Biblical Proof that Mary did not Remain a Virgin

There are at least 3 Biblical reasons that Mary did not remain a virgin and had other children after Jesus that are rarely mentioned. Everyone talks about how Joseph only kept Mary a virgin until Jesus was born and how Jesus had brothers and sisters mentioned in scripture. Those are good arguments. However, there are even stronger arguments that should be mentioned.

1) If Joseph had children before Jesus was born, then Jesus was not the rightful heir to the Davidic throne and could not have been the Messiah. Matthew 1 shows the kingly lineage through David all the way down to Joseph. Jesus was Joseph's legal firstborn son, and thus the rightful heir to the throne. If Jude or James or one of Jesus' other brothers was actually an older son of Joseph, he would be the rightful king instead of Jesus.

2) Sex is and has always been an integral part of what marriage is. From the very beginning in Genesis, God defined marriage as a man joining to his wife and they become one flesh. We refer to sex after the marriage ceremony as consummation because it completes the marriage. If Mary did not become one flesh with Joseph, she wasn't married to him. The union was never completed. Yet scripture tells us she was his wife. Catholics are thus arguing that there can be such a thing as a sexless marriage which is never completed with a one flesh union. This is unbiblical, not only about Mary but about marriage itself.

3) The Old Testament specifically prophesies that the Messiah will be rejected by His mother's sons. If Mary had no other children, then this prophecy failed and Jesus was not the promised Messiah.

Psalm 69:7-9
For it is for your sake that I have borne reproach, that dishonor has covered my face. I have become a stranger to my brothers, an alien to my mother's sons. For zeal for your house has consumed me, and the reproaches of those who reproach you have fallen on me.

We know this is a Messianic passage. In fact, verse 9 is specifically quoted in John 2:17 as referring to Jesus when He cleansed the temple. Yet verse 8 is only fulfilled if Jesus had brothers who were specifically sons of Mary who then rejected Him. Scripture records their rejection. They believed Jesus was crazy initially. It was not until He rose from the dead and appeared to them that they believed. These must have been sons of Mary, as scripture foretold.

There's also no reason that Mary needed to remain a virgin after Jesus was born. The sign had already been given. Mary's virginity at the birth of the Messiah was a sign about Jesus, not about Mary.

The Creeping Influx of Female Teachers in the Church

In conservative churches, we know that women are not to be pastors. Most conservative churches will never select a woman as pastor and probably not even youth pastor or any pastor title. Scripture is very clear that pastors or bishops are to be men of proper character and reputation and with the ability to teach because this is their primary role.

1 Timothy 3:1-7 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

Titus 1:5-9 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate; Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.

Obviously, women cannot fulfill the requirement to be a pastor in the church. There are also many other reasons in scripture that the pastorate is limited to men. However, the official title of pastor is not the only thing limited to men in scripture. The scripture also forbids a woman to teach in the church congregation.

1 Timothy 2:11-12 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

1 Corinthians 14:34-35 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Now, we know that, in context, this is talking about women speaking publicly, in a teaching role of the church, not merely a woman saying anything to anyone in a church building. There were no church buildings in the 1st century. The church is the gathering of believers, not a building. So this is not saying women can’t speak a word in a church building.

Women are also described in scripture as singing, prophesying, and praying in the church gathering, but women are forbidden to take a teaching role in the church gathering—to be the one discerning and teaching doctrine with the authority of the church. One woman speaking to another person in a home or a business or wherever else about what scripture says does not have the authority of the church, and thus she is not forbidden to speak in these situations. All believers, whether male or female, are instructed to share the gospel and to love sound doctrine. However, the teaching role of the church is another level that has a grave authority and responsibility which is to be carried by qualified men.

2 Timothy 2:1-2 Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.

The teaching role in the church, according scripture, is to be performed by qualified men, not by women. I don’t see any exception given in scripture if we form a special class of only women. A gathering of the church to be taught doctrine should have male teachers.

Now, the reason that many conservative churches have traditionally allowed women to teach if they’re only teaching women is that it is often believed that the real problem is that women should not be teaching men. It is certainly true that women should not be teaching men doctrine in the church. But scripture doesn’t say that women can teach in the church gathering if it’s an audience of women. It says that women are not to teach, and that the teachers in the church are to be faithful men. In short, both men and women need to be taught by qualified male teachers. I think we have let tradition overshadow the text of scripture in this matter.

So, where do women learn the specific things that relate to women? There is certainly a need for women to be taught things specific to their roles as daughters, wives, mothers, and similarly womanly tasks. The scripture provides for this need.

Titus 2:3-5 The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

Here we see that the older women of good character are to teach the younger women these specific female-related topics. This is not carte blanche for a woman to teach other women every doctrine of the scriptures. What the older women are to teach is listed for us.

1. To be sober. This could include staying away from alcohol and drugs as well as to be serious rather than emotional or flighty or foolish.
2. To love their husbands. Helping a young woman understand how to love her husband is something we need the more experienced wives to teach because it doesn’t necessarily come naturally. Happily married mentor figures are a huge help in solving marriage conflicts.
3. To love their children. Loving our children, such as applying the loving discipline they need and being the careful nurturers of their hearts and bodies, is something we need to learn. The older women are a valuable resource here.
4. To be discreet. Discretion is a moral skill that needs to be taught. How not to draw attention to ourselves, not to display all of our lives to the world, not to share private matters, when to speak and when to be silent—these are things the younger women must learn.
5. To be chaste. Chastity is hugely important, both before and after marriage. We need older women to teach the younger women to save sex for marriage and to be faithful to their husbands.
6. To be keepers at home. Keeping a home is an important and also difficult task. The knowledge and skill necessary to cook, clean, train children, and make a home a beautiful and inviting sanctuary for our families is something we learn primarily from other women. The importance of prioritizing our calling in the home is something the world won’t tell us, but the church women should.
7. To be good. We all need encouragement to live a holy life, including from older women.
8. To be obedient to their own husbands. It’s not just that a woman is to love her husband, but she is also to submit to his authority as head of the home. This is something older women are to teach the younger women. It doesn’t come naturally. We have to learn it.

Note that all of these topics which the older women are to teach are practical matters about how a woman is to live out God’s will for her life in her home and her family. They are not the overall doctrine of the church on salvation, baptism, morality, and so on. It would be extremely awkward and probably not very effective for a man to try to teach a woman how to be a better woman, so we need women to teach these things precisely because they are practical matters that are learned with experience. We learn from those with more experience who have evidence of godly character.

Also note that the scripture does not say that any woman or group of women should have a position of teacher to women. In the book of Titus, the Apostle Paul is instructing a pastor named Titus on what he is to teach his congregation. One of those things is that the older women (plural) are to teach the younger women these specific things. It doesn’t say Titus should have his wife teach the other women. In fact, the pastor’s wife has a responsibility to the pastor as her husband, but not to the church. She has no position in the church (despite our traditions). She will not give an account to God for guiding or teaching the church. Her husband will because he has the office of pastor.

In general, these female topics to be taught by the older women of the church seem to be the kind of thing a woman might help other women to learn while they’re visiting together, working together in their community, or while one is mentoring the other, not necessarily in an official class of the church. I suppose one could argue that it could be done in a Sunday School class as an occasional thing. Perhaps that is the case. But if so, the class should focus solely on the topics that women are allowed to teach, if it is taught by a woman. The normal teaching of the church on matters of doctrine should be done by faithful men. This doctrinal teaching is needed by both men and women, so women should not miss out on it. Women are not lesser Christians. They need doctrine too.

It has been my experience that these scriptural instructions on teaching in the church are widely ignored in most of the Western churches today. Many churches are letting women be pastors, which is obviously wrong, but even the more conservative churches often have their own women’s groups which form essentially a parallel female church, led by what amounts to female elders. This is not only incorrect in form, but often leads to further problems. I have seen great errors arise from this.

For example, women have a naturally more emotional nature. That’s not a bad thing as we were designed this way to be nurturers and relational helps to our husbands. But when it comes to letting women be the source of doctrinal teaching for the other women, this can lead to all kinds of false doctrine being taught and reinforced in women’s groups because they tend to follow their feelings. Women can also be too nice, which can lead them not to confront false teaching when it occurs. This is one of the many reasons that God gave the role of bishop to men and not to women. We need bold, fearless shepherds to dispel the wolves. I think we must be careful not to fall prey to the comfortable and common errors of our time. Female doctrinal teachers are a scourge on the church today.

There are so many things we women can do in the church. There are so many things that godly women do need to teach other women, as scripture has commanded. But we need to recognize our place. We can discuss any theology with one another as equals, as I am doing with my readers now. We can exhort and encourage one another to live a holy life and to follow the scriptures. We can and should share the gospel with unbelievers. We should teach and disciple our children. We can be prayer warriors. We can do good for our communities. But we are not to have a teaching role or position in the church gathering to teach doctrine with the authority of the church. That is role for qualified men.

This is a topic I have studied carefully, and I believe scripture has given us instructions on this matter that don’t match the way many churches today are operating. Even many well-known, very conservative churches that are otherwise great have slipped in this area. Our culture pushes us toward feminism, and it’s easy to compromise (sometimes without even realizing it). Please consider this prayerfully.

Hints that the Messiah is God from the Old Testament

Messianic prophecy in the Old Testament is very interesting because it often conflates God and the Messiah. It will say that the Messiah does something and that God does it, or it will say that something is done to Messiah and that it was done to God. It also attributes to the Messiah attributes and titles that only apply to God. These are hints that the Messiah is God in human flesh. In other words, the Christian teaching that Jesus is both God and man did not begin with the New Testament. This was prophesied hundreds or thousands of years in advance.

Zechariah 12:10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon ME whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for HIM, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

This is God speaking here. Is it God (me) who is pierced here or the Messiah (him)? Yes. It's both.

Isaiah 9:6-7 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.

A child will be born, so he's human, yet He will be called the Mighty God and the Everlasting Father. He will sit on David's throne, so he's from the lineage of David. That means he's human. Yet he will establish that throne forever. There will be no end to his government. So how does a mere human reign forever? Are you seeing the hints?

Genesis 22:7-8 And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here am I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering? And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.

This entire passage in Genesis 22 is so amazing! The parallels to the sacrifice of Jesus are mind-boggling. It's even the very same mountain! But take a look at the wording here. Abraham speaks prophetically. God will provide Himself a lamb. That's actually a bit vague. Does this mean that God will provide FOR Himself a lamb? Or that He will provide Himself AS the lamb? Yes! It's both. The double entendre is intentional. God Himself became the sacrifice on Mount Moriah to atone for the sins of mankind. He's both the offering and the one being satisfied by the offering.

Malachi 3:1 Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts.

Here's another interesting conflation between the Lord and the messenger of the Lord (i.e. Messiah). It says the Lord (YHWH in the Hebrew) will come to the temple, but it's the messenger of the covenant. He will come. So is it the messenger or the Lord? Yes. It's both. The messenger is the Lord. The Messiah is sent by God, but also is God.

Psalm 110:1 A Psalm of David. The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

This seems like an odd passage, yet it is the most quoted Old Testament passage in the New Testament. In fact, Jesus Himself used this passage to prove that the Messiah was always prophesied to be God. You see, everyone knew that the Messiah was prophesied to come from David's line. One of the common titles for the Messiah was the Son of David. Yet here David, under inspiration, speaks of this coming son as his Lord. The LORD (YHWH) speaks to "my lord" (the Messiah). How is the Messiah David's Lord if he is his son? A son is not greater than his father. Unless that son is more than just David's son.

These are just a few of the many passages that hint at the divine nature of the promised Messiah. This is not a later Christian invention. It had been in the Old Testament already, long before Jesus came. So look for this kind of thing when you're reading the Old Testament. Once you start looking for it, it's everywhere.


If you can find more examples, post them in the comments.

Evidence for the Authenticity of Daniel

The book of Daniel in the Bible is an amazing book! It contains hundreds of very detailed prophecies, most of which are known to have been fulfilled. They include such things as the sequence of world empires from the Babylonians through the Medo-Persians, Greeks, and Romans as well as many specific events like the premature death of Alexander the Great at the height of his power, the division of his kingdom into 4 main empires, and the squabbles of the Seleucids and Ptolemies in the centuries afterwards. This presents a problem for skeptics of the Bible, which they resolve by claiming Daniel was written after most of the events it describes, and thus that the prophecies weren't prophecy. They were just history.

Because Daniel clearly describes the events of the mid-2nd century BC when the Maccabees revolted against king Antiochus of the Seleucid empire and cleansed the temple, the date assigned to the book is right around 164 BC when these events took place. This is in contrast to the traditional date for Daniel around 603-536 BC when the prophet Daniel lived. This earlier date was during the Babylonian exile of the Jewish people and during the reigns of Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar of Babylon and Cyrus of Persia. In other words, the traditional date assumes the book is authentic, written by the actual prophet Daniel during the time the book describes. The late date assumes the book is a fraud, written in the time of the Maccabees but pretending it was written by the prophet Daniel hundreds of years earlier. The fraudulent author was thus writing known history as if it was prophecy. 

These two views of the book of Daniel are in stark contrast. Defending the Bible requires defending the early date of Daniel. There are many other lines of evidence for the Bible, of course, but Daniel plays an important part in showing the supernatural inspiration of scripture through accurate, fulfilled prophecies.

As it turns out, there are many lines of evidence that support the earlier date for Daniel while the late date is mostly wishful thinking and bias against the supernatural. If someone rejects the inspiration of scripture or the existence of God, they need Daniel to be written late. It's the only option. Daniel's prophecies are too detailed and too clearly shown in history to deny unless they were written after it all happened. So the late date exists because skeptics need an explanation. In contrast, the earlier date relies on the evidence.

Here are some major reasons to accept that Daniel was written in the 6th century BC when it claims to have been written.

1) The book of Daniel recorded history that wasn't known at the time of the Maccabees.

The book of Daniel has been mocked and ridiculed for its supposedly false claims, yet newer information has vindicated Daniel. For example, skeptics claimed for many years that King Belshazzar never existed. The book of Daniel records a King Belshazzar who was ruling in Babylon at the time the Persians conquered it. However, secular historical records, such as the list of Babylonian kings compiled by Herodotus, did not list any ruler named Belshazzar. The last Chaldean king of Babylon, according to Greek historians, was Nabonidus. He was king when the Persians conquered Babylon. So this was widely used as evidence that Daniel contained errors, probably because it was written much later by someone who wasn't familiar with that time in history. 

However, in the late 19th century, the Nabonidus Cylinders were discovered which identify Belshazzar as the oldest son of Nabonidus. Further information has revealed that Nabonidus was away from Babylon during much of his reign. Thus, it is now believed that Belshazzar was acting as ruler of Babylon while his father was away, but without holding the official kingly title. He reigned in his father's name, but he was the acting ruler. 

This information is good evidence that the book of Daniel was written by someone who was living in Babylon in the 6th century BC. A later writer in the 2nd century BC would have known the Greek history with the official king list that didn't include Belshazzar. Thus, a later fiction pretending to be written by Daniel would have said that Nabonidus was ruling in Babylon when the Persians invaded. Only someone living there at the time would have known to write about Belshazzar. 

Not only does Daniel include Belshazzar, who was unknown to secular history until fairly recently, but the details are accurate. In Daniel 5, the prophet Daniel intepreted the writing on the wall during Belshazzar's party. This prompted Belshazzar to promote Daniel to third highest ruler in the kingdom. Why third? Because Nabonidus was the official king, Belshazzar was under his father, and so the highest honor that Belshazzar could give was third place. These are details we can fill in now, but a writer in 164 BC could not have known them. This shows that Daniel really was written in the 6th century BC, as it claims.

2) The language and customs recorded in the book of Daniel are accurate to Babylon in the 6th century BC. 

There are many details under this one heading. I can't go into all of them here, but I can give some examples. Daniel records that the laws of the Medes and Persians could be issued by the king, but the king was then unable to alter them. This is extremely unusual in history. Usually, kings are able to issue and rescind decrees as they choose. Yet King Darius was unable to change his decree that those who worship anyone other than the king would be thrown into the lion's den. He tried to change the law to save Daniel, but the law could not be changed. This has been found to be true of the Medes and Persians during this time period. Kings could issue laws, but the laws applied to everyone, including the king, and could not be changed. So Daniel accurately reflects the customs of the correct period that later writers are very unlikely to have known.

One of the main criticisms of the early date is that the book of Daniel contains some Greek words. Since Greek influence and language spread around the world with the conquests of Alexander the Great, some 200+ years after Daniel lived, the inclusion of Greek words seems to support a later date. However, the Greek words in Daniel are of musical instruments. Musical instruments tend to retain their original names without translation, and they often spread to other cultures without requiring conquest or force. That's why we still refer to a ukelele by its Hawaiian name, even for those of us who don't speak Hawaiian. It's not because we were conquered by the Hawaiians and adopted their language. Thus, it is not surprising that the kingdom of Babylon in the 6th century BC would have musical instruments from the Greeks which retained their Greek names. 

3) The book of Daniel was included in the Jewish scriptural canon in time to be translated as part of the Septuagint.

The Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. The Torah portion was translated about 280-250 BC in response to a request from King Ptolemy II Philadelphis of Egypt since he desired to add all the books of the world to his great library in Alexandria. The rest of the Hebrew scriptures were translated after that, but the exact dates are not known for sure. It is certain that they were translated by the end of the 2nd century BC (around 100 BC) because we have copies from that time period. 

In the best case for skeptics, there is, at most, about 60 years between the late writing of Daniel and its inclusion in the Septuagint. This essentially rules out a late date. While it's theoretically possible, in the real world, it takes a lot of time for a new document to be copied, disseminated, accepted, and canonized. Sixty years is not enough time. It wouldn't become widely known in that time frame, much less accepted as part of the Jewish canon that would be included in the Greek translation.

The short time frame is further complicated by the fact that the Jewish leaders would never have accepted a late forgery as scripture. A book of known authorship, written by a proven prophet like Daniel in the 6th century BC, would be revered and added to the canon of scripture. A much later document from the 160's BC pretending to be written by the prophet Daniel some 400 years earlier would have been easily identified as a fake. As a comparison, suppose someone writing today were to claim to have found a previously unknown document from the Jamestown colony in Virginia back in the early 1600's. Everyone would be immediately suspicious. How could such a document lie undetected all this time? Wouldn't it be obvious that the writer sounded recent and not like someone writing in the 1600's?

Further complicating this issue is the location. An authentic book of Daniel would have been written in Babylon in the 6th century BC and brought back to Israel with the returning captives. There would be a known history among the Jewish people. Yet in the 2nd century BC, at the time of the Maccabees, they were living in Israel. A forgery would be written in the land of Israel. You can't simply "discover" a previously unknown, 400-year-old Babylonian document in Israel. How would it arrive in Israel without anyone knowing about it? The Jews were not stupid. They would have recognized the forgery. 

4) The book of Daniel was included in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The Dead Sea Scrolls date from the late 2nd century BC to the middle of the 1st century AD. Among the documents discovered are 8 fragmentary copies of Daniel. Daniel is the third most represented book, after Psalms and Exodus. The oldest copy of Daniel dates to around 100 BC. If the late date of origin were true, then this copy of Daniel is only a few decades removed from the original writing, which would be extremely unlikely. The entire collection of Daniel manuscripts in the Dead Sea Scrolls also argues against a late date. Why would there be so many copies of this one book if it's a late forgery that had only recently been written and had not yet circulated widely? How did this one fringe sect of Essenes living in isolation in the desert get such an early copy of the book if it had just been written? These complications argue strongly against a late date. 

5) Josephus records that Alexander the Great was shown a copy of the book of Daniel when he arrived in Jerusalem.

From secular history, we know that during Alexander's conquest of Tyre, he sent a letter to the Jews in Jerusalem asking for troops to help him in his conquest. The Jewish leaders refused, claiming they had vowed not to take up arms against King Darius of the Persians and could not aid Alexander. Alexander was a hothead. In fact, he was attacking the island of Tyre because they had refused his request to worship in their temple and had killed his messengers. He was so angry that he set his soldiers to throwing the remains of the mainland city of Tyre into the sea to build a causeway out to the island. In doing this, he fulfilled the prophecy of Ezekiel 26 that Tyre would be thrown into the sea and made bare like the top of a rock. The location of Tyre is a peninsula to this day because of the actions of Alexander's army.

Everyone knew that Alexander was coming for Jerusalem next. It was only a matter of time. Yet history also records that Alexander became a great friend of the Jews, left Jerusalem unconquered, and gave Jews equal rights with other citizens in Alexandria, Egypt, which he founded. This seems like a very strange outcome. Here we have the greatest military leader the world has ever seen, who conquered the entire Persian empire and more in just 13 years. He had just come from conquering the island city of Tyre, which had stood for over 2000 years, because they insulted him. He had been denied by the Jewish leaders when he asked for their aid. Yet when he arrived in Israel in 332 BC, he didn't attack. He made peace instead. Why?

Well, as it turns out, the story recounted by Josephus explains this strange turn of events. The high priest received a dream that instructed him to wear white robes and take a procession out to welcome Alexander as he approached. Alexander was stunned and said that he had seen the high priest in white robes in a dream back in Macedonia where he had been encouraged to take over the Persian empire and assured of victory. Alexander went into the city with the Jewish leaders and sacrificed at the temple. He was shown a copy of the book of Daniel which prophesied that a king from Greece would destroy the Persians. Alexander made peace with the Jewish people and granted them a reprieve from taxes every 7th year. He then left Jerusalem intact and moved on southward toward Egypt.

This account has been dismissed as false, mainly because the late date for Daniel is so widely accepted, and that would mean that the book of Daniel would not have existed yet. However, the account does explain some otherwise inexplicable known facts, and we have no other reason to believe it is false. On the contrary, the Talmud agrees with the account, suggesting this was a well-known story in ancient Israel, not an invention by Josephus.

It also makes sense that Alexander, as a student of Aristotle, would have been aware of his teacher's view that the Greek pantheon was false and there must be some Creator who was an uncaused cause of the universe. This may have made him more open to hearing about the Creator God of the Jewish people and more sympathetic to their monotheistic religious views, which most other peoples found very offensive.

If this story is indeed authentic, it proves definitively that the book of Daniel existed at the time of Alexander the Great in 332 BC, some 170 years before it was supposedly written at the time of the Maccabees. This would then require the early date for Daniel and prove its prophetic nature.

6) The book of Daniel still contains prophecy about later events, even if we accept the late date.

Even if we assume that Daniel was indeed written in 164 BC and all the events before that were actually written as history and not prophecy, Daniel offers prophecy of events after that time which have been fulfilled. As I mentioned earlier, the oldest manuscript of Daniel that still exists today dates to about 100 BC. Yet Daniel prophecies the death of Jesus which took place in 33 AD and the destruction of the 2nd temple in 70 AD.

In Daniel 9, a prophecy is given that there will be 70 sets of 7 (sometimes translated as 70 weeks) which begin with a command to restore and rebuild Jerusalem. These "weeks" are simply the word for a set of seven, and the context shows them to refer to years because of the 70 years of Babylonian captivity that are mentioned. This was in turn because of the refusal of the Jewish nation to keep the Sabbath years by refraining from plowing and planting the land every 7th year. They had not kept 70 Sabbath years, and so they were punished with 70 years of captivity in Babylon so that the land would lie fallow and receive its Sabbath years while they were away. It is in this context that Daniel is told about this set of 70 sevens. 

The 70 sevens would be composed of 7 sevens and 62 sevens and then a final seven. The temple would be rebuilt and the wall. After the 7 and 62 sevens, then Messiah would come. So this places a timeline on the coming of the Messiah. Daniel's prophecy says that the Messiah would be cut off after the 69 sevens, but not for himself. Being cut off is a judicial term, meaning a legal sentence of death, not death from injury or disease or war or old age. Yet He will die for others, not for his own crimes. After that, a prince will come to destroy the city of Jerusalem and the temple. All of this is prophesied in Daniel 9, which we know for sure predates the time of Christ. All of this happened, which we can verify from historical records.

The exact date of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem is debated as there are a few possible options, but regardless of the exact date, the 69 sets of seven years (483 years) put the Messiah somewhere in the early 1st century AD. By one way of counting, where the years are 360 days (suggested by some Biblical passages) and the command is the one in 444 BC at the time of Nehemiah, the end of the 69 sevens lands in the spring of 33 AD, exactly when Jesus was crucified. 

Not only was the Messiah cut off exactly as prophesied, but the temple was also destroyed after that, just as Daniel said. The Roman army was led by Titus, the son of the reigning Emperor Vespasian (and thus a prince, just as Daniel prophesied). They destroyed the Jewish temple and the city in 70 AD. 

So even by the late date, Daniel still contains accurate prophecy. Since it contains accurate prophecy, it must have been written by a true prophet, not a lying forger who pretended to be writing during the Babylonian captivity and who falsely claimed to be Daniel. The accuracy of the known prophecies of Daniel argues for an early date by a true prophet. Either way, the prophetic nature of the book of Daniel is evident.

---

In conclusion, the Bible contains information that could not have come from the mind of man. It demonstrates its divine inspiration with objective evidence. The book of Daniel provides many of these evidences that show the God of the Bible exists, that He is active in history, that He knows the future, and that He has revealed His word in the writings of the Bible.

Online Church is Not Being the Church

Having online church services is not all bad, but it does have some major potential problems. In our impersonal, consumeristic society, it is too easy for people to stay at home on the couch and watch a screen for "church" instead of taking the trouble to actually go to church. This has become a significant issue in the last couple of years. Many of those who stayed home from church during the pandemic have not come back even though it is now mostly over. Too many have gotten lazy and no longer gather together with other believers at all.

Of course, there are positive uses of online services too. Having sermons available for those who can't be physically present is a generally good thing. Shut-ins or people who are traveling can still watch the service. People who are looking for a new church can view some services before they attend to help them know if the teaching is Biblical. These are valuable uses of our technology.

However, pastors and church leadership should be careful to explain that watching online services is not the same thing as being physically present in church. They need to call the people to actually attend in person, if possible. Watching church is not the same as being the church. It's better than nothing, but it's not a substitute for the corporate worship, fellowship, and accountability that actually going to church is meant to provide.

We are physical creatures, and God has called us to physically gather to worship Him together. There is something that happens when the people of God gather together in one place, in one accord, to worship their Savior as the body of Christ. God is present in a distinct way when we gather, when we sing in praise, and when we pray together. Staying home and watching church online is a little like watching heaven remotely on a screen. Nobody wants to do that! It's just not the same experience as being there. The Bible tells us that when any two or three gather in His name, He is there in our midst. He is in that place. There is a glorious, awesome presence of God in the physical place where believers have come together to bring Him praise and honor. We have to gather together to get those special benefits. We come together as the church to do corporately what we cannot do alone. Alone, we are believers. Together, we are the church. And that's a powerful thing. It's not just about hearing the message or singing the songs. It's about being the body of Christ. 

In addition to that, we need the church family, and the church needs us. All of us. We need to pray for each other, bear one another's burdens, and sharpen one another as iron sharpens iron. God has a right to have our full participation and to use our spiritual gifts for the benefit of our local church body. We are not called to be consumers, but givers, encouragers, servants, teachers, and exhorters of our fellow believers. We used to have a saying in church circles that being a pew sitter is not one of the spiritual gifts, but so many people aren't even sitting in the pews any more. They're withdrawing from the body and leaving all of us poorer for it. I don't just mean monetarily, though that is also a challenge for many churches, but we're lacking the talents and labor and fellowship that those missing believers were meant to be investing in us. And they're missing what we could be investing in them.

There's also another reason that we should be gathering physically as the church. God commands us to do so in scripture. It wasn't just a suggestion.

Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised;) And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works: Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching. Hebrews 10:23-25

Lacking a valid reason that one cannot attend, it is disobedience to sit at home and consume content instead of gathering as the church. Disobedience to God is sin. 

God calls us to leave our comfort zone and come together as the church, messy and uncomfortable though it may be at times. Without the church, we will be anemic Christians -  weakened, impoverished, and prone to spiritual attacks. Just as the predator wants to separate the prey from its herd, our spiritual enemies want us divided, isolated, and vulnerable. This is why God instructs us to gather together and lift one another up. He knows what we need and has provided the church to meet those needs. If we neglect the provision of God, we have no one to blame but ourselves.

It's time to get back to church.

The Biggest Mystery in the Bible

This is the lesson I taught the Children's Church class at my local church this past week. I thought others might find it useful for teaching their children as well.

----------

Today we're going to talk about the biggest mystery in the Bible. Did you know the Bible has mysteries? This one is the biggest mystery and remained a secret for thousands of years. But before I can tell you about the mystery, you need a little background information.

First, did you know that Jesus is in the Old Testament? The New Testament tells us about Jesus being born, growing up, teaching the people, dying, and rising again. But Jesus is God, and He already existed before He was born. He appeared several times in the Old Testament and talked to different people. 

Let's take a look at some of those times. 

Remember when God created Adam and Eve and put them in the garden, He told them not to eat of the fruit of just one tree. So then the serpent came and tempted Eve.

Genesis 3:6-8  So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths. And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden. 

Now, you probably know the rest of the story. Adam and Eve disobeyed God and brought sin into the world. They had to leave the garden and the special relationship they had with God. 

But notice that God came to walk in the garden with Adam and Eve. How does God walk? Wouldn't He need a body of some kind in order to walk with Adam and Eve? Adam and Eve seem to have had a very close and personal relationship with God before sin, and He came and walked with them. 

I John 4:12 says that no one has seen God at any time. This must be talking about God the Father. No one has ever seen God the Father. But did anyone ever see Jesus? Yes. Jesus came to Earth and we know people saw Him and touched Him. The Holy Spirit is sometimes seen, but not as a man. He appears like a dove descending on Jesus at His baptism or as tongues of fire on the disciples of Jesus at Pentecost. But he's not a man. So if someone is seeing God and He looks like a man, it can't be God the Father or the Holy Spirit. It must be Jesus. So it sounds like Jesus is the one who came to walk and talk with Adam and Eve in the garden. He was there in the beginning.

But there's more. A lot more. 

Let's go to Genesis 18 when God comes to visit Abraham.

Genesis 18:1-22  And the LORD appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre, as he sat at the door of his tent in the heat of the day. He lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, three men were standing in front of him.
When he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them and bowed himself to the earth and said, "O Lord, if I have found favor in your sight, do not pass by your servant. Let a little water be brought, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree, while I bring a morsel of bread, that you may refresh yourselves, and after that you may pass on—since you have come to your servant."
So they said, "Do as you have said."
And Abraham went quickly into the tent to Sarah and said, "Quick! Three seahs of fine flour! Knead it, and make cakes."
And Abraham ran to the herd and took a calf, tender and good, and gave it to a young man, who prepared it quickly. Then he took curds and milk and the calf that he had prepared, and set it before them. And he stood by them under the tree while they ate.
They said to him, "Where is Sarah your wife?"
And he said, "She is in the tent."
The LORD said, "I will surely return to you about this time next year, and Sarah your wife shall have a son." And Sarah was listening at the tent door behind him.
Now Abraham and Sarah were old, advanced in years. The way of women had ceased to be with Sarah. So Sarah laughed to herself, saying, "After I am worn out, and my lord is old, shall I have pleasure?" The LORD said to Abraham, "Why did Sarah laugh and say, 'Shall I indeed bear a child, now that I am old?' Is anything too hard for the LORD? At the appointed time I will return to you, about this time next year, and Sarah shall have a son."
But Sarah denied it, saying, "I did not laugh," for she was afraid. He said, "No, but you did laugh." Then the men set out from there, and they looked down toward Sodom. And Abraham went with them to set them on their way.
The LORD said, "Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do, seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him? For I have chosen him, that he may command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing righteousness and justice, so that the LORD may bring to Abraham what he has promised him."
Then the LORD said, "Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great and their sin is very grave, I will go down to see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry that has come to me. And if not, I will know." So the men turned from there and went toward Sodom, but Abraham still stood before the LORD. 

After this, Abraham talks to God and asks Him if He will spare Sodom if there are still righteous people in it. He starts by asking if He will spare them if there are 50 righteous, then 45, then 40, then 30, then 20, then 10. So God promises not to destroy Sodom if there are even 10 righteous people in it.  

The text is clear that this is actually God speaking to Abraham, not just an angel. It says this was the LORD, which is the specific name of God, Yahweh. Yet He looked like a man. He even ate with Abraham. A vision can't eat food. He had to have some sort of body. 

Have you ever seen a cartoon where a ghost tries to eat food and the food just plops on the floor because he has no stomach to hold it? That is what would happen if there's no physical body. But that's not what happened here. God ate food with Abraham. 

So which person of the Trinity would this be -- God the Father, God the Son, or God the Holy Spirit? This would be God the Son. He appeared as a man. This is Jesus in the Old Testament. 

Ok, so now that we know that Jesus appears as a man in the Old Testament and is identified as God, let's get back to the mystery. Remember that Jesus was prophesied throughout the Old Testament, that He would come and be God with us and save us from our sins. So the whole Old Testament is building up expectations for the Messiah. He was coming, but they had an incomplete picture of who He was. 

Take a look at Genesis 32. This takes place when Jacob, Abraham's grandson, is finally coming home to his family. His brother Esau hated him and wanted to kill him after he tricked him out of his birthright and blessing. Jacob went far away and he had been away a long time. But he's coming home and he doesn't know whether Esau is still angry with him. So he sends gifts ahead and then sends his family on ahead, and he stays alone on the other side of the river. 

Genesis 32:24-30  And Jacob was left alone. And a man wrestled with him until the breaking of the day. When the man saw that he did not prevail against Jacob, he touched his hip socket, and Jacob's hip was put out of joint as he wrestled with him.
Then he said, "Let me go, for the day has broken." But Jacob said, "I will not let you go unless you bless me."
And he said to him, "What is your name?" And he said, "Jacob."
Then he said, "Your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel, for you have striven with God and with men, and have prevailed."
Then Jacob asked him, "Please tell me your name." But he said, "Why is it that you ask my name?" And there he blessed him.
So Jacob called the name of the place Peniel, saying, "For I have seen God face to face, and yet my life has been delivered." 

So Jacob wrestles with a man, but then the man says that Jacob has wrestled with God. Jacob asks the man's name, but He won't tell him. It's not time yet for anyone to know His name -- the name of the coming One. 

It happens again in the book of Judges. The parents of Samson get a special visit.

Judges 13:2-22  There was a certain man of Zorah, of the tribe of the Danites, whose name was Manoah. And his wife was barren and had no children. And the angel of the LORD appeared to the woman and said to her, "Behold, you are barren and have not borne children, but you shall conceive and bear a son. Therefore be careful and drink no wine or strong drink, and eat nothing unclean, for behold, you shall conceive and bear a son. No razor shall come upon his head, for the child shall be a Nazirite to God from the womb, and he shall begin to save Israel from the hand of the Philistines."
Then the woman came and told her husband, "A man of God came to me, and his appearance was like the appearance of the angel of God, very awesome. I did not ask him where he was from, and he did not tell me his name, but he said to me, 'Behold, you shall conceive and bear a son. So then drink no wine or strong drink, and eat nothing unclean, for the child shall be a Nazirite to God from the womb to the day of his death.'" 
Then Manoah prayed to the LORD and said, "O Lord, please let the man of God whom you sent come again to us and teach us what we are to do with the child who will be born." 
And God listened to the voice of Manoah, and the angel of God came again to the woman as she sat in the field. But Manoah her husband was not with her. So the woman ran quickly and told her husband, "Behold, the man who came to me the other day has appeared to me."
And Manoah arose and went after his wife and came to the man and said to him, "Are you the man who spoke to this woman?"
And he said, "I am."
And Manoah said, "Now when your words come true, what is to be the child's manner of life, and what is his mission?"
And the angel of the LORD said to Manoah, "Of all that I said to the woman let her be careful. She may not eat of anything that comes from the vine, neither let her drink wine or strong drink, or eat any unclean thing. All that I commanded her let her observe."
Manoah said to the angel of the LORD, "Please let us detain you and prepare a young goat for you." And the angel of the LORD said to Manoah, "If you detain me, I will not eat of your food. But if you prepare a burnt offering, then offer it to the LORD." (For Manoah did not know that he was the angel of the LORD.)
And Manoah said to the angel of the LORD, "What is your name, so that, when your words come true, we may honor you?"
And the angel of the LORD said to him, "Why do you ask my name, seeing it is wonderful?"
So Manoah took the young goat with the grain offering, and offered it on the rock to the LORD, to the one who works wonders, and Manoah and his wife were watching. And when the flame went up toward heaven from the altar, the angel of the LORD went up in the flame of the altar. Now Manoah and his wife were watching, and they fell on their faces to the ground. The angel of the LORD appeared no more to Manoah and to his wife. Then Manoah knew that he was the angel of the LORD. And Manoah said to his wife, "We shall surely die, for we have seen God."  

So it says here that the angel of the LORD appeared to Manoah and his wife, but then this person is identified as God. This happens again and again in the Old Testament. This "angel of the LORD" is identified as God Himself, not just an angelic being. But notice that they ask His name and He won't tell them. He says it is wonderful. In some translations, it says secret. It is not something that has been revealed yet. It's a mystery. 

So this is the biggest mystery in the Bible. The Old Testament reveals that there is this person coming to be the Messiah, but they didn't know His name. 

There's yet another time this mystery is pointed out.

Proverbs 30:2-4  Surely I am too stupid to be a man. I have not the understanding of a man. I have not learned wisdom, nor have I knowledge of the Holy One. Who has ascended to heaven and come down? Who has gathered the wind in his fists? Who has wrapped up the waters in a garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and what is his son's name? Surely you know!

This is an interesting and unusual prophecy. He says he is ignorant of something important. He's lacking some knowledge. He asks a series of questions, which can only apply to God. God is the one who controls the winds and the waters and established the ends of the Earth. But then he asks what is the name of this God and what is His Son's name. So God has a Son. This is revealed to us in the Old Testament, long before Jesus was born. But they don't know His name. It's a mystery.

This question hangs unanswered for thousands of years. Adam and Eve walked and talked with Him. Abraham ate with Him. Jacob wrestled with Him. He told Manoah and his wife about their son who would be born. He was prophesied to save the people from their sins. He would bear their iniquities and by His stripes they would be healed. He would come from Abraham and from the line of Judah and then from the line of David. He would be a king forever. He would be pierced for their transgressions. He would be born in Bethlehem. All this and many other things had been prophesied about Him. But what was His name?

About 2,000 years ago, the mystery was finally revealed.

Luke 1:26-33  In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. And the virgin's name was Mary. And he came to her and said, "Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!"
But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and tried to discern what sort of greeting this might be. And the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end." 

So what was His name? Jesus. The most wonderful name of all time. Jesus means salvation. He came to save us from our sins. This was God's plan from the very beginning. He knew we needed a Savior. We can't save ourselves. Only God Himself could be the perfect sacrifice to take our place and be punished for our wrongdoing so that we could be forgiven. God gave us lots of information about the coming Messiah in the Old Testament so that we would know Him when He came. And finally, He came. He lived a perfect life. He died a horrible death on the cross. He rose from the dead. And now He offers us salvation if we simply trust Him. Salvation is His name. Jesus.

 

Husband as Head of the Wife does NOT mean Source

It is a common egalitarian argument to claim the husband being the head over the wife doesn't mean he's the leader or authority, but only source. That's simply not true. Some have apparently noticed that the word head is used for the source of a river and thought they could explain away the Biblical teaching that husbands are head over their wives by claiming it just means the husband is a head in the sense of a river's head is its source. There are multiple problems with this line of argument.

First, the original word in Greek, kephale, actually means a head, like the part of your body where your face and brain are. Figurative meanings like the head of a river are secondary and derive from the literal meaning of a head on a body.

Second, the Biblical passages in question clearly use head and body metaphors for the relationship between husband and wife, not river metaphors.

Ephesians 5:22-33
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

Note here that the analogy given is that the husband and wife are like Christ and the church. Just as Christ is the head and the church is the body of Christ, so husband is to be the head over his wife and treat her as his own body by cherishing her. So this is clearly a head/body comparison, not talking about the head of a river. Just read the context. It's clear.

Third, we see that the very text using this head metaphor clearly states that wives are to submit to their husbands. So again, we have clear contextual evidence to show us this is about submission to authority. It doesn't make any sense for Paul to be commanding wives to be sure they originate from their husbands because he's the head and she's the river. That's not what it says. The Bible says submit. This is about authority.

Fourth, the husband is not the source of his wife. My source is my parents, not my husband. The ONLY case where the husband was actually the source of his wife was Adam and Eve, but that doesn't apply to any other marriage. So it doesn't make sense for Paul to tell people in his day (or people in our day) that the husband is the source of his wife. If anything, that's way weirder than teaching that the husband is in authority over his wife. I mean, think about how weird it would be if Paul was really telling us that the husband is the origin and source of his wife in some way, like that she doesn't exist as a person until she marries and somehow originates from her husband. Creepy. I think I'll stick with the Biblical teaching, thanks.

This line of argument that head only means source and not authority is just a really bad attempt to get around the clear teaching of scripture. It has been repeated so often that people just keep passing it around, but it doesn't take a scholar to see that it doesn't fit the Biblical text.

The Bible does actually teach that husbands have authority over their wives to which the wives have a responsibility to submit. It's not an unlimited authority, obviously. Only God has unlimited authority. But an authority structure in marriage where the husband leads and the wife submits is taught in scripture.

God used Alexander the Great to Accomplish His Will

If you want to be amazed at how God works through history, here are some interesting facts. Note that God didn't just work through Biblical history and the Jewish people. He works through all kinds of people and in all places and times to accomplish His will.

The Bible has several interesting prophecies that have to be mentioned here as background. First, there's Psalm 22 in which a public death is described via piercing hands and feet, a gloating crowd, thirst, and bones out of joint. This is fulfilled 1,000 years later when Jesus Christ is crucified. But at the time David writes this psalm, there was no such thing as crucifixion yet. It hadn't been invented.

Secondly, Ezekiel 26 prophesies the destruction of Tyre in great detail. The city walls would be destroyed and the city would be thrown into the sea and scraped clean like the top of a rock. Some of the fulfillment occurred when Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to the city and destroyed the part of the city found on the mainland, but part of the city was found on an island off the coast. Destroying the island portion of the city awaited a later fulfillment.

Third, Daniel 7 and 8 predict the rise of a great empire after the Medo-Persian empire that will destroy it. In particular, Daniel 8 predicts that this empire will be Greek and that the first king will grow to great power very quickly, then be suddenly cut off in the height of his power followed by a division of the kingdom into 4 main kingdoms that will not have the strength of the original.

So let's see how these prophecies are all intertwined in the life of one remarkable man: Alexander the Great.

Alexander the Great became king of Macedonia in Greece at age 20 and consolidated Greece under his banner. Shortly thereafter, he began conquering neighboring lands. In 332 BC, he approached the city of Tyre and asked to make a sacrifice in their temple, which was on the island. The leaders of Tyre refused him and killed his messengers. Alexander was enraged at this response and set out to completely destroy Tyre. The mainland portion of the city was still mostly in ruins at this time from the ravages of Nebuchadnezzar some 250 years earlier. The island was extremely well fortified, with a tall wall all the way around and a strong navy to protect it.

 
Alexander had no navy, but this did not deter him. He set his soldiers to work throwing the ruins of the mainland city into the sea to build a causeway from the shore out to the island. They scraped the area clean, even throwing the soil into the sea. After a lengthy process of building the causeway, Alexander’s men finally took Tyre. They destroyed the walls of the island city, killed the men, and sold the women and children into slavery. But in the process, Alexander introduced a new form of excruciating death for the soldiers of Tyre. They were crucified. Alexander did not invent crucifixion, but his use of this method made it more known and likely contributed to the later Roman use.

 
After the brutal destruction of Tyre, few dared to stand against Alexander and his conquest proceeded rapidly. In about 10 years, he conquered the extensive Persian empire. He then died suddenly of disease, leaving no heir. His kingdom was divided among his generals, with a period of struggle for power resulting in 4 major divisions that were fairly stable for many years.

 
In his brief 32 years, Alexander fulfilled multiple Biblical prophecies and conquered most of the known world at the time. As far as we know, he did not know the one true God, yet he was used by Him. He is not named in scripture and no scripture was written during his lifetime, yet God was clearly orchestrating the events of his life for a greater purpose. Alexander’s conquests not only fulfilled scripture, but spread the Greek language and culture far and wide. This set the stage for the Messiah to come to a world where communicating the gospel was much easier, thanks to the widespread use of the Greek language. The New Testament documents were written in Greek and spread rapidly to many nations. They changed the world.

Functional Orphans: How Lack of Discipline Hurts Children

I was in the church nursery the other day and I noticed again how interactions with my own children are different from interactions with other people's children. My children are my responsibility. Thus, when my children misbehave, I correct and discipline them. But when I am watching someone else's child, there's not a lot I can do to correct their misbehavior. I can gently encourage them not to hit, bite, or push other children and tell them it's not nice and then try to redirect them, but it's not my place to discipline them or explain to them why they should be kind to others. That is the job of their own parents.

So why am I telling you this? It occurred to me that this soft, hands-off approach we use for dealing with unruly children in the nursery is no longer reserved for temporary caretakers in our society. Many are pushing parents to treat their own children in this way - never punishing or correcting them, but only gently encouraging them to behave and redirecting them to other activities. This isn't fringe either. It's pretty mainstream advice.

It's no surprise, given this approach, that so many children these days are badly behaved, anxious, and lack self-control. But it's not just poor parenting to allow children to disobey and hurt others and throw fits and so on without disciplining them. It's treating the children as if they were someone else's children. It's a failure to parent at all.

The Bible has something to say about this topic as well.

Hebrews 12:6-8 For the Lord disciplines the one he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives. It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons. For what son is there whom his father does not discipline? If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons.

So, the Bible tells us that parents who don't discipline their children are treating them as if they were not their children. Discipline is one of the main responsibilities of parents. Undisciplined children are functional orphans. They have no parents. They have someone who meets basic physical needs and manages them so they don't get seriously injured, much like a daycare worker might, but they aren't getting the training they desperately need. They aren't being disciplined.

Why doesn't anybody notice this? A large part of the reason is that our society has a hollow and abbreviated understanding of the role of parents. Everything is supposed to be delegated to a professional these days. Education? That's what school teachers are for. Spiritual training? Take them to church to be taught. Sports? Find a good coach.

The one thing most people still agree that parents are supposed to do for their children is foot the bill for all their collection of experiences. But if your view of parenting is that it’s a mostly managerial position involving paying for a host of experts to provide your child with the proper inputs and making sure they appear at the proper places at the proper times, that’s a poor substitute for actual parenting. (It also makes sense of the weird trend to ask parents of large families how they intend to pay for all their children’s luxuries like a college education. I guess if the main role of parents is to pay for everything, you better not have too many kids or else it gets expensive and you might not be able to afford the best experts.)

Along with this view of parenting, you get the rise of the term “quality time.” Rather than spend quantity time with their children (which is how almost all parents did it in the past), parents today are encouraged to spend quality time. This is usually interpreted as having special, memorable experiences together on the rare occasions you are together, often involving the spending of lots of money (are you seeing a trend here?). Parents don’t have the opportunity to spend quantity time with their kids because they’re too busy making money to pay for all the quality time. In those special times when parents are actually present with their children and actively engaged, they are trying so hard to have pleasant “quality time” that they don’t want to ruin the moment with such unpleasant matters as discipline. They don’t want to be the bad guy when they finally interact with their kids. So I don’t think it’s a mere coincidence that the rise of laissez-faire parenting coincides with the rise of absent and distracted parents.

Of course, not all households with two busy, working parents fail to discipline their children. And even some otherwise involved parents have fallen for the “gentle parenting” nonsense that says they should never punish their children. These are societal trends, not descriptions of any particular homes. But there is a lot of overlap.

The sad thing about these trends is that many children today are suffering a tremendous lack of parenting. They are growing up as functional orphans. There is no substitute for careful, involved, loving parents who discipline their children and teach them. This necessarily requires quantity time, not just quality time. You can’t raise children by long distance or by a collection of babysitters, teachers, coaches, and other professionals (or grandparents). You have to be there. And you have to discipline your children. They need it desperately.

Submission on Matters of Conscience

"My husband wants me to do something, but I have a conviction against it." This is one of the most misunderstood issues in conservative Christian circles.

Most conservative Christian women will agree that women are to submit to their husbands and that God has given the husband the position of leader of the home. However, we often don't realize the extent to which feminism and individualism have infected our thinking and we often fail to renew our minds with the scriptures. The issue of conscience is one of the most problematic areas where I see a lot of otherwise obedient wives justify their rebellion because of their personal convictions.

The Bible teaches women to submit to their husbands in everything (Ephesians 5:24). This is a very inclusive statement. It does not say to obey except where we have very serious disagreement. It does not say to obey only if we don't have any personal convictions against it. It says we are to submit in everything. Every. Thing. 

We know that God's authority is higher than our husband's. Thus, husbands do not have authority to overrule God. If God has commanded something in scripture, we must obey God over our husbands in such cases. So, for example, God's word tells us that we are not to murder. If a husband were to command his wife to murder, such as getting an abortion, then she should not obey that command. She must obey God over her husband where they directly contradict. But our conscience is not God. Our personal convictions are not commands from God. We cannot elevate our convictions over God's clear command to obey our husbands.

There is a very relevant passage for this issue in Numbers 30. Yes, this is the Old Testament, but the principle still applies because this is God commanding women on how they are to handle sacred vows to God. While a woman is under the authority of her husband or her father, and she makes a sacred vow to God on some subject, she is obligated to perform what she vowed unless her husband or father forbid her. Keep in mind that these sacred vows are generally considered very binding. They are usually made in response to some conviction. Yet if her husband (or father, if she is unmarried) disallows her, she is freed from her vow and not bound to fulfill it. If her husband forbids her to fulfill her vow when he first hears of it, then she is freed from the vow and there is no sin for not fulfilling it. If her husband allows it at first and later disallows it, she is still to obey her husband, but the sin for not fulfilling the vow will fall on her husband for forbidding her. Read the whole chapter for yourself. It's very clear. Either way, her responsibility from God is to obey her husband. This is very clear teaching on how far a husband's authority extends. The husband's authority trumps the wife's conscience and even her sacred vow made to God because God has given this authority to the husband.

So where does this leave modern women? Too often, our society and even Christian culture tells us that what we feel very strongly is supremely important. In Christian circles, we speak of personal convictions very soberly, and this is warranted. All other things being equal, we are not to violate our conscience. Yet when a husband commands his wife, all other things are not equal. It sounds very pious to say that we have a personal conviction and thus cannot obey our husbands. Yet this is not what the Bible teaches us about such matters. The authority of the husband extends over our personal convictions.

There is a very good reason for this hierarchy of authority. If the wife can feel a strong personal conviction and act counter to her husbands authority because of it, this would essentially eliminate the husband's authority on most matters. All a wife needs to do is genuinely believe that her own plan is morally superior in some way to her husband's plan, and magically she has a conviction about it and doesn't have to obey her husband. This leads, not only to women disobeying their husbands on all manner of issues, but believing themselves to be more pious than their husband and looking down on him. He is asking her to violate her conscience, so in her eyes, he's asking her to sin. She's the good one who would never dream of doing such a thing while he's the bad guy. This false piety kills marriages, tears apart families, and gives women a rationalization for their disobedience while feeling superior for it.

I have seen this problem appear on many issues, and in many cases, the preference of the wife is an otherwise good thing. Maybe she wants to wear dresses all the time to be modest or wants to give more money to the church. Perhaps she believes they should homeschool their children. She might want to reduce sugar in their diet or have a family prayer time every morning. These things are perfectly good choices, and ones I would often recommend. But when a wife uses her belief that these things are good to overrule her husband and ignore his God-given authority to lead his household under the excuse that she has a conviction, then she is being disobedient and destroying her home. No longer is she submitting. Instead, she is ruling the house with her own preferences and views.

Instead of giving women the ability to set aside the husband's authority whenever she has a strong feeling that something is right or wrong, the Bible commands her to submit to her husband. Only where God has specifically commanded in scripture is she bound to obey God over her husband. That way, it's not up to her internal feelings or moral leanings, which might be misguided. Her conscience is not the leader of the home. Her husband is. This is God's very good design for the family and we cannot improve upon it.

Modern Christians are Not Witnesses

One of the most unfortunate church-isms is the term "witnessing." It is usually used to refer to telling other people about Jesus or living a good life that makes people want to ask about our faith. You might, for example, hear a Christian say to another that they have been "witnessing" to their neighbors and inviting them to church.

The reason I say it's an unfortunate usage is not only because it's Christian jargon, and thus confusing to anyone who didn't grow up in church, but because no Christian living today is a witness. The original disciples of Christ who saw Him on earth and were there for His life, death, and resurrection were the witnesses. They actually saw those events. They witnessed them. We didn't.

We sometimes forget that not everything written in the Bible was said to us. We read the Bible looking for a special message to us, because that's what we were taught to do, when it's really an account of God's work throughout history, not necessarily a letter to us. It's for us, but it's not about us. So because of the misguided focus on ourselves, we often read a passage like Acts 1:7-8 and think it's talking about us when it's really Jesus speaking specifically to His disciples.

Acts 1:7-8 "He [Jesus] said to them, "It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority; but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth."

Like witnesses at a crime scene, the apostles and earliest believers saw the events of Jesus' ministry on earth and were instructed to tell others what they had seen. They wrote down their testimony in the gospels and the other books of the New Testament and they told their stories far and wide. They then died horrific deaths for that testimony, without recanting it. They were the witnesses, and it was their testimony that made it possible for us to know what happened and to believe in Jesus.

When we tell someone about the gospel, we aren't "witnessing" to them. We're telling them what the actual witnesses said about the events they saw. We should also tell them about the evidence we have that indicates those witnesses were not making up their story, but were willing to die for it. Their deaths were not in vain, but are an important evidence of the truth of their claims. We didn't see what they saw. So, while our lives are certainly important, we aren't witnesses to the truth of Christianity because we didn't see the crucifixion or the resurrection.

We Christians today are believers. We are case-makers. We believe the witnesses who told us what happened and we believe in Christ who came to earth, died, and was resurrected to prove that He is God and can forgive our sins. We must make an evidential case to others for the reliability of the eyewitness accounts handed down to us. We also invite others to examine the testimony of those witnesses and believe as well.

What Does the Bible Have to Say About When Life Begins?

Biologically, every human being starts life at conception. That's just scientific fact. But some Christians who want to support abortion try to pretend they have Biblical reasons for questioning when a baby becomes a person and often refer to "ensoulment," when the soul enters the body, as being the point at which it would be wrong to take a life. Some point to the Bible's mention of the "breath of life" when Adam was created as proof that until a baby takes a breath, he has no soul and can be killed. Others think ensoulment happens at implantation, viability, when the heart begins to beat, or at some other point during embryonic development.

Of course, the idea that there can be a biological human without a soul is complete imagination. Nowhere does the Bible indicate or even hint of this. Nor does it follow that even if there were no soul, that humans would be allowed to kill such a soulless human. We were given dominion over the animals and plants, to use them for our good and even to kill them, but not over other humans - soulless or not. Thus, even if the soul were given at some point after conception, we have no authority to end that life merely because it has no soul yet.

It also makes no sense to argue that not knowing for sure if a human embryo has a soul means killing them would be permitted. It would be wrong to shoot a gun into the bushes or tear down a building if there could be a person inside. The Bible gives penalties for even the accidental killing of another person. It is our responsibility to ensure that we do not kill other humans, and thus if there could be a person there, we must err on the side of caution. If we are unsure of whether or not a woman's womb contains a human person, we must refuse to abort. The doubt does not give justification to proceed with an abortion. It requires just the opposite.

The breath of life argument is similarly flawed. The first man, Adam, being created from dust and then being turned into a living man by the breath of God is how humankind first began.

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

However, the claim that one doesn't have a soul or personhood until the first breath does not follow from this verse. Not even close. For one thing, this isn't how people usually come to exist. This was a one-time act of creation. Adam was never in a mother's womb at all, nor was he a zygote or fetus. But in addition to that, this verse isn't talking about taking a first breath of air. The breath of life refers to the breath of God, not air. And the verse says a man newly created is a living soul. It doesn't say Adam became living, then became a soul. It sure sounds like a living human is a soul, with no point at which he is living, but not a soul. So if there's anything to learn from the creation of Adam, it can't be that abortion is okay until the first breath.

The Bible also has many things to say about the identity of the child in the womb. For example:

Jeremiah 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

Psalm 139:13-16  For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them. 

The Bible indicates in multiple places that humans exist as persons in the womb. God knows them. They're people. It even says that John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit in the womb and leaped for joy when Mary, pregnant with Jesus, arrived to greet his mother Elizabeth because he recognized the Savior while he was still in the womb.

But that's not all. The Bible also indicates that conception is the defining point at which the existence of a new person begins. For example, Psalm 51:5 says "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me." Here David says, through inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that it was him that was conceived, not some biological entity that became him.

This sort of assumption that it is a person that is conceived is all through scripture. But even more direct is what the Bible says about Jesus' conception.

Luke 1:31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.

Matthew 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

Jesus wasn't incarnated by entering a fetus in Mary's womb. He was incarnated by being conceived. That's what it says. God taking on flesh and becoming a man had to start at conception because that's where humans begin. Jesus was a zygote. The Creator of all the universe became a zygote. Let that sink in for a minute. Then try to tell me you can kill a human zygote or embryo because it's not a person. You can't.

Of course, the question of whether abortion should be legal is not solved by referencing the Bible. Not all wrong things should be illegal. To answer the question of abortion's legality we must look at what government's purpose is and the biological facts of human reproduction.

But the Bible does tell us about the morality of abortion. It is immoral to kill innocent people. A child in the womb, from conception onward, is an innocent person. Therefore, abortion is immoral. It's really as simple as that.

What Happens to People who have Never Heard the Gospel?

One of the common questions that Christians receive about Christianity is the question of what happens to people who have never heard the gospel. Do those in remote locations or other times in history that never heard the name of Jesus go to hell? Is there another way for people to be saved, other than Jesus? Or are people just out of luck if they haven’t heard about Jesus?

This is an important question for Christians to answer. It can be a stumbling block for many who want to believe in Christianity if they see God as unfair or unjust. Many want to say that there is another way. Some will say that sincerity, even misplaced toward another religion, is enough to get to heaven. How is a Christian to answer this with both truth and grace?

There’s much that could be said here, but here is an introduction to the topic that I believe is both Biblical and rational.

I’ll start by saying that nobody ever goes to hell for not believing in Jesus.

That may shock some people, but hear me out. Nobody goes to hell from a lack of belief in Jesus. Just like nobody ever died of not getting CPR, nobody goes to hell for not believing in Jesus. People die of diseases or injuries. People go to hell because of sin. There will be no one in hell who can honestly say they don't deserve it. We all have sinned and we all deserve hell. So it’s an important distinction to make. Those in hell are there because of the sins they chose to commit. They had a terminal disease called sinfulness, and it caused spiritual death.

Of course, this doesn’t answer the underlying question of whether or not people can be saved apart from Christ. Obviously, the real issue here is whether or not lack of Jesus, the cure for the disease, results in a person going to hell.

The short answer is yes.

The Bible is crystal clear that salvation is through Jesus alone. There is only one mediator between God and man (I Timothy 2:5). There is no other sacrifice for sin (Hebrews 10:26). There is only one Son of God (John 3:16-18, 36). He only came once (I Peter 3:18). The death of a mere man cannot save anyone (Romans 8:3, 13-18, I Corinthians 15:50). Thus, only Jesus could pay the penalty for sin and redeem us.

But what about those who haven’t heard of Jesus? Is God unfair to withhold salvation from them? Did He give them no chance?

The Bible is clear that all mankind has some knowledge of God. Read Romans 1:18-21 and Psalms 19:1-4. These passages, among others, tell us that mankind knows, from the creation, that there is a God. It is obvious to all people that there must be a Creator, even if they reject this knowledge. They can also deduce attributes about the Creator from His creation. For example, because creation is orderly and purposeful, we can see that God is a God of order. He doesn't do things sloppily or without purpose. We can see that He is consistent because nature is steady and predictable. We can see that He values beauty, etc.

In addition, humans have an innate sense of morality (Romans 2:14-15). The Bible refers to this as the law written on the heart. We instinctively know right and wrong, at least in a basic sense. But if there is a moral law, there must be a moral lawgiver. There must be an ultimate moral authority.

These things are evident to all people. The information is out there for people to know there is a God and to seek Him. They have no excuse if they ignore this information and fail to seek God.

Of course, having a general knowledge of God doesn’t mean we have an innate knowledge of salvation. What we know initially from nature will only get us so far. We have to seek God. We have the first piece of the puzzle, but we need the rest of it to know how to be saved. Knowing there is a God out there somewhere is just a beginning. We have to learn more. That's why it's our responsibility to seek God.

Of course, God is also seeking us, which makes the whole thing possible. We could never figure it all out on our own. That's why He revealed Himself in the Bible. And even if we could figure it all out, knowledge alone can't save us. A person can know how to be saved and still not be saved. So we have to rely on God to reveal what we need to know in order to be saved.

We also know that God wants everyone to come to Him (II Peter 3:18). The very reason that God created mankind is because He wanted to have a relationship with us. He doesn’t make people to populate hell with no chance of salvation. He gives everyone a chance.

Because God wants all to come to Him, God will reveal Himself to those who seek Him. The Bible says that those who seek God will find Him (Jeremiah 29:13, Matthew 7:7-8). God will see to it that those who want to know Him will find the information they need to know to accept Jesus. He can send missionaries or a radio broadcast or a Bible or any number of other messengers to give people the knowledge of how to accept Christ. It is also quite possible for Jesus or an angel to appear (as Jesus did to Paul, for example) to people who don't have another way to hear the gospel and are seeking God.

Of course, God has no responsibility to go to such lengths for those who have failed to seek Him. We all have enough general revelation from nature and our own inbuilt knowledge of God to realize our need to seek him. It is our responsibility to act on what we know.

The principle is that, if we act on the revelation we have, God will give us more. For example, there have been many cases of missionaries being led to go to a remote location and finding there someone who has been seeking God and asking for truth. There have been cases of people hearing a radio broadcast or meeting a stranger who shared the gospel. The Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8 was seeking God, and God brought Philip to tell him how to be saved. These are just a few examples. God brought these people the knowledge of Christ they needed when they sought Him. He will not turn away any who truly seek Him (John 6:37).

Those who don't act on the knowledge of God they had may never hear of Jesus, but their condemnation will be just because they did not act on the revelation they had. They will go to hell, not because they had never heard of Jesus, but because they rejected what they did know of God.

For those who predated Christ, the way of salvation is faith in God's promise to send a Messiah. So they were saved through faith in Jesus that looks forward to Him. This is the case for Abraham, for example, who "believed God and it was counted unto Him as righteousness." There may also be some who lived after Christ who were also saved in this way, through faith that God would send the promised Messiah (even if they did not know he had already come). But every person who is saved is saved through Jesus Christ. There is no other way.

So, if Jesus is necessary for salvation, then sincerity isn't enough. Belief isn't enough. You have to believe in what is true. You have to follow the one true God and His one way for salvation. If one could be saved simply through sincerity, even if the religion was false, then there would be no need to preach the gospel or teach people about Christ. Just tell them to be sincere. Tell them to be honest. Tell them to follow their own native religion. Blend in, don't rock the boat, be a good person. But not once is this ever used by the followers of God in the Bible. It is always a case of calling people to leave their false religions and follow the true God.

The early Christians were murdered in horrific ways because they refused to follow their native religions and instead were determined to follow Jesus. If salvation were possible by simply following one's native religion, then all these martyrs died in vain. They should have simply gone with whatever would make them happy or not gotten them killed if they could be saved simply by following any old religion. But they knew that salvation only comes through belief in the one true God and in Jesus Christ. They were willing to die in order to have Christ and salvation because they knew there was no other way.

So, we see that the Bible is clear that salvation is only through Jesus, but why is that so important?

The reason we need Jesus is that we can't get to God on our own. We can have all the knowledge in the world, but we can never be worthy of salvation. We're flawed. We have all sinned (Romans 3:23). Sin taints us so that we can't stand in God's presence. God is perfect and holy. Sin cannot abide in His presence. So our sin separates us from God. It's a gulf that can never be crossed because no one can go back in time and un-sin. And good works, no matter how great, can't erase the past.

We all deserve death and separation from God forever because that is the penalty for sin (Romans 6:23). There is only one way for God to be just and judge sin, and yet extend mercy to us who don't deserve it. That one way is Jesus. Jesus lived a perfect life. He was never tainted with sin. So He alone has the right to stand before God and live in His presence. Yet He died, and was separated from God the Father, in our place. When we let Jesus take our place, surrendering our life to Him, He swaps with us - His life for the death we deserve. It's the only way for both justice and mercy to be satisfied. The debt for sin is paid - a debt we could never pay - and we can live with God. Justice and mercy.

Since no mere man could ever live a perfect life, no mere man can save us. It had to be the perfect Son of God. It had to be God in a human body. It had to be Jesus.