Questions and Answers (Part 3)

[Editor's Note: the following questions and answers were from 2009-10.]

Isaiah 14: "Are Lucifer and Satan the same?"

For centuries many have thought that Lucifer is another name for Satan, but a careful reading of Isaiah 14:4ff (the name is found in verse 12) will show that the subject under discussion is the pride of the king of Babylon.

The Hebrew word is Heylel; the Septuagint equivalent is Heosphoros. Literally, the word means "light bearer" or "light bringer," and it refers to the planet Venus, the morning star [Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature 5:542-43.] When Jerome translated the Vulgate, he used the word Lucifer, a form of the Latin word for "light"—lux, lucis.

Tertullian and Gregory the Great understood the Isaiah passage as the fall of Satan, and that interpretation remains generally accepted. The evidence, however, points to the idea that the Biblical writer had specific reference to the king of Babylon (and to Venus as a symbol).

Dr. Henderson, in his commentary on Isaiah, said: "The application of this passage to Satan, and to the fall of apostate angels, is one of the gross perversions of Sacred Writ…." He adds that such an interpretation stems from "a proneness to seek for more in any given passage than it really contains" and "an implicit faith in received interpretations" (5:543).

The Cyclopedia also points out: "In the figurative language of the Hebrews, a star signifies an illustrious king or prince (Numb. xxiv,17; compare Rev. ii, 28; xxii, 16)." "Falling from heaven denotes a sudden political overthrow—a removal from the position of high and conspicuous dignity formerly occupied (comp. Rev. vi, 13; viii, 10)" (5:543). Actually, this same point is true of Satan in Luke 10:18: he was losing his power.

Ezekiel 28:12-19 is another passage frequently cited as a reference to Satan, although it clearly refers to the king of Tyre. The careful Bible student must remember that hyperbole (poetic exaggeration) is frequently used in the Scriptures, as are similes, metaphors, personifications, synecdoches, and other figures of speech. "You were in Eden, the garden of God" (Ezek. 28:13) is a poetic way of proclaiming the beauty, perfection, and glory of the king.

1 Timothy 3:6 may imply that the devil was exalted, lifted up with pride, and then fell into sin and damnation, from which he will never emerge. If such is the case, the devil was just the first to rebel; many have unwittingly followed ever since, but each individual who does so is not himself Satan; he is only similar to him.

Question: "Matthew 18:9 tells us to pluck out our eyes if they cause us to stumble. I know that this verse is usually interpreted as figurative, but if one has a really, really bad problem with looking at the wrong things, would it be acceptable to actually pluck out his / her eyes?"

No. Wearing a blindfold would be much less painful to the body. What Jesus said was figurative; He was not advocating that we disfigure ourselves.

What Jesus is advocating is tough mental discipline because the kinds of problems He is dealing with are ones that occur in the mind. Although the King James uses the word temperate in Acts 24:25, the NKJ renders it "self-control." In three New Testament passages it occurs as a noun. Enkratis [1466] is found in Acts 24:25, Galatians 5:23, and 2 Peter 1:6. The verb form is found in 1 Corinthians 7:9 and 9:25. The adjective is used in Titus 1:8 as one of the qualifications of elders. The root word, kratos [2904] is translated as "strength," "mightily," "power," and "dominion." The idea of self-control is power under control.

Technically, what is it that causes us to stumble? One's feet may take us to places we shouldn't be; the ears may hear what should not be heard; the eyes may see what they should not look upon; the hands may touch what is not theirs. But the problem is the mind that is controlling all these things and one's will. Jesus uses the part of the body that might be involved in the sin, but the mind must be what exercises self-control.

2. Being mentally tough means dealing with the wrong thoughts when they enter your mind. Evil thoughts cannot be allowed to remain; they cannot be entertained (James 1:14-16).

3. One cannot help seeing wrong things. Suppose a woman is wearing a short skirt or a low-cut top. A man must discipline himself to engage her at eye level. If someone hands you something pornographic, tell him you would prefer not looking at something that would give you impure thoughts.

4. When Peter denied Christ, he did not cut out his tongue. When Eve plucked the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, she did not cut off her hand. When David first saw Bathsheba and later committed adultery with her, he did not pluck out his eye. Neither should we, literally. But we must subdue the way we are thinking, bringing our thoughts into captivity (2 Cor. 10:5). Then, figuratively, we have plucked out our eye (notice singular).

Question: In Proverbs 26:4 the Bible says: "Do not answer a fool according to his folly," but in the next verse the Bible says, "Answer a fool according to his folly"! What's up with that?

These verses are showing two different aspects of answering fools. The first one means that you end up engaging a person on his own terms for a prolonged exercise in futility. On the other hand, you don't want to let him or others think he has a valid point; so you answer him in a quick and decisive manner.

For example, a woman was talking to a man about baptism; he said he had been baptized at the age of 5 and that he knew what he was doing. She asked what he had repented of, and he said, "Smoking marijuana and fornication." At this point there is no purpose in prolonging the discussion; the man is a fool and talking foolishly. Probably a good cutoff would be, "Be sure to call Guiness Book of World Records for being the youngest sinner in the history of the world to repent. If you want to have a serious religious discussion, let me know."

Jesus was a Master at answering people, and what He did was a preemptive strike against the foolish chief priests and elders when they asked Him by what authority He did the things He was doing (Matt. 21:23). Suppose He had given a straightforward answer: "I am teaching these things by the authority of God." They would have immediately begin wrangling with Him: "No, you're not. You only claim to be. God would not tell you to violate our cherished traditions or heal on the Sabbath day." "But the works I do prove it," He might have countered. "No, you do those by the power of Beelzebub." Jesus avoided having to prove something that they would refuse to accept (Luke 22:67-68). Instead, He gave them the question about John's baptism, showing their folly and inability to answer a similar question.

Question: "What about usury?"

The word usury has come to mean "excessive interest upon money loaned," either formally illegal or at best oppressive. In the Scriptures, however, the word did not bear this sense, but meant simple interest of any kind upon money. The Jews were forbidden by the Law of Moses to take interest from their brethren, but were permitted to take it from foreigners.

The prohibition grew out of the agricultural status of the people. The practice of mortgaging land, sometimes at exorbitant interest, grew up among the Jews during the captivity, in direct violation of the law (Lev. 25:36-37; Ezek. 18:8, 13, 17). Smith's Bible Dictionary says: "We find the rate reaching 1 in 100 per month, corresponding to the Roman centisimae usurae, or 12 per cent per annum."

"Should a Christian charge or accept interest in consideration for lending money to his or her brethren—or resulting from a purchase of bonds to assist in the purchase of land or building of facilities for the work of the ministry? If not, why not? And if, yes, why?"

All of these Old Testament teachings were part of that covenant (see also Nehemiah 5:1-12). The New Testament, however, does not contain any of these teachings—and probably for a good reason. This was a closed society in that most, if not all, were Israelites, and God forbid them from charging exorbitant rates to their brethren. However, Christians are scattered all over the world, and our economic system is far different. The New Testament is silent; nevertheless, there are principles lenders should think about (not being covetous, for example). Many would agree with the following advice: If you personally loan a brother money for a short period of time, do not ask any interest. A brother who is a banker, however, will need to charge him interest for a bank loan.

There are only so many ways for churches to obtain money honestly. First of all, we depend on the generosity of brethren in their offering. However, sometimes a large amount may need to be borrowed. A bank will charge interest. So, selling bonds is considered. Christians buy them as an investment. Some will donate their interest back to the church, but that cannot be a requirement in selling them. A business arrangement was made, and those who invested in the bonds are entitled to receive their reward. This matter comes under expediency and using wise judgment.

A related question: "Should the church, as the body of Christ, borrow money from the unbeliever / non-Christian for its work? Yes; we have contracts to safeguard us. Naturally, if a brother can loan us the money, we would want to give him first consideration. Likely our utilities are obtained from unbelievers, as are insurance policies, lawn maintenance, and repairs to the building.

If that line of thought were pursued, we would end up in a quagmire of decision-making problems. What if the guy who owns the gasoline station where we buy gas is a Jew, a Mormon, a Muslim (who may support radical causes), a homosexual, etc.? We are buying gas (a product or service)—not fellowshipping someone spiritually. Now if he had a sign out front that said, "Death to infidels!" we would probably want to shop elsewhere. Or if he was advertising a "Gay Pride" parade, we might hire another vendor. In our economic system, we will be doing business with all manner of people—as individuals and as the church; so, yes, we may borrow money from unbelievers.

Question: "What comparison or contrast may be drawn, if any, as justification, from the event of the taking of an ass and a colt for the Lord in Matthew 21:2-3?

We do not know what may have occurred here behind the scenes. Either the man was expecting the colt to be borrowed soon by Jesus, or he did not. If he knew, Jesus had arranged it with him in advance. If He not know, Jesus had confidence that the owner would allow Him to use the animal. The man obviously knew and believed in Jesus; once an explanation was offered (Jesus had need of the animal), he readily agreed for the animal to be taken. In either case, it was not stealing; the man gave his permission. In our case, we would have to arrange to borrow something in advance.