Q: Why is there so much bloodshed and murder in the Old Testament? God sent his people to slaughter entire cities, including men, women and children...

...Why Children? Maybe the men and women have done things God cannot allow, but children... They probably don't even know what they're doing. They're not given a chance to repent!

A:  This is an interesting question that has huge implications. In answering your question, I draw some of my insights from this article (http://tinyurl.com/28hwslu); I encourage you to give that a read if you have time.

I think it’s important to establish that from a divine justice point of view, we are deserving of nothing good. If God is God, and we are imperfect humans that fall short of His standards, then we have no right to demand anything from God. In fact, we should be punished for our sin with death, sickness, suffering, guilt, and every bad thing, in this life and in the life to come; this is what we deserve (Rom 6:23).

This is obviously a very counter-cultural teaching, as the world tells us that we are all entitled to basic rights and freedoms. In Canada, there are basic rights and freedoms that are guaranteed to us in our constitution and upheld by the law. According to our laws, we do “deserve” these things. On a side note, I would argue that these are good things, and that we should uphold basic rights. However, we should be careful not to extrapolate these basic human rights to holding any weight before God. As I stated earlier, we aren’t entitled to anything before God. We simply have no bargaining chips to negotiate with (Rom 3:23). That we are NOT dead, and that some even have a chance to know God, is already more than we deserve; it’s bonus.

As you process that reality, another problem in our thinking is separating the God of the OT (Old Testament) from the God of the NT (New Testament). Most of us are more willing to believe in a God that loves, and forgives, and lays His life down for us. It may seem a shock that the God of the OT could be so cruel as to command His people to kill entire cities. Though this loving depiction of God in the NT is not wrong, it is incomplete. And so is the view of a cruel God in the OT. In the NT, God demanded righteousness of his people, and even went to the extent of striking down members of the church (Acts 5) who tried to deceive Him. That standard for righteousness has not been watered down from the OT to the NT. Jesus asserted that he didn’t come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it (meaning he wasn’t undoing the OT). Likewise, the God of the OT was not as cruel as we generally make Him out to be; He showed many acts of tender care for His people, and even for those who were not His chosen people. In the story of Jonah, he mercifully sent the prophet to stop the city from living in sin. When they repented, he gladly spared them. Though the times changed, and the writing styles and authors changed, the God of the OT is indeed consistent with the God of the NT. It is important that we look to both to give us a full picture of God.

In fact, to believe that God was cruel then (in the OT), is similar to believing that He is cruel now. God is unchanging (Jam 1:17). When you look at recent catastrophes, like 9/11 or the tsunami, there were great amounts of death. Victims included men, women, children, Christians, Muslims, atheists, all killed by the catastrophes. As I argued above, none of us are truly innocent or undeserving of death, and none of us have a case to bring before God that “He shouldn’t have killed us”. If you believe God to be omnipotent and omniscient (all-powerful and all-knowing), then the fact that He foresaw these disasters, and chose not to prevent them (even though He was strong enough to), could be seen as cruel in the same light.

In reality, what we read about in the Bible is that God’s ways are beyond our ways. It’s difficult to wrap our heads around, but God actually cares more about the victims of catastrophes and injustices; infinitely more than we do. Remember, He created them (Psa 139). And just because He permits the acts to happen, does not mean He’s rejoicing. Instead He mourns. But everything God does is love, and in some way (that is totally beyond our understanding), God can act in love, expand His kingdom, and yet permit these killings.

I think the proper thing to do in our current position is give thanks to God. Give thanks that you’re even alive (when technically we all deserve not to be). Give thanks that you’re able to repent (if you’re reading this, you have the capacity to repent). Give thanks if you’ve heard the Gospel and accepted it. And give thanks for any other good thing in your life (whether friends, family, food, school, etc). It’s all gravy on top.

[answered by Mark Cheng, Agape Counselor]
 

Q: I already got baptized, but I haven't started taking communion yet. I don't want to eat and drink judgment unto myself. How do I know if I'm ready to take communion?

The Scripture we need to examine is 1 Cor. 11:27-29,

27Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. 31But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment. 32When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world.

How do believers partake in communion without doing so in an "unworthy manner"? The answer: By examine their own lives (see v. 28) and to repent and ask forgiveness for any unconfessed sin BEFORE participating in communion. Remember, Jesus' sacrificial death was for others. Therefore, when we sin against others (as the Corinthians in Paul's day were doing) and do not confess and repent of our sin, we show great disrespect for Jesus himself. So I humbly ask you: Do you have any unconfessed sin (especially against others in the church)? If so, go to the person, ask for forgiveness and repent. If you do this, I believe you will not eat or drink in an unworthy manner; but a manner that pleases the Lord. 

I'd also like to point out that the judgment in 1 Cor. 11 means the Lord will lovingly discipline those who dishonor the communion. No one can predict exactly what kind of discipline/suffering, but when we are disciplined, it should lead us to repentance (v. 32). It is an act of mercy that God disciplines us in this life, so that we will turn from sin and not be condemned in the next one.

[Answered by Pastor HM]

Q: Even though the Bible states that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, can we say that all sins are equal?

...According to the Bible, it seems that they are not. Can you shed some light into this? If it is true, can we justify "smaller" sins?


A: Thanks for asking this question! It's so applicable to our post-modern world right now as our society has somehow developed their own idea of morality and the varying degrees of this.

From the stories in the Bible, it may seem that God views some sins more serious than others...but that in fact is not the underlying truth. Romans 6:23 tells us: For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. ALL sin is looked upon as defiance to God and the punishment for those sins are death. No matter if it's a little lie to get out of trouble or covering up the tracks of a serial killer. They are all the same to God. A sin, is a sin...is a sin. There is no varying degree of them.

However, we have to take into the account of the death of Christ and what it ultimately gives us...grace. Grace comes into the picture because it is by grace which we are forgiven of those sins. By accepting Christ as our Saviour...we are believing in the pardon that His death gives us for us and our sins. We don't have to die, because He has died for us already.

Having said that, just because God gives us grace and pardon for our sins, does not mean that some are more evil than others. It's the complete opposite, as a matter of fact. Those sins are exactly the same, He just gives us Christ instead.

To further your last point about the justification of smaller sins...you are treading on very deep waters if you start to do that. As soon as we begin to justify the sins in our lives, we are playing God. It's very plain and clear...any sin is a sin. DO NOT look upon God's mercy and grace to mistake it for His weakness. You are intentionally defying Him and for lack of betters words...He'll show you who's boss.

Check out this short article by John Piper, he supplements my answer well. Click HERE.


[answered by Pastor KJT, who is saved by grace cause God knows that she's sinful]

Q: What is the meaning of rebuking others, and how is it different from judging?

There is a difference between judging someone and rebuking them. Some will quote Matthew 7:1 ("Do not judge lest you be judged yourself") and claim that we should never correct anyone's behavior. After all, since we are all sinners, what gives us the right to judge and speak out against someone else?

However, rebuking someone is not the same as judging him. Scripture actually tells us we are to correct and rebuke those who are sinning:

If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him.. (Luke 17:3)

As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear (1 Tim. 5:20)

Scripture also teaches us that we must rebuke those teaching false doctrines (e.g. people distorting God's truth for personal gain; people manipulating the Bible to say what they want it to say, etc.):

Declare these things; exhort and rebuke with all authority. Let no one disregard you (Titus 2:15)

Rebuking is to be done in an act of caring for them in the hope that they will believe, repent and follow Jesus. If you view it this way, the act of rebuking is actually one of the most loving things a person can do for another.

Here is an excerpt from a blog entry I found quite helpful.

"Rebuking is not judging. We are called to rebuke one another out of love and concern for one another’s godliness. That’s one of the reasons we are part of the church and not just individuals. We need each other to encourage and also to rebuke. 1 Corinthians 5:1-5 says we are on occasion to put unrepentant offenders out of fellowship but with the hope that they will stop doing what they are doing and will be welcomed back again."

The author admits that sometimes it difficult to discern whether you are rebuking in love or judging in pride, but one thing makes clear is that rebuking IN LOVE is necessary and commanded by Scripture.

"The trouble is I often don’t know whether I am rebuking or judging. I guess the key test is whether I’m doing it out of love for that person, that I want the best for them, but quite often I’m doing it out of anger and hurt. So I guess that’s judging. It is very, very hard that’s for sure."

[Answered by Pastor HM, who has been rebuked many times over his life]

Q: The end of the world in 2012??!!!

Top of the Mayan Ruins.

Belize, Central America.

July 2007.

"I was watching the Discovery Channel the other day and there was a show on about the 13 Crystal Skulls. Actually, it was really more about the Mayan Calendar, and how the world would end on December 21, 2012. The Mayans were far more intelligent than people today - their calendars are extremely accurate. It also mentioned something about how the Earth would be aligned with the centre of the Milky Way Galaxy, thus spurring many catastrophic events. Apparently, there are three ways of viewing the situation:

1) The world will be destroyed on that day.
2) There will be a drastic change in the way we are living.
3) The Mayans were all killed before they could finish the calendar, so it ends abruptly.

Which one should we believe? Also, since God told us that not even the angels know when judgement day is, does that mean December 21, 2012 is definitely NOT that day (since we, as humans, predicted it already)?"

Thanks for asking your question. Interest in the year 2012 has been steadily increasing over the past few years, partly due to our culture's recent fascination with ideas such as conspiracy theories, spirituality and prophecies. Movies such as the upcoming 2012 (see trailer below) have attracted the attention of media and households alike.

Admittedly, I am not an expert in Mayan culture in the slightest, so I cannot comment on whether the Discovery Channel's documentary about this ancient peoples group is accurate or not. I did, however, do some research and stumbled across this article from the Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies. It would seem they answer your first two questions about Mayan prophecy:

Is the world really going to end? Did the Maya really believe the world would end?

There is nothing in the Maya or Aztec or ancient Mesoamerican prophecy to suggest that they prophesied a sudden or major change of any sort in 2012. The notion of a "Great Cycle" coming to an end is completely a modern invention.

Maya inscriptions that predict the future consistently show that they expected life to go on pretty much the same forever. At Palenque, for instance, they predicted that people in the year 4772 AD would be celebrating the anniversary of the coronation of their great king Pakal.

Of course, astronomers expect the Sun will eventually blow up into a red giant, then collapse and eventually burn out, but not for several billion years. Although the Maya did cast some predictions into the far distant future, we have not yet discovered any that reach that far. As to whether our world will end in 2012, the answer is, well, yes and no. Americans' sense of invulnerability ended on 9-11-2001. Everything is getting darker and more desperate. Wall Street is crashing. The prospect of peace in the Middle East dims year by year. Some Russian nuclear weapons are unaccounted for. Oil consumption has outstripped our oil production capability. Don't even start with global warming or overpopulation. By any measure, the world after 2012 will certainly look much different than it does today. Statistically, some significant change for the worse is bound to happen in 2012 –or in 2011, or 2013, or 2020, or whatever year you choose.

Even if we were to find evidence of actual Maya prophecies about 2012, that doesn't make them true. Apparently all of Christendom expected Jesus to return in the year 1000, for example. And maybe the most important question to ask was voiced to me by Bill Saturno, discoverer of the San Bartolo murals. If the Maya were such skilled prophets, how could they have missed the Conquest? "Didn't see that one coming, did they?" The single most devastating disaster to befall the peoples of the Americas of all time, and not a word about it in the entire corpus of Mayan prophetic literature.

Is the Maya Calendar really more accurate than ours?

Depends how you define "accurate."

Their Solar calendar of 365 days did not count leap-years, so it was far less-synchronized with the actual tropical year of 365.2422 days than the Gregorian calendar that we use (400 Gregorian years = 146,097 days; giving an average year of 365.2425 days).

Their 260-day sacred calendar has been in use without interruption for at least 2300 years, but then, so has our weekday cycle of 7 days. "Tradition" is not the same thing as "accuracy."

Teeple (1906) found evidence that convinced him that the astronomers at Palenque recognized that the slow drift out of synchronization between the Maya 365-day calendar and the actual tropical year would take 1508 Haabs (years of 365 days) to come back into synchronization (1507 tropical years). This correction factor would come closer to 365.2422 days than the Gregorian calendar does. (This evidence consists of a distance number of slightly over 754 Haabs, almost precisely half of 1508. The "Triad Progenitor," a.k.a. "Lady Beastie," gave birth to GI, GII, and GIII 754 years and some months after the Era date 13.0.0.0.0 4 Ajaw 8 Kumk'u, for example.) So one could claim that the Maya were conscious of precisely how inaccurate their Haab cycle was with regard to the tropical year, but I don't think that amounts to saying their calendar was that accurate. We know how inaccurate the Gregorian calendar is, too, with far greater precision.

Their moon cycle alternating 29 with 30 days came close to the actual lunar month of 29.5306 days. They made it even more "accurate" by simply adjusting it by observation. That is, if the new moon appeared a day early, they simply declared the cycle to have 29 days rather than 30. Lounsbury showed they did notice a pattern in these discrepancies, however: in Copan they appear to have recognized a cycle of 149 moons = 4400 days, while the Palenque astronomers used a different cycle with 81 lunations equaling 2392 days. The later Dresden Eclipse Pages are based on the Palenque cycle multiplied by five: 405 moons = 11,960 days. All these factors come very close to the acutal value of a lunation; the latter two within a thousandth of a percent (9.3 x 10^-6, or 9.3 millionths).

Ancient Maya astronomers also were apparently aware of the very long astronomical cycle we call Precession of the Equinoxes (ca. 25,800 years), and their approximation of it (26,021 years) was accurate within 1.6%. This, too, is not quite the same as possessing a superior calendar. Although it is technically incorrect to say the ancient Maya had a "more accurate calendar than we do," one must respect that the precision of their observations and their astronomical recordkeeping were astonishingly accurate. However, they were no more precise than the ancient Greeks, and considerably less accurate than our modern measurements.

Claiming that the Maya calendar was "more accurate" than the Gregorian implies, of course, that they had access to knowledge superior to our own, knowledge of a highly esoteric or even extra-terrestrial nature. This is simply not true. They simply used the tools they had at hand, and their penetrating, persistent intelligence to do the best they could. An advantage they possessed was a clearer, darker sky than we of the Industrial Age will ever see again (except the lucky few who travel in space).

Summarily, the article agrees with the Bible on the matter of the time of judgment. The ancient Mayans did not predict December 21, 2012 as the day of judgment. Likewise, the Bible says the day of judgment cannot be known in advance. In fact, Scripture tells us that it will come like a thief in the night (Matthew 24:42-43) and like lightning (Matthew 24:27). The only thing we know for sure is that Christ will return one day to judge the world. For those who have repented and put their faith in his salvation, they will be taken to heaven in glory at this time. For those who have not, however, only eternal separation from God awaits them.

What this all means is that predicting the exact time of judgment is not important. What is important is ensuring that you do delay the time of your salvation (2 Cor. 6:2). Whether final judgment happens in 2012 or 2011 or 3012 is not crucial; faith in a true savior is.

[Answered by Pastor HM, who has only visited ancient Mayan ruins on several occasions]