I received a question today about Zechariah 13:4-6, which says this:

4 "And it shall be in that day that every prophet will be ashamed of his vision when he prophesies; they will not wear a robe of coarse hair to deceive.

5 But he will say, 'I am no prophet, I am a farmer; for a man taught me to keep cattle from my youth.'

6 And one will say to him, 'What are these wounds between your arms?' Then he will answer, 'Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.'"

The bold text has been taken out of context to refer to Jesus, probably because of the word-association that our brains do with the word wounded (Isaiah 53:5) and perhaps also with friend (Matthew 26:50, John 15:5?).

But the Zechariah context does not support a Jesus reference from this text. That is a non-literal, spiritualized use of the text. I do not follow the non-literal school of thought in hermeneutics.

It is best to understand this in a more plain fashion. The authorial intent seems to convey that "in that day" = the day of the Lord = the Messianic Kingdom = the future Millennial Kingdom...people who are false prophets will have to fly under the radar lest they be found out and punished by death for trying to deceive the people away from the King of kings. So, they will not wear the typical prophet's clothing of coarse hair.

Go back to verses 2-3 and see that God is going to cut off the false prophets and idols. Even parents will not support their own child who has abandoned faith in God and gone into false religion. So, times will be "desperate" in the false prophecy business.

The false prophet will not wear the regular prophet's clothing, he will claim he is just a farmer, and he will deny the markings that he got from his false prophecy rituals (wounds between the arms). These markings would indicate scars from cutting themselves, like the false prophets of Baal cut themselves on Mount Carmel (1 Kings 18:28). The undercover false prophet will make an excuse that he got these scars or wounds while at some friends' house.

Bottom line: in the kingdom of Christ, religious pluralism will not be cool.

Here is FBC's annually-renewed set of Bible reading schedules. The dates are adjusted on these to match the beginning of the weeks for 2026.

Spiritual growth is correlated to Bible input. So, put more Bible into your mind!

• Read the entire Bible in a year, in a somewhat chronological order
• Read the New Testament once
• Read the New Testament twice
• Read the New Testament four times
• Read the Old Testament once

Some other reading plans might catch your interest from prior years, easily adaptable to the coming year:

• Ligonier Bible Reading Plans
• ESV Bible Reading Plans
• Professor Horner's Reading System
• Read the Gospels Every Day

Credit for this blog post goes to one of our church members who sent me an observation this morning about Hebrews 3:7.

Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says: "Today, if you will hear His voice, do not harden your hearts..."

Indeed, the Spirit of God speaks, something which no impersonal force does. He is a real (divine) person. We see the same idea in several other passages:

"Men and brethren, this Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas..." (Acts 1:16)

As they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, "Now separate to Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them." (Acts 13:2)

So when they did not agree among themselves, they departed after Paul had said one word: "The Holy Spirit spoke rightly through Isaiah the prophet to our fathers, saying, 'Go to this people and say: "Hearing you will hear, and shall not understand; and seeing you will see, and not perceive..."'" (Acts 28:25-26)

The Spirit of God spoke through the vehicle of the prophets in the Old Testament, and similarly via the apostles in the New Testament. What He spoke, they spoke, or wrote.

Holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:21)

Yesterday I posted about our "one another responsibilities." Today, I follow up with our "one another un-responsibilities." Ask God to help you by His grace and Spirit to repudiate these attitudes and practices in your life.

1. Do not lie to one another (Col. 3:9, Eph. 4:25)
2. Do not provoke or envy one another (Gal. 5:26)
3. Caution: do not devour/consume one another (Gal. 5:15)
4. Do not deprive one another (spouses, 1 Cor. 7:5)
5. Do not go to law against one another (1 Cor. 6:7)
6. Do not judge one another or put a stumbling block in one another’s way (Rom. 14:13)
7. Do not burn in lust toward one another (principle of Rom. 1:27, particularly of homosexuality, generally true also)
8. Do not plot evil against one another (Zech. 7:10)
9. Do not hate one another (Titus 3:3)
10. Do not speak against one another (James 4:11)
11. Do not grumble/complain against one another (James 5:9)

Another question today:

Is Ezekiel speaking of the destruction of the temple to come in chapter 9, or more of the end times?

We can unravel somewhat the mystery of Ezekiel's prophecies by looking at the overall outline of the book:

1. Chapters 1-24 concern prophecies of the destruction of Jerusalem. These are fulfilled in the "near term" from Ezekiel's perspective. He prophesied around 593 to 572 B.C. and the city and temple were destroyed in 586 B.C. in the midst of his ministry.
2. Chapters 25-32 concern near-term fulfilled prophecies against the nations.
3. Chapters 33-34 are a call to repentance by the watchman Ezekiel.
4. Chapters 34-48 are about the future restoration of Israel with a focus on the future millennial temple and its worship. These things are almost all to be fulfilled in the far future in the end times.

To look a bit more into chapter 9, let us back up to chapter 8. There, God shows Ezekiel the awful idolatry of the nation of Israel, with idols even inside the temple. In chapter 9, God explains to Ezekiel that there will be a severe judgment against the people for their idolatry. This judgment, in agreement with the outline above, is soon, within Ezekiel's lifetime.

As that information was being revealed, Ezekiel saw in his prophetic vision some movement of the glory of God in and around the temple. This movement shows that God is slowly, sadly leaving the temple. The Shekinah glory was moving out because idolatry had moved in. Notice the movement:

9:3 - Now the glory of the God of Israel had gone up from the cherub on which it rested to the threshold of the house. (ESV)

10:4 - And the glory of the LORD went up from the cherub to the threshold of the house, and the house was filled with the cloud, and the court was filled with the brightness of the glory of the LORD.

Next, the glory of God leaves the temple, accompanied by the cherubim, to the east gate:

10:18-19 - Then the glory of the LORD went out from the threshold of the house, and stood over the cherubim. 19 And the cherubim lifted up their wings and mounted up from the earth before my eyes as they went out, with the wheels beside them. And they stood at the entrance of the east gate of the house of the LORD, and the glory of the God of Israel was over them.

Next, the glory of God leaves the city:

11:23 - And the glory of the LORD went up from the midst of the city and stood on the mountain that is on the east side of the city.

The glory of God had now departed. It will not return to a temple until the new temple in the millennium. But the Lord Jesus did suddenly appear at the temple in the first century, but He was rejected by the officials of that temple, just like God was rejected in Ezekiel's day.

Today's question:

In Deuteronomy 15:4 it says there will be no poor among the Israelites because of the abundance of the land they are entering. Then later in the same chapter (15:11) it says there will never cease to be poor in the land. I know the Bible isn’t contradicting itself, but I wondered how to understand these two statements.

I just received this question, and I happened to notice the same thing in my reading of the Legacy Standard Bible earlier this year. I had not considered it before because the NKJV, my normal reading Bible, offers a different translation:

NKJV Deut 15:4 "except when there may be no poor among you; for the LORD will greatly bless you in the land which the LORD your God is giving you to possess as an inheritance."

But when I read the LSB, I noticed the problem:

LSB Deut 15:4 "However, there will be no needy one among you, since Yahweh will surely bless you in the land which Yahweh your God is giving you as an inheritance to possess."

The supposed contradiction arises in 15:11 where the translations are in agreement: "For the poor will never case from the land" and "For the needy will never cease to be in the land."

I think the NKJV translators noticed the discrepancy and wanted to help the reader understand what is going on. But I believe the key to understanding that there is no contradiction is that verse 5 contains an IF clause that controls the prior verse. IF you will carefully obey God, then you will be blessed. The idea is that if they are obedient to God, they will be so blessed that they will not have any poverty. This is in accord with the general promises of blessing under the Mosaic covenant. However, given the reality of depravity, the condition of verse 11 will be the normal situation—because of sin, oppression, disobedience, and God's disfavor, there will be poverty amongst the people. That poverty will be one of the curses of disobedience.

To this the words of the Lord Jesus agree, for in Matthew 26:11 he says, "For you have the poor with you always."

Here is today's question:

How do you answer in your own heart His words in Matthew 23:37-38 where Jesus says, “How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! 38 See! Your house is left to you desolate...” This desire is not a reflection of special grace, but how can you explain this longing of God that never in fact came to pass?

Answer: This saying comes immediately after the Lord’s lamentation that the Jewish people had a habit of killing the prophets and rejecting God’s messengers. This wicked tendency grieved God not only because it indicated a damaged relationship where the people were not welcoming Him as their God, but that it had terrible temporal and eternal consequences. Despite these necessary and natural consequences, God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezekiel 33:11).

Like an extremely patient human father or national leader, instead of rejection, what the Lord was hoping for was that they would receive him, along the lines of making a commitment to this effect: “You will be our God, and we will be your people.” God is pictured as a caring hen who wants to protect and provide warmth for her chicks. But the little chickens were unwilling. They refused God’s care and protection. They wanted to go their own way.

The longing of God which did not come to pass is parallel with many other of God’s desires in Scripture that are morally right but which do not come to pass because, ultimately, God did not decree those things to come to pass. God’s decree is the primary or first cause. But there is a secondary cause which is the human element, because people are immoral and desire bad things. People do not always (or often?) follow God’s desired or moral will.

God has good reasons for His decree, the highest of these to demonstrate His great glory—including the glory of His longsuffering, love, grace and forgiveness. He also has in mind the long-term good of His creatures. My answer touches on what theologians call “theodicy,” or “justification of God” which attempts to explain exactly how God does such things which we see as contradictory or difficult. A full “theodicy” in this brief article is not possible. Suffice it to say that in some things, God decrees what He hates in order to bring about what He loves. God decrees in temporal history those things which are unpleasant to Him in order to achieve a greater eternal good. God decrees that which is undesirable in one sense so that He can accomplish something more desirable. God decrees things that we would not in order to accomplish results, like His greatest glory, which are beyond the horizon of our present sight and understanding.

Jesus speaks of Himself as God in human terms (using the figure of speech called an anthropomorphism) so that we can understand His stance toward mankind. It is not a harsh stance. It is not a judgmental, hyper-critical, hateful kind of stance. It is a forbearing, caring, loving stance.

Think of a good human judge. He cares for the people who come into his courtroom. But he also is bound to execute justice. If he is visited by someone who does wrong, and he gives a light sentence and an admonition to do better, he shows his care for them. He hopes that they will listen and heed his warnings. He earnestly hopes so because if they do not, he knows that they have to face consequences for wrongdoing. If that person comes into his courtroom another time with a more serious offense, the judge might say, “Oh, how I wish you had heard what I said, but you refused. Now I have to punish you in accordance with what is right.” God is like this judge, but the offenses have been multiplied over and over again by the Jewish people and their leaders for generations. At some point Jerusalem has to face the consequences.

Finally, we should remember one more fact. The initial question assumes that God’s desire never in fact came to pass, that is, that Israel was not gathered under His wings. But that is only for the time being. In the future, God will gather Israel, and they will at that time be very willing. Ultimately, God’s longing will come to pass, for the nation as a whole, though not for specific historical individuals who might otherwise have enjoyed God’s blessing had they not been so hard-hearted.

Today's question was presented in lengthy form, but boils down to this: Why do some Bible verses use the word "straw" to describe what is fed to animals? Straw has little sustenance value. Isiaah 11:7 says that the lion will eat straw like the ox. This translation grates on the nerves of a farmer, for every farmer knows that you do not feed straw to an ox; you feed the ox dried hay or grass or perhaps oats, but not the yellow, dried stalks of wheat. It seems unlikely that the Bible is suggesting a low-calorie diet for the animals; straw can be used to dilute the energy content of the animal's diet or "dry it out" and provide some forage. But a diet completely of straw is infeasible.

I believe the most concise answer is that the Hebrew term "teben" (soft b, like a v, like "teh-ven") in some contexts refers to "cattle fodder" and would be better translated as "hay" or "feed."

I puzzled over this perhaps 20 years ago but did not come to a satisfactory conclusion because I had more important things to do at the time (and still do!). I thought then and still have some of this thinking left in me now, that the translators are a bit ignorant when it comes to animal husbandry. Growing up myself on a small ranch/farm, I am well aware of the difference between straw and hay, at least in our context of mainly wheat straw and grass/alfafa/timothy hay. Indeed, straw does not have much if any nutritional value. It is used for bedding in stalls, or as a ground cover for muddy areas or to protect areas of newly planted grass.

I suspect that the Hebrew term has what is called "wider semantic domain" than our more specific English terms for hay or straw. It seems that it must refer to the portion of the plant above ground, sometimes what is left behind after harvesting grain = straw and other times the whole plant = grass/alfalfa/etc.

I would advocate the translation of such "feed" passages as "hay" or "grass" or something similar. I think the translators have simply gotten it wrong in this case, badly so, and nearly universally so as indicated by a brief perusal of several translations in passages like Isaiah 11:7, 65:25.

Other passages use straw in a way that is clearly not food: Isaiah 25:10. And others are somewhat ambiguous but could refer to bedding/comfort instead of food: 1 Kings 4:28, Gen. 24:32.

Note "hay" in 1 Cor. 3:12 and Prov. 27:25. And then "mowings" in Psalm 72:6, Amos 7:1, and James 5:4.

Q: Were James and John cousins of Jesus?

A: In the NKJV, the only time the word "cousin" is used in Colossians 4:10, and it refers to Mark and Barnabas, not James and John. So much for finding an easy answer!

James and John were sons of Zebedee.

The mother of Zebedee's sons is mentioned as one of the women at the cross when Jesus died, Matt. 27:56. The other women named are Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joses.

Mark 15:40 lists Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the Less and Joses, and Salome as those observing at the cross. The same three women are mentioned in Mark 16:1. From this it is a guess, though not certain, that Salome is the mother of Zebedee's sons and thus the wife of Zebedee.

So if either Zebedee is the brother of Mary or Joseph (parents of Jesus), or if his wife, perhaps Salome, is the sister of Mary or Joseph, then James and John would be cousins of Jesus.

But there is one more piece of data. John 19:25 says that Jesus's mother Mary and His mother's sister, and Mary wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. It may be that Mary's sister is Salome.

This identification of Salome as Mary's sister is possible, but Mark 15:41 says that there were many other women at the cross as well.

Since there are a couple of "speculative" points in this reconstruction, we cannot be sure that James and John are cousins of Jesus.

At least that's what I can figure out so far!

I was reading some old sermons on Revelation and came across a note that there are 19 heptads (seven things) in the book. I wanted to check this. Here is what I came up with. The ESV uses the word seven 55 times in 31 verses. They boil down to the following list.

1. Seven churches of Asia
2. Seven spirits before God’s throne
3. Seven golden lampstands (refer to the above churches)
4. Seven stars (the messengers of those churches)
5. Seven torches/lamps of fire (same as the seven spirits above)
6. Seven seals
7. A lamb with seven horns and seven eyes (the eyes are the same as the seven spirits of God)
8. Seven angels with seven trumpets
9. Seven thunders
10. Seven thousand people
11. A red dragon with seven heads, ten horns, and seven diadems
12. A beast from the sea with seven heads (and ten diadems on its horns)
13. Seven angels with seven plagues
14. Seven golden bowls full of God’s wrath (same as seven plagues)
15. Woman sitting on a scarlet beast, with seven heads and ten horns
16. Seven mountains (the seven heads of the above beast)
17. Seven kings

As to the significance of the number seven and its repetition, I do not have all the answers. The traditional answer is that the number seven refers to completeness or fullness. That may well be the case in some of the more symbolic references. Many of the references are simply to a countable number of items that happen to be seven in number.

Incidentally, the number ten occurs frequently as well (11 times in 8 verses), though not as often as seven.

1. Ten days
2. Ten thousand times ten thousand angels
3. A red dragon with ten horns
4. A best from the sea with ten horns and ten crowns
5. A scarlet beast with ten horns
6. Ten kings (same as the ten horns above)

Are a person’s dreams sometimes God’s way of revealing truth?

In the church era, no. We can say this with confidence because the canon is closed, and new revelation is not being given by any means, whether dreams, visions, prophecies, etc. See 1 Cor. 13:8, Eph. 2:20, 2 Peter 1:3.

The Scriptures are clear that during prior times, God sometimes used dreams to reveal information (Daniel 1:17 for example, or Matthew 1:20). Given the frequency of dreams, however—every night millions of people have them—it is clear that dream-based revelation had to be very rare as a percentage of all dreams.

The Scriptures are also clear that during the future era, dreams will once again be used by God to convey information from Heaven (Acts 2:17).

What leads to the content of my dreams?

This is a difficult question. Dreams are basically thoughts—thoughts that we have while sleeping. Now think about this related question: what leads to the content of my thoughts during the daytime, when I am awake? There is a combination of factors, including:

1. What you try to think about, which may be righteous or sinful.
2. What your flesh desires, which is sinful.
3. The stimuli that come from the outside world, say through sight, sound, touch, taste, smell. These factors can induce thoughts that may lean righteous or sinful.
4. Your memories.
5. All three of the above factors can interact with one another so that you try to think about bad things and seek flesh-pleasing stimuli that come from the outside and you direct your eyes senses to focus there.

Your brain can remember many if not most things that you see, hear, sense, etc. Your brain can remember faces you have seen at the store; and it can even construct new variations of those faces, places and circumstances, sometimes in fantastical or unrealistic ways. All this is fuel for dreams.

Sometimes what you think about a lot during the daytime makes its way into your dreams. Other times, what you have not thought about much lately makes its way there.

Is there accountability to God for what is “thought” in dreaming?

Yes. Your dreams are yours and neither come from nor belong to anyone else. They are not the Devil’s fault. They arise from your own heart and mind, and as such are subject to the truth spoken by the Lord Jesus that out of the abundance of the heart come evil thoughts (Matthew 15:18-20, Mark 7:21-23, Luke 6:45). Our hearts are characterized by sinful depravity to a greater or lesser degree which affects what comes out of them in our thoughts—whether during the day or during the night.

Because a dream happens while you are asleep or partially unconscious, it may feel like you can excuse the content of your dreams because you do not have overt control over those thoughts (#1 above). But you can have thoughts or influence thoughts during your dreams. Regardless of whether you have experienced that phenomenon, we must recognize that our flesh (#2 above) still desires sinful things and can affect what we are thinking while asleep. Stimuli from outside of our mind can also affect our thoughts while we sleep (#3 above; perhaps we have a fever, or smell a skunk in the middle of the night, or a hear loud noise outside the house). These stimuli can be incorporated into our dreams as well.

The bottom line is that if we dream a sinful dream, we ought to confess it as sin to God, because it is sin. Thank the Lord for pleasant dreams!

Can I influence my dreams?

In short, yes. As you ingest God’s word, purify your heart more, and are cautious about what you expose yourself to during the day, you can reduce sinful and scary dreams. You are responsible for shaping the influences on your heart because it is the source of your life (Prov. 4:23).

Sometimes, there are triggers, such as foods, illness, or lack of exercise or too much stress or mismanagement of stress, that may influence the presence and frequency of dreams. If you become aware of particular things in your life that do this, you can take steps to mitigate their influence on your nighttime thought life.

A passage I use often when asked about dreams is Philippians 4:6-9. There, Paul teaches us to fight anxiety with prayer and purpose of thought and obedience to apostolic teaching. If we do that, "the peace of God...will guard your hearts and your minds" and "the God of peace will be with you."

We hope to conform our thoughts to Scripture so that we will be godly even in our nighttime thoughts: "when I remember you upon my bed, and meditate on you in the watches of the night" (Psalm 63:6).

Resources

Heath Lambert, Fighting the Fear of Bad Dreams

Here is FBC's annually-renewed set of Bible reading schedules. The dates are adjusted on these to match the beginning of the weeks for 2024.

Spiritual growth is correlated to Bible input. So, put more Bible into your mind!

• Read the New Testament once
• Read the New Testament twice
• Read the New Testament four times
• Read the Old Testament once

Some other reading plans might catch your interest from prior years, easily adaptable to the coming year:

• Ligonier Bible Reading Plans
• ESV Bible Reading Plans
• Professor Horner's Reading System
• Read the Gospels Every Day

Does the Bible teach in Revelation 10:6 that time will cease?

I noted an article by Gitt in 2013 cites Rev 10:6 to support the end of physical time.

This interpretation is highly suspect. Here is why. First, in Revelation 10:6, "time" (KJV) should be translated "delay." (See the third definition in the BDAG lexicon.) It refers to the fact that there will be no more delay until the mystery of God is finished. The end times will now fully unfold without further delay.

Second, in the context of the eternal state, Revelation 22:2 says that the tree of life which bears 12 fruits, will yield its fruit every month. Evidently the passage of time must occur for this to happen on a monthly basis. Therefore, time seems to continue in the eternal state. Someone might object that in eternity there is no need for the sun or moon. Perhaps those heavenly bodies cease to exist, and so the times they mark (days and months) cease as well. But note that months can be marked without the moon—in fact today we have months that do not correspond precisely to the lunar cycle.

Third, and more philosophically, I doubt that finite creatures can exist in a completely timeless way, for a movement from one location to another would take some time. What transpires as the creature is chewing the fruit of the tree of life? Being time-bound is a feature of finite creatures which distinguishes them from the only infinite being, God.

Fourth, the passage of time is not a negative feature in the heavenly state. Since time existed during the open days of the creation week prior to sin, and the passage of time did no harm to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, there seems to be no reason that it could not exist in the heavenly state.

There are parallels to this. Humans existed in physical bodies in the pre-fall state, and they will exist in physical bodies in the heavenly state. There are three-dimensional objects in the present existence, and there is no reason to suppose that this same sort of thing will exist in the future. After all, the three-dimensional human body of Jesus is approximately the same as the one He had post-resurrection. It exists in Heaven today, and is coming back the very same way (Acts 1:11). The heavenly state boasts a new heaven, earth, new city called Jerusalem with foundations, walls, and gates, a river, and a multi-fruited tree. Such things are similar to the 3-D kinds of things that exist today. I see no reason that time should have to disappear in the future.

Finally, when God created all things, including time, in Genesis 1:31 he said that it was "very good." There is no indication that time was bad, nor became bad simply because sin entered the world. Time is certainly used for sinful purposes, just like our human bodies may be used for sinful things. But time itself is not bad, and this is no reason to suppose it necessary to eliminate time in the eternal state.

I wrote on this subject a few years ago.

Today's question from a church attender:

What are your thoughts about how we are to think scripturally about our second amendment rights?

First, let us start by understanding the second amendment text:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The phrase "being necessary to the security of a free State" is a ground or reason clause. It would be equivalent to saying this: "Because a well-regulated militia is necessary to security of a free State", then the following right has to be maintained.

That right is that the people, who must be ready to defend the security of the free State, also necessarily must be able to keep and bear arms. These arms are firearms, in short, and of a sort that can be effective to defend the security of the State. To keep means to own or possess, a necessity for security. To bear means to carry and transport with and/or on their person, again, to be able at a moment's notice to defend the security of the free State. The security of the State starts with the security of individuals within the State, so that it can be rightly said that individual self defense is at the core of the second amendment.

To hobble the type of firearm to be ineffective in comparison to what would be used against the citizen, or to prohibit gun or other similar weapon ownership, or to make it illegal to carry the weapon where it may be needed to provide security—all three of these restrictions are not permitted to the State. The constitution restricts the ability of the State in these areas. These would all be forms of infringement on the right of the people to defend the security of their persons and property.

The limitation in the constitution also serves to limit the power of the State against its citizens. History shows very clearly that when a people is disarmed, they are then often subject to horrific abuses of power and death at the hands of the State. The limitation on power imposed by the second amendment is very useful because people are depraved (a basic Christian teaching), and groups of people gathered into governmental agencies are also depraved. Their power needs to be limited to limit the damage of their depravity.

It should be rather obvious that this right is to be protected for individuals, not just corporate militias. Since militias are not even common these days, a militia-only interpretation would gut the amendment of its practical protections for the rights of the people. The point is that the people had to keep and bear arms so that they could join together in their militias to protect the security of the state.

Now, how is the Christian to think about this? Does this accord with Scriptural teaching?

The right of a person to defend himself or herself is present in Scripture. Consider the following:

Exodus 22:2 If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed.

The homeowner is permitted to defend the security of his family, even by taking the life of a night-time intruder. The assumption is that a threat to personal safety justifies even homicide. The homeowner would not be guilty of murder in that case.

The astute reader will notice verse 3:

Exodus 22:3 If the sun has risen on him, there shall be guilt for his bloodshed. He should make full restitution; if he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.

The difference is the daylight. If a thief comes during the day to steal property, then taking his life is not justified, and the homeowner would be guilty of bloodshed. However, if at night, the intentions of the intruder are not well understood, and in the confusion of the situation, the homeowner is given the benefit of the doubt. This mirrors advice that I heard from a police officer once. He said when people break into a home at night, they do not have good things planned for the residents there. This justifies using deadly force if necessary to protect the lives of the occupants.

On the other hand, if a homeowner has daylight enough to see a thief carrying away his big screen TV, the homeowner is not justified to shoot the thief. That would certainly land the homeowner in jail, because the response was disproportionate to the crime. Only when death or great bodily harm is likely can deadly force be justified. Property crimes do not merit or justify the death penalty. The men who killed Ahmaud Arbery should have learned this fact long before they committed their heinous act against a man who they (wrongly) believed to be guilty of a property crime. Now they are justly jailed because of what they did.

One would be safe to assume that if the home invader comes in armed with an instrument of death, the homeowner should be able to "keep and bear" an arm of equal or greater firepower to defend his life. Thus the second amendment is not at all out of accord with Biblical teaching.

Guns did not exist during Bible times. However, another deadly weapon—the sword—did exist. Listen to the words of Jesus:

Luke 22:36 Then He said to them, "But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one."

Here the Lord expressly tells His disciples to acquire a sword. Does that sound strange coming from the lips of Jesus? Not if you understand that He is speaking of the "new normal" for the disciples. Previously, (see v. 35) He had sent them out with special divine provision. They would be cared for by a special divine providence. But now, He is sending them out again, after He will be gone, and they will be going out as sheep among wolves. This is the new normal. While they will try to be as harmless as doves, this does not mean that they cannot defend themselves from robbers or murderers. This is what the sword is for. It is not for offensive use, forcing conversions or enforcing a "Christian law" upon the places where we live. It is for defensive use. It is most obviously not for show. Like the Roman police, we do not "bear the sword in vain" (Romans 13:4). If it is carried, it is meant to be used in those situations where it is needed.

What are some objections to this?

I heard a very well-known evangelical preacher say that he would not use a gun against an intruder, for the criminal presumably needs eternal life, and the preacher already has it. If the preacher shoots the invader, then the invader goes to Hell. If the criminal shoots the preacher, the preacher goes to heaven, so he does not have anything to worry about in the end.

I respond to that objection this way: I have more than myself to "worry" about. I have a family—wife, children, and perhaps house guests, some of whom may not be going to heaven yet. I am charged with their safety, like Lot who welcomed two angels into his home instead of letting them stay overnight in the dangerous city square (Genesis 19:2-3, 8). Also, I feel that I have a moral duty to not only help when I see a person in need where it is safe to help them, but also, if necessary, to assist in the task of restraining evil where it pops up its ugly head. I certainly would rather not have to do that, and hope never to have to do so. But if it comes down to a question of "me or him" I know which I will lean toward. The innocent homeowner must not feel guilty if he defends himself. It is the criminal intruder who was in the wrong the entire time.

I take it then that the Lord could equivalently say, "he who has no gun, let him sell his garment and buy one." There is nothing wrong with the second amendment, and Christians can support it and defend it thoroughly. There is nothing wrong with guns of all sorts and sizes.

In this day and age, however, there is increasingly something wrong with people who have access to guns. Witness the Uvalde, Texas school shooting, or the many other gun, knife, or bomb crimes committed by mentally disturbed individuals around our land and throughout the world. Making new restrictive laws does not solve those problems, it only shifts them around. What we find most often, as in the Uvalde case, is a cascade of errors that resulted in a tragedy. The young man should never have had access to weapons because he was deeply disturbed. He was mentally incompetent to be responsible with a firearm.

One other point. Let us suppose that the elected officials in this land change the law to ban guns or certain kinds of guns. Or suppose that the second amendment were repealed. Would that justify an uprising of the gun-owning public? From a Christian standpoint, no, it would not justify revolution. It would be very undesirable to the ongoing of a free people, and it would be bad, and it would be out of accord with the founding spirit of our country, but if passed lawfully, it would be the new law of the land, and that law should be obeyed (1 Peter 2:13, Romans 13:1-2).

How do you inform someone who makes the following assertion:

Christians believe in polytheism—they have three gods.

The best way is to explain that we believe what the Bible says, and then let Scripture speak for itself (all quotations from ESV):

1 Corinthians 8:4-6 ...there is no God but one. For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"—yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

Ephesians 4:5-6 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all...

Deuteronomy 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.

Isaiah 43:10 Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me.

Isaiah 44:6 Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: "I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god." (See also verse 8.)

Isaiah 45:5 I am the LORD, and there is no other, besides me there is no God.

Isaiah 45:6 That people may know, from the rising of the sun and from the west, that there is is none besides me; I am the LORD, and there is no other.

Isaiah 45:18 I am the LORD, and there is no other (see also 45:21, 22).

Isaiah 46:9 for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me...

After demonstrating that the oneness of God is a foundational truth of the Christian faith, you can explain that the one God exists as three persons sharing a single divine essence. This is the doctrine of the Trinity. Hard to understand? Certainly, because God is not like we are. God is not a human being. He is an infinite, un-caused, un-created, no-beginning being who is unique. There is no one else like him.

Today's question:

Romans 3:30 says that one God will justify the circumcision by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. Why are two different prepositions used?

First, let's double check that there are in fact two different prepositions in the Greek text, and there are: the first is "ek" faith and the second is "dia" faith.

Now to the question of why this is. Bottom line: this is most likely a stylistic variation and the prepositions are not conveying any difference at all.

This conclusion is supported by the truth gleaned from our systematic theology studies that there is only ONE way of salvation, by grace through faith. There is not one way for Jews and a different way for Gentiles. There is no such thing as a dual covenant or "automatic pass" for Jews because they are "God's people." Today, if they do not exercise faith in the Messiah Jesus, they cannot be saved. And if Gentiles do not exercise faith in the Messiah Jesus, they cannot be saved either.

Douglas Moo points out that there are two other places where these prepositions are neighbors to each other with the same object (The Epistle to the Romans, NICNT, p. 252):

Romans 11:36 ESV For from (ek) him and through (dia) him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.

2 Peter 3:5 ESV For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out (ek) of water and through (dia) water by the word of God...

In these verses, context demonstrates that the different prepositions do mean different things, that is, they are not used as synonyms. But in the context of Romans 3:30, they are used as synonyms.

This reminds me of an important principle of interpretation: you have to be VERY sure if you are building a big theological point on a small preposition (or two). Prepositions are outsized in their importance in language in general, and in Scripture particularly, in that they modify and connect ideas together to create larger and more significant ideas. But they are not that outsized whereby you can undermine a clear theological truth with an argument based on a dubious distinction between what can most easily be explained as synonyms.

You are saved by faith. You are saved through faith. Those two sentences mean the same thing. And thank God for them, otherwise we would not be saved at all!

A website visitor asked the following:

I would like to know if slavery was ordained by God and tehreby existed in the Old and New Testament to reflect God's order (like marriage)? Or, was slavery man-made, and, thus, more of a reflection of culture and man-made traditions? Which is it?

I prepared a brief answer that I shared last Sunday evening. Basically, this is it: Slavery was not created by God to reflect creation order. It is therefore unlike marriage. God did not "institute" slavery in the way that most westerners understand slavery. It came about as a result of the sin of man. Slavery was therefore man-made.

However, everything that comes to pass is ordained/permitted by God, so we would have to say that in some sense, God did ordain slavery, just like he did all other sins. I understand slavery to be unlike marriage, but more like divorce in that slavery and divorce were not instituted by God but God permitted and regulated them because of the sinfulness of the human heart.

The Law which God gave through Moses did make provision for a kind of slavery that we could call debt-servitude. It was used instead of what we have—modern bankruptcy—and to avoid imprisonment for petty thieves. Instead, they had to work off their restitution if they could not pay it up front.

Probably the most important passage on the subject—at least for a modern westerner—is this: Exodus 21:16. In that section, God outlaws man-stealing. The entire slave trade in early American history was based on this method of obtaining and selling and buying slaves. It was an abominable enterprise from start to finish—and God made it clear by assigning it the death penalty.

Here are the messages I preached on this subject in 2016:

The Bible and Slavery, Part 1

The Bible and Slavery, Part 2

The Bible and Slavery, Part 3

Another brief but helpful resource.

Here is a brief listing of the few papers I have published. I had to consolidate these into one place for another purpose, so I figured it would be good to keep a record here as well.

Coming to Grips with Genesis: Biblical Authority and the Age of the Earth: A Review Article, DBSJ Vol. 14, 2009, 31-58.

God and Counterfactuals, DBSJ Vol. 15, 2010, 23-73.

From Heaven He Came and Sought Her: Definite Atonement in Historical, Biblical, Theological, and Pastoral Perspective: A Review Article, DBSJ Vol. 19, 2014, 95-103.

Cherry Picking Theology?, Inside Sources, July 31, 2015.

Essential Elements of Young Earth Creationism and Their Importance to Christian Theology, DBSJ Vol. 21, 2016, 31-58. This was cross-posted at SharperIron.

Here is a short "Bible Literacy" video about abortion and capital punishment.

Many people who are in favor of capital punishment are opposed to abortion, including a good number of Christian people. But, isn’t this inconsistent? It is about the same as someone being for abortion but against capital punishment! Those who are opposed to both abortion and capital punishment, or who are in favor of both, seem more consistent from the standpoint of preserving life.

But our interest is not in who is more or less consistent on the basis of a single metric—that is too limited of a view. We are trying to increase our basic Bible literacy by understanding what the Bible teaches about these matters.

We turn to Exodus 21:22-23, where a matter of case law is given in which a pregnant woman is struck by someone. If she gives birth prematurely but the baby lives, it is a civil infraction with a monetary penalty. But if the baby dies, the Law of God in the Jewish theocracy stated that it was to be punished by the lex talionis, “life for life.” The law stated that if the baby died, the perpetrator was to be punished with death. That is how seriously God takes human life. It is precious in His sight, even in the mother’s womb. Abortion is just a “decorated” word for what amounts to exactly the same thing—murder of an innocent human.

The reason that some people take the “inconsistent” position for capital punishment and against abortion is that the Scripture teaches so. Consistency comes to view when you look at the issue through the lens of justice—it is unjust for an innocent baby to be killed, but it is perfectly just for a murderer to forfeit his life. The opposite view—that capital punishment is wrong and abortion is OK is actually inconsistent from this justice perspective—why does an innocent baby deserve to die, but a criminal guilty of a horrific crime deserve to live? Abortion basically is capital punishment…done to an innocent child.

Read 2 Corinthians 11:2:

For I am jealous for you with godly jealousy. For I have betrothed you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. (NKJV)

Christian, at your conversion, you became engaged (betrothed or promised) to Jesus Christ. You belong exclusively to Him. The wedding of the Lamb is coming. Are you staying pure? Are you getting ready? The symbolism of this is rich. While we await the consummation of salvation, the application of "engagement" touches every area of our lives, just like your upcoming wedding did (or will, if you are yet to be married).

Benevolent giving supplies two things: (1) the material needs of others; (2) a basis for thanksgiving to God, for when the recipients receive the gift, they offer thanksgiving to God not only for the gift but for the people who gave the gift.

BOTH are important results of your benevolence. This principle is found in 2 Corinthians 9:12.

I taught some recently about the Hebrew Roots Movement--what it is, and why we do not believe it. The following messages were delivered in December of 2020: December 2 December 6 December 13

I received a couple of negative comments on the message. Here is the first:

Moses didn't ever make up his own law. Who's finger do you think wrote the 10 commandments?

I replied:

Hello Mike, the statement and question you write in your comment are not a point of difference between us. That is, we never said or even implied that Moses made up his own law. It was obviously the Law of God; it is called the Mosaic Law for short because God gave it through Moses. And, of course God wrote the tablets (twice--Deut. 9:10/10:2 and Exodus 31:18/34:1). But Moses wrote them again in the manuscripts of Exodus and Deuteronomy which have passed down to us through preservation and translation.

Now, perhaps your question is meant to suggest that GOD wrote the Law, therefore it is eternally binding. That is, it is not man's law, but God's law, and therefore must be followed by all men of all ethnicities at all times. We differ with you very firmly if that is your point. Illustrations: Have you had a son and had him circumcised? Did you do it on the eighth day? If not, you broke the Law of God (Lev. 12:3)--if you believe that God has made it still binding, even upon Gentiles. And if you broke the law in one point, you have broken all of it. The Apostle Paul commanded the Gentiles in Colosse that they were not to accept a man's judgment against them if they did not observe days such as Sabbath, and months, and other sorts of external religious rites. Those rites do nothing to restrain the appetites of the sinful nature of man (Col. 2:16-23). The book of Galatians is clear, as is Acts 15, that circumcision is not necessary for Gentiles to practice. Only if you believe that God's law is like the Law of the Medes and Persians (which cannot be revoked, book of Daniel), could you believe that once God sets an instruction in place that He can never change it again. He is the boss, and can change the terms and conditions whenever He pleases. A great example is found in Ezekiel 40-48 where the temple and its operation have quite a number of differences compared to that given under Moses.

Hope that is helpful. If not, please try to formulate your follow-up question in a way that is a bit more clear, and less adversarial sounding. Thanks, and may God bless you with a clear understanding of His Word!

The writer responded:

OK, brother, at about 10:50, you begin to say that 1 John is not speaking about the law of Moses, but about the "law of Christ" and your own words, "the law of God." It is manipulative. (I don't say you were intentionally trying to mislead). Over time, a little twisting of words and phrases will tend to establish one's viewpoint, but it can be misleading. We can discuss more over email if you prefer.

And I reply again:

Hello again Mike, Thank you for recognizing there is no intent to mislead here. In using the phrase "Law of Christ," I am following the apostle Paul in Galatians 6:2 and 1 Cor. 9:21. I understand this law to be precisely the same as the law of liberty in James 1:25 and 2:12. It is the code given by Christ through His teaching and the writings of His apostles (the New Testament). It is summarized by the law of love for God and neighbor. Indeed, it looks very similar to the Law given through Moses because it comes from the same God. But it is different--circumcision is not required; Sabbath observance is not required; kosher diet is not required; observance of the three major Jewish holidays is not required; animal sacrifice is not required. All these things are abundantly clear in New Testament teaching.

I would offer this rebuttal to the HRM viewpoint: The words I used were not twisting or manipulating the text of Scripture. Rather, something has become twisted in the teaching of the Hebrew Roots Movement. It appears to be going back to something substantially similar to the Galatian error that Paul wrote so strongly against.

There is a certain romantic idea of going back to the early church, but the church had a lot of problems as evidenced in Paul's letters and in the book of Acts. It was not the pristine thing that we might like it to be. Furthermore, we have the benefit of completed written revelation which in the first decades of the church, the believers did not. Finally, in those early years, there was a lot of going back and forth on the Jew/Gentile issue. Acts 15 made clear that the church is not primarily Jewish in flavor. Of course it arises from the Jewish faith in the Old Testament; but it includes the Gentiles as Gentiles.

I was reading this morning:

2 Thessalonians 3:11-12 For we hear that there are some who walk among you in a disorderly manner, not working at all, but are busybodies. Now those who are such we command and exhort through our Lord Jesus Christ that they work in quietness and eat their own bread.

In the last few years, it has become a "thing" that people are busybodies (meddlers) through social media. Some—maybe you?—spend tremendous amounts of time browsing and commenting and liking and hash-tagging and sharing and so on. They want to know all the news. Meanwhile, their life work goes undone. The house is unkempt, the outdoor work is undone, the job is not done faithfully, sleep patterns become irregular, church is not attended much less served, and so on. It is very easy to fall into this kind of laziness. Fight against the tendency and pick up your other tasks.

I may be writing with a little bit of hyperbole, but you get the point. Be challenged by this word if you need to be, and get your body busy about what God has called you to do. Spend a whole lot less time on Facebook, Twitter, Nextdoor, and whatever other similar platforms are out there.

Here is the annual set of Bible reading schedules that you have become accustomed to seeing here. The dates are adjusted on these to match the beginning of the weeks for 2021. This year, the schedules start on 1/3 (or 1/4 for Monday-Friday plans) at the beginning of the first full week of the year. This way, you have a few days to catch up on last year's reading, or get ahead on this year's reading.

Spiritual growth is correlated to Bible input. So, put more Bible into your mind!

• Read the New Testament once
• Read the New Testament twice
• Read the Old Testament once

Some other reading plans might catch your interest from prior years, easily adaptable to the coming year:

• Ligonier Bible Reading Plans
• ESV Bible Reading Plans
• Professor Horner's Reading System
• Read the Gospels Every Day

In Acts 13:20, an interpretive question comes up about the 450 year time span. Does it refer to the period of the time in Egypt, the wandering, and the conquest of the land, as the NASB seems to indicate? Or does the period of time refer to the time of the judges, as the KJV indicates? The problem with the latter is that the period of the judges is only about 327 years, according to John Whitcomb's analysis.

There is a difference in the Greek of Acts 13:20, where the three-word phrase "and after this" is earlier in the Greek majority text (MT) than it is in the Nestle-Aland text (NA28). Perhaps you could say it is "transposed" with the phrase "about 450 years"

NA28 literal rendering = About 450 years. And after this He gave judges until Samuel the prophet.

MT and TR literal rendering = And after this, about 450 years, He gave judges until Samuel the prophet.

Importantly, note that the KJV does not quite follow the literal rendering I give above. It says,

KJV = And after that he gave unto them judges about the space of four hundred and fifty years, until Samuel the prophet.

Notice that KJV moves the "450 years" phrase even later in the verse than the MT word order. It puts it AFTER the word "judges," but in all Greek texts, 450 years occurs BEFORE the word judges.

Perhaps I could resuscitate the NKJV/KJV by translating a bit more in word-for-word order this way:

And after that--about 450 years--he gave them judges...

The KJV has obfuscated things even more than the Greek text transposition necessitates. My "fix" to the KJV is admittedly somewhat strained, as it is basically saying this:

And after that stuff--about 450 years of it--he gave them judges...

My suggestion is that the KJV translation is the problem—not so much the Greek text underlying it. This means that we need not charge that there is a terrible error in the Greek text underlying the KJV. There is a different word order, yes. But an irreconcilable error? Not quite. A different solution to the problem is to recognize the KJV has translated the words in an unhappy order which makes the chronology confused, and then to offer a paraphrase that addresses the chronology problem in a somewhat plausible fashion.

I am not saying this to support a KJVO viewpoint, because I most definitely do not hold that view. In fact, I think the KJV can be charged with an error in its translation here. However, I believe my suggestion is more fair to the Greek text. However you take it, the 450 years must apply to the time in Egypt through the conquest, not the time of the judges. My explanation is also more plausible than this one, which says that the 450 years does cover the period of the judges, and Moses was the first judge!