Though the Bible was written in a culture and society far different from ours today, its principles are timeless and apply to humans everywhere. Some of these guidelines and truths apply to our personal finances and business dealings.

Making income cover all the expenses can be a real challenge, especially for young couples beginning married life. We have to consider the threat of inflation, interest rates on any money we borrow, government decisions affecting the economy, a volatile stock market that impacts everyone, finding and keeping gainful and satisfying employment, family obligations, and insufficient time and money to meet all our expectations and goals.

Most of the items on the above list are beyond the control of the individual person. The only control one has is keeping expenditures within one’s income—in fact, within 90 percent of income, for God has a claim on the 10 percent tithe (see Concerns at the end of this piece). But that is not easy with all the complications and unexpected expenses that come along. Budgeting is a wise practice for making sure that we have a good testimony as Christians. Budgeting can be as simple as not spending any more money than one already has, or keeping weekly and monthly records of income and expenditures to set patterns for future spending.

What about the use of credit cards? Does their use violate Paul’s instruction, “Let no debt remain outstanding” (Rom. 13:8). The context and the remainder of the verse explain Paul’s primary application of the debt statement, “Let no debt remain outstanding except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law.” Paul is dealing first of all with our obligation to love one another. But applying the statement to financial debts is appropriate because failing to pay one’s debts is certainly not a demonstration of love.

When a purchase is made by credit card or by a promise to make specified payments over a period of time, there is no debt as long as the buyer makes regular payments according to the agreement. If, however, a payment is not made at the agreed time, the buyer is in debt and would violate Paul’s admonition to owe nothing, especially love. If one cannot meet the terms of the original agreement, the Christian thing to do would be to contact the creditor explaining the problem and asking for a substitute agreement. If that cannot be arranged, the unpaid obligation makes the buyer a debtor.

Installment buying is both bad and good. It can easily be used for luxuries and nonessentials, leaving a person with a debt he cannot repay according to the agreement. However, buying necessities on credit can actually be an investment. Paying rent for years is like pouring water on the ground. It should only be done until one can qualify for a home purchase. If a car is needed for work and other obligations, it too is an appropriate credit purchase. If a credit card is used to purchase nonessentials, it would be wise to pay for those purchases in full each month.

A Christian must be a person of good reputation or “honest report” (Acts 6:3 KJV), one who can be trusted to pay his just debts. The Bible describes one who does not repay his debts as a wicked person: “The wicked borrow and do not repay” (Psalm 37:21). Credit extended for major purchases is usually covered by collateral so that the lender, in case of the buyer’s default, takes back the property leaving no debt. Keeping something that one has not paid for according to agreement would be a violation of Christian integrity and a sin.

Jesus seemingly permitted borrowing (Matt. 5:42, Luke 6:35). However, a believer is wise to use credit very carefully. Can the regular payments be handled by the personal or family budget? In the end, we should remember the wise words of the writer of Proverbs: “Do not wear yourself out to get rich; have the wisdom to show restraint” (Prov. 23:4) and “A faithful man will be richly blessed, but one eager to get rich will not go unpunished” (Prov. 28:20). Our attitude in handling money and possessions is all-important.

CONCERNS:

We live in a society of declining morals and ethics. Bankruptcy and Chapter 11 proceedings are being used by many as a means of avoiding rightful obligations. But just because it has become a way of life for many is no reason for a Christian to follow this pathway. The Christian must live by a higher code.

Another concern relates to finances, credit, debt, and the Christian family. Society has made things that used to be considered luxuries into necessities. The family is forced to have two wage earners in order to pay for the things they feel are needed. But the family and its spiritual growth are far more important than buying bigger and better toys to substitute for the presence of loving parents. Budgeting may call for agreement on what are actually family necessities. The welfare of the children must be the priority consideration in all family decisions. “Children are a heritage of the LORD” (Psa. 127:3 KJV). Neither money nor possessions are more important.

A final concern is the attitude of some Christians who feel they can’t afford to tithe even though they would like to. They plan to contribute to the Lord’s work when finances permit. Or they ask where in the New Testament Christians are required to tithe. This Old Testament acknowledgment that everything we have comes from God is nowhere removed in the New Testament. It is assumed to continue for Jesus commended the Pharisees for their tithing, at the same time He shamed them for not obeying the weightier matters of justice, mercy, and faithfulness (Matt. 23:23). We believe that the road to financial solvency is longer without tithing than it is with tithing. God honors those who make His money the first priority in their budgeting and spending.

The “church” believes all human life is sacred, a gift from God which only He (God) has the right to take away. Because the Bible does not specifically address the use of medical support, there is a wide range of opinion in the Church concerning its use. Opinions vary about the use of doctors and medicine, since the church believes strongly in divine healing. The spectrum of opinion ranges from those who would never go to a doctor for any reason to those who are doctors, or consider doctors and modern medicine as a sensible means of healthy living, a gift of God for the well-being of all mankind. Such use of doctors and medicine in no way diminishes the truth of supernatural divine healing. The most common view in the Church is a reliance on God for healing through prayer as well as a wise use of medical intervention when it is available. Occasionally, medical intervention includes life support.

Euthanasia. Our firm belief in the sanctity of human life is put to the supreme test in situations where the life of elderly or comatose patients is sustained by artificial procedures developed through medical science and technology. But we can find no scriptural support for euthanasia (sometimes called mercy-killing). The intentional killing of human life by deliberate act or omission runs contrary to a belief that human life is sacred because it has been created and given by God himself.

Though some advocates of euthanasia describe mercy-killing as an act of kindness when it is administered to a terminally ill patient subject to great pain and suffering, members of the Church are generally concerned about abuses that can result from such an open attitude toward euthanasia. Instead of respecting the sacredness of human life, proponents of euthanasia stress the social advantages of eliminating nonproductive citizens and avoiding high-cost medical procedures. Believing that supernatural healing is always possible, no matter what the medical prognosis may be, members of the Church are more inclined to pray for healing than to approve the taking of life, even to avoid pain and suffering. Modern medicines that can deaden pain and make a dying patient reasonably comfortable should negate a common fear that anticipated pain will be so severe that suicide or euthanasia are better alternatives.

Physician—Assisted Suicide. The action of a few doctors who blatantly violate legal restrictions as well as ethical and moral standards by assisting terminally ill patients who request medical help in committing suicide is of growing concern to a church that believes strongly in the sacredness of human life. In physician-assisted suicide, the patient performs the life-ending act by voluntarily taking the lethal medication or poison made available by the physician.

Such actions are not accepted within the Church. The church makes a clear distinction between actions which halt artificial life support and actions which directly cause death. Whether someone else administers the life-ending medium (homicide) or the patient takes it voluntarily (suicide), the action actively terminates life that was given by God. We recognize it is not easy to deal with the sufferings of terminally ill patients or of comatose persons in a vegetative state. Faced with these difficult dilemmas, society has become more open to aggressive steps which cause death. But abuses have become all too common as sympathetic emotions have replaced moral principles grounded in the Judeo-Christian ethic. The ready availability of drugs and medicines that can delay dying or hasten death present moral issues that were never faced in earlier days of medical care.

Use of Medical Life Support To Sustain Life. The issue of sustaining life by medical technology is complicated by uncertainty as to when death actually occurs. Is it when breathing ceases, the heart stops beating, or brain activity is no longer evident? Medical support can keep a body breathing after meaningful signs of human life have ceased. There are individuals who seemingly have died, only to be resuscitated within minutes of interrupted heartbeat or breathing. Some who have been so resuscitated and kept alive with life support have recovered and returned to live normal lives. Others have not. Questions arise in these instances: How long should one try to hold on to life, especially when suffering persists and the quality of life is at question? When is our appointed time to die?

There are times when a debilitating accident, a life-threatening illness at an advanced age, or prolonged terminal illness without any natural hope of recovery makes it appropriate for a patient to say, “I will leave my life in the hands of my Lord. Do not perform any extraordinary measures to resuscitate me or maintain my body on life support machines, for I am ready to go home to be with my Lord” (2 Corinthians 5:1-10). Terminal patients, however, often wait too long to express their preference that extraordinary life-support measures not be administered. This leaves the family with a great burden of deciding whether to allow or reject such measures. A living will clearly declaring one’s wishes in this regard can eliminate such painful decisions for family and loved ones.

Such decisions about using life—support technology should ultimately be made by the patient whenever possible, after prayerful consultation with a Christian doctor and a respected spiritual leader. It is wise to consider and decide these matters before the moment of crisis.

In critical life-and-death situations, the use or refusal of life support is at best a difficult decision. While weighing the biblical principle of respecting and preserving life, the Christian also takes comfort in an equal truth of joyously accepting our appointed time to begin eternal life with Christ after physical death. Most people in the Church believe there is room for either decision after prayer and careful consideration. Furthermore, what is right for one individual choosing life support may not be right for another. Instead, the Christian, recognizing that the decision ultimately lies with God, seeks prayerfully to find what God’s will is in a specific situation.

The above statement is based upon our common understanding of scriptural teaching.

All Scripture quotations are from the New International Version (NIV) unless otherwise specified.

Matthew 12:31, Mark 3:29, and Luke 12:10 speak of an unforgivable sin. All three Gospel authors describe the sin as blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. The immediate context of Matthew and Mark indicates that the act of committing this sin involves attributing the work of Jesus done through the power of the Holy Spirit to Beelzebub, the prince of demons. However, a careful analysis of the relevant passages reveals four important aspects of the unforgivable sin.

First, it involves a deliberate or willful act of unbelief. Note that Mark 3:22 describes the Pharisees “coming down from Jerusalem.” A survey of the preceding narrative (Mark 2,3) shows a pattern of opposition to Jesus’ ministry and suggests that their coming down was with the same intention. This sin was not committed in ignorance. These Pharisees (Matthew 12:24) and scribes (Mark 3:22) were experts in the Law. Matthew tells us their blasphemous accusation came after they heard the people asking whether Jesus could really be the Messiah. They had just witnessed the healing of the blind and dumb demoniac. Certainly, they if anyone should have known that Jesus’ deeds were in agreement with scriptural prophecies (see Isaiah 61:1; Luke 4:16-21; 7:18-22) concerning the Messiah. This sin is not a single momentary act. While it may appear as such on the surface, the Greek rendering of Mark 3:22 is best translated, “they kept saying,” indicating that the scribes were dogging Jesus’ footsteps making this accusation repeatedly.

Finally, this sin was committed in full view of a demonstration of God’s power. Luke 4:18 indicates that Jesus went forth “in the power of the Holy Spirit.” Consequently, the rejection of Jesus by the scribes and Pharisees constitutes a rejection of the Holy Spirit’s witness to Jesus as the Messiah.

From these four aspects we must conclude that the unpardonable sin or blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is more descriptive of a spiritual state or condition than a single act of sin. The act described in the Gospels witnesses to a final state in a process of rebellion on the part of those who have continually rejected the Holy Spirit’s witness to Christ. Such rejection and denial of the authentic work and person of the Holy Spirit results in the inability to discern “light” (the work of God) from “darkness” (the work of Satan) even when confronted by the Holy Spirit’s miracle witness to Jesus.

CONCERNS:

Often in the church we encounter individuals who are disturbed over their lack of spiritual sensitivity or progress. Some may even doubt their salvation harboring a haunting suspicion that they have at one time committed the unpardonable sin. These individuals need to be carefully guided through the Scriptures to realize that their very concern is evidence that they have not committed the unpardonable sin. They need to note that those in the Gospels who committed this sin were persistent in their rejection of Christ, showed no remorse or repentance toward their sin of unbelief, and displayed no desire to understand the truth of Jesus’ words. They need to see what the Scriptures clearly teach: that genuine (godly) sorrow for sin will lead to repentance (2 Corinthians 7:10), that one who comes to Jesus in repentance and faith will never be cast aside (John 6:37), that “whoever calls upon the name of the Lord” will find salvation (Romans 10:9), and that the believer who confesses his/her sins has a faithful and just Savior who will provide forgiveness and spiritual cleansing (1 John 1:9).

1. Christ was said to be a priest “after [kata] the order [taxis] of” Melchizedek (Heb. 5:6, 10, 6:20; 7:11). The Greek term taxis (order) suggests a similar “arrangement.” For example, just as Melchizedek was both a king and priest simultaneously, so Christ is as well (cf.Zech. 6:12-13; Heb. 1:3). The  reposition kata, used with the accusative case, suggests thesense of “in accordance with, corresponding to” (Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996, p. 377). Hence a comparison is being drawn.

4. That Melchizedek was not the same person as Jesus is evident in that he is said to be “like unto” the Son of God (Heb. 7:3c). The participle aphomoioo denotes a comparison (e.g., a “copy” or “facsimile” – J.H. Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon, Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark, 1958, pp. 89-90). The term becomes irrelevant if the two persons were the same in identity. The point is made again in verse 15 – Jesus is a priest after the “likeness” of Melchizedek. D.W. Burdick bserves:“The verb aphomoioo always assumes two distinct and separate identities, one of which is a copy of the other. Thus Melchizedek and the Son of God are represented as two separatepersons, the first of which resembled the second” (“Melchizedek,” The InternationalStandard Bible Encyclopedia – Revised, G.W. Bromiley, Ed., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986, Vol. 3, p. 313).

“A friend, who is a Jehovah’s Witness, says that Jesus Christ was the first creature made by God the Father. He cites Colossians 1:15, where Jesus is said to be the ‘firstborn of all creation’ as proof. Can you comment on this?” The Watchtower dogma, that Jesus was the first being created by the Father and, therefore, he is not eternal in his nature, is a totally false teaching. The following points indisputably refute the “Witness” claim. 1.      The Greek word for “firstborn” is prototokos, a term with roots in the Old Testament. When the word is used literally, it can denote the first that comes from the womb, whether of man or beast (cf. Ex. 13:2). Frequently, however, “firstborn” is an expression of rank, or preeminence, and the original linguistic components (“first” and “born”) “no longer play any role in the meaning (e.g., Ex. 4:22)” (Verbrugee, 1114). A clear example of this is seen in Jeremiah 31:9, where “Ephraim” (a symbol for the kingdom of Israel) is called the Lord’s “firstborn,” although literally Manasseh, Ephraim’s older brother, was the “firstborn” (Gen. 48:14). In this context “firstborn” is employed as a designation for primacy (cf. Gen. 48:19).

The renowned Hebraist, Adam Clarke, observed that the Israelite people even referred to Jehovah as becoro sheloam, “the firstborn of all the world,” or of “all creation,” which expression signified the Lord’s role as the creator of all things (IV.516).

In Psalm 89, God said regarding David (though ultimately the reference is to David’s illustrious offspring; see Kirkpatrick, 538), “Also I will make him my firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth” (v. 27; cf. Rev. 1:5). The fact that this kingly One is to be appointed (future tense) as a “firstborn” is conclusive evidence that a point of origin is not in view.

2.      The world’s ripest scholars of New Testament Greek are virtually unanimous in their opposition to the claims of the Watchtower Society. “Firstborn” (Col. 1:15) does not indicate the origin of the Second Person of the Godhead. There is a precise Greek word to indicate the “first” of a particular created order; it is the term proto-ktistos. This word is defined by classical scholars Liddell & Scott as meaning “founded or created first” (1400). This is not the term employed by Paul to depict Christ in the Colossian context, though the apostle had a term available should he have wanted to make that point. That he did not is significant.

Balz & Schneider observe that prototokos in Colossians 1:15 emphasizes a “superiority of essence,” and it does not suggest that Christ is “a part of the creation himself, but [he] stands rather in a unique relationship to God, the ‘invisible’” (3.190).

W. Michaelis, in the Kittel/Friedrich dictionary, notes that the “for” clause (that begins verse 16) provides the explanation for the term “firstborn,” namely that “all things owe their creation to Christ’s mediation.” He insists that the point “is not that Christ is the first creature;” rather, the thought being emphasized is “Christ’s supremacy over creation” (Bromiley, 968).

Moreover, since the apostle affirms that Jesus created all things, it would follow logically that if he himself were a created being, he must have made himself! Recognizing this necessary, though absurd, conclusion, the Watchtower Society presumptively inserted the term “other” into the New World Translation at verse 16; “…because by means of him all [other] things were created….” Their use of brackets reveals a awareness that there is no textual basis for the insertion.

3.      Finally, the use of “firstborn” in verse 18 sheds light on the foregoing text. The Savior is described as “the firstborn from the dead” (cf. Rev. 1:5). Jesus was not the “firstborn from the dead” as a consequence of being the first one ever to be raised from the dead. There were resurrections from death both in the Old Testament (cf. 1 Kgs. 17:8-24), and during the personal ministry of the Lord (cf. Jn. 11:17ff). Christ is “firstborn from the dead” in that he demonstrated his power over the grave. He was even instrumental in effecting his own resurrection (Jn. 2:19). Further, unlike others, who were resurrected, Jesus was raised to die “no more” (Rom. 6:9). He is the ever-living one who now has the “keys” over both death and Hades (Rev. 1:18).

There is simply no justification for the notion that the pre-incarnate Word (Jn. 1:1, 14) was a created being. This is but one of the numerous errors that afflict the Watchtower movement.

SOURCES

By Wayne Jackson-Christian Courier

Balz, Horst & Schneider, Gerhard (1993), Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). Bromiley, G.W. (1985), Theological Dictionary of the New Testament – Abridged (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).Clarke, Adam (n.d.), Clarke’s Commentaries (New York: Abingdon).

Kirkpatrick, A.F. (1906), The Book of Psalms (Cambridge: University Press).

Liddell, H.G. & Scott, Robert (1869), A Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press).

Verbrugee, Verlyn D., Ed. (2000), The NIV Theological Dictionary of New Testament Words (Grand Rapids: Zondervan).  

Where did God come from? Who made him?

This is a frequently asked question, and it may be addressed in two basic ways. The most direct answer is the one supplied by the Scriptures themselves. And that will settle the issue for those who have confidence in the credibility of the sacred Book. Secondly, however, one may pursue the inquiry by means of the process of logical reasoning.

The Biblical View

The view regarding God that is set forth consistently in the Bible is this: He did not come from anywhere. No one made the Creator of the universe. He had no beginning, and will have no ending. He is the eternal, self-existing Being. The testimony of the Scriptures is this:

1.     God is “everlasting” in nature (Isa. 40:28), which is to say, he is “eternal” as to his very essence (Rom. 16:26; 1 Tim. 1:17). His existence is “from everlasting to everlasting.” Before the material creation was spoken into existence, he always was (Psa. 90:2).

2.     The Lord revealed himself to Moses as the “I AM THAT I AM” (Ex. 3:14). The “I AM” expression is related to the Hebrew name for God, Yahweh (LORD – KJV, or Jehovah – see ASV footnote). This was the most sacred name for God. The term Yahweh occurs more than 6,800 times in the Old Testament. The word is believed to be a form of the verb hayah, which signifies “to be,” ultimately meaning “the eternal One” or “self-existing One.” God’s existence is underived; no one made him. He simply always was.

Logically Speaking

The eternality of the Creator may be argued in another way as well. Consider the following logical line of argument.

1.     If there ever was a time when nothing at all existed, then there would be absolutely nothing today. It is an axiomatic truth that if nothing exists, then “nothing” will be the case – always, for nothing simply remains nothing – forever! Nothing plus nothing equals nothing. If there is absolutely nothing but nothing, there cannot ever be something. “Nothing” and “something” – applied to the same object, at the same time – are mutually exclusive terms.

2.     Since it is the case that something does now exist, one must logically conclude that something has existed always. Let us state the matter again: If nothing cannot produce something, and yet something exists, then it follows necessarily that something has existed always. The question then becomes this. What is the “something” that has been in existence always?

3.     In logic, the “law of the excluded middle” states that a thing either is, or it is not. A line either is straight, or it is not straight. Let us apply this principle to the matter at hand. Something has existed forever. That “something” must be either material in nature, or non-material. If it can be demonstrated that the eternal “something” is not material in nature, then it must follow that the eternal “something” is non-material in nature.

Another term for the “non-material” would be “spirit.” The question now becomes – what does the available evidence reveal? Is it the case that “matter” has existed forever, or does the evidence argue that the eternal “something” is non-matter, i.e., spirit?

4.     The most reputable scientists in the world concede that “matter” is not eternal. In his book, Until the Sun Dies (New York: W.W. Norton, 1977), Dr. Robert Jastrow, founder of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and himself a professed agnostic, describes his perception of the initial creation of the universe. He speaks of that moment when “the first particles of matter appear” (21), thus, prior to that moment, matter did not exist. Subsequently, he declares emphatically that “modern science denies an eternal existence to the Universe?” (30). There is not a particle of evidence that the universe has existed forever. The very fact that scientists attempt to assign an “age” to the universe is revealing within itself.

5.     In view of the foregoing, namely that something has always existed, and yet that “something” is not of a material nature, the student of logic is irresistibly forced to the conclusion that the “something” that is eternal is non-material – which means it must be “spirit” in its essence. The Scriptures identify that spirit Being as God. “God is spirit?” (Jn. 4:24) – an uncreated, eternal Spirit Being.

Both Scripture and logic, then, in marvelous concert, testify to the fact that God is eternal. He had no origin. He is the everlasting I AM. No one “made” him. He simply IS.

Ref: