Do Christians need to obey Old Testament laws?

Be the first to give an answer to this question. Write an answer in the comment section below. Please provide your name and if you have a website or blog, be sure to include the URL and email address in your answer.

Answers will be reviewed.

Other pages in this section

About this site

What does "known of Him" mean in 1 Corinthians 8?

What is the meaning and context of "known of Him" in 1 Corinthians 8:3" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 8:3?

Some at Corinth seemed content in knowing that idols were not actual gods. They therefore were free to eat in their own homes meat that had been dedicated to idols before they bought it. Their knowledge inflated their view of their own value; love would actually have increased the spiritual value of others (8:1). Anyone whose supposed knowledge inflates his view of self has not begun to grasp true knowledge (8:2). The ultimate in knowledge is not to know about divine things, but to know and love God. Such a relationship excels mere knowledge. A believer enjoying a divine relationship is "known of Him" (8:3).

Since Paul doesn’t seem to question the reality of his readers’ salvation, this expression, "known of Him," hardly seems to be in contrast to the Lord words to unbelievers, "I know you not." Nor does it seem significant to say that God is acquainted with ("known of Him") a believer who enjoys a relationship with Himself. Paul is carrying his thought forward, though, if we view the expression as being similar to "the Lord knoweth the way of the righteous" (Psalm 1:6)" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 1:6) or "He knoweth them that trust in Him" (Nahum 1:7)." TARGET="_blank">Nahum 1:7). This is "approving knowledge." The meaning, therefore, seems to be: the Lord is aware of and smiles on one ("he is known of Him") who is living in relationship with Him, that is,who loves Him.

The Lord taught that love for God and love for others are interdependent (Matthew 22:37-40)" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 22:37-40) and inseparable (see 1 John 4:20, 21)." TARGET="_blank">1 John 4:20, 21). Such a relationship with God manifests itself in caring for others, a thought continued in the passage (see verse 12). This is well-pleasing to God.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Should a Christian celebrate Halloween?

Should a Christian celebrate Halloween?

The celebration of holidays for a Christian is addressed in Romans 14:1-23" TARGET="_blank">Romans 14:1-23 and 1 Corinthians 10:1-33." TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 10:1-33. The controversy of special food and special days may have had different names in the times of the apostles, but the principles of how to handle them is still relevant today.

The final decision for a Christian’s participation in Halloween will ultimately lie with the individual believer, but there are a number of factors one should consider.

Dressing a child in a cute costume as a cowboy, princess or a favorite sport’s hero and asking people for candy is of course, an innocent activity. On the other hand, dressing as a witch, vampire, evil spirit or murderous villain is another idea altogether.

The origins of almost all holidays are with national events or Christian-related ideas even if their precise dates are not known. Halloween, on the other hand, is a purely pagan and spiritually dark celebration of the gods of pre-Christian Europe with no association with anything from God.

Christians may choose to avoid any associate with Halloween based on the Old Testament’s prohibition of any form of demon communication or witchcraft

(Exodus 22:18;" TARGET="_blank">Exodus 22:18; Leviticus 19:31; 20:6, 27)." TARGET="_blank">Leviticus 19:31; 20:6, 27). In the New Testament as well, the apostles spoke strongly against fortune telling and mixing with evil spirits (Acts 8:9-24;" TARGET="_blank">Acts 8:9-24; Acts 13:6-11;" TARGET="_blank">Acts 13:6-11; Acts 19:19)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 19:19).

A Christian who chooses not to celebrate any form of Halloween has legitimate concerns and honors God by avoiding any association with a demonic-influenced holiday. There is clearly something to avoid in Halloween. Horror movies, occult practices and haunted houses are grotesque perversions of anything good, moral and godly. However, a parent who encourages his child to dress as a clown or a football player can hardly be faulted for enjoying an innocent party.

Some believers use the opportunity to communicate with their neighbors with gospel tracts or have fall parties in order to share the gospel. Some countries have more drastic demon-influenced traditions than others. Some believers have friends who are more likely to be offended by Halloween celebrations than others. The final decision as to participate in fall parties lies with a well-informed believer who wishes to not cause offense to neither Jew, gentile nor to the church of God.

Shad David Sluiter

Other pages in this section

About this site

Should the bread be unleavened and the wine unfermented?

Should the bread be unleavened and the wine unfermented?

The Lord taught (John 4:19-24)" TARGET="_blank">John 4:19-24) that true worship is spiritual. Tangible types were for a past age (see Hebrews 9:9; 10:1)." TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 9:9; 10:1). Thus, although they have spiritual significance, we should not attach typical significance to the loaf and the cup. The loaf both reminds us of our Lord's body given for us at the cross (1 Corinthians 11:24)" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 11:24) and also represents the unity of the assembly in which each believer partakes of that one loaf (1 Corinthians 10:17)." TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 10:17). The cup reminds us of the blood of Christ (1 Corinthians 11:25)" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 11:25) and represents the basis of our fellowship with God (I Corinthians 10:16, 21)." TARGET="_blank">I Corinthians 10:16, 21).

The bread used at the institution of the Lord's Supper was unleavened bread, but Acts 2:46," TARGET="_blank">Acts 2:46, 20:11 and (indisputably) 27:35 link breaking bread with the general eating of food. Therefore, we use common bread. The New Testament words for unleavened bread (azumos) and common bread (artos) are different. While Matthew, Mark, and Luke use azumos in their passages giving the institution of the Lord's Supper they use anos when referring to the bread of which the Lord said, "This is My body."

Since the grape harvest was in the Fall (the seventh month) and the Passover at which the Lord's Supper was instituted was in the Spring (the first month) and since there would have been no refrigeration to inhibit the process of fermentation, it is likely that the wine at the last Passover was fermented. In addition, the Lord made water wine (John 4:46)." TARGET="_blank">John 4:46). Timothy was told to drink wine (I Timothy 5:23)." TARGET="_blank">I Timothy 5:23). The word in both those cases is the same word used for wine that causes drunkenness (Ephesians 5:18)." TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 5:18).

We cannot insist that the loaf be unleavened bread or the cup unfermented wine.

D. Oliver

Other pages in this section

About this site

Is the narrow road a message for believers or a message of salvation?

Why do some say that the teaching of Matthew 7:13-14" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 7:13-14 is a message for believers?

Unbelievers (7:28) and believers (5:1) were both present while the Lord spoke. As in all that He did and said, His message was a model of good preaching; He set out the truth and then called for action. Verses 13 through 27 were His summary and call for action. Such was His skill in speaking that His summary applied to all who listened. He expressed universal principles. Submission to His Word results in "life which is life indeed" (1 Timothy 6:19," TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 6:19, RV), enjoyed both now and eternally. Disobedience to His Word results in loss, suffered both now and eternally.

We who are believers need this reminder. The value of our present life and testimony depends on uncompromising submission to His Word. The degree to which we disregard His Word is the degree to which we will suffer loss at the Bema (1 Corinthians 3:12-15)." TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 3:12-15).

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

What is the significance of the two head coverings in 1 Corinthians 11?

What is the significance of the two head coverings in 1 Corinthians 11" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 11?

Paul develops only two of the three spheres of headship he introduces in verse three. By engaging in activity within the assembly with a covered head, a man dishonors Christ, his head (v. 4). That is the first sphere of headship. By engaging in activity within the assembly with an uncovered head, the woman dishonors the man, her head (v. 5). That is the second sphere of headship. At that point, Paul adds, "For that is even all one as if she were shaven." He is clearly teaching two head coverings for the woman: her natural covering, long hair; her temporary or cultural covering (whatever form of woman’s head covering is acceptable or normal in her culture), otherwise an uncovered head (v. 5a) and a shaved head (v. 5b) are exactly the same thing and the last part of the verse is a meaningless repetition (impossible!). In what way, then, are the uncovered head and the shaven head "even all one"? One possible answer is that dishonor (v. 5) or shame (v. 6) are the result of both. A difficulty, though, arises from noting that the one dishonors Christ and the other dishonors the woman. Further, the woman has chosen to uncover her head in the first case, but "shaven" is passive, indicating that someone else has chosen to shame her by making her shaved or shorn.

A second, more tenable view is that an uncovered head and a shaved head are equivalent in violating the same truth, the truth of headship as established by God. A woman’s long hair expresses a headship God manifested at creation: the man is the head of the woman. The cultural covering is part of a double symbol; it requires the uncovered head of the man and the covered head of the woman. Together these symbols display a headship that results from Christ’s incarnation and redemption. He is head of the man and the assembly honors that headship by the uncovered head of the man - honoring his head, Christ - and the covered head of the woman - further giving Christ honor by covering her head, the man.

The two coverings relate to the two spheres of headship Paul develops in this passage. A woman’s long hair expresses that not she, but the man has headship. This is a personal and permanent covering. Her cultural covering must be paired with the man’s uncovered head to display that Christ, not man, has headship over the man. This is a cultural and congregational (because it requires others to present this paired symbolism) covering. Further, in the context (vv 2, 17), Paul connects his remarks about headship with his teaching about the Breaking of Bread, "when ye come together in the church." Third, the cultural covering is a "church" matter because the assembly is designed by God as a "pillar . . . of the truth" (1Ti 3:15)," TARGET="_blank">1Ti 3:15), in this case, the incarnation and redemption truth of Christ’s headship over the man.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

What qualifications should a preacher meet?

If a man in the fellowship of an assembly has previously been put away on several occasions for fornication, should he be permitted to preach the Gospel or minister the Word in assembly meetings?

1 Timothy 3:8-12" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 3:8-12 gives us the qualifications for deacons, men who serve the Lord in an assembly. The primary service of deacons (servants) is spiritual, that is, ministering the Word of God to believers and preaching the Gospel to sinners. Verse 10 clearly states that they must first be proved; "then let them minister being found blameless" (Newberry margin). The Scripture therefore clearly disqualifies a Christian man in an assembly from preaching the Gospel to sinners or ministering the Word to believers, if he has been guilty of repeated moral sins.

A. Joyce

Other pages in this section

About this site

Do people in Hell go insane?

Would the powers of reasoning be lost in the torments of a literal fire?

The implications of the question are so overwhelming that they forbid our answering this in some theoretical or philosophic manner. Eternal realities can only be expressed by the Word of God. The other danger which we must avoid is trying to understand eternal experiences by earthly temporal ones. Luke 16" TARGET="_blank">Luke 16 reveals to us a man in hell. Along with having other faculties, he is evidently able to think, remember, recognize responsibility, and draw conclusions. He remembers five brethren. If he was the eldest, this shows his sense of responsibility for their welfare. He recognizes and logically deduces that if they follow the same path as he has, they will also be in hell. He formulates a plan, "Send Lazarus..." which he assumes will convert them. All of this argues for the preservation of reasoning.

Just as the body was used as a vehicle for sin and therefore must participate in the suffering, so the mind and reasoning, employed to keep God at bay throughout life, must be preserved to suffer. Suffering upon earth frequently dulls the mind and destroys the body. The God who will prevent the destruction of bodies in eternal fire will also prevent the destruction of reasoning.

A. Higgins

Other pages in this section

About this site

Was Satan in Heaven when he sinned and fell?

This page was adapted from an answer at Truth and Tidings Magazine by David Oliver.

In the gospel of Luke 10:17," TARGET="_blank">Luke 10:17, the disciples were glad to be able to control the demons (v. 17). Christ gave them the authority to control Satan's agents; they acted in Christ's name. Christ then said, "I saw Satan as lightning fall from heaven" (Luke 10:18)." TARGET="_blank">Luke 10:18). Comparing Christ's words with the eventual expulsion from heaven (Revelation 12:8)," TARGET="_blank">Revelation 12:8), some people see Christ's words as a prophecy of a future event. However, the word, "saw," means he was watching an event in the past rather than looking forward to the future. Most likely, the Lord is referring to his preexistence and supremacy. Being obedient to His name should not have surprised them. Satan’s expulsion, attributable to the Lord Himself, was like lightning: immediate; downward; devastating. "To fall from" sometimes expresses a fall from favor; in this case, it refers to Satan’s sin. In the future, he will be cast from the created heavens (Revelation 12:8, 9)." TARGET="_blank">Revelation 12:8, 9). In the past, he fell from the uncreated heaven, the dwelling place of God.

Although God’s power was shown in expelling even Satan, it cannot rival the greatness of what God will accomplish by redemption (v. 20).

D. Oliver

Other pages in this section

About this site

Is John the Baptist the same as Elijah?

What was the Lord saying about John the Baptist in Matthew 11:14" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 11:14?

The Lord pointed to the past and present when He said, "And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come." From the past, He combined two prophecies, both in Malachi. In verse 10, He quotes His promise that He will send His messenger to prepare the way before Him (Malachi 3:1)." TARGET="_blank">Malachi 3:1). Now in verse 14, He informs us that the prophet Elijah whom the Lord of Hosts would send "before the coming of the great and terrible day of the Lord" (4:5) is His messenger mentioned in the previous prophecy. As to the present, the Lord states the one condition which determines if John fulfills these two prophecies: literally, "if ye will receive." The context indicates what they were to receive. The Old Testament prophecies about the coming of the Messiah reached their terminus in John (Mat 11:13)." TARGET="_blank">Mat 11:13). If they recognized who John was, they would receive His message. That is why the Lord immediately refers to their responsibility to heed what they heard ("He that hath ears to hear, let him hear" v 15). Yet they were like the children who heard the mourning, but didn’t lament (v 16). By not recognizing John’s authority, they wouldn’t and couldn’t recognize Christ’s (21:24-27).

Gabriel had told Zecharias that John would go before the Lord "in the spirit and power of Elias"; he then referred to Malachi’s prophecy about Elijah (Mal 4:5, 6)." TARGET="_blank">Mal 4:5, 6). John was not a reappearance of Elijah, but was a prophet whose might and mission was the same as Elijah’s. In Matthew 17," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 17, the disciples understood that the Lord was speaking about John (v 13) when He said two seemingly contradictory things about Elijah. The Lord said, "Elias indeed comes first and will restore all things" (v 11); that is the prescribed order of Malachi’s prophecy, but John is now dead and the restoration must await a future "Elias." "The crooked" had not been "made straight" (Luke 3:5;" TARGET="_blank">Luke 3:5; Isaiah 40:4)," TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 40:4), nor had John’s ministry restored "all things." Why? "Elias is come already, and they knew him not" (v 12). On God’s part - and John’s - John had fulfilled the prophecies. On the nation’s part, they had rejected him and his message of repentance. In the future, God will yet fulfill the prophecy of sending "My messenger," the Elijah to come. Then, "Thy people shall be willing in the day of Thy power" (Psa 110:3), and the future prophet ("in the spirit and power of Elijah," see Revelation 11:3-7)" TARGET="_blank">Revelation 11:3-7) will present a people restored to Him "before that . . . day of the Lord."

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Main Menu