Central Church - Who We Are

Question: I keep hearing that the Bible references Islam before it split from Judaism in the Old Testament. Is that for real, and, where can I find it? It seems like there's a chance to heal that breach, and the answer is in the Bible somewhere. Just like witnessing to Jews, only more difficult.

Answer: Islam did not start until roughly 600 A.D. You're probably thinking about how Ishmael and Isaac were separated in a sense as they each fathered separate nations. Ishmael was removed from Abraham's family when Isaac was identified as the child of promise from God to Abraham and Sarah. Muslims argue that Ishmael was the favored child and meant for the greater destiny, i.e., Islam. In fact, they teach that it was Ishmael and not Isaac who was offered as a sacrifice before God provided a substitute animal. But check out Genesis 21 and 22.

Randall Johnson

Question: What does the Apostle's Creed mean when it says that Jesus descended into Hell?

Answer: Sometimes the word "hell" has been used to designate the place of the dead (alternatively called Sheol or Hades). Jesus indicates in Luke 16:19-31 that there are two areas in the place of the dead, one a place of torment and the other a place of comfort ("Abraham's bosom"). Another name for this place of comfort is "Paradise". Jesus told the thief on the cross who believed, that he would be with him in Paradise that day. That means that Jesus' spirit went to the place of comfort, Abraham's bosom, or Paradise immediately upon death. What he did there we do not know, but when he ascended into heaven he must have taken all the believers with him, because now when believers die their spirits go immediately to Jesus in heaven (2 Cor. 5:6-8; Phil. 1:21-24).

Randall Johnson

Question: I'm curious if you have a line on the original Hebrew text for Exodus 20:13 which states "Thou shalt not kill" (KJV) vs "You shall not murder" (NIV)?

I had an interesting chat at Christmas with a family member who takes the literal meaning of the "Thou shalt not kill" version. For what it is worth, he had killed people in war but was not comfortable with how God felt about it. After returning home, I was going through my various versions of the Bible and Bible Commentaries and I was finding commentaries stating that self-defense and war-time killing is okay but "murder" is not. Also there was a reference to 1 Kings 2:5,6.

I then ran across Adam Clarke's Commentary on the OT and learned that even killing in wars is prohibited. Who is right?

Answer: In my Hebrew lexicon, the word ratza (rawt-saw) is defined as "murder, slay" and he further divides the meanings into "murder, slay, with prededitation" (which includes Ex.20:13; Dt.5:17; Hos.4:2; Jer. 7:9; 1 Kings 21:19 and others), and "slay as avenger" (Num. 35:27,30), and "slayer, manslayer without intent" (Dt. 4:42; 19:3,4,6 etc.). Numbers 35:27 is very instructive. Here, after stating that someone guilty of manslaughter (unintentional murder, ratza, verse 25) may find protection from a blood relative bent on vengeance by staying in a city of refuge, it says that if the accused leaves the city and the avenger kills him, the avenger is not guilty of ratza, murder. This clearly indicates that ratza was intended to mean killing that is other than war or captial punishment. God orders the Israelites to kill every man, woman and child of the Canaanites, a clear violation of the commandment if ratza means any and all kinds of killing.

This same distinction is made in 1 Kings 2:5,6, where David makes a distinction between wartime killing and peacetime. The two men Joab killed were former war enemies who had now entered into covenant with David and given up war against him. Joab was avenging his brother’s death, at the hand of Abner,but not in accordance with the law of Moses. His brother was not killed unintentionally by Abner, but in an act of war. Joab killed Amasa because he had been appointed in Joab’s place by David as commander of David’s armies.

Randall Johnson

Question: Is having a guardian angel and depending on him or her for protection scriptural? Are angels male or female or both? How should angels fit into the thinking of believers when the emphasis in church doctrine is on praying to Jesus and depending on Him as our Lord, savior, healer and protector?

Answer: The Bible always uses the masculine pronoun when referring to angels. The only place that mentions that someone has or possesses an angel is in Matthew 18:10, where Jesus warns his disciples not to look down on "little ones," whom most take to mean believers in the congregation who cannot defend their faith alone. Even the weakest members of the church have the eyes and ears of God and advocates in the persons of holy angels. Psalm 34:7 and Hebrews 11:14 mention the role angels can play in protecting and serving believers, much as Michael seems to protect and serve the nation of Israel (Daniel 10:12-14). We are never encouraged to pray to angels, or to ask for angelic help. We ask God for help, and if He chooses to use an angel, so be it. Angels are not, as you note, meant to be the focus of believers. Only the Lord is. Should he choose to use angels, we will be thankful to them when we can see them, just as we would any fellow believer who helped us in our walk with Christ.

Randall Johnson

Question: In Revelations 1:10 where John uses the term "the Lord's Day", is he speaking of a day of the week or referring to the day the Lord returns. This has been a point of disagreement in my workplace. Although we may never agree I enjoy talking scripture with fellow Christian at work among non-Christians. This is my subtle way of spreading the Gospel into my small part of the world.

Answer: Though my former professor Dr. John Walvoord, president emeritus of Dallas Theological Seminary, believes it refers to the day of the Lord, that day of judgment and the restoration of the kingdom, I think the first day of the week, Sunday, is probably the correct connotation. Though, as Dr. Walvoord says, "The word 'Lord's' is an adjective and this expression is never used in the Bible to refer to the first day of the week" (The Bible Knowledge Commentary), this expression did become the normal term used for Sunday meeting of the church in subsequent Christian literature and so, most likely, finds its origin in John's usage. It also seems that John was expressing here what was an otherwise normal day interrupted by an incredible revelation. Besides, in what sense would John have been in the Lord's day? He understood the Day of the Lord (that, by the way, is the normal expression for the day the Lord returns, not "the Lord's day") to be a day of God's coming in judgment to purify the earth in anticipation of the re-establishing of the kingdom. That would not describe John's day but the vision of what he saw coming. You are right, of course, that this is a relatively unimportant issue, but it is important to try to think clearly about what the Scriptures actually mean in any context.

Randall Johnson

Question: I was reading again today Jeremiah 32:35, " . . .burnt children as sacrifices, something I never commanded and cannot imagine suggesting." (TLB) I know Jeremiah was after the time of Abraham, but why did Abraham even think that God could have commanded him to sacrifice his son as a burnt offering? Since we hear not only the Spirit of God speaking to us, but our own selfish voices, and the voice of Satan, too, trying to tempt us, how could Abraham have known that it was God who spoke to him and commanded him to make this pilgrimage, and not Satan? Or did Abraham have no concept of Satan?

Answer: The NIV reads, "though I never commanded, nor did it enter my mind, that they should do such a detestable thing and so make Judah sin." I take it at face value. It did not ever enter God's mind, nor did he ever command Judah to perform such sacrifices. In fact, the experience with Abraham only confirms that. Though it looked as though God was asking Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, he prohibited him from doing that at the last moment showing that it was not sacrifice of Isaac God wanted but a willingness on Abraham's part to put his hope, not in what his offspring could bring him, but what God alone could bring him. God was asking Abraham not to find his life in what the promise alone provided, but in who the Promiser was. Sacrifice of children in the ancient world was intended to so "wow" the god who was being worshipped (because the sacrifice was so great) that he or she would respond and answer the request made by the worshipper. We fall into the same trap at times, thinking that if we sacrifice enough God will have to answer our prayer. But God is not moved by such demonstrations apart from obedience and faith. Anyone who approaches him in their own way, and not as he prescribes, should not expect to receive anything from him. God told Judah how to come to him, and they created instead their own ways modeled after the pagan people of the land. Isn't that what we do, also?

As to Abaham knowing who was speaking to him, we know from the text of Genesis that Abraham was quite accustomed to hearing from God and knew his master's voice. Abraham's concept of Satan may not have been very developed but his firsthand experience with God was. The same One who told him he would have Isaac and made it come true, is the same One who told him to sacrifice Isaac as a test of Abraham's faith.

Randall Johnson

Question: What is Jesus talking about in Luke 20:18? It seems to me that when he talks about the one who falls on the "stone that the builders rejected" he is talking about judgment on those who reject Jesus. What does he mean when he says the one on whom the stone falls will be crushed to pieces?

Answer: Jesus begins this teaching by telling a parable about wicked tenants who were given the responsibility of tending a vineyard and then sought to take it over for themselves by beating or killing the landowners representatives, including his son. He finished the parable with a promise that the landowner would come and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others. The people listening seemed to understand that he was talking about the Israelites in general and the religious leaders of Israel in particular. The teachers of the law and the chief priests knew Jesus was talking about them (v.19). Jesus probably draws upon the imagery of several Old Testament passages (like Isaiah 8 and Daniel 2) suggested by the quote from Psalm 118:22.

The stone represents Christ himself and his claim to be the Messiah, a claim the religious leaders were supposed to evaluate fairly, but which they saw as a threat to their authority instead (like the tenant farmers in the man's vineyard). I believe that when Jesus speaks of those who fall on that stone and then of those on whom the stone falls, he is speaking of the same people. He is speaking specifically of the religious leaders who failed in their job of recognizing the Messiah when he came. One of the commentaries I read notes that there is a similar proverb found in Jewish writings around this time: "If the stone falls on the pot, alas for the pot; if the pot falls on the stone, alas for the pot." In either case, it is being said, the results are disastrous. It was disastrous for the religious leaders to stumble against Christ and his claims because it affects their eternal salvation and their accountability for recognizing Messiah. It will be disastrous for them in the final judgment when the stone, Jesus the Messiah King come back to rule, completes their condemnation by casting them into the Lake of Fire (Revelation 20).

No one was more clearly able to see the validity of Jesus' claims than the religious leaders of Israel, but they refused to see the truth of them, even with miracles being performed right before their eyes. We are given warnings in the Scriptures not to turn away after seeing clearly the truth of Christianity and who Christ is. The book of Hebrews is an extended warning of this kind.

Randall Johnson

Question: In Galatians 4:21-31, Paul talks about Hagar and Sarah in quite an allegorical sort of fashion that seemingly takes the scripture that he bases it on (vs 27) and uses it completely out of context. This sort of interpretation is the type that we are generally taught to avoid at all cost. Is Paul simply using the interpretation principles of those he is refuting against them? Is he able to do this sort of thing because of his position as an apostle of Christ, or is it something other than this?

Answer: I believe it is a combination of both. Paul and the other writers of the New Testament, as did Jesus himself, used interpretative and expository techniques similar to the rabbis of their day. This was not, however, because they were just copying someone else or borrowing an accepted form. It is true that if you want to communicate with the people of your culture, you must use accepted forms of communication that they can recognize readily enough to make sense of what you are saying. But the methods Jesus and the other rabbis used were sound methods, generally. They were based on the truth that the Old Testament events were intended by God to foreshadow the climactic events of God’s coming kingdom. And the main heroes and key roles of that era were also foreshadowings of the King to come, Messiah or Christ. Thus, the history of the people of God, Israel, was understood to be analogous to the history of the Messiah. If they were in Egypt for a time, it would not be surprising if the Messiah was, also (Matthew 2:13-15). If David the king was betrayed by his close friend, surely the Messiah could expect to experience this same kind of betrayal in his bid to be the people’s ruler (John 13:18-30).

So, when Paul comes to the account of Hagar and Sarah, the first woman being representative of a human attempt to fulfill God’s promise and develop God’s kingdom on earth, and the second woman representative of God’s miraculous way of fulfilling his promise and bringing his kingdom to earth, it is natural for him, as one who has met the risen Christ and who, as a prophet, has been given the key to seeing Messiah in all the Old Testament, to think of these two women as two systems of thought competing for humanity’s devotion. It is not coincidental that the "slave" woman was representative of man’s best attempt to make life work out. That always springs from and results in slavery, slavery to our own worldly perspectives and our desires to guarantee a positive outcome for our lives without having to resort to God. And it is no coincidence that Hagar was Egyptian, the people who tried to enslave and ultimately destroy Israel. And it is no big leap to associate these women then with the mountains that symbolize the two competing systems. Mt. Sinai, the place where the Law was given, was never intended by God to be a place where humans would resort to self-determination by law keeping, but that is what it became in the Jewish theology (a mistaken theology, to say the least). But it became a symbol of man’s efforts to pull himself up by his own bootstraps instead of trusting in God’s provisions for our sin and recognizing our inability to change our own hearts.

Paul is not saying through this exposition that the original texts as written to the people who first read them were clearly communicating this, though observation with the eyes of wisdom would have led readers to this conclusion. Paul’s eyes had been opened to this by Christ himself, as were the eyes of the other apostles and prophets (Luke 24:25-27). But we who have believed in Christ and seen the way the apostles interpret the Old Testament now have the capacity to do the same, as the Spirit of God opens our eyes to the representative or typological truths found in the Scriptures. None of these applications of the Old Testament are intended to override the intention of the original authors, but are seen as something the original authors either understood as they were writing or which they would have seen as legitimate applications of their writings in light of the Messiah, Jesus Christ.

Randall Johnson

Question: In Matthew 4:1 the Spirit led Jesus to a place for the express purpose of allowing the devil to tempt Him. Does the Spirit lead us so that we too can be tempted by the devil? Does God permit evil because there will always be a greater good that occurs from it? It would seem this supports some who believe we don’t have a free will about being tempted, though you could not infer from this that we don’t have a free will as to whether we give in to the temptation. But are we then fully responsible for what happens? And how does this fit in with the Lord’s prayer, "Lead us not into temptation"? How can we pray against something we know needs to happen, if indeed, the Spirit leads us like he led Jesus?

Answer: As head of a new race Jesus needed to pass the same test Adam did. Would he violate God's commands by listening to the subtle temptations of the Devil and choosing to believe that God is not all he says he is? Would he take his life into his own hands? The Spirit led him into the wilderness because that was the place this temptation or test needed to take place (much as Israel was tested in the wilderness, another head of a new race). The Spirit did not directly tempt Jesus nor did he put Jesus in a compromising position or situation (take him to a place where a known weakness of the flesh would be sorely and unnecessarily put to the test). But he did lead him to a place where his resources would be limited and where the choice to depend on God or himself would become crystal clear. And though we aren't the heads of a new race but are in the new head, Jesus Christ, we must face at different times that same clear choice of whether to depend on God or ourselves, and the Spirit definitely engineers things in our lives so that we are faced with that choice. God tests our faith (1 Peter 1:7), but he does not tempt us (James 1:13). He does not offer us incentive to sin, as Satan does, nor is he tempted by sin's incentives. If we pass the test, our faith grows, as does his power through us.

This does not require a view that our lives are determined by God's sovereignty. Those who believe in free will could argue that though the Spirit orchestrates events in our lives but he does not determine our choices, as you have already noted. However, even if the Spirit does determine what our choices will be, that does not remove the fact that we are responsible for our choices and held accountable, fully accountable, simply because God says that is the correct perspective. Who are we to say to the Creator, "Why did you make me this way?" (Romans 9:19,20).

We are encouraged, nonetheless, to ask God to keep us from testing and temptation (the same Greek word is translated both ways in English), as Jesus directs us in the Lord's Prayer. To ask God not to lead us into testing is to acknowledge our desire to experience joyous blessing from God's hand, something we anticipate coming in the kingdom (which is what this prayer is about). But He will not always give us joyous blessing. To ask God not to lead us into temptation would mean asking him to protect us from our own weaknesses to sin by helping us stay away from things that would tempt us. Whether that is in God's predetermined plan for me is not determinative of what I ask for. It may lead me to acknowledge in prayer that if it is in his plan for me to experience either testing or temptation, I will seek to depend on him and find his way out of the temptation (1 Corinthians 10:13). God's predetermined plan is his business until he makes it mine. I am instructed to tell him the desires of my heart (Psalm 37:4).

Randall Johnson

Question: Genesis 2:7 says that God breathed into the man's nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. Does it say this of any other creation of God?

Answer: It only says that of humans and might lead us to conclude that only humans have a spirit that is in God's likeness. Animals are said to have spirits (Ecclesiastes 3:21) but not spirits made in God's image. Being made in God's image means we have the intellectual, emotional and spiritual capacity to have intimate fellowship with God. Now, of course, that image is marred by our sinful propensity to misuse our gifts in contradiction of God's will.

If, however, we ask ourselves if there are any other beings in the universe who have the intellectual, emotional and spiritual capacity to have intimate fellowship with God, angels would certainly be an answer. They too have among them those who marred the image and sought to live independently of God. Unlike us, they do not have a sacrifice to pay for their sin and are not said to be redeemable. We are not told all we might want to know about them.

By way of application, the question we might ask ourselves is, "How am I using the gifts God has given me for relationship with him?" I am built for relationship with God, yet I often find pulling away from God easier than drawing near him. What other passions have I let take precedence in my life? What could I do to increase my passion for God? What gifts has he given me that he would use for his glory and my joy if I submitted them to him?

Randall Johnson