Ask Dr. Efird
Do you have questions about specific scriptures in the Bible? Or maybe you need coaching on how to study the Bible, how we came to have the books we now recognize in the Old and New Testaments or maybe you would like to know which translation to study. Here is your chance to ask Mickey Efird any questions you may have.
E-mail your questions to us and watch for Dr. Efird's answer in this space. Thank you!
Q: 'He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.' Micah 6:8
What does "to act justly" mean in practical, everyday terms?
Syd Dursse, Hillsborough, NC
A: In the Hebrew text the word translated "justice or justly" is the word mishpat.. It means keeping the commandments of God (the literal translation of the Hebrew is "to do justice"). Justice in the OT setting is not some sort of esoteric philosophical abstract, but actually doing in everyday life what God requires. The term usually refers to the commandments, which as the old saying goes "are not suggestions!!!" And one cannot evade the directive by thinking that God's commandments are too hard for us to understand. It does not take the proverbial "rocket scientist" to figure them out. Hope that helps. Peace and blessings. Mickey
Q: Dear Dr. Efird, In your video on the Gospel of John I think you said that Eternal Life in John's gospel is qualitative, not quantitative. I believe you said that eternal life may go on and on, or it may not. Does not the word, eternal, by it's plain meaning give us good reason to believe that eternal life is just that -- eternal - going on forever and ever? Yes, it is a quality of life, but is it not also a life with God for all eternity? If eternal doesn't mean, eternal, then either the translators have made a mistake, or Jesus is not as good a communicator as we think. Am I missing something here? Thanks! Chris P
A: Hi Chris: Yes, in the NT eternal usually does mean forever (not in the OT, however). It is not that eternal is only "qualitative" in John's gospel, it is that that is the emphasis which the gospel writer makes in his presentation of Jesus and His ministry. Note in John 11 that Jesus says, "whoever lives and believes in me shall never die." So both the qualitative and quantative emphases are there; it is just that the author emphasizes the new quality of life found only in Jesus. Hope this helps. Peace and blessings. Mickey Efird
Q: Dr Efird, I have a what if question. If you were preaching a sermon from the book of Revelation, what would be the message you would try and get across to your congregation?? Would it be that of persecution or the second coming of Jesus, or something entirely different. Thanks for your reply. Aubrey
A: If one were to preach on the book of Revelation, one would necessarily stick with the religious message of the inspired author. In this case, keep the faith in the face of persecution, the ultimate victory of God and God's people over the demonic forces of evil, the importance of one's witness in the face of persecution, etc. Revelation has nothing to say about the "second coming" so stay away from that one. Peace and blessings. Mickey
Q: Someone has told me that your The New Testament Writings does "not support the claim that Jesus was consciously creating a new religion."
I believe to the contrary, that it does.
He thinks that you had no intention to convey the view that Jesus intended the religion which has come to be based upon the New Testament. I disagree. He and I disagree not about Jesus's intention, but instead about yours.
So: Did you, or did you not, intend to convey that Jesus intended to start Christianity?
I hate to put the matter so bluntly, but this is a question that only you can answer. My friend reads your book very differently from the way I do, and I want to know whether I have understood that book as you intended it to be understood.
Sincerely,
Eric
A: According to the NT documents, it does not appear that at first that Jesus intended to create a new religion or religous movement. As the situation developed during and after His lifetime, it became pretty clear that the idea that Jesus was the true Messiah of Judaism was not going to be accepted by the religious leaders of Judaism. So after about A. D. 70 the two groups went their separate ways and became two distinct religious groups. That said, however, does not mean that the Christian faith has no rootage in Judaism; in fact one cannot understand Jesus and the Church without being grounded in the Hebrew faith as it had developed up to the time of Jesus. After all, Jesus did say to the woman at the well in John 4 that "salvation comes through the Jews." One ought never to sever the OT from the NT; that is similar to trying to build a three story building without the first two floors!!!
Peace and blessings. Mickey
Q: We are currently studying the series on "The Book of Revelation". My question is from session 12, page 79, question 2. Would you please explain to us the difference between "evil" and "unspeakable evil".
We enjoy your series of lessons. This is our third one and we find your sense of humor, delivery style and knowledge of the material very satisfying. Thank you for sharing with us.
Aubrey Johnson, Member, Jordan United Methodist Charge, Manning SC
[The specific question in the workbook is: When an unspeakable evil is finally removed from the world, does that mean that evil in its permanence in this world is completely gone? And can unspeakable evil arise again? How and Why?]
A: Evil is always in the world and in us humans. Some evil is "minor" in that it does not harm others too much. Unspeakable evil is when evil goes berserk such as the holocaust, Stalin's starving and brutality of millions of people to form and keep the Soviet Union together, Mao's killing of more millions, Pol Pot, etc. In 1 John for example, the author talks about venial sins and mortal sins. All sin is sin, but some sin goes way beyond the definition of venial sins. A white lie vs cold blooded murder.
Rev. Randy Williams (Halifax, VA) called in the following question brought up while using the Revelation study in a group at his church. They were on Session 10 which covers the text in Revelation 13.
Q: How does John’s use of antithetical figures bring literary tension to the text? Does the use of antithetical figures add any special nuance to the message of staying the course?
A: Since the book of Revelation is apocalyptic, the basic thought pattern is that of a war going on between good and evil. John's use of antithetical figures seems to emphasize that in that the figures are at 180 degrees from each other; and the one is evil and the other is good. And yes, this usage adds to the basic plea of the apocalyptic writer to keep the faith and stay the course because God and those with God will ultimately win the victory.
The following question was sent in by Andrea P. Gruber from Durham, NC
Q: We were studying the book of Matthew in Sunday School. During the class, we were talking about Jesus and all the many temptations that he was presented with in his life and how he was able to overcome them. We were discussing how we were taught in the Church that Jesus was the example that we are supposed to follow. Which brought us to the Trinity…
Now, I stated that God was manifested in the Son, so therefore the Son was 100% human and 100% divine. I stated that it should not be a surprise to us that Jesus was able to resist temptation because he was also 100% divine. Now, as human beings, are we 100% human and 100% divine also? And by nurturing our relationship to God, do we become more like Jesus? Or, are we just 100% human and it is not realistic to think that we could overcome to same temptations that Jesus did?
A: As for the question about Jesus' being able to resist temptation, that is difficult because the NT is clear that Jesus is fully human and divine. But as for the ability to resist the tempter, that requires complete and total dedication to God and what God wanted Him to do and accomplish. And since none of us is fully divine, we are not always going to be able to resist temptation. But being totally dedicated to trying certainly helps!! A hard question but one should not get too deeply involved in the fine, fine points of the theological mind!!!!
Q: Our church is studying the Efird Bible Study, "prophets" session 11. A friend asked I e-mail your website to see if you could explain to us a question/statement you made in the workbook under "Session 11 - Discussion Questions, #7: "Dr. Efird goes into some length explaining that the Messiah was not predicted in the New Testament. Rather, references to the Messiah fulfilled what was written in the Old Testament. What is your understanding of the difference between predicting and fulfilling? Is this confusing to you?"
We wondered how Dr. Efird would define the word "fulfill" and what his explanation of the difference between predicting and fulfilling would be.
Thank you for your help. Linda T.
A: A prediction is usually a one time prognostication of something that is going to happen in the future. A fulfillment indicates a principle which is laid down which is always true. The prediction can only be either right or wrong once. A principle can be applied any time the circumstances are appropriate. For example: In Isaiah 7:14 the prediction is that a young woman, present at the time of the statement, is already pregnant, about to have a son, and that before that child is of the age of accountability, the danger to Judah from Northern Israel and Syria will be gone. That happened. But there is a deeper meaning here: the principle laid down is that God can and does intervene into the historical process to protect God's people if they trust God. How many times can that be fulfilled? As many as God wishes to fulfill that principle. Matthew uses the passage in the fulfillment sense (he specifically says so) in that Jesus has come into the world to deliver the people from their sin. That is a fulfillment and at the highest level!!!!
Return to Home Page |