Three Kinds of Musicians
There are three kinds of musicians:
Let me hear it – the first category is the player that doesn’t read music and will approach a song in a way that is utterly dependent on the way it was recorded. In some cases, they’re entry level players who will often reduce those things that are technically demanding to something more manageable, just so they can “sound” competent. Some of those who play by ear are excellent musicians, but nevertheless are uncomfortable when you put any kind of sheet music in front of them because of their unfamiliarity with musical notation.
Let me at it – the second category can “shred.” They’ve got all kinds of chops and are looking for any opportunity to insert their new lick, regardless of whether or not it serves the song. They are are technically proficient, and have an enthusiastic attitude, but are musically immature and will often play in a way that draws more attention to themselves rather than the substance of the song they’re playing.
Let me play it – the third category takes what’s on the page and performs it in a way that communicates in a way that goes beyond what’s heard. All of the technical expertise of the musician is used to ensure the lyric / melody is allowed to speak directly into the heart of the individual that’s listening.
All three of these “musicians” require a different approach when you’re tasked with directing their energies in a positive direction. You want to affirm their strengths and respect both their enthusiasm and their effort as you show them what you want to hear.
If you don’t make that effort to tailor your direction in a way that conforms to the category they belong to, your content gets overwhelmed by your delivery and you’re not leading people anymore, now you’re just irritating and insulting them.
Proverbs 25:11 says:
Like apples of gold in settings of silver is a word spoken at the right time. (Prov 25:11 [AMP])
It’s not just tact, it’s respect. And with that respect, comes a positive result. Otherwise, whatever results you get are going to be less than what you want.
We’re commanded in Scripture to be respectful.
As parents, we’re told not to exasperate our kids:
Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord. (Eph 6:4 [NIV]).
You can see the point that is being made more vividly by looking at the same Scripture in the Amplified version:
Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger [do not exasperate them to the point of resentment with demands that are trivial or unreasonable or humiliating or abusive; nor by showing favoritism or indifference to any of them], but bring them up [tenderly, with lovingkindness] in the discipline and instruction of the Lord. (Eph 6:4 [AMP])
When we’re trying to communicate the Substance of the gospel, we’re told to do it with gentleness and respect:
But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, (1 Pet 3:15)
As leaders, you want to set the example by not using your authority to force your will, but to look out for their best interests:
2 Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, watching over them—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not pursuing dishonest gain, but eager to serve; 3 not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. 4 And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away. (1 Pet 5:2-4 [ see also Ez 34:1-4; Matt 20:25-28])
Anytime you’re tasked with leading another person or a group of individuals, you have two responsibilities. Your first responsibility is to lead them in a positive direction. Your second responsibility is to lead in a positive way. Simply telling someone that they “should” do something, isn’t the same as leading a person in a way where they “want” to do something.
That doesn’t mean you’ll never encounter difficult people who don’t want to be led, or taught (Neh 9:16). And sometimes the situation doesn’t lend itself to anything other than a need to obey immediately (Gen 19:26). But solid leadership is characterized by a servant’s heart and an approach that takes the time to consider, not just what needs to be said, but the way it needs to be said.
What Does it Mean to Love Your Enemy? | Part I
This is a three part series that responds to a couple of social media posts denigrating ICE, the deportation of illegal immigrants, and the overall tone of President Trump’s leadership.
Most of the rhetoric is based on a distorted interpretation of what the Bible means, as far as “loving your enemy.” At the very minimum…
- It’s not “hate” to rightfully identify illegal / sinful behavior (Lk 17:3; Rom 13:4-5).
- You’re not being Christlike by ignoring fraud (Prov 6:12-19; 11:1).
- Foreigners and strangers are biblically commanded to obey the law (Lev 24:17-22)
- You are not “loving your neighbor” by encouraging them to ignore those laws that apply to them (Rom 13:3-4).
You can download the Bible study that talks about how to love your enemy by clicking on the links below…
• “How To Love Your Enemy” (Leader Guide)
• “How To Love Your Enemy” (Listening Sheet)
What Does it Mean?
What does it mean to love your enemy?
There are some people who believe that Christ’s command to love one’s enemy means to encourage and applaud them, regardless of their behavior.
Consider the following:
| command | verse |
| Do not resist an evil person. Turn the other cheek, do not resist, go the extra mile | 38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. (Matt 5:38-40) |
| Do not judge | Do not judge, or you too will be judged. (Matt 7:1) |
| Don’t be critical | Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen. (Eph 4:29) |
| Don’t be angry | 19 My dear brothers and sisters, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry, 20 because human anger does not produce the righteousness that God desires. (Jas 1:19-20) |
| Love your enemy, pray for those who persecute you | 43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (Matt 5:43-48) |
If we stop right here, then it’s very reasonable to believe that, when it comes to those who qualify as our “enemy,” we should never direct towards them any criticism or correction. Anything that has the potential to make them feel uncomfortable is at least cruel if not contrary to the Word of God.
And what makes it even more compelling is that when you look at the word “love,” as it’s used in Luke 10:27 where we’re told to “love the Lord your God…,” it’s the same word in the Greek:
Agape.
Agape love is described as:
…the goodwill and benevolence of God shown in self-sacrifice and an unconditional commitment to the loved one. Agape is similar to chesed in that it is steadfast, regardless of circumstances. Agape love is the kind of love we are to have for God in fulfillment of the greatest commandment (Matthew 22:37). Jesus wants to instill agape in His followers as we serve others through the power of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 22:39; John 13:34) (gotquestions.org).
So, we are to love God, each other, and our enemies with “agape” love which, incidentally, is the same word that describes the kind of love God has for us.
34 “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” (Jn 13:34-35)
If “love” is nothing more than a perpetual affirmation of a person, then it would follow that nothing is inappropriate or deserving of condemnation. After all, we’re not supposed to judge (Matt 7:1), which further reinforces the idea that there’s no room for any kind of criticism in the heart of a true follower of Christ.
No one is immoral, there are no criminals, there are no threats, borders, or opponents. There is only love and acceptance.
Real Love in Action
But you find yourself having to reevaluate that perspective when you consider the way love is defined in 1 Corinthians 13:
4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. (1 Cor 13:4-7)
Agape love doesn’t delight in evil. Matthew Henry’s Commentary elaborates on that by saying, “It is the very height of malice to take pleasure in the misery of a fellow-creature. And is not falling into sin the greatest calamity that can befal one? How inconsistent is it with Christian charity, to rejoice at such fall!”
So, it makes sense, then, that, if you love your enemy, you’re going to promote their welfare by helping them avoid the consequences of sin.
And how do you do that?
Well, how did Jesus do it?
| the actions of Christ | verse |
| He resisted evil |
13 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to. [14] [b]15 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are. 16 “Woe to you, blind guides! You say, ‘If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but anyone who swears by the gold of the temple is bound by that oath.’ 17 You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred? 18 You also say, ‘If anyone swears by the altar, it means nothing; but anyone who swears by the gift on the altar is bound by that oath.’ 19 You blind men! Which is greater: the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred? 20 Therefore, anyone who swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. 21 And anyone who swears by the temple swears by it and by the one who dwells in it. 22 And anyone who swears by heaven swears by God’s throne and by the one who sits on it. 23 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. 24 You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel. 25 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. 26 Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean. 27 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean. 28 In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness. 29 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. 30 And you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ 31 So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Go ahead, then, and complete what your ancestors started! 33 “You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? 34 Therefore I am sending you prophets and sages and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. 35 And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36 Truly I tell you, all this will come on this generation. (Matt 23:13-36 [see also Matt 3:7; 12:34) |
| He judged | 20 Then Jesus began to denounce the towns in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent. 21 “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22 But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. 23 And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted to the heavens? No, you will go down to Hades.[e] For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. 24 But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you.” (Matt 11:20-24) |
| He was critical |
Peter: 23 Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.” (Matt 16:23) Pharisees: Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, 2 “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!” 3 Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’[a] and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’[b] 5 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’ 6 they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7 You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you: 8 “‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. 9 They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules.’[c]” (Matt 15:1-9) Herod: 31 At that very hour some Pharisees came up and said to Him, “Leave and go away from here, because Herod [Antipas] wants to kill You.” 32 And He said to them, “Go and tell that fox [that sly, cowardly man], ‘Listen carefully: I cast out demons and perform healings today and tomorrow, and on the third day I reach My goal.’ (Lk 13:31-32 [AMP]) |
| He got angry | 12 Jesus entered the temple courts and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. 13 “It is written,” he said to them, “‘My house will be called a house of prayer,’[e] but you are making it ‘a den of robbers.’[f]” (Matt 21:12-13) |
| He will punish His enemies and banish those who persecuted Him. |
31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. 34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’ 37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ 40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’ 41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’ 44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ 45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ 46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” (Matt 25:31-46) |
In addition to the fact that Jesus did criticize, judge, and resist evil, when you consider the way in which God empowered the Israelites in the context of their military endeavors, it’s obvious that “loving your enemy” means something more than just being accommodating (Ps 44:3).
You’re Not Being Kind If…
You’re not being kind if you’re making it easier for someone to sin. Nor are you loving your enemy, let alone your neighbor or family member, by enabling their disobedience. That would be like offering a glass of water to Adam and Eve so they can better digest the fruit they’re eating (Gen 3:6).
Fact is, you are being disobedient by not calling out bad behavior, given what it says in Ephesians 5:11:
Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. (Eph 5:11 [see also Jas 4:17])
When you consider the whole of God’s Word, and not just random verses taken out of context, a believer’s response to evil looks much different than the accommodating applause that is often promoted by our society today.
That’s not a direct quote from the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus never said not to judge. The verse in its entirety is, “Do not judge, or you too will be judged.” (Matt 7:1) What Jesus was saying here is to not be hypocritical by criticizing something in a person’s behavior when you’re doing the same thing. Bear in mind that in John 7:24, Jesus says to stop judging by mere appearances, but instead judge correctly. You can’t expose the fruitless works of darkness without “judging” whether or not what you’re seeing is, in fact, sinful. Galatians 6:1 instructs those who are spiritually capable to help restore someone who’s been caught doing something wrong. Again, you can’t correctly identify wrongful behavior unless you’re judging.
gotquestions.org sums it up very well…
The Bible’s command that we not judge others does not mean we cannot show discernment. Immediately after Jesus says, “Do not judge,” He says, “Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs” (Matthew 7:6). A little later in the same sermon, He says, “Watch out for false prophets. . . . By their fruit you will recognize them” (verses 15–16). How are we to discern who are the “dogs” and “pigs” and “false prophets” unless we have the ability to make a judgment call on doctrines and deeds? Jesus is giving us permission to tell right from wrong.
Jesus told His disciples to get a sword, and if they didn’t have one, to sell their coat and go buy one…
The NIV Text Note reads:
The Bible is rife with military action, armed escorts, and multiple examples of “sanctified violence” which make it abundantly clear that there are times when the use of force is both encouraged and, in many instances, empowered by God Himself. (see also Conquest of the Promised Land [Josh 6:20-21; Josh 11:20], Gideon [Jud 7], David defending Israel by attacking the Philistines [1 Sam 23:1-2], Building the Wall [Neh 4:13])
Agape love in practice is to be constantly encouraging the object of your love in a positive direction. You are not “loving your enemy” by subsidizing their bad behavior or ignoring the Standard that defines it. You do that by alerting them to the pain and the problems that lie just beyond the sin that they’re getting ready to commit. Confrontation and criticism are both represented in the example of Christ and we are commanded to be Christlike, not only by calling out bad behavior, but also in way we do it (Ps 141:5; Prov 12:18; 25:11; 27:5-6; Matt 18:15-17; Gal 6:1).
Scripture as a Whole
When you remain silent in the face of evil, not only do you bring judgment upon yourself (Jas 4:17), you effectively insulate yourself from the attacks that come from those who want to silence anyone who would dare to point out their sinister actions and intent, which is frowned upon as well (Gal 2:11-21).
However sinful it may be, it’s an alluring way to remain on the sidelines so as to avoid the real conflict that’s happening on the field and the opposition you would have to contend with.
But when you look at Scripture as a whole, you are compelled to concede that remaining either silent or accommodating is neither biblical let alone noble.
What does it mean to love your enemy? At the very least, it means that you commit yourself to their welfare by helping them to avoid the consequences of bad decisions. You don’t do that by making it easier for them to fail or enabling the harm they would do to themselves and others.
Prove It! | Part VI: Bible Difficulties
Not an Option
On occasion, you’ll run into passages of Scripture that either don’t make sense or they appear contradictory.
Critics love to seize on these apparent “errors,” and use them to justify their resolve to dismiss the Bible as flawed and therefore irrelevant.
Even those that believe the resurrection of Christ will sometime side with those that process the Bible as corrupted in light of what appear to be passages that seem nonsensical.
However logical it may be to acknowledge the capacity of human beings to make mistakes, when evaluating the Word of God, you want to be sensitive to the fact that you’re not merely inspecting the accuracy of a human effort as much as you’re criticizing God’s Ability to maintain the integrity of His Word.
Consider these verses:
“Is not my word like fire,” declares the Lord, “and like a hammer that breaks a rock in pieces? (Jer 23:29)
For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. (Matt 5:18)
16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Tim 3:16-17)
For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. (2 Pet 1:21)
The Bible doesn’t allow itself to be anything less than inerrant. And it makes sense because to regard anything that resonates as “incorrect” as a legitimate discrepancy that simply has to be accepted and / or overlooked, is to call into question the substance of the gospel, the Reality of the empty tomb, and even the existence of God Himself. Your skepticism can’t remain specific to one particular verse. If it can be proven that one particular passage has been contaminated, there’s nothing to prevent foundational Scriptures from being corrupted as well.
Bear in mind, we’re not talking about “differences,” as much as we’re talking about discrepancies. Just because a different word is used to communicate a particular idea when comparing different versions and translations to one another, doesn’t alter the fundamental meaning of the text. For more information about the authenticity of the New Testament, click here.
That said, there are passages that seem problematic and that’s what we’re talking about in this final installment of the “Prove It!” series.
Three Days and Three Nights
For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. (Matt 12:40)
According to Luke 23:44, Jesus died at 3:00 PM on a Friday. If that’s the case, according to what Jesus said in the book of Matthew, His Resurrection should’ve occurred on Monday, or perhaps Tuesday, if you’re assuming that a day is a full 24 hour period.
Jesus is not mistaken, nor is there an error in what Matthew wrote or what has since been passed down through the centuries.
Hebrews reckoned a day as beginning at 6:00 PM…
The Hebrew day (yom) begins at sundown, when three stars become visible in the sky (the rabbis reasoned that the day begins at sunset based on the description of God’s activity in creation, “and the evening and the morning were the first day,” Genesis 1:5). Evening is sometimes defined as the late afternoon, that is, between 3:00 pm to sundown.2
Not everyone in the ancient world documented time in the same way, certainly not the Romans who defined 12:00 AM as the beginning of the new day.
Consequently, according to ancient parlance, in order to refer to three separate twenty-four hour timeframes, you would say, “Three days and three nights” – even though only a portion fo the first and third days might be involved. Refer to the diagram below to better visualize the way dates and times were processed back then.
The Potter’s Field
9 Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: “They took the thirty pieces of silver, the price set on him by the people of Israel, 10 and they used them to buy the potter’s field, as the Lord commanded me.” (Matt 27:9-10)
This passage refers to the money that was originally paid to Judas for betraying Jesus who, upon recognizing his treachery, returned the money to the Pharisees and the proceeded to hang himself (Matt 27:5).
The Pharisees then took the money and purchased the “potter’s field,” which is referenced in the book of Zechariah.
And the Lord said to me, “Throw it to the potter”—the handsome price at which they valued me! So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them to the potter at the house of the Lord. (Zec 11:12-13)
And yet, Matthew cites Jeremiah as the source of the quotation. At first glance, this looks like an error right up until the time you consider Jeremiah 32:6-9:
6 Jeremiah said, “The word of the Lord came to me: 7 Hanamel son of Shallum your uncle is going to come to you and say, ‘Buy my field at Anathoth, because as nearest relative it is your right and duty to buy it.’
8 “Then, just as the Lord had said, my cousin Hanamel came to me in the courtyard of the guard and said, ‘Buy my field at Anathoth in the territory of Benjamin. Since it is your right to redeem it and possess it, buy it for yourself.’
“I knew that this was the word of the Lord; 9 so I bought the field at Anathoth from my cousin Hanamel and weighed out for him seventeen shekels[a] of silver. (Jer 32:6-9)
So, it would appear that Matthew is correct in referring to Jeremiah as being the prophecy being fulfilled in the context of the money Judas gave back to the Pharisees, but it’s there’s actually several things happening simultaneously that makes this scenario especially meaningful.
What you have here is a composite of two prophecies; one from Jeremiah and one from Zechariah, with Zechariah referring to what Jeremiah had previously said.
Look at this:
| Jeremiah & Zechariah | |
| Jeremiah 18-19 | Chapter 18 has God telling Jeremiah to go to a nearby potter’s house and recognize how God is similar to the potter in the way he can shape the course of nations, just as a potter can shape, destroy, and remake a piece of pottery.
In chapter 19, God instructs Jeremiah to use a piece of pottery to describe to the kings of Judah and the people of Jerusalem how God was getting ready to, “…bring disaster on this place.” In the same chapter, God says the the Valley of Ben Hinnom would come to be referred to as the “Valley of Slaughter.” |
| Zechariah 11:12-13 | Here you have a dollar amount of thirty pieces of silver being “thrown to the potter.” Given the way the “potter” had been used by Jeremiah, you now have a common thread running through those two passages. |
| Acts 1:19 | Here, Luke names the area that the Pharisees purchased which was referred to as the “potter’s field” in the book of Matthew as “Akeldama,” which is located in…the Valley of Hinnom. |
So, between these two passages, you have
|
|
You Won’t be Forgiven?
Matthew 6:15 says:
But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins. (Matt 6:15)
On the surface, it’s tempting to think that this verse is implying that your eternal security is at risk if you refuse to forgive others of the things they have done to you.
That’s not the case.
Our salvation is secured by the death and resurrection of Christ. There’s nothing we can do to earn it or sustain it:
8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. (Eph 2:8-9)
No one will be able to stand before God and insist that they be forgiven of their sins because they showed grace to another human being.
There is, however, a “tension” that can be established between you and your Heavenly Father as a result of disobedience. You see that explained in this commentary from gotquestions.org:
The difference between Ephesians 1:6-8 and 1 John 1:9 is that John is dealing with what we call “relational,” or “familial,” forgiveness—like that of a father and a son. For example, if a son does something wrong to his father—falling short of his expectations or rules—the son has hindered his fellowship with his father. He remains the son of his father, but the relationship suffers. Their fellowship will be hindered until the son admits to his father that he has done wrong. It works the same way with God; our fellowship with Him is hindered until we confess our sin. When we confess our sin to God, the fellowship is restored. This is relational forgiveness.3
It’s that relational forgiveness that’s being withheld, and not the forgiveness that characterizes you identity in Christ.
Law or Love?
It’s hard to reconcile the idea of a loving God when you look at the Conquest of the Promised Land.
You must destroy all the peoples the Lord give over to you. (Dt 7:16)
10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.
16 However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy[a] them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you. 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the Lord your God.
19 When you lay siege to a city for a long time, fighting against it to capture it, do not destroy its trees by putting an ax to them, because you can eat their fruit. Do not cut them down. Are the trees people, that you should besiege them?[b] 20 However, you may cut down trees that you know are not fruit trees and use them to build siege works until the city at war with you falls. (Dt 20:10-20)
It’s important to realize that the depravity of the cities that had been singled out for destruction had been engaged in their rebellion for centuries. The Conquest of the Prom
ised Land coincided with when the sin of these people groups had reached their full measure (see Gen 15:16 [see Dr. John Lennox’ explanation by clicking on the image to the right]).
These were unique situations and not necessarily typical, as is evidenced by Deuteronomy 20:10-15.
Bear in mind that these were cities that were targeted and not whole people groups as can be seen by the fact that Uriah, one of David’s mighty men, was a Hittite (2 Sam 11:1-3).
God is both a God of Love, and a God of Law. Mercy is obtained through repentance, just like judgement is a consequence of rebellion.
Moabite were descendants of Moab, the result of an incestuous relationship between Lot and his daughter (Gen 19:36-38). Israel was subject Moab in Judges 3:14. Saul fought against them in 1 Samuel 14:47, and David went to war against them as well in 2 Samuel 8:2.
They were considered to be enemies. Yet, Ruth was a Moabite. She was also David’s great grandmother. Her initial marriage to an Israelite would’ve raised some concerns, given the way Moabites were not allowed into the assembly of the Lord – not even to the tenth generation (Dt 23:3).
But Ruth’s heritage was not as important as her commitment to God (Ruth 1:16), and that made all the difference. She would be referenced in the genealogy of Christ in. Matthew 1:5.
And that’s what makes Ruth’s situation both logical and inspiring. She wasn’t an “exception” to the rule, she was an example of God’s grace and an illustration of how God is both a God of Love and a God of Law.
Conclusion
Luke 13:28 describes hell as a place where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. “Gnashing of teeth” can refer to “seething anger.” It’s difficult to imagine someone having been confronted with the Reality and the Greatness of God to still be so indignant, that they would spend eternity despising their Creator and their Redeemer.
It’s not easy to distinguish the kind of unbeliever you’re interacting with in any given moment. Some of them are genuinely curious, others are simply looking for an opportunity to validate themselves by being critical.
You can’t “prove it” beyond a certain point. In the absence of footage and / or face to face interactions with Christ’s contemporaries, we’re limited by space and time to those things that have been documented and what we can discern from the testimony of creation (Rom, 1:20).
Still, the evidence is compelling and we want to be capable of explaining what we believe and why (1 Pet 3:15). While you’re not capable of changing someone’s heart (Jn 6:65), you can nevertheless be an effective witness and, from that standpoint, you can…
…prove it!
1. “Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties”, Gleason Archer, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI 1982, p11
2. “Hebrew for Christians”, “Introduction to the Hebrew Calendar”, https://www.hebrew4christians.com/Holidays/Calendar/calendar.html, accessed May 24, 2026
3. “Got Questions”, “Why do we need to confess our sins if they have already been forgiven (1 John 1:9)?”, https://www.gotquestions.org/confession-forgiveness.html, accessed May 24, 2026
Discussion Questions
Based on the way Hebrews reckoned a day, yet living in a Roman culture, what day would it be if it was Thursday, and someone referred to a timeframe in the future by saying “three days and three nights?”
What does it feel like when you’ve got “unconfessed sin” in your heart? How does that impact your relationship with God (Ps 66:18)?
How has God redeemed a bad situation in your life and turned it into something good?
How do you know God is real? How do you “prove it” in your own mind?
What is it about a Christian that should “prove” the Reality of God?
Ten Questions Christians Can’t Answer | Part III
7) If you believe the creation account in Genesis is allegorical, they why don’t you treat Paul’s epistles in the same way since he references the creation account in Genesis as historical?
Paul uses the fact of creation throughout his epistles. Here are some examples:
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. (Romans 1:20)
By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. (Heb 11;3)
Since the person posing the question in this instance isn’t specific about which verses he’s referencing, it’s difficult to know what exactly he’s referring to. Typically, however, the difficulty with the Creation account is whether or not God completed everything in six literal days. Did He create the heavens and the earth in less than a week, or is a “day” nothing more than a literary device describing a timeframe that may have been significantly longer than 24 hours?
Fact is, there’s a great deal of compelling evidence that suggests the earth is not as old as some in the scientific community would have you believe (click here for more reading on that topic). The bottom line is that carbon dating and other traditionally accepted methods of dating fossils etc. are based on the assumption that the observable conditions of the earth have remained unchanged since the very beginning of time. Indeed, the atmospheric conditions were not necessarily the same, which means that carbon dating is not necessarily absolute.
While some calibration can be made in order to accommodate the atmospheric anomalies that may have been present at the time, those kind of distinctions can only be identified by whatever may have been documented. In other words, outside the context of recorded history, you have a very subjective landscape to navigate when it comes to dating articles of antiquity beyond a certain point.
On the other hand, when you compare Genesis 1:27 which says that God created both Adam and Eve on the sixth day, to Genesis 2, it looks like the sixth day either had a great deal of activity packed into the daylight hours, or you have more time built into the term “day.”
Our culture is steeped in the notion that we inhabit a planet that is billions of years old. It’s a convenient thought in that you now have a theoretically comfortable timeframe to accommodate natural selection and the fortuitous evolution of life as we know it. While there is a fascinating amount of research that’s been done in terms of dating the earth according to a purely biblical model, which suggests that the earth is nowhere near as old as the champions of evolutionary theory would have our grade school classrooms believe, for the sake of this conversation the only pertinent Truth that needs to be affirmed is the fact that God did, in fact, create the universe.
However one wants to interpret Genesis and the age of the earth, the priority here, as far as the way in which Paul refers to creation, is to simply reinforce the fact that God was the Creative Force behind the origin of the cosmos and that is not allegory, that is the literal Truth.
8) How many donkeys did Jesus ride in His triumphal entry in Jerusalem? Was it one like Mark, Luke and John say, or was it two donkeys like Matthew says?
Matthew 21:2 says:
saying to them, “Go to the village ahead of you, and at once you will find a donkey tied there, with her colt by her. Untie them and bring them to me.
Mark 11:2, Luke 28:30 and John 12:14-15 only mention one donkey. Jesus wasn’t straddling two donkeys as much as it was Matthew simply mentioning what constituted a complete picture of the prophecy articulated in Zechariah 9:9:
Rejoice greatly, Daughter Zion! Shout, Daughter Jerusalem! See, your king comes to you, righteous and victorious, lowly and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey. (Zec 9:9)
Chances are excellent since the foal had never been ridden before, let alone paraded around in front a large and noisy crowd, having the mother lead the foal for the sake of psychological support would’ve been a logical move. Dr. Gleason Archer says as much:
The Zechariah passage does not actually specify that the parent donkey would figure in the triumphal entrance; it simply describes the foal as “the son of a she-ass” by way of poetic parallelism. But Matthew contributes the eyewitness observation (and quite possibly neither Mark nor Luke were eyewitnesses as Matthew was) that the mother actually preceded Jesus in that procession that took Jesus into the Holy City. Here agin, then, there is no real contradiction between the synoptic account but only added detail on the part of Matthew as on who viewed the event while it was happening.1
So, the gospel writers do not conflict with one another as much as Matthew is simply providing more detail.
9) Based on the genealogies for Matthew and Luke, who was Joseph’s father?
Luke follows the genealogy of Mary whereas Matthew follows the genealogy of Joseph. Jesus was the legal descendant of Solomon (Matthew’s genealogy [Joseph]) and a blood relative of Nathan (Luke’s genealogy [Mary]). The confusion is clarified when you take the verbiage of Luke 3:23 into consideration.
Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, (Lk 3:23)
Luke is qualifying the list he’s getting ready to enumerate by stating up front that, while it was customary to trace a person’s lineage through the line of the father, the virgin birth represents a special situation. Hence the emphasis on Mary. That fact is further reinforced when you consider the original Greek and notice how Luke doesn’t say that Heil “begat” Joseph. Rather, he was Joseph’s father in law.
Joseph was begotten by Jacob, and was his natural son (Matt 1:16). He could be the legal son of Heli, therefore, only by marriage with Heil’s daughter (Mary) and be reckoned so according to law. It does not say “begat” in the case of Heli.2
10) Was Jesus crucified on the first day of Passover, like the gospel of John says? Or the next day like the other three gospels say?
The confusion stems from John 19:14 where it says:
Now it was the day of preparation for the Passover; it was about the sixth hour. And he *said to the Jews, “Behold, your King!” (Jn 19:14 [NASB][emphasis added])
Matthew 27:62-63 says:
Mark 15:42-43 says:
It was Preparation Day (that is, the day before the Sabbath). So as evening approached, Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the Council, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for Jesus’ body. (Mark 15:42-43)
Luke refers to the day that Jesus died in the 24th chapter when he says:
It was Preparation Day, and the Sabbath was about to begin. (Lk 23:54)
“Preparation Day” was the day before the Sabbath, which was a Saturday. The Feast of Unleavened Bread was often referred to as “Passover” because of the way the Passover meal served as the opening ceremony for the Feast.3 So, when John uses the term “day of preparation for the Passover,” he’s not referring to the day before the Passover meal, he’s referring to the day before the Sabbath of Passover week (Feast of Unleavened Bread). The NCV rendering of the verse makes that fact more evident:
14It was about noon on Preparation Day of Passover week. Pilate said to the crowd, “Here is your king!” (Jn 19:14 [NCV][emphasis added])
In addition, John uses the Greek word “paraskeue” to define the day, which by that point was a technical term that referred to the “day of preparation” for the Sabbath.4 Remember, the Sabbath for the Jew is Saturday and not Sunday. Sunday would later be embraced as the “Lord’s Day” in that it was the day Jesus rose from the grave. So, given everything we’ve now considered, John’s account is consistent with all of the other gospel writers. Jesus was crucified on a Friday and the Last Supper happened on the evening before which was Thursday.
Conclusion
G.K. Chesterton once said, “Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried.” Many of the critics that circulate their jabs at Christianity on the internet occupy a philosophical position that refuses to concede the Reality of a Power and an Intellect that they cannot understand and / or agree with. Their attacks are necessary in order to maintain a distance between themselves and a worshipful demeanor which they refuse to buy into. They have found it “difficult” and decided to deny its substance. It’s healthy to be able to respond to questions and attacks, but the nature of these kind of conversations goes beyond a mere intellectual exchange. It is a spiritual contest that has to be engaged in a way that’s consistent with Scripture:
The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. (2 Cor 10:4)
Know what you believe and why you believe it. Pop the hood on the Word of God and be capable of defending it (1 Pet 3:15). And remember too, that oftentimes there’s a bigger picture that you want to expose. Squabbling over the number and the identity of the women who were at the tomb on the morning of Christ’s resurrection is subordinate to the fact that the tomb was empty. Arguing over the amount of time it took for God to create the heavens and the earth is secondary to the fact that God did, in fact, create the heavens and the earth. Dismissing the whole of Scripture because Matthew references both the donkey and its foal, whereas the other gospel writers mention only the foal, is like arguing over whether or not someone paid a ten dollar invoice using exact change or a twenty dollar bill.
The fact is, the debt was paid.
The details of Scripture are important, but you don’t ever want to become so absorbed in the minutia of the gospel that you overlook the fact that there’s a tomb out there that was occupied at one point that is now empty. And that empty grave is the Signature of One Who didn’t claim to be a mere messenger of God, but God Incarnate.
There will always be a critic and there will always be a situation where, regardless of how sound your reasoning may be, the spiritual elements that are involved will always see to it that “revelation” will remain seemingly inconsistent with logic (1 Cor 2:12). That’s not a cue to be less than compelling with your argument. But it’s not an argument that will influence a soul, it’s only the Power and the grace of God that makes the difference (John 6:65; 1 Cor 1:18).
Again, you don’t want to hide behind a “faith based perspective” that comes across as a decision made despite the facts, but rather as a decision made in light of the facts. Be ready to either answer the question being posed, or be ready to direct them to the myriad of resources that provide the science and the literary tools that address their quandary. But be sensitive to the fact that the moment the Name of Jesus is spoken, you’re no longer contending with purely academic themes. The parameters have been expanded and the stakes have been dramatically increased. You can be as compelling and as accurate as you want and still be found wanting. Not because of the substance of your argument, but because of the implications represented by your argument.
Should God be perceived as credible, it’s no longer a debate. Now it’s a soul-altering encounter and the forces referenced in Ephesians 6:12 will do everything they can to prevent that kind of dynamic.
So, be ready, but be wise and not just smart. It’s the Power of God in you that makes the difference and ensures that the outcome of your exchange is not just a willingness to agree with what’s in the Bible, but a desire to submit to the One Who authored it.
1. “Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties”, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI 1982, p334
2. “The Companion Bible”, E.W. Bullinger, http://www.heavendwellers.com/38%20Luke%201427-1509.pdf, accessed on May 19, 2015
3. Feast of Unleavened Bread..Passover. “Passover” was used in two different different ways: (1) a specific meal begun at twilight on the 14th of Nisan (Lev 23:4-5), and (2) the week following the Passover meal (Eze 45:21), otherwise know as the Feast of Unleavened Bread, a week in which no leaven was allowed (Ex 12:15-20; 13:3-7). By NT times the two names for the week-long festival were vitally interchangeable. (NIV Text Note: “NIV Study Bible”, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI, 1985, p1582)
4. “Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties”, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI 1982, p375
Ten Questions Christians Can’t Answer | Part II
This is Part II of “Ten Questions Christians Can’t Answer” – a response to a video on youtube that suggests that the questions being posed can’t be adequately responded to by believers. What follows demonstrates that such is not the case.
Here we go…!
6) When Jesus rose for the grave, how many women went to the tomb and which ones?
The gospel writers reference several women, both at the tomb as well as at the foot of the cross. Matthew 27:55 says that there were “many women” standing at a distance from the cross as Jesus was dying. Luke doesn’t ever name any of the women, he just refers to them as “the women” (Lk 23:49, 55). And with the exception of Mary Magdalene, Matthew, Mark and John reference either different women or use different descriptions to identify those who were there.
If Matthew’s “mother of James and Joses” is John’s “wife of Clopas” and the woman John describes as “Mary’s sister” is the woman Mark calls “Salome,” you’ve got a total of four women and it looks like this:
| The Women at the Cross (each color represents one particular woman that’s described differently by the gospel writers) | |||||||
| verse | Mary (Jesus’ mother) | Mary Magdalene | Mary, wife of Clopas | Mary, mother of James and Joses | Mary’s sister | mother of Zebedee’s sons | Salome |
| Matt 27:56 | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ||||
| Mk 15:40 | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ||||
| Jn 19:25 | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | |||
While you have four different accounts, at no time does Matthew or John state that the women they reference were the only ones present, they simply chose to acknowledge a particular person or persons. Same thing with Mark. He only lists three, but he doesn’t qualify his trio to the point where he rules out the possible presence of other women.
Bottom line is we don’t know for certain who all was there, all we can do is connect the dots as they appear in Scripture. We can be confident that Mary’s mother was there along with Mary Magdalene. As far as the other two Mary’s and Salome, all we do is speculate as to whether or not the wife of Clopas was the mother of James and Joses and Salome was Mary’s sister.
You’ve got the same kind of dynamic at the empty tomb. Again, Luke refers to them as “the women” (Lk 24:1). Matthew, Mark and John again highlight certain personalities that were present:
| The Women at the Empty Tomb | ||||||
| verse | Mary Magdalene | Mary, the mother of James | the other Mary | Salome | ||
| Matt 28:1 | ✔ | ✔ | ||||
| Mk 16:1 | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | |||
| Jn 20:1 | ✔ | |||||
Thanks to having looked at the way the same writers referred to “the women” at the foot of the cross, it’s not unreasonable to speculate that Matthew’s “other Mary” is the woman he described as “Mary, the mother of James and Joses” in chapter 27. That means that he and Mark are probably referring to the same woman in their respective accounts, as far as the “other Mary.” Matthew doesn’t mention Salome and John only references Mary Magdalene. So, of “the women” that were present, we know of three for certain, although there might’ve been others. Mary Magdalene is a definite as well as “the other Mary” and another woman named Salome.
Over the years, several great minds have tried to more specifically identify the players that were present. Again, we’re looking at a situation where the Bible doesn’t clarify things as well as we might like, but there are two things we want to avoid in these kinds of situations:
#1 – fail to appreciate the big picture
#2 – attempt to edit Scripture in order to manufacture a scenario that’s easier to process
Dr. James D Tabor does a great job of presenting a case for Mary, the wife of Clopas, to being the mother of Jesus based on the fact that Joseph, Jesus’ father, is conspicuously absent from the New Testament shortly after his having brought his young family back to Nazareth from Egypt (Matt 2:19-23). It would’ve been customary for the brother of the deceased husband to marry the widow based on Jewish law. When you couple that with the fact that Clopas was the father of James and Joses and Jesus had two brothers named James and Joses, it becomes fairly obvious that Mary, the mother of Jesus and Mary, the mother of James and Joses (wife of Clopas) are actually the same person. Should that prove to be accurate, the women at the tomb, based on Dr. Tabor’s theory and a comprehensive snapshot of Scripture would be:
- Mary Magdalene
- Mary – the mother of Jesus, James and Joses
- Salome
That sounds downright compelling right up to the point where he suggests that the book of John has been edited.1 Regardless of how “logical” a particular explanation may be, if it involves having to change the content of the Bible in order for it to work, at that point the Bible is no longer inerrant and you no longer have the Word of God, rather you have a flawed text.
Granted, what we have with the gospel writers is not conclusive in terms of the women that were there at the empty tomb. It’s not that they contradict one another as much as their decision to reference certain women in lieu of others results in a list of characters that’s speculative. But it’s not who was at the tomb, it was the fact that no one was in the tomb – that’s the point the gospel writers are making.
It could very well be that there was a whole congregation of women at the tomb which would mean that neither Matthew nor Mark nor John chose to document everyone that was present. But that doesn’t mean that their respective accounts are contradictory, nor should it distract from the fact that Christ had risen from the grave.
So, the short answer to our critic’s question is three, based on what we have in Scripture coupled with some speculation. But in the end, the emphasis should not be on who was not AT the tomb, rather the issue is Who was not IN the tomb!
Click here to read Part III!
1. “Something seems to be going on here. John knows something that either he, or those who later edited his gospel, chose to veil.” This is a portion of the post made by Dr. James D. Tabor entitled “Sorting Out the Jesus Family: Mother, Fathers, Brothers and Sisters at http://jamestabor.com/2012/12/27/sorting-out-the-jesus-family-mother-fathers-brothers-sisters/, accessed May 31, 2015
Ten Questions Christians Can’t Answer | Part I
Popping the Hood on Scripture
The critic bangs his hand on the desk and insists that unless he can break down the Word of God to the point where it can fit comfortably within the boundaries of his intellectual preferences, his skepticism will remain intact and the condescending tone he uses when he addresses believers in Christ will also remain decidedly sarcastic.
When confronted with a situation in Scripture that doesn’t make sense, the believer responds as a diligent student does when they are challenged by something in the classroom they don’t understand. They don’t accuse the professor as being flawed, nor do they doubt the integrity of the curriculum. Rather, they proceed as someone who needs to learn as opposed to someone who wants to critique. It’s the philosophical starting point that distinguishes the cynic from his Christian counterpart. The atheist needs to keep the Reality of God at an arm’s distance and therefore keeps the curtains drawn in order to maintain the illusion that man’s ability to reason is subordinate to the One Who gave him that ability to begin with. The Christ-follower, on the other hand, recognizes the limitations of the human perspective and, in the face of something seemingly illogical, labors to understand in the light of God’s Identity and Authority.
Still, you can’t simply say “If the Bible says it, then I believe it” and not come across as academically anemic. The passages cited by critics as evidence that the Bible is less than credible, can be resolved, you just have to be willing to pop the hood on Scripture and do some digging.
Dr. Gleason Archer (see call out to the right) says as much in the preface to his book “Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties.”
And when it comes to one’s approach to apparent discrepancies in Scripture, he says:
At the end of the day, it’s not just what the Bible says, it’s what the Bible is. That’s what makes this exchange both significant and distinctive. We’re not merely gauging the authenticity of an ancient text. The question on the table is whether or not God exists and is the Word of God, in fact, His Message to us?
Or, is it merely a religious comic book without the pictures?
The critic needs it to be the latter in order for their worldview to remain intact. But however fortified their defenses may be – regardless of the rapid abundance that characterizes their rhetoric – their stance needs to be countered with something compelling and in a way that points them to the Truth (Jn 14:6).
The following ten questions are posed in a video on youtube entitled “Ten Questions Christians Can’t Answer.” The questions are not the sort that break new ground as far as Bible difficulties are concerned and like the objections that have been raised in the past, there are rebuttals and explanations, it’s just a matter of referencing books like Dr Gleason’s “Encyclopedia” or any one of a number of other similar resources, not to mention Scripture itself.
The final frame of the video states that the “silence is deafening.” We want to make sure we can break that silence with something that not only addresses the questions, but more importantly provides an approach to God and the Message of that gospel that’s intellectually sound – unobstructed by questions that seemingly have no answer. In that way, it’s not only their intellect that’s satisfied, it’s their soul as well.
Here we go…
1) When Noah’s ark landed, how did the Kangaroos make it back to Australia?
There’s an article you can access by clicking here that elaborates on a time when the continents as we know them today were actually one solid land mass. That would give both animals and people the ability to migrate without having to contend with the insurmountable obstacle of an ocean between them and where they would ultimately make their home.
2) If the ark was covered in pitch, it also made it air tight. How did they survive for 40 days and 40 nights since Noah couldn’t open the window?
Probably because the areas that were covered in pitch were those that came in direct contact with the water as opposed to the airtight coffin you interpret the ark to be.
3) Why were Adam and Eve punished for eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil when they didn’t / couldn’t understand what they were doing?
They did understand what they were doing in that they had been told not to eat from that particular tree (Gen 2:17).
4) Why would God place the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil so close to His innocent creation, then allow Satan to tempt them and all the while stand back and do nothing?
Love and obedience go hand in hand (Jn 14:21) and love isn’t love unless its voluntary. In the absence of a choice, you don’t have love as much as you have a calculated reaction.
Dr Ravi Zacharias explains it this way:
What would it take to create a loving world void of evil? A world in which love is capable of meaningful expression and experience would also imply a world in which there is choice. If someone tells you that they love you, those words mean something because they are freely given. If you learned that someone had told you they loved you but that they had been forced to say it, their words would not mean very much. Thus, if we want to speak of a loving world, we must also speak of a world in which choices are exercised. And in such a world, there is also the possibility of choosing a course of action that is not loving, i.e. evil.
5) When the women went to Jesus’ empty tomb, was the stone already rolled away, or did an angel roll it away after the women got there?
When looking at the four gospel accounts, Matthew 28:2 is worded in a way that’s distinct from Mark 16:1-5, Luke 24:1-2 and John 20:1. Matthew reports the scene of the empty tomb in a manner that makes it sound as though the stone was rolled away upon the arrival of the women that had come to care for Jesus’ body as opposed to it happening prior to their arrival. The NIV Text Note elaborates on the Greek verbiage used in the text as being past tense so there’s no inconsistency between the four accounts, even though there might appear to be.4 See also James 1:13.
To continue on to Part II, click here.
1. “Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties”, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI 1982, p11
2. Ibid, p12
3. Ibid, p14
4. There was. The sense is “Now there had been.” It is clear from the parallel accounts (Mk 16:2-6; Lk 24:1-7; Jn 20:1) that the events of vv. 2-4 occurred before the women actually arrived at the tomb (NIV Text Note on Matthew 28:2) NIV Study Bible, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI 1985. p1489
