Tag Archives: Bob Prichard

CHRISTIAN LIVING

I AM NOT A VICTIM! — BOB PRICHARD

Under the title, “We’re All Victims,” John Leo wrote about the top 10 “victim stories” of the year, in the November 21, 2005 U.S.News. Leo pointed out that in our politically correct culture, anyone who gets offended is a victim. Leo cited the British Muslims who were “victimized” by tissue boxes picturing Winnie the Pooh and Piglet; and atheists who were “victimized” by actors who thanked God for winning Oscars, as well as students at the University of Wisconsin who were “victimized” by local bars that discontinued discount drinks on weekends in response to a federal campaign to limit binge drinking.

The dictionary defines a victim as “one who is harmed or killed by another; one who is harmed by or made to suffer from an act, circumstance, agency, or condition; a person who is tricked, swindled, or taken advantage of.” 

Yes, everywhere we look, we see victims. But I want you to know that I am not a victim. In fact, I am guilty. I know the truth of Paul’s words in Romans 3:23: “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.” I know that I am a sinner, deserving of God’s punishment. But I know that I will not receive justice for my sins, but instead God’s grace.

“Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus” (Romans 3:24), reminds me that I have been forgiven through the grace of God when I obeyed the gospel of Christ.

“Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost” (Acts 2:38). Because I have repented and been baptized, my sins have been remitted.

One more definition of victim: “a living creature slain and offered as a sacrifice during a religious rite.” I am so grateful that Jesus served as that victim for me so that I could have forgiveness.

CHRISTIAN LIVING, GOD

CAUSES AND REASONS — BOB PRICHARD

In his book, Why Good Arguments Often Fail (IVP, 2006), James W. Sire tries to help Christians make more persuasive arguments for Christ. He discusses logical fallacies that plague us, and ways to speak the truth without falling into these fallacies. He also draws a distinction between causes for what we believe, and reasons for what we believe, especially as they relate to faith in God.

He cites several answers that might be given for belief in God: “My parents are Christians,” “I grew up going to church,” etc. These, he says, are causes—that is, they are not based on rational thought, but have been formed by sociological forces. On the other hand, responses such as “My belief in God gives me hope,” “My faith provides meaning and direction for my life,” or “There is a lot of evidence that Jesus was and is the Son of God,” are reasons—based on rational consideration of the evidence.

Why does it matter? He gives two reasons: (1) “It is important for Christians because without some sense of why they are Christians, they may hold their faith with reservations (and thus weaken their Christian life) or lose their faith entirely.” (2) “The distinction is important because one of the charges against Christians is that they believe what they do primarily—or solely—because they have been raised in a Christian environment. They have been caused to believe. If they thought about it, skeptics say, they would change their minds” (Pages 48-49).

Sire makes me think that we really need to teach our young people to examine the evidence for their faith. Peter exhorts, “But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear” (1 Peter 3:15). We need to be ready to give the reason for our belief—not the cause. It is of great benefit to have Christian parents, a Christian environment, and Christian influence. At the same time, our faith must be examined. Can you give the reason for your faith?

BIBLE QUESTIONS, CHRISTIAN LIVING

MUST THE CHRISTIAN TITHE? — BOB PRICHARD

Tithing is the custom of giving a portion (ten per cent) of products or money to a king or priest. The first biblical mention of tithing is in Genesis 14, when Abram returned from a great military victory and gave a tithe of the plunder he had acquired to Melchizedek, who was the king of Salem, and a priest of God. Later Jacob, Abram’s grandson, promised to give God a tenth: “Jacob vowed a vow, saying, If God will be with me, and will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat, and raiment to put on, So that I come again to my father’s house in peace; then shall the LORD be my God: … and of all that thou shalt give me I will surely give the tenth unto thee” (Genesis 28:20-22). Giving a tenth was common among ancient nations, and was a part of the Old Covenant law.

Moses told Israel, “And all the tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land, or of the fruit of the tree, is the LORD’S: it is holy unto the LORD” (Leviticus 27:30). The payment of the tithe was largely to support the Levites, who did not receive the land inheritance that the other tribes received. The priests and Levites also would sometimes give a tithe (tenth) of the tithe they received (Numbers 18:21-28). The Jews also paid a second tithe, and sometimes even a third tithe at certain times (Deuteronomy 14:22-28; 26:12). The law required all faithful Jews to tithe, regardless of income.

Christ spoke of tithing only once. “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel” (Matthew 23:23-24). Jesus did not condemn them for their tithing, but for their attitude in their giving. The scribes and Pharisees pretended to keep the letter of the law, but paid no attention to the spirit of the law.

This is key to understanding the Christian’s responsibility to give. The New Testament never gives any requirement for the Christian to give a tithe (10%). None of the apostles ever required the giving of a tithe, and there is no biblical example of Christians giving a tithe. The Old Covenant tithe was paid to the Levites, and no church or preacher or priest has received authority to demand a tithe of Christians. However, since the poorest of the Jews paid a tithe, surely Christians will want to give sacrificially, from the heart. Some may be able to give ten percent, some fifty per cent, some five per cent. The attitude should be to give as much as possible to the cause of Christ Who redeemed us. “But this I say, He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully. Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver” (2 Corinthians 9:6-7). The Christian who realizes how much Christ has given will truly be a cheerful, generous  giver to the Lord’s work.

BIBLE, BIBLE QUESTIONS

IS THE BIBLE INFALLIBLE? — BOB PRICHARD

Yes.  Infallible means “incapable of erring, sure, certain, unerring.” A close synonym for infallible is inerrant, which means “free from error.” The Bible as revealed by God in the “original autographs” (original written copies) is both infallible and inerrant. The infallible Bible does not just “contain the Word of God,” it IS the Word of God. Because it is infallible, it gives us all that we need for faith and practice in serving God.  

The Bible claims infallibility for itself. More than 2,000 times in the Old Testament “thus saith the Lord,” or a similar phrase occurs. Surely the Lord was able to communicate  His will accurately! Peter spoke of inspiration saying, “the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” (2 Peter 1:21). The inspired writers wrote what God revealed to them. It was not their own message but the message of God that they recorded. Jesus said “the scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35), meaning that it must be true. He said, “Verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled” (Matthew 5:18). The “jot” was yodh, the smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet and the “tittle” was a simple pen stroke, or part of a letter. Thus Jesus asserted the infallibility of the written Word of God, even in the smallest details.

The New Testament claims the same inspired infallibility for the whole Bible. “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16). Since “all scripture is given by inspiration of God,” then it must all be regarded as authoritative and infallible. If only part of it is authoritative or infallible, how will we choose what is authoritative and infallible, and what is not authoritative or without error? If we use man’s subjective opinion, we will end up being mislead. How much better it is to just accept all that God has revealed, rather than choosing the opinions of men!

Skeptics have long attacked what they perceived as errors in the Bible. When all the evidence is considered, however, the Bible still stands without error. All too often, what are perceived as errors are not errors at all, but simply the expression of different points of view of biblical authors, or misinterpretations of obscure texts, or simple misunderstandings. Too often the “errors” come from the preconceptions of critics concerning what they think the Bible ought to say, rather than what it really says.  

What is really at stake in the question of biblical infallibility is the character of God. God cannot lie (Titus 1:2). He is omniscient or all knowing (Psalm 139). Since He knows all things and cannot lie, then His written Word, all of it, must be infallible. An infallible God can do no less than produce an infallible Bible. Just one error in His revealed Will would be enough to show that God is not God. Because we are limited in our understanding, we may not be able to explain every perceived error or inconsistency in the Bible, but we can accept it as the infallible Word of God because it comes from Him.

BIBLE, CHURCH

SHEPHERDS — BOB PRICHARD

“Being a shepherd isn’t just sitting next to your dog on the field all day, smoking a pipe,” said Hungarian Ference Selay, who was trained as an architect, but the worked as a shepherd. Professionals were being enticed to leave city life in Hungary to work as shepherds, who now have to deal with complicated European Union laws. Selay actually spent more time applying for grants than warding off wolves (World, October 29, 2005).

We know the work of shepherds from the Bible. The shepherd king David is an inspiring example of how a man can rise from a humble position to rule a nation. The shepherd defends the sheep, keeps them safe, and cares for them with tenderness. No wonder Psalm 23 is the most loved passage in the Bible. “The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want” (Psalm 23:1).

We have lost much in that we seldom use the word shepherd to speak of those who oversee the church. Our traditional use of elder implies age and wisdom. We seem to fear using “bishop,” another scriptural word (1 Timothy 3:1-2, Titus 1:7), because it seems to have too much baggage from the denominational misuse of the word. But why don’t we use shepherd? Peter urges, “Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; Neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being examples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away” (1 Peter 5:2-4). “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood” (Acts 20:28).

Knowing how the shepherd fought the lion and bear, and developed the courage to kill Goliath, what’s wrong with the word? “Being a shepherd isn’t just sitting next to your dog on the field all day, smoking a pipe.”

BIBLE, BIBLE QUESTIONS, EXODUS

DOES EXODUS 21 ALLOW FOR ABORTION? — BOB PRICHARD

No. Exodus 21 is sometimes cited as evidence that the Bible allows for abortion. Some say that Exodus 21 allows for abortion because it suggests that the life of the unborn child is of less value than the life of the mother. This passage deals with accidental injury to a pregnant woman, while abortion is the intentional killing of an unborn child. Exodus 21 actually teaches that the life of the mother and child are both protected by God’s laws.

Here is what Exodus 21:22-25 says: “If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.”

Simply put, what the passage describes is a situation where men are fighting and during the fighting injure a pregnant woman [possibly an innocent bystander or one intervening to stop the fight]. If “her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow,” the man is fined, but “if any mischief follow,” then the more severe “life for life, eye for eye” punishment follows.

Some teach that “her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow” means that the mother has a miscarriage, and loses the child, which is punished with a fine. While “if any mischief follow” means that the woman herself dies or is severely injured. This explanation is not true to the text, or reason. Miscarriage is extremely traumatic to any mother.

What “her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow,” refers to is a premature birth, in which neither the mother or child suffers serious injury. How could the death of an unborn child be considered “no mischief”? The fine was imposed because of the threat to the life of the mother and child caused by the negligence of the fighting men. Some modern translators have inserted the word “miscarriage” in verse 22, the Hebrew word used in the text means birth, not miscarriage. [There is a different word for Hebrew word for miscarriage, which Moses used in Exodus 23:26, translated “cast their young” in the KJV]. Notice the clear meaning in the NIV: “If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she give birth prematurely, but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows” (Exodus 21:22).

The phrase “if any mischief follow” (Exodus 21:23) does not make any distinction between the mother and the unborn child. The “life for life, eye for eye” law applied equally. In fact, if any distinction is being made between the mother and the child, the more natural understanding is that “if any mischief follow” applies more directly to the child than the mother, because the focus of the passage is on what happens when “the fruit” departs from the mother. Significantly, the law of Exodus 21:22-25 applied as harshly to the accidental death or injury of the unborn child as it does to the intentional death or injury of any other innocent person. Exodus 21 upholds the value of innocent life. Abortion destroys innocent life.

BIBLE, BIBLE QUESTIONS, SALVATION

CAN A SAVED PERSON EVER SO SIN TO LOSE HIS SOUL? — BOB PRICHARD

The doctrine that once a person is saved, he can never be lost, is usually referred to as the “doctrine of eternal security,” or the “impossibility of apostasy.” This doctrine comforts many, but it is contrary to the scriptures. Several Bible characters fell away.

Demas faithfully served with Paul. Paul wrote, “Luke, the beloved physician, and Demas, greet you” (Colossians 4:14), but then later wrote to Timothy, “Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world, and is departed unto Thessalonica” (2 Timothy 4:10). Not only did Demas forsake Paul, but we understand that he forsook the Lord as well, “having loved this present world” too much.

Philip converted Simon the Sorcerer at Samaria, and even baptized him (Acts 8:13), but then Simon sought to buy the ability to give the spiritual gifts. Peter warned him, “Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee. For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity” (Acts 8:22-23). Simon risked his soul for earthly riches and prestige. Surely he would have been lost if he did not follow Peter’s command to repent.

What about Judas Iscariot? When he betrayed Christ, not one of the other disciples suspected him. They certainly would have suspected him if he had not exercised the same spiritual gifts, healing powers, and casting out of demons as they had. He appeared to be a faithful servant of Christ to all of the other apostles. But who would argue today that he is saved?

God cares for His children, and He also gives those children free will. Each person has the right to choose to obey the gospel of Christ, or to refuse to obey the gospel of Christ, or to renounce Christ entirely. This ability to choose gives man responsibility. A man without free will would not be responsible for his sins. If a person can live any way he wishes to, and commit any sin he wants to after conversion, and he can do this without losing his soul, then that person has lost his free will to choose whether or not to be a Christian.  

Jesus said to the church at Ephesus, “I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love. Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent” (Revelation 2:4-5). The church at Ephesus, meaning the individual Christians who made up that congregation, had “left” its “first love,” and had “fallen.” The Lord warned them of the consequences if they did not repent.

Peter lists a number of graces such as faith, virtue, and temperance, which each Christian should work to acquire, saying, “if ye do these things, ye shall never fall” (2 Peter 1:10). Peter’s promise, “ye shall never fall,” however, is a conditional statement. We are promised not to fall “if ye do these things,” but implied in the promise is that we will fall if we do not do these things. The doctrine that a child of God can do anything he pleases and never be concerned for his soul is neither scriptural nor reasonable. Every man is accountable to God for how he lives. What dangerous ground a man walks on when he chooses to sin, rather than striving with all his ability to do the Lord’s will!

BIBLE QUESTIONS, SALVATION

SHOULD BABIES BE BAPTIZED? — BOB PRICHARD

The practice of baptizing babies, widely accepted today, was completely unknown in the early church. The first explicit mention of the practice in history is in the writings of Tertullian of Carthage, an early church leader, who lived in the third century (some two hundred years after the beginning of the church). Tertullian wrote about the baptism of children as a then new practice, reserved for children who were very sick. Tertullian opposed the practice, saying it was not biblical, but many other church leaders accepted it, and the practice became firmly established in religious tradition. It became the almost universally accepted practice until challenged by the Anabaptists in the sixteenth century, who taught that baptism was reserved for believers.

There is absolutely no mention of baptizing babies in the Bible. Some teach that the “household” conversions of Lydia (Acts 16), Cornelius (Acts 10), or the Philippian jailer (Acts 16) show that infants must have been baptized. The reasoning is that since whole households were converted, there must have been infants included. None of these accounts, however, mention any infants, and the presence of infants cannot be assumed. Every account of conversion in the book of Acts mentions at least one thing, such as believing, which an infant cannot do. There is no reason to assume that infants were present and baptized. 

It is sometimes taught that infants must be baptized because of “original sin.” “Original sin” is supposedly the sin that all humanity inherits from Adam, because we were all involved in his original sin in Eden. Although we choose to sin, we are not responsible for Adam’s sin. Every person is responsible for his own sins, and the child is sinless until he reaches the proper mental maturity to be responsible for his own sins. The prophet Ezekiel declared, “The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him” (Ezekiel 18:20). When Paul said, “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Corinthians 15:22), He was talking about physical death and the resurrection. If he was saying that we inherit sin from Adam, simply by being humans, then he would also be saying that we inherit eternal life in Christ, simply by being humans. Jesus said, “Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 19:14). He held up their sinless purity as an example for all.

Infant baptism simply cannot be right, because there is no biblical authority for it. It is an ancient tradition of men, no doubt begun with good intentions, but nevertheless contrary to the Bible. Baptism is for the penitent believer (Acts 2:38). Babies cannot repent, and have no sins to repent of. The Bible picture of baptism is a burial of believers. “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection” (Romans 6:3-5). Infant baptism changes God’s plan, and may prevent the adult believer from obeying the gospel, thinking he or she has already been baptized, even though he has not followed the biblical pattern.

BIBLE QUESTIONS, CHRISTIAN LIVING

IF WE ARE SUPPOSED TO FORGIVE AND FORGET,  HOW CAN WE REALLY FORGET WRONGS DONE TO US? — BOB PRICHARD

There is no doubt that if we are to be pleasing to God, we must forgive. As Jesus gave the model prayer to the disciples, he told them to pray, “Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.” He then explained, “For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses” (Matthew 6:12, 14-15). We cannot expect God to forgive us unless we are willing to forgive others. The question is, however, do we have to forgive and forget?

We cannot find the exact phrase “forgive and forget” in scripture, but the principle of forgiving and forgetting is certainly there, because this is the way God forgives. Speaking of the coming Christian age, the prophet Jeremiah gave the Lord’s promise, “I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more” (Jeremiah 31:34). David described God’s forgiveness of sin: “As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us” (Psalm 103:12). God forgives penitent sinners completely and absolutely, and “will remember their sin no more.” But is “remember no more” the same as to “forget absolutely”? When God says he will “remember no more,” He is not saying that He cannot have any knowledge of forgiven sins, but that He has willed to no longer call to mind, or recall those sins. Where those sins are recorded in the great book of the works of men (Revelation 20:12), God has written “forgiven.” 

If we are to “forgive and forget” as God does, then we will determine that we will no longer bring to mind those wrongs that we have forgiven. The nineteenth century preacher Henry Ward Beecher said, “To say ‘I can forgive, but I can’t forget,’ is really to say, ‘I cannot forgive.’” Painful memories of what others have done to us often linger, because of the consequences of sin. When a painful memory of a forgiven wrong surfaces in one’s mind, however, if he has really “forgiven and forgotten,” he will not allow himself to bring it to mind. It is much easier to carry a grudge, or wallow in self-pity, rather than forgiving and forgetting, but we cannot do this and be pleasing to God.

Many have discovered that a good “forgettery” may be as valuable as a good memory. Forgiving as God wants us to is an act of the will. It is not easy, but time heals many injuries when we have forgiven and forgotten as God wants us to. One of the greatest tragedies of life is to see people who hold a grudge against one another, and will not forgive. Some even forget what they disagreed over, but will not forgive. Those who will not forgive will find that God cannot forgive them.

  As Jesus hung on the cross, the words “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34), were continually on His lips. If he could forgive even those who crucified Him, surely His followers today can be forgiving people.

BIBLE, BIBLE QUESTIONS

IS THE BIBLE FILLED WITH CONTRADICTIONS? — BOB PRICHARD

No! Some are quick to claim, “The Bible is filled with contradictions!” This claim, however, has never been proved to be true, and it is a claim that is most often made by those who have little or no knowledge of the Bible. The Bible, as the inspired Word of God, cannot contain any contradictions. What it does contain, however, as might be expected of any literary work, are apparent contradictions, that is, passages that seem to be contradictory, but which are not contradictory at all when properly understood.

There are sometimes differences among Bible passages, but a difference is not the same thing as a contradiction. The Greek philosopher Aristotle defined contradiction: “That the same thing should at the same time both be and not be for the same person and in the same respect is impossible.” A difference would not be a contradiction if the same person was not under consideration, or if the same time period was not used for both, or if the language was not employed in the same sense.

Proverbs 26:4-5 demonstrates the principle. It gives the advice, “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.” Is this a contradiction, since one verse says not to answer a fool, and the very next verse says to answer a fool? Not at all. What Solomon was saying with these verses, in the midst of a series of verses dealing with fools, was that sometimes it is better not to even answer a fool, lest one appear to be just as big a fool for answering. But sometimes the fool must be answered so that he will not think he is so wise that he cannot be answered. Whatever the situation, Solomon was saying it will be difficult to deal with a fool!

Because Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all wrote about the events of the life of Christ, there are differences among their accounts. Differences, not contradictions! For example, Mark says that Jesus was crucified at the “third hour” (Mark 15:25); while John says that Jesus was on trial before Pilate at “the sixth hour” (John 19:14). Thus it would appear that either John or Mark is wrong, because John has Jesus on trial three hours after Mark says He was on the cross! But when one understands that John must have used Roman time, with the “sixth hour” being 6:00 a.m., while Mark used Jewish time, with the “third hour” being 9:00 a.m., then the apparent contradiction disappears.

Many other “alleged discrepancies” can be found, but as long as there is a logical way to explain the differences, then the truthfulness of the Bible stands. If we approach the Bible with an open mind and a willingness to accept its truth, we can understand. Many find “errors” in it because they do not approach it openly and honestly. God has communicated His will to us through the Bible. He expects us to understand and obey what it teaches. We can find the answer to apparent contradictions, if we are just diligent enough in our study. “For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints” (1 Corinthians 14:33).

BIBLE, BIBLE QUESTIONS, JESUS CHRIST, MATTHEW

DID THE PROPHETS SAY CHRIST WOULD BE “CALLED A NAZARENE”? — BOB PRICHARD

After describing the birth and early years of the life of Jesus, Matthew tells us that Joseph, having obeyed God by going down to Egypt, returned to Galilee, to Galilee, “and he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene” (Matthew 2:23). There seems to be a problem, however, in that there is no Old Testament prophet who said, “He shall be called a Nazarene,” and the city of Nazareth is never mentioned in the Old Testament.

Some have suggested that Matthew meant a Nazarite, rather than a Nazarene. A Nazarite took vows of holiness, never cutting his hair, avoiding any contact with dead bodies, and generally living a very austere life. Some of the prophets did refer to the holiness of the Messiah, but none said He would be a Nazarite. John the Baptist may well have taken a Nazarite vow, but Jesus, who was called a glutton and a winebibber, and who touched the dead to bring them back to life, would not have been a Nazarite. Surely Matthew understood the difference between a Nazarite, one who had taken a Nazarite vow, and a Nazarene, one who was from the city of Nazareth.

A more likely explanation for Matthew’s statement that “He shall be called a Nazarene” lies in a play on words, specifically the Hebrew word “branch,” that would have been very obvious to the Jewish readers who were the target of his gospel account. Matthew stressed that Jesus was “the son of David, the son of Abraham” (Matthew 1:1), as he showed that Jesus was the fulfillment of the words of the prophets as the One who was the promised Messiah-King. The Hebrew word for “branch,” neser is very similar to the root word of Nazareth. Isaiah had prophesied of the Messiah, “And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots” (Isaiah 11:1). Of this Branch, he said, “the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD” (Isaiah 11:2). The prophet Zechariah said, “Hear now, O Joshua the high priest, thou, and thy fellows that sit before thee: for they are men wondered at: for, behold, I will bring forth my servant the BRANCH” (Zechariah 3:8).

Matthew’s statement, “that which was spoken by the prophets” (2:23), is a general statement, not necessarily indicating that any of the prophets specifically said, “He shall be called a Nazarene.” Elsewhere, when Matthew speaks of fulfilled prophecy, and he has a specific quotation in mind, he names the prophet, or says “the prophet,” rather than “the prophets.” His general statement indicates that a general teaching of the prophets was that the Messiah would be called a Nazarene.

There is significance in being called a Nazarene. To be a called a Nazarene was to be called “from the backwoods,” to be unsophisticated. When Philip told Nathanael, “We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth,” Nathanael commented, “Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?” (John 1:45-46).  Many of the prophets said the Branch, coming from humble beginnings, would be despised and rejected by men. Jesus was treated as a “Nazarene” by the religious authorities of His day.

BIBLE, BIBLE QUESTIONS, JESUS CHRIST, MATTHEW

WAS JESUS BORN IN A HOUSE, AS MATTHEW SAYS, OR IN A STABLE, AS LUKE SAYS? — BOB PRICHARD

Critics of the historical accuracy of the Bible often find what they believe are contradictions among the writers of the gospel accounts because there are some differences between accounts. Remember however, that a difference is not necessarily a contradiction. The differing accounts of Matthew and Luke concerning the Christ child are a good case in point. 

Luke describes the birth of Christ: “Joseph also went up from Galilee … unto Bethlehem to be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child. And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn” (Luke 2:4-7). Matthew described the arrival of the wise men from the East: “When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy. And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh” (Matthew 2:10-11). Mark and John do not discuss the birth of Christ. They surely knew the details, but chose to write about other things.

The apparent contradiction between Luke and Matthew comes about from the preconceptions of the readers. There are many things “everybody knows” about the birth of Christ, which are not so. One of those Bible facts that everyone seems to “know” is that the wise men came on the night that Jesus was born. In fact, the differences between the accounts of Matthew and Luke indicate that it is highly unlikely that the wise men came on the night Christ was born, because Matthew’s account indicates that Joseph, being a good husband and father, had arranged for his family to move from the stable into a house by the time the wise men arrived. While this might have happened the night Christ was born, more than likely they were not able to move into the house for a few days, if not weeks after the birth of Christ. The fact is, Matthew does not give any details of any particular place where Christ was born, except that it was in Bethlehem, in fulfillment of the prophecy of Micah 5:2.  “For thus it is written by the prophet, and thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel” (Matthew 2:5-6).  

The wise men [not kings, despite “We Three Kings”] brought three gifts: gold, frankincense, and myrrh, which were all very precious. It is unlikely that just three men would have traveled this great distance to carry such a costly gift. Most people assume that there were three wise men because there were three gifts, but Matthew does not give any indication of how many wise men there were. It is important in studying the Bible to read what is there, not what we think is there! The Bible is God’s revealed Will to mankind. It is not contradictory. “For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints” (1 Corinthians 14:33).

BIBLE QUESTIONS, CHRISTIAN LIVING

IS IT A LACK OF FAITH TO PRAY MORE THAN ONCE FOR THE SAME THING? — BOB PRICHARD

Concerning a “thorn in the flesh,” Paul wrote, “For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness” (2 Corinthians 12:7-9). He asked the Lord at least three times to remove this problem. Jesus told a parable about an unjust judge who would not properly avenge a widow, until she begged  him repeatedly. He asked, “Shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them? I tell you that he will avenge them speedily” (Luke 18:7-8).

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus emphasized that God wants His children to bring their needs to Him. “Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:  For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?” (Matthew 7:7-11). Asking, seeking, and knocking all suggest being persistent in giving our requests to God. If even sinful human parents know how to meet the needs of their children, how much more can God do what He has promised?

Another parable told of a man seeking help from a friend so that he could feed a late night guest by borrowing three loaves of bread. Jesus said, “Though he will not rise and give him, because he is his friend, yet because of his importunity he will rise and give him as many as he needeth” (Luke 11:8). Friendship was not enough to get the bread from the man, but his importunity (persistence to the point of annoyance) got results. Prayer needs to be persistent, and through our importunity God knows we are serious about our prayer requests.

It is key that we understand that God is sovereign in prayer. He may sometimes answer our prayers with a “Yes,” sometimes with a “No,” and sometimes with a “Not now,” or “Wait awhile.” Even though Paul “besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from” him, the Lord’s answer was, “My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness.” Paul wanted his “thorn” removed, but had to learn to rely on the strength of the Lord, rather than his own strength. His response was, “Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me” (2 Corinthians 12:8-9). When God’s answer is not what we want, we must still trust and obey him.

Many needs in our lives, such as health, safety for our children, and our daily bread continue, and are constant needs. Surely we should be persistent in our prayers for these things. Prayers for God’s forgiveness are different, however. If we have obeyed the gospel of Christ and become Christians, then God has forgiven us of our sins. We need not continue to ask His forgiveness for those sins. When those sins come to mind, we should thank Him for his forgiveness, rather than asking again for the forgiveness that He has already granted because of the sacrifice of Christ for our sins.

BIBLE QUESTIONS, CHRISTIAN LIVING

SHOULD WE KNEEL IN PRAYER? — BOB PRICHARD

Worship that is acceptable to God has always involved the inner and the outer man. Jesus told the Samaritan woman at the well, “the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth” (John 4:23-24). The word translated worship means “to bow down to the earth, to do obeisance before another.” The idea is to show reverence and humility before another. It can refer to bowing before men, such as when Abraham “bowed himself to the people of the land” (Genesis 23:7), but it usually refers to bowing before deity. Mordecai refused to bow before Haman (Esther 3:2). God warned Israel, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them” (Exodus 20:3-5 a). God alone deserves worship today.

The Psalmist says in Psalm 95:6, “O come, let us worship and bow down: let us kneel before the LORD our maker.” This is only direct mention of kneeling for worship in the King James Version, here used synonymously with “bow down” in the parallelism that marked Hebrew poetry. Ephesians 3:14 is a similar passage, where Paul says, “For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,” asking God’s blessings on the Ephesian Christians. Certainly it would be right and proper to kneel for prayer, but it is not the only acceptable posture for prayer.

The usual posture for the Jews to offer prayers to God was to be standing, with uplifted hands. Paul told Timothy, “I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting” (1 Timothy 2:8). Jesus told a parable about a Pharisee and a publican (tax collector), who both went to the temple to pray. “The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.  And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted”  (Luke 18:9-14). Both men stood, but the posture of their hearts was different. Only the publican, who prayed in humility, pleased God.

The outward posture of prayer may reflect something of the inward devotion of the worshiper. Kneeling may help the worshiper feel his need to humbly approach God. Whether a prayer is offered kneeling, standing, or lying down, however, the important issue is the attitude of the heart. “Pray without ceasing. In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you” (1 Thessalonians 5:17-18).

CHRISTIAN LIVING, JAMES, NEW TESTAMENT

MAKING PLANS? — BOB PRICHARD

Croesus, who lived in the sixth century before Christ, was fabled for his wealth. He is the historical source for the legend of Midas, whose touch turned everything to gold. As the king of ancient Lydia, he planned a war against the Persians. When he consulted the oracle at Delphi, he was told that if he went to war, “he would destroy a great empire.” He took this as a green light to fight the Persians, and went to battle. After being decisively defeated, he sent messengers to question the oracle. The answer: “The oracle was right. You did indeed destroy a great empire—your own.”

Croesus, as a pagan, consulted an oracle, which gave him ambiguous advice. His story might have been very different had he consulted the God of heaven, Who actually knows the future.

James warns about making plans without considering God. “Go to now, ye that say, Today or tomorrow we will go into such a city, and continue there a year, and buy and sell, and get gain: Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away. For that ye ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or that. But now ye rejoice in your boastings: all such rejoicing is evil. Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin” (James 4:13-17).

I have always been impressed over the years when people come by to visit and say something like, “We are checking you out, because I am considering taking a new job, and I want to make sure that I will have a faithful congregation to place membership with, before I accept the new job.” Too often Christians don’t even think about what the church will be like where they are moving, or even if there is a faithful congregation.

Whatever plans for the future you are making, make sure that you are including God!

BIBLE QUESTIONS, CHRISTIAN LIVING

WHAT IS THE PROVIDENCE OF GOD — BOB PRICHARD

God is active in our world today. It is unreasonable to think that He would create a world such as ours and then take no interest in it. Paul’s statement, “We know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose” (Romans 8:28), demonstrates His interest in our world. Since this promise must be true, then the real question lies in how God will act to carry this out.

Many believe that the only way God can act in our world is through miracles (acts of direct intervention, above and beyond nature). He does not act through miracles today, however, because with the full revelation of His written word, there is no longer a need for miracles. Paul said miraculous gifts would cease when the perfect revelation of God’s will occurred (see 1 Corinthians 13:8-10; James 1:25). The age of miracles has passed, but God still intervenes through His providence. “Providence” comes from the Latin providentia, meaning foresight. God’s providence is His indirect, non-miraculous support and care of His creation, from its very beginning through eternity. His providence includes not only a general providence over all creation, but also a special providence over His children, such as is demonstrated in the power of prayer (James 5:16).

  We see the difference between miracles, God’s direct intervention, and providence, God’s indirect intervention, by comparing parallel events such as the conception of Christ and the conception of Samuel. The virgin Mary, even before she and Joseph her espoused husband came together, was found “with child of the Holy Ghost,” as Isaiah had prophesied (Matthew 1:18-25). The conception of Christ was thus unique, a miracle, God’s direct intervention in time and history to send the Messiah. On the other hand, Hannah, a righteous woman was barren (unable to have children), so she prayed to God to send her a son. She promised to dedicate the son to His service. Returning home, “Elkanah knew Hannah his wife; and the LORD remembered her. Wherefore it came to pass, when the time was come about after Hannah had conceived, that she bare a son, and called his name Samuel, saying, Because I have asked him of the LORD” (1 Samuel 1:19-20). The conception of Samuel was not a miracle. God, through His providential care, worked through the laws of nature to bring Samuel to Hannah.

In providence, God works “behind the scenes.” We may not realize His providential care until much later. Joseph went from favor in his father’s house to slavery in Potiphar’s house, and from prison to authority in Pharaoh’s palace. Each step of the way he was in God’s providence, although neither he nor his family understood. With the exception of his interpretation of dreams, there was nothing miraculous in the whole chain of events as God providentially preserved His people. As he returned the slave Onesimus to Philemon, Paul said, “perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that thou shouldest receive him for ever” (Philemon 1:15). Paul realized that “perhaps” it was God’s providence. God continues his providential care of His children.

BIBLE QUESTIONS, CHRISTIAN LIVING

WHAT IS RELIGIOUS PREJUDICE? — BOB PRICHARD

Prejudice is one of the great problems of mankind. War in Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Israel and Gaza, and many other places is primarily over religious prejudice. The root idea of prejudice is to “pre-judge” someone or something, without considering all the evidence. Prejudice results when someone decides “all” are “like this” because a “few” are. Prejudice comes because someone has the attitude, “my mind is made up, don’t confuse me with the facts.” Race, gender, size, religion, or just about any other distinguishing characteristic may be the basis for prejudice. The basic idea is that “we” are better, and “they” are not as good.

The Jews of Christ’s time had an attitude of racial and religious prejudice toward the Samaritans. It was almost beyond the belief of  Christ’s Jewish listeners that there could possibly be a “good Samaritan.” The Samaritan woman at the well acknowledged the division, “for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans” (John 4:9). Jesus offered her “living water” that would bring unity to the Jew, the Samaritan, and the Gentile as well. “The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him” (John 4:23).  

Jesus came to unite all “true worshippers” who would “worship the Father in spirit and in truth.” By seeking true worshippers, He frequently challenged the religious authorities. “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows’ houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation” (Matthew 23:13-14). He called the Pharisees “hypocrites” so often that “Pharisee” and “hypocrite” are almost synonymous to us. The Pharisees were the most religious of all the sects of the Jews, but they had lost sight of God’s will. Was Jesus “prejudiced” against the Pharisees because he criticized them? No! He had not “pre-judged” them, but He knew what they were teaching and doing, so he condemned them.

In our religious world, some think that any criticism of what any religious group teaches or practices is “religious prejudice.” It seems that we have reached the point that people can do anything in the name of religion, and because of cries of “religious prejudice,” we should never compare their religious practices to what the Bible says. Criticism that is “pre-judged,” not based on a right consideration of all the evidence is wrong, but too often the “standard” is what men like or dislike, rather than what God has said through His written Word. Jesus said, “He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day” (John 12:48). To say, “this religious group teaches or practices such and such a doctrine, but the Bible says this,” is not religious prejudice. We must be sure that our facts are right, and that we do not misapply or mishandle the Word, but we also must make sure that we abide by what it teaches. We risk our souls if we disregard God’s will.

BIBLE QUESTIONS, CHRISTIAN LIVING

 HOW DO WE HATE THE SIN BUT LOVE THE SINNER? — BOB PRICHARD

Sin is the universal tragedy of mankind. Paul reminds us, “all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). Sin’s consequences are severe, for “the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23). Man would be hopeless if it were not also true that “the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Romans 6:23). Because the sin and the sinner become so closely tied together, and because of the seriousness of sin and its consequences, it is hard to love the sinner while hating the sin. 

The only way to properly hate the sin and love the sinner is to follow the example of Christ. His love for the sinner is unquestioned. He submitted to the Father’s plan by going to the cross, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:16). Christ was willing to endure the shame and pain of the cross because of His love for sinners. As He cried out, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46), He was feeling the pain of separation from the heavenly Father because of mankind’s sins. He knew though, that His mission was to seek out sinners, “For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost” (Luke 19:10).

The scribes and Pharisees brought a woman taken in the very act of adultery to Jesus, trying to tempt Him. They said, “Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?” As they “continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” It was not long until only the woman remained, and He asked her, “Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?” When she answered, “No man, Lord,” He said, “Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more” (John 8:3-11). Jesus did not make light of her sin, but called her to a higher standard. “Go, and sin no more” demonstrated His hatred of sin while loving the sinner.

Christ reserved His harshest words for those who willingly rejected His message of truth. He told them, “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.  And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not” (John 8:44-45). They were unwilling to accept the truth He preached, and unwilling to repent of their sins. God’s message to those deceived by Satan is a message of reconciliation. “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation” (2 Corinthians 5:19). That message of reconciliation is a message of love for the sinner, while hating his sinful deeds. The Great Physician has said, “They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick” (Matthew 9:12). We must hate the evil deeds of sinners, but offer reconciliation to those sin sick souls that are willing to return to God in obedience.

BIBLE QUESTIONS, CHURCH

WHAT IS “THE LORD’S DAY”? — BOB PRICHARD

David reminds us that “the earth is the LORD’S, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein” (Psalm 24:1). All that we have belongs to the Lord, including the days of the week. But in Revelation 1:10, John speaks of a special day he calls the Lord’s day. “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet.” Being “in the Spirit on the Lord’s day” allowed John to receive the Revelation from the Lord of those “things which must shortly come to pass” (Revelation 1:1).

The world of the early church was one in which many had to make a conscious and often life threatening decision. Would they say “Caesar is Lord,” or “Christ is Lord”?  Recognizing that there is “one Lord” (Ephesians 4:5), they knew that there was only one choice: to follow Christ and to do all in His name. “Whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him” (Colossians 3:17). Thus Christians partake of the Lord’s supper (1 Corinthians 11:20) in the name of the Lord on the Lord’s day.

While the designation, “the Lord’s day” is found only in Revelation 1:10, the concept of a day set aside for Christian worship is found from the very beginning of the church, as the early disciples met on the first day of the week. Jesus lived and died under the Old Covenant, and kept and obeyed the laws of the Sabbath, or seventh day of the week. Paul and other disciples went into the Jewish synagogues on the Sabbath day to reason with the Jews about the Christ (Acts 13; 17), but the church did not worship on the Sabbath day. Paul was usually expelled from the synagogues as opposition to his teachings grew, so we know that those Sabbath gatherings of Jews (and some Gentiles) were not meetings of the church.

The pattern of first day worship was established with the resurrection of Christ from the dead on the first day of the week (Luke 24:1). Most, if not all of the post-resurrection appearances of Christ were on the first day of the week. Christ appeared in the midst of the disciples on the first day of the week, the resurrection day (John 20:19), and then again “after eight days” (John 20:26), meaning the next first day of the week, when the previously absent Thomas became a believer in the resurrection. Even as Paul hurried to be in Jerusalem by the day of Pentecost (Acts 20:16), he stopped in Troas to meet with the Christians there, “where we abode seven days” (Acts 20:6). Even though a Sabbath day must have passed during those seven days, the next verse says, “And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight” (Acts 20:7). That gathering on the first day of the week was a gathering on the Lord’s day by the Christians of Troas and Paul and the other traveling Christians. The scriptures also speak many times of “the day of the Lord”  referring to a day of judgment by the Lord, but this is an entirely different word than “the Lord’s day.”

BIBLE QUESTIONS, CHURCH, JOHN

ARE THE DENOMINATIONS BRANCHES OF THE TRUE VINE? — BOB PRICHARD

As Jesus prepared His apostles for His departure, He told them the parable of the vine and the branches. He had just instituted the Lord’s Supper, with the elements of the bread and the fruit of the vine, so the picture of the vine and the branches would have been very clear to the disciples. Jesus immediately identified Himself as the vine: “I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman” (John 15:1). Having identified Himself as the vine, He identified the work of the branches as that of bearing fruit, warning that the husbandman takes away unfruitful branches. “Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit” (John 15:2).

Some suggest that this parable is a picture of the contemporary church, with all the various denominations and sects coming together to form the Lord’s church. It is sometimes shown in the form of a tree, with various branches depicting the way in which different religious groups have grown out of one another. The text reveals, however, that the branches are not the different religious sects of “Christendom,” but instead are individual Christians.

Jesus was speaking in John 15 to the apostles, individuals, not religious groups. Notice the emphasis on what the individual disciple must do. “I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned. If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you. Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples” (John 15:5-8). Jesus told the disciples, “ye are the branches,” and “if a man abide not in me.” The branches are people, not churches!

The branches must bear fruit for the husbandman. The fruitfulness that the Lord wants, which is the product of a Christian life, comes only from abiding in Christ. The branch cannot bear fruit of itself, “for without me ye can do nothing” (John 15:4-5). What we can do in Christ, however, is unlimited. “I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me” (Philippians 4:13). The key is to be in Christ, abiding in Him. Paul said, “as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Galatians 3:27).

Christ did not want His followers to be divided among the various religious groups and denominations. As He prepared for the cross, He prayed, “Neither pray I for these alone [the apostles], but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me” (John 17:20-21). He wanted all who believe the testimony of the apostles to be united.