Bible Q

Are “soul ties” mentioned in the Bible?

Rob J Hyndman — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 11:06:48 +0000

No, “soul ties” are never mentioned in the Bible. Soul ties are said to be connections between two people’s souls, but the idea has no basis in Scripture.

However, the Bible does speak of close friendships. A good example is David and Jonathan:

After David had finished talking with Saul, Jonathan became one in spirit with David, and he loved him as himself. (1 Samuel 18:1)

In the King James Version, the verse reads

And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.

This is simply old-fashioned language saying that Jonathan had a deep and committed friendship with David.

What is the correct meaning of the title “bishop”?

Ted Byrt — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 10:49:36 +0000

The Greek word episkopos occurs five times in the New Testament (Acts 20:28; Philippians 1:1; 1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:7; 1 Peter 2:25). The word is translated “bishop” in the King James Version, but “overseer” in most modern versions. The word means an overseer or superintendent. The term is used in reference to Jesus Christ in 1 Peter 2:25 where he is described as the Shepherd and Overseer of our souls. The early Christian churches seemed to have several “bishops” in each major town. They are also called elders. The bishops/elders took on leadership in the early church.

The qualities that are required for a bishop are listed in 1 Timothy 3:1-7. He must be of blameless moral character, a good teacher, not a drunkard or lover of money, and must be able to manage his own family.

There is no evidence that the word was used as a title in the first century churches.

Are the tree of life and the Lamb’s book of life the same?

Jon Fry — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 10:45:42 +0000

There are no Bible passages suggesting that the tree of life is the same thing as the Lamb’s book of life. By looking at scriptures that talk about them individually we can conclude that they are different. The tree of life is a divine source of eternal life and the Lamb’s book of life is a record of those who will be given eternal life.

The Tree of Life

The tree of life is only mentioned in 3 books of the Bible. We first come across it in Genesis 2:

“And out of the ground the LORD God made to spring up every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” Genesis 2:9

The tree of life is described as a real, physical tree that God created. It would appear that Adam and Eve were allowed to eat from the tree (Genesis 2:16-17), but there is no actual record of them doing so. Genesis 3:22 reveals that eating fruit from the tree would make the eater live for ever. After ‘The Fall’, the tree was to be guarded from the reach of sinful humanity (Genesis 3:24).

The expression ‘tree of life’ is mentioned four times in the book of Proverbs (Proverbs 3:18, 11:30, 13:12 & 15:4). The book of Proverbs often uses imagery to make a point. In Proverbs the ‘tree of life’ (not necessarily the literal tree) is linked with wisdom, the fruit of the righteous, fulfilled desire and a gentle tongue.

The tree of life makes its last appearance in the book of Revelation. Jesus uses symbolic language when telling believers about the reward of eternal life:

“He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the one who conquers I will grant to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.” Revelation 2:7

The tree of life’s final mention is in the last chapter of the Bible:

“Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb through the middle of the street of the city; also, on either side of the river, the tree of life with its twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit each month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.” Revelation 22:2 (It is also mentioned in Revelation 22:14 & 19)

The tree could well be a literal tree upon the earth in the future Kingdom of God. Alternatively, as the book of Revelation uses symbolic language, its mention could represent the divine source of eternal life; offered to the faithful in the future age.

The Book of Life

The term ‘book of life’ (or ‘book of the living’) is only recorded in 3 books of the Bible. However, there are a number of other passages that would seem to refer to it. Its first occurrence is found when Moses asks God to forgive the people for making the golden calf idol:

“Alas, this people has sinned a great sin. They have made for themselves gods of gold. But now, if you will forgive their sin—but if not, please blot me out of your book that you have written.” But the LORD said to Moses, “Whoever has sinned against me, I will blot out of my book.” Exodus 32:31-33

The book of life may be a real physical book — but it does not need to be. It could be symbolic language referring to a record of the names of those who will be delivered from eternal death. It’s interesting to note that God and Moses imply that the names have already been written in the book (see Revelation 13:8, 17:8), yet there is the potential for names to be removed.

Other references to the book of life include Psalm 69:28, Daniel 12:1-2 and Philippians 4:3. Was Jesus referring to the book of life when he said the following to his disciples?

“…rejoice that your names are written in heaven.” Luke 10:20

Like the tree of life, the book of life, is mentioned by Jesus in Revelation. It is part of the symbolic language that he uses to describe the reward of the faithful:

“The one who conquers will be clothed thus in white garments, and I will never blot his name out of the book of life. I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels.” Revelation 3:5

In Revelation the book of life is associated with the Lamb (Revelation 13:8, 21:27) — the Lord Jesus Christ — God’s appointed judge (2 Timothy 4:1). At the final judgement, the book of life will be opened (Revelation 20:11-15) and those whose names are recorded therein will be given eternal life and enjoy fellowship with God.

How was the Bible put together and by whom?

Ted Byrt — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 10:31:53 +0000

The first five books of the Old Testament are attributed to Moses, who would have gathered together records by Adam, Noah, Shem and Abraham which had been passed on by word of mouth, or possibly in some more permanent form. He added the account of the history of Israel and the laws that God commanded him to write.

When the Israelites returned from exile in Babylon the preservation of God’s word was important for them. Ezra and Nehemiah are credited with collecting the existing writings together. Ezra read to the people from the Book of the Law of Moses (Nehemiah 8:1), and a non-inspired writing, 2 Maccabees 2:13, says, “Nehemiah collected the chronicles of the kings, the writings of prophets, the works of David, and royal letters about sacred writings, to found his library.” These writings would have been in the form of scrolls.

In the time of Jesus, the Hebrew Old Testament consisted of 22 books, as it does today. These are exactly the same as our 39 books, but grouped differently, e.g. the 12 minor prophets are grouped together in one book. It was a Jewish tradition that nothing should be added to or taken from this Old Testament. This Old Testament was endorsed by Jesus as being the word of God and when there are references in the New Testament to the Scriptures this is what is meant.

To a large extent the Apostles determined what was recognized as New Testament Scripture and what was not, and there seems to be general agreement among the early churches. Collections of the New Testament writings began to be made in the second century AD. Emperor Constantine commissioned Eusebius to provide Bibles for use in churches, and in 367 AD Athanasius of Alexandria produced a list of the New Testament books as we know them.

How did the doctrine of the Trinity arise?

Ted Byrt — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 10:25:54 +0000

The Hindus had a Trimurti, which was a triad of three of their multitude of gods, Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. However it is most unlikely that this, or any other pagan beliefs, had any significant affect on the doctrine of the Trinity. The doctrine is not taught in the New Testament, but was the outcome of debates among Christian theologians about the nature of Christ, and was formulated in the fourth century AD. The question arose because God, of spirit nature, was Jesus’ father, and Mary, of human nature was his mother. Did that make Jesus of spirit nature or was he mortal like all other human beings? This question had been answered by Jesus’ himself in Luke 24:39 when he said, “A spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see me have”, and in Hebrews 2:14-18, which teaches very clearly that Jesus was of the same nature as all human beings.

References

Broughton and Southgate. The Trinity: true or false? Chapter 8.

When did smoking first appear and did any of the Old Testament heroes smoke?

Ted Byrt — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 10:06:40 +0000

Tobacco was probably first used by the ancient Maya people. Christopher Columbus observed people of the Caribbean smoking tobacco in 1492 AD and the practice was introduced into Europe in the sixteenth century AD. It is most unlikely that any person in the Bible was smoking thousands of years before this.

Why is the 400+ years from Malachi to Matthew not recorded or documented?

Ted Byrt — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 09:54:35 +0000

The Bible is not a history book — although it contains an accurate record of some history. The Bible is the account of the Old Covenant and the New Covenant that God made with human beings. The Old Testament is concerned with the period of the Old Covenant and the New Testament with the New Covenant. God made the Old Covenant with the Israelites, as described in Exodus 19:3-6. There is a very brief account of the period from Adam to Moses, designed to inform us why a covenant was needed and why God chose the Israelites to receive it. He didn’t choose them because they were a wonderful people, but because they were the descendants of faithful Abraham, who is described as the friend of God. The nation of Israel entered into the covenant, promising that they would obey God’s commands, being sprinkled with the blood of animals as a sign of how serious they were. However, they failed lamentably to keep their word. God warned them through a series of prophets that they would be taken into captivity, and he told them in Jeremiah 31:31-34 that he would introduce a New Covenant with a stronger emphasis on forgiveness. When they returned to Israel from captivity he sent the prophets Zechariah and Haggai to encourage them, and during the time of Ezra and Nehemiah they responded better to him. However when the influence of these prophets faded, the Israelites turned away from God and he finally sent Malachi to rebuke them. The latter part of the Old Testament is an account of how God tried and tried and tried to get them to turn from their wicked ways and hold fast to the covenant that they had entered into. When there was no response from them, he did as he had warned in Micah 3:6-7, and there was “no answer from God”, until the next prophet, who was John the Baptist.

The Gospel writers give us details of the New Covenant, which came through Jesus Christ. Anyone has the opportunity to enter into this New Covenant by believing in Jesus Christ and being baptized.

Is Nero the “devil who prowls around like a roaring lion”? (1 Peter 5:8)

Steven — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 11:58:37 +0000

1 Peter 5:8 Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.

The first thing to say is that the interpretation “the devil as a lion is Nero” is a big improvement on the popular (at least in earlier days) idea that this verse refers to a literal fallen angel who literally prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.

The identification of 1 Peter’s lion with Nero dates back to the time of the Reformation, 16thC, and comes from the connection of the lion ( i.e. Christians being thrown to lions), plus a dating of 1 Peter that puts the letter after the AD64 fire of Rome which, according to Tacitus, Nero had blamed on the Christians. In addition, the similar passage from Paul may well refer to Nero:

2 Timothy 4:17 But the Lord stood by me and strengthened me, so that through me the message might be fully proclaimed and all the Gentiles might hear it. So I was rescued from the lion’s mouth.

This is sometimes supported by a reference to an earlier emperor as a lion in Josephus:

Now Marsyas, Agrippa’s freed-man, as soon as he heard of Tiberius’s death, came running to … and said, in the Hebrew tongue, “The lion is dead;” Josephus Antiquities of the Jews Book 18, Ch. 6

However the first problem is that Peter is writing to those suffering persecution “in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia” (1Peter 1:1) and there is no specific evidence for a persecution by Nero of Christians in that area. And the second is that Peter only says “prowls around like a roaring lion” which, even if the end result may be being thrown to the lions, is more descriptive of the role of a denouncer or accuser, rather than the Roman authorities who (with the brief exception of the attempt to scapegoat Christians for the AD64 fire of Rome) were not generally “prowling” seeking to devour Christians. The picture of the Roman government given in the New Testament — Pilate, Gallio, Felix, Festus, etc. — is simply of bureaucrats with no particular axe to grind, although Revelation certainly contains negative references to Rome, such as Rev.17:9 where the “seven mountains” are an explicit and common reference to Rome’s geography and its Festival of Seven Hills.

A more concrete problem is that Peter calls the enemy in 1Pe.5:8 “the devil” (Greek diabolos, accuser). In the plural, this word can mean nothing more than “gossips” — as in 1Tim.3:11 and Titus 2:3 where Paul uses the plural (diaboloi) to say the wives of deacons and older women must not be “slanderers” (literally “devils”). However, “the devil” is still a very strong word to use of a particular individual. In the Greek Old Testament the only time the word “devil” (diabolos) is used of a man, it is Haman, the accuser of the Jews in Esther. More normally in Greek, “devil” (diabolos) is the word for Satan; since the Old Testament Hebrew ha-satan, accuser, (in the heavenly court of Job 1:6 and Zech.3:1) was in the Greek Old Testament used by Jews outside Judea translated as diabolos. Likewise in the 30+ uses in New Testament, the only time diabolos refers to a man is Judas Iscariot:

John 6:70 Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the Twelve? And yet one of you is a devil (diabolos).”

Even in John 6:70 the “devil” does not just mean “a slanderer”, but indicates that Judas, like Haman, the diabolos in the Greek version of the Book of Esther, is out to secretly betray Jesus, a diabolical action.

So the suggestion offered is this. No, the “devil” in 1 Pe.5:8 is what it normally is in the New Testament — a personification of the individual’s response to external temptation, not an external temptation itself. Yes it’s possible that Nero’s officials were seeking an occasion to slander the Christians of Pontus. It’s even more likely that the synagogue leaders in the cities of these mainly Jewish converts to Christianity in Pontus were seeking opportunities to slander them to the Roman officials.

In particular the common meaning of “adversary” (antidikos) here as “opponent” in a court case, may give the word a legal context. The other 3 NT uses of antidikos are all related to court cases, as are most uses of “antidikos” in classical texts. But then again disproportionate number of classical legal texts have survived, and in the Greek Old Testament “antidikos” can just means “oppenent” (1 Sam.2:20)

But either way, formal court case and the penalty of being thrown to lions or not, ultimately if Peter meant the Jews or Romans he could have said

Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversaries [the Jews / the Romans] prowl around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. (sic)

For a threat to be personified as “the devil” it has to already not be a person. That is the whole point of personification. And also not be a fallen angel. The “devil” in the New Testament is something more subtle, and infinitely more dangerous. This is why Paul warns:

Eph.6:10 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might. 11 Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil. 12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.

Jews and Romans are “flesh and blood.” The “whole armour of God” won’t help. And in the case of a fallen angel with supernatural powers, Paul’s advice above is even less meaningful. For all the talk of “spiritual warfare” (a popular term today) by those who see read verses like Eph.6:12 as talking about fallen angels, the reality is that the only place where a man or woman can ever really “resist the devil” is in his or her own heart:

James 4:7 Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.

Nero won’t flee. A fallen angel isn’t going to flee (why should he?). But sin, weakness, doubt — these things can flee. So in conclusion, whatever the background of persecution, and whatever the allusion to Christians being thrown to the lions, ”the devil” in 1 Peter 5:8 is most likely the same as in Eph.4:27, and is in the heart of any believer.

It would be nice if “the devil” in the New Testament was simply Jews, Romans, other people. Or even nicer still if a fallen angel could be blamed. But unfortunately the enemy of the New Man or Woman in Christ is a lot closer to home, and that is likely the point of Peter’s warning.

Why did Jesus tell some people he healed to talk about it and others to be silent?

Jon Fry — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 10:41:42 +0000

Jesus was famous. He attracted great crowds of people (see Matthew 4:23-24) which made his work preaching and healing difficult at times. On at least one occasion Jesus was at risk of being crushed by the crowds:

“When the great crowd heard all that he was doing, they came to him. And he told his disciples to have a boat ready for him because of the crowd, lest they crush him, for he had healed many, so that all who had diseases pressed around him to touch him.” Mark 3:8-10

On this occasion the effective way for Jesus to speak to the huge crowd was from a boat with the people standing on the beach! (Matthew 13:1-3)

We don’t know for certain why Jesus told some people he healed to be silent — but it could have partly been to keep crowd numbers under control. Masses of people flocking to see miracles may have hindered his free movement and preaching around the country.

Let’s take a look at three examples to help us further answer the question:

Jairus’ daughter

We know that there was a great crowd following Jesus (Mark 5:21, 24) when Jairus sought him to heal his daughter. As recorded earlier, the people pressed around Jesus (Luke 8:42). Jesus brings Jairus’ daughter to life and strictly charges her parents that no-one should know (Mark 5:43). Was Jesus trying to protect this family from persecution? Later, when Jesus raises Lazarus from the dead the reaction of the religious leaders is very hostile:

“So the chief priests made plans to put Lazarus to death as well, because on account of him many of the Jews were going away and believing in Jesus.” John 12:10-11

Legion

In the region of the Decapolis Jesus healed a demon-possessed man called Legion. It is less frequently recorded that Jesus asked a healed person to proclaim their miraculous news. Jesus commanded Legion to:

“Go home to your friends and tell them how much the Lord has done for you, and how he has had mercy on you.” (See Mark 5:19-20)

We can assume that this would have been beneficial for Legion and it certainly helped preach the Gospel message in this region. However, maybe Legion was asked to preach in the Decapolis because it was going to be difficult for Jesus to do so himself? Matthew’s record of this event reveals that Jesus wasn’t welcome:

“And behold, all the city came out to meet Jesus, and when they saw him, they begged him to leave their region.” Matthew 8:34

The deaf man in the Decapolis

Intriguingly Jesus later returned to the Decapolis. Did Legion’s preaching give people a desire to meet and be healed by the Lord? When Jesus heals a deaf man in the Decapolis he took him away from the crowd (Mark 7:33). Jesus obviously wanted to heal this man in private and didn’t want an audience or to gain the attention of the locals. This makes perfect sense when we consider the reaction to Legion’s healing. Jesus charged those present to tell no one — which sadly they could not do (Mark 7:36).

We have seen that the request to be silent or to speak about a healing often had benefits for the people Jesus healed. He may have been giving them a life of normality; free from the attention of a miraculous healing. He may have been seeking their security from the scrutiny of the Pharisees. He may have been providing them with an opportunity to preach and reach out to friends and family.

Whatever the reason, Jesus was the most effective preacher — attracting thousands yet touching the hearts of individuals and we are still listening to him today.

How should 2 Corinthians 3:17 be translated?

Steven — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 04:54:18 +0000

Q. Should this verse read “the Lord is the Spirit” (ESV etc.) or “the Lord is that Spirit” (KJV)?

2 Co.3:12 Since we have such a hope, we are very bold, 13 not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face so that the Israelites might not gaze at the outcome of what was being brought to an end. 14 But their minds were hardened. For to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away. 15 Yes, to this day whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their hearts. 16 But when one [4] turns to the Lord, the veil is removed. 17 Now the Lord [5] is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18 And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, [6] are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.
[4] 3:16 Greek he
[5] 3:17 Or this Lord
[6] 3:18 Or reflecting the glory of the Lord

There is no manuscript variation in 3:17; all Greek texts read “the Lord is the spirit” ( ὁ δὲ κύριος τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστιν), but there is a “the” (τὸ) in the text, unlike “God is spirit” ( πνεῦμα ὁ θεός ) in John 4:24, (which is probably to be read simply as “God is light” “God is love”, and so on) the phrase in 3:17 does not mean “the Lord is spirit”. Nor is the “the” (τὸ) a “that” (ἐκεῖνος) so the reading “the Lord is the spirit” is more natural.

The reading of the Douay-Rheims Bible “the Lord is a spirit”, seems without any justification.

The reason for the KJV “the Lord is that Spirit” may have been to distinguish from the Trinitarian idea of a personal “Holy Ghost” or “Holy Spirit” as third person of the Trinity; since it would contradict the doctrine of the Trinity to have “the Lord [Jesus] is the [Holy] Ghost”. Or it may just have been for ease of reading, to connect 3:3 3:6 3:8 with 3:17 and 3:18:

2 Co 3:3 And you show that you are a letter from Christ delivered by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.

3:6 who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

3:8 will not the ministry of the Spirit have even more glory?

But if the view is taken that “spirit” is used figuratively, which is the normal Old Testament and New Testament use, then to say “the Lord is the spirit” or “that spirit” comes to much the same conclusion: Christ is “the/that” spirit in 3:3, 3:6, 3:8.

This is not saying anything more, in fact saying much less, than the parallel between 1 John 2:1 where Christ is called the “Comforter” as the “Spirit of truth” is called the “Comforter” in John ch.14, 15, 16. (see also Who or what is the Advocate or Comforter?). So ultimately the spirit, if personified, in 2Co.3 must also be Jesus himself.

Who else would it be?

2Co.3:17 Now the Lord is the/that Spirit [mentioned above 3:3-3:8], and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.

Notes:

Versions with “the Spirit” include: Wycliffe 1395, The Bishop’s Bible 1568, RV 1885, Darby 1890, ASV 1901, RSV, NASB, NIV, NRSV, ESV
Versions with “that Spirit” include: KJV 1611
Versions with “a spirit” include: Tyndale 1534 “The Lorde no dout is a sprete”, Douay-Rheims