A: We read in John 7:37-39, “On the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, ‘If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink. He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.’ But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, [which] those believing in Him would receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.”

We read in verse 2 that the Holy Days that were celebrated at that time evolved around “the Feast of Tabernacles.”

Several commentators feel that the reference to the “last day, that great day of the feast,” applies to the seventh day of the Feast of Tabernacles. For instance, Edward Chumney, “The Seven Festivals of the Messiah,” points out the following on pp. 173-174:

A: 1 Kings 15:5 reads, “…David did what was right in the eyes of the LORD, and had not turned aside from anything that He commanded him all the days of his life, except in the matter of Uriah the Hittite.”

The account of David’s transgressions “in the matter of Uriah the Hittite” can be found in 2 Samuel, chapters 11 and 12. First, David committed adultery with Uriah’s wife, Bathsheba; then, he tried to cover up his sin in different ways; failing that, he had Uriah murdered in war, so that he could take Bathsheba to become his wife. We read that “the thing that David had done displeased [or better: “was evil in the sight of”] the LORD” (2 Samuel 11:27). Later, after David came to his senses and realized what he had done, Nathan the prophet communicated God’s words to David: “Why have you despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in His sight? You have killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword; you have taken his wife to be your wife, and have killed him with the sword of the people of Ammon. Now therefore, the sword shall never depart from your house, because you have despised Me, and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife” (2 Samuel 12:9-10). Nathan added, “…by this deed you have given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme” (2 Samuel 12:14).

A: Our Question and Answer section in Update #100 (July 4, 2003), explained the facts pertaining to the ancient and modern origins of Mother’s Day. We emphasized that it is a Christian’s personal decision to determine whether the evidence presented was “sufficient or not to establish a direct and immediate connection between pagan origins, Catholic Church influence, and our modern custom of celebrating Mother’s Day — especially in the United States, Canada and continental Europe.”

The same will have to be said regarding the observance of Father’s Day. One source (“About,Inc.”) describes the modern origin of Father’s Day in this way: “The modern origin of Father’s Day in the United States is not clear. Some say that it began with a church service in West Virginia in 1908. Others say the first Father’s Day ceremony was held in Vancouver, Washington. The president of the Chicago branch of the Lion’s Club, Harry Meek, is said to have celebrated the first Father’s Day with his organization in 1915; and the day that they chose was the third Sunday in June, the closest date to Meek’s own birthday! Regardless of when the first true Father’s Day occurred, the strongest promoter of the holiday was Mrs. Bruce John Dodd of Spokane, Washington. Mrs. Dodd felt that she had an outstanding father [Mr. Smart]. He was a veteran of the Civil War. His wife had died young, and he had raised six children without their mother. In 1909, Mrs. Dodd approached her own minister and others in Spokane about having a church service dedicated to fathers on June 5, her father’s birthday. That date was too soon for her minister to prepare the service, so he spoke a few weeks later on June 19th. From then on, the state of Washington celebrated the third Sunday in June as Father’s Day… States and organizations began lobbying Congress to declare an annual Father’s Day. In 1916, President Woodrow Wilson approved the idea, but it was not until 1924 when President Calvin Coolidge made it a national event…” The holiday was made official in 1972 by President Richard Nixon (see below).

A: Very few educated people doubt the existence of Christ. There are more than 1,000 works of literature written very early in Church history affirming the existence of Christ. Much of it was written by pagans or Jews.

H.G. Wells wrote in “Outline of History”: “…one is obliged to say, ‘Here was a man. This part of the tale could not have been invented.'” Will Durant, professor of philosophy and a non-Christian, wrote extensively about Christ’s existence and His effect on society in “The Story of Our Civilization.” The Encyclopedia Britannica refers to Christ more than 20,000 times; more than Socrates, Aristotle, Buddha, Napoleon, Confucius, Mohammed, or Shakespeare. It says on one occasion, “These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries.”

Q: Would you please explain 1 Corinthians 9:20-21?

A: 1 Corinthians 9:20-21 is one of those Scriptures that has been used by some for the support of their false claim that Paul no longer taught obedience to God’s law. This is, however, not at all what Paul was saying here.

Let us read, in context, the entire passage of 1 Corinthians 9:19-23:

“(Verse 19) For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; (verse 20) and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; (verse 21) to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; (verse 22) to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. (verse 23) Now this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I may be partaker of it with you.”

A: In Revelation 3:7-8, Christ tells the angel of the church in Philadelphia: “These things says He who is holy, He who is true, ‘He who has the key of David, He who opens and no one shuts, and shuts and no one opens’: … ‘See I have set before you an open door, and no one can shut it.'”

Whatever that open door is, it is still open for those who belong to the church in Philadelphia. “The church in Philadelphia” is mainly a reference here to faithful Christians who have developed in their lives a “Philadelphian spirit” or attitude — as applied to us today, it does not refer to a specific local church or particular organization. Those are simply Scripturally wrong who claim that they — as an organization — are THE remnant of the Philadelphia era. Christ makes clear that it is He who opens and shuts. To the church in Philadelphia, He specifically says, “I have set before YOU an open door, and NO ONE can shut it.”

A: We should realize that members over the years, in following Church teaching, have declared bankruptcy. Bankruptcy is a recognized and legal means in this world to free oneself from debts, under certain circumstances. Court decisions have been rendered, involving Church members, dealing with questions regarding tithes and offerings in bankruptcy procedures. Certain state laws allow churches to keep tithes, up to a certain amount and percentage, which were received from members who subsequently filed for bankruptcy.

More importantly, the Bible endorses the concept of declaring bankruptcy in certain circumstances. What is the biblical basis for the Church’s long-standing teaching that the declaration of bankruptcy is not against Scripture, under certain circumstances?

A: In order to properly answer this question, we need to go back and review the biblical basis for a decision that the Worldwide Church of God made under Mr. Herbert Armstrong in 1974, involving divorce and remarriage. Prior to 1974, it had been the understanding of the Church that every marriage was bound in God’s eyes. This included civil marriages, whether or not the married couple “invited God into their lives,” and — arguably, it included even marriages of persons who didn’t even claim to believe in the God of the Bible. Mr. Armstrong explained our growth in Biblical knowledge regarding this point in a member letter, dated May 14, 1974:

“God has revealed HIS LAW OF MARRIAGE — His TRUTH about marriage — God’s PURPOSE in marriage, its sanctity, its PERMANENCY — to His Church. And we applied that truth to ALL marriages, ASSUMING that God entered into every marriage, EVEN THOUGH GOD HAD NOT ENTERED INTO THE LIVES OF THOSE we SUPPOSED He had bound… Unconverted people have never let GOD enter their lives. They live APART from God — CUT OFF from God — because sin cuts one off from contact with God (see Isa. 59:2). When they have never let God come into their lives — have been CUT OFF from contact with Him — could He enter into their MARRIAGE and BIND them?… The unconverted are BOUND by the state, but NOT DIRECTLY BY GOD! Their marriages are LEGAL. Their children are LEGITIMATE — in no sense bastards — but the children of the unconverted are not HOLY.”

A: Many Scriptures prohibit the charging of interest or usury in certain circumstances.

For example, Exodus 22:25 states, in the Authorized Version, “If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as an usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury.”

The Hebrew word for “usury” is “neshek” or “neshech” and has the meaning of “biting” (Young’s Analytical Concordance). Its root word is “nashak” or “nashach.” Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance, under Nos. 5391 and 5392, gives the following explanation: “…to strike with a sting (as a serpent); fig. to oppress with interest on a loan.”

Soncino points out: “That which ‘bites’ (nashach) like a snake. The victim of a snake does not at first feel the bite, but soon the wound swells and spreads over the whole body; likewise it is with usury: at first the borrower does not feel its pinch, but little by little it grows until it amounts to a crushing sum. Do not impose usury on the borrower in consideration of an extended time limit for repayment.”