Can you explain I Corinthians 15:29? It was used at a funeral service that I attended over the weekend and I'd never heard it before.

I have to wonder, were you at a Mormon funeral? Mormon's have a practice of baptizing themselves and others for those who have died. The Mormon Church has claimed this verse as the reason they do so (1 Corinthians 15:29 Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?).
 
In the practice people will go to their Mormon temple, appropriately dressed, and adopt the name of a person who has died and then be baptized for that person. There are numerous records of people having been baptized for Princess Diana, Barak Obama's mother, Steve Irwin (the Crocodile Hunter), Elvis, Adolph Hitler, Gandhi, Anne Frank, and even Pope John Paul II. Mormon teenagers have been baptized for Shakespeare and Einstein as well. Mormons do this because they believe baptism is part of the requirements for salvation and now these people can enjoy extra spiritual benefits in the afterlife.
 
But, and you probably know this is coming, the Mormons are incorrect because that is not what this verse is stating. We must always be those who take the scriptures in context. 
 
In Verses 1-19 of 1 Corinthians 15 Paul is recounting the facts of the resurrection, the reality that it happened and the hope that it gives us. In verses 20-23 Paul speaks about the order of the resurrection:

• Christ was first, raised in a glorified body
• Next will be those who are His at His return

 
Verses 24-29 talk about Christ's return and His destruction of death.
 
Paul is making an argument about the resurrection and how essential it is for believers to understand and believe. North of the city of Corinth was a city named Eleusis where a pagan religion practiced baptism for dead people (though not with the same connotations as Christian baptisms, obviously) to guarantee a good afterlife. The Corinthians were always being swayed back and forth by other religions (much as people in America are today); they were in the center of an economic world power that a large mass of foreign people frequented. The Corinthians would have been fully aware, and possibly influenced by, the practices at Eleusis.
 
One the arguments that people made against Christianity (as they do today) is that Jesus didn't rise, and so our own personal hope of a resurrection in Him is worthless. So in one verse Paul not only calls the practice of being baptized for the dead useless, but says if the "dead are not raised why also are they immersed on behalf of them." (Literally the Greek text should be translated as THEY). He is NOT saying "we" are baptized for the dead, he is saying the detractors and those who oppose the message of the gospel are being baptized for the dead and it would be stupid to be baptized for the dead and not believe in a resurrection.
 
Read all of 1 Corinthians 15 in context (at least verses 1-29) and it will make a lot more sense. As Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures…

After our panel discussion on Mother's Day, Pam, Amanda, and Jessa hung around to answer some extra questions that were texted in to us. 

After our panel discussion on Mother's Day, Pam, Amanda, and Jessa hung around to answer some extra questions that were texted in to us. 

After our panel discussion on Mother's Day, Pam, Amanda, and Jessa hung around to answer some extra questions that were texted in to us. 

After our panel discussion on Mother's Day, Pam, Amanda, and Jessa hung around to answer some extra questions that were texted in to us. 

What does Matthew 25:31-46 mean when Jesus says “And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.” Is He calling the people on His right His brothers, or is He talking about actually clothing, feeding & visiting Christian brothers? I had always thought (and probably wrongly) that it was a 'least of these' statement that would include non-believers. Also, how does it (if it does) apply to mission? 

For years there has been a dichotomy in the church when it comes to what believers are called to be and live. I know of churches who teach every teenager who travel through their youth ministry that they are each meant to be an overseas missionary and that they are somehow less serious of a believer if they do not become one. I also know churches that are so inwardly focused that they do not send anyone out. But today there is a growing trend that understands the “sending,” which we are all called to, as simply local.
 
In 1978 Frank DuBose in his book God Who Sends first used the term “missional,” since then it has become the buzz word for many movements that seek strictly to define God’s mission for His people as merely local (though I highly doubt that is what DuBose intended).
 
Even at Element we encourage and call people to “live on mission.” By that we mean that all of us in a sense are involved in cross-cultural work. When a missionary goes to foreign countries they learn the culture, they learn words that are used to describe “things,” they learn the family and social dynamics…in the same way, we that do not live overseas, have many similar experiences as well. We live, work, and go to school with people who do not know Jesus and so we are also called to missions work exactly where we are.
 
The word “Missions” is rooted in the Latin for “to send” and “missionary” can be understood as “sent ones.” We are all sent ones, but there is a core shift in the American church that is both good and bad when comes to its emphasis for, and on, missions. Where many older churches have placed the majority of their focus on “missionary” meaning “over there,” many younger churches have placed the entire focus of “missionary” to mean “right here.”
 
The truth is that the word means both, and that is the essential push of Finish The Mission (Crossway 2012). Finish The Mission is a book that helps redefine mission in terms of “missions.” It is edited by John Piper and David Mathis and is comprised of 6 chapters by 6 different contributors. I have always enjoyed Ed Stetzer’s insight and found his chapter to be the most helpful, though John Piper’s was excellent as well.
 
For people to think that missions work is only overseas leads to a disengaged people in their own city. Those who attend local churches may even begin to think that what they do with their lives (raising their children, loving their spouses, working their jobs) is not as honoring to Jesus as living in hut, eating bugs, and learning a foreign culture.
 
As I said, I have known churches where everyone was told they needed to find a way to be an overseas missionary, as if that is the only spiritual thing they could ever do…but I have also known churches who lead everyone to believe that the most spiritual thing they could do is to be “in ministry” which, to them, would translate to “work in a church.” How sad it would be if those were the only things people ever saw as “spiritual.” Think about it, there would be no garbage men, no plumbers, no farmers, no loggers, no automobile makers, no one to make your pizza…and ultimately there would be no church and no missionaries because no one would have a any money to support locally and send internationally.
 
We must understand that the jobs people do are deeply spiritual, they are good in the eyes of God. We are told that our God works and values work. All that we do is meant to be honoring to Jesus and is a deep act of worship…this includes our jobs and our homes…and it is all to be lived “on mission.”
 
In remembering our own sent-ness to the culture in which we live, we must never forget that there is also deep calling of having a special vocation of a “missionary” as a person sent to unreached people groups around the globe.
 
Let us never forget one or the other, hand in hand…we are sent and the senders, all for the great glory of Jesus. Let’s Finish The Mission.

I have a friend who just started reading the Bible for the first time in her life. Today she asked me why did they not use yeast in bread in the beginning?  I told her I would find out and get back to her... So, can you tell me why?

I am reading in Mark chapter 4:35-41.  This is the story of the big storm on the lake with Jesus sleeping and the disciples freaking out, then Jesus calms the storm.  Jesus is upset with them "Why are you afraid? Do you still have no faith?" Mark 4:40   I am a little confused with this. I understand we are not to worry because He is in control, but I thought we were to cast our cares upon Him (and the disciples did go to Jesus with their problems). It is just a question that has bothered me and when I read it again I decided I'd ask. 

There are a couple of things going on here.

Mark’s Gospel moves very fast, so at this point they had been with Jesus for a while, but the reality of who Jesus really was had not sunk in. The word for "afraid" from Mark 4:40 is a word that describes timidity or dread. In Revelation 21 it is used of Christians who give up under pressure (essentially they are considered cowards). It is when something so terrifying happens that you want to wet your pants and run away.
 
In Mark 4:41 when it says they were filled with "fear" it is the where we get our word "phobia" from.
 
Essentially, there is a great storm that is tossing their boat around like it is nothing and Jesus stands up with great authority and tells the storm to be quiet. There was something about how Jesus revealed Himself to them in this moment that they had not experienced before. They raise the question, "Who is this? That even the wind and the seas obey Him?" The implied answer is "He is the God who made it all."
 
Think about these people who had been taught about God their entire life, and now Jesus is standing in front of them revealing Himself by quelling a storm, that could wreck ocean liners, with a mere word. To have that type of power displayed makes you realize how powerful God actually is and it freaked them out, just like it would us. There is a natural awe and dread that comes along with actually seeing the power of God. Jesus' rebuke of them was more of a "don't you run away and hide, don't cower when I reveal myself." It gave them a stronger and healthier understanding of Him.
 
Secondly, Mark was writing his gospel to Romans, it is very action oriented, and Romans want to know "did Jesus get the job done." This story would have a huge impact on those facing persecution in the Roman church. As Walter Wessel noted, "It assured them that the strong Son of God would go with them into the storm of opposition and trial." Essentially, there was nothing to cower from because it all rests in Christ's capable hands.