WHAT SHOULD PARENTS TEACH THEIR CHILDREN ABOUT SANTA CLAUS?

 Although Santa Claus is a mythical figure, his creation is based in part on a great Christian man named Saint Nicholas of Myra, who lived in the 4th century. Nicholas was born to Christian parents who left him an inheritance when they died, which he distributed to the poor. He became a priest at a young age and was well-known for his compassion and generosity. He had a reputation for giving gifts anonymously, and he would throw bags of money into people's homes (and sometimes down their chimneys) under the cover of night to avoid being spotted. Nicholas passed away on December 6 sometime around the 340s or 350s AD, and the day of his death became an annual feast in which children would put out food for Nicholas and straw for his donkey. It was said that the saint would come down from heaven during the night and replace the offerings with toys and treats—but only for the good boys and girls. There are many different versions of the legend of Saint Nicholas, but all are the inspiration for the jolly, red-suited gift-giver that we now know as Santa Claus.

Many Christian parents are torn as to whether or not they should play the "Santa game" with their children. On one hand, he makes Christmas fun and magical, leaving wonderful holiday memories for years to come. On the other hand, the focus of Christmas should be on Jesus Christ and how much He has already given us. So, is the story of Santa Claus an innocent addition to Christmas festivities, or is he a subject that should be avoided?

Parents need to use their own judgment in deciding whether or not to include Santa during the holidays, but here are some things to consider: Children who believe that the gifts they receive Christmas morning are from a magical man with unending resources are less likely to appreciate what they have been given, and the sacrifices their parents make in providing them. Greed and materialism can overshadow the holiday season, which is meant to be about giving, loving, and worshiping God. Children whose parents are on a tight budget may feel that they have been overlooked by Santa, or even worse, deemed one of the "bad" boys or girls.

An even more troubling aspect of telling our children that Santa comes down the chimney each year to leave their gifts is that it is, obviously, a lie. We live in a society that believes that lying for the "right" reason is acceptable. As long as it doesn't hurt anyone, it is not a problem. This is contrary to what the Bible tells us. "For the Scriptures say, 'If you want to live a happy life and good days, keep your tongue from speaking evil, and keep your lips from telling lies'" (1 Peter 3:10, NLT). Of course, telling our children that Santa is real is not a malicious deception, but it is, nevertheless, a lie.

Although it is probably not typical, some children honestly feel deceived and betrayed by their parents when they find out that Santa is not real. Children trust their parents to tell them the truth, and it is our responsibility not to break this trust. If we do, they will not believe more important things we tell them, such as the truth about Christ, whom they also cannot physically see.

This doesn’t mean we must leave Santa completely out of Christmas. Children can still play the "Santa game" even if they know it is all pretend. They can make lists, sit on his lap at the mall, and leave out cookies and milk on Christmas Eve. This will not rob them of their joy of the season, and gives parents the opportunity to tell their children about the godly qualities of the real Saint Nicholas, who dedicated his life to serving others and made himself into a living example of Jesus Christ.

What is the Egyptian book of the dead?

The Egyptian Book of the Dead carries one of the most misleading names in archaeology. Popular culture likes entertainment and oversimplification. For that reason, the Book of the Dead is usually thought of as “the ancient Egyptian Bible” or a book of sorcery or something along those lines. This title was used of a magical grimoire in The Mummy film series. It also probably inspired the Necronomicon as originally mentioned in the horror stories of H. P. Lovecraft. None of those comparisons are historically accurate.

The truth about the Egyptian Book of the Dead is less mysterious, but far more useful for understanding ancient Egyptian religious beliefs. These collected writings were intended as a guidebook for travel through the afterlife. Each “Book of the Dead” was customized for a specific person, based on his life and wealth. None of the “spells” has any meaning in the world of the living. There was no “canon” of contents, and each copy’s main purpose was to be buried with the deceased. According to Egyptian beliefs, this would allow the dead person to take the text with him into the afterlife.

It should be noted that the term Book of the Dead is an extraordinarily loose translation. The more literal title of these writings is something like “Chapters for Coming Forth by Day.” An Egyptologist used the phrase “Book of the Dead” when publishing translations in the 1840s. Those translations were based on papyrus found in Egyptian tombs, many of which included some version of those “spells.”

The “spells” in the Book of the Dead were believed to be useful only in the afterlife. The purpose of the writings was to guide the dead person to paradise. The instructions included ways to avoid certain dangers, passwords to use around certain spirits, and the correct procedures for getting past obstacles. Some of the directions are relatively mundane. Some are simple. Others were incredibly intricate and detailed. None of them were meant as magic incantations for the living to use.

The contents of the Book of the Dead varied considerably from person to person. There was no mandatory set of inclusions or anything parallel to the canon of the Bible. In fact, each Book of the Dead was custom-written for that person. Individuals with differing social position, lifestyles, and professions might have books including very different material. In some cases, professional scribes compiled Books of the Dead with blank spaces to be filled in later with the name of a customer.

Despite those wide variations, there was a “typical” version of the Book of the Dead used from around 1600 BC until the time of Christ. The only similarity between these writings and the Bible is that both are collections of separate texts. The Egyptian Book of the Dead was not a primary religious source or authority in Egyptian religion.

Among the more famous contents of a typical book of the dead are descriptions of how souls might hope to enter paradise. One especially famous passage, known as “Spell 125,” describes a convoluted process of answering questions, while naming and describing deities and spirits. This must be done correctly to arrive at the point where one’s heart is weighed on a balance—this determines if the deceased is worthy of paradise. This ornate ritual includes naming some 42 judges, each concerned with a unique sin or virtue.

The “real” status of the Egyptian Book of the Dead is not especially exciting. Arcane books full of magical spells make good props in action movies. Rolls of papyrus buried in tombs, intended as Google Maps for the Egyptian afterlife, are not nearly so entertaining. The truth about these writings, however, does provide insight into the religious beliefs of the Egyptian people.

WHAT IS THE HIERARCHY OF ANGELS?

 Some branches of Christian theology have proposed a 9-level hierarchy of angels as follows:

• Highest/First Order:
Seraphim
Cherubim
Thrones

• Middle/Second Order:
Dominions
Virtues
Powers

• Lowest/Third Order:
Principalities
Archangels
Angels

The difficulty is that the Bible identifies no such hierarchy of angels. In the Bible we see that there could be different kinds of angels, and, if there are different kinds, there might be some sort of hierarchy. If a hierarchy exists, the Bible does not tell us about it explicitly. If it were important for us to know about it, the Bible would have told us. The term angel simply means “messenger” and emphasizes the work that angels do.

Seraphim (singular seraph) is simply a word that means “fiery” or “bright.” Seraphim are mentioned as angelic beings only in Isaiah 6:1–4: “I saw the Lord, high and exalted, seated on a throne; and the train of his robe filled the temple. Above him were seraphim, each with six wings: With two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying. And they were calling to one another: ‘Holy, holy, holy is the Lord Almighty; the whole earth is full of his glory.’ At the sound of their voices the doorposts and thresholds shook and the temple was filled with smoke.” Since the word seraphim is simply a description, it may be that the seraphim are simply “fiery beings” that may or may not be a distinct “kind” of angel.

Cherubim (singular cherub) are mentioned numerous times in Scripture. After Adam and Eve were driven out of the Garden of Eden, cherubim were placed there to guard the entrance (Genesis 3:24). The vast majority of the instances where cherubim are mentioned are in connection with the ark of the covenant, as the likeness of two cherubim adorned the cover of the ark (Exodus 25:18 –20; 37:7 –9; 1 Samuel 4:4). David sings a song of praise to God in which he says that God “mounted the cherubim and flew; he soared on the wings of the wind” (2 Samuel 22:11). When Ezekiel sees the glory of God leaving the temple, he also sees cherubim carrying the throne of God (Ezekiel 10). In verse 14, the cherubim are described as having four faces, those of a cherub, a human being, a lion, and an eagle. However, since angels are essentially spirit beings, it may be that they simply appeared to Ezekiel in this form for that particular revelatory vision.

There is only one archangel named in Scripture: Michael. He is mentioned in Jude 1:9. The voice of the archangel is heard in 1 Thessalonians 4:16, with no mention of his name. Revelation 12:7 describes war between Michael and his angels and the devil and angels. In Daniel 10:13, 21 and 12:1, Michael is described as an angelic prince. Michael’s being the leader of the angels would fit with both the title archangel and the role he plays. Archangel may be a role rather than a distinct kind of angel.

Another individual angel, Gabriel, is also named in Scripture. Gabriel delivered messages regarding the birth of John the Baptist (Luke 1:19) and Jesus (Luke 1:26). In speaking to John’s father, he describes himself as one who stands in the presence of God. There is no mention of what “kind” of angel Gabriel may be. He also delivered messages to Daniel in answer to his prayer (Daniel 8:16; 9:21). Daniel describes him as a man, which means that Gabriel appeared in human form. Again, as angels are essentially spirit beings, they do not have physical bodies, but it seems they may appear in various forms.

Michael and Gabriel are the only angels mentioned by name, but we know there are untold myriads of angels who serve God. It should be noted that, although angels have greater power and glory than human beings, it is human beings who are created in God’s image, and it is human beings, not angels, who will reign with Christ (Hebrews 2:5). It is human beings, not angels, who have been redeemed by the blood of Christ (Hebrews 2:16). Angels are servants of God who minister to believers (Hebrews 1:4). From one perspective, angels are certainly greater than people, yet, from another perspective, human beings occupy the primary place in God’s created order, and angels are to some extent excluded. They do not understand redemption in the way that God’s children understand it (1 Peter 1:2).

The term guardian angel is never mentioned in Scripture, although this concept is commonly assumed. Perhaps it is based on Matthew 18:10, “See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven.”

Finally, there are fallen angels. Jude 1:6 clearly mentions them: “And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day”; as does Revelation 12:7–9: “Then war broke out in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.”

In summary, speculation abounds, but there is no elaborate hierarchy of angels revealed in Scripture. Seraphim and cherubim are mentioned in close connection with the throne and glory of God. Since seraph simply means “fiery,” it may be a description of an angel rather than a separate kind. The cherubim and seraphim are generally described as other-worldly creatures. Michael is the archangel, which would indicate that he has a distinct role, but not necessarily that he is a distinct kind of angel. Gabriel is an important messenger for God. When Gabriel appears, he is normally identified as being a “man,” as are other angels when they appear to humans. Angels do an important work, but we are never encouraged to fixate on them, and, of course, we are forbidden from worshiping them (Colossians 2:18). Overcome by the glory of his visions, John records, “At this I fell at [the angel’s] feet to worship him. But he said to me, ‘Don’t do that! I am a fellow servant with you and with your brothers and sisters who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God!’” (Revelation 19:10). Angels simply serve in the background and bring glory to God.

What does it mean that God sent Jesus in the “fullness of time”? Why did God send Jesus when He did? Why not earlier? Why not later?

 “But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law” (Galatians 4:4). This verse declares that God the Father sent His Son when “the time had fully come.” There were many things occurring at the time of the first century that, at least by human reasoning, seem to make it ideal for Christ to come then.

1) There was a great anticipation among the Jews of that time that the Messiah would come. The Roman rule over Israel made the Jews hungry for the Messiah’s coming.

2) Rome had unified much of the world under its government, giving a sense of unity to the various lands. Also, because the empire was relatively peaceful, travel was possible, allowing the early Christians to spread the gospel. Such freedom to travel would have been impossible in other eras.

3) While Rome had conquered militarily, Greece had conquered culturally. A “common” form of the Greek language (different from classical Greek) was the trade language and was spoken throughout the empire, making it possible to communicate the gospel to many different people groups through one common language.

4) The fact that the many false idols had failed to give them victory over the Roman conquerors caused many to abandon the worship of those idols. At the same time, in the more “cultured” cities, the Greek philosophy and science of the time left others spiritually empty in the same way that the atheism of communist governments leaves a spiritual void today.

5) The mystery religions of the time emphasized a savior-god and required worshipers to offer bloody sacrifices, thus making the gospel of Christ which involved one ultimate sacrifice believable to them. The Greeks also believed in the immortality of the soul (but not of the body).

6) The Roman army recruited soldiers from among the provinces, introducing these men to Roman culture and to ideas (such as the gospel) that had not reached those outlying provinces yet. The earliest introduction of the gospel to Britain was the result of the efforts of Christian soldiers stationed there.

The above statements are based on men looking at that time and speculating about why that particular point in history was a good time for Christ to come. But we understand that God’s ways are not our ways (Isaiah 55:8), and these may or may not have been some reasons for why He chose that particular time to send His Son. From the context of Galatians 3 and 4, it is evident that God sought to lay a foundation through the Jewish Law that would prepare for the coming of the Messiah. The Law was meant to help people understand the depth of their sinfulness (in that they were incapable of keeping the Law) so that they might more readily accept the cure for that sin through Jesus the Messiah (Galatians 3:22-23; Romans 3:19-20). The Law was also “put in charge” (Galatians 3:24) to lead people to Jesus as the Messiah. It did this through its many prophecies concerning the Messiah which Jesus fulfilled. Add to this the sacrificial system that pointed to the need for a sacrifice for sin as well as its own inadequacy (with each sacrifice always requiring later additional ones). Old Testament history also painted pictures of the person and work of Christ through several events and religious feasts (such as the willingness of Abraham to offer up Isaac, or the details of the Passover during the exodus from Egypt, etc.).

Finally, Christ came when He did in fulfillment of specific prophecy. Daniel 9:24-27 speaks of the “seventy weeks” or the seventy “sevens.” From the context, these “weeks” or “sevens” refer to groups of seven years, not seven days. We can examine history and line up the details of the first sixty-nine weeks (the seventieth week will take place at a future point). The countdown of the seventy weeks begins with “the going forth of the command to restore and build Jerusalem” (verse 25). This command was given by Artaxerxes Longimanus in 445 B.C. (see Nehemiah 2:5). After seven “sevens” plus 62 “sevens,” or 69 x 7 years, the prophecy states, “the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary” and that the “end will come like a flood” (meaning major destruction) (v. 26). Here we have an unmistakable reference to the Savior’s death on the cross. A century ago in his book The Coming Prince, Sir Robert Anderson gave detailed calculations of the sixty-nine weeks, using ‘prophetic years,’ allowing for leap years, errors in the calendar, the change from B.C. to A.D., etc., and figured that the sixty-nine weeks ended on the very day of Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem, five days before His death. Whether one uses this timetable or not, the point is that the timing of Christ’s incarnation ties in with this detailed prophecy recorded by Daniel over five hundred years beforehand.

The timing of Christ’s incarnation was such that the people of that time were prepared for His coming. The people of every century since then have more than sufficient evidence that Jesus was indeed the promised Messiah through His fulfillment of the Scriptures that pictured and prophesied His coming in great detail.

Will we remember our earthly lives when we are in heaven?

Isaiah 65:17 says, “For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.” Some interpret Isaiah 65:17 as saying that we will have no memory of our earthly lives in heaven. However, one verse earlier in Isaiah 65:16, the Bible says, “For the past troubles will be forgotten and hidden from my eyes.” It is likely only our “past troubles” will be forgotten, not all of our memories. Our memories will eventually be cleansed, redeemed, healed, and restored, not erased. There is no reason why we could not possess many memories from our earthly lives. The memories that will be cleansed are the ones that involve sin, pain, and sadness. Revelation 21:4 declares, “He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”

The fact that the former things will not come to mind does not mean that our memories will be wiped clean. The prophecy could be suggesting the wondrous quality of our new environment. The new earth will be so spectacular, so mind-blowing, that everyone will quite forget the drudgery and sin of the current earth. A child who is scared of the shadows in his room at night completely forgets his nocturnal fear the next day on the playground. It’s not that the memories have been wiped out, only that, in the sunshine, they don’t come to mind.

Also, it’s important to make a distinction between the eternal state and the current heaven. When a believer dies, he or she goes to heaven, but that is not our final destination. The Bible speaks of “a new heaven and a new earth” as our eternal, permanent home. Both passages quoted above (Isaiah 65:17 and Revelation 21:1) refer to the eternal state, not the current heaven. The promise of wiping away every tear does not come until after the tribulation, after the final judgment, and after the re-creation of the universe.

In his apocalyptic vision, John sees sorrow in heaven: “I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God and the testimony they had maintained. They called out in a loud voice, ‘How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge the inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?’” (Revelation 6:9–10). John is obviously in heaven (Revelation 4:1–2), and he sees and hears those who obviously remember the injustice done to them. Their loud calls for vengeance indicate that, in the current heaven, we will remember our lives on earth, including the bad things. The current heaven of Revelation 6 is temporary, though, giving way to the eternal state in Revelation 21.

The story of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16:19–31) is further proof that the dead remember their earthly lives. The rich man in hell asks Abraham to send Lazarus back to earth to warn the rich man’s brothers of the fate awaiting the unrighteous (verses 27–28). The rich man obviously remembers his relatives. He also remembers his own life of self-serving and sinful comfort (verse 25). The memories of the rich man in hell become part of his misery. The story does not mention whether or not Lazarus has memories, but Abraham has definite knowledge of goings-on on earth (verse 25). It’s not until we reach the eternal state that the righteous will leave all sorrow behind.

Does a cashless society have anything to do with the end-times?

It is often postulated that, in order for the Antichrist or the beast to control all buying and selling (Revelation 13:17), a cashless society will be necessary during the tribulation. As long as people are using cash, transactions can be completed in private, but, if all currency becomes electronic, then every transaction can be monitored.

Be that as it may, a cashless society is not necessary to fulfill the conditions of Revelation 13:17, nor does moving toward a cashless society indicate that “the end is near” for the following reasons:

1. The “end times” started with the resurrection and ascension of Jesus. We have been in the “end times” for the last 2,000 years. Paul describes the Corinthian believers as those “on whom the culmination of the ages has come” (1 Corinthians 10:11). He warns Timothy of conditions in the last days as though Timothy will encounter them (2 Timothy 3:1–5). In Peter’s sermon on the Day of Pentecost, he identifies the pouring out of God’s Spirit upon believers as a sign of the last days (Acts 2:17). James 5:3 warns the rich that they are hoarding wealth in the last days, when they should be helping the poor. We are currently living in the end times, cash or no cash.

2. The conditions described in Revelation 13:17 existed in the first century, without a cashless society. In Asia Minor (the area of the seven churches to whom the book is addressed), if a tradesman wanted to practice his craft, he would have to be a member of a trade guild. Each guild had a patron deity, and, in order to be a member of the guild, the tradesman would have to participate in worship of the deity. If a Christian tradesman refused to worship the deity and join the guild, he was prohibited from practicing his trade and thus unable to earn a living, effectively preventing him from buying and selling. This is the background of Revelation 13:17. In modern communist countries, Christians have sometimes been blackballed. The authorities make it clear that no one is allowed to buy or sell to Christians, nor is anyone allowed to help them with donations. If Christian parents are incarcerated, no one is allowed to help their children. Other groups have been persecuted in this way, too; a cashless society is not needed to keep certain people from doing business.

3. Even in a cashless society, there will always be ways around the system. Barter of goods and services and the black market will always exist. Revelation 13:17 does not require that the beast maintain absolute control over every single transaction, only that the official policy forbids these transactions, making them illegal and punishable and therefore more difficult.

In the final analysis, a cashless society may make it easier for a totalitarian government to control its citizens. This is a fact of human existence and not necessarily linked to the “end times.” A cashless society is not an indicator that the Lord’s return is imminent, because believers of all ages have been warned and encouraged that the Lord may return at any time. This was true when no one had even imagined electronic transactions. The most that can be said is that every day that passes brings us one day closer to the Lord’s return.

IS THERE EVIDENCE THAT GOD ANSWERS PRAYER?

Countless stories could be cited of diseases cured, exams passed, repentance and forgiveness granted, relationships restored, hungry children fed, bills paid and lives and souls saved through the efficacy of prayer. So, yes, there is plenty of evidence that God answers prayer. Most of the evidence is anecdotal and personal, however, and that bothers many who think of “evidence” only as that which is observable, measureable, and reproducible.

Scripture clearly teaches that prayers are answered. James 5:16 states that “the prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective.” Jesus taught His disciples that “if you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you” (John 15:7). First John 3:22 echoes this truth, saying that we “receive from him anything we ask, because we keep his commands and do what pleases him.”

Scripture, moreover, is replete with stories of answered prayer. Elijah’s prayer for fire from heaven (2 Kings 1:12), Hezekiah’s prayer for deliverance (2 Kings 19:19), and the apostles’ prayer for boldness (Acts 4:29) are just three examples. Since these accounts were written by eyewitnesses to the events, they constitute clear evidence of answered prayer. One might, of course, counter that Scripture does not present observable evidence in the “scientific” sense. However, no statement of Scripture has ever been conclusively disproved, so there is no reason to doubt its testimony. In fact, labeling some kinds of evidence as “scientific” and other kinds as “non-scientific” is a fuzzy and artificial distinction at best. Such a distinction can only be made a priori, i.e., prior to the evaluation of the data. In other words, the choice to evaluate the efficacy of prayer only in light of observable evidence is not a choice motivated by the data but by prior philosophical commitments. When this arbitrary restriction is relaxed, the biblical data speaks clearly for itself.

Occasionally, a group of researchers will conduct a scientific study on the efficacy of prayer. Their findings are usually that prayer has no effect (or possibly even a negative effect) on, for instance, the average recovery time of people in medical care. How are we to understand the results of studies such as these? Are there any biblical reasons for unanswered prayer?

Psalm 66:18 says, “If I regard wickedness in my heart, the Lord will not hear” (NASB). Likewise, 1 John 5:15 qualifies our receiving “anything we ask” with our obedience to God’s commands. James notes that “when you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives” (4:3). So, a couple reasons for unanswered prayer are unconfessed sin and wrong motivations.

Another reason for unanswered prayer is lack of faith: “When you ask, you must believe and not doubt, because the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. That person should not expect to receive anything from the Lord” (James 1:6-7). Hebrews 11:6 also identifies faith as a necessary condition for a relationship with God, something always mediated by prayer in the name of Christ: “And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.” Faith, then, is necessary for answered prayer.

Finally, some critics of Christianity make the case that, since Jesus instructs His disciples to “ask whatever you wish,” all prayers should be answered. However, such criticisms completely ignore the conditions to the promise in the first part of the verse: “If you remain in me and my words remain in you.” This is clearly a prescription for praying within the will of God; in other words, genuine prayer which God always answers is, in fact, that sort which requests, explicitly or implicitly, that God’s will be accomplished. The will of the petitioner is secondary. Jesus Himself prayed this way in Gethsemane (Luke 22:42). The humble prayer of faith allows that the prayer may be answered with a “no”; anyone not offering such a prayer—anyone who demands to be answered—has no right to expect an answer.

Another reason why so many studies report the inefficacy of prayer is that it is impossible to eliminate the variables associated with the spiritual condition of those praying (is the petitioner even a believer?), the motivation for which they offer the prayer (is it to provide evidence or because the Holy Spirit has moved them to pray?), the way in which they offer their prayer (are they praying a formulaic expression or intentionally bringing requests to God?), and so on.

Even if all such lurking variables could be eliminated, one overarching problem would remain: if prayer could be tested empirically and forced to yield conclusive results, it would obviate the need for faith. We cannot “discover” God through empirical observations; we come to Him by faith. God is not so clumsy that He should reveal Himself in ways He did not intend. “He who comes to God must believe that He is” (that is, that He exists). Faith is the prerequisite and the priority.

Does God answer prayer? Ask any believer, and you will know the answer. Every changed life of every believer is proof positive that God answers prayer.

DOES GOD REQUIRE CHRISTIANS TO KEEP THE SABBATH?

 In Colossians 2:16-17, the apostle Paul declares, “Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.” Similarly, Romans 14:5 states, “One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.” These Scriptures make it clear that, for the Christian, Sabbath-keeping is a matter of spiritual freedom, not a command from God. Sabbath-keeping is an issue on which God’s Word instructs us not to judge each other. Sabbath-keeping is a matter about which each Christian needs to be fully convinced in his/her own mind.

In the early chapters of the book of Acts, the first Christians were predominantly Jews. When Gentiles began to receive the gift of salvation through Jesus Christ, the Jewish Christians had a dilemma. What aspects of the Mosaic Law and Jewish tradition should Gentile Christians be instructed to obey? The apostles met and discussed the issue in the Jerusalem council (Acts 15). The decision was, “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood” (Acts 15:19-20). Sabbath-keeping was not one of the commands the apostles felt was necessary to force on Gentile believers. It is inconceivable that the apostles would neglect to include Sabbath-keeping if it was God’s command for Christians to observe the Sabbath day.

A common error in the Sabbath-keeping debate is the concept that the Sabbath was the day of worship. Groups such as the Seventh Day Adventists hold that God requires the church service to be held on Saturday, the Sabbath day. That is not what the Sabbath command was. The Sabbath command was to do no work on the Sabbath day (Exodus 20:8-11). Yes, Jews in Old Testament, New Testament, and modern times use Saturday as the day of worship, but that is not the essence of the Sabbath command. In the book of Acts, whenever a meeting is said to be on the Sabbath, it is a meeting of Jews and/or Gentile converts to Judaism, not Christians.

When did the early Christians meet? Acts 2:46-47 gives us the answer, “Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.” If there was a day that Christians met regularly, it was the first day of the week (our Sunday), not the Sabbath day (our Saturday) (Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2). In honor of Christ’s resurrection on Sunday, the early Christians observed Sunday not as the “Christian Sabbath” but as a day to especially worship Jesus Christ.

Is there anything wrong with worshiping on Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath? Absolutely not! We should worship God every day, not just on Saturday or Sunday! Many churches today have both Saturday and Sunday services. There is freedom in Christ (Romans 8:21; 2 Corinthians 3:17; Galatians 5:1). Should a Christian practice Sabbath-keeping, that is, not working on Saturdays? If a Christian feels led to do so, absolutely, yes (Romans 14:5). However, those who choose to practice Sabbath-keeping should not judge those who do not keep the Sabbath (Colossians 2:16). Further, those who do not keep the Sabbath should avoid being a stumbling block (1 Corinthians 8:9) to those who do keep the Sabbath. Galatians 5:13-15 sums up the whole issue: “You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love. The entire law is summed up in a single command: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ If you keep on biting and devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.”

Does the Bible say what is the proper age for marriage?

The Bible does not specify any particular age requirement for a person to be married; rather, it speaks in general terms of marriage being for those who are “grown up” (see Ruth 1:12–13). Both the language and culture of the Bible strongly support the idea that puberty, at bare minimum, is a condition that must be met before becoming someone’s spouse. This fits with the historical purpose of marriage, which has always been about conceiving and rearing children. Scriptural evidence indicates that those too young for childbearing are not candidates for marriage, though there is no explicit age given in the Bible.

It is reasonable to look at the practices of ancient Judaism for cultural considerations on the proper age for marriage. According to tradition, boys were not considered “men,” and therefore not marriageable, until the age of 13. Girls were not considered “women” until age 12. These ages more or less correspond to the onset of puberty. While those ages might seem too young to us, they are not unusual ages for getting married, historically. It has only been within the last century or so that the average age of getting married has drifted into the late twenties and early thirties.

It’s also important to recall that maturity—often used as a benchmark for allowing sexuality and marriage—is highly cultural. In modern Western countries, people are not generally expected to be self-sufficient until they are nearly in their twenties, or even later. For most of human history, however, people were expected to “grow up” much sooner. The age of getting married was normally young, as everyone was expected to mature socially and emotionally more quickly than today.

The Hebrew language also supports the idea that puberty is a requirement for a legitimate marriage. Ezekiel 16 contains a metaphor for God’s relationship to Israel. In this passage, God cares for Israel, pictured as an orphaned girl in various stages of development. The Lord first sees her birth, then watches her grow up: “You grew and developed and entered puberty. Your breasts had formed and your hair had grown. . . . Later I passed by, and when I looked at you and saw that you were old enough for love, I spread the corner of my garment over you” (verses 7–8). In this illustration, it’s only after the girl arrives at physical maturity, sometime after (not during) puberty when she is “old enough to love,” that she is ready for marriage. Other translations say the girl “grew tall and came of age” (NET) and “grew up, matured, and became a young woman” (GWT).

Hebrew, as English, uses different words for younger and older members of either sex. Naˈar refers to young men, while yeled refers to boys age 12 or younger. For females, naˈarah means “a marriageable woman,” while yaldah refers to a girl 11 or younger—too young for marriage. Once again, these words and definitions seem to enforce the idea that the onset of puberty is a requirement for marriage. Before that time, a boy or girl is not of an age to be married.

The New Testament has even less to say about the age of getting married. Still, there are clues in New Testament Greek similar to those in Hebrew. For example, 1 Corinthians 7:36 uses the word hyperakmos in reference to a female. In this case, it’s a young woman who’s engaged to be married. Hyperakmos is translated as “past her youth” (NASB), past “the flower of her age” (KJV), or “past marriageable age” (CSB). The word literally means “ripe,” a common euphemism in many cultures for describing a woman’s capability for bearing children. Paul’s inclusion of the word definitely indicates that the marriageable age was sometime after puberty, when a woman is fully grown. But Scripture nowhere sets a definitive marriageable age: physical maturity is a must, but when a girl reaches maturity can vary. The 12-year-old in Mark 5:41–42 is still a “little girl” and obviously not ready for marriage.

As with many other issues, the proper age for getting married has a cultural component that the Bible does not specifically override. What constitutes a proper marriage age can vary from culture to culture and still fall within the bounds of scripturally proper conduct. The bottom line is that pedophilia and child marriages are unacceptable. A person must be fully grown to be married; he or she must be physically mature enough for sexuality and child-bearing. Beyond that, the Bible does not specify a minimum age for marriage.

Is it wise for Christian teens to be dating?

To properly discuss teen dating, we need to clarify the term dating. To some today, the word dating has become synonymous with sleeping together. Defined that way, no Christian teen or anyone else of any age should be “dating,” since under no conditions is it ever right for unmarried persons to have sex with each other. For the purposes of this article, we will define dating as “meeting socially with someone of the opposite gender to spend time together and get to know him or her.” Dating can be casual or serious; it can lead to romance or to both individuals going their separate ways.

In considering the wisdom of Christian teens dating, we need to establish the purpose of dating. Dating is a fairly recent Western idea, evolving from the earlier practice of courtship. The purpose of courtship was to determine whether a boy and a girl liked each other enough to consider marriage. Courtship involved the whole family and always involved a chaperone. In a day when marriage occurred earlier, often in the late teen years, courtship worked well as a means of selecting a life partner.

In today’s culture, most teenagers are not mature enough to consider marriage. Secondary education opportunities, financial limitations, and extended adolescence actually work against the idea of early marriage; therefore, dating sets teenagers up for a tremendous amount of emotional, physical, and psychological stress before they are old enough to handle it. If marriage is not an option for many years, then why date? There is little possibility of a good outcome. If the romance is unrequited, teenagers must deal with broken hearts, rejection issues, and distractions at a time when they need to be focused on their education and growing up. If the romance is mutual, what are two teenagers to do? Two sixteen-year-olds “in love,” but who can’t marry for several more years, are in danger of crossing sexual boundaries and creating more heartaches and deeper problems.

When evaluating the wisdom of teenage dating, we should consider how many of society’s ills have links to teen dating and sexual experimentation: abortion, single parenthood, poverty, STD’s, suicide, low-income wage earners, AIDS, rape, and school drop-out rates. How many of those problems might be greatly reduced if teenagers delayed romantic involvement until they were out of secondary school?

When Christian teens are grounded in moral values and see dating as a way to learn about the opposite sex, the danger diminishes. Through dating, they can discover characteristics in others that they like and dislike, gathering information for the time when they will select a spouse. They keep their dating relationships causal and involve friends and family in their times together. They limit physical displays of affection and have clear boundaries on such activity. They have an open, honest relationship with their parents, and the parents know their teens can be trusted. When all those factors are in place, Christian teens may be able to navigate the dating years without collateral damage to their bodies and souls.

As Christian parents determine how wise it is for their teens to be dating, they should consider the culture in which their teens live: pornography exposure is at epidemic proportions, cultural boundaries are nearly obsolete, and peer pressure and expectations pull teenagers away from biblical values. Is it wise or reasonable to subject impressionable teenagers to the adult situations that one-on-one dating creates? We as adults find it difficult to maintain godly standards when emotions are involved, so why would we assume inexperienced and vulnerable children have the strength and wisdom to do so? Teens are children, after all, and they need to be protected from situations beyond their understanding and self-control.

As Christians, our goals are different from the world’s goals (1 Peter 2:11), and our life choices should be different. We cannot allow our decisions to be shaped by a world that mocks biblical values. Our children are precious gifts entrusted to us by their Creator (Psalm 127:3). God holds us responsible for how well we instill His truth, represent His heart, and protect our children from the enemy (Ephesians 6:4; Deuteronomy 6:6–7). Until our teens have internalized the lessons we’ve taught them and are making sound decisions on their own, we should be careful about letting them date one-on-one.

So is it wise for Christian teens to be dating? All things considered, the wisest course is to raise children with the understanding of the purpose of dating and with the conviction that delaying romance until marriage is an option will save them a mountain of heartaches. Succumbing to outside pressures, teenage petulance, or naiveté is no way to raise children. Wise Christian parents accept that, while their values may not always be appreciated, they are best for their children. Teenagers who gladly accept the counsel of their parents will bypass many of the pitfalls that ensnare their peers.