Salvation for Women

Are Women Saved Through Childbirth?

Q. My question has to do with 1 Timothy 2:8-15 and in particular verse 15. As I was reading this morning, I read my wife this passage and she looked a me in amazement and with a resounding “what do you mean saved through childbearing?”. Now I know we are all saved by first believing in Jesus by grace through faith and nothing else. So does this verse have another meaning to being saved?

Could childbearing give inference to “spiritual children”(plural)? Or does it mean that women from Eve to now will be saved by the “childbearing” of Jesus(singular)? The verse says “she will be saved” and then “if they continue”, which goes from singular to plural. This verse also seems a bit “conditional” in that women must “work” at something in order to be saved. I don’t think that’s what its saying, but it just “looks” that way. And as always, I look forward to your answers!

A. First of all, on its face 1 Tim. 2:15 appears to be a contradiction of everything we know the Bible says about salvation. Therefore, since the Bible can’t contradict itself, our initial understanding has to be incorrect.

It appears the problem was created when English translations began omitting the article “the” before childbearing. Today most English translations don’t have it. But this omission changes the meaning of the passage from “women, like men, will be saved through the birth of the Child if they come to Him in faith,” as I believe Paul originally intended it, to “women will be saved in a different manner than men by having children and behaving correctly”. Such a change puts this one verse in opposition to every other verse in the Bible that deals with salvation, and can not be correct.

I believe Young’s Literal Translation (YLT) has the correct translation of 1 Tim. 2:15.

“and she shall be saved through the child-bearing, if they remain in faith, and love, and sanctification, with sobriety”.

Further more, Paul’s own statement in Gal 3:26-29 indicates that where salvation is concerned there’s no difference between men and women. As for the switch from singular to plural, since Eve was the woman in view in the previous verses, it implies that from the first woman to the last, salvation is by faith in the Child who was born.

Remaining in faith means to rely on their faith alone, with love, sanctification, and sobriety being the proper expressions of gratitude for their salvation, as it is with men.

Website: www.gracethrufaith.com

Take responsibility for your behaviour

An Illustration of James 1:15

Q. Could you please give me an illustration for this verse, James 1:15 - "Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death." I mean how do you explain this verse. I find it not easy though it seems easy.

A. James was talking about taking responsibility for our sins. He said we can’t accuse God of tempting us because He is neither tempted by evil nor does He tempt anyone else. (James 1:13) In verse 14 he said we are enticed to sin because of our own evil desires, which cause lustful thoughts. When these thoughts are given consideration they become sin, which under the Law is punishable by death. (James 1:15)

To illustrate, say I’m walking down the street when I see a beautiful woman coming toward me. This woman is not my wife but I find her desirable to look at just the same. If I entertain even a momentary thought on what it might be like to become sexually involved with her, I’ve committed the sin of adultery which is punishable by death.

Can I blame God for making the woman so attractive, or for causing her to cross my path, or for making me a healthy man with human desires? No. I can only blame myself for entertaining such a thought about a woman I’m not married to.

This is one of the illustrations Jesus used in Matt. 5-6 to show us the need for a Savior, because it’s impossible for us always avoid doing thing like this. And the same is true of an angry thought, or an envious one, or an untruthful one.

James was making the point that we can’t blame God when we succumb to the temptations of this world. From other passages we know that Jesus died for all our sins so we won’t have to. (Col. 2:13-15) And even after we’re saved, when we take responsibility for our sins and confess them as such, God is just and faithful to forgive us and will purify us from all unrighteousness (1 John 1:9) so we won’t become estranged from Him.

Website : www.gracethrufaith.com

Water Baptism

Is Baptism Necessary For Salvation?

Q. My intention here is not to be insulting, but you are cherry-picking. Jesus established the minimum requirement when he said in Mark 16:16 that you must believe and be baptized. So what gives with your explanation? Belief is to be active; you must apply some action for faith without works is dead! I’m glad you mention John 3:16 because it flows from what Jesus said in 3:5 “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. This “water” birth Jesus speaks of is baptism. None other!

A. By saying I’m cherry picking, I assume you’re referring to my use of John 6:28-29 to support my view that belief is the only requirement for salvation. Do you realize that you’re also implying that Jesus was less than honest with the people who had asked the question “What is the work that God requires?” If ever He had an opportunity to lay out clearly everything that God needs from us, that was it. All He said was, “The work of God is this. Believe in the One He has sent.” If you’re right about the necessity for baptism to assure salvation, then Jesus didn’t tell them the full story, the thief on the cross didn’t go to paradise, and Paul was also wrong in Romans 10:9-10, 13 and in 1 Cor. 1:13-17 when he said the Lord didn’t call him to baptize people but to preach the Gospel.

You’ve misinterpreted James on the issue of faith without works being dead. He was saying that true faith will manifest itself in works, not that works must be added to faith to make it real.

I also think you’ve interpreted John 3:5 incorrectly. Remember the context is being born again. Being born of water is our first birth, the physical birth from our mother’s womb and the birth water that surrounded us. Being born again is when we’re born of the Spirit. It’s our second birth. Baptism is not in view in this passage.

Don’t get me wrong. I support baptism as the public confirmation of a private decision, but I don’t believe the Lord intended it to be essential for salvation.

Website: www.gracethrufaith.com

Questions on 1 John?

A Question On 1 John

Q. 1 John 4:1-3 admonishes us to “not believe every spirit… but to test the spirits.” Further, “every spirit” is of God if it confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh.

What are those “spirits” we are to test? Am I correct in assuming that the “spirits” we are to test are the message a speaker or writer promulgates? That a speaker/writer who denies the divinity of Jesus is not of God?

What does it mean to deny that Christ has “come in the flesh”? Surely it’s not something so simplistic as to deny the existence of the historical Jesus — a position that very few scholars espouse today. If not, however, what does it mean?

In a chance encounter, or even in a theological discussion, somehow I can’t imagine asking another person, “Has Jesus Christ come in the flesh?” What “modern” question can one use to “test a spirit” in a speaker or writer?

A. 1 John is directed specifically against a false teaching that would become known as the Gnostic Error. Their main contention was that divinity (being pure) and humanity (being sinful) could not possibly co-exist in the same body. Therefore if Jesus was human He couldn’t have been God and couldn’t have died for us.

I think the phrase “come in the flesh” is an abbreviation John used referring to the fact that God became man and dwelt among us in order to die for our sins, and whoever believes this is given the authority to become a child of God and will have eternal life. He said those who deny this are not of God, and of course the Gnostic teachers denied this (and still do).

Another Question About 1 John

Q. Please explain 1 John 5:8 and, if you could, 1 John 5:16-18…. sin leading to death and not leading to death. Thanks for your supernatural insight.

A. 1 John 5:7-8 is a controversial passage over which bitter arguments are held. Some say the part of the passage which reads, “in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one” never appeared in any early manuscript and was added in the 1500’s at the insistence of the Catholic Church. Others claim the reason it can’t be found in early manuscripts is because it was removed by people opposed to the doctrine of the Trinity. To me it’s an argument that leads nowhere, because neither side can offer conclusive proof to support their position.

In my opinion there is plenty of evidence for the Trinity in the Bible without getting stuck on the authenticity of one verse. For example, you only have to read Genesis 1:1-2 and John 1:1-2 to see the three persons of the Trinity present from the moment of Creation. And a careful reading of the New Testament will confirm that all three are said to dwell within every believer.

As for 1 John 5:16-18 we’re responsible to pray for a believer we observe in the commission of a sin, asking the Lord to forgive him. The exception is a sin that leads to death. The only such sin is to deny that Jesus died for us. There’s no forgiveness for that. I believe that John was referring specifically to those who followed the Gnostic teaching of the day denying the deity of Jesus and saying that being a mere human He couldn’t have died for our sins.

Website: www.gracethrufaith.com

Tithing? Follow Up

New Testament Tithing, Follow Up

Q. If, as you say, tithing is a minimum standard, where in the NT does it say that the minimum standard is 10%?

The purpose of biblical tithing in the OT was to support the Levites, who were not allowed possess any property on which they could raise any stock or crops. Tithing, in essence, was food for the Levites. What is the purpose of NT tithing, since there is no temple and no Levitical priesthood to receive the tithe?

A. Your insistence that I provide a New Testament commandment to tithe seems to indicate you believe it was part of the Law, to which New Testament believers are not obligated. But in truth the concept of giving to the Lord 10% of our increase predates the giving of the Law by nearly 1000 years. Abraham paid a tithe to Melchizedek (Genesis 14:20), and Jacob adopted the practice as well (Genesis 28:22). At the time there was no Temple, no priesthood, and no Law. They didn’t do this out of obedience to the Law but out of gratitude for the blessings they received. This is where the 10% standard originated, not at Mt. Sinai. The principle of tithing was was confirmed in the Law but did not originate there.

As you already know, there is no New Testament commandment to tithe, but this is beside the point as well. I try to demonstrate in my teaching that tithing out of a feeling of obligation to the Law is not Biblical and never has been. Unless we feel a genuine gratitude for what the Lord has done for us, our tithing is for naught. But when we tithe out of gratitude, we’re blessed beyond all measure, and according to Matt. 6:19-21 those blessings are not just for this world but follow us into the next one as well. It’s a way we store up treasure in Heaven.

As to where you tithe, pick a place. There are countless opportunities to pitch in and help with the work of the Kingdom. You don’t need to give to a church or even a para-church ministry. If you prefer, you can distribute your gifts directly to those in need. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret will reward you (Matt. 6:4)

What puzzles me most about all this is why you and others argue so passionately against something the Lord designed to be one of His greatest blessings, perhaps second only to our salvation.

To learn more about the Biblical basis for tithing and how the Church changed it, click here

Another Tithing Question

Q. I have read various articles regarding the Tithe and have found that the New Testament does not include tithing like it is in the Old Testament and especially the way it is explained in Malachi. Jesus has redeemed us from the curse of the law and tithing is in the law. Jesus taught to give as you purpose in your heart not grudgingly or of necessity.

This means that all that we have belongs to God and we are stewards of these things. The way we handle these things will determine our love towards God. The new covenant in Christ is “what is yours is mine and what is mine is yours”. Is it correct then to say that 10% should not be preached but rather that all is Gods and not only the 10%. By doing this, if God wants us to give all we have, then we need to do so because of the covenant we have with him.

A. Those are lofty thoughts and that’s the way things should work. But the sad truth is that in America over 40% of born again Christians never give anything. I think that’s because giving is always taught as an obligation rather than an expression of gratitude. This is why so many well intended folks do research to prove that tithing is not a New Testament requirement. We all resent being told that we have to give, and being “guilted” into doing it, so we try to get by with giving as little as possible. This makes us stingy givers, and not the cheerful ones the Lord loves.

If the Church had focused on all the blessings that come from giving that the Bible teaches about, there would be more than enough to go around. I don’t know of anyone who understands the Biblical basis for tithing (and the rewards that come from doing so) then decides to stop doing it. It would simply be too expensive.

Here’s what the New Testament says about giving. The Lord loves a cheerful giver (2 Cor. 9:7), and will use our level of giving to determine our level of blessing (Luke 6:38). Where ever He finds generous givers He will will make them rich in every way so they can be even more generous (2 Cor. 9:11). But it’s not meant to be an obligation. It’s meant to be an expression of gratitude. 10% is simply the amount the Lord established as the standard. Under 10% is being stingy, over 10% is being generous.

Do I Have To Tithe On Gifts?

Q. I was told to tithe off of gifts too. Is this biblical? I tithe off of my gross & also give offerings. I thought tithing was off of your “income” (ex. paychecks, investment profits) but I’ve never heard it taught where you also tithe off of gifts. I do not want to be under a curse, please give me your views.

Also, if I get a scholarship award for schooling, am I to tithe off of that even if the total went to the school & I received no money personally? Thank you so much for your time!

A. You’re already doing better than most, but you’re missing the point. Tithing isn’t something you do because you have to do, it’s something you do out of gratitude for what God has done for you. And the more generous you are with Him the more generous He will be with you. (Luke 6:38)

If you get a scholarship, doesn’t that reduce your tuition, thereby saving you having to spend your own money? Therefore, don’t you wind up with more money than you would have had otherwise?

Try looking for opportunities to give and do it even if you don’t feel you need to. As long as your attitude is one of gratitude, and not obligation, God will more than reimburse you. This way you’ll see 2 Cor. 9:11 come true for you. “You’ll be made rich in every way so you can be generous on every occasion.”

Should I Tithe On My Gross Or Net Pay?

Q. With all the questions about tithing I’ve managed to come up with one of my own. When we tithe, should we tithe the 10% off of our gross or net pay? I’ve never really ever considered the money that the government takes from me as mine to begin with and never felt the compulsion to tithe off of it, but I just wanted to get your insight on the subject.

A. The sheep herder in Israel didn’t deduct the cost of feeding his sheep, or the value of the wool he didn’t get to harvest and sell on the sheep he contributed, or take a depletion allowance because wild animals ate a portion of his flock every year. When it came time to pay his tithe, he counted off every tenth lamb that had been born that year and gave it to the Lord.

Having spent most of my life in my own business, I know that there’s a big difference between what a person earns and what he gets to keep. But when I began tithing, I decided to tithe off my company’s gross receipts, before deducting any expenses at all. I know that I could have deducted a lot of my gross for expenses, like I did for tax purposes, because it wasn’t really my money. But Luke 6:38 says that with the measure you use it will be measured to you, and 2 Cor. 9:11 says that God would make us rich in every way so that we could be generous on every occasion, so I decided to be like the sheep herder and err on the side of generosity. I’ve always been glad I did because I’ve learned that you can’t out give the Lord.

Website: www.gracethrufaith.com

Wine or Juice?

Is Drinking Wine Forbidden?

Q. How do you interpret Proverbs 23:34 and reconcile it with it being okay to drink alcoholic beverages? It seems if one should not even look upon wine when it is fermented (as Proverbs 23:34 says, and I believe this means to look upon in in the light of desiring to drink it), then God does not want us to drink it at all because of the sin and degradation it leads one into.

Many go to the wedding feast where Jesus turned the water into wine to justify drinking alcoholic beverages because if it wasn’t okay then surely Jesus would not have turned water into wine. But has anyone thought it possible the water that Jesus turned to wine was not fermented wine? In light of Proverbs 23:34, I believe Jesus turned the water into the pure juice of the vine (not fermented). Otherwise, Jesus has contradicted His own words. I don’t believe Jesus would do something God said not to do. I don’t believe Jesus would have provided fermented wine to those at the wedding feast knowing there would be some who would consume too much and end up drunk and committing other sins that drunkenness leads to. If that were the case, then Jesus himself would have been a stumbling block and a hypocrite.

Paul said it was okay to “take a little wine for thy stomach’s sake” (medicinal purposes). I believe that would be the only occasion to take of alcohol during biblical times. Now days we have so much “medicine” for various illnesses that does not contain alcohol that there is no excuse to consume alcohol in any form.

Can you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jesus turned the water into (fermented) wine?

A. The Bible repeatedly warns of the dangers in drinking too much and its first mention of wine described the sorry outcome of Noah’s drunkenness. (Genesis 9:20-27) But it doesn’t forbid drinking.

Proverbs 23:29-35 refers to someone who drinks too much, a drunk. This is indicated by the fact that the writer describes someone who lingers over wine (vs. 30), has hallucinations while drinking (vs. 33), feels no pain even when beaten, and whose first thought upon regaining consciousness is for another drink (vs. 35).

As for the wedding feast, the master of the feast complimented the wine Jesus provided as being superior to the wine the groom served. Jesus drank wine (Luke 7:34) and at the Last Supper gave some to His disciples.

As for proof, in John 2 the Bible says wine, not juice. The primary dictionary definition of wine is “the fermented juice of grapes, made in many varieties, such as red, white, sweet, dry, still, and sparkling, for use as a beverage, in cooking, in religious rites, etc., and usually having an alcoholic content of 14 percent or less.” The Greek word John used appears 32 times in the New Testament and is translated wine every time. On the two occasions when the Bible refers to wine that hasn’t had time to ferment, it always adds the prefix “new”. That’s good enough for me.

While I agree with your sentiments about the dangers of drunkenness, we can’t re-interpret the Bible to accommodate them.

Is Alcohol A Sin?

Q. I was brought up to believe that there are two forms of Wine in the bible. One that is alcoholic and one that is not. Talking to a friend recently, he believes that it is not a sin if it is used casually, and you’re not getting drunk. So the question is: Is alcohol a sin? Could you provide me with verses that tells us that there are 2 different forms of Wine in the Bible. Thank you. I really like your site, and plan to visit it often.

A. The Bible contains 238 references to wine, new wine, sour wine and wine vinegar. We presume that new wine had not yet fermented and therefore was non-alcoholic.

The drinking of wine and other alcoholic beverages is mentioned through out the Bible in such a way that God could not have considered it a sin. He authorized the Israelites to use their tithe money to buy wine or other fermented drink in celebrating the Fall Feast. (Deut. 14:24-26)

Ecclesiastes 9:7 says, ” Go, eat your food with gladness, and drink your wine with a joyful heart, for it is now that God favors what you do”.

During the Wedding at Cana (John 2:1-11) Jesus turned water into wine for the wedding banquet. Whether Jesus drank any Himself or not is irrelevant. He couldn’t have provided wine for the guests if it was a sin to drink it. (James 1:13) In Matt. 11:18-19 He said people accused Him of being a glutton and a drunkard because He did enjoy food and drink. He was obviously referring to fermented drink.

Paul encouraged Timothy to have a glass of wine for his stomach problems (1 Tim. 5:23)

The danger is in misusing alcohol to a point where our inhibitions are relaxed causing us to sin in ways we wouldn’t if sober.

Should We Consume Alcohol Or Not?

Q. My question is on Alcohol. I get really confused on whether we should consume alcohol or not. I know drunkenness is a no no and is not an issue for me, but I do like a beer every now and then. Should I feel guilty about doing this?

Also if you could explain the wine/new wine issue. I’ve heard some preachers say it was grape juice, but isn’t there a verse that says don’t get drunk on new wine? Great site by the way.

A. There is no Biblical prohibition against wine or any other fermented drink. As you say, the problem is with drunkenness. The Lord authorized using tithe money to purchase wine or other fermented drinks for the Feast of Tabernacles. (Deut. 14:24-26) And Paul cautioned us to avoid causing a weaker brother to stumble by drinking in the presence of one who can’t handle alcohol or feels that drinking is wrong. (1 Cor. 10:31-33) By this he was implying that drinking was OK under the right circumstances.

Wine Or Juice?

Q. Some Christians believe it is a sin to drink wine, and that whenever the Bible refers to wine, it really meant grape juice. I always thought that new wine was juice, and “wine” meant just that. We know that Jesus turned water into wine, and Col. 2:16 tells us not to let another judge us in food or drink. Can you please clarify this?

A. The sin in drinking is drinking too much. The water Jesus turned into wine at Cana was so good that the master of the banquet thought it better than the wine the groom’s father had provided. The Lord authorized the Israelites to use their tithe money to buy wine or other fermented drink for their Feast of Tabernacles celebration. (Deut. 14:26)

It’s not a sin to drink, but we are admonished not to drink in the presence of someone who has an alcohol problem, or who would be put off by it. (1 Cor. 10:31-32) The safest thing to do if you’re going to have a drink is to have it at home. Then you don’t run the risk of offending someone.

Was It Wine Or Juice?

Q. Did Jesus create wine at the wedding, saving the best for last? Or did he create Grape Juice out of water? Its my opinion that he made wine. What’s yours?

A. Either way it would have been a miracle, but the closest thing to grape juice back then was something called “new wine” or “sour wine.” It was imbibed primarily as a thirst quencher since as it’s name implies it was decidedly tart. The wine served at weddings on the other hand was a fermented drink, and therefore sweeter, meant to help the guests feel and express their joy at the new couple’s union. By his comments in John 2:10, the Master of the Banquet identifies the results of the Lord’s miracle as not only wine, but wine of the finest quality.

Website: www.gracethrufaith.com

Love or Hate, So What is Jesus Saying?

Love ‘Em Or Hate ‘Em. Which Is It?

Q. I am a bit confused about Luke 14:26 “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.” KJV. And yet we are told to love one another. Cheers I really enjoy your site.

A. The Lord was using a vivid bit of hyperbole here, in effect saying that we must love the Lord so much that by comparison it’s as if we hated those closest to us. We are commanded to love one another, but we must love Him more. Any why not? Which of our friends or family would do for us, even if they could, what the Lord has done?

Website: www.gracethrufaith.com

Self-Defence

Was The Lord Condoning Self Defense?

Q. Re Luke 22:36: “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one

Would you please explain this verse about buying a sword? Is Jesus condoning self defense?

A. I think the Lord was warning the disciples that the times were changing. Before, He sent them out without anything and they were sustained through the generosity of the people. But now, knowing His death was near and there would be a concerted effort to eliminate all of His followers, He was warning them that they’d have to be prepared to take care of themselves.

Many scholars feel that because of other comments He made, such as when he rebuked Peter for attacking the High Priest’s servant and said that those who live by the sword will die by the sword, He was using extreme language to alert them and wasn’t suggesting that they prepare to defend themselves. Even with swords and the training to use them properly, they would have been hopelessly outnumbered.

This view is confirmed in the verses following. When they showed them the 2 swords they already had, He said “That’s enough.” (Luke 22:38) He wouldn’t have said that if He was actually telling them to buy weapons and prepare to defend themselves.

Is Self Defense All Right?

Q. I was watching the news, and learned of a church’s pastor who was robbed at knife-point. He told the news reporter that we should not return evil for evil, maintaining his passive view.

I have always believed that we have the right to self defense. Some say Jesus was a pacifist. But doesn’t fly with me, because He cleared the Temple of moneychangers and livestock with a whip fashioned from ropes. He also told the disciples to sell their coats to buy swords for self-defense. What does the Bible say about self defense of one’s life, family, and property?

A. Jesus told us told us to be peacemakers and promised a special blessing to those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake (Matt.5:9-10). He said to “turn the other cheek” and to give more than is required of us (Matt. 5:39-40).

Romans 12:17-17, from which the pastor took his quote, says,

Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord.

In Luke 22:36-38 the dialog about selling their cloaks to buy swords was not meant to be taken literally. The Lord was comparing the peaceful missionary trips the disciples had taken in the past with the ones that would come. We know this because when they showed Him the two swords they already had, he said, “That is enough.”

Later He rebuked Peter for using his sword against the soldiers sent to arrest Him, (Matt. 26:52) and there’s no record of any disciple using force to defend himself against attack. Paul was regularly beaten but never defended himself, and every disciple except John was put to death by force, as were countless other martyrs.

From these passages it appears that He wants us to act like He did when confronted by violence. In the pastor’s case only money was demanded, and I think the pastor’s response was correct.

My guess is that the Lord quickly replaced the stolen money, because what He wants is for us to depend on Him for everything.

As for cleansing the Temple, remember that He is God, and He does reserve the right to take vengeance.

Website: www.gracethrufaith.com

How many times Jesus was anointed by people?

Anointing The Lord

Q. I have learned so much from your site. Thank you. I have a question about the woman that came to where Jesus was and bathed his feet/head. Matt 26:1-13 States that Jesus was dining at the home of Simon the leper when a woman came in and bathed His head with fine oils and perfume. In Mark 14:1-9 again it’s recorded that at the house of Simon the leper that a woman came in and bathed his head.

In Luke 7:36-50 while Jesus was at the home of a Pharisee named Simon that a woman of the streets (possibly Mary Magdalene) came and bathed His feet, cried and wiped her tears with her hair. In John 12:1-3 John wrote that Mary, the sister of Martha had washed the feet of Jesus and there was no mention of Simon. Is this the same story written in different ways from each other or does this happen at different times? Mary, Martha’s sister wouldn’t have been considered a woman of the streets. Also Was a leper allowed to be a Pharisee? Thanks for your answer. I always look forward to GraceThruFaith each day. Please keep up the wonderful work you are doing.

A. The woman at the home of Simon the Pharisee who washed the Lord’s feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair (Luke 7:36-50) was probably Mary Magdalene, although she was not named in Luke’s account. Luke’s is the only gospel to record this event, which was a social one (similar to a dinner party of today) and took place early in the Lord’s ministry.

Matthew, Mark, and John mention only the anointing at Bethany, which happened a few days before the crucifixion. It was done at the home of Simon the Leper, the father of Lazarus, Mary and Martha. According to John 12:3 Mary was the sister who anointed the Lord with oil during a private dinner attended only by the Lord, Simon’s family, and the disciples .

Comparing the timing, the location, and other differences, you can see that the anointing in Luke was not the same event as the one in the other gospels.

Website: www.gracethrufaith.com

Church and Israel

How Many Wives Are There?

Q. In your Isaiah study, you quoted:

“Do not be afraid; you will not suffer shame. Do not fear disgrace; you will not be humiliated. You will forget the shame of your youth and remember no more the reproach of your widowhood. For your Maker is your husband— the LORD Almighty is his name—the Holy One of Israel is your Redeemer; he is called the God of all the earth. The LORD will call you back as if you were a wife deserted and distressed in spirit— a wife who married young, only to be rejected,” says your God. (Isaiah 54:4-6)

I thought only the Church was the Bride of Christ. Does this also apply to Israel?

A. The Church is called the virgin bride of Christ, while Israel is referred to as the adulterous wife of God. These are euphemisms meant to symbolize the difference between the Old Covenant, which was based on works, with the New covenant, which is based on Grace.

Under the Old covenant, God was forced to divorce Israel because of spiritual adultery. (Jeremiah 3:8) Though the Church is no better behaved, the cross allows the Lord to see us as if we’ve never sinned. (Ephes. 5:25-27) Once Israel recognizes their Messiah, the same grace will apply and like Isaiah 54:4-6 says the estrangement will end.

Website: www.gracethrufaith.com

Temple Cleansing

One Temple Cleansing Or Two?

Q. In our weekly Bible study, a discussion arose about the cleansing of the temple by Jesus. One of the individuals in the study said that there are two separate instances where Jesus cleanses the temple. He sited the synoptic gospels as one account, and John’s as a separate account. Is there only one time when Jesus cleansed the temple or were there two? If there is only one, how do I explain to my brother they are all the same account?

A. First realize that none of the Gospel accounts carries more than one Temple cleansing. Logic tells us that if there were multiple cleansings, at least one of the gospel writers would have said so.

Second, none of the gospel writers set out to write a purely historical account. They all wrote to different audiences and sometimes they moved events around to help them make their point. For instance, Matthew put the cleansing on Palm Sunday, but Mark has it the next day in order to place it between the two incidents involving the withered fig tree. The fig tree symbolizes Israel appearing to be alive but bearing no fruit, because its roots were dead, meaning they were no longer connected to God. Putting the Temple cleansing between the two references helps illuminate that fact.

Out of everything Jesus did, John chose only 7 miracles, 7 “I am” statements, and 7 discourses. In essence his gospel covers only 21 days out of the Lord’s 3.5 year ministry, and spends 10 chapters on the last week. He put the Temple cleansing right after the wedding in Cana to contrast the pure relationship the Lord wants with the corrupt religion man had produced.

Both Gospel writers wanted to demonstrate the inadequacy of the religious system and positioned the Temple cleansing to best support their view.

Website: www.gracethrufaith.com