My calendar notes that January 6 marks the "Epiphany of the Lord." What is the "epiphany?"

The term "epiphany" means "to show" or "to make known" or even "to reveal." In Western churches, it commemorates the coming of the wise men bringing gifts to visit the Christ Child, who by so doing "reveal" Jesus to the world as Lord and King. For many Protestant church traditions, the season of Epiphany extends from January 6th. until Ash Wednesday, on which begins the season of Lent leading to Easter.

In western Christian tradition, January 6 is celebrated as Epiphany. It also goes by other names in various church traditions. In Hispanic and Latin culture, as well as some places in Europe influenced by Catholic tradition, it is known as the Three Kings' Day and is the time for opening Christmas presents.

Because of differences in church calendars, mainly between the Eastern Orthodox and the western Catholic and Protestant traditions, both Christmas and Epiphany have been observed at different times in the past. Today, most of the Eastern Orthodox traditions follow the western church calendar. The exceptions are some Greek Orthodox Churches and related traditions (e.g., Russian and Serbian Orthodox) that still follow the older calendar and celebrate Epiphany as the Theophany on January 19th.

What is the Theophany?

A theophany is a visible manifestation of God to humans. The Feast of Theophany in the Orthodox Churches celebrates Jesus' baptism in the Jordan, at which time both Jesus' divinity and the Trinity was made manifest by the appearance of Jesus, the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove, while the audible voice of the Father was heard. Thus, it commemorates the baptism of the Lord Jesus Christ, and much more, as its name implies - the Holy Trinity was made manifest after His baptism (when He came out of the water).

Who were the Three Wise Men from the East?

The names number and nationality of the wise men from the East who followed the star of the newborn Jesus to Jerusalem and Bethlehem are not given in the Bible. This beautiful story is told in Matthew 2:1-12, and that is all the information there is in the Bible about the wise men.

Early traditional writers fixed their number at three, probably because three gifts are mentioned. A legend, apparently dating from the second or third century, refers to them as kings. Later legends give them names: Gasper (white), Melchior (light) and Balthasar (lord of the treasury house).

Many Bible scholars suppose the three wise men to have been Magi, members of the priestly caste in Persia. This opinion is supported by two circumstances: in Palestine the east generally refers to Persia; and the religion of the Magi, which was similar to that of Zoroaster, included belief in the advent of a messiah.

The book of travels by Marco Polo 1299 A.D. contains an interesting reference to this subject. Marco Polo wrote of a city in Persia called Saba, in which the three Magi are supposedly buried.

A medieval legend speaks of them as "the three kings of Cologne." According to this legend, Helena, the mother of Constantine the Great, discovered the bones of the Magi in Persia and took them to Constantinople. In 1162 the Emperor Frederick Barbarossa took them from Milan to the Cologne cathedral where the skulls have been exhibited for many centuries.

The names of the three kings were widely used as a charm, and it was believed that those who touched the bones would be healed of all diseases. However, all of this is extra-biblical in nature.

Were the shepherds and wise men the same persons?

Some authorities incline toward the opinion that the shepherds' who visited the newborn Jesus were the same persons as the wise men who came from the East. Only the Gospel of Mathew records the story of the wise men, and only the Gospel of Luke records the story of the shepherds. The Gospels of Mark and John refer to neither the shepherds nor the wise men, or for that matter, any of the physical events surrounding Jesus' birth.

The passage in Luke (chapter 2 verses 8 through 20), which provides the only biblical information we have about the shepherds who visited the newborn Jesus, has many points in common with the story of the wise men related in Mathew (chapter 2 verses 1 through 12). Although some authorities regard the two as merely different versions of the same event, there is not sufficient evidence to establish that these shepherds and the wise men were the same persons. The conventional opinion is that they were not the same.

I was fascinated with ABC's Primetime on December 29, 2005, when Diane Sawyer, interviewed Donna Woolfolk Cross, author of the book, "Pope Joan." Was there a female Pope Joan?

I am ashamed to admit that over the centuries, the "Pope Joan" story has been used by many (including Protestants) as a slanderous tool to tarnish the Catholic Church and degrade Catholics. Quite simply, there was never a female pope, or a "Pope Joan." The tale is a complete fabrication dating back to the 13th century, nearly 400 years after the alleged reign of Pope Joan.

Pope Joan was a legendary female pontiff who supposedly reigned as John VIII for slightly more than 25 months, from 855 to 858. This would place her reign between that of Pope Leo IV (847-855) and Pope Benedict III (855-858).

The legend may be summarized as follows. In the ninth century, a brilliant young woman named Joan disguised herself as a man so that she could follow her lover into the then exclusive male world of scholarship. She proved so successful that she ascended the Catholic hierarchy in Rome and was eventually elected pope. Her pontificate lasted two years, until she became pregnant and died after giving birth during a public procession from the Vatican.

The first problem with this fable is that there was a gap of only a few weeks and not 25 months between Leo and Benedict. Second, there are no contemporary historical accounts of this supposed event; nor is there anything in the ecclesiastical records. Third, the lack of any contemporary accounts of a Pope Joan is further proof that the legend is not authentic. Although the incident allegedly happened in the 9th century, no mention of it appears until the 13th century, 400 years later. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the entire story is apocryphal.

We Protestants may and should have healthy theological debates with our Roman Catholic brethren on several doctrinal issues without stooping to use slanderous tools like the Pope Joan legend.

There is an E-mail being circulated that describes Jesus' death as a ransom paid to Satan. Is this theologically correct?

In Christian theology, atonement denotes the doctrine of the reconciliation of God and man accomplished by the crucifixion and death of Jesus Christ. There have been four major theories of atonement: the "ransom" theory, the "satisfaction" theory, the "exemplarist" theory and the "governmental" theory.

The "ransom" theory, first set forth by Origen (185-254) explained the atonement as a price paid by God in Christ to the devil. Saint Anselm (1033-1109) disagreed and explained the atonement as an act of "satisfaction" paid by Christ as man to God, who demanded from mankind perfect obedience to the law, which we could not fulfill because of our sinfulness. The "exemplarist" theory of Peter Abelard (1079-1142) viewed Christ's death as an inspiring appeal of love evoking in us a response of love, thus removing our sin. The "governmental" theory rejects full substitution and characterizes Christ's death as partial payment. It emphasizes sacrifice and Atonement as a precondition to forgiveness; not as the direct cause of forgiveness.

Many television evangelists, especially those in the Word-Faith movement espouse the ransom theory conceived in terms of victory over the powers of evil. The Roman Catholic Church, evangelical churches and the Protestant Reformers all hold (although not as dogma) to the satisfaction theory of the atonement. Liberal theologians have reverted to Abelard's exemplarist explanation. The governmental theory is most prominent within Wesleyan churches, particularly the Church of the Nazarene.

Those who hold to the ransom theory argue that Jesus was a ransom to the devil to free people's souls. This was a clever ruse on God's part for unknown to the devil Jesus was actually God Himself. Unable to constrain Jesus' divine soul, the devil was defeated and Christ emerged victorious.

Anselm of Canterbury debunked the ransom theory. Anselm pointed out that this theory gave the devil far too much power. Anselm saw sin as dishonor to God. God's nature is such that He cannot overlook dishonor; thus a satisfaction is needed. Since sinful humankind is unable to make sufficient satisfaction, God became human to do it on humanity's behalf. Jesus is then a payment to God, not to Satan. By perfectly keeping the law, Jesus earned salvation. By suffering punishment in our place, Jesus extends salvation to us.

Liberal critics hold to the exemplarist theory. They question if God freely forgives sin, how could Jesus' death have been a literal payment for our sins; if Jesus' death were a literal payment to God for all our sins, how can God truly be said to forgive sin? These critics say the ransom was not literally paid to anyone. They maintain Christ's death has no objective element; it does not pay a penalty or win a victory other than symbolically. Christ's death is but a metaphor used to describe the significance and dramatic effect of Jesus' death. The metaphor of ransom and redemption is used to express worshipfully the fact that God and Christ have rescued us from sin and death by radical means, doing for us what we could not do for ourselves.

The governmental theorists argue that simply forgiving could not uphold the law. The death of Christ, for them, was a public example of the depth of sin and the lengths to which God would go to uphold the moral order of the universe. The effects of His death, they maintain, do not directly bear on us, as Christ did not die in our place, but rather on our behalf. The focus was not saving sinners but upholding the law.

These, as do all theories, have strengths as well as weaknesses. The ransom theory emphasizes redemption from evil, but at the cost of God's sovereignty. If the devil received the ransom, the devil laughs all the way to the bank. The satisfaction emphasizes God's sovereignty, the seriousness of sin, and the necessity of the cross, but at the cost of God's forgiveness and participatory aspect of Atonement. The exemplarist theory stresses the persuasive aspect of Atonement, but fails to emphasize the necessity of the cross. Can God's justice be met simply by a rekindling of love in the sinner? If so, why should Jesus have died at all? This exemplarist view says that man needed an act of revelation, but not an act of atonement. The governmental alternative fails to emphasize the subjective element of forgiveness, the substitution motif of Christ's death. This theory fails to explain the reason for choosing a sinless person to demonstrate God's desire to uphold the law. Why not put to death the worst of all sinners; why Christ and not Barabbas? Also, this theory does not take into account the depravity of mankind.

Therefore, I believe the weakness of the "satisfaction" theory is of less theological significance than are the weaknesses found in the other three atonement theories. Moreover, the satisfaction theory takes seriously the Scriptural depictions of God's holiness and righteousness, finding expression in His judicial wrath. It takes seriously the Biblical description of man's depravity and our inability to save ourselves. It also takes literally the statements that Christ died in our place (Exodus 13:1-16; Leviticus 16:20-22; Isaiah 53:4-12; Mark 10:45; John 3:17; Galatians 3:13, etc.)

What is your opinion of January 12, 2006 London Times report that the Vatican is considering a proposal to "rehabilitate" Judas, the disciple who betrayed Christ?

According the London Times article, "Judas Iscariot, the disciple who betrayed Christ with a kiss, is to be given a makeover by Vatican scholars. There is a campaign led by Monsignor Walter Brandmuller, head of the Pontifical Committee for Historical Science, aimed at persuading believers to look kindly at a man reviled for 2,000 years. Msgr Brandmuller told fellow scholars it was time for a 're-reading' of the Judas story. He is supported by Vittorio Messori, a prominent Catholic writer close to both Pope Benedict XVI and the late John Paul II." The article goes on to say, "Father Allen Morris, Christian Life and Worship secretary for the Catholic Bishops of England and Wales, said: 'If Christ died for all -- is it possible that Judas too was redeemed through the Master he betrayed?'

"Some Bible experts say Judas was 'a victim of a theological libel which helped to create anti Semitism' by forming an image of him as a 'sinister villain' prepared to betray for money . . . The move to clear Judas's name coincides with plans to publish the alleged Gospel of Judas for the first time in English, German and French. Though not written by Judas, it is said to reflect the belief among early Christians and is said to be gaining ground in the Vatican, that in betraying Christ Judas was fulfilling a divine mission, which led to the arrest and Crucifixion of Jesus and hence to man's salvation."

The report did cite some in the Vatican who questioned the effort to rehabilitate Judas. "Some Vatican scholars have expressed concern over the reconsideration of Judas. Monsignor Giovanni D'Ercole, a Vatican theologian, said it was 'dangerous to re-evaluate Judas and muddy the Gospel accounts by reference to apocryphal writings.'"

I agree with Msgr. D'Ercole. Why would the Vatican welcome the translation of this spurious "gospel?" It raises a number of biblical questions. We have the fact that there is no shred of biblical evidence that Judas repented of his sin. Instead the book of Acts (1:18) reveals that God's judgment fell upon Judas and, after buying a field with the money gained from betraying Christ, he fell and "burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out." If Judas fulfilled a divine mission in betraying Christ how does that square with the fact that Jesus clearly knew that Judas would betray him as mentioned as early in John 6:70. Furthermore, on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:23) Peter preached that the crucifixion of Jesus was "according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God." (This affirmation of divine sovereignty does not mean that humans are not morally responsible. The omniscience and omnipotence of God are affirmed in these crucial texts, but the sovereignty of God is never cited to nullify full human responsibility.)

I pray that D'Ercole's position will prevail with the Vatican because if Brandmuller is successful in his campaign, there will be a further distinction between Roman Catholic and historic Protestantism in their respective understandings of biblical authority, church authority, biblical interpretation, and doctrinal development.

What is the origin of Israel?

The earliest occurrence of Israel in the Bible may be found in Genesis 32:28, where the angel who wrestled all night with Jacob says, "Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed." Israel is from a Hebrew root literally meaning "he that strives or prevails with God."

According to Genesis 33:20, when Jacob settled with his family in a parcel of a field at Shalem "he erected there an altar, and called it Elelohe-Israel" which literally signifies "God the God of Israel." As Jacob became Israel, so his descendants through his twelve sons became the tribes of Israel and the Israelites.

Israel was the name that the Hebrews applied to themselves as a compact and organized religious, social and political group. After their occupation of the Promised Land their country was known as Israel.

However, the term is also used in the Bible in a narrower sense. When Israel was divided by civil war in the time of Rehoboam and Jereboam, the northern kingdom alone retained the name Israel, while the southern kingdom was called Judah. From that time on we read of the kings of Israel and the kings of Judah, although the inhabitants of both kingdoms continued to be called Israelites in the older and broader sense of the inhabitants of the old land of Israel.

How did the word Jew originate?

The word Jew is derived from Yehuda (Judah), the name of the fourth of Jacob's twelve sons. The territory in Palestine occupied by the tribe of Judah was called Judah and its inhabitants the children of Judah.

After Israel was split into two kingdoms, the southern section, comprising Judah, Benjamin and Simeon, was known as the kingdom of Judah. About 586 B.C. the kingdom of Judah was destroyed and the Babylonians carried many of the inhabitants away into captivity. Sixty years later, under the protection of Persia, a remnant of the children of Judah returned from Babylonia and established a Hebrew commonwealth at Jerusalem. This state, like its predecessor, was called Judah.

Since it was the only independent Hebrew state in existence it became the sole representative and repository of the religion of the Israelites. The inhabitants of Judah (Yehuda) called themselves Yehudim in Hebrew and Yehudaye in Aramaic. To the Greeks and Romans Yehuda became Iouda and Judea and the inhabitants Ioudaios and Judaei respectively.

The name of the inhabitants of the Hebrew commonwealth passed through the following successive linguistic stages: Hebrew Yehuda, Greek Ioudaios, Latin Judaeus, Old French Juieu, and English Jew. One of the earliest known uses of the English form Jew is dated 1175 A.D. The term occurs only a few times in the King James Version of the Old Testament and then only in connection with the later historical period. Its first occurrence is in II Kings 18:26-27, where the tongue spoken by the people in Jerusalem, then besieged by the Syrians in the time of Hezekiah, is referred to as the Jew's language. Another early use of the term is in Jeremiah 34:9. Even in Ezra and Nehemiah the terms Israel and men of Israel are used interchangeably with Judah and Jews.

Josephus, in his Antiquities of the Jews, begins to refer to the Hebrews and Israelites as Ioudaioi (Judeans of Jews) in the time of Samuel. For centuries adherents of the Mosaic faith who lived in Judea were called Jews, while those of the dispersion were called Israelites.

Jew is used in the New Testament in both the specific and the general sense. For instance, John 7:1 says, "After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him." Since Jesus Himself and all His disciples were Jews, this clearly means that Jewry was Judea proper and the Jews were the Judeans.

In the course of time, Jew came to be applied to any adherent of the Mosaic faith, regardless of the tribe from which one was descended. Beginning as the most restricted and specific of the three terms Hebrew, Israelite and Jew, the last ultimately became the most general in its application, and at the present time it is applied to the descendants of all Hebrews and Israelites who have retained their religious, racial and lingual characteristics.

Who wrote the last book in the Bible, the book of Revelation?

Two freshman high school students were taking a Basic English literature examination when on whispers to the other, "Great Scott, who wrote Ivanhoe?" "I don't know," the other replied, "but can you tell me who the Dickens wrote A Tale of Two Cities?" I find it to be an equally humorous pasquinade when higher criticism suggests someone other than John wrote the last book in the Bible.

The author of the book of Revelation is John, the son of Zebedee, and author of the Gospel of John and I, II and III John. Although some have questioned his authorship, as early as the second century Justine Martyr, Iraneus, Clement, Origen, Teretullian and Hippolytus gave early witness to belief in apostolic authorship.

Later Dionysius, Eusebius, the Council of Laodicia (360 A.D.) and the Peshitta Version (early fifth century) questioned the apostolic authorship on the basis of differences in style and themes between Revelation and the Gospel of John. While no one denies there are differences in language between Revelation and the other works of John there are several explanations to account for this. There was about a 20 year period between the writing of the Gospel and Revelation; Revelation differs from the gospel because it, as prophecy, follows different grammatical constructions and Old Testament patterns; and there is no solid evidence that either of the two alternate proposed authors, John the Elder or John the prophet, ever lived.

Moreover, there is strong internal evidence that the apostle John wrote the book of Revelation. He was known by the name John to the seven churches of Asia and knew of their activities. He wrote with the authority of an apostle, with an expectation that the churches accepted what he had written as God's message. There are similarities of thought that indicate a close relationship between Revelation, the Gospel of John and I, II and III John. Common ideas, theology and wording may be found by comparing John 1:1 with Revelation 19:13; John 4:10-14f and 7:38 with Revelation 7:17, 21:6, 22:17; John 10:1f with Revelation 7:17; John 4:21 with Revelation 21:22, etc. One also finds a marked use of antithesis in both books such as the power of God and the power of the world; light and darkness; truth and falsehood; etc.

Therefore, it's no wonder that New Testament theologian Donald Guthrie wrote, "There are few books in the New Testament with stronger early attestation" of the apostle John's authorship.

What is eschatology?

Eschatology is a twenty-dollar word that comes from the Greek and literally means last discourse. It is the doctrine of last things and end times covering all of creation. It is related to the second coming of Christ (often referred to as the time of the Rapture) and millenarianism or chiliasm. The second coming of Christ is also referred to in theology as the parousia, from the Greek word meaning coming or presence. Millenarianism or chiliasm are two additional twenty-dollar words that mean the same thing, a belief in a 1,000 year period at the end of the age when Christ shall come again.

What are the various eschatological, millenialist or last-times views?

Millennialists are divided into three general views. Those who expect that the Lord will return before the millennium (the 1,000 year period at the end of the present age when Jesus Christ reigns with His people over the earth) are called Premillennialists. Those who hold that the second coming will take place after the millennium (a golden age on earth in which the church is triumphant) are called Postmillennialists.

The third view holds that there is no sufficient Scriptural ground for the expectation of a millennium. There will be no literal 1,000 year reign of Christ on earth but His second coming on the last day will usher in eternal paradise for some and eternal damnation for others. Those who hold this third view are know as Amillennialists. Although Premillennianism is the most popular view today, Amillennialism has been expressed or implied in the great historic creeds and confessions of the church and had always been the prevalent view among both Roman Catholics and Protestants.

Premillennialists may be divided into three sub-groups. The first sub-group, known as Historic Premillennialists, say that Jesus will come back for His own one thousand years before the end of the world. The other two sub groups are classified as Dispensational Premillennialists. One group says that Jesus will come back for His own one thousand and seven years before the end of the world. A second group says that He will come back for His own one thousand three and a half years before the end of the world.

These currently popular Dispensationalist views are not found in the writings of any Christian theologian prior to 1830. It was at this time that John Nelson Darby, who began to preach this new pre-tribulation view, introduced the word rapture as being separate from the second coming of Christ. This was done to avoid speaking of two-second comings, which would really be a second and third coming of Christ.

Preterism is an eschatological view that places most or all last times events in the past, especially during the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A. D. Its views range from the full preterist view, which place all of the end times events in the first century, to partial pretereist views which place most of those end times events in the first century, with the exception of the Second Coming, and the final judgment.

The legendary Holy Grail, once popular due to the stories of King Arthur and then about fifty years ago due to the novel, "The Silver Chalice" has again been popularized by Dan Brown's "The Da Vinci Code." Thus, a reader posed the question below.

What is the Holy Grail?

The Holy Grail is not in the Bible but several legends abound regarding it. The Holy Grail is the popular name of the legendary cup or chalice that Jesus blessed and passed to His disciples at the Lat Supper. This is recorded in Matthew 26:27 (Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you"), Mark 14:23 (Then He took the cup, and when He had given thanks He gave it to them, and they all drank from it) and Luke 22:17-20 (Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, "Take this and divide it among yourselves; for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes." And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me." Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you). Nothing whatever is said in the Bible about the actual cup or chalice used by Jesus on this occasion.

The most usual version of the legend of the Holy Grail, related in the apocryphal gospel of Nicodemus, is that Joseph of Arimathea, the honorable counselor who received the body of Jesus from Pilate, took the sacred cup from the table after the Last Supper and afterward caught in it some of the blood of Jesus at the crucifixion. After Joseph's death the holy vessel was taken to England by one of his relatives and handed down in the family for generations. It possessed many magical properties and with it miracles could be performed, such as multiplying a few loaves of bread into many and turning water into wine.

Due to the sinfulness of its guardians, the Holy Grail disappeared. It became a symbol of chastity and the quest for the lost Grail formed the basis of many stories.

The sacred chalice figures in the legends of King Arthur and the three of his knights, Galahad, Percival and Bors who set out in quest of it. Sir Galahad found the Holy Grail at Glastonbury and took it to the mysterious city of Serras in the East where it vanished.

Another legend has it that the Grail, after being snatched up to heaven from the descendants of Joseph, was brought down to earth again by angels and entrusted for safekeeping to a body of knights who jealously guarded it on tope of a mountain, and when the spot was approached by anyone not perfect in purity the sacred vessel disappeared from sight.

In some legends the Holy Grail is no a cup but the platter or dish from which Jesus ate the Last Supper. When Caesarea in Palestine was taken by the Crusaders under Baldwin I in 1101 A.D., among the objects seized was a green crystal vase, which was said to have been used at the Last Supper and which figured in subsequent literature and legend as "the Holy Grail."

In more modern times the Holy Grail has been the term applied to a cup known as the great chalice of Antioch, a large silver central goblet eight inches in height sheathed in silver and gold leaf, which was found in 1910 in the ruins of a Christian edifice built in Antioch in Syria by Constantine the Great in the fourth century and destroyed by an earthquake in 526 A.D. The carving on the sheathing contains twelve figures, two of which have been identified tentatively by several archaeologists as Jesus in youth and manhood, and the others as ten of His disciples.

Some authorities believe that the cup dates from the first century and that the figures are the oldest and only authentic portraits of Jesus, having been made by an artist who had either seen Him or had obtained descriptions from persons who had known Him. Many people readily accept as fact that this chalice was none other than the cup used by Jesus at the Last Supper and therefore the Holy Grail itself. It may be viewed at the Cloisters in Fort Tryon Park in upper Manhattan.

In 1952, Thomas B. Costain wrote the novel, The Silver Chalice that was made into a movie two years later. The story is based on a Greek artisan who is commissioned to cast the cup of Christ in silver and sculpt around its rim the faces of the disciples and Jesus Himself.

Most recently, in Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code, the grail is symbolic of the lost goddess. While the original Grail (the cup Jesus allegedly used at the Last Supper) normally inhabits the pages of King Arthur legends, Dan Brown's recent mega-bestseller, The Da Vinci Code, rips it away to the realm of esoteric history. Brown writes, "Legends of chivalric quests for the Holy Grail were in fact stories of forbidden quests to find the lost sacred feminine. Knights who claimed to be "searching for the chalice" were speaking in code as a way to protect themselves from a Church that had subjugated women, banished the Goddess, burned non-believers, and forbidden the pagan reverence for the sacred feminine" (p. 238-239). Thus, Brown invents (really embellishes upon the fictionalized story found in the book Holy Blood, Holy Grail, by Baigent, Lincoln and Leigh that appeared in the 1980's) the insight that a woman's body is symbolically a container and makes a container symbolically a specific woman's body. And that container has a name every Christian will recognize, for Brown claims that the Holy Grail was actually Mary Magdalene. She was the vessel that held the blood of Jesus Christ in her womb while bearing his children. Therefore Brown claims that "the quest for the Holy Grail is the quest to kneel before the bones of Mary Magdalene," a conclusion that would surely have surprised Sir Galahad and the other Grail knights who thought they were searching for the Chalice of the Last Supper, and surely much more the Gospel writers themselves.

What is covenant theology?

Covenant theology believes that God has structured His relationship with humanity by covenants rather than dispensations. In Scripture we explicitly read of various covenants functioning as the major stages in redemptive history, such as: the Covenant with Noah (Gen 6, 9), the Covenant with Abraham (Gen 12, 15, 17), the Covenant with Moses (Ex 19-24), the Covenant with David (2 Sam 7), and finally in the New Covenant fulfilled and founded in Jesus Christ. These individual covenants are called the "biblical covenants" because they are explicitly described in the Bible. All of these covenants are not new tests of man's faithfulness to each new stage of revelation (as are the dispensations in dispensational theology), but are rather differing administrations of the single, overarching covenant of grace. Covenant theology, in sum, holds that we as sinners have no right or case to make before a sovereign God except through the life and death of Christ.

What is dispensational theology?

Although covenant theology has been the historic view of orthodox Protestantism (and is the view to which I hold), the majority view in evangelical Protestantism today is dispensationalism. It is difficult to summarize dispensational theology as a whole because in recent years multiple forms of it have developed.

In general, dispensational theology has three main distinctives. First, dispensationalism sees God as structuring His relationship with mankind through several stages of revelation that mark off different dispensations, or stewardship arrangements. Each dispensation is a "test" of mankind to be faithful to the particular revelation given at the time. Generally, seven dispensations are distinguished: innocence (before the fall), conscience (Adam to Noah), promise (Abraham to Moses), Law (Moses to Christ), grace (Pentecost to the rapture), and the millennium. Second, while dispensationalism holds to a literal interpretation of Scripture they do not deny the existence of figures of speech and non-literal language in the Bible. Third, as a result of this literal interpretation of Scripture, dispensationalism holds to a distinction between Israel (even believing Israel) and the church. All dispensationalists are premillenialists and are cessationalists with regard to sensational gifts of the Spirit such as speaking in tongues, but not all premillenialists and all cessationalists are dispensationalists.

What is meant by "dual covenant" or "two-covenant" theology?

 Two covenant or dual covenant" theology teaches that Jews and Gentiles are covered by two different covenants, and that the Jewish people therefore do not need to come to faith in Christ. In essence, the two-covenant theology was a response, largely on the part of liberal and neo-orthodox theologians such as Reinhold Niebuhr, to the crisis of the Jewish people before and after the Holocaust. This creed, which runs counter to both covenant and dispensational theology maintains that the Jewish people have a special relationship to God through the revelation at Sinai and therefore do not need "to go through Christ or the Cross" to get to heaven.

What is new covenant theology?

New covenant theology holds to only one way of salvation but typically does not hold to a covenant of works or one overarching covenant of grace. New covenant theology, in an attempt to bridge the gap between covenant and dispensational theology, says that the New Testament teaches that the Mosaic Law as a whole is superseded in Christ. The Mosaic Law is no longer our direct and immediate source of guidance. It is no longer binding on the believer because the law of Christ has replaced the Mosaic Law. Thus, the benefit of new covenant theology (allegedly) is that it solves the difficulty of trying to figure out which of the Mosaic laws apply to us today.

What is the "covenant of redemption" and who are the parties to the covenant? The "covenant of redemption," is the agreement before time and within the persons of the Trinity that the Father would appoint the Son Jesus Christ to live a perfectly acceptable substitutionary life and die an undeserved death on behalf of, and as a covenantal representative for, those who would sin but who also would be chosen to trust in Christ as their covenantal substitutionary representative.

What is the "covenant of works" and who are the parties to the covenant?

The "covenant of works," was made in the Garden of Eden between God and Adam who ultimately represented all mankind in a covenantal sense (Romans 5:12-21). It promised life for obedience and death for disobedience. Adam and ultimately all mankind failed to live as God intended and stood condemned. Adam disobeyed God and broke the covenant, and so the "covenant of grace" was made between God and all of mankind.

What is the "covenant of grace" and who are the parties to the covenant?

The "covenant of grace," promised eternal blessing to all of God 's elect who, through His grace alone, trust in the successive promises of God and ultimately accept Christ as a substitutionary covenantal representative. The "covenant of grace" became the basis for all future covenants that God made with mankind and its terms are first described in Genesis 3:15, which is known as the Protoevangelium or the first gospel.

Under the covenantal view of the Bible, submission to God's rule and living in accordance with His moral law (expressed concisely in the Ten Comandments) is a response to His grace and is never something which can earn God's acceptance which would be legalism. Even in His giving of the Ten Commandments, God introduces His law by reminding the Israelites that He is the one who brought them out of slavery in Egypt, that is it was by His grace alone.

Was Jesus Christ a woman?

Just when I thought I heard about every possible blasphemy, L B I Law and Business Institute (no author is specified) has published a 108-page edition of the Gospels that identifies Christ as a woman named Judith Christ of Nazareth. The book "Judith Christ of Nazareth, The Gospels of the Bible, Corrected to Reflect that Christ Was a Woman, Extracted from Matthew, Mark, Luke and John" ranked only 1,871,567 in book sales by Amazon.com as of the middle of March. Even that ranking is too high in my opinion.

According to LBI's vice president "This long-awaited (it is??) revised text of the Gospels makes the moral message of Christ more accessible to many, and more illuminating to all. We published this new Bible to acknowledge the rise of women in society." The new version reportedly revises familiar stories, transforming the "Prodigal Son" into the "Prodigal Daughter" and the "Lord's Prayer" into the "Lady's Prayer." A passage compiled from Luke 2, with corresponding verses at the beginning of each sentence, says: "4 And Joseph went to Bethlehem. 5 To be enrolled with Mary, his wife, who was then pregnant. 7 And she brought forth her firstborn child. 21 And her name was chosen to be Judith." A passage on the crucifixion, from John 19, says: "17 And She bearing her cross went forth. 18 There they crucified Judith." A resurrection passage from Matthew 28 states: "1 Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb. 5 But the angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Judith who was crucified." 6 "She is not here; for She is risen." The book's foreword says the Bible is faithfully followed (it is??) with corrections in the name and gender of Christ, the gender of God, and some of the parables." At best this book is a heresy from the pit of hell.

Why is Jesus called "The Man of Sorrows"?

Jesus is nowhere referred to as "The Man of Sorrows" in the New Testament. In fact the phrase itself does not occur anyplace in the entire New Testament.

It was suggested in the Old Testament by Isaiah 53:3, which reads "He was despised and forsaken of men, a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; And like one from whom men hid their face, He was despised, and we did not esteem Him." This part of the prophecy is interpreted as applicable to the Messiah and since the crucifixion; Christian writers have naturally applied it to Jesus.

Did Jesus know He would be crucified?

According to the Gospels, Jesus knew He would suffer crucifixion. Matthew 26:2 quotes Jesus as saying to His disciples, "You know that after two days the Passover is coming, and the Son of Man is to be delivered up for crucifixion." In John 12:32, Jesus says, "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself." In the next verse John explains, "But He was saying this to indicate the kind of death by which He was to die."

Even without assuming that Jesus had divine foreknowledge of the future, there is nothing improbable in the statement that He had a premonition not only that He would be put to death, but also that the method would be crucifixion. Under Roman law, that was the common mode of execution of persons condemned to death who were not Roman citizens. As Jesus traveled through Judea, Samaria and Galilee He must have often seen the bodies of the condemned hanging on crosses along the roads outside the gates of the towns and cities. He would naturally realize that if the authorities of Jerusalem condemned Him to death the mode of execution would be crucifixion.

The Romans required the condemned to carry ones own cross to the place of execution. Cross, in the sense of meaning "burden" occurs in the Gospels several times previous to the crucifixion. Matthew 10:38 quotes Jesus saying, "And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me." In Luke 9:23 Jesus says, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Me." Some writers, assuming that the word "cross" did not acquire the meaning of a burden until after the crucifixion of Jesus, suppose these references to be anachronisms; that is, the authors of the Gospels ascribe to Jesus a figure of speech that would have been meaningless at the time He used it. That may be true, but it is not certain.