Questions and Answers from Pastor John - Free pentecostal literature, baptism of the holy Ghost (with the evidence of speaking in other tongues), the new birth experience, ....

"Questions and Answers - Page 10 "
Today's Date is:

February 10, 2006

Pastor John:

Last night I read the following verse from Hebrews 2:9;

"But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man."

What a verse! It was God's grace that Jesus should die for us. Wow. Am I correct in believing that it was God's plan that Jesus was to die before he became a man? Also, that God was willing to abort the plan if Jesus decided not to go thru with it ? Jesus understood that if he didn't die a man's death, that no man would be saved in the end. So it was God's will that Jesus die for us, but he left the decision to do so to Jesus. For some reason, I always thought that it was Jesus' original idea to die for men and not God's. But the verse "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son.." would suggest that it was God's idea in the first place.

While on earth, Jesus did the will of his father. So it must have been God's will that Jesus die for us. Please let me know if I'm thinking correctly about this.

Bob

Hi Bob.

You are thinking exactly right. The only reason the Son of God came to this earth was to do the Father's will. If it had been the will of the Father for him to come and kill us all, he would have done that, and would have rejoiced at another opportunity to please his Father again. The love Jesus had for us was the Father's love. The plan of salvation was God's before the foundation of the world.

Pastor John

February 8, 2006

I just started reading the internet article "The Influence of Trinitarian Doctrine on Translations of the Bible." I really appreciate the article, it is written very intelligently and with such clarity that anyone can understand (this is the way that Jesus taught). Could you please provide me with a little information on Mr. Clark and the organization with which he is associated?

Thanks

Dwight Dunaway

Hi Dwight:

Pastor John here. By the grace of God, I am not associated with any Christian organization.

We are a group of servants of Jesus who are working to make the truth known to God's children. They are divided and scattered within the many sects of Christianity, and God is calling them to come out of that religion so that He can make us one. We have meetings in my home to worship God and edify one another, and you are welcome to attend to or to receive CDs of one of our meetings if you would like to receive them.

Thanks for writing. Please keep in touch, and God bless.

John Clark, Sr.

February 5, 2005

Hello Pastor John,

Today I was reading in Matthew chapter 4 were Jesus started to preach, and in verse 23, “And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of disease among the people.” John, my question is, did the Jews have synagogues in every city?

I would guess they had somewhere to meet everywhere they lived as a group, whether or not it was a building officially designated as a "synagogue".

And if so were they supposed to have one in every city?

I don't think it was a matter of "supposed to", and there was certainly nothing wrong with it. They probably needed to have a place to gather just so they could survive in the hostile environment they usually live in.

I know by the law that the Levites were given 48 cities to live in, and did they have synagogues there?

They probably had somewhere to meet, even if they did not call it at that time a synagogue.

I know that God's people could bring their tithes and offerings there, in the 48 Levitical cities; did they also worship there?

If they obeyed the law, they did not offer sacrifices there. But they could always pray, sing, and read the Scriptures.

In the past few weeks I have had a lot of opportunities with a lot of people to tell on Jesus and what he has done in my life. It feels so good to confess Christ and talk about the one you love with people that don’t know him, but it really amazes me how little people read their Bibles and just repeat what some one has told them that is true about God.

I had one person say, “Before receiving the holy Ghost, you've got to get saved first and accept the Lord Jesus Christ as your personal Savior”, so I asked him, "What about baptism? Don’t you have to get baptized first?" I could not even get him to confess that a person needs to be baptized, much less which baptism is needed. I treated him with love, confessed the truth, and asked him to read his Bible and show me where what he said was in the Bible. He has yet to show me. : )

I wish more people would read their Bible. It is hard to reason with someone who has not even opened the book. I thank God for the desire to read the Bible and be taught the truth by my pastor through the Spirit.

Thanks, John.

Stuart

Hi Stuart:

My father always said he would much rather discuss the Scriptures with someone who knew them well than with ignorant people. You are learning why that is true.

Take care, and God bless you and Anna until we see you again.

Pastor John

February 5, 2006

Hey Pastor John,

We were reading the first few chapters of John this morning.

One question I have for you is regarding the conversation between Jesus and Mary in Chapter 2:3-4. During the marriage that was taking place Mary said, "They have no wine." Jesus replied, "Woman, what have I to do with thee? Mine hour is not yet come." In verse 11 it says, "This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory."

Was Mary expecting Jesus to provide wine for them? How could she have known he could when this was the first of his miracles? Or perhaps the sentence in verse 11 refers to the beginning of miracles in Cana, not overall. Had he done others before those in Cana? Or perhaps Mary was close to Jesus in a way that she knew he could do them.

Also, Amy and Brian and I were looking for verses in the Bible that mention a distinction between Jesus and God. Primarily, I was looking for those in Psalms in which David is speaking, but then Jesus begins to talk refering to himself as "I", refering to God as "you" or "he", and talking of the creation that Jesus himself made. I vaguely remember during an OT Bible study that you pointed out some Scriptures like that. Do any verses in Psalms come to mind right off the top of your head? In the mean time I'll keep searching.

Thanks!

Sarah

Hi Sarah:

You have done well to remember that I mentioned the book of Psalms as a good place to see the difference between the Father and the Son. Find the papers for the "Christ in Psalms" OT class and you will have a bunch of the Scriptures that you are looking for (Class #2083). If you can't find those papers, I will send them to you, and to anyone else who wants them.

Here is my translation of those verses from John that you asked about: "And when the wine had given out, Jesus’ mother told him, "They have no wine." But Jesus said to her, "Mother, what is that to us? My hour has not yet come." (There are good reasons to translate the word, "woman" as "mother" in this instance. I won't go into all that now.)

It seems as if Mary did think Jesus cold do something about the problem of a lack of wine at the wedding. Other than that, however, there is not much we can say for certain. I wish that I could help more with that, but insufficient information is given to us.

Pastor John

January 31, 2006

Pastor John,

My dad and I were reading in John today and we wanted to ask you a question. Could you please explain John 8:48 "Then answered the Jews, and said unto him, Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil?"

In that verse, those elders of Israel were suggesting that (1) Jesus was an illegitimte child, that Mary committed fornication with a Samaritan and Joseph married her to cover it up, or (2) Mary and/or Joseph were not really Jews but were Samaritans, or (3) Jesus was so kind to the hated Samaritans that he really preferred them and belonged with them rather than with Jews. The Samaritans were hated "half-breeds", who honored part of God's work in the past through Abraham and his descendants but rejected the other, especially David's doctrine of Jerusalem being the one place to worship, and certain elements of Moses' Law.

Also, my dad and I watched on TV the other day as Oral Roberts celebrated his 88th birthday. The best parts of the show included a video from the 50's when Oral Roberts prayed for the sick to be healed! I really enjoyed watching that for the 1st time. The other part that I really enjoyed was when Oral Roberts described when he had a massive heart attack while he was in his 70's. He was admitted into the hospital and had a tube down his throat and could not speak. He said he could whisper and speak in tongues. After he spoke in tongues, he asked God for the interpretation and the answer was something to the effect that "you shall not die, but live until you finish your work."

I also thought about your testimony about your credentials. The numerous things God taught you after going to Oral Roberts University, especially facing that professor (I can't remember his name).

Rebekah Embry

Hi Rebekah:

I am glad you had the opportunity to see Oral Roberts' old tent meetings. He is an especially anointed man of God and proved that beyond any shadow of doubt to both my generation (early on) and the one before mine. I wish that your generation had someone like that to look to. The closest person that I know of to that anointing is Benny Hinn, but even he comes short of the anointing for healing that Oral Roberts had. Brother Hinn is doing good for a lot of people, though, and I hope God continues to bless him for the sweet, humble spirit he has.

As far as facing my professor, you could be referring to my Greek professor at ORU or the Dean of the Graduate School of Theology, Dr. James Buskirk. I spoke with both of them about the truth, especially Dr. Buskirk, but they were not given the grace to hear it, as has been given to you and me. I thank God for that. He has been so merciful to us. I hope that my life demonstrates sufficient gratitude.

Thanks for writing.

Pastor John

January 29, 2006

Hi Pastor John,

Yeah, about the “creature who envied God's glory and who lied ” being in the garden, that’s a question I’ve often wondered about. It certainly suggests it wasn’t exactly perfect. I’ve often wondered about that. Wow, my mind is boggling at that! Hmmm, now that’s a bit unsettling! SO it wasn’t perfect. But I thought everything was perfect??? But if everything was perfect, then they wouldn’t have sinned in the first place. (that’s another thought I’ve had as well).

You are entering into maze of human philosophy, which cannot answer any questions for us about God. Philosophy ruins faith (Col. 2:8), and leaves us feeling empty and confused. Revelation gives light and life.

So what sort of a place was the garden in Eden then? It wasn’t perfect then, but it was surely better then what we see now. – The result of the sins was a curse upon the ground and separation from God etc.

Why would you say that was it not perfect? The serpent being there did not mean that the garden was imperfect. And if Adam had been faithful to God, nothing would have changed. You're not suggesting that a perfect life is one without choice, are you?

I agree with what you say about God’s ways being past finding out, but would it be okay if I wonder some more about these things?

Sure.

So now I am wondering about the two trees in the garden. The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and the Tree of Life. Why did God make these trees?

They were pretty?

If they were not supposed to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, then why did God make the tree in the first place?

He made all things for His own pleasure (Rev. 4:11). And He had every right to tell man that he could not enjoy one of His billions of fruit and nut trees.

It’s interesting to note that God told man not to eat from that tree, but then he said nothing about the Tree of Life. So maybe they were supposed to eat from that tree. We are supposed to eat from it as it says in Revelation.

Amen! Now if they had eaten of that tree instead, wouldn't that have made for a different, and better, story!

But then why would God make the other tree? Maybe God was going to have them eat from it later. Maybe God did want us to have knowledge after all. It just doesn’t make any sense for God to make the tree and then not have them eat it.

Sorry, I can't go with you down that road. God can create anything he wants for any reason He wants. There was time in my life when I thought God did not create turnip greens for people to eat (man, were they nasty tasting!), but I got over that. I enjoy them now. But I still feel that way about beets.

Now can I be a bit daring?

I have been waiting for you to do that! Please do!

I’ve had another thought just before I went to sleep last night. I started to think about how God is in control of all things. SO maybe God caused it to happen this way??? That really struck me hard when I thought that, and I basically ignored it! BUT then it’s true that God is in control of everything – he knew what was going to happen and as that verse says in Isaiah 47? He creates evil. SO was he the architect of the fall? I’m not very comfortable with that.

Jenny

I have never known what to say about that issue, Jenny. That question gets into the hidden wisdom of God, and no man is sufficient for such things. It is best for us just to stay simple and read that biblical story as it is written, be thankful for it, and trust God to have revealed to us all that we can handle.

You might want to read Paul's response to such inquiries on the predestination/free-will issue in Romans 9:9-24.

Thank you so much for writing me, Jenny. It is good for you to ponder over these things! But only for a time. As you move on in your OT studies, you will see that God has revealed much that we can understand, and we should do everything in our power to do that.

Pastor John

January 29, 2006

Pastor John

Reading this suggestion to Jenny, "You might want to read Paul's response to such inquiries on the predestination/free-will issue in Romans 9:9-24.", reminded me of an experience some months ago now.

For reasons I have forgotten I was [too] focused on philosophical thinking. In particular, this part of this passage in Rom 9,

"19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?"

I have to admit that at times I would get to thinking the question about finding fault was quite reasonable and fair and that I also that the answer in v20 was a bit of a cop-out. That day months ago I was very much thinking along those lines as I was sweeping the floors in a mushroom shed at the end of a day.

The Lord must have decided to put an end to it because in the Spirit I had a very definite question posed to me. It was, "If I told you that it did not matter what you did from now on, and you would be lost what would you do?"

Now that is a philosophical question but it is also frighteningly real, cutting edge stuff. The question came with the following feeling, that I retained the knowledge of God etc that I had. It wasn't a being turned over to sin type of situation. It was just that God said "you're out, no matter what!"

I floundered thinking "what would you do?" Would I be a sinner, taking what so-called pleasure there is in that life and in the end justify God's decision further, or would I hope there was a way yet to find mercy and live as righteously as I could in the hope of escape? Then, I thought, doing the latter that would just be self-righteousness which God hates. It was hopeless. There was no way out.

After enough of that, a second question followed. I can't remember it exactly but the sense of it was, "If I give you the chance to be saved what will you do?"

My answer was, "Everything I could."

Since then I haven't thought much about why God did some things the way He did. He has given us this opportunity to be saved, He made a way in Jesus. That is the reality. Our opinion about anything is nothing unless it comes from God.

Regarding the trees in the garden what I see is that the tree of life was there! and available to eat. What a good God to do that! His love for man was there from the very beginning. When we analyse we can miss the love of God. The tree of life was given and as for the other tree the warning was given. Seems reasonable to me.

We can simply eat from the tree of life and live, or sit under it and ask lots of questions about the rest of the garden and miss out in the end.

Speaking of gardens... beets!!! I think you refer to what we call "beetroot" which is much loved in Australia. A couple of weeks ago we made hamburgers here and as is common for us we put beetroot on them along with lettuce, tomato, bacon and cheese. Poor Leah! She did try it but did not like it. Oh well! We Aussies will just have to keep the best things for ourselves.:)

Damien

Oh, Damien!

I had forgotten about that hamburger we bought in Australia with a slice of beet on it. It was delicious! I apologize for slandering the beetroot. But it may have been a good hamburger because I could not taste the beet because of all that other stuff on the hamburger.

My father used to ask the same question of us that you say the Lord asked you. If you knew you would be saved, no matter what, or be lost no matter what, how would you live? It is an interesting question to consider.

Pastor John

January 29, 2006

John,

Reading Jenny’s thoughts and questions about the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and the Tree of Life, gave me some thoughts. These trees seem to be analogies for the paths we can take in our search for God. Eating of the Tree of Knowledge is like looking between the cracks, or asking philosophical questions, like trying to figure out the mind of God – it doesn’t give us life, but rather can take us farther from God. And maybe that’s why God told us not to eat of it. There is so much fruit to eat on the Tree of Life. We know we are eating of that tree when the fruit sustains the feelings of the love and mercy of God, no philosophy – that is life! God wants us to eat of that Tree. Eating of it will bring us closer to God.

Mark

January 29, 2006

Pastor John:

Where do christians get the silly notion that the meeting between Satan and God, in the book of Job, took place in heaven? Simple study of the scriptures will show that God always comes down to earth to "meet", since earth is the center point of God's working, not heaven.

Gino D

Hi Gino.

If the Lord has revealed to you that this Scripture refers to an earthly meeting instead of a heavenly one, please give us your testimony about it.

My father actually taught that the gathering of "the sons of God" in the first chapter of Job was an earthly meeting, and he was a very wise man in Christ. I have never seen how that opinion can be conclusively contradicted. On the other hand, neither can I see how anyone can conclusively contradict the contrary opinion, that a heavenly meeting was being referred to in Job 1.

You say that God "meets" only on earth, and that fact proves that the idea that it was a heavenly meeting is "silly". But there are meetings of heavenly creatures recorded in the Bible, such as those incredible meetings described in Revelation and the few places in the OT (e. g. 1Kgs. 22:19-22). Now, of course, if "sons of God" always refers only to human beings, you would have a stronger basis for your opinion. But in Job 38:7, we are told that the "sons of God" were singing together when God laid the foundation of the earth!

The ancient philosopher Socrates warned his listeners that to speak conclusively on matters of opinion is unwise. So, if you have heard form God on the matter, go ahead and speak conclusively. Otherwise, I would back away from characterizing as "silly" an opinion that differs from yours.

You servant in Christ,

Pastor John

"Now there was a time when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord and Satan came also among them" (Job 1:6). "how art thou fallen from heaven' O Lucifer son of the morning" (Isa.14:12). "I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven" (Lk.10:18). Do you think that the Lord God has ever summoned him back to meet with him? Or do you think God came down? "and the Lord came down to see the city and the tower..."(Gen.11:5). "and the Lord came down upon Mount Sinai" (Ex.19:20). "and the Lord came down in a cloud, and spake unto him" (Num.11:25). "and the Lord came down in a pillar cloud...and called Aaron and Miriam" (Num.12:5). "and cain went out from the presence of the Lord" (Gen.4:16) "but Jonah rose up to flee unto tarshish from the presence of the Lord" (Jon.1:3). "so Satan went forth from the presence of the Lord and smote Job" (Job2:7). "and Balaam said unto Balak, stand by the burnt offering and I will go: peradventure the Lord will come to meet me...And God met Balaam and he said unto him..." (Num.23:3). And one more time as Jesus said "I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven". And that event took place long before the meeting in Job. That is what the Holy Ghost revealed to me. So my brothers did Satan "go up" to heaven to meet God or did God "come down" to meet with Satan, who had been "going to and fro in the earth and walking up and down in it"? Your friend, Gino

Hi Gino:

There were meetings in heaven in which Satan and/or evil spirits were in God's presence throughout the Old Testament. An example from 1Kings 22 has already been mentioned.

Satan was not cast out of the kingdom of God until after Jesus paid the price for our redemption and ascended to the Father (John 12: 31; Rev. 12:1-9). Jesus' vision of Satan being "cast out of heaven as lightning" does not necessarily mean that it had already happened. I will quote your letter to Jenny:

"We must understand that God is a prophet. And he often speaks in the "prophetic perfect tense". The scriptures say "He declares the end from the beginning" and "He calleth those things which be not as though they were". We must have that same mind when we study the scriptures, or else we will be very confused, because the bible is written in that way."

So, there was no need for God to summon Satan back up to heaven in order for Satan to speak with Him. He could have been wandering the earth and had access to God before Jesus shut the door permanently. Satan had seen God's face for the last time. Because of Jesus, he had already been damned and cast out. The many accounts of God's coming to meet with humans at times does not require that all meetings with Him have been on earth. Paul, you will remember, was caught up to the third heaven to meet with God. And even in the OT, Isaiah saw the Lord on a throne, "high and lifted up". I wrote before, and I am providing this information only as a brotherly caution to you, to show you that the place of the meeting of God and Satan in Job 1 is not a matter that can be declared settled doctrine and should not, therefore, be debated as if it were. Nor is there sufficient justification for condemning as "silly" the idea that the meeting took place in heaven.

Pastor John

January 27, 2006

Bro Clark

I am a member of the UNITED PENTECOSTAL CHURCH in Cheyenne, Wyoming. God has put it upon my heart to study the subject of FASTING. If you would, would you mind sending me some info on how the UPC looks at fasting. I would greatly appreciate all you could help me with on the subject.

Thank you

Your sister in Christ

Vinnie Dowell

Dear Sister Vinnie:

Thank you for writing. It is an honor to hear from God's people anytime.

Now to answer your question. Just as Jesus had invisible food to eat (Jn. 4:31-34), so his manner of fasting was invisible to the flesh. The only kind of fasting that God recognizes or blesses is described in detail in Isaiah 58. Every other kind of fasting is vain, regardless of whose fast it is.

If you have any other questions, please feel free to write again.

Your servant in Christ,

Pastor John

January 26, 2006

Pastor John,

Haskell and I were doing some more reading in Acts, and we had a few questions.

1 ~ "Easter" is mentioned in Acts 12:4. Is this a christian influence on the translation or did the Jews use this word for the Passover then?

That is one of the most blatant examples of Christian corruption of the Scriptures to promote their religion. The Greek word there is the word for Passover. Christianity's "holy day" of Easter did not even exist when the book of Acts was written. You are a sharp reader to catch that!

2 ~ When did synagogues come about in Jewish religion? We noticed that Paul and Barnabas were going to synagogues to teach the Jews.

After the Jews were scattered by God throughout the world, as Moses warned them He would do if they failed to obey His Law, they began to gather together to read the Scriptures and pray. Guess what these gathering places were called in Greek? Give up? Okay. They were called, literally, "gathering place". Not a very splashy title for a building, but that is actually what the word "synagogue" means. It is not a Hebrew word either, as one might expect, but a Greek word found in the Septuagint (the ancient Greek version of the Old Testament).

Synagogues were the Jews' version of Christian churches now.

3 ~ The person named John, whose surname is Mark, is he the author of the gospel of Mark, or do we know? We noticed that Paul didn't want him going with them to visit the cities where they had already preached, and this was a big deal between Paul and Barnabas.

The young man John Mark is, according to ancient Christian tradition, the author of the Gospel of Mark. The tradition further states that Mark wrote his gospel based upon what Peter told him. That tradition may or may not be true. No one really knows. Christians, historically, are notorious for inventing facts to fill voids in knowledge.

Thanks for your time. This has really been interesting reading.

Cris

You are welcome. Keep it up!

Pastor John

January 23, 2006

John,

We were reading in John, Chapter 3 tonight, and noticed something in verse 17. It says that Jesus didn’t come into the “world” to condemn it, but that the “world” might be saved. I thought that Jesus came only to the lost sheep of Israel. Was the original Greek word for what was translated “world” mistranslated?

Mark

Hi Mark:

The Greek word there is the ordinary one for "world", so that is a correct translation. Still, that verse does, as you point out, seem to contradict Scriptures such as those found throughout John 17, one example being where Jesus prayed, "I pray for them; I do not pray for the world. . . ."

The answer to your question, though, is this: While it is true that Jesus was sent by God to minister only to the lost sheep of Israel, that does not mean that he was sent to save only the lost sheep of Israel. Jesus confused some of his opponents once with these words (Jn. 10:15-16), "Just as the Father knows me, I also know the Father, and I lay down my life for the sheep. And I have other sheep that are not of this fold; those I must also bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one flock and one Shepherd."

Jesus' beloved "other sheep" are us, the Gentiles who believe, and the "fold" to which he referred was Israel. His purpose is to gather all who believe into one fold, which is as Paul said, "neither Jew nor Gentiles". The new fold is called a number of things, "the body of Christ", "the household of faith", the "ekklesia", etc. And that is the fold into which the Spirit of God baptizes those who believe.

Pastor John

January 16, 2006

Pastor John,

Tracey and I were reading in the fourth chapter of John one morning this week when I noticed something that I want to ask you about. In verse 12 the Samaritan woman asked Jesus “Art thou greater than our father Jacob” and in verse 20 she said “Our fathers worshipped in this mountain.”

Why would a Samaritan woman who made a plain distinction between being a Samaritan and being a Jew consider Jacob to be her father? And I assume in verse 20 when she said “Our fathers worshipped in this mountain” she was speaking of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob so why would she also consider Abraham and Isaac to be her father? I was just curious. Thanks.

Keith

Hi Keith:

The Samaritan woman was, in the eyes of many Jews, a despised "half-breed", so to speak. Samaritans were taught to look to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as their spiritual forefathers (2Kgs. 17:24-34), but to reject as fraudulent much of the law of Moses and all of King David's revelation concerning Jerusalem being the place God had chosen for worship. This was the religion invented by King Jeroboam for his northern kingdom of Israel after the ten tribes in northern Canaan became a separate nation from Judah in the south.

Thanks for the question.

Pastor John

January 16, 2006

Pastor John,

I had gotten the impression somehow that the Samaritans were descended (somehow) from Abraham. Is that not so?

Jenny

Hi Jenny:

They were probably a mixed breed, so to speak, of Jews and non-Jews. 2Kings 17 explains how the foreigners came to be in that territory and the Jews were taken away.

Pastor John

January 15, 2006

Pastor John

We were listening to the Cd "a stranger to ourselves", and on it you said Mary and his brothers came to get Jesus when he was preaching, because they (his mother and brothers) thought he was beside himself.

Now the other day we were reading in the Gospels and came across that verse but it said his friends thought he was beside himself (Mk. 3:21), and when we later came to the verse about Mary and his brothers coming (Mk. 3:31-35), it did not say anything about Jesus being beside himself.

Now Leah and I were thinking that his friends went to tell his mother that they thought he was beside himself, so they came to see what was going on.

Would you be able to shed a bit more light on this for us please.

Thank you

Steven & Leah

Hi there!

Actually, neither the Greek word for "friend" or "family" is in that verse from Mark 3:21. Instead, what is there in the original Greek is an odd phrase that denotes "others who are intimately connected with someone, e.g., "family, relatives" (BDAG, p. 756). So, according to the experts in the matter, the translation in Mark 3:21, "friends", is incorrect.

From this, then, we can see, later in that chapter (3:31-35), that when Mary and Jesus' siblings came to see him, it probably was part of a broad family effort to get Jesus some professional counseling before he went off the deep end. Understanding that may be the reason Jesus ignored his mother's request to come out to see her and his other relatives.

Pastor John

January 14, 2006

Pastor John,

Jesus was a Jew and was required to do everything the Jews did such as being circumcised in the flesh, keeping the feast days, holy days and being water baptised. Did he ever make animal sacrifices?

Bro Randell

Hi Randell:

While on earth, Jesus himself would not have been allowed to make animal sacrifices, being from the tribe of Judah instead of from the priestly tribe of Levi. But he certainly would have brought animals for the priests to offer in sacrifice for him. Jesus did not begin to function as our priest until after he ascended into heaven and was consecrated in the days before Pentecost morning in Acts 2.

Pastor John

January 13, 2006

John:

Which tribe in Israel was Paul from?

Hi:

Paul, was from the tribe of Benjamin (Phip. 3:5). But he got over it when he realized that "in Christ, there is neither Jew nor Gentile".

jdc

January 13, 2006

Hi John,

The Pizarro’s, Sue and I were reading in Matthew tonight. While reading, all I could think about was your e-mail about your praying God would raise up prophets, teachers, and apostles for his children. Seeing how the Sadducees and Pharisees could not recognize who Jesus was. How they sought to kill him, Peter, Stephen, Paul, and so on. These things hit my heart, to stay lowly and pray to have a pure heart!!!!!

In our reading, it said he who receives a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet’s reward, and he who receives a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man’s reward.

I thank God that Jesus touched my heart so I could receive your teaching, that he took that wrong spirit from my heart so I could receive things of God from you. I pray my heart is prepared to be able to receive whoever God sends.

Question: In Matthew 13:52, Jesus said, "Every scribe who is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is a householder, who brings forth out his treasures things new and old." Is this someone like you who is our pastor teaching us new and old things of God?

Jimmy

Hi Jimmy:

It is like a teacher who teaches you the right ways of God from both the Old and New Testament.

It is good to meet together to read the Bible and consider the things of God. You folks keep it up!

jdc

January 12, 2006

Hey Pastor John,

Aunt Natalie and I were reading tonight in Acts and it was very enjoyable. I have a couple questions for you.

In chapter 6 verse 1, what does it mean by "their widows were neglected in the daily ministration?" In verse 2 it mentions serving tables. I'm assuming the serving tables and ministration is something to do with supporting the widows financially? It seems that this is a small conflict which leads to an even more significant part of the story, so I'd like to know.

Yes, the "ministration" means the caring for those poor widows by providing their life-sustaining needs, such as food, clothes, and housing.

Also, is the conjunction "and" sometimes read in the King James not so much as to distinguish different things in a series but to mean "this and also this"....like in chapter 4:6 we were discussing whether those that were with Annas, the high priest, namely John, were Annas's kindred also. It mentions that with Annas were "Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, AND as many as were of the kindred of the high priest." Does this last "AND" mean that those men mentioned were with Annas or with him and related to him? There are four Johns in the book of Acts, so we were trying to distinguish and find ways to remember them all.

There is no way to tell, definitively, whether that particular "and" refers to an entirely new set of men (the whole set includes those mentioned in verse 5) or if it continues the list of relatives to the high priest. We know that Annas and Caiphas were kin (father-in-law and son-in-law), and so John and Alexander may also have been. If they were, then I would say that the "and" in verse 6, the one you asked about, means "and others in this list of relatives to the high priest".

These men in verse 6 did not want anyone to know of the miracle healing through the lame man in the previous chapter and wished that Peter and John discontinued preaching and healing among the people, "But that it spread no further among the people, let us straitly threaten them, that they speak henceforth to no man in this name," Acts 4:17. What was it that these men feared? Was it that they might lose their assemblies to Peter and John?

They were envious of the attention and respect that God's apostles were receiving from the ordinary people. It was the same reason they connived to have Jesus executed.

I love that Jesus is given several names by Peter: Acts 3:14 "the Holy One" and "the Just".

In the Bible, Jesus has more names than anyone. The greater the personality, the more the names.

Do we know the author of Acts?

It was Luke. Compare the intro to Luke and the Intro to Acts.

Well, I really do long to be in at least one translation class before the entire New Testament is translated. Maybe we can do some Sunday after the meeting. I'm coming down with Amy and Brian.

Thanks!

Sarah

Realistically, we will be working on the NT translation for years to come. So, you have some time. But try not to let it all slip by. It will be good have you there at some point. It isn't something everyone enjoys doing, and that is fine. I do not want to leave the impression with anyone that if someone misses those sessions, then he has failed somehow to do his part in the Lord. That is NOT the case whatsoever. Working on the NT translation is not for everybody to do. In fact, if everybody tried to help, we could not even get it done.

But if you do come, you should be warned. If someone comes with an ego problem (not at all to say you do) or is self-willed (not at all to say you are), he usually gets his feelings hurt pretty quickly, or becomes irritated. The translation sessions are wonderful and happy times, but they can become pretty intense sometimes, and any suggestion stands the chance of being rejected, sometimes unceremoniously, because everyone is concentrating so hard on the matter at hand. You should see how my ideas are talked about sometimes! :( sniff......sniff. Whenever that happens, it makes me want to just go home. But since I AM home when we are translating, I stay happy. :)

I hope you are happy, too, dear Sarah!

Pastor John

January 11, 2006

Good day Pastor John,

I was having a thought on tithe and offering of late, so i decided to tell you, cause I know you will be of good help to me on such issue. If worshipping God now is all about in Spirit and in truth, and warfares are of the spirit, holy communion of unleaven bread, robes for worship, eight-day circumcission, water baptism, anointing oil and the likes are of the flesh, and things of the past, (in fact, irrelevant), why is tithe and offering still relevant? I see no connection of it to worshipping God in Spirit and in Truth.

Just wondering and pondering over it, and I need your help to avoid matching the lines through my thoughts.

Thanks for the help.

Regards,

Frank

Hi Brother Frank!

Good question.

The issue is, was God's commandment for His people to support His servants with their tithes and offerings a moral commandment or a ceremonial one? Moral laws were strengthened, not done away with, by the sacrificial work of Christ. True enough, bringing tithes and offerings deals with natural substance - earthly money and goods, but then, so does "loving your neighbor", when we get practical about it.

The answer to whether or not the commandment for Israelites to bring tithes and offerings to God was a moral or ceremonial law is found in the answer to another question; namely, "If we do not bring God His tithes and offerings, then which commandment have we broken?" And the answer to that is found in Malachi 3:8, where God tells His people that they have robbed Him by failing to bring their tithes and offerings. And we know that stealing is a moral offense. There is nothing ceremonial about God's commandment, "Thou shalt not steal."

Brother Frank, if we are to be reasonable, godly people, we would do something like bring tithes and offerings to God even if He had not required us to. Working together like that makes web sites possible so that people in foreign lands, such as yourself, can hear the truth of the gospel and be delivered from Christianity! God's system of tithes and offerings is the most reasonable, practical system for the propagation of the gospel that can be devised. If there was something better, God would already have come up with it.

Pastor John

January 10, 2006

Hey Pastor John,

I have a question. Starting in Act 8:36 when Philip is riding in t he chariot with the eunuch, after hearing Philip preach to him about Jesus, the eunuch saw some water and wanted to be baptized. So, they stopped and Philip took him down to the water and baptized him in it...why is that? T his man is an Ethiopian, so I didn't think that water baptism was required of anyone but the Jews at this time. All the other apostles/disciples were baptizing people with the holy Ghost, but then I noticed that Philip bapti zed the eunuch in water, and I was just wondering why that was. Maybe I'm missing something here and not reading into it properly.

Thanks.

Leah

Hi Leah.

Good questions.

First, the Ethiopian eunuch may have been from the land of Ethiopia , but have you ever wondered why he had to come to Jerusalem to worship God ? The answer is that either he was a Jew who had happened to be born in Et hiopia or he had was a convert to the Jewish religion (not Judiasm as we kn ow it now but religion as the Law of Moses described it). We don't know wh ich of those two things is true, but the difference is insignificant as con cerns your questions. Being a Jew, whether born Jewish or converted, the E thiopian eunuch would have received the necessary circumcision of his Genti le foreskin so that he could travel to Jerusalem three times a year to pres ent himself before the Lord, as the Law of Moses demanded. That explains w hy the Ethiopian eunuch was in Israel when Philip met him, and why Philip b aptized him. John's baptism was required of everyone under the Law of Mose s, that is, of every Jew.

Secondly, Paul's gospel, which excluded all ceremonial forms, inclu ding water baptism, had not yet been revealed to Paul or to anyone else. A nd even if it were to have been already revealed, Philip still was doing th e right thing because he was dealing with a Jew when he ministered to the E thiopian eunuch. Paul's gospel applied only to Gentiles.

Thanks for the questions. I like thinking about them.

Pastor John

January 10, 2006

Wow! That is so neat! Haskell and I were just reading this last n ight and asking the same question!! We wondered if the eunuch was a Jew, t oo! That's so good! I'm glad that Leah asked that question!

Cris

Dear Cris:

Yes! Encouraging little things happen when all of God's people are doing the right thing together--even if at different places on the earth! They are the things that make our time here so much more pleasant. jdc

January 10, 2006

Hey Pastor John,

Rebekah and I just read Chapters 8 & 9 of Acts last night. It was wonderful to receive the question from Leah followed by your answer about the Ethiopian eunuch. Also, I really enjoyed reading the 2nd Corinthians translation (I appreciate the time and effort of everyone that has helped with the translation). I enjoyed the Saturday night gathering, just feeling the fellowship was wonderful.

Junior Embry

Amen, Jr.!

The blessings just keep coming. Let's enjoy this season of joy and peace and be prepared for times to change.

Pastor John

January 10, 2006

Pastor John,

I have been reading little stories with Jacob, and he had a questio n last night about the animals talking. He asked me why the serpent was ta lking to Eve, and if the animals talked to Noah on the Ark. I just wanted to make sure I am telling him the right thing from the beginning. I told h im before the flood, the animals did talk [with people], but now I am not s ure if that was right. Thanks for your time.

Jammie

Hi Jammie and Jacob -- and Paul!

I think the animals did talk to people before the flood, and maybe on the ark, too. But I don't know about that. They may have, but then, Go d may have made them hibernate during that year and ten days. The serpent certainly talked with Eve in the garden, and she did not seemed surprised.

jdc

January 10, 2006

Hey Uncle John,

I read the email that Brittany sent to you about angels, and i was wondering "what is the difference between angels and cherubims?

Abigail

Hello Dear Abigail.

There may be many differences between cherubs and angels of which w e are ignorant. But one notable difference is that angels do NOT have wing s. Cherubs do. Angels look like ordinary humans. Cherubs most certainly do not. The Bible says that we at times meet angels and do not know it (be cause they look like one of us), but if a cherub ever knocked at your door, you would not mistake him for a human. They have wings, two or four faces , living wheels attached to them, and lightning bolts shooting out.

Thanks for the question. And watch out for angels! They are watch ing out for you.

Uncle John

January 6, 2006

Hey John,

I have a question about Paul. At the end of Acts, Paul was at Rome for two years. Does it tell anywhere in the Bible how Paul died?

No. Paul's death is not recorded in the Bible. There are some Christian myths about that, including the myth that Paul was beheaded at Rome and everywhere his head bounced after it fell off, a spring of water burst up. Such tall tales are not convincing.

Also, Sue was thinking Festus took the place of Lysias as the Chief Captain. Is that right?

We have been reading the book of Acts with Jimmy & Sue this week. It has been a good time!

Jimmy P

Hey Jimmy!

Festus took the place of Felix (Acts 24:27). He was a much higher official than a mere captain in the Roman army. Lysias the Captain was apparently summoned by Felix to Paul's trial to give a first-hand account of what had happened in Jerusalem when Paul was being beaten by the mob and then taken in Roman custody. If he came, and there is no reason to think he did not, then Lysias' account at Paul's trial was left out of Acts.

Pastor John

January 5, 2006

Pastor John,

Hey pastor john i was just wondering... I know a little bit about what real angels are, but just so i know exactly what one is (ex. what it was created to do, what it looks like, How God portrays them, how they play a part in the kingdom of heaven as well as in our world, ect.) Do you think you could give me some parts of the Bible where I could read about them? I would do it myself, but i don't know where to begin to look for the info. I'm just trying to decipher what a REAL angel is, since I've realized I may not know the truth because of Christian mythology.

THANK YOU!!!!!

Brittany :)

My dear little sister, Brittany:

It is always good to hear from you, and what a good question! There is no specific section of the Bible devoted to a description of angels. We have to look over the entire book and put the pieces together to have any hope of developing a clear picture of them. Even then, it is sketchy. Here is some biblical information about angels:

Angels are invisible spiritual beings (Ps. 104:4; Heb. 1:7) who can, if God wills it, appear to humans. We know that angels eat because the manna that God gave to Israel to eat in their 40-year wilderness wanderings was actually "angels’ food" (Ps. 78:25). There are so many angels in heaven that they cannot be counted (Heb. 12:22), but this is because God created them, not because they reproduce as humans do, for angels do not marry (Mt. 22:30). The nature of angels differs from that of men (Heb. 2:16), even though they are similar in some ways, such as speaking various languages (1Cor. 13:1).

We have all probably met angels and even spoken with them at times without realizing it (Heb. 13:2). This meeting with angels without realizing it would be impossible if angels had wings. Angels having wings is one of the Christian myths of which you spoke. That is a holdover from ancient Roman mythology, which we know now to be a core element of the religion of Christianity. The angels vary in size just as humans do. I base this on no Scripture but on my own experience of seeing three of them flying overhead in a vision many years ago now. There was one angel somewhat larger than the other two. Beyond that, we can say that the size of angels is roughly the size of humans (Rev. 21:17), which also helps to explain how it is possible for us to meet angels without realizing who they are. On those occasions, we would only think they were other humans like us.

Mankind was originally created "a little lower than the angels" (Heb. 2:7; 2Pet. 2:11), but in the resurrection, we will be their judges (1Cor. 6:3). Even now, among the angels themselves, there are differences. Some angels are mightier than others (e.g. an especially "mighty" angel is mentioned in Rev. 10:1), some have special anointings (Rev. 14:18), and some rank higher than others in God’s kingdom (e.g., "archangels"). But under no circumstances are people to worship angels (Col. 2:18).

Some angels are on earth, by the will of God, as our servants, to watch over us (Ps. 34:7; Mt. 18:10) and to minister to us (Heb. 1:4) in other ways. Angels came and ministered to Jesus after his temptation in the wilderness (Mt. 4:11). Certain angels were commanded from the beginning of Jesus’ earthly life to watch over Jesus, to keep him from injury (Ps. 91:11). Angels were with Jesus when he ascended from earth to his Father (Acts 1), and they will be with him when he returns to earth to gather his saints to be with him (e.g. Mt. 25:31; Mk. 8:38; 2Thess. 1:7). Solomon warned us to be careful what we say because an angel might hear us (Eccl. 5:6), and sometimes God uses angels to punish evildoers (Ps. 35:5, 6).

Angels are not all-powerful and all-knowing. They do not understand the gospel and have a great desire to know what it is like to be "a child of God" (1Pet. 1:12), even though for some unknown reason it makes them very happy to see a sinner repent and become one (Lk. 15:10). In comparison to God, angels are foolish (Job 4:18), and God does not really need or trust them any more than He needs or trusts humans, even His own servants and saints (Job 4:18; 15:15). There is a verse somewhere, I believe, that states that God does not trust angels, but I cannot find it right now. That verse, however, wherever it is, was not written to say something evil about the holy angels. It only points out the surpassing greatness of the Creator.

Some angels followed Satan in his arrogance and self-will (2Pet. 2:4), and they were cast out of heaven with him after Jesus’ ascension and glorification (Rev. 12:7-9). Jesus mentioned them when he spoke of the everlasting fire that was "prepared for the devil and his angels" (Mt. 25:41). Jude mentions them as failing to hold on to their original place in God’s creation (Jude 6). It appears to me that these fallen angels (the devil is NOT a fallen angel, but a fallen cherub - Ezek. 28:14-16) are the evil spirits that are called "demons" in the Bible.

The word "angel" in both the Old Testament Hebrew and the New Testament Greek is the word for "messenger". Most of the time, when we read of angels in the Bible, they are carrying a message from God to man or performing a task assigned to them by God. (The most unusual task performed by angels that I can think of in the Bible is mentioned by Jesus in Luke 16, where Lazarus, a poor, righteous beggar, died and was carried into Paradise by angels. I have wondered why God uses angels for that work, but there is no biblical answer.) Anyway, God apparently created angels to bear messages, as Gabriel did when he announced to Mary that she had been chosen to bear God’s Son.

Some angels are called "evil angels", not necessarily because they themselves are evil but because they are sent with evil, or disasters, for mankind. Jesus will send "his angels" to cause division between the wise and the foolish among the saints near the end of time (Mt. 13:41). Paul described this coming event as God "sending a strong delusion" on saints who "received not the love of the truth" but "had pleasure in unrighteousness" (2Thess. 2:11-12), thus purging the household of God before Jesus’ second coming. It was God’s angel who slaughtered nearly 200,000 Assyrians in one night because of their king’s arrogant boast against God (Isa. 37:36).

By the way, the only two names of angels given in the Bible are Gabriel and Michael. Christian tradition offers us another angel’s name, and I cannot recall it right now, but it is not important because it is just another example of Christian mythology.

Well! That turned into more of an answer than I had planned to give, but I am glad you asked. I enjoyed thinking on those things again. Thanks for the question.

Pastor John

January 4, 2006

Pastor John,

We were at Sonny and Doris's house last night, and we were discussing the scene in Acts 10 where the Lord gave Peter the vision of the sheet coming down with the four-footed beast, and that raised a question for me. When God tells Peter in verse 13-15: "And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. And the voice [spake] unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, [that] call not thou common."

Is it correct for me to think that God is talking about the Gentiles because he was about to send Peter to Cornelius house?

Yes. Exactly.

I was thinking that God was talking about Him cleansing the Gentiles, which the Jews called dogs (unclean animals), and that was why He gave Peter the vision. It seems like he wouldn't have been able to take in what the Lord would do at Cornelius house unless the Spirit had prepared him for it.

That is true, Isn't it a precious, wonderful thing to be able to read the Bible and really understand what is going on in God's heart? How blessed does that make you? And thankful for the grace of God?

Hey, that is kinda like this past weekend, if Jesus hadn't of prepared us for Sunday on Saturday night, then we wouldn't have been able to understand and get the gold out of Sunday!!! That is my train of thought right now, but wanted to get your insight.

That is true. (More grace from God.)

Also when it says that Cornelius was a Centurion, is he some kind of government official?

Cornelius was a military officer. Centurions were a crucial element in a Roman legion. Centurions were chosen to that post specifially because of their level-headedness and even tempers. Roman armies were often stationed in foreign lands where hostilities against Rome were high and and situations could get out of hand, with riots etc., at the slightest provocation. Centurions had to be no-nonsense kind of men, unmarried (for much of Rome's history), and completely in charge of himself and his company of 80 or so men.

Thanks for your answers. Tony and I have started reading in Peter this week. I love that book!!!! We are very excited about reading it. It has so much knowledge & Truth in it!!! We didn't want to stop reading last night, but we had to get some sleep! Ha! That is all for now! I like thinking on these things. Makes you healthy. Well talk to you later! Margo

It brings me joy to see God's children "searching the scriptures" together and sincerely looking for the perfect way of Jesus as they spend time in this dying world. The other evening, I walked into Brother Bob Payne's house, and he was reading in the Gospel of Matthew with his family and a few others. Without that kind of commitment to godliness, a family is missing some elements of family life that are fundamental to happiness. Keep it up and be encouraged. The benefits of humbling ourselves to God often manifest themselves in small ways that go unnoticed until we look back and see what God has done.

Pastor John

December 31, 2005

Pastor John

Leah and I were reading in Matthew and we were wondering...why does Jesus heal people then send them away and tell them to say nothing, and some he heals and tells them to tell everybody? Could you help us in understanding this?

Another thing we were reading about the parables of the kingdom of heaven and were wondering if they were all the same in meaning and if they are what are they trying to get across.

thanks

Steven

Dear Steven,

First of all, let me say that I am very pleased to hear that you and Leah are reading the Bible together. That is one of the foundations to a happy and secure marriage.

There were times, Steven, when so many people followed Jesus that it hampered his ability to move about and accomplish the work that the Father had sent him to do on earth. I would imagine on those occasions when he felt that the multitudes would be a hindrance to his work, he would command the healed person to say nothing and to go home quietly, while on other occasions, perhaps when the Father directed him to heal many people as a sign to Israel, he would have told healed people to spread the news. That is how I have always understood those passages to which you refer.

As for the parables, there may be some minor differences in their meaning, but fundamentally, the point of all the parables is this: "He who endures unto the end , the same shall be saved." If you will notice the next time you read some parables, that crucial lesson is at least of part of Jesus' point every time he speaks a parable.

Take care, and keep searching out the truth with your wife. It is your responsibility to guide the house along life's road.

Pastor John

December 26, 2005

John:

RE: John 12:42
In our times, who would be the spiritual equivalent to the Pharisees and the chief rulers?

Dear WS:

In the verse from John 12, the chief rulers were men of high rank among God's Old Testament people who knew the truth but were too concerned that the religious zealots of their times, the Pharisees, would cause them problems if they confessed the truth they knew. Those who are spiritually in the same place as the chief rulers now are ministers of great esteem among believers today who know more truth than they will confess before their congregations lest those who are zealous for the dead religion of Christianity cause them to lose popularity and money.

If God condescends to show us truth, the least we should do is admit that we see it. God help us overcome the flesh to the extent that we not only confess the truth, and not only live the truth, but enjoy doing both -- regardless of the consequences.

Pastor John

December 17, 2005

Pastor John,

Cris and I were wondering if a sheep will always eventually receive the Holy Ghost, or is it possible to be a sheep and pass through life never receiving it.

thanks,

Haskell

Hi:

There can be no definitive answer, of course, because there is no way to confirm or deny what does not happen! So, anything one would say to that must be merely a matter of opinion.

Pastor John

December 17, 2005

Hi Pastor John,

In the “All things” CD you emphasise that if you are a child of God there is no ‘intrusion’ in our lives – no thing that God did not design/ordain for us. Is that only after one is born again? I kind of think I was in a bit of a “no man’s land” when I was in Xty because I really think that I was fair dinkum about God all along. So there are some things that I wonder about and wonder whether God ordained for those things to happen. But if not I wonder who was the craftsmen of those awful things. In fact in the 12 years I was a Xian, I was serious about God; before, during and after. SO could allowing me to go into Xty part of the “all things” deal? I know I really was serious about God then.

Jenny

Hi Jenny:

Yes, that was part of God's plan for you. If you love God and are among "the called according to His purpose", everything in your past was "working together" with something else in your life for your eventual blessing and salvation.

Pastor John

PS By the way, what do you good folk "down under" mean when you refer to a "dinkum"?

Pastor John,

From the dictionary - dinkum > adjective Austral./NZ. informally, "genuine".
PHRASES ---- "fair dinkum" used to emphasize that, or query whether, something is genuine or true.

ORIGIN: of unknown origin.

Steven

Dear Steven:

That's fair dinkum good. Thank you.

jdc

PS Excuse my Australian

December 15, 2005

Dear John,

I was reading over Luke Ch.4 again today but dropped back to the last part of chapter 3. Beginning with verse 23, Jesus being the son of Joseph, etc. all the way back to Adam being the son of God, Nathan is mentioned as the son of David. However, in Matt. 1:6 Solomon is mentioned as being begat by David of her that had been the wife of Urias.

Are both versions lineages? Do we know anything more about Nathan? He seems to be mentioned only once in 2 Samuel 5:14. Just wondering about the significance of his name in Luke, if any. Also, what is the significance of the italics in Matt.1:6?

Thanks.

Bro Jim K

Hi Brother Jim!

There is nothing significant about the italics in Matthew 1:6 in the KJV. What italics means in such a translation is that those precise words are not found in the original Greek text but that the translators felt that they belonged. I agree, in this case.

The difference in the lineages found in Luke and in Matthew, beginning at the famed Solomon/Nathan divide has been debated and discussed for centuries, as you might imagine. I keep my eyes open for any real explanation of it, and about twenty years ago or more I read one theory that was plausible, but in the main, I think Paul's exhortation to Timothy to stay away from genealogies is best (1Tim. 1:4), at least until a clear answer is found for this confusing case.

jdc

December 15, 2005

Hi,

Do you think God has a role with royalty in this day and age? That sort of thing seems quite irrelevent to me. I think they are obsolete. Royals just seem to do not much really. They go to "gala events" and cut ribbons occasionally, and I suppose they keep some old ladies happy with the excitement of an occasional visit to one's country and a card when your 100, but its not like they make decisions in the western world at all. In fact I think it creates an unnecessary sort of elitism. That was all my question was, does God have a role. Is that day of "kings" gone now.

Thanks, JH, for sending me your question.

The day of kings will never go away. If for no other reason, the day of kings has not permanently gone because the Bible tells us that there are kings coming who will rule the world with the Beast, who will also be a very great and powerful king. And after the Beast is destroyed, Jesus will always be our king. So, . . . well, come to think of it, the day of "kings" (plural) may indeed pass away, but the day of our "King" will not!

At this time in history, kings are temporarily out of style in our culture. And in other cultures, they may be called by different names, but they are here nonetheless. Saddam Hussein was certainly a king, for example, with life-and-death power over his subjects in Iraq. The king and queen of England are mere ornaments, pathetic toys of the public whim, and those "royals" are often mocked by this proud generation, but they should rather be pitied. They are "royal" only because a sufficient number of the citizens of Great Britain have a sentimental attachment to the past, and for that reason they support the royals financially. I suspect they are ridiculed by some in England because of sheer envy of their status and riches, and of course because "the royals" are no longer to be feared, having been stripped long ago of the power to rule.

None of that matters to the saints, however. Whatever the world wants to do with its royals, and whether it chooses to mock or to bow to them is of no concern to anyone who knows Jesus, the eternal King of kings and the Lord of lords, prince of angels, and Son of the living God. It is easy to bow down to him. We will never stop doing that.

Thanks again for your question.

Pastor John

December 14, 2005

Hi, Pastor John,

I recently re-read an old e-mail you wrote to another college student about interracial marriage. I read through it, and what you say makes sense. I'm curious, though, on how anyone really knows whom they're supposed to marry. I've been interested in that for the longest time now, and I realize that there is no couple around me I feel I can look to for example. Even the seemingly successful couples I can think of have some kind of "defect" (e.g., the kids are in trouble a lot, or the wife has undue control over her husband). When I say successful, I mean those who have been married the longest and would seem happy, including a fourth cousin (or something like that) in her sixties who has been married to her white husband for quite some time, I believe.

I understand why Paul would say that it is best not to marry - it seems to me, taking into account "the nature of the flesh", that marriage is "more trouble than it's worth". But how can this be! I've always understood marriage to be the most sacred of human relationships. Isn't it normal to want to grow up and be happily married? When I consider my own personality, it seems that I'm not cut out to ever be in any such relationship - but then I can't fathom life without ever being married, like it will inevitably come naturally upon me someday... given my personality. (This is reminding me of the conversation the prince has with Leonardo da Vinci at the lake in Ever After!

I believe that God has someone out there for every person who is meant to be married... but then I'm thinking, "How does a person know if they're meant to be married? And if God has someone out there for every person meant to be, how is it then that we still choose and may pick unwisely?" Some couples seem just meant to be, like when they woman, for example, says she knew from the moment they met that he was the one. On top of this, I wonder if those feelings are often deceiving, or just coincidence.

Anyway, I think my question is on marriage itself, as a whole, and not so much on me. Whatever the situation, I know God is meaning for me to be "trained", and to learn something from it. ...Hopefully this e-mail doesn't come across strangely; I have a tendency toward openness that seems out of place sometimes.

love,

Hi BJ:

My father, who was born in 1901, told me when I was a young man in the 1970's that young people of his generation, and before them, often could tell who they were to marry when they first met, but that a generation such as mine, a very immoral one, could not do that. When young people commit fornication, it warps their spirit and their perceptive abilities. I have talked about all this to some young people in years past, and a few just shook their heads as if to suggest that they could know who God intended to be your mate when you first meet him or her is a fantasy from some romance novel. But it is not.

Sister Dell Lancaster, an old saint in the Lord who was born in the late 1800's and is now gone to be with Jesus, told me years ago that when she was a young girl, she saw a young man's handwriting and knew that whoever he was, he was the man whom she would marry. When she saw the handwriting, she had not even met him yet. They soon met, married, and had four children.

There are many blessings available from God for any generation that has respect for His commandments, whether or not that generation is taught proper Biblical doctrine. God blesses the respect that anyone shows His Son; that is how much He loves Jesus. That is also the reason that this country, and Western Culture in general, has made such incredible medical, technological, and philosophic advances over the centuries. It has not been that whites are intrinsically better than blacks or reds; rather, it is that Western countries are historically the countries where the name of Jesus has been proclaimed and honored, and in response, God has poured out blessings that are staggering to consider, even if the gospel has been abused and misused for some men's personal gain at times.

What I am telling you is that you should just make up your mind to go with God and trust Him to let you know who you are to marry and when. You may not do as Sister Dell did and know from a mere signature whom you will marry (that kind of thing certainly did not happen to everyone), but if you live the way God commands us to live, you will be kept from making big mistakes. And in a pampered, self-indulgent, and immoral generation such as this one, a young person who does not make big mistakes has been very, very blessed by God.

Keep yourself pure, and God will keep you safe.

Pastor John

Heya,

For someone "just now catching up" on his email, your reply was quite speedy enough. Thanks.

I feel relief from reading this email, and actually in just mentioning the questions to you. God has been relieving me of many questions lately, actually, by showing me what kind of person I am. For instance, I really like people - so I've been interested in things like anthropology and language, though not politics (ugh) or really medicine. Maybe that's why I've been so curiously thinking about love and marriage so much for the past couple years. Anyway, you are definitely right: It is much easier to trust your feelings when you're confident that you have no ulterior intentions! God can fix whatever mistakes you may make in that case.

December 14, 2005

Hi John,

This past Sunday, my family, the Durhams and the Meeks got together and read I Cor. 13, your recently translated version. It took about two hours to read that one chapter because of the great discussion and thoughts from everyone about love -- what it is and what it is not.

I have a question about verse 5. “Love is not irritable, nor does it keep account of wrong.” We know that God is love and that the things described in this chapter reflect who God is. I was wondering about the part of the above verse that says, “love does not keep account of wrongs”.

Does this mean holding grudges or storing wrongs to be used later to get back at someone? That would be the obvious meaning.

The King James version translates it differently.

Thanks for all the effort that you and others put into these translations. My family and I have enjoyed reading them together.

Tom

Hi Tom,

My translation of 1Corinthians 13:5 is pretty close to what the KJV has, but the verb there implies more than the generic idea of "thinking". The KJV says, "thinketh no evil", but the meaning is more precise than that. It is a "reckoning to" or "holding accountable for". The love of God does not hold things against people because God is for people, not against them. God never uses people's past errors to put them down and lift Himself up. He gives people a chance. He is ready to forgive. He overlooks wrongs in hope of sharing peace. That is the holy attitude that Paul is trying to describe in Chapter 13.

I am glad that you are enjoying the translation. Feel free to send me any other questions or comments that may come up as you continue to read it.

Pastor John

December 13, 2005

Hi Pastor John,

Doris and Lou and I had a conversation and we need some help. The only thing we think we are sure about is that we are sheep when we receive the holy Ghost. What is a person called from the time their name was written in the Lamb's Book of Life until they are born again? When is a person a lost sheep? And is a sheep ever a goat?

Thank you,

Bro Randell

Hi Randell:

A sheep is a sheep, no matter whether they have been born again or not. Jesus said, "I have other sheep that are not of this fold" (Jn. 10). Those other sheep were not born again.

Children of God are lost sheep whenever they are not in the fold, whether they have never been in the fold or have wandered away. And a sheep is never a goat, but if a sheep acts like a goat, he will receive a goat's reward.

Not a baaaaad question.

Pastor John

December 13, 2005

Hi pastor John,

I have a question on Matthew 10:16: “Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the mist of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves." What does this verse mean? How is a serpent wise? I have been thinking about this verse since you sent out the TFE on the serpent that John David shot and how it reacted to being shot, just striking violently into the air. But how could a serpent be wise?

On the way to work today I was praying and thinking about this verse, and I had some thoughts on the serpent, how that they have devices to trap their prey and sneak around unnoticed sometimes by their prey, and before they know it they are bitten and caught by the serpent. Does it mean that we are aware of the serpent's devices and know what he uses to trap his prey, and are wise in knowing how he works so that we can stay out of his traps? And by being harmless as doves, we do not use the serpent’s devices to get what we want?

Thanks.

Stuart

Hi Stuart.

I just heard your testimony from this past Saturday night's meeting in Louisville, and it was out of this world. (Of course, every testimony that is worth anything is from out of this world.) Thank you for that. It really blessed me and made me want to draw closer still to God. So far, I have also heard some of the singing and Sister Ruth's testimony, which also was out of this world. I expect that the rest of the meeting was also out of this world, and that is why I want to finish hearing it!

Now, as for your question: The craftiness of a serpent is principally found in its ability to get where it is going without being noticed. This refers to Satan's ability to do his damage without being noticed. Slander is his chief method of obtaining influence among the saints. It works almost all the time. The harmlessness of a dove refers to its nature, which is not to attack anyone for any reason. It represents true faith, which reacts with kindness when it is done wrong. It prays for those who abuse it, and returns a favor for an evil deed done to it because it always trusts in God to determine what will happen next.

Take care. Again, I am thankful to God for giving you that testimony, and I thank you for passing it on to the rest of us.

Pastor John

December 12, 2005

John,

Is it okay to pray to be made good soil, or are we just what we are no matter what we pray?

Thanks,

Dear JB:

Go ahead and pray to be made good soil, but remember that in order to make some soils good, farmers sometimes have to use a lot of manure.

jdc

December 6, 2005

Pastor John:

I have a question regarding the TFE 12-04, called "Pressure". I understand what is being said, but is there a right and wrong way of saying or doing things "for the Lord"? Can't you also kill someone (spiritually) with words or actions, doing what you think is the will of God?

Phil N.

Hi Phil:

Yes, but that is a topic for separate TFE. I didn't want to add that information to this one. In this TFE, I wanted to stick to the one point I was making. To discuss such people as suicide bombers, for example, who think they are doing God a service by killing others was too much of another issue to get into.

Pastor John

December 6, 2005

Dear sir:

Please take a minute to explain what appears to be a real contradiction.

In your opening statement explaining your web site, you refer to yourselves as "Non-Christian followers of Christ". How can this be?

Thank you.

Bob Dinges

Hi Bob:

Thanks for writing.

By the phrase, "non-Christian", we do not neccessarily mean that we are "anti-Christians". We mean only that we do not subscribe to the religion of Christianity any more than we do the religion of Buddhism or Hinduism or Islam. We can recognize and acknowledge what good elements there may be in any of those religious systems, but the way of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus is in none of them. We could as well call ourselves "non-Hindu servants of Jesus" or "non-Muslim servants of Jesus" , but then, that would only be expected. God's children desperately need to know that the religion of Christianity, while sometimes offering good words about one of the Christian Jesuses, despises the real Jesus, and that the real Jesus despises the religion of Christianity. That is why Jesus is calling his people to "Come out of her!" I hope you have heard that call.

You can find more inforrmation about this "non-Christian" issue at http://www.pastorjohnshouse.com/why.htm

If you still have any questions after reading this very short article on "Why I Am Not A Christian", please feel free to contact me again.

Pastor John

December 3, 2005

Hey Pastor John,

I have been thinking a lot about the net mail you passed on recently from “Tim”. He wrote about preaching to people and how God hates it when we preach at people and it is the wrong time and how that is slapping Him in the face when we do that (and I suppose he also hates when we don’t do it in love). I must have deleted that one already, but I wish I didn’t. I really loved that e-mail. Not sure why, but I think it really meant something to me. I guess it is important to only preach when the spirit tells us to or something. When we go doing things off our own bat and when it is the wrong time it can do more harm than good maybe. Anyway, I really liked it.

Do you think that is right? (my interpretation I mean) I am kind of getting the idea that everything we do is supposed to be by the holy spirit. (i.e. when I get it!)

Jenny

Hi Jenny:

You have it exactly right. Without being led by the Spirit of God, it is sin to so much as tell someone that Jesus is Lord. Nothing but the will of God is righteousness, and if God wants us quiet, then it is sin to speak -- no matter what we say. Only Goid's will is right! If God's will is that we die, it is sin to remain alive. Everything that is done solely in the will of man or in the will of the flesh, apart from the approval of God, is sin. Everything.

Pastor John

December 2, 2005

Hi Pastor John,

Do you know much about numerology? I want to know what u think of it. I can describe it if u like.

My landlady, who lives up in the house (I've got the studio down the back) does it. She has quite fame around here for her accuracy and talent. People sometimes come by to have it done, so you see, I am faced with it quite a lot. - I spend a bit of time up in the house.

As much as I don't like it, I am forced to admit its accuracy. I would have to deny that her interpretations of people could be anyone, as people would often say. Eg she was able to describe features of my brother which are unique to him and actually, to no-one else that I know.

I don't know how to perceive this rightly and I'd like to know your thoughts on it. Is it witchcraft?

I don't think she would think that! She doesn't have a broomstick and she doesn't do anything by the soltices or mid summers eve!!! I cook in her kitchen and there are no cauldrens!!! Actually there is lots of frogs in the pond! Hmmm.... But she doesn't even believe the devil exists, but this doesn't mean the devil isn't using her. And what does a witch look like anyway???

Also, she doesn't do anything futuristic. This is all she does. She doesn't do anything else.

I have let her "do my numbers". Could that bring about a curse? I know people at church would say I would need to be prayed over and have the curse removed. I've never wondered about that. Do I need that now?!

Hi JH:

She won't curse you, and she can't, but God might curse you if you keep playing around with demonic spirits. The fact that this woman gets some things right is only more of a reason to avoid her sorcery. There is no need for you to "feel forced to admit her accuracy"; such things are both real and really evil whether you admit it or not. Your landlady apparently has become familiar with an evil spirit that reveals some things to her. She sounds like the little slave girl in Acts who brought her masters much gain by accurately predicting the future. When Paul cast that demon out of her, she was rendered useless to her master, and Paul ended up in jail. Happy, but in jail.

Whether or not your landlady thinks that what she does is witchcraft is not relevant. Only what God thinks counts. Neither is it relevant as to whether or not witches, wizards, sorcerers, necromancers, and the like, are beautiful and talented. God demanded their executions in the OT, without consideration of their physical and mental properties, and they will be damned in the final judgment, lovely and talented or not.

This numerology thing is not of God. Jesus did not die for that. Stay away from it unless you have a death wish.

Pastor John

PS You don't need anyone to "do your numbers", JH; you already know what they are. They are "ONE body, ONE Spirit, ONE hope, ONE Lord, ONE faith, ONE baptism, ONE God." Keep it simple and stay safe.

Okay, thanks. I thought as much. To be honest I dunno why I asked! I guess I had wondered if it was just nothing, or if there was something in it i.e. demonic spirits. My assumption was that it was demonic. I will stay away from it and really i will be glad to, and I dunno why I stayed around with it before anyway.

Since I see her do it a lot, I wonder what i should say if she asks why i avoid it. She does it quite a lot really and my avoidance would be noticed eventually. Should I warn her against it? Or leave her to it? I would do that (warn her) out of compassion, because I would hate to think of the judgement this will bring for her. Whether or not she would listen is another thing.

Dear JH:

Whether she would listen to you or not is not a consideration. The only thing that matters is what Jesus wants you to do. And for that, of course, you will have to hear from him.

Pastor John

Hi,

Well yes, I should do what I hear God tell me to do as we discussed in the other emails! Right now I hear nothing, so I will say nothing.

I like that you point out that her response would not be of matter, rather whether God tells me to say something or not. I see that what accompanies this is that obedience is obedience when it is prompt and exact, so if God did tell me to say something to her (which as far as I know, he has not) her response does not enter into the equation, I should say what he tells me to say.

A while ago I had prepared some numbers I wanted her to interpret for me as I had wanted to test her, but I will just leave it all alone and throw it away. I don't want anything to do with it. I was a fool to pay any attention to it to begin with and I regret being such a fool now. If I were honest, I would say I knew where it came from to begin with (really). It's funny how sometimes you get lead yourself off on all manner of tangents and carry on with nonsense. I need help to orient myself each day to the right direction.

Take care,

Jenny

November 29, 2005

Pastor John,

Lee Ann asked a good question this morning, one that I wasn’t sure I could answer. Before the Law, could men be forgiven? I didn’t think that they were held accountable, or judged, even though sin was in the world, but then when they died, where did they go?

Mark

Hi Mark:

You are right; that is a good question. Peter calls those people who lived and died in Noah's time, which was the time before the Law of Moses was given, "the spirits in prison" (1Pet. 3:19-20). They were the people to whom Jesus preached after he died on the cross and descended into the "heart of the earth" (Matt. 12:40). Jesus was working even after he died! He stayed busy those three days.

The people who lived under the Law, Jesus said, would be judged by Moses. Those people had a written standard by which they could be justly condemned or exonerated. But those who lived before the Law of God was given had no such standard by which they could be judged, and it seems as if they were put in a special places in Hades until the Savior came to them and preached.

Now, Mark, Abraham was in that class of people, and yet we see him in Paradise in Jesus' parable of the rich man and the beggar. So, we must consider that fact when forming an opinion about this issue. The "spirits in prison" obviously were not necessarily in a "no man's land" if Abraham, the friend of God, was in the Paradise side of Hades.

Finally, Paul said that when Jesus ascended into heaven, he "led captivity captive" (Eph. 4). This means at least that Jesus transferred the Paradise portion of Hades out of the heart of the earth to heaven when he ascended, so that now when saints die, they are "with the Lord" who, we know, is now in heaven at the right hand of the Father. This means that nothing is left in Hades in the heart of the earth except the torment portion of it.

That is all the information I can come up with right now, and I think that gives you a pretty decent summary of all that the Bible has to say on the matter.

Pastor John

November 28, 2005

John:

Concerning your 11-22 TFE on "His Sanctified Ones", in the last paragraph .... didn’t God sanctify nations for His purposes at times - such as what God did for Babylon, or for the Assyrians (in sanctifying Babylon to destroy Judah, and Assyria to destroy Israel)? I was wondering if God perhaps DID sanctify the Medes in a sense, to destroy that nation that destroyed HIS nation and was lifted up with pride to drink out of the holy vessels, etc. (Babylon). The Medes and their king did do some kind things to Israel along the way (story of Esther) - so I was wondering if it might be possible that God did for them what He did for Nebuchadnezzar and for the king of Assyria when they repented and actually did sanctify them for His purposes.

Gary

Gary:

From the basic Hebrew-English dictionary (BDB Gesenius), we learn that the root meaning of the Hebrew word from which "sanctify" originates is "separateness", or "withdrawal". As a noun, its fundamental sense is "apartness, sacredness, holiness", and as a verb its sense is "to be set apart" or "consecrated". I looked for any reference to God sanctifying anything or anyone outside of His people and covenant, and even then found none, but when I decided to look for every use of the Hebrew word that is translated "sanctify" or "make holy", I was able to find several places where that word was used in reference to the heathen nations, mostly in Jeremiah's prophecies.

In Jeremiah 22, God is warning His own people that He will punish them for their unfaithfulness to Him by sending a foreign power to overthrow the nation. He said (Jer 22:7) that he would "prepare destroyers against you". That word, "prepare", is the from the Hebrew word for "sanctify" and that Hebrew word is almost always translated as "sanctify" or something equivalent to that, probably 99% of the time in fact. On other occasions, speaking of war decreed by God against Babylon, we find the same thing (Jer. 51:27, 28); to wit, God was "preparing" the enemies of Babylon to come against it. (Now, this is real "holy war", when the Creator anoints nations to attack another nation.) Finally, in Jeremiah 12:3, the persecuted prophet pleads with God to "prepare" certain people among the Jews for slaughter! How would it feel to be chosen and anointed by God for death! The prophets Joel (3:9) and Micah (3:5) also uses the word for "sanctify" in the sense of "preparing" nations for war. In Joel's case, it is in reference to preparing wicked nations for the final apocalyptic battle of Harmageddon that is mentioned in Revelation. Zephaniah 1:7 is a very interesting usage of this word. There, Zephaniah is speaking of Harmageddon, too, and the prophet says that God has "bid" his guests to the sacrifice (cp. Ezek. 39:17-22; Rev. 19:17-18). So, Zephaniah uses the word for "to sanctify" to mean "invite"!

So, yes, that word can be used in reference to God's work among the ungodly, but never is it used in a good sense when speaking of them. On the other hand, what a blessed and desirable thing it is to be "sanctified" by God because he loves you and has chosen you to salvation!

jdc

Hey,

Thanks for the research. So are you saying that when Babylon was chosen by God to destroy Judah (because Nebudchadnezzar was humbled), or when Nineveh repented at the preaching of Jonah and was later used by God to destroy Israel, that was an anointing, but not for good? Or was that not an anointing at all?

Gary

Hi Gary:

Oh yes, that was an anointing. That anointing certainly did not turn out to be good for God's people because they suffered God's wrath. And God also later punished Assyria, and later Babylon, for being so brutal against His people. So, being anointed did not mean that they were exempt from wrath for doing what they were sent to do.

The Scriptures I discussed last time had to do specifically with the word for "sanctify", not anointing. I know those two things are related, but they are not the same. That God would "sanctify" the heathen is much less expected than that He would anoint them for a particular task.

Pastor John

Ah yes - that is good. There IS a difference between sanctification and anointing... and that is where I was getting confused. What I was thinking was that both of these nations were "anointed"... not sanctified.

Thanks.

Gary

November 24, 2005

Hello Pastor John,

I just have to ask you about the unforgivable sin. In some e-mails to me you have exhorted me to not worry about that as I have not come to know Jesus well enough to commit it. Well you know, I wasn't worried about it really, - I think I had just asked about it for interest sake! But guess what? Now I have become worried about it!!! Madness! It's funny how the mind works.

So, anyway, there was an event in my past. I was in a REEEALLY bad way in every way possible at the time. I was in great distress about some things that were happening at the time and I didn't have the maturity to handle the situation. Everything came on top of me and I was swamped by life. I know at the time though, that I said some bad things against God - very bad, and bad things against a lot of people. I said these things to unbelievers. I hate what I said, and that just would not be said by me now. I don't even know why I said it. (Well I wonder if there was not some demonic intervention there). Anyway, I had worried at the time that I may have comitted the "unforgivable sin". I wish I could turn back time and undo everything. I often think now that that event was a very significant event in my life. It did a lot of harm, especially to me. Yet, maybe it is bigger in my mind than it really is.

So, anyway, is it possible that I have committed the unforgivable sin? I know you say I have not known Jesus well enough to have done so (have I not known him at all these 12 years in Xty?). I want to be useful. I want to be in a good place with God.

Anyway, what do you have to say? Do you hear God saying anything in particular? Take care and thanks so much for all your help.

Dear JH:

Paul himself said some pretty bad things about Jesus before he met the Lord on the road to Damascus. He told Timothy that before he (Paul) came to Christ, he was "a blasphemer" (1Tim. 1:13), so we know that the kind of blasphemy that one commits before coming to the Lord is forgivable because Paul "obtained mercy", and he obtained mercy "because I did it ignorantly in unbelief." Remember, Jesus said that men could be forgiven for speaking blasphemous things about him and his Father. Paul found out that was true. If, however, Paul had said the same evil things about Jesus and the Spirit after he had come to know him and after he had been anointed with God's power and wisdom, Paul might have received a different response from God when he tried to repent. In that case, it would have been willful sin on his part rather than sin through ignorance of the truth of Christ.

No, you have not known the real Jesus at all during your 12 years in Xty. How could you, if it is the Spirit that will "guide you into all truth"? You have done as we all do before we find the truth, and as Paul described in Acts 17, you have "felt your away" after God as if in thick darkness, being drawn along by your feelings of hurt and need and by God's feelings of love, not by any real knowledge of God. Typical Christian belief in Jesus is on the same level as believing your history books in school. There is no personal experience expected or required. This is where we all begin, but it is not saving faith. It is faith in the things we are told by others.

So, again, my friend, you have not committed the unpardonable sin. Only people who have received the holy Ghost baptism and "have been enlightened" and "have tasted of the powers of the world to come" have the power to do that (Heb. 6). You can still repent and trust God to forgive you.

Pastor John

Hi,

O okay. Thanks so much. That is encouraging. That makes me happy and relieved.

Anyway, you say I didn't know Christ in all those 12 years! I believe you, and in a way I think that is great because when I do come to know him, truthfully, then I think it will we be wonderful, because, to be frank, those 12 years weren't exactly the best. The thought of knowing him truthfully brings excited and hopeful anticipation. But, I just find it hard to realise that I didn't know him at all in those 12 years! That just really gets me! In a way that's a relief, but I'm a bit stunned. On the surface, I thought I did already know him, but I guess I knew I didn't deep down. I can think of many times, where I called out to God, saying "I don't really know you, help me" - especially closer to the time when I came across your web site. And why would I have kept searching otherwise (as I had)?

Actually, the more I think about it, the more I can see that I didn't know him.

I like your reference to what Paul says in Acts 17. Yes, I see it and can identify with it. I have a vision (not from God - it's just imagery in my head) of the same thing, and mine is of me trying to climb a cliff face, where I just had to grasp each new bit of rock, bit by bit up the cliff face.

I know I have come to the truth now. I know it! Praise God, for his wonderful mercy. And praise God and thank you for speaking the truth.

Take care, and thanks very much for your help in the matter. Hope you had a nice thanksgiving. Or do you [in America] say "happy thanksgiving"??

PS One more thing about the unforgivable sin... well, I just think I did know better [than to say those things about God that I once said]. Although I may not have known God, I still think I thought I knew better. I recall knowing I shouldn't have been saying those things, but I still did it. I don't know why I did, but I just did.

Anyway, I dunno. It seems, it was a blatant sin, by virtue of that fact that thought I knew better. What do ya think?

Dear JH:

I think that everybody on earth knows better than to sin, but we don't have the strength to resist it. Paul said that "when we were without strength, Christ died" for us. Look at Paul's description of his life without the Spirit in Romans 7. Pretty sad, wanting to do right and continually failing. Reading chapter 8, a description of Paul's life after he received the holy Ghost, after reading the hopeless "doom and gloom" of chapter 7 is so refreshing!

Pastor John

November 21, 2005

Hey John,

I have a question about "they will speak with new tongues", in Mark 16:17. Is Jesus speaking of spiritual gifts or praying in tongues once a person is born again? Also, you and brother Earl have preached before that tongues are a sign for unbelievers. Paul states this in 1Cor.14:22 in the context of spiritual gifts. Are tongues a sign for unbelievers no matter how they are used? I hope I have made myself clear. Thanks.

Jim K

Hey Jim:

Yes, tongues are for a sign for unbelievers no matter how they are used.

I know that in 1Corinthians 14, in the KJV, the word "gifts" is mentioned several times, but in verse 22, Paul is referring only to the prophecy of Isaiah 28, which does not speak of the "gift of diverse tongues" but simply of the sign of the new covenant, the Spirit's testimony. The "other tongues and stammering lips" of Isaiah 28 is what Paul states is "a sign to unbelievers". All believers are given that sign for the sake of others.

As far as Mark 16 goes, that reference is to "new tongues", which could refer to languages that are new to us personally or that are new to earth (that is, "tongues of angels"), so it would encompass both the gift of speaking in diverse languages as part of ministering to others and praising God or praying in a language unknown to us and edifying only ourselves.

jdc

November 21, 2005

Wow, Pastor John.

Is it a bad habit, per se, to use the expression "God forbid" in normal conversation? I have a habit of using it sometimes, in a rather sarcastic way ("cuz God forbid she actually hold the door for someone"). I don't make a habit of lightly saying, for example, "Oh, my God!" though I might say "dear God" if something is shocking or frightening. So...?

Hi BJ:

Oh, I suppose saying that is OK. But I know why you would question it. It isn't the kind of phrase that I use because it just doesn't feel perfect; at the same time, it is not the kind of thing that I would condemn someone else for doing. As always, it is a matter of the heart, and many a good person says "God forbid" with no intent of evil at all. I may even do it on rare occasions myself if I really feel strongly about something. Did you know that in the OT, in Isaiah, God condemned over-religious people in Israel for making some one out to be a transgressor "for a word"!! I don't want to do that to anyone.

Pastor John

October 26, 2005

Hi Pastor John,

This is just the topic I have started working on the other night. It's my nature to be thorough, so I looked up all the verses on "salvation" and "saved". (not finished - big job). I've searched most of them and there is a few which just seem so conclusive:

Hebrews 9 v 28; "so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and He will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for Him".

1 Peter 1 v 5; "... who through faith are shielded by God's power until the coming of the salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time".

Revelation 12 v 10; "Then I heard a loud voice in heaven say: 'Now have come salvation and the power of our God...'".

But what about where it says in some places that "and it is through grace that you have been saved"? And, Acts 2 v 47 " ...added daily those who were being saved". Are these examples of false interpretors - seeing what they want to see, or is there another explanation?

"Salvation" in the Scriptures can refer to several different things. It can refer to being healed, either naturally or spiritually. It can refer to being rescued from natural or spiritual harm or danger. It can refer to being kept safe (at the present time) from natural or spiritual trouble or danger. And it also refers to, as it does about 70% of the time in the NT after the day of Pentecost, the future glorification of faithful saints with Christ. Sometimes, even according to BDAG (the standard Greek-English Dictionary), it can also refer to a combination of those meanings at once.

The verb "saved" in Ephesians 2:8 can rightly be translated, as your version of the Bible does it ("it is through grace that you have been saved") or as the King James Version does: "by grace you are saved". The verb here is in the "present perfect" tense, which suggests an event completed in the past that has resulted in an on-going, present condition. Many times, according to my Greek grammar, the emphasis of the present perfect tense is on the present condition rather than the past event.

The best example of this construction is the familiar biblical phrase, "It is written", which could just as easily be translated "it has been written." This is the present perfect tense, signifiying that it was written in the past, and it still is written just as it was then.

So, the word "saved" in Ephesians 2:8 can be used as "rescued from sin" (and you are still being rescued), but it clearly means, in the context of this part of Paul's letter to the Ephesians, more than simply that. Paul's point in this section of Scripture is to remind the Gentile believers in Ephesus that the ceremonies of Moses' Law played no part in their being cleansed from sin. Paul was reminding these Gentile converts that it was by the grace of God alone (and their response to it) that they became children of God by Jesus Christ. Paul was emphasizing their present means of being saved rather than their past experience of God's grace because his goal was to persuade them to continue in the grace of God (alone) rather than to add ceremonies of the Law to it, and not merely to boast of having been touched by God's grace in the past.

In my opinion, to translate Ephesians 2:8 as "you have been saved" is the result of being influenced by the pesent day "get saved" mainia that has swept Christians off their spiritual feet, a phenomenon that began in the early twentieth century and then mushroomed into an overwhelming windstorm, against which hardly any of God's children have been able to stand.

As to your second Scripture reference, "those who were being saved" (Acts 2:47), this refers to those who have responded in faith to the grace of God and are in the salvation process. Approximately 25-30% of the time after the New Covenant began in Acts 2, "saved" or one of its forms is used in this present sense (e. g. 1Cor. 1:18), with the meaning being "preserved", or "kept from committing sin".

And I will add this note. It is extremely rare for "saved" to be used in a purely past tense, as Christians almost always use it now (as in the Christian cliche', "I got saved.") At the moment, I can think of only one case of that kind of usage of "saved" (Tit. 3:5).

I don't recall a single instance in the New Testament of the word "saved" being used to mean "born again".

I've only just begun checking it all out so any input would be appreciated.

Oh, also, many of the verses in the OT speak of salvation as something that they had gotten, but clearly they didn't. How do I explain that (to myself)? Zecheriah said "Now my eyes have seen your salvation" when he visited Jesus as a new born baby -although the saving work had not been done yet. So, obviously people in the OT spoke of 'salvation' as a 'concept', a work of God they were looking forward to and which they would share in if they were faithful to the end? - Some of David's last words were: 2 Samuel 23 v 5; "Is not my house right with God...Will He not bring to fruition my salvation?" It seems this is our position also? I found most of the OT verses weren't direct about their stance before God though; 1 Chronicles 16 v 23 "... proclaim His salvation day after day". What way would you explain it?

Jesus is our salvation. When that old prophet saw the child Jesus, he was seeing God's salvation for His people. God's salvation came to the Jews because they were the offspring of Abraham, thus fulfilling the promise made to the fathers. But simply having Jesus walk around among the Jews didn't mean that all the Jews were saved. Most of them did not receive their salvation. Their salvation was nailed to a cross because most of them rejected him.

Remember also that when Jesus came to the publican Zachaeus' house, he said, "This day is salvation come to this house, inasmuch as he also is a son of Abraham." Many Christians quote that Scripture to show that Zachaeus "got saved that day". But Jesus is only giving the reason why he came to a publican's house; to wit, that Zachaeus was a descendant of Abraham. When Jesus departed from Zachaeus' house, the salvation of Israel departed from that house.

To be in Jesus' personal presence is salvation for us, and that is why we look for him to come. We desire to see the salvation of the Lord.

But if one is speaking of God rescuing him from an enemy (as in Exodus 14:13) or healing him of some disease or delivering him from some trouble or danger, he could rightly speak of being saved from his enemies, or being saved from a disease, or being saved from trouble, and this is how we often find "salvation" used in the Old Testament and in the Gospels (which events were in OT time). Especially do we find this usage of "saved" in the Psalms of David.

How about folk's in the NT: 1 Peter 1 v 9; "for you are receiving the goal of your faith, the salvation of your souls". And Jude 3; "about the salvation we share".

Good grief! "You are receiving the goal of your faith, the salvation of your souls" is a bizarre translation, one of those that could only be made by a Christian who is a victim of "getting saved". Peter intended no such thing by what he wrote. He is talking about our hope for the future return of Jesus to save us, not to the believer's present spiritual condition. What translation are you using?

"The salvation we share" in Jude 3 refers to the day-by-day experience of being kept from sinning by God's power within us (see 1Pet. 1:3-5). Without being kept from committing sin by the power of God (as referred to in 1Cor. 1:18), there is no sharing of salvation. Those who are sinning are not being saved; they are being lost.

These are just examples of verses I have been wondering about. Has anyone done a comprehensive work on all the verses about salvation?

Jenny

Have you heard the series on "What Must I Do To Be Saved?" It covers just about all the bases on this issue.

Pastor John

October 26, 2005

Hi John,

I was reading I Peter 3 today and had a question about verse 20. The last part of that verse says, “…wherein few, that is eight souls were saved by water.”

It seems that it should say that eight souls were saved from water since water is what the ark saved them from. By saying “by water” instead of "from water", verse 21 could be misinterpreted to mean that water baptism is the “like figure” referred to in that verse. Or, "by water we are saved now." I always thought that the “like figure” referred to was the ark which represented the holy Ghost. I know that we are saved now by the “washing of regeneration, and renewing of the holy Ghost”.

What is the correct meaning of this verse?

The thing that destroyed the world also saved Noah from the world. It was water that parted the righteous from the unrighteous. Afterwards, God set a rainbow in the sky as a sign of His promise that He would never again destroy the world with a flood. The next time He destroys the earth, it will be with fire. At that time, one will be able to say that by fire we will be saved (from having to deal with wickedness any more). Fire will part the righteous from the wicked, just as water did in Noah's day. In the Flood, the wicked were doomed to be in the water that destroyed the earth, and in the Day of God's wrath, the wicked will be damned to suffer the vengeance of the fire that will destroy the earth. Paul told the Corinthians (end of chapter 11) to walk uprightly or they might be condemned along with the world; that is, to share in the world's same destruction by fire.

We pray for the fire of God's judgment to come because we have confidence that he will save us by using it to destroy all that is evil and polluted. So, Tom, the water of the flood is a "figure" of the "fire" or wrath of God's Spirit that will destroy this world. The water was God's means of judgment upon sinners then; the power of the holy Ghost will be God's means of judgment the next time it comes.

One more thought about verse 20. It says that, “God waited (to destroy the earth)…while the ark was preparing”. Wow, God waited patiently for Noah to build (prepare) the ark that would save him from God’s wrath. God could have spoken an ark into existence and spared Noah and his family a lot of work. I have to assume that the work and effort Noah put into building the ark was for his good, not God’s. Is it not the same for us today? The work and effort we put into doing what pleases Him builds our spiritual bank account that will help save us from God’s wrath in the end. I am thankful that God still waits while we are given the opportunity to prepare.

Tom

Amen, Tom! Excellent point. God could do it all instantly, but He gives us time to share in His glory. May we have the grace and wisdom to take advantage of that!

jdc

October 21, 2005

Dear Pastor John,

If God knows every thing that is going to happen, then how can someone change God’s mind when God is always right?

Joel

Hi Joel:

Good question! I have thought about this often, especially when I read such stories as Moses begging God not to destroy Israel after God told Moses that He was going to do that. I have thought, "Did God really change His mind, or was He just testing Moses?" I don't know that anyone can say absolutely one way or the other which is the right answer, but I think that this is probably the best answer for that question: God wants to show us the way to live so that we can be happy. In order for us to be happy, we have to be willing to change, and so, God "changes His mind" sometimes in the Bible, or lets us think so, so that we can have His wonderful example of humility as an example for us.

There is another truth that is associated with this question, too. Do you remember the story of Balaam in Numbers 22-24? God told Balaam what to do to be safe and happy, but Balaam wanted to do something else instead. So, God told Balaam to go ahead and do things his own way. This is not a case of God changing His mind. He always knew what was right for Balaam to do. But God did not force Balaam to do what was right. He doesn't force anyone to do what is right. And if people keep on asking for their own wrong ways, God will give in and say, "OK. Go ahead and do it your way." But those people always end up being sorry they didn't do what God said, as Balaam ended up sorry that he did not do what God had first told him.

This is why we want always to do what God says the first time instead of resisting His will until He turns us over to another way. We want to be safe and happy.

Thank you for the question. I hope my answers have helped clear things up for you.

Pastor John

October 19, 2005

Dear Pastor John,

Thank you for giving light on the subject of salvation. Some believe, as I once did, in "eternal security" just by professing that they believe in Christ. They quote John 3:15-16 and John 10:28-29. Please provide an explanation on why these two verses cannot possibly mean that one is saved before Jesus comes back to grant us salvation.

John 10:28-29 tells us that no one is able to sneak past God and take us out of His mighty hand. But it does not say that we cannot jump out of His hand or that He will never cast out stubborn and rebellious children. Paul certainly feared that he might be a "castaway" if he did not live up to his own preaching (1Cor. 9:27 KJV).

So many, I hear, are contending they are saved by grace yet continue to lead sinful lives. Thank you both for teaching me to see that salvation is only for those who not only say they believe in Jesus but are also willing to continue in His word. I have thought of summing up my thoughts on the matter by just saying to my Christian friends these words: "But what did Jesus say?"

Your thoughts on the matter will be appreciated.

Your non-Christian sister in Christ,

Sharon Hughes

Dear Sharon:

Every person who is being saved by faith in the grace of God is being taught by the Spirit to live a godly and sober life right now (Tuit. 2:11-12). No one living in sin is being saved. They are being lost.

Pastor John

October 19, 2005

Dear Pastor John,

Reading Sharon's question and your response concerning the issue of salvation reminded me of one of the things my wife's pastor said the last time he visited. He said that the Judgment Day to the saints is a day of reward and not a day to determine if they will be saved or not because to him, they are already saved. Is there any element of truth in what he has said?

Bro. J.O.E.

JOE:

The saints who are judged to be worthy of salvation will certainly be given rewards that differ according to each one's ability and efforts. But if your wife's pastor is suggesting that all of God's children (the ones who have truly been born again) will be saved regardless of their deeds in this life, he is teaching a false doctrine that is typical of certain segments of the Christian community.

I have written many articles that cover this issue and will not repeat their content here. However, to respond to your question, yes, there is an element of truth in what he is saying, but it can be misleading if the one who teaches that doctrine fails to also point out the fact that the difference of rewards applies only to those saints who are counted worthy of being in the first resurrection, not to the saints who are rejected by Jesus when he appears to catch his people up to him. Those children of God will be disinherited and "given their portion with the hypocrites and sinners" after the second resurrection--the resurrection of the damned.

Pastor John

October 17, 2005

Pastor John,

I have a question on the word "savior". I've heard it used - for example, in works using older forms of English - a bit more generally than in its meaning, "Jesus Christ". I don't think I'd go throwing around the word "savior" in reference to people, but are people altogether wrong when they use it as a non-religious word? Are they ever right using it as a non-religious word? You know how people might say, "Oh, he was a guitar god, the savior of rock 'n' roll" and things like that.

Thanks again,

Hi BJ:

Well, whoever is the savior of hard rock music deserves to be flogged to death. But aside from that . . .

The word "savior" is a common word, and it can rightly be applied to anyone who saves or rescues anything from a demise of any sort. It basically means a rescuer. All saviors who come from this planet are saviors only in a narrow sense. One can save another man from drowning; a fireman can save a child from dying in a burning building; an accountant can save a company from bankruptcy; a baseball player can make a game-saving catch, etc.

Only Jesus can save in a way that applies to everyone everywhere. Only he has the stature and might to be able to save every living person from eternal death. That is the reason -- and it is a a good one -- for capitalizing the word "Savior" when applying that word to him.

Take care,

Pastor John

September 30, 2005

Dear Brother Clark:

In your article "Marriage & Divorce Study Guide" you state:

THE MARRIAGE OF A PERSON WHO HAS BEEN BAPTIZED WITH THE HOLY GHOST WITH THE EVIDENCE OF SPEAKING IN OTHER TONGUES, TO A PERSON WHO HAS NOT RECEIVED THE BAPTISM OF THE HOLY GHOST, IS A SIN!.

I'm curious as to which Scripture upon which you base this premise. Would you be so kind as to provide me a Scripture for this statement?

Blessings,
Melody

Dear Melody:

Paul said that the baptism of the holy Ghost was the new birth (1Cor. 12:3). There is no question about that. Then, all I am saying is that it is sin for a person who is born again to marry someone who is not born again.

Pastor John

and later . . .

Hi Melody.

A reader from Q&A sent in this comment about your question, so I thought I would pass it along to you. Are there any other questions about this in your mind?

Pastor John

From Mark H.:

“Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers, for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? And what communion hath light with darkness? Wherefore, come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing…” (2 Cor. 6:14, 17). Marriage is a yoke, so I would think that this scripture could very well apply to a person who has been baptized by Jesus with the evidence of speaking in other tongues. The Lord said it (not to touch the unclean thing). Therefore, yoking yourself to an unbeliever would be disobeying the Lord, and thus a sin. Pretty simple, really, Melody.

Mark H.

September 29, 2005

Pastor John,

Since God can do anything that He pleases, when he created the world and He saw people sinning, why didn't He make them do right?

Jeremiah

Hi Jeremiah:

God wants people to do what is right because they want to do right, not because He makes them do right. That is what your parents and Jesus want for you, too., They want you to grow up to be a good person because you want to do what is good, not because anybody forces you to do good.

Jeremiah, it made God sad when the man and woman He created were tricked by the serpent into doing something bad. That meant that they and all their children would have to die. But God still loved them and sent His Son to make a way for us, even though we still have to die, to still live forever in a happy place with Him. I am glad that you have been called by God to be one of the people who are thankful for what Jesus did for you.

Pastor John

September 29, 2005

Hey Pastor John,

I have been reading in 1Corinthians and making notes along the way. I have a question concerning Chpt 7 verse 14. Paul is speaking of people in the congregation being married, unmarried, widowed and in verse 14, he is speaking to couples married; one being a believer, the other an unbeliever. When Paul says:

[12] But to the rest speak I, not the Lord. If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
[13] And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
[14] For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
[15] But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.

What does he mean in verse 14? How do they sanctify each other and how do their children become holy? Also, I really have enjoyed reading Paul, and I love they way he distinguishes himself and what the Lord says. "I think I have the Spirit on this". 8-)

Thanks!

Amy P.

Dear Amy,

Verse 14 applies only to those unbelieving husbands and wives who truly are "pleased to dwell with" the believing spouse. If an unbelieving spouse truly is pleased to dwell with the believing spouse, he or she will eventually surrender to Jesus and be sanctified by the holy Ghost. You can read about this matter in detail in the gospel tract, "Marriage and Divorce" at http://www.pastorjohnshouse.com/tracts/marriage.htm, or in my booklet by the same title at http://www.pastorjohnshouse.com/books/marriage.htm.

Pastor John

Thanks for answering my question. And, I will check out the links. So, that would mean that when the unbeliever surrenders to Jesus, the parents now are joined together in righteousness, and where their children were unclean before because of the division, they can be shaped to be holy because they have two righteous parents teaching them the way of the Lord. Is that what Paul is saying, kinda sorta?

Amy P.

yes.
jdc

September 28, 2005

Pastor John,

In that verse 1Cor. 7:14, is "is sanctified" present tense or future tense?

Maleah

present, but with a future meaning.

jdc

Pastor John,

It sounds complicated...how did you figure it out?

It isn't complicated at all. It is what I call "holy Ghost common sense". We know that there is no way to be sanctified but by Jesus, and we know that if the unbelieving spouse repents, it will be because he has been "pleased to dwell with" his or her spouse. For Paul to say that the unbelieving spouse is sanctified by the believing spouse is the same kind of thing as Paul saying that you are saved by faith. He is not so much saying that it has already happened as he is saying how it will happen if it happens at all.

I think it makes sense that the only way for an unbeliever married to a believer to become sanctified is to become a believer....but that verse doesn't make it sound like that. I'll read your tract to see if there is another place in the bible that clears it up.

Thanks,

Maleah

Part of the problem with the Law was that it could not cover every detail of life. That is the problem with the Bible, too. If Paul had done nothing but write the entire time that he lived on the earth, he could not have written enough words to cover all the questions that people can come up with. There is not a Scripture for every question that people have. The