Central Church - Who We Are

Question: Could you tell me what your translation of Mark 16:15-18 is? Are believers given the power to drive out demons, speak in new tongues, pick up snakes and heal sick people?

Answer: There are two issues in this passage.

The first is that it is not included in most of the ancient manuscripts we have of the New Testament. There is little good evidence in the mind of many scholars of the New Testament to include this passage. It is also not the only offering as an ending to Mark. This raises suspicions that the text was a later addition by someone other than Mark. Other scholars, however, believe it is a valid ending to Mark.

Even if it is a valid ending to Mark, the passage does not instruct believers to pick up snakes, speak in new tongues or drive out demons. It reads, "And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well." The passage only describes what will happen in the lives of believers, and not necessarily what will happen in the life of every believer. When we see this played out in the book of Acts we don't see anyone seeking out snakes to handle or poison to drink. Paul is bitten by a snake according to Acts 28:1-6, but the poison did not affect him. If the signs occur once this passage has been fulfilled.

There is enough in other portions of the Bible to indicate that healing and speaking in tongues could be an experience for believers today, but nothing is made of snake handling or drinking poison anywhere else in the Bible. To make this an essential matter of Christian practice is going beyond the Scriptures and does not do honor to Christ. If God chooses to give someone the abilities mentioned in the passage, that is His business, but the passage does not indicate that He will so choose.

Randall Johnson

Question: Do you think we are living in the last days? I do, but some people don't. I had dinner last night with girlfriends and one of them said she did not believe it at all, that people have always said that. I did not say anything, just that I think we are.

Answer: Your friend is correct, that there have been Christians in nearly every era of the church who suspected that the end was near. However, our own era has seen some events that seem singularly unusual. For example, we have seen the resurrection of the Jewish state of Israel. This is very important to the fulfilling of prophecies surrounding the last days. Daniel 9, if I understand it correctly, depicts the antichrist making a treaty between Israel and her neighbors that allows her to live in peace and rebuild the temple. This assumes that she has her own state again. The other thing that is unusual about our era is our ability to communicate globally. Revelation 11 indicates that the whole world will see the death and then resuscitation of the two witnesses who previously could not be harmed. Our satellite communication makes this literally possible only in our era.

However, it is also true that God can unmake all these conditions and remake them again a hundred years from now or whenever He chooses. He is not limiting Himself by the present conditions of the world. When He deems that it is time to bring it to an end, that is, the present world order, He will do so. Our job in the meantime is to be ready and watching, as Jesus instructed, and serving our Master with all our hearts.

Randall Johnson

Question: Isn't the bronze snake of Numbers 21 an idol? Why would God have Israel make an idol?

Answer: What constitutes an idol is not just any image or sculptured figure. The Israelites were instructed by God to make an image of the two cherubim who attend God's throne and put them on top of the ark of the covenant to go in the most holy place. But they weren't idols. What constitutes an idol is an image that is made to represent God Himself and used as part of one's worship.

The bronze snake on the pole was something God instructed the Israelites to make in order to represent the serpents who were sent by Him to inflict Israel with death. Putting a snake on the pole was representative of killing it. That is why Jesus used this as a picture of his own sacrifice in John 3:14,15: "Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life." The lifted up snake died so the Israelites would not have to. If they put their trust in that they would be healed. The lifted up Jesus died so we would not have to. If we put our trust in him (look to him) we will be forgiven.

Randall Johnson

Question: Adam and Eve never sinned until the serpent enticed them. At the exact moment they decided to eat the fruit, they were sinning in their thought life...something along the lines of prideful thinking or doubting God. But how could they sin in their minds beforehand if sin didn't enter the world until they physically ate the fruit?

And, how could a holy God walk with Adam and Eve immediately following their sin? No sacrifice had been given. How could God walk in the garden, looking for them, FINDING them, being in their presence, when they were unclean?

When the Bible says, "God walked with them", I've always assumed that was anthropomorphic language. I've always assumed the Father God doesn't have a body. But then in Hebrews 1:3 it says the Son is the EXACT REPRESENTATION of God's being... and I am thinking exact means exact.... And Christ had a body... And if the Father is body-less, then Christ wouldn't be EXACTLY representing the Father unless Christ was body-less too...

Lastly, I guess scholars have tried to locate the Garden of Eden, right? Wouldn't it have to be an area with no people? And are angels still guarding the entrance? Seems like we would see the flaming sword swinging back and forth, even if we couldn't see the angels... what's the deal?

Answer: Sin is not an entity, not a thing. Sin is a response to God, a bad response. Adam and Eve sinned the moment they decided that God was holding out on them and that they should take care of themselves and not trust Him. But they did not receive the penalty for that sin until they actually ate from the tree. That was the action that God had told them not to do. That was the moment of absolute disobedience, of crossing the line drawn in the sand.

Where do we get the idea that God can't be around sinful people. We know from Job that He is quite able to talk to Satan when he visits God in heaven. [By the way, Satan has not been cast out of heaven yet, in my view. That won't happen until the great Tribulation's last 3 and a half years, Revelation 12.] God is not unable to be around sinful creatures. But His goal is to produce a kingdom in which sin does not exist (I know, it is not a thing or entity that exists, but here I mean that it does not operate at all). His original kingdom in Eden was like that but not for long. As God talks with Adam and Eve He clothes them with garments of skin, which, of course, requires an animal or animals to die. There is your sacrifice. This sacrifice does not actually take away their sin. Only the sacrifice of Jesus could do that. But it is a picture of what God is going to do through Jesus in Adam and Eve's future.

I believe it makes more sense to understand God's walking with Adam and Eve as literal. That is, He actually took on a physical appearance and walked with them. I believe it makes sense to assume that the Son took on this role or responsibility. He did not yet have a human nature (that didn't occur until the first Christmas), but part of His job is to make the Father known to us (John 1:14-18). But either way, one member of the Trinity took on human form and walked and talked with Adam and Eve. The Bible is very clear that God is a Spirit (John 4:24) and invisible (1 Timothy 6:16) and therefore does not have a body. When He says in Genesis 1 that we are made in His image He is therefore not talking about a physical image but a spiritual one. Typically, for ease of reference, we describe that image as an intellect, emotions, and will that can have responsible interactions with God and one another on a par with God's intellect, emotions and will. When the writer of Hebrews says Jesus is the exact representation of God's being he means that Jesus has the exact same essence as God, that is, He is infinite, eternal and unchangeable in His being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth (Westminster Confession definition of God's essence). That is, Jesus is equal to God. Jesus also has a human essence (a nature finite, created, changeable in its being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth, originally without sin, which is true of Jesus' human nature as well). This is what makes Jesus the head of a new race of human beings redeemed by His death and resurrection (He is the last Adam, the last representative of the human race, 1 Corinthians 15:45,46; He is the second Man, the second progenitor of the human race, though this progenitor is of a spiritual nature, 1 Corinthians 15:47-49).

I presume that at some point it was no longer necessary for the garden of Eden to stay around. There was a flood that undoubtedly would have washed it away. And we are told that the tree of life is now in the heavenly Jerusalem (Revelation 22:2) so it makes sense to me that God took all that to heaven at some point. I would not go looking for it anywhere here on earth. Hence, no need for the flaming sword or angels guarding it either.

Randall Johnson

Question: In Exodus 9:6 if all the livestock died in , why are they still aorund in verses 19-21? Did a good deal of time separate all the plagues?

Answer: This may sound kind of strange to you, but the word "all" does not always mean "every one without exception" in every context. Occasionally the word "all" means "some of every kind mentioned" and sometimes it means "all of one kind." There are always clues in the context as to which meaning is intended.

For example, in Exodus 9:3 God says He will bring the plague on Egypt's "livestock in the field - on your horses and donkeys and camels and on your cattle and sheep and goats." Then in verse 6 the Bible says, "All the livestock of the Egyptians died." Can you imagine what would have happened to Egypt's economy if every single animal in the field died? It would have meant the death of innumerable people due to lack of food or the ability to farm or make food. It would have shut down the ability of those in commerce to transport goods and services. We might suggest that the nation would not have survived such an event. But because we see a delineation of the kinds of animals God is talking about killing in verse 2, we may surmise that "all" in this context means "some of every kind." This makes better sense of verses 19-21 where the livestock are brought in from the field to escape the plague of hail and makes better sense of how Pharaoh was able to chase the Israelites to the Red Sea in chariots (presumably the chariots were pulled by horses, not men).

We see another possible example of this same meaning for "all" in 1 Timothy 2:1-6 where Paul commands "intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone - for kings and all those in authority" and then mentions that Jesus Christ "gave himself as a ransom for all men." Did Jesus ransom all men without exception or did he ransom men from every kind of man, like kings and governors and others in authority as well as those not in authority? This becomes a theological issue related to the extent of the atonement. This passage would not deny that Jesus died for every single human without exception, but it could then only be used to demonstrate that he died for every kind of man.

An example of "all" meaning "all of one kind" is possibly found in Romans 5:18,19:

Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

Condemnation came to all men of the same kind, that is, men born into the line of Adam and bearing his curse (which happens to be every human being with the exception of Jesus), and justification brings life for all men of one kind, that is, those who believe in Jesus ("those who receive God's abundant provision of grace," v.17).

Randall Johnson

Question: In Exodus 21:7-11 it seems like God is promoting/continuing devaluation of women? In v.20-21, He condones slavery and the beating of slaves?

Answer: The Law of Moses is actually going counter to the prevailing devaluation of women. It was not normal for a woman slave to be given this kind of value. Moses is saying that if a man sells his daughter into servitude (and this is a custom that we would say is barbaric, but that was common in those cultures), she could not be disposed of as if she were simply property you no longer desire. She must be treated as a wife if he takes her for himself, or a daughter if he takes her for his son. She cannot be disposed of but must be given the opportunity to be redeemed from servitude by her family or extended family. He is in a "faith" or covenant relationship with her (verse 8). If he takes another wife he must not deprive her of room and board and sexual rights. If he does, he must set her free entirely.

The law in verses 20,21 is the same kind of counter-cultural law. Normally, a slave or servant could be beaten or killed without penalty. But not in Israel! Killing a slave resulted in punishment for the slave owner. This was a protection for slaves.

Now of course we do not condone slavery of any kind. But the Law of Moses was not written in a time when the eradication of slavery was possible. Instead, God seeks to teach some principles to fallen human beings who had mistreated other fallen human beings for millennia. Human beings have value and these slight improvements to the normal way of treating humans was a step toward the eventual reordering of our society under the leadership of Christians, like William Wilberforce in Great Britain (see Wikipedia.org and the movie, Amazing Grace) and the anti-slavery advocates in the United States. Paul's message to Philemon in his letter to Philemon about his runaway slave set the stage for a radical change in the way we look at slavery and human dignity and value.

It might seem more reasonable for God to just forbid slavery, but remember He also did not forbid multiple wives. There were some things the Israelites needed to change, but apparently some things they weren't ready to change. Have you ever given commands to your child that were less than what you ultimately wanted him or her to do but were moving in the direction of what you wanted and more suited to where he or she was at the time? I think that is how God is dealing with mankind. We needed to grow as a race in order to fully implement all that He has for us. It just took time for society as a whole to embrace this radical change.

Randall Johnson

Question: It says in Exodus 33:20 that God told Moses that no one could see His face or he would die, but in verse11 it says God spoke to Moses face to face.

Answer: The phrase "face to face" is one that speaks of the familiarity and closeness that Moses had to God in their conversations. Typically God spoke through prophets by giving them visions or dreams, but God spoke directly to Moses in an audible voice and perhaps came to him in a physical form, like the form of a man, as He did with Abraham on occasion (Genesis 18). Moses understood that this was merely an accommodation to him so when he asked to see God's "glory" (verse 18) he was wanting to see God without any accommodating form. He wanted to see what God really looked like.

The Bible is clear that no one has seen God at any time (John 1:18), that God is Spirit and humans do not normally see spirit (John 4:24). But God wanted to give Moses yet another accommodating representation of Himself that was a little more reflective of His glory. However, he warned Moses that no one could see His face without suffering death. This indicates that His "face" is the unfiltered expression of His glory that is so overwhelming to us in our unglorified and unresurrected state that it would be lethal. When our bodies and souls are fitted for the kingdom by the resurrection this will not be an issue. God's glory will be fully revealed and we will be fully able to experience it (Revelation 22:4).

Randall Johnson

Question: Exodus 33:14 refers to "My Presence". Is that the Holy Spirit? How about Numbers 11:17? I thought the Holy Spirit didn't "show up" until after Jesus' ascension.

Answer: It is possible that the "Presence" of God that He says will go with Moses and the people is the Holy Spirit. Because God is a triune being, that is, He is one being made up of three persons, each equal to the other because each possesses the divine essence or nature, He is always operating as three persons. When Yahweh (the personal name of God in the Old Testament) says His presence will go with Moses, it is quite possible, perhaps likely, that He means the Holy Spirit (as opposed to the Father or the Son) will go with them. It is possible that He means the Son will go with them. We are somewhat in the dark about this because the Old Testament revelation was not clear as to which person was doing what at all times. This is because it was not made clear that God was triune in person. There are certainly hints of that throughout the Old Testament, but it is left to the New Testament with the coming of the Son in human nature to fill out that truth for us.

The reference in Numbers 11:17 to God taking the Spirit that is upon Moses and putting it on the other leaders and officials is likely a reference to the Holy Spirit. Sometimes we speak of a "spirit" of prophecy or the "spirit" of an event, by which we mean the overall attitude or controlling perspective. But in this passage it seems to make more sense to identify the Spirit who gave Moses his abilities to lead as the one who is being given to the other leaders to make them competent to lead as well.

The coming of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost does not indicate that the Holy Spirit was not "around" before this. We are told that he was hovering creatively over the deep in Genesis 1:2. The Day of Pentecost marks the era of a new level of operation of the Spirit in line with the kingdom promises made in the Old Testament that are beginning to be fulfilled in the church.

Randall Johnson

Question: The OT does not seem to say anything about an eternal life, or "being saved". With all the laws, decrees, and commandments mentioned, it talks about how the Israelites would be blessed in this life if they obeyed God. What am I missing? (I am going on the assumption that obedient Israelites did go to heaven when they died, but did they have any assurance of that?). And is Deut. 30:11-15 referring to going to heaven vs. hell? I see that Romans 10: 6-8 repeats the concepts in these verses, but it is confusing to me. So far, the OT doesn't seem clear about eternal life one way or the other.

Answer: There are basically two questions here: (1) Did the Old Testament teach about heaven after death for the believer, and (2) Did Old Testament believers go to heaven.

In regards to Deuteronomy 30:11-15, verses 16 and following make it clear that Moses is talking not about heavenly existence upon death for the obedient, but a long life in the land of Canaan, the promised land to which Moses was leading the nation. Paul makes use of this passage to highlight what was true then and in the church era, that knowledge of God's salvation is not something that has to be acquired with great difficulty. He has made it available and evident to all genuine seekers.

By and large, the Old Testament is silent about the issue of heaven. There are a few places that indicate a nascent or newly forming concept of heaven. Psalm 16:9-11 might indicate that the psalmist David anticipated a place of blessing at God's side in the after life. Likewise, Psalm 73:24. But most of the anticipation of believers in that time was on the possibility of earthly existence in the kingdom after being resurrected (Daniel 12:1-3 is the clearest expression of this, though Jesus shows in Matthew 22 that the resurrection was a concept that could have been derived from the books of Moses).

The clearest expression of one's being in favor with God was how God blessed one materially (health, wealth and offspring). As you have already seen, however, there were some glaring exceptions to that rule. Abraham and Sarah could not have a child and others struggled in this area. The book of Job is written about a man whose offspring died, whose wealth evaporated, and whose health degenerated, but a man of whom God said there was no one more righteous. So believers wrestled with this issue a lot.

I don't know why God did not make heaven more clear to His children before the era of the New Testament, but by the time Jesus came on the scene, there was at least a clear sense among many that Paradise was a place for believers who died and that it was located under the earth's surface (see Luke 16:19-31 and 23:43). This place was also called Sheol (the name for the grave in Hebrew) or Hades. Jesus depicts it as having two compartments, one of torment for the unrighteous, and one he called Abraham's bosom or Paradise, which was for believers. When he ascended into heaven after his resurrection, it seems he took the believers in Hades/Paradise/Abraham's bosom to heaven with him and all who die in Christ go immediately there now (Philippians 1:23; 2 Corinthians 5:8; Acts 7:54-60).

So this is one of those topics whose knowledge broadened through the course of God's dealing with His people over the ages. I would suggest that even though Old Testament believers did not have the clear revelation about heaven yet, when they died they did go to Abraham's bosom or Paradise and then were taken to heaven when Jesus ascended to heaven after his resurrection.

For further thoughts see "Did Jesus visit hell?" and"Did Abraham and other OT saints go to heaven?". Randall Johnson