Cherry Creek Presbyterian Church

Deuteronomy

What about those passages when God orders the Israelites to do things that we would consider atrocities today, such as wiping out all of the people, including women and children, in areas that they conquer, and stoning people for their sins.  How do we address people today who would dismiss the entire Bible because of these types of commands by God?
Will you please explain how a loving God can give people laws that are practically impossible to follow in order to have a relationship with Him.  It seems like a set up.
So what's the deal with the command not to cook a goat in its mother's milk? I don't get it. 
Does the Old Testament command to give a tithe (10%), still apply to our times since there is no mention of this in the New Testament?

Joshua

What happens to those "put to the sword" in the OT by Joshua and others?  Specifically, the children, who are certainly blameless of the 400 years of sin practiced by their fathers.  Do these innocents go to heaven?  And, if so, how does this apparent salvation differ from that introduced by Christ?  Where in the OT does it show that these innocents are saved after death?  

Judges

What is special about left handedness?
Does the Lord accept the sacrifice of Jephtah?  Why would God accept the sacrifice of a child when he condemns this practice when nations other that Israel do it?

2 Kings

In 2 Kings 22:8, the Book of the Law was "found,"and in 23:21, the king ordered all the people to celebrate the Passover.  How long did they go without the written law and celebrating the Passover?

Job

When God speaks at the end of Job, he doesn't seem to answer Job's questions directly or explain why he was chastising Job's friends.  What's with that?

Isaiah

Is 65:17-25- The title is "New Heavens and New Earth"  This distant time affects us too, right, and not just for Jews living back then?  If so, why is death referenced as a part of it v. 20? 

Gospels

Is there no time of the bible from Malachi (430 BC) to Matthew - Who or what was happening in those days?

What/who does Matt. 8:12 refer to?

I don't understand Luke 14:26. Doesn't this contradict "loving your neighbor"?

Pauline Epistles

Do we still have prophets today? What about the spiritual gift of prophesying? Can people have the gift of prophesy and not be prophets?

What is with Paul and his restrictions on women in the church? If we dismiss these as relevant primarily to that culture and not now, how do we make similar differentiations elsewhere in the Bible, especially the New Testament?

General Bible

Why should I read the Bible?

For starters, because it is the most famous book in the world.   It is utterly unique.  It was the first book to be printed.  It is the perennial best seller.  It is more quoted, more read, more considered than any other book in the world.

Then add to this the fact that it has had a unique role in shaping our culture and the West.  You can't understand our culture without knowing the Bible.   You can't even completely understand a president's inaugural address without reading the Bible.  Because, besides taking an oath with their hand on the Bible,  their addresses often allude to Scripture, and President Obama's was no exception.

Besides this remember that Christians and Jews are People of the Book.  We are a people who gain our identity from the Scriptures.   That is why we read it, study it, meditate on it, memorize it and teach from it in our worship services.

If you are not a Christian, one reason to read it is so that you become an educated person.

A whole generation of Americans were raised on three books-the Bible, a dictionary and a hymnbook.   So at least learn your heritage and figure out what you do believe and what you don't believe.

If you are a Christian, then you will approach the Bible as Holy Scripture.  It is the Holy Bible because it is God's book.   Christians have long believed that the Bible is the Word of God.  He has spoken through creation and conscience.   But he speaks most clearly through this book, and this book then leads to the living word, Jesus Christ.

How does the Bible fit together?

The Bible is not simply a book, but a library.  It is a sacred library.  It is composed of two basic sections (testaments or covenants).

-Old Testament: Written mostly in Hebrew.  Contains 39 books.  Redemption foretold.  Contains the Pentateuch (first 5 books) the Law.   Historical books, Wisdom Literature & Prophets.

-New Testament: Written mostly in Greek.  Contains 27 books.  Redemption accomplished in Jesus.  Contains Gospels (life of Christ); Acts (Church established); Epistles (Apostolic letters); The Revelation.

There is great diversity in the Bible (written over 1600 years by 40 different authors, from various ways of life, in different places).  Yet there is a stunning unity to the Bible.  Its 66 books give a unified picture of God's redemptive plan and purpose in Christ.    Its story line extends from creation to fall to the promise of redemption, to Christ's first coming to die for the sins of the world, and his second coming to create a new heavens and earth.  The great theme of the Bible is "salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Timothy 3.15).

Is there development in the Bible?

Yes, it is revelation of God; a gradual unfolding of His plan and nature.  He does not reveal everything to us all at once.  We couldn't handle it.   Instead, God meets people where they are, accommodates to us so we can understand, and reveals who he is and what we need to know to find salvation.  God's revelation in the Old Testament points to his supreme revelation in his son, the Christ.   But in the entire book there is the continuity of one redemption story to a broken world.  The development in the Bible is rather like an acorn growing into oak tree.

The New Testament writers believe they are seeing the fulfillment and culmination of things that were promised from the beginning.  They do not see themselves as fundamentally altering things.

What is a chronological list of the books of the Bible?

Because different books in the Bible cover large portions of time, the books are often split in chronological Bibles to give readers the best chronology possible.  For a good example of this, go here. 

Old Testament- General

What books will help me better understand the Old Testament?

-Tremper Longman III, Making Sense of the Old Testament:  Three Crucial Questions

Grand Rapids:  Baker, 1998

The three questions are:  What are the keys to understanding the Old Testament, Is the God of the Old Testament also the God of the New Testament? And How is the Christian to Apply the Old Testament to Life?

-Peter Kreeft, You Can understand the Old Testament:, Ann Arbor, Michigan: Servant,  1990

A great overview of each section and book in the Old Testament

-William Dyrness, Themes in Old Testament Theology, Downer's Grove:  InterVarsity, 1979

A helpful look at themes, such as the self-revelation of God, the nature of God, creation

And providence, sin, covenant, law, worship, ethics, wisdomand hope.

-A good study Bible helps as well.   The Quest Study Bible, The Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible, The Life Application Study Bible are all helpful.

-Bill T. Arnold and Bryan E. Beyer, Encountering the Old Testament, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999

A user friendly college and seminary text surveying the entire Old Testament.

What are some of the keys to understanding the Old Testament?

A. Why study the Old Testament?

Because of its gripping stories, great poems, and powerful images of God. Because of its guidance for life. Because it is background for understanding the New Testament. Because it is part of God's story of redemption. Because it was the Bible of Jesus. Because it is Holy Scripture, and all Scripture is God-breathed and useful (2 Tim. 3.16).

B. What are some of the challenges to understanding the Old Testament? Its length, its diversity, its antiquity, and its cultural distance.

C. What are some important principles for interpreting the Old Testament?

1) Identify the genre of book and interpret it accordingly

2) Discover the author's intended meaning

3) Read a passage in context (there are levels of context:  paragraph, section, book, testament, canon),

4) Consider the text's historical and cultural backgrounds

5) Understand the grammar and structure within the passage

6) Consider how the passage relates to the larger story of the Bible and how it points to the fulfillment of God's promise in Christ.

7) Interpret experiences in light of Scripture, not Scripture in light of experiences-always seek the full counsel of Scripture,

8) Listen to the voice of the Holy Spirit as he speaks through Scripture

9) Consider the voice of other Christians (the witness of the church) as it has to understand Scripture

10) Pray as you read and ask God to speak to you through the Bible

Is the God of the Old Testament the same God of the New Testament?  Sometimes they seem so different?

Yes.  It is the same God.  A Christian can't pit them against each other, or take the New Testament instead of the Old.  Why?  Because Jesus didn't.   He treated what we call The Old Testament as Scripture. The God of the Old Testament is the Lord God of Israel, Yahweh, the covenant king, the divine warrior and Immanuel.   That is who the Lord of the New Testament is as well.  These themes are in both testaments.

What is the relationship between the OT and the NT?

They are both part of God's unfolding revelation to humanity.  Part of a series of covenants. They are related together in numerous ways: as Old Covenant and New Covenant, as continuity and discontinuity, as prophecy and fulfillment in Christ,  as type and anti-type, as mission of redemption announced and mission of redemption accomplished, as law and gospel.

Luther once said that the Old Testament shouts "he is coming" while the New Testament shouts "he is here."   In this sense, he said, the Bible is the cradle of Christ, who is found at the center.  The theme that ties the testaments together is salvation by grace through faith in Christ.  Old Testament faith was directed forward to the promised future Redeemer, New Testament faith was directed backward reflecting on the redemptive work of Christ.

How is the Christian to apply the Old Testament to life?  Which laws apply and which do not?

It is obvious that there are all kinds of laws in the Bible.  Which ones directly apply to us?   I've heard some Christians say that almost nothing applies and take a position of extreme discontinuity.   I've heard other Christians propose that almost everything applies-a position of extreme continuity.

Our own view is that some apply and some do not.  Theologians have sometimes helpfully categorized Old Testament law in three ways:  moral, civil and ceremonial laws.

The moral law focuses on those core principles for a right relationship with God and with others and are embodied in the ten commandments.   The civil laws are those laws that regulated the life of Israel as a nation chosen by God to be his special people.   The ceremonial laws define how Israel to worship God.   All of these laws are relevant to Christians, but not all directly apply.  For example, the civil laws were for a nation.  The church is not a nation.   But we can see God's goodness in giving a law to a people who previously had not been a nation to lead them in a new way.   The ceremonial laws were preparatory to the coming of Christ.  But the book of Hebrews tells us, Christ is the fulfillment of this sacrificial system.   Those ceremonial laws were a shadow of the good things to come fulfilled in his one all sufficient sacrifice on the cross.   We can learn much from these ceremonial laws, but we no longer make sacrifices in a church and no longer need an alter.   Instead, we have a communion table, a table of remembrance which recalls the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.

But the moral law, the ten commandments still directly apply to us.  They not only reflect God's character, but they are all repeated in the New Testament.

When was the Old Testament finished?

The last book of the Old Testament-Malachi-was written in 435 BC.   After that point, Jewish authorities believed that divinely authorative words form God had ceased.   This was underscored by the Synod of Jamnia in 70 AD.   Jesus and the apostles never disputed the completion of the Old Testament Canon.   Nevertheless, he treated his own words as equal to the Hebrew Scriptures and authorized his apostles to speak in his name with his authority-hence the New Testament.

What about the Apocrapha?

The Apocrapha are a set of 13-14 books written between the 3^rd and the 1^st century BC.  They include Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, the Wisdom of Solomon, Judith, 1 Estras, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Baruch, etc.  They reflect Jewish tradition and history after Malachi.  They were never accepted by the Jews as Scripture.  While the New Testament knows of their existence, they are never referred to or alluded to as Scripture.  They were not included in the earliest Christian list of the Old Testament books.  Protestants recognized these books as helpful books, but not scriptural books, hence you will not find them in most protestant Bibles.  These books were never officially added to the Bible until 1546 when the Roman Catholic Church added them to their Bible at the Council of Trent.

Why does God sometimes destroy some people over sin with no second chance and other times He gives forgiveness/many chances over and over again?

This is a very appropriate question, given the readings and what they expose about the actions of God in relation to sin.  Ultimately, the question is hard to answer precisely because it seeks to penetrate the hidden will of God, veiled to us.  The question here seems to indicate: "Is that fair?"

While the Bible is unclear about why God punishes with immediate action in some instances while graciously tarries in others, what IS clear is that God, because of His holiness, cannot stand sin.  He MUST deal with it.  In that light, God is supremely fair and just in every and any instance He chooses to punish and deal with sin, whether it is immediate or delayed.  The question of fairness, then, is moot.  If anything, it is quite unfair that God chooses to NOT blow us all off the face of the earth right now!

We must also keep in mind the nature of forgiveness.  Some think that Divine forgiveness is like God dropping the charges and choosing not to punish.   This would not square with God's holiness and justice.  Divine forgiveness ALWAYS punishes sin, in any and every instance.  The grace of God comes in, not in whether God does or does not punish, but in where He chooses to place that punishment.  For the faith-filled Christian, we know that God's punishment of our sin has been executed upon Jesus.

Ultimately, then, the answer (which is admittedly not easy to swallow) to the question is that God will punish all sin, and it's His prerogative as God to choose when and where that punishment will happen.  Yet because of all considered above, such choices by God are thoroughly just and fair.   That's as far as we can go.  Many of the inner-workings and "Why's" of God's mind and choices are closed off to our understanding...sometimes frustratingly so.  Yet we can still trust the Scriptures which do clearly reveal that God is wholly good, perfectly just, merciful, slow to anger, and abounding in loving-kindness.  As with many questions whose ultimate answer is "mystery," our response to God is to bow on our faces, saying, "God, I don't understand, but Your ways are higher than mine...and so I worship You."  Deep questions like these ultimately lead us back to worship.

Does God cause evil spirits (Saul, King Pharoah) or does God remove his presence?

Given the above two choices, I would say that God removes His presence; however, it might help to think it through in a little different way.  My guess is that this refers to 1 Samuel 18:10 ("... an evil spirit from God came forcefully upon Saul ...") or a similar passage.  It seems best to me to see this in the context of "progressive revelation" (i.e., God reveals true things to His people, but does so at a time and in a way that they are able to connect with their understanding of reality). The people of Israel at this time often spoke from the perspective that God is sovereign in everything and nothing, including things that we would regard as evil, happens apart from God.  We would agree, but only in the sense that nothing exists or can exist apart from God.  Thus, even though there is not a direct cause and effect relationship between God, apart from Whom no "cause" (good or evil) can exist, and the "effect" of Saul being influenced by an evil spirit; because the evil spirit, along with everything else in the created world, couldn't exist apart from God and, in that sense, is "from" God, the evil spirit, like everything else is "from" God. They often spoke as if there were a direct cause and effect relationship between God (cause) and whatever happens(effect), good or bad.  They may have, in fact, believed this to be true and the Scripture may reflect their belief that this is true even though we, from the perspective of the New Testament, know, as James wrote (James 1:13,14):  "When tempted, no one should say, 'God is tempting me.'  For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He tempt anyone; but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed."   Saul's was a problem largely of his own making.  By treating this in this way, we "let Scripture interpret Scripture" and, specifically, we let a clearer, fuller revelation interpret a less clear, less full revelation.

A picturesque illustration of this is in Job 1.  There Satan goes out from the presence of God to wreak havoc on Job's life (an evil spirit "from" God).  God does not initiate this in any way, but permits a created, fallen being to do so while restricting the amount of damage that can be done and using even this evil for Job's ultimate blessing and good.  It truly is not God wreaking havoc, though for most of the book of Job, Job believes that it is God doing the damage.  His was a fairly typical Old Testament understanding of the sovereignty of God, an understanding that was true in one sense, but incomplete and in need of a fuller revelation.

When did God get tired of people having more than one wife?

Going back to the story of Moses, God came to the people of Israel in a particular historical and cultural context.  The world of that day regularly practiced polygamy and slavery and the destruction of enemies without mercy.  Each of these practices played a culturally relevant role in protecting and preserving a tribe or people in a brutal and dangerous world.  They were a people steeped in the world of their day.  Much like Martin Luther was steeped in the world of his day.  He wrote and said many things that we would readily see as gross anti-Semitism today.  Also like Charles Hodge, an eminent Presbyterian theologian, who defended the practice of slavery in the American South on the basis of an understanding of the Scriptures that we reject today.  Not only is there "progressive revelation,"  but there is "development of doctrine" (consider a clear understanding that righteousness is "behavior based" in the Mosaic law ... Paul explained as much in his letter to the church in Rome and elsewhere ... with the development of a clear understanding that righteousness is by faith in the NT).  Along with this development of doctrine, there is a consequent development of morality.  David had several wives and was still considered "a man after God's own heart."  If I marry another wife while still married to my wife, I would be rightly considered an immoral man.   Did God change?  No, but our understanding of what is moral and what is immoral did.  Did God's commandment not to commit adultery change?  No it didn't, but our understanding of what constitutes adultery did.  Are any of the Ten Commandments made irrelevant because our culture has changed?  Absolutely not, but our understanding of what constitutes idolatry, adultery and murder has changed.  For us today, slavery is, in fact, immoral as is polygamy and the destruction of whole populations without mercy.  The fact that the Scriptures depict these situations in their historical context is no justification for seeing them as institutions or practices that are somehow validated for all time.  The seeds of the destruction of each of these practices are clearly there in the Sermon on the Mount and, to the careful reader, long before that in the OT as well.

Killing innocent babies, wiping out whole nations - is God really just and fair?  Or is this stuff just a myth?

This has happened many times in recent history so it is unlikely that it is a myth.  The following historical examples are not to make any kind of statement of moral equivalence between the examples, but the genocides in Cambodia, Rwanda and elsewhere, the dropping of the atom bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, the fire bombing of Dresden and other cities are examples of modern instances of the intentional wiping out of everyone ... men, women children and, in some cases, animals.

The Old Testament clearly and brutally depicts the norm for conquest in ancient, primitive cultures.  It also clearly indicates that God's over-arching plan and purpose was to "bless all nations" through the unfolding of the covenant that He made first with Abraham.  This was to be done first by calling, preserving and protecting (saving and redeeming) Abraham and his descendants, then providing a Savior (Jesus Christ) for all the world from the descendants of Abraham and then to effect this salvation by the proclamation and spread of the Gospel of reconciliation throughout the world by the followers of Christ.

How can we ever understand Joshua's actions?  The world that Joshua lived in was a very dangerous one.  The people of Israel knew from experience that their enemies were brutal and merciless.  Moses knew and Joshua knew firsthand that there were dangerous enemies within and dangerous enemies without.  They knew, to use a modern metaphor, that "cancer" within the people of Israel or "cancer" in the land that God gave them were capable of destroying God's people and the fulfillment of God's covenant promise to Abraham.  An illustration from our recent past might be in order.  Not so many years ago, a usual medical solution for breast cancer was a radical mastectomy.  With better understanding of the disease, better diagnostics and more focused treatments, a medical solution for breast cancer today is often far less radical and as effective or more effective.  A doctor that did a radical mastectomy 40 years ago would have been praised and highly regarded for saving a patient.  The same doctor doing the same treatment today, were it possible to treat the condition with a more focused, less radical treatment, would be considered negligent and evil for not following a course of action that he or she should now have known to do.  The same action that was praiseworthy 40 years ago is worthy of condemnation today.  Joshua knew only radical mastectomy.  We know better.

God is just.  The Scriptures proclaim this from first to last.  Though fairness and justice are not the same thing, the seeds of a fairness that is right and good are certainly contained in the revelation of God's justice.  God has never changed in this, but His people have grown in their understanding of what this means and what this requires. For a further discussion on the fairness of God, see the question a few above this one.

In sum, then, these stories are not myth.  We believe that the Bible records historical fact in its original documents.  We believe the Bible is truthful in all that it affirms.

Genesis

Did God create other males and females before Adam and Eve (Gen. 1:26-28)?

There are two creation stories in Genesis (1:1-2:3 and 2:4-2:25), but they do not act in a linear fashion.  Rather, the first story is more of a "bird's eye view" focusing on the creation of everything the second story is a more "zoomed in" version about the creation of humans which was only a part of the first story.

Leviticus

• Why all the extreme purity laws?

As God's covenant nation, Israel was called to be a chosen people, a royal priest hood and  a holy nation.  Many of these laws reflect this calling.  Consequently, these laws help Israel to show another level of purity and to preserve its soul in order to be a light to the nations (Gen. 12:1-3).  They would keep Israel distinct.

Why was there a need for blood sacrifice?

Without a sacrifice, without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sins (Hebrews 9.22).  These are terms God laid down long ago.  To atone, (and sinful people need atonement-to be reconciled to God) a price must be made, a life must be given, a death is required.  But God in his grace allowed that a substitute could be given in the place of the one who deserved to pay.  In the Old Testament, an animal without blemish could be slain, as a temporary provision for forgiveness.  The lamb of sacrifice died in the sinner's place.  The blood of the Passover lamb brought salvation from judgment.   Nevertheless, these sacrifices were a temporary provision and look forward to the one all-sufficient sacrifice of Jesus-the spotless lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.  The Old covenant was sealed in animal blood.  The new covenant was sealed in the blood of Jesus which he shed on the cross.

What of God's anger; sometimes he seems awfully mad?

The Bible word for God's anger is wrath.   The difference between his anger and ours is that it is not characterized by impulsive, irrational outbursts.   Rather it is a righteous and just anger.  It is his settled response to evil and what is opposed to his holy nature.   He hates evil.

It is important to remember that there is an immoral anger.  But there is also a moral anger.  The alternative to wrath is not love, (for the God of wrath is also a God of love), but neutrality in moral conflict.   And God is not neutral.

His wrath is expressed in different ways.   His present wrath (sometimes called consequential wrath) is seen in our moral sowing and reaping.    There is also the wrath of abandonment when he lets people follow in the rebellion they have chosen, and removes restraints.  There is the final day of wrath for those who war against him.    There is his eternal wrath with is hell.

Isn't the Old Testament penal code harsh?  How do we explain this to non-Christians?

First, from a Biblical point of view we have to remind them of the holiness of God and the seriousness of sin.  Second, we have to remind them of the reality of judgment.  God is the just judge of a moral universe.   His judgment is very real.  We often ignore his justice, his judgment and his wrath and tend to "soften" the Biblical picture of God.  The Old and New Testaments do not.

From the vantage point of the early New Testament, the Old Testament code of justice may look harsh.  But from the vantage point of the Book of Revelation, it appears less so.   There, final justice and judgment balance out the earlier part.

Third, we forget the reality of God's patience.   When God revealed himself to Moses on Mount Sinai and proclaimed his name, he said "The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and  faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin."  But then God adds, "Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished." (Exodus 34.6ff).

In light of the curse of Genesis, and what other nations were doing at the time, the Old Testament penal code was quite merciful.  Remember, all sin is a capital offense.  Every sin is an act of cosmic treason.  It violates God's rule, insults his glory and perfection.  We may treat sin lightly, but God does not.

Why do you think God is so intentional with the smallest detail when building the tabernacle and with its care by the Levites?

He wanted us to approach him on his terms, not our terms.   Because he is a holy God, we can't just come flippantly into his holy presence or we will not survive.  So God draws near to us and shows us how we can approach him.

The tabernacle is a holy place.  Strange fires and alters are not permitted.   Israel cannot approach God as the nations do.   God calls them to make a complete worship break from their past.  No more worship of idols, or the sun, the moon and the stars.   Now we must worship him on his terms.

Besides this, the very structure and design of the tabernacle was to teach Israel about himself.

There are a series of courts which one enters.   In the center is the holy of holies.  Before coming near the priest must be washed.     The sacrifice of a spotless lamb must be offered.

The tabernacle teaches us lots of other things as well.  It reminds us that God is holy.  That sin separates us from God.   The ark of the covenant there reminds us of his power and his great works in the past.   The incense teaches us about prayer.

Regarding the animal sacrifices, when did that stop or does it still occur for the Jewish faith?

No, they do not occur any more.   This practice came to an end with the destruction of the temple when it was destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD.

Numbers

I'm intrigued by the prophet Balaam.  What do Bible scholars say about who he was?  Does God's communication to him say anything about God's interactions with non-believers?

This event in Numbers 22 took place in Moab.  Balak was the king of Moab.  Balaam may have been a pagan priest or fortune teller from that region.  Powerful kings paid lots of money for the services of such men.   Here Balak wants Balaam to curse Israel.   Balaam may have had a reputation for evil in pronouncing curses on people.  But as he looked to the future, God spoke to him (and probably startled him) and told him not to curse Israel.  The episode reminds us that the sovereign Lord can reveal himself through dreams and visions.   The magi who came to Bethlehem from the East, also seemed to have discovered the God of Israel in their seeking as well.

Why was God so upset with Moses in regard to the incident of getting water from the rock?

In Numbers 20 we read about the people gathering while traveling through the desert of Zin and complained to Moses and Aaron.  They were now thirsty and wanted water.  When Moses sought the Lord, God told him to stand before the people and speak to the rock before them, and that he would bring water out of the rock to quench their thirst.

Moses seems to be quite fed up with the people and instead goes into a tirade and strikes the rock twice.  The water came out, but God chastised him for his disobedience and disrespect.

He says "you did not trust me enough to honor me as holy."   As a consequence, he was not allowed to enter the land.  The incident demonstrates that even a great leader is subject to God's law and has to deal with the consequences of disobedience.  This was a powerful reminder to the people.   Besides that, God would raise up new leaders for a new chapter in Israel's history.

Deuteronomy

What about those passages when God orders the Israelites to do things that we would consider atrocities today, such as wiping out all of the people, including women and children, in areas that they conquer, and stoning people for their sins.  How do we address people today who would dismiss the entire Bible because of these types of commands by God?

Besides what was said immediately above, remember that only certain cities were targeted for such destruction and not the entire land, nor outside lands.  These certain cities were set aside for destruction because they violently and steadfastly impeded or opposed his work over a long period of time (how is that different from final judgment?).   God waited for centuries while they filled their own cups of condemnation by sinful behavior.  Recall Genesis 15.13-16-"the sin of the Amorites (Canaanites) has not yet reached its full measure."  But when it had, judgment came upon them and they were destroyed and God gave the land to Israel.   Scripture uses the language that the land "vomited them out."  Why?  The Bible explanation is because of their detestable practices.   What were they?  Leviticus 18.21-20 explains some reasons.  The commonly practiced child sacrifice, sorcery, and witchcraft.  There was sexual perversion of all kinds and the wasting diseases that came with it.  There was also sacred male and female prostitution in their worship.   All this plus resolved defiance against the Lord.

Will you please explain how a loving God can give people laws that are practically impossible to follow in order to have a relationship with Him.  It seems like a set up.

If you are thinking of the Ten Commandments, we must begin by thinking of them as a gift.  They are to help us live life wisely.    In one respect we can keep them.  We can maintain a Sabbath.  A business like Chick-Fil-A does.   When we ignore the Sabbath command and go 24/7 all the time we eventually crash.   We can honor our father and mother, and when we do, blessing comes back to us.

On the other hand, we cannot keep them perfectly, and sometimes we break them.   So, because we can't keep them, should we throw them out?   That would be insanity.  It would be to give in to coveting and murder and deceit.

There is a built in tension here which points us to the different purposes for which God gave us his moral law.    First, they are meant to show us God's way and reflect his character.   Second, they are there to restrain sin.  They act as a guard rail for a society which heeds them. Just as a guard rail keeps a car on a mountain road, so these commands can keep a society from "falling off the rails."   Third, these commands show us the condition of our heart.  As such they act as a mirror reflecting our own sinfulness.  We can't keep them perfectly.  Sometimes we use these commandments as a prompter to confession.  As Luther said, they tend to shatter our self-righteousness like a hammer.   But fourth, they then drive us to Christ.

The commandments can't save or justify us before God.   When we see we can't keep them perfectly, rather than throw them out, we should let them drive us to Christ the righteous one where we find grace for sinners through his cross.   Finally, once we come to Christ, the commands still play a role in our lives by showing us how to love God and how to love our neighbor.  They show us the path of righteousness.

So what's the deal with the command not to cook a goat in its mother's milk? I don't get it.

That comes from Deuteronomy 14:21.   It is part of the ceremonial laws of Israel.   Why was this law, and laws like it given?  Some of them were given for health reasons to preserve Israel.  Others were given for religious reasons.  Israel was not to do a certain thing or eat a certain thing because it was what the surrounding Canaanite culture practiced.   Israel belonged to the Lord and were to be different.  This particular practice of cooking a goat in its mother's milk was a Canaanite custom.  It was one of many laws to distinguish Israel from the surrounding peoples.   In all these laws, the wider point is that Israel is to submit the details of its daily life to God.

Does the Old Testament command to give a tithe (10%), still apply to our times since there is no mention of this in the New Testament?

A tithe is a tenth.  It involves giving a tenth to God.   There were several kinds of tithes in the Old Testament.   It was given as a reminder of God's ownership of all that we have.  It was given to invest in God's work.  It was given as a declaration of trust in God-that they really did rely on him.  It was given to break the power of money. Do these things still apply to Christians?  Many of them do.

Christians disagree on whether we are to tithe or not.  But those who say we are not to tithe, add that since we are not under law, but under grace, we should go beyond a tithe.

I (Don Sweeting) personally believe that Jesus reaffirmed the practice of tithing in Matthew 23.23ff.  Paul's focus seems to be that we should not give under compulsion, but willingly and cheerfully. Randy Alcorn, a current Christian writer refers to the tithe as "the training wheels of giving."

Should a Christian tithe?  I think that Christians should be the most generous people on earth. The more they follow Jesus they will go significantly beyond the tithe.   But if you are not tithing, work toward a tithe.   We need to as desperately as Israel did.   But when you tithe, don't stop there.   As God prospers you, add offerings to your tithe.

Our practice as a family is to give a tithe every time we get a pay check to our church.  That is the place that ministers to us, cares for us and feeds us God's Word.  We generally give offerings to other ministries.   In seasons when the church asks for an extra pledge, we pray about giving beyond our tithe to our church.

Joshua

What happens to those "put to the sword" in the OT by Joshua and others?  Specifically, the children, who are certainly blameless of the 400 years of sin practiced by their fathers.  Do these innocents go to heaven?  And, if so, how does this apparent salvation differ from that introduced by Christ?  Where in the OT does it show that these innocents are saved after death?

I think two principles must be balanced here that we affirm in our faith as a whole.  The first principle is this: all have sinned.  Every individual is guilty of God's moral law.  Chapters 1-3 of Romans affirms this as do our statements of faith such as the Westminster Confession of Faith.  This means that even infants are not blameless.  That may be a hard truth, but it is truth nonetheless.  But I think it must be balanced or tempered with another truth.  God is good and righteous and ultimately just, and we can suppose that he ultimately deals with infants in a way that ultimately is good and just. 

As far as a direct response to these questions, there's not the same sense of "salvation" or being "saved" in the OT that there is in the NT.  There's a development of the afterlife throughout the OT and between the Testaments that becomes full in the NT.  There is no clear place in the OT or the NT that innocents are saved after death, but there is a long history of accepting "the age of accountability" in some of Christian theology.  This asserts that until children become of an age that they can understand and respond to the gospel, God does not hold them accountable. 

Judges

What is special about left handedness?

A special thing about it is that it is simply unusual.  The obvious fact is that a minority of people are left-handed.  In the case of Ehud (Judges 3:12ff), he could strap a sword a sword to his right thigh (a guard looking for someone carrying a weapon under his clothes would expect it to be on the left thigh of a right-handed man, which most men were) and thus was able to smuggle it into the presence of Eglon the Moabite king and kill him.  However, there is a cultural/sanitary issue as well.  Being left-handed in a culture where there are excellent sanitary practices is no big deal, but In middle Eastern cultures, certain things weren't done with the left hand (like eat or shake hands) because the left hand was/is used for cleaning oneself after defecating.  To do stuff that you would normally do with your dominant hand was/is almost impossible for understandable cultural/sanitary reasons and made the entire culture a bit uncomfortable with left-handers.  Some western cultures have, in the past, tried to "train" left-handedness out of children.

There is a bigger issue behind this, though, and again we see cases of "progressive revelation." The people of Israel at that time often attributed a deeper significance to things that we would not. Theirs was often a perspective that everything had a reason (ok, so far) and that there were moral or semi-moral implications to almost everything (in many cases, no).  Thus, for example, a person with physical defects was actually considered "defective" and could not serve as a priest, and women who menstruated or men who had had an emission were "unclean" and were morally obligated to refrain from certain contacts and activities.  The Israelites, Moses included, were uncertain of the origins of these things and attributed meanings to them that we would not.  Couldn't God have cleared up these misunderstandings?  Theoretically yes, but it is clear that He did not at that time.  In cultures that have or had little or no understanding of congenital physical problems or the germ theory of disease (like ancient Israel), but could make certain connections between unsanitary conditions and disease, unsanitary practices that could endanger the health of the entire community were forbidden and were considered immoral.  When God spoke through a prophet like Moses (compared, for example, to God speaking through Jesus) it was somewhat like a musician playing "Amazing Grace" on a harmonica vs. playing it on a pipe organ ... the harmonica has limitations that the pipe organ does not.  It is the same God playing the same song, but it sounds much different on the one instrument compared to the other.

I am troubled by the story of Jephthah in Judges 11.  Jephthah pledges that if the Lord allows him to defeat the Ammonites he will sacrifice whatever comes out of his front door upon his return.  It turns out to be his daughter.  Does the Lord accept this sacrifice.  Why would God accept the sacrifice of a child when he condemns this practice when nations other that Israel do it.

The way the text reads, one could definitely conclude that the Lord somehow rewards Jephthah's rash vow, but what is illustrated is the uselessness and presumptiveness of bargaining with God.  Absent from the text is any direct response from God, so it is reading too much into it to believe that God has accepted this offered sacrifice.  It is well-established in Mosaic law that the practice of human sacrifice is forbidden (Lev. 18:21; 20:2-5; Deut. 12:31); this law came from God, so we know His mind where this is concerned.  That has not changed in the time of Jephthah.

The Spirit of the Lord had already come upon Jephthah, there was no need for any bargaining or attempt to please God.  Some scholars point out that Jephthah's remote location near the influence of the heathen may have prompted him to think of God in the same terms that other gods were, and that human sacrifice would be accepted.  Further, Jephthah has just completed bargaining with the Ammonite king and he turns his bargaining ability toward God.  The sad reality is that his reliance on his own abilities led to a tragic vow that was completely unnecessary.

God had already planned to make Jephthah victorious evidenced in Jephthah's own language in dealing with his enemy, so the vow did nothing to affect God's position and would not be accepted by Yahweh of Israel.  Nevertheless, because he made the vow, Jephthah felt obliged to fulfill it, again without inquiring of the Lord.  We are to trust God's designs even when we do not know them.  Bargaining and rash promises only reveal the weakness of our faith and can lead to our own disaster.

2 Kings

In 2 Kings 22:8, the Book of the Law was "found,"and in 23:21, the king ordered all the people to celebrate the Passover.  How long did they go without the written law and celebrating the Passover?

Since the Scriptures themselves are a little ambiguous on this topic, scholars disagree on the nature of the findings.  Most all agree that at least a portion of Deuteronomy was found, that is was the Temple copy, and that it had been unused for at least the reigns of Manasseh and Amon, prior to King Josiah.  This didn't mean that other copies weren't in existence, such as ones that priests or prophets used.  But since the Temple copy was essentially the king's copy, it was the responsibility of the king to issue the "Book of the Law" to the whole nation.  Manasseh and Amon didn't do this, but Josiah did.

Job

When God speaks at the end of Job, he doesn't seem to answer Job's questions directly or explain why he was chastising Job's friends.  What's with that?

God responded to Job and his friends because both groups had outlined inappropriate thoughts about God.  The nature of God was on the line, and God responded by answering about his nature- he is Creator and Sustainer of the whole earth, including Job and his friends.  It seemed like his response went "over their heads" a little by not responding directly to their claims, but instead he went to the heart of the matter: each persons view of God.  God responded by setting that view right.  In that vein, the "smaller" views of God paled in comparison.

Isaiah

Is 65:17-25- The title is "New Heavens and New Earth"  This distant time affects us too, right, and not just for Jews living back then?  If so, why is death referenced as a part of it v. 20?

The answer is that this New Heavens and New Earth are not just a New Heavens.  There is a New Earth too.  There is a physical dimension to the promises, especially in the OT when promises are made to Jews (land, descendents, material blessings, etc.).  The New Heavens and New Earth in the book of Revelation are a more progressively revealed picture of what these could be too.  But in sum, the physical dimension of everything will be restored- not just people, but human systems and the creation itself will be restored.  And so real, physical humans will still live in this physical environment.

Gospels

Is there no time of the bible from Malachi (430 BC) to Matthew - Who or what was happening in those days?

There are no biblical records from Malachi to Matthew.  The "Apocryhpa" was written during that time but it contains more historical accounts of the Jewish people in that era.  This is the era of the Maccabean revolt to recapture the Temple.  The apocrypha (Roman Catholics use it in their Bible) is likely an accurate description of that time, but because even the Apocryhpa acknowledges that prophets had ceased during that time we must accept that there was no inspired words from God.  Because there were no inspired words from God, Protestants do not include it in the canon of Scripture.  The rest of the time between the Testaments was divided between eventual Greek rule (Alexander the Great conquered the Persians) and then the conquering of Roman rule.  And the Roman occupation is where we begin the Gospels.

What/who does Matt. 8:12 refer to?

Matthew's audience is largely Jewish, and so Matthew is including this reference from Jesus as a direct warning to Jews.  The threat is not absolute, and so isn't inclusive of all Jews, but Jesus is pointing out that belief and faith in him is what makes the difference of inclusion in the Kingdom.  The Jews would be no different from the Gentiles in this regard.

• I don't understand Luke 14:26. Doesn't this contradict "loving your neighbor"?

It's important to note here that the term "hate" is a relative term.  It does not actually mean show disregard for someone else, but it does mean regard one's father and mother as less than they would esteem Jesus.  Jesus isn't contradicting one of the Ten Commandments to honor Father and Mother, but rather is demanding absolute devotion to Himself.  So the term "hate" is really a hyperbole to show the extreme contrast of devotion that Jesus demands.

Pauline Epistles

Do we still have prophets today? What about the spiritual gift of prophesying? Can people have the gift of prophesy and not be prophets?

It's important to keep in mind that the major role of prophecy, in the OT or the NT, is to be a truth-teller: one who speaks the truth of God into the relevant personal or national situations.  Prophecy, then, is more about forthtelling than it is foretelling.  Prophecy, as a spiritual gift then, is not as much about telling the future as it is about speaking the words of God into a situation.  So, we do have people with this gift today (some Christians however do believe that the gifts of tongues and prophecy ceased after the era of the early Apostles).  Whether we call them "prophets" or not may be a misnomer, because the word connotes something other than its intended meaning. 

I think it's important to maintain that the words of prophecy must comport with Scripture.  Prophets speak the words of God, but we already have the revealed Word of God in canonical form.  Thus, true prophets can't contradict Scripture because that is God's primary revelation to us as humans. 

What is with Paul and his restrictions on women in the church? If we dismiss these as relevant primarily to that culture and not now, how do we make similar differentiations elsewhere in the Bible, especially the New Testament? For example, were tales of demons by Jesus and the apostles also just cultural labels of the time to describe mental illness?

This is certainly a controversial topic where even Evangelicals are in disagreement.  It's important to note that Scripture is never wished away because of background cultural elements.  We don't do that with any Scripture, even with the hard stuff.  With that said, Biblical interpretation always requires a certain set of important guidelines with which to approach any passage.  For example: what are the cultural and historical background information, what is the literary context, and what do the specific words mean in their original languages?  These are all questions to address.  Given the penchant for weighing some of these standards over others, we can have differences of interpretation regarding the passages on women.

There is a hierarchal tradition that contends that these statements are what they mean and they should remain in tact.  This position is naïve because it maintains an overly literal rendering of the Bible with little regard for the rules of Biblical interpretation cited above. 

Another position is Biblical complementarianism.  This position understands the cultural dynamics of each situation that Paul mentions of women.  It was a different culture then with different standards or principles in place.  So the complementarian seeks to understand the principles.  For instance, uneducated people should not speak in church (and women happened to be the uneducated people in that time).  Or gossips should not lead in church (and the Corinthian church happened to have many of these types of women).  Or don't dress like a prostitute (which happened to be specific commands on what not to do or what to do regarding earrings, hair, hats, etc.).  Whatever the case, the principles remain the same even if the concept looks different from culture to culture.  Christian women should always seek to dress differently than prostitutes.  But for the complementarian, they still detect some limits on the role of women in the church.  For instance, women can be ruling elders but they can't be teaching elders (or pastors).  But complementarians will disagree to the extent to which they limit women's roles.

The egalitarian position does the same thing the complementarian position does except does not have limits for the role of women in the church.  Women can be elders, deacons, and pastors.  Many contemporary Evangelicals call this a feminist position, to label it pejoratively.  But, a Biblical egalitarian will still arrive at their arguments based on sound Biblical interpretation standards.  Biblical egalitarianism and feminism are not synonymous movements.

In short, responsible scholars will tell you that this issue is very difficult to exegete appropriately.  There's very little that's clear about it.  For a variety of views and good scholarship on the issue, check out the following books: Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy; Women, Slaves, and Homosexuals by William Webb; Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood by John Piper and Wayne Grudem; and Two Views on Women in Ministry by four separate authors.