Apparent controversies in the Bible

by Jannie

Why would some Scriptures [from the Bible] seem to be contradicting if it is God’s Word?  How certain are we that it is God’s Word?  These questions can be answered by also perusing the meditations such as “The Bible” and “Who is Jesus Christ?” on this website. But typically, we discover that difficulty with prime examples such as Is 45:7; Dt 32:39 and Ex 7:13 can be explained perfectly well by our own self-righteousness and our incomplete and twisted information [knowledge] of God that is Love! More about this later in paragraph 5.33 of this meditation that serves as a perfect example and a reason or motivation and goal as given in Phil 3:10-15 (Ampl). The first part reads, “[For my determined purpose is] that I may know Him [that I may progressively become more deeply and intimately acquainted with Him, perceiving and recognizing and understanding the wonders of His Person more strongly and more clearly], and that I may in that same way come to know the power outflowing from His resurrection [which it exerts over believers]…” Carefully ponder Phil 3:10-15.

We shall also discover that this subject of apparent controversies in The Bible correlates directly to the fact that The Bible has the perfect ability to explain itself.  Christians readily say that “Scripture explains Scripture”, but almost always desolately and tragically fails to come up with an example on the spur of a moment!  Chapter five in this meditation offer a few examples how Scripture indeed explains Scripture.

As observed in 5.33 below, carefully ponder 1 Jn 2:14a (Ampl) that is so beautiful and tender and true that it makes one weep. John says he is writing to the fathers, because [we] the fathers have come to know (recognize, be conscious of, and understand) Him Who has existed from the beginning… May we indeed understand more accurately our beloved perfect Father-God and Jesus Christ our Savior and Friend and His Holy Spirit who is Love. Amen?

Be patient and read with this author through this website, to see the crux of mankind’s problem seems to very possibly be the self!  This is briefly discussed in the example # 5.32 further on in this meditation as well.  After having read this meditation in its entirety (with the others on www.gospel-truth.co.za), we shall discover our initial superficial reading of the Bible.  Some challenging (questioning) its infallibility with malice may even be put to shame. We shall receive enlightenment when discovering Jesus Christ [God, Truth] really for the first time (Jn 3:3).

The Moses controversy, for example, have caused many a believer to be dumped in a crisis of faith, with doubt whether Moses could have written the Pentateuch (in Hebrew before [modern] Hebrew existed as a language) or whether the whole exodus episode was not a mere tale and exaggerations. The reader may find huge relief here by referring to a Youtube video “Hebrew voices # 92” hosted by Dr. Nehemia Gordon in discussion with Tim Mahoney, maker of the film “The Moses controversy”. Until irrefutable evidence is found, is it about possibility and patterns of evidence.

Did an ancient Semitic language exist? The earliest texts date from the second millennium BC and evidence suggests that the Israelite tribes who invaded Canaan spoke Hebrew and was commonly spoken until the fall of Jerusalem in 587 BC.  According to modern scholars, the earliest written language is the Proto-Siniatic script also known as “Paleo-Hebrew”.  Texts of the Pentateuch, whoever wrote them, are not in 13th century language; they are in classical 1st millennium Hebrew so the question arises whether the Torah could have been written by Moses? Note here that, (a) just because evidence of Hebrew writing in the time of Moses hasn’t been found yet, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.  (b) Also, Moses could have written in an Arabic script in which he must have been educated (Ex 2:10; Acts 7:22) and could very possibly have been later translated to Hebrew. We simply don’t know yet. But this is where patterns of evidence and faith exercise its influence.

Following, an excerpt from “Genesis for ordinary people (https://www.genesisforordinarypeople.com) that gives the following insight:

“Writing began in southern Mesopotamia, and that’s where Adam in the garden was based. But it wasn’t until Enoch’s time (seventh from Adam) that cuneiform writing began to be experimented with, according to archaeological discoveries. By the time Enoch’s son, Methusaleh, was born in 3863 BC and died in 2894 BC, writing was well underway. In the extra biblical Book of Enoch (from which Jude 1:14 is quoted) Enoch is called “Enoch the scribe” (12:4). Recording information on clay tablets became an established method of passing on information. Josephus informs us that while Cain and his offspring were growing rich by ending the simple life, Seth was virtuous and had talent for the science of astronomy. That’s useful because we count years by using celestial bodies and Adam’s family all have their years recorded in Genesis. A recently translated set of clay tablets revealed that Mesopotamian scholars understood and predicted the motion of Jupiter by using geometric calculations; historians thought this was not possible until 1400 AD but the clay tablets have proven otherwise. The members of Adam’s family line, up to the tenth generation (Noah) were astute, clever and able to record information. The Mesopotamian people were such prolific writers that half a million cuneiform clay objects have been discovered so far.  The theory that Moses could not have written Genesis because writing didn’t exist at that time has been discarded. Abraham probably recorded events himself – he knew how to conduct business affairs and we know that traders found writing useful because we still have many records of trade from that era and area. We also have a hint in Genesis 26:5 that Abraham had some written records passed on to him from previous forefathers in his family. This seems to be confirmed when Abraham quoted Genesis to the Lord when he said, “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, though I am nothing but dust and ashes” (Gen 18:27). Abraham was aware that ‘the land produced living creatures’ (Gen 1:24) and that Adam was reminded of this in Genesis 2:7 when we read “the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground.” Abraham would have passed the written records on to his son Isaac: “Abraham gave all that he had unto Isaac” (Gen 25:5). But even if Abraham used word of mouth or what is known as “oral tradition,” he took the job seriously. But it is more probable that Abraham was well acquainted with the southern Mesopotamian cuneiform writing in which receipts were written for “goods received.” Abraham was, after all, from southern Mesopotamia. He passed on to his family members all he knew about the family’s history and all he knew about what God had told him. The Lord seems comfortable entrusting Abraham with passing on the body of God’s word garnered so far – “For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD” (Gen 18:19). So Abraham knew the “way of the Lord.” Abraham’s grandson Jacob knew his family’s history because when Pharaoh asked Jacob his age he said, “130 years.” Jacob may have impressed the pharaoh with his age of 130 but Jacob’s melancholy humour added, “My years have been few and difficult, and they do not equal the years of my fathers,” telling us that Jacob was well aware of his family’s history. Some years later Moses, who now had the newly formed alphabet at his disposal, formalised the “book,” it seemed the perfect time to assemble the family’s dealings with God and their history. The Lord was interested that his side of the story should be told and gave Moses that task. We get told a few times that Moses was a writer:

  1. “Moses wrote down all the words of the LORD” (Ex 24:4).
  2. “Then the LORD said to Moses, ‘Write this fora memorial in the book’” (Ex 17:14).
  3. “The LORD also said to Moses, ‘Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel’” (Ex 34:27).
  4. “At the LORD’s command, Moses recorded the stages of their journey” (Num 33:2).
  5. “So, Moses wrote down this law and gave it to the Levitical priests” (Dt 31:9).
  6. “When Moses had finished writing in a book the words of this law from beginning to end, he gave this command to the Levites who carried the ark of the covenant of the LORD: ‘Take this Book of the Law and place it beside the ark of the covenant'” (Dt 31:24-26).
  7. “Moses wrote down this song on the same day and taught it to the sons of Israel” (Dt 31:22).

Moses had 40 years in the wilderness, and, it seems, he used the time wisely. Traditionally Moses has been considered the writer of the Pentateuch. He collated all the historical information that was given to him from various Israelite families and wrote an orderly account in the first five books of the Old Testament. Jesus also believed that Moses wrote: “If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me” (Jn 5:46). Gen 3:15 points to Christ. There are other verses in Genesis that also refer to Christ. The prevailing belief among the disciples was that Moses wrote: “Philip found Nathanael and told him, ‘We have found the one Moses wrote about in the Law'” (Jn 1:45). Moses’ ability got transferred to Joshua: “Now Joshua son of Nun was filled with the spirit of wisdom because Moses had laid his hands on him” (Deut 34:9), so the account of Moses’ death was, apparently, recorded by Joshua.
We also note that Numbers 12:3 in the KJV and the NIV, plus a number of other translations, is placed in parenthesis: (Now Moses was a very humble man, more humble than anyone else on the face of the earth.) The reason they enclose this statement of the humility of Moses in brackets is because a humble man would be unlikely to speak of being highest in humility among men, so we attribute this to Moses’ close aid and protégé, Joshua, who knew Moses well enough to make such a statement. Moses made sure that the replication of the words he had written would be ongoing throughout the generations: “When he (the king) sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself a copy of this law on a scroll in the presence of the Levitical priests” (Dt 17:18).”

End of the excerpt from “Genesis for ordinary people” (https://www.genesisforordinarypeople.com

Some could even get a few humbling clarifications when contemplating the examples in chapter five and in it discover that most the apparent difficulties had not to do with physics but language!  In fact, misinterpretations caused by the [literally] incredible self-righteous mindset!  The revelation for the reader is that God shows us through His supernatural Word why and how we need a savior, and then why only one can [could] do!  Hermeneutics and prejudiced perceptions will be exposed in context, so read on expectantly.

The second example already, in section 5 (5.2), will satisfactorily explain how the seeming irreconcilable verses 11 and 20 in Exodus 33, should pose no problem for the Christian knowing God as a Trinity!  The delightful discovery is then yet another proof of the supernatural property of The Bible that no other book has to offer! Observe how true and applicable scriptures such as 2 Cor 3:14-15 and 2 Tim 3:5-7 and 4:2-4 are still today for the so-called “modern man” in his disgraceful, deplorable conceit.

Further on, in examples on the Law, the reader should see the astonishing illustration that The Bible could only be inspired by God [His Spirit, Jn 4:24; 14:26; 2 Tim 3:16-17], and not written [thought out] by man as all the other religious works we find in the different religions.  To illustrate, observe the general difficulty in understanding Jesus’ words in Mt 5:38-39.  The universal misinterpretation of Ex 21:24; Lev 24:20 and Dt 19:21 is at once revealed by Jesus Christ as God’s Word (God, Jn 1:14)! If we read “eye for an eye” and “tooth for a tooth” in self-righteousness, our thoughts [interpretation and application] is on retaliation and this is what the world and blinded theologians then “quotes” from the Bible in pitiable ignorance.  If, however, we would have read it with true Love (not seeking its own interest, 1 Cor 13:5; 1 Jn 4:8), we would have understood it is about compensation.  Now see Jesus’ summary in Mt 7:12, “So then, whatever you desire that others would to do and for you, even so do also to and for them, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.” This is expanded on in the meditation “The Covenant and the Law”.

Every careful student and every thoughtful reader of the Bible finds that the words of the Apostle Peter concerning the Scriptures [the epistles of the apostle Paul], that there are some things in them hard to be understood (2 Pet 3:16), “which the ignorant and unstable twist and misconstrue to their own utter destruction, just as they distort and misinterpret the rest of the Scriptures”.  This “difficulty” is thus caused by our own spiritual displacement (Rom 1:18-22; Gen 3:9).

It is not wise to attempt to conceal the fact that these “difficulties” exist because it is exactly the vehicle that imparts God’s Word in a supernatural way to us. It is the part of wisdom, as well as of honesty, to frankly face them and consider them.  The discovery that awaits the honest and humble seeker of Truth is perhaps a designed “hide and seek” to reward the diligent and faithful lover and friend of Jesus Christ – the Word that was made visible to us. So, this suspicion probably stems from our inborn [imparted] desire to know the Truth (Jn 8:32,36) but sadly are often a self-righteous camouflage of a denial of the fact that we could be misled by pride [be wrong]!  This is why doctrines of man are so dangerous.

1. A few observations about these difficulties in the Bible are the following:

1.1. From the very nature of the case difficulties are to be expected. These “difficulties” will prove to be the opposite, a confirmation that God [Love] is seeking a personal relationship, not [external] religion with empty rituals, traditions and ceremonies. Remember this great truth:  Faith cannot exist [in you] when you know or understand everything (Heb 11:1; 2 Cor 4:8; 5:7) – this is why God is worthy of praise, worship and trust.  He is the most intelligent, creative, trust-worthy Person in His universe and is the Source of Righteousness.  Note that Ps 100:4 does not say that we have to praise God in order to receive anything (we don’t buy blessings): but that anyone that knows God truly will not but praise [acknowledge] Him (Rom 11:6; Jn 1:17; 14:6)!

Some people are surprised and staggered because there are difficulties in the Bible. For my part, I would be more surprised and staggered if there were not. What is the Bible? It is a revelation of the mind and will and character and being of an infinitely great, perfectly wise and absolutely holy God: in Jesus Christ. God Himself is the Author of this revelation. This revelation is made by the Source of Love [Who never manipulates] to men, to finite beings who are imperfect in intellectual development and consequently in knowledge, and who are also imperfect in character and consequently in spiritual discernment. The wisest man measured on the scale of eternity is only a babe, and the holiest man compared with God is only an infant in moral development. There must then, from the very necessities of the case, be difficulties in such a revelation from such a source made to such persons. When the finite try to understand the infinite, there is bound to be difficulty. When the ignorant and egotistical contemplate the utterances of one perfect in knowledge, there must be many things hard to be understood, and some things which to their immature and inaccurate minds appear absurd. When beings whose moral judgments as to the hatefulness of sin (Jn 16:9) and as to the amazing grace and mercy of a Perfect Father, listen to the demand of trust of an absolutely holy Being, they are bound to be staggered by His teachings, and when they consider His dealings, they are bound to be staggered by them. The startling revelation will later come, that this only shows “hardness of heart”! These dealings will appear too severe, too stern, too harsh.  Until you see what Jesus Christ came for, why He could be the only solution, and that only He can be our righteousness and everlasting LIFE.

It is plain that there must be difficulties for us in such a revelation as the Bible has proved to be. There must be in any complete revelation of God’s mind and will and character and being, things hard for the beginner to understand; and the wisest and best of us are but beginners.  But see here Eph 4:12-25; 1 Jn 2:20,27 (Jn 14:17,26)!

Note at Acts 2:3. We can also cite this, the “cloven tongues of fire” on their heads, as an example of a difficulty. In reading more attentively, we note however, the following:

  • The frequent occurrence of the Greek word for “with one accord” (G3661, ὁμοθυμαδόν, homothumadon), (Acts 1:14; 2:1,46; 4:24; 5:12) significantly point to the exceptional unity among the disciples in this event only found outside of the book Acts in Rom 15:16.
  • The word “cloven” (G1266, διαμερίζω, diamerizō) means to partition thoroughly in distribution, to divide, and not “split” as the RCC interpretation that wants to make it describe the origin of the mitre by reading “a tongue split/forked in two” but this is clearly an error (The meditation ”Church part 2” expands somewhat on the RCC beliefs). “Cloven” is used in Acts 2:45, Mt 27:35; Lk 22:17 and Jn 19:24 as well, always in the sense of distributing (dividing, bestowing).
  • The disciples, in ecstatic excitement and filled with the Holy Spirit, could very well have seen a momentary image, something resembling lightning or scintillations or coruscations until it seems to became like flames on their heads. Not consuming but shining. The appearance of fire (flame) has been regarded as an emblem of Divinity that recalls Ex 3:2-3 (compare Gen 15:17; Ex 19:16-20; Dt 4:24; Ps 18:12-14; Ezek 1:4; Heb 12:29). The Jews talked of “a tongue of fire” in Is 5:24 and hence the comparison by James in Jm 3:6.
  • However, it was a unique occurrence that must have reminded them of Mt 3:11. The sight of these tongues of fire could symbolize their special endowments for entering their great work in spreading the Gospel and their ability to speak with new tongues.

1.2. A difficulty in a doctrine, or a grave objection to a doctrine, does not necessarily prove the doctrine to be [totally] untrue. When the Copernican theory, now so universally accepted, was first proclaimed, it encountered a very grave difficulty. If this theory were true, the planet Venus should have phases as the moon has, but no phases could be discovered by the best glass then in existence. But the positive argument for the theory was so strong that it was accepted in spite of this apparently unanswerable objection. When a more powerful glass was made, it was found that Venus had phases after all. The whole difficulty arose, as most all of those in the Bible arise, from man’s ignorance of some of the facts in the case.  God knows what we cannot [yet] see.

Note at Mt 5:34. Some Scriptures, such as Mt 5:34 and Jm 5:12 have been a sore point of contention but again, this is likely to be due to our hermeneutics coming a little short and lack of knowledge or insight [of traditions and context]. Mt 5:34,35 is a citation from Is 66:1. To have used even the name Jerusalem as the city of the great King lightly was considered to profane the holy name they imply. But reading Mt 5:33-37 is unlikely to mean that solemn oaths in a court of justice (1 Cor 6:1-8!) or on proper occasions, is a formal prohibition of absolutely all oaths as if any is totally taboo and acquiescence in evil (a teaching in the Church of England in art.xxxix). If this were true our Lord would in this instance be directly repealing part of the moral law given by Moses, instead of completing and expanding it, as in the case of the sixth and seventh Commandments or even Dt 6:13 [that refers to other gods as in Dt 6:4; Ps 63:11; Rom 14:11; Eph 1:2; Phil 2:9; 3:9]. That would be destroying not fulfilling. Furthermore, our beloved Lord Jesus himself answered, when He had before been silent, to a solemn formal adjuration (Mt 26:63-64). Paul repeatedly used such forms of adjuration (Rom 1:9; 1 Cor 15:31; 2 Cor 1:23; Gal 1:20; Phil 1:8). The context shows that the sin our beloved Lord condemned in Mt 5:33-37 was the irreverent use of oaths in common speech as they would be inconsistent with the fear of our omniscient and omnipresent triune God. Provided that they are taken with due reverence and not without necessity in common conversation that would constitute guilt of swearing, or falsely, is probably rather what is inferred here. Expressions such as “So help me God” are implied appeals to God as the supreme Ruler to invoke Him to assist and bless us according to our measure of truthfulness, or to punish us if we speak falsely. Swearing by inanimate objects, however, that has no power is unintelligible. The idea, therefore, seems to be to avoid the guilt of perjury or blasphemy. Our beloved Lord Jesus Christ (God) does not command the precise terms wherein we are to affirm or deny, but a constant and consistent regard to truth (Jn 8:33,36; 14:6) that should render oaths unnecessary.

1.3. There are many more, and much greater, difficulties in the way of the doctrine that holds the Bible to be of human origin, and hence fallible, than there are in the way of the doctrine that holds the Bible to be of divine origin, and hence infallible. The biggest difficulty is the self-righteousness (law) that blinds. Oftentimes a man will put forth some difficulty and say, “How do you explain that, if the Bible is the Word of God?” You may not be able to answer him satisfactorily. Then he thinks he has you cornered. Not at all. Ask him, “How do you account for the fulfilled prophecies of the Bible if it is of human origin? How do you account for the marvelous unity of the Book? How do you account for its inexhaustible depth? How do you account for its unique power in lifting men up to God?” For every insignificant objection he can bring to your view of the Bible, you can bring very many more deeply significant objections to his view of the Bible. And any really candid man who desires to know and obey the Truth will have no difficulty in deciding between the two views.  See Numbers 23:19; Rom 3:4; Heb 6:17,18; Tit 1:2; etc.

The difficulties that confront one who denies that the Bible is of divine origin and authority are far more numerous and vastly more problematic than those which confront the one who believes it to be of divine origin and authority. Contemplate 1 Cor 1:19-21; 3:18-20; et cetera.

1.4. The fact that you cannot solve a difficulty does not prove it cannot be solved, and the fact that you cannot answer an objection does not prove at all that it cannot be answered. It is remarkable how often we overlook this very evident fact. There are many who, when they meet a difficulty in the Bible and give it a little thought and can see no possible solution, at once jump at the conclusion that a solution is impossible, and so they give up their faith in the inerrancy of the Bible and in its divine origin. Any man should have a sufficient amount of modesty, being so limited in knowledge, to say, “Though I see no possible solution to this difficulty, someone a little wiser, biblically more literate or spiritually more mature than I might easily find one.” Remember Jesus’ words in Matthew 11:25,26 (and Mt 12:29 with 1 Pet 5:5!!) …

What would we think of a beginner in algebra who, having tried in vain for half an hour to solve a problem difficult to him, declared that there was no possible solution to the problem because he could find none [by or in himself]!

1.5. The seeming defects of the Book are exceedingly insignificant when put in comparison with its many and marvelous excellencies. The sobering fact, however, is that we are to blame (Rom 8:7; Jer 17:9,10…). It certainly reveals great perversity of both mind and heart that men spend so much time expatiating on such seemingly insignificant points which they consider defects in the Bible and pass absolutely unnoticed the incomparable beauties and wonders that adorn and glorify almost every page. Even in some prominent institutions of learning, where men are supposed to be taught to appreciate and understand the Bible and where they are sent to be trained to preach its Truth to others, much more time is spent on minute and insignificant points that seem to point toward an entirely human origin of the Bible than is spent upon studying and understanding and admiring the unparalleled glories that make this Book stand apart from all other books in the world. The irony is that almost all these seeming insignificant “faults”, points to the divine beauty and depth of this Word (see, for instance, example 15 below).  What would we think of any man who in studying some great masterpiece of art concentrated his whole attention upon what looked like a flyspeck in the corner? A large proportion of the much vaunted “critical study of the Bible” is a laborious and scholarly investigation of supposed flyspecks. The man who is not willing to squander the major portion of his time in this erudite investigation of flyspecks but prefers to devote it to the study of the unrivaled beauties and majestic splendors of the Book is counted in some quarters as not being “scholarly and up to date.”  Still, take up God if you will but pause first at Ps 2 and buckle up.

1.6. Difficulties in the Bible have far more weight with superficial readers than with profound students who know His voice. Take a man like Colonel Ingersoll, who was totally ignorant of the real contents and meaning of the Bible, or that class of modern preachers who read the Bible for the most part for the sole purpose of finding texts to serve as pegs to hang their own ideas upon. To such superficial readers of the Bible these “difficulties” seem of immense importance, but to one who has learned to meditate upon the Word of God, day and night they have scarcely any weight at all. That rare man of God, George Müller, who had carefully studied the Bible from beginning to end more than one hundred times, was not disturbed by any difficulties he encountered; but to the man who is reading it through for the first or second time or with prejudice and distrust or “puffed up” and impressed with his own qualification(s) and pre-conceived and parrot-like ideas, there are many things that perplex and stagger.

1.7. Difficulties in the Bible rapidly disappear upon careful and prayerful study. How many things there are in the Bible that once puzzled and staggered us, but which have since been perfectly cleared up and no longer present any difficulty whatever! Every year of study finds these difficulties disappear more and more rapidly. They disappear when we stop being suspicious of a Perfect Father-Creator-God! All these “difficulties” that still remain will all disappear upon further study, or the moment we start conversing with the Person this is all about!  Is it when, or then, He returns ( 1Jn 3:2)?

 

2. CLASSES OF DIFFICULTIES

All the difficulties found in the Bible can be included under ten general headings:

2.1.    The text from which our English Bible was translated. Probably no one holds that the English translation of the Bible is absolutely infallible and inerrant. The doctrine held by many is that the Scriptures as originally given were absolutely infallible and inerrant, and that our English translation is a substantially accurate rendering of the Scriptures as originally given. We do not possess all the original manuscripts of the Bible. These original manuscripts were copied many times with great care and exactness, but naturally some errors crept into the copies that were made. We now possess so many good copies that by comparing one with another, we can tell with great precision just what the original text was. Indeed, for all practical purposes the original text is now settled. There is not one important doctrine that hangs upon any doubtful reading of the text. But when our Authorized Version was made, some of the best manuscripts were not within reach of the translators, and the science of textual criticism was not so well understood as it is today, and so the translation was made from an imperfect text. Most of the apparent difficulties in the Bible arise from this source.  You might find the information regarding Bible translations/manuscripts in the meditation on the “Jehovah’s Witnesses” by this author helpful here.

For example, we are told in John 5:4 that “an angel went down at a certain season into the pool and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.” This statement for many reasons seems improbable and difficult to believe (Mt 4:23; 10:8), but upon investigation we find that it is all a mistake of the copyist. Some early copyist, reading John’s account, added in the margin his explanation of the healing properties of this intermittent medicinal spring. A late copyist embodied this marginal note in the body of the text, and so it came to be handed down and got into the Authorized Version. For this reason, it has been omitted from the Revised Version. The NT is about a lasting glory and power [Life] of God, not fleeting ones of the Old System.

The discrepancies in figures in different accounts of the same events as, for example, the differences in the ages of some of the kings as given in the text of Kings and Chronicles, doubtless arise from the same cause, errors of copyists. Such an error in the matter of figures would be very easy to make, as in the Hebrew, numbers are denoted by letters, and letters that appear very much alike have a very different value as figures. For example, the first letter in the Hebrew alphabet denotes one, and with two little points above it, denotes a thousand. The twenty-third or last letter of the Hebrew alphabet denotes four hundred, but the eighth letter of the Hebrew alphabet, that looks very much like it and could be easily mistaken for it, denotes eight. A very slight error of the copyist would therefore make a change in figures. It is actually quite remarkable [supernatural] that so few errors of this kind have been made.

2.2.    Inaccurate translations. For example, in Matthew 12:40 Jonah is spoken of as being in “the whale’s belly.” Many a skeptic has made merry over the thought of a whale with the peculiar construction of its mouth and throat swallowing a man, but if the skeptic had only taken the trouble to look the matter up, he would have found the word translated “whale” really means “sea monster,” without any definition as to the character of the sea monster. So, the whole difficulty arose from the translator’s mistake and the skeptic’s ignorance and haughtiness (Job 42:3).

Note at Mt 12:40:  Please refer to paragraph 5.42 below for an exegesis of this passage by Jesus. This story involves the miraculous. It may be that Jonah actually died [inside the “sea monster”] and was resurrected by God. This is implied in his description of his experience especially Jonah 2:2. Of course, resurrection is “impossible” but it clearly happened on several occasions in Scripture requiring miraculous input (Job 19:25-27; 1 Kings 17:17-24; Ps 49:14-16; Is 26:19; Ez 37; Dan 12:2; Mt 22:30-32; Lk 14:14; 20:34-38; 15:24; Jn 5:28-29; 6:39-40,44,54; 11:25-26; Acts 2:22-36; 4:33; 17:18,32; 23:6-8; 24:15; and then of course those scriptures stating the resurrection of Jesus Christ). To deny the possibility of miracles, especially those miracles specifically mentioned in Scripture, is to deny the existence of God, and this is not an option for a Christian.

The point is nothing about the story is totally impossible: There are “fish” large enough to swallow a man; the Bible says it really happened and at the time all hearers seemed to have accepted it as fact that Jonah was indeed swallowed and later seen alive when he, after this event, preached to the people of Nineveh.  The event [resurrection] must have been mighty enough to get the whole of the big city of Nineveh (Jonah 3:3) to repent and turn to God (Jonah 3:5); Jesus in Mt 12:40 said Jonah’s [real] experience was an analogy of His own death and resurrection; and God is alive and capable of this feat (Mt 19:26; Gen 18:14; Job 42:2-3). Then there is the reference by Jesus in Mt 16:4 to Jonah 2:6; 3:1-6…

Mt 23:35 is an instance where dubious interpolation seems probable, for if the son of Barachias is read to be the one slain, a difficulty is presented by the reference to Zacharias as the son of Jehoiada in 2 Chron 24:20-22. So, Mt 23:35 that refers to Barachiah as the father of Zechariah is possibly interpolated for it does not occur in the Sinaitic MS and neither in Lk 11:51. Also, the period from the murder of Abel (Gen 4:8) up to the murder of Zacharias, son of Jehoiada, covers the whole history of the Jews. (The Jewish Canon is not arranged in chronological order and closes with the second book of Chronicles).  Therefore, the idea of some commentators that have thought that Jesus prophetically spoke about a Zacharias, son of Baruch, in Mt 23:35 that was slain by two zealots at the commencement of the Jewish War, is improbable as an explanation, however remarkable the coincidence might seem to be. Furthermore, has the martyrdom of Zechariah, son of Jehoiada (2 Chron 24:20-22), become the subject of popular legends. It is written in the Talmud that the blood of this prophet would not dry up and was still bubbling up when Nebuzaradan, the Chaldean commander in Jer 39:9, took the Temple. Wild as the story is, it shows the impression that death had made on the minds of men.  The mistake of a subscriber could be led by the association of two names, like that of Jeremy for Zechariah in Mt 27:9 (Zechariah 11:12-13).

2.3.    False interpretations of the Bible. What the Bible teaches is one thing, and what some men interpret it to mean is oftentimes something wildly different. Many difficulties that we have with the Bible arise not from what the Bible actually says, but from what men interpret it to mean – especially those forcing parts of Scripture into their often false pre-conceived ideas when still blinded by self-righteousness.

A difficulty with Jesus’ statement that He would be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth can be attributed to a lack of knowledge of what method was used to count the days and nights and not with what the Bible actually says, but with the interpretation that men put upon the Bible.  Paragraph 5.21 in the discussions of some “specific difficulties” below, attempts to clear this up.

2.4.    A wrong conception of the Bible. Many think that when you say the Bible is the Word of God, of divine origin and authority, you mean that God is the speaker in every utterance it contains; but this is not at all what is meant. Often it simply records what others say—what good men say, what bad men say, what inspired men say, what uninspired men say, what angels and demons say, and even what the devil says. The record of what they said is from God and absolutely true, but what those other persons are recorded as saying may be true or may not be true. It is true that they said it, but what they said may not be true.

Very many careless readers of the Bible do not notice who is talking—God, good men, bad men, inspired men, uninspired men, angels or devil. They will tear a verse right out of its context regardless of the speaker and say, “There, God said that”, while God said nothing of the kind. God’s Word says who has said it. What God says is true, namely, that the devil said it, or a bad man, or a good man, or an inspired man, or an uninspired man, or an angel. So, be careful with Scripture: what they said may or may not be true.  Understand the Character of God, know Who He is and Who not, and the context.

It is very common to hear men quote what Eliphaz, Bildad or Zophar said to Job as if it were necessarily God’s own words because it is recorded in the Bible, in spite of the fact that God disavowed their teaching and said to them, “Ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right” (Job 42:7). A very large share of our difficulties thus arises from not noticing who is speaking. The Bible always tells us, and we should always note it.  This is a basic fact. By the way, did God speak “through” Elihu (Job 36:1)!…

In the Psalms we have sometimes what God said to man, and that is always true; but on the other hand, we often have what man said to God, and that may or may not be true. Sometimes, and far more often than most of us see, it is the voice of the speaker’s personal vengeance or despair. This vengeance may be and often is prophetic, but it may be the wronged man committing his cause to Him to whom vengeance belongs (Rom 12:19), and we are not obliged to defend all that he said.  So, in studying our Bible, if God is the speaker, we must believe what He says. If an inspired man is the speaker, we must believe what he says. If an uninspired man is the speaker, we must judge for ourselves—it is perhaps true, perhaps false. If it is the devil who is speaking, we do well to remember that he was a liar from the beginning; but even the devil may tell [some] truth sometimes (Lk 8:28; Jm 2:19).  Note that many claim to be of God, but Scripture or an anointed of God does not bear them out (Jer 23:21,30-32).

2.5.    The language in which the Bible was written. Consider also the meditation “The Bible” that will reveal how often it catches us out in play-acting by revealing our camouflaged self-righteousness. The Bible is a book of all ages and for all kinds of people, and therefore it was written in the language that continues the same and is understood by all, the language of the common people and of appearances. It was not written in the terminology of what the world today calls science.  Bible “language” is timeless and always applicable, and useable, to any person or circumstance (1 Tim 3:16,17), outside time.  Thus, for example, what occurred at the Battle of Gibeon (Josh 10:12–14) was described in the way it appeared to those who saw it, and the way in which it would be understood by those who read about it. There is no talk about the possible refraction of the sun’s rays, and so forth, but the sun is said to have “stood still” (or tarried) in the midst of heaven. It is one of the perfections of the Bible that it was not written in the terminology of “modern science” (who still cannot fully explain or manufacture an eye or faith). If it had been, it would never have been understood until the present day, and even now it would be understood only by a few. Furthermore, as science and its terminology are constantly changing, the Bible if written in the terminology of the science of today would be out of date in a few years, thus dated by [present] “modern speech”; but being written in just the language chosen, it has proved the Book for all ages, all lands and all conditions of all.

Other difficulties from the language in which the Bible was written arise from the fact that some portions of the Bible – not all – are poetical and are written in the language of poetry, the language of feeling, passion, imagination and figure. Now if a man is hopelessly prosaic, he will inevitably find difficulties with these poetical portions of the inspired Word, and 1 Jn 1:5; 2:8; Col 1:11-21; Mt 10:26,27.  God is Light and we are meant to be [mature] sons of Light (Jn 1:1-17; Heb 2:8; Jn 11:26)!

For example, in Ps 18 we have a marvelous description of a thunderstorm, and it relates to Mt 4:16; 6:23; 1 Pet 2:9; etc., but let the dull, prosaic and carnally minded get hold of that and its beauty is lost [to him].  For example, verse 8: “There went up a smoke out of his nostrils, and fire out of his mouth devoured: coals were kindled by it,” and he will be head over heels in difficulty at once. But the trouble is not with the Bible, but with humans own blind carnality (2 Cor 3:14,15; 4:3-6; the Law in 2 Cor 4:4).

2.6.    Our defective knowledge of the history, geography and usages of Bible times. For example, in Acts 13:7 Luke speaks of “the deputy” (more accurately “the proconsul,” see Revised Version) of Cyprus. Roman provinces were of two classes, imperial and senatorial. The ruler of the imperial provinces was called a propraetor, of a senatorial province a proconsul. Up to a comparatively recent date, according to the best information we had, Cyprus was an imperial province and therefore its ruler would be a propraetor, but Luke calls him a proconsul. This certainly seemed like a clear case of error on Luke’s part, and even the conservative commentators felt forced to admit that Luke was in slight error, and the destructive critics were delighted to find this “mistake.” But further and more thorough investigation has brought to light the fact that just at the time of which Luke wrote the senate had made an exchange with the emperor whereby Cyprus had become a senatorial province, and therefore its ruler was a proconsul. Luke was right after all, and the literary critics were themselves in error.  Lk 1:1-4 indeed states that Doctor Luke wrote an “orderly report” …

Time and again further research and discoveries, geographical, historical and archaeological, have vindicated the Bible and put to shame its critics. For example, the book of Daniel has naturally been one of the books that infidels and destructive critics have most hated. One of their strongest arguments against its authenticity and veracity was that such a person as Belshazzar was unknown to history, and that all historians agreed that Nabonidus was the last king of Babylon, and that he was absent from the city when it was captured; so, Belshazzar must be a purely mythical character, and the whole story legendary and not historical. Their argument seemed very strong. In fact, it seemed unanswerable. But Sir H. Rawlinson discovered at Mugheir and other Chaldean sites clay cylinders on which Belshazzar (Belsaruzar) is named by Nabonidus as his eldest son. Doubtless he reigned as regent in the city during his father’s absence, an indication of which we have in his proposal to make Daniel third ruler in the kingdom (Daniel 5:16). He himself being second ruler in the kingdom, Daniel would be next to him. So, the Bible was vindicated again.  Are you surprised, delighted or in awe?…

The critics asserted most positively that Moses could not have written the Pentateuch because writing was unknown in his day. But recent discoveries have proved beyond a question that writing far antedates the time of Moses. So, the critics have been compelled to give up their argument, though they have had the bad grace to hold on stubbornly to their conclusion.

2.7.    The ignorance of conditions under which books were written and commands given. For example, to one ignorant of the conditions, God’s commands to Israel as to the extermination of the Canaanites seem cruel and horrible, but when one understands the moral condition to which these nations had sunk, the utter hopelessness of reclaiming them, and the weakness of the Israelites themselves, their extermination seems to have been an act of mercy to all succeeding generations and to themselves. Contemplate again Is 9:6; 55:8; Jn 3:31; and so on.  Note that we bring calamity upon ourselves (Is 5:18-20; 54:13-17…) …

2.8.    The many-sidedness of the Bible. The broadest-minded man is one-sided, but the truth is many-sided, and the Bible is all-sided. So, to our narrow thought one part of the Bible might seem to contradict another.  For example, religious men as a rule are either Calvinistic or Arminian in their mental makeup. And some portions of the Bible are decidedly Calvinistic and present great difficulties to the Arminian type of mind, while other portions are decidedly Arminian and present difficulties to the Calvinistic type of mind. But both sides are true. Many men in our day are broad-minded enough to be able to grasp at the same time the Calvinistic side of the truth and the Arminian side of the truth; but some are not, so the Bible perplexes, puzzles and bewilders them. The trouble is not with the Bible, but with their own lack of capacity for comprehensive thought.  And this because their enemy is their own mind (Rom 8:6-9).

2.9.    The fact that the Bible has to do with the infinite, and our unrenewed minds (Rom 12:1-3) are yet finite. It is necessarily difficult to put the facts of infinite being into the limited capacity of our finite intelligence, just as it is difficult to put the ocean into a pint cup. To this class of difficulties belong those connected with the Bible doctrines of the Trinity and of the divine-human nature of Christ. To those who forget that God is infinite, the doctrine of the Trinity seems like the mathematical monstrosity of making one equal three. But when one bears in mind that the doctrine of the Trinity is an attempt to put into forms of finite thought the facts of His infinite Being, and into material forms of expression the facts of the Spirit, the difficulties vanish. The simplicity of the Unitarian conception of God arises from its shallowness.  See Is 8:14; Rom 9:32; and so on.

2.10. The dullness of our spiritual perception. The man who is farthest advanced spiritually is still so immature that he cannot expect to see everything yet as an absolutely holy God sees it, unless he takes it upon simple faith in Him (Heb 11:6). Contemplate here for instance Scriptures such as Mk 8:18; Jn 3:3; 1 Cor 1:18; 1 Cor 2:9-16. To this class of difficulties belong those connected with the Bible doctrine of the covenant and the Law of Moses (refer to the meditation “The Covenant and the Law” and example 5.19 below). The whole section 5 below in fact hopes to [also] illuminate this.

As we look back over the ten classes of difficulties, we see they all arise from our imperfection, and not from the imperfection of the Bible. The Bible is perfect, but we, being yet imperfect (Heb 5:13-6:1), have difficulty with it. As we grow more and more into the perfection already provided by God (Eph 1:3; 4:12-25; Jn 11:26; Rom 8:29-39), our difficulties grow less and less, and so we can have no more difficulties whatever with the Bible [God], when we get our minds renewed; to fully trust our worthy Lord-King and be sons – like Jesus Christ! (Jn 14:12-14)

3. HOW SHALL WE DEAL WITH THE “DIFFICULTIES” OF THE BIBLE?

Before taking up a few specific so-called “difficulties” and alleged “contradictions” in the Bible which have caused the most trouble, let us first consider how these should be dealt with:

3.1.    Honestly. Whenever you find a difficulty in the Bible frankly acknowledge it. Don’t try to obscure it. Don’t try to dodge it. Look it square in the face. Admit it frankly to whoever mentions it. If you cannot give a good, square, honest explanation, do not attempt any at all. Untold harm has been done by those who in their zeal for the infallibility of the Bible have attempted explanations of difficulties which do not commend themselves to the honest, fair-minded man. People have concluded that if these are the best explanations, then there are really no explanations at all, and the Bible instead of being helped has been injured by the spiritually deficient zeal of foolish friends. If you are not really convinced that the Bible is the Word of God, you can far better afford to wait for an honest solution of a difficulty than you can afford to attempt a solution that is evasive and unsatisfactory.  And remember Mt 18:1-4…

3.2.    Humbly. Recognize the limitations of your own mind and knowledge, and do not for a moment imagine that there is no solution just because you have not yet found one. There is, in all probability, a very simple solution, even when you can find no solution at all – yet.  Meet Jesus Christ (Jn 10:27-28)!

3.3.    Determinedly. Make up your mind that you will find the solution if you can by any amount of study and hard thinking, but more so by humble prayer (Jm 1:5; Ps 119:27). The difficulties of the Bible are our heavenly Father’s challenge to us to set our brains – and faith – to work for Him. Do not give up searching for a solution because you cannot find one in five minutes. Ponder over it and work over it for days if necessary. The work will do you more good than the solution does. There is a solution, and you will find it if you only search for it at Jesus’ feet – answers then come instantly.  He is a real Person!

3.4.    Fearlessly. Do not be frightened when you find a difficulty, no matter how unanswerable or how insurmountable it appears at first sight. Thousands of men have encountered just such difficulties, and still the Book of all books stands. The Bible that has stood twenty centuries of rigid examination, and also of incessant and awful assault, is not likely to go down before your discoveries or before the discharges of any modern critics. To one who is at all familiar with the history of critical attacks on the Bible, the confidence of those modern critics who think they are going to annihilate the Bible at last is simply amusing in a pathetic way.

3.5.    Patiently. Do not be discouraged because you do not solve every problem in a day. If some difficulty persistently defies your very best efforts at a solution, lay it aside for a while. Later it will likely be resolved, and you will wonder how you were ever perplexed by it.  Get help, but especially from Him.

3.6.    Scripturally. If you find a difficulty in one part of the Bible, look for another Scripture to throw light upon it and dissolve it. Nothing explains Scripture like Scripture [while conversing with Holy Spirit].

3.7.    Prayerfully. It is simply wonderful how difficulties dissolve when one looks at them in submission. Not only does God shine His Light in answer to prayer to behold wonderful things out of His Word, but He gave us the ability to look straight through a difficulty that seemed impenetrable before we prayed. One great reason why many modern Bible scholars have learned to be destructive critics is because they have forgotten how to pray.  God’s seed-principle (Mt 13; Mk 4; Lk 8) teaches that our receptiveness [motive, expectancy, honesty] determines the [size and quality of the] harvest.  Our own resistance diminishes and destroys our own spiritual growth; ears that do not hear, eyes that do not see, rebellious and suspicious attitudes toward a perfect heavenly Father is what prohibits our spiritual growth. In other words, must we have His Word (Jn 1:14; 6:31-33,47-51,63) inside of us first before we can expect to see any real and powerful results on what we speak (pray)…

4. So then, the Scriptural way of assessing all that is said (Mt 12:35-37), is to measure it to:-

  • What did Jesus Christ say about it? What does the Bible say about it (2 Tim 3:16,17)? In other words, say what Jesus says, as Holy Spirit counsels or teaches or reveals
  • How does Jesus’ obedience to His death, His resurrection, and His present position as Lord, relate to what I say or believe?
  • What did Jesus demonstrate about it?

We are not to be in a “become” mode but should be in an “I am” mode (1 Cor 15:10, based on what Jesus has done).  The difference in interpretation comes from our mind [mindset], when we read God’s Word.  As long as we are under law [attempts at self-righteousness], are we blinded to God’s Spiritual Truth(s); while, when we are truly open to God’s Spirit, do we for the first time really believe Jesus Christ, the Word of God.  Consider studying the meditations entitled “The covenant and the law”; “Christian suffering”; “The will”; “unclean food”; “Messianic Jews”; “The Gospel”; and so on, by the same author.

A good example of reading diametrically opposed to what the Word of God is saying to us, can be seen in Ps 8 and Jm 1:2-3.  When Jesus Christ is your righteousness, you will see that we are to be His stars[1] and reflect light to the world; otherwise, we will think we have evolved from slime and be powerless in dead religion.  In the other meditations by this author, these aspects are dealt with in greater detail, and it should become clear how religion [ceremony, tradition, rituals, the self] has indoctrinated us.  In all of these discussions, remember this:  God wants a lasting genuine personal relationship, not religion.

5. Specific “difficulties” examined

As an introduction to this section where we look at specific “difficulties”, we might just discover the wonderful relief that – due to our own ingrained self-righteousness and blindness thereto – the writers [and ultimately God as a Spirit, Jn 4:24, 14:26] was just beyond our minds and is Holy Spirit helping here so that we can be enlightened in a higher Life in Christ. Often, we might experience a difficulty understanding text simply because we have too little knowledge [yet] of the context, about traditions of the time. Here 2 Tim 3:16-17 may apply.

We see in scriptures such as Is 55:8; 59:7; 66:18; Micah 4:12a; Mt 5:19; Lk 2:35; Jn 5:38; 1 Cor 3:20; 14:20; 2 Cor 10:5; Heb 4:12; that we will fail to see scriptures from God’s perspective as long as we are too full of ourselves, thinking always of ourselves first in a type of “over-sensitivity”, taking offense… We can perhaps use an example here such as 1 Cor 14:34.  It is very likely that Paul was merely addressing this specific assembly in Corinth for their apparent chaotic services (vv. 28,36,40) and was not necessarily making a general statement about all woman on earth. They had to be told to speak one at a time in an orderly fashion and not in such a way that it would sound like a chaotic bazaar or wheeling and dealing money-spinners.  Likewise, 1 Tim 2:11 goes on in context with reference to what happened in the beginning between Eve and Adam (1 Tim 2:13-14; Gen 3:6; 2 Cor 11:3 – that is about mankind’s self-righteousness or attempts to live of our own knowledge between good and evil, blessing and calamity… Law… instead of utilizing God as our Source and Guidance.  The meditations “Mixing Old and New” and “The Covenant and the Law” by this author expands on this).  Suffice for now to point to the activity of woman in the early church with scriptures such as 1 Cor 11:5; Titus 2:3-5; 1 Pet 3:3-7; even the image of Rev 17:18!  Elsewhere in these meditations is a discussion also on the fact that the “submission” of a woman (Eph 5:22) was only in reference to a wife and her own husband (v 21,22) and then her supporting role while he should take liability [“the punch”] and is not saying that all women are lesser beings and must serve under all men!

We will now continue with some specific “difficulties” to see if this is problematic or self-induced…

5.1. Question: Does Genesis 1 contradict Genesis 2?

 The supposed contradictions:
Gen 1                                                               Gen 2

Verse 11:  Grass, plants, trees on day 3 Verse 9: Grass, plants, trees after man on day 6?
Verse 20,21:  Birds out of water, day 5  Verse 19: Birds out of ground on day 6?
Verse 24: Animals before man on day 6 Verse 19,20: Animals after man on day 6?

Answer:  No, there is no contradiction.  Genesis chapter two refers to day six and expounds [“recaps”, summarizes] on what God created for man, very much like an overview of the six-day creation.  For some, God even seems to have made one more of each animal out of the ground for Adam to name on day six.  This is [for one] so Adam could see there is no mate for him amongst the animals (animals are not made to God’s image; no man “evolved” from animals or slime).  The correct sequence is:

Day 1:  Light appeared (refer to paragraph 5.53 in this meditation)

Day 2:  God made the Heavens

Day 3:  God made plants according to kinds (not species)

Day 4:  God made sun, moon, stars (for seasons to come – Gen 8:22; and Ps 19:1-6)

Day 5:  God made water creatures and birds according to their kinds out of water

Day 6:  God made the living creatures according to their kinds:  livestock, creeping things, wild beasts and domestic animals – all according to their kind.  Then God made man according to His image [Love], and placed him [Adam] in the garden called Eden [delight] to rule [have authority] over all creation [not man] on the earth (Ps 104:30; Heb 1:2; 11:3).

 

5.2. Does Ex 33:11 contradict Ex 33:20 or Dt 5:24?

 In other words, how could the Lord spoke to Moses’ face to face in verse 11 yet is told in verse 20 that no man could see God’s face and live?

Superficially, this seems incongruous; but closer examination – of the whole Bible – will reveal the unparalleled magnificence of the Bible’s one, progressive, unfolding revelation of God’s grace and righteousness in Jesus Christ.  The Bible will reveal to those open to God’s Spirit (Jn 4:24; Rom 8:14; 2 Tim 3:16-17 with special note to Jn 14:6-11,17,23,26; 1 Jn 2:16-23), the crux of this Book consisting of a compilation of books:  self-righteousness as opposed to God’s righteousness in Jesus Christ!  I.e. our own attempts under the Law vs God’s grace, Love and Life everlasting!  Christianity is not about heaven or hell, but a living, lasting relationship with a living eternal God (Jn 4:24).

Yet another new insight awaits the open reader of the Bible.  In the meditation “Who is Jesus Christ”, more detail is discussed, but for now, we will discover a Jesus pre-incarnate! Don’t freak out!  Contemplate Just Jn 1:1-4; 14:6,9; Gal 3:8 and Col 1:15-18 quickly first!  We’ll then ponder the uncertainty of the exact date of birth of Jesus Christ (of Nazareth) and contemplate the enigmatic identity of Melchizedek (Heb 7).  We’ll see why Moses was told he’ll never enter Canaan yet stood on the mount of transfiguration with Elijah and Jesus (Mt 17:2-8).  Moses represented the Law (self-righteousness, Jn 1:17; Phil 3:9) and Elijah the prophets (Heb 1:1-2); but God wants us to listen to [follow, cling to] HIM – Mt 3:17; 17:5; Jn 3:3; 14:6!

Answer

The Lord that spoke to Moses in Ex 33:11 was (is)  יהוה (H3068, yehôvâh), from H1961; (the) self-Existent or eternal; Jehovah the Lord. Compare H3050, H3069.  The Amplified Bible note that we read further about an “Angel of the Lord” or “of God” or “of His presence” in Gen 22:11 that can be identified with the Lord Jesus Christ (Gen 16:11,13; 22:11,12; 31:11,13; Ex 3:1-6 and so on). This is a distinct person in Himself from God the Father (Gen 24:7; Ex 23:20; Zech 1:12,13, and other passages).  Nor does this “Angel of the Lord” appear again after Christ came in human form, hence of necessity the One of the “Three in One” Godhead (refer to the meditation “The Trinity”).  It is possible that this “Angel of the Lord” of the OT could be the visible Lord of the OT as Jesus Christ is to the NT.  The deity of this Person is clearly portrayed in the OT.  The Cambridge Bible observes, “There is a fascinating forecast of the coming Messiah, breaking through the dimness with amazing consistency, at intervals from Genesis to Malachi.  Abraham, Moses, the slave girl Hagar, the impoverished farmer Gideon, even the humble parents of Samson, had seen and talked with Him centuries before the herald angels proclaimed His birth in Bethlehem” …

Ex 33:20 says that no man can face God in self-righteousness (under Law) and stand the test (Rom 3:20,23), as even Uzzah discovered (2 Sam 6:3-8).  This is discussed in the meditation “The Covenant and the Law” (Law has no mercy while God is about the grace and righteousness that Jesus brought [back] for those willing to accept His blood offer on His cross on behalf of all following Him.  This is a personal choice free to all alike.  No man and no one else can be an intermediate other than Jesus Christ (1Tim 2:5) and God will not force anyone in any way!  Love [God] does not manipulate – everyone has a genuine free choice.  The will God gave us is discussed in meditations such as “The Will” and “Body, Soul, Spirit”).  Facing [experiencing] God in a New Testament in Jesus Christ, however, is a completely different matter of living in God’s grace and righteousness (Rom 3:24-28; 8:29-39).  Acts 4:11-12!

Uzzah unfortunately for him (2 Sam 6:3-8), discovered that there is no mercy in Law. Compare this with the woman who was “caught” in adultery (probably set-up by the scribes and Pharisees that failed to present the man as well) and who was just told by Jesus to repent (stop sinning) and was set free. Observe the grace and mercy of God when we get into a personal relationship with Him, not approaching Him in self-righteousness (Jn 1:17; 14:6; Phil 3:9).

In Ex 33:18 Moses asked God to show His glory. Now read verse 19 with Jn 1:17; 3:3,6,16-21… get it?  The Old had fleeting glories and the New offers a lasting glory, but only in Jesus Christ because no man can face [challenge, test] God and be found worthy in self-righteousness (own merit).   God intended for us to have a close, personal and lasting relationship with Him since the beginning.  This Adam revealed when he (Adam) declared that he was naked (unclothed) when God asked Adam where he was (spiritually).  Now contemplate Rom 13:14. (The meditation “The Covenant and the Law” expands on this).

Observe as well, that Jesus in Jn 4:24 states that God is a Spirit (a spiritual Being, unseen). In the sentence prior to this (v 23) Jesus said that true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth; for the Father is seeking just such people as these as His worshipers. Then Jesus [of Jn 1:1-4,14,17; 3:3,15-20] made the statements of Jn 1:18; 6:46; 12:45; 14:6-26; 20:29; even 15:1-7! So indeed no one can see God the Spirit and God the Father literally [let alone continue to live self-righteous; Rom 3:20,23; 8:1-39]; but in Jesus Christ we could [can] see and understand God and talk to Him! Moses surely discovered this in Exodus 33, even on Mt. Sinai. So much more significant then, that Moses was there on the mount of transfiguration (refer to Lk 9:30,35,62; Mt 17:3,5; and Mt 9:16-17 with the meditation “The Covenant and The Law” and “Mixing Old and New”).  Refer also to # 5.23 below.  Indeed, we should read the Bible more carefully, agreed?

5.3. Josh 10:12-14.  How could the sun have “stood still” for one day?

By implication, not the sun (in space), but the earth, meaning the earth stopped rotating?  This obviously would bring about immense geophysical and physiological problems and thus off the cuff sounds highly improbable.

The Christian approach, “What is impossible to man, is possible for God” (Mt. 19:26) might be absolutely true but in this case seems to be applied out of context unnecessary; sadly, once again, to make something straight-forward to be unnecessary virtually insurmountable – due to our perceptions and attitude towards a perfect Creator-Father-God and His Word given to us for a specific purpose.

There was a story circulating the internet that NASA had run a program and found a calendar day missing in Joshua’s time.  Observations: (a) Verification with NASA will prove this to be a myth.  (b) Any mathematician can tell you that the whole series of days will have to be known in order for any one missing day to be “found”.  We do not historically have the days from day one.  (c) No mention is made of a calendar adjustment for a lost day in Joshua’s time.

The theme of the book Joshua, who was from the tribe of Ephraim (Num 13:8) and commissioned as leader before Moses’ death (Dt. 31), is the establishment of Israel in the promised land but mostly the Lord’s triumph over the Canaanites that testified to the world that God [then mostly perceived “of Israel”] is the one true living Creator-God that remains actively involved as a Perfect Father that also provides.

Now, in this context, let’s consider the following:

  • The leading character of the book Joshua was an Israelite (Num 13:2-3,8; Josh 3:7; 4:14; 10:4).
  • Joshua was a fore-shadow of Joshua the Messiah (Jesus Christ – read “Who is Jesus Christ”).  Moses led them in the desert where that generation all died except Joshua and Caleb who then led the remaining younger generation out of the desert into the promised land (Num 13:6; 14:6,24,30; Jn 1:17).
  • A normal period of daylight (“day”, daytime) is around twelve hours. A calendar day today is 24 hours (uncorrected) that include both day and night [-time].
  • The Jewish “day” (see #5.20 below) was counted in two segments of six hours each.
  • Josh 10:12 states the “sun” stood still at Gibeon and the moon in the valley of Ajalon.  Note that it was (i) not claiming a global event occurring across the whole planet at once as for example the flood (Expanded on in the meditation “The Flood”); and (b) that for the sun “to stand (stay) still” in this context is a mere manner of speech where Joshua asked for the sun to linger a while longer before it shines brightly again (re-appear after the immense storm), lengthening the element of surprise and possibly pandemonium under the enemy and hence so keep the advantage they had gained.  We are thus reading about a longer period of “darkness” not light!
  • “Sun” in verse 12, is from שׁמשׁ (shemesh, H8121), from an unused root meaning to be brilliant; the sun yes, but probably specifically here, by implication rather a ray (rays, [day] light emitted by the sun) and not the whole celestial body of burning gas known as the sun.
  • Interestingly, a little off the topic, note that Ajalon (v12) is the name of five places in Palestine (compare with the figure of five kings mentioned in v 5) where the moon was “still”.
  • The surprise attack (Josh 10:9-10) chased them “descending” to Beth-Heron and a tremendous storm dropped hail on them that killed more than what the Israelites slain with the sword (v 11).  “Then Joshua spoke to the Lord (on the day when the Lord gave the Amorites over to the Israelites…”) asking for the rays to be “still” …  The shadow in a valley combined with an effective eclipse due to thick storm clouds can indeed make the sun’s rays “still” and let “darkness” linger for six hours longer – a Jewish “day” – all this during that calendar day (v14).
  • In a valley, the “day” is observed to be shorter than when observed from up on the Plato above.
  • A very dark shadow from an unusually thick cloud can add sufficient more hours of darkness to get a total of six or twelve hours “darkness” where the sun’s rays – even the moon – is “still”.
  • In a supernatural type of darkness (ominous shadow of a recent immense and devastating storm), the element of surprise would easily have been retained for Joshua and his men to clinch this victory – just as it was recorded in The Bible.
  • The superstitious heathens, believing in multiple gods (such as for storms, hail, lightening and so on), must have been at a psychological disadvantage during this storm that killed so many.
  • The cross reference in Hab 3:11 is a similar description of how God helped Joshua to keep that element of surprise darkness and subsequently the victory by letting the sun and moon “stand back”.  To “stand back” fits in well with an eclipse of some sort and not earth stopping to rotate.

In other words, the planet earth did not have to stop rotating for 24 hours to make this account accurate!  Neither was some other radical geophysical event necessary, such as to tilt on its rotational axis.  All that is required to have happened is that “darkness” lingered 6 (or 12) hours with the sun’s rays “still” or “held back”; i.e., “eclipsed”.

Similarly, from the meditation “Who is Jesus Christ”, the following commentary on the “darkness that fell” when Jesus hung on His cross at Golgotha…

Some critics raise doubt as to the three hour darkness “over all the land” when Jesus was hanging on His cross, at that stage for three hours already (with His mental and spiritual agonies probably at their height), mainly because they say no other outside reference to this can be found than in the three scriptures Mt 27:45; Mk 15:33; Lk 23:44 (even the gospel of John has no reference to it). To this we can argue that (1) the credibility of The Bible is supreme compared to other writings (the meditations “The Bible” and “The four Gospels” refer), and (2) even an eclipse caused by a thick [cumulonimbus]cloud could be a possibility as in Josh 10:12-14 (refer to “Apparent controversies in The Bible”, paragraph 5.3); but it certainly could not have been an ordinary eclipse caused by the moon as the time of Paschal was during full moon and such an eclipse would at any rate only have lasted a few minutes. Nor had it any geophysical connection with the subsequent earthquake (Mt 27:51); however, we will shortly consider the effect of such supernatural events as having an influence on the realization that a most terrible, yet profound thing in history was done. These were no ordinary events, and we can therefore safely assume that these events were supernatural, for how can we fathom the Love of our beloved Creator that came to earth to pay for our sins [confessed, laid down and repented from] to set us free from our self! The historical accuracy of this darkness must be equally true than the death of Jesus, our beloved Lord, our Creator, our Saviour, itself. The lack of gentile reference on record may imply that the darkness was confined to Palestine; but one can also reason that this darkness (used 32 times in the NT as G4655, σκότος, skotos, from the base of G4639); was used to describe shadiness, that is, obscurity (literally or figuratively): – darkness, as in for example, Mt 4:16; 6:23; Jn 3:19; 8:12; Acts 26:18; Rom 2:18-19; 13:12; Eph 6:11; Col 1:13; and so on. In 1 Thess 5:5 night (G3571, νύξ, noox) is used different in meaning as darkness G4655, σκότος in the same sentence. Note at Lk 1:79 that σκότος is used in the same context as Col 1:13 et al. The strongest reproach to this interpretation could be that clearly obscurity in the world history was present outside of those three hours as well. However, the uniqueness of that darkness that fell on the world, or that region of the world, as a form of obscurity or shadiness would be the realization that men had done a horrible thing in crucifying the Son of Man, the Son of God (Mk 15:39). This would fit the account given of the two disciples on their way to Emmaus in Lk 24:13-31 and even the chief Jewish priests that wanted Jesus’ resurrection suppressed and that Jews to this day deny that they crucified the Messiah (Mt 28:11-15; Acts 5:30-33; 7:51-54).

Poignantly, the ninth hour (Mt 27:45) was about the time of the evening sacrifice.

5.4.  Does Gen 1:29-30 and Rom 5:12 say there was no non-human death before Adam?

The apparent problem is that, even though we are post-flood, do current physical observations and fossils suggest that, for example, bacteria, sharks, animals with canine teeth and poisonous creatures most probably had cause death before the fall of mankind.  Some thought should reveal that (1) human [death] is different from other created forms (1 Cor 15:38-40), and (2) this should not pose any problem whatsoever for the idea of a young earth.  Surely God could have created the ecology like this from day one of their existence and found it to be good!  We need no long periods of time to make Gen 1:29,30 and Rom 5:12 true.  The meditation “Evolution” expands on this.  Rom 5:12 simply makes no mention of death or loss of non-human life.  It is concerned with us as humans and our sinful nature since Adam and our only salvation in Jesus Christ, our last Adam (1 Cor 15:45).  Rom 5:12 should therefore pose no problem for advocates of a young (or even an old) world – unless the intent is to dispute the inerrancy of The Bible as God’s Word and the purpose for [of] Jesus Christ and His deity.

God did not leave us a scientific explanation and technical formulae of how He created, only that He did create everything (for example Col 1:12-21).  Exactly when God created is also rather inconsequential unless the Bible is misquoted, misrepresented or disputed regarding God and His Good News of our salvation and authority in Jesus Christ. Fair deductions can be made, though, based on the genealogies found in the Bible and is mentioned in the meditation “Who is Jesus Christ”.

It is possible that death and predation was present outside the paradise before the fall and not within up to the fall.  We simply don’t know. We can’t argue meaningful about what none of us know for a fact and what is not crucial to our salvation; but more importantly, our relationship with God [Jesus Christ].

From the meditations “Body, soul and spirit of man” and “Evolution”, a short note on Ps 73:22: Hear Asaph (mentioned at least 46 times in The Bible), “So foolish, stupid, and brutish was I, and ignorant; I was like a beast before You”, making a clear distinction between animals without a spirit (God-consciousness) and humans with a spirit (God-consciousness); even God’s Spirit inside of us (Jn 14:26 and the meditation “The Gospel”). Gen 1 tells us God created all animals according to their kind, then He made man to His image and to rule over [care for, steward] animals (Gen 1:26-27). Nowhere in human history is record of humans that observed a change in humans from other life forms that “developed” or “evolved” from other life forms, especially since most those life forms still exist as they have been observed in human history since the beginning. So, this author concurs with Joshua (Josh 24:15).

5.5. Does 2 Chronicles 4:2, and 1 Kings 7:23 contain a mathematical error?

 The argument is that the circumference of a circle is the diameter times π.  π Is roughly 3.14159265…  so, the diameter should really be 31.41592654 cubits (not 30).

Answer:  Two possibilities are: 2 Chron 4:5 mentions the thickness:  a handbreadth.  The outer and inner diameters obviously differ.  Verse 2 seems to refer to the outer diameter, while the inner circumference could very well be 30 cubits.  A cubit is the length from the fingertip to the elbow.  This differs from person to person, but interestingly enough, on average, a cubit divided by the handbreadth, gives π.  This is therefore unlikely to be an oversight, but quite accurate!  The lip was wider, shaped like a lily (2 Chron 4:5; 1 Kings 7:22).

5.6. Question:  Do the size contradict each other (1 Kings 7:26 vs 2 Chron 4:5)?

Answer:  No contradiction – the liquid capacity was probably 3 000 baths (a Hebrew liquid measurement, one bath equaling about 22 liters), while it was apparently usually only filled to contain 2000 baths (44 kl).

 

5.7. Question: Why the difference between 1 Kings 4:26 and 2 Chron 9:25?

Answer:  There is no difference – the 4 000 stalls each held 10 horses.  The KJV is correct, most other translations have forced these due to grammatical reasons.  They also used 10 horses per chariot for redundancy [in war].

 

5.8. How many did David slew – 700 or 7 000 (2 Sam 10:18; and 1 Chron 19:18)?

Answer:  7 000.  Ten men per chariot times 700 chariots (in 2 Sam 10:18).

 

5.9. Question: Why the difference paid in 2 Sam 24:24 and 1 Chron 21:25?

 Answer:  The 50 shekels silver in 2 Sam 24:24 was for the threshing floor and the oxen; while the 600 shekels gold in 1 Chron 21:25 was for the site. No problem.

 

5.10. Does Gen 10:31 contradict Gen 11:1?

 Answer:  No, Genesis 11 expands [recaps] on Genesis 10.  Read it again carefully.  Anyway, this city that man wanted, opposes that planned by God (Is 60:14; Mt 5:14; Rev 21:2; 1 Pet 2:1-10; Eph 1:22-3:6,18-21…).

 

5.11. Question: Does 1 Corinthians 10:8 contradict Numbers 25:9?

 Answer:  No contradiction.  23 000 died in one day, and 1 000 the next day = 24 000.

 

5.12. Question: Jonah 2:1 – was it a fish or a whale that swallowed Jonah?

 Answer:  Jonah 2:1 mentions a fish, while Matthew 12:40 a sea monster or whale (depending on translations, other than the KJV).  The Bible classified all swimming creatures in the sea the same (Gen 1:21) fish.  Modern classifications are irrelevant.

Refer to paragraph 2.2 and 5.42 for a fuller exegesis.

5.13. Is Leviticus 11:3-6 revealing a biological inaccuracy in the Bible?

 Answer:  No. A hare (rabbit) eats its secretions, which amounts to the same principle:  namely again chewing – by choice – on what its own body had already rejected.  The point is that it resembles a principle of what is regarded as unclean (repent is opposite to accept a rejected lie (2 Cor 3:7) and not return to a Perfect Loving Father (Rom 10:4).  You can return to dreg [law, self] or you can return to Love [grace and mercy of Father], your choice – Jer 5:3; Hos 12:6;14:6; Prov 26:11; Gal 3…).  We are to contemplate (“chew”) God’s Word, day and night, not thoughts of destruction of the world of self.

5.14. Which is correct: 1 Kings 9:26-28 or 2 Chronicles 8:17,18?

 Answer:  Both are likely to be correct.  Both Solomon and Huram had a fleet [navies] and travelled back and forth many times, so once it could have conveyed 420 talents of gold and on another occasion 450 talents of gold (1 talent was about 30 kg!).  The Amplified Bible mentions Hiram in 1 Kings 9:27, but a Huram in 2 Chronicles 8:18.

 

5.15. Was it “Passover” or “Easter” in Acts 12:4? Does it make a difference?

 Answer:  There is a drastic difference.  The KJV has it right, because it was translated from the right manuscripts (See meditation on Bible translations).  The sequence was:

  1. Passover on the eve of April (Nisan) 14
  1. Followed by seven days of unleavened bread (no sin)
  2. Then the pagan festival of Astart (Ishtar or “Easter”) followed. This is what Herod (Eusau’s descendant) was celebrating – the fertility idea of earth “regenerating itself”, using symbols such as rabbits and eggs that you seek out and consume. But God wants us to consume His body and His blood (Jn 6:56-58; Ex 12; Gen 3:22; with Rev 2:7; 3:21-22; 1 Cor 11…). William Tyndale translated “pascha” to “passover” but used the word “Easter” in Acts 12:4 (KJV).

5.16. God is Love (1 Jn 4:8,16), and says in Ex 20:5 He is a jealous God; but in 1 Cor 13:4 says love [of God] is never envious or never boils over with jealousy – is this not a contradiction?

 Answer:  Not at all, there is only a contradiction in our [remnant?] fleshly reasoning.  This “apparent contradiction” is possibly yet another in His Word designed to reveal to us a presence of our old nature [thought-processes in enmity toward God that must go, distrustful thinking and offence, minds alien to Him] still not really crucified by us (1 Tim 3:16,17; Gal 2:20; Rom 12:9; Jn 1:9,10; 8:30-51, and so on).

Think of it this way:  God is the Author of Life, not any man.  You do not “make babies” – you have sex and God’s natural laws are activated.  When or how did you form that baby’s eye?  Or was it more a case of hoping “your” baby would be born with eyes?  Just be sure to know that any defects are not from God, but rather eventually by man’s intervention, offense, unbelief.  So then, we actually belong to God and He gave us the choice to love Him back.  Love [God] does not manipulate [is real, genuine, true].  As the Author, He has “copy right”.  God the Creator-Father alone has the right to be jealous – He alone is the actual Owner.  He alone is the Source of righteousness, grace, intellect, creativity, love.  He knows best.  He is worthy of our trust.  He is worthy to be praised.  He is worthy to be our only Father-God.

Then there is another aspect to this Love.  When God uses a word, it is perfect [in its intention, application, effect].  God can speak things into being.  He is the Word that became flesh and revealed His Glory (Jn 1:1-5,14).  He made us to His image – if Christ be in us and we in Christ. God is a Perfect Father, Ruler, Sustainer, Savior, Teacher, Guide, and Friend.  When He uses the word “jealous”, it is to protect us [from false gods: from self, from self-righteous love for money that give the temporary illusion of control and happiness; from greed and lust, from evil and fear, from law or any attempts at self-righteousness].  Jesus is the Servant-King.  But when we use [live] the same word “jealous”, it is corrupted, implying God is not Who He says He is [a liar] because He – in our minds – somehow unfairly allows other to have what we should have now, causing bitterness, offense and hate (1 Thess 3:12,13; 1 Jn 3:16, Rom 13:10; etc.).  So, when we use [apply] the very same word “jealous”, we actually use it to hurt and destroy.  When God speaks a word, it is perfect – to protect us… from ourselves.

5.17. Is Paul contradicting James (Rom 3:28 vs Jm 2:26)?

Not at all.  Paul and James are not opposing each other, but are fighting the same enemy (religion, religious attitudes, self-righteous mind sets, rulers of “law-tabernacles”; Heb 10:13) standing back-to-back.  Jesus did not obey His Father to become His Son, He obeyed Him perfectly because He was [is] His Son.  The right place to be is to produce the right fruit [words, results, Light, Life] and reflect HIS Light, not to be unreflecting [His Light and lasting Life] and be bewitched by law or works of self-righteousness.  The kingdom of God is for [His] believers, not [self] achievers and this means that with Holy Spirit inside of you, results should [must, to be true] show – Jn 10:32; Eph 2:10; Phil 1:6; Col 1:10; 2 Thess 2:17; Titus 1:15-16; 3:8,14; 1 Pet 2:12 (Rom 8:14; Jn 14:26; hence Jm 2:20-26). In other words, help and support reflecting and radiating the Love of God and our appreciation for Him and not deeds as attempts with the ulterior motive to attain merit or gain for the self in self-righteousness (Mt 6:1-4; Phil 3:9-10).

(Refer to paragraph 5.41 below.)

5.18. Does Isaiah 55:10,11 (for example) show God’s Word as “old, unscientific, even wrong”? (Scientists can say rain and snow evaporates, and – even in part – eventually does return to heaven. Not as it seems to read, as not returning).

God asked Adam (your old nature, see Rom 5:12; 1 Cor 15:45): “…where are you?”.  This is not saying God did not know where Adam was, or that He is unaware of your deepest thoughts (Ps 139; Jer 17:9; 1 Sam 16:7).  God is asking you to see that you [your thoughts] are in the wrong place when in self-righteousness [blind to this self-righteousness!]  Adam replied, “I am naked” (Rom 13:14). He is calling you back to Him (Jn 6:44).

Isaiah 55:10,11 is not saying rain or snow does not return [at all], it says “as rain and snow does not return…”.  This means it falls one way (visible), but returns another way (unseen, visually undetected).  Just so [in like manner, unseen, undetected by human senses] does the Word of God does not return empty and void (eventually manifests in the natural realm).  This means it never returns without a result.  God’s Word is self-activating! So, speak His Word!!…  When His Truth is brought to a man, immediately a choice of man’s will must be exercised: accept or reject.  This result [report] then returns to the Lord.  The seed in fertile ground will receive what it needs to let it grow, unseen but true.  You possess roughly the same surface ratio water to earth as the earth – ideal for Seed to grow…

1 Peter 1:23 tells it like this:  you are first born in the natural realm, in the flesh, by carnal desires and only later, when you receive [accept, submit to] Jesus as the Christ, you are born anew from above – supernatural, in Spirit, and you are a new creature (2 Cor 5:17; 1 Pet 1:18; 2:24) with God as your Father. You “return”, not as you came, but in a different form (Jn 1:12; 3:6).  Go figure Acts 4:13 with Mt 11:25,26 and start showing results – not to impress [try to earn], but out of love [a result, outflow].

5.19. Does Psalm 19:7 contradict Galatians 3:13?

 No.  Contemplate 2 Corinthians 3:13-18.  The previous glory was temporary and the latter glory continuous; ultimately for us to really believe Jesus Christ unconditionally (Jn 16:9; Jn 11:25 is defining after life as a fleeting glory and verse 26 everlasting life as a lasting glory.  See the meditation entitled “The Testimony” by the author, if you will).  See Hebrews 8:12,13; 9:8.  Think carefully what Romans 12:2 is saying!  Galatians 3 teaches the main purpose of the law – that was for an appointed time only:

  • We are all guilty by it (Rom 3:23; 6:23; Jm 2:10). Only Jesus can set us free!
  • It quiet our mouths, humble us before God (1 Pet 5:5; Ps 51:17; Ez 21:26,27)
  • The law (rules) is a curse because of human nature[2]
  • Laws [rules] gives a mentality of minimum requirement [not excellence][3]
  • Law and rules are only for the unruly, and was given unto them (Gal 3:19; Rom 9:4)

Therefore, by the way, does the term “Messianic Jew” contradict Galatians 3:26-29; 4:9-12,24-29; 5:2-6.  You are either under a “self-righteous-merit-system”(law), or you have received a Testament (Heb 9) from Jesus Christ our Lord.  Contemplate Eph 2:6; Rom 8:17; Heb 10:14. Also, remember Rom 8:14; Mt 22:35-40; 7:21-24; 1 Jn 4:4; and so on.  Be blessed!  The goal is to get to that place where you realize once for all that you can never distrust God.  Know the meaning and implication of 1 Pet 5:5. Know that “faith” was given in equal measure to all (Rom 12:3) as a mechanism, an ability, as a gift from God; and that “believe” is your response, your gift back to God in trust (Heb 11:6).  He makes possible and you choose.  Refer to number 24 below, and may you be totally free in Jesus’ name!

Consider also that Gal 3:29 points not to Moses (Dt 28), but Abraham (Gen 12:3; 22:17)!  Yes, the law blinds indeed (2 Cor 3; 2 Cor 4:4-7)!  The promise was made to Christ (Gal 3:16) and His Body, the church (Gal 3:29; 4:21-31; 1 Cor 6:17-20; 12:27, 2 Cor 6:14-18; Rom 8:8) not to a Jewish nation that rejected Him as Messiah (Acts 26:17-18 Ampl; Jn 9:28) and will only be saved – as a nation –  if they accept this fact as a nation – Jn 14:6; Rom 10:12,13; 11:23!  The Church [followers of Christ] is blessed.

 Genesis 3 teaches to never think wrongly about God, or lightly about God, or suspiciously about God.  To believe, is to trust His Person, rely on His promises, His teachings, and to cling to His unchanging faithfulness, goodness, glory, and to never reject His perfect Love, His grace, His mercy and His Life.

Jesus Christ is your righteousness and holiness, irrespective of what you mess up [Heb 10:26-29], as long as you just go to Father through Jesus Christ.  Jesus alone is our righteousness that in effect says more than “Mercy, please?” [as if just in self-interest]!  May you get the revelation of the High Priest that is there for you – not to judge and condemn you, but that understands temptation, has made you, knows the deepest most hidden part of you, and has paid with His Blood for you, interceding for you when you admit He is Who He said He is:  your Brother and Friend (Heb 2:8-10; 4:12-16; 5:13).  See # 23 below, and no, you will not frustrate His grace and be like a beast (1 Jn 3:9,10; 4:4,19-21) in Christ!

Jesus was not obedient to show how to be a Son of God, He was obedient because He was (is) a Son…

5.20. Is there a discrepancy or anomaly between Ex 4:10 and Acts 7:22?

 No.  First of all, God gave His word in Ex 4:11-12, but then Moses showed his real problem in verse 13 – he felt unqualified and afraid.  Why?  Probably because he was “mightily” trained and confident in Egypt’s [natural] ways but was uncomfortable in God’s [Spiritual] way yet.  Compare here with us (Jn 14:26; 1 Jn 4:4; Heb 11:40; and so on).  Moses had an awesome relationship [dialogues] with God.

5.21.  Is the three days between Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection accurate?

 Note at Mt. 12:40: It has been traditionally taught that Jesus was crucified and buried on a Friday and resurrected on a Sunday, the first day of the week (Mt. 28:1; Mk. 16:2; Lk. 24:1; Jn. 20:1). However, Jesus here prophesied being three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. That would mean the crucifixion took place at least on Thursday and possibly on Wednesday depending on what you believe the method of counting was. John 20:1 shows that Mary Magdalene found that Jesus was already resurrected while it was still dark. That means Jesus actually rose from the dead sometime during the night prior to sunrise on Sunday. If you interpret Jesus’ statement here in Matthew 12:40 as meaning three complete 12-hour nights, then Saturday night could not be included and would thus push the crucifixion and burial back to Wednesday. Friday could not have been the day Jesus was crucified if 72 hours (3 X 24-hour days) were involved.

The interesting fact is that two calendars, or methods of counting the lengths of days, were in use at the time Jesus was crucified. One was the Roman way of counting full days of 24-hour periods as we know today, and then there was a Jewish calendar known as the “lunar calendar” because it was designed for a farmer culture according to the rotation of the moon around the earth.  According to this principle, each day begins at sundown, about 18:00, and then also lasts 24 hours because it takes about 29.5 days for the moon to rotate around the earth.  There are only 354 days in a Jewish year, which makes the “Solar Year” 11.25 days longer.  To compensate for this difference, the Jews add an extra month, consisting of 29 days, to their calendar every year.  Furthermore, the Jews had a dual calendar [two parallel calendars]; namely a civil calendar (based on the Jewish agricultural seasons); and a religious calendar that started the year at the time [the month] God delivered them out of Egypt (Ex 12:2).  This first month was originally called “Abib” but during the captivity in Babylon, it changed to “Nisan” which coincides with the months of March and April on our [world-wide standardized] Gregorian calendar, which was decreed by pope Gregory XIII in 1582.  In A.D. 532, however, Dionysius Exiguus invented the calendar of the Christian Era based upon the time of the building of the city of Rome, and this kind of time was called ab urbe condita, or A.U.C. (or simply, U.C. time).  Dionysius placed the birth of Christ U.C. 753.  Later when it was ascertained that Herod had died in U.C. 749, Jesus’ birth was moved back to the latter part of U.C. 749, a little more than three years before A.D. 1.  Therefore, Jesus was 30 years of age in A.D. 27.  The “Child” had been born in Bethlehem (4 B.C.); the “Son” was given 30 years later at the Jordan (Is 9:6,7)!  But back to those three days…

The reason the crucifixion was traditionally set on Friday is because of an assumption of verses like Luke 23:54 that speak of the Sabbath as being the day after the crucifixion, and then assuming this Sabbath was the Sabbath of Ex 20:11. John 19:31 seems to imply the Sabbath spoken of was a high Sabbath (or special, other festive “Sabbath”.  “Sabbath” simply means “a day consecrated for God”) – specifically the feast of the Passover.  But closer examination of Lev 23 and Num 28 shows this is probably indeed the Sabbath [of Ex 20:11], that is, what we know as on Saturday, and then the second one in the Jewish month of Nisan.

Were these special feasts – that Jesus fulfilled with His coming and the crucifixion and resurrection – called Sabbaths also, regardless of the day of the week on which they fell (Mk. 15:42 with Jn. 19:14 and Dt 21:22,23; Gal 3:13), or were the Passover Sabbaths designed by God to all fall on [Ex 20:11] Sabbaths?  Note that Lev 23 clearly shows these Sabbaths of the Passover were all on the Sabbath of Ex 20:11, set as “markers” around which the “filler days” fell (Lev 23; Num 28).  This means that Sabbath of Jn 19:31 was that Sabbath that fell on 15th Nisan, a Saturday.

So then, seeing that Jesus as a Jew, came for the Jews first (who rejected Him, Jn 1:11; Mt 21:43; Gal 3:28,29; Jn 1:1:11; 19; Acts 2:23,36, etc), we can safely assume this account was relating to the Jewish system.  We see that the notation is exactly that in Scriptures such as Jn 19:14; Mk 15:34; Mt 27:45.

So here then an explanation according to the allocation in the Jewish tradition, in segments, of these “three days and three nights”:

Friday 09:00 Crucifixion
Friday 12:00 Darkness fell
Friday 12:00 – 18:00 “day” one
Friday 18:00 – 24:00 “night” one
Saturday (Sabbath) 00:00 – 06:00 “night” two
Saturday (Sabbath) 06:00 – 12:00 “day” two
Saturday (Sabbath) 12:00 – 18:00 “day” three
Saturday (Sabbath) 18:00 – 24:00 “night” three
Sunday 00:00 – 06:00 Resurrection

Mk 15:25 tells us Jesus was crucified on the Friday 09:00 (the third hour from 06:00) and that He gave His Spirit at noon (when darkness fell, the sixth hour from 06:00) as noted in Mt 27:45 and prophesied in Amos 8:9. (Refer also, Mt 27:1; Lk 23:44-45). Jesus, to fulfil for example Jonah 1:17 as well, had to be “in the heart of the earth” for three full days and three full nights (Mt 12:40); and this counts perfectly well in the Jewish tradition, as shown in the table above.

Similarly, to be consistent, the fasting of Jesus recorded in Mt 4:2; Mk 1:13 and Lk 4:2 would have been in reference to the Jewish calendar, approximately half the time according to the Gregorian calendar we use today and is presently used by most Westerners.  By the way, the forty days fast and temptation of Jesus in the desert is not even mentioned in the gospel of John.  Remember the apostle John penned his gospel after having received the Revelation of Jesus Christ (Jn 1:1-4,17) on Patmos. The meditation in this website entitled “Revelation the book” expands on this.

Jesus was crucified on the Passover in its fulfilment.  Moreover, contemplate 1 Cor 1:18-2:2; 15:1-8. The meditation “Who is Jesus Christ” tries to show the importance that we understand that all prophesies about Jesus Christ were all accurately fulfilled. This is why we can’t have the facts wrong.

5.22.  The Sabbath

7676 שַׁבָּת [shabbath / shab• bawth /], From Hebrew Shabbat, “to cease, desist”, weekly day of rest and abstention from work enjoined upon Israelites.

Before rambling on about this subject, let us consider the following concise summary:

  • Are you really a Jew (Israelite)? Because, we are talking to laws given to Israelites (Ex 31:13; 35:1 et al). Judaizers should take serious note of Rev 2:9; 3:9; Gal 5:4,18; 2 Cor 3:7-17, and for that matter, Acts 10:34-35; perhaps even Gal 1:6-9; 2:6; 4:10.
  • Are you keeping the Sabbath? Are you then consistent and also fully keep the latter part of Ex 31:15 and Ex 35:2 that say you should kill those who don’t? This means that many claiming to comply with the Law (Ex 31:13-17) are in fact simultaneously breaking it if they don’t put to death those who don’t (Ex 31:15; 35:2)! Think about it carefully and read on.
  • Paul, the ex-Pharisee Saul, referred to Jews and Judaizers as them and they (Rom 9:1-8,25-26; 10:1-4).
  • The Bible is explicit in the NT about Sunday (the first day of the week) as being the first Christians’ day of worship (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor 16:2). Paul clearly states that the OT days and feasts, decrees, demands and practices are not for the [re-born] Christian (Gal 4:4-7,10-11,21-31; Col 2:14-16)! Take special note of Heb 10:9 and Heb 8:13 (expanded on in the meditation “Mixing Old and New”).
  • The Sabbath was instituted for the good of mankind as a living society; man was not made for the Sabbath as if keeping it could be service to God (Mk 2:27-28), nor was he commanded to keep it outward without interpreting it by the rule of mercy (Ex 23:12; Dt 5:14). Note carefully the “… that they may rest as well as you” in Dt 5:14 (Mt 7:12). The man was made “first” and then the Sabbath was appointed for his welfare (Gen 2:1-3).  Consider here Mt 12:10-12; Mk 2:23-28; 3:4-5; Lk 6:1-11; Lk 13:14-17; 14:3-6; Jn 7:22-23; 9:16,28 (Jn 1:1-4,14,17). As observed in the meditations “The Covenant and the Law” and “Healing”, does it seem to be a revelation to grasp that God wants us well in the first place and that it’s about prevention being better than cure and that we must apply this measure for treatment of those in our service as well, even animals in our service, according to the principle in Mt 7:12. Selah and ponder this idea of thought and conduct and its potential result carefully. Paul is clear in Gal 3:1-29 (and note with Gal 3:29 the notion in Jer 31:31-34; Heb 8:6,13; 9:12); Mk 2:27 seems to imply that certain rules are simply for our benefit in what it prevents, such as with exhaustion [burn-out, enervation], poor hygiene and its related illnesses that can be catastrophic, bad relations, and so on, not to win favor with God but to prevent getting unwell in whatever form in the first place! Remember Phil 3:9; Rom 3:27-28.
  • Note at Gen 2:3 that (1) the creation work of God was completed (Heb 4:3) while some erroneously say it may still be going on and only be completed when we have a new heaven and a new earth. (2) God’s “rest” after having created everything, imply a satisfaction and delight and not a recovering from exhaustion. (3) God proclaimed the seventh day a good and happy day to be distinct from other days. Sanctification did not come only later in Moses’ time (Ex 16:5,23-30; 20:8-11), for Gen 2:3 states that God blessed the seventh day (on day seven). (4) Men should praise this glorious work always [in generations to come] – Ps 148:1-14, noting verse 14 stipulates “For the people of Israel who are near Him”. (5) As the Sustainer and Provider God never ceases to work (Jn 5:17).
  • Refer to Jn 5:17 and the discussion under the heading “The deity of Jesus Christ” in the meditation “The trinity doctrine”, p. 17/23. The context is that the Jews wanted to know who “worked” [healed] on the Sabbath and instructed this man (that was healed by Jesus) to pick up his bed and walk (Jn 5:8-12). When the Jews found out Jesus was the one who healed this man they persecuted Jesus (Jn 5:15-16) and wanted to know by what authority Jesus could do this. Jesus replied that God (His Father) has worked [constantly] up to then (as Sustainer of the universe and Provider) and in fact has never ceased working and therefore Jesus the Son of Man, the Son of God also must be at [divine] work. This made the Jews more determined than ever to kill Jesus because He was not only violating the Sabbath but was making it clear to them that God was His Father in a special way, other than the Father of all re-born Christians (Mt 6:9; Rom 8:14) but making Himself equal to God the Father (Jn 5:18). To clarify that Jesus was not saying He was a separate God than God the Father and that He [Jesus] is one [Triune] God with God the father, Jesus practically spelled it out by saying that He and the Father is one God (as in Mk 12:29; Jn 10:30), and therefore that He, for this reason, could no nothing on His own accord without the Father doing it as well, doing only what He sees His Father do and then doing it in the same way as the triune Godhead, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
  • Note the specific language and timeframe of Dt 5:3. Do we grasp the difference between superficial externalism and what comes from inside the spirit and even the soul, so that the meaning of Mt 5:17 will be understood within the context of Mk 2:28; Rom 2:29 and Col 2:11-16; noting at Col 2:16 what Jesus taught in Mt 12:5-8?
  • The rest on that day is probably more for those who/what work for you, than yourself (Mt 7:12).
  • If it is claimed as dedication to God to piously devote one day a week “set apart for Him”, consider 1 Cor 10:31 with the NT dispensation where, what was fleeting in the OT, is now supposed to be lasting in the NT. This is expanded on in the meditations such as “The Gospel” and “Mixing of Old and New Testament” on this website.
  • Can we apply a principle from Is 28:9-13? (Mt 15:6-9; “The Covenant and the Law” expand on this)
  • Mt 12:11 and Lk 14:5 confirm that God is not merciless or impractical.  Applied to us today, it surely seems silly to expect especially critical services to globally stop on Saturdays.  Think here of hospitals, international transport by airlines (that crosses time zones), even other localised transport services and a host of other essential services. The point is that if there are exceptions, it follows that the whole measure requires an intelligent and rational understanding.

Note at Lk 4:40. The “setting of the sun” here indicates that the people had to wait until their Sabbath (Mk 2:27; Dt 5:3) was over before they could come to Jesus for healing (the Sabbath prevented their wholeness – Mt 7:21-23; 15:6-9; Mk 7:13; 12:24; Lk 6:5-11; 1 Pet 1:18)! Consider Gal 4:9-12; 5:4,18; Heb 9:8; Jn 4:23-24. Read it, don’t skip these Scriptures!  Lk 4:41 even says that demons came out of many of these faithful Sabbath-followers! In Rom 10:1-4 Paul says, “Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone that believeth”.  So, Lk 4:41 says that devils came out of many that had just observed their Sabbath, after meeting Jesus… note that their priests did not get them healed, Jesus did (Jn 14:6; 1 Tim 2:5) …

Note at Col 2:16. This is in respect of a holiday or feast such as the Passover, the feast of tabernacles and the feast of Pentecost which were three grand festivals at which all the Jewish males were obliged to appear before the Lord; but were never binding upon the gentiles; and were what the Christians under the Gospel dispensation had nothing to do with, even believing Jews were freed from them, as having their accomplishment in Christ; and therefore were not to be imposed upon them. It is the sense of the Jews themselves, that the gentiles are not obliged to keep their Sabbath, even according to Gill on Mk 2:27 that “if a Gentile Sabbatizes, or keeps a Sabbath, though on any of the days of the week, if he makes or appoints it as a Sabbath for himself, he is guilty of the same”. (Heb 8:13; 9:98).  It is the general sense of people that the Sabbath was peculiarly given to the Jews and others were not punishable for the neglect and breach of it.

Let us examine this, shall we?

The long-winded continuance

Origin: An etiological origin for the Sabbath is supplied in Gen 2:1-3, which speaks of God ceasing from the work of creation on the seventh day, blessing the day, and declaring it holy. Scholarly explanations of the Sabbath’s origins have focused on certain days in the Babylonian monthly calendar on which normal activities of the king and certain professions were restricted. These days, known as ‘evil days,’ were determined by the lunar cycle, corresponding with the quarters of the moon. While the postulating of a dependence on the Babylonian calendar is tempting, it cannot be objectively sustained. The Biblical Sabbath was ordained as a weekly institution with no relation whatsoever to the lunar cycle. Moreover, the somber nature of the Babylonian ‘evil days’ stands in stark contrast to the joyous nature of the Sabbath.

Of uncertain relation to the lunar ‘evil days’ was the day of the full moon on the fifteenth of the month, known as shapattu, a term possibly related to sabbath. This day was described as a ‘day of pacifying the heart [of the god]’ by certain ceremonies. No significant similarities between this day and the Sabbath are known, however. The closest analogy between the Biblical Sabbath and Babylonian culture is the shared literary motif of the god(s) resting after having created humans (see Enuma elish 7.8, 34). Even here, the parallel is distant: the Biblical God rests at the conclusion of his creative efforts, while the Babylonian gods are freed from the labors required to feed themselves since humans were created to relieve them of that task. The utter nonsense of religion is in stark contrast to a real relationship.

Contextual meaning of “eternal”. As with references to the hell, do “not be quenched” and “eternal fire” mean “always burn”? Not necessarily, no. Certainly not when comparing Jer 17:27b with 2 Chron 36:19-21. That fire is not burning now, but what burned is consumed with everlasting effect or result. The same can be applied to Mt 25:41; Mk 9:43,48 and Lk 3:17. The fire will not be able to be extinguished by anything or anyone, for God will use it to finally and utterly destroy evil and the wicked for all eternity [the result will be eternal, once they have been completely destroyed by unquenchable fire]. The fire will be unquenchable until the fire has burned and destroyed the wicked, then it will never burn again. Evil and its practitioners will be no more and will have no more reason to exist – ever again [still]. Now, likewise, observe the use of “forever” in Lev 16:31.

First, note the specific reference to Israel with “… a sabbath of rest unto you, and ye shall afflict your souls…forever” (emphasis mine). If you think this applies to you today, even as a non-Israelite that did not live in that time, and you think you have to obey that law to the letter, then be consistent and comply with Ex31:15 and Ex 35:2!! (It clearly instructs to kill “whoever works on a sabbath”!).  No, please see that there was an Old and there is a New – Heb 8:13! Observe the use of “they” and “them” by Paul (a Jew, ex-Pharisee) in Rom 9:4 -5, even so with Nehemiah (Neh 9:14).

Second, note the use of עלם עולם (H5769, ôlâm ‛ôlâm) for the concept “forever” which is in fact to be properly concealed, that is, the vanishing point; generally, time out of mind (past or future), that is, (practically) eternity. And this is amazingly, from עלם (H5956, ‛âlam) a primitive root; to veil from sight, that is, conceal (literally or figuratively): – X any ways, blind, dissembler, hide (self), secret (thing). Now carefully consider this with 2 Cor 3:10-18 and Gal 3:3-15; 4:4-11; 5:4,18!

With (H5769) and (H5956) above, also compare נצח נצח (H5331, netsach nêtsach), properly a goal, that is, the bright object at a distance travelled towards; hence (figuratively), splendor, or (subjectively) truthfulness, or (objectively) confidence; but usually (adverbially), continually (that is, to the most distant point of view): – always, constantly, end, (+ n-) ever (more), perpetual, strength, victory. Compare here Gen 49:10; Num 24:17; Gal 3:19 and Heb 9:8-26!  Selah (Pause, and calmly think about that)! Please read on for this great revelation.

Observance: The Sabbath was a cornerstone of Israelite religious practice from earliest times.  (Consider the first point above with reference to Israel). This can be seen from the consistent mention of the Sabbath throughout all the strata of Pentateuchal and extra-Pentateuchal sources, with the exception of wisdom literature. In the Pentateuch, Sabbath observance is legislated repeatedly in general terms (Ex 20:8-11; 23:12; 31:12-17; Lev 23:3; Dt 5:12-15), though the types of work prohibited are relatively limited; those mentioned include gathering food, ploughing and reaping, kindling a fire, and chopping wood (Ex 16:29-30; 34:21; 35:3; Num 15:32-36). The positive specifications of Sabbath observance include giving rest to one’s servants and animals (Ex 20:10; 23:12; Dt. 5:14). Remember we are dealing with worlds BC side, and we are AD side of Jesus’ cross (Heb 8:13).  Worth pondering here is the fact that according to Jesus (Jn 1:14,17), the Israelites who observe the Sabbath is not saved [by it] until they can confess what is stated in Rom 10:9-10 with Jn 3:16; 14:6-13 (observe that “My commandments” in Jn 14:15 and “His Commandments” in 1 Jn 2:4 refers to the precepts of Jesus Christ – not the ten commandments given by Moses, as expanded on in the meditation “The Covenant and the Law”). We’ll come back to this point later in examining Lk 4:40-41.

Outside the Pentateuch, evidence relating to the practical observance of the Sabbath is not overabundant, but it is more extensive than that found for most laws. During the monarchial period (ca. 1050-586 bc), the Sabbath (as well as the New Moon) was marked by visits to prophet and Temple (2 Ki 4:23; Is 1:13). Business activity came to a halt (Amos 8:5). The Sabbath was a joyous day, much like the festivals (Hos 2:13; Lam 2:6). Its desecration was severely attacked by Jeremiah, who lashed out against those who carried burdens from their houses or through the gates of Jerusalem (Jer 17:19-27). During the period of the restoration, Nehemiah enforced observance of the Sabbath by locking the city gates of Jerusalem in order to prevent traders from selling their wares (Neh 13:15-22). Contemporary papers from a Jewish colony in Elephantine, Egypt, likewise mention the Sabbath, attesting to its recognition by Diaspora (i.e., non-Palestinian) Jews in the fifth century B.C.

In addition to these features of popular observance of the Sabbath, one can also piece together a picture of Sabbath observance in the Temple. The Pentateuchal prescriptions of additional sacrifices and changing of the showbread on the Sabbath (Lev 24:8; Num 28:9-10) apparently reflect accepted practice (cf. Ez 45:17; 46:4-5; 1 Chron 9:32; 23:31; 2 Chron 2:3; 8:13; 31:3). The sacrificial service may have been accompanied by a special psalm (Ps 92:1). There is also a somewhat cryptic reference to the changing of the royal guards at the Temple on the Sabbath (2 Ki 11:4-12). Note, however, that we are dealing with an old system (Heb 8:13) that was BC and applied to Israelites! Consider the meditation “Mixing Old and New”. Note for example, that the “Temple of God” is rather our bodies (1 Cor 6:19-20), not buildings of man (Acts 7:48)!  Take special note here, of Jn 2:18-22.

Purpose: Two major rationales for Sabbath observance are presented in the Pentateuch. The concept of the Sabbath as a memorial of God’s resting from the work of creation is expressed in Gen 2:1-3 and repeated in Ex 20:11 and 31:17. The latter passage broadens the concept in defining the Sabbath as ‘a sign forever between Me and the people of Israel.’ Although God had already sanctified the seventh day at the time of creation, he did not reveal its special status to humankind at large, but only to his [then] people Israel (bear in mind here the true Israel in Amos 8:2; Mt 21:43-45; Acts 10:35; Rom 2:28-29; 3:19-28; 6:14-17; 7:4,6,9,10; 9:7-9, 25,26; 10:1-4,12,13,17-21; Gal 2:4-6,13,14,16-19; 3:7-13; 4:21,30,31; 5:4,18,25; Eph 1:22-3:6,18-21; Rev 21; 1 Cor 3:9,16; 6:15-20; and so on). Thus, Israel’s observance of the Sabbath was to underscore its special BC relationship with God. This rationale was emphasized by Priestly writers and would “forever” have its special effect [since it was done]; but would be different from Jn 19:30 onwards in the form and application for those re-born in Christ.

Along with the theological rationale, a distinctly practical approach is to be found in Ex 23:12 and Dt 5:14-15, both of which ground the observance of the Sabbath on the need to give servants, strangers, and work animals an opportunity to rest. The added reminder in Dt 5:15 of Israel’s experience in Egypt most likely intends to bolster the owner’s feeling of compassion for the weak and destitute (Dt 15:15; 16:12).

Sabbath observance took on an added significance with the prophets active shortly before and during the exilic period. Jeremiah attaches the very fate of Jerusalem to the observance of the Sabbath, thereby expressing a radical new conception (Jer 17:19-27; Neh 13:17-18). Ezekiel subscribes to the same line of thought in equating the Sabbath with all the other commandments (Ezek 20:11-24). The prophecies in Is 56:2-7 and 58:13-14 likewise seem to single out the Sabbath as the primary commandment, observance of which they thought would bring personal as well as national salvation to them (Rom 9:4; Jesus however, gave us the pointer to Dt 6:5,6 in Mt 22:34-40; 23:37-39; that reveals salvation was actually to be in only the Messiah Jesus Christ – Jn 3:3,16; 8:32,36; 14:6; Phil 3:9). The mention of the Sabbath in the Elephantine papyri and the appearance of the personal name Shabbetai, meaning ‘born on the Sabbath’ (Ezra 10:15) likewise attest to its importance in this period. But they sadly missed Christ. For a crucial insight, refer to the meditation entitled “The Gospel”, “The Covenant and the law”, “Israel racism” and “Mixing Old and New” in www.gospel-truth.co.za, if you will.

This unique prophetic idea may stem from the ever-growing need for Israel to preserve its own BC identity in the face of a hostile pagan world. To this end, Ezekiel significantly draws from the Priestly formulation in describing the Sabbath as a ‘sign’ between God and Israel (Ez 20:12), though his stress on the national consequences of Sabbath desecration represents a new application of the Priestly concept. Another explanation for the prominence of the Sabbath in the exilic literature is the fact that observance of the Sabbath was not dependent on the Temple cult. Although some of the old Sabbath practices, such as the additional sacrifices, became impossible with the destruction of the Temple, the continued observance of the Sabbath on the lay level would ensure Israel steadfastness to its faith.

What they missed here was the meaning in Ps 118:22; Is 28:11-18; and the warning in Is 51:15-17; 60:14 (Mt 5:14) with Is 65:17 and Heb 8:13;9:8,11-28; 10:19; Phil 3:9 and the remarkable Gal 5:4,18 (The meditations “The Covenant and the Law” and “Mixing Old and New” expands on this; but for now, seriously ponder even just Rom 3:20,28; 7:4,6,10; 2 Cor 3:6-18). This Jesus pointed out in Mt 21:42; Mk 12:10; Lk 20:17 and Luke in Acts 4:11-12; Paul in Eph 2:20-22 and Peter in 1 Pet 2:6-12 (2 Cor 1:20). Carefully compare Is 65:17; 66:22 with 2 Pet 3:13 and Heb 9:26! This crucial understanding and great Truth (Jn 8:32,36 with Jn 1:17) is expanded on in the meditation “Mixing Old and New” in www.gospel-truth.co.za. It is worth serious contemplation.

In addition to the weekly seventh day of rest, the term ‘Sabbath’ and its related form Shabbaton occur elsewhere in the Pentateuch referring to some of the festival days and to the seventh ‘Sabbatical’ Year, on which the land was to lie fallow (Lev 16:31; 23:24, 32-39; 25:2-6; 26:34,35,43) Each of these occasions shares the chief characteristic of the weekly Sabbath, namely, the restricting of work. It has been suggested that the Sabbath day and the Sabbatical Year express the belief that Israel’s time and land belong ultimately to God. Then of course Jesus revealed His Word in passages like Mt 21:42-45; and even just Mt 15:6-9; 19:24-26 (Jn 10:9; Acts 2:21; 4:12; 15:7-11; 16:31; Rom 5:9-10; 9:27; 10:1-4,9-10)!

In the earliest Christian community, observance of Sabbath regulations fell into disuse among Christians of Jewish descent, principally because Jesus himself had been unperturbed in his obedience to them (Mt 12:1-8 ; Mk 3:1-5; Lk 13:10-17; Jn 5:1-10) even though he continued to take part in synagogue services held on the Sabbath (Lk 4:16). Jesus’ claim to lordship over the Sabbath (Mk 2:28) was an important element in the hostility he aroused in those who felt that Sabbath traditions were incumbent on all Jews (Mk 3:6; Jn 5:18). Note Jn 1:17 and 9:28 as well. Jesus’ attitude toward the Sabbath, coupled with the tradition that his resurrection occurred on the first day of the week (Sunday; Mt 28:1), and the Roman Catholic influence that instated the Sun-day tradition, meant that Sunday rather than the Sabbath (later Saturn-day!) became the chief liturgical day for “Christians”. Nowhere in the NT except in the book of Acts do you find Jesus’ disciples going to the temple, but instead discover that they realized they were [we are] the temple in whom He dwells – His city on a hill (Mt 5:14). The cross of Jesus Christ is on that hill. Church is not a building [made by human hands] – Acts 7:48-53; Ps 127:1; Is 66:1,2; 60:14; Heb 9:1; Acts 17:24; Church is the Body of Christ, the people in Whom He dwells (Eph 1:22,23; 2:18-23; 4:12; 5:32; Col 1:24; 1Pet 2:5; 1 Cor 3:16; 6:15-20; 1 Jn 4:16). Note: “dwells”, not “visit”, or [occasionally] “work”, not an office, but His ecclesia. This is His heavenly city (Jerusalem – Gal 4:24-31; Is 60:14b; Mt 5:14), the true Israel (Amos 8:2; Mt 21:43-45; Acts 10:35; Rom 8:25,26; 9:7-9, 25,26; Eph 3:6,18-21; Rev 21; and so on). Jesus Christ is the Head of His church, His Body, His people in whom He dwells. (Col 1:18; 2:19; Eph 1:22; 4:15; 5:23; Is 60:14; Mt 5:14). It is now for the NT believer a continuance [lasting] glory, not a fleeting [passing, occasional] glory of the OT. The rest of the Lord (Heb 2) is now in His peace and the trust [faith, belief] in Him continuously. Every day is so supposed to be dedicated and consecrated to God.

A question at this point: why keep on watching a trailer of a film after you have seen the film? The Jewish feasts were for them to recognize Jesus as the Messiah, but for us as believers in the gospel of Jesus Christ, He has come! We now spend every day with Him when we are in Christ, and He is in us (Col 1:27; Gal 4:5-11). See the meditations “Church” Part one through three, by the author, if you will.  Remember, if you are adamant to stick to that Law, then comply with Ex 31:15 and Ex 35:2 as well!

Jesus appeared to His disciples over 6 weeks at least 11 times and for the next four Sundays after His resurrection – not the OT Sabbath – He appeared publicly where many saw Him preach and witnessed His ascension in fulfilment of the feast of the Pentecost [50 days after His crucifixion]. Also see Mk 16:9-20; Mt 28:11-15; Acts 4:15-20; Jn 21:14-25; and so on.

Contemplate carefully and prayerfully Acts 28:26-28. Observe that Dt 5:3, read with Gen 49:10 and Gal 3:19, clearly says that those rules were for them [only] until Jesus Christ would set us all free. These Scriptures alone should shake the religiously stubborn that refuses to hear the Jesus of Jn 8:32,36; 6:47-50,63. They just do not grasp that Mk 2:21-22 is about not mixing old and new (Heb 7:12-25; 8:1-13; 9:8-14; 10:14); then it continues from Mk 2:23 to Mk 3:1-6!… With the change in Priesthood, the Law was altered (Heb7:12-19; 8:13) and those who choose to live by the Old Covenant chooses to reject the privileges of a New Testament (Heb 8:8-10,13; 9:8,14; Gal 5:4,18; Rom 8:14)! This requires serious consideration by all of us.

Prayerfully contemplate the meditations referred to in www.gospel-truth.co.za for a fuller exegesis of Scriptures such as Jn 1:17; Rom 3:20,24-28; 4:13; 7:4,6,10; Gal 5:4,18… and be truly blessed in Jesus Christ (Phil 3:9)! Perhaps review at this point the “summary” at the beginning of this examination of the Sabbath (5.22).

The conclusion is that in all probability, in plain language, Dt 5:13-15 might just be saying that it is a serious and comprehensively good thing with far-reaching results, to take one day off in a week; especially from a week of hard or taxying labour or work; and that this applies equally to your workers and animals in your care and under your stewardship (Mt 7:12; 1 Thess 4:6-8).

5.23. Is Jn 14:6 contradicting Jn 6:44,65?

 And the answer is…  No contradiction!  2 Cor 5:18 and Eph 2:18 (to name but two Scriptures) tells us that the first statement in Heb 11:6 teaches God (Jesus Christ, Jn 1:1-3; Col 1:15-17) had made us with the ability [the mechanism] to believe.  This ability is called faith and is given to all in equal measure (Rom 12:3).  Faith is God’s gift to us. We, however, now uses our God-given ability to “believe” [choice exercised] as our gift back to Him to activate legally our authority He has given [allowed, prepared, desires for] us.  Refer to Jn 12:32, remembering Father, Son and Holy Spirit is One [God].   Jn 1:1-3, 6:63 was Gen 1:2b; Ex 3:14-15; Jn 12:14:9…  Now think about Jesus’ statement in Jn 11:15…  do you believe Jesus (Jn 11:26)?

Consider again Jn 3:14-15 with even just 1 Cor 1:18-2:2; then Jn 6:40,45 with Gal 3:10-14; 5:4,18; Rom 3:20,28; 7:4,6,10; and so on (the meditation “The Covenant and The Law” expand on this).  The place Jesus prepared for us is the same as the “many places” in God’s household (Jn 14:2; 1 Tim 3:15)!  Indeed, there are many “dwellings” in God’s household – Jn 14:23-26; Rev 21:3; Is 60:14; Mt 5:14; 1 Pet 2:4-10!…  Observe that the place prepared by Jesus Christ at Golgotha is the Kingdom of God in and around us (Lk 17:20-21), that is our hearts; hence ultimately the heart [dwelling place] we believe with – Rom 10:9-10.

Observe the glory of God in Jn 5:37-47 (note Jn 5:39,44); also mentioned in the apparent controversy discussed in # 5.2.  Contemplate that place besides God (Ex 33:21), on the rock.  A rock that was struck instead of spoken to (Num 20:8-12; Dt 32:4-41).  Ponder again Gen 49:24; Ex 17:6 with Ps 18:2; 19:14; 31:3; 61:2; 62:2,6; 71:3; 73:26; 89:26; 92:15; 94:22; 144:1; and Is 26:4; Mt 7:24 with 1 Cor 10:4-17…

5.24. If all sins are forgiven by Jesus’ Blood, what was He saying in Mt 12:31,32?

 Observe that (a) verse 30 leads to verse 31-32; and (b) Rom 8:26,27 makes it clear that it is utterly self-destructing to resist/reject the Holy Spirit of God (1 Cor 14:39; Jude 20; Jn 14:23-26).

Heb 10:26-29 is another aspect and the easier, more recognizable answer – ignore God’s grace by choice and die under self-righteousness that makes you so easily swallow the law.  (See Phil 3:9).  The hypocrites were calling what is of God, evil [from Satan] – this is self-destructing blasphemy.  Even dispensationalists today, do the same by claiming some will be saved without Holy Spirit and by their own blood (in a false, eschatolocal doctrine of a “rapture”)!  The context was the fig tree frustrating the lord with their hypocrisy.  The fig tree resembles the Pharisees, Sadducees, Scribes, and hypocrites (not Israel, the vineyard) who killed all God’s prophets and placed themselves in their [God’s] stead with their own [added] law (Mt 23:2), hence the 400-year silence and degradation [“desolation” that became an “abomination”] between Malachi and John the Baptist.  Their high priest went in behind a veil with no arc there (Jer 3:13-17; Mt 27:50-54).  See Mt 21:33-45; 21:18-19; and realize that Mt 24:32-33 was when they (the fig tree) had their wish and Jesus was crucified!  That was the end of that world [the law] Jesus was not the King of – Heb 7:14-19; 8:13; 9:8-14,26; Gal 4:4-5; Col 1:20; 1 Cor 1:23; 2:2; Jn 17:16; Eph 4:12-15; 2:19-20! … Mt 12:7!  The increase of Jesus’ kingdom is forever and shall not end (Is 9:6; Dan 2:44; 6:26,27; 8:17; Lk 1:32-33; 12:32; 17:20-21; Jn 3:3; et cetera!)  Allelujah!

5.25. Is there a contradiction between Mt 10:34 and Lk 9:56?

No.  Jesus brought [provided for, paid for with His Blood] peace between God and man, not between men that operate as free moral agents with their own beliefs and choices.  The sword in Mt 10:34 can be likened to Eph 6:17; Heb 4:12 and Rev 1:16. In Lk 2:14 we read, “Glory to God, in the highest, and on earth peace amongst men with whom He is well pleased”.  It is therefore reasonable to assume that Jesus came thus to bring peace between God and man (Jn 3:16-21; 1 Thess 5:9; Is 9:6; Dan 2:44; Lk 2:11; Jn 1:45) and also that there should be peace between those who follow Jesus Christ (Jn 15:12,17; Eph 4:4-5; 1 Jn 3:17-23; 4:7-8).  However, not all will follow Jesus Christ (1 Jn 2:4-6).  Jesus warned us in Jn 15:18-21; Mk 4:15-19 and indeed Mt 10:34-36 that we’ll be tested for our courage and conviction first and foremost by those close to us that do not [yet] genuinely follow Christ.  Hence Mt 10:37-38 and Lk 14:26-27 does not say that we must hate our parents!  It is saying that if they force us to choose between them and Jesus Christ, there is – and should be – no contest or difficulty!  Contemplate also Acts 13:37-41; 28:27-29.

Incidentally, about the authority Jesus Christ gave us [back] on earth, have you noticed the “and on earth” in Mt 28:18 (compare with Gen 1:28; Ps 115:16)?  And now we – Rom 8:17; Heb 2:8 – rather follow teachings of men and think we are powerless because we render to the [uncertain] future what Jesus Christ already provided for us here on earth!??)  Who is the adversary of Jesus Christ in Heb 10:13; 1 Cor 15:25?  Note the plural “enemies”.  It is not the devil (Col 2:15-20; 1:13-20)!! Carefully consider Eph 1:17-23; 2:18-22 [Eph 4:4-5???].  Read “Church Part 1” by this author for more on this religious adversary that misses the mark (Jn 1:17; 6:32,48-50,63; 5:37-47; 8:51,52; 11:25-26; 12:47-50; Acts 13:39 (Mt 19:26; Mk 9:23; Lk 1:37).  So, is “church” missing even Eph 3:9; Is 25:8; Lk 24:44? We don’t even grasp Jn 3:16, let alone Mk 12:26-27; Jn 11:25-26; or 1 Tim 1:10-12.  So here we are, more than 2 000 A.D. still as dull as dirt.  Shame on us!

This is expanded on in the meditation called “The Testimony” by this author.

5.26. What was Jesus saying in Mt 6:13? (Jm 1:13-14 and 1 Cor 10:13)

The Greek lexicon tells us that the word “into” in Mt 6:13 is εἰς (eis, G1519). A primary preposition  indicating the point reached or entered, of place, time, or (figuratively) purpose (result); also in adverbial phrases.: – [abundant-] ly, against, among, as, at, [back-] ward, before, by, concerning, + continual, + far more exceeding, for [intent, purpose], fore, + forth, in (among, at unto, -so much that, -to), to the intent that, + of one mind, + never, of, (up-) on, + perish, + set at one again, (so) that, therefore (-unto), throughout, till, to (be, the end, -ward), (here-) until (-to), . . . ward, [where-] fore, with.

Hear Paul in Gal 1:6-9 and then ponder Jesus’ words in Mt 7:21-23 that, when considering Mt 6:13, expounds how the will of God functions with even just Mt 5:45; Mt 7:11 (Mt 7:9-12) and the parable of the lost son (Lk 15:11-32). Observe that the son exercised his own free will, as did the hearers of His word (Jn 17:20!) in the parables on how the Kingdom of God works (The Sower in Mt 13:3-8, explained in Mt 13:18-23, with a warning in Mt 13:14-17). The father can only receive blame that his [Jew] boy ended up in a position where he ate with swines if his son does not want to accept responsibility for his own decisions [choices] and actions. God, in Is 45:7 did not say He causes bad and use it for good, He said that if we want to blame someone other than ourselves, that He will take responsibility that yes, He gave us that gift of a free will (with what we mess up through unwise choices and even rebellion). And then to the extent of Jn 3:16! Firemen are not arsonists because they are found at the scene. That would be a huge error in reasoning and a tragic [stupid] deduction. So, why apply that crooked reasoning to a perfect heavenly Father that is Love? To say that tragedy and affliction is God’s megaphone is a very dangerous ground to tread for yes, God is omnipresent and always available (Lk 15:20,22-24; Mt 11: 27-30) but not neglecting or manipulative! He is Love and expects us to know Him more accurately (Heb 11:6) … Jm 1:13 alone can help to understand more accurately that all the bad happens in God’s permissive will. This is expanded on in the meditation “The will of man, the will of God”. Deliberate it?

Refer to paragraphs 5.33 and 5.47 below for an exploration of Is 45:7.

The point is that Jm 1:13-14 and 1 Cor 10:13 reveals more to us about the true nature of God as 1 Cor 11:19; Hos 4:6; Is 5:18 and even Job 5:18 bears out as well. We are in fact dealing here with the permissive will of God (refer to the meditation “The will of man and the will of God”). Mt 6:13 might appear to confirm the apparent instigation by God as easily read into Dt 13:3 and 2 Thess 2:11 but that is not so. God allows it so that false prophets [imposters and liars] might be exposed and in the process, as time goes on, must we take heed not to fall in the trap to be impressed by their signs and wonders (Mt 7:15-23; 15:6-9), which is exactly why we need to be well acquainted with truths and precepts of God and His Word, The Bible. Otherwise, we will readily misidentify evil under the appearance of good and error in the guise of truth. Often the foretelling “prophets” simply had some knowledge of natural science (such as an eclipse) or simply got it wrong but before time would tell, Christians today should be able to discern truth from lies and that can only happen with accurate knowledge of God and His Word and His Spirit inside of us (Jn 4:23,24; 14:26; Rom 8:14).

Just as examined in the principle from the example in Gen 3:9 discussed in 5.27 and 5.33 below; is it about God’s Word (The Bible, 2 Tim 3:16), admonishing us to do some introspection to check for self-righteousness!  It reveals our point of departure in the reasoning of our inner man. If we attempt to make sense of the question [statement] from a self-righteous stance where we suspect [accuse] God’s character, we read “Do not lead us into…” as if we are instructing God to not take [force] us into trouble or great [even insurmountable] difficulty! This is obviously a huge error in reasoning and quite possibly blasphemy. But, if we read “Do not lead us in…” in the sense that Jesus pointed out that we should not end up [by our own choices and doing] in a bad place where we would need His guidance to get out from an undesirable place; then we would more humbly ask God to “… protect us from the evil one…” so that we remain in His presence as the best way to live (Jn 14:23-27; Rom 8:14…)  In other words, will we discover the immense difference between “out of” and “into” in that we should take heed to get into places where we would need God’s guidance to get back as opposed to not going there in the first instance because we were in His presence all along. Refer to Mt 26:41 and observe Jesus’ counsel that we must not enter into temptation! God will not remove our ability to choose, hence even Phil 4:13. I hope this makes sense?

From the meditation “The Gospel” the following analogy: Suppose that you slightly damage your car by bumping a rubber trash can in your driveway and while submitting your claim with the insurer, learns of someone else who totaled their car and narrowly escaped death. Suddenly an irrational jealousy gets hold of you and you wish that you too could claim such a big sum of money. We have to agree that this would be ludicrous and unwise yet is exactly what corrupt reasoning is displayed if we hope to also receive “more grace” as those who were “more lost” when they got saved – by the same price paid by the same Jesus on the same cross!  Now, apply this knowledge to get a better understanding of Mt 6:13(Jm 1:13-18).

The point is Jm 1:13-14 and 1 Cor 10:13. But perhaps a clue where to start is:  Jm 4:7,8 and 1 Pet 5:8-11; Eph 1:2-23; 4:18-31; Is 54:14: Col 1:11-19; 2:9-10; with Lk 8:28 (Jn 17:15-26)! The context is the issue of forgiveness (Mt 6:12,14-15; 18:35).  Jesus admonished the religious play-actors (us?) in Mt 5:27-29 to not think they are morally superior (Rom 3:20,23; Jer 17:9-10) because neither they were to God’s standard. In other words, we should take care [admit that we need God’s guidance, 1 Pet 5:6] to not end up in a place where we would have to face the same temptation than the persons, we are so looking down upon for falling.  Incidentally, one can only be tempted by something you do not hate [loathe, detest] – Rom 12:9. This is discussed a little more at the end of the meditation “Counseling and deliverance ministries”.

The daily Bread is Christ [Jn 1:4; 5:37-47; 11:25-26] inside of us permanently (Jn 4:24; 6:27-63). If this Bread be in us continuously [“daily”], we will not have to be lead “in temptation” [out from it, not into it].  It is not God that will lead us astray; we must not wonder off when [spiritually thoughtlessly] on our own (Phil 3:9) and so it is prudent to ask Father for protection from the evil one (Jm 1:5, 6-8…4:7!)!

All right, try Mk 4:15; and Heb 12:1-3.  Now note the very next verse (Mt 6:14) starts with “For if you…” and the following verse starts with “But if you…”.  Note Jesus compared the empty rituals, ceremony, and traditions (external religion) of the hypocrites (the “play-actors”, vs. 5-8), saying when you pray [that is sincere, with a genuine relationship with your Father], you ask one thing once only (Mk 11:24; 1 Jn 5:10-14; Jn 14:10-15), then guard that request with thanks (Col 4:2; Heb 11:1).  Your prayer-life must be unending, not one and the same individual request [in unbelief as if you nag God in distrust until you get Him to give you anything, just to get you quiet, as if He will not be able to handle your incessant and repetitive nagging anymore, and you control God this way to even get Him out of His will for you!]. So, just for the parrot-like reciting of this as “the Lord’s prayer”, the shallow professing followers of Christ will have to – at some stage – think what they are saying (with Mt 6:13).  The “Lord’s prayer” is anyway rather Jn 17 [before He was crucified], and Mt 6:9-13 rather “a model prayer” showing elements in prayer, and the importance of forgiving (Mt 6:14; Jn 20:23; 2 Cor 2:10), not exact wording to memorize and mindlessly recite!  In other words, know the doctrine on righteousness (Jn 16:7-12; Heb 5:11-14; 10:1-14; Rev 1:5; 5:9,10; Phil 3:9)!  More about this righteousness in the next question (no. 23).  Consider the meditation “Prayer” by the same author.

So, the “For” in v. 14 implies that your attitude of gratitude and understanding for His grace and mercy for you, will cause you to not have grudges or bitterness [offense] against anyone in your heart (Acts 13:51-52; Lk 10:5-6), and this is closer to His nature (1 Cor 2:16; Ps 30:5; 103:8; 8), making you an open vessel for His purposes (Rom 9:23-33).

Then, the “But” in v. 15 points to Jn 20:23; 2 Cor 2:10; Mt 18:32-35.  Note here what Jesus said in Lk 23:34.  Had the Son of Man not forgiven us there [before all our sin was laid on Him on the cross], we could not have seen Him risen with us in Him (Eph 2:6)!

Jesus Christ is the only Savior, we do not save people by forgiving their rejection of Jesus Christ; we simply do not hold any grudge or bitterness (unforgiveness) against anyone.  Jesus is our Advocate and Intercessor, not an accuser (Jn 5:45). “Devil” means “slanderer”, “accuser” – that we should never do.

You might ask if Paul in 2 Cor 12:8 is contradicting Jesus in Mt 6:7-8?  Seeing that Paul wrote Col 4:2 (discussed above), the answer could be that Paul’s letter to the Corinthians rather shows Paul’s immense frustration with the religious Jews that apparently at least three times tried to corrupt the people [again] whom he has just taught about God’s grace as opposed to Law (self-righteousness; Jn 1:17; 9:28; Phil 3:9- expanded on in the meditation “The Covenant and The Law”); so Paul mentions this specifically.  Hence Paul’s statements such as those in Rom 9 and Gal 1:6-9; but specifically, at least those in Rom 10:16-21; 11:6; 1 Cor 1:22-23:17; 2 Cor 3:10-18; 6:14-18; 7:2; Phil 2:15; 1 Tim 6:5.

5.27.  Is Jn 3:17 contradicting Jn 12:31?

Of course, the answer is no!

To understand this accurately, we’ll first look at Mt 6:25-33 with Lk 17:20-21(Lk 12:32); and Rom 14:17).  This question about fretting about what to eat and drink and wear (Gen 3:10 with Rom 13:11-14), might seem trivial, but is intensely profound!  But we first need to prepare some ground here, so please exercise a little patience (stay hungry and thirsty).  The meditation “Unclean Food” by the author may prove interesting.

Adam actually implemented [the] law!!  The fruit (words) Satan offered had (has) the promise of life in it (you can expect to live by fruit).  But the fruit the devil offered (offers as thoughts), was (is) a lie: you cannot live from applying knowledge between good and bad (2 Cor 3:6-7; Gal 3:10; Rom 8:2b).  This is called “law”.  If there is no law, you cannot be judged or condemned (Rom 8:31-34) – think about it.  So, Adam and Eve were supposed to have kept God as their [Source of] wisdom, council, intelligence… they had to say what His Word says (Jn 1:1-3,14, 5:19); instead, they implemented [trusted] on a new way – to live by their own acquired knowledge of what is right and wrong.  In other words, they implemented [the] “law”!  Yes, this might disrupt your theology, but selah and test it with God’s word, not doctrines of man!

They unclothed themselves [by choice, distrust] of God’s Righteousness and substituted their own (Phil 3:9; Rom 13:14)

About 2 750 years after the account in Genesis 1 God, through the instrumentality of angels (Heb 2:2; Gal 3:19; Acts 7:38,53!), gave via Moses the rules [letter] of this law – for them until Jesus would come [only]!  This was to prove to them that – until Jesus came another 1250 years later – they could never comply (live by it), for law can only condemns.  Here a magnificent revelation enlightens us: (a) Jesus, the only One Who could ever comply with the law, did so and succeeded by not following the Law!!  He demonstrated as the Son of Man (as a man) that we can only do right by being led by God (Rom 8:14)!  Any system of trying to do right [knowing right from wrong and then attempting to live by applying that knowledge], is nothing else than self-righteousness [that implies God is superfluous, unnecessary].  This is a self-conscious soul, not God-consciousness (Spirit, Jn 4:23-24; 1 Cor 15:45-49).  (b) nothing happened yet when Eve ate this fruit (promise) – only when Adam partook of it, did they realize they were not clothed with the Christ [Spirit, Sonship] of God [yet, Rom 8:19; Heb 11:40].  This is so because Adam represents man, not Eve (1 Cor 15:45; Rom 5:12).  The point is, we as the bride might today eat of this fruit, but will not affect our children that are re-born, because our Bridegroom Jesus Christ does not [and never has] partaken of that tree (Jn 8:42-47), only studied it!  We, and they, will be born from above (Jn 3:6-7).  The Tree of Life redeemed us and set us free (1 Pet 1:18; Col 1:13). Praise the Lord!!!

Now then, this kingdom implies rulership [dominion].  Note that Jesus in His conversation with Nicodemus, essentially explained what He did in Lk 17:20-21.  His kingdom is His righteousness, and it is within you when in Christ!  The Pharisees Jesus was addressing in Lk 17:21 did not have Christ in them but Jesus, the righteousness of God, was in their midst, available (Mk 10:15; Jn 3:3). Reject thoughts that will make you worry about what you will [have to] eat or drink or wear (Is 54:14-17; 2 Cor 10:5) or do!  Nicodemus, in John 3, knew the right words but still did not understand [see the internal, eternal Truth, that he was supposed to be a ruler [each over his own wicked thoughts – not manipulating or controlling other man] on this earth – Gen 1:26-28].  See Ps 118:19-23; and 1 Pet 1:18, 23.  You have been bought by the Blood of Jesus Christ and is not in the slave market anymore.  You are through the gate and transferred into the kingdom of Light.  Isaiah 53 with 2 Cor 5:21:  Jesus was made sin (it was no gradual process over time), and in that exchange on His cross we who accept His offer were made righteous (also not a “growing into” or “becoming”) the instant we were born again from above (Jn 1:12; 2 Cor 5:17)!  God’s grace is His ability, willingness and mercy to abode Himself inside us, to recreate a sinner so that HE can shine through us.  We were made to glorify Him, worship Him, and rule for Him (Rev 1:5; 5:9-10).  So, you [with Christ in you, Heb 9:9-14; 10:1-2,9-14] are the righteousness of God!!!  Be abundantly blessed in His glory, His power, His righteousness – you!  Choose to live Him!

So, next time you ask Father something (pray), expect a result because you did not enter a throne of judgment, but a throne of grace.  Furthermore, you are not unworthy, but righteous before God your Father if you believe [take Him seriously, not call Him a liar], that He made you righteous!  See Rom 4:3-8; 8:1-3,10,11; 10:4-8; Ps 18:6,19-24; 1 Jn 3; 4:17; Jm 5:16b – if you believe [is clothed with] Christ.  Therefore, the more effective “prayer” is to prophecy, say what He has said [is saying] and believe it!!!

5.28.  Does Paul (Rom 10:4) contradict Jesus (Mt 5:17)? (Remember 2 Tim 3:16,17)!

The revelation about The Law to be discovered is that it is in fact merely a type of mentor that hopes to get us to become more spiritually mature. The scriptures such as Rom 3:20,28; 4:14-25; 5:1-2,8-11; 7:4,6,10; 10:1-4; Gal 2:16; 5:4,18; and Heb 7:12,18,19,22-25; especially the explicit Heb 8:13 and Heb 9:8 should get our attention. Note that Rom 3:28 does not say the Law has little to do with justification of man, it states that observance of The Law has nothing to do with justification of man! Just so does Gal 3:1-4 require a hard, sober and honest examination of our camouflaged self-righteousness. Ponder Gal 3 in its entirety very carefully and prayerfully. Note that Gal 3:22-26 clearly states in verses 24 and 25 that the Law was just a “schoolmaster” (G3807, παιδαγωγός, from G3816 and a reduplication form of G71; a boy leader, that is, a servant whose office it was to take the children to school; by implication [figuratively] a tutor [pedagogue]: – instructor). Once you understand the purpose of the rules, you are free from a green [yet undeveloped] relationship (religion with its externalism – Mt 7:15-23; 15:6-9). Read Heb 7:19. God that is Love is more creative than we seem to grasp. Jesus was not stooped in religion and hampered by it in set rules! Hear Him in just Mt 7:21-23 or Mt 23, especially Mt 23:15. Heb 7:19 states that there is a better hope for us to come close to God [than The Law] (Heb 7:19; 9:11; even Heb 8:13). It is also explained in Heb 7:21 through Heb 10:39. In essence, to reach Rom 8:14,17 we must get to the place where we stop trying to earn merit with God by our own efforts and start trusting Him – in faith – to really follow Him (Jn 4:23-24) and accept [believe] in His finished work. Like a small child that requires strict rules, or a junior golf player still walking the course with a rule book; but once past that, a better dispensation is reached. If this understanding is too challenging for a very religious and pious mind, please Selah and perhaps read the meditation “The Covenant and The Law” in its entirety to its end as well?

For now, let’s consider the following:

  • There was an Old and now there is a New. The Old was a covenant, The New is a Testament. Carefully consider Heb 8:13; 9:8,16-18,26.  Num 16:30 is not contradicted by Eccl 1:9-10! Understand the Gospel of Jesus Christ and begin by grasping Mk 1:17 (Mt 10:8; Jn 8:41-52); Mt 13:35; 25:34; 2 Cor 3:18 (the old glory/power was fleeting or passing; the new is supposed to be lasting!); Eph 1:4; 2 Tim 2:19; Heb 11:10; 1 Pet 1:20-23; Rev 13:8; 17:8 (22:18-19!) …   Do you understand Lk 9:62, or Jesus’ teaching/explaining in Mt 9:14-17?  See 2 Cor 5:17; 1 Pet 1:18!…

 

  • How does Jesus fulfill the law? By ending it altogether as a means to obtain righteousness before God, because He is our righteousness since He paid with His blood on His cross!!  Now, we as NT believers, follow Christ in us, not Moses and our knowledge between right and wrong, blessing and calamity (Jn 14:26; Rom 8:14) …  Mt 5:17 leads to v18b which Jesus proclaimed in Jn 19:30 [about 2000 years ago]!  Consider Jn 5:37-47; 2 Cor 3; Gal 2:4,14-21; 3:1-29; 4:1-31; 5; Col 2:14; Heb 7; 8:13; 10:9-14…  Jesus Christ is all we need and holds everything together, He is the Author and Finisher of our faith, not us with our attempts at righteousness (Phil 3:9).

Believe Jesus the Christ of God (Jn 16:33), did you see 1 Jn 4:17 says “…we in this world”?  There is a “this world” Jesus is not the King of – the Jewish law-world…  get it (Ps 24:1)?  Don’t be blinded by the god of this world [law, self-righteousness] – 2 Cor 4:4 follows 2 Cor 3; Jm 4:4-7.  Who is this devil?  Read on (v 8-10).  Read and carefully contemplate Jn 8.  Directly after Jesus announced He is not an accuser [but a Savior, from law[4]], He talked to who (in v 22,31,59)? And what did Jesus say (v 34-49)?  The law makes you haughty before God (1 Pet 5:5) and makes you miserable in guilt when [not if] you fail (Rom 3:23, but read on, v 24-28!).

Guilt is only an attempt, a [self-centered] emotion, to thinking you “earn” your own way back to God by punishing [crucifying?] yourself until you decide in your wisdom when you had had enough!  This has nothing to do with Jesus Christ!  Why not believe what Jesus taught[5] in Scriptures such as 1 Jn 3:20-24; 4:17; 5:4,5,10-14; Rom 1:17; Heb 10:10-14?  Did you notice the words “self-accusation” (1 Jn 3:20), and “with us”, and “are we in this world” (1 Jn 4:17); and again “this world” (1 Jn 5:4,5)?  Think about it honestly and then read on…

  • Is the 10 commandments (law) God’s purpose for man? What is God’s agenda? Did God give the law as His original plan? No! He used angels (Heb 1:7,14), see Heb 2:2; Acts 7:38,53; Gal 3:19 (note the law, the 10 commandments) was added later on – and only for a specific time for a specific people.  Acts 9 – Paul (ex-Doctor of Law, Saul of Tarsus) get God’s agenda directly from Jesus Himself. Acts 9:30 with Jn 15:18; 12:25; Lk 14:21; Mk 8:38!! The promise came 430 years before the law (Rom 3-9).  The promise was made to Abraham and his Seed (Gal 3:16), not Moses or Jews!  Consider Rom 4:13; Gal 2:21. The church inherits the promise made to Abraham (Gen 12:3; 22:17), not the Jews [as a nation].  This is exactly opposite to the “Israel-teaching”.
  • What did God say? Mt 17:6 (Moses represents the law, and Elijah the prophets, and Who must we listen to?); Jn 14:1; Rom 10:1-5 holds so true. See the reasoning in v 6,7 (1 Cor 1:19-25; Jn 14:22,23; Jn 1:11,17; Mt 11:25-30) – after they still, stubbornly, chose stones (law) over Bread (Jn 6:30-36,40-43; Heb 4:2). Be careful here to really open your heart to Holy Spirit and Christ inside, for it is about improving our spiritual knowledge (Rom 10:1-4 and Mt 21:42 with Mk 4:25; Lk 8:18; 19:26; Mt 11:25; 13:12; 25:29; Jn 15:2; even Rev 21:8)
  • They wanted a city, a king, a law… Throughout history [His-story] God allowed it to reveal which tree they are eating from.  God is Love, and Love does not manipulate (understand Mt 23?).  As God allowed them to choose a king, He allowed them their rules – until HE stepped in to save us all from that self-destructive system of thinking we/they) can save ourselves.  The Jews, as a nation, rejected Jesus and still does today.  Read Jn 14:6 and Heb 13:8 (1 Jn 4:1-4).
  • End of the world Heb 9:26; Gal 4:4,5; Col 1:20.  God is a good and perfect Father and had to end this system of only getting what we deserve (Jm 1:17).  We now can get what Jesus deserved by only believing HIS nearly-too-good-to-be-true-news (gospel) – Heb 11:6. He saved us from ourselves and our stupid ideas.  He is indeed the Truth that sets us free – indeed – from our self.
  • Why did God come as Jesus and died on a cross? 1 Jn 3:8; Gen 3:14; Acts 26:15-18; Heb 9:28; Heb 2; Eph 1:9-12, 19-23; 2:6-22; 1 Pet 2:1-10; Col 2:9-23; Jn 10:10; 19:30; and so on…

The revelation is then that any set of rules basically is knowledge between good and bad, blessing and calamity.  This knowledge essentially then, is an attempt to save yourself and obtain your own righteousness by merely following these rules [your own knowledge and wisdom].  This is called self-righteousness, which opposes God-consciousness (Phil 3:9).  This is what all worldly religions have – laws, rules, rituals and ceremonies to win favor with their gods.  Only one faith says we all need a Savior, and He already came [saved] once for all for whoever believes HIM.

The meditation entitled “The Covenant and the Law” by this author might also help you with this issue.

The first is Adam, earthy, soul, self-centered, flesh; and the last is heavenly, Spirit, Light and the glory of God and Life (1 Cor 15:45-49) – by His grace and mercy alone.  The first is like the sand of the sea [dust from the lowest thing on earth – the sea, the legalistic, carnal-minded, self-righteous people that is eaten by Satan of old[6]], the second is like stars in the heaven [light from the highest place there is].  See Gal 4:21-31 again.  Which group do you choose to belong to?

Are you trying to make all Christians Jews again, or to make all people – including Jews – Christians?  God [Jesus] commissioned us to make all people HIS followers [Christians].

Test Jews to 1 Jn 4:1-4.  There is no special dispensation for them, not any time AD.  Even Acts 7:51; Mt 21:33-44.  Also, Rom 3:9; Jn 3:7; Acts 10:34-36; Jer 7:16,26-28; Jn 14:6.  Yes brother and sister in Christ, the Jews are lost until they confess Jesus Christ as Lord just like any unbeliever.  But, alas, you cannot make disciples for Jesus, if you are not a disciple of Jesus yourself [but one of Moses, Jn 9:28; Gal 2:4; Rom 8:1-3].  If the religious Jewish leaders knew the two were opposing groups, how enlightened are you to think today – over 2000 years after them, in the year of our Lord – that you are HIS Light to the world (Is 28:14; Mt 5:14) whilst reverting to Judaism or to have an unhealthy fear for those rejecting Jesus Christ as Lord [the unsaved]?

“Repent” means to change your mind [way of thinking law, self-righteousness].  The kingdom of God – on earth – was heralded by saying, “repent, for the kingdom of God (not man) is near” (Lk 12:32; 17:20,21)!  Yes, this was the place that Jesus prepared (Jn 14:1,2, 23-25)!  Right there inside of you while in your body (individually His temple, collectively His city) right here on earth!  Grow up and be His glory here on earth and start to rule as a royal [Kingly] priesthood (Rev 5:9,10,13 – remember Rev 16:17 was written by the same author as Jn 19:30)!  Amen?

See the kingdom of God – on earth (Mt 12:25; Jn 3:3; Lk 17:20,21).  God is a God of the living!  Live to God, don’t pretend to die for HimHe died so we [you] can Live [abundantly!]!  This is a package-deal (1 Pet 1:18; 2:24).  It is accomplished, finished and paid for by the Blood of the Lamb of God.  Be matured enough (Jn 14:13-15) to not be gullible to lies of a powerless and defeated church fearing great tribulation and a “rapture” to come.  Don’t let thieves steal your sonship!  Don’t postpone out of unbelief and deny what Jesus Christ paid for you to enjoy right now right here! Don’t sit waiting for a salvation [package, sozo] that came 2000 years ago!

5.29. Is Jesus’ Words in Mk 11:24 contradictory to Jer 17:9-10?

The KJV (in red) says Jesus said “… whatever you desire [in prayer]…will be given you…”!  Read with Rom 8:28-39; 13:14; Phil4:13; Jn 17:15-26, Ps 103:2; 1 Cor 2:910, there is no problem.

Read around Mt 5:45, and it is obvious that the basic truth also is that Gen 1:26-28 is [also] true! You can do what you choose and there will be a corresponding result!  But then, Jesus Christ changes the desires of your heart; for He sends His Holy Spirit to indwell you – if you invite Him and cling to Him and so let Him indwell you (Mk 1:8; Jn 3:3; 14:23-26; Acts 19:2-6; 2 Cor 5:17).  Talk to Him, and when that desire strengthens, it is Him you are hearing – do it.  If that desire diminishes in God’s presence, it obviously was flesh speaking.

This is how you either fulfill your [God-given, approved] destiny or shuffle in uncertainty.  When you are in the presence of your Creator-Father, with Christ inside of you, following your heart, you will be beyond enthusiastic – you will demonstrate [live] ultimate passion and supernatural drive (Eph 3:16-21) with real results as a sign following (Mk 11:24; 16:16-20; Lk 1:37; 18:27).

So, when you are truly reborn, follow your heart [inner man, Christ] not man (Jn 14:23-26)!

5.30. What is Jesus saying in Lk 16?  Does it not contradict His Righteousness?

No, Jesus can never contradict His Righteousness.  This is a prime example of the necessity to talk with/to Jesus Christ personally rather than talking after [even big] scholars in parrot-like fashion!

In short, and in context, was Jesus asking how it is that the wicked can use a wicked system to their advantage while we [His followers] are unable to use His Kingdom principles to our advantage?  We claim to be all wise and informed but still misunderstand grace and self-righteousness.  We scoff at, and reject everlasting Life and instead cling stubbornly to after life!

Jesus was not commending [approving] dishonesty [wickedness, self-righteousness]; Jesus was asking about the unnecessary and amazing stupidity of the “sons of Light” (Jn 1:4,11-13; 3:18-21).  Study the meditation “The Testimony” by the author, if you will [if you dare].

Lk 16:10-13 reiterates this principle. Of course the play-acting religious did not get it and failed to see past the natural, to see past what they thought is their provider – dead money [and material things that they insist belongs to them, forgetting Ps 24:1].  Verse 18 again enforces verse 13 and can certainly be read with Rom 7:4!  It is about a Bridegroom [Christ] and His Bride [His Church, Body, in whom He dwells].  The meditations on “Church” might shed more light on this subject.

We hear further from Jesus in vs. 19-31 about the subject of fleeting glory [after life].  About a rich [“self-made” millionaire who habitually clothed himself in splendor and probably also reason of man, v 19; Rom 8:6-8,13]  but whose name is not mentioned (Mt 7:18-24);  while the one looked down upon by blind followers was listed in the Book of Life of the Lamb of God, even we know his name.  He had the same name as the one that was risen from dead by Jesus Christ (Jn 11; 12:9-11 – Jesus’ Words of Life like in Jn 3:15,16; 5:37-47; 8:51; 10: 10; 11:26;12:48-50)…  We will not go into the other aspects in Lk 16:19-31 here[7] – that is discussed elsewhere.  Amen?

5.31.  Is Jesus, in Mt 18:6, suggesting suicide?

Not necessarily.  Contemplate Jn 10:10 and Mk 3:4.  Then Mk 4:16-17; Mt 13:41; 15:6-15 (Gal 2:19-21; Col 2:20; 3:1-8!); 19:25; 23:13-15.  It is very possible that Jesus, in Mt 18:6, was telling the self-righteous-minded that they would give a more accurate teaching [demonstration] of the result for attempts at self-righteousness [by following a Law, or a set of rules, religious ceremonies/rituals/traditions as a means to be saved or remain saved –like a millstone around your neck and see if you could keep your head above water [stay alive, remain saved].  (Compare here Rom 12:2 that point to superficial, external customs and any falsity; also Rom 10:1-3). Works will not save you, nor keep you saved.  Only following Jesus Christ will.  See 1 Jn 2:4 and Rom 12:9.  Now hear Jesus in Jn 11:26; Mt 19:26.  Consider the meditation by this author called “The Testimony” with your Bible that explains itself.  If Jesus is real [a Person] to you, you should also demonstrate what He said in Jn 14:26 (Rom 8:14)…

If, however, religious hypocrites mislead (especially young ones), it would be better for them to remove themselves from their false teaching position (Jm 3:1-18), for a similar reason some were apparently removed from the congregation (1 Cor 5:2; 1 Tim 2:19-20.  Also refer to Jn 8:43-45; Acts 13:10; 1 Jn 3:8-1-; 1 Tim 4:7; 2 Tim 3:5; 4:2-4).

5.32. Is Paul in 2 Tim 1:7, contradicting Jesus in Mt 5:39?

Well, no.  First, there is Rom 12:14-19. Then consider that God is [a] Spirit (Jn 4:24), so He cannot be a coward (1 Jn 4:4; Jn 14:6,23-27)! This is what Paul is saying.  Note that Paul also pointed to calmness, discipline, a well balanced mind and self-restraint in 2 Tim 1:7.  Also, to the fact that God does not delight in those who draw back and shrinks in fear (Heb 10;38; Lk 9:62 with Jn 15:17-22; Mk 4:3-20,23-25). In Mt 5, Jesus was teaching that we should demonstrate trust in God as a Provider, Protector, Guide, Comforter, and so on. Jesus’ idea becomes clearer in verses 45-48. See how v. 38-39 reveals that man’s self-righteousness makes us interpret Law as a means to retaliate, while God (Love, 1 Cor 13:13) is diametrically opposed and about compensation!  Don’t see it?  Apply Mt 7:12!  Observe how Jesus practiced what He preached in 1 Pet 2:21-25.  Also, ponder vv 16-20 and Phil 3:9 and refer to the meditation “Mixing Old and New”).

5.33. Did God harden [some] hearts? (Did God make some men to be lost?)

Misinterpretation of Scriptures such as these is probably due to a trip up in language and simply exquisitely reveals our remnant of self-righteousness. Dangerous, because it can make us suspect God’s character of being inconsistent [flawed]. It’s a manner of speaking, as when you would try to break a rock with your head and then saying that the rock cracked your skull. And if the rock could talk, that it said that it cracked your skull. That statement by the rock would in fact then be closer to humoristic sarcasm, or irony, than an admission of manipulation [guilt] and in fact reveal a closer relationship (sharing a little sarcasm because you can trust someone’s insight and knowledge of your character and person, to see the irony of being suspected to be the culprit while it was the human’s choice. Refer to the note at Is 45:7 below that shows how God as a perfect Father just accept the responsibility of having given us this free will [genuine ability to choose] and if the human wants to deny and shirk his responsibility of having misused his own free will with poor decisions, then He as our Designer will say, yes, He has done it! He gave us that ability of free choice). Similarly, is there more than humor in a statement of a claim to an insurance company that a tree caused the damage to the claimant’s car (it is not that the tree jumped in front of the car, but that the tree in a manner of speaking caused the damage). Remember that God will not remove for a moment the free will from us but can certainly use our misuse of it for demonstration purposes.  That free will is called free due to being a genuine privilege of real choice that would be false if it would occasionally be removed by the Giver [Designer]. Take a moment to ponder and absorb this concept? It is expanded on in the meditation “The will of man, the will of God”, but let’s ponder this a little, shall we?

God is not the evil programmer some make Him out to be! (Dt 30:19; Jer 29:11; 2 Peter 3:9; Jn 3:16-21; 10:10).

But, you might say, we read “God hardened Pharaoh’s heart” in Ex 7:13,14,22; 8:15,19,32; 9:7,12,34,35; 10:1,20,27; 11:10; 14:8.  Even Sihon seems to be an unfortunate soul who was “hardened by God” (Dt 2:30); as were the poor righteous Jews (Jn 12:40).  Superficially, Is 44:18, for example, seems to show that God made them not accept Him (but against 2 Pet 3:9; Is 5:18-24; 54:13-17; 2 Cor 5:10; Heb 12:2,15-17; Eph 4:22-23?); but when you know God for who He really is [and is not], even the verses immediately preceding such as Is 44:6-17 will show that it is a mere statement that God [Love] made us all free moral agents and that we can [is able to] apply this will [choice, our minds] wickedly when we take offense at God’s untouchable superiority.  People that have taken this offense can then be said to have been hardened “by God”, meaning “because of their own obstinacy and in rebellion to who God is [and is not]”; and because God does not change, will those obstinate in whatever is wrong be in conflict with God and so be caused to stay in disagreement, by their own error.

Another example could be the following:  Say you are visiting your brother, John, who is hospitalized and in a coma.  Someone at the hospital asks you what brought you there (why you are there).  You reply, “John brought me here”; meaning it was because of your empathy [love] for John that his hospitalization “caused you” to go and see him. Someone, not informed about the real situation and overhearing your conversation might then incorrectly deduct that John literally took you to hospital.  This person might then – very convinced of his “facts” – tell someone else this incorrect version of his perception because he had heard it firsthand but with incomplete information/knowledge.

Similarly, did Judas Iscariot betray Jesus on his own and was not bewitched by God to do so! (Mt 26:14-16; Jn 13:21,26-38).  This is also discussed briefly in the meditation “The Last Supper” where we read that Judas had ears to hear [sound] but not the words that Jesus was speaking [the meaning, information parted], it did not enter Judas’ heart [mind] due to Judas’ own conceited and self-righteous falsity and his own agenda (Jn 12:4-6;13:21)!  No, contrary to what many “Christians” wrongly think, and as revealed with reading in Law retaliation when God had in mind compensation (Mt 5:38 with Mt 7:2,12; Prov 24:29; Rom 12:17,19!), just so are we blinded by none else than our own camouflaged self-righteousness!!!  (Contemplate at least 2 Cor 3:5-7,10-18.  This is expanded on in the meditations such as “The Covenant and The Law”, “Mixing Old and New”, on this website).

Observe Scriptures such as Ex 8:15,32; and Nebuchadnezzar’s case in Dan 2:30;  and Zedekiah in 2 Chron 36:11-13; and Job’s own admission in Job 9:4 (Job 9:1-4).  Note also, in Ex 9:34, how “Pharaoh sinned yet more” by hardening his own heart! This is where we should all bow our heads in shame!  How could we even dare to be so self-righteous to suspect [understand incorrectly the opposite] of what was being penned here (2 Tim 3:16-17)???  Are we so suspicious of God’s character and nature that we fail to identify even grammatical styles such as irony or an oxymoron (as with the simile in Lk 10:18, explained in “Lucifer Part 1” on this website)? Observe how Jesus used sarcasm [wit] in Mt. 11:7-8 in a superbly beautiful way (Mt 3:3,4,8; Lev 11:22; 2 Ki 1:8; Zech13:4).

God is the Source of righteousness, perfect ethic and perfect morality, honesty, fairness, etc., and hence cannot ever be underhanded and – as Love – manipulative (note that God is certainly overwhelmingly awesome – see the meditation “The Will” by this author for an explanation), but God will never make someone do something wrong and then regard that action as sin (Jn 16:9; Heb 10:26-27 alone should make it clear that opposition to God cannot be forced on someone by God!)! No, this is another key example of our self-righteousness! These Scriptures quoted above, will actually all in fact reveal man’s own choice of hardening their [own] hearts toward God due to their offense taken, their own pride, conceited, haughty self-opinions and own pre-conceived ideas (dogma)!  When God said He has done this, He is just saying He takes responsibility for having made [design] us, and then to the extent of Jn 3:16-21.  (See “The Testimony” before being too hasty in claiming to fully grasp God’s good intent for us!!!…)

The word “hardened”, (H2388) חזק châzaq, is  a primitive root; “to fasten upon; hence also to be strong (figuratively courageous, causatively strengthen, fortify), so as to be obstinate; to  restrain, conquer, encourage (self), be established, fasten, force, fortify, make hard, harden, become (wax) mighty, prevail, be (wax) sore, strengthen (self), be stout, be (make, shew, wax) strong (-er), be sure, behave self valiantly, withstand”.  It is therefore a very plausible interpretation to rather understand these “hardened hearts” to have been merely pointed out by God that by those people’s own choices as free moral agents to be obstinate, He [God] “caused” them to harden themselves against Him!  So, “God”… hardened their hearts!  See it?

As in Pharaoh’s case, where he probably proudly resisted [attempt to outdo] the idea of a God bigger than himself!  The Jews became guilty of the same sin by resisting God’s Perfect Salvation plan in Jesus Christ, probably being offended by a Man from Nazarene claiming to be their Joshua Messiah and Son of God [God Himself] while they think themselves privileged merely by their own lineage [blood] from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (even missing that Abraham was a Chaldean, and both Isaac and Jacob were not first-born); and even by trying to prove themselves worthy/holy/righteous by merely following rules.  God, however, showed us all that not even those ten rules given via an Angel and Moses (Acts 7:38,53; Heb 2:2) could be adhered to by any man – especially if the thought-life is counted in (Mt 5:28; Rom 3:20; Gal 5:4,18).  Now we can read Mk 6:52; 8:17; Mt 21:42-45 again (see also “Israel Racism” and “The covenant and the Law”, Mixing Old and New”).

The statement that “God hardened” their hearts is in fact therefore merely stating the observation that their offense taken and their withstanding God already caused their hearts [minds] to be hardened “by God” [their obstinate withstanding even God’s mere existence, His Holiness, His Righteousness…  and basically disagreeing with God!  Compare Jn 15:17-23; Rom 1:17-22]; so saying, “God hardened their hearts”.  God’s sovereignty does not mean God does everything, it means that God is above [superior to] everything. The statement that God hardened their hearts is therefore a manner of describing the result of a “hardened” [rebellious, haughty] human’s reaction resisting the unchangeable [sovereign] God of Ex 3:14.  The right reaction to God’s grace is as true, that God is Love and nothing can change that either (Col 2:12-15; 1 Jn 4:8-11; Heb 13:8 and hence Jn 1:17; 3:3,16-21).

Note at Ps 139:16. Note that Ps 139:16 does not imply God manipulates everyone and everything with us as mere spectators! It is rather plainly saying that in His omniscience and omnipresence He alone could actually foreknew (“Write all up in His Book”) ahead of the time given us, and contain therein, all of our decisions and choices past, present and future; but God [Love] will never remove our ability to choose. Note as well, that our will shall/should change after re-birth, to do God’s perceived will, is so (Rom 12:2,9; 2 Cor 5:17; 1 Pet 1:23); but this is in reaction [faith, trust, appreciation] as a return to what we have received by God’s grace and mercy alone (2 Pet 3:9; Eph 1:3; even 1 Pet 1:17-23).

God is omniscient and omnipresent, so when God asked Adam where he was (Gen 3:9), was it so that Adam (Rom 5:12; 1 Cor 15:45) could realize that he was not spiritually where he used to be nor where he was supposed to be.  God knew where Adam was!   Note Adam’s give-away reply in the next verse (v 10). Adam’s “nakedness” (Rom 13:14) means his spirituality had changed from being God-centred to being self-centred.  The meditation “The Covenant and the Law” and “Mixing Old and New” expand on this; but for the purpose of this brief discussion, we can see that to “eat” from the “tree” of the knowledge between good and evil and blessing and calamity (Gen 2:9; Rev 2:7; 22:14,19) is simply to apply your own knowledge (righteousness) and trying to live by it (your own righteousness).  This is to not being “clothed with Christ” (contemplate Jn 1:1-4; 4:24 and observe that “Christ” implies God’s anointing, His Spirit, power and Life inside of us. The meditation “The Testimony” will shock you to your core if you consider what in fact this Life might/should be!  Should you be still confused about what the Law was for, calmly consider those meditations by this author that will point to, for instance, Gal 3:19.  The Law was not given as a means to save yourself by following rules or your own righteousness (Rom 3:20; 7:4,6,10; Gal 5:4,18).  The purpose of the Law was to reveal to a stiff-necked and self-righteous people that no one’s self-righteousness can save [himself] – Phil 3:9-11. We all need the one and only Saviour, Jesus Christ (Jn 14:6, 23-26; Rom 8:14… Jn 1:4,12-13,17; 3:16; 9:28…)…

This understanding should make us more humble when considering Rom 12:9  (with Prov 8:13,17; 11:20-21; 16:5; 1 Jn 2:4; even 1 Pet 5:5; Prov 16:18…  even with 2 Pet 3:9; Jm 5:18-24…).  So then, when we read the Bible and misunderstand Scriptures such as Ex 7:13, we are probably just caught out, like Adam was in Gen 2:9 (Rom 13:14; 8:14)… it seems to this author if the Bible was designed this way (2 Tim 3:16-17; 2 Pet 1:20-21), so we can see how close and personal we really are with God as a perfect Father.  What a shame that we fail tests as in Eph 4:3-6; 1 Cor 1:17; 1 Jn 3:1-3… without living [remaining, 1Thess 5:23] in Rom 3:24-30; 8:2…

From the meditation “The will”, we observe the following at Dt 30:7.  God does not [cannot] “curse” the man He has made with a free will in the way some preach it!  It is illogical to think that Jer 10:23, for example, is saying that man has no choice and is absolutely controlled and manipulated by God, and that God then “curse” the actions that He [God] Himself had the man done! This is absurd.  Jer 10:23 is saying that in oneself, without God’s Guidance, we are doomed- by our self, hence Jn 4:24; Rom 8:14, Ps 37:7, 22; and so on. The word curse (H423 אלה ‘âlâh) is from H422 (adjure); an imprecation: – curse, cursing, execration, oath, swearing.  In context it means that God, in the Bible (2 Tim 3:15-17), declare where man finds himself that is an abomination to God (Prov 8:13; 11:20,21; 16:5; Rom 12:9).  This Jesus (Jn 3:14) did similarly in Mt 23:13-15 by “cursing” (declare) to the Pharisees, Sadducees and scribes (the fig tree) that they were doomed by their [own] stubborn self-righteousness (Jn 3:17-21; Rev 22:11-15). Carefully contemplate Jn 5:36-40; 13:17; 14:9-17,21-26; 15:7-11; 17:15-20; 20:21-23; Mt 5:8; Jn 1:18; 12:45…  See the “roadmap” following in the meditation “The will of man and the will of God” for a pictorial explanation.

Note at Is 45:7. The interpretation is affected by the reader’s perception and opinion of God!  This could very well again be a brilliant design in the Scripture (2 Tim 3:16-17; 2 Pet 1:20-21). Comparing even just Is 5:18; 47:10-11; 57:1-21; Ezek 37:23 and Jer 29:19, 23 we find that Is 45:7 is not an exposition of what we call the origin of evil for the evil here is not so much the sin as the punishment [necessary] for sin. Furthermore, can we discover again the magnificent heart of a perfect Father that is responsible and can also use sarcasm as this demonstrate an attempt to clarify with wit and such sarcasm convey love rather that total disdain! If someone is regarded as totally unsalvageable there would be no reason to waste perfectly good sarcasm to expose a great truth and to illustrate what grave error self-righteousness is! But alas, religion blocks this idea that God can use irony and even sarcasm in a holy way, just like jealousy (Mt 15:7-9. Compare Mt 3:1-4,7; Lev 11:22; 2 Ki 1:8; Zech 13:4 with Mt 11:7,8)! In Is 45:7 the good is obvious, as even just Jer 29:11 (Jn 10:10) tells us; but the evil is as if God is saying to us that if we want to shirk our responsibility and shift our blame to someone or something else “bigger than us” (Gen 3:12-13; and despite Phil 4:13), then yes, He has made us with a mechanism called will (choice) – that we misapply.  The meditation “The will of man, the will of God” expand on this, but observe here that, interpreting the statement in Is 45:7b with no suspicion towards God’s perfect character, we reach the ultimate responsibility of immeasurable compassion in Jn 3:15-16 (1 Thess 5:9). Remember as well, Jn 14:24,26…

Many religious [Calvinistic] people, along with atheists and agnostics like to argue that if God made everything and seeing that evil exists, God must have made evil. A little more food for thought to these people as well as those disputing that God even exist (Heb 11:6?) is that darkness in itself is not a substance; it is the absence of [white] light. Similarly, is cold the absence of heat (cold is measured as an amount of heat) and likewise is evil the absence of God [Love, refer to the meditation entitled “God is Love”] in a heart. That absence of God is due to a self-righteous, hardened heart that resists the Holy Spirit of God to guide and comfort the mind. What is then lost is the everlasting life Jesus Christ paid for and only He could pay for as our representative. More about this is in the meditation “The Gospel”.

Note at Dt 32:39. From the meditation “The will of man, the will of God” as well, the following: We are not supposed to be obtuse, so before demanding from GOD to explain Himself to us, read Dt 32:39b and Dt 32:4-5, 16-21 and the “defile themselves” in Ezek 37:23; and “to themselves” in Is 5:18. The lesson is merely that no one (not even Solomon, Rev 13:18 with 1 Ki 10:14,18-20; 11:1-6!) can survive when going against God.  We must not be imperceptive. This is not a [manipulating] threat of dispensing death; it is a fact [result] of those rebelling against the one supreme Judge that has no equal. Dt 32:39 was also prior to Jn 3:16-21 (1 Thess 5:9; 2 Cor 5:19; Rom 8:2)!! Isaiah and Ezekiel must have known [seen, heard from God] this fact, hence Is 5:18; 54:13-17 and Ezek 37:5-11. God is not a manipulative extortioner; some merely chooses wrongly their own destruction.  False teachers seem equally deaf to Hos 4:4-11, the last sentence in Hos 4:14; Ps 119:104; or Mt 7:20-23! The “killing” in Dt 32:39 is then rather speaking of God as a Spirit (Jn 4:23-24) that is superior to all with no equal and the reality of an eventual spiritual life or death that depends on our faith in His salvation plan. He alone is our absolute authority, judge and determiner as in Rev 21:8. God is our Tree of Life (Rev 22:1-2) and does not dispense death to us as a threat to coerce or extort us to Him! He rather states in Dt 32:39 that for the wicked there is no escape from His power, and this will prove to be a terror for His enemies who hate Him but that He is a comfort for His own people (Rom 12:9; Heb 11:6). This can also be read in 1 Sam 2:6; 2 Ki 5:7; Is 5:18; 26:19; Hos 13:10; Jm 4:4-5; et al.

By the way, perhaps we should see a connection between Ezek 37:1-4; Hos 13:14 and 1 Cor 15:12-26 and 1 Thess 4:13-18 as well?

In 1 Sam 18:10 we read of, what sounds like, an evil spirit from God but can this be? In the context we will find in Saul a king in his own madness and murderous violent jealousy towards David. Saul came to a fall from initially being successful, a hero and an anointed of the Lord, due to his own doing. At most Saul’s melancholy and malevolence towards David occurred in God’s permissive will, not His perceived or decreed will. The false prophesying of Saul further attests to his own departure from a lucid mind.

Another proof of God’s compassion (“responsibility” but not guilt) is seen in the book of Job. The Lord doubled what Job lost due to calamities that were allowed to happen. Note that this does not make God an accomplice (Job 3:25)! Observe the interpretation of (1) Job 2:2. Here God, that is omniscient, did not seek information (Ps 139:1-26) from Satan, but wanted Satan to make an admission of his limitations. (2) Job 2:3. The question “Have you considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth…” is not instructing Satan to inflict harm on Job, but rather in effect asking “What is your case with Job” (3) Job 2:6 should thus be read with at least 1 Cor 10:13 and Jm 1:13.

By the way, observe that God reveals an everlasting (more than but a certain after-life) in the story of Job. The number of children Job had is given in Job 1:2 and for animals that Job owned, in Job 1:3. When God then gave (allowed) Job to have double that as a restoration of what Job had lost (Job 42:10,12,13), we read that the animals were twice as many as what he had in chapter one; while Job again got the same number of children as what he had in chapter one (seven sons and three daughters) and yet they are twice as many? This can only be valid if the first seven sons and three daughters were still alive. In other words, their spirit and souls still existed even though their bodies had perished. This was not the case with the animals. That Job apparently still only had the one and same wife, might reflect the prophetic image of Christ as the Bridegroom and His followers (His real church) as His Bride (Eph 5:32).

Back to the previous train of thought, similarly, is Mt 6:13 not asking God to not do something mean by leading [coercing] us into temptation! No, it is but a cry for help for protection against the evil one to help us not fall in our weak self, it asks for God’s help against our temptation through our own unclean desires that would require God to lead us out from there (Jm 1:5-8;4:2; 1 Jn 5:15). This correlates with 2 Pet 2:9, does it not? Note, by the way, how demons cannot see ahead in Mt 8:31-32 like God does (Eph 2:10; 3:20). Carefully ponder Col 1:115-23… The meditation “Prayer” might be useful as well.

Now carefully ponder 1 Jn 2:14a (Ampl) that is so beautiful and tender and true that it makes one weep. John says he is writing to the fathers, because [we] the fathers have come to know (recognize, be conscious of, and understand) Him Who has existed from the beginning… May we indeed understand more accurately our beloved perfect Father-God and Jesus Christ our Savior and Friend and His Holy Spirit who is Love. Amen?

5.34. Is [God in] Ps 40:6-8 contradicting [Himself in] Ex 29:18?

Of course not (Num 23:19; Rom 3:4; Titus 1:2-3)!!  Hearing Jesus, we will grasp that no offering [as an external deed, ritual, ceremony] could ever purify any man (even Rom 3:29-28) – it was rather at most the submission – if voluntary – that should have commenced a thought-process [mindset].  Consider here the numerous verses like Mt 3:2; Mk 1:15; 6:2 and so on with 2 Cor 10:5; Rom 12:1-3 (with v. 3, note Phil 2:9; 3:9).  Observe how the spirit [God-consciousness] has to be re-born to know God the Spirit.

Offering (H4503) means to apportion (Ps 24:1; Col 1:16-20; Jn 14:6!), bestow, tribute – usually bloodless and voluntary!  Note here also Dt 6:5-12 with Jn 4:24 and those scriptures about changing your mind(set) to take thoughts captive (Eph 6:12-14; Is 54:13-17)…  Note also, Rom 12:9; Jn 14:15.  We will, of course, remember that God = Love and that this Love never manipulates…

Burnt offering (H5930) means to ascend, intransitively; also (H5927) to be high or active (mount. How about Rev 4:1; and Zech 9:9 vs Ez 23:6,12; Jer 22:4; and Rev 6?  Note Lk 9:48;12:26-32; 16:10; 19:42; 20:46; Mt 5:3; 7:21; 18:1-4; 25:45; ).  So, this burnt offering probably speaks of something lofty (Rev 1:10), a spiritual position, there where Adam was not in Gen 3:9.  This is why we needed the Last Adam (1 Cor 15:45; Heb 10:12-14).  Do we realize what John was saying in 1 Jn 2:18-26?  Do we really?…

To read Ex 29:18,25,42; 40:6,10; Lev 1:3-17 and misinterpret what God is saying [teaching, illustrating, means] is incredibly dull.  This is why Scripture explains Scripture [for those not experiencing Jn 10:27-28].  Reading Scriptures such as Ps 40:6-8 should effortlessly steer us to Ps 6:5; 9:13; 13:3; 18:4; 23 (!); 89:48; 116:8… Read around Is 28:15,18 and connect Ps 102:20; 1 Cor 15:22-26.  Note again Jn 10,15-18; 13:37-38; 15:13 with Stephen in Acts 7:60.  Read this with Jn 3:16; Mt 10:39-40; 16:25-28; and then Jn 5:24-47; 6:27,33-40,43-51,53-58; 6:63 (Rom 8:11); 8:12 (1:4),51-59; 10:10-12; 11:25-26!!!

This is where you might discover the immense possibility of what Jesus Christ actually is all about – not what was preached by the “church” establishments/industry for too long but LIFE EVER LASTING.  Not the lesser fleeting glories of an Old, but a lasting glory of a New!  Consider the meditation entitled “The Testimony” on www.gospel-truth.co.za for a better understanding of what we are talking about.  Selah.

Hear Jesus in Jn 10:15-18; 13:37-38; 15:13 and then go in peace and enjoy – and abundantly live – His promise…  His Word – Christ on earth!!!

Do not give up on LIFE EVERLASTING, do not give up your continuous, genuine, relationship with Jesus Christ!  Keep talking with Him and fellowship with Him.  See results that will be Light [Life] to the world!

Eph 4:6-8

5.35. Does Mt 27:5 contradict Acts 1:18?

Mathew simply tells us that Judas the betrayer committed suicide by hanging himself.  Trust Dr. Luke then, in Acts 1:18, to add a little more [gory] detail. But this was for a good reason (Refer to the meditation “Who is Jesus Christ” on page 14-15/33, under the heading “Prophecies Jesus Christ fulfilled” as well as the meditation entitled “The four Gospels” for a discussion on how different observers/reporters with each their own perspective can tell the same truth).  It is possible that the body after hanging a while started decomposing which means the skin weakened.  The rope could have been weakened [chafed] from the struggling while he suffocated but at any rate seemed to have eventually given way completely, however long that was after his death and Judas’ corps fell as Luke states in Acts 1:18 (KJV), “And falling headlong, he burst apart in the middle, and all his bowels gushed out.” It is therefore not necessarily two contradicting reports of the exact cause of Judas’ demise, but Luke adding information to what happened to Judas’ corpse after he died by hanging himself.

5.36.    Is there a limited lifespan for all humans, so willed by God?

Mention of life expectancies of 120 years (Gen 6:3) or 70 years (Ps 90:10) are addressing specific issues of specific OT people. (a) We discuss the interpretation of Gen 6:2-3 in more detail in the meditation “Lucifer Part 2, pages 4-5; so will mention here only the following: We are A.D. and is supposed to have a NT Life everlasting (Jn 3:16; 11:26; Rom 8:2,11; Heb 8:13) when we abide in Christ and He permanently [also] in us! (b) Gen 6:3 has to do with the controversial “sons of God” mentioned here but would never the less put an end to any claims of humans being gods. (c) Isaiah 5:18-30 also shows that God (as in Dt 32:39) merely indicates that God allows mankind to reap the results of our own choices (refer Dt 32:1-38; and 41 onwards stating that a judgement [fair result] befalls “them that hate me”.  Observe that it is, at any rate incorrect to assume that God would say He determined [those] people to only live 120 years for we find the following ages of people in that time, such as Noah who died at 950 – Gen 9:29 (although Gen 6:8,9); Sham died at 600 (Gen 11:10-11); Arphaxed died at 403 (Gen 11:12-13); Salah reached 433 (Gen 11:14-15); Eber died at 464 (Gen 11:16-17); Peleg was 239 (Gen 11:18-19); As was Ren who died at 239 (Gen 11:20-21); Serug was 230 (Gen 11:22-23); Nahar, 138 (Gen 11:24-25); Terah, 205 (Gen 11:32); Sarah, 127 (Gen 23:1); Isaac, 180 (Gen 35:28); even Ishmael reached 137 ! (Gen 25:17); Jacob was 147 (Gen 47:28); Abraham, 175 (Gen 25:7)

Note at Ps 90:10.  It seems to indicate a limited lifespan for [all] mankind of 70 years but is not the case.  Ps 90 is accredited to Moses, who was interceding with God to remove the curse which made it necessary for every Israelite over twenty years of age (when they rebelled against God at Kadesh-Barnea) to die before reaching the promised land (Num 14:26-35). Moses says most of them are dying at seventy years of age. It is mistaken to mean a limited lifespan for all mankind. It was not intended to refer to anyone except those Israelites under the curse during that particular 40 year period. Seventy (or 120) has never been the average lifespan for humanity. When Jacob, the father of the twelve tribes, had reached 130 years (Gen 47:9), he complained that he had not attained to the years of his immediate ancestors.  In fact, as for seventy being regarded as a limited age; we find that Moses himself lived to be 120 years old, Aaron 123, Miriam several years older, and Joshua 110 years of age. Is 65:20 says that in the millennium a person of 100 years will still be thought a child.

The meditation entitled “The Testimony” on www.gospel-truth.co.za expand on this.

5.37. Num 23:19 and 1 Sam 15:29 seem to mention that “… God is not the son of man that He should repent…”; yet Mt 3:13-14 seems to say that Jesus had to repent (μετανοέω, G3340, metanoeō, to change your mind, way of thinking or morally feel compunction). But, Jesus referred to Himself as the Son of Man (Mt 12:8,32 and more than 400 other NT references).  How can this be reconciled?

First, the context of this statement in Num 23 and 1 Sam 15 is rather about God’s sovereignty and superiority over man as His creation. This correlates with scriptures such as Is 55:8-9; Jer 17:9-10; Rom 3:3-4; Tit 1:2; Phil 2:8-11; Col 1:11-20; and so on. Second, it reiterates that God [Jesus Christ] can be trusted absolutely (Jn 1:1-4; 14:6; Heb 13:8); unlike man.  Third, the change of mind necessary for baptism (see the meditation “Baptism”) does not mean Jesus had to alter His ways from a sinful or Godless life like man! He had no wrong to alter. For Jesus to genuinely represent man [whilst simultaneously God], there had to be the possible progress of Jesus from Son of man, to Son of law, to Son of God.  For a fuller exegesis on this, refer to the meditation “Who is Jesus Christ”.

5.38. Can we impress God?

The argument used is that if God [Holy Spirit] can be grieved, the assumption is made that He was somehow shocked or felt injury and anguish [torment, suffering, torture, distress, regret] like a human.

Logic alone dictates that omniscience could not be surprised [be caught unawares, unprepared].  So, if God [Holy Spirit] is grieved; it would rather point to a Father being saddened with a sorrow about the tragedy that we stubbornly persist with our God-given free will – in self-righteousness – to ignore God’s sound advice and guidance [His perfect Love and the accomplished and finished work of His Son Jesus Christ (Jn 16:9)].  But, this does not mean God can be shocked or impressed!  It is not the same thing.

Metal, for example, can only be “impressed” [receive indentation, alteration, malformation] by a punch [a subject or material harder, of greater substance, than the receiving material].  None of our goodness could therefore ever possibly “impress” God.  God might be content with what we do and give credit like a good Father would, by saying, well done!  But, not because we have outperformed His wildest expectations! This should be abundantly clear from just Eph 3:14-21; Heb 2:6-8…

Think about it carefully (See the meditation “The Covenant and The Law”; “The Gospel”, et al).

 

5.39. The Angel of the Lord vs Heb 1:5.

From the meditation “Trinity doctrine”, the following:

Note on Heb 1:5. This verse clearly states “For to which of the angels did [God] ever say, You are My Son, today I have begotton You”. Then we note Heb 1:13-14. We also read of an Angel in Ex 33:3, that connects with Gen 16:7 and Zech 1:11. This “Angel of the Lord” also in Zechariah – as in Gen 16:7 – is not to be confused with interpreting angels such as Zech 1:9,13-14; 2:3; 4:1,4-5; 5:5,10; 6:4-5. If God called no angel His Son and neither created this Son, The Angel of the Lord clearly cannot be a normal angelic being such as for example the Mikael of Jude 1:9.  Incidentally, note (i) that the word angels in Heb 1:13, is from ἄγγελος (G32, aggelos) , from ἀγγέλλω (aggellō), and probably derived from G71; compare G34; to bring tidings; a messenger; especially an “angel”; by implication even a pastor or messenger (Refer to Gal 1:6-9); and (ii) that Michael in Dan 10:13 could possibly have been not celestial but simply one of the princes of the kingdom of Persia; for Dan 10:13 clearly states that this Michael was “one of the chief princes” while the archangel Mikael is mentioned in Jude 1:9 (Zech 3:1-2) as the chief angel. The Angel of the Lord is an uncreated messenger (“Angel”) distinguished from [other] normal angelic angels and in many places identified as the Lord God – this is undeniable.  The conciliation with passages that seem to distinguish this Angel of the Lord from God the Father, can most simply be reconciled with the old view that this Angel is Christ, the second Person in The Godhead, even at that early period appearing as the Revealer of the Father (Johan P.Lange, A Commentary).  Refer to Gal 3:8 and Gen 12:3.

Commentary in the Amplified Bible at Gen 11:7 reads:  The “Angel of the Lord” or “of God” or “of His presence” is readily identified with the Lord God (Gen 16:7,11,13; 22:11,12; 31:11,13; Ex 3:1-6 and other passages).  But it is obvious that the “Angel of the Lord” is a distinct person in Himself from God the Father (Gen 24:7; Ex 23:20; Zech 1:11 and other passages).  Nor does the “Angel of the Lord” appear again after Christ came in human form.  He must of necessity be One of the “three-in-one” Godhead.  The “Angel of the Lord” is the visible Lord God of the OT, as Jesus is Christ is of the NT.  Thus His deity is clearly portrayed in the OT.  There is a fascinating forecast of the coming Messiah, breaking through the dimness with amazing with amazing consistency, at intervals from Genesis to Malachi.  Abraham, Moses, the slave girl Hagar, the impoverished farmer Gideon, even the humble parents of Samson, had seen and talked with Him before the herald angels proclaimed His birth in Bethlehem”.

5.40.    How do we reconcile Jn 2:10 with Eph 5:18?

The wine Jesus provided at Galilee (Jn 2:1-11) was unlikely to be so that they who probably already had too much (v. 7), could become [more] drunk (Jm 1:13)!  No, this is not about alcohol abuse [to become drunk, intoxicated] but the hospitality [generous provision (Eph 1:3; 3:19-21), care, love, grace] of a Bridegroom that is able to abundantly [over-] supply, not for an utterly self-consumed self-righteous to lose his own self-control in lust and greed, but an opportunity to demonstrate [manifest] respect and love for the one who provided, even with Jm 1:5 and Rom 8:14; 12:9 (Jn 4:23-24)… No, Jesus possibly just demonstrated with this deed (His first reported miracle in His ministry, Jn 2:11) that must have puzzled the religious zealots, that He (God, Jn 1:1-5,10-17; 14:9-11; Col 1:17-21!) is not merely another fanatic religious bigot threatened by small-mindedness of mankind [He created]!…  He apparently just did not want to see gloom thrown over this social event (Eph 5:32) and shows that God [Jesus] is not a stern distant detached being without a sense of humor (Heb 4:14-16)! Prophetically, we can of course imagine a connection between Jn 2:1-11 and Rev 19:7,9… perhaps even Daniel 5:23 and Rev 17:2. The writing was figuratively again on the wall (Dan 5:25-28). Somehow, Jn 3:16-21 springs to mind.

There is a glory mentioned in Hab 2:14 and in part what was manifested in Jn 2:11.  The glory in Hab 2:14 is כּבד    כּבוד (H 3519, kâbôd  kâbôd), that is from H3513 and means properly weight; but only figuratively in a good sense, splendor or copiousness: – glorious (-ly), glory, honour (-able). The glory in Jn 2:11 is δόξα (G1391, doxa) from the base of G1380; as very apparent, in a wide application (literally or figuratively, objectively or subjectively): – dignity, glory (-ious), honour, praise, worship. Both seemingly implying that despite the obvious showing that Jesus was no ordinary man [to cause this transformation]; was there a symbolic meaning that could perhaps be linked to even Ezek 39:19; Dan 5:23 and Rev 17:2?! The old was gone and the new had come (Lk 5:36-39; 9: 62).  The meditations “Mixing Old and New” and “The Covenant and the Law” expand on this. This mixing of Old and New and the meditation on The Covenant and The Law, can also, for example, satisfactorily explain how Heb 8:13 and Heb 13:8 does not contradict each other!  The hope [of this author] is that this, by now, is clear.

5.41. Is there a mistake in James 1:27?

It seems to state that only one form of external religious worship [religion as it is expressed in outward acts], is pure and unblemished in the sight of God the Father, namely, to visit and help and care for orphans and widows in their affliction and need; but then adds “… and to keep oneself unspotted and uncontaminated from the world.” Is this a numerical or counting error for one form turned out to be in fact two or even three, or is there something we as readers miss in the way The Word of God is presented to us? Heeding Num 23:19 and examples such as found in Jn 8:42-45 with Rom 3:1-31 (Ps 14:2-3; 51:4), we see that God is faultless in His judgement and His Word given to us.

Although the number “one” is not specifically mentioned in Jm 1:27 can we read of an apparent [singular] set of things that implies to come down to the same [single crux] and this we will consider shortly in the next paragraph. The reason for this writing style can nevertheless be found in, for example, Prov 6:16; 30:15,21,29; even Job 5:19; Amos 1:3; 2:1. The intent of this style of counting seems to be to simply arrest our attention (to what is abominable to God). In Prov 6:16, for instance, is the word “hatred” not to be limited to the “sixth” nor is “abomination” to be restrained to the “seventh” as a strict order or degree of comparison for they all are [equally] hateful and abominable to the Lord and then with those not mentioned there, as well. So despite our concept of ‘good works’ is our attention probably just heightened in this way to what is mentioned in 1 Sam 16:7; Jer 17:9-10; Prov 16:2; Heb 4:2 and thus by Matthew in 6:1-4; 15:6-9; 7:15-23; 15:6-9 (Mt 21:33-46; and note Mt 21:43!) and Mt 23:2-10,25-28 – i.e. not to be religious bigots but genuine followers of the Gospel of Jesus Christ (1 Jn 2:4. Refer to the meditation “The Gospel”).

Two aspects that are especially noteworthy in Jm 1:27 are (1) to observe the whole prophetic image, the requirement to accurately represent God as a perfect Father as mentioned in Heb 13:5,8 (His empathy with orphans) and of Jesus Christ as the Bridegroom (His concern towards widows), clear from Ps 68:5 and Mt 6:9 and then (2) in our thought-life (Mt 5:28; Jm 4:4-8)! We as followers of Jesus Christ are supposed to demonstrate Him accurately to the world in His purity with our thought-life, our inner man and resultant manifestations by His grace (Phil 3:9; Jm 1:26; 2:17-26 with paragraph 5.17 above; even Jn 14:6) – hence the requirement to be and remain uncontaminated, unspotted, unblemished from the world that refers to the purity of our thought-life.  Here we should therefore take cognizance of at least also Jm 4:4-6 with 1 Jn 2:15-16; Mt 5:31-32; 26:41; Mk 14:38 and Rom 3:23; but thanks to the grace and love of God we now – in the NT – have Rom 3:20-22,28; 7:5,18,25; 8:1-5,9,12,13; 1 Cor 5:7; 2 Cor 10:2,5; Rom 13:14; even Gal 5:18,24-26; 6:8; Phil 3:9; 1 Pet 4:1; 1 Pet 5:10 and 2 Pet 2:9-22. The meditations such as “The Gospel” and “The Covenant and The Law” expand on this.

We can recall here the words of Jesus as at least in Jn 15:1-12.  Furthermore, 1 Cor 13:5 says that God [Love] is not self-seeking; we can safely therefore deduct that our perfect Father indeed gave us our only salvation and ultimate solution in His Words in Jn 14:6 (Jn 3:15-21).

5.42.  Is there a contradiction between “fish” in Jonah 1:1,10 and “whale” in Mt 12:40? Also, is it “incongruous” that a man could be swallowed by a fish and survive three days inside it?

Again, we will discover that God deals with us through faith (Heb 11:6).  Sure, it is rational to have an examined faith that can stand up to reason.  Just note aspects of faith such as trust and humility of us as the created towards our Creator. Before we can expect revelation knowledge from and insight into The Bible as God’s Word, we must first check our mind-sets to determine whether we are suspicious towards our Creator (2 Tim 3:16-17)! Even atheists know [the truth in] Prov 16:18, but we’ll do well to read with it Prov 8:13; 11:2; 13:10; 29:23; even Mt 9:13; 11:25-26 with Jn 1:17.

The particular dose of ridicule by sceptics of this example from The Bible can be understood as it might be difficult to believe. But, as always with The Bible, are there quite acceptable answers for those who examine God’s Word without the puffed-up pride of “intellectualism” that will only be humbled by the intellect and supremacy of the one Creator God this Book is about. The historicity of this account is vital to the Christian as words recorded from our Lord Jesus Christ (Mt 12:40; Jn 1:1-4,14; 14:6) that also referred to His crucifixion and resurrection.  The book and story of Jonah is actually not about the fish, but about God and His grace towards those who repent (Jn 1:17; 3:16-21, 2 Pet 3:9).

The following comments on the narrative of Jonah:

  1. The Bible uses different language and systems than us today. Often, we’ll discover to our horror that what we regard as “modern” is in fact pride and arrogance and apostasy.

The word whale is translated from the Greek κῆτος (G2785, kētos) that means “a huge fish” or “a sea [aquatic] monster”. The Hebrew word used in Jonah 1:17; 2:1,10, was the normal word for “fish” but here was modified by the prefix “great”. Our modern taxonomic system places whales amongst mammals, sharks among fish and plesiosaurs among reptiles, but The Bible does not use this system (1 Cor 15:39). According to Ps 104:25 any living thing in the sea other than creeping is apparently placed in the category of “fishes”. For interest’ sake, consider the fossilized sculls of fish called Dunkleosteus – they were four feet tall. By the way, for those scoffing at the apparent incongruous dates for these fossils, I believe the dating methods are flawed (refer to the meditation “Evolution).

The point is that modern experience or knowledge cannot limit the possibility of this event as short of miraculous and hence is not impossible. Especially when considering the context and more Biblical facts.

  1. Regarding our understanding of three days, refer to the Jewish system as applied to Jesus’ crucifixion and burial (explained in paragraph 5.21 above). “Three days” could in other words be as short as 38 hours. Jonah was also a type of fore-shadow of Jesus Christ (Read “The Gospel”).
  2. The swallowing by a sea monster could very well have been used as a foreshadow of Jesus’ resurrection! It is possible that Jonah could have died [suffocated/drowned] in the sea creature’s stomach; and that God resurrected him “three days later” (Jonah 2:1-6), for Jesus referred to this event as historical fact and as a prophetic sign (Mt 12:40). This could also be implied by Jonah’s prayer when he said “…out of the be belly of hell [sheol] cried I, and thou heardest my voice” (Jonah 2:2; Ps 120:1; 130:1; 142:1; Lam 3:55-58). In any case, was it a sufficient mighty and well-known event acknowledged by all people in the big city of Nineveh (Jonah 3:3) that saw and heard him [afterwards] preach that caused them to repent and turn to God (Jonah 3:5). Even in the time of Jesus’ ministry was this sign sufficiently well known that Jesus could draw a parallel to His own death and resurrection, which were to constitute God’s crowning proof of the deity of His Son and the great work of salvation as we read in Jn 3:16; even Acts 17:30-31; Jesus in Mt 12:39-41 said Jonah’s [real] experience was an analogy of His own death and resurrection; and God is capable of this feat (Mt 19:26; Gen 18:14; Job 42:2-3). Then there is the reference by Jesus in Mt 16:4 to Jonah 2:6; 3:1-6… examined in the meditation “The Testimony”.

Further comment

Jonah yet had to learn that he himself thankfully received God’s proof of His goodness for his bodily need but that he showed no understanding when God wanted to show mercy for the souls of these unbelieving people.

2 Kings 14:25 informs us that Jonah was a prophet. In contrast to all other prophets of the OT his ministry was directed to the heathen inhabitants of Nineveh and not to the people of Israel. The only prophetic message that Jonah announced was the one about the coming judgment over Nineveh (Jonah 1:2; 3:2; 3:4). Jonah therefore seems to be the only prophet of the OT revealing the grace of God towards the heathen.

Jonah’s experiences form the main contents and purpose of the book. The prophetic significance of this book not only lies in the short message in Nineveh but also in the entire history of Jonah described in his book. Many critics however want to lower the book of Jonah to an allegory, a parable or a legend because of the miracles described in it (especially the appearing of the great fish devouring Jonah). But the Lord Jesus in the NT Himself testifies clearly the historicity of the prophet Jonah and his experiences. He also points to two significations of the book.

First, the book of Jonah is a proof of God’s unlimited grace and mercy not only for His earthly people Israel but also for the impious heathen city of Nineveh. It shows that God has given these people repentance for life. For Israel or the Jews, respectively, this was very difficult to understand for they considered only themselves as God’s elect people (Mt 12:41; 16:4; Lk 11:29-32; Acts 10; Acts 11). The meditation “Israel racism” expands on this.

Second, the book of Jonah contains a typological representation of the history of the people of Israel. Israel has failed as a witness for God as has Jonah and has been in the sea of nations or the dispersion for a long time. But Jesus used Jonah and his miraculous revival [resurrection] as a foreshadow of His own resurrection (Mt 12:39-41). Note for those with an “Israel preference”, Jesus’ words in Mt 21:42-45; and for that matter, Acts 10:34-35 (Acts 1:1-2); Rom 2:10-11 and 1 Tim 1:3-4.

Third, Jonah is a type of Christ. In Mt 12:39-40 the Lord Jesus is announcing to the scribes and Pharisees that no sign, but the sign of Jonah will be given to them: “For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the great fish’s belly; so, shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” Another sign for Israel was the Lord Jesus’ going out to the nations (Mt 28:19; Mk 16:15; Lk 24:47) as we read in Luke 11:30.

Fourth, and finally, Jonah shows the character of the human heart. The human heart which, also as far as believers are concerned, often reluctantly submits to the will of God, seeks its own honor, looks after itself first of all and which can be as hard as stone towards other men. Even the truth of God pleases the human heart often only as long as the own importance can be stressed by it! All this Jonah had to learn. This little book therefore contains very practical lessons for every reader.

5.43. Was Jesus disrespectful towards Mary in Jn 2:4; and what “time has not yet come” for Jesus?

5.43.1. First, it is highly unlikely that Jesus was addressing Mary (His mother) with disrespect (reproofing or rebuking her), or even in an irate tone or with the indignation that can be read in Judges 11:12; 2 Sam 16:10 or 1 Ki 17:18; 2 Ki 3:13; even the demoniac in Mt 8:28-29; Mk 1:24 or Lk 8:28.  Translated to today’s spoken language, it would be more an exhortation of “Mother [madam], relax [let’s not be anxious or solicitous about the wine running low], trust Me that I’ll act at the right moment”. Jesus could even have merely been waiting for the customary toast to be made, to supply the wine in a supernatural way when there would be no doubt that it was a miracle (because the wine had to be completely finished first). The point [message] is that when man has depleted his recourses and see no satisfactory outcome by his own hand, is exactly when [only] Jesus Christ [God] can supply (Jn 14:6,26 with Jn 4:23-24; Rom 8:14 and Heb 13:5).

5.43.2. “Woman” can translate to “wife” or “mother” and even with a prefix “dear” as in Jn 4:21; 19:26,27; 20:15; Mt 15:28; 1 Cor 7:16; not in a condescending way but as customary speech.

5.43.3.  The time question can well relate to Mt 4:12-17; 21:42-43; Jn 7:6; or Acts 17:26-31; 26:22-23 and Mt 26:27-28; Mk 14:23-25; even Lk 21:32-36 or Lk 2:49. To be openly manifested as the Messiah was known in Jn 1:29 already (Ex 12:3; Is 53:7); Jn 2:16 (Ps 93:5); we later read Jn 8:20,30-31; 12:23; Heb 9:10-18 that this culminated in Jn 17:1-3 and Jn 19:30 (Jn 3:16). This was indeed the day the Lord has made (Ps 118:24; Rev 16:17; Jn 19:30; [Is 66:6])!

5.43.4. The parallel can symbolically be drawn between the Law vs the grace of God. Moses was involved with water turning to blood (Ex 7:20; Ex 24:6-8) and here Jesus turned water into wine (1 Cor 11:23-30) – and not for them to get drunk (Lk 21:34).  Note at Gal 4:4 that Mary was subject to [the] Law [of Moses], not Jesus (Gal 4:5-12,21-31; 5:4,18; even Jn 1:17; 9:28 and Rom 9:68, 25-26; 10:4-13.  The meditation “The Covenant and The Law” expand on this)

5.44. Is there a link between the Lazarus of Lk 16:20 and Jn 11:1?

The fact that a name is specifically mentioned by our Lord in one parable only (Lk 16:20), must mean something. It can of course merely demonstrate that a known destitute and neglected fellow man went to heaven, carried away by angels (plural), that would not have been expected by those Jews to be the outcome, while the rich man’s name was not even specified, showing a confirmation of Jesus’ words in Lk 16:10 that compares with Mt 19:30.

But first, concerning the significance of the name Lazarus in Lk 16:20, we find Tertullian, Calvin and others conclude that this is an actual history, for it was recorded by Theophyact from the tradition of the Hebrews.  It is a name we also read about in Jn 11:1,6,11,14,43.  The same actual historical names but of completely different persons that therefore seems to be symbolically chosen (Jn 11:4); but nevertheless significant in that it seems to be the only time Jesus mentions a specific name in His parables. In other words, a story from real life but with the possible intention to serve as a warning to the Lazarus of Jn 11:1, that incidentally, could have been the rich ruler of Mt 19:21-22 (Mt 19:16-30; Lk 1:53). This Lazarus was the affluent brother of Mary who anointed the Lord with perfume (worth a laboring man’s wages for a year – Mk 14:5) and wiped His feet with her hair (Jn 11:2; and note Jn 11:33-36). Refer Mt 26:6-13; Mk 14:3-9; Jn 12:3-9.

Second, due to the seemingly incongruent mention of marriage and divorce in Lk 16:18, there appears to be a possibility that this parable in Lk 16:19-31 points ultimately to none other than Jesus Christ! This is, if we read a prophetic intent in Lk 16:18 with Eph 5:30-32, for ultimately it is about Jesus Christ as the Bridegroom and us as His Bride – Rev 21:2,9; with us the city (Is 60:14; Mt 5:14; Rev 21:3). The cause and occasion here could have been the derision of Jesus by the covetous Pharisees, who in high esteem of men were an abomination to God, yet lived in great pomp and splendor.  The exaltation of Christ hereafter would cause them great distress.  It also points to the infidelity of unbelievers in the resurrection of Christ from the dead.  The name Lazarus could very well agree with Jesus, since Eleazer was the son of Aaron, one of Jesus’ ancestors ( Mt 1:15) of whom God was his Helper (Ex 18:4), and was the meaning of the name Lazarus as well (According to the Greek pronunciation, the destitute man’s name was Eliazar and meant “beggar” but also “poor”, some note here Lk 6:20, and according to the Hebrew; a name signifying, the help of God).  On account of Jesus’ circumstances of earthly life, He might be called a “poor man” (2 Cor 8:9) even in prophecy (Ps 34:6; Zech 9:9). By assuming human nature, He did not cease to be God, but His divinity was hidden in His state of humiliation (Mt 8:20). Jews had a rule that if a man dies and leaves no sons and daughters but a small substance, there would be “begging at the gates”, and could very well denotes the rejection of Jesus Christ by the Jews (Jn 1:9-11) that expelled those fellow Jews who did confess Him, out of their synagogues (Jn 9:28,34). Lazarus was led out of the gate of Jerusalem where he suffered with his sores (Ps 38:5).  Compare this with Jesus in Is 53:4; Mt 8:16-17; 1 Pet 2:24; who was without original and actual sin but scolded by men as a sinner and ironically was made sin of all men Himself (2 Cor 5:21) while being free of them, freed all those that will believe and follow Him (Jn 3:16-21; Rom 10:9-10).

My conclusion then, is that Lk 16, specifically Lk 16:1-17 as noted in my meditation “The Testimony”, points to Jesus astonishing the pious with the crux of this matter in Lk 16:8, essentially with the question, “How is it that the unrighteous can make their system (note even Rom 8:6-8; Jm 4:4) work for them while you supposed sons of light cannot make Light (Life, Jn 1:4; specifically life everlasting, Jn 11:26) work for you?”

So yes, although two completely different persons unrelated, the name Lazarus in Lk 16:20 appears to have a connection to the Lazarus of Jn 11:43 after all; and what I believe to be the true Gospel (eugellion) of Jesus Christ: Life everlasting (as opposed to the lesser after-life that is clung to).

Indeed, the question of the Jews in Jn 11:37 is quite rational and has not so irreverent a tone as it may initially sound, when read with Rom 8:11 and Jn 11:26; 16:9; even Heb 2:8; but this is examined extensively in the meditation “The Testimony”.

5.45. Does Ps 82:6 say we are gods?

Our Lord Jesus was facing Jews with a menacing attitude that were threatening Him with death (Jn 10:33); yet His wisdom and presence of mind remains unshaken and so Jesus quoted Ps 82:6 in Jn 10:34 with reference to the high official title given by the Holy Spirit to the false and tyrannical judges of the old covenant, to refute the charge of blasphemy by the scribes. The Jews did not admit Jesus to be God in any sense and they threatened to kill Him. Therefore, in refutation of them, He quotes this psalm. But a comparison drawn from a psalm does not prove that the Godhead of Christ approaches nearer to the godhead of mortals, than to the Godhead of the eternal Father; for He did not ever quote this passage of the psalm to believers. The very next verse (Ps 82:7) discloses this context that can be found in the Strong’s Concordance, explaining that אֱלֹהִים (‘ĕlôhı̂ym) used in Ps 82:6 is the plural of H433 and occasionally specifically applied by way of deference to magistrates and sometimes as a superlative to angels or judges and therefore not necessarily [always] to gods in the ordinary sense (Ex 21:6; 22:8,9; Dt 1:17; 2 Chron 19:6; Ezra 3:9; Rom 13:1-8). It is therefore plausible that Ps 82:6 can simply mean that although God allow certain men lofty titles does it not mean that we are gods in the strictest sense as being supernatural with the attributes and abilities of God our Creator, but for some with a responsibility to “Judge/rule on God’s behalf as His representative”, such as magistrates and judges and then to be honorable and not become insolent, impertinent and corrupt for man can quickly become haughty but is reminded in Ps 82:7 that leaders are in the end just as human as the rest of humankind and will ultimately give account to God as our supreme Lord and Governor (Acts 10:34; Jer 31:34; even Mt 7:15-23; Rom 2:8 and Rev 20:10). God will always be sovereign, that’s why we should pray to Him to help us all to get our act together and live responsibly in righteousness and peace. There is but one true God (Ex 3:14; 20:3; 2 Sam 22:32; Is 44:8; Ps 50:1; Rom 16:27; 1 Cor 8:6; Eph 4:6; 1 Tim 1:17; 2:15; Jm 2:19). We are not “co-gods” with God our Creator. We cannot create ex nihilo with our words like God did in Gen 1-2. It is feeble to attempt a counter argument by quoting Prov 18:21 for this passage refers to the tongue as an exponent of the mind and not the false show play-acting “charismatic” preachers put up who pretend to command inanimate things that have no sense of self-awareness. Stewardship is a human task; dead objects cannot control itself and can therefore not react to our speech – as evidence and honest observance reveals time and again. The meditation “The will of man, the will of God” expands on this. It is therefore simply wrong that “His own image” in Gen 1:27 means that since God has created living creatures each to its kind, that God has made in Adam basically a clone of Himself, and by implication then, mankind as gods. If this were so the fact that we need a Savior would not make sense, would it? (Rom 3:23; 5:12; 8:2; 1 Cor 15:45 and Jn 3:16, to name just a few)

Ps 82 can perhaps also draw a parallel to Israel’s disobedience and self-will that frustrated the gracious purpose of the Commandments and promises of God (cf the meditations “Israel racism” and “The Covenant and The Law”), deducted from Mt 3:7-10 and Mt 21:42-43.

Man was created last as the pinnacle of God’s creatures (Gen 1:28b; 1 Cor 6:2-3, 11,19-20) and obviously very different from animals [“beasts”] in having a spiritual aspect that may glorify the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Furthermore, man has the privilege to have not merely a spiritual awareness of his Creator that other earthly creatures don’t have but we can even enjoy a relationship with our Creator as in Jn 4:23-24; Rom 8:14. We can have ourselves baptized in His great Name to whom we owe our being. As examined in the meditation “Body, soul and spirit of man”, can we see that we can bear this image for we were made to be upright (Eccl 7:29); but somehow became self-righteous and so started to err by developing bad appetites and passions. How this image has been defaced! How great the grace and mercy, the Love of God, to give us His salvation and restoration plan in Jesus Christ! (Jn 3:16; 2 Cor 5:17; Phil 3:9; Rom 8:29-39).

Refer to the meditation “Who is Jesus Christ” for an expanded thought of our position and rank in Christ (Ps 8:6 is briefly deliberated there under the heading “The only begotten son of God”). By the way, 1 Cor 6:3 is not a contradiction, for we are currently “a little lower than angels” with the “judgments” of 1 Cor 6:3 that will most probably only apply after the second advent of Christ (1 Cor 15:27; Heb 2:8-18). The dominion given man (Gen 1:26,28; Ps 8:6) refers in fact ultimately to the supreme dominion of Christ (Heb 2:6-8; Col 1:16-20). Jesus Christ was the greatest honor ever put upon human nature and epitomized in our Lord Jesus.

5.46.  Who/what is the rock of Mt 16:18?

The argument of contradiction focuses on the connection between Peter and the rock (the words in the Greek differ in gender, πέτρος and πέτρα, but were identical in the Aramaic, which our Lord probably used; and some feel this was meant to convey special prominence). However deep we want to delve into controversies brought up by scholars, must the true meaning of that passage be found in not an ecclesiastical matter of interpolation, but if Christ spoke it, it must have been a modest, elementary statement suitable to His hearers at the time; and He would not have fought to death against one form of spiritual despotism to merely replace it with another, possibly worse.  So, Christ (The Messiah) did not mean, as the Roman Catholics claim, to exalt Peter to supreme authority above all the other apostles, or that Peter would be the only one upon whom he would rear His church.  This is clear from even just Acts 15, where the advice of James, and not Peter, was followed; also, where Paul withstood Peter to his face in Gal 2:11. This could not have happened if Christ meant (as the Roman Catholics say) that Peter was absolute and infallible, even unwavering. The whole meaning of the passage would rather be that Jesus stated that He [Christ] as the Head of His church would allow Peter [a follower] the privilege of being the honoured instrument of making known His Gospel first to Jews and Gentiles, and to be a firm and distinguished preacher in helping to build His church. Jesus the Messiah is the rock, not Peter. Refer here to 1 Cor 10:4; 1 Cor 3:11; even Dt 32:4,18; 2 Sam 22:3; 23:3; Ps 18:2,31,46; 118:22; Is 17:10; 28:16; Hab 1:2; Mt 21:42; Acts 4:11; Rom 9:33… The rock bed (foundation) is the truth of The Gospel and the believer’s faith (trust) in it by following His teaching (1 Jn 2:4; Jn 14:6; 1 Tim 2:5).  Jesus Christ our only Lord and Saviour is the supreme builder of His church/house/people in whom He dwells – 1 Tim 3:15; Acts 7:48; 1 Cor 3:9,11; 1 Cor 6:15-20; Is 61:3; Eph 2:20; 1 Pet 2:4-6; Ps 127:1; even 1 Cor 10:26)

This is the obvious meaning of the passage that was abused by the Church of Rome and applied to what was not intended.

“…Thou shalt be highly honoured; thou shalt be first in making known the gospel to both Jews and Gentiles…” This was accomplished as can be seen in Acts 2:14-36, where he first preached to the Jews, and Acts 10, where he preached the gospel to Cornelius and his neighbours, who were Gentiles. Peter had thus the honour of laying the foundation of the church but ultimately the foundation is of course Christ –  1 Cor 3:11; 2 Tim 2:19 (Num 16:5; Is 26:13); Heb 6:1; also, Ps 104:5; Is 28:16; Ezek 21:27; Jn 1:1-4; 17:24; Col 1:16-20; Rom 15:20; 2 Tim 2:19; Heb 11:10; among the Jews and Gentiles; and this is rather the plain meaning of this passage. See Gal 2:9. So Christ did not mean, as the Roman Catholics say he did, to exalt Peter to supreme authority above all the other apostles, or to say that he was the only one upon whom he would rear his church. We have seen this in Acts 15 and Gal 2:11 above. More than all, it is not said here, or anywhere else in the Bible, that Peter would have infallible successors who would be the vicegerents of Christ and the head of the church. The whole meaning of the passage is this: “I will make you the honoured instrument of making known my gospel first to Jews and Gentiles, and I will make you a firm and distinguished preacher in building my church.”

“…Will build my church…” refers to the custom of building in Judea upon a rock or other very firm foundation (Mt 7:15-27; 1 Cor 3:11; 1 Tim 2:5). The word “church” literally means “those called out,” and often means an assembly or congregation (Acts 7:38; 19:32), applied to Christians as being “called out” from the world. It means sometimes the whole body of believers (Eph 1:22; 1 Cor 10:32), it also means a particular society of believers worshipping in one place (Acts 8:1; 9:31; 1 Cor 1:2; etc), but also a society in a single house as in Rom 16:5. In plain language it means the church visible – i.e., all who profess faith as Paul means in Gal 1:6-9 (Mt 15:6-9; 1 Jn 2:4 and discussed in the meditation “Church”), or invisible, i.e., all who are real Christians, professors or not.

5.47. How to reconcile Jm 1:13 with Prov 3:11-12 (Heb 12:5-10)?

This author first has to again make it clear that the hermeneutics (any deductions, interpretations, extrapolations, assumptions or inferences) in his meditations are probably not absolutely perfectly complete or even flawlessly accurate (1 Cor 13:12), but is nevertheless an honest attempt to entice and reveal a taste of meaning to Biblical text that could lessen our ignorance when it comes to what Jesus Christ (His Holy Spirit, Jn 14:26) has provided for us as given in The Bible as God’s Word (Jn 1:1-4,14; Col 1:13-24); thus ultimately, to know and serve God better (Jn 4:23-24; Heb 10:16). This author believes that the subject of God’s correction relates strongly to prayer.

When we take note of Heb 12:5-10 and consider Prov 3:11-12 and Rev 3:19; we might struggle with Jm 1:13, or 1 Cor 10:13 (Note 1 Cor 10:12 as well). Observe that Jm 1:14 stipulates temptation (our own lust and evil desires) is implied in Jm 1:13 and not the sufferings, trials and tribulations we are trying to dissect and better understand in this specific deliberation. 1 Cor 10:13 makes a thought-provoking statement that God, faithful to His Word, “will not let us be tempted and tried and assayed beyond our ability…” then follows the advice in 1 Cor 10:14 that we must keep ourselves unspotted from the world – Jm 1:27c; Rom 12:9 (Jn 14:18; 1 Tim 5:8; Heb 13:5). We see therefore no entrapment from God, but the self-inflicted results of our own wrongdoing by taking evil bait in lust and greed. What we are dealing with here, however, is not temptation but what form God’s correction assumes, in the context of Jn 15:1-8 and Heb 12:5-10.

We note the following:

  • God is a perfect Father and not distant (Mt 11:25-30). The meditations “Prayer” and “The will of man, the will of God” hope to qualify the assumption that it seems that through prayer we [or those who pray for us] invoke God to also correct and discipline us! (Even Jm 4:2b; 1 Jn 5:15) Ponder the dictionary synonyms for “invoke”. Some are: “call on”, “supplicate”, “entreat”, “solicit”, “beseech”, “beg”, “implore”, “petition”, “impetrate”, “invite”, “importune” …  Any restrain for us then appears to serve to prevent our otherwise self-ruin and harbors no automatic vindictive element on God’s part; but an involvement through our fellowship that, for whatever reason, threatens to derail due to our faltering (even Gal 1:6-9). Remember 1 Thess 5:9 and Heb 10:14; also, that the suffering of Jesus (Mt 17:12) is not equal to our suffering at the hands of the religious (Jn 1:17; 9:28; 15:18-21). Mt 17:12b refers to Jesus (Jn 19:7,15,16; Acts 7:52) and not us. He had to suffer uniquely (Heb 9:12,15,24,25,28; 10:14) Note, also, Heb 6:4-6 and 2 Pet 3:9. The meditation “The Gospel” attempts to expand on this. Note at Heb 9:27 that the word men there, is anthrōpǒs [444] and is from anēr [435], a primary word actually indicating an individual man, a husband! The writer of the book Hebrews (2 Tim 3:16) gives a more enriching depth to this text (Heb 9:27), and why “men” [444] should probably therefore rather have been translated as “Jesus Christ” (435, refer to Gal 3:16!); if we consider the words of Jesus in Mt 19:4-6 (Eph 1:17-23; 5:31-32! Now re-consider Jn 3:16…)!  Even just reading the context of Heb 9, you should have noticed that the very next verse (28) states that, so it is with Christ, having offered to take upon Himself and bear as a burden the sins of all once for all…  The judgement then, for all sin, was thus on Him that took it [death] on our behalf!  It is saying that Jesus is the Lamb of God and the only Savior of all that believes this outrageous deed of love!
  • The purist Calvinist approach that God only corrects those He pre-elected and that we have no choice is expounded on in the meditations “The Gospel” and “The will of man, the will of God”. God’s elect are more likely simply those who [has, will] elect to follow God (Jn 3:16; Rom 8:14; 2 Pet 3:9).
  • With God being Love and not a manipulator, it becomes irreconcilable that God would use sufferings and trials as instruments to inflict and chastise us as a cruel and often apparent excessive form of programmed incentive, as His rebukes for sin. The meditation “Hearing God’s voice” refers. For why then, Jn 14:26? Certainly, we may receive difficulties as indications of corrections, but doubtful to the point where God would cause, for example, immense suffering or the death of loved ones just to force our attention…
  • The meaning is more likely, at least in part, to encourage us to endure and not grow weary or faint in holiness (Jn 14:27; Rev 3:20-22); but be deterred away from corrupt dedication, towards God alone. Note how Jesus stands at our door and knock (Rev 3:20). God does not manipulate us with fear as incentives to go to Him, like the Mafia, and calls it “protection”. It is also possible that we could use acceptance of such conditions as a technique to help endure inflictions, to survive the maliciousness of men until free from them.  Jesus in Mt 12:35 and Paul in Gal 5:22,23 and 2 Cor 4:7 do not say we must embrace our enemy [adversity] thinking it will develop good virtues; but rather to be glad that we have opportunities to show what God has deposited into our inner self [already. Even 2 Tim 1:7]!  This gives Jm 1:3 a fresh meaning, does it not? Live victoriously in Christ; observe that Christ is within the new-born disciple of Jesus Christ and that the “subjection” in Prov 3:11, for example, functions within God’s permissive will, God is not the instigator (Is 5:18; 2 Tim 2:19; 1 Cor 10:13; Job 2:6)! Likewise, compare Prov 3:11 and Job 5:18 (Heb 12:5-18; Jn 15:1-10; 1 Cor 11:32) with the statement in Is 5:18; 2 Tim 2:19; Jm 1:13 but especially Jer 26:13 and observe the description of a “pronouncement” by God [a declaration and observation and thus no admittance of being the instigator); also observe the description “within” in Jn 3:3; 4:23-24; 14:12-14,17,26; Eph 3:20; Phil 4:13; and so on!
  • In part we may even also understand sufferings or delayed gratifications as instruments (“indicators”, “corrections” or “directions”) used by God but not to the point of “divine inflictions” and never to chastise maliciously that further implies that God will neither cause, use or force anyone to become malicious [on His behalf] to make us suffer inflictions. God’s paternal care cannot be crueler than that of man (Mt 7:9-11) but do contemplate 1 Cor 11:31-32. This addresses our usefulness to God and so reads perfectly with Mt 25:30; Jn 15:1-10; Heb 12:4-13 and Rev 3:19!
  • Correction [reproof, 2 Tim 3:16] can be found in scripture when we are sufficiently serious to study God’s Word diligently (Ps 1:2) as scripture explains scripture and have untold lessons and messages for us. An illustration can even be the doubt of John the Baptist in Mt 11:3 (Gen 49:10; Num 24:17) and Jesus’ reply in Mt 11:4-5 (Is 35:5,6; 61:1). This is Jesus of Jn 1:1-4,14,17. Observe as well, that it was not God who imprisoned John the Baptist in any way, shape or form (Mt 14:3,8-10).

Note at Jn 9:3. First, Jesus made it clear that there existed no connection between that man’s and his parents’ sin and his suffering due to blindness. Note that Jesus did not insinuate they were without sin, He merely said the infliction (blindness) was not a form of punishment caused by sin; in effect, that we should be careful with our judgements (refer to the meditation “Judging”). Note also, that certain sufferings can very well be caused by transgression. It is entirely possible that Jesus was in fact teaching here about spiritual blindness (Jn 9:41) with this physical demonstration that He was indeed God, conquering and abolishing evil and not that evil is used to be resolved into a higher good. (God does not need evil to show He is good). Second, as in Eccl 11:4, if this man’s blindness was not allowed (through God’s permissive will – refer to “The will of man, the will of God”), then this demonstration could not serve as a teaching or an admonishing. It is then more a case of God having used this man’s condition while it existed, for whatever reason, than God inflicting him to use evil for a higher good (Jm 1:13). Jesus draws us to Him with His Love (Jn 3:16-17; 12:32; 15:13), not by causing calamities and then changing arbitrary ones for good to impress, extort or somehow force [cohort] us towards Him.

Again, we must be very careful not to misinterpret the statement Jesus made in Jn 9:3. Jesus did not say that God caused this man’s blindness just so that He could show that He can heal such infirmity! This would mean God is cruel, sadistic, insecure and a manipulator! No!  No, Jesus rather pointed out that this blindness was (i) not due to the man’s own sin (for he was born blind), nor (ii) due to the sin of his parents (to “punish” them, even the wrong and innocent party – the son, in a cruel and sadistic manner); but while the defect that happened [somehow, not caused but allowed by God as part and parcel of us being free moral agents with a complete and absolute free will on earth]; that an unfortunate case such as that man’s blindness presents opportunity where God will [can] readily let us see and experience His Love, grace, mercy and will for our wellbeing when we activate our faith, our belief in His provision (a finished work from God’s side – Eph 1:3; 1 Pet 2:24) through prayer.  And all that is only for our good, by healing completely without us having to earn it first. Ponder the meditation “Prayer” and “The will of man, the will of God” for a fuller exegesis of this great truth. Remember that God is not apathetic for He gave us a mechanism called prayer… (Refer to that meditation)

As mentioned in 5.26, the point is that Jm 1:13-14 and 1 Cor 10:13 rather reveals more to us about the true nature of God as 1 Cor 11:19; Hos 4:6 and Is 5:18 bears out as well. We are in fact dealing here with the permissive will of God (refer to the meditation “The will of man and the will of God”). Mt 6:13 might appear to confirm the apparent instigation by God as easily read into Dt 13:3 and 2 Thess 2:11 but that is not so. God allows it so that false prophets [imposters and liars] might be exposed and in the process, as time goes on, must we take heed not to fall in the trap to be impressed by their signs and wonders (Mt 7:15-23; 15:6-9), which is exactly why we need to be well acquainted with truths and precepts of God and His Word, The Bible. Otherwise, we will readily misidentify evil under the appearance of good and error in the guise of truth. Often the foretelling “prophets” simply had some knowledge of natural science (such as an eclipse) or simply got it wrong but before time would tell, Christians today should be able to discern truth from lies and that can only happen with accurate knowledge of God and His Word and His Spirit inside of us (Jn 4:23,24; 14:26; Rom 8:14).

5.48. How to reconcile Mt 15:24 with Acts 10:34-35; i.e., the Gospel to all?

The reconciliation will be found in Col 1:26-27; considering Mt 3:6-9, and especially Mt 21:43 with Rom 9:6-8, 23-26 when read with Hos 1:10; 2:23.  This brings to mind Jer 31:31-34; Jn 1:10-13; Heb 8:6,10-13; also Heb 5:8-14; 6:1-3; Gal 3:1-8,26-29; Rom 8:1-4; even Rom 10:1-4 and Heb 6:4-14! Certainly, we could apply Rom 8:29-31; 9:16,23-26 and Jn 3:16… The meditations “The Gospel” and “Israel racism” expand on this. Suffice for now to just say that the NT (after Jn 19:30!) offers a New Testament (Heb 8:13; 9:15). Jesus came for the Israelites (Jews) first, but they as a nation rejected Him, they had their chance first, then He welcomed the non-Israelites (Jn 1:10-13 and the scriptures above in this paragraph).

Then, as far as the comparison to dogs is concerned, on the surface, the statement Jesus made in Mt 15:26 seems harsh, for apparently all nations were accustomed to applying terms of content, of which dogs was the most common. Muslims and Turks ironically still apply the term “dogs” to Christians, so do even Jews and Christians to each other as an expression of utmost contempt; but in Mt 15:26 we observe the following:

(a). Jesus used the word “dog” in its diminutive form.  Κυνάριον (G2952, kunarion) is neuter of a presumed derivative of G2965; a puppy. It is as if Jesus desired to soften the harshness of a common expression in their dialect with almost a touch of playful humor, as a parable to be taken with a grain of salt, so to speak (Mt 5:13; Col 4:6?)

(b). We understand the implicated reference to Jews and gentiles, but again, it appears as if Jesus was not referring to scavengers in the streets that were not acknowledged, but to pets of a household who are also loved. Such a dog, especially a puppy still, would get their portion, although not the children’s (Rom 9:30-33; 11:11-22!)

(c). We see the grace of God again in Mt 15:28.

5.49. How fair is Mt 25:29 (Mk 4:25; Lk 19:26)?

Jesus said so, yes; but He also gave us Mt 11:25; 13:15 and Mt 21:43 but then Lk 8:18 and the insight of Mt 13:12 (Ampl) with the answer.  Money is at most a metaphor for it is actually about our spiritual knowledge that should be improved – and then by us as implored in Rom 12:2 (compare Rom 10:1-4; Heb 4:2; 11:6). Those who seek God through His Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ, shall find more while those in self-inflicted ignorance, pride and stubbornness, will be found at a loss (due to their own doing).

Furthermore, the full message in the parable is clear:  unprofitable servants of God are useless to His Kingdom [good for nothing].  This includes the selfish philosophy to just go to heaven (because you attend church services or do “charity”?).  Tread careful here, and contemplate Mt 7:15-23, and for that matter, Mt 25:30; 28:19-20 with Jn 17:20-26; and Jn 15:1-5,6,8 with Rev 3:16 as well!  Not omitting Mt 15:6-20 with Gal 1:6-9! Context may be used in an attempt to avoid the principle, but the Truth remains as read in Jn 14:6 (1 Tim 2:5); 1 Jn 2:4 and Phil 3:9…

5.50. Does 1 Tim 2:12 contradict Gal 3:28; Acts 10:34?

Some claim the Bible (The Gospel) is outdated and irrelevant today, 2 000 years later, for they say woman is said to be declared inferior by the Bible while recent history with powerful woman proves otherwise. We’ll test this insinuation.

Homosexual people also make this claim and mostly reject the Biblical stance on specific sexual and moral issues.  This choice of lifestyle, however, confuses “modernism” with plain apostasy. The meditations “The Gospel” and “Homosexuality a choice, gender or not” attempt to examine these latter issues; so for the purpose of this meditation, we’ll now focus on the status of woman in The Bible.

To know the context of weighty admonitions such as found in 1 Tim 2:11-12, for instance, is vital to a better understanding. Evidence suggests that special reference was made here to specific times and circumstances, particularly disorderly conduct in meetings as suggested in 1 Cor 14:26-30. 1 Cor 14:34 probably refers to Gen 3:16 and mankind before Jn 3:15-16 (Rom 5:12; 8:2; 1 Cor 15:45); that somewhat moderates 1 Cor 11:3. It seems that some particular women spoke on impulse and under some impression that led to abuses and indecorum in some meetings. But, ladies, don’t despair, in contrast, we found OT prophetesses such as Miriam (Ex 15:20); Anna (Lk 12:36; Josh 19:24); Deborah (Judges 4:4,5,10) and Huldah (2 Chron 34:22).

Observe that Jesus Christ in fact greatly restored the status of [Godly] woman that even today, are still trampled upon by various heathen and pagan systems, just as 2 000 years ago. We can cite in this regard, examples such as our Saviour born of a woman (Lk 1:28-33), even the incident of the woman that was probably set up in adultery, recorded in Jn 8:3-11. In 1 Tim 2:11-12, Paul therefore penned the spirit of his Master who forever raised [Christian] woman out of the positions of degradation and intellectual inferiority they are forced to occupy in various pagan systems. In Christianity, males and females are fellow heirs of the glories of the Kingdom of God where gender no longer determines the status of mankind. Gen 1:26 states that woman is the expression of man’s glory (majesty, pre-eminence). But while Paul taught this great and elevating truth, he seems to show what the proper sphere would be for a man and a woman’s traditional duties as based on Gen 2:21-23 with 1 Cor 11:8 and Gen 2:18 with 1 Cor 11:9. But do consider 1 Cor 11:11-12 and perhaps even 1 Cor 3:18-23!

Referring to Acts 10:34,35; Gal 3:8 and Eph 5:21 and 1 Cor 11:11 the purpose of 1 Tim 2:11-12 seems to rather have been to relegate Christian woman to their own legitimate sphere of action and influence, specifically in the crucial fundamental task in their [own] homes. The apostle then proceeds to ground these injunctions in respect to public and private duties in order of the original creation and upon the circumstances which attended the fall. Principally, though, it seems to be about admonishing against an act of independence of the bride in relation to her husband, prophetically and ultimately pointing to the revealed mystery in Eph 5:25-32. Perhaps the meditation “Marriage” in www.gospel-truth.co.za could be an expansion on these thoughts? Similarly, Titus 2:5 rather compliments than denigrate; in the sense that unity is what is strived for (Eph 4:4-6). In 1 Pet 3:1 the married woman is admonished to be “submissive” (supportive) to their own husbands and the verses following strongly suggest the prophetic image of a stable and practical unity mentioned in Eph 5:25-32; even ultimately Jn 17:20-26.

Hear the apostle Paul’s admiration for Eunice and Lois, the respective mother and grandmother of Timothy in 1 Tim 1:5; revealing that they have been great and indispensable at teaching and instructing in their households (Prov 1:8. Titus 2:3).  Note in Titus 2:3 that the [older] woman was given the task to be teachers of what is right and noble. Clearly, the Bible therefore elevates [Godly] woman in general and is 1 Tim 2:11-12 clearly referring to only particular woman and particular circumstances.

Another example from Paul on this style is found in 2 Tim 3:16. Clearly the statement “all scripture is given by God…” implies only canon (Gal 1:6-9) and not literally all writings from a secular and pagan world as well.

5.51. Why was incest allowed in The Bible – and then not? (Heb 13:8 [Jn 1:1-4; Col 1:17])

Reading Gen 1:28, we may surmise that marriage between close relatives was, initially, an obvious necessity as the number of human beings on the earth at that time was severely limited. Adam and Eve’s children, seemingly starting with Cain and Seth, had to marry either their sisters or their nieces by inevitability, apparently without it being considered incest. But, even then, Gen 2:24 implies that marriage between parent and child seems to have been disallowed. It states, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and shall become united and cleave to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” (Mt 19:5; 1 Cor 6:16; Eph 5:31-33).

In the Bible we read that, even since ancient times, it was often taboo to have relations with your child or sibling, but the first comprehensive mandate against marriage among family members in the Bible didn’t arrive until the Mosaic Law about 1250 years BC. (Lev 18:6-12; 18:10,12-18,24-25,27; 20:1,11-17,19-21; 27:20-23). Even severe punishment is mentioned in Lev 20:11-12,14. Note, as well, the warnings in 1 Cor 5:11-13; 6:9-10; Rev 21:8.

We read of numerous instances of incest in The Bible, at least the following:

Nahor (Gen 11:29)
Lot and his daughters (Gen 19:31-38)
Abraham (Gen 20:12-13)
Isaac and Rebekah (Gen 24:15,67)
Jacob and Leah and Rachel (Gen 29:23,30)
Reuben (Gen 35:22; 49:3-4; 1 Chron 5:1)
Amram (Ex 6:20)
Judah (Gen 38:16-18; 1 Chron 2:4)
Rehobeam (2 Chron 11:18)
Amnon (2 Sam 13:10-14)
People of Israel (Amos 2:7)
Herod (Mt 14:3-4; Mk 6:17-18; Lk 3:19)

So, we may ask, at what stage did incest become wrong and why?

The Bible doesn’t say, but we can speculate. Apart from the obvious initial need for marriage between close relatives, we can speculate that Adam and Eve were created genetically pure – Gen 1:27. (Interestingly, we read that after each of the other creations, “God saw that it was good”; but when He created Adam and Eve, they were not specifically said to be good but seems to be included in that observation by Gen 1:31). Nevertheless, they apparently had no congenital defects to pass on to their offspring. DNA damage can be observed to accumulate over time, but even 2000 years later, when Abraham was born, genes were seemingly still healthy enough to allow for him to marry his half-sister. It seems that genetic abnormalities did not influence marriage partners until the mutations were common enough to be a health risk. Therefore, God could very well have later tightened incest standards when He gave the law to Moses. Lev 18:6 says, “None of you shall approach any one of his close relatives to uncover nakedness. I am the LORD.” It goes on to elaborate: A man could not marry his mother, stepmother, sister (half or full, brought up within his family or in another home), granddaughter, stepsister (brought up as his sister), paternal or maternal aunt, father’s brothers’ wife, daughter-in-law, sister-in-law, or both a woman and her daughter or granddaughter, nor sisters while both are alive. It is thought that there was no mention of a man marrying his daughter because the disgrace of the relationship was obvious. Notice how these laws maintain better health, honour and peace within the larger family unit (Lev 18:6-18), and they also establish a morality still applicable today. Refer to the meditations “Marriage”, “Homosexuality, a choice, gender or not”.

Another possible reason is the patriarchy and tribalism common at the time. When Isaac needed a wife, Abraham did not want him to marry one of the local Canaanite women, whose religion was anathema to the worship of God. So, he sent his servant back to his homeland to find a wife from his relatives (Gen 24:3-4). Later, Rebekah convinced Isaac to send their son Jacob away to her family to find a wife (Gen 27:46). In doing so, the family unit was kept strong, and ungodly religious influences were hoped to be kept to a minimum. This was particularly true among Egyptian royalty, where incest was used to maintain the royal line – and ironically for them, made for some very unhealthy pharaohs.

In other words, Heb 13:8 and Jn 1:1-4 holds no contradiction. God, who is love (read that meditation?), has certainly proved to intervene for our benefit (Jn 1:17; 3:15-16; Col 1:13-20; Heb 4:14-16).

5.52. Does Mt 6:7 contradict Mt 26:44; Mk 14:39; Lk 18:1-7?

 Use not vain repetitions. This warrants serious thought from all of us as God’s children.

 We can safely assume that all disciples of Jesus Christ pray and naturally then, some like me, rather graceless at times. What Jesus pointed out was that the faults in prayer that the Scribes and Pharisees were guilty of were vain-glory and vain mechanical repetitions. Much talking in prayer is a method heathens use to their false gods and is still observed by Hindu and Mohammedan devotees. Jews apparently have a maxim that, “Everyone who multiplies prayer is heard.” Compare the hollow devotion of the rosary in which every bead is thought to be connected with a Pater Noster or Ave Maria and does but produce the 18 prayers of the Rabbis in senseless repetition by babbling them over. Jesus does not here condemn the occasional earnest using of the same words but condemns the characteristic feature of heathen babbling as an external act. The word used is μὴβατταλογήσητε that is probably onomatopoeic of stuttering or babbling in senseless repetitions as also found with hypocrites. This can be borne out by Jesus praying in Mt 26:44 and Mk 14:39 that certainly was perfect and not the empty repetition meant in Mt 6:7 (compare Jn 11:41,42). The question that can be asked is when the grace of God does not warrant begging, with the understanding that we do not need to nag Almighty God (Mt 6:8). But what is sought is our continuance of “daily bread” in our inner-man in faithfulness and commitment of continued dependency on God alone (Jn 15:1-10). The most powerful prayer and intercessions are made in the Spirit by groaning that cannot be uttered (Jn 4:23-24; Rom 8:26). A multiplicity of words without meaning would be like a stutter or foolish talk without reverence for God, sincerity or faith; and this is rather what would be vain. The priests of Baal cried from morning to noon (1 Ki 18:26-29; even Artemis at Ephesus in Acts 19:34) repeating the same request. What Jesus thus pointed out would possibly address hypocrites who used the manner of heathens that would be a denial of God’s power, knowledge and His goodness and would be culpable of an insult to Him.  We should therefore be extremely careful in our prayers to mean what we say and be sure of our desires to not disgrace it (Jn 9:31; Jm 4:3; also Ps 66:18; Prov 15:29; 28:9; Is 1:15). But we can learn from Jesus’ examples (Mt 26:44; Mk 14:39) and especially His agony in Gethsemane (Mt 26:36,42,44; Mk 14:32,36,39,41). Repetition from a deep vehement desire of divine grace and the spiritual blessings flowing from it is what we should connect to. We therefore do not pray to God to inform Him, for He is omniscient, it is a fit disposition for us to humble ourselves to God through our sensible dependence on Him and acknowledge His willingness to give relief and blessings by His grace alone (Lk 12:32).

The conclusion can therefore be that the repetition of words of a specific prayer is internally vastly different between a heathen and a hypocrite than a child of our Creator-Father and a disciple of His beloved son Jesus Christ that in trust [faith] exercise patience, for our impatience dishonours God.

5.53. is there a discrepancy in Gen 1:4?

 The query is how a day [light] could exist before the sun was created. Gen 1:14-18 states the sun and moon was made on day three while light was made on day one (Gen 1:1-5).

The days of creation are stated, not explained, to us. We can however make a few deductions, such as: –

  • Gen 1:1-3 makes it evident that earth was present before light but note that Gen 1:2 does not say that God used some sort of formless and void mass that already existed and then transformed it, at all. God’s creation in Genesis was ex nihilo (from or out of nothing). It was not a reconstruction of something that had existed in space. Furthermore, God then simultaneously created things such as matter, space, energy and time; although not at first immediately as final organized, completed working systems. Relationships were established that we can relate to today.
  • The scale and relation between earth and the rest of what are found in the cosmos, should humble us. What would take us millions of light years (at the speed of light, which is not constant) to reach, took God but a moment to create. The vast distances and marvelous complexities in this creation, just expose our abilities compared to God our Creator. It also demonstrates His Love (Read the meditation “God is Love”) compared to our feeble attempts. Can we read a hint of this in even just Ps 8:3; 19:1; 33:6; 89:11; 96:5; 102:25; 104:2?
  • The light source in Gen 1:3 was evidently not the same as the light emanating from the sun (that was created on day three – Gen 1:13-18). The initial light seems to have been temporary and of a different quality and energy until the sun, moon and stars were made. The initial light was evidently not intended for supporting plant life (that could at any rate survive for a day before sufficient light/energy was available from the sun). The sun, for instance, is required to provide a different energy for sophisticated processes such as photosynthesis that was required after plant life was made on day two (Gen 1:11-13). However, the source of the light in Gen 1:3-5 must have been at a static position relative to a rotating mass to deliver a day and night sequence. We are not told what exactly this initial light was but could have been a glow from material used elsewhere in space, static electricity or a specialized diffused glow by using free hydrogen or even a chemical (as found in a firefly), or a different [initial] form of energy with properties other than just visible light that even the sun would later possess and radiate, we just don’t know.
  • The idea that God (His glory, Jesus Christ) could be that initial light source (Jn 1:1-4; Col 1:17) faces a difficulty on two counts: (i) in that Jesus was not created (refer to the meditations “Who is Jesus Christ” and “The Trinity doctrine”), while this light in Gen 1 is stipulated as having been created; and (ii) the properties of the initial light, whatever its source, seems to have been not sufficient to support life on earth with the full spectrum as we understand it today, that was made on day three (Gen 1:13-19). Having said this, we have found The Bible to be one progressive, unfolding revelation of Jesus Christ, and as such we can observe some parallel analogies, allegories and “golden threads” right from the Bible’s beginning to its end that at first offers a mystery and a mere glimmer and, by the time we get to the last chapters, a revelation. (Rom 11:25; 16:25; 1 Cor 2:7; Eph 3:9; 5:32; Col 1:26-27; 2:2; 1 Tim 3:16; Rev 10:7. Refer to the prophecies Jesus fulfilled in the meditation “Genesis to Revelation”, as well.) Just to be clear: Jesus Christ, during the creation process in Genesis, was as God [Triune] already there as our Creator and around 4,000 years later was He our Savior when He nailed our sins to His cross (Jn 1:1-4,30; 17:24; Gal 3:8; Col 1:16-17; Heb 1:2-12; Rev 1:8,11; 21:6; 22:13); the Light Jesus brought us, is therefore rather mentioned in Eph 5:14 and Col 1:13-20.
  • Neither was there a gap (refer to the meditation “The gap theory”) or different amount of time between day one compared to the rest of the creation days. Nor is the option valid that the sun, moon and stars were created on day one also, but only “activated” or made to appear only on day three. The most ridiculous theory is that God used evolution (the relatively modern ideas of Darwinism) to create – refer to the meditation “Evolution” on www.gospel-truth.co.za. The Bible simply does not give such options.
  • Visual sight of the sun is not required to define the length of a day, as for instance the crew of a submersed submarine, or astronauts that can see several sunrises in a day, can confirm.
  • Genesis 1 is not a piece of poetic literature for that would deprive God of His immeasurable power and glory as the Creator. Gen 1:1; Ps 33:9; Col 1:16 and Rev 4:11 are not poems.
  • Archaeologists have discovered what is known as Enuma Elish in a library of Ashurbanipal (c. 668-626 BC) – narratives believed to date to perhaps 1,800 BC with striking similarities to the Genesis account with a record of light that existed before the creation of “the lightbearers” (Charles Pfeiffer, The Biblical World, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1966, pp. 224 ff). We know these are highly mythological but appear to have retained some remnant of truth inherited from an ancient and sacred record. Another discovery at ancient Ebla in Northern Syria, excavated from 1964 onward, delivered a creation account with a narrative regarding the “Lord of heaven and earth,” that, “The light of day was not; you created it” (Time, September 21, 1981, p. 76).

The Biblical account of our beginning, our creation as stated in Genesis, is therefore not as problematic as sceptics would want us to believe. There is more to light than what [visibly] meets the eye…

5.54. Does Jn 3:16 contradict 1 Jn 2:15

The term “world” seems to be used in scriptures in three senses:

  • The physical planet as a material creation and work of God in our universe. It is not improper to love and appreciate this application of the word “world” as good stewards of planet earth.
  • Applied to the humans that resides on it. It is not wrong to love the people with a love of benevolence, as a matter of fact it is a command of Jesus Christ (Jn 13:34-35; 15:12; 1 Jn 3:11,23) reiterated by Paul (Rom 12:10; 13:8; Gal 5:13; Eph 4:2; 1 Thess 3:12; 4:9), Heb 10:24, and Peter (1 Pet 1:22; 3:8) as well as John (1 Jn 4:7,11-12; 2 Jn 1:5). Even if they are not Christians (Mt 5:43-48; Rom 12:14).
  • As objects in a worldly system of which, behind the scenes, lurks Satan (the devil). Only in this sense can 1 Jn 2:15 be understood to be applicable as to what world and the love for it is forbidden because it could mean our self-destruction. Here we can reference Rom 12:2; Jm 4:4, also Mt 16:26; Lk 9:25; 1 Cor 1:20; 3:19; Gal 4:3; Col 2:8 et al. These constitute lust and greed of the flesh.

We read in Heb 9:26 (KJV) that Jesus was crucified in the end of the world! I.e. The end of what the world [people in self-righteousness] could come up with in futile attempts to obtain righteousness before God – hence statements such as Phil 3:9 and Jn 14:6. Compare Gal 4:4-5; Col 1:20; Heb 9:11,14-15; 10:14-19. The meditation “The four Gospels” expand on this.

John does not say we are not to love what our beloved Creator God has created for us and to not have interest in the beauty in its nature and fellow human beings; what we must hate (Rom 12:9) and avoid is what merely pamper the appetite of the self with desires of power, and whatever promote pride in material living. These are objects not to be sought by the re-born Christian that would otherwise reveal that his heart has never been truly renewed (Mt 6:24,33; Jm 4:4) and that he does not love Jesus Christ above all.

In Jn 3:16, however, we find that these familiar words were probably heard for the first time by Nicodemus. They are the revelation of the nature of God and the basis for our love to God and man (1 Jn 4:7-11; Col 1:13-21). Before Jesus Christ entered into His ministry on earth no one is on record saying “God Loves”. Some OT Psalmists came pretty near expressing it, though; but what greater utterance can man make? This world in Jn 3:16 cannot be the limited world of the elect but encompass a whole world as individuals as in 1 Jn 2:2 and 1 Tim 2:4 that are willing to believe and cleave to Jesus Christ (Jn 14:6; 15:1-9) and that would include you and me. In John’s Gospel “the world” actually refer to sinful men that are separated from God; and here we discover a great blessed truth that individuals can drag themselves away from God but He still remains omnipresent, ready to welcome the repentant sinner back like the lost son (Lk 15:20-24; Rom 8:32).

“God so loved the world that He gave” is His completed part of our salvation; “That whosoever believes” is our part, if we want everlasting Life. God’s Love is the salvation of the world who accepts our beloved Lord Jesus Christ as Lord above all.

5.55. 1 Cor 15:29 – can baptism be done on behalf of the dead? (Lk 16:26-31; 1 Tim 2:5)

 Note that Paul here does not speak at all in a self-inclusive way, as if of something common to all, but as of third persons, i.e. only those who did it with their imagination involved. Chrysostom says that among the Marcionites, when a catechumen (one prepared for baptism, but not actually baptized) was dead, they hid a person under the bed; then they asked the dead man if he wished to be baptized, and on the living one answered affirmatively, they baptized the latter.

The context of 1 Cor 15 was the addressing of unbelievers in the resurrection (1 Cor 15:12-22). Paul uses the method of reasoning argumentum ad hominem (attacking the person to refute the argument; Mt 12:25-29; 20:22-23; Mk 10:38-40; Lk 12:50). The logic used is that the sectorial practice of some attempting a vicarious baptizing – that only Christ could be able of anyway – has a problem explaining what then about the living person that acted on behalf of the dead, is that person then dead? Also, Paul could very well have asked, what shall they who are baptized for the dead do if the dead be not raised at all, why then are they baptized for the dead? The practice of baptism for the dead was in other words absurd if there were no resurrection. This seems to be the logic used by Paul here. But there are numerous conjectures as to the exact meaning of this passage. The only tenable is that among some of the Christians at Corinth (belonging to the sect called the Corinthians) a bizarre practice of baptizing a living person in the stead of some convert who had died before that sacrament had been administered to him. The Marcionites in the second century apparently also had such a custom. Their idea evidently was that whatever benefit flowed from baptism might thus be vicariously secured for the dead Christian. The scriptures referred to above refutes that notion. Also, refer to the meditation “Baptism”.

The apostle Paul therefore seems to address doctrines that opposed the resurrection by pointing out further consequences that would be implied by their erroneous reasoning that infers that the resurrection doctrine that Paul preached must be true (Gal 1:6-9; also, Mt 8:22; 22:31-32; Mk 12:22,27; Lk 9:60; 16:31-38; Jn 11:25; Acts 17:2,3,31-32; 23:6; 24:15,21; 26:8,23; Rom 1:4; 4:17; Phil 3:10-11). However, much of that knowledge regarding those practices appears to be lost and hence caused expositors to have varied interpretations of 1 Cor 15:29.

Various opinions have been entertained. Some are briefly the following:

  1. Some held the opinion that by “the dead” here is meant the Messiah who has put do death, the plural being used for the singular, meaning “the dead one”
  2. Others say the word “baptized” here is taken in the sense of “washing”, “cleansing”, “purifying”, as in Mt 8:4; Heb 9:10 and the sense is that the dead were carefully washed and purified when buried, with the hope of the resurrection. This however, seems to contradict the unbelief in the resurrection that Paul was addressing. We also read Jn 11:14,25; 14:6 and Rom 10:9-10.
  3. Others again, that “baptized for the dead” means to be baptized as dead, being baptized into Christ, and buried with Him in baptism and that by their immersion they were regarded as dead. Here we can read Rom 6:2-13; Col 1:18; 2:12-15; 3:3-5 as well.
  4. Some, such as Grotius, Michaelis, Tertulian, and Ambrose imposed such an importance to Baptism that they were of the opinion that the practice of a vicarious baptism was necessary for those who died without being baptized. It baffles the mind that the advocates of this idea apparently overpower Lk 23:43 that clearly demonstrates that baptism is not a requirement for salvation, as well as Jn 3:16; Rom 10:9-10, et al (see the meditation “Baptism” on www.gospel-truth.co.za). It must be pointed out that (a) there is no evidence that such a custom was endorsed or prevailed in the Christian church in the time of Paul; and (b) it cannot be believed that Paul would give countenance to a custom so senseless and so contrary to the Scripture. (c) It does not accord with the strain and purpose of Paul’s argument. If custom had been referred to, Paul would have asked “What will become of them for whom others have been baptized? Are we to believe that they have perished?” (d) It is far more probable that this custom referred to arose from an erroneous interpretation of 1 Cor 15:29 and did not exist in the time of Paul.
  5. There are two more options, both of which are plausible. One held by Lightfoot, Rosenmuller, Pearce, Homberg, krause, and of Prof. Robinson is that the word “baptized” is used as in Mt 20:22-23; Mk 10:39; Lk 12:50, in the sense of being overwhelmed with calamities, trials, and sufferings and as meaning that these sufferings were on account of the dead and in the hope of the resurrection or the expectation that the dead would rise. (The Lexicon article Βαπτίζω Baptizō). The use of the word to denote a deep sinking into calamities is convincing. The apostles and early Christians were indeed subject to great and overwhelming calamities on account of the hope of the resurrection. This interpretation also agrees with the general tenor of the argument for the resurrection and thus the belief of all those who endured those trials, that there would be a resurrection of the dead and their sufferings and sorrow would not be in vain. The objections to this viewpoint are that (a) it is not the natural meaning of the word “baptize”. (b) A metaphorical use of a word should not be resorted to unnecessary – the literal meaning of the word here will equally apply. (c) The difficulties regarding the phrase “for the dead” remain.

Let’s suffice to repeat that the context of 1 Cor 15 was the addressing of unbelievers in the resurrection (1 Cor 15:12-22). Also, that too much information seems to be lost to us today and that readily leads to erroneous and unscriptural interpretations.

5.56. What about Mt 19:17 and Jn 20:17?

The meditation “Who is Jesus Christ?” expands on this. For our purposes now, note that the deity of Jesus Christ is not under any suspicion for He forgave sins, healed people as was prophesied (Mt 11:4-6; Is 35:4-5; 61:1) and allowed people to worship Him all while simultaneously representing us [perfectly] as man to God (1 Cor 15:45) to pay for all our sins [confessed and repented of, laid down, by us], making Jesus Christ the “Begotten Son” other than us mere mortals that can only be saved by Him. “My God” and “My Father” is indeed different for Jesus Christ than for us even though we have Rom 8:15,17,29-30; Gal 4:6. Ponder Mt 22:43-45 carefully. Jesus is both our beloved Son of Man and beloved Son of God, He is our Triune God and can therefore distinguish between His Father and our Father, His God and our [triune] God. Amen?

As explained in the note at Mt 19:17 (Mk 10:18; Lk 18:19) in “Who is Jesus Christ?”, is this question therefore not, as critics want to believe, Jesus renouncing His deity. Jesus was addressing what was in the young ruler’s mind that was regarding Jesus as a mere man (1 Sam 16:7; Jer 17:9-10; Rom 8:27a). The question asked by Jesus, “Why do you call me good?” was addressed to this covetous rich young ruler as a perfect example of a great teacher’s way of leading a pupil to analyse [examine] his motif and understanding. Jesus was demonstrating to this young ruler that the Law was given to prepare men to receive Christianity and salvation is not in proportion as man can observe the Law (Mt 5:27-28; Jn 1:17; Rom 3:20,28; Gal 5:4; Phil 3:9! The meditation “The covenant and the Law” refers). We can inherit the life in Christ (Rom 8:17; Phil 3:9) but only by accepting the deity of Jesus Christ (Rom 10:9-10). Without faith in Christ as God this man could not give up material possessions and follow Jesus Christ as his Lord and Saviour (Lk 10:28). Unless this rich young man had believed in Jesus’ divinity, he would only regard Jesus as a prophet, a teacher, a man. Jesus was therefore reproving this over-confident young ruler for using a form of words without realizing its full ingress and significance. The real question then, as read in manuscripts such as א B,D,etc., Vulgate, and other versions (Refer to the meditation “The four Gospels”), read, “Why askest thou me concerning the good?” This is how this passage is rendered in the Amplified Bible as well. “There is none good but one” implies God Triune when including Jn 4:23-24; 14:16,26.

Similarly, at Jn 14:28b. “For my Father is greater than I” is not Jesus comparing His nature with that of the Father, but his condition. Thus The Father not greater in essence (as Arians and Socinians would have it) for many times have Jesus asserted the contrary. This is not a comparison of natures, or of persons, but of states and conditions: now he was going to the Father to partake of the same happiness and glory with him, to be glorified with himself, with the same glory he had with him before the foundation of the world; wherefore on this account, his disciples ought to have rejoiced, and not have mourned. God the Father begat the Son (see examination above of “The only begotten Son”). The Son proceeded from the Father by eternal generation. Jesus is our Mediator sent by The Father, making Jesus taking the role of a Servant and the true reason for joy must have been because Christ in His glorious state of exaltation would be much more cheerful than he had been in his state of humiliation. As a matter of fact, the Father and Son would come and take up their abode in the loving and obedient heart (Jn 14:23; 2 Tim 1:14; Rev 21:3). But the Lord does more – he bids them not only to dismiss their fear and harassment, but even to “rejoice” – a supposition involving uncertainty with a prospect of decision. Perfect love would cast out fear because He “go to the Father”. Professor Stuart feels that the object of this expression is to console the disciples in view of his absence. This he does by saying that if he goes away, the Holy Spirit will descend, and great success will attend the preaching of the gospel (Jn 16:7-10). In the plan of salvation the Father is represented as giving the Son, the Holy Spirit, and the various blessings of the gospel. As the Appointer, the Giver, the Originator, he may be represented as in office superior to the Son and the Holy Spirit. The discourse has no reference, manifestly, to the nature of Christ, and cannot therefore be adduced to prove that he is not divine. Its whole connection demands that we interpret it as relating solely to the imparting of the blessings connected with redemption, in which the Son is represented all along as having been sent or given, and in this respect as sustaining a relation subordinate to the Father. “Because my Father is greater than I” sounds in fact strange speech from Christ and therefore presuppose a teaching on His part for them to not think He could gain anything by departing to the Father, but His sacrifice as representative of us was for believers. Jesus therefore explicitly said that there was a sense in which He could do so. Thus, this startling explanation seems plainly intended to correct such misapprehensions as might arise from the emphatic and reiterated teaching of His proper equality with the Father. As an Exalted Son of Man, Jesus as a Person of The Godhead were incapable of any accession by transition from this dismal scene. By assuring them that this was not the case, He wanted to make them forget their own sorrow in His approaching joy (2 Cor 9:7).

Some critics, for example, claim Jn 5:30 says Jesus was a mere hapless man that could do nothing on His own. Well then, let’s read what Jesus was really saying in John 5, shall we? The context is that the Jews wanted to know who “worked” [healed] on the Sabbath and instructed this man (that was healed by Jesus) to pick up his bed and walk (Jn 5:8-12). When the Jews found out Jesus was the one who healed this man they persecuted Jesus (Jn 5:15-16) and wanted to know by what authority Jesus could do this. Jesus replied that God (His Father) has worked up to then and in fact has never ceased working and therefore Jesus the Son of Man, the Son of God also must be at [divine] work. (Jn 5:17). This made the Jews more determined than ever to kill Jesus because He was not only violating the Sabbath but was making it clear to them that God was His Father in a special way, other than the Father of all re-born Christians (Mt 6:9; Rom 8:14) but making Himself equal to God the Father (Jn 5:18). To clarify that Jesus was not saying He was a separate God than God the Father and that He [Jesus] is one [Triune] God with God the father, Jesus practically spelled it out by saying that He and the Father is one God (as in Mk 12:29; Jn 10:30), and therefore that He, for this reason, could no nothing on His own accord without the Father doing it as well, doing only what He sees His Father do and then doing it in the same way. A mere mortal cannot make this claim (refer to Gen 1:1-27; Jn 1:1-4; Col 1:16-17), to be able to do all what God the Creator can do. Just as God the Father can give life, so Jesus can do as well (Jn 5:21; Jn 1:1-4; Col 1:16-17). Furthermore, God the Father judges no one, for He has given all judgement (the final judgement and the whole business of judging) entirely into the hands of the Son (Jn 5:22,27-29) and in fact the Son is the resurrection power, having Himself been resurrected from the dead (Dan 12:2; Jn 11:25-26; 1 Cor 15:12-28; 1 Thess 4:13-17). Note that Jesus as our representative, as the Lamb of God, as our Saviour, the Son of man, the Son of God, does not judge us as unbelievers [in Jesus Christ as Lord] bring judgement upon themselves (Jn 3:17-21; 16:8-11; 1 Cor 1:181-25). Note that Jn 16:7 speaks of Jesus’ then still coming crucifixion, resurrection and ascension (Jn 14:16-17,24-26); but will return as our Judge with His second coming and that will prove to be a terrible prospect for unbelievers. Jesus is self-existent but one with the Father (Jn 5:26). Now we get to Jn 5:30 and hear Jesus reiterating and summarizing that He is not independent from God but one with Him (Jn 5:31-34, 37-40).

Conclusion

So, the bottom-line for all the above in this whole meditation on apparent controversies in The Bible, seems to be that we should follow the precepts of Jesus Christ (1 Jn 2:4; Rom 8:14-17; even Gal 1:6-9), and His Holy Spirit (Jn 4:23-24; 14:26); and to persistently show our trust [faith] in Him, and if we do that diligently that we can reiterate the words of David in Ps 23. Note how Ps 23:1 can be read with Mt 6:33; Jn 6:47-51, 2 Cor 3:5 and 2 Cor 12:9. Especially, will we then be able to experience Phil 4:13 and Ps 23:5. Hallelujah and amen!

Peace, joy, and love to you with 1 Thess 5:23…

… a brother in Jesus Christ.

[1] Gal 4:21-31, connecting with the children of promise (Gen 22:17); some like stars (Num 24:17; Judges 5:20; Job 25:5; Dan 12:3; Jude 13; Rev 12:1), and the others like dust (Gen 3:14; Job 4:19; Is 52:2; Mt 10:13,14; Lk 10:8-12; Acts 13:50-51; 1 Cor 2:2,5-9; Ps 102:14).  Some above [in Christ], others below [in self-righteous law, the devil].

[2] God our Creator shows He knows us (Jer 1:5).  The moment you forbid, it controls your thoughts, and you will be tempted by it out of your own doing (will) as a free moral agent.  Not God, but your own thoughts, thus showing your biggest enemy is your own old unrenewed self [nature, lust, greed, need for self-glorification].  Jesus free us from ourselves.  2 Cor 10:5; Heb 12:2; Eph 4:22-24; 1 Cor 2:16; Phil 2:5,6…

[3] Mt 5:41 (the “extra mile” principle or attitude).  Jesus gave us more than we could ever deserve

[4] “Sin no more” refers to Jesus’ words in Jn 16:9; not the 10 commandments He “fulfilled” (v 5,7,8; Rom 8:1-3)!

[5] “Commandments” in Jn 14:15; 15:14; 1 Jn 3:23 should read “precepts”, “teachings”, “Words” – see context.

[6] Contemplate Gen 3:14; Job 4:19; Is 52:2; Mt 10:13,14; Lk 10:8-12;  Acts 13:50,51; 1 Cor 2:2,5-9; Ps 102:14. Rom 8:19-25 and v 25 is likely to be us (Jn 11:26; prophesied in Hab 1:12; Ps 92:15 (Amplified Bible says “living memorials”); 102:16-20; 119:144; Is 28:14-18); to fulfill Gen 2:7!!!  To the increase of His kingdom will be no end, and His glory will…

[7] Aspects such as (a) No communication between the dead and living; (b) Abraham as the recognized father of faith (c) The rich man’s continued rejection of Jesus as Savior even after his arrival in hell (d) Stubborn hearers