March 2024

Pastor Paul LeBoutillier Calvary Chapel Ontario Pastor Paul: Hello, and welcome to our March edition of Bible question and answer. I'm Pastor Paul from Calvary Chapel Ontario, and I'm here with my wife, Sue, recently back from Europe. We'll talk about that maybe at the end. And we're here to do a Bible question and answer for you. These are questions you've been giving us. We've accumulated them from email, from our YouTube channel, our Facebook page. How else do we get these things?

However they come in.

Basically, any way you get a question to us. What would you say the most effective way is if people email?

Or right on the website that is a great way to send a contact on the website or to write a note to the office is good too.

I think we got quite a few good questions for this month.

And I'm going to start with these first two, that I'll read both of them because they're related. Both Robin and Christina asked questions about Easter and Passover. Phrasing it this way,

And the answer to both questions is has to do with the Jewish calendar, which was originally and has been tied to solar and lunar cycles, and that sort of thing, and so because of the moon changes, and the cycle of the Earth and the Moon relationship to the moon, those things change. They're not consistent every year. So people read in the Bible that they were celebrating Passover, essentially, when Jesus was on the cross, and then three days later, or on the third day, actually, as the Jews reckoned days, which was basically just Friday to Sunday, we have Resurrection Day. So they're like, why is there all these days now between Passover and the celebration of the resurrection of Jesus? And that's the answer, it's just has to do with the ever changing lunar calendar.

Aren’t you glad that we can just pick a day and say this, we will commemorate it on this day?

And it doesn't really matter. It's just that this is the day.

All right. So Amara said,

Well, the Bible communicates an obligation to be kind to the poor. And I think that we could actually say that there is an obligation. In the book of Proverbs, it says, when you are kind to the poor, you give to the Lord. There's a kindness expressed even unto God. So the Lord wants us to be givers, he wants us to be cheerful about it, we certainly know that. The problem arises in the fact that not all beggars are honest in the way that they're begging or we may be actually giving to people who are planning on abusing the money that we give. Sometimes they’ll hold up a sign saying, I'm hungry, please give. Well, we've had people in our church who have been near areas where people do that sort of begging and have worked in some of the local stores. And they've told us that those people will gather some money, and then they'll come in and buy beer, and then go out and drink themselves into oblivion for a period of time and then go back out on the streets and look for more money. So we know that happens. In fact, I think you and I were driving around recently, and there was a lady who put a sign there and just said, I am out of beer.

I am out of beer. I really appreciated that.

The least she was being honest. But you know what, I didn't stop to give her money. Because that's not something I personally want to encourage. And so I think that there is such a thing as giving, but there's also such a thing as responsible giving, and that we need to be generous, for sure, but we also need to be responsible. And if I don't know that person and what they're going to use that money for, no, I'm not probably just going to hand them over money. If I want to be really generous and loving, I might pull over when I see someone begging and saying, can I take you over to this store the restaurant over here and get you lunch? Can I buy you dinner? And even stay there with them while they eat it. That would be much more responsible way of being generous.

So responsibility with discernment.

Hey, that's an excellent way. Why didn't I think of that?

That's what you have me for. George from YouTube asks,

That's a really interesting way of asking, isn't it? I don't think people have God's word pre-programmed, but the Bible does tell us that God has given a conscience to all of mankind, and a conscience is sort of a moral compass that people have which is an innate sense of right and wrong, and our conscience can become troubled when we do something that is wrong. The problem with a conscience is that it can also be defiled. We know that the Apostle Paul talks about people whose consciences have been seared, which literally means it gives you the picture of what occurs with an animal when they've been branded. There's a hard crusty surface to the skin of an animal when it's been branded. And the same thing can sort of happen with a person's conscious conscience, where it becomes hard and crusty and insensitive. We hear the Bible uses interesting terms related to the conscience. Paul talks about those who have a weak conscience. Hebrews talks about those who have an evil conscience. So we know that a conscience can become corrupted through influence. So it's not a perfect sort of a situation. In fact, it's in 1 Timothy 4:1-2 (ESV), the first couple of verses where Paul writes that the spirit expressly says that in later times, some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons through the insincerity of liars, whose consciences are seared. And so there's a passage right there. So a conscience is given to us from God and innate sort of a moral compass, but it can be corrupted through sinful behavior and influence. And that's why the much more superior thing to a conscience is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, which comes into believers to convict us of sin, and that cannot be corrupted.

Roxane wants to know, “When we pray, does God change His position because of our prayers or is it us who are changed by prayer?”

I really liked this question. And I have to tell you something. I've changed my answer.

Because of teaching through the Word?

Well, just because of considering the Word a little more. I used to, and I think other people have also fallen back on a passage from the book of Numbers. It's in Chapter 23 that goes like this, God is not a man that he should lie, or a son of man that he should change His mind. And then it goes on to say, has he said, and will he not do it or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it? And what is being said there is God isn't going to say one thing and do another. And I have used that passage in the past as a proof text, that God won't change His mind.

And then along comes Hezekiah’s illness.

Well, there are several other biblical examples where there was a word given, and then a reversal or a change of some element of what that word was. So I do think we have to be careful as we trod in this area because we're dealing with a sovereign God. But there are times that I think through prayer, God will alter, and I don’t know if you can refer to it specifically as a change of mind… Sue: Is it fair to say God responds to the actions of the prayers and the actions of his people?

Yes, it is. And I think that's a very good way to put it. In fact, I was stumbling for something that good. So I think that is very much a possibility. He told Moses at one point, he says get away from me. He basically told him I'm going to wipe these people out, the people of Israel when they'd sin, and I'll start over again. And Moses interceded, and God relented from that disaster. So just like we're told in the Scripture, the prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.

Suzistar from YouTube says,

Cheers to you, too. I'm glad that Suzi asked this question, because I do get it from time to time. And I'm glad that she even made the statement it is supposed to be as authentic as possible, because that is just simply not true. I'm not saying it is not authentic, but it is not more authentic than the English Standard Version, or the New American Standard Bible, or the New King James, or even the New International Version. There is no greater authenticity to the King James Bible than there is any of these others. What Suzi, and I think a lot of other people wrongly assume, or they're told, because there's a lot of misinformation flying around concerning the King James Bible, but what many people are told or assume is that the King James Bible is the authentic version of the Bible. And all of the others really have to match up to it. No, that's not true. The authentic version of the Bible are the original languages. The Bible was written in Hebrew, the Old Testament, and the New Testament, in Greek and with some smattering of Aramaic. And we don't have the original autographs any longer, we have copies of copies. But we do have the Bible in the original languages that in which it was written. And all Bible translations, whether you're dealing with the King James that was first translated in 1611, or if you have the ESV, or the New American Standard Bible, or whatever, they all go back to the original. All of them, they all go back to the original. Hebrew for the Old Testament, they all go back to the original Greek and Aramaic, for the New Testament. They all do. Now, here's the point. The King James Bible was translated in 1611. There were gaps of the Old Testament that we didn't have. As far as Hebrew, the Hebrew version of the Old Testament at the time… Sue: Can I pause you for a minute? So they had to take it from the Latin?

Well, that's the point I was about to make. What they had of the Old Testament, they had some Hebrew manuscripts, but there were gaps in some of those. And so they had to refer to a translation of the Hebrew into Greek, it was not Latin, it was Greek called the Septuagint. And they had to actually refer to the Septuagint to fill in some of the gaps they had in the Hebrew. So in other words, the early 1611 translation of the Bible was in some places, a translation of a translation, because remember, this has been brought into English. Now, in the years since the original King James Bible was translated, we've uncovered much better and much older manuscripts of the Bible, older than what they had back in 1611. Many people believe those older transcripts are better, those older manuscripts. So other people debate that, that some people say, well, older isn't necessarily better. But that's a debate or a talk for another time. The point is, we have really, really, really good manuscript evidence for the Bible better than what they had when the original King James.

400 years have gone by. That’s a lot of archaeological uncovering in 400 years.

Not just for manuscripts but for other understandings of word usage. We've uncovered other things that help us to understand how those words were used in regular life that have helped give us a more profound and rounded version of understanding the Word of God. Keep in mind something people, and I would say this to anybody who believes that the King James Bible is really the only Bible translation that can be relied upon, the King James translation didn't come along till 1611, that's the 17th century. So until the 17th century there wasn't a King James Bible. So what were people relying on before that? Well, people were relying on what we had of the original manuscripts. The King James wasn't the first Bible to be translated into English. John Wycliffe was doing that before the King James translators got around to it, he paid with his life for doing it. But there were others who are translating the Bible and doing a really good job of it, even in for English speakers. So I don't want anybody to think that I'm putting down the King James Bible. If you prefer the King James over any other Bible translation, God bless you. But it doesn't mean that, and you should not believe anyone who says that the King James Bible is better than any of the other more modern English translations. One more thing I want to say about this, and then we'll be done. I get questions a lot from people who say, why is this word missing in the ESV, or the NIV, or the New American Standard Bible? For example, there's a passage where Jesus talks about what is required to cast out some demons. This comes out only by prayer and fasting. Well, in the ESV, it just says by prayer, the word,

All right, good answer. Paula says,

First of all, I think I need to explain why Paula is saying what she's saying, because I say this when I'm teaching through Romans 6, and the word baptize comes up. I tell people that the word, baptized, doesn't always refer to water baptism, because the word baptized means,

All right. Anonymous viewer asks,

Yea, I have too. It's a very good question. Honestly, it doesn't really matter. Because God factored the Sabbath and tithing into the law. So he took these things which did predate the law, I’ll grant you that, and he took those in, he factored them into the covenant. The fact that they predate the law doesn't mean that we have to consider those commands for the present day because we are under a different covenant. We know that those things are part of the Old Covenant. They're not part of the new covenant. And so the fact that they predate the law doesn't necessarily, I don't think that's an argument for saying that we are there for commanded to do those things. Because in the New Testament, we don't see commands for keeping the Sabbath, or for tithing, specifically. We don't see any command for any special day. And as far as giving goes, the Bible says, let every man give according to what he's determined in his heart for God loves a cheerful giver. So those things are specifically addressed. Paul even says to the churches in his letters, I see that you're keeping special days, and I'm concerned about you because of that. So there were concerns along those lines, because the New Testament believers were keeping special days like Sabbath days.

All right. I'm afraid I wouldn't pronounce this name properly. So the next question asks,

I'm guessing that this question comes out of one of my teachings where I emphasize the fact that the promises that God gave to Israel were geographical. They were land based, they were physical, and they were material. The Promised Land and the blessings that would go along with living in the Promised Land, such as being able to stand against their enemies, being able to continue to have good crops, healthy children, and so on and so on. And I make the point in my teachings, those are contingent upon their obedience. In the New Testament, or in the New Covenant, we aren't given geographical promises that are based on the covenant. So this person is asking, can I give an example of some promises that are not geographical? Well, yeah, sure. 1 John 1:9, If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just will forgive us, cleanse us from all un-righteousness. That's a spiritual promise. There are promises related to the Holy Spirit in our lives. There's promises related to power from the Holy Spirit, spiritual power, for those who put their faith in the Lord, and so on, and so on and so on. But what people have to be careful about are separating promises from covenant promises. In other words, there are promises that God gave to Israel that were part of the covenant. There were promises God gave to some people in Israel in the Old Testament that weren't part of the covenant. He just simply made a promise to them. He gave Hezekiah, we were talking earlier, a promise of an additional 15 years of life. Well, that wasn't a covenant promise. It was just a promise. In the New Testament, we have covenant promises, which are spiritual in nature. Paul tells us that in Ephesians, Chapter 1, that our promises, He's given us all spiritual blessings, spiritual promises. Then we have promises that are outside of the covenant that could very well be geographical. God may speak to one of his children and say, that piece of land over there that you've been praying for, I'm going to give it to you. I promise to give it to you. Now, that's a geographical promise, but it's not given as a covenant promise that is for all believers. Covenant promises are for groups who are under the covenant. Personal promises are given to individuals. And so you can't just say

Great. Brian asks,

This is a really good question. But I've always said, and I'm going to repeat right now, that you have to be careful making analogies out of every single Bible story, and I don't think that there is necessarily an analogy here. Was their request ordained by God? Well, it was approved by God. Whether it was ordained, I can't tell you. There's nothing to say that it was preordained. I mean, he didn't foretell that some of them were going to settle on the other side of the Jordan. He gave them permission to do it. Was it a subtle sign of rebellion? I don't think so. I think it was a bad decision on their part.

It’s probably a subtle sign of convenience. It was clearly convenient for them to just stay there. They liked it. It was good. Can we just stay here?

I would call it a concession rather than a sign of rebellion on their part, or a preordained act on God's part.

Bud says,

The New Living Translation is, when the translators set out to make the New Living Translation, they had a particular goal in mind. And that was not to be as specific to the word of the original language, but to the meaning. And so they gave themselves leeway to come up with any number of English words that they felt made the passage clearer, according to its meaning, not according to necessarily its word usage. You have others like the NIV, that used the same principle, but not to the extent necessarily that the New Living Translation did, they did it somewhat. And dynamic equivalence comes into all translations at some level. Because there are words in the Hebrew and in the Greek that are so dynamic and so full, that you simply can't use one single English word to describe it. People like to say I read this Bible because it's a word for word translation. Well, that's really not correct. You could say that they did the best they could to do a word for word translation. But, again, there are words that just are, they’re too full, dynamically full, I guess it's the best way I can say it. So the translators still have to do a little bit of searching to find a grouping of English words to describe that one single Hebrew, or Greek word. Now, in the New Living Translation, they really gave themselves a lot of leeway. And when I basically say I wouldn't recommend it for serious Bible study, I'm talking about people who really want to get down to word meaning and word usage. And I would recommend something a little bit more like the New American Standard Bible or the ESV, or something like that, even the New King James, but even then, you're going to be better off if you can get a hold of a Greek and Hebrew Dictionary, where you can look up some of the meanings of those words and get some of the dynamic value out of that dictionary. But that's the reason. Now, is it is it dangerous? No, I don't think it's dangerous at all.

Every Bible has its place and like if I'm going to do an Instagram or Facebook post, NLT is the best because you can convey the heart of one scripture in a very meaningful way in a few phrases.

I've heard pastors joke that the NLT is their commentary, just because it does that.

I think that's important to remember every translation has its place. We talked about King James a few minutes ago. That has its place. There's a place for sometimes just having that, that weight. Anyway, everything has a good place.

Yeah, it does. And so I guess what I'm saying is for the serious Bible student who really wants to do some very serious word studies, I would choose something probably other than the NLT. But for family reading, Bible reading, great. I'd say go for it. And no reason, Bud, to stop using it for your family Bible reading time.

Melisa says,

I responded to Melisa personally, but I wanted to include her question in this month's Q&A because I think other Christians have it as well. First of all, she says when I read the Bible it's clear to me that Jesus doesn't want us killing each other. What the Bible forbids is murder. You shall not murder. Now, speaking of the King James, the original King James said, thou shalt not kill. That caused a big problem with a lot of people. That was actually a bad translation because the word is murder. And a lot of people wondered if it was immoral, based on that passage, to join the military and be part of a military effort. That's part of what Melissa is asking here. But the fact of the matter is, we see military efforts in the Bible, we see God organizing military efforts in the Bible. So, I do think that it's important for believers today to be very aware of what's going on in the world, because I believe that there are morally sound reasons to go to war. When we're when we're going in to rescue a nation from oppression or something like that, slavery or what have you. I think that there are immoral reasons to go to war. So, I'm not saying that every war is one. I think it isn't an issue of conscience. She says is going to war a conscience matter? I think it is in many ways. And I don't just tell people, you just got to do it, regardless, whatever. You got to pray about it. You have to seek the Lord.

Pierre from Johannesburg says,

Well, there's a misunderstanding here of what's going to be happening to believers. Believers will be judged, but not for sins. I've made this point many, many times. If you're a believer in Jesus Christ, if you have put your faith in Jesus and your confidence in what he did on the cross, you will not be judged for your sin period. Because Jesus was judged for you already. So what judgment are believers going to be under? Well, we call it a believer’s judgment. And it is a judgment of rewards. So, you already have eternal life, but God is then going to judge you according to how you use the gifting, abilities, and resources that he gave you for His purpose for His kingdom and for His glory. That's the judgment that believers will go through. It is not a judgment of sins. Believers will not be part of the white throne judgment that is referred to in the Bible.

And then another viewer says,

No, not at all. I'm really glad that this person brought up this question because I do teach that the catching away of the church will actually usher in that period we call the Great Tribulation. But I do not believe that this means we're not going to suffer persecution. We are already suffering, we've been suffering persecution for 2000 years, and I believe that it's going to heat up even more. We've got churches today who are suffering persecution. We have believers in parts of the world who are being killed for their faith. This has been happening in communist countries and other places with evil regimes for many, many years, centuries. And I believe it will continue up to the point that the church is removed from the earth. So no, I do not believe that the Church will escape persecution. I believe we will escape wrath. That's why I don't believe the church is going to be here during the Great Tribulation because the Great Tribulation is a time of God’s, or the outpouring of God's wrath, upon the world. And we have not been appointed unto wrath, the Bible says.

Good. Roxane, look at this, she asked a question to me.

Ah, look at there.

She says,

So, yes, Sue, why is that?

Well, I mean, this could be a very, very long answer, but I'll try to make it as brief as possible. We know that the Apostle Paul told Timothy, that I would not have a woman to teach or have authority over a man. But then he went and told Titus, get the women involved, get the older women involved in teaching, the younger women. So there's clearly a needful place for women to teach. But I don't feel like my place is to teach the entire congregation based on the Word, and then also just I've been alive through about seven decades now. And my observation, first of all, just the created order of how God created the husband, the wife, the family unit, and the understanding of that. My observation is that I don't see it profitable. I agree. What I'm trying to say is I agree with the Apostle Paul, because he said this in Scripture, but also my experience has shown me it is just not that profitable. It's not profitable to have a woman teaching the men all the time. Men don't flourish under that situation. They don't flourish in the home when the wife is the one instructing. That is not the created order for the home. So, if they don't flourish in the home, why would we think they're going to flourish in the church that way? So, I'm super content with my role to teach women. And I also feel like since I'm married to a man who has a great teaching gift, it kind of opens a door to me for effective ministry. I've often said in some of my teachings, God gives my husband a mission, and I have a sub-mission, which is just slightly punny.

The play on words.

But I do feel like because you have a teaching gift that kind of opens the door for me to have one as well because I have you to keep me in line.

Well, if I could go on just for a little bit with Roxane's question. The Bible says that the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church. And so with a position of headship comes a level of responsibility, which a man has to understand that he has in the home given to him by the Lord. It's a loving responsibility to lead the family. And I believe that's why Paul the Apostle said, what he said, I do not permit a woman to teach, which is to have authority over a man because it would allow the church to kind of subvert what God had established in the home, which was the headship of the man. Because when a woman instructs a man, she takes the position of headship. If you were to say, Paul, sit down here, now I'm going to teach you this, you would be taking a headship role over me. And Paul is simply saying, no, that's contrary to what the Bible teaches, or what role the man has been given in the home, the role that the woman has been given. Are we saying that Sue couldn't teach me? Heavens no! She could. Women are fantastic teachers. I'm married to one of them. The ability to teach is there. The gifting to teach is there. The freedom to teach is not given in the Scripture so as to protect the order of the marital relationship in the home. That's what we're saying essentially.

All right, thanks for asking Roxane. Shekinah from England says,

Well, you have to be discerning. I don't look into things like this. Contemplative prayer, when you look up, if you were to Google contemplative prayer, the description of what it says it is, it doesn't sound very alarming at all, because the goal, it seems, of contemplative prayer is to bring people into a closer relationship with God. And people would read that and kind of think, well, what's wrong with that? But you got to be careful when people kind of come up and start throwing things out. And one thing that I did perked up when I read the description of contemplative prayer is that people are to use their imagination to kind of draw closer to God. Well, you got to be careful on some of those things, because we've been given something, and I should even say someone, who is so much superior to all of these apps or methodologies to draw closer to God, and it is the person of the Holy Spirit. And the Bible simply says in James, that we are to draw nearer to God, and He will draw near to us. And I think we just got to be careful not to kind of overthink it. And people are good at that, coming up with a lot of overthinking. And so it's like, you know what, if you want to draw close to the Lord, than cry out to God with your heart and say, Lord, I need to be closer to you. And so help me to draw near to you. And I'm not a big person that gets into apps and things like that, that give kind of quirky methods of doing things.

Jason says,

Oh, hi Jason. That’s great. Okay, Russel says,

A lot of people do.

That's good.

A lot of people do in their question; they answer their own question. And I think that's absolutely true. I don't think there is any. I mean, they're kind of opposites. If I'm resisting Satan, I'm going to be yielding to God. And if I'm yielding to God, I'm going to be resisting Satan, so one goes with the other. And that's why they're given together in the Word.

Good. We might hire him.

There you go.

Richard says,

What he's referring to is 1 Timothy 6:3-4a (ESV), I don't know what translation of the Bible he was reading. But in the ESV, it goes like this. If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. And what Paul was saying there in 1 Timothy was if somebody comes along with a message that is other than that, a different doctrine, a different teaching, other than the one that you've received then red alert. Now, there is another place in the book of Galatians, where it talks about a different Gospel. And that, like I said, it's in Galatians. I looked up the Greek in those two and it's not the same word, but it is a very similar word, Greek word. So in the Galatians example of a different gospel, it was obviously people who are accepting the Gospel of Jesus plus the law of circumcision and other things. Paul called that a different Gospel. That is no gospel at all. But in any usage like that, whether it's a different Gospel or a different doctrine, it's something that that strays from the teaching of God's Word, anything that strays.

Joe sent us his greetings. “Hi, Pastor Paul and Sue, hope you're both well! I have a question about lust. Is it possible to lust after your own wife?”

Well, not in a sinful sense. It isn't. Because that's just simply a godly desire. A man is to desire his wife. And so, we don't use the word lust because the word lust is usually given to us or used in a negative connotation. We talked about the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the lusting after a woman that is not yours to desire. And so, it is always given in a negative sense. But it's never used concerning a man's wife. No, he's supposed to desire his wife. The Bible says, let her please you, let her body, her life please you and so that kind of desire is a good thing.

Good. Peggy says,

You know what's weird is that it sounds vaguely familiar to me. But I personally think that that is a level of spiritualizing of the text that seems unwarranted. I think you have to be careful not to read into things too much, or to bring analogies. Now, somebody could bring an analogy, and they could clearly say to the people, listen, this isn't what the Bible says, but I'm going to use this with you as an example of the difference between the law and the gospel. But I think a person needs to be careful to say, I came up with this kind of on my own.

You might say, and in a similar way, we can see that, there's some similarities.

There's nothing in the Bible that would lead you to that conclusion.

And that's the important thing about keeping those things in line with the Bible.

Yeah.

Ayana, maybe, said,

Good question. The Bible actually answers this. First of all, in Romans 5:20 (ESV), it says the Law came in to increase the trespass. And that's a fancy way of saying, God gave the Law to show us just how sinful sin is. In other words, to increase our understanding. The word trespass means a known law or a known barrier or a line in the sand, if you will, that we then pass. So if I tell my child, don't go past that area right there, don't cross the street, you can go as far as our sidewalk, and then they do it, that's a trespass. If I never told them that, and I saw my child walking on the street, I might be angry, but I would withhold punishment because I had never told them. So the law was a way of God giving us that line in the sand. That sense of this is moral, this is immoral. This is right, this is wrong. And that's why Paul wrote to the Galatians, related to the law. And he said, he asked the same question that's being asked here. Galatians 3:19, 24-25 (ESV), Why then the law? He said, it was added because of transgressions until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary. So then, he says the law was our guardian until Christ came in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian. So Paul says the law also served as a moral guardian until the Holy Spirit would come living inside of us, which takes the place of the external law. Now we have the internal law being written on our hearts. And so the law was given before the Holy Spirit came to indwell. So we see that the law has these various usages to help us understand right and wrong, to help us to be guided by what is right and wrong, so that we would grow up. I like to liken the giving of the law much the way Paul did here, the way we treat a small child. I was explaining this to someone recently, that the law is like the way we raise our children. We don't do a lot of explaining on what's right and wrong, we just say don't do that, or don't touch that. When they get older, we expect that they're going to grow up in their understanding and no longer need to follow strict rules to keep them safe. They're going to grow up and realize, oh, if I do that, there's going to be bad consequences. And so there's some similarities between how you raise children and how you treat them when they're older, versus the law and the life of the spirit.

Good. And our last question.

Oh, is this the end already?

Adriana says, “I love your teaching, my question is: I was listening to 1 Samuel 8 maybe verse 10… Pastor Paul: No, it'd be probably Chapters 8:10.

Chapters 8-10, okay, “What did you mean when you said the sins of the people at that time were not punished?”

That is a reference to what Paul wrote in the New Testament, related to the sacrifice of Jesus. Let me read that passage for you. It's Romans chapter three. And I'm going to read this out of the NIV because I kind of liked the wording. It says, Romans 3:23-26 (NIV84), …for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him (that's Jesus) as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance (and here's the important part) he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished - he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. So Paul explains there, that although Israel went through a sacrificial system of sacrificing animals and the shedding of blood as a picture of that ultimate sacrifice that Jesus would make, all of their sins were left unpunished. There was an atonement that covering, but there wasn't a payment. Jesus came to pay for those sins. He paid for sins in the past, in the present, and in the future, for those who would come by faith. Now, here's what people say. They'll say, how were people in the Old Testament forgiven? They didn't know Jesus was going to come. They went through the whole sacrificial system, but they didn't know that Jesus was going to come. Well, but they did have to put faith in what they were doing in the sacrificial system. God told them clearly that the blood of goats and bulls can't take away sins. He told them that and they had to keep doing it. It wasn't a once for all act, that should have said something to them. I got to do this every time. I've got to do this every year, and the high priest had to go in for all of Israel, every year on the Day of Atonement. So that communicates something, this is ongoing. This is ongoing. We got to keep doing this. So they had to put their faith in God to forgive sins, looking toward a more perfect sacrifice that was to come one day. We look back on that perfect sacrifice and we know who made it. It was God's only Son, Jesus. They had to look forward, by faith, to God providing that ultimate perfect lamb for their sins.

I'm so glad I live on this side.

Me too.

I worry sometimes I wouldn't have had enough faith if I had been on the other side, but God knew where to put me.

That's right. Well, those are our questions. And great questions they were, by the way, some were really, really good ones. And we look forward to getting your questions too. So send them along, you can email us office@ccontario.com. You can go to our website, and you can there's places there to contact us. You can put a question in a comment in our YouTube comments. And we'll do our best to find those. Those are sometimes a little tougher to find. And let us know what your questions are. We'll do our best to answer them when we do our April Bible Q&A. Now, how about a quick telling of how things went in Europe? You were invited to do a women's retreat.

So I was invited to teach at a women's retreat in Southern Germany and it was a fantastic retreat. I was super happy for the ladies in that area because it had been five years for a number of reasons that they weren't able to have a retreat. So I was really happy for them. But I also want to give a little shout out to my hosts, Edith and Dawn, who hosted me before and after the retreat and just knocked themselves out, giving me a great time in Germany and France.

Lovely ladies.

And showed me around, so I feel like I really got blessed a lot.

You did. You even got to pop into France.

I did. And I brought you. I brought you something French.

Something French. Before she left, I said, bring me something French and she did.

It was the best. I'm still talking about it. I think I bore you sometimes just on the way here. I was saying and did you know.

That's true, she was. So anyway, thanks so much for joining us today. And we will be back with you, as we said next month with another Bible Q&A. And of course, we're with you every week with live teachings. And you can also access our through the Bible studies through the entire Bible. If you go to our website, you're going to actually find a lot more than you'll find on our YouTube channel. Just go to ccontario.com snd you'll find not only my teachings through the entire Bible, you'll find audio versions of those teachings that you can download when you're offline. And you'll also find study notes and questions on many of our studies through the Bible as well as finding all have Sue's studies for women along with her study guides, which go along with those which are perfect if you have a small group of women who are going through the Bible as well.

And I might add, we have a new code, what do you call them? Like, a coupon code? What do you call those on your website?

Yeah, it’s a coupon code.

And so if you're buying study guides for like a small group, if you buy 10 or more, you can use wow10 and get 10% off. Obviously, we save a little on shipping with a bigger order. So wow10 on the women's study guides if you buy 10 or more. And also, Good Friday, will we have a live stream?

We’ll have a live stream on Good Friday, so it’s coming up. All right. Thanks so much again, and we hope to see you soon. God bless.

Bye-bye.