What is the worst sin?

Answer: As far as it compares to the
holiness of God , all sin is the same. Every sin, from anger to murder, from white lies to adultery, will lead to eternal condemnation (James 4:17 ; Romans 6:23 ). All sin, no matter how “small,” goes against the nature and will of an infinite and eternal God and is therefore deserving of an infinite and eternal punishment (Isaiah 13:11 ). In this sense, there is no “worst” sin.
Not only does God hate sin because it goes against His will for us, but also because sin separates us from God (Isaiah 59:2 ; Jeremiah 5:25 ). God does not want us to be separated from Him. Thankfully, He has provided a way to “cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:8–10 ) through His Son, Jesus Christ (John 3:17 ). First Timothy 2:4 says that our Heavenly Father “desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” Your sin does not have to equal your condemnation—no matter how terrible you feel it is (see Romans 8:1 ).
Just as there is no sin too small to be worthy of punishment, there is no sin too “big” that God cannot forgive it. When a repentant prostitute came to Jesus, she found grace; Jesus then said to the onlookers, “I tell you, her sins—and they are many—have been forgiven” (Luke 7:47, NLT ). Jesus died to pay the penalty for sin (John 3:16 ; 1 John 2:2 ). Second Corinthians 5:21 tells us that “God made [Jesus] who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” For the believer, there is no sin Jesus’s sacrifice does not cover; there is no sin God cannot forgive, even if we consider it the “worst” (see 1 Timothy 1:15 ).
It is true that some sins will have bigger earthly consequences than others. Murder, for example, is going to have a much worse effect than harboring private hate. A chronic liar in a position of authority will have a wider negative effect than the child who fibs to his mother about stealing cookies before dinner. Sin is sin, but it can have different degrees of severity, and some sins call for worse penalties than others in this world.
As believers, we should hate sin as much as God does. We are “sons of the light and sons of the day. We do not belong to the night or to the darkness” (1 Thessalonians 5:5 ). God has set us apart as “a holy nation, a people belonging to God” (1 Peter 2:9 ). Holiness is not earned; rather, it is given by the Holy Spirit as He sanctifies us (2 Thessalonians 2:13 ; 1 Peter 1:15–16 ). Christians will still sin, but God promises to help us in the fight for righteousness (1 Corinthians 1:8 ).
Do not fall into the trap of comparing sins, judging others for “worse” sins than yours, or using the seeming triviality of one sin versus another as an excuse to do it. Your first concern should be your own sin—not the sin of those around you (Matthew 7:4–5 ). God’s standard is not how well you measure up to other people but how you measure up to Christ.
Each person’s sin is a reflection of what is in his heart (Matthew 12:34 ) and emerges through his thoughts, words, and actions. God judges all these aspects of our lives and will justly yet lovingly discipline His children when they sin (Proverbs 3:11–12 ; Hebrews 12:5–11 ). God’s discipline can take varying forms, depending on each person’s situation, to bring about repentance and renewal of fellowship with God. In the end, a believer who sins then experiences discipline will come out with a stronger faith, a renewed relationship with God, the wisdom of experience, and patience (James 1:2–4).
Is there a “worst” sin? Earthly consequences for various sins vary, but heaven’s perspective is different. First Corinthians 6:9–10 lists several sins that will keep a person from inheriting the kingdom of God . On that list are some sins that people like to rank as “worse” than others, yet Paul treats them all as equally damning. The same is true in Revelation 21:8 , a list of sins that doom people to the lake of fire—lying is placed next to witchcraft and idolatry. All sin is equally bad in God’s eyes; the standard is the glorious perfection of His Son, and we all fall short of that (Romans 3:23 ). We need the righteousness of Christ, and, praise Him, that’s what He gives us when we believe (Romans 3:26 ; 4:5 ). In the final analysis, we might say that the “worst” sin is unbelief. To reject the Savior is to accept the penalty for one’s own sin. But no sin will condemn a born-again believer in Jesus Christ, because the penalty has already been paid (1 Peter 2:24 ).

Who were the Arameans?

Answer: Aram was the Hebrew designation for the nation of Syria, so the Arameans mentioned in the Bible are Syrians. In fact, some translations such as the ESV and KJV, when translating the Hebrew word for “Aramean,” substitute the word Syrian instead (see
2 Kings 7:6 ). The Arameans lived on an elevated tableland, and the topography is reflected in the fact that the word
Aram comes from a root meaning “heights.” Aram Naharaim in Genesis 24:10 means “highland of the two rivers.”
The borders of Aram encompassed a broad region immediately to the northeast of Israel, extending to the Euphrates River and including Mesopotamia. Among the major cities inhabited by ancient Arameans were Damascus (Genesis 14:15 ) and Hamath (Numbers 13:21 ). Much later, Syrian Antioch was built and is mentioned in the New Testament (Acts 11:19 ; 13:1 ). The various kingdoms comprising ancient Aram gradually unified under Damascus, which grew to be the most dominant of the Aramean kingdoms.
When Abraham sought a wife for his son Isaac, he sent a servant to the land of Aram to find Rebekah (Genesis 24:10 ;
25:20 ). Laban, Jacob’s father-in-law, is called an Aramean in Genesis 31:10 . Jacob himself is called “a wandering Aramean” in Deuteronomy 26:5 , since both his mother and his grandfather were from Mesopotamia and therefore considered Arameans by the Hebrews.
During the reign of King David, the Arameans of Damascus came to the help of another group of Syrians. David defeated them, and the Arameans were forced to pay tribute (2 Samuel 8:5–6 ). Later, the Arameans joined forces with the Ammonites in war against Israel (2 Samuel 10 ). The Israelites defeated Aram again and kept them in subjugation. This arrangement lasted through the reign of King Solomon (1 Kings 4:21 ).
After the time of Solomon, the Arameans were a perennial thorn in Israel’s side. They fought Israel during King Ahab’s time, and Israel won (1 Kings 20 ). In another battle, however, they killed Ahab (2 Chronicles 18:34 ). They raided Israel (2 Kings 6:8 ) and later laid siege to the capital, Samaria (verse 24). Elisha predicted the atrocities that the Arameans would commit (2 Kings 8:12 ). The Arameans fought King Joram of Israel and wounded him (2 Kings 8:28 ). And they fought King Joash of Judah and wounded him (2 Chronicles 24:23–25). The eventual fall of Jerusalem at the hands of Babylon was aided by the Arameans (2 Kings 24:2 ).
In a wonderful demonstration of God’s grace and power, Elisha healed Naaman the Syrian of leprosy (2 Kings 5 ). Naaman, the commander of the army of the king of Aram, was an enemy of Israel, but he humbled himself enough to seek the Lord’s help. Naaman discovered that God is merciful to all those who call upon Him—even Arameans—and that discovery drastically changed Naaman’s worldview: “Now I know that there is no God in all the world except in Israel” (2 Kings 5:15 ).

Is it appropriate for a woman to propose to a man?

Question: "Is it appropriate for a woman to propose to a man?"
Answer: Marriage arrangements vary across time and cultures. The Western tradition of man on bended knee proposing marriage to his unsuspecting darling is a relatively new practice. In past times, and in many cultures today,
marriages were arranged by the parents of the bride and groom. Although the idea of a woman proposing to a man is slowly gaining acceptance, it is still considered the norm for the man to initiate a marriage proposal. But simply because a practice is traditional doesn’t mean it is right. So, according to the Bible, is it ever appropriate for a woman to propose marriage to her sweetheart?
Although there is no Bible verse that speaks definitively to this issue, the concept of the man taking the initiative to propose actually does have some foundation in Scripture. God created the man first and then created the woman from the man’s rib. Genesis 2:22 says, “Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.” Paul echoes this order of creation in 1 Corinthians 11:8–9 when he says, “For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.” He goes on to explain that this order is part of God’s design in leadership, not based upon cultural mores but God’s intention. There are no instances in the Bible where a woman proposes to a man. Marriages were arranged through the families of each, and so the idea of a woman proposing was never considered.
Since God created men to lead, both in church and at home, then it seems natural that his leadership would begin with proposing marriage to the woman of his choice (1 Corinthians 11:3 ). She is, of course, free to decline his offer; however, it may not be wise to extend her freedom to proposing marriage. A woman’s proposal may set an unhealthy precedent for the resulting marriage. A common complaint by Christian women in marriage counseling is that their husbands won’t lead spiritually. If the man will not even take the initiative to propose marriage, a woman could be setting herself up for a lifetime of disappointment at his lack of leadership.
The biblical parallel of Christ as bridegroom also lends some wisdom to this issue. Throughout Scripture, Jesus is compared to a bridegroom who loves
His bride , the church, and is preparing to return and carry her away to the wedding feast (2 Corinthians 11:2 ;
Ephesians 5:25–27 ). Jesus, as our model groom, is the aggressor in every aspect of His relationship with us. It is He who came to earth to redeem us while we were far from Him (Romans 5:8 ). And it is the initiative of the Father that draws us and supplies the faith we need to respond (John 6:44 ; Ephesians 2:8–9 ). Due to this spiritual precedent, it seems clear that God’s design was for the man to bear the responsibility of pursuing the woman he loves until he proposes marriage.
But not all relationships follow the same pattern. Every romance is different, and therefore the particulars of a couple’s engagement will be unique to that couple. Some of the healthiest marriages were mutually decided as the couple spent a significant amount of time getting to know each other. As they served the Lord together, they came to see the benefit of a lifelong commitment. They began to discuss the “what if’s” of a life together, and, when the time was right, the man proposed with a ring to signify his commitment. The proposal wasn’t a surprise, but neither did she take the lead in the matter. They had already decided to move forward, and the actual proposal was a confirmation of that mutual decision.
In modern culture, the boy/girl dance of romantic commitment has been hijacked by rampant immorality and living together without marriage. This dynamic throws everything else out of sync by introducing tensions, emotions, fears, and guilt that was never to be part of an engagement. Even the concept of an
engaged couple has come to include a couple living together, presumably planning to marry at some undetermined future date. It is often the woman who secretly regrets this lack of commitment and begins to pressure her bed-mate to marry her. Sometimes there are already children involved, which was never God’s intent when He created marriage (Genesis 2:24 ; Mark 10:7 ).
It would appear from the biblical patterns that it is God’s intention that a man take the initiative in proposing, leading, serving, and providing for the woman he chooses. For an impatient bride-to-be to circumvent that pattern could result in a marriage that is out of balance and one in which both spouses come to resent this backward dynamic. It may be wise for all women desiring to marry to keep this thought as a guide: If he won’t propose, he won’t lead in other ways. I don’t want to pledge my life to a man who won’t even honor me by asking.

Lucid dreaming... What is it?

Answer: A lucid dream is a dream in which the sleeper is aware that she or he is dreaming. When the dreamer is lucid, he/she can actively participate in and often manipulate the imaginary experiences in the dream environment. The term “lucid dreaming” was coined by Frederik van Eeden (1860–1932), a Dutch psychiatrist. Since that time, several books and articles have been written on the subject. Research and analysis of the causes of lucid dreams is ongoing and often strays into the area of parapsychology. Some researchers have identified a similarity between lucid dreaming, near-death experiences, transcendental meditation, out-of-body experiences, and other occult and New Age practices. God’s Word forbids these practices (Leviticus 20:27 ; Deuteronomy 18:10-12 ).
There is certainly nothing wrong with dreaming, and everyone dreams at one time or another. Some people can remember every detail of their dreams, while some remember nothing, causing them to conclude that they don’t dream at all, which is unlikely. Dreams are little more than the continued functioning of the mind during sleep, sometimes rehearsing recent thoughts and events, and sometimes creating scenarios based on fears, hopes or desires. As such, dreams are a perfectly normal function of the brain.
Although dreams are mentioned frequently in the Bible—God can and has used dreams to speak to people—lucid dreaming as such is never addressed. Lucid dreaming simply means being able to control your dreams. There is nothing essentially wrong with this. But if lucid dreaming becomes too much of a focus or an obsession, it should be avoided. For Christians, being fascinated by the concept of lucid dreaming is of little or no spiritual value and might possibly lead to an unhealthy interest in other extra-sensory phenomena. While many things are permissible for Christians, not all things are beneficial (1 Corinthians 6:12 ). A Christian should prayerfully examine why he/she wants to experience lucid dreaming. If the motives are pure and include an understanding of the unreliable nature of dreams, it is probably nothing more than a harmless curiosity. It if becomes more than that or involves even the smallest hint of New Age or occult practices, it should be avoided.

How is sorrow better than laughter

Answer: Ecclesiastes 7:3 says, “Sorrow is better than laughter, / for by sadness of face the heart is made glad” (ESV). There are many puzzling statements in the book of Ecclesiastes, and this is one of them. What does it mean that “sorrow is better than laughter”? Most people would much rather laugh than cry.
The second half of the verse states why sorrow is better than laughter: “By sadness of face the heart is made glad.” Sorrow can have a positive spiritual impact on the heart and soul of man. Through sorrow we can consider the seriousness of life, evaluate our situation, and make changes to improve our lives.
Sorrow is better than laughter in that it provides a different perspective. Laughter is a wonderful tool God has designed to help us express delight and enjoy life. However, life is not all delight and joy. In laughter we rarely consider the difficult areas of our lives and how to improve. It is during difficult times of struggle—sorrowful times—that we are often forced to make adjustments. Further, we tend to look more seriously to God in times of need, relying on His strength in our weakness.
The context of Ecclesiastes 7:3 provides further insight: “It is better to go to a house of mourning / than to go to a house of feasting, / for death is the destiny of everyone; / the living should take this to heart” (Ecclesiastes 7:2). Few people would claim a funeral is better than a party, yet Solomon claims this is the case. Why? He explains that the “house of mourning” causes the living to consider their ways. More people come to faith in Christ at funerals than at bacchanals.
In the same way, sorrow is better than laughter because it causes us to reflect on our lives and make personal improvements. Those who constantly seek comedy or fun to escape from problems may be working to avoid a serious look at areas in life that need to be addressed. Laughing through life can be a means to avoid appropriate change.
However, those who endure times of sorrow and contemplate ways to change can truly find sorrow is better than laughter. The actual sorrow is not enjoyable, but it can lead to a new way of life or a new perspective that improves life more than laughter ever could.
Sorrow can point an open learner toward greater wisdom. Ecclesiastes 7:19 says, “Wisdom makes one wise person more powerful / than ten rulers in a city.” While laughter can offer many positives, it does not have the same impact as sorrow to cause a person to consider life and grow in wisdom. Sorrow can therefore be better than laughter. The eternal benefits are greater. Sorrow, though painful, leads to reflective thinking, wisdom, and changed actions that improve one’s life and the lives of others.
Rec

Is 'eat, drink and be merry' a biblical concept?

Question: "Is ‘eat, drink, and be merry’ a biblical concept?"
Answer: The phrase eat, drink, and be merry or eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die has been used for centuries throughout literature. Usually this phrase is understood as “enjoy life as much as possible because we won’t live forever.” While the phrase’s wording is an amalgamation of several verses in the Bible (including Isaiah 22:13, Ecclesiastes 8:15, 1 Corinthians 15:32, and Luke 12:19), the underlying principle is quite opposite from biblical teaching.
In Isaiah 22, the prophet warns the people of Jerusalem that their hypocritical nature will be their downfall. When the Lord had called for weeping and mourning over impending invasion, instead the people said flippantly, “Let us eat and drink . . . for tomorrow we die” (verse 13). God’s response to their disobedience was to proclaim, “Till your dying day this sin will not be atoned for” (verse 14).
Some suppose that Ecclesiastes 8 supports the concept of “eat, drink, and be merry.” Verse 15 says, “I commend the enjoyment of life, because there is nothing better for a person under the sun than to eat and drink and be glad.” Is Solomon, the author, advocating a hedonistic lifestyle here? No, it’s important to keep the verse in context. Just a few sentences earlier, Solomon had promoted righteousness and warned against wickedness: “I know that it will go better with those who fear God, who are reverent before him. Yet because the wicked do not fear God, it will not go well with them” (verses 12–13). So, reverence of God is better than pursuing sin. Then, in verse 14, Solomon notices that in this world the righteous are often mistreated and punished as if they were wicked. This is a “vanity” (ESV), and Solomon’s response is basically to say, “We should be thankful for our lot in life, whatever it is. We should eat our food, drink our wine, and be happy.” In no way does this verse promote gluttony, drunkenness, or the party life. Rather, Solomon is advocating the same principle Paul lays down in 1 Timothy 6:8: “If we have food and clothing, we will be content with that.”
Jesus shares the parable of the rich fool in Luke 12:13–21, wherein a successful man has more crops than he knows what to do with. The man decides to tear down his barns and build larger ones, telling himself, “Soul, you have ample goods laid up for many years; relax, eat, drink, be merry” (verse 19, ESV). The rich fool seems to be quoting Ecclesiastes 8:15, but he twists it into a cover for his recklessly blithe attitude. God disapproves of the rich man’s shortsightedness, and the man dies that very night, leaving all his riches behind. Jesus explains that the one who lays up treasure for himself is not rich in God’s eyes (verse 20–21; also see Matthew 6:19–21.)
In 1 Corinthians 15, the apostle Paul addresses those who do not believe in the resurrection of the dead when Christ returns (verse 12). Paul rebukes them, since, if there is no life after death, they may as well live according to “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die” (verse 32). At its root, the philosophy of “eat, drink, and be merry” is an expression of hopelessness. If this world is all there is, “we are of all people most to be pitied” (verse 19). Paul has harsh words for those who deny the raising of the dead: “Wake up from your drunken stupor, as is right, and do not go on sinning. For some have no knowledge of God. I say this to your shame” (verse 34, ESV).
To “eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die”—to live life for pleasure’s sake alone—goes against the biblical mindset to “count yourselves
dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus” (Romans 6:11). The Lord has called believers to live a holy life (1 Peter 1:16), but we cannot be holy without His help and guidance from the Holy Spirit. A godly life requires a choice to follow God’s will and leave our old, pleasure-seeking ways behind (Romans 12:1–2).
The concept of enjoying earthly life as much as possible because there’s nothing after death is unbiblical. The Bible is clear that there is an eternal spiritual existence after corporeal death, and that existence includes judgment for all (Hebrews 9:27). Those who have been made righteous by faith in Christ will experience eternal life in heaven, but those who reject Christ as Savior will be sent to eternal punishment in hell (Matthew 25:46).
While it may be unbiblical to live for pleasure, living a life of joy for the Lord is certainly biblical. Jesus teaches that abiding in Him and obeying Him will bring us joy in life: “As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. If you keep my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commands and remain in his love. I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete” (John 15:9–11).