14 thoughts on “Ask the Pastor”

1. The Apostles’ Creed

   The Apostles’ Creed is a great statement of Christian belief that has been around since the second century. It was not written by the Apostles and therefore not equal to the Bible, but it shows that from the earliest times the church embraced the doctrine of the Trinity. Because it is not equal to Scripture it does have errors and is not a sufficient statement of necessary beliefs, though it is a very good and concise statement of belief. One shortfall is that it doesn’t say anything about how to be saved, how to receive the wonderful gift of eternal life Jesus has procured for us. We receive eternal life by grace alone through faith alone (Ephesians 2:8-9; Romans 4:1-8).
   There is one clause in the Apostles’ Creed that has been seriously questioned throughout the centuries, the phrase “He descended into hell.” What does this phrase mean? It is not found in the Bible and so cannot be made an essential belief of the Christian. Some have suggested that Jesus went to hell for the three days he was buried and there suffered the wrath of God; John Calvin among others believed this. Others go further and state that he was harassed by Satan as a part of his punishment. Neither of these ideas can be proven from Scripture, though Acts 2:24 indicates Jesus did suffer pain while in the grave. Let me share my view. I believe Jesus went to the realm of the dead when he died, but that he suffered the wrath of God while on the cross. According to the Scriptures in Matthew 27:46 Jesus cried out, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?” This is in agreement with Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53 that states the Messiah will suffer our penalty in our place, experiencing the wrath of God as our substitute. He experienced the eternal wrath of God we deserve for our sins those six hours that Friday. John 19:30 states that just before he died Jesus said, “It is finished.” This statement indicates that his crucifixion accomplished what God intended, to bring about our salvation through his substitutionary death on the cross. If it is finished then he didn’t need to suffer anymore for our sins. Luke 23:46 declares another statement of Jesus on the cross; “Father, into Your hands I entrust My spirit.” Here it seems that the anguish of forsakenness has ended. One might ask, “How could six hours of suffering suffice for the eternity of hell we all deserve?” It is sufficient because of the quality of the person who died in our place. Jesus was perfect and he was both human and divine. His humanity was necessary to be our substitute, and his divinity was necessary for the substitution to be of infinite value. Only God could pay the full penalty and only man should pay – Jesus the God Man did pay our penalty for us.
   But what about the two passages used to declare Jesus went to hell? Acts 2:24 simply states that the resurrection of Jesus ended the pain of death. We have been influenced by Greek philosophy when we think a bodiless state is a good thing. According to the Bible we are incomplete without a body. We long for the rapture when we will receive our resurrection bodies. Those who have died yearn for the resurrection body according to 1 Corinthians 15:50-58 and 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18. We are present with the Lord immediately when we die if we are a Christian, but we still long for the resurrection body because it is not good to be bodiless. We are not complete apart from the physical realm; true Christianity is very earthy.
   1 Peter 3:19 simply states that Jesus will be preaching to people when he is in the grave. What does this mean? Hades is the Greek translation for the word Sheol in the Hebrew Scriptures. Sheol referred to the realm of the dead, both righteous and unrighteous. Luke 16:19ff speaks of the realm of the dead that consisted of two parts, one for the righteous called Abraham’s bosom and one for the wicked. These two parts of Sheol are separated by a chasm that cannot be crossed. So who did Jesus preach to? Ephesians 4:8-10 indicates that Jesus led the righteous to heaven when he ascended from the grave; this means that all the Old Testament saints in Abraham’s bosom are now in heaven awaiting their resurrection bodies. 1 Peter 3:19 seems to be saying Jesus is preaching to those on the other side of the chasm. This doesn’t mean they have a second chance; we know there is no second chance after death (Hebrews 9:27). Jesus is preaching judgment. One thing we know is that if he is preaching judgment to those condemned in the flood who are in the bad part of sheol, and he is emptying the good part of sheol, bringing them to heaven, he is not suffering the wrath of God at that time.
   The statement in the Apostles’ Creed that he descended into hell is misleading at best and contrary to the Bible in my opinion. When we think of hell we think of the place where people go if they do not accept Christ as their savior. It should be reserved for the lake of fire also known as Gehenna. Jesus preached about Gehenna more than anyone else and warned us of this place of eternal punishment. If we reserve the word hell for Gehenna, we should not translate Hades or Sheol as referring to hell. Hades or Sheol simply referred to the realm of the dead, which included a place for the righteous and a place for the wicked. Jesus did not go to hell and neither will we if we repent of our sins and place our faith in Jesus as our Lord and savior.

2. Hi Larry, Recently a family member and I were discussing the Apostle’s Creed. I believe you talked about this in a sermon recently but could you tell me the history of the Apostle’s Creed and specifically address the part that says…”He descended into hell; The third day he rose again from the dead”. I can’t remember specifically what you said and the verses you used. Thanks!

3. My favorite commentary is “The Bible Speaks Today” series of the Bible with two volumes called The Message of Genesis 1-11 by David Atkinson and The Message of Genesis 12-50 by Joyce Baldwin. These are very readable commentaries but also great scholarly work undergirds both. The Expository Bible Commentary vol 2 with John Sailhamer will give you good information as well. A very thought-provoking book is Hugh Ross The Genesis Question concerning how science and the Bible fit together. A good book on the question of the age of the universe is the Genesis Debate which gives three perspectives from conservative evangelical scholars. I have a paper that will soon be on the website entitled “Genesis One and the Age of the Universe” that can be helpful as well. Genesis is foundational for understanding the rest of the Bible and therefore a very important book. Happy reading!

4. What study resources/ commentaries do you recommend for the study of Genesis?

5. Hello Janet,

   Your question is, “How do making right choices benefit the Kingdom of G-d?” This is an excellent question. First I noticed you spelled “God” without the “o.” This is the way Jewish people avoid writing the word “God” out of respect for His name and in order to avoid breaking the third commandment. God actually gave His name “Yahweh” to us in order to use it in a personal relationship with Him. The Jews were wrong in avoiding the use of His name. I could speak more on this, but I want to address your question now. The Kingdom of God is the rule and reign of God in our life. He is King and we are His subjects. At this point in time He rules in our hearts, but He will also set up His kingdom on earth at His return during the millennium. The Kingdom comes when we allow God to be Lord in our life and it will fully come when Christ returns. Therefore following Christ in obeying His commands as well as in obeying His lead as we serve Him, advances the Kingdom of God, both in our lives and in those we serve as they become open to the reality of God’s rule. When we make sinful choices we place ourselves on the throne of our lives, which is destructive to both us and those we influence. Obeying God doesn’t save us, but it does reflect our surrender to Him as Lord, and it does benefit the Kingdom of God. I hope this helps.

   God bless,

   Sr. Pastor Larry Siekawitch, PH.D.

6. Pastor Larry, I would like to know your perspective on the following question…”How do making right choices benefit the Kingdom of G-d?”

7. These are two great questions. First let’s talk about Yoga. A history of yoga and its actual roots will always be clouded in mystery because the east was never as linear as the west and therefore did not write down chronological history. They believed in cyclical history embracing myth even if it was not necessarily historically true. Facts and history were not as important to them. Did yoga begin as a form of pagan worship or did it begin as a method of exercise and/or martial arts discipline? We really don’t know.
   The Bible encourages us to embrace other cultures except for the sinful aspects of those cultures. 1 Corinthians 9:19-22 gives us a great example of proper mission work. Paul said he would become like the people he was trying to reach in order to more effectively reach them. He obviously did not include the sinful practices of those cultures, but he did contextualize his methods and practices in order to reach as many as possible. He concluded, “I have become all things to all people, so that I may by every possible means save some.” In another place he actually quotes pagan poets with approval in order to reach the Athenians (Acts 17:28). In the modern missions movement there was some legitimate complaints when missionaries were trying to Americanize the converts rather than contextualize to their culture. Contextualization can easily become compromise, so we need to be careful about what we are teaching and practicing, but we don’t need to change the non sinful aspects of their culture. The Jesus People Movement is a great example of this. In the 1970’s Christians embrace the culture of the hippies (barefoot, surfer, long hair, etc.) in trying to reach them, without embracing the sinful aspects of the hippy culture (drugs, premarital sex, etc.). This was very successful and was perhaps the spark of the largest revival this country has ever experienced. Many Christians complained, especially concerning the practice of Christian rock. They said rock was inherently sinful because of its origins. Larry Norman put it well when he sang, “Why should the Devil have all the good music?” Christmas is another case in point. Historically it clearly began with pagan roots, worshiping false gods. But we don’t have to act like the Jehovah Witnesses who refuse to celebrate Christmas because of its pagan roots. The sinful aspects of Christmas were transformed into a good holiday. Now that we have added Santa Claus and taken Christ out of Christmas we should probably be concerned, but as Christians we can still practice Christmas in a proper way without fearing any “guilty by association” accusations.
   Yoga is practiced by millions of Indians (from India) as a form of worship, which would obviously be sinful for a Christian to participate in if pagan worship is involved. But to adapt the culture without the pagan worship would be perfectly acceptable as noted above. It would also be a great teaching point for engaging in conversation with Hindus.
   The second question is related to the first. How are we to understand Paul’s teaching concerning being conscientious toward other weak believers? First we must not make the mistake of thinking that this word of care means we should endorse legalism. Jesus did not care about what the Pharisees believed concerning healing on the Sabbath and trampled on their conscience because of its sinful legalism (see Mark chapter 7, Matthew 23). If a Christian has embraced a belief in legalism, this does not mean we have to avoid those things when around them. Legalism must be exposed along with any other sin (Ephesians 5:11). Another example of this is Paul’s confrontation with Peter (Galatians 2:11-21) who ate with Gentiles but then stopped when he was around the Judaizers because he was afraid that they would be put off by the practice. Peter was wrong because the Judaizers were embracing the sin of legalism and should have been confronted, not respected for their difference of opinion.
   Paul’s teaching concerns weak, new believers who might have a conscience about certain things even though those things are acceptable for Christians. The illustration he uses is eating meat offered to idols in 1 Corinthians chapter 8. Notice first of all that the person we are concerned about is the weak, new believer, not solid Christians that should know better (see also Romans 14:1-2). Second notice that the concern is that they might fall into sin. If our actions lead a new believer to sin against his or her conscience, then we should avoid those practices around the new believers until they are properly discipled. In the case of yoga, a new convert from Hinduism might need to be taught the difference about exorcise and worship in yoga, but probably most will realize the difference when the Christian does not have any part in the sinful aspects of yoga. I have not met a Hindu convert so I could not tell what they might be struggling with; a conversation with the convert would be best in determining how to proceed with yoga around them.
   I hope this helps.

   God bless,
   Pastor Larry

8. I was in a short discussion tonight that was similar in content to your last answered question. First of all, I would just like to share my disclaimer about this topic by saying that my understanding of yoga is that its purpose was/is designed to be a worship of Hindu gods and goddesses by posing in certain ways. I would be curious to hear the opinions of Hindu “gurus” about what their thoughts are on it. The Bible strictly forbids the worshiping of any gods other than God Himself so my question about this particular topic is can we really change something meant to be used for pagan god worship to be something that’s okay for Christians to do even if it has health benefits? My struggle with this is that it seems that we can take things and try to make them palatable and good in the name of it making us feel good.

   My other thought and question is about the whole concept of the eating meat sacrificed to idols and abstaining from it if it causes someone else to stumble. If a new person comes into a church and see’s people worshiping in a different way than they’re used to and feels uncomfortable with it, where is the line drawn between us changing to make them feel comfortable with it and them struggling with it and growing into a greater understanding of what is really happening? I hope you can shed a little light on my confusion about this!

   Thanks Larry!
   n8

9. Great question! The exercise benefits of yoga are great; stretching, balance and relaxation are good for us. I believe the exercise part can be separated from the spiritual as seen in Wii Fit. One would want to be very careful about any chanting or New Age practices brought into yoga. This question would probably fit into the same question about eating meat sacrificed to idols found in 1 Corinthians 8. Since yoga is practiced in a variety of ways one should be careful they are not participating in pagan practices, but one does not need to fear a demon is going to sneak in unexpectedly.

   Hope this helps,
   Sr. Pastor Larry Siekawitch, PH.D.

10. Hi Larry,

    I have had several conversations with Christian friends who practice Yoga.. My friends argue that they can separate the “spiritual” side from the “exercise” benefits. Is this possible? Thanks!

11. That’s a great question Kristi. It helps to understand first century Judaism. This was a common idiom to emphasize something really strongly. In this instance Jesus is emphasizing the priority of discipleship. He is certainly not advocating the breaking of the fifth commandment. What he meant and what everyone at that time understood him as saying was that the would-be disciple must make sure he or she was willing to forsake all to follow Jesus. Not even one’s family relationships should come before one’s relationship with Jesus as Lord. It was an intentionally shocking way of making the point, but the people of that time would have understood. Another way of putting it is that your love for God should make all other loves pale in significance. In the context v.25 says large crowds were beginning to follow him. Jesus was not interested in gathering large crowds for the sake of getting a large following. He only wanted committed disciples. This is still true today. Unfortunately many churches use techniques to gather large crowds by telling the people what they want to hear rather than telling them what they needed to hear. As a pastor I am reminded that I must follow Jesus’ example. As followers in general we must recognize what we are signing up for – total commitment, whatever, whenever Lord! This passage is also a great example of why we must first discover what the original writer was saying to the original audience before we apply it to our own situation, otherwise we might misapply the passage and make it say something it was never intending to say. We are supposed to love our parents, but nothing comes before our relationship with Jesus.

12. In Luke 14:25-26, Jesus tells the large crowds that were following him that if one does not “hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters, even his own life – he cannot be a disciple of Jesus.” How can a modern day American Christian be a disciple of Christ if this is the standard? What is the meaning of hate is this instance?

13. Hello Jeff,

    These are excellent questions. First let’s deal with the “Sons of God” question and then go on to the more general question concerning angels. Genesis 6:1-4 has perplexed Bible scholars throughout the ages because there is not a lot of detail given. There are three main explanations for the passage: Some suggest the “Sons of God” are demons who impregnate humans, producing unusual children. Others suggest the “Sons of God” are children from Seth’s line who are followers of God and the “daughters of men” are those from Cain’s line who are not following God and therefore are unequally yoked. Others have postulated that the passage describes a case where humans are intermixing with a pre-Adamic species (R.K. Harrison). The last option seems highly unlikely to me so let’s look at the first two. The first position has the best Biblical backing because angels are called sons of God in Job 1:6; 38:7; Psalm 29:1 and 89:7. The demons are fallen angels. Some have rejected this view because the New Testament tells us that angels don’t get married (Matthew 22:30), but the Genesis passage is referring to fallen angels who are going against God’s design, so this argument would not necessarily negate the idea that the sons of God are demons. An intriguing twist on this view is given by Hugh Ross: “A third interpretation of Genesis 6 represents a blending of the prominent opposing views. This approach attempts to solve the sexual issues by hypothesizing a special kind of demon possession. The sons of God in Genesis 6 are presumed to be fallen angels who invade and possess human males in such a powerful way that the genes in the human semen were altered to produce the supernatural Nephilim.” (Hugh Ross, The Genesis Question p.132) The second view that believes the sons of God are godly men has potential, but it doesn’t explain the unusual children from these unions. Because the Bible does not explain this passage it is best to hold to a “I am not sure” position, leaning toward the first option because of its biblical support.
    Your second question concerns angels in general. The Bible speaks a lot about Angels and lists two by name, but it does not go into detail, at least as much as we would like. Billy Graham has written a book on angels that might be of help. Basically what we know is that God created an angelic race before he created the universe. Job 38:1-7 tells us that they were around when God created, and they shouted for joy at His handiwork. Genesis 1:1 says the heavens were created before the earth which might indicate the angelic realm was made before the physical realm. We also know that at sometime in the past a third of the angels rebelled with Satan who was probably an angel himself. God did not give these rebels a second chance like He did with humans, perhaps in part because they fell without any strong tempter wooing them away from God like Adam and Eve were tempted. Satan and the other angels didn’t have another tempter tempting them; they just chose to reject God. This rejection indicates that angels were created similarly to humans in that they had a free will. However they are not like humans in other ways. There is no suggestion that they were created in the image of God. As you mentioned, Hebrews 1:14 states that they were created for us; perhaps this was the cause of the original rebellion of the angels. By the way the idea that Satan was God’s original worship leader and his name was Lucifer is not taught in Scripture. If you notice in Revelation God doesn’t need a worship leader in heaven; this idea came from a misinterpretation of Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14. If you carefully read Ezekiel 28 you see that the author is referring to the king of Tyre; he specifically mentions him. He uses imagery and poetic language of grandeur which throws some people off, but a proper understanding of genre explains this. Isaiah 14 is clearly referring to the king of Babylon. Angels are fascinating but we should be careful about going beyond the Scriptures. Some people pray to angels or ask God to send His angels and others seek to discover the demonic hierarchy over cities and countries in order to cast out those demons. The Bible is consistent in steering us to pray only to God and let Him decide how to respond. If He wants to send angels He can, but we don’t need to tell Him what to do. Daniel does indicate that there are hierarchies of demons with princes of demons over areas, but it does not tell us to find out who they are and to cast them out. Daniel simply prayed to God and He took care of it. I would say that understanding how Satan works in different areas can be helpful; we don’t have to be unaware of his schemes (2 Corinthians 2:11). But too much of an emphasis on Satan only sidetracks us from our mission. I hope this helps.

    God bless,
    Pastor Larry

14. Larry,

    According to the ESV study bible, Genesis 6: 1-4 can be interpreted a few different ways. For instance, that the Sons of God are fallen angels who took wives on earth. Can you please help our group to understand this passage? Also I’m wondering about angels. I feel rather ignorant about them. I’ve understood that there are a set number, that many fell, that they,according to Hebrews 1:14, are “sent out to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation.” If you would be willing to shed more light on the subject of angels, or direct me to more passages that discuss them, I would really appreciate it. Thanks!