Please think about this 

 

Our Savior was the master teacher and He always exhorted his listeners to think (Matt. 18:12; 21:28). Oftentimes, the Lord’s words took people to places they did not want to go. This often troubled those who were trying to catch Him in His words. I bring this up because I want to bring up a very sensitive subject. My approach will be a little different. I will pose the question and then explore some potential answers.

 

Why do people not consider it immodest to wear a modern swimsuit in public?

 

Most religious people know the Bible speaks of immodesty (I Tim. 2:9).  I do not know of any godly woman who wants to dress like a harlot (Prov. 7:10). Therefore, I will do my best to answer the question by thinking how a sincere person would approach it. I will then compare that answer with what the Bible says.

 

“This is not immodest because of where I am wearing it”

 

Obviously, no Christian woman would wear her bathing suit to a potluck, church service or other gathering where she was the only person dressed that way. But why do so many people consider this same apparel to be acceptable at the beach or a pool? Would God approve of such dress simply because everyone around you is also dressed a certain way? According to His word, no. Dress that is too revealing is lascivious no matter where you wear it (Eph. 4:19).

 

This makes sense – the revealing nature of one’s dress is not changed based on surroundings. Location, then, does not determine whether something is immodest or not.

 

“This is not immodest because of what I am doing”

This argument seems appealing on the surface. Going swimming or playing volleyball, for example, both require good mobility. Clothing can obviously be restrictive in these situations. Leading cheers and dancing also require freedom of movement, hence the minimal attire people wear. God understands this, right?

 

The problem is, God does not recognize this distinction. Immodest dress is still such, no matter what you are doing in public. Saints are to always be letting their lights shine in public (Matt. 5:13-16).

 

“This is not immodest because others are dressed the same”

This also seems logical. Christian women might not consider what they their attire immodest if they blend in with everyone around them.  If everyone is dressed the same way, that Christian will not draw excess attention.

 

The problem is that this argument again has Christians conforming to the world when we are warned not to (Rom. 12:1-2). The lust of the flesh is everywhere (I John 2:15-16), and we are not to love the world.

 

 

 

 

“This is not immodest because it is not my intention”

Much of the Bible describes the importance of our heart. Are modern bathing suits acceptable if the Christian does not intend to be immodest? And what of those looking – do they not also have a responsibility to control their thoughts.

 

This final argument seeks to shift the blame. Adorning oneself with modest apparel starts with a good heart, so logically our heart can be revealed in the way we dress (I Pet. 3:1-4).

 

                                                                                    Chuck

 

“Perpetual Covenant”

 

Even though the Hebrew writer clearly tells us that the first covenant was done away with and that we are now under a new one (Heb. 8:78; 9:15-17), some religious people still think parts of the Law of Moses are in effect today. They often reference a statement made in Jeremiah 50:5: “They shall ask the way to Zion, with their faces toward it, saying, come and let us join ourselves to the LORD in a perpetual covenant that will not be forgotten.”

 

This phrase does not mean what they think it does. As a matter of fact, in the Old Testament covenant was also called being “everlasting” (Lev. 24:8). This means that the covenant was continuously in effect within a period of time. We know this because circumcision and animal sacrifices were also described as being everlasting (Gen. 17:13; Lev. 16:29-34), but they were done away with too.

 

So, what did “the perpetual covenant” mean in Jeremiah 50:5? We always state how important context is. This whole chapter is dealing with the fact that Babylon was going to fall from world dominance to the Medes. This meant that God’s people, currently living in Babylonian captivity, would be allowed to restore their worship and return to their own land (Jer. 50:1-5).

 

To pluck this verse out of its context and make it contradict other passages of scripture is to make it teach something that it is not saying. Jeremiah had already stated in chapter 31:31-34 that the Lord was going to establish a new covenant. This is also referenced in Hebrews 8:7-12. The covenant that Jeremiah said would be perpetual was the same one that was going to be done away with. How could that be? Because it was going to endure for the time God purposed.

 

Finally, note that the prophet was not saying that only parts of the covenant would be perpetual – the prophet was clear that all would be. Therefore, if any of the covenant was in force today, then all of it would be. This is why Paul said that if you bind circumcision today; you would have to bind all of the Old Law (Gal. 5:2-3).

 

                                                                      Chuck

 

Where are people like Cornelius? 

 

I must confess that when I read about the kind of man Cornelius was before the apostle came to him, I was impressed. He is described as “a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, who gave alms generously to the people, and prayed to God always,” (Acts 10:2). I am confident that if any of us had met this man, we would have liked him because he was so sincere, unselfish and obviously devoted to God.

 

If we are going to learn anything from Cornelius though, we have to come to grips with the fact that he was lost in sin. Yes, this man was not a Christian. If he would have died in that state, he would have died in his sins. Consider what Peter says in Acts 11:13-14: “And he told us how he had seen an angel standing in his house, who said to him, ‘send men to Joppa, and call for Simon whose surname is Peter, who will tell you words by which you and all your household will be saved.” Prior to Peter’s arrival, Cornelius feared God and prayed to God often but was not saved.

 

Many people have a harder time accepting that Cornelius was lost in his sins than Cornelius did himself! We might expect that Cornelius, as the head of his household, could struggle to accept admonition from Peter, but he clearly responded to Peter’s message. What was it about Cornelius that helped him accept the words of Peter?

 

This man feared God not man

Logically, a religious person who is told that he is not right with the Lord should want to know what the Lord said. However, many religious people think they will be saved simply because they are religious. Cornelius was certainly religious, yet he was also lost! If we truly fear God, we will listen to His words (I Pet. 4:11). It does not make much sense to fear God and pray to Him but then refuse to accept His instruction (II Tim. 3:16-17).

 

This man was humble

When Peter came to see Cornelius, he fell down at Peter’s feet and began worshipping him. The apostle lifted him up and admonished him: “Stand up; I myself am also a man,” (Acts 10:25-26). I am not suggesting in the slightest that should we elevate another man. Still, notice Cornelius’ humility. Many religious people are so full of themselves that they are unwilling to be taught by another. It is hard for people to admit when they are wrong. Cornelius was not like that.

 

This man wanted others to learn

In Acts 10:27, we read that Peter talked with Cornelius in a public place. This allowed others to hear the same life-saving message at the same time. Notice how Cornelius did not try to act as a “filter” by first hearing the message and then later sharing it with loved ones – he allowed everyone to hear it at the same time. No one has cornered the market on truth – all can know (John 8:32). If Cornelius did act like the mediator, then he would have been guilty of wanting people to follow him instead of the Lord.

 

This man obeyed immediately

After hearing the message and the command to be baptized, Cornelius and several others obeyed (Acts 10:47-48). There was no sulking and asking “why have I been wrong?” or arguing “but God knows my heart”. Simply put, the gospel message was preached. They heard it, believed and were baptized (Acts 18:8; 22:16; 2:38, etc.).  How about you?

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Chuck

Can I host non-believers at home?

 

Second John 10-11 seems to teach that Christians are only allowed to have other Christians in their home. “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; for he who greets him, shares in his evil deeds.”  Is the apostle forbidding saints to have non-Christians in their homes?

 

To understand this text, we must know what “greeting” contextually means. In verse 9, the brethren were admonished to abide in the doctrine of Christ. If they did not follow His doctrine, John said they would not have God. He then proceeded to take about those who bring teachings that are different from the gospel of Jesus. To receive such a teacher by allowing them to share their “doctrine” without speaking up or defend the gospel of Christ say nothing would be to become a partaker of their evil deeds.

 

If one were to take John’s warning literally, how could a person stay married to a non-Christian spouse? The inspired apostle Paul told children of God who were married to unbelievers to remain in that marriage (I Cor. 7:10-13). Clearly, the context of II John matters if we are to harmonize these scriptures. Can II John apply even within marriages then? Yes! If the unbeliever (whether a spouse or not) teaches things contrary to the word of God and the Christian says nothing, the Christian is sharing in the evil deeds.

 

Let us not forget about the commission to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ (Mark 16:15). God’s people need to teach the lost. Does this mean that Christians can teach nonbelievers in their driveway but cannot teach them in their home? This is obviously foolish. It would be just as wrong to listen to someone teach error without defending Christ’s gospel in a driveway as it would in a home or anywhere else. Remember, our goal is to teach. Even when the church assembles, non-believers may attend (I Cor. 14:23). Sometimes the church met in homes (Rom. 16:3-5). Are we to forbid visitors then? Clearly not. As you can see, our God simply does not want His children to invite false teachers into their home to be influenced by them.

 

                                                                                 Chuck

When did Jesus rise from the dead?

                                      

Recently, someone pointed out to me that Jesus must have resurrected from the death on the Sabbath because of Matthew 28:1. It states in that text that the women came to the tomb late on the Sabbath. If the tomb was empty because Christ had already risen, does this mean He resurrected on the Sabbath? Let’s take a closer look.

 

To make this simple, we will see that the more accurate translations of Matthew 28:1 read like this: “after the Sabbath day, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week…” We must first establish when Christ died. In Mark 15:42, we read that Jesus died the day before the Sabbath. This day was also called the preparation day (Luke 23:54, Matt. 27:62). Without a doubt, Christ was crucified on the sixth day of the week.

 

Now let’s turn our attention to the statements made concerning the length of time the Lord would spend in the grave. Jesus clearly said that He would be killed and be raised the third day (Matt. 16:21). The same thing was stated in Mark 8:31. On another occasion, the Lord said He would be three days and three nights in the grave (Matt. 12:40).

 

It is vital to understand how the Jews reckoned time. The Jews told Pilate that the body should not be on the cross on the Sabbath (John 19:31). This is why they wanted His legs broken on the cross – to ensure He died before the Sabbath. Since the text stated “for the Sabbath was a high day”, it meant that the Sabbath was near. It started at 6 pm that evening and lasted until 6 pm the next day.

 

Knowing all of this, let us revisit the accounts of the women coming to the tomb. The descriptions in Luke and John both state that the women came on the first day of the week (Mark 16:1-2; Luke 24:1; John 20:1).  In Mark’s account, he said they came when the Sabbath was past and on the first day of the week (Mark 16:1-2). Based on this, we can understand that when some versions of the Bible say that the women came at the end of the Sabbath, they are not also saying that Jesus resurrected on the Sabbath. Consider Matthew 28:1 again. It says that the women came “as the first day of the week began to dawn.”  Since the Sabbath ended 6 pm the night before, the first day of the week was close to being half over by the time dawn arrived.

 

Now let’s focus on some serious problems people have by insisting that Jesus resurrected on the Sabbath. If Jesus was taken down from the cross just before the Sabbath day began, He would not have spent three days in the grave. This would conflict with Jesus’ many statements about spending three days in the grave. We would also have to question whether Paul was truly inspired by Jesus Christ as he preached this point too (Gal. 1:12; I Cor. 15:4).   

 

We should also question why some people are so adamant that Jesus resurrected on the Sabbath. In some cases, it is because they want to give the Sabbath even more significance. Christians came together on the first day of the week to remember the sacrifice of Christ (Acts 20:7). Christians were never obligated to keep the Sabbath because Jesus nailed the Old Law to the cross (Col. 2:14). If Jesus did not resurrect on the first day of the week, then those who insist He rose on the Sabbath will struggle to harmonize several areas of scripture.

 

Jesus’ enemies put guards at the tomb because they knew He said He would rise in three days (Matt. 27:64). It would have been easy for them to discredit Jesus if He did not rise as He said He would. But Jesus did rise, so all His enemies could do was to bribe the soldiers to lie (Matt. 28:11-13). We can see clearly that Jesus spent three days in the grave and arose on the first day of the week.

                                                                              

   Chuck