Q: Why did Joseph marry Asenath, the daughter of an Egyptian priest? Didn't this violate God's instructions against marrying a pagan non-believer?

Published: April 9th, 2004

Genesis 41:44-46 reads as follows:

"Pharaoh also said to Joseph, 'I am Pharaoh, and without your consent no man may lift his hand or foot in all the land of Egypt.' And Pharaoh called Joseph's name Zaphnath-Paaneah [the Margin of the New King James Bible states here: "Probably Egyptian for 'God Speaks and He Lives.'"]. And he gave him as a wife Asenath, the daughter of Poti-Pherah priest of On. So Joseph went out over all the land of Egypt. Joseph was thirty years old when he stood before Pharaoh king of Egypt."

We also read, in Genesis 46:20: "And to Joseph in the land of Egypt were born Manasseh and Ephraim, whom Asenath, the daughter of Poti-Pherah priest of On, bore to him."

Q: Is the Old Covenant still in force and effect today?

Published: May 28th, 2004

There were, in fact, numerous "Old Testament" covenants. Our free booklet, "And Lawlessness Will Abound...", explains the different Old Testament covenants in detail. Bible scholars sometimes refer to "the Old Covenant," but when they do, they basically talk about the covenant that God made with Israel at Mount Sinai, as described in Exodus 19. When Israel broke that first "old" covenant, by worshipping a golden calf, God made a new "old" covenant with Israel (Exodus 34:10, NIV). Later, God made a third "old" covenant with the younger generation of Israel, in Moab, just prior to their entering the Promised Land (Deuteronomy 29). By that time, the sacrificial system, which was added due to Israel's sins, had become part of that

Q: You teach that Christians must keep Old Testament laws, including the Sabbath. Don't you know that all these laws have been abolished through Christ's death? After all, Christ did away with the entire law of Moses, that is, the laws of the Old Testament.

Published: July 9th, 2004

No, we don't know that we are cursed when we keep the Ten Commandments, including the Sabbath. But we do know that humans are cursed if they don't keep them (compare Matthew 25:41, 46).

To fully understand this serious question, which might very well determine one's eternal life or death (compare Revelation 21:8; 22:15), we must fully realize what the Bible means with the "law of Moses"; what the apostle Paul taught; and what the Church decided in Acts 15.

We have thoroughly discussed and answered these and many other related questions in our free booklet, "And Lawlessness Will Abound...."

Q: How are we to treat our fruit trees during the first five years, and during the Sabbath year, at which time the land is to rest?

Published: October 15th, 2004

Leviticus 19:23-25 prescribes what we are to do with newly planted fruit trees. This law, which is still valid today, states:

"When you come into the land, and HAVE PLANTED all kinds of trees for food, then you shall count their fruit as uncircumcised (or: unclean). Three years it shall be as uncircumcised to you. It shall not be eaten. But in the fourth year all its fruit shall be holy, a praise to the LORD. And in the fifth year you may eat its fruit, that it may yield to you its increase: I am the LORD your God."

Q: Recently, another Church organization claimed in an article that circumcision, as given by God to Abraham and ancient Israel, is a health law that is still in force and effect today. Is this your understanding, too?

Published: October 29th, 2004

This is clearly not our understanding! In fact, such a teaching would totally misrepresent and ignore what God is saying about circumcision.

As we explain in our free booklet, "And Lawlessness Will Abound...", God gave man timeless physical and spiritual laws, including health laws, as well as temporary ritual laws, which had a passing and time-related purpose. For instance, God told man that certain animal food is good to eat, while other animals are not fit for consumption (Leviticus 11; Deuteronomy 14). These are health laws, given for the good of man, which are still in effect today. In fact, they will still be in effect at the time of Christ's return (compare Isaiah 66:16-17).

Q: Can we conclude from Ezekiel, chapter 20, verse 25 (Authorized Version), that God gave Israel laws which were not good?

Published: December 3rd, 2004

When we review from God's Word what He tells us about His laws - we can know this statement in verse 25 of Ezekiel 20 cannot be complete as presented.

In Psalm 19:7-10 we read: "The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul; The testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple; The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart; The commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes; The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring forever; The judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether." Romans 7:12 tells us "Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good."

Q: Is the provision in Deuteronomy 23:2 still valid today? Does it apply to God's Church?

Published: February 11th, 2005

The passage reads, in the New King James Bible: "One of illegitimate birth shall not enter the assembly of the LORD; even to the tenth generation none of his descendants shall enter the assembly of the LORD."

Before we address the questions whether this passage is still in force and effect today, and whether it applies to the Church of God, let us try to determine what the passage conveys, as worded.

Q: What did Christ mean when He said that He had come to FULFILL the law? Doesn't this imply that He did away with the law?

Published: May 13th, 2005

Christ's statement that He came to FULFILL the law does NOT mean that He did away with it -- quite the CONTRARY is correct.

Notice what Christ said in Matthew 5:17: "Do NOT think that I came to DESTROY the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy BUT to fulfill." Christ did not say here that He had come to destroy the law. Neither did He say that "fulfilling" the law meant, "destroying it," because if that were true, Christ's statement would read: "I did not come to destroy the law but to destroy the law." This would make no sense.

Q: Why do you teach that obedience to God's law is necessary to inherit eternal life? Didn't Paul say that all that is required is to believe in Jesus?

Published: June 10th, 2005

It is indeed correct that Paul told the Philippian jailer in Acts 16:31: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household." And it is also true that we MUST believe in Christ, as only in His name can we find salvation (compare Acts 4:12). However, Paul did not say that belief in Christ is ALL that we must have. Rather, belief in Christ is only the starting point. Notice how the record in Acts 16 continues, in verses 32-33:

Q: Does the Bible encourage us to become surety for another person?

Published: October 7th, 2005

Even though we might sometimes be tempted to become surety for another person, especially a Church member, a close friend or a relative, the Bible contains strong warnings against such conduct.

Proverbs 6:1-5 reads:

Q: Would you please explain the two covenants, as mentioned in Galatians 4:21-31? Doesn't this passage teach that the Old Covenant with all of its Old Testament laws was abolished and is no longer in force and effect?

Published: February 3rd, 2006

In order to fully comprehend what Paul is referring to with his symbolism or allegory (compare Galatians 4:24), we must carefully review the context. We should note, first of all, to whom Paul is writing. The letter is addressed to "the Galatians" -- non-Jewish peoples who had come to the faith. These peoples never were part of the Old Testament relationship between God and the ancient nation of Israel. They were never part of the Old Covenant. IF Paul had in mind to address the so-called "Old" and "New" Covenants in Galatians 4, then his concluding statement in Galatians 5:1 would make little sense. There, he says: "Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled AGAIN with a yoke of bondage."

Q: Would you please explain the meaning of the Old Testament law, requiring "an eye for an eye" and "a tooth for a tooth"?

Published: September 8th, 2006

This well-known law has been grossly misunderstood by some, thinking that God actually required the maiming of an offender who was guilty of injuring another person. However, this is clearly not the intended meaning of the "an eye for an eye" principle, and the Church of God has never taught otherwise.

The "an eye for an eye" principle is commonly known as the "lex talionis," which is Latin for the "law of retaliation." It is mentioned in the Old Testament in Exodus 21:23-27; Leviticus 24:18-20; and Deuteronomy 19:21.