What does the command, "Do not be afraid" mean?

Question:

I'm wondering what's the point of fear from God's perspective. Clearly it impacts safety and keeps us alive around danger but what about that lingering psychological fear about something I know is likely coming but can't change. Doesn't Jesus say ' do not be afraid' like a command? How do we actually do that action 'do not be afraid,' when we are feeling afraid? Is it something we receive from God? What does a life without fear look like when we're in a scary situation?

Response:

Jesus mostly says “do not be afraid” to people in situations that were scary and who needed reassurance. For example, he comforts the disciples on the mount of transfiguration when he takes on a dazzling appearance (Matthew 17:7), he comforts the synagogue ruler when he hears his daughter is dead (Mark 5:36), he comforts the disciples when he comes to them walking on water (Matthew 14:27) and he comforts the disciples when he appears to them after his resurrection (Matthew 28:10). In all these instances, the people involved were facing frightening situations and needed reassurance that things were okay even though they did not appear to be so. Jesus tells Simon not to be afraid when Jesus calls him to be his disciple but this also is in response to an extraordinary situation, when the fishing nets, empty all night, were suddenly filled to breaking (Luke 5:10).

In Luke 12:4 Jesus tells his disciples “do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that have no more that they can do.” In this case, fear probably means being so affected that you give in to your tormenters rather than staying faithful to God. God is the one with ultimate power so he is the one you should fear and obey.

Finally, Jesus instructs his disciples, at the last supper: “Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid” (John 14:27). This word comes at the end of a long discourse on Christ’s impending departure. Naturally the disciples were fearful of him leaving and Jesus took pains to reassure them that he was not abandoning them: he would return for them, he knew the Father and would show him to them, he would listen to and answer the disciples’ prayers, Jesus and the Father would indwell them and Jesus would send the Holy Spirit to be with them and to teach them while he (Jesus) was physically absent. After telling them all this wonderful news, Jesus tells them “Peace I leave with you, peace I give to you. Not as the world gives, give I to you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.” The disciples did not have to fear that Jesus would leave them “orphans”, all alone with none to help.

Christ does not instruct them to not ever be afraid under any circumstances but that they should not be afraid about his departure. Life is hard and scary but what makes it truly terrible is the prospect of bearing its sorrows alone. Jesus reassures his followers that they are not alone; they are not being abandoned. Christ will suffer abandonment on their behalf so that they never have to.

So how does this apply in our lives today? We too have the assurance that Christ has not left us alone but is with us and has given us the Holy Spirit to guide us and that Christ will return for us and bring us to himself. We are not alone. Terrible things may happen to us that make us fearful but we can face them knowing we are not alone and that whatever this world throws at us is only temporary and not worth staking our lives on.

It is natural to fear things that we know will be painful and I don’t believe Jesus meant we would not or should not experience fear. Pain, loss, and disappointment are all hard to bear and we dread them. But our fears can be mitigated by the knowledge that we are not alone and that “this too shall pass.” What we must do is to soak in his word, learning and reminding ourselves of his promises to be with us and to return for us so that our fears do not overwhelm and that we may find something to be thankful for even in the midst of them.

How does temptation fit into God’s plans for my life?

Questions: How does temptation fit into God’s plans for my life?

Response:

James chapter one talks about being faithful to God in the midst of difficult circumstances.  Verses 2-8 say “count it all joy when you fall into various trials knowing that the testing of your faith produces patience (endurance, perseverance).”  Verses 12-18 say “blessed is the man who endures temptation: for when he has been approved he will receive the crown of life”. 

What of these words “trials” and “temptations”?  In the Greek, the same word, peirasmos, is used.  Its meaning is determined by the context.  In positive contexts it is translated “trials” or “tests”.  These are circumstances in which a believer has the opportunity to demonstrate faithfulness.  A school child takes tests.  These tests are not given by the teacher to trip up the student, to lead him astray or to harm him; they are given to examine the student’s knowledge and help him see where he is lacking in order that he might know where to improve. 

In negative contexts peirasmos is translated “temptations”. A trial might be a believing woman navigating a work relationship with a man she finds attractive but who is an unbeliever.  A temptation may also be present in which her desire for a romantic relationship morphs into a desire to grasp such satisfaction apart from God’s design.  For instance, the trial is having to work with a desirable but unsuitable man, whereas a temptation might be the desire to text said man, under the guise of dealing with work issues, but in reality, to gain some attention that she should not be seeking.

James clarifies that temptations do not come from God, they come from ourselves.  Trials are external – they are situations we find ourselves in, situations that may make staying faithful to God difficult.  Temptations are internal – they are our own desires for satisfaction apart from God’s goodness.  James 1:14,15 says “each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed.  Then, when desire has conceived it gives birth to sin and sin when it is full-grown, brings forth death.”  Temptation has to do with the quality of our desires.  A desire for a romantic relationship is good and God-given.  A desire for a romantic relationship outside the bonds of faith or sexual chastity is temptation leading to sin.

God gives trials or tests in order to mature us and he invites us to ask for wisdom if we are uncertain about what faithfulness should look like in a given situation but he does not tempt us.  Temptations come from within and show us where our desires need to be reshaped and so we ought to pay attention to them.  If I am tempted to pursue an unsuitable man I need to examine why.  Perhaps I have become convinced that I have a need that God can’t or won’t fill, that God is holding out on me etc. etc.  I need to address that desire and take it to God and to his word for repentance and reshaping.  Consistency in reshaping my desires through the application of biblical truths and communion with God will lead to diminished temptations and greater success in navigating trials.  Humility and vigilance is key.

Jesus' take on Mary and Martha: What gives? I feel like I'm a Mary but God's given me a Martha role.

Question:

How do I reconcile Jesus take on Mary and Martha when I feel like I'm a Mary but God's given me (sometimes I feel like I've been trapped in) the job description of Martha?

Response:

“Now it happened as they went that He entered a certain village; and a certain woman named Martha welcomed Him into her house.  And she had a sister called Mary, who also sat at Jesus’ feet and heard His word.  But Martha was distracted with much serving, and she approached Him and said, “Lord, do You not care that my sister has left me to serve alone? Therefore tell her to help me.”

And Jesus answered and said to her, “Martha, Martha, you are worried and troubled about many things.  But one thing is needed, and Mary has chosen that good part, which will not be taken away from her.”

It’s important to understand what Jesus meant when He addressed Martha.  We may take this passage to mean that the mundane work of serving is less than the “spiritual” work of listening to Jesus.  I can imagine that busy mothers roll their eyes at this passage – “well, if I just sat and read my Bible all day, this house would fall apart.”  Or perhaps, “I would like to study the word and worship and have deep spiritual conversations but someone has to do the laundry.”  We may be left with a resentful thought toward Jesus for His naivete about what it takes to run a household or toward our role as mother and homemaker for taking us from what we’d rather be doing.

But take heart!  Jesus meant no such things by this encounter.  Mary did not spend all her time listening to Jesus – her job description would have been to cook and clean and care for the home and those in it just like any other woman in those days.  We must not take the incident of Jesus’ visit to their home as what was normal.  It was a one-time situation that Jesus used to illustrate an important principle.

We each have spheres in which we find ourselves, having certain tasks and responsibilities and we are called to fulfil them “as to the Lord.”  We were created to work as per God’s mandate to mankind in Genesis: “fill the earth and subdue it” and though many tasks are tedious and thankless they nevertheless have the dignity of playing a role in fulfilling our mandate from God and we bring Him pleasure when we do them.

Jesus was on earth for a short time and fulfilled His ministry in a time even shorter which required certain responsibilities to be temporarily altered.  For example, Jesus was questioned by the disciples of John the Baptist who wondered why they fasted while Jesus’ disciples did not.  Jesus responded that His disciples’ behaviour was appropriate because He, the bridegroom, was only with them for a short time and so it was right for them to rejoice while He was still there.  The time was coming when He would be taken away – that was the time for mourning and fasting, not before.

Likewise, with Mary and Martha.  Both fulfilled their household duties in Jesus’ absence.  But when He came, for short while to teach, Mary correctly understood the tremendous opportunity that had presented itself and acted accordingly by suspending her work in order to listen.  Doing otherwise would have been akin to saying “Thank-you Mr. Mandela, for your kind invitation to dinner but you see, Saturday is laundry night and therefore I must decline.”

Martha failed to recognize the opportunity of learning directly from Jesus, instead being “worried and troubled about many things” to the point of wishing Mary to lose out on her limited time opportunity as well, for which Jesus gently rebuked her.  I daresay that if Martha had also stopped serving in order to listen and the disciples complained to Jesus about it, he would have said that same thing to them.  He was not bothered by Martha's serving per se, just with her inappropriate devotion to it.

I believe this passage is about priorities.  Fulfilling the responsibilities of our sphere is right and good and a part of our mandate from God.  But if a limited time opportunity of great importance presents itself shall we become “distracted with much serving”?  Will the house fall down if dinner is late? 

What shall we do in eternity? Is it just going to be an unending worship service?

Question: 

What shall we do in eternity? Is it just going to be an unending worship service?

Response: 

There are many misconceptions about what we believers will experience in the hereafter. Primarily, that we will spend eternity in heaven.

In Genesis we read that God created man in his image and placed them on earth. Man was created to live on planet earth not in heaven and thus it remains for eternity. Isaiah 65:17 tells us “For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth; And the former shall not be remembered or come to mind” which is reiterated by John in Revelation 21:1: “Now I saw a new heavens and a new earth for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away”. The renewed heavens and earth will be released from the “bondage to corruption” (Romans 8:20,21) to which He subjected them when He cursed the earth back in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3:17—19), removing said curse (Revelation 22:3). We can see then that we were made for earth and earth is where we will remain.

Not only are the heavens and earth renewed but we too will be “re-made” in the resurrection, when these weak and fallen bodies of ours will be transformed into the image of His glorious body (Philippians 3:21).

The picture that Revelation gives us in one in which heaven and earth are a united reality: John sees the holy city of New Jerusalem coming down to earth from heaven (Rev. 21:2,3) and speaks of God being with man, whereas at present, God remains hidden from our sight. John also sees a great multitude of people worshipping God at His heavenly throne in Revelation 7:9. So, in one sense, yes, we will spend eternity in heaven, insofar as we are given full access to that reality, in addition to the physical reality that we are currently accustomed to. Thus, Christ can say in John 14:2,3 “In My Father’s house are many mansions…I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also.” We will be able to enter and enjoy heaven but will not be restricted to it.

Once all this has been accomplished: judgment meted out, the creation renewed, the kingdom set up, how shall we occupy ourselves for eternity? In Genesis 1:28, we read that God created man and said: “Be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it…and have dominion over [it].” That is our mandate for life on earth and it has never been revoked. In the New World there shall be no more human reproduction, for its population will consist of those who have been redeemed from the Old Earth, so that part of the mandate will be obsolete. But the second part, of filling and subduing the earth and having dominion will still remain. And so, we shall do what we have always done – create culture. Only this time without alienation from God and all its attendant evils: wars, famines, the battle of the sexes, false religion, idolatry, state oppression, loneliness, persecution, disease, broken hearts and death. We shall live as we were originally created to live, clothed in the righteousness of Christ, with full access to our talents and abilities, having perfectly intimate fellowship with all our fellow human beings.

And I daresay, we shall not be limited to planet earth. After all, God has created billions of galaxies that we have no hope of discovering, developing and enjoying in this life. I suspect that in eternity we shall finally develop the technology to fully explore His creation – to extend our dominion across the reaches of space.

But most importantly, we shall know God and get to know Him better and better. We shall no longer be hindered by sin and selfishness, nor by the limitations of an existence restricted to a physical reality. As Paul says, “For now we see as in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part but then I shall know as I am also known” (1 Corinthians 13:12). It shall be our deepest joy to learn something new about God and to worship Him for it which will inspire us to seek Him further to learn something new which will inspire more worship in a mutually reinforcing upward spiral of increasing knowledge and joy and glory for eternity.

So, we wait. We live in and utilize and enjoy Earth 1.0 to the best of our ability. But when it fails us, when we are disappointed and hurt and hemmed in we do not lose heart. For our outer man may be wasting away but our inner man is being renewed day by day. And we remain confident of our coming inheritance in the saints in the light.

Does the Age of the Earth Really Matter?

Question:

How we should approach the creation account(s) in Genesis?

Should the age of the earth/universe be as divisive an issue as it has become in Christianity?

Response:

When reading the Bible, we need to take it on its own terms which means to read it as it was intended. Part of this means to determine the genre of the text in question. For example, a newspaper report gives a factual account of a particular event that really happened – I expect to read about where and when and what took place. I would be confused to read “the mayor concluded his speech and rode off on a winged horse while the townspeople cheered” in the Calgary Herald, whereas such a line in a fairy tale would be expected.

There are a number of genres within the Bible: historical narrative, poetry, apocalyptic, gospel, letter, prophecy. So, we need to examine them to see which one best fits the creation account in Genesis.

The creation account proves controversial because there are conflicting views as to how it should be understood. The choices are usually either historical narrative or poetry. Why the conflict? If the account is historical narrative, the story that is told is that of a creation week of seven 24-hour days, with instantaneous creation of the items listed, occurring approximately six thousand years ago (based on the genealogical data in later chapters). However, visit any science museum, open any science or ancient history textbook and the story told about origins is very different, involving a billions of years process of cosmological and biological evolution.

Clearly both stories cannot be true. If the genre of Genesis is historical narrative then what do we make of the case made that the earth is billions of years old? Doesn’t that make the biblical account mistaken, casting doubt on its truthfulness?

There are many believers who trust the Bible and who believe that the physical evidence indicates a vastly ancient earth. They reconcile these biblical data and the physical evidence by arguing that the creation account is poetic and not meant to be taken as a straightforward historical account of creation. For example, some explain that the word “day” does not mean a 24-hour period of time but a lengthy and non-specific period of time; perhaps it is equivalent to “age” or “eon”.

There are many believers who trust the Bible and who believe the Genesis account is historical and meant to be taken as it appears: when it says “and there was evening and there was morning, the first day”, it means a 24-hour period. These Christians believe that since the Bible implies a recent creation, the physical evidence ought to be understood in light of that. They argue the physical evidence does not conclusively show the earth to be ancient, pointing to the assumptions involved in assigning dates to evidence.

The difference of opinion sometimes becomes contentious: “young earthers” accusing “old earthers” of compromising on the truth of scripture in favour of the opinions of fallible man; “old earthers” accusing “young earthers” of rejecting the facts of science in favour of misguided faith in wooden literalism. One side is “faithless” and the other side is “blind”.

Yet the issue is not peripheral. What we believe about origins affects our view of ourselves and the world around us and the meaning of life. And what we believe about the Bible affects how we understand its teachings and how to apply them in our lives.

Should the matter be divisive? That depends. If the matter impedes fellowship because of a fundamental doctrinal difference, then perhaps some people should part company. For example, if an “old earther” goes so far in agreement with main stream scientific opinion that he or she denies the fall of mankind into sin or to deny the death and resurrection of Christ as the basis of the atonement (such as some within the Unitarian and United Church denominations do), true spiritual fellowship with those in the historic, orthodox Christian tradition will not be possible.

But if there is agreement on salvation by faith in Christ, both “young earthers” and “old earthers” can participate in the Lord’s table together and tolerate their differences.

I myself identify with the “young earth” position. I believe the Genesis text is historical narrative with no indication within the text that it should be taken otherwise and that the rest of the narrative of redemption only makes consistent sense when the Genesis account is so understood. The genealogical data in Genesis 5 and elsewhere is an accurate record of the lives of our forebears and does not allow for vast ages between “In the beginning…” and “God spoke to Abraham saying ‘Get out of your country…’”. Christ’s own genealogy traces a line from himself back to Adam (Luke 3) and Christ Himself affirms humanity’s existence from the earliest times when He said “Have you not read that in the beginning he created them [mankind], male and female?” (Matthew 19). I hold the “young earth” position, not as a requirement for salvation but as a corollary of my belief in the perspicuity or “understand-ability” of scripture.

I believe that interpreting the text as poetry or in some other way in an effort to harmonize with modern scientific option is misguided and unnecessary given the uncertainties involved with modern dating methods. I believe that the story of origins which involves a vast, evolutionary process is in direct competition with the biblical account and serves to bolster unbelief in those who are outside the family of faith. Perhaps even affecting those within. I sat under a professor at a Bible college who was a thorough-going evolutionist: billions of years, man from apes etc. What bothered me was, what appeared to me to be his subtle scorn for those who were so naïve as to believe that God created the world in six days.

In this matter of creation and evolution we might say, with Augustine: In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in everything, charity, meaning that the matter is not a hill we need to die on. And in one sense that is true in that we do not need to convince or disassociate from every fellow believer who takes a position other than our own.

Yet, our stance on the authority of scripture has implications that affect the essentials of our faith and we would do well to soberly examine our beliefs and motives regarding our stance as well as examining our treatment of our fellow believers in this matter.

Is it dangerous to send my child to a public university?

Question: 

Why are some Christian parents afraid to send their kids to secular universities?

Response:

I suspect they are afraid their kids will lose their faith.  This is not an unreasonable concern as there is research indicating many Christian young people either give up the faith altogether or become less interested, stop attending church and change their values once they leave their parents’ home.  Hemorrhaging Faith: Why and When Canadian Young Adults are Leaving, Staying and Returning to the Church, 2011, was a study of 2049 young people between the ages of 18 and 34.  The study found that “only one in three Canadian young adults who attended church weekly as a child still do so today.  Of the young adults who no longer attend church, half have also stopped identifying themselves with the Christian tradition in which they were raised.”[1]

Is university responsible for this exodus?  Or one factor of many?   Was the faith of the young people who leave shallow to begin with?  Involvement at church, attendance at a youth group, even going on a summer missions trip does not mean that a person is deeply rooted in their faith.  It is possible to do all these things but still collapse in the face of articulate criticisms of one’s beliefs and exposure to other belief systems and values.  University is the place where your Christian teen will be challenged directly and indirectly, through textbooks, professors, fellow students, campus activities and the general atmosphere; it is a place where the true state of one’s faith is revealed.  Once away from direct parental influence will a young person’s faith stand on its own?

The apologetics ministry Answers in Genesis commissioned a study by the American Research Group in 2009, to look into the issue of church-going young people leaving the church in their college years.  They discovered that many of these students did not start doubting the Bible in college.  The majority of them had doubts in middle school and high school.[2]  The study also showed that church-going young people who attended Sunday School were no more inclined to trust the Bible than church-going young people who did not attend Sunday School.  Sunday School simply had no positive effect on the religious beliefs of those who attended.  In fact, Sunday School attenders were more likely to admit to becoming anti-church through the years, than those who did not attend Sunday School.[3]

In which case, we should not be surprised that, once out from direct parental control, college age young people exercise their prerogative to act on their doubts and dissatisfaction and quit attending church altogether.  University may certainly be a factor but may be those youth would have left anyway.

What can we say about all this?  Quite clearly the problem is deeper than we have realized and cannot be addressed “when the kids are older”.  Some questions to ask your middle- or high-schooler (as appropriate):

Why are you a Christian?

Who is Jesus?  Why is He important?  Is He the only way to be saved? Why?

Does anything in the Bible or about God bother you? 

Do you find the Bible boring? Why?

What do you think of gay people?  Does God love them?

What do you think of atheists? What does God want for them?

Would you go to church if it was only up to you? Why?

Also, do not think your child will somehow be spared if you send them to Bible college.  Challenges abound there as well.  I spent five years at a Christian college and seminary and we had our share of issues with drunkenness and pre-marital sex, pride and faithlessness.

We are called to live in the world.  We are not to be of it but we are to be in it.  We cannot hide or pretend like our kids are immune to its lies and allures.  We cannot guarantee our kids will keep the faith but we can do what we can to train them up so they can encounter challenges at all ages and not be broken by them. 

---

[1] hemorrhagingfaith.com

[2] Ken Ham & Britt Beemer, “Already Gone”, Green Forest: AR, 2009, p 32.

[3] Ibid, p 43.

Is the promise "I know the plans I have for you...to prosper you" meant for me?

Question:  Should a Christian take scripture out of context and apply it to themselves if it seems right to do so?  An example is Jeremiah 29:11-13.  We hear this quotes quite often by Christians who wnat this to apply to themselves but in reality the promise was something given to the Jewish captives in Babylon to give them encouragement.

Response:  It's important to take scripture on its own terms.  We are so quick to think of it as a personal "love letter" to us from God that we perhaps forget that it was first written to certain people in specific situations who lived long ago.

The passage in question, Jeremiah 29:11, was written by the prophet to encourage the Israelites who had been exiled to Babylon - this exile was God's response to the sins of Israel committed over hundreds of years.  God wanted to encourage His people that though they were in exile, He had not forgotten them and had plans to restore them.

But the people who were given these words were not going to be the ones to benefit from them.  The people were going to be restored to the land of Israel but not the ones who heard the message, but their children or grandchildren.

This promise was taking into account the large arc of history for the people of Israel, over which God was presiding; it wasn't a promise of restoration for the individuals who heard it.  They were a part of that arc of history but theirs was the part where discipline was meted out and where heartbreak was endured.  Their hope was the God would watch over them during the exile and that, at the right time, after they had passed off the scene, God would remember their descendants and bring them back to the land of Israel.

That was the setting for the words when they were first given.  As Christians living thousands of years later, how should we understand them?  What message can we take from them?  We may be facing trials and perplexing circumstances where God seems absent.  Yet this passage reminds us, as it did those who first heard it, that God is in control and is working out His plans for His people.

It is important that we see ourselves as members of a great community of saints that extends down through time over thousands of years rather than, in our modern western view, as disconnected individuals.

We may be suffering and God may deliver us, but we should not take this verse to mean that everything will work out in our lives.  Those who heard this promise did not see its fulfillment and they died in exile.  Likerwise, we too may not see all our hopes and dreams fulfilled.  This does not mean the promise failed but that the promise is larger than our individual lives.  Our lives do not stand and fall on their own but are embedded in a larger story that is purposefully marching to a sure conclusion whether we live to see it or not.

The exiles looked forward to the return to the land of Israel.  We today can look forward to the greater restoration when Christ returns.  The exiles were instructed to make the most of their time in Babylon; to raise families and build homes and pray for the prosperity of their host nation (Jeremiah 29); yet to keep their eyes on what was coming, even if they themselves did not experience it.  We today may also do so - make the most of the lives that God has granted to us on earth though they may involve deep disappointment; yet keep a joyful focus on Christ's return even though we ourselves may die before that happens.

Is there an "age of accountability" for children? Do babies automatically go to heaven?

The “age of accountability” refers to the age at which a child is deemed able to understand and respond to the gospel.  It is believed by many that, before reaching this age, a child is not held accountable for his or her sins, not being able to grasp the difference between right and wrong nor being able to comprehend the message of the gospel.  Should such a child or infant or mentally delayed person die, God grants him or her salvation based on His own gracious character.

There is no direct evidence from the Bible for an age of accountability.  Those who believe such an age does exist draw on several ideas to support it:

·         God’s love for children (Matthew 19:13 “Let the little children come to Me and do not forbid them for of such is the kingdom of God”)

·         King David’s infant son’s death (2 Samuel 12:23 “I will go to him [in heaven when I die] but he will not return to me [since he is dead here on earth]”)

·         We know about God through observing His works in nature (Romans 1:20 “Since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.”); if we do not observe with understanding then we do not have the necessary knowledge to submit to him.

In this line of thinking the age of accountability itself varies.  Some say 13 based on the Jewish tradition of recognizing boys and girls as adults at that age; other say younger is appropriate since younger children can understand the concepts of God, salvation and of right and wrong.  God would be the ultimate decider on the age which could vary from person to person.

This is not to say that infants, young children or the mentally delayed are free from the taint of sin, since we have all inherited a sinful state from Adam and Eve.  It merely argues that God chooses to extend mercy to those not having intentional sin.

What Does the Bible Teach About the Environment?

The Bible tells us, in Genesis, that “in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” and that God called the earth “very good”. Psalm 24:1 reaffirms God’s ownership of the earth: “the earth is the Lord’s and all its fullness.”

God made the heavens and earth, in part to inspire worship of the Creator. Psalms 19 says, “the heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament shows his handiwork” and Romans 1:20 says that God’s power and divine nature are revealed through creation.

Isaiah tells us that God formed the world, “to be inhabited” (45:18) and these inhabitants are people, which God created “in His image, male and female, He created them” (Genesis 1:27). Furthermore, God gave His creatures a mandate: “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth” (1:28)

From this we can see the foundation of a Christian teaching on the environment.

1. God is the creator and owner of the earth. He sets the parameters for how the earth is to be treated and we are responsible to Him for our actions.

2. God created humans to take charge of the earth.

a. Humans are permitted to multiply. Humans are not viruses or parasites. We are God’s special creation and the multiplication of our life is viewed as good. The Earth is not overpopulated with humans – God knew what the earth’s carrying capacity is when He created it and he created the earth to be robust enough to house us.

b. Humans are permitted to subdue the earth. This carries the idea of turning something towards one’s own use and benefit. Breaking up land to create a field for sowing; extracting minerals and oil; harnessing wind and water; yoking oxen to pull a plow or saddling a horse to carry a rider are all examples of subduing the earth. This is considered good.

c. Humans have dominion of the earth. This carries the idea of having responsibility. We have the ability and authority to create civilizations which are consistent with God’s character: we are to imitate God’s love, mercy, wisdom, ingenuity etc. in our management of the earth. This is considered good.

However, our understanding of the environment includes other elements.

3. God cursed the earth in response to Adam’s sin (Genesis 3:17) resulting in localized instability (earthquakes, volcanos, tornados, tsunamis etc.) and a general tendency that is hostile to humanity’s attempts to subdue it; our ability to have harmony with nature is limited and one day each one of we who do not remain until the Lord returns will return to the earth from which we were taken.

4. God cleansed the earth via flood at the time of Noah. Genesis 6:17: “And behold, I Myself am bringing floodwaters on the earth, to destroy from under heaven all flesh in which is the breath of life; everything that is on the earth shall die.” This cleansing was due to the abundant, unchecked wickedness of humans and animals up to that point: “and the earth was corrupt…the earth was filled with violence” Genesis 6:11 5.

After the flood, God promised the earth, on a whole, would remain stable throughout its lifetime saying “while the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, and day and night shall not cease” (Genesis 8:22). Christ also spoke of a stable earth when he spoke of his return to earth for judgment, saying that people would be going about their normal affairs just like people did before the flood (Matthew 24:38,39).

6. God is the one who will bring the present state of creation to an end: 2 Peter 3:10 says, “But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up.” We may understand this destruction as comparable to that of the flood – a worldwide cleansing of evil from God’s good creation; the creation will be restored to its original perfection when God removes the curse he placed on it in response to Adam’s sin and it will serve as our home for eternity.

From this we can see that God ultimately controls the earth. Its fate is in His hands. He created it, He sustains it, He destroys it. Worldwide catastrophes are the work of God not of humanity.

Taking all this together, we can see that the Bible gives a good deal of information regarding how we are to treat the environment. Our role is as stewards. The earth is our home and we are permitted to make ourselves at home here, using the earth for our own advancement and comfort.  Yet this work must always be done in accordance with God’s character of love, kindness, and generosity for we are not the owners of earth, God is, and we will be held accountable for how we used it.

Our involvement in the modern environmental movement should be guided by this information. Does the particular activity of a group show proper respect for humans in its pursuit of conservation? Does the group take a negative view of general human development of the earth? Does it justify its activity or views through an evolutionary lens which assumes the earth’s is the result of chance processes and is consequently fragile and vulnerable? Our efforts to steward the earth should not be shadowed by the fear that humans are ruining the earth and are on the verge of destroying it.

Yet concern for the environment should never eclipse the primary problem we face which is whether or not people will submit to Christ’s lordship. Our primary duty is to proclaim the gospel and help people to know God and to order our lives in ways that please Him during the time He gives us.

Slavery in the Bible

Slavery was a universal feature of ancient civilizations, anchored in their view of the divine.  The Mesopotamians believed that the gods created humans to be their slaves, to serve them and do the unpleasant work necessary to ensure their comfort.  Humans had no intrinsic dignity; the gods regarded them as pests to be periodically reduced through famine, disease etc.

The Jewish law was revolutionary in that humans were portrayed as being made in the image of God - everyone carried the dignity of God in his or her being.  Humans were created, not to serve but to rule.  The work given Adam and Eve in the Garden was to further their own comfort, not God's.

But the Israelites lived in a time when the dignity of humanity was not assumed.  In fact, the Israelites had been slaves themselves.  The slave mentality permeated both them and the surrounding cultures.

For God to simply outlaw slavery would have been to set the Israelites up for failure.  Our own modern struggles with race relations tell us just how hard it is for humans to treat one another decently and that is after thousands of years of Christian teaching has permeated society.

In order to help Israel get on the path that led to equality, God started by allowing the existing institution of slavery to continue, but in a restricted form.  Much that same as pro-life people try to restrict abortion even though they want it to be abolished.  Masters were not allowed to do whatever they wanted with their slaves.

For instance, Exodus 21 says “And if a man beats his male or female servant with a rod, so that he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished."  We see here that discipline of a servant was restricted.  The text goes on to say, "Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his property."  This sounds repugnant to us because it seems to allow masters to use any kind of force as long as the servant remains alive.  But the text also says "If a man strikes the eye of his male or female servant, and destroys it, he shall let him go free for the sake of his eye.  And if he knocks out the tooth of his male or female servant, he shall let him go free for the sake of his tooth."

So we can see that, far from giving masters carte blanche to discipline their servants, masters were restricted and subject to punishment and the loss of the servant if they got out of hand.  This sounds like setting the bar too low to our modern ears but at the time these laws were given, these restrictions were unheard of.  God raised the bar for His people and did not expect too much from them.  This was a step in the right direction.

God's main focus in Old Testament times was to teach his people to worship Him only; to be loyal to Him and to love Him.  Proper treatment of people could only stem from proper relationship with God - remember all the Old Testament prophets rebuking the people for mistreating others as well as for degrading Yahweh - and so God gave a good deal more instruction to the people about how they should treat Him than how they should treat each other, knowing the latter flows out of the former.

Salvation by Proxy?

Question:

In Acts 16:31 the jailer of Philippi is told that he should believe in the Lord Jesus then he and his whole household would be saved. Does that not contradict our believe that every individual has to come to Christ himself, there is no salvation by proxy.

Response:

Great question!  It is true that salvation is by faith, which each individual expresses: “if you confess with your mouth Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart God raised him from the dead you will be saved” (Romans 10:19).  This is what happened with the jailer.  

Acts 16: 29-34 reads: “Then he called for a light, ran in, and fell down trembling before Paul and Silas.  And he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?  So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.”  Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house.  And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized.  Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household."

You can see from the passage that the elements for salvation were present: Paul and Silas preached the gospel, and the jailer and his family believed the message.  In addition, their faith was confirmed by their baptism.

It is important to understand how religions and families operated in the ancient world.  The father was the head of the household with more authority than what we are used to in modern society.  The father’s religion was the religion of the family.  A father’s conversion to another religion was not considered to be simply his own personal decision.  In essence, the father decided for the whole family.  When the jailer showed that he wanted to be saved, Paul was referring to this custom of familial conversion.  We might object, saying that perhaps one of the family members didn’t really believe and was just going along.  

That might have been the case, but it is up to God to judge who truly believes in Him.  Paul was simply expressing his expectation and hope that the father’s new faith in Christ would be shared by his family once they too heard the gospel and the miracle that he had witnessed, and from what we can tell from the passage, that is what happened.

Apostle Name List Discrepancies

Question:

How do you explain that the disciple Thadaeus (Matth.10, Mark 3) is also called James (Luke 6) sometimes??

Response:

There are four lists of the disciples: Matthew 10, Mark 3, Luke 6 and Acts 1.  When the lists are compared side-by-side we see that Matthew and Mark list “Thaddaeus” which Luke and Acts omit.  Luke and Acts list “Judas the son of James” which Matthew and Mark omit.  What we can conclude from this is that “Thaddaeus” and “Judas” refer to the same person. 

Perhaps this man, having a name in common with the betrayer of Jesus, preferred to go by Thaddaeus after Jesus was raised from the dead.  But Luke, when writing his gospel and the book of Acts, chose to use his alternate name “Judas”.