General Question

The first thing to note here in Psalm 8 is that is a Messianic prophecy. This is not talking about man in general but reffering to Christ the Messiah who came in the form of man.  The word made in the verse may be a little confusing also because it leads one to believe it is reffering to man, however, it is speaking of the coming on Christ in human form.

In the context of being made a little lower than the angels points to him (Christ) who would be subjected to die in order to complete the plan on salvation. In that sense he who created angels took on a form that was lower than angels. Angels don't die, angels (though momentarily took on human form) never lived on earth. On the point of him being crowned with glory and honor...the early explanations should answer that question. Once you know who it is talking about it becomes a lot easier to understand the crowing with glory and honor.

A couple good examples are found in Mark 9:5-7 and Luke 9:33 where Peter suggested building three tabernacles: one for Moses, one for Elias, and one for Christ. But the voice out of the clouds say, "This is my beloved Son; hear him." Another is found in Jesus' prayer in John 17:5 "An now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the flory which I had with thee before the world was."  There are many other points that we could discuss but time would not allow. Finally, let's not forget that Christ came from the grave in a glorified form. The body he came with could appear in buildings with the door and windows still closed.

 I hope that this answers your questions and gives you a new perspective concerning the things you desire to have clarified. God bless you and I hope to hear from you next time.

It seem to me that there is a lot of emphasis placed on this verse for many different reasons. It is often used by those who have a hardline against any form of divorce and remarriage. The first thing to do is put this verse into perspective. First, God's view of marriage is indissoluble  and should not be terminated by divorce. Marriage is God's divine institution and should not be entered into lightly, and without serious consideration and committment.

First of all there was a rebuke on those who were putting away their wives for simple reasons, many without even a bill of divorcement. In Matt. 5:31 Jesus mentioned that "It hath been said, whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement. Lest they took this out of context and went wild in divorcing their wives simply with papers to show it, Jesus tighten the noose even more by stating, "But I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery; and whosoever shall marry her her that is divorced committeth adultery.

We need to understand the point Christ was making here. Because of the value God puts on marriage, there need to be serious violation of the vow for the man to put away his wife. Bear in mind also that a woman could not put away her husband, unlike the world we live in today and the culture that we live under. Using the term "save for fornication" gave one reason for divorce and remarriage. The word fornication is from the Greek (pornia) which covers a wide range of illicit sexual acts icludes but not limited to, adultery by single or married people, incest, sodomy, harlotry, beastiality, pornography and more...all these are under the unbrella of fornication.

It would imply, that whosoever did any of these had grossly violated their marriage vows that it would be worthy of divorce, and in that case would free the innocent to find another partner. In other words, it was next to death, bringing a symbolic death to the marriage. One could not simply put away their wives for many of the things we do today and justify doing so.  In this case, one would be free to divorce their partner and be free to find another.

Hi T.D.

One has to be careful who he/she anoints as "Holy Ghost Filled Believer", because one pretends or appears to be Holy Ghost filled does not mean he is. Polygamous lifestyle is against biblical principle. There is no plurality in spouses. One might argue that God, Jesus, and the disciples are silent on this matter, however if you look back at the beginning, God made one wife for Adam. In Genesis 2:24 Adam with no mother and father establshed God's righteous plan for man. "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." This was futuristically speaking by virtue of principle, God's perfect will. He had no father and  mother, but with Gods direction he spoke that which should be. Amidst the many wives and concubines that some of the kings had, it was never designed by God. Lamech, in Genesis 4, was the first to take unto himself more than one wife, and of course he was the son of Cain, which makes it interesting.

Jesus, referencing to God's plan for man and wife, states, "Have you not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, for this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain (2) shall be one flesh?" (Matt, 19:4-5).  Looking back at your question: to judge someone is to try to determine what is in his heart, or to determine his motives... that we should not do! However, when one is in violation of the Bible and God's principles it is OK to say it is wrong, that is not judging. Multiple wives puts one in a life of fornication and no fornicators or adulterers shall have eternal life (1 Cor. 6:9). To avoid fornication every man should have his own wife (singular) 1 Cor. 7:2.  The desire for more than one wife is nothing more than the lust of, and gratification of the flesh, and not to the pleasing of God. So I would be very careful in believing, let alone to say one is filled with the Holy Ghost while living in a polygamous life... if it's against God's will it is evil, and the Holy Ghost will have none of it.

 Hi Tahesha, 

The world, and especially this country is in a dilemma of consistent moral decline. This is fundamentally caused by by the concept of relativism. The doctrine that no ideas or beliefs are universally true but that all are, instead, “relative” — that is, their validity depends on the circumstances in which they are applied. The idea is, you decide your own standard of moral and ethical values, and we have seen the degradation it is causing. The concept of “if it feels good do it” is the driving force. The most vulnerable are our teens, as you noted. They are in their adolescent crises moments trying to find themselves and balance what is wrong and what is not. One of the major problems is who do they look on as role models, and consider “cool.” Also the things they listen to are having profound effect on their psyche. Even good kids, over a period of time, listening to garbage will thwart and warp their minds. Garbage in, garbage out! As recorded in 1 Cor. 15:33, “Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners.” Sexually explicit and exotic videos play on their minds, and arouse their fantasy. “My Space”, and “Youtube” are traps for thousands of our youths. We need to get a grip on that. The same things that brought sin into the world are destroying it further, digging deeper into this generation. 1 John 2:15-16 “...the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life...” Reference back to (Genesis 3:6).

Unfortunately some of the bad influences are coming from some of our “churches” where their standards of righteousness are very low. Very few churches still preach biblical standard Christian living. Chastity is a thing of the past, sex has been cheapened and referred to like something you can find on the shelves of a department store. No more “in the bedroom” privacy, intimacy, and decency: those are out through the door. We need to remind our kids that because it seem cool doesn't mean it is good, because everybody's doing it does not mean it is right. They don't have to fit in and adapt. There are standards, high, and low, and standards that are set, if they do not match ours we need to set our own: gleaning from the Bible the ultimate instructor on morals and values. I am sure this is not the last time we will discuss this topic but a few good passages to read are Proverbs 14:12; & Ecc. 11:9-12:14. We also need to show our kind many who thought big chains, lot of money, lot of girls, boys, sex, drinking, drugs, fancy cars: ended up with nothing. Some in jail, under drug addiction, suffer from all kinds of STDs, and others pay the ultimate price, died without hope. No wonder Solomon declared “All is vanity and vexation of spirit.”

Hi Cherie,

It is difficult to pin point the Biblical principle of adapting a husband's name after marriage because sir names were rare in the early history of the Bible. The notable people were identified by one name, and location, or from a descent. For nearly 5,000 years it was first names. However the principle followed could be traced back to creation when God made Adam and took from his side a rib and made Eve. That set the precedent, for they twain became one flesh (Gen. 2:21-24). The woman was taken from the man so he remains the head and the first. In Genesis 5:2, after God blessed them he "called their name Adam" notice the singularity there, their "name", which means they carried the same name: although "Eve" would identify the woman. By the way, that word "woman" would be better written as "womb-man" meaning a man with a womb for the purpose of bearing children. So there the principle was divinely established by God himself, that the woman would actually become one with the man. And because he is the established headship the change would be hers to make.

This in principle carried over into the early centuries when surnames became more and more privalent. Marriage gave a woman identity, protection, provision, and often wealth. It also gave her right to possession of material things. The changed name was also an indication of her rights to such possession. It is also a sign that the family is one, they all carry the same name with the only exception of a first name. As matter of fact, it was one of the reasons that a surname became important, for identification, to tell who the person was. So it has been a custom as well as a tradition that the woman would take on the man's name, for reasons that I pointed to above. It also fitted into Mark's writing. "...what therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." (Mk.10:5-9) Althogh now we see people showing that they are no longer dependent on their partners for protection and possession, they have been gradually changing God's principle and adapting their own. It moved from hyphenated last names to people keeping their name and not taking the husband's: and now we are hearing on a regular basis, that men are taking on the woman's name. That is how far we have twisted what God intended, mininize its importance, and is seeking out our own way. How far have we come!

Hi Letriece,

This is one of the most difficult verses in the New Testament to define and understand. It is very ambiguous as to what the apostle wanted to declare. There are also many train of thoughts that one can read into this and which many commentators struggle to agree on. In the context of the previous verses Paul referred to Genesis 3:15-16, where the woman was deceived by the serpent, which brought sin and death on the entire universe. God having stated that he would "greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children..." The first train of thought is that amidst the difficulties, and dangers in childbearing, the woman would be saved. In other words she would be safe, preserve, or make whole. As you  know, many women died in child's birth. However, (while God is not partial) note that Paul seem to be talking to Christians as he said in 1 Timothy 2:15 "...if they continue in faith, charity,, holiness, and sobriety." One thing we can eliminate from this thought of being "Saved" is the saving of the soul...that we know has been taken care of by the sacrificial death of CHrist.

The second train of thought is the woman's assumption of the role of not only childbearing, but also child rearing. This responsibility would keep her in the home and therefore out of certain danger. Unlike the man who had to till the soil, hunt, and work hard at times in dangerous situations, the womnan in the home would have more protection. A third train of thought is that the woman by virtue of childbearing would eventually brought  Jesus, the Savior of the world, into the world. This thought is the most vague of the three thoughts. No biblical proof to sustain this thought, and many commentators differ on this theory. However when you read this responce I hope that God will broaden your understanding and give you clarity to the truth of his words.

Hi Lee

God is the one who instituted the family, and he sets the premise on the functionality of it. He also placed the responsibilities on the man (father) as the head of the houseold, and therefore the duty of provision. 1 Timothy 5:8 "But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel." This word infidel is the Greek word (apisto) which is translated as an unbeliever. Bearing in mind that the family is God's institution, for a man not to provide for his family, (child/children) or as you put it "delinquent" in doing so, God classifies him in the same category of an unbeliever.  That means it is a direct diversion from what God expects of him. It is a biblical, ethical, and a moral responsibility of every father to take care of his child/ren.

Not only was he to be the provider of the necessities of life for his children/family, he should provide instruction on moral values and teach his children in the ways of the Lord. If one does not use every last bit of energy and means within the law to provide for his children, and his family he is considered worst than an infidel. That means he is actually considered lower than an average unbeliever/sinner.

Just click on the Ask A question button on the top right. After your question is reviewed by the Pastor, he will post an answer to your question.

Hi D.B.

Thanks for asking this question. There are two down sides to drinking strong liquor. For Christians this is a no no. One of the things I heard time and time again is that nothing is wrong if you have a social drink. The problem with that is motives: God judges one not necessarily on what you have done, but more so why you did it. So the first down side to drinking strong liquor is why? What are you trying to achieve? Second, drinking leads to drunkenness...and drunkenness is next to an abomination as far as the Bible is concern. Objectively, drunkenness carries certain curses that are inevitable.

For example, Proverbs 23:29-30 states "Who hath woe? Who hath sorrow? Who hath contentions? Who hath babblings? Who hath wounds without cause? Who hath redness of eyes? They that tarry long at the wine; they that go to seek mixed wine." Right there you find six curses indicative of strong drink. So one's motive generates the first drift from biblical principle. The second is God forbid that one gets drunk, because then it takes on a different consequences. Paul say drunkards shall not inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Cor. 6:10) Also read Rom. 13:13; We are told in Scripture that if a brother becomes a drunk one should not even keep company with him. Noah blew it when he got himself drunk in Gen. 9:21, and Lot committed incest when his daughters made him drunk from strong drink. Genesis 19:33. they knew what strong drink could have done to their father. Soberness is God's expectation for all Christians and that's the bottom line. It is clear what happens when one is not sober. The first thing you lose in drenkenness is you sanctity, second your dignity, and then your pride: after that everything goes out of control. One must first watch for motive. At the end of the day that may be all that matters. You sure cant give God glory through strong drink. Be not drunk with wine, but be filled with the Spirit.

Hello R.B.

This is one of those difficult to understand and to explain subjects. Jesus taught the disciples to pray "Thy kingdom come, thy will be done..." (Matt. 6:10) This concept deals with rulership. We know that Christ came to fill three offices, prophet, priest, and king. He has already filled two of those offices, but he is yet to fill the office of king, literally. Putting that into context: wherever a king rules, is a kingdom. Where Christ reigns is His kingdom. So for the present the kingdom is within you. Refer to as the Kingdom of God, or the kingdom that comes from God. Nevertheless, His kingdom (literal) will come to earth when he will reign for one thousand years in the millennium.

Matthew in his gospel often refers almost exclusively to the kingdom of heaven. One of the reasons is that he speaks of Christ as the King of the Jews and therefore refers to an earthly physical kingdom. However in ch. 6:33, Jesus told the people to seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness and all the things of the earthly kingdom would be added unto them. Jesus refers to the kingdom as an indwelling entity, and therefore relational. While it is difficult to separate the two terms as they often intertwine. You could view one reference as a literal future reign of Christ, and the other as a spiritual present, or relational one where he now rules the church or our hearts. You can read John 18:36; Col. 1:13; 2 Peter 1:10-11; Romans 14:17 and also Rev. 11:15 where John states that "...The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord."