‘Leisure time’, as something enjoyed by everyone not just the wealthy is a fairly recent phenomenon. In Biblical times, when the majority of the population lived at a ‘subsistence level’ as farmers, herdsmen, fishermen and so on, ‘leisure’ wasn’t really a problem. In fact, it has been said that the idea of a Sabbath day of rest was unique in antiquity in relieving people of the necessity and expectation of working every day.

The importance of ‘Rest’ and the urgency of ‘Time’
There are two competing Biblical themes relating to how a believer should regard leisure. One is the notion of ‘rest’, as typified in the concept of ‘Sabbath’, which combines rest from labour with worshipping God. The other is the awareness that ‘time’ is a non-renewable resource, which should be used carefully. The ‘Parable of the Talents’ (Matthew chapter 25, verses 14-30) for example, cautions a person against wasting what they are given in an unproductive way. The Jewish ‘Wisdom’ tradition, particularly the book of Proverbs, places a high value on productivity and condemns laziness and idleness.

What seems to be needed is a balance between rest that is needed and using time productively. Rest that enables a person to recharge and take time out to concentrate on what really matters, i.e. worshipping God, is considered valuable by Biblical writers – and is proscribed in the Law of Moses as the ‘fourth commandment’. But there are also warnings that devoting too much time to leisure can mean we never achieve our potential. Nobody knows exactly how much time they have, and so it is important to use that time wisely.

Leisure activities
In terms of how to spend leisure time, particularly in reference to TV, films and the like, there are some relevant Biblical passages which can be applied.

For example, Philippians chapter 4, verses 8-9 contains the following injunction: “Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.” This has a reverse implication that Christians should not be thinking about (or watching) things that are ignoble, wrong, impure, unlovely, shameful and so on…

The apostle Paul also encourages Christians to be mindful that the choices they make in life may cause difficulties for other Christians. Referring to a debate over whether it was acceptable to eat meat sacrificed to idols, he writes: “For if anyone with a weak conscience sees you who have this knowledge eating in an idol’s temple, won’t he be emboldened to eat what has been sacrificed to idols? So this weak brother, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. When you sin against your brothers in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall.” (1 Corinthians 8, verses 10-13) The last verse could be rephrased as: “if what I watch causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never watch TV again, so that I will not cause him to fall.”

Christians are, in Paul’s view, free from the demands of the Law, but this then means that each individual believer has to take responsibility for what they do. He sums this up by saying: ““Everything is permissible” – but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is permissible” – but not everything is constructive.” (1 Corinthians 10, verse 23)

In conclusion, the Biblical tradition places a high value on rest. But what people choose to do in order to ‘rest’ is important. Human beings have a limited amount of time available to them, and even ‘rest’ time is perhaps best used through doing something ‘beneficial’ and ‘constructive’ if possible.

There are two big questions here based on two very big assumptions. The first is the assumption that there is a major difference between the way God is depicted as acting towards human beings in the Old Testament compared to the New. The second assumption is that human beings have free will, which God ignored when God chose to ‘harden Pharaoh’s heart’.

God in the Old and New Testaments
God is revealed in different ways in the Old and New Testaments – as Yahweh, the god of Israel in the Old Testament, and as an incarnate human being in the New Testament. In some respects, it would be expected that if the mode of revelation is different, then the image of God would appear to be different too.

However, there are striking similarities between the two Testaments. There is an emphasis on sin needing to be accounted for, especially through the shedding of blood. In the Old Testament this takes place in the Jewish sacrificial system; in the New Testament God provides the perfect sacrifice, his own Son. Taken this way, God’s ‘attitude’ is the same – there is a gulf between humans and God caused by human sin, which God wishes bridged in order to have a loving relationship with humanity.

Free will and hard hearts
Those who adopt a theology that emphasises predestination probably do not have too much of an issue with God ‘hardening Pharaoh’s heart’. If God decides who shall be saved, and who shall be punished for their sins, then this passage presents little or no problem. God decides that Pharaoh will be punished for his sin, and so causes or allows Pharaoh to have a hard heart. (In addition to God’s stated intention to harden Pharaoh’s heart, the story in Exodus states on three occasions that Pharaoh decides himself to harden his own heart (1) and God presumably lets him.)

Quite why God would deliberately choose to harden Pharaoh’s heart is a matter of conjecture. It may be that God sought to liberate the Hebrews through mighty acts as a revelation of God’s divine powers and to confirm that Moses was God’s messenger. The plagues visited upon Egypt acted as a testimony that Moses was telling the truth – and ensured the Israelites followed him. If Pharaoh had agreed to let the Hebrews leave immediately, how many would have followed Moses into an uncertain future?

Those who want to adopt a less rigid view on predestination, may see God’s actions here as deliberately undermining Pharaoh’s free will. However, the incidents already cited where Pharaoh decides to harden his own heart do counteract that assumption. In Exodus chapter 3, verse 19, before Moses goes into Egypt, God tells him that “the King of Egypt will not let you go unless a mighty hand compels him.” This seems to imply that Pharaoh would need a compelling reason to free the Hebrews because his heart was already ‘hard’.

God acts by ‘not acting’
If God knew Pharaoh would harden his heart and chose not to act in such a way as to prevent that happening, then God is effectively allowing Pharaoh to harden his own heart. In a sense, God is causing Pharaoh’s heart to harden by notintervening to prevent it from happening. God’s intention is thus accomplished by God’s omission, not by God’s action. By predicting Pharaoh’s hard heart to Moses, God prepares Moses for the necessary struggle ahead, because it is only through that struggle that God’s mighty acts will be witnessed by all the Hebrews.

So, in conclusion, God had a reason to let Pharaoh behave the way he did, and could be said to have caused or allowed Pharaoh’s hard heart, without negating the fact that Pharaoh freely chose to act that way. Through the Exodus, God self-reveals as the liberator of the oppressed. In the drama of the Passover is a foreshadowing revelation of the great redemptive act that came when the ‘Lamb of God’ died on the cross. The Exodus reveals God’s very nature to the liberated Hebrews; and to Christian believers too. Pharaoh’s hard heart had a part to play in that. Such a revelation may not have been received if, when Moses told Pharaoh that Yahweh’s message was ‘Let my people go’, Pharaoh had just replied ‘Yeah, okay’.

Notes and references
1 – Exodus chapter 8, verse 15 and again in verse 32, and chapter 9, verse 34.

There are a number of things to mention before looking at what the Bible ‘says’ or doesn’t say about homosexuality. The first important point to make is that the debate about homosexuality is often highly polarised, with those who have reservations about homosexuality branded as homophobic, while those who want to accept homosexuality as a valid expression of human sexuality have various names applied to them (’sinners’ being a more tame example). These labels aren’t particularly helpful, but, it is true to say that some Christian organisations do appear to be homophobic, and could be accused of singling out homosexuals for criticism and attack.

The difficulty about the homosexuality debate, which, for example, is currently problematic in the Anglican Church, is that is more than just a debate over acceptable sexual practices. Traditionally, almost every denomination of Christian Church has interpreted the Bible, as condemning, or refusing to endorse, homosexuality. So, the debate about homosexuality becomes much wider in scope. It is in effect a debate over whether the Bible is the authority by which Christians should live their lives, what exactly the Bible says, and how it should be interpreted.

The Old Testament
It has been suggested that the friendship between King David and King Saul’s son Jonathan, may have been sexual. After Jonathan’s death, David mourns for him, and is recorded as saying: “I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; dear and delightful you were to me; your love for me was wonderful, surpassing the love of women.” (2 Samuel chapter 1, verse 26)

It is up to the reader to decide whether this is ‘proof’ that King David had a homosexual relationship with Jonathan. Or did they just have a very close friendship, which led them to regard each other as a brother? The language is ambiguous at best – in 1 Samuel chapter 20, David and Jonathan renew a ‘covenant’ “out of love” (verse 17). Quite what this means is unclear. We also know that both men were married, and had children; one of David’s wives was Jonathan’s sister (or possibly, his half-sister)[1].

Another Biblical story that can be interpreted as condemning homosexuality is the tale of Lot’s visitation by angels in Sodom, in Genesis chapter 19, verses 1-26. The angels provoke the men of Sodom to surround Lot’s house and demand Lot give up his visitors to the crowd for sex. Subsequently God sends judgement on Sodom and the city is destroyed.

Traditionally this story has been regarded as demonstrating the immorality of homosexuality. In fact, the word ‘sodomy’ has entered the English language as a term for anal sex. But, strangely when Jesus mentions Sodom, he does so in a discussion about hospitality, not sexual morality. The ‘sin of Sodom’ may have been the threat of sexual assault and rape, with the inhabitants preying on vulnerable visitors. That it was going to be homosexual rape may be irrelevant.

The verse from the Old Testament that is probably most used in this discussion is Leviticus chapter 18, verse 22, which says: “You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; that is detestable.” Interestingly, this follows 16 statements regarding unacceptable heterosexual relationships, and is closely followed by a ruling against bestiality.

The context of this ruling against homosexuality is a whole chapter related to idolatry and worshipping other gods. Verse 3 tells the Israelites that they must not do ‘what they do in Egypt, or in Canaan’ and in verse 21, right between the commandments related to heterosexual relationships and the command forbidding homosexuality, is an injunction not to sacrifice children to the Canaanite god Molech. Homosexuality, like child sacrifice and bestiality, was part of Canaanite religious practices, so the reason it’s condemned here may be because idolatry is detestable to God, and the Israelites weren’t to join in.

Jesus and homosexuality
Even if the statement in Leviticus is taken at face value, there is the question about how relevant the Old Testament laws are to Christians. Jesus said he did not come to abolish the old laws, but to fulfil them[2]. However, Christians would assert that, through his death and resurrection, Jesus established a new way for human beings to relate to God, which was not dependent on keeping the Law.

Jesus himself says nothing explicitly about homosexuality. However, the argument that Jesus never condemned homosexuality is an argument from silence. There are many things that Jesus is not recorded as condemning, but that does not imply an endorsement.

However there are two statements by Jesus which have been interpreted as having a bearing on the subject. They appear in a discussion about divorce in Matthew chapter 19. Firstly, Jesus quotes Genesis saying that God created men and women as distinct genders before saying “a man shall leave his father and mother, and be made one with his wife; and the two shall become one flesh.”[3]

It would appear from this that Jesus regards heterosexual marriage as normative, and God’s plan for human sexuality. Later in the same conversation, the disciples tell Jesus they think it is better not to marry at all. Jesus replies: “… some are eunuchs because they were born so, or made so by men, there are others who have themselves renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of Heaven.”

This could be interpreted as Jesus saying that heterosexual marriage is fine for those who are heterosexual, but some are ‘born to be different’. However, it does seem fairly clear that Jesus is actually talking about people who were born incapable of having children or who have been castrated, and not about homosexuals. The alternatives presented here are marriage or celibacy, and both are acceptable to God. This is quite a liberating message within the culture he is speaking in, which often discriminated against men and women who were unmarried.

Homosexuality in the rest of the New Testament
The letters of St Paul provide the other traditional support for the position that homosexuality is sinful. He writes: “Because of this, God gave given [people who worship false gods] over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.” [4]

Elsewhere, Paul writes: “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” [5]

One interpretation of this is that the word Paul uses that is translated as ‘homosexual offenders’ could alternatively be translated as ‘male prostitute’ (it literally means ‘sodomite’), in which case it may not be a blanket statement against homosexuality. However, Paul also uses the Greek word ‘malakoi’ which means ‘voluptuous persons’, a term for male prostitutes who dressed as women. So it does seem that Paul is making a distinction between those who sell their body for homosexual sex, and those who engage in homosexual activities for pleasure rather than business.

These verses do seem quite a clear indication that Paul thought homosexuality was incompatible with Christianity and akin to significant sins like idolatry. He does go on to remind his readers that they too once did these things – until they were redeemed through belief in Jesus Christ, so although these words sound judgmental, Paul does point out that the only difference between people who do those things and the people he is writing to (members of the church) is the saving power of Christ.

It’s also worth noting that many Christians who would use these words of Paul to establish heterosexuality as normative, and strongly criticise those who are homosexual, do often ignore other clear directives from Paul6. Paul’s own history as an ultra-orthodox Jew may have left something ingrained in his attitudes towards sexuality. Before converting to Christianity, he was a Pharisee, and it is unlikely that his views on human sexuality developed since his conversion. Elsewhere in the New Testament, Paul admits that some of his views are his own, not revealed to him by God[7]. Paul’s opinions on homosexuality may similarly reflect Paul’s own beliefs and perhaps should not be taken as divinely inspired.

In conclusion…
Homosexuality is a sensitive issue, but superficially, the Bible does not treat homosexual relationships any differently to heterosexual relationships, and in fact there is far more teaching on heterosexual sexual relationships. It would appear the only sexual relationships unequivocally endorsed by the Bible are those that take place between husbands and wife in marriage, and even then the laws in the Torah place limits on sexual intercourse between married partners[8].

As homosexual relationships obviously lie outside the ‘approved context’ for sexual relationships, they lack Biblical endorsement. However, given how much more emphasis there is in the Bible on heterosexual purity and faithfulness, it seems odd that homosexuality is given such prominence in contemporary debates relating to human sexuality.

Notes & references
1 Saul’s daughter Michal, was given in marriage to David (1 Samuel chapter 18, verses 20-27), although interestingly, David had already made a ‘covenant’ with Jonathan (chapter 18, verses 1-4) and turned down an initial offer of one of Saul’s daughters in marriage (chapter 18, verse 18).
2 Matthew chapter 5, verse 17
3 Matthew chapter 19, verse 5, quoting Genesis chapter 2, verse 24. Jesus’ reference to the creation of distinct genders is in verse 4 and refers to Genesis chapter 1, verse 27.
4 Romans chapter 1, verse 26-27
5 1 Corinthians 6, verses 9-10
6 For example: 1 Corinthians chapter 11, verses 5-7 which instructs women to cover their heads while praying, although men conversely should pray with uncovered heads. It’s worth perhaps mentioning that bishops tend to wear their mitres while praying, in apparent contradiction of Paul’s instructions.
7 E.g. 1 Corinthians chapter 7, verse 12
8 E.g. Leviticus chapter 18, verse 19 forbids a husband and wife having intercourse when the wife is menstruating.

[Jon's note: this is a long answer, so be prepared for lots of reading!]

While mainstream Christianity has always claimed that the God ‘revealed’ in the Old Testament is the same God who is incarnate in Christ, there have always been some people who have found the difference too great to reconcile. An example would be Marcion (died c.160AD), who distinguished between Yahweh as a ‘cruel, despotic god’, and Christ as the incarnation of the ‘true god’, and was denounced as a heretic as a result.

However, the issue of whether Christians should be involved in conflict, or use violence, is often precisely an issue because of the difference between the two testaments. There are several viewpoints that justify the use of violence or combat based primarily on the Old Testament, but surprisingly there are also many based on the New Testament too.

Here are some different arguments advanced for Christians being involved in wars or employing violence:

War justified in the Old Testament
God is depicted in the Old Testament as a ‘warrior’, who intervenes to slay Israel’s enemies, e.g. by casting Pharaoh’s army into the sea in Exodus chapter 15, verses 3-4. Liberation theologians often emphasis the exodus from Egypt as God liberating God’s people through the use of violence, with a conclusion that violent liberation can be godly liberation.

God is referred to as the ‘Lord of Armies’ (often translated as ‘hosts’) over 200 times. This revelation of God’s character may cast doubt on any absolute pacifist position.

God commanded the chosen people to fight, and to kill, on at least 35 occasions.

God honoured military leaders, such as Abraham, Moses, David, Gideon, and so on.

“Thou shalt not kill” does not have to be translated as an absolute. The Hebrew word ‘kill’ here is ‘rasah’ which more accurately means ‘murder’. It may even be that the sixth commandment only means “Thou shalt not kill another Hebrew.”[1]

War justified in the New Testament
Many New Testament sayings endorse war, e.g. in Luke chapter 3, verse 14, John the Baptist tells soldiers to ‘be content with your wages’ rather than extort money form people. However he did not instruct them to leave the army.

Jesus commended the faith of a Roman Centurion in Matthew chapter 8, verse 10, but makes no comment about his rank or profession.

Jesus also acted violently towards the money-changers in the Temple[2] and did not flinch from confronting his enemies verbally and provoking them.

Several of Jesus’ parables include references to judgement and execution of the unrighteous[3].

Jesus’ command of the ‘non-violent’ response to ‘turn the other cheek’[4] is in the context of personal relationships with your ‘neighbour’ and it can be argued therefore has nothing to with pacifism or a rejection of war.

Jesus accepted the title of ‘Christ’/‘Messiah’ – even though there was a strong link between the belief in a Messiah and a revolution/liberation. While Jesus did not initiate an armed revolt, he equally did not flinch from claiming a term with implications of an armed revolt.

The Bible uses a ‘soldier’ as a template for life as a follower of Jesus, especially in Ephesians chapter 6, verse 10-20, which implies an endorsement of soldiering as an occupation. It seems unlikely that this analogy would be made if being a soldier was irredeemably evil – there are no comparisons to how the Christian life should be lived drawn from the world of prostitution, crime or hedonism[5].

The apostolic writings instruct Christians to ‘submit to authority’. In Romans chapter 13, verse 4, the authorities are described as “God’s servants” – God’s “agent of wrath to bring punishment upon the wrongdoer.” If a Christian is commanded to go to war, then that Christian must submit to authority and go to war.

Additional Biblical arguments allowing for the Christian to be involved in warfare
It can be argued that “Kingdom ethics” cannot be absolutes in this fallen world. So, for example, within the Kingdom of God it is perfectly possible to ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you’. But in the ‘real world’ a person may be faced with a choice between protecting the weak and the vulnerable from those who would kill them. A Christian seeking to ‘do unto others’ has to answer the question ‘which others?’ – the aggressor, or the victim?

Some liberation theologians go as far as saying that while violence is wrong, counter-violence may be right. For example: “God does not wait for the master to decide freely to liberate the slave. He knows that the master will never do that. So, he breaks the yoke and the erstwhile master can no longer dominate… Violence is power that oppresses and makes men unfree. Counter-violence is power that breaks the old which enslaves in order to make men free.”[6]

The idea of ‘counter-violence’ or revolution being God-ordained, interestingly appears in Martin Luther’s treatise on whether it is acceptable for a Christian to be a soldier. In a section where he stresses how a Christian must take up arms if commanded to by their ruler, who is ‘God-appointed’ (a reference to Romans chapter 13, verses 1-5), Luther says: “Suppose that a people would rise up…and depose their Lord and kill him. That certainly could happen if God decrees that it should, and the lords must expect it. But that does not mean that it is right and just for the people to do it.” For Luther, revolution was always wrong if it was human-inspired, even if it was against a ruler who persecuted believers, but it may still be the means by which God establishes a new order[7].

While God is loving, it is important to remember that God is also portrayed in the Bible as just, and sometimes justice appears violent. In order to bring justice sometimes unjust social institutions have to be torn down in order to rebuild[8].

However, there are several Christian interpretive viewpoints that seek to establish non-violence and pacifism to some extent, even to the point of ‘absolute pacifism’. These arguments are mainly drawn from the teaching of Jesus and the apostles in the New Testament, but there are a number of ways the Old Testament has been interpreted to promote pacifism too.

Peace as an ideal in the Old Testament
Warfare is rooted in humanity’s ‘fall from grace’, away from the perfect image of God. Murder quickly followed the fall as shown in the story of Cain murdering his brother, Abel[9]. This also has a knock on effect in that human beings cannot accurately imitate God’s nature as a ‘perfect warrior’.

Israel’s role in warfare in the Old Testament was in a unique position where ‘kingdom’ and ‘state’ were combined, i.e. where Yahweh ruled as sovereign over ‘his people’. No modern-day nation state can claim that position.

The way God chooses to work is different now. War belongs to the Old Testament time period and situation. Human beings now live in the ‘age of Grace’.

The Old Testament wars of conquest in the land of Canaan might not have been God’s original intention. In Exodus chapter 20, verses 20-23, God promises to send “an angel ahead of you to guard you along the way…My angel will go ahead of you and bring you into the land of the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Canaanites, Hivites and Jebusites, and I will wipe them out.” Later in the same chapter, God promises to use “my terror” (verse 27) and hornets (verse 28) to drive out the people living in the land. However the Israelites are warned not to rebel against this angel (verse 21). Of course, the Israelites did rebel and ended up wandering in the desert for years. Another result of their rebellion was their having to fight wars to claim the land God had promised them. The divinely sanctioned wars in the Old Testament could therefore be interpreted as a punishment from God, not God’s plan for establishing the nation-state of the chosen people.

Israel’s ongoing warring history was a result of a lack of faith in Yahweh as the warrior who would protect them. The debate surrounding the need for a King is actually about the replacement of Yahweh as King – Samuel warns the people that a result of disobeying God by seeking a King will be war and oppression[10].

David, while honoured by God, was forbidden from building the Temple because of all the blood he had shed – primarily through war[11].

There are Old Testament paradigms which show that sometimes a believer must follow a ‘higher authority’, e.g. the Hebrew midwives who disobeyed Pharaoh because they “feared God” (Exodus chapter 1, verse 17).

It is also worth noting that there are several passages where God fights ‘against’ Israel, allowing defeat in war to humble and punish the chosen people. ‘God’s war’ is thus to be distinguished from the warfare that was conducted by the nation of Israel.

Compared to other ancient literature the Old Testament does not glorify death in war and there are very few stories about ‘war heroes’ in the Old Testament, certainly compared to Roman or Greek epics.

There is a sustained criticism of the monarchy in the Old Testament, particularly in regard to their military power. The kingly authority is often contrasted with the holy law, the Torah.

There are many situations where mighty ‘freeing acts’ are accomplished without Israel going to war – e.g. the Exodus, where God’s power sets the enslaved Hebrews free from a militarily powerful empire. This links into the idea that when the Israelites obeyed God, it was God who fought for them. Several of the prophetic oracles request that the people return to trust in the God who fights on their behalf. Additionally the total destruction of the spoils of war could be interpreted as a sacrificial thanksgiving to God, indicating how Israel’s success in war was based on God’s sovereign provision for the chosen people.

Many Christians who would argue for nonviolence/pacifism would also add that the Old Testament has been superseded by the New Testament and therefore the directions of Yahweh to the Kingdom of Israel cannot be regarded as normative for those who belong in the new Kingdom of God.

‘Peace’ in the New Testament
It would appear that Jesus’ teachings follow a clear pacifist line. The command to ‘turn the other cheek’ in Matthew chapter 5, verses 39-41 offer a nonviolent response to violence. This theme was developed in the apostolic teaching, e.g. Romans chapter 12, verses 17 and 19-21, and 1 Peter chapter 3, verse 9, which both encourage the believer to resist the urge for vengeance and to ‘repay evil for good’.

In addition Jesus’ command in Matthew chapter 5, verse 39 (“Do not resist one who is evil”) can be translated as ‘do not use evil methods to overcome evil’. This removes the justification for war as a ‘bad’ means to a ‘good’ end.

Furthermore, the command to ‘love your enemies’ means to love those who are unlike you, thus imitating the unconditional and universal love of God.

Jesus specifically spoke against the use of the sword[12] and turned his back on leading an armed rebellion[13].

Military metaphors in the New Testament are precisely that – metaphors. Hence Paul explicitly states that Christian warfare is “spiritual” in 2 Corinthians chapter 10, verses 3-4.

Jesus reinterpreted the political, revolutionary messianic expectation of his times in a non-political, and, more impressively, in a non-violent way. When Peter ‘confesses’ that Jesus is the messiah in Mark chapter 8, verse 29, Jesus then begins to talk about how the messiah must suffer and be killed (verse 31). This different view of what messiahship entails prompts Peter to ‘rebuke’ Jesus (verse 32), which in turn led to a rebuke for Peter for having in mind the “things of men” instead of the “things of God” (verse 33). Jesus then calls on the crowd to take up their crosses (verse 34) – again rejecting the idea of a messianic kingdom established by revolution.

Jesus’ ‘messianic response’ to the Roman occupiers was to offer love and grace to them, e.g. in the healing of a Centurion’s servant in Matthew chapter 8, verses 5-13.

A final note: the “Just” War
Sometimes in ethical or Christian discussions of whether war is acceptable the concept of a ‘Just War’ is mentioned. Although it is not directly based on the Bible, it is worth mentioning the classical concept of the Just War here.

Broadly speaking a war is deemed ‘just’ based on two elements – when it is right to go to war (jus ad bellum), and what it is right to do in war (jus in bello). Conditions for when it is ‘just’ for a nation to go to war include the following:
1) War must be a response to aggression or for a just cause
2) War must be initiated by legitimate authorities
3) It must be a last resort
4) There must be a formal declaration of war
5) There must be a reasonable hope of success

However, for a war to be considered just once it has started, the following characteristics are usually highlighted:
1) The means should be proportional to the end it is aimed at (i.e. the war should not be fought in such a way that it is a greater evil than the evil it is being fought to remedy)
2) That ‘the innocent’ (i.e. civilians) are not targeted

It can be safely said that in most wars ever waged, if not all, these conditions have not all been met, and in many wars none of them have been met. In addition from a Christian perspective, many of these conditions are subjective – who decides what level of aggression qualifies as a legitimate level to respond to by declaring war, for example? Where there is historical distrust between nations, both sides are quick to accuse the other of aggression, and therefore justify their violent response.

In conclusion
Accounts of divinely ordained warfare in the Old Testament will probably always be problematic to Christians seeking to live according to Jesus Christ’s ‘kingdom ethic’ which values peace and promotes nonviolent responses to violence. There may be cases when an individual Christian will feel compelled to resist evil, or to protect the victims of aggression. Clearly the Christian ideal is for such resistance to be non-violent, where possible. However, Christians can (and do) justify the use of violence, as seen above, and those justifications may be based on the New Testament, as much as the Old Testament.

Notes and references
[1] Slavery, Sabbath, War & Women by Willard M Swartley, Herald Press, 1983, p.101
[2] See Matthew chapter 12, verses 12-13; Mark chapter 11, verses 15-17; Luke chapter 19, verses 45-46; John chapter 2, verses 13-17.
[3] See Matthew chapter 21, verse 41; Luke chapter 19, verse 27
[4] Matthew chapter 5, verse 39
[5] This argument is advanced by Loraine Boettner, cited in Swartley, op.cit, p.100
[6] Rubem Alves, quoted in Swartley, op.cit, p.107
[7] Luther: Whether Soldiers, too, can be Saved, part 11, as reprinted in A Textbook of Christian Ethics, by Robin Gill, T&T Clark, 2nd ed 1995, p.296 (this book includes Luther’s entire treatise, pp 292-304)
[8] See Jeremiah chapter 1, verse 10
[9] Genesis chapter 4, verse 8.
[10] 1 Samuel chapter 8, verses 6-18
[11] 1 Chronicles chapter 22, verse 8.
[12] Matthew chapter 26, verse 52. See also John chapter 18, verse 36.
[13] John chapter 6, verse 15 implies the ‘people’ wanted to declare Jesus as ‘king’ at the head of a messianic rebellion.

Some Christians say that it is the will of God for all believers to prosper financially, that poverty and lack is a curse and that our prosperity is contingent upon our obedience to the Word of God. Does the Bible actually say this?

I don’t think it does at all as plenty of non-believers prosper, people like Mother Theresa died poor etc but I don’t know how to back up my hunch scripturally.

This is a difficult question to definitively answer, simply because either view can be supported through referring to the Bible. Certainly in the Old Testament, key figures in Israelite history were wealthy as a result of their obedience to God. Abraham, for example, saw his wealth grow as a result of his faithfulness.

Others who were significantly blessed in material terms include Job, David and Solomon, and there are several instances of God promising blessing on the nation of Israel if the Law is kept. Interestingly, several of these ‘blessing texts’ are often used to reinforce the idea that true believers will prosper financially, often with little or no regard for the context in which God promises blessing.

Mis-using texts by ignoring contexts
A classic example of this is Malachi chapter 3, verse 10, which is often used to justify appeals for money, as ‘God will financially bless those who give their tithe’ [1]. However, the context of this verse is one of judgement on Israel, because of the failure to keep the Law. Most of Malachi is about prophecies of judgement and doom. Those who use this verse to justify appeals for money often neglect to explore this context, extracting the words attributed to God from the prophecy to give them a new meaning and application.

The fact this ‘oracle’ was spoken to a nation, not an individual, and a nation under the Law, rather than under grace, may discount its applicability to an individual’s personal finances. On a general level, it’s good to be obedient, and God blesses as a result, but there’s no guarantee the ‘blessing’ will be financial – in fact, to insist God’s blessing is financial rather limits what a believer can receive. Another criticism of this kind of teaching is that it replaces genuine generosity with an attitude of ‘giving in order to receive’, as if God is some kind of cosmic investment bank.

Money corrupts in the Old Testament
In addition to God financially blessing characters like Abraham, there are several Old Testament references to the corrupting influence of money. The book of Proverbs includes the following plea to Yahweh: “give me only my daily bread. Otherwise I may have too much and disown you and say ‘Who is the LORD?’ Or I may become poor and steal, and so dishonour the name of my God.”[2]

Ecclesiastes, which like Proverbs belongs to the Jewish ‘Wisdom’ Literature, takes a pessimistic view of riches, describing immense wealth as “meaningless”[3]. In addition it describes “all labour and all achievement” as being the result of “man’s envy of his neighbour”[4], which meant riches were the result of breaking the Law, which forbade coveting your neighbour’s wealth[5].

Ecclesiastes even goes so far as to state “You can’t take it with you when you die” (although in slightly more poetic terms)[6] and laments the injustice of life where the ‘righteous get what the wicked deserve’[7]. This is more than just ‘Why do bad things happen to good people’; it asks ‘Why do good things happen to bad people?’

Jesus’s attitude to riches
In the New Testament it seems there was a general belief that the righteous would be blessed and, as a result, would be rich. However there was also an acknowledgement that those who were rich – for example, tax collectors – were often unrighteous, and were labelled as sinners by the religious authorities.

Jesus’ followers were not immune to the idea that righteous people would be blessed with riches, and the flip-side idea that rich people must have been blessed, therefore should be considered righteous. When Jesus sends away the ‘rich young man’ and then tells his disciples that ‘it’s hard for the rich to enter the Kingdom of God’ in Matthew chapter 19, his disciples are very confused.

They ask “Who then can be saved?” (verse 25), because it seemed obvious if righteousness and riches go hand in hand that the rich are in a better place than the poor. Jesus deliberately challenges this thinking, for example, by referring to his own poverty in Matthew chapter 8, verse 20.

Jesus certainly does not seem to link righteousness with material wealth. Most of his promises to his followers are of hardship and persecution if they choose to follow him. In fact, persecution is a hallmark of authentic discipleship, according to John chapter 15, verses 18-19.

Like the author of Proverbs, Jesus also makes the link to ‘daily bread’, in the prayer he teaches his disciples (the ‘Lord’s Prayer’)[8]. This is almost immediately followed in Matthew’s account Jesus’ teaching to reject earthly wealth with the warning that “You cannot serve Both God and Money”.[9]

The message seems to be that it’s okay to pray for the things you need – e.g. your ‘daily bread’. However, following the ‘Wisdom tradition’, Jesus seems to imply that excess wealth is a hindrance to serving God.

An additional comment
One interesting aspect of the promotion of a ‘gospel of prosperity’ is its location. The truth is that compared to the majority of Christians in the world, Western Christians live in luxury. Poverty is rare in the developed world, and yet much of this teaching regarding ‘blessing’ is found in the world’s richest nations.

Apparently it is not enough for some people to have their ‘daily bread’; they want more. It would seem they are unaware of one of the observations made by the author of Ecclesiastes: “Whoever loves money, never has money enough; whoever loves wealth is never satisfied with his income.”[10]

[1] “Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse… Test me in this”, says the Lord Almighty, “and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that you will not have room enough for it.” – New International Version
[2] Proverbs chapter 30, verses 8-9
[3] Ecclesiastes chapter 2, verses 4-10
[4] Ecclesiastes chapter 4, verse 4
[5] Exodus chapter 20, verse 17 (the tenth commandment)
[6] Ecclesiastes chapter 5, verse 15
[7] Ecclesiastes chapter 8, verse 14
[8] Matthew chapter 6, verse 11; Luke chapter 11, verse 3
[9] Matthew chapter 6, verses 19-24. ‘Money’ is often translated as ‘Mammon’.
[10] Ecclesiastes chapter 5, verse 10

I have heard the saying a “fold in the bible” or something similar. What does that mean?

This seems to be an obscure phrase, and without knowing what context it was used in, it’s hard to know what the person who said it meant.

Three possible meanings come to mind. Firstly, the actual word ‘fold’, which is a name for a rudimentary shelter for smaller livestock (often referred to as a sheep-fold). The ‘fold’, or sheep-pen, is also used by Jesus as a metaphor for the believing community in John chapter 10, where the sheep/believers shelter in the fold, while the ‘good shepherd’ fights to protect them and sacrifices his own life in the process (chapter 10, verse 11).

Jesus also claims to have sheep ‘that are not of this fold’ (chapter 10, verse16), which has been used to justify an inclusivist, or pluralist, attitude towards adherents of other religions. However, given the context, it seems the writer of John’s gospel was indicating the inclusion of gentiles along with Jewish followers of Jesus.

A second possible meaning for the phrase is the descriptive term: “a tri-fold Bible”. Put simply, this is a printed Bible with several different translations arranged in columns on the page. Such a Bible is useful as a tool to compare how translators have sometimes differed over what words mean in the texts.

The earliest such Bible known in Christian history was produced by a scholar called Origen (c.185-254AD), whose ‘Hexapla’, or ‘six-fold’ Bible, had both Greek and Hebrew versions of the Old Testament running parallel to each other, along with other languages.

A third meaning, drawn from the complete phrase ‘fold in the Bible’ could refer to some method of dividing up the Bible into separate sections. This is quite popular in dispensationalist teaching, where it is believed God self-revealed and related to humanity through different ways at different points in human history. These different ways of God relating to human beings are termed ‘dispensations’.

Dispensationalist theology seeks to divide up Biblical commands and promises according to which time period they apply to. It may be that a ‘fold in the Bible’ relates to a division between one dispensational time period and another, e.g. between the Dispensation of the Law (as given to Moses) and the Dispensation of Grace (as revealed in Jesus).

However, it should be noted, this last explanation is simply conjecture. Frankly, the obscurity of this phrase means it remains a bit of a mystery.

ER: Is there wine in heaven?
BR: If so, is it alcoholic, as some people say that ‘wine’ in the Bible was merely grape juice?

While the Bible is never fully clear on the subject of what ‘heaven’ is like, there are references to eating and drinking. In Luke chapter 22, verse 18, Jesus is reported as saying of a cup of wine that “I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” Whether this is a reference to his appearances after the resurrection, or in heaven is hard to know. However as he was predicting his death, it would seem that he expected to drink wine at some point after death.

“Wine” mentioned in the Bible was alcoholic, although it would have no doubt varied in strength. Archeological evidence of the time has revealed alcoholic wine stored in amphorae (clay jars). Evidence of cultivated vineyards has been found dating back beyond 3000BC, although there is little evidence to support the story in Genesis regarding Noah planting the first vineyard after the flood (Genesis chapter 9, verses 20-27) and becoming intoxicated shortly afterwards!

Drunkenness is frequently regarded as sinful by Biblical writers, in both the Old and New Testaments. While there was other ‘strong drink’ besides wine (mentioned both in the Bible and again discovered during archeological excavations), it is likely that wine was the common cause for drunkenness. In Acts chapter 2, the apostles are specifically accused of ‘having too much wine’ when they speak in tongues following the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost (see verse 13). So wine was certainly regarded as a likely cause of drunkenness in Biblical times and wasn’t just grape juice.

Thanks for your questions ER and BR.