret with the people of Israel completely unaware, and therefore unable to defend themselves in any way from this threat. Scripture itself seems to take the threat seriously. The point of the story is God faithfully standing between harm and his people. What at the beginning of the story is a secret threat which could possibly destroy the people is through the corse of the story made into something so foolish it is being rebuked by a donkey and ultimately ends with God turning the entire event to a blessing being pronounced over his people by their enemies. Read the story with that in mind and see if it is not wonderful to you as you consider the faithfulness of God watching over the saints from threats we would never even suspect! In Christ, Beja |
||||||
105 | questions on Numbers 5 | Num 5:5 | Beja | 227017 | ||
Azure, I will not suggest that I've mastered all those passages. In fact, I am a bit hesitant to answer since I have spent so little time meditating on the texts you are asking about. But seeing as an answer to your question has been slow incoming I'll make a few points. First, you asked, "In V5, what does it mean by "commits any of the sins of mankind, acting unfaithfully against the LORD" If that sin was an act unfaithful against the Lord, then why that restitution be made to the one whom wronged? and why to the relative in V8?" We have to understand that there is a sense in which when we wrong man, the chief person offended is God. Pro 14:31 He who oppresses the poor taunts his Maker, But he who is gracious to the needy honors Him. So we see that after David was guilty of both murder and adultery he is still able to say in Psalm 51 Psa 51:4 Against You, You only, I have sinned And done what is evil in Your sight, So that You are justified when You speak And blameless when You judge. Now I do not believe for a moment that David truely thought he hadn't sinned against Bathsheba and her husband. But even when sinning against another person, there is a sense in which the most offended party is God. So we see a command that restitution is to be made to the people whom we wrong and God both. Should I steal from somebody, I can repay it to the man I stole from and bring reconciliation between us, but then I must still have reconcilliation between me and God. Which is found in Christ alone. Now concerning the relative. This is for clarification should the one sinned against be dead. In that case the restituion was to go to the nearest relative. And should that be lacking, it was to go to the LORD, but it had to be paid. All this is "besides the ram of attonement" which was to be the reconcilliation between the sinner and God (verse 8). Second, you ask how such a discussion fits within a section of scripture which is primarilly military. Now here is where I have not done due dilligence in digging through the context myself. I have of course read numbers, just not recently. However, let me ask a question. Do you suppose after the battle of Ai, when a man named Achan had defiled the people of Israel by sinning and the results of sin undealt with found its fruition in the people of Israel being defeated in battle, do you suppose that Israel saw an intimate connection between sin, restitution, cleansing and holiness, and victory in battle? I hope this has helped. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
106 | The Scripture | Deuteronomy | Beja | 232080 | ||
RondiaD, What initial thoughts/questions do you have when you prayerfully read it? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
107 | Searching for the truth | Deut 6:5 | Beja | 222468 | ||
FytRobert, The intended function of the human body, soul, and spirit is to, "love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might." (Deut 6:5.) You are entirely purposed for the glory of the Lord. "the body is not for immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord is for the body." (1 Cor 6:13.) Also, "you were bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body." (1 Cor 6:20.) All of your body, soul, mind, spirit, strength, will, whatever, is all for one function, the glory of God! Therefore, "whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God." (1 cor 10:31) This is for both now, and while you are in heaven. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
108 | Woman in pants | Deut 22:5 | Beja | 213659 | ||
Do you really think that in our current culture pants is a "man only attire" in the same way a dress is "women only?" The reason it is alright for women to wear pants is that its no more a "man only" article of clothing than shoes are, at least in our current culture. Women in pants is not cross dressing. Perhaps where you live its different. In Love, Beja |
||||||
109 | What are some good ways to meditate? | Josh 1:8 | Beja | 229904 | ||
IsmailaGodHasHeard, The most important thing to know with regards to meditating as a christian is that it is radically different than what many other religions/people mean by it. In other settings, meditating is referring to an attempt to empty your mind in order to acheive some sort of inner stillness. In Christianity, meditation is not about emptying your mind, but rather setting your mind on God, his word, and his works in order to ponder them and understand them better. So the essential for Christian meditation is the word of God. Read scripture than think about what you have read, what it means, what it calls you to, and how it applies to various situations in your life. That is Christiant meditation. Jos 1:8 "This book of the law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it; for then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have success. Psa 63:6 When I remember You on my bed, I meditate on You in the night watches, Psa 77:12 I will meditate on all Your work And muse on Your deeds. Psa 119:15 I will meditate on Your precepts And regard Your ways. Psa 119:27 Make me understand the way of Your precepts, So I will meditate on Your wonders. Psa 119:48 And I shall lift up my hands to Your commandments, Which I love; And I will meditate on Your statutes. Psa 119:148 My eyes anticipate the night watches, That I may meditate on Your word. Psa 145:5 On the glorious splendor of Your majesty And on Your wonderful works, I will meditate. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
110 | Called from Idolatry | Josh 24:2 | Beja | 225209 | ||
Nevermind, I found it. Joshua 24:2 | ||||||
111 | why five stones | 1 Samuel | Beja | 221219 | ||
Dear watchman, Clearly scripture does not answer this. So I take it that you are inviting friendly speculation. Let me share something with you that might help you think it through. Faith trusts in God for the deliverence. Presumption assumes it will be easy. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
112 | David's sons' priestly status | 2 Sam 8:18 | Beja | 243691 | ||
Azure, Very astute observation. Yes, there is a passage that might hint, but nowhere is this really answered for us. Yet I am persuaded the answer is evident in the larger story line of scripture. The answer: we see minor glimpses of God's anointed blurring the lines between the role of king and priest. In Matthew 12 Jesus is challenged concerning activity on the Sabbath. One of his line of reasonings involves David having a very strange right to eat the bread of the presence. This was something only priests could do. Then Jesus explains that somebody greater than David is present. Now unfortunately Jesus does nothing to explain why David has that authority, or even precisely what that authority is. But the line of logic DEPENDS upon David having that authority. So here, as well in a rare few other instances we see glimpses of a blurring between king and priest. In Zechariah 6 we see one of high priestly descent given a crown. In Genesis we see Adam portrayed as both a royal and priestly figure. Meaning we see the original role that God intended for his king was also a priestly role. And on it goes. Neither in Matthew, nor in regards to Davids sons does scripture ever explain this to us, nor does it explain why blurring these roles is routinely rejected and yet in a few instances God annoints somebody in such a way that the roles get blurred, regardless of how we might long for it to do so. It is one of several riddles that the Old Testament leaves us with. What we can be sure of is that this is pointing towards the same person all the Old testament was pointing to. We are seeing small glimpses that God's purpose for his messianic king will also involve a priestly role. This puzzling thread in scripture, for which we have no explanation, is pointing onward to the true messianic king whom is also our high priest as well, Jesus. I wish there were much more scripture to point to, but I hope this helps. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
113 | Man of God | 1 Kin 13:1 | Beja | 224570 | ||
Inquisitor, This really is a very puzzling passage isn't it! I will give you my best attempt at understanding it. I see it as a parrallel sign to the message he had just delivered to Jeroboam and Israel. Allow me to try to point out the parrallels. Both Israel and the man of God had clear instruction from God. Both had some other human claim that on behalf of God they now had contrary instructions. Both went against God's previous command at this human encouragement. One was killed by the lion, they other has wrath proclaimed against it. Let me show you this with Israel. The people of God had clear instructions that they were not to worship whereever they chose but rather to worship in the place God chose, Jerusalem. They were also told not to make any image. Jeroboam then told them that this was where they were to worship God. Keep in mind that these, in their mind, was not a new God. But rather a new site where they worshiped the same God. The bulls I don't think were meant to be a new God. Yet they violated the commands of God from the instruction and assurance of a human claiming to speak for God on this issue. Now here I believe is the point. If this man of God who was only trying to do what was commanded of him, for simply eating bread when he knew God had said otherwise, was killed by a lion as punishment from God, what then would be the fate of Israel for going against such great commands as God? Shall their claim that Jeroboam "told them to do it" hinder their judgement? Certainly not. So I think this man's life and death became further testimony against Israel. I can't say with complete certainty that I have this right, but I can't understand it any other way. I look forward to anybody else giving me their take on it. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
114 | Leviticus 26:29 | 2 Kin 6:29 | Beja | 221112 | ||
Dotanddro, This was a warning of what horrors would come upon Israel should they continue in disobedience to God. It was referring to the depraved actions that would happen while they were starved from armies laying siege to their cities. This actually did come to pass. See 2 kings 6:29 and Lamentations 4:10. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
115 | Job's suffering | Job | Beja | 230899 | ||
Atterbury, Why questions like this are extremely difficult to answer unless we are given a clear reason in scripture itself, and unfortunately in this case we are not. However, both the reasons you named are good suggestions. Let me give you two more thoughts however. In one sense Job was on trial, but in another sense it was God on trial. What Satan technically said was that Job would curse God if his "lush" situation changed, what was being accused on another level was that nobody would worship God with out a materialistic bribe to do so, God in fact was being accused of not worthy of worship otherwise. So on one level what took place was a public display of the wrong headedness of that notion. The second being that while what took place might have been to teach Job something, it was written and put in scripture not for Job, who was long dead when it was done, but in order to teach those who are alive, you and I. The book of Job was provided in the wisdom of God to teach us some very meaningful things about suffering, and it is best to be seen in that light. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
116 | Questions about being Saved | Ps 22:1 | Beja | 206566 | ||
Question 1: Most believe that God can not look upon sin and therefore had to turn His face from Christ while Christ carried our sin on the cross. As you have already mentioned there is no way we can comprehend what implications such a statement would have within the trinity. Combine that with the fact that this answer is nowhere found in scripture I have to personally reject this idea. Another less popular theory, which I think is correct, is that Christ was drawing upon the 22nd Psalm. What he cried out is the first line of Psalm 22. In doing so the point was to bring to mind the entirety of the Psalm. Psalm 22 begins in utter dispair over the apparent situation of God forsaking the Psalmist and ends in a triumpant cry of God's faithfulness. I believe the cry was meant to bring to mind the entire psalm including the ultimate assurance that even in this God is faithful and will deliver. We do this often actually when we state some short phrase of an inside joke and intend for the person to recall to mind the punch line and see how it applies to the current situation. We do this with a variety of things, a brief song lyric, a movie quote, etc. Christ was simply doing this with a Psalm. Question2: For time reason I can't currently give you the full picture to answer this. You are touching upon a very large topic. But here is a tiny bit to help with what you specifically asked. We were "chosen" before the foundation of the world. The actually saving was yet to be done. The payment at the cross and our receiving the gospel for salvation was yet to be completed. |
||||||
117 | Psalm Refers to Jesus Calming the Sea? | Ps 107:26 | Beja | 206602 | ||
Are the two connected? Absolutely. But let me respond with this question. Was it a prophecy that Jesus had to fulfill? Or was Jesus simply intentionally doing this to connect Himself to that psalm in the mind of His disciples in order to make a statement about who He was. Side note: Fulfillment of passages in the OT within the new is a tricky topic. Becaues so many instances such as the one you just brought up are obviously connected to the life of Christ or the early church, but we must never forget the passage had very real meaning in the time of the Old Testament also. A Jew reading this Psalm in the year 10 BC would not have been confused by it but certain it was a glorifying story of Yahweh delivering sailors in the midst of a storm. So we find ourselves with the situation that nobody probably ever suspected this to be a prophecy until the moment Jesus did what he did. So we must ask ourselves, was it one? Or did Jesus just decide to pain a picture with His actions in an attempt to essentially say, "I AM this God who calms the storms in Psalm 107." I leave you to decide. God bless |
||||||
118 | Why isn't it a capital His? | Ps 130:8 | Beja | 241107 | ||
Sharsmit, We are speaking about this verse, no? "And he will redeem Israel from all his iniquities." It would be safe to say that the "his iniquities" refers to the iniquities of Israel. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
119 | What end results come from Prov. 6:31? | Prov 6:31 | Beja | 224340 | ||
biblenovice, Why are you asking this question again when it has already spent a thread on it? Nevertheless I will answer. You are horribly missreading this passage. This is not a passage that promises that a man who steals will always unfailingly pay back what he owes. For you to interpret it like that is a very huge mistake. Let me help you see what the passage is truely saying. First, verses 20-35 is one complete passage addressing the subject of adultery. Read this as a full complete arguement. Verses 20 through 24 brings up and introduces what is being discussed. Verses 25 and 26 are instructions to avoid an adulteress. Verse 27 through 29 is the writer expressing that one who sleeps with the adultress will not be able to avoid punishment. Now in that context we finally come to verses 30 and 31. Here the writer is trying to make a point. His arguement goes like this: When we look at the law even when we see a poor person who though he has no malice, whom through his poverty he must finally choose to either starve or steal to survive, even such a person as this when he is found out must according to the law restore sevenfold. He is talking about the legal punishment, not a prophetic promise that it will come about! So he goes from this, that even somebody we can so very much sympathize with such as a starving man trying to feed his family must pay the consequences, how much more so will the fool who sleeps with another man's wife? And that is what we see in verses 32-35. It says the husband who was wronged will not stop from having his vengeance. So the point of this passage is NOT to say that you will one day get your money back. The point is that if a theif forced into crime from starvation will be punished, how much more an adulter who wrongs another man by sleeping with his wife! Something that there can never be a sympathetic reason for doing. So in conclusion, you are missreading scripture. Scripture does not promise you that you will be getting your money back. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
120 | Isaiah 2:6-22 | Is 2:1 | Beja | 224712 | ||
katiesmile, Katie, this question has been asked very many times in the last couple weeks. Using the search feature will allow you to see the responses that have been given. However, I think you'd find it even simpler to read the verses in question. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ] Next > Last [13] >> |