Why did people confess their sins to a priest in the Old Testament?  Isn't the Old Testament a foreshadowing of the New Testament?  If we are meant to confess our sins directly to God, why does James say to confess to one another?  And why does Jesus give the authority to forgive and retain sins to His apostles (John 20:23) if christians were meant to go directly to God?

Sincerely,
No Middle Men

Dear No Middle Men,

In the Old Testament, priests offered sacrifices for the people’s sins, but the people didn’t necessarily confess those sins to the priest – they just brought the animal to the priests to be sacrificed (Heb 10:11).  The Old Testament priest functioned as a mediator between man and God.  You are right that the Old Testament is a shadow of the New Testament in Christ.  In the New Testament, Jesus is our high priest and mediator (Heb 8:1-3, 1 Tim 2:5).  We are able to confess our sins and have peace with God through Christ (Rom 5:1) because Jesus became our sacrifice (Heb 10:11-12).

Now, let’s address the issue of confessing our sins to one another.  Jas 5:15-16 talks about christians confessing their sins to one another, so we can pray for each other.  James isn’t saying that humans have the right to forgive sins; in the context, he is discussing the value of leaning on each other and seeking help when we struggle with sin.

Lastly, let’s deal with Jhn 20:23.  Jhn 20:23 does say that the apostles could forgive or retain people’s sins… but you have to read the verse above it, too!  Jhn 20:22 points out that the apostles were being divinely directed by the Holy Spirit.  Jesus told them that they were doing God’s work and were being led by God’s Spirit.  The apostles were unable to do anything by their own power, but when the Holy Spirit guided them, they could tell people things directly from the mouth of God (2 Pet 1:21).

How many wise men were there?

Sincerely,
Abacus

Dear Abacus,

All the Scriptures ever tell us is that there were wise men... that’s plural (Matt 2:1).  We don’t know whether there were two wise men or two hundred wise men.  The fact that they brought three types of gifts (gold, myrrh, and frankincense – Matt 2:11) does not necessarily mean that there were three men.  Nativity scenes across the globe have spread the false picture that there were three wise men who visited Jesus when He was a baby in a manger… but that isn’t what the Bible says.

In fact, the Scriptures seem to point toward the idea of a multitude of wise men that came from the East.  When the wise men came to Jerusalem, they were a highly noticeable entourage – significant enough for Herod, the king, to notice them (Matt 2:1-3).  The Scriptures also show that the wise men didn’t visit Jesus when He was in the manger!  By the time they got there (as much as two years later – Matt 2:16), Joseph and Mary were staying in a permanent dwelling (Matt 2:11).  It just goes to show that popular religious culture is no substitute for what the Bible says.

Did God (the Father) kill Jesus?

Sincerely,
Coroner

Dear Coroner,

Absolutely not.  Jesus was killed by the Roman government at the request of the Jewish people (Acts 4:10).  The Father didn’t force Jesus to die.  Jesus said that He willingly laid down His life for us (Jhn 10:17-18).  At any point, Jesus could have called for angels to save Him from the cross (Matt 26:53), but He didn’t because He loved us enough to die for our sins (1 Jn 4:10).

My question pertains to one omitted book of the Bible, in particular, the book of Enoch.  I have learned that certain religions have omitted certain books, mainly the Gnostic gospels.  I have found adequate reasons for these New Testament scriptures to be omitted in certain cultures, but what about the book of Enoch?  I have recently purchased a book containing the writings of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and it includes the book of Enoch!  I was SOOO excited because I had previously purchased a single copy of this book, but couldn't find any evidence of it containing any truth.  The Dead Sea Scrolls and my purchased book of Enoch are in correlation. Also, in the book of Jude 1:6, there are references made to the fallen angels which are made known in the book of Enoch!  What is this mystery all about?  Did they omit it because people were somehow calling upon fallen angels (or their offspring) by name (demonic worship)?  Is this book valid?

Sincerely,
Connecting Dots

Dear Connecting Dots,

There are many writings that were included with the Dead Sea Scrolls that have non-biblical origins.  There are non-biblical writings that include commentaries on the Old Testament, paraphrases that expand on the Law, rule books of the community, war conduct, thanksgiving psalms, hymnic compositions, benedictions, liturgical texts, and wisdom writings.  Just because the book of Enoch was included in the Dead Sea Scrolls doesn't mean that it ought to be included in the Bible.

The question of what books to include in the Bible and what books to exclude as false is a major issue – and it is an issue that the early christians had to face.  Twenty-seven books are included in the New Testament canon (the word ‘canon’, when applied to Scripture, means ‘the officially accepted list of books’), and each one of these books is documented by early christians as being a divinely-inspired piece of literature.  In other words, the early christians believed that God wrote it.

The key to understanding why some books are included in the Bible and other books (even books from the same time period) are excluded is to remember that the Bible claims to be God’s Book (2 Pet 1:19-21).  The early christians (or Jews in the case of the Old Testament) lived during the time when these books were being written, and they were fully aware of who was doing the writing.  Today, we can’t tell which religious documents were written by apostles and which documents were written by heretics… but the early christians certainly could!  If someone claimed that a letter was written by the apostle Paul, all they had to do to verify the authenticity of the letter was to ask Paul for themselves.  The early christians were in the best position to differentiate between authentic apostolic writings and manmade documents.  This is exactly why the early church quickly adopted the twenty-seven books of the New Testament, and they have been almost universally accepted as the only New Testament books ever since.  Numerous historical documents verify that the New Testament canon that we use today was accepted, read, collected, distributed, and used by the early christians from very early on.  People who seek to say that they have “found” some new Bible books that have been missing from the canon have to prove that their books were accepted by christians (or Jews if discussing Old Testament canon) from the beginning – no one has been able to do that.

If the writers of the New Testament were supposed to be inspired by the Holy Spirit, then why would some seem to indicate that they were not inspired in their writings?  For example, Paul, in 1 Cor 7:12, said it was him, not the Lord, speaking.  Also in 1 Cor 1:16, Paul said he forgot who he had baptized.  If he was under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, how could he forget?  Why would he make such a statement?

Sincerely,
Uninspired

Dear Uninspired,

1 Cor 7:12 and 1 Cor 1:16 need to be addressed separately because they have different explanations for why they were written as they were.  When the Holy Spirit inspired the apostles, He made sure that every word they wrote down was exactly as it should be (1 Cor 2:13, 2 Pet 1:21).  The Holy Spirit inspired what Paul wrote, but that didn’t change the fact that Paul was human.  The Holy Spirit wanted us to know that Paul couldn’t remember exactly who he had baptized in Corinth – probably because He was emphasizing the fact that it didn’t matter who did the baptizing (1 Cor 1:14-15).  There is no contradiction between Paul the man forgetting who he baptized and Paul, the inspired writer, documenting his own memory lapse.  That explains 1 Cor 1:16.

Now, let’s take a look at 1 Cor 7:12.  In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul is addressing marriage questions.  Some of those questions had already been addressed by Jesus when He walked this earth.  When Paul reiterated a teaching that Jesus had already covered (such as the fact that two christians couldn’t divorce for just any old reason), he wrote, “I give charge, not I, but the Lord” because he was referring to Jesus’ previous teachings (1 Cor 7:10-11, Matt 19:3-9).  However, there were some marriage issues that Jesus hadn’t addressed – such as when a christian was married to an unbeliever.  Jesus didn’t address this issue because there was no need to talk about marriage to unbelievers when He was preaching to only the Jews.  Marriage to unbelievers only became an issue once Gentiles (non-Jews) began converting.  When addressing these new marriage issues, Paul clarified that he was providing a teaching in addition to what Jesus had already taught by writing, “say I, not the Lord”.  What Paul was teaching wasn’t opinion; it was simply a new teaching on marriage that had never been addressed.